January 23-25, 2010
Jan 23 00:45 John Howe Scares Steve Murphy Into Retirement Jan 24 01:53 Physicians For Reform Jan 24 12:20 Perhaps He Isn't Unpopular Enough? Jan 25 02:58 Throw The Bums Out Election, You Say? Jan 25 09:03 Please Employ Carville's Strategy Jan 25 10:54 GOP's Senate Chances Just Improved Jan 25 22:59 Berry Takes Shot at Obama In Retirement Speech
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
John Howe Scares Steve Murphy Into Retirement
When Red Wing Mayor John Howe announced his candidacy for Steve Murphy's Senate seat , most people predicted that it would lead to a competitive race this fall:
According to online state Campaign Finance Board records, Howe formed the (John) Howe for Senate committee for Senate District 28. The committee was established on New Year's Eve.This morning, Sen. Steve Murphy announced his retirement :
The first-term mayor formed the committee as a Republican, records show. He is the first person to challenge for the seat in the 2010 race.
State Sen. Steve Murphy won't run for reelection this year, he announced this morning. First elected in 1992, the Red Wing DFLer said he looked forward to spending more time with his wife, children and grandson. He is the chairman of a key transportation policy committee, and has been a vocal critic of Gov. Tim Pawlenty's transportation policies.TRANSLATION: Sen. Murphy got the urge to spend more time with his family after John Howe stepped forward to give him a fight in this year's election.
What a coincidence. It's amazing how that happened.
If John Howe works hard, which I'm certain he will, then I'd count this as a GOP pickup this November.
This figured to be a difficult cycle for Sen. Murphy before the TEA Party movement. He'd said some stunningly foolish things this term. Here's my favorite :
Tucked away in a big transportation funding bill being fast-tracked to a Senate floor vote today are future increases in Minnesota's gas tax that could push it from 20 cents a gallon to more than 40 cents over 10 years, higher than any state's current bite at the pump.Here's my other Murphy favorite :
"I'm not trying to fool anybody," said Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, sponsor of the measure that would increase funding for roads and transit by $1.5 billion a year once it was fully implemented in the next decade. "There's a lot of taxes in this bill."
"Everything is fun and games until someone gets an eye poked out, and the governor just poked out my eye by vetoing this bill," said Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing.I'd say good bye but "Good Riddance" is a better fit.
Posted Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:45 AM
Comment 1 by Lady Logician at 23-Jan-10 11:28 AM
Hmmmm....I seem to recall someone mentioning to you that this could end up being a possibility on the state level. I wonder who that was?
LL
Physicians For Reform
Friday morning, I watched Martha McCallum interview Dr. C.L. Gray, a physician and CEO of Physicians for Reform, about some inexpensive ways to lower health care costs while increasing access to health insurance. Thankfully, I DVR'ed the interview, which allowed me to transcribe the interview. Here's that transcript:
MCCALLUM: Let's take a look at the first one. State mandates drive up costs. Now I live in New Jersey, where there are plenty of state mandates. Tell me why this is a specific area that we can fix & needs to be done.Friday afternoon, I spoke with a friend who works at the State Capitol about this interview. I told this friend what Dr. Gray said about mandates. This friend said that that's a great way to drop health insurance costs. The biggest reason why it's great is because eliminating mandates doesn't require tax increases. The second biggest reason why it's great is because most of these mandates wouldn't exist if not for the special interests. Anything that lowers health care costs without raising taxes is vastly superior to the defeated Democrats' legislation.
DR. C.L. GRAY: Various states have different mandates that the insurance companies have to follow.& there are things that are mandated that are covered that aren't necessarily needed by all the patients. If our primary concern is access for the millions of people that don't have access, then we need to lessen the mandates so we can provide basic coverage. For example, a healthy 25-year-old male in New Jersey will pay about 6 times as much as a healthy 25-year-old male will pay in Kentucky simply because of state mandates.
MCCALLUM: So that's the main argument for being able to shop across state lines so if that 25-year-old in New Jersey can say "you know what, I can get a very cheap plan in Kentucky that covers my needs, you know, catastrophic needs, things like that, right?
DR. GRAY: Absolutely. And when we're talking about the economy & jobs, think of what would happen if businesses in New r Jersey could purchase insurance from Kentucky. If they could drop their health care costs by 50-60 percent, that money could be used to either increase wages or hire people or invest in new equipment. That would serve as an economic stimulus without spending a dime of federal money.
MCCALLUM: Yeah but how are you going to get rid of all of those state mandates? This sounds like a really simple idea & I have put this to so many lawmakers & they can give you every which way to Tuesday why they can't do this.
DR. GRAY: Well, you don't necessarily have to get rid of the state mandate. What you do is you let a person vote with where they buy their insurance. If somebody can buy insurance from a state with fewer mandates, provides a policy more in keeping with their needs, you really don't have to change any of these state mandates. What you do is you give 50 state legislatures a chance to compete with each other because they want to protect their people, they'll want to protect their citizens, but at the same time they want to make health care more efficient. This lets 50 groups of people try & optimize the solution.
MCCALLUM: OK. Lets squeeze in one more good one because it's a good one. Let people buy insurance with pre-tax dollars so basically set aside dollars like a medical savings account.
DR. GRAY: Yeah, if you look through the history of Western medicine, power either moves to the state or towards the patients & physicians. All my proposals are designed to put control of health care decision-making back in the hands of patients & their doctors. This is another way to do that. So if you let individuals have the same tax advantage that businesses do, they can choose to shop elsewhere if they so need.
For this to work, though, two things must happen. First, federal legislation must be passed that eliminates the federal ban on buying health insurance policies across state lines. I think that'll happen if a spotlight is put on the legislation and legislators. Second, alot of states must pass medical mandate reform legislation. That way, people have options on where they'll buy their insurance from.
Legislators shouldn't think that they'll get away ignoring this type of reform. Those politicians voting against mandate reform legislation would tell voters that they didn't vote for legislation that would've significantly lowered health insurance costs. That'd be a political disaster. Legislators that don't pass mandate reform legislation will face the voters' wrath in the next election.
I paid a visit to Physicians for Reforms' website to find out more about them. Here's a little information from their About Us page :
Physicians for Reform...seeks to keep the patient's welfare the central focus of medicine, not the fluctuating interests of government. Specifically, Physicians for Reform seeks to:I've said before that the Democrats' approach to health care was backwards. The Democrats start with insuring everyone. Lowering health care and health insurance costs should be the highest priority. If prices drop or stabilize, access will improve. Further, as prices drop, more people will have an incentive to buy insurance.
1.Make health insurance affordable for every American.
2.Place the patient at the center of American healthcare.
3.Reduce the cost of healthcare without restricting access.
4.Reform today's broken medical/legal system.
5.Restore the patient/physician relationship.
Two groups make up a high percentage of the uninsured: families making $75,000 and healthy 20-somethings. If health insurance cost significantly less than it does today, I'd bet that alot of people in these demographic groups would buy health insurance.
Putting together a high deductible policy that included catstrophic coverage with an HSA would cover most families' health insurance needs. Hospitals and clinics love these policies because, in most instances, they don't have to deal with rationing, government bureaucrats or insurance companies.
I recently talked with the Lady Logician about Rush Limbaugh's stay in a Hawaiian hospital. What we both noticed was that, on his first day back behind "the golden EIB microphone", Rush said that the hospital knocked thirty-five percent off his bill because he paid with plastic. He said that he didn't get special treatment, that that's standard procedure for patients who pay their own bills.
I know it's speculation but I'm betting that people's habits would swiftly change if they learned that they could get Rush's deal. I'm betting that people would demand mandate reform if they could see how much each mandate drove up the price of their health insurance premiums.
Dr. Gray made another important point that should give businesses an incentive for getting on board with mandate reform. Businesses that see their insurance premiums drop can invest the savings in new equipment or expanding their businesses.
Thanks to PFR and Dr. Gray, we now have a great alternative to the Democrats' health care/health insurance legislation. It's time we passed real health care reform, not just something that's called health care reform.
Finally, there's another great aspect to mandate reform: there's no need for secret negotiations and tawdry special interest dealmaking. I'd bet the proverbial ranch that that's the type of reform legislation that the average person would appreciate.
Posted Sunday, January 24, 2010 1:59 AM
No comments.
Perhaps He Isn't Unpopular Enough?
According to this Washington Times article , President Obama isn't letting health care drop. Perhaps he doesn't think that he's umpopular enough, even though Rasmussen has him with some of his lowest ratings ever :
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19.The worst rating Obama has had was -21 two days before the Senate voted on final passage of their health care bill. It isn't coincidence that his worst rating came at the height of this debate. Still, he insists on pushing his backwards plan:
"There are things that have to get done. This is our best chance to do it. We can't keep on putting this off," Obama said Friday at a town hall meeting in Elyria, Ohio. "I am not going to walk away just because it's hard," the president said.Mr. President, if I may be so bold, might I suggest that you walk away from this legislation because its approach is bassackwards? This legislation cuts Medicare by $460,000,000,000, raises taxes by $490,000,000,000, does nothing to lower costs and gives a special $60,000,000,000 tax break to the unions for their Cadillac health care insurance plans.
Compare that with PFR's plan to reform government mandates:
Various states have different mandates that the insurance companies have to follow.& there are things that are mandated that are covered that aren't necessarily needed by all the patients. If our primary concern is access for the millions of people that don't have access, then we need to lessen the mandates so we can provide basic coverage. For example, a healthy 25-year-old male in New Jersey will pay about 6 times as much as a healthy 25-year-old male will pay in Kentucky simply because of state mandates.The federal government should lift its prohibition of selling health insurance across state lines to eliminate this type of ripoff. There's no justification for a 25-year-old to pay 6 times more for the same coverage in New Jersey than he'd pay for the identical policy in Kentucky. PFR CEO Dr. C.L. Gray says the minute you get 50 states competing to keep their business in their state, premiums will drop.
I stated that there's another set of benefits to this type of legislation: because it's so straightforward, there's no need to cut deals with corrupt special interest groups, there's no need to raise taxes on middle class families and you wouldn't create a new raft of federal agencies.
One potential approach could allow the Senate to act with a simple majority instead of the 60-vote total Democrats now lack with the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts. A supermajority of 60 votes is needed to overcome Republican filibusters, a legislative procedure that blocks measures from coming up for a final vote.Reconciliation isn't a serious option because you can't create legislation using that process. That's a budgetary tool only. If Democrats attempt to pass sweeping reform through the use of reconciliation, they'll waste even more time because they'll have to go back to committees to write that language into the bill. Then the minute that legislation hits the Senate floor, Sen. Judd Gregg would offer one point of order after another, leaving it looking like Swiss Cheese, not serious reform legislation.
While that fight rages on, the American people would see that the Democrats put a higher priority on a flawed piece of health care legislation than they put on righting a flailing economy that isn't creating jobs. If the Democrats insist on pushing those priorities, they'll lose their majority in the House and come extremely close to losing their Senate majority.
President Obama is unpopular because he's getting awful advice, like this advice from David Plouffe :
Pass a meaningful health insurance reform package without delay. Americans' health and our nation's long-term fiscal health depend on it. I know that the short-term politics are bad. It's a good plan that's become a demonized caricature. But politically speaking, if we do not pass it, the GOP will continue attacking the plan as if we did anyway, and voters will have no ability to measure its upside. If we do pass it, dozens of protections and benefits take effect this year. Parents won't have to worry their children will be denied coverage just because they have a preexisting condition. Workers won't have to worry that their coverage will be dropped because they get sick. Seniors will feel relief from prescription costs. Only if the plan becomes law will the American people see that all the scary things Sarah Palin and others have predicted, such as the so-called death panels, were baseless. We own the bill and the health-care votes. We need to get some of the upside.Mr. Plouffe pretends like there's no consequences to cutting Medicare by $460,000,000,000. In mocking Sarah Palin's death panel post, Mr. Plouffe pretends that there wouldn't be tragic consequences if President Obama's deep Medicare cuts were enacted.
Mr. Plouffe is a true believer in President Obama's agenda. He isn't prone to listening to We The People types. He certainly isn't listening to the voters in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia. If the Democrats, starting with President and his closest advisors, don't start listening to and acting on the American people's priorities, they'll soon find themselves without any levers of power.
During this week's SOTU, we'll see whether President Obama will listen to We The People or if he'll listen to Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi.
If he chooses the path of politicians lik Emanuel, Axelrod, Reid and Pelosi, today's poll ratings might soon look like the good ole days compared with what they'll look like a year from now.
Posted Sunday, January 24, 2010 12:27 PM
Comment 1 by Eric Austin at 24-Jan-10 01:30 PM
I sure do love these new metrics we have created to make our point sound more valid.
Let's subtract the people who just somewhat approve from the super approval and divide that by the square root of pi to arrive at OMG EVERYONE HATES THE PRESIDENT! WHAT A DOUCHEBAG!
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 24-Jan-10 04:49 PM
Eric, Don't be calling President Obama a douchebag. i don't like his policies but even I haven't gone that far.
Throw The Bums Out Election, You Say?
Many an article has been written about how the people want to "throw the bums out" in DC. According to this CQ article , Stuart Rothenberg isn't buying that notion:
Surveys over the past couple of weeks have shown Republican former Rep. Mike Sodrel ahead of Democratic Rep. Baron P. Hill in Indiana by 8 points; in Maryland, Republican Andy Harris leads freshman Democrat Frank M. Kratovil Jr. by 13 points; GOP former Rep. Tim Walberg leads Democrat Mark Schauer in Michigan by 10 points; and Republican former Rep. Steve Chabot leading Democratic Rep. Steve Driehaus by a whopping 17 points.I'm not surprised by these numbers with the exception of Tarryl trailing by that big a margin. Most analysts predicted Michele winning but I'm certain that they expected a tighter race, at least this early.
In addition, Rep. Timothy Bishop (D-NY) leads unknown challenger Randy Altschuler (R) by only 2 points, while controversial Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is drawing 55 percent in an early ballot test against state Sen. Tarryl Clark (D).
Most Minnesota pundits thought that the Michele-Tarryl fight would be the best fight of this election cycle. After seeing those polling numbers, and after seeing the results from Massachusetts' special election, those pundits might revisit that.
It wouldn't surprise me if Tim Walz's seat got additional scrutiny. I wrote here that Rep. Walz voted for "the failed stimulus bill, the job-killing Cap and Tax bill and now the government takeover of the American health care system."
If casting those three votes aren't enough to put Walz's seat at risk, then his telling EdMinn that voting for Pelosicare "was the easiest vote I ever cast" should put him at risk.
Just like Walz's wounds are self-inflicted, so are Baron Hill's. Hill's defeat was essentially sealed after this incident :
I titled that post "Congressman, You Work For US,For Now." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that insulting one's constituents isn't part of the traditional path to re-election. That type of arrogance is the path to an early retirement.
Chris Cillizza is reporting that another Democrat will announce his retirement sometime this morning:
Arkansas Rep. Marion Berry is expected to announce his retirement tomorrow morning, according to three sources briefed on the decision. Berry will become the sixth Democrat in a competitive seat to leave in the last two months but the first to announce his retirement since the party's special election loss in Massachusetts last Tuesday.It isn't that people are convinced that Republicans will be the party of fiscal responsibility. It's more that they're certain that Democrats are the party of fiscal irresponsibility.
"The message coming out of the Massachusetts special election is clear: No Democrat is safe," said National Republican Congressional Committee communications director Ken Spain.
Berry, first elected in 1996, had been noncommittal about his re-election bid for months although, privately, his allies insisted he was planning to run for re-election.
The first step in restoring fiscal sanity is getting rid of the most flagrant violators. Some of that will happen in GOP primaries. (Think Utah's Robert Bennett.) That 'cleansing' might include Mike Pence, the third-ranking member of the House GOP, defeating Evan Bayh.
The bottom line is this: With Democrats controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Ave., Democrats will be the bums getting thrown out if this is a 'throw-the-bums-out' election. HINT: That's why we'll see alot more retirements over the next 2-3 weeks.
Posted Monday, January 25, 2010 3:02 AM
No comments.
Please Employ Carville's Strategy
Jim Carville and Paul Begala haven't had an original thought in almost 20 years. Their scorched earth campaign strategies sound whiny on the best of days. Jim Carville's op-ed in this morning's Financial Times tells Democrats that Martha Coakley would've won the Massachusetts special election if they would've pointed their fingers at President Bush more. Now he's telling Democrats to adopt a 'it's all Bush's fault' campaign strategy:
Democrats would not be playing the blame game with one another for the loss or for the healthcare debacle if they had only pointed fingers at those (or in this case, the one) who put Americans (and most of the world) in the predicament we're in: George W. Bush.I hope Democrats take Mr. Carville's advice. Nothing says 'we don't have ideas' quite like looking backwards. The country knows that the financial crisis happened on President Bush's watch. They're more worried about fixing this country's problems. People will ignore the blame game messages if they aren't followed by common sense solutions, something that the Democrats are in extremely short supply of.
Elections are about the future, especially this one. People have noticed that the Democrats' policies have made things worse, not better. Seniors know that cutting Medicare by $460,000,000,000 will limit the amount of health care that they get.
Blaming President Bush won't win back seniors.
People have noticed that the $787,000,000,000 stimulus plan hasn't created jobs, that it's only created mountains of debt. Holding health care negotiations behind closed doors without any GOP input has turned off independents.
Blaming President Bush for starting the recession won't win back those independents.
Complaining about President Bush's deficits won't get much traction because the Democrats' record on deficits since retaking Congress in 2006 has been terrible. Jim Hoft, the Gateway Pundit , and Hot Air's Ed Morrissey point out the foolishness of that strategy. Here's what Jim has to say on the matter:
During the Bush years, despite the 2000 Recession, the attacks on 9-11, the stock market scandals, Hurricane Katrina, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush Administration was able to reduce the budget deficit from 412 billion dollars in 2004 to 162 billion dollars in 2007, a sixty percent drop. In 2004 the federal budget deficit was 412 billion dollars. In 2005 it dropped to 318 billion dollars. In 2006 the deficit dipped to 248 billion dollars. And, in 2007 it fell below 200 billion to 162 billion dollars. During the Bush years the average unemployment rate was 5.2 percent , the economy saw the strongest productivity growth in four decades and there was robust GDP growth. These were amazing accomplishments considering the unexpected challenges. You certainly didn't read much about this in the press.Here's Ed's take on what will have more impact in 2010:
But, things changed in 2007. Democrats took over Congress, gas prices started to rise, and at the end of the year and into 2008 several financial institutions started to crumble as the housing bubble began to burst. Of course, it should be noted that President Bush publicly called for the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Democrats, on the other hand, blocked reform numerous times . It was later reported after the 2008 election that Bush had nothing to do with the financial crisis. Hoover Institution visiting fellow Scott S. Powell wrote in Barron's in February of 2009 that the present crisis began in the 1970s, during the Carter administration, with passage of the Community Reinvestment Act to stem bank redlining and liberalize lending in order to extend home ownership in lower-income communities. This risk was acknowledged in the Bush administration's first fiscal-year budget, released in April 2001. Sadly these warnings were ignored by Congress.
While the Democrats desperately keep hold of their favorite cartoon villain, who is as relevant to American politics now as Bill Clinton, Republicans have Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, and that's going to be much more likely to resonate with voters in 2010. The midterms will be a referendum on both politicians and the radical direction of their leadership and agenda. Which will voters care about more, a former President who has no impact on the political agenda of the federal government, or the two people who attempted to conduct a takeover of 1/6th of the American economy while ignoring the loss of 3.4 million jobs?Call me fickle but I'm betting that voters will take whatever frustrations they have out on Democrats, not Republicans.
Simply put, I pray that Democrats employ Carville's strategy. Combining the Democrats' failed policies of the past 4 years with an incessant whining that essentially says that they don't have solutions is a great way of saying that Democrats are the party of no solutions.
Why vote for people that won't put in place policies that create jobs?
Posted Monday, January 25, 2010 9:13 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 26-Jan-10 06:51 AM
Pelosi and Obama have been weak leaders.
Bush in the White House and Phil Gramm in congress were disasters.
Weak is better than disaster. Voters can be deluded fairly easily, and have been, but Obama and Pelosi are left to do mop up, which they've not done well.
However, the big pile, that's the work of Bush, Cheney, war on borrowed money, and Phil Gramm's economic mischief.
It took time to build Rome, and it took time for your people to screw things up royally.
Remember, Clinton paid down the Reagan-Bush the first deficits.
Between that, Clinton times and prosperity, Gary, what happened? Who was in the driver's seat?
Fact is fact. Remember that treasury secretary, Paulsen, and who founded TARP?
Gary, Gary, Gary. Raise the bar.
Comment 2 by Lady Logician at 26-Jan-10 02:49 PM
That's it Eric - keep living in the PAST. Just keep reminding yourself (and the voters) that there is NO FUTURE - only the past.
LL
GOP's Senate Chances Just Improved
I've said from the outset that the Republicans' chances of retaking the Senate were alot slimmer than their retaking the House. Their odds just got slightly better. It's now confirmed that Vice President Biden's son Beau won't run for his dad's Senate seat :
The younger Biden told supporters in an e-mail Monday that he will run for re-election as attorney general rather than seek the Democratic nomination for Senate. His decision ends months of speculation on whether he would run for the seat his father held for 36 years.What's more is that Scott Rasmussen's polling in Indiana shows Evan Bayh trailing Mike Pence :
It also leaves veteran Republican congressman and former two-term governor Mike Castle, one of the most successful politicians in Delaware history, still waiting for a Democratic opponent.
Indiana Senator Evan Bayh is another Democratic incumbent who could find himself in a tough reelection battle this fall. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds that Bayh attracts support from just 44% or 45% of voters when matched against his top potential Republican challengers.Several things stand out about Sen. Bayh in that polling. First, he should find it alarming that he's only getting 44% of the vote in both these polls. That's pretty pathetic, especially for an incumbent whose seat was previously thought to be safe. Second, I'd be worried that I was leading John Hostettler by only 3 points, especially considering the fact that Hostettler was defeated in the 2006 disaster.
Congressman Mike Pence is reportedly considering running against Bayh. At this time, he attracts 47% of the vote while Bayh picks up 44%. A former Republican congressman, John Hostettler, has already indicated he will challenge Bayh. In that match-up, it's Bayh with a three-point edge, 44% to 41%.
Most importantly, though, I'd be worried about trailing Mike Pence. Pence spent the weekend considering running. These poll results should encourage Pence to run. The chairman of the Democrat Party of Indiana is trying to scare Rep. Pence off by talking about how much CoH Bayh has :
Meanwhile, Indiana Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker says Bayh has 13-million-dollars already in the bank to campaign.That's not something to be taken lightly but I wouldn't get too worried about that. Pence's fundraising would be especially strong amongst TEA Party activists. If Scott Brown can raise $1,000,000 a day for a week, Rep. Pence's fundraising should be prolific. Picking off an incumbent like Evan Bayh certainly provides a great incentive for potential contributors.
While Bayh has a significant CoH advantage, he's got a serious problem to deal with, too. Sen. Bayh voted for the failed stimulus bill and the health care bill that people despise. Both bills are fiscally irresponsible. In both instances, he could've stood up to his party's leadership. Both times, he voted with his party's leadership and against fiscal responsibility.
By comparison, Mike Pence voted against many of President Bush's spending proposals. He didn't pull his punches in criticizing those policies either.
Now Sen. Bayh has returned to talking about fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately for him, he's talking about fiscal responsibility after voting for 2 fiscally irresponsible bills.
Put those things together and what's obvious is that there's a significant credibility gap emerging. Pence has walked the walk in criticizing his party's spending habits. Sen. Bayh didn't until after the bills were passed. That's not how you build credibility.
In this environment, it's difficult to see a positive for Bayh. It's difficult to see this not being a significant plus in Rep. Pence's favor should he run against Sen. Bayh.
If Rep. Pence gets in, Sen. Bayh's seat shifts to leans slightly in Rep. Pence's favor. That isn't good news for the DSCC or Sen. Bayh.
Posted Monday, January 25, 2010 11:03 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 26-Jan-10 06:44 AM
Perhaps some time you can take a few lines to explain to us the ways Mike Pence differs from Dan Quayle. Indiana is Indiana.
Berry Takes Shot at Obama In Retirement Speech
This morning, Marion Berry announced his retirement. That's bad news for the DCCC. What's worse is that Rep. Berry took a shot at President Obama :
Rep. Marion Berry, D-AR, fears that these midterm elections are going to go the way of the 1994 midterms, when Democrats lost control of the House after a failed health care reform effort.If people needed additional proof that President Obama is arrogant, that's the only proof that you'll need. During the past 4 months, campaigning with President Obama has been the kiss of death. This isn't region-specific, either. He's been as toxic below the Mason-Dixon line as above it. This isn't gender-specific either. Just ask Martha Coakley and Creigh Deeds.
But, Berry told the Arkansas Democrat Gazette , the White House does not share his concerns.
"They just don't seem to give it any credibility at all," Berry said. "They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, 'Well, the big difference here and in '94 was you've got me.' We're going to see how much difference that makes now."
The bigger point, though, is that the Democrats' radical agenda is making for a difficult campaigns for the Democrats' congressional candidates and incumbents. Beau Biden would've run if he thought it was a good cycle for Democrats.
Vic Snyder and Marion Berry decided to retire rather than run in this environment in Mississippi. Bart Gordon and John Tanner reached the same decision in Tennessee. More retirements will surely follow within the next month.
Fortifying that opinion is this Geraghty post :
The Cook Report offers this surprising comment on the intensity gap: " If this level remains constant, you can count on the Democratic majority in the House being toast this fall ."Pundits of the more moderate stripe keep talking about the civil war happening within the GOP. I haven't seen proof of that to this point. I can't argue that there's a couple high-profile Senate primaries in Utah and Florida. That doesn't constitute a civil war, though. In fact, calling it a political civil war is hyperbole in the extreme. If that's the benchmark for what does or doesn't constitute a political civil war, then both parties have been involved in poltical civil war every election cycle that they've existed.
I think we will remember this month as the one where a GOP House went from hard to imagine to quite possible; perhaps future months will make it seem even more likely.
UPDATE: Overnight, the conventional wisdom changes. From FiveThirtyEight.com : "Think others are too conservative on projecting GOP gains. We don't have a House model yet, but GOP seems as likely as not to take House ."
What's about to happen in the Democratic Party might approach a political civil war. When Marco Rubio defeats Charlie Crist, Crist will quickly congratulate Rubio, then move on. In the Democratic Party, the DLC wing of the party is hated by the Kossack wing of the party. If I had a dollar for every time that a hateful anti-DLC comment or diary was posted on Kos or Democratic Underground or likeminded site, I'd be a multi-millionare.
When we get the final retirement count, I think we'll find Democrats in a difficult position. I'm betting that they won't say that they're better off because President Obama was a positive difference-maker.
Most importantly, they won't be calling Ms. Pelosi Speaker anymore.
Originally posted Monday, January 25, 2010, revised 26-Jan 12:57 AM
No comments.
