After thoroughly beating the GOP in 2006 and 2008, 2010 seems like the last chance Democrats have to pick up some GOP Senate seats. 2012 will see a lot of the first term Dems from 06 up for reelection and we will have to play defense. For now, offense looks like the name of the game, unless you're one of the few vulnerable Democratic Senators.
Safe Dems
Arkansas - Lincoln: Though it's often red as can be in Presidential politics, Arkansas is pretty Democratic on the state level. That having been said, Blanche Lincoln isn't looking as invincible as she did earlier this year. She did some hedging on EFCA, probably to nullify the GOP base preparing to challenge her, but this race may be one to watch once the GOP has a nominee. Luckily for Lincoln, the challenger won't be Mike Huckabee.
California - Boxer: Things aren't going well in California these days and politically things are all over the place. The budget it out of control and it looks like no one is especially popular. The interesting thing about 2010 will be the open race for Gov. happening at the same time. If the GOP can find a powerhouse for Gov., and a reputable challenger for Boxer, then she may be in trouble. If Sen. Feinstein leaves the Senate for Governor and the GOP can't recruit a strong opponent for Boxer, things will probably be much, much simpler.
Delaware - Open Seat: VPOTUS Biden's seat is pretty safe from the GOP. It's looking like his son Beau will return from Iraq and pick up where his father left off. Barring some unforseen changes, we'll have another Senator Biden come 2011.
Hawaii - Inouye: The third ranking Democrat in the Senate and the Chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee shouldn't have any trouble winning reelection in Hawaii. He's probably safe until he retires.
Indiana - Bayh: Two term Governor turned Senator Evan Bayh is safe in Indiana, end of story.
Maryland - Mikulski: The most senior female Senator is safe from challenge is thoroughly Democratic Maryland.
New York - Schumer: Chuck Schumer shouldn't face any challenge in NY, especially since there's a much more appealing target on the ticket in 2010.
North Dakota - Dorgan: This race will be no sweat for Byron Dorgan unless Gov. Hoeven decides to run against him. Unlikely to be a nail-biter.
Oregon - Widen: Widen in unlikely to face a tough challenge, and if he is part of the movement that ultimately passes health care reform, Oregon voters will repay the favor.
Pennsylvania - Specter: Fresh from several years as a Republican, moderate Sen. Arlen Specter should win reelection in PA. He may be challenged by Rep Sestak in the Dem primary, but he has such a history in PA that Democratic primary voters will probably trust him. Toomey has no chance to beat him now.
Vermont - Leahy: Patrick Leahy will coast to reelection unless something terrible happens to the Sotomayor nomination in his Judiciary Committee and the GOP can find a stellar candidate. Chances of that are fairly slim.
Washington - Murray: Patty Murray should find her reelection campaign fairly easy with Washington trending bluer and bluer these days. She could stand to raise her profile a bit, but she's probably not in too much trouble back home.
Wisconsin - Feingold: Usually outperforming the Presidential candidate significantly, Russ Feingold should be a shoo-in for reelection. Always the chance of a major upset, but not likely.
Vulnerable Dems
Colorado - Bennet: When Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter picked Michael Bennet to succeed Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, many saw this as an opportunity to take back some GOP strength in the Mountain West. Bennet may still be in some trouble considering many Coloradans don't know too much about him, but the GOP also has a way to go in finding a credible candidate (aka Not Tom Tancredo). Depending on who they choose, this could be a contested seat, or it could be a less than challenging fight.
Connecticut - Dodd: If you would have mentioned to me last year that Chris Dodd's name would appear on any list of vulnerable Senators I would have laughed out loud. The collapse of the banking system (he's chair of the Banking Committee) and a scandal involving a sweet deal mortgage have hurt Dodd to the point that several Republicans are looking to challenge him. CT is still pretty reliably Democratic these days and Dodd still has some time to bolster his image at home. Maybe the economy will pick up again and he'll coast to reelection. If not, he may find himself out of a job.
Illinois - Burris: Who knows if Roland Burris will even run for reelection, but if he does, he certainly won't win the Democratic Primary. Up against Rep. Schakowsky and Treasurer Giannoulias, not to mention a Kennedy, Burris is looking more and more like a seat warmer. This is probably a safe bet for Democrats, and it's safer yet that that Dem won't be named Roland Burris.
Nevada - Reid: It's strange how Democratic leaders find themselves in such hot water when it comes to reelection. Daschle got knocked off in 2004 and now Reid is looking terribly vulnerable. His numbers are down and the GOP is salivating about grabbing this seat. Unfortunately for them, the GOP prospects are slim. Those who aren't in corruption scandals of their own may not want to go up against Reid who does have the possibility of calling in the big guns (like POTUS) for fundraising and campaigning, because we all know Mr. President would like to keep Nevada as blue in 2012 as it was in 2008.
New York - Gillibrand: Succeeding Hillary Clinton is no easy task and Kirsten Gillibrand has found herself under fire from lots of potential challengers. Most of them are from within her own party of gun rights or other issues. If she can survive a primary challenge (which thanks to some help from the White House, she probably will) then she has a good shot at hanging on. Of course we can't predict what will happen until we know who the GOP challenger will be.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Senatorial Predictions 2010
Since the last election cycle is over and done, political junkies have no other option than to look ahead 18 months to the next November night when we will be clicking F5 over and over again waiting for updated election results from CNN.com. The glorious haze that is the Obama Administration is starting to clear slightly and some on the left are beginning to see that Obama does not equal perfection. With that in mind, we lefties are gearing up for the next test to see if we can extend this ideological winning streak yet again. 2010 provides its own challenges, but it is also the last election cycle where Democrats have less seats up for election that Republicans. 2004 was a booming year for the GOP and now they have to defend those seats in a desperate attempt to stay relevant.
Here are some preliminary thoughts about the Senate in 2010.
Safe GOP Seats
Alabama - Shelby: This former Dem switched to the GOP in 1994 and hasn't looked back. He's got enough money to secure reelection and Alabama isn't anywhere near hostile territory for him. This seat seems thoroughly out of reach.
Alaska - Murkowski: Lisa is pretty darned secure in her bid for reelection. I mean Mark Begich barely beat the elderly convict in 2008, and it doesn't look like anyone is gearing up to challenge her.
Arizona - McCain: John McCain would have certainly had a challenge on his hands from former Governor Napolitano, but now that she's Sec. of Homeland Security there doesn't seem to be any Dem willing to challenge him. He's pretty safe, unless one of his primary challengers happen to knock him off. Now that would be interesting.
Georgia - Isakson: No challenge here.
Idaho - Crapo: Dems didn't even field a challenger last time and this time around doesn't look much different.
Iowa - Grassley: Ranking member of the Finance Committee, Grassley may face a primary challenger and has one declared Dem opponent, but as of today he seems like a shoo-in for another term.
Kansas - Open Seat: Oh Kathleen Sebelius, why did you have to take the job at HHS? She was our only hope. Now all we have to do is see which Republican wins the primary and we'll know who the next Senator is going to be. Sad.
Oklahoma - Coburn: We'll have to see whether or not Coburn actually wants to run again, but if he does, the job is his. If not, we might have a chance with Gov. Brad Henry or Rep. Boren. Either way, we'll have to wait to truly classify this one. We should know in early June.
South Carolina - DeMint: One of the most conservative Senators is going to coast to reelection in SC. Ugh.
South Dakota - Thune: John Thune isn't going to face any obstacle.
Texas - Hutchinson: We don't know if Kay Bailey Hutchinson is going to retire before of after the election, but if she does this probably will stay in GOP hands regardless.
Utah - Bennet: Though he will likely face a challenge from the right, it's pretty certain that this seat will stay in the GOP column.
Vulnerable GOP
Florida - Open Seat: Martinez is retiring and this seat looked very vulnerable until Gov. Crist jumped into the race. It's pretty clear that he'll be the next Senator from Florida barring some strange turn of events, but it may happen. Too early to tell for sure.
Kentucky - Bunning: Jim Bunning is so unpopular that GOP senators are praying that he retires. If he does they have the option of keeping the seat (and they might if he loses a primary challenge) otherwise this looks like a great pickup for the Dems.
Louisiana - Vitter: Probably not too vulnerable in post-Katrina LA, but Vitter is a scumbag and he might face some challenge here. The hardest thing for Dems is to find a reputable person to challenge him. Mitch Landrieu might be open to it, but when was the last time that a brother and sister were the two Senators from a single state...um, I'm going to say never.
Missouri - Open Seat: This is a tossup. GOP Rep. Blunt isn't all that popular these days, but then again MO did (narrowly) vote for McCain over Obama, so who can tell. Carnahan is very popular here and is probably the Dem's best bet to pick up a seat in 2010.
New Hampshire - Open Seat: From powerful Senator to Commerce Secretary-designate to retiree. Judd Gregg has been all over the place. Nowadays New Hampshire is pretty darn blue and Rep. Hodes has a great chance at picking up this seat for the Dems.
North Carolina - Burr: A sorry excuse for a Senator, Burr seems pretty vulnerable just by looking at poll numbers, but no Dems seem ready to challenge him, even given Kay Hagan's win over Dole in 2008 and the Dems keeping the Gov. mansion. There's still hope if one of the Dem Reps jumps into the fray.
Ohio - Open Seat: This is another tossup. Portman may be able to hold this seat for the GOP, but Lt. Gov. Fisher and Sec. of State Brunner will make this race one to watch.
We'll be back later with updates and the list of Safe and Vulnerable Dems.
Here are some preliminary thoughts about the Senate in 2010.
Safe GOP Seats
Alabama - Shelby: This former Dem switched to the GOP in 1994 and hasn't looked back. He's got enough money to secure reelection and Alabama isn't anywhere near hostile territory for him. This seat seems thoroughly out of reach.
Alaska - Murkowski: Lisa is pretty darned secure in her bid for reelection. I mean Mark Begich barely beat the elderly convict in 2008, and it doesn't look like anyone is gearing up to challenge her.
Arizona - McCain: John McCain would have certainly had a challenge on his hands from former Governor Napolitano, but now that she's Sec. of Homeland Security there doesn't seem to be any Dem willing to challenge him. He's pretty safe, unless one of his primary challengers happen to knock him off. Now that would be interesting.
Georgia - Isakson: No challenge here.
Idaho - Crapo: Dems didn't even field a challenger last time and this time around doesn't look much different.
Iowa - Grassley: Ranking member of the Finance Committee, Grassley may face a primary challenger and has one declared Dem opponent, but as of today he seems like a shoo-in for another term.
Kansas - Open Seat: Oh Kathleen Sebelius, why did you have to take the job at HHS? She was our only hope. Now all we have to do is see which Republican wins the primary and we'll know who the next Senator is going to be. Sad.
Oklahoma - Coburn: We'll have to see whether or not Coburn actually wants to run again, but if he does, the job is his. If not, we might have a chance with Gov. Brad Henry or Rep. Boren. Either way, we'll have to wait to truly classify this one. We should know in early June.
South Carolina - DeMint: One of the most conservative Senators is going to coast to reelection in SC. Ugh.
South Dakota - Thune: John Thune isn't going to face any obstacle.
Texas - Hutchinson: We don't know if Kay Bailey Hutchinson is going to retire before of after the election, but if she does this probably will stay in GOP hands regardless.
Utah - Bennet: Though he will likely face a challenge from the right, it's pretty certain that this seat will stay in the GOP column.
Vulnerable GOP
Florida - Open Seat: Martinez is retiring and this seat looked very vulnerable until Gov. Crist jumped into the race. It's pretty clear that he'll be the next Senator from Florida barring some strange turn of events, but it may happen. Too early to tell for sure.
Kentucky - Bunning: Jim Bunning is so unpopular that GOP senators are praying that he retires. If he does they have the option of keeping the seat (and they might if he loses a primary challenge) otherwise this looks like a great pickup for the Dems.
Louisiana - Vitter: Probably not too vulnerable in post-Katrina LA, but Vitter is a scumbag and he might face some challenge here. The hardest thing for Dems is to find a reputable person to challenge him. Mitch Landrieu might be open to it, but when was the last time that a brother and sister were the two Senators from a single state...um, I'm going to say never.
Missouri - Open Seat: This is a tossup. GOP Rep. Blunt isn't all that popular these days, but then again MO did (narrowly) vote for McCain over Obama, so who can tell. Carnahan is very popular here and is probably the Dem's best bet to pick up a seat in 2010.
New Hampshire - Open Seat: From powerful Senator to Commerce Secretary-designate to retiree. Judd Gregg has been all over the place. Nowadays New Hampshire is pretty darn blue and Rep. Hodes has a great chance at picking up this seat for the Dems.
North Carolina - Burr: A sorry excuse for a Senator, Burr seems pretty vulnerable just by looking at poll numbers, but no Dems seem ready to challenge him, even given Kay Hagan's win over Dole in 2008 and the Dems keeping the Gov. mansion. There's still hope if one of the Dem Reps jumps into the fray.
Ohio - Open Seat: This is another tossup. Portman may be able to hold this seat for the GOP, but Lt. Gov. Fisher and Sec. of State Brunner will make this race one to watch.
We'll be back later with updates and the list of Safe and Vulnerable Dems.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The Big Difference
I've come to a realization recently. I think my recent reading of post WWII presidential politics helped me to better understand the political landscape of today's two party system. The realization is something like this: today's Republicans care more about getting their way than they do about effectively governing and today's Democrats care more about effectively governing than they do about shoving their agenda down the opposition's throat. Now before I'm burned in effigy for my blatant partisanship, let me give a bit of background.
During the Roosevelt Administration (Franklin, that is) the main difference between Republicans and Democrats on foreign policy was that Democrats were more interventionists and Republicans were isolationist in nature. This only extended over the course of the Korean War, Vietnam, etc. The rift over domestic policy had a lot to do with Civil Rights, labor vs. business, farm support, social programs, etc. Republicans were mostly hands off here as well advocating less government intervention and free market capitalism rather than New Deal programs. Of course there were exceptions, and perhaps here is where the trend really began. McCarthy. When Republicans were screaming for government to get out of the economy, their wallets and other people's countries, one turned the whole philosophy on its head because it suited his interests. How could a young Senator from Wisconsin become so powerful? Create a spectre and then go on a witch-hunt. Suddenly the government needed to be everywhere because the government couldn't be trusted. It sounds paradoxical, but it was essentially the truth. Communists were out there and we needed government control to get them out of government. This may sound ridiculous (and it was) but the thing for Republican McCarthy was that government power was fine as long as he held the power. That seems to be the case today as well.
Now that I've given some background, let's look at some modern examples of this phenomenon. With the emergence of a real 20th Century Republican in Ron Paul, the stark change in the party can be clearly seen. What was once hands off has become mangled by a gigantic increase in government. Not only has the executive branch overstepped its authority, but the Republican controlled congress was more than happy to go along with it. Somewhere along the line Republicans forgot that they advocated laissez faire politics and started involving government everywhere.
Now this change in ideology is striking, but it is not the theme of this piece. When he was asked why the newly elected Democratic Congress had not begun to impeach President Bush, Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden gave a brilliant response. He basically said that if they succeeded they would be left with Cheney who is even worse, and even if they attempted to remove both from office, it would use up so much time, energy and political capital that the country would be even worse off than if they just let Bush stay in office until the end of his term. Not only is that very true, but it gets at something that underlies the whole basis for modern Republicanism: our way or the highway. Senator Mitch McConnell, minority leader in the 110th Congress has been called a major obstructionist, leading a massive number of filibusters to block Democratic legislation. People are fed up with the lack of progress in Congress and so they blame those who are in charge. While that is certainly an option, the rules of the Senate make things much more difficult. While Democrats do have a (very very slight) majority, to get anything done in the Senate, you need 60 votes. While some Republicans would undoubtedly vote with the majority some of the time, McConnell has obstructed legislation so many times that now it might come back to bight him. He's up for reelection this year and may face the same rejection by voters as Tom Daschle did years ago.
The point is that today's Democrats seem to have a need to look good in the public eye. They are poised to enter into a period of great abundance with the election of Barack Obama and perhaps even 60 Senators, but they still don't want to upset people. Democrats still see themselves as the Representatives of their constituents while Republicans see it as their goal to fire up their constituents with their political ideology. Everyone knows that Bush is a sub-standard president and many people believe that he is endangering the country with his political beliefs, but Democrats aren't going to strong-arm the country into taking him out of office. Why? It's easier just to pretend he's not there and wait your turn.
Now this may be laudable, but what if Democrats took a page from the Republican playbook? What if they found an issue (like gay marriage in 2004, off shore drilling in 2008 or abortion...well every year) and hammered away at their opponents year after year, so that even when people no longer cared, they still felt like it was their obligation to support that issue? It may seem deceptive to continue to push for a single issue while the rest of the country is worried about other things, but that hasn't stopped Republicans. I wish someone would do an overarching study of the American populace and ask, "Would you ever support a politician who was pro-choice?" I think the number that answered "No" would be a lot higher than most people would like to believe. Everyone asks why this election (2008) is so close when it is so clearly a Democratic year? I think the same answer applies to the question why are there so many more Republican landslide electoral college elections? Why can no Democrat win in Utah? There are simply too many one issue voters. Even if the economy tanked, McCain had a stroke and Sarah Palin admitted to being an alien, Barack Obama would not win in Oklahoma, Idaho, Mississippi, Alabama or Utah. Why? Because Republicans care more about getting their way than they do about effective governance.
Need another example? Bill Clinton. Yes people were perfectly right in voicing their disapproval with his actions. They were within their rights to censure him for perjury. Was it best for the country to try and remove a sitting President from office for a blow job? No, but Republicans grabbed their issue and ran with it. It isn't as if Democrats haven't had their opportunities. Put aside lying about the Iraq War, misleading the public, revoking Habeas Corpus, illegally spying on Americans and firing Justice department officials for political purposes, Democrats could still have made a fuss over voter suppression in Ohio in 2004 or even the stolen election of 2000. Instead? Al Gore concedes, John Kerry concedes. Perhaps they thought that it wasn't worth the effort to fight tooth and nail for their victory, but looking back on it, it wasn't just their victory, it would have been all of our victory.
So that is my rant for the day. We will see if Democrats take advantage of this coming term when the roadblocks will be substantially less severe. If they don't make some progress fast, I'm not going to be amused.
During the Roosevelt Administration (Franklin, that is) the main difference between Republicans and Democrats on foreign policy was that Democrats were more interventionists and Republicans were isolationist in nature. This only extended over the course of the Korean War, Vietnam, etc. The rift over domestic policy had a lot to do with Civil Rights, labor vs. business, farm support, social programs, etc. Republicans were mostly hands off here as well advocating less government intervention and free market capitalism rather than New Deal programs. Of course there were exceptions, and perhaps here is where the trend really began. McCarthy. When Republicans were screaming for government to get out of the economy, their wallets and other people's countries, one turned the whole philosophy on its head because it suited his interests. How could a young Senator from Wisconsin become so powerful? Create a spectre and then go on a witch-hunt. Suddenly the government needed to be everywhere because the government couldn't be trusted. It sounds paradoxical, but it was essentially the truth. Communists were out there and we needed government control to get them out of government. This may sound ridiculous (and it was) but the thing for Republican McCarthy was that government power was fine as long as he held the power. That seems to be the case today as well.
Now that I've given some background, let's look at some modern examples of this phenomenon. With the emergence of a real 20th Century Republican in Ron Paul, the stark change in the party can be clearly seen. What was once hands off has become mangled by a gigantic increase in government. Not only has the executive branch overstepped its authority, but the Republican controlled congress was more than happy to go along with it. Somewhere along the line Republicans forgot that they advocated laissez faire politics and started involving government everywhere.
Now this change in ideology is striking, but it is not the theme of this piece. When he was asked why the newly elected Democratic Congress had not begun to impeach President Bush, Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden gave a brilliant response. He basically said that if they succeeded they would be left with Cheney who is even worse, and even if they attempted to remove both from office, it would use up so much time, energy and political capital that the country would be even worse off than if they just let Bush stay in office until the end of his term. Not only is that very true, but it gets at something that underlies the whole basis for modern Republicanism: our way or the highway. Senator Mitch McConnell, minority leader in the 110th Congress has been called a major obstructionist, leading a massive number of filibusters to block Democratic legislation. People are fed up with the lack of progress in Congress and so they blame those who are in charge. While that is certainly an option, the rules of the Senate make things much more difficult. While Democrats do have a (very very slight) majority, to get anything done in the Senate, you need 60 votes. While some Republicans would undoubtedly vote with the majority some of the time, McConnell has obstructed legislation so many times that now it might come back to bight him. He's up for reelection this year and may face the same rejection by voters as Tom Daschle did years ago.
The point is that today's Democrats seem to have a need to look good in the public eye. They are poised to enter into a period of great abundance with the election of Barack Obama and perhaps even 60 Senators, but they still don't want to upset people. Democrats still see themselves as the Representatives of their constituents while Republicans see it as their goal to fire up their constituents with their political ideology. Everyone knows that Bush is a sub-standard president and many people believe that he is endangering the country with his political beliefs, but Democrats aren't going to strong-arm the country into taking him out of office. Why? It's easier just to pretend he's not there and wait your turn.
Now this may be laudable, but what if Democrats took a page from the Republican playbook? What if they found an issue (like gay marriage in 2004, off shore drilling in 2008 or abortion...well every year) and hammered away at their opponents year after year, so that even when people no longer cared, they still felt like it was their obligation to support that issue? It may seem deceptive to continue to push for a single issue while the rest of the country is worried about other things, but that hasn't stopped Republicans. I wish someone would do an overarching study of the American populace and ask, "Would you ever support a politician who was pro-choice?" I think the number that answered "No" would be a lot higher than most people would like to believe. Everyone asks why this election (2008) is so close when it is so clearly a Democratic year? I think the same answer applies to the question why are there so many more Republican landslide electoral college elections? Why can no Democrat win in Utah? There are simply too many one issue voters. Even if the economy tanked, McCain had a stroke and Sarah Palin admitted to being an alien, Barack Obama would not win in Oklahoma, Idaho, Mississippi, Alabama or Utah. Why? Because Republicans care more about getting their way than they do about effective governance.
Need another example? Bill Clinton. Yes people were perfectly right in voicing their disapproval with his actions. They were within their rights to censure him for perjury. Was it best for the country to try and remove a sitting President from office for a blow job? No, but Republicans grabbed their issue and ran with it. It isn't as if Democrats haven't had their opportunities. Put aside lying about the Iraq War, misleading the public, revoking Habeas Corpus, illegally spying on Americans and firing Justice department officials for political purposes, Democrats could still have made a fuss over voter suppression in Ohio in 2004 or even the stolen election of 2000. Instead? Al Gore concedes, John Kerry concedes. Perhaps they thought that it wasn't worth the effort to fight tooth and nail for their victory, but looking back on it, it wasn't just their victory, it would have been all of our victory.
So that is my rant for the day. We will see if Democrats take advantage of this coming term when the roadblocks will be substantially less severe. If they don't make some progress fast, I'm not going to be amused.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Stop Copying Me!
I usually tend to shy away from “Breaking News” in this blog, tending instead to let thoughts percolate for a long time so as to fully grapple with the issue. Today I have to amend that to answer a pressing question from last week’s Presidential Debate. The constant refrain from Senator McCain during the first debate was “Senator Obama doesn’t understand…” and I can see why he would want to belabor that point seeing as though he thinks he has the upper hand on “experience”. Sadly it feels like I’m listening to a broken record.
The same repetition happened again last night, but it wasn’t the same refrain. Instead whenever Obama answered a question first, McCain would repeat the basic premise of Obama’s answer or at least use key phrases that Barack had used mere moments earlier. Why? Just because the audience liked Obama’s answers, you can’t just copy them and pretend like they’re your own!
This seems like a constant campaign strategy for McCain. “Whatever Hillary said, we’re going to say.” “Whatever Barack’s message is, we’re going to copy it.” “Whatever works, we’re going to pretend we came up with it.” Seriously, the first example is understandable. Who wouldn’t use an opponent’s opponent to justify your own criticisms? What baffles me is that it didn’t stop by pandering to Hillary supporters. Suddenly McCain seems to have understood that Hillary lost because her message didn’t resonate with the voters as much as Obama’s message of Change. Then almost overnight McCain became the “change” candidate simply because it was popular. He began talking about his ability to “shake up” Washington and the fact that he would “stop the special interests,” almost verbatim of Obama’s themes.
Last night there was one particular example of this phenomenon. When Obama began talking about fighting lobbyists, McCain stood up and used almost the exact same phrase to describe how he was about to “fight lobbyists” until Barack mentioned that the person who is running McCain’s campaign is in fact a lobbyist.
It seems as though everything Obama says, McCain repeats like a small child playing that irritating game, “Stop Copying Me!”
It appears to be a theme throughout the campaign. First he copied the message of change, then as soon as the campaign became ugly and many commentators (Karl Rove included) began to say that McCain was waging unfair attacks against Obama, Cindy McCain comes on the news and starts saying that Obama is waging the dirtiest campaign in history. Excuse me? I am the first one to admit that Obama has weaknesses, but you can’t just start criticizing your opponent for the same reasons everyone else is criticizing you!
Then during the economic crisis a steady stream of articles came out saying that while McCain was looking desperate and reactionary, Obama was looking steady and in control. Suddenly McCain makes this push about how he has a “steady hand at the till”. Does he just make this stuff up? I can’t believe that people would buy these arguments just because he starts making them.
You know, looking back, maybe it’s not so much irritating repetition as blatant hypocrisy. I always held disdain for politicians who would expect the populace to buy their stump speeches without making a coherent argument and McCain is no different in that regard.
The same repetition happened again last night, but it wasn’t the same refrain. Instead whenever Obama answered a question first, McCain would repeat the basic premise of Obama’s answer or at least use key phrases that Barack had used mere moments earlier. Why? Just because the audience liked Obama’s answers, you can’t just copy them and pretend like they’re your own!
This seems like a constant campaign strategy for McCain. “Whatever Hillary said, we’re going to say.” “Whatever Barack’s message is, we’re going to copy it.” “Whatever works, we’re going to pretend we came up with it.” Seriously, the first example is understandable. Who wouldn’t use an opponent’s opponent to justify your own criticisms? What baffles me is that it didn’t stop by pandering to Hillary supporters. Suddenly McCain seems to have understood that Hillary lost because her message didn’t resonate with the voters as much as Obama’s message of Change. Then almost overnight McCain became the “change” candidate simply because it was popular. He began talking about his ability to “shake up” Washington and the fact that he would “stop the special interests,” almost verbatim of Obama’s themes.
Last night there was one particular example of this phenomenon. When Obama began talking about fighting lobbyists, McCain stood up and used almost the exact same phrase to describe how he was about to “fight lobbyists” until Barack mentioned that the person who is running McCain’s campaign is in fact a lobbyist.
It seems as though everything Obama says, McCain repeats like a small child playing that irritating game, “Stop Copying Me!”
It appears to be a theme throughout the campaign. First he copied the message of change, then as soon as the campaign became ugly and many commentators (Karl Rove included) began to say that McCain was waging unfair attacks against Obama, Cindy McCain comes on the news and starts saying that Obama is waging the dirtiest campaign in history. Excuse me? I am the first one to admit that Obama has weaknesses, but you can’t just start criticizing your opponent for the same reasons everyone else is criticizing you!
Then during the economic crisis a steady stream of articles came out saying that while McCain was looking desperate and reactionary, Obama was looking steady and in control. Suddenly McCain makes this push about how he has a “steady hand at the till”. Does he just make this stuff up? I can’t believe that people would buy these arguments just because he starts making them.
You know, looking back, maybe it’s not so much irritating repetition as blatant hypocrisy. I always held disdain for politicians who would expect the populace to buy their stump speeches without making a coherent argument and McCain is no different in that regard.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Maybe There's Something to that 50 State Strategy
Recently Time magazine had an article discussing the Obama campaign's decision to move staff members and volunteers out of North Dakota and into Minnesota and Wisconsin. While this seems like a prudent move on his part, there are some strange questions percolating in the mind of this young Democrat.
#1) Why does the media seem to think that this is news-worthy? I mean, I'm not necessarily surprised that Barack would move workers away from North Dakota, but honestly, the fact that he is no longer implementing a "50 State Strategy" warrants its own article? The fact that he had staff workers in these blood-red states should have made more news at the outset. Some people may think that this is hubris on Obama's part, "He doesn't just want to win, he wants to win everywhere" etc. Having looked at the way he has run his campaign up till now, I tend to give him a little more credit. Instead of trying to win a state like North Dakota of Montana (where the polls were surprisingly close up until recently) he was (and still) is trying to set the groundwork for his grass-roots organization. Maybe he can't win ND or MT this year, but there is always midterm elections to think about as well as re-election. I tend to think of this as forward thinking rather than idiotic if it is a bit idealistic.
#2) There is a certain trend to Obama's campaign that is a tad disconcerting to me. I may have written about this earlier, but I think it is worth repeating. Barack had a tendency to appeal to everyone, everywhere when it isn't exactly practical. The first example of this that I noticed was in the Pennsylvania primary that he lost to Hillary in April. He was out in Scranton, driving through Amish country, criss-crossing the eastern half of the state and apparently staying away from Philly like the plague. I know he doesn't want to be seen as the "urban" candidate, but honestly, it pays to encourage your base. Now I don't think anyone will ever know how many votes he drummed up for himself in rural PA, but I do think he really could have spent the time and energy in and around Philly and made sure turnout was through the roof. Interestingly, however, he seems to be doing well in Pennsylvania these days despite losing to Hillary. Perhaps this has something to do with him introducing himself to the rest of the state while he was confident that the Philly area would come through both in the primary and in the general election. For those of us who are so terrified of a McCain/Palin administration (and more importantly to me a McCain appointed Supreme Court), we are a bit nervous that his strategy will backfire.
Part of me wants to believe that Barack knows what he's doing and will prevail while another practical part of me wants to share a little quote from the West Wing. "You only need one." Referring to that one vote that puts you over your rival. So while Time magazine and many others may think it was foolish to invest time and energy in traditionally red states, it may profit in the end. As tempting as it might be to move every volunteer from the country to Ohio and Florida, Obama won't run his campaign that way. For one thing, he will need to campaign with the Udalls in NM and CO if he wants to significantly increase his majority in the Senate, but he also has other things to think about. Red states aren't going to magically turn purple just because Bush is wildly unpopular. The thing is, you have to start campaigning there. Even if Obama is just planting the seeds that will be reaped by successive generations of Democrats, it's a start. You won't get anywhere by ignoring half the states in the Union when it comes to National office and I think Barack is genius for seeing that fact. Maybe all his talk about hope for the future isn't strictly rhetorical after all.
#1) Why does the media seem to think that this is news-worthy? I mean, I'm not necessarily surprised that Barack would move workers away from North Dakota, but honestly, the fact that he is no longer implementing a "50 State Strategy" warrants its own article? The fact that he had staff workers in these blood-red states should have made more news at the outset. Some people may think that this is hubris on Obama's part, "He doesn't just want to win, he wants to win everywhere" etc. Having looked at the way he has run his campaign up till now, I tend to give him a little more credit. Instead of trying to win a state like North Dakota of Montana (where the polls were surprisingly close up until recently) he was (and still) is trying to set the groundwork for his grass-roots organization. Maybe he can't win ND or MT this year, but there is always midterm elections to think about as well as re-election. I tend to think of this as forward thinking rather than idiotic if it is a bit idealistic.
#2) There is a certain trend to Obama's campaign that is a tad disconcerting to me. I may have written about this earlier, but I think it is worth repeating. Barack had a tendency to appeal to everyone, everywhere when it isn't exactly practical. The first example of this that I noticed was in the Pennsylvania primary that he lost to Hillary in April. He was out in Scranton, driving through Amish country, criss-crossing the eastern half of the state and apparently staying away from Philly like the plague. I know he doesn't want to be seen as the "urban" candidate, but honestly, it pays to encourage your base. Now I don't think anyone will ever know how many votes he drummed up for himself in rural PA, but I do think he really could have spent the time and energy in and around Philly and made sure turnout was through the roof. Interestingly, however, he seems to be doing well in Pennsylvania these days despite losing to Hillary. Perhaps this has something to do with him introducing himself to the rest of the state while he was confident that the Philly area would come through both in the primary and in the general election. For those of us who are so terrified of a McCain/Palin administration (and more importantly to me a McCain appointed Supreme Court), we are a bit nervous that his strategy will backfire.
Part of me wants to believe that Barack knows what he's doing and will prevail while another practical part of me wants to share a little quote from the West Wing. "You only need one." Referring to that one vote that puts you over your rival. So while Time magazine and many others may think it was foolish to invest time and energy in traditionally red states, it may profit in the end. As tempting as it might be to move every volunteer from the country to Ohio and Florida, Obama won't run his campaign that way. For one thing, he will need to campaign with the Udalls in NM and CO if he wants to significantly increase his majority in the Senate, but he also has other things to think about. Red states aren't going to magically turn purple just because Bush is wildly unpopular. The thing is, you have to start campaigning there. Even if Obama is just planting the seeds that will be reaped by successive generations of Democrats, it's a start. You won't get anywhere by ignoring half the states in the Union when it comes to National office and I think Barack is genius for seeing that fact. Maybe all his talk about hope for the future isn't strictly rhetorical after all.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Hillary's Next Step
For many Democrats, Hillary Clinton's loss to Barack Obama was devastating. As the party moves to heal itself and prepare to take on the McCain/Palin ultra-conservative agenda, many of Sen. Clinton's supporters are pushing for a new role for their favorite lady. Four main options were put forward and some remain viable despite long odds and some difficult obstacles. Primarily Clinton supporters pushed hard for her nomination as Vice President. Obviously with Sen. Obama's choice of Joe Biden, that option has been removed from the table. Now that the White House is unavailable the options are becoming more and more creative.
During the long Democratic Primary campaign there was sporadic talk of a President Hillary Clinton nominating her husband for a vacant seat on the Supreme Court. Speculation never really took off because the media (and Hillary's campaign) were suddenly focusing on the practical need to win the nomination in the first place. Now Hillary supporters are pushing for Clinton (the Senator, not the President) to be named as the next Associate (or by some extremely unlikely fluke Chief) Justice of the Supreme Court. While Republicans would surely oppose a pro-choice Clinton on their precious court, there is some belief that she would be approved by the Senate. Because Democrats are most likely going to pick up 4+ seats and expand their majorities, it probably wouldn't be too hard to imagine her succeeding. Still, one thing remains unclear in my mind. Supreme Court Justices wield considerable power, but Hillary does not seem like a good fit for the last branch of government of which she has not been a part. Justices are typically reserved and stay out of the public spotlight. By definition they keep strange schedules and do not work often and are strictly (at least in theory) non-partisan. Hillary is strongly partisan and that is what we love about her. It's not that she can't work across the aisle, because she can, but her strong suit is simply that, her strength. She's a fighter (as she made abundantly clear during the primaries) and makes a compelling point which may be lost on much of the populace who do not routinely read Supreme Court rulings. While it would certainly make history to be named the first female Chief Justice of the United States, there is also the obstacle of John Roberts. He's not ancient and while he has had some health scares recently, there is no indication that he will be vacating his seat in the near future. That may be something that Hillary is unwilling to wait for. Lastly, all of this is contingent on Obama choosing Hillary for the role. Because she is in her 60s and because he may want someone who has a slightly longer staying power, he may be tempted to pick a younger wo/man. But Clinton supporters and curious bloggers will have to cross that bridge when we come to it.
Secondly and slightly more feasibly is a new PUMA craze. Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate Majority Leader. While I think Hillary is much more suited for this role than as a Supreme Court Justice, it also has major hang-ups. First let me say that I think many Democrats agree that Harry Reid hasn't exactly done a bang up job as Majority Leader. His poll numbers in Nevada should prove that. While Hillary would be under criticism as the leading voice of Senate Democrats, I think that is a role at which she would be perfectly adept. She has the tenacity, the grit and determination to stand up to Republicans like Mitch McConnell and those are the fights that she is best at tackling. Rather than feign non-partisanship, embrace her partisan nature and attack those Republicans like only Hillary can do. She would do a fantastic job advocating for President Obama's policies and she is smart enough to make the political choices that would advance the party agenda without shrinking away from a confrontation. The obstacles are similar to those listed above, namely: No Vacancy. Perhaps is Harry Reid loses his bid for re-election in 2010 Hillary would have a better chance, but now it seems like a longshot. She certainly doesn't want to be seen as attacking other Democrats for her own political gain, and Harry Reid doesn't look like he's going anywhere anytime soon. The other difficulty is that while Hillary is certainly popular (and has the 18 million vote stat that she isn't shy about tossing around in conversation) she doesn't have the seniority of other Senators who would also like a chance at Reid's job. Chuck Schumer, her fellow New Yorker, for example, and Dick Durbin, who serves with Barack Obama, would both be in line in front of Hillary. Who knows whether or not she has the clout within the Senate to win the secret ballot for Majority Leader, but if she does, she would be the first woman to hold such a role and she would certainly do it justice.
The last and certainly most viable option would be a place in Barack Obama's cabinet. As Attorney General or Secretary of Health and Human Services or even (although it is a stretch) as Secretary of State. Each of these would give greater heft (as if she needed it) for another run for the White House in 2016. Like Majority Leader, I think Hillary would be ideally suited for any number of cabinet positions, but the question remains, Does she even want one? There's no telling whether or not she's interested in leaving the Senate at all and may simply continue there, becoming the next Ted Kennedy. If she did choose to take part in the Obama Administration, it would certainly give her the opportunity to craft policy, which is something she is skilled at doing. Again, only time will tell.
The last option is possible, but contingent on a big decision. If David Paterson decides to run for re-election Hillary would certainly not run against another African American for Governor of New York, but should he decide not to, Hillary could battle Cuomo for the Democratic nomination and move to Albany. Again, all of these questions are fun to ponder, but really mean nothing for today. Only Hillary knows what she's angling for in the months and years to come, but I for one am interested to see where she goes from here.
During the long Democratic Primary campaign there was sporadic talk of a President Hillary Clinton nominating her husband for a vacant seat on the Supreme Court. Speculation never really took off because the media (and Hillary's campaign) were suddenly focusing on the practical need to win the nomination in the first place. Now Hillary supporters are pushing for Clinton (the Senator, not the President) to be named as the next Associate (or by some extremely unlikely fluke Chief) Justice of the Supreme Court. While Republicans would surely oppose a pro-choice Clinton on their precious court, there is some belief that she would be approved by the Senate. Because Democrats are most likely going to pick up 4+ seats and expand their majorities, it probably wouldn't be too hard to imagine her succeeding. Still, one thing remains unclear in my mind. Supreme Court Justices wield considerable power, but Hillary does not seem like a good fit for the last branch of government of which she has not been a part. Justices are typically reserved and stay out of the public spotlight. By definition they keep strange schedules and do not work often and are strictly (at least in theory) non-partisan. Hillary is strongly partisan and that is what we love about her. It's not that she can't work across the aisle, because she can, but her strong suit is simply that, her strength. She's a fighter (as she made abundantly clear during the primaries) and makes a compelling point which may be lost on much of the populace who do not routinely read Supreme Court rulings. While it would certainly make history to be named the first female Chief Justice of the United States, there is also the obstacle of John Roberts. He's not ancient and while he has had some health scares recently, there is no indication that he will be vacating his seat in the near future. That may be something that Hillary is unwilling to wait for. Lastly, all of this is contingent on Obama choosing Hillary for the role. Because she is in her 60s and because he may want someone who has a slightly longer staying power, he may be tempted to pick a younger wo/man. But Clinton supporters and curious bloggers will have to cross that bridge when we come to it.
Secondly and slightly more feasibly is a new PUMA craze. Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate Majority Leader. While I think Hillary is much more suited for this role than as a Supreme Court Justice, it also has major hang-ups. First let me say that I think many Democrats agree that Harry Reid hasn't exactly done a bang up job as Majority Leader. His poll numbers in Nevada should prove that. While Hillary would be under criticism as the leading voice of Senate Democrats, I think that is a role at which she would be perfectly adept. She has the tenacity, the grit and determination to stand up to Republicans like Mitch McConnell and those are the fights that she is best at tackling. Rather than feign non-partisanship, embrace her partisan nature and attack those Republicans like only Hillary can do. She would do a fantastic job advocating for President Obama's policies and she is smart enough to make the political choices that would advance the party agenda without shrinking away from a confrontation. The obstacles are similar to those listed above, namely: No Vacancy. Perhaps is Harry Reid loses his bid for re-election in 2010 Hillary would have a better chance, but now it seems like a longshot. She certainly doesn't want to be seen as attacking other Democrats for her own political gain, and Harry Reid doesn't look like he's going anywhere anytime soon. The other difficulty is that while Hillary is certainly popular (and has the 18 million vote stat that she isn't shy about tossing around in conversation) she doesn't have the seniority of other Senators who would also like a chance at Reid's job. Chuck Schumer, her fellow New Yorker, for example, and Dick Durbin, who serves with Barack Obama, would both be in line in front of Hillary. Who knows whether or not she has the clout within the Senate to win the secret ballot for Majority Leader, but if she does, she would be the first woman to hold such a role and she would certainly do it justice.
The last and certainly most viable option would be a place in Barack Obama's cabinet. As Attorney General or Secretary of Health and Human Services or even (although it is a stretch) as Secretary of State. Each of these would give greater heft (as if she needed it) for another run for the White House in 2016. Like Majority Leader, I think Hillary would be ideally suited for any number of cabinet positions, but the question remains, Does she even want one? There's no telling whether or not she's interested in leaving the Senate at all and may simply continue there, becoming the next Ted Kennedy. If she did choose to take part in the Obama Administration, it would certainly give her the opportunity to craft policy, which is something she is skilled at doing. Again, only time will tell.
The last option is possible, but contingent on a big decision. If David Paterson decides to run for re-election Hillary would certainly not run against another African American for Governor of New York, but should he decide not to, Hillary could battle Cuomo for the Democratic nomination and move to Albany. Again, all of these questions are fun to ponder, but really mean nothing for today. Only Hillary knows what she's angling for in the months and years to come, but I for one am interested to see where she goes from here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)