President Bush, today, vetoed the expansion of the State Children Health Insurance Program (known as SCHIP) saying that the funding went too far, it was step towards socialized medicine, it was expanded beyond the original intent of the program; you know, the Republican's greatest lines when it comes to insuring Americans. However, plenty of Republicans supported this bill. Democrats had 68 votes in the Senate, well over the number of votes needed to override. However, Democrats are about 12 votes short of the override level.
This is Bush's fourth veto, a small amount in the modern era, but the product of divided government. However, Bush picked a politically potent bill to veto. By vetoing this bill, Bush has added another issue to the list that Republicans are charged as "obstructing." The Republicans would do well to break from Bush on this issue.
Politically speaking, Republicans in Congress do not earn anything from supporting Bush policies, as a principle. Obviously, child health insurance is more important than labeling it as either a Bush or anti-Bush issue, but, this post concerns the perceptions of support. By upholding the veto, the issue can be painted simply as "Supporting the Bush policy of denying more children health coverage." Is it that simple? Of course not, but that is the perception painted by a 'nay' vote. Bush's approval rating continues to hover at low 30 % with the occasional dip to 28% (counterpoint: the Democratic controlled Congress has lower approval ratings then Bush). Bush's fundraising potential is neutralized by his negative potency. Also, as shown by the presidential primary, there is record amount of money being provided to political support right now and congressional candidates will not likely be left out in the cold. In conclusion, there is more benefit to breaking from Bush then supporting him. Unless, of course, you're in a solidly Republican district, but those members are not likely to support a veto override under any circumstances. The perception of supporting Bush and opposing children insurance could be deadly.
Secondly, Republicans over the last six and a half years have shown no restraint in spending money and expanding government. Especially in terms of national security, which is considered an essential priority, Republicans have shown a capacity for big government principles. Should not insuring our children be considered an essential priority? The Republican's chief complaint about this bill is that it does too much. It would be a good day for Congress when the detractor's only complaint is that Congress is doing too much and insuring too many. So, Republicans are without an ideological leg to stand on because of their actions in the past six and half years. Without that leg, Republicans are simply arguing semantics instead of deciding to help as many children as they can.
In what is being called another Democratic year, Republicans seeking re-election in 2008 (which is the entire House, by the way) would do well to break from Bush and support a politically potent bill. In the seminal work on Congress, David Mayhew tells us in The Electoral Connection that in order to achieve re-election members must focus on credit-claiming. Republicans could claim all the credit if they override Bush's veto, because without them this would have been another Democratic exercise instead of a bi-partisan effort. Republicans could claim they have no problem telling Bush when he's wrong and bettering the future of America's children. But, if they do not override Bush's veto then what will they claim then?
- Wyatt Schroeder
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Senate 2008 Update: Virginia (Senator John Warner)
CQ Politics, in January 2007, labeled this seat as Favored Republican. Think so now?
Senator John Warner announced his retirement, as was speculated, and a ripple was sent through the Republican Party. Warner’s retirement has offered up the chance that “reliably red”
Two high-profile Virginia Republicans are seeking to keep the seat in Republican hands: Representative Tom Davis and former Governor Jim Gilmore.
Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner has announced his intentions to run much to pleasure of all Democratic voters. Mark Warner was thought to compete with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president, but announced that he would not run. His name is still on everyone’s short list for vice-presidential candidates. A popular governor, Warner represents the centrist wing of the Democratic party that has found its home in
Rasmussen, a known polling group, did an early survey in September on a general election between the top-two Republican contenders and Warner. Warner defeated Tom Davis 57-30 and defeated Gilmore 54-34. This early polling, while ultimately irrelevant, shows the race is in Mark Warner’s hands.
CQPolitics’ designation is grossly outdated now and should be moved to Leans Democratic. Mark Warner’s popularity in
- Wyatt Earp
Senate 2008 Update: Nebraska (Senator Chuck Hagel)
CQ Politics, in January 2007, labeled this seat as Safe Republican. Let's see how it looks now.
Two weeks ago, Senator Hagel announced that he would retire from the Senate after the expiration of his term, ending speculation that he would run for re-election and/or run for president in 2008. Hagel’s announcement adds another area of concern for the Republicans senatorial chances.
Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning has been campaigning since last spring when he announced that he would challenge Hagel in the primary. Hagel’s opposition to the war in
The Democratic hopes of turning this seat blue lie in the hands of Bob Kerrey. Kerrey was governor of
Hagel’s retirement has to move this race to Leans Republican, because it will be a highly targeted race. However, if Kerrey announces then the seat may move quickly to No Clear Favorite. Republicans hold the advantage in
Senate 2008 Update: Oregon (Senator Gordon Smith)
CQ Politics, in January 2007, designated this race as leaning Republican, which, for incumbents, is tantamount to saying “targeted seat.” The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, led by New York Senator, Chuck Schumer, believes that with the right recruitment they can defeat incumbent Senator, Gordon Smith.
The state may not be favorable to Republicans, but it has been to Gordon Smith who has won re-election easily in 2002 with 56% of the vote over his Democratic challenger’s 40%. Senator Smith has also gone out of his way to appear moderate by opposing President Bush’s
As 2006 showed, recruitment is the best hope for Democrats to defeat incumbents. The DSCC went out and asked some notable
Also entering the race is independent John Frohnmayer, former chairman of the National Endowment of the Arts and member of the well-known Frohnmayer. Being a Frohnmayer and brother of David Frohnmayer, former President of University of Oregon and former Attorney General, gives John unusually high name-recognition for an independent candidate. The ten-dollar question in
Frohnmayer’s appeal to “fiscal conservatives” or, what he calls, “traditional Republican values” will hurt Smith with moderate-right voters. Smith supported the Iraq War until recently, some say until he realized his seat was vulnerable. Frohnmayer, who opposed the Iraq War since the beginning, may persuade moderate Republicans by making Smith look like his positions are dictated by electoral prospects. This will hurt Smith, but the Democrats are not immune to Frohnmayer’s candidacy. Frohnmayer, a former Democrat, is running on the same “culture of corruption” platform that most Democrats ran on in 2006; however, he is blaming Democrats as well for
In an August 20th Riley Research poll, 38% of voters said they would vote for Smith, 19% for Merkley, the early Democratic favorite, and 7% for Frohnmayer. However, 35% said that they were undecided.
This seat is well classified at Leans Republican, because Smith still holds the advantage as an incumbent but he is now looking at being hit from two sides with Frohnmayer entering the race. This will be a competitive race.
- Wyatt Earp
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Don't help your enemy when they're falling apart
The 2006 election was considered by most Republicans, and many Democrats, to be the high-water mark of Democratic success. Republicans sight their fatal shoot-yourself-in-the-foot disease as the cause of the Democratic take-over rather than a substantive Democratic agenda. Democrats, however, furthered their cause by perpetuating the phrase, created by Rahm Emanuel, "the culture of corruption" that summed up the nation's feelings of the Republican controlled Congress. The Republican rebuttal of "the Democrats have no issues and have their own corruption issues, just look at Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana," did not break through and the Democrats ran the table. The basic Democrat strategy was to violate an axiom developed by Democrat Tip O'Neill: all politics is local. By nationalizing the election the focus would be put on the aggregate Republican instead of the individual Republican. (Americans tend to view Congress, as a whole, negatively while still liking their individual representative)
However, Republicans saw it as manna from heaven when they starting seeing poll numbers that rated the Democrat-controlled Congress with roughly 20% approval. (a recent Pew Research Poll put it at 23%, but some numbers have been considerably lower). Republicans are now quick to label it a "do-nothing Congress", a homage to what Harry Truman called the Republican-controlled Congress in route to his 1948 electoral upset. Maybe, just maybe, 2008 is the year for Republicans to get back on the horse! If only they can avoid making the news for things that would be considered part of "the culture of corruption."
The last thing that the Republicans have done since 2006 is avoid the perception that they're still plagued by a "culture of corruption." Over the summer, it was reported that Republican Senator David Vitter had had relations with the infamous "D.C. Madam" and pleaded guilty to soliciting sex. And just today, Republican Senator Larry Craig has announced that he will resign from the Senate at the end of September after pleading guilty to misdemeanor where he solicited sex from a male undercover police officer while in the Minneapolis airport. As a side note, Republican Senator John Warner from Virginia has said that he will not seek re-election in 2008. This has led to a lot of speculation that popular Democratic Governor Mark Warner will seek the seat. That is a great opportunity for the Democrats to pick up another Senate seat.
At least Republicans can count on the White House to remain stalwart, as it always has. Despite its lagging, that's one word for it, poll numbers, the Bush administration can still use its remaining political clout to help challenge the Democrats in Congress. However, the Bush administration is becoming severely hampered in its ability to challenge just about anything. Earlier in the summer, close Bush advisor, former communications director and White House counselor Dan Barlett announced his intentions to leave. A Bush loyalist, Barlett had been with Bush since his days in Texas and was one of few staffers who had unlimited access to the president. Then the bomb dropped with Karl Rove announcing his resignation from the White House. Rove had previously said that he planned on being in the White House until Jan 20, 2009, but the ousting of Scooter Libby in the Plame case, the disastrous 2006 elections and Rove's alleged connection to the attorney firings all expedited his leaving office. Then Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, after a cloud of deception and smoke, resigned from office. That was a large political victory for the Democrats who had been urging for his resignation for a while, and slowly gaining Republican support. And then in a final blow, Bush announced that his press secretary Tony Snow will step down. Snow had been on the few faces that helped right the ship for the second term. However, no one smirks at his departure because Snow had continued his duties even while battling cancer. I, personally, really enjoyed watching Snow bring a certain amount of humor to his office.
In the end, the White House is weakened in its ability to combat the Democratic Congress and the Republicans are only perpetuating their "culture of corruption." In short, 2006 may not be the high-water mark, after all. And, what is the Democratic response to all of this? You'd be hard pressed to find one. The Democrats are following an old political axiom: If your enemy is self-destructing, don't help them. The Democrats stand to have more gains in 2008, and build upon an unpopular majority by defeating an even more unpopular minority.
-Wyatt Earp
However, Republicans saw it as manna from heaven when they starting seeing poll numbers that rated the Democrat-controlled Congress with roughly 20% approval. (a recent Pew Research Poll put it at 23%, but some numbers have been considerably lower). Republicans are now quick to label it a "do-nothing Congress", a homage to what Harry Truman called the Republican-controlled Congress in route to his 1948 electoral upset. Maybe, just maybe, 2008 is the year for Republicans to get back on the horse! If only they can avoid making the news for things that would be considered part of "the culture of corruption."
The last thing that the Republicans have done since 2006 is avoid the perception that they're still plagued by a "culture of corruption." Over the summer, it was reported that Republican Senator David Vitter had had relations with the infamous "D.C. Madam" and pleaded guilty to soliciting sex. And just today, Republican Senator Larry Craig has announced that he will resign from the Senate at the end of September after pleading guilty to misdemeanor where he solicited sex from a male undercover police officer while in the Minneapolis airport. As a side note, Republican Senator John Warner from Virginia has said that he will not seek re-election in 2008. This has led to a lot of speculation that popular Democratic Governor Mark Warner will seek the seat. That is a great opportunity for the Democrats to pick up another Senate seat.
At least Republicans can count on the White House to remain stalwart, as it always has. Despite its lagging, that's one word for it, poll numbers, the Bush administration can still use its remaining political clout to help challenge the Democrats in Congress. However, the Bush administration is becoming severely hampered in its ability to challenge just about anything. Earlier in the summer, close Bush advisor, former communications director and White House counselor Dan Barlett announced his intentions to leave. A Bush loyalist, Barlett had been with Bush since his days in Texas and was one of few staffers who had unlimited access to the president. Then the bomb dropped with Karl Rove announcing his resignation from the White House. Rove had previously said that he planned on being in the White House until Jan 20, 2009, but the ousting of Scooter Libby in the Plame case, the disastrous 2006 elections and Rove's alleged connection to the attorney firings all expedited his leaving office. Then Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, after a cloud of deception and smoke, resigned from office. That was a large political victory for the Democrats who had been urging for his resignation for a while, and slowly gaining Republican support. And then in a final blow, Bush announced that his press secretary Tony Snow will step down. Snow had been on the few faces that helped right the ship for the second term. However, no one smirks at his departure because Snow had continued his duties even while battling cancer. I, personally, really enjoyed watching Snow bring a certain amount of humor to his office.
In the end, the White House is weakened in its ability to combat the Democratic Congress and the Republicans are only perpetuating their "culture of corruption." In short, 2006 may not be the high-water mark, after all. And, what is the Democratic response to all of this? You'd be hard pressed to find one. The Democrats are following an old political axiom: If your enemy is self-destructing, don't help them. The Democrats stand to have more gains in 2008, and build upon an unpopular majority by defeating an even more unpopular minority.
-Wyatt Earp
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Clinton's Electability
The most common reason I hear for support of Hillary Clinton's candidacy is her electability in the general election. In a Washington Post/ABC poll conducted from July 26-31st, 500 Iowans were asked who, of the Democratic candidates, had the best chance at being elected in the general election the results went as follows: Clinton (35%), Obama (23%) and Edwards (22%). However, in the same poll, out of the top-three candidates, Clinton least "understands the problems of people like you", is the least "honest and trustworthy", least "closest to you on issues", and least "likeable." (Complete poll results are here) On the plus side for Clinton she is rated the "most experienced to be president" and "strongest leader." When asked whom these Iowa Democrats favor for the nomination 27% said Obama, 26% said both Clinton and Edwards. A statistical dead heat.
What this seems to say to me is that Democrats don't particularly like Clinton, out of the top three candidates, or trust her as a person; however, they trust her to win in November and that is all that matters after eight years of Bush. Competency before likability. However, Democrats, sadly, are not the only people who elect presidents in November. Republicans and independents count for something too. Therefore, it would be prudent to see what the polls tell us in presumed head-to-head match-ups for the general election. (It should be noted that these are national polls and reflect the supposed popular vote not the Electoral College, which is still the means of electing our presidents.)
Real Clear Politics is a good source for head-to-head results. They take the results of five to seven other polls and average them together to get an aggregate result. For simplicity's sake, I am going to just compare Clinton and Obama's results with the Republican field.
Clinton v. Giuliani (45.7% - 44.7% +1 Clinton spread)
Clinton v. Thompson (46.8% - 43% +3.8 Clinton spread)
Clinton v. McCain (46% - 43.8% +2.2 Clinton spread)
Clinton v. Romney (48% - 38.3% +9.7 Clinton spread)
Obama v. Giuliani (46.2% - 43% +3.2 Obama spread)
Obama v. Thompson (49.8% - 36.8% +13 Obama spread)
Obama v. McCain (46.5% - 40.8% +5.7 Obama spread)
Obama v. Romney (49% -36% +13 Obama spread)
In an election versus Giuliani, Obama does 2.2% better than Clinton
Versus Thompson, Obama does 9.2% better than Clinton
Versus McCain, Obama does 3.5% better than Clinton
Versus Romney, Obama does 3.3% better than Clinton
What is the cause of this? The cause is two-fold: 1) Clinton has a virtual 100% name recognition and most Americans have already made their mind-up about her, positive or negative, 2) Obama is still getting his name out there, so most Americans identify his party label, Democrat, as the overriding factor in their decision instead of their opinion about him. Clinton does worse than the "generic Democrat", while Obama does comparable to or better than the "generic Democrat." Every single candidate's unfavorables rise as the election goes on, so Obama's numbers may go down; however, every has their opinion on Clinton, so hers can't get much lower. (Clinton has a 47-49 favorable/unfavorable rating).
A couple of conclusions can be reached by looking at this data and it all depends on your bias. The Clinton bias would say that these are hard numbers, not likely to move because she has spent the last 15 years deflecting the Republican machine. Her favorables can only go up. Obama's numbers are soft because he has yet to be introduced to everyone in the nation, we have no idea what will happen to his numbers if that happens. Like her or not, she is the most capable Democrat to be elected president.
The Obama bias would say that there is very little wiggle room if we nominate Clinton. Obama's numbers, even if they fall, have a longer way to go than Clinton's until they are in the negative. Plus, Iowans who have met the candidates like Obama more than Clinton; we should, hypothetically, expect the same of the nation as a whole. Clinton is a national polarizing figure and America has had enough of polarizing figures. She will invigorate the right and likely increase Republican turn-out in a nominally Democratic year.
However, even Clinton supporters worry about the effect of a Clinton nomination. A recent article from the Associated Press tells of anonymous Democrats (everyone is afraid of the Clinton wrath) who worry that nominating Clinton will hurt down-ballot Democrats in close races. (read the article here) Clinton's polarizing persona will likely incur a groundswell of Republican opposition who turnout on election day just to oppose Clinton. These Republicans may not be able to defeat Clinton, but they could have a large effect on congressional and senatorial candidates.
EDITORIAL ALERT:
It is in my humble opinion, as a member of the Obama bias, that Clinton would surely win in November. I do believe she is electable, but she does not have much of a margin of error. Republicans at this juncture hate their choices for their nomination. They pleaded for Fred Thompson to enter the race, but he has already started to drop in the polls, had a major campaign shake-up, a poor financial showing the in the last quarter, and all this before officially declaring his candidacy. Thompson is a flame-out and it is still doubtful that Gingrich will enter the race. Republicans hate their choices, so why should we give them a reason to turnout on election day? Karl Rove had a successful strategy in 2004: turnout the base by putting hot-button issues on the ballot (abortion and gay-marriage). To conservatives Hillary Clinton IS a hot-button issue. Rove is hoping for the Democrats to put her on the ballot because it effectively fires up their base as much as gay marriage does (mostly because the far right sees her as a lesbian, anyway. A stupid claim). I worry about the effects on the Senate race in Colorado, the Senate race in Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, etc. if Clinton is on the ballot. Obama still has room to grow, whereas Clinton only has the margin of error. I don't want to give any more reason for conservatives to turnout on November 4th, 2008.
-Wyatt Earp
What this seems to say to me is that Democrats don't particularly like Clinton, out of the top three candidates, or trust her as a person; however, they trust her to win in November and that is all that matters after eight years of Bush. Competency before likability. However, Democrats, sadly, are not the only people who elect presidents in November. Republicans and independents count for something too. Therefore, it would be prudent to see what the polls tell us in presumed head-to-head match-ups for the general election. (It should be noted that these are national polls and reflect the supposed popular vote not the Electoral College, which is still the means of electing our presidents.)
Real Clear Politics is a good source for head-to-head results. They take the results of five to seven other polls and average them together to get an aggregate result. For simplicity's sake, I am going to just compare Clinton and Obama's results with the Republican field.
Clinton v. Giuliani (45.7% - 44.7% +1 Clinton spread)
Clinton v. Thompson (46.8% - 43% +3.8 Clinton spread)
Clinton v. McCain (46% - 43.8% +2.2 Clinton spread)
Clinton v. Romney (48% - 38.3% +9.7 Clinton spread)
Obama v. Giuliani (46.2% - 43% +3.2 Obama spread)
Obama v. Thompson (49.8% - 36.8% +13 Obama spread)
Obama v. McCain (46.5% - 40.8% +5.7 Obama spread)
Obama v. Romney (49% -36% +13 Obama spread)
In an election versus Giuliani, Obama does 2.2% better than Clinton
Versus Thompson, Obama does 9.2% better than Clinton
Versus McCain, Obama does 3.5% better than Clinton
Versus Romney, Obama does 3.3% better than Clinton
What is the cause of this? The cause is two-fold: 1) Clinton has a virtual 100% name recognition and most Americans have already made their mind-up about her, positive or negative, 2) Obama is still getting his name out there, so most Americans identify his party label, Democrat, as the overriding factor in their decision instead of their opinion about him. Clinton does worse than the "generic Democrat", while Obama does comparable to or better than the "generic Democrat." Every single candidate's unfavorables rise as the election goes on, so Obama's numbers may go down; however, every has their opinion on Clinton, so hers can't get much lower. (Clinton has a 47-49 favorable/unfavorable rating).
A couple of conclusions can be reached by looking at this data and it all depends on your bias. The Clinton bias would say that these are hard numbers, not likely to move because she has spent the last 15 years deflecting the Republican machine. Her favorables can only go up. Obama's numbers are soft because he has yet to be introduced to everyone in the nation, we have no idea what will happen to his numbers if that happens. Like her or not, she is the most capable Democrat to be elected president.
The Obama bias would say that there is very little wiggle room if we nominate Clinton. Obama's numbers, even if they fall, have a longer way to go than Clinton's until they are in the negative. Plus, Iowans who have met the candidates like Obama more than Clinton; we should, hypothetically, expect the same of the nation as a whole. Clinton is a national polarizing figure and America has had enough of polarizing figures. She will invigorate the right and likely increase Republican turn-out in a nominally Democratic year.
However, even Clinton supporters worry about the effect of a Clinton nomination. A recent article from the Associated Press tells of anonymous Democrats (everyone is afraid of the Clinton wrath) who worry that nominating Clinton will hurt down-ballot Democrats in close races. (read the article here) Clinton's polarizing persona will likely incur a groundswell of Republican opposition who turnout on election day just to oppose Clinton. These Republicans may not be able to defeat Clinton, but they could have a large effect on congressional and senatorial candidates.
EDITORIAL ALERT:
It is in my humble opinion, as a member of the Obama bias, that Clinton would surely win in November. I do believe she is electable, but she does not have much of a margin of error. Republicans at this juncture hate their choices for their nomination. They pleaded for Fred Thompson to enter the race, but he has already started to drop in the polls, had a major campaign shake-up, a poor financial showing the in the last quarter, and all this before officially declaring his candidacy. Thompson is a flame-out and it is still doubtful that Gingrich will enter the race. Republicans hate their choices, so why should we give them a reason to turnout on election day? Karl Rove had a successful strategy in 2004: turnout the base by putting hot-button issues on the ballot (abortion and gay-marriage). To conservatives Hillary Clinton IS a hot-button issue. Rove is hoping for the Democrats to put her on the ballot because it effectively fires up their base as much as gay marriage does (mostly because the far right sees her as a lesbian, anyway. A stupid claim). I worry about the effects on the Senate race in Colorado, the Senate race in Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, etc. if Clinton is on the ballot. Obama still has room to grow, whereas Clinton only has the margin of error. I don't want to give any more reason for conservatives to turnout on November 4th, 2008.
-Wyatt Earp
Thursday, August 9, 2007
The race for Cabinet
While voters throughout the next year will be electing the Democratic nominee, who they elect will correlate to who is in the cabinet. The behind-the-scenes race for such hot-bed positions as Secretary of State is on. While there are no polls for this sort of thing, who is winning?
According to the whispering class if the election were held today the high-level cabinet would look like such: President Hillary Clinton, Vice-President Bill Richardson and Secretary of State Joe Biden.
Bill Richardson has not laid a hand on any of the other presidential candidates and it has been suggested that the nominee will be more forgiving of the squeaky-clean Richardson, so forgiving so as to appoint him Vice-President. Even in the AFL-CIO debate from this week where it seemed like everyone was taking hits, Richardson's name did not appear in coverage of the event because he avoided all attacks. He merely defines himself by his record as governor of New Mexico, a strong record at that. He is strong pick of VP. The Mountain-west is the linchpin of the Dems' '08 strategy and the governor of NM would have a lot of appeal. He is Hispanic, a large voting bloc that will help shape the race in many swing states (CO, FL, AR, NM). He has a record of experience if that is called in to question for the nominee (Obama, Edwards, even Clinton).
Joe Biden's chief campaign message is that "He is the only one with a plan for Iraq." The debates have been Biden's strongest suit because his blunt, in-your-face style has appealed to voters tired of pontificating and posturing. And at the debates if a question is asked about Iraq, I'm just kidding, when a question is asked about Iraq Biden stands in the face of public opinion and says that we need a plan to stabilize Iraq not just withdrawal. Visit his website www.planforiraq.com for more information about his intended policy. He has been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for three decades and his relationship with Richard Lugar (R-IN) defines the moderate internationalism opinion of the Senate. He is a perfect fit for Secretary of State; however, he said in a recent Newsweek article, "I promise you, I don’t want to be secretary of State. I’m going to be taking sharper and sharper exceptions with my colleagues. And it won’t be easy to then turn around and ask to be secretary of State." However, that does not answer the question of: If you were offered Secretary of State, would you accept? Plus, it's simply impolite for presidential candidates to discuss desires for cabinet positions.
It should be noted that Bill Richardson is probably in second place for Secretary of State. However, this post is relatively inane, because the cabinet depends solely on the president-elect and cannot be gaged on the campaigns presently being waged. However, this is the opinion of those currently making noise.
VICE-PRESIDENT
In the past week both former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Rudy Guiliani were quoted saying that the Democratic ticket will likely be Clinton- Obama. I am quite sure that this will not happen. I don't take exception with Clinton winning the Democratic nomination, but I disagree that she would ever, in a million years, select Obama as her running mate. There are a few reasons why.
Sheer Bitterness - Clintons are a grudge-holding people and as time goes on Obama will take more specific shots at Clinton. She will certainly not want to reward this behavior by making Obama the presumptuous 2016 Democratic nominee.
Took much voltage at the bottom of the ticket - Clinton's negative persona is perceived as cold, calculating and political. Obama is perceived as young, fresh, electrifying and inspiring. It could be said that they're the perfect foil for the presidential ticket, but that is why Clinton won't take the deal. Obama will be holding a rally for Clinton, yet a crowd of 20,000 could leave being inspired and wondering why the names weren't flipped. Just like her husband, Hillary would be cautious to hold a joint-rally with Obama because his introduction might outshine her speech. Don't let the coin outshine you.
No geographical significance - Obama is the Senator from Illinois. Clinton is going to carry Illinois without a shadow of a doubt. However, Vice Presidents are rarely ever seen to actual sway their own state. Yet geographical disparity is a quality sought after in VP candidates (notably, the 1960 Boston-Austin ticket).
Those are just three reasons why Clinton will not ask Obama to be her Vice-President. So, who should Clinton ask to be her Vice-President, if nominated? In my opinion she should ask Senator Evan Bayh.
Evan Bayh is a first-rate centrist with a long history of public service. He is a member of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic centrist organization founded by Bill Clinton. He has served as Indiana's Secretary of State, two terms as their governor and now is in his second term as their junior Senator. He received over 60% of the vote twice for Senate in a Republican state. While he will not put Indiana into play, especially with Clinton heading the ticket, he can help swing Ohio or Missouri in the Democrat's favor. He is a strong pick and will likely be on every nominee's short list. I see it as likely that she would pick Bayh over Richardson. However, the two will surely be competing for the position. And the race is on.
Opinion makers have to make news if none exist and so the race for cabinet positions is a good way to do so. I thought I would add my opinions on a non-existent race.
-Wyatt Earp
According to the whispering class if the election were held today the high-level cabinet would look like such: President Hillary Clinton, Vice-President Bill Richardson and Secretary of State Joe Biden.
Bill Richardson has not laid a hand on any of the other presidential candidates and it has been suggested that the nominee will be more forgiving of the squeaky-clean Richardson, so forgiving so as to appoint him Vice-President. Even in the AFL-CIO debate from this week where it seemed like everyone was taking hits, Richardson's name did not appear in coverage of the event because he avoided all attacks. He merely defines himself by his record as governor of New Mexico, a strong record at that. He is strong pick of VP. The Mountain-west is the linchpin of the Dems' '08 strategy and the governor of NM would have a lot of appeal. He is Hispanic, a large voting bloc that will help shape the race in many swing states (CO, FL, AR, NM). He has a record of experience if that is called in to question for the nominee (Obama, Edwards, even Clinton).
Joe Biden's chief campaign message is that "He is the only one with a plan for Iraq." The debates have been Biden's strongest suit because his blunt, in-your-face style has appealed to voters tired of pontificating and posturing. And at the debates if a question is asked about Iraq, I'm just kidding, when a question is asked about Iraq Biden stands in the face of public opinion and says that we need a plan to stabilize Iraq not just withdrawal. Visit his website www.planforiraq.com for more information about his intended policy. He has been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for three decades and his relationship with Richard Lugar (R-IN) defines the moderate internationalism opinion of the Senate. He is a perfect fit for Secretary of State; however, he said in a recent Newsweek article, "I promise you, I don’t want to be secretary of State. I’m going to be taking sharper and sharper exceptions with my colleagues. And it won’t be easy to then turn around and ask to be secretary of State." However, that does not answer the question of: If you were offered Secretary of State, would you accept? Plus, it's simply impolite for presidential candidates to discuss desires for cabinet positions.
It should be noted that Bill Richardson is probably in second place for Secretary of State. However, this post is relatively inane, because the cabinet depends solely on the president-elect and cannot be gaged on the campaigns presently being waged. However, this is the opinion of those currently making noise.
VICE-PRESIDENT
In the past week both former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Rudy Guiliani were quoted saying that the Democratic ticket will likely be Clinton- Obama. I am quite sure that this will not happen. I don't take exception with Clinton winning the Democratic nomination, but I disagree that she would ever, in a million years, select Obama as her running mate. There are a few reasons why.
Sheer Bitterness - Clintons are a grudge-holding people and as time goes on Obama will take more specific shots at Clinton. She will certainly not want to reward this behavior by making Obama the presumptuous 2016 Democratic nominee.
Took much voltage at the bottom of the ticket - Clinton's negative persona is perceived as cold, calculating and political. Obama is perceived as young, fresh, electrifying and inspiring. It could be said that they're the perfect foil for the presidential ticket, but that is why Clinton won't take the deal. Obama will be holding a rally for Clinton, yet a crowd of 20,000 could leave being inspired and wondering why the names weren't flipped. Just like her husband, Hillary would be cautious to hold a joint-rally with Obama because his introduction might outshine her speech. Don't let the coin outshine you.
No geographical significance - Obama is the Senator from Illinois. Clinton is going to carry Illinois without a shadow of a doubt. However, Vice Presidents are rarely ever seen to actual sway their own state. Yet geographical disparity is a quality sought after in VP candidates (notably, the 1960 Boston-Austin ticket).
Those are just three reasons why Clinton will not ask Obama to be her Vice-President. So, who should Clinton ask to be her Vice-President, if nominated? In my opinion she should ask Senator Evan Bayh.
Evan Bayh is a first-rate centrist with a long history of public service. He is a member of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic centrist organization founded by Bill Clinton. He has served as Indiana's Secretary of State, two terms as their governor and now is in his second term as their junior Senator. He received over 60% of the vote twice for Senate in a Republican state. While he will not put Indiana into play, especially with Clinton heading the ticket, he can help swing Ohio or Missouri in the Democrat's favor. He is a strong pick and will likely be on every nominee's short list. I see it as likely that she would pick Bayh over Richardson. However, the two will surely be competing for the position. And the race is on.
Opinion makers have to make news if none exist and so the race for cabinet positions is a good way to do so. I thought I would add my opinions on a non-existent race.
-Wyatt Earp
Monday, August 6, 2007
If they're shooting at you, you must be doing something right
In the past couple of weeks all the presidential candidates, it seems, are shooting criticism at Barack Obama. Obama, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, gave what has been called a "major foreign policy speech" this past week where he outlined his intended terrorism policy, if elected president. The highlights are as follows:
Obama proposed that we are fighting on the wrong front in our war on terrorism. Instead we need to be focusing our attention on Pakistan and Afghanistan, where terrorism runs deepest. To Pakistan, Obama said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will." Iraq is the wrong war to be fighting if we are to succeed in the war on terrorism, Obama claims. However, in a later question and answer session, Obama claimed that nuclear weapons were "off the table" in dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Both of these claims: fighting Pakistan and the no-nuclear option have provoked reactions from all sides of the presidential race. Pakistan, naturally, had the strongest reaction. Protests where the American flag was burned raged in the Pakistani capitol, while President Musharraf called Obama's remarks "irresponsible." Hillary Clinton said that, if the U.S. were to attack Pakistan, a president should never take the nuclear option off the table. Edwards agreed with Clinton's assessment.
It has been suggested numerous times that Obama only came out with this speech to rebuke Clinton's suggesting that he was "naive" in foreign affairs. The casual reporter nearly only look at the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs to find out that Obama has been calling for this same foreign policy strategy for some time. Barack Obama, himself, wrote an article for Foreign Affairs, viewable here, where he said that America must "refoucus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan- the central front in our war against al Qaeda- so that we are confronting terrorists where their roots run deepest." While he did not go in to as great detail as in his recent speech, the strategy remains the same: Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror and to see the war to success we must bring justice to all terrorists, even if they lie in ally territory.
What does all of this squabbling and definition ultimately mean? It could mean a lot or it could mean very little. However, on the Democratic side, Obama's policies have become the leading headline, positive or negative. There is an old adage: say what you want about me, just spell my name right. As far as I can tell, everyone is spelling Obama's name right. Clinton, Edwards and even Mitt Romney in the most recent debate have used Obama's policies as the barometer for their candidacy. If Clinton's day is spent deciding how she feels about Obama's foreign policy credentials, then that is a victory for Obama. However, distortions of Obama's main points could go far to hurt his campaign. For instance, Republicans like McCain are saying that it is a bad idea to "announce to the world we're attacking another country." Even though that is a distortion of Obama's central point.
The fact remains that Obama has given two major foreign policy speeches, Edwards has given one and Clinton has given none. Edwards has called the war on terrorism a bumper-sticker war with no true guiding policy while Obama has called for greater focus in the war on terrorism to root out terrorism where it runs deepest. Clinton, in typical incumbent fashion, has let her perception as the "steamroll candidate" continue and is running a reactive campaign. As far as I can tell, Clinton believes that the war on terrorism is not a bumper-sticker; however, disagrees with Obama's plans for conduct of it.
This episode could go a long way to develop Obama's rapid-response team. He will need it, because it will only get worse.
-Wyatt Earp
Obama proposed that we are fighting on the wrong front in our war on terrorism. Instead we need to be focusing our attention on Pakistan and Afghanistan, where terrorism runs deepest. To Pakistan, Obama said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will." Iraq is the wrong war to be fighting if we are to succeed in the war on terrorism, Obama claims. However, in a later question and answer session, Obama claimed that nuclear weapons were "off the table" in dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Both of these claims: fighting Pakistan and the no-nuclear option have provoked reactions from all sides of the presidential race. Pakistan, naturally, had the strongest reaction. Protests where the American flag was burned raged in the Pakistani capitol, while President Musharraf called Obama's remarks "irresponsible." Hillary Clinton said that, if the U.S. were to attack Pakistan, a president should never take the nuclear option off the table. Edwards agreed with Clinton's assessment.
It has been suggested numerous times that Obama only came out with this speech to rebuke Clinton's suggesting that he was "naive" in foreign affairs. The casual reporter nearly only look at the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs to find out that Obama has been calling for this same foreign policy strategy for some time. Barack Obama, himself, wrote an article for Foreign Affairs, viewable here, where he said that America must "refoucus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan- the central front in our war against al Qaeda- so that we are confronting terrorists where their roots run deepest." While he did not go in to as great detail as in his recent speech, the strategy remains the same: Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror and to see the war to success we must bring justice to all terrorists, even if they lie in ally territory.
What does all of this squabbling and definition ultimately mean? It could mean a lot or it could mean very little. However, on the Democratic side, Obama's policies have become the leading headline, positive or negative. There is an old adage: say what you want about me, just spell my name right. As far as I can tell, everyone is spelling Obama's name right. Clinton, Edwards and even Mitt Romney in the most recent debate have used Obama's policies as the barometer for their candidacy. If Clinton's day is spent deciding how she feels about Obama's foreign policy credentials, then that is a victory for Obama. However, distortions of Obama's main points could go far to hurt his campaign. For instance, Republicans like McCain are saying that it is a bad idea to "announce to the world we're attacking another country." Even though that is a distortion of Obama's central point.
The fact remains that Obama has given two major foreign policy speeches, Edwards has given one and Clinton has given none. Edwards has called the war on terrorism a bumper-sticker war with no true guiding policy while Obama has called for greater focus in the war on terrorism to root out terrorism where it runs deepest. Clinton, in typical incumbent fashion, has let her perception as the "steamroll candidate" continue and is running a reactive campaign. As far as I can tell, Clinton believes that the war on terrorism is not a bumper-sticker; however, disagrees with Obama's plans for conduct of it.
This episode could go a long way to develop Obama's rapid-response team. He will need it, because it will only get worse.
-Wyatt Earp
Thursday, August 2, 2007
PA-03 is a targeted 2008 race
Good news for all progressive minded northwestern Pennsylvanians (there are so many of you): The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has listed the Pennsylvania's 3rd District as one of its targeted 2008 races to unseat a Republican incumbent. The 3rd District includes Erie County and parts of Armstrong, Butler, Crawford, Mercer, Venango and Warren counties. Including Allegheny College (my alma mater). Hooray.
Representative Chris Van Hollen (MD-08), the head of the DCCC, released a memo, available here, where he expressed confidence in the recruitment of candidates in Republican districts. One of which is the seat currently held by Phil English, PA's 3rd District. English was elected in the Republican wave of 1994 and has not had a serious challenger since 1996. He defeated perennial office-seeker Steve Porter by a margin of 53%-42% in 2006. And it looks like English might have a fight ahead of him in 2008.
At least three Democrats have stepped forward to challenge English. Kyle Foust is the DCCC's hand-picked candidate, it seems. Van Hollen says of Foust, "Foust is an Erie County Councilman with a reputation as a leader who reaches across party lines to get things done for his constituents." Phil English was an Erie Councilman before running for Congress, so this would make for an interesting match-up if Foust were to get the Democratic nod. Both men were born in Erie and will be battling for it's heart and soul. Check out Foust's campaign website here.
Another credible challenger is Erie lawyer, Tom Myers (no known website found). Lastly of the known challengers is Mike Waltner, a religious leader from Erie. You can check out his campaign website here.
It is also assumed that Steve Porter will try again to vacate Mr. English from his seat. I wish he wouldn't, but he will anyway.
The Democratic Party primary will be an exciting one in Pennsylvania's 3rd District. The heightened competition will bring national attention, and money, to the general election race. English will have his hands full and it should prove to be an interesting race to watch. Western PA saw an exciting race in 2006 in the 4th District with Democrat challenger Jason Altmire defeating incumbent Melissa Hart. Altmire ran solely on a campaign of change and that same theme will likely be used to oust English. Phil English was actually Melissa Hart's chief of staff when she was in the State Senate. Let's see if 2008 brings the same treatment to English as 2006 did to his boss.
-Wyatt Earp
Representative Chris Van Hollen (MD-08), the head of the DCCC, released a memo, available here, where he expressed confidence in the recruitment of candidates in Republican districts. One of which is the seat currently held by Phil English, PA's 3rd District. English was elected in the Republican wave of 1994 and has not had a serious challenger since 1996. He defeated perennial office-seeker Steve Porter by a margin of 53%-42% in 2006. And it looks like English might have a fight ahead of him in 2008.
At least three Democrats have stepped forward to challenge English. Kyle Foust is the DCCC's hand-picked candidate, it seems. Van Hollen says of Foust, "Foust is an Erie County Councilman with a reputation as a leader who reaches across party lines to get things done for his constituents." Phil English was an Erie Councilman before running for Congress, so this would make for an interesting match-up if Foust were to get the Democratic nod. Both men were born in Erie and will be battling for it's heart and soul. Check out Foust's campaign website here.
Another credible challenger is Erie lawyer, Tom Myers (no known website found). Lastly of the known challengers is Mike Waltner, a religious leader from Erie. You can check out his campaign website here.
It is also assumed that Steve Porter will try again to vacate Mr. English from his seat. I wish he wouldn't, but he will anyway.
The Democratic Party primary will be an exciting one in Pennsylvania's 3rd District. The heightened competition will bring national attention, and money, to the general election race. English will have his hands full and it should prove to be an interesting race to watch. Western PA saw an exciting race in 2006 in the 4th District with Democrat challenger Jason Altmire defeating incumbent Melissa Hart. Altmire ran solely on a campaign of change and that same theme will likely be used to oust English. Phil English was actually Melissa Hart's chief of staff when she was in the State Senate. Let's see if 2008 brings the same treatment to English as 2006 did to his boss.
-Wyatt Earp
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
YouTube Debate and the Democrats' Opportunity
I, like the 100 other people actually paying attention at this stage in the race, turned in to the CNN/YouTube Democratic presidential debate not entirely sure what to expect. I was fearful that it would be a complete train wreck with poorly filtered questions, canned responses to candid questions and a mass media still unsure how to harness the Internet. After watching the debate I was surprised. It did not suck.
The Questions
The questions used egalitarian terminology and asked questions on America's mind not on the media's mind. The questions directed at Hillary highlighted this best: how can you, as a woman, negotiate with Middle Eastern countries that don't afford women basic rights? and is America really ready to see the history books read Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton (Clinton fatigue)? Anderson Cooper would have never asked those questions because they're too direct. YouTube, in its typical see-for-yourself fashion, opened up a window to the presidential race that was at once candid and informative. Only a small portion of us will actually get to meet any of the presidential candidates (a large portion if you live in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina). The YouTube debate allowed us to see questions that we've been wondering and responses spoken to the average YouTube user instead of the quintessential debate watching politico (myself included in the former and later).
The Responses
As already stated the responses seemed more relaxed and less canned. It, in my opinion, had more entertainment value than most debates. Granted there was not much contention in the evening (except for the brief moment of disagreement between Obama and Clinton over negotiation policy). However, Joe Biden took the reigns on entertainment value with his typical blunt answers. In response to a question where a questioner referred to his gun as "his baby", Biden came back by saying "If that's his baby, then he needs help." The candid atmosphere of the night allowed Biden to flourish. Not surprisingly, post-debate polls showed that Biden's favorability increased the most out of all the presidential candidates.
My One Regret
My only regret was that there was only one question about education and it was only allowed to be answered by two candidates. The question asked if you, as president, would overhaul No Child Left Behind or repeal it. Cooper turned 90 degrees and asked Bill Richardson his opinions. Richardson, to much applause (mine included), said that he would repeal NCLB. He argued that "the one-size-fits all doesn't work, it doesn't emphasize teacher training, it doesn't emphasize disabled kids. . ." He also added that we should have a $40,000/year minimum wage for teachers, and we should have a federally funded program that focuses on the arts (music, theater, painting, etc). I was eating it up, and then Joe Biden tried to answer but was over ambiguous with his response that boiled down to "I'll have to look into it more." However, no other candidate was given the opportunity to discuss education. I regret that. It's more important than having two candidates "discuss."
In conclusion, I really enjoyed the debate because it was entertaining (in a good way) and it was informative. The debate structure still leaves something to desire when respondents cannot reply to each other's comments unless called on. This prohibits actual debate, but to allow all eight candidates to speak there mind would only allow for one question to be answered. So, for what we have been seeing, it was a quality debate and I am glad that the DNC sanctioned it. Good one, Dean.
Republican Response
The Republicans are scheduled to have a like debate in September; however, it now seems likely that both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney will withdrawal from the debate. This is not official, but it will be likely be so soon. This could prove disastrous for the Republicans if they do not bridge the technology gap now in the primary. YouTube is a force to be reckoned with, but only the Democrats (and Ron Paul) are harvesting its outreach power.
Ever since Ray C. Bliss became Chairman of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s, the Republicans have been two steps ahead of the Democrats in every campaign tactic known to man. Direct mail, candidate-training, low-dollar fundraising and image creation. Which is why Jimmy Carter needed Dick Nixon's legacy to win and Bill Clinton had to win by annexing conservative issues. However, the internet has leveled the playing field because the Republicans are not using it as extensively as the Democrats are.
Case in point: Go to Rudy Giuliani's website (www.joinrudy2008.com) and then Mitt Romney's (www.mittromney.com). They are standard websites. Have nice interfaces and are easily navigable. Then go to Hillary Clinton's website (www.hillaryclinton.com). It stands up to Mitt's and Rudy's pretty well, but has an added feature missed on Republican website. You can join or create your own group to help organize events or fundraise for Hillary. A neat feature, but Hillary has not mastered it comparable to her opponents John Edwards and Barack Obama. On Edwards website you can join "One Corps" that features 77 chapters in NC, 79 in Wisconsin and 137 in California. At Barack Obama's website which, in my opinion, is the best of all the candidates because of its social-networking ability. Obama's campaign team is made up of most of the techies that created Howard Dean's 2004 online success (minus Joe Trippi). Obama's website features "My Barack Obama.com" which allows viewers to create their own profile to find other like-minded Obama supports in the hopes of organizing.
When all is said and done it is clear that the Democrats are seeing the power of the internet are seeking to understand it. Obama raised one million dollars off the internet in the last quarter alone. The Republicans are stupid to not try to cultivate this organizing device and the best way to start would be to embrace YouTube and its debate. YouTube is owned by Google now, so its not as free-wielding as it once was, so it can be trusted to some extent. The Republicans must get on board now or they will miss the train completely.
Another case in point: If you type in "Rudy Giuliani" into YouTube the first video to come up is titled "Rudy Giuliani in drag smooching Donald Trump." You never get a second chance to make a first impression, as they say.
-Wyatt Earp
The Questions
The questions used egalitarian terminology and asked questions on America's mind not on the media's mind. The questions directed at Hillary highlighted this best: how can you, as a woman, negotiate with Middle Eastern countries that don't afford women basic rights? and is America really ready to see the history books read Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton (Clinton fatigue)? Anderson Cooper would have never asked those questions because they're too direct. YouTube, in its typical see-for-yourself fashion, opened up a window to the presidential race that was at once candid and informative. Only a small portion of us will actually get to meet any of the presidential candidates (a large portion if you live in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina). The YouTube debate allowed us to see questions that we've been wondering and responses spoken to the average YouTube user instead of the quintessential debate watching politico (myself included in the former and later).
The Responses
As already stated the responses seemed more relaxed and less canned. It, in my opinion, had more entertainment value than most debates. Granted there was not much contention in the evening (except for the brief moment of disagreement between Obama and Clinton over negotiation policy). However, Joe Biden took the reigns on entertainment value with his typical blunt answers. In response to a question where a questioner referred to his gun as "his baby", Biden came back by saying "If that's his baby, then he needs help." The candid atmosphere of the night allowed Biden to flourish. Not surprisingly, post-debate polls showed that Biden's favorability increased the most out of all the presidential candidates.
My One Regret
My only regret was that there was only one question about education and it was only allowed to be answered by two candidates. The question asked if you, as president, would overhaul No Child Left Behind or repeal it. Cooper turned 90 degrees and asked Bill Richardson his opinions. Richardson, to much applause (mine included), said that he would repeal NCLB. He argued that "the one-size-fits all doesn't work, it doesn't emphasize teacher training, it doesn't emphasize disabled kids. . ." He also added that we should have a $40,000/year minimum wage for teachers, and we should have a federally funded program that focuses on the arts (music, theater, painting, etc). I was eating it up, and then Joe Biden tried to answer but was over ambiguous with his response that boiled down to "I'll have to look into it more." However, no other candidate was given the opportunity to discuss education. I regret that. It's more important than having two candidates "discuss."
In conclusion, I really enjoyed the debate because it was entertaining (in a good way) and it was informative. The debate structure still leaves something to desire when respondents cannot reply to each other's comments unless called on. This prohibits actual debate, but to allow all eight candidates to speak there mind would only allow for one question to be answered. So, for what we have been seeing, it was a quality debate and I am glad that the DNC sanctioned it. Good one, Dean.
Republican Response
The Republicans are scheduled to have a like debate in September; however, it now seems likely that both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney will withdrawal from the debate. This is not official, but it will be likely be so soon. This could prove disastrous for the Republicans if they do not bridge the technology gap now in the primary. YouTube is a force to be reckoned with, but only the Democrats (and Ron Paul) are harvesting its outreach power.
Ever since Ray C. Bliss became Chairman of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s, the Republicans have been two steps ahead of the Democrats in every campaign tactic known to man. Direct mail, candidate-training, low-dollar fundraising and image creation. Which is why Jimmy Carter needed Dick Nixon's legacy to win and Bill Clinton had to win by annexing conservative issues. However, the internet has leveled the playing field because the Republicans are not using it as extensively as the Democrats are.
Case in point: Go to Rudy Giuliani's website (www.joinrudy2008.com) and then Mitt Romney's (www.mittromney.com). They are standard websites. Have nice interfaces and are easily navigable. Then go to Hillary Clinton's website (www.hillaryclinton.com). It stands up to Mitt's and Rudy's pretty well, but has an added feature missed on Republican website. You can join or create your own group to help organize events or fundraise for Hillary. A neat feature, but Hillary has not mastered it comparable to her opponents John Edwards and Barack Obama. On Edwards website you can join "One Corps" that features 77 chapters in NC, 79 in Wisconsin and 137 in California. At Barack Obama's website which, in my opinion, is the best of all the candidates because of its social-networking ability. Obama's campaign team is made up of most of the techies that created Howard Dean's 2004 online success (minus Joe Trippi). Obama's website features "My Barack Obama.com" which allows viewers to create their own profile to find other like-minded Obama supports in the hopes of organizing.
When all is said and done it is clear that the Democrats are seeing the power of the internet are seeking to understand it. Obama raised one million dollars off the internet in the last quarter alone. The Republicans are stupid to not try to cultivate this organizing device and the best way to start would be to embrace YouTube and its debate. YouTube is owned by Google now, so its not as free-wielding as it once was, so it can be trusted to some extent. The Republicans must get on board now or they will miss the train completely.
Another case in point: If you type in "Rudy Giuliani" into YouTube the first video to come up is titled "Rudy Giuliani in drag smooching Donald Trump." You never get a second chance to make a first impression, as they say.
-Wyatt Earp
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Colorado Senate 2008: Mark Udall v. Bob Schaffer
I went dark for about two weeks because I was completing a mock campaign for George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management summer program. We were running the 2008 open-seat Senate race in Colorado. It will be the most competitive Senate race in 2008 and should be looked upon with great interest. Two-term Senator Wayne Allard (Republican) is stepping down from his Colorado seat, giving the Democrats their best opportunity to widened their majority in the Senate. Two people have already declared: Republican Bob Schaffer and Democrat Mark Udall. Quick history:
Bob Schaffer - Schaffer served for nine years in the State Senator before being elected to the U.S. Congress from Colorado's Fourth District in 1996. He served in Congress till Jan, 2003 when he began his failed primary campaign for the U.S. Senate - he lost in the primary to Pete Coors who ended up losing the general election to Ken Salazar in 2004. He was appointed, in 2005, to fulfill a vacancy in the Colorado Board of Education and then ran successfully in 2006 for that seat.
Mark Udall- Udall was the director of Colorado's Outward Bound School for a decade. After serving one term in the Colorado House of Representatives, Udall successfully ran for Congress in Colorado's Second District. He is currently serving his fifth term in Congress. Mark comes from the political Udall family. His father Mo was a Congressman from Colorado for 30 years and his uncle Stewart was the Secretary of the Interior under John F. Kennedy.
The state of Colorado: Colorado is trending blue in a big way. Before 2004, a Democrat had not won a Colorado Senate seat since 1986. But, Ken Salazar defeated Pete Coors with a margin of 5% of the vote. In 2006, Democrat Bill Ritter Jr. won the governorship in a cake-walk, defeating Republican Bob Beauprez by a margin of 17% of the vote. Democrats now hold a majority of U.S. Congress seats (4 to 3) and recently won the majority in the State House and Senate. 2006 became the first time in 50 years that a Democratic governor had a Democratic House of Representatives to work with. However, this can not mean that the Democrats will win without a fight. The majority of registered voters (around 42%) are unaffiliated, and the number of registered Republicans outnumbered the number of registered Democrats. So, the independents or unaffiliated voters decide the election at every turn. Colorado will elect a moderate in 2008, but will it be a moderate Democrat or a moderate Republican?
What issues should each campaign lead with?
Schaffer's Message Box
Strengths - Shaffer has a tremendous record on education and he should run with it. He is considered a national leader on education, favoring local, not federal, control of schools. He is a strong proponent of charter schools (which do not take funding from public schools) and voted against No Child Left Behind. Education is not currently a top line issue, but will become so once NCLB comes up for re-authorization and every school will start asking itself: am I better off now than I was in 2002? This could play to Schaffer's favor as he will argue that local communities should fight against the federal bureaucracy that took away your funding when you needed it the most. And his two years on the Colorado Board of Education will only strengthen this issue.
Education can be used as a "bridge issue" where voters will listen to Schaffer enumerate other issues because they agree with him on education. Schaffer has a strong record of boarder security and will likely use this issue to his favor in a state that has a large immigrant population. This would energize the base, but could backfire in a 20% Hispanic/Latino state.
Weaknesses- Schaffer's Achilles heel to his education policy could be his adamant support of vouchers. He is the President of Parental Alliance for Choice in Education, a non-profit that advocates for more vouchers in Colorado. Udall has a strong anti-vouchers record and has argued to oppose anything that "breaks apart one of the last institutions that hold us together as a society, and that's our public schools." Schaffer should worry about getting branded "anti-public schools and pro-vouchers." Two simplistic arguments that likely could stick.
Schaffer is vice-president of Aspect Energy, LLC, which focuses on energy, mining and other projects. This could prove to be a liability to Schaffer. The environment is a cause championed by many in Colorado and is not a partisan issue there as seen elsewhere. Udall, if deft, will try to brand Schaffer as a pawn of Big Interests, as shown by his seat on the board of a Big Energy firm. The term "Colorado is not for sale" will likely come up at least once. As global warming becomes a larger issue, firms like Schaffer's are being to be seen as the opposition.
Lastly, Schaffer voted for the authorization of the War in Iraq and has not differed greatly from that opinion since.
Possible Messages/Themes: "Returning power to Colorado." "Bob Schaffer, because Colorado deserves the choice." "Bob Schaffer: national leader, local focus." "Putting Colorado first." If challenged in the primary: "The True Conservative choice."
These are possible message or themes that the Schaffer camp could employ. All of them speak to returning the locus of power to Colorado and away from the federal government, which is the value that binds all of Schaffer's positions together. Also, it is a truly conservative value and differs from the Bush brand of conservativism, so Schaffer should stay away, politically and financially, from the lightning rod that is Bush. Schaffer is a true conservative and he should not be afraid to say so.
Mark Udall - Message Box
Strengths- Udall's first strength is his name. Udall is a trusted name out west, and in uncertain times, going to the name you trust is always prevalent. While Schaffer has the edge in education experience the wind is still at Udall's back. Education is a net-plus issue for Democrats (Democrats are seen as the best arbiters of education policy) and Udall has some credentials on the issue. Udall served twenty years on the faculty of the Outward Bound School, the last ten as the executive director of Colorado's Outward Bound system. (Outward Bound teaches environmental education by taking disadvantaged children and giving them an education by combining classroom with the outdoors.) This helps Udall because it bridges perfectly to his strong environmental position.
Udall has served the past ten years as the congressman from Colorado's second district, which includes Broomfield, Boulder, Eagle, Jefferson and Adams counties - all of which are important swing counties, and represent nearly 35% of the entire CO electorate.
Lastly, Udall voted against authorization of the war in Iraq in 2002, but has not voted for a withdrawal. He has developed a position that is moderate and appealing to the independent Colorado voters.
Weaknesses- Udall's greatest weakness is the constituency that he represents. The Udall camp's greatest fear should be being labeled a "Boulder liberal" and not being able to shake the image. Because in the end, campaign are about competing images (one developed by yourself and one developed by your opponent), which one will prevail? Issues support that image. Udall must use every opportunity from here on out to be seen as a moderate with consistent Western values. Udall has been seen recently hanging around Representative Marilyn Musgrave, an ultra-conservative. While being bi-partisan is the image Udall wants to create, hanging around Musgrave will likely alienate his liberal base. Udall has a line to straddle and must never be caught riding side-saddle.
Possible Messages/Themes: "Trust Udall to secure our future." "Leading Colorado forward." "
The image that I think Udall should pursue is one of motion. This is for two reasons: 1) Using words like "future" or "leading" or "forward" allow the listener to picture a world moving away from Bush's legacy and toward a brighter tomorrow. 2) Colorado is trending blue and moving forward should also mean "continuing to move Democrat."
This will be the most hotly contested campaign outside of the presidential race. You know this because the west will be the focus of the Democrat's presidential campaign. The Dems are looking to "whistle past Dixie" and paint the west blue. That is why the Democratic National Convention will be held in Denver, Colorado (prime real-estate for a west campaign and for the Udall campaign). But, these are merely my impressions after studying the two candidates and the actual campaign will likely look nothing like the snap-shot presented above. I'll keep an ear to the ground and let you know as this develops.
-Wyatt Earp
Bob Schaffer - Schaffer served for nine years in the State Senator before being elected to the U.S. Congress from Colorado's Fourth District in 1996. He served in Congress till Jan, 2003 when he began his failed primary campaign for the U.S. Senate - he lost in the primary to Pete Coors who ended up losing the general election to Ken Salazar in 2004. He was appointed, in 2005, to fulfill a vacancy in the Colorado Board of Education and then ran successfully in 2006 for that seat.
Mark Udall- Udall was the director of Colorado's Outward Bound School for a decade. After serving one term in the Colorado House of Representatives, Udall successfully ran for Congress in Colorado's Second District. He is currently serving his fifth term in Congress. Mark comes from the political Udall family. His father Mo was a Congressman from Colorado for 30 years and his uncle Stewart was the Secretary of the Interior under John F. Kennedy.
The state of Colorado: Colorado is trending blue in a big way. Before 2004, a Democrat had not won a Colorado Senate seat since 1986. But, Ken Salazar defeated Pete Coors with a margin of 5% of the vote. In 2006, Democrat Bill Ritter Jr. won the governorship in a cake-walk, defeating Republican Bob Beauprez by a margin of 17% of the vote. Democrats now hold a majority of U.S. Congress seats (4 to 3) and recently won the majority in the State House and Senate. 2006 became the first time in 50 years that a Democratic governor had a Democratic House of Representatives to work with. However, this can not mean that the Democrats will win without a fight. The majority of registered voters (around 42%) are unaffiliated, and the number of registered Republicans outnumbered the number of registered Democrats. So, the independents or unaffiliated voters decide the election at every turn. Colorado will elect a moderate in 2008, but will it be a moderate Democrat or a moderate Republican?
What issues should each campaign lead with?
Schaffer's Message Box
Strengths - Shaffer has a tremendous record on education and he should run with it. He is considered a national leader on education, favoring local, not federal, control of schools. He is a strong proponent of charter schools (which do not take funding from public schools) and voted against No Child Left Behind. Education is not currently a top line issue, but will become so once NCLB comes up for re-authorization and every school will start asking itself: am I better off now than I was in 2002? This could play to Schaffer's favor as he will argue that local communities should fight against the federal bureaucracy that took away your funding when you needed it the most. And his two years on the Colorado Board of Education will only strengthen this issue.
Education can be used as a "bridge issue" where voters will listen to Schaffer enumerate other issues because they agree with him on education. Schaffer has a strong record of boarder security and will likely use this issue to his favor in a state that has a large immigrant population. This would energize the base, but could backfire in a 20% Hispanic/Latino state.
Weaknesses- Schaffer's Achilles heel to his education policy could be his adamant support of vouchers. He is the President of Parental Alliance for Choice in Education, a non-profit that advocates for more vouchers in Colorado. Udall has a strong anti-vouchers record and has argued to oppose anything that "breaks apart one of the last institutions that hold us together as a society, and that's our public schools." Schaffer should worry about getting branded "anti-public schools and pro-vouchers." Two simplistic arguments that likely could stick.
Schaffer is vice-president of Aspect Energy, LLC, which focuses on energy, mining and other projects. This could prove to be a liability to Schaffer. The environment is a cause championed by many in Colorado and is not a partisan issue there as seen elsewhere. Udall, if deft, will try to brand Schaffer as a pawn of Big Interests, as shown by his seat on the board of a Big Energy firm. The term "Colorado is not for sale" will likely come up at least once. As global warming becomes a larger issue, firms like Schaffer's are being to be seen as the opposition.
Lastly, Schaffer voted for the authorization of the War in Iraq and has not differed greatly from that opinion since.
Possible Messages/Themes: "Returning power to Colorado." "Bob Schaffer, because Colorado deserves the choice." "Bob Schaffer: national leader, local focus." "Putting Colorado first." If challenged in the primary: "The True Conservative choice."
These are possible message or themes that the Schaffer camp could employ. All of them speak to returning the locus of power to Colorado and away from the federal government, which is the value that binds all of Schaffer's positions together. Also, it is a truly conservative value and differs from the Bush brand of conservativism, so Schaffer should stay away, politically and financially, from the lightning rod that is Bush. Schaffer is a true conservative and he should not be afraid to say so.
Mark Udall - Message Box
Strengths- Udall's first strength is his name. Udall is a trusted name out west, and in uncertain times, going to the name you trust is always prevalent. While Schaffer has the edge in education experience the wind is still at Udall's back. Education is a net-plus issue for Democrats (Democrats are seen as the best arbiters of education policy) and Udall has some credentials on the issue. Udall served twenty years on the faculty of the Outward Bound School, the last ten as the executive director of Colorado's Outward Bound system. (Outward Bound teaches environmental education by taking disadvantaged children and giving them an education by combining classroom with the outdoors.) This helps Udall because it bridges perfectly to his strong environmental position.
Udall has served the past ten years as the congressman from Colorado's second district, which includes Broomfield, Boulder, Eagle, Jefferson and Adams counties - all of which are important swing counties, and represent nearly 35% of the entire CO electorate.
Lastly, Udall voted against authorization of the war in Iraq in 2002, but has not voted for a withdrawal. He has developed a position that is moderate and appealing to the independent Colorado voters.
Weaknesses- Udall's greatest weakness is the constituency that he represents. The Udall camp's greatest fear should be being labeled a "Boulder liberal" and not being able to shake the image. Because in the end, campaign are about competing images (one developed by yourself and one developed by your opponent), which one will prevail? Issues support that image. Udall must use every opportunity from here on out to be seen as a moderate with consistent Western values. Udall has been seen recently hanging around Representative Marilyn Musgrave, an ultra-conservative. While being bi-partisan is the image Udall wants to create, hanging around Musgrave will likely alienate his liberal base. Udall has a line to straddle and must never be caught riding side-saddle.
Possible Messages/Themes: "Trust Udall to secure our future." "Leading Colorado forward." "
The image that I think Udall should pursue is one of motion. This is for two reasons: 1) Using words like "future" or "leading" or "forward" allow the listener to picture a world moving away from Bush's legacy and toward a brighter tomorrow. 2) Colorado is trending blue and moving forward should also mean "continuing to move Democrat."
This will be the most hotly contested campaign outside of the presidential race. You know this because the west will be the focus of the Democrat's presidential campaign. The Dems are looking to "whistle past Dixie" and paint the west blue. That is why the Democratic National Convention will be held in Denver, Colorado (prime real-estate for a west campaign and for the Udall campaign). But, these are merely my impressions after studying the two candidates and the actual campaign will likely look nothing like the snap-shot presented above. I'll keep an ear to the ground and let you know as this develops.
-Wyatt Earp
Monday, July 16, 2007
"Why Bush Will Be a Winner?" Wait, what!?
President Bush is convinced that history will vindicate him akin to what happened to Harry Truman. Bush has been linked to neo-conservative thought ever since he was first elected in 2000 and one of the neo-con pole-bearers is none other than William Kristol. In the Washington Post today, Kristol wrote an opinion piece titled "Why Bush Will Be a Winner." It is interesting to read . . . and by interesting I mean that more like "I don't like your new hair, but I'm too nice to say so" instead of "You should really check this out." But, seriously, Kristol offers a perspective on Bush's legacy that must be confronted.
Please read it and let me know what you think.
-Wyatt Earp
Please read it and let me know what you think.
-Wyatt Earp
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Values, Values, Values
If I have one beef with the Democratic Party (and trust me, I have more like a herd of cows) it is their apparent lack of values. Liberals have the tendency to confuse values with policy positions. Is it a value to believe in public access to Social Security? No, the value is that liberals believe that government should act as a social safety net, providing such programs as Social Security and Medicare to the elderly. Is it a value to be pro-choice? No, the value is individual liberties (typically a conservative value). Democrats have done a poor job framing their policy positions in the context of over-arching values. And what is the result of this?
1) Democrats are afraid to talk about "values." Republicans are seen as the party of values. How is that possible? How is anyone in American against "family values"? No one is, yet the Republicans have used the Democrats lack of articulate values to frame them as "anti-family values." The Democrats don't fight the issue but instead try to see themselves as pro-choice and pro-gay marriage instead of looking at it as a fight over "individual liberty" and "equality of law."
2) The Democrat Party is internally less cohesive because shared values don't align with shared policy prescriptions. The Democratic Party, under FDR, was a "blanket party" that combined fiscal conservatives, social liberals, southerners and northerners. Now, the activist Democrat (the one most likely to vote in the primary and volunteer on a campaign) looks down upon those in their party that are pro-life, fiscally conservative, don't vote for an immediate withdrawal and why? Because the entry fee to the Democratic Party is not shared values but shared policy positions. A Democrat running for office must fill out a questionnaire that details their positions on certain issues, but there is not litmus test to judge their values set. The process is backwards. The precursor to running for office must be shared values that translate into policy proposals instead of policy positions that inform ones values.
3) Policy debates are less democratic. If the litmus test for being a Democratic office-holder is a set of policy positions then where is the debate? The debate is black and white. Either you support position A or you're not a qualified Democrat. However, if the Democrat office-holders all agree that "every child should have a quality education," then debate can exist on how to achieve this end.
Ends were made to right this wrong in 2006. Rahm Emanuel and Charles Schumer, chairs of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, respectively, made an effort to recruit conservative candidates (like Bob Casey and Jon Tester). The result was that the Democratic Party is not longer as single-minded. The process must continue and intensify. The Democrats have a great chance to make some headway in the mountain West in the coming election, but they must be willing to accept candidates that disagree with their litmus test issues. Instead, the questions must revolve around: what are the values that make you a Democrat?
It must be remembered that until 1948, the Democratic Party was compromised of Northeastern liberals, southern conservatives, the unionist Midwesterners, plain state farmers, minorities and intellectuals. They all could exist under the blanket of the Democratic Party because they all believed that government was a force for good. And because of that shared value we were brought out of the Great Depression and successfully fought World War II.
We can achieve this again.
-Wyatt Earp
1) Democrats are afraid to talk about "values." Republicans are seen as the party of values. How is that possible? How is anyone in American against "family values"? No one is, yet the Republicans have used the Democrats lack of articulate values to frame them as "anti-family values." The Democrats don't fight the issue but instead try to see themselves as pro-choice and pro-gay marriage instead of looking at it as a fight over "individual liberty" and "equality of law."
2) The Democrat Party is internally less cohesive because shared values don't align with shared policy prescriptions. The Democratic Party, under FDR, was a "blanket party" that combined fiscal conservatives, social liberals, southerners and northerners. Now, the activist Democrat (the one most likely to vote in the primary and volunteer on a campaign) looks down upon those in their party that are pro-life, fiscally conservative, don't vote for an immediate withdrawal and why? Because the entry fee to the Democratic Party is not shared values but shared policy positions. A Democrat running for office must fill out a questionnaire that details their positions on certain issues, but there is not litmus test to judge their values set. The process is backwards. The precursor to running for office must be shared values that translate into policy proposals instead of policy positions that inform ones values.
3) Policy debates are less democratic. If the litmus test for being a Democratic office-holder is a set of policy positions then where is the debate? The debate is black and white. Either you support position A or you're not a qualified Democrat. However, if the Democrat office-holders all agree that "every child should have a quality education," then debate can exist on how to achieve this end.
Ends were made to right this wrong in 2006. Rahm Emanuel and Charles Schumer, chairs of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, respectively, made an effort to recruit conservative candidates (like Bob Casey and Jon Tester). The result was that the Democratic Party is not longer as single-minded. The process must continue and intensify. The Democrats have a great chance to make some headway in the mountain West in the coming election, but they must be willing to accept candidates that disagree with their litmus test issues. Instead, the questions must revolve around: what are the values that make you a Democrat?
It must be remembered that until 1948, the Democratic Party was compromised of Northeastern liberals, southern conservatives, the unionist Midwesterners, plain state farmers, minorities and intellectuals. They all could exist under the blanket of the Democratic Party because they all believed that government was a force for good. And because of that shared value we were brought out of the Great Depression and successfully fought World War II.
We can achieve this again.
-Wyatt Earp
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Bob Casey is still Alive . . . details pending
I just read a funny article from the Evening Sun, news from the Gettysburg area, and it made me laugh. Image that: funny things making me laugh. It does not take an electoral strategist to realize that Bob Casey was elected to the U.S. Senate because Pennsylvania had had enough of Rick Santorum. We Keystoners don't expect Bob Casey to do tremendous things, I'm not sure he has the capacity to, but we do expect him to do measurable things, tempered things, dare I say, mediocre things. At this point, mediocre is must preferred to six more years of Santorum. But, the question remains: what has Bob Casey done for us so far? Read the article below and you'll find the answer to the question: Is Bob Casey still alive?
FYI: I saw Bob Casey presiding over the Senate last week, so, I can attest to his being alive.
FYI: I saw Bob Casey presiding over the Senate last week, so, I can attest to his being alive.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
The Speech I wish I would hear
Theodore Sorenson was the voice of John F. Kennedy. JFK called him "my intellectual blood bank." All of JFK's great speeches from the one before the Massachusetts legislature to his inaugural address, Sorenson always wrote the first draft and the two colloborated to reach the finished product. Washington Monthly asked Sorenson to write his ideal speech for the Democratic nominee to give as his/her acceptance speech (regardless of who the nominee is). It is the speech that I wish that I would hear a few months from now in Denver. If only. If you ask me, which no one did, it is hard to imagine anyone other than Obama or Edwards delivering this speech.
The New Vision - By Theodore Sorenson
The New Vision - By Theodore Sorenson
Thursday, July 5, 2007
The Hispanic Gap
The lack of immigration reform has spurred the question: Are the Hispanics going to vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats now? My initial instinct is 'yes', but there plenty of time until the 2008 elections. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has already developed a TV spot that labels the Republicans as "Obstructionists" for their part in derailing immigration reform, stem cell research, the Iraq War legislation and other great hits. I, personally, believe that the ad is effective because they display countless Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sens. Sessions, Demint, Vitter, and others, all singing the chorus of "I object." It leaves the viewing thinking "do the Republicans agree with anything or just object to everything?", which is exactly the question that Democrats want voters asking. The New Know Nothing Party believes in nothing but objects to everything.
Back to immigration reform: Now that the bill is dead it is no longer time to debate the specifics but time to play politics with the outcome. The Democrats have a Phoenix moment before them: out of the ashes of the immigration bill can come great opportunity for electoral success. How will this happen? Hispanics, the Democrats hope, are so frustrated with the Republicans not supporting any immigration reform that they will elect any generic Democrat. In doing so, the Democrats will have a larger majority to operate with and can enact more wide-sweeping, permanent immigration reform. What is the likelihood of this?
A recent USA Today poll said that only 11% of Hispanics identify themselves as Republicans, as opposed to 19% in 2004. Also, an Wall Street Journal Poll reports that, among Hispanic voters, 61% would vote for a generic Democratic candidate in 2008 while only 22% would vote for a generic Republican candidate. President Bush received 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, and that key voting bloc was the reason he won re-election. With the Republican slowly being defined as the anti-immigration (read: anti-Hispanic) party, the prospects are looking dim for 2008.
However, Democrats should not take this voting trend for granted. Hispanics may constitute a key voting bloc, they still do not turn out to vote regularly. For instance, in California in 2002, according to Field Institute, Latinos made up 28% of the adult population but only 16% of the likely voters. There may be many Republican sleepers out there if brought out to vote. Democrats must do a better job of getting out the Hispanic vote. Step one for any candidate: learn Spanish.
Democrats are already making strides to garner the Hispanic vote (Hispanics are 14.5% of the U.S. population). The Democratic National Convention is being held in Denver, Colorado. Hispanics represent the largest minority in Colorado, constituting 20% of the total population (2000 Census, number has likely risen). Denver is a great stepping stone to other Hispanic states that have been put in play due to the Republicans Know-Nothing taint. The states where Hispanics are the key swing vote are: Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, Arizona and Nevada.
Here is a little break down:
Arizona (10 electoral votes) 28.6% Hispanic or Latino
Nevada (5 electoral votes) 23.7% Hispanic or Latino
New Mexico (5 electoral votes) 43.6% Hispanic or Latino
Florida (27 electoral votes) 19.6% Hispanic or Latino
Colorado (9 electoral votes) 20% Hispanic or Latino
Holding equal the 2004 results: if the Democrat nominee picks up each of these states he/she wins the Electoral College 308-230, a handy victory. The Democrat nominee need only pick up Florida or win any three of the four western states to ensure victory.
The numbers look good for the Democrats, but they are their states to lose, at the moment. It is still a long time until November 4, 2008 for any voter. It should also be reminded that Hispanics and Latinos, like any voting bloc, are not monolithic and make their own decisions, but the trends still exist.
Also, while looking at the Electoral math: the Democrat nominee may forgo the Hispanic question and focus solely on Ohio (20 electoral votes) to win the general election. Ohio has been trending blue in the past few years. In 2006, Democrat Ted Strickland won the governorship, and Sherrod Brown defeated the incumbent Senator, the moderate Republican, Mike DeWine. It seems to be trending blue and the pundits are predicting that the Democrats will pick it up in 2008. If they do, then the game might already be over and we saved America the trouble of voting.
-Wyatt Earp
Back to immigration reform: Now that the bill is dead it is no longer time to debate the specifics but time to play politics with the outcome. The Democrats have a Phoenix moment before them: out of the ashes of the immigration bill can come great opportunity for electoral success. How will this happen? Hispanics, the Democrats hope, are so frustrated with the Republicans not supporting any immigration reform that they will elect any generic Democrat. In doing so, the Democrats will have a larger majority to operate with and can enact more wide-sweeping, permanent immigration reform. What is the likelihood of this?
A recent USA Today poll said that only 11% of Hispanics identify themselves as Republicans, as opposed to 19% in 2004. Also, an Wall Street Journal Poll reports that, among Hispanic voters, 61% would vote for a generic Democratic candidate in 2008 while only 22% would vote for a generic Republican candidate. President Bush received 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, and that key voting bloc was the reason he won re-election. With the Republican slowly being defined as the anti-immigration (read: anti-Hispanic) party, the prospects are looking dim for 2008.
However, Democrats should not take this voting trend for granted. Hispanics may constitute a key voting bloc, they still do not turn out to vote regularly. For instance, in California in 2002, according to Field Institute, Latinos made up 28% of the adult population but only 16% of the likely voters. There may be many Republican sleepers out there if brought out to vote. Democrats must do a better job of getting out the Hispanic vote. Step one for any candidate: learn Spanish.
Democrats are already making strides to garner the Hispanic vote (Hispanics are 14.5% of the U.S. population). The Democratic National Convention is being held in Denver, Colorado. Hispanics represent the largest minority in Colorado, constituting 20% of the total population (2000 Census, number has likely risen). Denver is a great stepping stone to other Hispanic states that have been put in play due to the Republicans Know-Nothing taint. The states where Hispanics are the key swing vote are: Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, Arizona and Nevada.
Here is a little break down:
Arizona (10 electoral votes) 28.6% Hispanic or Latino
Nevada (5 electoral votes) 23.7% Hispanic or Latino
New Mexico (5 electoral votes) 43.6% Hispanic or Latino
Florida (27 electoral votes) 19.6% Hispanic or Latino
Colorado (9 electoral votes) 20% Hispanic or Latino
Holding equal the 2004 results: if the Democrat nominee picks up each of these states he/she wins the Electoral College 308-230, a handy victory. The Democrat nominee need only pick up Florida or win any three of the four western states to ensure victory.
The numbers look good for the Democrats, but they are their states to lose, at the moment. It is still a long time until November 4, 2008 for any voter. It should also be reminded that Hispanics and Latinos, like any voting bloc, are not monolithic and make their own decisions, but the trends still exist.
Also, while looking at the Electoral math: the Democrat nominee may forgo the Hispanic question and focus solely on Ohio (20 electoral votes) to win the general election. Ohio has been trending blue in the past few years. In 2006, Democrat Ted Strickland won the governorship, and Sherrod Brown defeated the incumbent Senator, the moderate Republican, Mike DeWine. It seems to be trending blue and the pundits are predicting that the Democrats will pick it up in 2008. If they do, then the game might already be over and we saved America the trouble of voting.
-Wyatt Earp
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Obama Tops the Charts (Second Quarter Fundraising)
Early money is like yeast, it helps raise the dough. So says EMILY's List. If this is true, then Barack Obama will be able to make a lot of political bread. The second quarter of fundraising ended June 30th and while the official numbers are not out here are the estimated Democratic findings:
(Second Quarter)Barack Obama: $32.5 million; Hillary Clinton: $27 million; John Edwards: $9 million; Bill Richardson: $7 million
(Total Fundraising) Hillary Clinton: $62 million; Barack Obama 58.2 million; John Edwards: $23 million; Bill Richardson: $14 million
At this stage in the game there are only two meters to judge a candidates strength on: 1) Polls (state by state, not national) and 2) Fundraising.
The polling is still up in the air with Edwards leading in Iowa, Clinton in New Hampshire and Clinton/Obama going back and forth in South Carolina. However, the fundraising is becoming more and more Obama's point of strength. But, wait Wyatt, why is Obama losing to Clinton in total fundraising if it is his "point of strength", you must be dumb. While it is true that I am dumb, the total numbers are deceiving.
Hillary Clinton raised $35 million in the first quarter. However, she transferred $10 million from her Senate campaign, which means she only raised $25 million. Also, Clinton is tapping people for the full $4,600 at a time (legally, each voter is only allowed to donate $2,300 for each primary, and $2,300 for each general election, a total of $4,600). Not all of the money that Clinton raised in the first quarter can be used in the primary election. And if she does not garner the nomination then those general election dollars become worthless. It is said that Clinton raised $19 million for the primary in the first quarter. Out of Obama's 25 million raised in the first quarter, 23 million of it was for the primaries.
In the second quarter, Clinton is expected to raise $27 million with $21 million of it to be used for the primary. Out of Obama's $32.5 million, a remarkable $31 million is primary money. So, just counting primary money raised here are the results as of the second quarter:
Primary Money Raised: Obama: $54 million; Clinton: $40 million
If you ask me, which no one did, I believe that Clinton should have reason to worry. The Clinton Machine is widely known as the greatest fundraising mechanism in the Democratic Party, but it slowly being shown up by the rookie of the year Barack Obama. While Clinton appears to still have the edge on the perpetual power brokers of the Democratic Party, Obama now owns the ground. The most remarkable number to me is the number of donors to each of their campaigns. Clinton has raised $62 million from less then 100,000 different contributors (she hasn't released the exact number) while Obama has raised $58.2 million from over 258,000 contributors. In short, Obama has more widespread support in terms of active participation in the campaign. The Clinton campaign has tried to combat this by saying that money does not really matter, but this is still a blow to the Clinton Machine.
The struggle for Obama is translating these enormous amount of contributors into votes. The person who had the most money and largest number of contributors in 2004 was Howard Dean, while John Kerry had the establishment in his backpocket. The Obama campaign must focus on GOTV (get-out-the vote) and then Clinton's money will diminish in significance very quickly. The millionaire and the beggar each only get one vote.
(these numbers were added up by me, so they are guaranteed to be off once the official numbers come out. The numbers at this point were meant to give quantity the commentary. Do not yell at me, please).
-Wyatt Earp
(Second Quarter)Barack Obama: $32.5 million; Hillary Clinton: $27 million; John Edwards: $9 million; Bill Richardson: $7 million
(Total Fundraising) Hillary Clinton: $62 million; Barack Obama 58.2 million; John Edwards: $23 million; Bill Richardson: $14 million
At this stage in the game there are only two meters to judge a candidates strength on: 1) Polls (state by state, not national) and 2) Fundraising.
The polling is still up in the air with Edwards leading in Iowa, Clinton in New Hampshire and Clinton/Obama going back and forth in South Carolina. However, the fundraising is becoming more and more Obama's point of strength. But, wait Wyatt, why is Obama losing to Clinton in total fundraising if it is his "point of strength", you must be dumb. While it is true that I am dumb, the total numbers are deceiving.
Hillary Clinton raised $35 million in the first quarter. However, she transferred $10 million from her Senate campaign, which means she only raised $25 million. Also, Clinton is tapping people for the full $4,600 at a time (legally, each voter is only allowed to donate $2,300 for each primary, and $2,300 for each general election, a total of $4,600). Not all of the money that Clinton raised in the first quarter can be used in the primary election. And if she does not garner the nomination then those general election dollars become worthless. It is said that Clinton raised $19 million for the primary in the first quarter. Out of Obama's 25 million raised in the first quarter, 23 million of it was for the primaries.
In the second quarter, Clinton is expected to raise $27 million with $21 million of it to be used for the primary. Out of Obama's $32.5 million, a remarkable $31 million is primary money. So, just counting primary money raised here are the results as of the second quarter:
Primary Money Raised: Obama: $54 million; Clinton: $40 million
If you ask me, which no one did, I believe that Clinton should have reason to worry. The Clinton Machine is widely known as the greatest fundraising mechanism in the Democratic Party, but it slowly being shown up by the rookie of the year Barack Obama. While Clinton appears to still have the edge on the perpetual power brokers of the Democratic Party, Obama now owns the ground. The most remarkable number to me is the number of donors to each of their campaigns. Clinton has raised $62 million from less then 100,000 different contributors (she hasn't released the exact number) while Obama has raised $58.2 million from over 258,000 contributors. In short, Obama has more widespread support in terms of active participation in the campaign. The Clinton campaign has tried to combat this by saying that money does not really matter, but this is still a blow to the Clinton Machine.
The struggle for Obama is translating these enormous amount of contributors into votes. The person who had the most money and largest number of contributors in 2004 was Howard Dean, while John Kerry had the establishment in his backpocket. The Obama campaign must focus on GOTV (get-out-the vote) and then Clinton's money will diminish in significance very quickly. The millionaire and the beggar each only get one vote.
(these numbers were added up by me, so they are guaranteed to be off once the official numbers come out. The numbers at this point were meant to give quantity the commentary. Do not yell at me, please).
-Wyatt Earp
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
A corollary to the RFK Memorial Post
I had intended the previous RFK post to end comically, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. After I started talking (typing) about RFK's Indianapolis speech, I couldn't regress into satire. So, I will just rant for a minute or two (depending on how quickly you read) in another post (this post).
Later that evening, after exploring the bowels of Arlington, my brother and I attended a Washington Nationals game (that's baseball). They were playing the Cleveland Indians in an interleague match-up. After coming from Arlington I was much maligned to see the Nationals play. Why, you may ask? It is for two reasons: 1) the Nationals yearly compete with the Royals to be Major League Baseball's worst team (stiff competition) and 2) the Nationals play in one of the ugliest stadiums in the Majors. The archiect was rumored to have looked at his cereal bowl one hungover morning and instantly developed the idea that became this stadium. Why would this make you mad, Wyatt? The Nationals suck. Big deal, you're a Cubs fan! It makes me mad because the name of this ugly stadium, the stadium that houses the NL's worst team is Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium.
As you can tell from my last post, I am enamored by the legacy of RFK and I can think of 1,204 better tributes to his name then this stadium. If you're a fan of RFK, ever read a history book, or can spell his initials, it should make you sick as well. RFK had a legacy of inspiring onlookers, while his "memorial" stadium makes onlookers throw up. RFK had a legacy of getting things done, triumph over evil while the Nationals have a legacy of being just as bad as that team that moved from Montreal.
The game we went to see proved to be a typical Nationals game, albeit with more excitement. The Nationals were winning 3-1 until the 9th inning. Victor Martinez came up with two men on. I decided to get into the game and I put on my rally cap. Literally, as soon as I did so, Martinez hit a three-run homer (yes, Zach and Jackie, I am taking credit for Martinez's home run). Thanks to my effort, the Nationals were now losing 4-3. But, wait, even the Nationals can stage a comeback one in a while. The Nationals loaded the bases with one out thanks in part to a pinch-hit double by Nook Logan. Lopez came up and hit a sharp bouncer to the pitcher. The force-out is at home, so he throws it to Martinez, the Indians catcher. For some reason, Nook "This is why I'm on the Nationals" Logan rounded third very ambitiously and allowed Martinez to easily pick him off at third. It was a game ending, unconventional double-play. And you could hear RFK saying "you've got to be kidding me." There are a few things that Nook forgot: 1) You never want to end an inning at third, 2) especially when your best bat in Ryan Zimmerman is coming up next and 3) I can't really think of a third. It was a disappointing loss, to say the least, and it made the ride back on the Metro will all 42, 000 fans in attendance really awkward.
My point is: Let's be careful what teams we put into stadiums named after famous Americans. Once the Nationals moved in they should have renamed it the Bob Hope Memorial Stadium because the Nats are a joke. Luckily, a new stadium is on the way. A new home for the Nationals! The only question left is: What will they name the new stadium? If the name resembles RFK Stadium in that the object of the title does not resemble the teams performance then I am pulling for: Volvo Stadium, because a Volvo is as dependable as it gets and the Nats are well . . . pretty much have the metaphorical safety standard of a clown car.
Excuse the rant. Was it necessary? Of course not, but I did it anyway.
-Wyatt Earp
Later that evening, after exploring the bowels of Arlington, my brother and I attended a Washington Nationals game (that's baseball). They were playing the Cleveland Indians in an interleague match-up. After coming from Arlington I was much maligned to see the Nationals play. Why, you may ask? It is for two reasons: 1) the Nationals yearly compete with the Royals to be Major League Baseball's worst team (stiff competition) and 2) the Nationals play in one of the ugliest stadiums in the Majors. The archiect was rumored to have looked at his cereal bowl one hungover morning and instantly developed the idea that became this stadium. Why would this make you mad, Wyatt? The Nationals suck. Big deal, you're a Cubs fan! It makes me mad because the name of this ugly stadium, the stadium that houses the NL's worst team is Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium.
As you can tell from my last post, I am enamored by the legacy of RFK and I can think of 1,204 better tributes to his name then this stadium. If you're a fan of RFK, ever read a history book, or can spell his initials, it should make you sick as well. RFK had a legacy of inspiring onlookers, while his "memorial" stadium makes onlookers throw up. RFK had a legacy of getting things done, triumph over evil while the Nationals have a legacy of being just as bad as that team that moved from Montreal.
The game we went to see proved to be a typical Nationals game, albeit with more excitement. The Nationals were winning 3-1 until the 9th inning. Victor Martinez came up with two men on. I decided to get into the game and I put on my rally cap. Literally, as soon as I did so, Martinez hit a three-run homer (yes, Zach and Jackie, I am taking credit for Martinez's home run). Thanks to my effort, the Nationals were now losing 4-3. But, wait, even the Nationals can stage a comeback one in a while. The Nationals loaded the bases with one out thanks in part to a pinch-hit double by Nook Logan. Lopez came up and hit a sharp bouncer to the pitcher. The force-out is at home, so he throws it to Martinez, the Indians catcher. For some reason, Nook "This is why I'm on the Nationals" Logan rounded third very ambitiously and allowed Martinez to easily pick him off at third. It was a game ending, unconventional double-play. And you could hear RFK saying "you've got to be kidding me." There are a few things that Nook forgot: 1) You never want to end an inning at third, 2) especially when your best bat in Ryan Zimmerman is coming up next and 3) I can't really think of a third. It was a disappointing loss, to say the least, and it made the ride back on the Metro will all 42, 000 fans in attendance really awkward.
My point is: Let's be careful what teams we put into stadiums named after famous Americans. Once the Nationals moved in they should have renamed it the Bob Hope Memorial Stadium because the Nats are a joke. Luckily, a new stadium is on the way. A new home for the Nationals! The only question left is: What will they name the new stadium? If the name resembles RFK Stadium in that the object of the title does not resemble the teams performance then I am pulling for: Volvo Stadium, because a Volvo is as dependable as it gets and the Nats are well . . . pretty much have the metaphorical safety standard of a clown car.
Excuse the rant. Was it necessary? Of course not, but I did it anyway.
-Wyatt Earp
Sunday, June 24, 2007
RFK Memorial Post
My brother came to visit and we took a stroll to Arlington Cemetery. As all of you should know, it is solemn ground, notably when standing over the Eternal Flame memorializing John F. Kennedy's premature death. The words of his inaugural address (I wish I could say "first inaugural") are sketched into stone; immortalized. Sadly, the words are starting to fade into the stone.
Then, after a few paces, we were standing in front of Robert Kennedy's grave. There is something to be said of taking in the final resting place of America's most celebrated brothers, all the while standing side-by-side with your own brother, whose examples and experiences have shaped your life just as much as your own trials have.
The cross that marks RFK's grave faces his words, also sketched in stone. One of the quoted speeches bears witness to a great act of political courage. The day is April 4th, 1968. Those students of history might recognize the date as the day Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on a balcony overlooking Memphis. RFK was scheduled to give a speech in Indianapolis to a black crowd. When he stepped off of the plane, RFK was alerted to MLK's death. The police advised Kennedy to cancel the speech because they feared the crowd would quickly become unruly, threatening Kennedy's life. Devoid of the information highway, there was no way RFK's waiting supporters would know of the civil rights leader's death. It would not be wise for a rich, New England, white man to tell a black, urban crowd that their beloved hero had been assassinated by a racist white man. It was political and, possibly, physical suicide. Robert Kennedy would have none of it. Inspired by his brother's assassination, he went on with the speech.
Without notes in front of him and visibly shaking RFK began, "I have some very sad news for all of you, and I think sad news for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love peace all over the world, and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee." The crowd responded with audible screams and shock. But, RFK pressed on. Slowly, RFK gained his composure and outlined steps to fulfilling the legacy of Martin Luther King.
I just thought I would share the thoughts running through my head while looking at RFK's grave. As inspiring a leader JFK is noted to be, his brother matched his oratorical prowess (although, not nearly as famously). We must remember that together JFK and RFK navigated through the Cuban Missile Crisis and the abbreviated Kennedy presidency. If you would care to see the Indianapolis speech (you should) go to this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPYNb4ex6Ko
-Wyatt Earp
Then, after a few paces, we were standing in front of Robert Kennedy's grave. There is something to be said of taking in the final resting place of America's most celebrated brothers, all the while standing side-by-side with your own brother, whose examples and experiences have shaped your life just as much as your own trials have.
The cross that marks RFK's grave faces his words, also sketched in stone. One of the quoted speeches bears witness to a great act of political courage. The day is April 4th, 1968. Those students of history might recognize the date as the day Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on a balcony overlooking Memphis. RFK was scheduled to give a speech in Indianapolis to a black crowd. When he stepped off of the plane, RFK was alerted to MLK's death. The police advised Kennedy to cancel the speech because they feared the crowd would quickly become unruly, threatening Kennedy's life. Devoid of the information highway, there was no way RFK's waiting supporters would know of the civil rights leader's death. It would not be wise for a rich, New England, white man to tell a black, urban crowd that their beloved hero had been assassinated by a racist white man. It was political and, possibly, physical suicide. Robert Kennedy would have none of it. Inspired by his brother's assassination, he went on with the speech.
Without notes in front of him and visibly shaking RFK began, "I have some very sad news for all of you, and I think sad news for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love peace all over the world, and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee." The crowd responded with audible screams and shock. But, RFK pressed on. Slowly, RFK gained his composure and outlined steps to fulfilling the legacy of Martin Luther King.
"What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or lawlessness; but love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or they be black."After that the sullen crowd slowly applauded and began to cheer RFK's inspiring words. Much like the Gettysburg Address, RFK's speech was short, but poignant. And much like, too much like, Abraham Lincoln, RFK was shot and killed by those who feared the legacy that he strove to instill.
I just thought I would share the thoughts running through my head while looking at RFK's grave. As inspiring a leader JFK is noted to be, his brother matched his oratorical prowess (although, not nearly as famously). We must remember that together JFK and RFK navigated through the Cuban Missile Crisis and the abbreviated Kennedy presidency. If you would care to see the Indianapolis speech (you should) go to this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPYNb4ex6Ko
-Wyatt Earp
Sunday, June 17, 2007
PA not likely to move primary
My beautiful home state, Pennsylvania, had been talking about moving up their primary to Feb. 5 along with some 20 other states. However, it does not look like that is going to happen anymore. This coming week the General Assembly will vote on whether to move it to Feb. 12 or March 4th. Personally, I am pulling for March 4, because I would love to vote on my 21st birthday. Check out this article, if you're interested in PA politics:
Click here
-Wyatt Earp
Click here
-Wyatt Earp
The Reason Why
On Friday, my program went to the Old Executive Office Building, right next to the White House, to meet with Barry Jackson. Barry is the Assistant Deputy to the President and the Principal Deputy to the Senior Advisor. The Senior Advisor being Karl Rove. That is a roundabout way of saying he's Karl Rove's go-to-guy. We met in a conference room right next to the Indian Treaty Room where Dwight Eisenhower held the first ever televised press conference. If nothing else, it was nice to feel important enough to have an appointment in this place.
Barry sat us down and told us a bit about his job in the White House. While he was describing his position, the sound of a helicopter interrupted Barry's baritone. Barry stopped speaking and told us to go to the window because Marine One (the President's helicopter) was about to take off. Sure enough, Marine One was sitting on the South Lawn of the White House waiting for the President to board. Bush was going to Kansas to stump for Senator Pat Roberts. It was a pleasant interruption, to say the least.
We were then afforded time to ask Barry questions. Of course other people asked questions, but this blog is about me, so I'm going to talk about my question. (Selfish, no?) As you may have noticed, the immigration debate has been on my mind as of late and I wanted Barry's take on it, being as close to the action as he is. I asked his take on Karl Rove's strategy to attract more Hispanics to the Republican Party in order to establish a permanent Republican majority and if he thought his party's dissent on immigration damaged the achievement of that goal. Barry quickly pointed out that the strategy was designed not only for Hispanics but for other minority groups too, namely African-Americans.
Barry then took my question to a very broad scale. He initially ignored the immigration focus of my question in favor of a broad-spectrum look at Bush's policies. He argued that Bush has done more for minorities in this country than any president in recent history. The president's Prescription Drug Bill, he continued, did much to assuage low-income minority seniors of the rising cost of prescribed pills. No Child Left Behind's primary focus was the reconciliation of the "achievement gap" between whites and minorities. It has shed a spotlight on minority underachievement in our public schools and has begun the process of reconciling it. Then he came around to immigration and said that the president has been the torch-bearer for legalization and the guest worker program that does nothing but help immigrants and working minorities in this country. He concluded by saying that his party's defiance of the president on this issue will most certainly hurt them in the long run.
Barry Jackson had just argued that President Bush was the czar of minority rights. My first reaction was: well, we're obviously not counting gays as a minority in this conversation, but then I was struck by something. Barry had just articulated 6 years of Bush policy in ten minutes and it made sense to me. One of my teachers at my program in DC has taught us that every campaign needs a message, or put another way: a reason why. Bush's policies had always seemed from the hip to me. Sure, he tackled big questions like education, but what was his driving motive? How did his education policy connect to his health care plans? What was his reason why? Barry Jackson, whether purposefully or not, had stumbled upon it. Bush's reason why was to level the playing field for minorities. Of course, this seems hard to fathom for some liberals, but it makes sense if you contemplate it enough.
Regardless of ones policy disagreements with NCLB or Medicare Part D (I have some of my own), it is striking to hear a connecting tenet between those policies. If Bush had articulated this message for the past 6 years then his immigration policy would not seem as hollow. He would be able to back up his immigration beliefs with legislative achievements. I think the hardest thing for Bush is that his message is not a conservative one: government regulated education, massive health care spending and amnesty. Oops, I said amnesty (at least, that's what "true" conservatives would call it). As much as liberals rail on Bush for being a right-ist, his legislative achievement speak differently. Big-government conservatism, anyone?
Anyway, I just went off for a while there. This is about Barry Jackson! Barry blames the media (a conservative pastime) for not allowing Bush a window to present an uncensored message, but I don't buy it. In campaign terms, Bush is excellent at one thing: staying on message. It's the reason he twice won this country's highest office. I just think he should have picked a clearer message that articulated his reason why.
-Wyatt Earp
Barry sat us down and told us a bit about his job in the White House. While he was describing his position, the sound of a helicopter interrupted Barry's baritone. Barry stopped speaking and told us to go to the window because Marine One (the President's helicopter) was about to take off. Sure enough, Marine One was sitting on the South Lawn of the White House waiting for the President to board. Bush was going to Kansas to stump for Senator Pat Roberts. It was a pleasant interruption, to say the least.
We were then afforded time to ask Barry questions. Of course other people asked questions, but this blog is about me, so I'm going to talk about my question. (Selfish, no?) As you may have noticed, the immigration debate has been on my mind as of late and I wanted Barry's take on it, being as close to the action as he is. I asked his take on Karl Rove's strategy to attract more Hispanics to the Republican Party in order to establish a permanent Republican majority and if he thought his party's dissent on immigration damaged the achievement of that goal. Barry quickly pointed out that the strategy was designed not only for Hispanics but for other minority groups too, namely African-Americans.
Barry then took my question to a very broad scale. He initially ignored the immigration focus of my question in favor of a broad-spectrum look at Bush's policies. He argued that Bush has done more for minorities in this country than any president in recent history. The president's Prescription Drug Bill, he continued, did much to assuage low-income minority seniors of the rising cost of prescribed pills. No Child Left Behind's primary focus was the reconciliation of the "achievement gap" between whites and minorities. It has shed a spotlight on minority underachievement in our public schools and has begun the process of reconciling it. Then he came around to immigration and said that the president has been the torch-bearer for legalization and the guest worker program that does nothing but help immigrants and working minorities in this country. He concluded by saying that his party's defiance of the president on this issue will most certainly hurt them in the long run.
Barry Jackson had just argued that President Bush was the czar of minority rights. My first reaction was: well, we're obviously not counting gays as a minority in this conversation, but then I was struck by something. Barry had just articulated 6 years of Bush policy in ten minutes and it made sense to me. One of my teachers at my program in DC has taught us that every campaign needs a message, or put another way: a reason why. Bush's policies had always seemed from the hip to me. Sure, he tackled big questions like education, but what was his driving motive? How did his education policy connect to his health care plans? What was his reason why? Barry Jackson, whether purposefully or not, had stumbled upon it. Bush's reason why was to level the playing field for minorities. Of course, this seems hard to fathom for some liberals, but it makes sense if you contemplate it enough.
Regardless of ones policy disagreements with NCLB or Medicare Part D (I have some of my own), it is striking to hear a connecting tenet between those policies. If Bush had articulated this message for the past 6 years then his immigration policy would not seem as hollow. He would be able to back up his immigration beliefs with legislative achievements. I think the hardest thing for Bush is that his message is not a conservative one: government regulated education, massive health care spending and amnesty. Oops, I said amnesty (at least, that's what "true" conservatives would call it). As much as liberals rail on Bush for being a right-ist, his legislative achievement speak differently. Big-government conservatism, anyone?
Anyway, I just went off for a while there. This is about Barry Jackson! Barry blames the media (a conservative pastime) for not allowing Bush a window to present an uncensored message, but I don't buy it. In campaign terms, Bush is excellent at one thing: staying on message. It's the reason he twice won this country's highest office. I just think he should have picked a clearer message that articulated his reason why.
-Wyatt Earp
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Bush's Two Minute Drill
In football parlance, the two minute drill is one of the most intense strategies to watch unfold. The game is on the line and you have two minutes to drive eighty-some yards, score a touchdown without leaving enough time for your opponent to respond. Its an intense time, as most of you know, I'm sure. But, at this time, it is only a metaphor.
For metaphor's sake, Bush has two minutes left on the clock. Of course he has plenty of calendar time (until Jan. 20, 2009), but the duck is roasting and his political capital is diminishing each day. Football teams that are losing have two options during the two-minute drill: 1) Hail Mary (go for the gold, score quickly and score frequently) and 2) Run out the Clock (basically, giving up. No last ditch effort). ***Listen football nerds, I realize that most teams with two minutes left won't go straight to a Hail Mary, but let's just remember its only a metaphor***
I am curious to see which strategy Bush will choose. Will he start offering legislation left and right in a last ditch effort to establish a legacy or will he simply sit back and try to do as little damage as possible. Bush's approval rating is monitored as low as 29% with an aggregate of 31.9% according to Pollster.com. Needless to say, Bush is not swimming in love. It is time for his two-minute drill. What strategy will he choose?
So far he erring on the side of Hail Mary. In the past two weeks, Bush has come out in favor of global warming legislation (a first), pseudo-critized Russia's pseudo-authoritarian regime (a first), went to the Hill to meet with Republican leaders (a second), actively lobbied for immigration reform (a first), stuck by a beleagured friend and Attorney General (yeah, he's pretty loyal) and who knows what is next. A gun control bill has been worked out by Senate Democrats and the NRA (yes, that NRA); it will be interesting to see where Bush comes down on this. It looks like Bush is turning a new leaf and legacy shopping. Good for him, I say. It is nice to see Bush persuing causes again.
This is where I overdo the metaphor: Bush had success early with his passing game. He was able to pass big buck legislation in a legislative form of shock and awe. He'd attack a touchy subject and muscle it through Congress (i.e. Education reform- NCLB, faith-based initiatives, PATRIOT Act, Iraq War Authorization). But he never established a consistent running game (smaller legislation that built up an over-arching message). What is Bush's message? Where is Reagan's "Morning in America", Kennedy's "New Frontier", LBJ's "Great Society", FDR's "New Deal", Truman's "Fair Deal", Teddy Roosevelt's "Square Deal" or even Clinton's "New Democrat" image. As you can see, an over-arching theme (a running game) is a good strategy for a successful presidency. Now, with time running out on the clock, Bush is left only with enough time for post routes and hail marys. A sporadic passing game is hardly a strategy (we're not dealing with Peyton Manning here). It will be interesting to see how effective Bush is in the coming months.
That is my Bush legacy rant. And to answer your question; yes, I took the metaphor too far.
-Wyatt Earp
For metaphor's sake, Bush has two minutes left on the clock. Of course he has plenty of calendar time (until Jan. 20, 2009), but the duck is roasting and his political capital is diminishing each day. Football teams that are losing have two options during the two-minute drill: 1) Hail Mary (go for the gold, score quickly and score frequently) and 2) Run out the Clock (basically, giving up. No last ditch effort). ***Listen football nerds, I realize that most teams with two minutes left won't go straight to a Hail Mary, but let's just remember its only a metaphor***
I am curious to see which strategy Bush will choose. Will he start offering legislation left and right in a last ditch effort to establish a legacy or will he simply sit back and try to do as little damage as possible. Bush's approval rating is monitored as low as 29% with an aggregate of 31.9% according to Pollster.com. Needless to say, Bush is not swimming in love. It is time for his two-minute drill. What strategy will he choose?
So far he erring on the side of Hail Mary. In the past two weeks, Bush has come out in favor of global warming legislation (a first), pseudo-critized Russia's pseudo-authoritarian regime (a first), went to the Hill to meet with Republican leaders (a second), actively lobbied for immigration reform (a first), stuck by a beleagured friend and Attorney General (yeah, he's pretty loyal) and who knows what is next. A gun control bill has been worked out by Senate Democrats and the NRA (yes, that NRA); it will be interesting to see where Bush comes down on this. It looks like Bush is turning a new leaf and legacy shopping. Good for him, I say. It is nice to see Bush persuing causes again.
This is where I overdo the metaphor: Bush had success early with his passing game. He was able to pass big buck legislation in a legislative form of shock and awe. He'd attack a touchy subject and muscle it through Congress (i.e. Education reform- NCLB, faith-based initiatives, PATRIOT Act, Iraq War Authorization). But he never established a consistent running game (smaller legislation that built up an over-arching message). What is Bush's message? Where is Reagan's "Morning in America", Kennedy's "New Frontier", LBJ's "Great Society", FDR's "New Deal", Truman's "Fair Deal", Teddy Roosevelt's "Square Deal" or even Clinton's "New Democrat" image. As you can see, an over-arching theme (a running game) is a good strategy for a successful presidency. Now, with time running out on the clock, Bush is left only with enough time for post routes and hail marys. A sporadic passing game is hardly a strategy (we're not dealing with Peyton Manning here). It will be interesting to see how effective Bush is in the coming months.
That is my Bush legacy rant. And to answer your question; yes, I took the metaphor too far.
-Wyatt Earp
Friday, June 8, 2007
So Close to Disappointment. (Immigration failing)
For the next two months I live only five blocks from the White House. It gives one an odd perception of government when one is geographically close to the deals, bargains, compromises, votes and filibusters (especially the filibusters). I have only lived in DC for seven days, but I can already tell that news travels faster in this town. Without turning on the TV, picking up a newspaper or reading an online source I can know what happened in the world last night before I get to class at 9am. Granted the program to which I am involved is compromised of 17 political nerds who talk of nothing less (hyperbole, of course), but the point still rings true: news travels faster.
Last night I was browsing through the channels before the Daily Show came on and I stumbled upon CSPAN (or was it CSPAN 2?). Senator Dick Durbin (Majority Whip) was giving a speech. My channel surfing came to a halt when the ticker under Sen. Durbin told me that the Senate had failed (45-50) to invoke cloture on the immigration bill and bring it to a final vote. This caused me to be rather frustrated, although, I did not dwell on it until the next day. For those who are not familiar with Senate rules: a successful cloture vote ends debate and brings a bill to a final vote on the whole package (in this case the comprehensive immigration bill). Those who do not want the bill passed will often unite and not even allow a vote to occur. Especially on a sensitive subject as immigration some Senators would be just fine in not having a vote on the record to be scrutinized later.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that this does not mean the bill is done, but I am skeptical. Sen. Reid does not agree with most of the bill, so I cannot see him pushing too hard to bring the immigration debate up again. We opened a can of worms and what do we have to show for it? The status quo. Of course, the Republicans will not be done with their debate. Most Republicans, namely Mitt Romney, argue that we should simply enforce the 1986 Immigration Act (which we didn't fully implement) and not worry about a new bill. Others contend that there should not be a legalization process at all for illegal immigrants. As you could see from the recent Republican debate, it is considered by some that any attempt to legalize those who committed a crime is amnesty (it should be noted that our prison system was founded on the idea of reintroducing criminals into society). I must agree with President Bush when he contends that this bill does not offer amnesty. Amnesty is the forgiveness of charges without penalty. In this bill, immigrants must pay $5,000, the head of the household must go back to their home country before being granted citizenship, and with a new emphasis on skill over family connections means that newly legalized immigrants may not see their family for decades on end. Oh, and the process takes anywhere between eight and thirteen years. If you call that "without penalty" then you have lived a very hard life. But, if there is something that Republicans are good at it is negative image building (see: flip-flopper and now "Amnesty Bill")
So, what does the future hold? The first attempt at a bipartisan "Grand Bargain", as it has been called, has inevitably failed. The more time passes by the more likely it is that immigration reform won't happen. Why? Primary season is in full-swing. Primaries bring out the fringes of each party to vote for their candidate. (Something like 15% of the electorate votes in the primaries, which means that the most-die hard ideologues decide the candidate of each party). The Republican, as seen by the recent debate, will drive hard right on immigration and refuse Bush's moderate stance. That means no guest worker program, and no "amnesty" or anything that stinks of it. Democrats will be more measured on immigration reform because their base is compromised of minorities. Therefore, they will not be as loud about the subject and likely speak in grand terms like "we are a country of immigrants and will continue to be one. We must do what we can to help everyone achieve the American Dream." Primary season is in full-swing, which means it is the worst time for bipartisan anything let alone a marriage between John McCain and Ted Kennedy.
And finally, here are the highlights of the immigration debate in Congress:
Lame-Duck anyone? - President Bush has always been moderate on immigration dating back to his gubernatorial stint in Texas. His chief policy, the guest worker program, was one of the most opposed points of the bill by the Republicans. Bush did not weigh in very deeply into the Congressional battle, and why? Mostly because Bush is no longer the spokesman of the party. There are ten Republican candidates (eleven with Thompson and twelve with Gingrich), which proves that the Republicans are without a singular voice right now. Bush is becoming less influential by the day (approval rating hit a new low: 29%). He thought that immigration could be another one of his grand legacies along with No Child Left Behind and the War in Iraq (so far so good), but it appears that the bill is on life-support. Harry Reid has tactfully begun calling the immigration package, the "president's bill" which serves a dual purpose: 1) to encourage Bush to take some initiative with his ideas and 2) to leave Bush with the check if the bill fails. Bush needs this bill to salvage his reputation. He should get off his horse and get in the game.
Rove might fail at something? - Karl Rove, Bush's chief election strategist, had a dream. Rove wanted to see a permanent Republican majority. How was he going to accomplish this? Rove believed that if Republicans took the Hispanic vote from the Democrats then they would never lose. It appeared to work. In 2000, Gore won the Hispanic vote 65-35 percent and Bush lost the popular vote. In 2004, Kerry won the Hispanic vote 55-45 percent. Hispanics accounted for 12% of the national vote, so Bush's increase of 10% translated to an increase of 1.2% of the national vote (and a 1.2% negative for Democrats). Bush won the popular vote by 3.1%, so that 2.4% difference in Hispanic vote from 2000 to 2004 becomes huge (Dick Morris gave me the numbers). Rove correctly realized the potential of the Hispanic vote and effectively exploited it in '04. But, now what? Rove has been discredited due to Valerie Plame, the 2006 election and now a possible involvement in Alberto Gonzalez's dealings and it is duck season for Bush (a looney toons reference in a political piece?). The Republicans are appealing to their base and beginning to sound like what Fareed Zakaria had called the "New Know-Nothings." The Republicans are rejecting the Rovian permanent majority strategy. This is very disappointing for Red fans because 2004 was merely the beginning of the possible Hispanic conversion.
The Democrats lack the will - I think that pretty much says it all. This bill would have helped dispel the idea that the Democrats were becoming a "do-nothing" Congress. Harry Truman won re-election in 1948 by labeling the Republican Congress as a "do-nothing" Congress. The growing public perception of the Democrats leaves the Republicans room to accuse Pelosi and Reid of the same.
This last highlight is the reason for my disappointment. I am a mere mile or so from the Capitol, yet I cannot help but fathom what goes on there. There are two debates that are coming up: the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind and global warming. I hope that we get the public riled up for action, not for anger. I am a Cubs fan, so I am accustomed to disappointment, but this is becoming too much.
-Wyatt Earp
Last night I was browsing through the channels before the Daily Show came on and I stumbled upon CSPAN (or was it CSPAN 2?). Senator Dick Durbin (Majority Whip) was giving a speech. My channel surfing came to a halt when the ticker under Sen. Durbin told me that the Senate had failed (45-50) to invoke cloture on the immigration bill and bring it to a final vote. This caused me to be rather frustrated, although, I did not dwell on it until the next day. For those who are not familiar with Senate rules: a successful cloture vote ends debate and brings a bill to a final vote on the whole package (in this case the comprehensive immigration bill). Those who do not want the bill passed will often unite and not even allow a vote to occur. Especially on a sensitive subject as immigration some Senators would be just fine in not having a vote on the record to be scrutinized later.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that this does not mean the bill is done, but I am skeptical. Sen. Reid does not agree with most of the bill, so I cannot see him pushing too hard to bring the immigration debate up again. We opened a can of worms and what do we have to show for it? The status quo. Of course, the Republicans will not be done with their debate. Most Republicans, namely Mitt Romney, argue that we should simply enforce the 1986 Immigration Act (which we didn't fully implement) and not worry about a new bill. Others contend that there should not be a legalization process at all for illegal immigrants. As you could see from the recent Republican debate, it is considered by some that any attempt to legalize those who committed a crime is amnesty (it should be noted that our prison system was founded on the idea of reintroducing criminals into society). I must agree with President Bush when he contends that this bill does not offer amnesty. Amnesty is the forgiveness of charges without penalty. In this bill, immigrants must pay $5,000, the head of the household must go back to their home country before being granted citizenship, and with a new emphasis on skill over family connections means that newly legalized immigrants may not see their family for decades on end. Oh, and the process takes anywhere between eight and thirteen years. If you call that "without penalty" then you have lived a very hard life. But, if there is something that Republicans are good at it is negative image building (see: flip-flopper and now "Amnesty Bill")
So, what does the future hold? The first attempt at a bipartisan "Grand Bargain", as it has been called, has inevitably failed. The more time passes by the more likely it is that immigration reform won't happen. Why? Primary season is in full-swing. Primaries bring out the fringes of each party to vote for their candidate. (Something like 15% of the electorate votes in the primaries, which means that the most-die hard ideologues decide the candidate of each party). The Republican, as seen by the recent debate, will drive hard right on immigration and refuse Bush's moderate stance. That means no guest worker program, and no "amnesty" or anything that stinks of it. Democrats will be more measured on immigration reform because their base is compromised of minorities. Therefore, they will not be as loud about the subject and likely speak in grand terms like "we are a country of immigrants and will continue to be one. We must do what we can to help everyone achieve the American Dream." Primary season is in full-swing, which means it is the worst time for bipartisan anything let alone a marriage between John McCain and Ted Kennedy.
And finally, here are the highlights of the immigration debate in Congress:
Lame-Duck anyone? - President Bush has always been moderate on immigration dating back to his gubernatorial stint in Texas. His chief policy, the guest worker program, was one of the most opposed points of the bill by the Republicans. Bush did not weigh in very deeply into the Congressional battle, and why? Mostly because Bush is no longer the spokesman of the party. There are ten Republican candidates (eleven with Thompson and twelve with Gingrich), which proves that the Republicans are without a singular voice right now. Bush is becoming less influential by the day (approval rating hit a new low: 29%). He thought that immigration could be another one of his grand legacies along with No Child Left Behind and the War in Iraq (so far so good), but it appears that the bill is on life-support. Harry Reid has tactfully begun calling the immigration package, the "president's bill" which serves a dual purpose: 1) to encourage Bush to take some initiative with his ideas and 2) to leave Bush with the check if the bill fails. Bush needs this bill to salvage his reputation. He should get off his horse and get in the game.
Rove might fail at something? - Karl Rove, Bush's chief election strategist, had a dream. Rove wanted to see a permanent Republican majority. How was he going to accomplish this? Rove believed that if Republicans took the Hispanic vote from the Democrats then they would never lose. It appeared to work. In 2000, Gore won the Hispanic vote 65-35 percent and Bush lost the popular vote. In 2004, Kerry won the Hispanic vote 55-45 percent. Hispanics accounted for 12% of the national vote, so Bush's increase of 10% translated to an increase of 1.2% of the national vote (and a 1.2% negative for Democrats). Bush won the popular vote by 3.1%, so that 2.4% difference in Hispanic vote from 2000 to 2004 becomes huge (Dick Morris gave me the numbers). Rove correctly realized the potential of the Hispanic vote and effectively exploited it in '04. But, now what? Rove has been discredited due to Valerie Plame, the 2006 election and now a possible involvement in Alberto Gonzalez's dealings and it is duck season for Bush (a looney toons reference in a political piece?). The Republicans are appealing to their base and beginning to sound like what Fareed Zakaria had called the "New Know-Nothings." The Republicans are rejecting the Rovian permanent majority strategy. This is very disappointing for Red fans because 2004 was merely the beginning of the possible Hispanic conversion.
The Democrats lack the will - I think that pretty much says it all. This bill would have helped dispel the idea that the Democrats were becoming a "do-nothing" Congress. Harry Truman won re-election in 1948 by labeling the Republican Congress as a "do-nothing" Congress. The growing public perception of the Democrats leaves the Republicans room to accuse Pelosi and Reid of the same.
This last highlight is the reason for my disappointment. I am a mere mile or so from the Capitol, yet I cannot help but fathom what goes on there. There are two debates that are coming up: the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind and global warming. I hope that we get the public riled up for action, not for anger. I am a Cubs fan, so I am accustomed to disappointment, but this is becoming too much.
-Wyatt Earp
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)