Misplaced Words

"At times when I have sought to honor veterans, I have not been as clear or precise as I should have been about my service in the Marine Corps Reserves.  I have firmly and clearly expressed regret and taken responsibility for my words.  I have made mistakes and I am sorry.  I truly regret offending anyone." 

- Richard Blumenthal in an email to the Hartford Courant

Rand Paul's philosophy got in the way of reality."

-- RNC Chairman Michael Steele, in an interview on Fox News Sunday, on Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul's (R) recent controversial statements.

Recently, a lot of words have been “misplaced .”

The politicians who most wish they could find their misplaced words are Richard Blumenthal (D-CN) and Rand Paul (R-KY).  

It is hard to imagine making the claim you are a Viet Nam vet when you aren’t.  It is even harder to imagine stating you served, and then passing it off with the excuse that you“misplaced” your words.  That is tantamount to saying “Did I say Tuesday? Sorry, I really meant Wednesday.” 

Yet Richard Blumenthal has done just that and survived.  

A Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll in Connecticut, conducted between May 19 and May 20, shows Richard Blumenthal (D) leading Linda McMahon (R) in their Senate contest, 55% to 40%. A copy of the report from this firm which works for Democrats can be found at http://www.politico.com/static/PPM130_blumenthal_5-23-10_memo.html.

Several factors have helped Blumenthal survive.  First, his written official biography correctly states his military service.  Second, he is very popular.  Voters think he has done a good job as Attorney General and he has high approval ratings that will carry him through.  

Finally, even though the New York Times found other incidents where Blumenthal publicly stated he had served in Viet Nam when he hadn’t, the story became the story. 

Did the New York Times get the story from Linda McMahon? Her campaign’s early claims to have sourced the story did little to help the paper’s credibility. Did the paper edit a video of Blumenthal remarks to bolster their point? They had edited the video, but claimed they did so because it was too long.

Despite the Public Editor’s column in the Sunday New York Times on how the story was sourced and written, it lost its impact. Blumenthal appears to have survived and McMahon won’t be able to build on his verbal “misplacement.”

Rand Paul (R-KY) misplaced his words on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show.

Paul, under repeated questioning by Maddow, would not say if he would have supported Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights act. This is the portion of the law Paul was unable to say he could support:

SEC.  201.  (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Most people if asked if they would support such a law would say yes without much thought.  But, Paul spent 19 minutes on national TV trying to figure out how he could say he didn’t without really coming off sounding like a bigot.  

Should anyone be able to go into a restaurant and when they are hungry, or pull into a hotel on a long road trip when they are tired, and not be turned away because the are black, or hispanic?

Paul doesn’t think so. 

His believes that owners of private businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone based on race or any other criteria they choose.  He thinks  anytime the government mandates what a private citizen can do with his or her business amounts to a government “taking.” 

His reasoning has been used successfully for years to fight minimum wage laws, safety laws, and food and drug regulations. According this logic a business owner has a right to set wages and working conditions, and a worker can choose to accept them or not.  The market will weed out unsafe products.  Consequently there is no need for the government to step in and regulate any of these things. 

The Republicans tried the “Blumenthal” defense to protect Paul and make the story about the story.  Palin trotted out her “gatcha journalism” lines, and even though he couldn’t get her name right, Jim DeMint (R-SC) claimed that Rachel Maddow had twisted Paul’s answers on a minor issue.  This tactic failed.

To end it, Mitch McConnel (R-KY) had to step in and said Paul had had his fifteen minutes of fame and he should be quiet.  By in large Paul has now followed that advice.

But for the Republicans the damage is done.

Rand Paul has strengthened the narrative that whether it is lax regulation of oil and banks, or their nativist views on immigration and civil rights, the Republican Party believes it is more important for government to support a business’ right to rob a person of their dignity than it is to support that person’s right to maintain it.

As a result, his misplaced words have helped define the modern face of the Republican party.

Trying to Catch a Wave

“If you can't win a seat that is trending Republican in a year like this, then where is the wave?" Former Republican Representative Tom Davis - Tuesday's night’s Caucus Blog of the New York Times (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/blogging-the-primaries/?scp=2&sq=tom%20davis&st=cse).

Last Tuesday Mark Crist (D) beat Tim Burns (R) in the special election for the Pennsylvania 12th Congressional District by 8 points.  This win in the only congressional district in the country to vote for both John Kerry and John McCain should give the Democrats heart and the Republicans angina.

The last poll before the election was a Public Policy Poll on May 17, that showed Tim Burns (R) with a one point lead over Crist, (http://www.politico.com/2010/).  The last three polls before the election gave Burns any where between a one to six point lead.  

Burns ran his campaign against Pelosi and Obama, and Crist ran his campaign against Burns and the Republicans. Burns ran a campaign on national issues, and never addressed the concerns of the district's voters. Crist kept the focus of his campaign on the amount of Federal dollars he could bring to the district, and hammered Burns for wanting to cut Social Security and ship jobs out of the country.  Burns’ positions did not play well in an aging, rust belt district.

  

Furthermore, as low as Obama and Pelosi’s popularity ratings are in PA-12, the Democrats were still seen as a more attractive alternative than the Republicans.  A key finding in a Public Policy Polling Survey in Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district stated that: only 28% of voters thought Republicans did a good job running the country under President Bush while 63% think they did not. That -35 spread is 15 points worse than the -20 spread for President Obama's approval in the district.  (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/05/reflecting-on-pa-12.html)

A lesson for the Republicans is that people who loose their homes and their jobs may be less concerned about whether Obama is a “socialist” and more angry at the party that they think caused their mess in the first place.

In the Senate race, despite Obama’s support, Arlen Specter’s (D-PA) loss to former Admiral and two term Congressman Joe Sestak (D) did not hurt the Democrats.  Specter was and is a Republican no matter what his current party affiliation.  He supported both the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and all of George W. Bush’s tax cuts and Supreme Court nominations.  

When you switch parties it is a good idea not to be recorded saying you are doing it simply to get reelected.  This was Specter’s second party switch; he switched to the Republicans party soon after winning his first election in 1965.  This history helped people view his latest switch as more one of convenience than of ideology.  

Despite a pledge of support, Obama did not put much push behind Specter’s candidacy. The President seemed to calculate that if Specter, lost it would be to a Democrat the administration could work with, and who could more easily keep the Pennsylvania Senate seat in the Democrat’s hands.  A Rasmussen poll from May 20, 2010, shows this to be the case, with Sestak leading the Republican, Pat Toomey 46%-42%.  (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/pennsylvania/2010_senate_election/election_2010_pennsylvania_senate) 

Where it does hurt Obama is that a Senator or Member of Congress may think twice when promised the President’s support in a difficult re-election campaign in return for a tough vote.  They have only to look at Arlen Specter in retirement to be reminded how tepid that support can be.  

The Republicans, meanwhile are using the Specter/Sestak race as a cover for their own failure in the PA-12 race.  They are blaming their loss on the heavy turnout of Democrats generated by the Senate primary.  In reality their loss underscores their weakness in trying to regain a majority in the House of Representatives.  In 1994 the Republicans were winning all the special elections held before that mid term - in which they took control of the House.  Likewise in 2006 the Democrats were winning special elections held before that mid-term when they wrested control back from the Republicans.

The Republicans have won only one special congressional election this year and that was in Hawaii where the Democrats ran two candidates and split the vote.  Hardly a sign of a seismic shift away from the Democrats.

The Democrats are maintaining their new lead in the generic congressional ballot.  Obama’s approval/disapproval ratings are tied - again not an indication of a strong move to the Republicans.  Finally weaker Democratic candidates like Barbara Boxer are beginning to poll ahead of their Republican challengers.  

The one thing that is clear from Tuesday is the Republicans still have not made a case for being put back in charge.  If the trend continues the Democrats will escape with the average number of losses in a mid-year election and the Republicans will again spend election night wondering what went wrong.  

Gaining Ground with Jim DeMint

"I don't know that I'm always going to be right, but I do know this: I'm not going to sit on the sidelines again. When we tell people we're the conservative party ... I want to make sure we have people sitting in those seats who really mean it."

 - Sen Jim DeMint (R-SC) in an AP Interview May 2010

If I were Mitch McConnell (R-KY) I would want to know where Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is every moment of every day.    DeMint’s PAC, The Senate Conservatives Action Fund (http://www.senateconservatives.com/v1/) has been funneling endorsements and financial support to insurgent Republican candidates all across the country. Many of DeMint’s candidates have defeated, forced out or are ahead of “establishment” candidates who were supported or recruited by McConnell. 

Charlie Crist was forced out of the Florida Governor’s race by Marco Rubio (with support from DeMint’s PAC). Crist is now running as an Independent.  Last week DeMint’s  withheld endorsements for candidates for the Utah Republican Senate nomination until after the incumbent Bob Bennett (R-UT) was forced out of the race.  In a pre-recorded message DeMint endorsed challenger and Tea Party candidate Mike Lee - a slap from a freshman Senator to a senior incumbent.  

In Kentucky, DeMint’s group is supporting Rand Paul over Mitch McConnell’s candidate Trey Grayson.  The polls show Paul comfortably ahead for the nomination.   McConnell himself has become an issue in Kentucky, with Rand Paul telling Kentucky voters that they don’t need a rubber stamp for McConnell as their second Republican Senator. 

The only thing that could help Trey Grayson at this point is a law in Kentucky that declares anyone not registered to vote as of December 2009, ineligible to vote in the primary. This could shut out a lot of enthusiastic, newly registered Tea Party voters. 

No matter what happens McConnell’s hold on his leadership post looks vulnerable, and DeMint looks like the guy who can take it away from him.  McConnell has shown that he can’t protect incumbents or pick candidates.  The insurgent wing of the Republican Party sees him as part of the Washington establishment.  

DeMint on the other hand as a leader of the radicals who are taking over is seen as a power and a kingmaker.

With the money that De Mint’s PAC has spread around, he will have some strong allies in a leadership race.  A look at the ratings of “true conservative Senators” from his Senate Conservatives Action Fund lists 9 other Senators (he makes the 10th - Bunning (R-KY) is currently on the list but could be replaced with Paul) who have ratings of over 90%. (McConnell scores in the 70’s). Presumably these are senators who agree with DeMint enough to support him in a Leadership fight.  That gives him a base of 40% of the caucus.  The addition of one or two Senate candidates whom his PAC supported, combined with the appearance of strength could translate into enough votes to unseat McConnell.

But what is DeMint’s long term plan? He might decide to bypass a run for a Senate Leadership post altogether to pursue bigger goals.

DeMint is giving money to candidates who really don’t have a chance of winning.  For example, he has given money and support to Chuck Devore’s race for the Republican Senate nomination in California, even though it is almost certain Devore will loose to former Rep. Tom Campbell, who has a much better chance of beating Barbara Boxer (D-CA).  

He could be doing this to build support in the Tea Party movement and Republican right wing for a run for President.

In 2012, DeMint can present himself to the Tea Party base as an alternative to Sarah Palin, and as a true believer with the power to get things done.  Palin angered the Tea Party group by endorsing Carly Fiorina in the California  Republican Senate race.  The Tea Party purists were supporting DeVore. They are group who don’t forgive easy.

DeMint will step in with the money and the power, as well as the experience that Palin doesn’t have. He won’t have Palin’s baggage. While Palin is running around being a media personality, DeMint is building the practical grassroots support of the Tea Party crowd.  It is support that any Republican will need to win the Presidential nomination in 2012.

  

McConnell is not the only one who should be looking over his shoulder wondering how fast DeMint is gaining on him. Anyone wanting to run for President in 2012 should be wondering where DeMint is as well.

The Politics of Catastrophe

Folks, since they're sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I'm just noting the timing here.

Rush Limbaugh - On the Deep Water Horizon Blow Out, April 29, 2010

Almost from the moment of the catastrophic blow out of the Deep Water Horizon, the Republicans have been trying to brand this as “Obama’s Katrina.” 

Now, the Republicans have long since come unmoored from reality, so this isn’t a surprise.  But what continues to amaze, is their determination to deny Obama any support regardless of the situation.  

They cannot seem to distinguish the difference between Public Option Health Care and a human disaster that could potentially put millions out of work in the middle of a recession, and that will have dire, long-term environmental consequences. 

The slow Federal response to Katrina helped destroy the Bush presidency.  People were moved and angered by the images of human suffering on roof tops and bridges, and the struggle for survival across the city.  

Meanwhile Bush was having birthday cake with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), FEMA Director Michael Brown was worried about how his shirt appeared on TV, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff had no idea people were stranded at the Superdome.

America suffered along with the rest of New Orleans. We did not need flunkies from the DNC to show up on the news to tell us to that the government had failed - we could see it for ourselves.

The moment Deep Water Horizon blew up, the dark strain of the Republican party was on full display.  Along with millions upon millions of barrels of oil, conspiracy theories poured out of the depths.  

In addition to Limbaugh’s April 29, comments, Dana Perino, former Press Secretary for George W. Bush said on the May 3, 2010, edition of Fox and Friends "I'm not trying to introduce a conspiracy theory, but was this deliberate? You have to wonder...if there was sabotage involved."

Fox was also echoing an accusation made by Rush Limbaugh on his April 30 broadcast, that the Obama administration had waited 9 days before responding to the disaster.    

Eric Bolling, the Fox Business corespondent did his part to keep this canard alive when he said on the same May 3 Fox and Friends “The question is ... why the delay in the response? You guys were pointing out, nine days before it was even addressed, 12 days before he made a formal comment. The question is, did they let this thing leak?”

Like the theories from the “Truthers” who are sure Bush staged 9/11 to have an excuse to invade Iraq, these theories don’t stand up to the facts.  The problem for the Republicans, is while no mainstream Democrat ever stood up for the “Truthers,” mainstream Republicans have repeatedly stood up for these crackpot conspiracy theories. 

Is this doing the Republicans any good? No.

On-going news stories about the cause of the explosion and spill highlight the complexity of an oil rig - making it unlikely that a SWAT team of ecco-saboteurs would have the skills to blow any rig up.   

A simple review of the time line of the Federal government’s response to the spill is enough to expose the “nine day delay” lie. (Media Matters has an excellent timeline at http://mediamatters.org/research/201004300034).

As a result the Republicans look silly, which will hurt them in the long run.

First it will underscore the Democrat’s accusation that the Republicans will say or do anything to hurt Obama, no matter the facts.  As long as the Republicans oppose and attack Obama on everything, they will not be taken seriously on anything. 

No matter how legitimate the points are the Republicans are making, Americans will cease to listen. Whenever Republicans point out issues with a Democratic proposal Americans will simply think to themselves “There you go again” and tune them out. 

Second these statements hurt the Republican’s chances in 2010.   At the beginning of the year the mood of the country seemed to be running against Obama and the Democrats.  With any skill the Republicans could have built on that mood in the same way the Democrats did in 2006 and 2008.

Instead the Republicans overplayed their hand.  By standing in the way of everything, they morphed the anti-Democratic feeling into an anti-incumbent movement. The Republicans ceased to be seen as a potential solution and are now perceived as part of the problem.  

Despite the Republican’s best efforts the country is not turning away from Obama over the Gulf oil spill like it did Bush over Katrina.  A quick look at the summary of polls found on Pollster.com (http://www.pollster.com/) show that since the Deep Water Horizon spill, Obama’s approval rating have moved back over 50%.  In the last week Democrats have overtaken Republicans in the 2010 National Congressional Ballot poll.    

Republicans could have used this catastrophe to present solutions that showed vision and human compassion.  But they failed to do so.

Like the last catastrophe in the Gulf this will damage their credibility in the months and years ahead.

Glenn Beck was Right

“He is a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens.  If you are a citizen, you obey the law and follow the Constitution. [Shahzad] has all the rights under the Constitution. We don't shred the Constitution when it is popular, we do the right thing."

Glenn Beck - Fox and Friends - 05/04/2010 talking about Faisal Shahzad - the Times Square Bomber (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005040007)

I agree with Glenn Beck. 

A suspect’s right against self incrimination is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. It is the bulwark that keeps the State from using its overwhelming powers against an individual suspected of a crime. 

Reminding a suspect of these rights by reading them their Miranda warning, reinforces to both the State and the accused that there are limits to what the State can do to extract evidence. 

Shahzad talked both before and after he was read his Miranda warning. It didn’t take beatings, sleep deprivation, intimidation or water-boarding to get him to reveal enough information to implicate the Taliban In Pakistan and to trigger arrests of members of his overseas support network. 

Despite that, the race is on to see who can score the most points being tough on terrorist.

First up is Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn), who along with Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass) proposed a law that would automatically strip a terrorist suspect of his or her US citizenship and its protections. (http://lieberman.senate.gov/assets/pdf/TEA_full.pdf).  

Their proposal overturns Supreme Court decisions from the 1960’s as well as State Department precedent set since the early 1990’s. (http://opiniojuris.org/2010/05/06/lieberman-terrorist-expatriation-act-constitutional-but-meaningless/). 

We have to remember that this proposal comes, not only after a failed terrorist attack, but less than two years after an election where a main theme of one candidate for the Presidency was the inference that his (and her) opponent supported a terrorist.

Sen. John McCain (R-Az) was content to let then Governor Sarah Palin fire up the far right of the Republican party by accusing Obama of “palling around terrorists.”  They did nothing to tamp down the far right’s speculation that Obama was a Muslim, a foreigner, and a terrorist sympathizer, all of which remain part of the Tea Party and “Birther” creeds today. 

Now that these forces have completed their takeover of the Republican party, what would prevent them from using this power against their enemies? 

Not much. Look at recent history.   

When the Patriot Act was passed it contained broad powers for the government to initiate electronic surveillance of US citizens. Civil libertarians were reassured over and over again, that due process would be strictly enforced and thus, citizens’ rights would be protected. The government promised to listen in on only conversations of high-level suspects in major terrorist investigations. 

This turned out not to be the case.

The government listened to and recorded virtually every overseas phone conversation made after the Patriot Act was passed.  Investigators even passed around recordings of some of the more salacious calls for their own amusement.

With that track record could anyone doubt, that if enacted, Lieberman’s proposal would be widely abused?

Second up is Attorney General Eric Holder

When asked while testifying on Capitol Hill if reading Shahzad his Miranda warning had stopped the flow of information Holder answered “No, it did not. As we have seen in prior investigations, the giving of Miranda warnings has not deterred people from talking to us, and Mr. Shahzad is, in fact, continuing to cooperate with us.” 

But by 05/09/2010 on the Sunday talk show “This Week” Holder back tracked a bit and said:  “I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public-safety exception [to the Miranda requirements]. And that’s one of the things that I think we’re going to be reaching out to Congress…to come up with a proposal that is both constitutional, but that is also relevant to our times and the threats that we now face.”  (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36965.html#ixzz0nSKpnqNX).

The public safety exception to Miranda, was firmly established by the US Supreme Court in 1984 in New York v. Quarles.  The police can interrogate a suspect about an immediate danger to the public, such as asking “are there other devices out there,” or “are you acting alone?”  

The current exception would have covered the situation in Times Square. It is hard to see what purpose broadening it would serve.  

In this race to be tough, there seems to be very little discussion of a more important issue - if we limit the very freedoms that make this country what it is, have the terrorist won with only a dud bomb in a second-hand SUV?  

The best thing we can do to protect this country and what it stands for is to uphold its laws and values. Glenn Beck is right, the freedoms and protections guaranteed by the Constitution are for everyone, even when we feel attacked and even if when we feel afraid.

The Party's Over

“It’s very clear to me that all the assumptions, all the rules that governed campaigns previous to 2010 are out the window.”

- Colorado Republican Party Chairman Dick Wadhams

Last week, Gov. Charlie Crist (R-Fl) left the Republican party to run as an Independent in the US Florida Senate race. The narrative has been “brave popular governor forced out by tea party candidate.”

Does Crist have a chance? Of course he does. It will only take about 35% of the vote to win the seat. With Crist as an Independent, Tea Party Republican Marco Rubio’s chances of winning have fallen. Rubio will get the solid right-wing Republican vote. But the center Republicans and the Independents won’t move in his direction.

Whereas Democrats in Florida, outnumber Republicans by about 650,000 voters, Crist will stand a better chance of getting the conservative Democrats than Rubio. Crist could also do better in I-4 corridor independents than either Rubio or the Democrat, Kendrick Meek.

The first polls seem to bear this out. In a poll conducted by McLaughlin & Associates, at the end of the week, (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_columnist_mikethomas/2010/04/new-poll-charlies-lead-about-to-go-poof.html), Crist was favored by 33 percent of respondents. Marco Rubio was favored by 29 percent and Democrat Kendrick Meek by 15 percent. A Rasmussen poll from 05/03/10 supports these numbers (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/fl_2010_sen_rasmussen_53.php). Admittedly the polls will be volatile for a while, but these early polls do support Crist’s decision.

The Democrats in Florida have problems of their own. That Party’s chosen candidate has an insurgent challenger of his own.

Emboldened by Crist’s move to run as an Independent, Jeff Greene, who made billions betting that the Florida housing market would collapse, announced he would run against Meek for the Democratic nomination. Meek is not well known statewide and does not have deep pockets, even though he has party support. Greene does have the money to introduce himself and run a strong statewide campaign. With Crist splitting the Republicans, Greene sees the Democratic nomination as something worth having.

The conventional wisdom is that Crist will be defeated. But this is a volatile race in a volatile state. Anything could happen, from Rubio’s ethics issues blowing up around the election, (Rubio is reportedly under investigation by the Feds for not properly reimbursing the State GOP for charges he made on his Party credit card http://www.wusf.usf.edu/news/2010/04/21/gop_credit_card_scandal_draws_federal_attention) to Greene winning the Democratic nomination and pouring money into his race to beat Rubio and Crist.

When Sen. John Cronyn (R-Tex) Chair of the National Republican Senate Committee recruited Crist, this seemed to be a pretty safe move. But what should have Cronyn and the Republican party elders worried is that Crist is not the only establishment Republican in trouble. In addition to Crist, Carly Fiorina, of California, former Rep Rob Simmons of Connecticut, and Secretary of State Trey Grayson of Kentucky are all having a much harder time than expected. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36522.html) - all in a year the Republicans are supposed to have an easy ride to overwhelming victory.

So what is going on?

The country seems to be at a tipping point where Political parties don’t matter. Voters are moved by specific issues and candidates, and not by party. In the age of the internet and news cycles that are less informative and more editorial, voters no longer have to rely on their ward boss or the Party elders to tell them what the issues are or which candidate to vote for.

Heavy fund raising is now happening outside the party machine. Howard Dean and President Obama both proved you can raise a tremendous amount of money through direct appeals over the internet. Michael Steele’s antics at the RNC have only accelerated a trend of Republican donor’s giving their money to special interest PACS and not to the Party itself.

This situation is why the Tea Party Movement has been so effective in becoming a strong force in the Republican party in such a short period of time.

Elections will driven by personality and the hot topic of the moment, with the winner being the candidate who has the money to best capitalize on the passions of the moment. Party affiliation will become a shorthand for a general set of beliefs, and not a reference to any disciplined and organized group of voters that can be mobilized for a particular candidate. We could be seeing the end of party driven elections.

For the Parties, the party could be over.