Red Elephant

Election Moneyline May 18 Primaries

2010-05-18T09:35:00.000-07:00

With it being Election Day in Pennsylvania, Arkansas and Kentucky (oh, and Oregon) it is time for some odds-making:

Pennsylvania: Democratic Senate Primary
Senator Arlen Specter v. Rep. Joe Sestak
Sestak 3:5
Most likely Sestak's pollster called him in the first week of May and told him he was going to win. The contest has been trending Sestak since February, although is dead-even going into today. Specter's rationale for switching parties, namely he did not see himself winning a GOP primary, smacks of the stuff that makes people dislike Washington politicians. While there are no silver bullets in political campaigns, this year the magic bullet is anti-incumbency.

Kentucky GOP Senate Primary
Sec. of State Trey Grayson v. Dr. Rand Paul
Paul 1:5
Bad omen for those in the GOP seeking moderation as the Tea Party favorite Paul is set to trounce the establishment candidate. Paul's likely win can be credited to anti-incumbency fervor and is a slap to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who hand-picked Grayson.

Arkansas Democratic Senate Primary
Sen. Blanche Lincoln v. Lt. Gov. Bill Halter
Lincoln 3:2
Halter is playing for a run-off as there are three candidates in this contest (businessman D.C. Morrison is polling around 6 percent) and Lincoln is at 46 percent, Halter in the high 30's. If recent polling is correct and there is 11 percent undecided and those voters break as they should, Lincoln squeeks by with slightly more than 50 percent thus avoiding a run-off with Halter.

Crisped Crist

2010-04-20T13:07:00.000-07:00

Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL) is contemplating an independent run for the U.S. Senate. Down in the polls and likely to lose to the more conservative Marco Rubio in the primary election, Gov. Crist is unready to release his dreams of becoming a Senator. Red Elephant welcomes him to run as an independent if he withdraws from the August Republican primary election.

It is unacceptable for Gov. Crist to somehow engineer a way to stay in the GOP primary while laying the groundwork for an independent candidacy in the general election ballot if, or when, he loses to Mr. Rubio. Just as it was poor conduct by Doug Hoffman to run as an independent for the U.S. House of Representatives after losing in the GOP primary in NY's 23rd congressional special election, so would it be in bad form for Gov. Crist to replicate the actions of a sore loser.

Primary elections exist so that voters may chose in which direction they want their party to go, and in which candidate they entrust to lead their party. Gov. Crist may have decided he cannot lead the GOP. If that is the case he should step aside in favor of Mr. Rubio. If Gov. Crist thinks he can lead the state as an independent U.S. Senator he's free to make that choice, so long as he does not try to have his cake and eat it too. Gov. Crist does not deserve to be a Republican candidate and later an independeant candidate after the party rejects him at the polls.

Why Gov. Crist finds himself in this predicament is another matter. The situation he finds himself is what it is. What Gov. Crist does next will define him as a politician. Given it is unlikely he wins the GOP primary election, Gov. Crist may need to come to terms with the fact that the career path he desires is out of reach for the moment, but forever out of reach by making the wrong decision.

First in Flight from Steele

2010-04-08T15:46:00.000-07:00

NC Republican State Party Tom Fetzer today called for RNC Chairman Michael Steele's resignation. This doesn't indicate a Steele resignation is inevitable, but it is a significant crack in the dam that is the RNC Members who have been silent until today. Probability still favors Steele finishing his term.

Rule of Law

2010-04-05T18:11:00.000-07:00

The announcement by American Crossroads, a newly formed 527 committee, that it has hired Steven Law as President and CEO is significant. Mr. Law has very close ties to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), having been the Senator's chief of staff and National Republican Senatorial Committee executive director.

There is a potent combination aligning between the American Action Network (a 501 c3 & c4) and American Crossroads. Involved in both of these new groups are Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie. These are very smart, well connected people who have total understanding of RNC operations. What this means is that RNC Chairman Michael Steele will stay where he is despite his gaffe prone performance because the real action will be elsewhere operating in a manner such that Steele cannot interfere.

With a reported $30 million in pledges already, American Crossroads is off to a spectacular start and will be a major player in the 2010 mid term election. Meanwhile, the RNC will have a role in this year's election cycle, but the truth is Mr. Steele is there to keep the seat warm for his successor. The wager is Steele won't manage to burn the RNC down until his replacement arrives in time for the 2012 presidential election. There's not indication who that successor might be, but Mr. Law could emerge as a good candidate for the job.

How It Works at the RNC

2010-03-30T06:06:00.000-07:00

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is unlikely to resign and more unlikely to be recalled and replaced following recent disclosures about questionable and abhorrent RNC expenses. While anything is possible, the mechanics of replacing a chairman involves too many personalities, making it likely Chairman Steele fulfills his elected term through January 2011. The mechanics of a recall are not the only reason Mr. Steele probably keeps his job. There are two other reasons to consider.

Reason No. 1) with the recent Supreme Court opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission combined with the more recent ruling in the Federal District Court of DC, the RNC is not the place to be for those interested in having a significant impact on the GOP and the mid-term elections this year. The real money is in the non-profit groups (501c4's and c3's; IRS tax designation) groups that will be able to raise and spend corporate contributions. These groups are formed or forming and they will boast heavy thinkers and hitters who normally congregate at the RNC but have decided their brain power and deep pockets are better applied elsewhere.

Reason No. 2) when the GOP eventually nominates a presidential nominee that nominee and their staff and supporters will dictate terms to the RNC chairman, in this case Mr. Steele if he is able to keep his job by getting re-elected in January 2011. Mr. Steele's best bet and hope is that the GOP does well at the polls this November. A good ballot box performance by the GOP this fall will make it hard to remove Mr. Steele from his RNC post. In the event Mr. Steele survives past next January he will be placed on a very short leash by the GOP presidential nominee. Of course, if the GOP wins in 2012, Mr. Steele will reap the benefits and find himself in a plum Administration job thereafter.

So while many Republicans are hoping for Mr. Steele's ouster due to his gaffe prone performance, more likely it is the Democrats who get their wish by seeing no disruption in Chairman Steele’s current term in office.

RNC Strikes Out Swinging for Corporate Dollars

2010-03-26T14:16:00.000-07:00

The Republican National Committee lost it's first attempt to restore its ability to raise corporate contributions following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. The RNC's argument is that since it is a national party committee active in local and state as well as federal elections the ban on corporate contributions is a detriment to its activities in state and local elections where corporate contributions are legal.

Red Elephant actually agrees with the RNC's reasoning (the reasoning applies equally to the Democratic National Committee, which was not a party to this appeal). Candidly, Red Elephant has immense distaste for RNC Chairman Michael Steele and so is conflicted about the ruling. However, the ruling today by the Federal District Court for DC does not seem to square with the recent SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. That said, it makes sense that this ruling was made as this court was not prepared to overturn the SCOTUS opinion in McConnell v. FEC from 2003.

This further empowers the recently formed American Action Network, which will rise in GOP influence while RNC Chairman Steele grinds his teeth about not being able to play in the corporate contribution sandbox.

The Benefits of Hanging Together

2010-03-26T13:51:00.000-07:00

James O'Keefe and his fellow conspirators drew a long straw from the Department of Justice today and had charges regarding their caper at Senator Mary Landrieu's (D-LA) office reduced to a misdemeanor. It appears the co-conspirators have hung together to fight the DoJ with success, thus proving the axiom of hanging together so as to not hang seperately.

Democrats, Sharks and Healthcare Treasure

2010-03-19T12:59:00.000-07:00

Imagine you are a cabin boy on a pirate ship. The captain of the ship tells the crew there’s treasure at the bottom of shark infested waters. Everybody wants the treasure, but nobody wants to swim through the sharks to get it. The problem: the captain wants that treasure and will make somebody go get it. There’s nobody better and more expendable for the job than the cabin boy. The life of the cabin boy is ready precarious under the constant threat of imminent death at the hands of an unruly crew who now cajole the cabin boy into getting the treasure with promises of sharing the riches. To decline means being more savagely treated with the fair prospect of death regardless. Salvation, the captain says, lay at the bottom of the ocean beneath the man eaters. Bring the treasure aboard and life will be much better and safer. The choices are poor, so the cabin boy decides to risk being eaten alive in attempt to make a better life rather than take no risk and live the remaining days in fear of imminent death.

That is the situation in which so many vulnerable House Democrats find themselves today as the vote for healthcare reform looms. Democratic House Members from safe districts are urging their vulnerable colleagues to seize the treasure for them. To help cajole these vulnerable Members they’ve rolled out a doomed cabin boy, former Rep. Marjorie Margolies Mezvinsky, who suffered death at the polls after casting the deciding vote for President Bill Clinton’s 1993 budget. To hear The Hon. Margolies Mezvinsky tell it, she was glad to have sacrificed herself to retrieve the treasure for her captain.

Most shocking is that the House will adopt the Senate version of the healthcare bill without a single rescission. Not one! That is a total abdication of the House’s legislative responsibility. But the treasure calls and the House leadership is so intent on winning they will do it at any cost, including sacrificing their own and perhaps their majority. House Democrats take solace in reports by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that say the healthcare bill reduces the budget without mentioning the fact that reductions come on the back of higher taxes. House Democrats are welcome to applaud their deficit reduction efforts, but they will pay the price for doing it by taxing more, not spending less.

Meanwhile, the sharks wait patiently, knowing how many Democratic cabin boys they will need to devour to earn the right to rule the seas; a reward richly deserved for showing the cohesion and patience necessary to have a furious and fulfilling feeding frenzy at the polls.

Desmond Tutu on God's Love

2010-03-12T04:11:00.000-08:00

A compelling piece by Desmond Tutu in today’s Washington Post is well worth the time to read. Rev. Tutu lays bare the hypocrisy of religious intolerance saying, “Isn't it amazing that we are all made in God's image, and yet there is so much diversity among his people? Does God love his dark- or his light-skinned children less? The brave more than the timid? And does any of us know the mind of God so well that we can decide for him who is included, and who is excluded, from the circle of his love?”

Rove on Redistricting

2010-03-04T12:57:00.000-08:00

The Wall Street Journal carried an op-ed on redistricting by Mr. Karl Rove today that is worth a read. Red Elephant addressed the same topic some months ago.

Glenn Beck The Jester

2010-02-21T05:26:00.000-08:00

Glenn Beck lectured the Republican Party on purity before the Conservative Political Action Conference, berating the GOP for spending too much and expanding the size and scope of the federal government. Mr. Beck called on the GOP to show contrition and follow the same twelve steps Mr. Beck took when recovering from alcoholism. The irony that that the explosive spending Mr. Beck decries occurred at the hands of self-proclaimed conservative Republicans, some born again and others recovering alcoholics, who have been the leaders of the GOP in Congress and the White House does not seem to faze his frenzy.

Mr. Beck attacked the “big tent” Republican philosophy and equated the policy to Republican elected officials losing their soul upon arriving in Washington. However, the only forsaken souls are those of conservative politicians who gladly conspired with President George W. Bush to expand the size of government and its debt and deficit. Moderates in the GOP are the ones who have traditionally fought for PayGo legislation that checks government spending with offsetting budget cuts or tax increases; legislation that forces tough decisions by lawmakers when constructing a budget.

Mr. Beck went so far as to impugned President Teddy Roosevelt by confusing Roosevelt’s promotion of philanthropy (a trait central to the American spirit) with progressive government spending when quoting the 26th President. Perhaps Mr. Beck should be aware of another Roosevelt quote: “The men with the muck rakes are often indispensible to the well of society; but only if they know when to stop raking the muck.”

The Mount Vernon Statement

2010-02-17T08:10:00.000-08:00

The Mount Vernon Statement, recently released by leading conservatives, is to be applauded for its sincerity and principled stance. Only in one paragraph does it veer into the paranoid, asserting that the ideas around the founding of the country are under sustained attack. However, this is an effort to fuel a call to action to rally agreeable and persuadable citizens around the statement’s signers. That aside, this is a clear definition of the principles by which these particular conservatives will define themselves and their cause in contrast with their opposition.

Those who read this statement and decide to rally to its call should also realize that those behind the promotion of the Mount Vernon Statement are in the business of politics. Instilling fear of a sustained attack on the nation’s founding principles is a method to mine potential new donors and subscribers to their causes and publications.

The conservatives signing the statement are in the business of promoting and instilling conservative values in legislation which, fortunately, is their constitutional right. The ideal disposition of these same conservatives would be to also recognize the rights of those whom may be in conflict with their personal faith, but inevitably guaranteed the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

P.S. Red Elephant gets the intent of the use of cursive font for the signatories, but it's a little hokey.

Hunting for Healthcare Reform

2010-02-08T13:46:00.000-08:00

A lobbyist friend described the Democrat’s performance on healthcare reform by equating it to a joke he’d heard. The joke goes like this: a hunter sees a bear and shoots to kill. He misses the bear, who becomes enraged. The bear chases down the hunter, bends him over a tree limb and takes liberties then goes on his way. The hunter tracks the bear again and takes another shot, missing. The bear again attacks the hunter, bending him over a tree for another go then departs again. One more time the hunter tracks the bear and fires, again missing. The bear charges the hunter and pins him to the ground. Snarling, the bear says, “You’re missing on purpose!”

This seems to be the mindset of Democrats when it comes to healthcare reform. They don’t really want it but take the shot anyway despite knowing what’s in store for their failure. There was no will in the Senate to pass a bill that satisfied both the White House and U.S. House Democrats and the threat of a Republican filibuster was convenient. If the Senate Democrats truly wanted a bill on healthcare reform they would have called the Republican bluff on a filibuster. Having had 60 Senators in the Democratic caucus Majority Leader Reid could have forced Republicans to take to the Senate floor and speak continuously to delay the vote, rather than taking the Republicans at their word that an indefinite delay was desired.

This is not to say that Red Elephant thinks the healthcare reform bill was good legislation. Senate Democrat's efforts indicate no desire to pass the legislation. Where there's will there's a way, and if the Senate Democrats had the will they could have made the bill happen before the Massachusetts special election that lost them their 60 seat majority. If there’s any doubt, simple ask oneself, does a bear evacuate in the words?

GOP Heavy Hitters Announce New Initiative

2010-02-01T07:51:00.000-08:00

The American Action Network (AAN) is a new Republican non-profit that is perfectly positioned to take advantage of the recent Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance outside of the structure of the Republican National Committee (RNC). The AAN brings together some of the biggest and best political networks through the participation of The Hon. Jeb Bush and Governor Haley Barbour (R-MS). Joining these Republican leaders is superlative GOP major donor Fred Malek and political mastermind Karl Rove. AAN will be a group to watch going into the 2010 and 2012 elections.

The fact that Jeb Bush and Haley Barbour are involved means that there are nationwide, presidential-level political resources involved. Both of these men have networks that span the American political compass and have decided to apply them on behalf of the GOP via the AAN. These are serious, thoughtful minds with the ability to successfully implement a political agenda.

The addition of Karl Rove speaks to the intent of AAN to organize nationwide and apply the accompanying muscle for the purpose of winning elections. Mr. Rove may be considered negatively by many opposed to his political views and denounced as the Dark Lord of elections, but he has a set of skills like few others. The Democratic and liberal opposition would do well to stay abreast of AAN activities under Mr. Rove’s guidance.

Mr. Malek’s inclusion in AAN speaks volumes to the state of affairs at the RNC. It has been reported and can be trusted that there are many high net worth individuals who have been long time donors to the RNC who are unhappy with the current management of Chairman Michael Steele. Mr. Malek’s decision to be front and center at the launch of the AAN means there are many like him who will choose to put their contributions in the hands of this outfit of powerful thinkers who can get it done at the ballot box.

The initial criticism of the AAN will draw parallels between it, the National Policy Forum (NPF) and the more recent National Council for a New America. The NPF was conceived in 1993 by then RNC Chairman Barbour as a vehicle to raise money, develop policy ideas and germinate those ideas by building grassroots coalitions. The NPF was derailed by questions around a $2.1 million loan guarantee from the U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation. The National Council for a New America was launched in 2009 and died quickly of its own accord due to questions around its founding out of the leadership office of U.S. Representative Eric Cantor. The difference is the Supreme Court ruling, particularly in the case of the NPF. With this ruling comes the ability for the NPF concept to achieve expectations in the shape of the AAN.

The AAN has been established and will be developed by influential, wealthy people with the intent of winning elections on behalf of the Republican Party. In turn, the AAN will have the ability to attract grassroots supporters. More importantly, AAN will have the resources to conduct outstanding research that will manifest as persuasive electoral communications. Despite the Supreme Court decision on corporate free speech, the national political party committees are still prevented from accepting corporate contributions. This is a bucket of money the party committees desire to dip into but may not. Thus, while the influence of the RNC will not be wholly diminished, the AAN formation indicates a power shift within the GOP.

Free Speech for Corporations and Unions Says SCOTUS

2010-01-21T14:29:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission (FEC) is a significant development in American electoral politics and campaign finance reform that will have deep impact on the 2010 mid-term election. The 5-4 decision reverses precedent that barred corporations and unions from spending money to advocate the defeat or election of a federal candidate up until Election Day.

In many ways this decision is bad for the Democratic and Republican national party committees. While the ban is lifted on corporate and union expenditures, the political parties are not relieved from the prohibition on corporate (or “soft”) money. The danger exists that the major political parties’ voices will be displaced by corporate and union expenditures that will not have to exist under the limits imposed on contributions to federal candidates and committees. Corporations and unions will have the ability to easily allocate and spend money on political campaign messaging while the political parties labor under the expensive burden of raising limited contributions from individual donors and political action committees.

This decision is a boon to the political consultant class. The pool of resources and potential clients now available to the campaign professionals just exploded. Corporations and unions will need these professionals to plan and execute their political expenditures and the political consultant will grow richer and more influential thanks to this Supreme Court decision.

It is worth the effort to read the opinion of the Supreme Court written by Justice Kennedy as well as the dissent by Justice Stevens. The opinion of the Court speaks to the dangers of chilling free speech by not overturning precedent in this case. Justice Kennedy’s opinion also makes the sensible contention that just because elected officials listen and give access to donors it does not mean those same officials are corrupt. Most importantly, Justice Kennedy’s opinion instructs that the corporation has as much right to free speech as any other member of society and thus any laws muzzling corporate speech is a First Amendment violation. Throughout the opinion the argument is made that the court must guard against the role of the FEC as censor as it dictates who gets and does not get a voice in political campaign dialogue and debate.

Justice Stevens’ dissent is long and detailed but also sensible; rejecting out of hand that corporations are members of society (citing that a corporation cannot hold public office and has no soul). Justice Stevens is adamant that the five justices who voted to reverse the lower court’s decision in this case simply expanded the case from its limited nature, thus changing the case in order to change the law (a trend in the federal executive branch most prominent during the recent Bush Administration). The dissent goes on to observe that the majority of the Supreme Court violates the judicial process of maintaining what has been decided (stare decisis), observing that if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more.

While Justice Steve’s argument is persuasive, sometimes it best to err on the side of caution. “Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut and stretched,” said Thomas Jefferson. Those words are applicable to what is sure to be a continuing debate about campaign finance reform because of this Supreme Court decision.

Election Moneyline - MA U.S. Senate Special

2010-01-19T05:12:00.000-08:00

Today is the opening ceremony of the 2010 mid-term elections with a special election for the U.S. Senate to fill Sen. Edward Kennedy’s (D-MA) seat. Therefore, some odd-making are in order.

It is also worth noting that Republican rank and file, particularly Brown’s major donors and fundraisers are not happy with the national Republican Party’s (e.g. RNC and NRSC) level of support of Republican nominee State Sen. Scott Brown.

Martha Coakley – Democrat
1-2
Arrogance and stupidity on the campaign trail are a lethal mixture and she seems to have perfected the concoction in this special election. This race was hers to lose and she may well have done that with the consequences being severe to President Obama’s healthcare agenda. A Coakley win derails GOP talking points abouts about the mid-term election trend.

Scott Brown - Republican
1-5
Brown has the momentum going into today’s election and has to be the favorite despite running in a Democratic stronghold to replace a Democratic icon. This longest of shots is like sinking a jump shot at TD Garden from the roof of a moving car on I-93; don’t be surprised if Brown makes it. While Brown’s win will have been done on the back of displeasure over President Obama’s healthcare reform, it is not a bad pickup for the moderate wing of the GOP.

Small Donors With a Big Voice

2010-01-18T06:50:00.000-08:00

Last week the Brookings Institute unveiled a study on how to foster citizen participation through small donors and volunteers to political campaigns, entitled Reform in the Age of Networked Campaigns. The authors are all well known and rightly respected thinkers on campaign finance reform (Anthony Corrado, Michael Malbin, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein). The conclusion of the study is that campaign finance reform should encourage small donor participation so that the percentage of small donations increases with the intent to curb potential corruption. The ideas within the study are sensible. However, it is worth examining whether the proposed reforms could encourage a new source of political coercion.

Timely to this topic is the release of Jaron Lanier’s new book, You Are Not A Gadget. In his book Mr. Lanier ponders whether the “Web’s structure and ideology are fostering nasty group dynamics and mediocre collaborations” (New York Times, January, 2010). While Mr. Lanier’s book is largely about retooling the Web through software revisions and other innovations to combat piracy, his point about hive thinking and the online mob mentality is applicable to campaign finance reform in the context of socio-political media.

The Web offers numerous places for the ideological to find a home and self-polarize. Conservatives tend to take refuge at places like Red State and Free Republic. Liberals tend to congregate at places like Daily Kos and Fire Dog Lake. These sites offer the opportunity to mix and mingle with those of a similar political persuasion and are also involved in issue advocacy (usually to the benefit of candidates aligned with their stated policy interests). These types of sites also assist in candidate money bombs; when candidates set a date to raise a specific amount of campaign contributions. Ultimately, these political ideology sites encourage the type of hive thinking that leads to a mob mentality which, with critical mass, can be very influential in a political campaign contest and upon the direction of a political party. Due to the large numbers of people engaged in politics via social media, these networks can exhibit a great deal of leverage over a candidate and political party.

The assumption in Reform in the Age of Networked Campaigns is that our current mechanism for funding political campaigns encourages corruption; with a few giving a lot to political candidates. Those few who give so much are therefore in a position to influence legislators after the election has been won. It is undeniable that giving money in the manner and amount done by corporate political action committees is intended to have influence on legislators.

When asked during the presentation of their report if their proposals could give rise to further polarization of the electorate, the authors flatly rejected the possibility. The reason for the rejection is that small donors tend not to try lever their small donation (less than $100) with candidates who become legislators. That may be true in the direct mail fundraising paradigm. However, when socio-political media donors band together to give to a candidate the percentage of small donations given with a goal in mind increases. When that increase reaches a critical mass, the band of small donors will have a clear voice that cannot be ignored by candidates, even though those donors may not be constituents.

The overall impact of social media is positive because it increases citizen participation in elections (e.g. President Obama’s 2008 candidacy). But it also raises the potential danger when combing “hive thinking” with the leverage of aggregate donations by small donors banding together who are activated by the impact they can have on candidates by bundling their contributions via socio-political media. This in turn could result in the increase of corruption, rather than its restraint which is one objective of the report offered by the authors of the Brookings Institute study. Candidates will find it is easier to say no to a handful of lobbyists than it will be to say no to large groups of organized small donors with the ability to both vote in a block and voice their demands in unison. That being said, money is an essential element to every candidacy. Greater citizen participation in campaign fundraising means more prospective donors and there isn’t a campaign professional who would decline a bigger campaign budget.

Sarah Palin's Favorite Founding Father

2010-01-14T11:42:00.000-08:00

Mrs. Sarah Palin recently stated that the founding fathers were led by George Washington. This answer speaks volumes about Mrs. Palin’s basic knowledge about the history of the United States. George Washington, while our country’s greatest president, was not necessarily a leader within the Continental Congress. Such shallow knowledge about the founding of the nation from Mrs. Palin, a person of political influence, is disturbing.

The Continental Congress’ leaders are generally thought to have been those who drafted the Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin) as well as John Hancock (president of the Second Continental Congress) who succeeded the first president, Peyton Randolph. There were 56 delegates in the First Continental Congress (there were 253 total attending delegates in both congresses), all of whom were patriots but not all of whom agreed with what the colonies’ disposition should be toward the King of England.

Washington emerged as a leader when selected by the Second Continental Congress in 1775 to be the general of the Continental Army, partly due to his military experience. George Washington is well known to every American citizen and he is cited by most Americans as the greatest American president. Perhaps this is the only founding father that Mrs. Palin has any knowledge of at all.

It is generally accepted that Mrs. Palin has an intellectual handicap. When Mrs. Palin places herself in the public eye it is both acceptable and important to point out her intellectual deficiencies. The point of this exercise is to both be a check on facts and figures espoused on cable television news programs, but also to vigilantly measure her abilities as she pursues greater political influence.

As the topic of founding fathers was discussed by Mrs. Palin it is worth noting arguably the most famous quote from signing of the Declaration of Independence. In response to Mr. Hancock’s urging for the delegates to “hang” together with the announcement of the document, Mr. Franklin said, “We must indeed hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately.” Red Elephant fears Mrs. Palin will cause the hanging of the GOP with her shallow intellect and pursuit of money, power and fame.

Primary Rules of Engagement

2010-01-11T08:31:00.000-08:00

The latest offensive from the Tea Party movement is to warn Republican Party leaders that if they do not adhere to “constitutional” conservatism then they are going to be “ostracized.” Challenging Republican incumbents in primary elections will be the vehicle to punish the GOPers who do not adhere to the movement’s principles. This strategy is perfectly legitimate until it strays into territory explored by the Tea Party movement in New York’s 23rd congressional district and results in a sore loser variable that diminishes the movement’s legitimacy as an enforcer of “constitutional” conservatism.

In NY’s 23rd CD contest the losing GOP primary candidate, who earlier vowed to support his Republican primary opponent in the event she won reversed himself and mounted a third party challenge in the general election. This was an excessively lose application of the rules of primary election engagement that resulted in the escalation of the conflict between conservatives and moderates in the GOP and ultimately resulted in the GOP losing a seat in the US House of Representatives.

The rules of engagement have traditionally been that a primary election challenge is the best method to influence the direction of a political party. Using the rules of engagement of a primary election determines when, where and how force (in this case electoral) shall be used. When these rules are loosely observed (or flatly rejected), the violator abdicates legitimacy. Doug Hoffman competed for the Republican nomination, lost and subsequently sought and received the Conservative Party nomination in the general election contest and ultimately forced out the Republican nominee. Mr. Hoffman, for all intents and purposes, ran under the mantle of the Tea Party Patriots given the climate of the moment.

If the Tea Party Patriots are intent on changing the direction of the GOP (and in turn the US Congress) by engaging in Republican primary election contests then they must comply with the outcome, regardless if their candidates win or lose. To dismiss losing results by later running as third party candidates in general elections clearly implies that those running the movement and their candidates do not intend to influence the direction of the GOP but rather sabotage the GOP. If the Tea Party's goal is to have influence on Capitol Hill then they should build their own party and allow the Republican Party and its primary voters to take their desired course without intrusion by sore losers.

If Mr. Hoffman’s performance is indicative of what is to come from the Tea Party’s directive to punish Republican incumbents then the movement is as guilty of gaming the electoral system as those they seek to condemn and punish. Such actions smack of vengeance and such vengeful intentions defile the Tea Party’s stated principles.

Political Moneyline

2010-01-08T04:59:00.000-08:00

As the 2010 mid-term elections approach Red Elephant will begin to offer odds on incumbent re-election. In the meantime, it is worth assessing the Republican National Committee’s current leadership and whether it survives beyond January of 2011.

Michael Steele, RNC Chairman
5-1
Mr. Steele has been too freewheeling at the helm and has made GOP leadership on the Hill anxious. While RE appreciates candor, Mr. Steele has been foolish in stating the GOP will not win back the House or Senate, saying “not this year.” Instead, Mr. Steele should be focused on promoting the gains the GOP could make in November, which it is sure to do, thus instilling optimism in donors and the rank and file. By framing expectations as he has Mr. Steele is likely to be blamed for not doing enough and jeopardizing the party’s future, resulting in likely replacement when the RNC meets in January 2011.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele Cashes In

2009-12-22T18:11:00.000-08:00

The revelation that Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is being paid for speeches outside of his RNC salary is ample reason for the committee members to recall and replace him in the post.

As a former regional political director for the RNC and chief of staff for a co-chairman of the RNC who has a reasonable understanding of the mechanics of the RNC, it is disturbing to learn that Mr. Steele is marketing himself through speaker bureaus for speaking fees. Further, it is unprecedented. No other recent RNC chairman ever accepted fees to speak while chairman. There may be examples of a chairman earning income from other endeavors pre-dating their election to the post, but that is far different from a sitting chairman profiting from a task that is part of the job description.

Mr. Steele's leadership qualities are in doubt, with this episode only casting more skepticism on his ability to lead the GOP to a more fruitful era. Former RNC Jim Nicholson, who deserves credit for his performance in the job, said of the matter: "Taking time out to speak for the benefit of one's own bank account is not appropriate." Usually former chairmen keep quiet about the performance of their successors, so the fact that Mr. Nicholson and former RNC chairmen Frank Fahrenkopf and Rich Bond have criticized Mr. Steele for his speaking fees indicates the gravity of the revelation.

The committee members of the RNC are urged to dismiss Mr. Steele and find a leader who is up to the near Augean task of revitalizing and making relevant the Republican Party.

RNC Silent on Rep. Griffith Party Switch; Allows Hard Right to Denounce Move

2009-12-22T11:31:00.000-08:00

The Republican National Committee should be heralding the party switch of Democratic House Representative Parker Griffith (AL-5). Instead the RNC's web site is devoid of any mention of Rep. Griffith switching his party affiliation to the GOP.

Freshman Rep. Parker is a Blue Dog Democrat who has clearly decided Speaker Nancy Pelosi's House majority is not a place he is comfortable calling home. In 2008 he won with 52% of the vote, while Sen. John McCain won the congressional district with 61%. Clearely Rep. Parker came to understand that as a Democrat he was simply renting the seat. However, the switch is an opportunity for the RNC to state there is momentum in the GOP's favor going into the mid-term elections in 2010.

Rather than seizing this development to craft a larger story that voters are unsatisfied with legislation coming from House Democrats, the RNC has allowed the story to be co-opted by hard right organizations like Club for Growth and Red State who would rather reject Rep. Parker's conversion than embrace it as indicative of a trend that will propel GOP victories in November 2010.

The degree that the RNC has been smothered by the hard right should be disconcerting to the GOP rank and file. In the past a party switch ten months before a significant election cycle would be fodder for the RNC that demonstrates a mood shift on the heels of the last year of Democratic legislative initiatives. Today it does not even warrant a press release as of this posting; this is no way to rebuild a floundering party that needs all the good news it can get.

The Terrified Democratic House Members

2009-12-17T06:58:00.001-08:00

There are 13 Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives who are terrified for their political lives. Each of them represents the best opportunity for the Republican Party to pick up House seats in the 2010 mid-term election. The main characteristics they share are: that they are all freshman legislators; each got less than 55% of the vote in 2008 and; to a one they are distraught over the Democratic Party’s deficit spending. They are: Connolly (VA11), Adler (NJ3), Bright (AL2), Massa (NY29), Driehaus (OH1) , Minnick (ID1), Griffith (AL5), Murphy (NY20), Heinrich (NM1), Pingree (ME1), Himes (CT4), Kissell (NC8) and Schrader (OR5).

These freshmen are so distraught over the Democratic House leadership’s deficit spending that they composed a letter to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pleading the case that unspent and repaid TARP funds should be earmarked for deficit reduction. Of the 13, eight voted against HR 2847; a $154 billion jobs bill that passed the House by five votes (Democrats have a majority in the House with 258 members).

Of the 22 Democratic freshmen who won in 2008 with less than 55% of the vote, 11 voted to pass HR 2847. This group is the most vulnerable in 2010 despite their political calculations to cast the vote for those in their districts hit hardest by the recession. However, they are all vulnerable to defeat as measured against latest national polling data. Recently CNN reported that 67% of all Americans do not support deficit spending and that balancing the budget should be the priority.

The Republican’s fountain of youth can be found at the intersection of Jobs Street and Deficit Drive in Anywhere, USA. GWU reports that 62% of Americans do not believe congressional economic stimulus measures are working. Yet still the Republican National Committee’s leadership insists on seeking the solution by affiliating with a small segment of the voting population that believes that non-secular intolerance is the path to victory. Rather than establishing GOP bona fides on the economy and the budget, the RNC is busy throwing fuel on the fire that gave the country town hall screaming matches instigated by the Tea Bagging movement during the August 2009 congressional break.

NBC reports that 43% of Americans have a negative opinion of the GOP and that 63% of Americans believe President Obama inherited the current economic conditions from his Republican predecessor. Pew found that Republicans leaders in Congress have a 51% disapproval rating. ABC News found that 52% of Americans believe President Obama is better at handling the economy than the GOP. The GOP is far from rehabilitating itself on these two important issues that will drive the day on November 2, 2010.

The RNC and its House and Senate affiliates should be focused like a laser on candidate recruitment, particularly in the districts with Democratic freshmen who won with less than 55% of the vote in 2008, with an added emphasis on the 11 Democratic freshmen members who voted for Speaker Pelosi’s recent jobs bill that chose reckless spending over deficit reduction. More time on fundamentals and less time on tea bagging its favorite coalition group is where the RNC should be concentrating its time, money and talent.

GOP Voter Litmus Test

2009-12-08T06:52:00.000-08:00

Recently Mr. James Bopp, accomplished GOP ballot access attorney and Republican National Committeeman from Indiana, unveiled a litmus test for GOP candidates to be voted on by the full committee in January 2010. The litmus test stipulates that any GOP candidate seeking support and assistance from the RNC must meet seven of ten conditions. The conditions of the “Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates (PRRUPSC):

1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;
2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;

This is the RNC’s attempt to refashion a Contract with America (CwA) message for the 2010 elections. The difference is the PPRUPSC actively engages controversial issues where the CwA sought to avoid polarization by focusing on what can be termed as 60% issues; those issues with which 60% of American agree according to survey research. Mr. Bopp has led the GOP into deep and precarious waters by seeking to have the RNC codify what makes and does make a Republican on issues that aren’t salient to a majority of American voters.

The CwA was undeniably successful, helping to deliver a Republican majority to Congress in 1994 by positively and simply defining the GOP in a manner easily understood by the electorate. The PPRUPSC fails in this charge by presenting more as a litmus test than a set of principles due to the fact that the resolution ties support to a candidate's performance on these issues.

The larger problem for the RNC if it passes this resolution is it will be easily manipulated by Democratic candidates to define Republican candidates as intolerant and inflexible. The PPRUPSC directly confronts gay marriage, abortion and gun rights thus choosing to headline issues that are unlikely to be top of mind to the 2010 voter. A recent Gallup survey reported that only 12 percent of Americans think gun laws need to be less strict. Support for same-sex marriage is growing with as many as 42 percent of Americans in support according to CBS News earlier this year. Abortion speaks for itself as a polarizing issue best used in the mailbox and not at the general election ballot box.

With this resolution Mr. Bopp is seeking to fight some legislative battles that have already been determined. Cap and trade is a fact; healthcare reform is soon to be a fact; card check is not broadly a winning issue or relevant to 2010 and; President Obama has already committed more troops to Afghanistan.

The PPRUPSC is bad for the GOP is because it will be used by Democrats to polarize voters against Republican candidates. There is fertile ground on economic issues to give the GOP victories in 2010 and that is where the RNC should craft its resolutions, rather than playing in its preferred sandbox of abortion, guns and gay marriage. A significant segment of the electorate will be easily persuaded that any litmus test that applies to candidates also applies to voters.

Election Moneyline Gubernatorial OPENS

2009-11-19T06:18:00.000-08:00

With the midterm 2010 election cycle looming as well as the 2010 Census, it is worth assessing the odds of the OPEN gubernatorial election contests.

Alabama: Should be a GOP advantage, but if the polarizing Judge Roy Moore of Ten Commandment fame is the nominee it could become a toss-up.
1-5 Republican

California: Should be a Democratic win judging by President Obama’s 61% margin in ’08, but the money advantage goes to the wealthy Republican primary candidates (except for Tom Campbell). If Jerry Brown wins the election will he date Linda Ronstadt again (50-1)?
3-2 Democrat

Connecticut: With popular Republican Governor Jodi Rell not seeking re-election this contest slightly favors the Democrats. Will feature the return of Ned Lamont who slayed Sen. Joe Lieberman only to discover Lieberman can’t die.
6-5 Democrat

Florida: Republican primaries for governor and senator will make Florida a political hot spot going into August. This is likely to be a battle between State AG Bill McCollum and FL CEO Alex Sink.
1-1 No Favorite

Georgia: A crowded field in both primaries the state likely goes GOP as it did for John McCain in ’08 by 52%
1-2 Republican

Hawaii: A probably Democratic pick-up in a contest featuring HI political fixture Democratic Rep. Neil Abercrombie against Lt. Gov. James Aiona. However, if Gov. Lingle could win the state for the GOP then her running mate has a chance.
3-2 Democrat

Kansas: Senator Sam Brownback wants to be in charge and is probably the next governor.
1-5 Republican

Maine: A crowded primary field on both sides, but all for Republican naught as it is a solidly Democratic state although the angry lobstermen vote could be a factor that makes it more competitive than anticipated.
1-5 Democrat

Michigan: Obama won the state with 57% but the GOP can still mount a good challenge in this relentlessly economic disaster of a state that has been a gold mine for Michael Moore.
1-1 No Favorite

Minnesota: There hasn’t been a Democratic governor here since 1990, but crowded primary fields don’t make the picture any clearer.
1-1 No Favorite

New Mexico: Democratic Governor Diane Denish is the odds on favorite. Daughter of former 1970 gubernatorial candidate Jack Daniels, her chances are sobering for the GOP.
1-5 Democrat

Oklahoma:
Any state where McCain won in ’08 with 66% should elect a GOP governor, making this a likely GOP pick-up.
1-2 Republican

Oregon: There hasn’t been a Republican governor since a gallon on gas cost $0.89 and Culture Club was a chart topper.
1-5 Democrat

Pennsylvania: The GOP has strong potential nominees in Rep. Jim Gerlach and State AG Tom Corbett, but could also feature Rick Santorum (because the GOP really needs him back in action?).
1-1 No Favorite

Rhode Island: Democratic State Treasurer Frank Caprio is the favorite, but State AG Patrick Lynch (of the Station nightclub fire and Sherwin Williams lead paint prosecutions fame) will mount a strong primary challenge.
1-2 Democrat

South Carolina: Unclear if Mark Sanford’s “Appalachian Trail” behavior taints the GOP, but the advantage is Republican.
2-5 Republican

South Dakota: McCain only won the state in ’08 with 53%, but Republican have lived in the governor’s mansion since “What you talkin’ ‘bout Willis!” was a cool thing to say.
1-5 Republican

Tennessee: A likely Republican pick-up that features a GOP primary that will be between Rep. Zack Wamp and Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey.
1-2 Republican

Wisconsin: No stand-out Democratic primary candidates, but the Republican primary features Mark Neumann who has run competitively statewide and has something to prove.
1-1 No Favorite

Wyoming: Unless Democratic Governor Dave Freudenthal seeks to overturn the state’s term limit law this leans toward a GOP pick-up.
1-5 Democrat with Gov. Freudenthal
2-5 Republican without Gov. Freudenthal

Vermont: This should be a Democratic stronghold, but Republican Governor Jim Douglas has defied the odds and his Lt. Governor Brian Dubie is popular and appealing and even makes his own maple syrup.
3-2 Democrat

Palin Dismembers the GOP on a Whim

2009-11-04T05:12:00.000-08:00

A reliable Republican congressional seat now belongs to the Democratic Party because Sarah Palin woke up one day and decided it would make for good Facebook content to sabotage the Republican Party in NY’s 23rd congressional district special election. Palin, whose sabotage was joined by Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), couldn’t have found this congressional district on a map before this election. It did not take long for her and Pawlenty to drop in from nowhere and have a huge impact on the outcome of the race only now to move on to another victim to feed their ambition; like a science fiction character devouring planets.

It clearly hadn’t occurred to the egocentric, selfish nature of Palin and Pawlenty that the Republican Party leaders in New York State knew what they were doing when they nominated Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava as their candidate in this special election. Intervention by the likes of Palin and Pawlenty was not necessary; the challenge was well in hand by those closest who knew best. It is hopeless to try and get Palin, Pawlenty and others like them to hear reason as they are so prejudice they refuse to listen. Palin and Pawlenty enabled the Democratic Party to increase its caucus size in the U.S. House, but they refuse to believe they are now standing in a pile of waste of their own making even though everybody else sees and smells it clearly.

The truth is Palin and Pawlenty stink. They reek of ambition, selfishness, prejudice and self-righteousness that destroyed the Republican Party in NY’s 23rd congressional district and will destroy it nationally if left unchecked. NY’s 23rd congressional district has been a cornerstone of the GOP in New York State represented for decades by Republicans very much like Scozzafava. Perhaps she is not as conservative as Palin and Pawlenty claim to be, but she still had solid support from reliable conservative coalition members like the National Rifle Association and National Federation of Independent Businesses as well as a 60% rating from the NY Right to Life Committee.

Republicans across the country of every stripe should be furious with Palin and Pawlenty and the other meddlers who have decided they own the imperious right to select and reject from afar who is allowed to represent the Republican Party on the ballot.

However, Palin and Pawlenty can now serve a higher purpose. Their shrillness and panic about a moderate in the Republican ranks may have in the end a positive effect by drawing attention to their prejudice and small-mindedness. Palin's and Pawlenty’s folly in NY's 23rd congressional district should awaken Republicans everywhere that if it could happen in upstate New York in can happen in their backyard. With the threat of Palin and Pawlenty showing up close to home to dictate terms, perhaps sensible Republicans, moderate and conservatives, will band together knowing that not to means inevitable destruction at the hands of politicians like Palin and Pawlenty who are driven by ambition, not principle.

The Republican Party requires now more than ever unity of purpose in the face of fiscal mismanagement by the majority party in Washington, DC, not a putsch by the self-righteous.

Election Moneyline

2009-11-03T05:39:00.000-08:00

Being Election Day, some odds-making is in order.

New Jersey Governor:
Chris Christie (R)
2-5
His Sgt. Schultz campaign ("I know nothing!") was the perfect challenger campaign marred only by his driving record. Having said nothing, Christie will have no mandate in Trenton.

Gov. Jon Corzine (D)
4-5
With disapproval numbers over 50 since the start he's as popular as Swine Flu. A heavy reliance on Obama magic likely doesn't get him into the winner's circle.

Chris Daggett (I)
50-1
A newly arrived outsider runs a brilliant campaign. Despite the Democratic Party making phone calls on his behalf he has zero chance of winning but made a huge impact on the contest's competitiveness.

Virginia Governor
Bob McDonnell (R)
1-5
A Birch Society-like conservative will win wearing moderate GOP clothing.

Creigh Deeds (D)
6-1
Deeds starts with D, as does dull. He never figured out a message to excite 1of 4's and 2 of 4's (those who usually only vote in presidential and maybe mid-term elections).

NY-23
Doug Hoffman (C)
2-5
Hoffman caught a wave and is riding the barrel to shore as a protest against everything and no opinion about anything important to district residents. His win invigorates the extreme-right into remaking the GOP in its image.

Bill Owens (D)
3-2
His best hope was a three-way contest that disintegrated over the last week, dimming his chances of an upset in this traditional GOP district.

Dede Scozzafava (R)
50-1
A terrible candidate who should have locked this contest up early showed poor form by endorsing the Democratic Party nominee - most likely done out of anger and disappointment. Her whine has a Mad Dog flavor.

CA-10
John Garamendi (D)
1-5
CA's Lt. Governor and former Insurance Commissioner wins this traditionally Democratic seat without much opposition.

David Harmer (R)
15-1
Generous odds for a zero impact candidate who got no assistance from Washington, DC Republicans who saw him as DOA.

Hoffman Is No Friend of America’s Warfighters

2009-11-01T06:27:00.000-08:00

Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman is riding a wave in NY’s 23rd congressional district special election that Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava couldn’t catch. Ability to catch and ride this wave was due to the Club for Growth’s effort on his behalf to define Scozzafava as a liberal. Scozzafava proved incompetent to the task of refuting this charge and defining Hoffman as an opportunistic sore loser.

Scozzafava is a moderate Republican whose congressional candidacy was endorsed by the National Rifle Association that accompanies her A rating from them. Scozzafava’s current National Federation of Independent Businesses rating is a 75 and her NY Right to Life rating is a 60 despite her pro-choice position.

Hoffman, on the other hand, has no record. Hoffman’s chief accomplishment in this special election was proper positioning to take advantage of conservatives looking for a place to assert themselves in Republican intra-party politics.

Scozzafava should never have allowed herself to be chased out of this race by Hoffman, and therefore she didn't deserve to win. As a fiscally responsible, socially moderate Republican, Scozzafava is a typical New York Republican akin to Rep. John McHugh who was the previous congressman from the 23rd district. However, the fact that she withdrew will only invigorate right wing conservatives in efforts to define the Republican Party as being exclusively the home of the pro-life movement.

A main Hoffman/Club for Growth criticism of Scozzafava was her support of President Obama’s stimulus package funding of NY’s 23rd congressional district projects, and earmarks in general. Earmarks for NY’s 23rd CD are largely targeted for Fort Drum. This is the issue that Scozzafava failed to leverage in order to beat back Hoffman’s challenge.

Scozzafava should have charged Hoffman as not being a friend of America’s warfighters. In the last ten years $114 million has gone to Fort Drum to improve the quality of life of America’s warfighters and their families, including funding for a family support center. Those funds were important to the preparation and support of our warfighters and their families, but to Hoffman and the Club for Growth it is wasteful spending. Hoffman would have countered with his veteran status, but that rebuttal would have been easily rebuffed by testimonials by active military families insisting on the importance of the Fort Drum earmarks that would accompany the accusation.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda – Scozzafava instead failed a test of leadership and her withdrawal is a shame to those intent on resisting the advances of right wing conservatives to redefine the GOP in their image. In this election Hoffman has proven an ability to see a trend and leverage it into a chance to become a congressman. This is the kind of ambition any candidate must have to compete and win. Unfortunately for the people of NY’s 23rd congressional district Hoffman showed no knowledge of district issues in his editorial board meeting with the Watertown Daily Times and has pledged his commitment to the Club for Growth to no longer support Fort Drum and the warfighters, their families and district residents who depend on its viability and services. With no record to back up his words but a heavy debt to the Club for Growth, it is a mystery what Doug Hoffman would do in Congress.

GOP Schism in NY's 23rd CD Special Election

2009-10-28T06:37:00.000-07:00

For the Republican Party to become significantly relevant in Washington, DC it's candidates have to win. This means that any viable candidate should be supported, less those with extremist views that are aberrant.

In New Jersey and Virginia many moderate Republicans are supporting GOP gubernatorial candidates Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell with campaign contributions. While on many social issues these Republicans may not be in agreement with the candidate, they likely understand that winning a statewide election in the mid-year cycle is important for building momentum going into the mid-term elections in 2010.

On the national party level there are numerous high net worth, moderate Republicans who supported both George W. Bush and John McCain for president beginning in 2000 in leadership positions. Similarly, both of the presidential nominees were not moderates but conservatives, yet still the moderate GOP large donors gave considerable contributions and raised even more funds because they understood that agreeing with the candidate 80 percent of the time was a reasonable choice.

Yet now purist, self-centered conservative political characters are unwilling to demonstrate the same deference in the special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district. Most notably are Sarah Palin and Steve Forbes shirking the state Republican Party by breaking ranks to support a sore loser now running for congress on the Conservative Party line. This is wrong coming from a former Republican vice presidential nominee and a two-time presidential primary candidate.

The GOP nominee in NY’s 23rd CD is Dede Scozzafava who is a moderate candidate seeking to fill the seat previously held by moderate Republican congressmen for 26 years (accounting for redistricting between congressional districts 23 and 24). Her Conservative Party opponent is Doug Hoffman who was a candidate for the Republican nomination but was not picked by GOP county leaders to be the candidate in the November 3rd special election. Despite Mr. Hoffman’s previous statement that he would respect and support the GOP’s choice of candidate, he quickly reversed himself and agreed to be the Conservative Party nominee; therefore exhibiting questionable principles and forever placing doubt on his own convictions.

If highly intelligent, principled and committed moderate Republican majopr donors like Lew Eisenberg, Don Bren, John Moran and others are comfortable with an 80-20 solution on issues, it is not too much to expect conservatives like Sarah Palin, Steve Forbes and Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) to do the same. It is assured that if any of these people are a future Republican presidential nominee they would ask these same high net worth GOP contributors to financially support their candidacy.

In the event Hoffman is victorious (which inlcudes denying Scozzafava a win) in a low-turnout special election, it sends a clear message to moderate Republicans that it may well be time to seek a new home by supporting Blue Dog Democrats and leaving the Republican Party to the purists who are doomed to small victories while never again having a chance for the GOP to govern as a majority.

22 Days Out From Election Day In New Jersey

2009-10-12T07:06:00.000-07:00

For Republican Chris Christie to defeat Democratic Governor Jon Corzine this November he must keep Corzine under 45 percent of the vote. Ordinarily this would signal a landslide, but the independent candidacy of Chris Daggett is the factor that makes plurality the goal line.

Surveys by Rasmussen and Fairleigh Dickinson University have Daggett performing at six percent or less. Quinnipiac has had Daggett trending at nine percent and up to 12 percent since August. Other less established surveys have shown Daggett at as much as 14 percent, but historically this seems unlikely and too high. The general assumption is that Daggett takes votes from Corzine because those looking for an alternative would normally vote for the incumbent but are dissatisfied with the performance yet unready to cast a ballot for the opposition party.

If on Election Day Daggett performs at eight percent, which may be too high an expectation, Christie can win with 47 percent. Given Corzine’s high disapproval numbers demonstrated in all the surveys taken in this contest it is a severe challenge for Corzine to break 45 percent, if one believes he has not yet cracked 41 percent in the ballot test to date.

Yet here is the unknown variable. Rasmussen and FDU both have Corzine at 44 percent as of their recent surveys (Rasmussen: Christie up 3 points; FDU: Corzine up 1 point). Corzine’s disapproval rating is still very high, at 55 percent. However, if Corzine is truly at 44 percent then it is not a stretch for him to get to 48 percent on Election Day. If this is the case, Christie loses if Daggett performs at six percent. This is troubling news for Christie as both surveys are respected and not to be dismissed.

With Election Day being November 3 we are now 22 days out. The most important factor now is money. As of the 29 Day Pre-Election Election Law Enforcement Commission report Christie has $4.2MM, Daggett $109,000 and Corzine (not including whatever he decides to spend between now and then) $20,000.

This means the Daggett variable decreases in value every day less a substantial infusion of cash. Dismissing the surveys that report him at greater than 12 percent on the ballot test but assuming Daggett is as high a eight percent, unless he has more money that ballot test number will drop precipitously over the next three weeks.

$4.2MM allows Christie to be extremely competitive on television and radio going into these closing weeks as there is only so much Corzine will be able to spend in those mediums regardless of the check size he cuts to himself.

At this juncture the advantage is still with Christie. His campaign to date has been long on Corzine negatives and short on issues. More often than not that is how a challenger campaign wins. Corzine has managed to put some lead on the target by bruising Christie’s reformer mantle, but not enough to take Christie out of the contest. Conzine is playing for 48 percent of the vote. If he is currently at 40% on the ballot test Christie has probably won this race. But if Rasmussen and FDU are to be believed, Corzine is on the doorstep of a second term.

Congressional Redistricting Outlook

2009-09-28T10:40:00.000-07:00

With congressional redistricting on the horizon it is worth looking at the landscape in context of the importance of the 2010 state legislative and gubernatorial elections in the 22 states that could see apportionment changes.

Gainers, in two sets, include: Most Likely Gainers: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Nevada, and Utah; Potential Gainers: Oregon, North Carolina, South Carolina and Washington.

Losers, in two sets, include: Most Likely Losers: Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Potential Losers: Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri and California (more likely to not see a change – significant because it will be the first time since statehood that CA does not gain a congressional seat).

The purpose of the U.S. Census as it relates to congressional redistricting is to define which states gain, lose or stay unchanged in their congressional district apportionment. As the decennial census has not yet occurred a precise projection cannot be made, but the states above are the likeliest to see changes in apportionment.

This begs the question of potential outcome based on which political party controls the governorship and state legislature in each state. This makes the 2010 election cycle extremely important to the future prosperity of each political party. Below is the current breakdown, but may see changes after November 2010.

Current governorship breakdown in these states is 10GOP/12Dem. The GOP controls seven of these state legislatures, the Democrats control 11, and four are split.

Arizona: Gov: GOP; State House/Assembly: 35GOP/25Dem; Senate: 18GOP/12Dem. AZ draws congressional lines via a bipartisan commission so a two seat gain will be a wash.

California: Gov: GOP; House/Assembly: 28GOP/50Dem/1IND/1 Vacancy; Senate 15GOP/25Dem. In the likely event the governorship changes hands and if the state gets an apportionment change it will favor Democrats.

Florida: Gov: GOP; House/Assembly: 76GOP/44Dem; Senate 25GOP/14Dem. Likely apportionment pick-up for GOP.

Georgia: Gov: GOP; House/Assembly: 105GOP/75Dem; Senate: 4GOP/2Dem. Likely apportionment pick-up for GOP despite only a narrow advantage to the GOP in the gubernatorial contest.

Illinois: Gov: Dem; House/Assembly: 48GOP/70Dem; Senate: 22GOP/37Dem. GOP would lose a seat.

Iowa: Gov: Dem; House/Assembly: 44GOP/56Dem; Senate: 18GOP/32Dem. Redistricting map is computer generated so the lost congressional seat will likely produce a competitive swing district.

Louisiana: Gov: GOP; House/Assembly: 50GOP/52Dem/3IND; Senate: 17GOP/22Dem. Hurricane Katrina dramatically altered this state’s politics for Democrats, who will likely lose a seat.

Massachusetts: Gov: Dem; House/Assembly: 16GOP/143/Dem/1IND; Senate: 5GOP/5Dem. A win-lose for Democrats as they control everything and will lose a seat.

Michigan: Gov: Dem; House/Assembly: 43GOP/67Dem; Senate: 21GOP/16Dem/1 Vacancy. GOP would likely lose a seat from a redrawn competitive congressional district.

Minnesota: Gov: GOP; House/Assembly: 47GOP/87Dem; Senate: 21GOP/46Dem. Democrats likely pick-up the governorship and would redraw two GOP districts into one, so GOP loses a seat.

Missouri: Gov: Dem; House/Assembly: 74GOP/89Dem; Senate 23GOP/10Dem/1 Vacancy. If MO loses a seat it would be to the detriment of the GOP.

Nevada: Gov: GOP; House/Assembly: 14GOP/28Dem; Senate: 8GOP/12Dem/1 Vacancy. If Democrats win the governorship the likely outcome is a Democrat pick-up of one congressional seat.

New Jersey: Gov: Dem; House/Assembly: 31GOP/48Dem/1 Vacancy; Senate: 17GOP/23Dems. As it looks that the GOP could win the governorship but not the Assembly the GOP likely loses a congressional seat.

New York: Gov: Dem; House/Assembly: 41GOP/109Dem; Senate: 30GOP/32Dem. CD-23 (Rep. McHugh’s old seat) special election is critical as it could mean Democrats lose a State Senate seat (as the likely Democratic congressional candidate is a Democratic State Senator), as is the Democrat’s weak hold on the governorship. The state loses a congressional seat and the loss could go against either party.

North Carolina: Gov: Dem; House/Assembly: 52GOP/68Dem; Senate: 20GOP/30Dem. A congressional seat pick-up in this state favors Democrats if it happens.

Ohio: Gov: Dem; House/Assembly: 45GOP/53Dem/1 Vacancy; Senate: 21GOP/12Dem. Democrats have a narrow advantage in the gubernatorial contest. If the Democrats retain the governorship and the state loses two seats it is a wash.

Oregon: Gov: Dem; House/Assembly: 24GOP/35Dem/1 Vacancy; Senate: 12GOP/18Dem. If OR gains a seat it will favor the Democrats as they are likely to retain the open gubernatorial contest.

Pennsylvania: Gov: Dem; House/Assembly: 99GOP/104Dem; Senate: 30GOP/20Dem. The gubernatorial contest is currently a toss-up and Democrats have a very narrow advantage in the State House, making for a potential GOP congressional seat gain – but an equal chance for a GOP loss.

South Carolina: Gov: GOP; House/Assembly: 72GOP/52Dem; Senate: 27GOP/19Dem. If SC gains a congressional seat it would favor the GOP.

Texas: Gov: GOP: house/Assembly: 76GOP/74Dem; Senate: 19GOP/12Dem. TX is likely to pick-up three congressional seats, maybe four. Either way the majority (either two or three) of these seats go to the GOP.

Utah: Gov: GOP; House/Assembly: 53GOP/22Dem; Senate: 21GOP/8Dem. A GOP congressional seat pick-up.

Washington: Gov: Dem; House/Assembly: 34GOP/64Dem; Senate: 18GOP/1Dem. WA has a chance to see a congressional seat gain, but it is unlikely. If there is a gain it will favor Democrats.

The GOP and the Second Amendment

2009-09-22T13:08:00.000-07:00

As the Republican Party attempts to rebuild it will have to navigate the coalitions that tend toward its support. The National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment lobby are such coalitions. The GOP, to its detriment, is loath to insult this lobby for the sake of electoral practicality.

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” For the Republican Party this should not be about citizens buying weapons but one of states’ rights, as reference to “the people” is a reference to self-government. Such a position satisfies GOP principles and keeps it within the bounds of common sense.

The intent of the Second Amendment is to protect from the tyranny of the federal government and foreign invaders. The context is the American Revolution. The weaponry of that day was far different from the weapon technology of today. That conflict featured muskets and cannon. The rationale of the Second Amendment is to provide deterrence to a standing federal army when there was no significant gap between the weapon technology of the army and what was common in the 18th Century American home. Further, the assumption of the time was that a standing American army of 30,000 would be no match for state militias numbering 500,000.

This past August saw armed protestors, at least one with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, attending events featuring President Obama. These protestors were operating within the rule of law. However, the symbolism of the semi-automatic weapons was a dull annunciation of their opposition to President Obama’s healthcare reform legislation. One can only deduce that these protestors were symbolically saying that they would bring a gun to a pen fight.

Setting aside reality to host the armed protestors’ extravagant exaggeration that the debate over healthcare reform could culminate in armed conflict on America’s streets; let’s instead examine how that armed conflict would unwind. This also requires a suspension of belief that the general public would idly allow such a gathering storm to reach critical mass. To carry forth this fantasy one must also allow the assumption that America’s military personnel and key federal government officials would act in conspiracy to unilaterally take to America’s streets to violently quash their fellow citizens, armed or not. In the end, even the best shot with an AR-15 is no match for the best armed and trained military in the world.

Nor should it be ignored that the National Guard is a state militia, nullifying the claim by the National Rifle Association that the Second Amendment is violated when the federal government passes laws regulating the sale of weapons to private American citizens.

The Republican Party is so anxious about its relevancy and winning, generally and particularly in the 2010 midterm elections, it has long abandoned all common sense relating to gun ownership. When extremists bring weapons to a public meeting the GOP has the opportunity to condemn the provocation. In doing so the GOP would edge toward the mainstream and provide a precedent to America’s moderate and independent voters to see it as rational and not captive of the extreme right. This can be done without violation of its republican principles if only there were the courage.

Most Vulnerable Democratic U.S. House Members in 2010

2009-09-16T04:36:00.000-07:00

Democratic U.S. House Representatives who got less than 55% of the vote to win in 2008 are going to be top of the GOP’s 2010 midterm election target list. This list is below.

Some of these 30 congressional seats are located in areas of the country where it will be very hard for the Republican Party to win unless it tones down the extreme right rhetoric and rebuilds the moderate GOP brand. New England and the Mid-Atlantic are prime examples where there are 10 (or 33%) potential pick-ups from the list below.

The struggle between the Republican campaign professionals and the ideologues will be the back-story for the GOP going into the 2010 mid-term elections. For ideologues the campaign process is about adherence to conservative Republican doctrine and – sometimes – inflammatory claims for the sake of controversy. For consultants it is about winning so that the GOP does not become utterly irrelevant – which to some extent is about protecting and sustaining their business model. In between is the solution, but the divide may as well be interstellar for the likelihood of there being any sign of compromise from the hard right wing.

Many ideologues will argue that flexibility on doctrine will be unnecessary as the senior citizen and independent voter revolt against Pres. Obama ‘s healthcare reform will be enough to carry the day. How seniors and independents feel about healthcare in the fall of 2010 is unknown and that is not a strategy for long-term GOP growth.

However, voter discord over the Obama Administration's bailout and stimulus programs presents the GOP with an opportunity to seize the fiscal responsibility mantle. This discord pits the "have littles" against the "have nots" and is a breach in the Democratic Party's lines that the GOP can leverage in 2010.

At the same time the GOP needs to demonstrate tolerance and empathy to those demographics that currently see it as rigid and unwelcoming. This can be done through legislative initiatives and candidate recruitment, which will enable the Republican Party to walk the talk. An important round of candidate recruitment for the 2010 election is on the door step and the GOP gets to decide its future.

Of this list of 30 Members of Congress 73% are freshmen. McCain won 11 (37%) of these congressional districts with 50% or greater. This list does not include NY-23, a traditionally Republican seat, as it is currently open and awaiting a special election.

The list below is color coded to denote freshman, 1+ Term and 3+ Term incumbents and includes the Democratic incumbent’s 2008 election percentage and McCain’s performance in the 2008 presidential election in that congressional district (McCain 50%+ districts are in red).

AZ-08 Giffords 55%; 52%
CA-11 McNerney 55%; 44%
FL-22 Klein 55%; 48%
ME-01 Pingree 55%; 38%
NC-08 Kissell 55%; 47%
NM-01 Heinrich 55%; 39%
NY-25 Maffei 55%; 43%
OR-05 Schrader 55%; 43%
VA-11 Connolly 55%; 42%
MS-01 Childers 54%; 62%
OH-16 Boccieri 54%; 50%
WI-08 Kagen 54%; 54%
AZ-05 Mitchell 53%; 52%
TX-17 Edwards 53%; 67%
AL-05 Griffith 52%; 61%
FL-08 Grayson 52%; 47%
MI-09 Peters 52%; 43%
NH-01 Shea-Porter 52%; 46%
NJ-03 Adler 52%; 47%
PA-03 Dahlkemper 52%; 49%
PA-11 Kanjorski 52%; 42%
VA-02 Nye 52%; 48%
CT-04 Himes 51%; 40%
ID-01 Minnick 51%; 62%
NY-24 Arcuri 51%; 48%
NY-29 Massa 51%; 50%
OH-01 Driehaus 51%; 44%
AL-02 Bright 50%; 63%
VA-05 Perriello 50%; 51%
NY-20 Murphy 50%; 48%

Geoffrey Raymond on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer

2009-09-15T06:12:00.000-07:00

A great segment on Lehman Brothers featuring my talented cousin and his Annotated Fuld.

Is Anybody Surprised Ridge's Terror Alert Controversy Sells Books?

2009-09-04T05:22:00.000-07:00

Secretary Tom Ridge (R-PA) has disavowed his book's jacket cover and denied he caved to political pressure to heighten the Department of Homeland Security's "terror alert" on the eve of the 2004 presidential election. Something stinks here.

As an author published by a significant house, Simon & Schuster, I know something about the book publication and promotion process Mr. Ridge has just experienced. After the book is written the publisher puts some pressure on the author to make the book jacket as salacious and controversial as possible - as that is what is going to get attention and sell the product. The author has plenty of say and approval of the book jacket. Ideas on what the book jacket should read are cooked up and kicked around, as is artwork (artwork for a Ridge book most likely never deviated from the traditional photo of thre author). Throughout this process the author - Ridge in this case - has the opportunity to say no to those ideas they don't like.

I was not thrilled with my book jacket cover but in the end decided that it was the best effort to make the book appealing to buyers because it adhered to the facts in the book. My literary agent hated the artwork and I was unsure so more artwork was created until I concluded the original idea offered by S&S was the best one and I chose to use it on my book jacket's cover.

To the point; something stinks about Ridge's recantation of his book's jacket. Ridge had all the power to nix the language on the book jacket cover that hints that he broke to the Bush White House's pressure to up the terror alert going into the 2004 election. So there are really only two conclusions the observer can make: 1) Ridge has taken so much heat from former Bush WH officials about disclosing such a repugnant truth that he has back-peddled; or 2) Ridge caved to pressure from his publisher to print the salacious book jacket in the interest of selling more books. Either way, Ridge comes away looking weak and easily strong-armed.

The more plausible explanation about the book cover is that the publisher used nuance to create controversy. The book cover reads: "He (Ridge) recounts episodes such as the pressure that the DHS received to raise the security alert on the eve of the '04 presidential election." Pressure is not qualified to mean political or any other defined pressure, but surely intimates that it was political pressure to create the controversy.

However, Ridge does write in the book that, ""There was absolutely no support for that position (to raise the terror alert) within our department. None. I wondered, 'Is this about security or politics?'" This is a reasonable question for a politician to ask themselves. It does seem plausible that political pressure was applied, as the Bush White House was largely about making policy decisions through the political prism. Ridge's response to this after the book was published is that he made the decision to raise the alert and did not factor politics; a tough position to square with the statement in the book.

GOP 2010 Pick-Up List:U.S. House Democrats in McCain 50%+ Districts

2009-09-03T07:29:00.000-07:00

As the Republican Party begins to boil down its pick-up prospects for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010, the congressional districts where Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) won by a margin of 50% or greater in the 2008 presidential election is a place to start. This list is below.

Another criterion for targeting the best Republican opportunities is where the Democratic congressional candidate got less that 55% to win their 2008 election. That list will follow.

The list below is of the 47 Democratic congressional districts where McCain won by a margin of 50% or greater. Of the 47 Democrats on this list 13 (28%) are freshmen and 11 (23%) have won two elections and are in their third term. The rest are firmly entrenched incumbents (23, or 49%) with three or more consecutive terms in Congress. This last group will be the hardest for Republicans to defeat in 2010. Winning any of these seats, especially the entrenched Democratic incumbents, will depend on candidate recruitment and fundraising – both by the candidates, the Republican National Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee. Needless to say, viable challenger candidates to the entrenched Democratic incumbents are unlikely.

It is a reasonable assumption that of the list of 47 Democratic House Members only 24 present a potential challenge opportunity. Given that the GOP needs 39 seats to take control of the House it is unlikely that Minority Whip Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) expectation to win control will materialize.

However, this past August saw a great deal of grassroots displeasure over healthcare reform. This instructs the GOP that there is a wave to be caught and ridden onto the shores of the 2010 mid-term election. The problem for the GOP is that the protest over healthcare reform cannot be controlled as it is largely organic, even though there have been Republican efforts to encourage the growth of the movement. By being organic it means that those unhappy with healthcare reform cannot necessarily be corralled to help the GOP pick-up congressional seats. That said, if the energy of the healthcare reform protests carries into November 2010 many voters will cast ballots for Republican congressional challenger candidates in dissent of the Democratic majority in Washington, DC.

The list below is color coded to denote Freshman, 1+ Term and 3+ Term incumbents and includes McCain’s performance in 2008 in that congressional district.

MS-04 Taylor       67
TX-17 Edwards     67
OK-02 Boren        66
TN-04 Davis       64
AL-02 Bright          63
ID-01 Minnick       62
MS-01 Childers     62
TN-06 Gordon    62
AL-05 Griffith       61
LA-03 Melancon   61
MO-04 Skelton     61
AR-01 Berry         59
VA-09 Boucher     59
AR-04 Ross           58
MD-01 Kratovil   58
UT-02 Matheson    57
WV-01 Mollohan   57
GA-08 Marshall     56
TN-08 Tanner       56
WV-03 Rahall        56
KY-06 Chandler   55
PA-04 Altmire        55
AR-02 Snyder        54
AZ-01 Kirkpatrick 54
FL-02 Boyd           54
PA-10 Carney        54
ND-AL Pomeroy   53
SC-05 Spratt        53
AZ-05 Mitchell      52
AZ-08 Giffords      52
NC-07 McIntyre    52
NC-11 Shuler      52
OH-18 Space         52
FL-24 Kosmas       51
IN-08 Ellsworth      51
NY-13 McMahon 51
NY-29 Massa        51
PA-17 Holden        51
VA-05 Perriello      51
CO-03 Salazar       50
CO-04 Markey      50
IN-09 Hill               50
MN-07 Peterson    50
NM-02 Teague      50
OH-06 Wilson       50
OH-16 Boccieri     50
PA-12 Murtha       50

Presidential Moneyline

2009-08-28T11:45:00.000-07:00

Sen. Ted Kennedy: 1932-2009

2009-08-26T13:53:00.000-07:00

My only interaction with Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) was non-political and occurred on a shuttle flight from Washington, DC to Boston over ten years ago. I found myself assigned a seat between Sen. Kennedy and Red Auerbach. As the two men had a lively conversation I interrupted and asked if they prefer I move so they could carry on more easily. Kennedy apologized for being rude and talking past me, to which I replied it was a pleasure and I'd rather stay and listen in. That got a laugh and I had a good time listening to these two giants chat like pals about the Boston Garden and the Celtics.

GOP Rhythm Or Blues?

2009-08-23T07:06:00.001-07:00

Listen to Maurice Ravel’s Bolero, you all know it even if you don’t recognize these names, and you will understand everything you need to know about the rhythm of a political campaign. This history of the piece is coincidently parallel with the Republican Party’s current angst and misdirection and gives instruction on how the GOP becomes relevant once more.

Ravel was contracted by a dancer to create a piece that drew from previous works by musician Isaac Albeniz. As Ravel set out to perform his duties he discovered that he could not adopt the Albeniz pieces because of copyright restrictions. However, Albeniz gave Ravel permission to proceed. Instead, Ravel decided to reconstruct his own work, but then paused. It is here that Ravel did the brilliant thing; he decided to write an original piece. The result was Bolero.

So what does this have to do political campaigns and the Republican Party? As to political campaigns: The music is composed to build over an unchanging ostinato, or stubborn rhythm played on snare drums. On top of this rhythm is a single theme consisting of two eighteen-bar section each played twice. Tension in the piece is built into a crescendo as more instruments are added to the rhythm and theme, becoming thicker and stronger until an entire orchestra beats out the rhythm that began with only the snare drum.

This is exactly what is performed by a precise political campaign. At first it is a repetitive rhythm, repeating the same message. Slowly different themes are added to the campaign message that reinforces the original rhythm. As an example: perhaps a political challenger campaign chooses fiscal responsibility as it rhythm. As the campaign progresses it adds themes that are examples of wasteful spending by the incumbent and what the challenger would do differently. Every week a new theme; every week the rhythm is reinforced until the rhythm and theme of the campaign climax into a crescendo, ideally on Election Day.

To become relevant again the GOP has to find a simple rhythm and stick with it, adding themes that forcefully build the repetition of the rhythm. While fiscal responsibility and opposition to the Obama Administration’s spending would be an ideal rhythm on which to build themes, the GOP hasn’t much credibility given its enablement of Pres. George W. Bush’s deficit spending and debt. Therefore, healthcare is a better place to begin as it is a salient jutting the Obama Administration into dangerous territory where voters, particularly political independents are wary about this expansion of government.

Disapproval of Pres. Obama’s handling healthcare reform has reached 50%. 46% of American voters disapprove of the government’s creation of new a healthcare insurance plan to compete with private insurance. 50% of political independents disapprove of the public healthcare option. With 54% of American believing the country is on the wrong track, the Republican Party is being given circumstances that could allow them to over-perform in the 2010 midterm elections. Unfortunately for the GOP only 21% of voters trust it will make the generally right decisions for the country, which is why Sarah Palin’s “death panel” hoax will do long term damage to the Republican Party.

Like Ravel, the GOP now needs to be brilliant. So far the GOP composition is far from sophisticated, more Chop Sticks than Bolero. Brilliance will not be found in adopting previous rhythms and themes, as it wants to do by invoking Reagan. Invoking Reagan is easy, and easy never spurred transcendence. The GOP must now compose its own rhythm and themes, not adopt Reagan’s or even it own past compositions that gave it a majority in Congress in the 1990s.

If the Republican Party doesn’t find rhythm and themes, it will be singing the blues in 2010.

Props to Krauthammer

2009-08-21T06:10:00.000-07:00

It was welcome to read Mr. Charles Krauthammer's lead in his Washington Post opinion piece today: "Let's see if we can have a reasoned discussion about end-of-life counseling. We might start by asking Sarah Palin to leave the room. I've got nothing against her. She's a remarkable political talent. But there are no "death panels" in the Democratic health-care bills, and to say that there are is to debase the debate."

While not a Republican Party leader, his opinions have weight and so his words should have an impact in the GOP offices on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Krauthammer's more subtle point should be taken seriously by the GOP ranks, as it is the root cause for the chaos and conflict of this August's congressional recess town hall meetings. This subtlety is also what was detected by the recent Washington Post-ABC survey that shows diminshing support for healthcare reform, particularly among Independants. This is where Republicans should make their stand and become relevant in the healthcare reform debate. Relevancy begets relevancy. After an earnest effort to offer rational oppositon to the current healthcare legislation the GOP can broaden its message.

In other words, the GOP needs to walk before trying to run - and Palin's "death panel" hoax was an infantile attempt to sprint.

NJGOP Playing Precision Small Ball

2009-08-20T04:12:00.000-07:00

In July Red Elephant assessed Republican chances of winning the gubernatorial election and picking up Assembly seats. A recent poll indicates that GOP gubernatorial nominee Chris Christie may have coattails and that the generic ballot test gives Republicans reasons for optimism in additional Assembly districts. This, coupled with recent arrests of Democratic lawmakers, particularly in Legislative District 19 (a traiditonally strong Democratic distirct) spurs Repubican campaign efforts.

Gov. Jon Corzine's (D-NJ) campaign is hard at work using new revelations about former U.S. Attorney Christie's undisclosed loan to an Assistant U.S. Attorney who was working for Christie at the time and remains an AUSA in New Jersey to define Christie as a corrupt politician. Whether or not this issue is salient is to be determined. It is clear though that in the contest for Assembly the Republicans are executing precision small ball, advancing candidates, finding the opportunities as they are presented and taking the advantage where they can. For more details, see the earlier RE post "New Jersey Could Go Red in '09," at: http://redelephantgop.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-jersey-going-red-in-09.html

Presidential Moneyline

2009-08-19T04:49:00.000-07:00

Pawlenty Excited!

2009-08-17T14:52:00.000-07:00

Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) seems pretty excited about the future electoral prospects of the Republican Party. Speaking at a recent GOPAC event (GOPAC is a 527 committee organized in 1978 by Delaware Gov. Pierre DuPont in 1978 to train Republican candidates) Pawlenty was enthusiastic about the opportunities being presented to the GOP by the Obama Administration’s initiatives on healthcare and cap and trade among others.

Pawlenty is a two term governor who was on Sen. John McCain’s vice presidential shortlist and who now is recognized as a potential GOP presidential nominee in 2012. Pawlenty offered that as the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats over-reach on the issues, the GOP will have the chance to offer a contrast and gain electorally. To Pawlenty’s credit, he did also say that “We (the GOP) can’t just be critics in chief.” By this it is assumed Pawlenty meant the GOP must offer specific counterproposals when criticizing the Obama Administration in order to be taken seriously and this is to be applauded.

However, where are these electoral gains to come from? Red Elephant has offered some analysis on the gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia this year and recent polling in both states indicate that the GOP is poised to win each race. Historically the party in power loses 17 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives during off-year elections, so it is worth taking a brief look at the terrain going into 2010.

There are currently between 20 and 36 House races that could be loosely termed competitive. Mostly they are seats with a Democratic incumbent. Of the 20-36 seats, roughly 10 could be categorized as being a toss-up – nearly all leaning Democratic. Four are pure toss-ups by virtue of being open seats; three are open seats and one is currently vacant (with a special election to be announced in 2009). Three of these seats had a Republican Member of Congress.

It is likely that the Democrats will lose seats in the House in 2010, although it is going to be tough for the GOP to achieve the average gain of 17 seats. There are simply not enough competitive seats for the GOP to pick up the House in 2010. The drama of this summer’s healthcare town hall meetings and the spring’s tea bag protests normally indicate voters are displeased with the majority party. While there is undoubtedly anger among the voting population, it is not yet solely directed at Pres. Obama and the Democrats as it was in 1994 when the Republican Party took control of the U.S. House and Senate. Therefore these protests do not appear to be building a wave of revolt that will crest on Election Day 2010 and deposit GOP victories on the shore.

Of the toss-up races, one currently favors the GOP (NY-23) and the rest lean Democratic. Of those that lean Democratic they are all, but one, occupied by Democratic lawmakers. The exception is IL-10 which is represented by Rep. Mark Kirk who is running for the U.S. Senate to replace the stain of Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL).

So while Gov. Pawlenty is plenty excited about the future; a review of real GOP electoral prospects reveals dimness for the GOP that should make Republican lawmakers, consultants and activists take notice of the one important thing Pawlenty said at the GOPAC event. In other words, the GOP cannot redouble its efforts towards electoral pick-ups until it remembers its aim. Unfortunately for the GOP it is the gang that can’t shoot straight.

Presidential Moneyline

2009-08-14T06:33:00.001-07:00

Two GOP Senators Stand Up & Stand Out

2009-08-12T08:03:00.000-07:00

In the last day two Republican U.S. Senators, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and John Isakson (R-GA) have voiced their offense at Sarah Palin's claim of death panels in the healthcare legislation, labeling it "nuts." This is good news toward identifying the Republican Party as mainstream and not beholden to the troglodyte right.

Sen. Murkowski is decidedly more centrist than Sen. Isakson. Their ratings by conservative interest groups are somewhat instructive in identifying them on the ideological spectrum:

National Rifle Association: Murkowski A; Isakson A
National Taxpayers Union: Murkowski C; Isakson B+
National Right To Life: Murkowski 50%; Isakson 100%
Citizens Against Gov't Waste: Murkowski 50%; Isakson 87%

To the point, two Republicans positioned differently on the ideological spectrum take offense at Palin's nonsense about death penalties - and that's a good sign for the future of the GOP.

Palin's Death Panel is GOP Assisted Suicide

2009-08-10T08:52:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, recently claimed that the health care reform legislation on Capitol Hill features death panels. Palin asserts that there will be death panels made up of federal bureaucrats that will assess patients’ “level of productivity in society” in order to decide if they are worthy of healthcare. This is of course nonsense. But the stupidity of it is that no Republican has seized the opportunity to scold Palin for making such ridiculous claims.

The advantage for any noteworthy Republican to call Palin on her nonsense is to demonstrate in the context of the healthcare debate that the GOP is not a band of kooks. In other words, it is a Sister Souljah moment that has yet to attract a courageous Republican lawmaker. By repudiating Palin’s claims the GOP would signal to centrist voters that the Republican Party is not beholden to the extremist right. Further, picking a fight with Palin on this is sure to attract media attention and give that brave Republican an opportunity to command the spotlight for the purpose of highlighting valid Republican objections to the healthcare reform legislation.

Some Republicans, like Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) have acknowledged that there are no death panels, but that is different from discounting Palin as being nuts. It is not enough to say she is wrong, it needs to be said that she is a rogue seeking attention and does not speak for the GOP.

The ideal group of GOPers to call out Palin’s lunacy is the Tuesday Group, a collection of moderate Republicans in the U.S. House. Within this group are a number of extremely intelligent and capable legislators. Among them is Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO). Thoughtful and experienced, she has represented Missouri’s Eighth Congressional District since 1996, meaning she is a proven entity and not am aberrant political personality like Palin. Rep. Emerson’s House tenure makes her safe at home, providing the political capital to rise to a Palin confrontation.

Another House Republican who would do well in challenging Palin is Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ). Rep. Lance has offered a healthcare reform proposal that is thoughtful although not encompassing (as it lacks budget specifics). As a long time state lawmaker, Lance has the intellect and legislative acumen to challenge Palin in a manner that would raise his political profile and help him in his re-election efforts as he seeks a second term in 2010.

For Republicans to let Palin run free on her death panel foolishness is to allow the GOP to continue to be defined by its worst messenger. Palin has proven herself to be wacky, strange and egocentric. Yet, she proliferates the media like a virus. In so doing she defines the Republican Party by her conduct and opinions, a definition that will harm GOP chances at the polls in future elections.

Palin does not have the mental tools to be constructively commentating on healthcare reform, much less be the face of Republican opposition. The fact that she is getting headlines for making outrageous claims about healthcare reform should worry every Republican dedicated to making the GOP relevant again. There is a rare opportunity here, if only one daring Republican would take the charge and repudiate Palin’s credibility.

Reagan Did Not Win By Conjuring Eisenhower

2009-08-06T07:05:00.000-07:00

Newt Gingrich is active with a live-to-automated survey promoting his Ronald Reagan documentary and his affiliation with the Presidential Coalition. Live-to-automated means a call to a household is made by a teleservice sales representative (TSR) who prompts an automated message which is followed by another TSR who asks the respondent questions.

In this instance Newt’s message cites Jimmy Carter’s 1976 presidential campaign theme about change, then assesses Carter’s record of being one of unemployment, inflation and deficits. This is then compared to President Obama’s campaign change theme and draws the conclusion that the same variety of unemployment, inflation and deficit spending is to result. Newt then categorizes Obama's agenda as socialism and asserts that a return to low taxes, smaller government and belief in people is needed now as it was when Reagan ran for president in 1980.

Newt then promotes his recent Reagan documentary, citing that his wife Calista collaborated on the project. The call climaxes with a TSR asking if the respondent believes America needs a return to Ronald Reagan-like policies and themes.

Unemployment is currently at roughly ten percent and likely to go higher. Inflation is currently low now with a probability to increase going into 2010. Debt and deficit spending of the Obama Administration speaks for itself and is getting to staggering and worrying proportions. All this is true. However, the morale of the American people does not seem to equate with 1980 – but it is worth mentioning that a recent survey found 60% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.

Harkening back to Reagan is not a message that will make the GOP or any particular candidate relevant. Reagan was a great president, no doubt, but that was a different era. Red Elephant has said previously that Gingrich has tremendous intellect and problem-solving creativity as an out-of-the-box thinker. It does remains that Gingrich is also of a different era and not the future of the Republican Party.

Reagan did not get elected president by citing a return to Eisenhower, and the GOP won’t attract any interest by evoking Reagan now. Cherishing the memory of Reagan is all well and good, but does nothing to construct a relevant future for the GOP. Some voters may get a warm and fuzzy remembering Reagan, but it won’t make them forget that they disapprove of Republicans in Congress by a favorable to unfavorable ratio of 1:2. Republicans would do better to stop reminiscing about the past and instead get in the trenches and demonstrate their relevancy through thoughtful policy initiatives and opposition to the Administration and Democrats on the Hill.

Gathering Steam

2009-08-04T04:21:00.001-07:00

It is a welcomed thing to see more voices being added to RE's objective, as E.J. Dionne, Jr. did in yesterday's Washington Post.

Democrats Morph Into Bush In '09 Elections

2009-08-03T05:56:00.000-07:00

Two weeks ago Red Elephant brought up the prospect of Democrats reviving George W. Bush as a campaign theme in New Jersey’s gubernatorial campaign. At the time RE asserted such a theme was a dead end for Democrats. Today, the Washington Post reports that Democrats in Virginia are now doing the same thing. This is good news for Republicans. It means Democrats in both states are afraid of losing and hope invoking Bush will scare voters to cast a ballot for the Democratic candidates.

Bush’s political cadaver was interred in November 2008, and the headstone put firmly in placed on January 20, 2009. Blaming him for New Jersey’s and Virginia’s economic problems after the catharsis of the 2008 presidential election is impractical. This is like blaming the old dog for smelling-up the house a year after it was sent to a "ranch in the country." Clearly Democrats are looking to revive the change theme that the Obama campaign was able to leverage for victory in 2008. That was a different time and a different contest.

Attacking Bush gave Democrats control of Congress and the White House while he was the 43rd President. Now that he’s back in Texas and no longer has his hand on the ship of state’s tiller he is not salient to this campaign election cycle. Obama was a change agent. That change was exacted. Now Obama is the status quo, as is the Democratic Party.

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine (D) has been attempting to revive Bush in that contest this year, with no luck. Voters in that state and in Virginia want to talk about now, not last year. To make Bush a center-theme to their campaigns in those states says that they don’t have much with which to challenge their Republican opponents. Ironically, the Democratic gubernatorial candidates there, particularly Corzine, find themselves playing the role of George Bush rather than Barack Obama this year. Corzine is the incumbent presiding over a faltering economy and thus more Bush than Obama. Virginia’s Democratic gubernatorial nominee R. Creigh Deeds is more John McCain than he is Obama as he is following a Democratic predecessor, Gov. Tim Kaine who had an economic meltdown on his watch.

With only ten percent of New Jersey voters saying Corzine attacks on his opponent Chris Christie (R-NJ) are fair, it is clear that dog won’t hunt. Virginia voters likely feel the same. In Virginia the Republican candidate for governor, Bob McDonnell leads Deeds 55% to 40% in a recent survey, indicating that Gov. Kaine does not have much leverage with voters seeking change – making McDonnell the kind of change agent that Obama was in 2008. A further indication that Kaine is the real Bush-like variable in Virginia right now is that his favorable to unfavorable rating is roughly 1:1.

The fact that Democrats are reaching to bring George Bush into these elections means Republicans should be hopeful about the November elections. While neither Christie nor McDonnell are the brand of Republicans that RE thinks is needed for the GOP, neither are they hyperbolically ideological. That neither GOP candidate features a “Values” plank in their campaign platform, but instead feature platforms that are issue and solution oriented is a sign that some in the GOP realize dictating personal values to the voters is not a recipe for victory – and that is a good thing.

McConnell's Augean Heathcare Diligence

2009-07-31T13:54:00.000-07:00

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is to be applauded for his diligence on healthcare reform. Nearly daily Sen. McConnell takes to the Senate floor to lead the Republican opposition to President Obama’s healthcare reform legislation, despite knowing the GOP is just spectating. His Augean tenacity is to be admired and some of the points he makes are valid.

While many of the healthcare reform proposals the GOP has offered are tired, recycled talking points, there remains a speck of potential in them because congressional Democrats are manhandling Pres. Obama’s healthcare reform objective. Herein is where the hope resides for the Republican Party. By handing off the legislative process to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the White House has allowed the Democrat’s progressives to veer hard left. Like Homer Simpson at an all you can eat buffet, these Democrats are loading the American taxpayer’s plate in a way that will choke them off. This could prove to be the GOP’s salvation if they can artfully apply a Heimlich-like maneuver to the garroted taxpayer.

The fact that Pres. Obama campaigned on the danger of special interests, lobbyists in particularly, can quickly become a chink in the President’s popularity armor that congressional Democrats are hoping carries the day. Unaddressed in the healthcare reform debate, particularly now that it is being referred to by the WH as healthcare insurance reform, is lawsuit abuse. The problem for the GOP is that by itself it presents as a drained, catchall GOP legislative solution designed to shrink the campaign contribution pockets of trial lawyers who give heavily to Democrats. Coupled with President Obama’s campaign theme, and the fact that it is unaddressed in the legislation being debated in Congress, the hypocrisy of it can become a potent campaign theme for Republicans in the 2010 elections.

Ask nearly any doctor and they will tell you the malpractice insurance policies they must buy to protect themselves from the probability of a lawsuit makes practicing medicine a financial burden. President Obama recognized this problem in his remarks to the American Medical Association in June, saying “I want to be honest with you. I'm not advocating caps on malpractice awards, which I personally believe can be unfair to people who have been wrongfully harmed. But I personally think we need to explore a range of ideas about how to put patients' safety first, how to let doctors focus on practicing medicine, how to encourage a broader use of evidence-based guidelines.” However, congressional Democrats seem to have ignored the President’s sentiments, potentially to their detriment.

The GOP can get good mileage on this narrow topic if they can repeat the message that there is one special interest group that is off-limits in the healthcare reform debate because of their investment in the Democratic Party. From 2008 to now lawyers and law firms have contributed $195 million to Democratic candidates across the country. Republicans have received $57 million in the same period time from this group. That’s 3 ½ times that the Democrats receive over Republicans.

In 2007 the total cost of medical malpractice torts in the U.S. was $30.4 billion. Granted, some of these awards were surely deserved. However, abuse of medical malpractice torts happens and is a cause for a significant increase in healthcare costs. For Democrats not to address this is suspect given the amount of political contributions they receive from lawyers generally – and contrary to Pres. Obama’s stated intention. Clearly, trial attorneys are intent on protecting their ability to earn a handsome living from medical malpractice torts. After all, beneficiaries don’t kill the golden goose, and so the trial attorney lobby is busy fending off any notion that tort reform should be part of the legislation.

With 81 percent of Americans believing that some form of medical malpractice tort reform is needed (24% somewhat agree, 54% strongly agree) the GOP should continue to mine this predisposition among voters to make the party relevant in the debate, and in turn perhaps relevant at the polls in 2010. But in doing so, the GOP should also formulate a counter proposal replete with costs, as Red Elephant has previously posited. GOP opposition that lacks a plan including a price tag will only result in voters dismissing Republicans as obstructionist whiners.

GOP DOA on Healthcare Reform

2009-07-27T13:29:00.000-07:00

Depending on the outcome of the healthcare insurance reform legislation being crafted on Capitol Hill the GOP may yet see a crack in the door on Election Day in 2010 that they will be all too willing to try and pry open. 58 percent of all voters are more likely to vote for a candidate who would be a check on President Obama and congressional Democrats. Notably, Ticket-splitters and Independents are very open to casting their vote this way, 62% and 61% respectively. Some in the GOP advocate letting President Obama and the Democrats get their reform on a party line vote so the GOP can later say they had nothing to do with it – perhaps a viable strategy if the guaranteed outcome is failure. The GOP cheerleading failure, particularly on such an important issue, is no way to become relevant.

In the healthcare insurance reform debate the Republican Party does not have the horses to keep up with President Obama. 61 percent of voters view Obama favorably, with Ticket-splitters and Independents being equally supportive – giving Obama a 2:1 favorable to unfavorable ratio. In this contest, Obama is cruising comfortably ahead in a Bugatti Veyron and the GOP is puttering well behind in a Deux Chevaux.

Absent voters believing Republicans are simply obstructionist on this issue, the issue could have been an ideal platform from which the GOP could have mounted a robust comeback at the polls in 2010. As it stands, 65 percent of voters think the GOP falls into one of three categories o the healthcare reform debate: 1) on the side of insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals; 2) would leave too many Americans without healthcare insurance; and 3) are simply in opposition to any plan offered by Pres. Obama and Democrats in Congress. Watching the GOP in this debate is reminiscent of Michael Keaton in Mr. Mom when his character responds to a question about the voltage used in his do-it-yourself electrician project, saying “220, 221, whatever it takes.” The GOP looks a whole lot like a home improvement hobbyist who has no clue and risks electrocuting themselves in the process.

Unfortunately, it is likely the GOP will act the obstructionist part, since voters already expect it from them. On the way to a party-line vote Republicans will criticize: the tax increases to fund the legislation; a government bureaucracy making healthcare decisions for patients (and invoking the IRS and DMV as examples of what a government run program will be like for patients); reckless spending to underwrite the legislation; and the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid to fully fund the Obama healthcare reform package. Red Elephant does not advocate such a GOP posture on this generational legislation because it defines the Republican Party as the party of No and does not help the important task of rebranding the GOP in a way that makes it salient.

Coupled with this obstructionist posture, the GOP will likely advocate their Leisure Suit proposals. There’s a reason why these proposals have been in the back of the closet; they’re dated and hard to take seriously. Policy proposals like the obvious needs to reduce and control individual costs; protect the doctor-patient relationship; preserve and improve quality of choice; and end lawsuit abuse to control healthcare insurance costs are all retreads of past GOP talking points that do not address how to fundamentally reform a broken system.

The GOP’s problem on scaring voters about the cost of the Obama healthcare reform package is that 59% of voters do not believe the legislation will increase the debt because President Obama has promised it will be budget neutral. With only 29% of voters trusting the GOP to fix healthcare, Republicans find themselves suffering from a credibility gap, a result of carrying too much water for the Bush White House way back when.

Taxes used to be the GOP’s wheelhouse and should be an issue where Republicans can contrast themselves with Democrats to begin to redefine the party as fiscally responsible. Again, the GOP's past evangelism of Bush budget policies, President Obama’s credibility with voters and facts will haunt the GOP’s efforts on this bread and butter issue. President Obama has vowed that taxes will be increased only on those earning more than $250,000 annually. That figure represents two percent of all U.S. households. And while 71% of voters oppose raising $600 billion in new taxes to fund the healthcare legislation, that number will change dramatically when 98% of voter households realize they are not in the taxable bracket and won’t see a tax hike.

Unable to contend head-to-head, the GOP has chosen a strategy of delay and fear mongering. As the GOP has not done the hard work of redefining itself, voters will not pay much attention to what Republicans have to say on healthcare insurance reform. Using scare tactics too often in the past has dulled voters’ senses; the GOP is the boy who cried wolf. Rather than finding a way to become relevant, the GOP is banking that this time the wolf really is at the door and that it might be better to let it in to terrorize the household so at least they’ll gain some “told you so” credibility.

The alternative plan offered by Republicans provided for a federal-state healthcare insurance exchange. This plan eliminates tax breaks for employers who provide workers health coverage and gives individuals and families tax cuts to pay for their healthcare insurance while providing for captive insurance entities. This exchange would be governed by a non-profit, independent board to police underwriters to make sure applicants are treated fairly and the rules obeyed (because that approach worked so well on Wall Street?). Such a proposal is dead on arrival since it is offered in the aftermath of the financial crisis that should have been prevented by similar oversight architecture. Further, the GOP plan did not include costs, which is like a parent scolding their child for scoring poorly in algebra when the parent doesn’t know the difference between a variable and a constant.

Rather, the GOP should step up and construct a viable alternative (with costs and funding mechanisms) that addresses how to fund healthcare insurance reform. Frankly, this is an opportunity to play some small ball and build credibility with voters. A reasonably constructed alternative plan would present the GOP as diligent and serious and do far more to position it for gains in the 2010 elections than will dusting off the Leisure Suit and trying to get the prettiest girl at the dance to notice them.

Presidential Moneyline

2009-07-22T15:16:00.000-07:00

Red Elephant believes that the Republican Party needs to play small ball and rebuild the party from the bottom up. However, presidential elections wait for nobody and the GOP will need to put forward a nominee in 2012. Red Elephant believes it should be a person who represents the platform issues that will make the GOP relevant again. That said, the Republican Party bench is bare, but here are some potential players to watch and Red Elephant’s odds on the primary contest. Red Elephant has added President Obama for measurement.*

Obama -300 or 1/3
A hint of flagging popularity starting in Ohio. All hands on deck to get healthcare reform makes passage critical for his POTUS future. An encompassing legislative agenda could give him the best outcome of all; a GOP majority in the House – doubtful given the disarray of the GOP.

NEW John Thune
+3000 or 30/1
The capable Senator from South Dakota exhibited the kind of crusade talk in a Christianity Today interview in 2005 that makes him seem a little kooky.

NEW Condoleeze Rice
+6000 or 60/1
Not sure even Republican primary voters will tolerate her tanks in their streets brand of foreign policy if she decides to make a go of it.

NEW Rick Perry
+3000 or 30/1
A solid record as Texas Governor – hmmm, heard that before – makes him viable. Succession nonsense did not help constructively define him to American voters.

NEW Mitch Daniels
+2500 or 25/1
Budget acumen in Bush’s OMB and as a governor gives him a robust reputation for fiscal responsibility.

NEW Linda Lingle
+5000 or 50/1
An interesting longshot given her locale and moderate GOP politics. Her record of turning budget deficits into surpluses and underdog victory at the polls in 2002 makes her appealing to Red Elephant.

NEW Alan Keyes
+7000 or 70/1
Why not, he tried to beat Obama in Illinois and probably needs the matching funds to keep him clothed, fed and sheltered.

Barbour
+600 or 6/1
A recent Rasmussen survey giving him a favorable to unfavorable rating of 34:37 drop his odds, for now. RE still convinced Iowans and Granite Staters will come to see him as the future.

Romney
+1200 or 12/1
With a favorable to unfavorable rating of 73:19 plus his bank account and his odds improve. Uncomfortable bigoted questions about underwear still loom.

Crist
+2000 or 20/1
A sunny, healthy, youthful disposition makes him appealing, but untested nationally and shares a fundraising base with the Bush family. What isn’t known about him…yet?

Pawlenty
+2500 or 25/1
Rasmussen survey reveals a weak 38:33 favorable to unfavorable rating among GOPers and hurt his moneyline.

Palin
+800 or 8/1
She may become the cult of personality she desperately desires, but odds dropping like a kisaut. How long until the SARAH! pilot?

Huckabee
+1400 or 14/1
Keeping up the Daily Show dialogue with Jon Stewart could make him chic outside of the base. Fox helps keep him in the conversation.

Gingrich
+1500 or 15/1
A brilliant but wandering mind. Lots of base appeal but smacks of GOP values hypocrisy and has the feel of an outdated calendar.

Jeb Bush
+160 or 8/5
No GOP bench gives him a huge advantage – despite the last name. As Eddie Murphy said in The Distinguished Gentleman, “Go with the name you know.”

NEW Jindal
+2200 or 30/1
Where is he on healthcare? He's got the credibiity to make a play for himself on this issue.

Hutchinson
+2500 or 25/1
The country has probably had enough of the TX cheerleader type to make her a serious candidate, but she stands out as the only woman being mentioned.

Bloomberg
+20,000 or 200/1
Too bad he’s “Jewish” and an “Independent” from New York City. Not sure which is more damning in a GOP primary.

Hagel
+2000 or 20/1
Sterling credentials and temperament if he’d sacrifice himself in service to his country one more time. The GOP would have to substantially change for him to run.

Kasich
+4000 or 40/1
2016 seems more likely if he wins the gubernatorial contest in OH in ’10.

*Calculated from electoral performance, survey data, media savvy and fundraising potential.

New Jersey Could Go Red in '09

2009-07-20T12:42:00.000-07:00

The Republican Party’s path to relevancy begins in New Jersey’s and Virginia’s gubernatorial and legislative elections this year. As noted in an earlier post, the best man for the job of helming the national GOP effort in these contests is Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) as chairman of the Republican Governors Association. Both states deserve a look, and this post will inspect Republican chances in New Jersey in the gubernatorial and Assembly elections in the fall.

Governor:
The Republican candidate for governor in New Jersey is Chris Christie. His opponent is Democratic incumbent Gov. John Corzine. Christie is in play because Corzine’s record as governor is dismal. However, Christie has some faults, thin-skin among them that Corzine must manipulate if he is to win. As it stands today, Christie is the likely winner on Election Day.

Corzine is not beloved by NJ voters by a long shot. His self-stated major achievement is death penalty reform, not ideal in times of economic anxiety. Further, Corzine’s Wall Street guru status is more harmful than helpful in these days of Wall Street demonization amid the financial crisis. Corzine’s favorable to unfavorable ratio is roughly 1:1.5 – meaning more likely voters dislike him than like him. More ominous for Corzine is that polling shows he is losing Unaffiliated (registered voters not affiliated with any political party) voters by 23 percent – devastating in a state where Unaffiliated voters make up 47 percent of the electorate (33% of voters are Democrats and 20% are Republicans in NJ).

With no sturdy record to rely upon, it appears Corzine has few viable options to craft a winning strategy. Among those options are tying himself closely to President Obama’s legislative successes and destroying Christie by defining him as the typical pay-to-play, corrupt politician. The idea that Pres. Obama’s personal popularity in the state can transfer to Corzine is misguided. Pres. Obama can make as many trips to NJ as Corzine requests, but without legislative success for the White House and a brightening of the economy in NJ, one man’s popularity will not revive Corzine’s sinking prospects. Corzine’s best option is to bludgeon Christie to incite an emotional response that reveals any character flaws.

Corzine is vulnerable on core issues such as budget, the economy, and taxes. These have been NJ Republican bread and butter issues in the past and Corzine’s record could return a Republican to Drumthwacket (the governor’s mansion).

Corzine’s biggest asset is his assets, with the assumption that he will spend $30 million of his own wealth to win this contest. Even in a media market as expensive as New York City and Pennsylvania, this is a lot of money that can be used to effectively define an opponent. Corzine’s campaign will have to be careful how it goes about defining Christie as his unfavorable rating is already very high and risks getting worse by attacking Christie without much to say about Corzine’s positive attributes as governor.

As to Christie, he has run an admirable campaign, but is not over the finish line yet. Christie is notoriously thin-skinned. On the other hand he has a very strong record of prosecuting pay-to-play, corrupt politicians; Republicans and Democrats alike (130 government officials with no acquittals). There are three areas where Christie is vulnerable to Corzine attacks. They are:

1) The deferred prosecution of his brother in a securities fraud case (Christie’s brother Todd is the Christie campaign’s finance chairman), meaning Corzine has to convince voters of the allegation Christie pulled strings to save his brother’s hide;

2) Awarding no bid contracts to consulting and law firms (his former boss, US Attorney John Ashcroft among them) to monitor companies settling fraud cases and then raising funds for his campaign from those same firms; and

3) Appearing to lie when asked if attorney John Inglesino raised money for Christie after Christie announced he would not raise gubernatorial campaign funds from any entity awarded no bid contracts while he was a U.S. Attorney (Inglesino worked at the law firm Stern & Kilcullen that was picked by then U.S. Attorney Christie to settle fraud claims at NJ’s medical school).

The last of these three is the most potent because Christie was caught on tape denying Inglesino raised funds for his campaign despite evidence to the contrary that Inglesino hosted a fundraiser and solicited donations. Corzine’s $30 million could put a dent in Christie’s hopes of victory by driving a message that defines Christie as a typical pay-to-play, corrupt politician. Christie will combat this with his unapproachable record as a corruption-busting U.S. Attorney and the fact that the monitoring contracts went to qualified firms to oversee corporate settlements, not taxpayer funds.

The message that is clearly not working for Corzine is trying to tie George W. Bush to Christie. Most noteworthy is that Christie was on the list of U.S. attorneys to be replaced by the Bush Department of Justice, making any reference to George W. Bush in this campaign wishful and stubborn thinking by Democrats that Bush is somehow a salient campaign theme moving forward.

There are enough Christie molehills for Corzine to construct a mountain. However, it will be up to Christie to make a mistake, which is possible given his thin-skin, to give Corzine the victory.

Christie is not exactly the brand of Republicanism that is required for the GOP to become relevant, but he is neither a right wing ideologue. Abiding by the tenet that the GOP needs to practice addition and not subtraction, Christie is acceptable. Christie’s emphasis on fiscal restraint, treating sustainable energy as an industry, urban revitalization and tax reform along with his choice of a moderate, pro-choice running mate (Kim Guadagno) and his support of Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court (demonstrating Christie’s common sense) are all steps toward defining the GOP brand as fiscally responsible and socially tolerant.

Assembly:
Also in play is the NJ State Assembly. In NJ there are two Assembly-people in each Legislative District. There was a scenario for the GOP to regain control of the chamber, needing eight seats for control, but no longer due to the Republican candidate recruitment stars not aligning. The Legislative Districts to watch if you are a Republicans are LD 1, 3, 14, and 36. LD 36 is an unlikely GOP pick-up as it features heavily minority (largely Hispanic) Passaic which will likely turn-out large numbers for the Democrats (this is where the Judge Sonia Sotomayor nomination/confirmation can help Democrats with turnout). LD 3 is a one seat strategy for the Republicans as the other GOP candidate there is referred to as the “KKK Guy,” NJ’s own David Duke without much chance of winning - thankfully.

If you are a Democrat, then LDs 2, 8, and 12 are on your list to watch. LD 2 is an unlikely pick-up for the Democrats because the western part of the district is more Alabama than NJ. The Democrats have zero chance of winning Burlington County’s LD 8. LD 12, which Obama won in ’08, features two moderate Republican freshmen and the best time to beat an incumbent is during the first term.

Now you know nearly as much as the personnel at the Republican Governors Association who will report the same to Gov. Barbour so he may make his own decisions about how to get Chris Christie elected as the 55th governor of New Jersey.

Is Steele Out To Lunch?

2009-07-14T16:58:00.000-07:00

RNC Chairman Michael Steele should take heed of Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) remark today during Judge Sotomayor's Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Said Sen. Graham, "You don't want to offend people you are trying to represent."

Referencing fried chicken and potato salad as Mr. Steele did recently when talking about Republican Party inclusion is repulsing, not inviting.

Race, Guns & Abortion v. Sotomayor

2009-07-13T03:48:00.000-07:00

The Senate Republicans will debilitate any prospect for a relevant Republican Party by pursuing a strategy of pandering to the GOP base in the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States. The irony of this pandering strategy is that it is based on the “Southern Strategy” of racially polarizing voters as the country becomes more racially diverse. As Hispanic populations are increasing dramatically in the south the irony becomes only more vivid.

Yet Senate Republicans plan to confront Judge Sotomayor in the worst way strategically for the relevancy of the GOP, despite the inevitability of her confirmation to the Supreme Court. Senate Republicans should check their tone and demeanor so as not come across as a child throwing a tantrum over taking a bath. Eventually the kid is going into the tub; and Judge Sotomayor is going to the SCOTUS.

Of the top ten states seeing a large increase in their Hispanic populations, seven are in the south. They are (state: current Hispanic population by percent; and percentage increase between 1990 and 2007):

North Carolina: 6.6%; 670%
Arkansas: 5.3%; 644%
Tennessee: 3.8%; 588%
Georgia: 7.7%; 565%
Alabama: 3.8%; 485%
South Carolina: 3.6%; 402%
Kentucky: 2.2%; 309%

The growth trend is unmistakable. With the 2010 census around the corner these numbers are sure to increase considerably. Growth trends like these should dispel any idea in GOP circles that the Southern Strategy remains viable. Yet, judging from the Sotomayor witness list offered by Republicans in the Senate it appears the GOP is not yet ready to give up the strategy. Like a teen hooked on glue, the GOP is not ready to stop huffing the right wing.

The witness list being called by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee is painfully revealing. It includes Mr. Frank Ricci of Ricci v. DeStefano; Sandy Froman of the National Rifle Association that has called Judge Sotomayor hostile to the Second Amendment; and Charmaine Yoest, chairman of Americans United for Life that has stated Judge Sotomayor has a pro-abortion agenda. That race, guns and fetuses is what Republican Senators have to offer in these important hearings says simply that the GOP does not have much to offer the country other than exhausted pabulum.

With the announcement that Mr. Ricci will testify against Judge Sonia Sotomayor in her confirmation hearings it is clear that the GOP is reaching into its tired bag of electoral polarization tricks. Mr. Ricci was the lead plaintiff in Ricco v. DeStafano upon which the Supreme Court recently ruled by reversing an appellate court decision endorsed by SCOTUS nominee Judge Sotomayor. The SCOTUS ruled that white firefighters were unfairly denied promotions by New Haven, CT because of their race. This ruling annuls white grievances over minority claims to victimhood. No longer can white males complain about the culture of victimhood as they’ve joined up.

Red Elephant has sat through enough campaign polling presentations to know the reverse discrimination question is going to yield hard to resist survey data for Republican challenger campaigns in 2010. More than likely the correctly worded question, “Would you be more or less likely to vote for Candidate A if you knew they supported reverse discrimination of white job applicants” is going to test a minimum of 60 percent less likely from survey respondents in white majority districts across the country. A 60% threshold in a survey makes an issue dominant. Having a 60 percent issue is like having 500 horsepower under the hood, you got to stomp the pedal.

As the GOP is desperate for wins in 2010, the probability is high that consultants will be cranking out paid messages that seek to inflame white voters’ economic anxiety. One need only refer to the Jesse Helms (R-NC) v. Harvey Gant (D) contest in 1990 when the Helms campaign aired the “Hands” spot that used affirmative action to polarize the electorate, accompanied by the image of a white male crumbling a job rejection letter. The 2010 version won’t be much different, “You needed that job and were the best qualified. But you didn’t get it because the employer feared a lawsuit from minorities who didn’t get hired.” Key the white guy ripping up a job rejection letter. This temptation should be resisted, particularly by the candidates presented with such a strategy by their consultants.

In their questions of Judge Sotomayor, Senate Republicans should hearken back to spirit of GOP advocacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlawed racial segregation when over 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for passage, versus a little more than 60% of Democrats in either chamber. Senate Republicans should be for Judge Sotomayor because of what she personifies about America’s ideals (meritorious advancement and rule of law among them). Further, her opinions as a judge do not offer many opportunities to challenge her as there is nothing radical about her record. Senate Republicans should not oppose Sotomayor on those few issues that pluck the Republican base responsive chord. This approach is shortsighted and will only seal GOP irrelevancy in a demographically changing nation.

To this point, there are 36 Senate seats up for election in 2010. Of those, Republicans could pick up four seats if they successfully defend what they already have. Defense of those GOP seats could prove tougher with a hard-line against Sotomayor, particularly in Florida with Hispanics making up 22% of the population. The four reasonable opportunities the GOP has to increase in the Senate are Colorado, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Illinois. Those states have Hispanic populations of 20%, 4% (making the Hispanic vote less of a factor, but Sen. Specter will need every vote he can get), 12% and 14% respectively. Colorado and Connecticut have Democratic incumbents (Senators Dodd and Bennett) who can do much to ingratiate themselves with Hispanic voters in their states by vigorously supporting Judge Sotomayor even though they are not on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

It would be better for Republicans to treat Sotomayor warmly. Such treatment of Sotomayor will put pressure on President Obama to pick a very liberal nominee for the next SCOTUS opening. A far left pick next time around will give the GOP a real opportunity to strike a contrast between itself and Democrats.

Unfortunately this opportunity will be squandered for the immediate satisfaction of Republican pandering to the core voters of the Republican Party. After all, endless direct mail fundraising solicitations can be mailed and millions in contributions deposited off the headlines that guns, race and fetuses will generate from the Sotomayor confirmation hearings. So it seems that the Angry White Firefighter is too appealing to Republicans not to manipulate. Hispanics will be watching Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings and making a judgment about whether the Republican Party is a place they can ever call home as its population in the U.S. grows. Judging from the Republican’s Sotomayor witness list it doesn’t look good that Hispanics will be dropping by the GOP homestead on Election Day.

Gathering Steam

2009-07-10T08:13:00.001-07:00

It is refreshing to read Mike Murphy's column in Time about the relevancy of the GOP. First Jeb Bush, now Republican consultant Mike Murphy. Red Elephant is glad to know there are other serious people voicing reason to a Republican Party not only in the wilderness, but seemingly intent and happy to stay there. Thanks for a great piece, Mr. Murphy!

The Dr. Rev. Sen. Tom Coburn & Mr. Ensign.

2009-07-10T04:51:00.000-07:00

Philandering Republican politicians are like the last drunken guest to realize the party is over. Now come their enablers, who rather than showing them the door offer up a handle of Smirnoff's and tell them the party doesn't have to end.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) accused the media of doing harm to the families involved in Senator John Ensign’s (R-NV) adulterous affair. That’s right, adultery doesn’t tear families apart, the media does. This is the kind of nonsense that speaks for itself. It also is the kind of nonsense that makes the GOP appear hypocritical.

John Ensign cheated on his wife and then allegedly arranged payments to his girlfriend’s family, suggesting he wanted to keep the affair from being disclosed publicly. This is what is tearing up these two families, not the media doing its job of reporting on the conduct of a public official.

Republicans are quick to say they believe in personal responsibility, this is usually the argument given in opposition to entitlements. Where is the act of taking responsibility by Mr. Ensign? Owning up to his bad deed is not taking responsibility, that’s a consequence. Taking responsibility is making full disclosure to his constituents, which he never did by not being the first to reveal the payments and then accepting some form of punishment (which at minimum should be a Senate Ethics investigation into the alleged payments). The only reason Ensign's constituents know about the payments now is because of the media. What else hasn’t he revealed that the media is going to have to discover so Ensign's constituents know what kind of public official he really is?

As to Mr. Coburn, hiding behind his doctor of medicine and ordination as a deacon to claim his conversations with Ensign about the affair are privileged is inappropriate and plain wrong. Coburn and Ensign know each other as Senators; they didn’t meet by appointment at a medical office or parish. Coburn is enabling not only Ensign’s bad conduct, but any other Senator who strays from their committments and then seeks guidance from Dr. Rev. Sen. Tom Coburn.

John Ensign is nowhere close to taking responsibility for his bad acts. What he did and what Coburn is doing makes the GOP look like a gang of hypocrites and the Republican Senators staying quiet on this matter should know better and demand better from their cloakroom colleagues.

Jeb Bush Is Also Thinking About the GOP's Relevance

2009-07-08T16:46:00.000-07:00

It appears from the recent Esquire Magazine interview by Tucker Carlson of Jeb Bush that Red Elephant and Mr. Bush are of like mind when it comes to the relevancy of the Republican Party.

Says Jeb Bush in the interview, “There hasn’t been any kind of restatement of the organizing principles of our (the Republican Party) philosophy. We haven’t upgraded our message. If you close your eyes and listen to most Republicans, most conservatives, the same speech could have been given in 1990. And you can’t discount that. It’s a pretty important point. If people think our message is outdated, our message is not relevant to the world we live in, and I think a growing number of people may feel that, you lose your relevance.”

It is unfortunate that Jeb Bush will be branded with the faults of his brother, George W. Bush. This interview almost makes Red Elephant want to cheer for Jeb and put him on the list of the kind of presidential candidate the party needs in the future.

The article suggests Jeb Bush is a man of faith, but not an evangelical. His faith seems more in line with his family's colonial heritage and roots in the Northeast, moderate wing of the GOP. Unlike his brother, Jeb Bush does not present as a snake handler. It appears that to him, speaking in tongues refers to what one does with the concierge at the George V. The absence of an evangelical strain is a welcome change from his brother's expressions of faith. The absence of a long discussion on faith on Mr. Bush's part in the interview signals that he understands that moralizing will not make the GOP relevant to voters who can get what they need on Sundays.

In the interview Jeb Bush touches on the thinking that the GOP needs to put into its positions on issues beyond taxes, foreign policy and knee-jerk reactions to President Obama's legislative agenda. Says Bush, "I'm not saying abandon our principles. To the contrary: Find creative ways of expressing the principles. This should be a renaissance time. Whether it's education or healthcare or energy or the environment, or whether it's the scale and scope and the size of government all around us." Clearly Jeb Bush gets the joke.

It is significant that Jeb Bush is now doing interviews talking about how to make the GOP relevant. More clarity on his ideas is needed, but the mere fact he has broached the subject is welcome by Red Elephant.

Presidential Moneyline

2009-07-07T17:33:00.000-07:00

Red Elephant believes that the Republican Party needs to play small ball and rebuild the party from the bottom up. However, presidential elections wait for nobody and the GOP will need to put forward a nominee in 2012. Red Elephant believes it should be a person who represents the platform issues that will make the GOP relevant again. That said, the Republican Party bench is bare, but here are some potential players to watch and Red Elephant’s odds on the primary contest. Red Elephant has added President Obama for measurement.*

NEW Obama
-300 or 1/3
Still strong after all these months, although a hint of flagging popularity. An encompassing legislative agenda could give him the best outcome of all; a GOP majority in the House – doubtful given the disarray of the GOP.

NEW Barbour
+600 or 6/1
A recent Rasmussen survey of likely GOP voters giving him a favorable to unfavorable rating of 34:37 drop his odds, for now. RE still convinced Iowans and Granite Staters will come to see him as the future.

NEW Romney
+1000 or 1o/1
With a favorable to unfavorable rating of 73:19 plus his bank account and his odds improve. Uncomfortable bigoted questions about underwear still loom.

Crist
+2000 or 20/1
A sunny, healthy, youthful disposition makes him appealing, but untested nationally and shares a fundraising base with the Bush family. What isn’t known about him…yet?

NEW Pawlenty
+2500 or 25/1
Rasmussen survey reveals a weak 38:33 favorable to unfavorable rating among GOPers and hurt his moneyline.

NEW Sanford
+10,000 or 100/1
Censura means cya; last time on the Moneyline.

NEW Ensign
+10,000 or 100/1
Handwritten note to his girlfriend is handwriting on the wall for his political ambitions. No more for the Moneyline.

NEW Palin
+5000 or 50/1
She may become the cult of personality she desperately desires, but odds dropping like a uyabak. How long until SARAH! the pilot?

Huckabee
+1400 or 14/1
Keeping up the Daily Show dialogue with Jon Stewart could make him chic outside of the base. Fox helps keep him in the conversation.

Gingrich
+1500 or 15/1
A brilliant but wandering mind. Lots of base appeal but smacks of GOP values hypocrisy and has the feel of an outdated calendar.

Jeb Bush
+160 or 8/5
No GOP bench gives him a huge advantage – despite the last name. As Eddie Murphy said in The Distinguished Gentleman, “Go with the name you know.”

Jindal+2200 or 22/1
Highly intelligent but no media presence coming from a state that does not give him much fundraising prowess. Does himself no favors by appearing on tv.

Hutchinson
+2500 or 25/1
The country has probably had enough of the TX cheerleader type to make her a serious candidate, but with Palin gone she gets more interesting.

Bloomberg
+20,000 or 200/1
Too bad he’s “Jewish” and an “Independent” from New York City. Not sure which is more damning in a GOP primary.

Hagel
+2000 or 20/1
Sterling credentials and temperament if he’d sacrifice himself in service to his country one more time. The GOP would have to substantially change for him to run.

Kasich
+4000 or 40/1
2016 seems more likely if he wins the gubernatorial contest in OH in ’10.

*Calculated from electoral performance, survey data, media savvy and fundraising potential.

The Value of Humility

2009-07-06T09:18:00.000-07:00

The Republican National Committee refers to the 2008 Platform on its web site as guidance on issues important to the future of the GOP. A platform, a list of principles offered to define a political party, should be taken seriously by party members, officials and voters deciding on how they fit within the construct. So Red Elephant will periodically take a close look at the current Republican Party platform and what it means to the long-term viability of the GOP.

Most striking about the 2008 platform is the prioritization of issues. Within the platform are 72 planks, or individual topics that define the platform specifically. Of those 72 planks, six (or nine percent) of the platform address Energy, Environment and Education, all complex and important priorities for the prosperity and security of the nation. Yet these issues were apportioned a mere nine percent of the platform. So it is instructive to look closely at what makes up the remaining 91 percent of the platform:

§ National Security 16 planks, or 22 percent
§ Government Reform 13 planks, or 18 percent
§ Crime 11 planks, or 15 percent
§ Economy 9 planks or 13 percent
§ Values 9 planks, or 13 percent
§ Healthcare 8 planks, or 11 percent
§ Education 2 planks, or 3 percent
§ Energy 2 planks or 3 percent
§ Environment 2 planks, or 3 percent

So it is that the Republican Party in 2008 decided it intrinsically placed more importance on Values, or defining its morality to the public for the public, than it did on Education, Energy and Environment combined (as well as giving more prioritization to Values than Healthcare). Ironic, as one would rightly assume that the issue positions themsevles reveal the underpinning values.

The RNC Chairman’s Platform Preamble is illuminating as to why the GOP’s problems are largely derived from the prioritization and contradictory nature of its principles. The preamble itself is a Bush-era worldview with all the bravado of a wanted dead or alive poster and the righteousness of a papal bull. It says, “Yet we stand united today because we are the one party that speaks to all Americans, conservative, moderates, libertarians, independents and evens liberals.” Really? The election results of November 4, 2008 say differently.

89% of Liberals, who made up 22% of the electorate in that election, voted for Barack Obama. 60% of Moderates, 44% of the electorate, voted for Obama. Even Conservatives, 34% of the electorate, had doubts about the Republican ticket as 22% punched the ballot for somebody other than John McCain. Self identified Independents, 29% of all voters, voted for Obama over McCain 52 to 44 percent. These results speak for themselves and should reveal to the GOP that it does not come close to speaking for all Americans. However, the statement that the GOP stands united is accurate, as 90% of Republicans, accounting for 32% of the electorate was united in voting for John McCain. The election results speak for themselves; the GOP is too busy speaking to - or perhaps lecturing - Americans to know how to speak for them. These same results also mean the GOP would do better for now to listen rather than lecture if winning elections is important to the RNC.

As values are a mainstay of the Republican Party’s self-definition, the planks deserve some attention. The nine planks are 1) Upholding the Constitutional to Keep and Bear Arms, 2) Ensuring Equal Treatment for All, 3) Protecting our National Symbols, 4) Freedom of Speech and the Press, 5) Maintaining the Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life, 6) Preserving Traditional Marriage, 7) Safeguarding Religious Liberties, 8) Preserving American’s Property Rights, and 9) Supporting Native American Communities (especially those with casinos).

As it is too much to address them all in one post, the focus will be on Nos. 2 and 5. As to equal treatment for all; the GOP has clearly decided some voter segments are not as equal as the others, having polarized itself against the homosexual population of the country. This is largely due to the evangelical voter base within the GOP that views homosexuality as sin, often citing the Old Testament’s Leviticus. Since sin is the core objection that evangelicals have to homosexuals then they have a conundrum, since sin is not particular to any demographic. Pick any lifestyle and sin is present. For the sake of example, let’s choose…Republican politicians. Given the conduct of Senators John Ensign (R-NV) and David Vitter (R-LA), and Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC), perhaps the GOP should add this sinful demographic to the list of those who don’t warrant equal treatment as they too violate God’s law as recorded in Leviticus. Better yet, shelving moral judgment would free the GOP to leverage its heritage as a proponent of civil rights.

Maintaining the sanctity and dignity of human life is a noble conviction. However, this plank refers almost strictly to the unborn. Unfortunately, the principle to maintain the sanctity and dignity of human life in the GOP platform does not take the logical next step and extend the same principle to every issue: crime, healthcare, national security, government reform, education, environment, energy and the economy. Within each of these are Americans and American ideals suffering indignities daily: the released inmate without the resources to re-integrate into society, the homeless who are unable to feed or clothe themselves, the patient who could not afford health insurance, the low-income student unable to pursue an education, the administration of the death penalty (specific to judicial appointments), the treatment of non-combatants in U.S. custody, the senior citizen unable to afford prescription medicine, the jobless unable to provide for themselves or family at no fault of their own. These people are unaddressed by this particular plank, thus receiving no codified compassion in the Republican Party’s Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life plank.

The RNC Chairman’s preamble presents the 2008 platform with “genuine humility – before God and a nation of free and independent thinkers.” So the platform is offered in the spirit of deference and submission, but not in deference and submission to every American. More aptly, the preamble should state it is offered in modesty as it attempts to strike propriety of speech and presentation. This is apt because modesty is easy to discard when times get tough, as they are now for the Republican Party. However, humility is exactly what the GOP now needs. Humility will re-invigorate the compassion that is ingrained in the history of the GOP. A humble GOP will be recognized and appreciated by every voter demographic in the county, giving the Republican Party the opportunity to earn a second look from the conservatives, moderates, libertarians, independents and even liberals who abandoned it at the polls on Nov. 4, 2008.

Palin's Resignation Speech Signals New Anti-Federalism

2009-07-03T17:38:00.000-07:00

Gov. Sarah Palin closed her resignation announcement quoting Gen. Douglas MacArthur, saying “We are not retreating, we are advancing in another direction.” These were much like the words of Maj. Gen. Oliver Smith while directing the 1st Marine Division to fight through surrounding Chinese troops at the Chosin Reservoir in 1950 who said then, “Retreat? Hell, we’re attacking in another direction!” This is a better reference for Palin at this juncture of her political career.

Palin is certainly surrounded; largely by her own incompetence, intellectual laziness and problems of her own manufacture. Her remarks are troubling, but for the moment it is a good thing for the Republican Party that she is retreating from the national political scene. Palin is the variety of Republican that relies on subtraction and division, rather than addition and multiplication.

As to her speech; what is troubling about it is that she has adopted Ronald Reagan’s perspective that government is the problem and not the solution and is crafting a new and more potent Anti-Federalism. Palin’s remarks endorse the confusion and contradiction arising from a lack of uniformity among the states that Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist Paper No. 80. This indicates the political philosophy that can be expected from Palin in the years ahead; that government (state or federal) is incapable of delivering worthwhile solutions to domestic problems or conflicts. Palin is positioning herself as the politician who so dislikes government that she disdains her own office, preferring resignation to service.

Palin remarked in her resignation announcement that “some Alaskans don’t mind wasting pubic dollars and state time, but I do. And I cannot stand here as your governor and allow the millions of dollars and all that time to go to waste just so that I can hold the title of governor.” This reveals a narcissism that should make us all sleep much better knowing she is not now a heartbeat away from the presidency. Being governor of any state is about the power of the office to do the will of the people, not the ambition and ego of the officer holder.

As Palin is a national political figure this announcement today raised many questions about her future. Removing herself means she must have assessed the liability of fulfilling her term in office and decided the reward paled in contrast to the risk. Her reason for forfeiting the last 18 months of her term ranged from the familial, to the waste of time and treasure devoured by the blood sport of politics, to the stalking national media. Blaming the media is a tired tactic and will find no resonance. The bloodiness of political sport will follow her as long as she harbors political aspiration. Family – well that is a personal decision and if we never hear from Sarah Palin again then she should be left alone, but it is doubtful she is gone for good.

Palin has clearly decided on the course of the political cult of personality. It is assured her book will sell in the millions; in her speech she alluded to revelations to come later that guarantees sales success. The course she has chosen is to forgo traditional methods of building a political base: using her office to articulate and enact a vision; raising political action committee funds from special interest groups; and interjecting herself into the national dialogue on issues from the gubernatorial perch. No, she is going for something large, something mimicking Oprah, somethng about her and not the ideals she is not willing to fight for in a legislative chamber. This is a risky path that demands robust intelligence and mental stamina, traits Palin has yet to display.

The better MacArthur quote for this moment is “I shall return.” Palin is sure do so and it is the responsibility of the tolerant and inclusive men and women of the Republican Party who believe in the Federalism of Madison, Hamilton and Jay that when Palin does return she is soundly rebuffed.

What Barbour Helming RGA Means

2009-07-02T14:00:00.000-07:00

Visit the Republican Governors Association web site and you will be greeted with a short but significant message from The Hon. Haley Barbour (R-MS). Gov. Barbour recently took over as chairman of the RGA following Gov. Mark Sanford’s (R-SC) resignation from the RGA post following his disclosure of adultery. The slogan of Haley’s message is “The GOP Comeback Begins Now.” Any Democrat laughing at that now could well be crying later.

“When I was chairman of the Republican Party back in the ‘90’s it was the Republican governors who led the comeback of our party, of our getting back into the majority. And I believe it will be the same way this time,” says Gov. Barbour in the clip. From anybody else this is talk. From Haley it is the walk.

When Haley took over as chairman of the Republican National Committee in January 1993 the GOP was in disarray. Bill Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States, having just defeated President George H.W. Bush in an upset. Democrats were the majority in the House by 258 to 176, in the Senate by 56 to 44 and they controlled 31 of the 50 governorships. Two years later Haley presided over Republican majorities in Congress and among the nation’s governors.

From 1993 to 1994 Haley’s RNC raised and spent close to $105 million. Haley Barbour was the driving force in achieving that remarkable accomplishment. It is certain he will bring the same expertise and performance to the RGA.

A review of the RNC’s performance under Haley discloses the impact Haley has on political party fundraising. In 1993 the RNC, during Haley’s first year as chairman there, raised $42 million. In 1994 the RNC raised $72 million, followed by $61 million in 1995. Off years, or odd years, tend to be tougher years to raise funds for political committees because the only elections are in a few states where there are state legislative and gubernatorial contests. The significant comparison is 1993 and 1995, both off year election cycles (since even years include a presidential election which has more fundraising variables than a non-presidential even year). Haley’s RNC raised 45 percent more in 1995 than 1993.

In 2008 the RGA raised $27 million. Assuming Haley will match the RGA’s '08 performance in ’09 and reproduce the results he had at the RNC in his second year as chairman, the RGA could have $36 million for the 2010 election cycle when 36 governorships are up, although a smaller number of those (less than twenty) will be competitive.

Haley arrives at the RGA with the committee on solid financial footing with more than $10 million raised to date. This is thanks to Gov. Sanford, who should have paid as much attention to his wife as he did on RGA fundraising. There will be significant RGA expenditures in New Jersey and Virginia this year. In many ways this scenario is a reprise of 1993.

In New Jersey there is an unpopular Democratic governor, Jon Corzine, who faces a strong Republican challenger in former Bush U.S. Attorney Chris Christie. Similarly, in 1993 the Republican challenger was Christie Todd Whitman who defeated Gov. Jim Florio mainly over taxes increases. While Corzine is not nearly as unpopular as Florio was, he is currently trailing Christie and has a favorable to unfavorable rating of 31:54.

Likewise, Virginia’s gubernatorial contest is for an open seat, as it was in 1993. Recent polling has the Democrat, Creigh Deeds, leading the Republican, Robert McDonnell in the contest by 47 to 41 percent. In 1993, the Republican George Allen trailed the Democrat Mary Sue Terry early in the contest. Allen prevailed on the Election Day with a great deal of assistance from Haley’s RNC.

The NJ and VA contests at this time are a toss-up featuring strong Republican candidates that make two pick-ups for GOP possible – again like 1993. When Haley says “it was the Republican governors who led the comeback of our party, of our getting back into the majority,” this is what he is talking about.

It is more likely than not that RGA funding will go to competitive races, rather than ideologically pure candidates. This is a good thing for the future relevance of the GOP and a much different approach than signaled by current RNC Chairman Michael Steele. Steel’s comments over the passage of President Obama’s stimulus package signaled that Republicans who supported that measure would jeopardize RNC support in their re-election campaigns.

Haley’s ascension to the RGA helm signals that the adults are back in charge. This is bad news for Steele, as his role will diminish by the mere fact of Haley’s proximity within RNC headquarters in Washington DC. Ironically, the litmus test coalition within the GOP will not feel intimidated by Haley’s presence at the RGA because he is a pro-life, Southern Republican with whom they feel comfortable. But to the point of this blog, Haley is more campaign pragmatist than ideologue and will seek ballot box wins rather than moral victories. Haley recently demonstrated this pragmatism while in Des Moines, IA, saying, “Party building is about addition and multiplication, not subtraction and division.”

Democrats should not be shaking in their boots at the return of Haley Barbour to a GOP leadership position. However, they would do well to take notice and not underestimate the best politician in the GOP ranks. Haley doesn’t play ideological favorites when mounting a comeback for a Republican Party in disarray.

Presidential Moneyline

2009-07-01T16:22:00.000-07:00

Red Elephant believes that the Republican Party needs to play small ball and rebuild the party from the bottom up. However, presidential elections wait for nobody and the GOP will need to put forward a nominee in 2012. Red Elephant believes it should be a person who represents the platform issues that will make the GOP relevant again. That said, the Republican Party bench is bare, but here are some potential players to watch and Red Elephant’s odds on the primary contest. Red Elephant has added President Obama for measurement.*

Obama (re-elect)
-300 or 1/3
Strong favorable rating and master of candid rhetoric. An encompassing legislative agenda could give him the best outcome of all; a GOP majority in the House – doubtful given the disarray of the GOP.

Barbour
+500 or 5/1
Don’t let the accent fool you – the best pol on the GOP bench. He is a real contender who just took over the Republican Governors Assoc. and is already traveling IA and NH.

Romney
+1200 or 12/1
Mormonism and a strange debate style will continue to be a drag on his performance, but his bank account won’t.

Crist
+2000 or 20/1
A sunny, healthy, youthful disposition makes him appealing, but untested nationally and shares a fundraising base with the Bush family. What isn’t known about him…yet?

Pawlenty
+2000 or 20/1
Sanford affair gives him more space to define himself as the future of the GOP. Lousy hair, needs a stylist.

NEW Sanford
+10,000 or 100/1
Proclaiming oneself a man of faith while cheating on the wife is a recipe for electoral implosion, he’ll tell you as much. Not much longer for the Moneyline with an SC AG investigation looming and confirmation he's a serial marital line crosser.

Ensign
+10,000 or 100/1
See Sanford and add a pinch of strange allegation of blackmail that doesn’t make his adultery story go away.

NEW Palin
+5000 or 50/1
Her resignation speech, setting, planning and timing speak for themselves: c.r.a.z.y!

Huckabee
+1400 or 14/1
Keeping up the Daily Show dialogue with Jon Stewart could make him chic outside of the base. Fox helps keep him in the conversation.

Gingrich
+1500 or 15/1
A brilliant but wandering mind. Lots of base appeal but smacks of GOP values hypocrisy and has the feel of an outdated calendar.

Jeb Bush
+160 or 8/5
No GOP bench gives him a huge advantage – despite the last name. As Eddie Murphy said in The Distinguished Gentleman, “Go with the name you know.”

Jindal
+2200 or 22/1
Highly intelligent but no media presence coming from a state that does not give him much fundraising prowess. Does himself no favors by appearing on tv.

Hutchinson
+2500 or 25/1
The country has probably had enough of the TX cheerleader type to make her a serious candidate, but she stands out as the only woman being mentioned.

Bloomberg
+20,000 or 200/1
Too bad he’s “Jewish” and an “Independent” from New York City. Not sure which is more damning in a GOP primary.

Hagel
+5000 or 50/1
Sterling credentials and temperament if he’d sacrifice himself in service to his country one more time. The GOP would have to substantially change for him to run.

Kasich
+5000 or 50/1
2016 seems more likely if he wins the gubernatorial contest in OH in ’10.

*Calculated from electoral performance, survey data, media savvy and fundraising potential.

Change Is Not Made Without Inconvenience

2009-06-29T04:12:00.000-07:00

The Republican Party is going nowhere, unless oblivion is considered a worthwhile destination. It is unfortunate when one considers that the roots of the Grand Old Party should be strong enough to endure its current travails. Then again, no root system can endure a sustained hatchet attack. Facts are stubborn things and they are what follow to clearly make the case that the GOP must radically change its rationale for remaining one side of the two party system.

In 1996 the GOP held majorities in the House and Senate and among the nation’s governors. Back then the GOP’s congressional majority margins were 27 seats in the House, six seats in the Senate, and 31 governors were Republican. Today the GOP is in the minority by 79 seats in the House, ten seats in the Senate and now has just 22 governors.

More indicative of the GOP’s future is that it currently controls only 27 state legislative chambers. Democrats control 58 of those chambers. In 1994 the Republican Party controlled 47 state legislative chambers; parity with the Democrat’s control of 48 state chambers. State legislatures may sound like small potatoes in comparison to Capitol Hill. But the aggregate of all state budgets is currently $1.6 trillion. That is roughly half of what lawmakers in Congress spent in 2009. That’s big money being spent by state politicians with aspirations to have an office on Capitol Hill where the budgeting opportunities are enormous.

It would be easy to blame this precipitous decline of the GOP on eight years of President George W. Bush. As much as it would be nice to point the finger in his direction, it can’t be done. The blame lies with the Republican congressional leadership of the day. Speaker Denny Hastert was qualified to manage a high school wrestling team but not the U.S. House. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was the ideal leader for the Confederate States of America, but not the U.S. Senate. By lining their majorities squarely behind President Bush’s policies – particularly Mr. Bush’s free spending habits – and receiving their assignments at the service entrance of the Bush White House, Hastert and Lott doomed the future of the Republican Party. When George Bush entered the White House in 2001 the federal government had a budget surplus of $127 billion. When he left in 2009 it had a debt of $1.75 trillion after spending $21 trillion. The Republican controlled Congress had the power of the purse, which they unlocked for Mr. Bush’s greedy hand when they allowed PAYGO legislation (a law requiring new taxes and spending to be offset by either tax hikes or spending cuts) to expire in 2002.

By obediently carrying President Bush’s water on Capitol Hill they allowed the decimation of the Republican Party in the swing House districts and Senate seats across the country, with the greatest damage being inflicted on Northeast moderate Republicans because they did not blindly follow President’s policy agenda of lower taxes and greater spending. If the Republican Party stubbornly sticks to its politics of excluding moderate Republican pragmatism it will soon find the demographics of the country have left it behind – a topic to be covered later.

It is a shame that northeast moderate Republicans were showed the door of the GOP tent by the southerners who ran the GOP at the time, the exception being Mr. Hastert of Illinois who proved himself simply incompetent to the task of leading House Republicans. The shame is because so much of Republican Party history was from the Northeast. The first five chairmen of the RNC were from the northeast; New York, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and New York in that order. The second chairman was Henry Jarvis Raymond who was appointed by the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, and who was also a media mogul (having founded the New York Times).

The result of showing the Northeast GOP moderates the door caused the near extinction of the breed in the region as the GOP lost 25 House members there between 1996 and today.

Those losses (ignoring for now equally important moderate Republican losses in other regions of the country) combined with the decline in Republican controlled state legislatures means the GOP has no bench. No bench means no future. Any baseball fan knows this axiom. At least baseball has free agency which gives the fan a reason to hope; there is no such thing in politics other than the occasional party switcher.

If the GOP were a baseball team the only solution to its problems is young arms. It has none now and its best prospects, like Gov. Bobby Jindal, don’t have the juice to make it in the Bigs. The only option left to management is to develop the farm system and forget about the playoffs. Unfortunately the GOP’s management is either too concerned for their caucuses or too enamored of seeing themselves on television yammering blindly to get to the hard work of rebuilding what was once known as the Gallant Old Party.

Minority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell is too busy trying to control adolescent-like hormones in his caucus to dedicate the time to fixing the national GOP. Minority Leader John Boehner is too busy trying to be relevant to the daily news cycle on Capitol Hill to give it a go. In truth, rejuvenating the Republican Party is not their responsibility.

The responsibility is with Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. Unfortunately for the Republican Party, Chairman Steele lacks the discipline and intellect to go about the very important business of making the GOP viable and relevant. Chairman Steele’s message discipline reminds me of the elementary school actor who forgets their lines and decides to improvise, badly. Subsequently, the intellect of the man shines forth with barely enough light to read large print.

In this moment the RNC needs to forget about beating President Barack Obama in 2012. Certainly Republicans will choose a presidential nominee after a brutal primary contest, a topic Red Elephant will take on later in great detail. But for now the GOP should forget the brass ring; a Republican is unlikely to go to the White House in 2012 – barring future events that irrevocably impact the political climate. For now the RNC should focus on small ball: winning key state legislative contests; picking up some U.S. House seats, playing solid electoral defense in the U.S. Senate; and winning the keys to a few governor mansions. Small ball advances runners into scoring position; this case being a small number of proven statewide officials able to run competitively nationwide backed by a GOP team that defines itself as more than the party of white, southern church-goers. The best advice for the RNC is to stop planning for the walk-off homer in 2012 and instead get itself into scoring position starting now. Such a reality is inconvenient for the GOP, but better to face it than become irrelevant.