April 7-10, 2010
Apr 07 02:40 Pawlenty vs. Romney Apr 07 08:41 Blah, Blah, Blah, Yada, Yada, Yada Apr 08 02:20 Bachmann, Palin, Pawlenty Dazzle at GOP Rally Apr 08 11:03 Ellison, Tarryl Rally Union Foot Soldiers Apr 09 01:06 If At First You Misread the Situation... Apr 09 09:03 Landrieu, Stupak Defend Democrats' Disaster Apr 09 17:32 It's That Time Again Apr 10 01:07 Stupak's Defiance Speaks For Itself
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Pawlenty vs. Romney
I've said more than once that Gov. Pawlenty would make a great president. This Time Magazine article talks about one of the potential matchups, Gov. Pawlenty vs. Mitt Romney:
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a possible contender for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, has announced he will join a growing number of states challenging the legality of the health reform law.Health care isn't going away because the GOP will probably be still trying to repeal Obamacare. That won't help Mitt Romney because health care is a major vulnerability for him:
This further distinguishes Pawlenty from another top contender for the nomination, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. (Romney, you may remember, launched state-based reforms in Massachusetts that are very similar to the Democrats' federal health reform plan. Info on Romney's probably futile attempts to distance himself from this fact here and here .)
Pawlenty's move was not unexpected given that Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson, a Democrat, declined to join the suit despite the governor's urging. But Pawlenty also publicly twice rejected the idea of instituting an individual mandate for insurance in his state, while this is a major tenet of Romneycare. Although 2012 feels far away, with the 2010 congressional elections bearing down on us, Pawlenty appears to have already laid some crucial groundwork. Of course, that's only helpful if health care is a top issue in the 2012 GOP primaries.
Reading Collins' piece, I was suddenly taken back, as if in a dream, to a more wondrous time, for me at least, during the 2008 Iowa Straw Poll at Ames. Back then, Romney was on a different tack, arguing that his past embrace of Ted Kennedy's health care vision for Massachusetts was something of a badge of honor. This really happened. I have video, though I must apologize for the shaky camera work and poor audio quality.It's quite a stretch to go from bragging about consulting Ted Kennedy about Romneycare to calling for the repeal of Obamacare :
Obama calls his accomplishment "historic"; in this he is correct, although not for the reason he intends. Rather, it is an historic usurpation of the legislative process; he unleashed the nuclear option, enlisted not a single Republican vote in either chamber, bribed reluctant members of his own party, paid-off his union backers, scapegoated insurers, and justified his act with patently fraudulent accounting. What Barack Obama has ushered into the American political landscape is not good for our country; in the words of an ancient maxim, "what starts twisted, ends twisted."Notice that Mitt doesn't condemn Obamacare's individual mandate. That's because Romneycare relies on an individual mandate, too. That's a big deal because Gov. Pawlenty rejected including indivdual mandates in his health care recommendations:
His health-care bill is unhealthy for America. It raises taxes, slashes the more private side of Medicare, installs price controls, and puts a new federal bureaucracy in charge of health care. It will create a new entitlement even as the ones we already have are bankrupt. For these reasons and more, the act should be repealed. That campaign begins today."
Again in a report dated Feb. 1, '08, another health care group advising Pawlenty -- the Health Care Transformation Task Force -- suggested that individual mandates be part of the solution.Even if health care isn't an issue, the difference between Gov. Pawlenty and Mitt Romney couldn't be more stark. Mitt Romney apparently thinks that it's ok for the government to order people to buy things whether they want the product or not. Gov. Pawlenty has consistently rejected that policy.
Cal Ludeman, the commissioner of the MN Department of Human Services, and state Rep. Thomas Huntley (D) co-chaired the commission.
The task force made the following recommendation: "Require that all Minnesotans obtain health coverage by January 1, 2011, unless: No insurance that meets affordability standards is available; and No subsidy is available to make available insurance policies affordable."
Pawlenty has trumpeted his gubernatorial record frequently on the stump as he's been increasing his visibility, including what has been done in the state on health care. While Pawlenty may have bucked his then-advisers' recommendations that he work toward mandates, political adviser Phil Musser emphasized that it simply means the governor has been consistent in his long-standing opposition to mandates.
Instead, Gov. Pawlenty has signed real health care reform. Gov. Pawlenty's plan relies on people being smart health care shoppers. During his CPAC speech, Gov. Pawlenty posed this question (I'm paraphrasing here):
If I told everyone in this room that they should go out and buy a TV set and that they should send the bill to the Governor's mansion, how many people would go out and buy a 12" black and white?The principle is simple: If the patient only deals with a co-pay, they won't pay as much attention to how often they visit their doctor or the emergency room.
Gov. Pawlenty thinks that Minnesota's system of telling public employees that they'll spend less if they go to a hospital or clinic that is less expensive. In other words, the state contribution stays the same whether they go to an expensive hospital or whether they go to a less expensive hospital. By making people spend some of their money, people have an incentive to be spart health care shoppers.
I'd submit that Gov. Pawlenty's plan is anchored in the time-tested conservative principles of personal responsibility and fiscal restraint. Romney's plan isn't anchored in those principles. Instead, Romneycare's anchoring principle is government telling people what to do. Romneycare's anchoring principle sounds like a liberal principle to me.
That's why I've often said that I think Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are history and that Gov. Pawlenty, Gov. Daniels and Gov. Palin are frontrunners if they choose to run in 2012.
Posted Wednesday, April 7, 2010 2:48 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 07-Apr-10 06:00 AM
On point, Strib's latest headline indicates Pawlenty is ignoring Swanson's decision and going it on his own:
http://www.startribune.com/blogs/90004672.html
Off point but perhaps of interest to readers, the Bachmann website will livestream the Wed. Apr 7 dog-pony show, Bachmann, Palin, Hannity at:
www.michelebachmann.com
Talk about red meat for the carnivores.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 07-Apr-10 06:01 AM
Pawlenty made an awful governor.
Best when absent.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Apr-10 08:02 AM
The DFL makes a terrible majority party. We're best off when they're the minority party again. Just like their DC counterparts, they'll listen to their political allies & utterly ignore the rest.
Comment 3 by R-Five at 07-Apr-10 06:04 AM
Pawlenty is at least running for Veep again, that much seems clear, and actually wouldn't be a bad pick. TPaw would have a lot of explaining to do if he runs for President, though.
I'm not convinced Romney can't win. What he must do though is confess that "I was wrong!" about his Massachusetts fiasco. America might buy a sadder but wiser act vs Obama's prattling.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Apr-10 08:04 AM
I'm totally convinced that Romney can't win because he's still a flip-flopping liberal. That won't play well in a TEA Party world. TPaw, to his credit, has embraced the TEA Party movement. Romney has been conspicuously absent.
Comment 4 by R-Five at 07-Apr-10 08:19 PM
I suppose a flip-flopping Republican beats a flip-flopping liberal. Let's cull them both out, now who?
Comment 5 by Chuck at 09-Apr-10 03:47 AM
Romney is awful in every way but especially when you have to keep explaining past mistakes instead of envisioning the future, you know you're a bad candidate. Huckabee is a clone of Bush in my opinion. We have to get this one right, we only have one shot at it.
Blah, Blah, Blah, Yada, Yada, Yada
Eleanor Clift quoted Chris van Hollen in her latest column as saying this year won't be another 1994. Whatever. Here's what she's written:
Attracted by the promise of a new title, assistant to the speaker, and a beefed-up staff, Van Hollen took on the challenge of preserving the Democratic majority in what looks like it could be a very Republican year. At a Tuesday morning breakfast sponsored by Third Way, a centrist Democratic group, Van Hollen said he has 42 "frontline members" he is defending, plus 13 Republican seats identified as possible takeovers. Pressed by a reporter to identify the number of seats Democrats could lose that he would consider a success, he politely declined, saying only, "We will hold the majority. This will not be 1994."First off, I'd be shocked if van Hollen said that the polling sucks and they were going to lose their majority party status. That line is a throwaway line if ever I heard one. In fact, I'd argue that that's a pretty defensive-sounding statement.
He explained that in '94, voters saw the Republicans as a viable alternative. This time, the Democratic strategy is to get people to focus on what it would mean if they were to hand Congress back to the Republicans. The Republican brand is still in the doghouse with the voters. And running on repealing health-care reform is not a winning strategy as people become familiar with the bill's benefits. Van Hollen characterized Republicans as "copilots with the insurance companies." Initial reports are positive from Democratic members at home for spring break in their districts. "It's not like people are all of a sudden converts," says Van Hollen. They want to know what's in the bill, and how it affects them and their families. "They're uncertain about the bill, but they like what they see."
Secondly, the Democrats' meme of saying running on repealing Obamacare is risky because people will really love it once they see all the benefits they're getting. Presumably, van Hollen is talking about the so-called benefits like the government telling We The People what they must do or the 'benefit' of getting laid off because of the medical device tax increase or the fines levied by the IRS if the serfs don't comply with King Obama's edict of buying a government-approved health insurance policy. In short, the Democrats' storyline is about to get blown to smithereens.
Thirdly, van Hollen and his candidates/incumbents will have to defend their being in the pockets of the anti-drilling crowd. When gas hits $4 a gallon, good luck selling those votes.
People still remember bailoutmania, the failed stimulus bill and, most importantly, how Democrats ran up HUGE debts while ignoring the will of the people.
What I'm saying is that the Democrats have to defend unpopular policies like health care and opposing a robust drilling program. Unlike 2008, President Obama won't be seen as a magical figure. Unlike 2008, the Democrats won't get 'bailed out' by another TARP meltdown.
Finally, this nonsense that reports from the district are positive shouldn't be taken seriously. That isn't happening. Democrats aren't making themselves available to their constituents except when they're cherrypicking their crowds, with the crowds being something like 2 union memmbers to every teacher and not much of anything else.
Van Hollen can yap all he wants to but I haven't seen proof that anything he's said resembles anything actually found in the real world.
Posted Wednesday, April 7, 2010 8:44 AM
Comment 1 by Brent Metzler at 07-Apr-10 10:33 AM
Perhaps you aren't looking outside your circle of conservative friends. I don't know if everything van Hollen says is going to happen, but I do know that I am not alone in being someone who was initially pre-disposed to opposing the Health Care Reform bill, but after seeing the final bill and learning the how the bill affects everyday Americans, I now support it.
I feel that a lot more Americans are going to be for the bill rather then against it as more people have the opportunity to learn how the bill benefits them personally.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 07-Apr-10 05:45 PM
That's what happens when we don't think about the jobs that will be lost because of the medical device tax. That's what happens if you don't mind that the federal government is telling people what they must buy & what coverages must be part of the government-approved insurance policies.
A friend here in St. Cloud is upset to the Nth degree. He owns an HSA. This legislation requires that he buy a different, more expensive, insurance policy. He's furious about it. There are lots of independents that feel the same way.
Look at how independents have broken for Republicans in Massachusetts, New Jersey & Virginia.
There's no sign that will change anytime soon. More importantly, think about this: Seniors now prefer Republicans over Democrats by a wide margin. That's utter disaster for Democrats.
Finally, according to recent Rasmussen polling, Republicans are trusted more on the top 5 issues of the day than are Democrats, including on the issues of the economy, health care, even education.
Forgive me for thinking that that's a pretty expansive demographic group.
Comment 3 by Brent Metzler at 08-Apr-10 08:23 AM
I can concede the argument that Republicans won in a few races this year. Also, it is typical for the party not in the White House to pick up seats in the midterm election, so that bodes well for Republicans.
But Republicans have also lost elections in the past year too. Scott Brown's win was an anomaly and unlikely to happen again.
Maybe you could argue that the wins in New Jersey and Virginia weren't because the GOP had better candidates, but because voters were scared of a healthcare bill that wasn't passed yet, and they didn't know what the final form was. It's possible, although these were governors races.
I believe that the GOP will pick up some seats in the house this year. But I think that they need to pick up 41 seats just to get the majority. But, if you look at the seats the Democrats picked up in 2006 and 2008, arguably great years for the Democrats, they only picked up 31 seats and 21 seats.
Now, I suppose you could argue that this will be 1994 where the Republicans picked up 54 seats, but I don't see it right now. Sure, maybe there is a lot of uncertainty with the Democrats, but change is always a little challenging. I believe that as voters get to learn what is in the bill, and find out that the good outweighs the bad, they'll settle back in to their comfort zone.
Looking at individual races and possible pickups, I'd give the Republicans 10-15 seats to pickup, but if they do keep momentum on their side through November, maybe they'll pickup 20-25 seats tops. A good year for Republicans, to be sure, but far short of winning the majority.
Also I've had an HSA too, so I know about that. Am I disappointed to not have that option in the future? Well, probably, but there was no guarantee it was going to be there forever, especially after Democrats won the majority.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Apr-10 08:41 AM
Actually, Brent, I'm fairly certain that 2010 will be a better year for the GOP than 1994 was, at least in the House. Candidate recruitment for the House has gone exceptionally well & the enthusiasm gap has changed dramatically since 2008.
Bachmann, Palin, Pawlenty Dazzle at GOP Rally
If there's a way to describe today's Bachmann/Palin/Paulsen/Pawlenty/ Kline rally, it's that it far exceeded my expectations. Rep. Bachmann announced that over 11,000 tickets went out for today's event. Though there wasn't that many there, the crowd was loud and passionate. Prior to the event, I spoke with Erin Haust of Examiner.com. Erin used to estimate crowds when she worked at the Sundome. By Erin's estimation, there were more than 7,000 people in the convention hall just prior to the event. Eventually, the crowd was estimated at approaching 10,000 people.
KTLK's Chris Baker emceed the event. He immediately got the crowd going when he told everyone "Take a look around. This is what the Obamacare ER room will look like in 2014." That was the first of many shots at the Democrats' health care plan.
Rep. John Kline got the crowd going, saying "Nancy Pelosi took the Speaker's gavel & promised to run the most ethical, the most open congress in history. Instead, we got sleaze." Later, Rep. Kline said that "The only thing bipartisan about the health care bill was opposition to the bill. It is time to RETIRE NANCY PELOSI."
Baker followed Rep. Kline's speech up by saying that he had to take issue with something that Kline had said, noting that "I have to disagree with my good friend John Kline. It's obvious that they're "a bunch of lying, cheating, election-stealing politicians."
Gov. Pawlenty spoke after that, delivering a powerful riff centered on the theme of "had enough?" The crowd enthusiastically said that they'd had more than enough. Gov. Pawlenty related a story about how everyone wants a bailout, saying "Nowadays, everyone wants a bailout. So I had a meeting the other day with this woman who ran a large organization that's involved in finance and trade and a bunch of other things. She came into my office and said "We're broke." And I said "What's the matter?" she said we're deeply in debt. Our balance sheet is a mess and our workforce has underperformed and is overpaid. Nobody's buying what we're selling. There's gonna be layoffs and she said that even she could lose her job." I said, "But Speaker Pelosi, we don't do bailouts. But the good news is that things will get better this November."
Another part of Gov. Pawlenty's 'had enough' riff featured him saying "We have state-sponsored companies that are too big to fail, a government is too big to succeed. We have a government debt too big to pay off & we have national leaders to small to do anything about it."
Much of Rep. Bachmann's speech focused on national security, at one point saying "President Obama said today that we wouldn't use the term 'Islamic terrorist' in our national security strategy. Mr. President, you can change the wording but you can't change the reality."
She then turned her focus to health care "I thought I heard somebody say REPEAL. That's what this girl is going to be all about after November." Rep. Bachmann then turned the Democrats' talking points on their head, saying that "The more people find out about this bill", the more they won't like it.
Gov. Palin finished off the raucus rally, at one point saying that the reason for hope for the TEA Party movement is that most of the TEA Party leaders, "we're finding out are women. As Ronald Reagan's friend Margaret Thatcher said, In politics, if you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman. Now I'm much more traditional than that. My old mantra is that 'Behind every good productive man, there stands a very surprised woman."
Gov. Palin tweaked President Obama by saying that "I'm sure some of you are proudly clinging to your guns and your God" before saying that there's too many politicians in Washington "that are addicted to O-P-M, other people's money ."
Gov. Palin also said that there's nothing wrong with being the party of no when what you're saying no to is the Democrats' radical agenda.
Gov. Palin said that she knew that "Michele and I would be buds" when she heard that Michele was going to be part of the co-del that visited ANWR, saying "Michele said 'Drill Here, Drill Now' and 'I said Drill, Baby, Drill' and we both said 'You bet'cha.'" With gas prices creeping to the $3 a gallon mark and probably beyond, energy is an issue that will play an increasing role in the 2010 campaign.
Originally posted Thursday, April 8, 2010, revised 09-Apr 6:16 AM
No comments.
Ellison, Tarryl Rally Union Foot Soldiers
Tarryl Clark wanted to do something yesterday to get a headline in yesterday rather than let Michele Bachmann grab all the headlines. Unfortunately for her, Keith Ellison's comments at her union rally yesterday in the Capitol Rotunda were so foolish that it reflects negatively on her:
As thousands of people streamed in to the Minneapolis Convention Center to see Sarah Palin, Minnesota Democrats put their own spin on her visit.Rep. Ellison knows that his comments are BS, which is what I'd expect from people desperate to attract any attention they could get.
During a rally at the State Capitol rotunda attended by several hundred union members, Rep. Keith Ellison told fellow DFLers that the former Alaska governor's visit is a sign that Democrats are doing well in their bid to unseat Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann in Minnesota's 6th District.
Bachmann had asked Palin to speak at the event, and Ellison said Democrats should be flattered Palin agreed to come.
"If the congresswoman from the 6th District wasn't scared to death of Sen. Tarryl Clark, she wouldn't bring Palin here at all," Ellison said, referring to the candidate the Minnesota DFL Party has endorsed to run against Bachmann. "It is a sign of our strength and our power that they have to bring that person here."
It isn't that Rep. Bachmann is feeling threatened by Tarryl's candidacy. Rep. Bachmann brought Gov. Palin in to supercharge the already enthusiastic faithful. Each of the 10,000+ people attending yesterday's rally got their tickets by volunteering to work at least 6 hrs. for Michele's campaign.
Honestly, the nearly 11,000 people that attended yesterday's midday rally is proof that Michele's GOTV army is motivated and exceptionally large. That isn't proof that Michele is "scared to death of Sen. Tarryl Clark." It's just proof that Michele is putting in place a large volunteer army to go after every vote possible this cycle.
As much as anything, putting together this big of a coalition is telling Tarryl that Michele intends on competing for votes everywhere in the 6th District, including votes Tarryl is expecting to win.
While Tarryl has an army of union workers doing voter ID, dropping lit and making phone calls, Michele has an army of committed volunteers ready to run through walls for her this year.
I wrote here that Tarryl faces an uphill fight, starting with a primary against a well-funded opponent, followed by a tough race against Michele in a pro-Republican year in the reddest district in the state. Everything I've seen since then indicates that Tarryl's fight will be a difficult challenge.
The other thing that I'll mention is that, while attending the rally yesterday, Michele Bachmann is attracting alot of support from women. That isn't surprising but that's got to bother Tarryl. Democrats that don't overwhelmingly win the women vote don't win because they typically lose the white male vote pretty badly.
While Rep. Ellison's comments were over-the-top, Tarryl's comments were untypically bitter for a challenger:
"Tonight, Michele Bachmann will charge $10,000 per photo at her fundraiser with Sarah Palin," Clark wrote." I spent my morning doing the job she's not, and talking to the people of the 6th CD in Stillwater."While it's technically true that Tarryl was working this work, it's accurate to say that this obstructionist DFL Senate is planning on not dealing with the deficit problem until next year.
It's also worth noting that doing photo ops isn't work. It's campaigning, not legislating, though it's plausible to think, based on their actions, that this DFL legislature thinks that doing photo ops is doing real work.
Originally posted Thursday, April 8, 2010, revised 16-Apr 12:55 AM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 08-Apr-10 12:04 PM
Clark might also not understand that Congress isn't in session right now. I realize that the DFL to earn per diems during the whole year might hold hearings to justify drawing a per diem that isn't the case of a Congresswoman whose salary has already been determined.
And what do you know last time I looked Saint Paul is in the 4th district. Why is Clark campaigning in another district.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Brent Metzler at 08-Apr-10 04:44 PM
And what do you know last time I looked Saint Paul is in the 4th district. Why is Clark campaigning in another district.
You may not realize that the legislature meets in St Paul, and that there were committee meetings today. That might be why she was in St Paul. just saying....
Comment 3 by Walter Scott Hudson at 08-Apr-10 04:48 PM
Tarryl's just jealous. No one would pay $10,000 for a picture with her.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 08-Apr-10 07:21 PM
Brent:
Tarryl was complaining that Bachman wasn't in sixth district talking to the voters. Bachmann was talking to them because she was telling them why to reelct her.
Tarryl's jealous that Michelle is so well liked that she's asked to help and can help elect other Republicans.
Clark can't help get one DFL candidate elected.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
If At First You Misread the Situation...
Stan Greenberg and James Carville served briefly in the Clinton administration. After they gave him bad advice, they were let go. According to Dick Morris's latest article , the less-than-dynamic duo are counselling Democrats with the same advice as they gave President Clinton:
Stanley Greenberg and James Carville claim that the Republican Party has peaked too soon. Incredibly, Greenberg says that "when we look back on this, we're going to say Massachusetts is when 1994 happened." Stan's only claim to expertise in the 1994 elections, of course, is that he's the guy who blew it for the Democrats. Right after that, President Clinton fired both of the flawed consultants and never brought them back again.If anything can be said about them, it's that Carville and Greenberg haven't proven that their expertise isn't worth much. They're the ultimate inside-the-box thinkers. Another way of thinking of them is that they're bigtime into conventional wisdom, which means that their political advice has been pretty close to worthless, especially with Carville.
Their latest pitch is that the highpoint of the GOP advance was the Scott Brown election and that, from here on, things will "improve slightly" for the Democrats.
Once again, Carville and Greenberg are totally misreading the public mood. Each time the Republican activists battle, they become stronger. Their cyber and grass roots grow deeper. The negatives that attach to so-called "moderate" Democratic incumbents increase. And each time Obama, Reid and Pelosi defy public opinion and use their majorities to ram through unpopular legislation, frustration and anger rise.
There's nothing in terms of physical proof that suggests that the TEA Party movement has peaked. If anything, the TEA Party movemennt is expanding in size and growing in influence. Morris is exactly right in saying that Republicans are listening to the TEA Party movement, which is why many TEA Party activists are volunteering to help politicians like Michele Bachmann.
Yesterday, over 10,000 people showed up for the MNGOP's event at the Minneapolis Convention Center. The only price for a ticket was to volunteer to work 6 hours for Michele. If even a third of the people there meet their commitment, they'll swamp Tarryl Clark's union-based GOTV operation.
While it's true that Michele is the exception to the TEA Party rule, she isn't the only candidate that's tapping into the TEA Party's enthusiam. Elected officials like Jason Chaffetz, Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Jeb Hensarling and Thad McCotter are tapping into the TEA Party movement's activist corps.
Here in Minnesota, lots of candidates for the state legislature are tapping into the TEA Party movement, which will make a difference in winning re-election or toppling obstructionist incumbents.
Republican candidates nationwide are inviting Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, darlings of the TEA Party movement, to their TEA Party events, which is injecting their energy into those campaigns. Andrew Breitbart, Glenn Reynolds, Ed Morrissey, Jim Hoft and Dana Loesch are stoking the fires wherever they appear.
Anyone thinking that Bachmann, Breitbart and Palin will stop appearing at campaign rallies anytime soon is involved in what's known as wishful thinking. They'll repeatedly be deployed wherever they're needed.
What's most important is that an important storyline is emerging. That appealing storyline is that candidates that appeal to TEA Party activists stand for fiscal restraint, low taxes, a return to constitutional limitations and taking every opportunity to increase personal liberty.
If the American people are given the option between being told what to do by a 'we know better than you' government or being given the opportunity to make their own decisions, the choice is almost automatic. They don't often pick being told what to do by politicians who tell them they know what's best for the people.
Ronald Reagan knew that people were born with a natural inclination towards freedom. In fact, he relied on that instinct to get important things accomplished. As a result, despite inheriting a nasty recession, high inflation, high interest rates and high unemployment, his administration still created 22,000,000 new jobs.
Democrats started immediately touting the job creation numbers of last Friday. They're saying that their chances will improve if the economy improves. Morris says that that isn't a guaranteed path to success:
Will the rise in economic growth and job creation, if they continue, offset the Republican gains? Not very likely. Remember Bill Clinton's 1994 experience. Even though the recession had officially ended in the quarter before he took office and he proudly pointed to the 5 million new jobs that had been created during the first two years of his presidency, Clinton got no bounce from the jobs issue or the economy.There aren't any reputable economists out there that are predicting robust job growth between now and Election Day. With unemployment high, people won't cut the Democrats slack if there's economic growth. They want jobs, not economic growth.
This Gallup poll and Scott Rasmussen's weekly Generic Ballot polling are telling me that frustration is building, not receding for Democrats. First, here's what Gallup's polling shows:
Americans' current 41% favorable rating of the Democratic Party is five points lower than the party's previous low, recorded twice in 2005.If that isn't bad enough, the GOP's popularity has risen 8 points this year to 42%. Here's what Scott Rasmussen's generic ballot polling is showing this week:
Republican candidates now hold a nine-point lead over Democrats in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.This information indicates that Republicans didn't peak too soon. quite the contrary. Their momentum continues to build.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 47% would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate, up from 46% last week, while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent, down a point from the previous survey.
Last week , just after Congress' passage of the national health care plan, voter support for Democrats reached its highest level measured since early December 2009, while GOP support matched the highest level measured since weekly tracking began in early April 2007.
It's important that we not forget another of the Democrats' mistakes that will backfire. They've accused the TEA Party activists of being racists. Rep. Steve Cohen's accusations will hurt Democrats this fall. Here's what he said during a radio interview:
"We saw opposition to African-Americans, hostility toward gays, hostility to anybody who wasn't just, you know, a clone of George Wallace's fan club," he said on The Young Turks, an Internet and satellite radio talk show.The reason that's going to hurt Democrats is because Rep. Cohen has bought into the Democrats' spin that the TEA Party consists of only angry white male conservatives. The reality is that 43% of the TEA Party participants identify themselves as independents and another 8% identify themselves as Democrats.
"And I'm afraid they've taken over the Republican Party."
In other words, Rep. Cohen has accused independents of taking over the GOP. Criticizing independents is foolish enough. Accusing them of being racist bigots only gives independents another reason to identify with Republicans this year.
Put this information together and you'll understand why Jim Carville and Stan Greenberg haven't read this situation right.
Posted Friday, April 9, 2010 1:15 AM
Comment 1 by Chuck at 09-Apr-10 03:32 AM
You are right on with this. It is my belief even if the economy mad a miraculous turn around, the dems would still be gone in 2010 because of the personal liberty issue and the debt combined. I heard Hugh Hewitt say now what I've been saying. There isn't going to be any healthcare in future years. The dems only wanted a smokescreen to begin collecting more taxes immediately.
Comment 2 by Brent Metzler at 09-Apr-10 06:59 AM
What I don't understand is why if people care about "personal liberty" they only care about it after it's "gone." Wouldn't it make more sense to not vote for candidates that don't care about personal liberty, instead of voting for them, and then after your liberties are gone, voting against them?
It's because of the fact that people didn't care about personal liberties when they had it, that makes me suspect that it probably won't be the most important issue now that it's "gone."
Besides, I think that Rep Cohen's statements are more true then you think. I saw what Rep Cohen saw last summer as soon as tea party protests started forming last spring. I felt right away that they were trouble for the GOP, and nothing I've seen has changed my mind. The Tea Party protesters are just as bad for the GOP as the millions of anti-war protesters were for the Democrats while President Bush was in office.
Landrieu, Stupak Defend Democrats' Disaster
In her op-ed , Mary Landrieu attempts to convince Louisiana voters that the health care legislation she voted for is a good thing. Meanwhile, Bart Stupak is insisting that his vote on health care is his " greatest legislative accomplishment ." Sen. Landrieu's attempted sales job isn't particularly persuasive:
For months, people throughout Louisiana have heard hysterical cries from some quarters that the bill is unconstitutional and that it should be repealed. These naysayers are using these scare tactics to distract attention from the many important provisions in the bill.Sen. Landrieu starts defending the Democrats' bill by saying that the people who think that Congress should actually pay attention to the Constitution they swore to uphold by calling them fearmongers. Actually, people who think that Congress should actually fulfill their obligation are patriots. I won't say that about Sen. Landrieu.
Children will be covered, even when they are sick. This new law will provide immediate access to quality, affordable health insurance for as many as 96,000 uninsured Louisianians who have previously been denied coverage by insurance companies because of a pre-existing condition.
For the first time ever, insurance companies will also be prevented from excluding coverage due to pre-existing conditions for the more than 1 million children in Louisiana. This includes not just children battling cancer, but those suffering diabetes, asthma, sickle-cell anemia and obesity.
Starting this year, more than 450,000 young adults in Louisiana will be able to remain covered by their parents' insurance policy until age 26. Also, thanks to this bill, lifetime coverage caps are abolished, and no one with insurance can be told that they can't go to the doctor because their care cost too much.
After that, Sen. Landrieu defends what I'm calling the Freeloader Provision. Sen. Landrieu apparently thinks it's a good thing that adults who can't buy insurance should live off Mom and Dad until they're 26. How that's a positive thing is puzzling to me.
As for covering people with PEC's, Paul Ryan's bill will cover people with PEC's without raising taxes. Had the Democrats not insisted on ramming through this disastrous amalgamation of spending increases, attacks on personal liberty and job-killing tax increases, legislation that would lower health care costs could've gotten passed.
Here's how Sen. Landrieu finishes her op-ed:
The same people who never came to the negotiating table in good faith during the yearlong work on the bill and who never once tried to fix our broken health care system while they were in power are looking to sell out the people of Louisiana for their own political gain. It is natural for any politician to want to retain their office or look to seek higher office, but it is not acceptable to do it at the expense of Louisiana's children, seniors and small business owners who will benefit from the new health care law.It's true that Republicans should've gotten rid of the things that prevented health insurance companies from competing with each other. That's irrelevant because Republicans, led by Paul Ryan, Dr. Tom Coburn and doctor/legislators like Tom Price, Phil Gingrey, Charles Boustany and John Barrasso were prepared to negotiate in good faith on health care that would've lowered costs without raising taxes on medical device manufacturers or imposing unconstitutional mandates on individuals or employers and without rationing health care to seniors.
What's most aggravating is that Sen. Landrieu knows that Democrats can't keep the promises it's making in their legislation. That's because the Democrats' legislation doesn't control costs. It only hides costs. The Democrats' legislation doesn't change people's behavior, either.
I've said this before but it's worth repeating: What people currently call health insurance is nothing of the sort. What people buy is better described as prepaid health care. Insurance, whether it's car insurance or homeowners insurance, is different from health insurance. A car insurance policy doesn't mean that insurance pays for replacing brake pads or a muffler. Homeowners' insurance doesn't pay for putting new siding on the house. (I know that firsthand.) It doesn't pay for installing new vents or updating the wiring.
Car insurance pays for accidents or if a windshield gets chipped or robbed. Homeowners insurance pays when there's a fire or the house is broken into or vandalized.
Until health insurance causes people to change their shopping habits and their lifestyles, real health care reform will still evade us. What we got stuffed down our throats isn't reform. It's just government overstepping its bounds.
Meanwhile, Bart Stupak is singing a different tune than he did prior to caving:
"Are they mad at me about a vote? Yeah," he said of some of his constituents. But he said he also had plenty of support in his district; even his priest at Holy Spirit in Menominee defended him in a Palm Sunday note to parishioners. And the fact is, Stupak considers the health care reform bill his "greatest legislative accomplishment."Calling the Democrats' health care legislation a great achievement says everything that we need to know about St. Stupak's priorities.
Others still see it as a kind of betrayal: The Tea Party Express tour rolled into his district Thursday night and anti-abortion groups that considered him a friend now call him a Judas, arguing that the executive order Stupak extracted from President Barack Obama doesn't go far enough to ensure taxpayer dollars won't pay for abortions. "If I have to run hard again, we run hard again," he said Wednesday.
BREAKING NEWS: CBS is reporting that St. Stupak is retiring :
Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak, the congressman who led anti-abortion rights Democrats in the House during health care negotiations, will retire this year, CBS News has learned. He is expected to announce his plans later today.This is a major hit for the Democrats. Stupak's district is staunchly pro-life. I'm betting that NARAL's hand-picked candidate will be well-funded but unelectable.
Had Stupak sought re-election, he would have faced challengers from both the left and the right backed by interest groups angered by Stupak's health care vote.
Stupak negotiated with Democratic leaders down to the eleventh hour for stricter abortion language in the health care bill, but he ultimately voted for it after President Obama agreed to sign an executive order assuring the new laws will keep taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.
That prompted the conservative Tea Party Express to launch a $250,000 ad campaign against Stupak this week. The group also scheduled a handful of stops on its bus tour in Stupak's district.
On the left, the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America has been working to defeat Stupak and instead elect his Democratic primary challenger Connie Saltonstall.
Rep. Stupak's retirement essentially tells us that he couldn't have won after caving and voting for the Democrats' health care bill. If that's true, there's no way that Ms. Saltonstall will be seen as more moderate than Stupak.
The Democrats are doing the tactically right thing in trying to change people's minds. It's just that they're fighting a futile fight. They passed a bill that people are disgusted with. No amount of printers' ink or bandwidth will change that opinion. Rather than attempting to spin the legislation, they'd be better off either dropping the subject or admitting they were wrong.
Since they won't do either, they're now faced with a few horrible election cycles, starting with 2010. Like Sen. Landrieu's explanation, this won't be pretty.
Posted Friday, April 9, 2010 9:09 AM
Comment 1 by Brent Metzler at 09-Apr-10 09:28 AM
As much as I'm disappointed that Stupak will no longer be a voice for the prolife caucus in Congress, I admire him for making the right vote.
I'd rather have someone do the right thing, even if it means not running again, rather then the wrong thing, just to keep my seat in office. Seems like that's fair.
You are correct though that it is unlikely for a NARAL-endorsed candidate to pick up the seat, so by forcing Stupak out, the Democrats have basically handed over that seat to the Republicans. Consider that one of the handful of Republican pickups this fall.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Apr-10 11:33 AM
Forget a handful. There's a real shot for Republicans to win 60+ seats this fall.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 09-Apr-10 01:07 PM
Two things still bother me about the "benefits" of this bill, both with that provision eliminating lifetime caps. One is that is another way to drive up the cost of private insurance, eventually driving private insurance out of business. Nobody can insure against blank check costs. The other is a question: Did Congress eliminate lifetime caps in Medicare and Medicaid? Because they're there, and lower than for many private plans. Hypocrites.
It's That Time Again
It's coming down to crunchtime for football fanatics s people start preparing for the NFL Entry Draft, as it's officially called. One of my must reads the past couple of years is Scott Wright's NFLDraftCountdown . If you haven't started reading Scott's latest mock draft or Scott's player profiles , then you aren't getting the topflight information true draft junkies demand.
This year, Scott tells me that, in addition to his live instant analysis during the draft, Scott has some new things planned. Here's what Scott has in store for true draft junkies:
A week from Friday will be the live mock draft where I and a couple of other draftniks take turns making picks for teams. Then with the new format I plan on doing a preview show Thursday afternoon and a review show Friday afternoon. All that stuff will be on iTunes, just search for "Draft Countdown".BTW, I REALLY LIKE the Vikings' picks in the first and second rounds.
Posted Friday, April 9, 2010 5:32 PM
No comments.
Stupak's Defiance Speaks For Itself
After announcing that he was retiring, Rep. Bart Stupak told Fox News correspondent Steve Brown that he was getting the last laugh on the TEA Party Express bus that was campaigning throughout his district, saying that his decision had caused them to waste time, money and gas essentially campaigning against a ghost, hinting that his retirement makes it more likely that Democrats will hold the seat.
Unfortunately for Rep. Stupak, his vote ruined any shot that any Democrat had of holding his seat this November. After fighting a staunch pro-life fight, Rep. Stupak caved on his principles a mere 4 hours before the fatal vote. The Democratic brand has sunk since then.
Earlier this winter, Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson voted for the Democrats' health care bill, twice, causing independents to conclude, and pundits to write, that there isn't such a thing as a moderate Democrat. Prior to this Congress, Evan Bayh had talked like a fiscal conservative frequently enough to be considered a fiscal moderate.
That facade died after he voted twice for the failed, less-than-stimuluating$862,000,000,000 stimulus bill. That facade was buried the minute he voted twice for the $2,500,000,000,000 Democrats' health care bill. You can't vote for $3,300,000,000,000 worth of spending over the next decaded, over and above the proposed budgets of the next decade and still have credibility as a fiscal moderate.
I've said on this blog multiple times that, when it was crunch time, these so-called moderates voted no differently than self-proclaimed Socialist Bernie Sanders and far left wingnut Dennis Kucinich.
After Rep. Stupak caved for a less-than-meaningless executive order saying that public money wouldn't be used to pay for abortions, people rightly concluded that there areen't any pro-life Democrats left in Congress.
In the end, the health care debate proved that moderate Democrats and pro-life Democrats have gone the way of the carrier pigeon. They existed once but they're extinct now.
Rep. Stupak says that he tipped off up to 8 Democrats who might opt to run for his seat. If I were them, I'd pass because Rep. Stupak's actions, along with the actions of Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh, have cast doubt on Democrats' integrity. This trio of legislators portrayed themselves as principled moderates.
When the time came for them to stand for their frequently declared principles of fiscal responsibility and the sanctity of life, straightforward issues if ever they existed, they caved into the Democrats' leadership.
As a result, every Democrat that portrays themselves as a fiscal conservative or a pro-life activist will be questioned much like people questioned Mike Pence, Paul Ryan and John Boehner when they said that Republicans were returning to their principles. People will demand that they see proof that these candidates won't be the next Evan Bayh or Bart Stupak.
This is a rebuilding project. It isn't the type of thing that will happen overnight because it's a trust issue. It takes time to build trust. It takes only a split-second to destroy that trust. That's where Democrats are at right now because their commitment to passing health care, their Holy Grail achievement, was greater than their commitment to representing their constituents.
That's why I'm confident that Rep. Stupak's seat is lost to the Democrats, as is Sen. Bayh's and Sen. Nelson's.
Finally, Rep. Stupak's arrogant comment won't help the potential Democrat candidates thinking about running for his seat:
Of his conservative critics, Stupak told Fox News, "I just made the tea party people spend a lot of money that wasn't necessary on all these ads they had to use against me so they can't use it on somebody else. I'll take credit in sucking their treasury dry ," he said.Rep. Stupak's arrogance is encapsulated in that statement. Travelling through Rep. Stupak's district didn't suck the TEA Party Express's treasury dry. In fact, I'm betting that Rep. Stupak's statement will be posterized across the internet, then used in a fundraising letter that will be used to get the TEA Party message out to more people.
How ironic is that? Rep. Stupak abandoned his pro-life principles, which sealed his retirement. Then he brags that he's sucked his political opponent's treasury dry, only to find out that his statement will be used to refill his political opponents' treasuries.
Simply put, life must just suck for Rep. Stupak. He can't win for losing.
Posted Saturday, April 10, 2010 1:12 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 10-Apr-10 06:25 AM
I think the flip side of your argument about trust also holds true. Where Democrats have "tarnished their brand" to the degree it was more than just brass anyway, Republicans have added a new measure of trust by being unanimous in their opposition to Obamascare. Time was when you had to look beyond party label to find the true conservative. Now all you need is party label, a big plus for the GOP, IMHO.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 10-Apr-10 07:25 AM
First all Bart thank you for helping to rebuild the Republican party brand for us so fast and so easy. We have been struggling since 2006 to get the public to trust us on spending and taxes. You took that strugle away from us.
There are millions of Americans who said they wouldn't vote for a Republican again that can hardly wait for November 2, 2010 to vote Republican.
As for wasting our treasury Bart get real. I can imagine the ad's in that district this fall. Show two pictures. One of Bart Stupak and one of the Democrat running.
The announcer can go, "This is Bart Stupak and this is Bart Stupak's candidate. Bart's candidate won't vote to repeal health care. Bart's candidate will continue the trillion dollar deficit spending which Bart voted for. Bart's candidate will love to have hearings in Congress where executives are attacked just because they announce losses because of health care.
Do you want to vote for Bart Stupak? Because voting for Bart's candidate is a vote for Bart Stupak!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
