...................................................................................................................................................................
Why we need to take religion out of politics
By David Steury, February 27, 2014
When one thinks of politics at its worst, one probably thinks of endless debt ceiling negotiations or perhaps Underwoodian scheming and deception (“House of Cards” fans will know what I mean). Politics at its worst is dishonest or dogmatic. It oppresses and excludes, or strives for personal gain on the backs of the less powerful populace. So I was skeptical when Cathi Herrod of the Center for Arizona Policy, which supports a bill that would have allowed businesses to refuse service to LGBTQIA individuals, called the tactics of her opponents “politics at its absolute worst,” in a statement on the Center for Arizona Policy’s website on Feburary 22. Apparently, the individuals and business groups who opposed the measure engaged in politics at its worst when they asserted that this form of legalized segregation was anything other than nice wholesome religious folks exercising the right to practice their religion.
In brief, the Arizona bill would have expanded the definitions of “exercise of religion” and “person” to include corporations and other businesses as people and then allowed these people to act or not act as they see fit to exercise a sincerely held religious belief. The bill was written in support of businesses across the nation who have turned away gay customers because of their sexual orientations. Similar bills have popped up across the nation, though Arizona’s made it the furthest. Luckily, amid pressure from business groups across the state and nation, including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the legislation on Wednesday night.
Politics is at its worst when legislation that is clearly intended to marginalize a minority group makes it to a governor’s desk. It is at its worst when a dominant group tramples the rights of others, using their own rights as justification.
Many on the religious right have been calling for a discussion of religious liberty in the United States. We should have that conversation. We should ask ourselves how far we are willing to let religion penetrate into our supposedly secular nation, and whether we are willing to forego decency and legal equality in pursuit of free, unhindered exercise of religion.
Constitutionally and practically speaking, free exercise of religion is guaranteed unless restricting it is the least restrictive way of achieving a compelling government interest. Legal equality is a compelling issue, and allowing religious beliefs to be used as a legal justification for discrimination conflicts with that interest. Asserting an inviolable right to practice religion in the public sphere, and the right to use religion as a justification for one’s actions or inactions towards others, interferes with the rights of all.
The religious freedom problem extends beyond LGBTQIA individuals being denied service. Some laws protect religious people who violate Do-Not-Resuscitate orders because of their religious mandate to preserve all life. This infringes on people’s property rights to their own bodies. Perhaps more insidiously, religious freedom has been used as a justification for parents refusing desperately needed medical care for their children, at times resulting in a child’s death. Even here at Bowdoin, the religious freedom argument has been used to attack the the College’s removal of Rob and Sim Gregory as formal advisors to the Bowdoin Christian Fellowship when the Gregorys’ refused to sign a non-discrimination agreement that stated that students could not be excluded from any campus groups.
As usual, legal instruments like this can be challenged with a simple thought experiment. All of the rhetoric surrounding Arizona’s bill, of course, has concerned Christian business owners excluding gay customers. The same legal justification the bill offers could be used by Muslims to exclude Christians—something I’m sure the bill’s supporters would not favor. Guaranteeing “freedom of religion” to the extent that it infringes on other peoples’ rights is not just destructive to a few—it would create the potential for a compartmentalized society.
Instead, the ideal for a heterogeneous, diverse society lies in a strictly secular public square where religion is personal and does not dictate public life. The will of God has created an ‘other’ and excluded it throughout history, and in a pluralistic society like ours, such divisive concepts cannot be given a full place at the table. People are free to believe what they choose, but for an egalitarian society predicated on rule of law, they cannot be allowed to act on those beliefs.
Politics is at its best when we include and protect rights for all rather than promote narrow interests.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Friday, February 28, 2014
Are you a married white Christian? If so, then sad to say you're likely to be a Republican, too....
...................................................................................................................................................................
Dog Whistle Politics: What if Only White People Voted?
By Joshua Holland, February 28, 2014
After the 2012 election, Buzzfeed put together a series of electoral maps that showed what the results would have looked like if we didn’t have universal suffrage. A couple of them went viral, including this one, which depicts the election results if only white men voted, which was the case before the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870:
…and this one, which depicts the outcome if only white men and women voted:
Some people looked at these maps and concluded that they proved white America unwilling to vote for a black president, but that conclusion was far too simplistic. The reality is that the Democratic Party has had a structural disadvantage among white voters that is, at least in part, a result of the success of Republicans’ “Southern Strategy” — dog whistle politics. While Obama got 39 percent of the white vote in 2012, in 2008 he grabbed 43 percent which was two points higher than John Kerry’s share in a losing effort in 2004 and just one point less than Al Gore’s share when he won the popular vote in 2000.
Ultimately, race is just a single variable. Just as Democrats struggle with the white vote, Republicans have been burdened with a longstanding gender gap. Fifty-five percent of women voted for Obama in 2012, a point less than he garnered in his first election. Kerry won 51 percent of women voters in 2004 — a big reason he lost the election — and Gore got 55 percent in 2000.
A similar gap exists between married couples (Romney took 56 percent) and singles (62 percent of whom went for Obama in 2012). Church attendance provides another way to slice up the electorate — 59 percent of voters who worship at least once a week favored Romney and 62 percent who never set foot in a church favored Obama. There are similar divides with income and age.
In 2008, Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz put together multiple variables to define the Republican Party’s base, which most observers agree has been shrinking along with various social and demographic changes. According to Abramowitz, the GOP’s most loyal supporters — statistically — are not white people, nor married people, nor those who identify as Christians. Rather, it’s married white people who also identify as Christians.
Just 30 or 40 years ago, this demographic dominated American elections, but split its vote more evenly between the parties. Since then, married white Christians have become far more reliably Republican, but also fewer in number. “Married white Christians now make up less than half of all voters in the United States and less than one-fifth of voters under the age of 30,” wrote Abramowitz.
The declining proportion of married white Christians in the electorate has important political implications because in recent years married white Christians have been among the most loyal supporters of the Republican Party. In American politics today, whether you are a married white Christian is a much stronger predictor of your political preferences than your gender or your class — the two demographic characteristics that dominate much of the debate on contemporary American politics.
This is something to keep in mind when people talk about the “white vote.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Dog Whistle Politics: What if Only White People Voted?
By Joshua Holland, February 28, 2014
After the 2012 election, Buzzfeed put together a series of electoral maps that showed what the results would have looked like if we didn’t have universal suffrage. A couple of them went viral, including this one, which depicts the election results if only white men voted, which was the case before the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870:
…and this one, which depicts the outcome if only white men and women voted:
Some people looked at these maps and concluded that they proved white America unwilling to vote for a black president, but that conclusion was far too simplistic. The reality is that the Democratic Party has had a structural disadvantage among white voters that is, at least in part, a result of the success of Republicans’ “Southern Strategy” — dog whistle politics. While Obama got 39 percent of the white vote in 2012, in 2008 he grabbed 43 percent which was two points higher than John Kerry’s share in a losing effort in 2004 and just one point less than Al Gore’s share when he won the popular vote in 2000.
Ultimately, race is just a single variable. Just as Democrats struggle with the white vote, Republicans have been burdened with a longstanding gender gap. Fifty-five percent of women voted for Obama in 2012, a point less than he garnered in his first election. Kerry won 51 percent of women voters in 2004 — a big reason he lost the election — and Gore got 55 percent in 2000.
A similar gap exists between married couples (Romney took 56 percent) and singles (62 percent of whom went for Obama in 2012). Church attendance provides another way to slice up the electorate — 59 percent of voters who worship at least once a week favored Romney and 62 percent who never set foot in a church favored Obama. There are similar divides with income and age.
In 2008, Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz put together multiple variables to define the Republican Party’s base, which most observers agree has been shrinking along with various social and demographic changes. According to Abramowitz, the GOP’s most loyal supporters — statistically — are not white people, nor married people, nor those who identify as Christians. Rather, it’s married white people who also identify as Christians.
Just 30 or 40 years ago, this demographic dominated American elections, but split its vote more evenly between the parties. Since then, married white Christians have become far more reliably Republican, but also fewer in number. “Married white Christians now make up less than half of all voters in the United States and less than one-fifth of voters under the age of 30,” wrote Abramowitz.
The declining proportion of married white Christians in the electorate has important political implications because in recent years married white Christians have been among the most loyal supporters of the Republican Party. In American politics today, whether you are a married white Christian is a much stronger predictor of your political preferences than your gender or your class — the two demographic characteristics that dominate much of the debate on contemporary American politics.
This is something to keep in mind when people talk about the “white vote.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch brothers support Terri Lynn Land in Michigan so that she can cut taxes on the rich
...................................................................................................................................................................
Dems hit back at Koch Brothers in Michigan
By Greg Sargent, February 26, 2014
With the battle over Americans for Prosperity’s misleading ad featuring a Michigan cancer victim still raging, the Dem group Senate Majority PAC is now up with a response ad backed by at least $400,000. It defends Dem Rep. Gary Peters — the Senate candidate there — and hits his GOP opponent, Terri Lynn Land, on a range of other fronts:
Dems are still getting badly outspent in Michigan. AFP has reportedly spent some $2 million in the state. The new Senate Majority PAC buy — in a state where Dems should be having a relatively easy time, at least compared to red state contexts – suggests Dems are taking AFP’s attacks very seriously.
The ad doesn’t directly engage any of the AFP ad’s claims about Obamacare, simply pointing to a series of fact checks knocking it down. Instead, it points out who is behind the ad, arguing that the Koch brothers are trying to “buy a Senate seat” for Land so she can cut taxes on the rich and “restrict women’s access to health care.” In an interview with Politico, Land said the “only exception” to abortion she favors is when the mother’s life is in danger, not mentioning rape or incest — which Dems believe is a key vulnerability.
The spot also hits Land for wanting to cut Medicare, concluding the AFP ad against her shows her devotion to “helping the powerful at our expense.”
In a broad sense, the ad is in keeping with the Dem belief — or perhaps hope — that Obamacare is not the only issue voters care about; that swing voters will perceive such attacks on the law as political and ideological; and that 2014 races will be fought out on a range of issues, despite apparent GOP certainty that Obamacare alone (AFP has repeatedly said its sole overriding goal is repeal) will be enough to deliver the Senate.
One thing that will be interesting to watch: If and when Dems seriously engage in Michigan, will it become apparent that the battle for this seat isn’t as competitive as it looks right now? If so, you’d probably see AFP stop engaging there. If the contest remains very close even after Dems engage, it will be a sign Republicans really are succeeding in broadening the map in a way that should worry Dems a good deal.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Dems hit back at Koch Brothers in Michigan
By Greg Sargent, February 26, 2014
With the battle over Americans for Prosperity’s misleading ad featuring a Michigan cancer victim still raging, the Dem group Senate Majority PAC is now up with a response ad backed by at least $400,000. It defends Dem Rep. Gary Peters — the Senate candidate there — and hits his GOP opponent, Terri Lynn Land, on a range of other fronts:
Dems are still getting badly outspent in Michigan. AFP has reportedly spent some $2 million in the state. The new Senate Majority PAC buy — in a state where Dems should be having a relatively easy time, at least compared to red state contexts – suggests Dems are taking AFP’s attacks very seriously.
The ad doesn’t directly engage any of the AFP ad’s claims about Obamacare, simply pointing to a series of fact checks knocking it down. Instead, it points out who is behind the ad, arguing that the Koch brothers are trying to “buy a Senate seat” for Land so she can cut taxes on the rich and “restrict women’s access to health care.” In an interview with Politico, Land said the “only exception” to abortion she favors is when the mother’s life is in danger, not mentioning rape or incest — which Dems believe is a key vulnerability.
The spot also hits Land for wanting to cut Medicare, concluding the AFP ad against her shows her devotion to “helping the powerful at our expense.”
In a broad sense, the ad is in keeping with the Dem belief — or perhaps hope — that Obamacare is not the only issue voters care about; that swing voters will perceive such attacks on the law as political and ideological; and that 2014 races will be fought out on a range of issues, despite apparent GOP certainty that Obamacare alone (AFP has repeatedly said its sole overriding goal is repeal) will be enough to deliver the Senate.
One thing that will be interesting to watch: If and when Dems seriously engage in Michigan, will it become apparent that the battle for this seat isn’t as competitive as it looks right now? If so, you’d probably see AFP stop engaging there. If the contest remains very close even after Dems engage, it will be a sign Republicans really are succeeding in broadening the map in a way that should worry Dems a good deal.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The "nones" aren't interested in divisive religious topics-- the Democrats get that but the GOP doesn't
...................................................................................................................................................................
The political influence of no-religion voters
USA Today, February 28, 2014
In politics, sometimes it's what you don't talk about that matters.
Democrats and Republicans planning their political campaigns for 2014 and 2016 may be focusing on the Hispanic demographics in the United States, but perhaps they should turn their focus on another rising group: the "nones."
The "nones" is a term used to describe religiously unaffiliated people. This group of people often get turned off when politicians mix religion into their policies, especially when it comes to women's reproductive rights and same-sex marriage. Take note, Arizona.
One-fifth of the U.S. public is religiously unaffiliated, according to a 2012 Pew Research Study, and that number rises to a third when calculating adults under 30. While nones include atheists and agnostics, 68% of nones do believe in God.
"The nones tend to be younger, and they are not what I would call conventionally religious," says Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "They are not necessarily Richard Dawkins." She compares them to many people in Western Europe who believe without belonging to a church or being a member of an organized religion. She says the rise of the nones is "definitely something to watch."
In the past, the nones have tended to vote Democrat. In the 2008 presidential election, Pew reports three-quarters of the religiously unaffiliated votes went to Barack Obama. They voted as heavily for Obama as white evangelical Protestants did for John McCain.
While they have skewed Democratic, that doesn't mean the nones share the same political views. They believe that the political conversation should involve traditional political actions having to do with national security, the welfare state, and so on, explains Michael Hout, a professor of sociology at Indiana University. "They are not monotone views," he says. "Some are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, some are fiscally and socially liberal."
Hout, along with Claude Fisher, released a study in 2002 about the increase in nones and its relation to a rejection of the Religious right. The found that many of the nones don't reject religion; they reject organizations. For many, "church has come to stand ... not for elements of creed, but elements of politics on who can get married and what happens when they're pregnant," says Hout. "They've been moving away from both Republicans and churches over their distaste for these issues."
But if politicians want to appeal to the nones without alienating the more traditionally religious Americans, how do they do that? They use the magic word: values.
"The key unifying element between religious and secular outreach is the word values," says Chris Hale, a senior fellow at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. Hale helped lead Catholic outreach for President Obama's 2012 campaign. "It definitely was in the understanding of the Democratic Party in 2012 that nones would play a big role in the election; however, there wasn't really an infrastructure set up to respond to that."
What Hale is referring to isn't today's equivalent of the 1980s term "family values," which came to be closely affiliated with social conservatives; rather, it has a broader meaning. "In the past two presidential elections, the Democratic Party has been successful in continually expanding the notion of values politics," he says, and the question of values will expand to every major issue affecting the life of the nation. "For example, how a politician chooses to address income inequality now must be considered a values question, not just an economic question."
Hale predicts that the word will grow in influence as a way to approach both the nones and voters of all faith traditions in 2014 and 2016 elections. He stresses that voters want to bring values into politics, religious or not, but whenever religion is used as a weapon of division, young people turn away from both faith and politics. Hale says there is very little to differentiate between general youth outreach and targeted outreach to the young and secular. Because of this, he personally finds it "very unlikely" that a presidential candidate will hire someone specifically for outreach to nones.
It's important to keep in mind that, as a whole, Americans are still more religious than those from other Western nations. But things are changing: Millennials today are more likely to be unaffiliated than their parents and grandparents, when they were the same age. If the rise of the nones continues, perhaps millennial voters will eventually force divisive religious topics out of the political conversation.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The political influence of no-religion voters
USA Today, February 28, 2014
In politics, sometimes it's what you don't talk about that matters.
Democrats and Republicans planning their political campaigns for 2014 and 2016 may be focusing on the Hispanic demographics in the United States, but perhaps they should turn their focus on another rising group: the "nones."
The "nones" is a term used to describe religiously unaffiliated people. This group of people often get turned off when politicians mix religion into their policies, especially when it comes to women's reproductive rights and same-sex marriage. Take note, Arizona.
One-fifth of the U.S. public is religiously unaffiliated, according to a 2012 Pew Research Study, and that number rises to a third when calculating adults under 30. While nones include atheists and agnostics, 68% of nones do believe in God.
"The nones tend to be younger, and they are not what I would call conventionally religious," says Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "They are not necessarily Richard Dawkins." She compares them to many people in Western Europe who believe without belonging to a church or being a member of an organized religion. She says the rise of the nones is "definitely something to watch."
In the past, the nones have tended to vote Democrat. In the 2008 presidential election, Pew reports three-quarters of the religiously unaffiliated votes went to Barack Obama. They voted as heavily for Obama as white evangelical Protestants did for John McCain.
While they have skewed Democratic, that doesn't mean the nones share the same political views. They believe that the political conversation should involve traditional political actions having to do with national security, the welfare state, and so on, explains Michael Hout, a professor of sociology at Indiana University. "They are not monotone views," he says. "Some are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, some are fiscally and socially liberal."
Hout, along with Claude Fisher, released a study in 2002 about the increase in nones and its relation to a rejection of the Religious right. The found that many of the nones don't reject religion; they reject organizations. For many, "church has come to stand ... not for elements of creed, but elements of politics on who can get married and what happens when they're pregnant," says Hout. "They've been moving away from both Republicans and churches over their distaste for these issues."
But if politicians want to appeal to the nones without alienating the more traditionally religious Americans, how do they do that? They use the magic word: values.
"The key unifying element between religious and secular outreach is the word values," says Chris Hale, a senior fellow at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. Hale helped lead Catholic outreach for President Obama's 2012 campaign. "It definitely was in the understanding of the Democratic Party in 2012 that nones would play a big role in the election; however, there wasn't really an infrastructure set up to respond to that."
What Hale is referring to isn't today's equivalent of the 1980s term "family values," which came to be closely affiliated with social conservatives; rather, it has a broader meaning. "In the past two presidential elections, the Democratic Party has been successful in continually expanding the notion of values politics," he says, and the question of values will expand to every major issue affecting the life of the nation. "For example, how a politician chooses to address income inequality now must be considered a values question, not just an economic question."
Hale predicts that the word will grow in influence as a way to approach both the nones and voters of all faith traditions in 2014 and 2016 elections. He stresses that voters want to bring values into politics, religious or not, but whenever religion is used as a weapon of division, young people turn away from both faith and politics. Hale says there is very little to differentiate between general youth outreach and targeted outreach to the young and secular. Because of this, he personally finds it "very unlikely" that a presidential candidate will hire someone specifically for outreach to nones.
It's important to keep in mind that, as a whole, Americans are still more religious than those from other Western nations. But things are changing: Millennials today are more likely to be unaffiliated than their parents and grandparents, when they were the same age. If the rise of the nones continues, perhaps millennial voters will eventually force divisive religious topics out of the political conversation.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Thursday, February 27, 2014
"Covering Women Politicians 101"
...................................................................................................................................................................
How To Write About Female Politicians Without Being A Sexist Idiot According to Jezebel.com
By Alexandra Sifferlin, February 27, 2014
Gawker’s feminist website Jezebel decided that the world needed some guidelines on how to write about women in politics without sounding like a sexist idiots. They might be onto something.
This weekend, the New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan criticized the paper for their coverage of Texas gubernatorial candidate, Wendy Davis, and for a previous piece in which an illustration depicted Hillary Clinton’s head as a giant hairless disembodied planet. Sullivan noted that the Times magazine cover story about Davis had been called sexist because of captions like ”A Texas-Size Tale of Ambition, Motherhood, and Political Mythmaking” and the piece was rife with details about Davis’ clothing and how it fit.
But of course the Grey Lady isn’t the only media outlet accused of sometimes describing women in public life differently than they do men. A study out of Occidental College looked at media coverage of Sarah Palin as the GOP vice presidential candidate in the 2008 and found that in the new media landscape, an even greater percentage of coverage was focused a female candidate’s appearance than it had in 1984 when Geraldine Ferraro was the Democratic veep nominee. Much was made of Palin’s attractiveness–she was called “Caribou Barbie” and asked more than once whether she felt like her family would suffer if she were off running for office. She was also famously depicted on a Newsweek cover in short shorts.
And it’s not just the U.S. Recently a column by Edward Lucas, author of “The New Cold War,” in the Daily Mail that described the sexual attributes of former Ukraine Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, writing, “her body language, eyes, coquettish tosses of the head and cooing tones are almost hypnotic. But she is also capable of explosive anger. I have seen her shriek and curse in terrifying eruptions of rage: the kitten turns into a tigress.”
So as kind of a Covering Women Politicians 101, Jezebel published this list DOs and DON’Ts (actually entirely DON’Ts).
For example, “DON’T speculate about female politicians’ diets, as though their dress size has any bearing on their political acumen” and “DON’T write entire articles about their haircuts, or mention their haircuts, or interview their hairstylists.”
You can read Jezebel’s full list, here. But don’t expect that things will change for this year’s election. The Occidental study also predicted that sexist jibes may be endemic to a social media-fueled world.
...................................................................................................................................................................
How To Write About Female Politicians Without Being A Sexist Idiot According to Jezebel.com
By Alexandra Sifferlin, February 27, 2014
Gawker’s feminist website Jezebel decided that the world needed some guidelines on how to write about women in politics without sounding like a sexist idiots. They might be onto something.
This weekend, the New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan criticized the paper for their coverage of Texas gubernatorial candidate, Wendy Davis, and for a previous piece in which an illustration depicted Hillary Clinton’s head as a giant hairless disembodied planet. Sullivan noted that the Times magazine cover story about Davis had been called sexist because of captions like ”A Texas-Size Tale of Ambition, Motherhood, and Political Mythmaking” and the piece was rife with details about Davis’ clothing and how it fit.
But of course the Grey Lady isn’t the only media outlet accused of sometimes describing women in public life differently than they do men. A study out of Occidental College looked at media coverage of Sarah Palin as the GOP vice presidential candidate in the 2008 and found that in the new media landscape, an even greater percentage of coverage was focused a female candidate’s appearance than it had in 1984 when Geraldine Ferraro was the Democratic veep nominee. Much was made of Palin’s attractiveness–she was called “Caribou Barbie” and asked more than once whether she felt like her family would suffer if she were off running for office. She was also famously depicted on a Newsweek cover in short shorts.
And it’s not just the U.S. Recently a column by Edward Lucas, author of “The New Cold War,” in the Daily Mail that described the sexual attributes of former Ukraine Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, writing, “her body language, eyes, coquettish tosses of the head and cooing tones are almost hypnotic. But she is also capable of explosive anger. I have seen her shriek and curse in terrifying eruptions of rage: the kitten turns into a tigress.”
So as kind of a Covering Women Politicians 101, Jezebel published this list DOs and DON’Ts (actually entirely DON’Ts).
For example, “DON’T speculate about female politicians’ diets, as though their dress size has any bearing on their political acumen” and “DON’T write entire articles about their haircuts, or mention their haircuts, or interview their hairstylists.”
You can read Jezebel’s full list, here. But don’t expect that things will change for this year’s election. The Occidental study also predicted that sexist jibes may be endemic to a social media-fueled world.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Steyer brothers, "... two wealthy brothers aiming to be major political players and inviting comparisons to the Koch brothers."
...................................................................................................................................................................
On the Money: A New Gilded Age
By Gail Ablow, February 27, 2014
[snipped]
The Steyer Brothers: “We’re Fearless” → Politico’s Stephanie Simon and Caitlin Emma profile Tom and Jim Steyer, two wealthy brothers aiming to be major political players and inviting comparisons to the Koch brothers. Billionaire Tom Steyer already made headlines when he poured money into the Virginia governor’s race to help Democrat Terry McAuliffe eke out a victory. He’s now promising to spend at least $100 million this fall backing candidates who will combat global warming. Now his older brother Jim – a children’s advocate focused on education, technology, poverty and privacy – is promising to raise millions of dollars to stock his war chest in order to enter the political fray. As he told Politico, “you don’t bring a squirt gun to a fight where the other guys have AK-47s.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
On the Money: A New Gilded Age
By Gail Ablow, February 27, 2014
[snipped]
The Steyer Brothers: “We’re Fearless” → Politico’s Stephanie Simon and Caitlin Emma profile Tom and Jim Steyer, two wealthy brothers aiming to be major political players and inviting comparisons to the Koch brothers. Billionaire Tom Steyer already made headlines when he poured money into the Virginia governor’s race to help Democrat Terry McAuliffe eke out a victory. He’s now promising to spend at least $100 million this fall backing candidates who will combat global warming. Now his older brother Jim – a children’s advocate focused on education, technology, poverty and privacy – is promising to raise millions of dollars to stock his war chest in order to enter the political fray. As he told Politico, “you don’t bring a squirt gun to a fight where the other guys have AK-47s.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Biden says not to worry about the Koch brothers-- "Money can’t buy an election when you’re selling a bad set of goods.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Biden: 'There is no Republican party'
By Anita Kumar, February 27, 2014
Vice President Joe Biden told fellow Democrats from around the nation visiting Washington this week that their party should be able to win elections in November despite the pessimism that he's heard.
"Folks, I am so tired of hearing about the demise of the Democratic party," he said. "Gimme a break. There is no Republican party."
Biden said has agreed to campaign in “more than 120 races” and that he and President Barack Obama are trying to help raise money for Democrats. "I’ll campaign for or against you, whichever helps you most,” he quipped.
Biden spoke to a meeting of the Association of State Democratic Chairs jn town for the Democratic National Committee meeting in Washington.
"We should not apologize for a single thing,” he said. “We should go out and flatly lay out each of the races…This is who we are, this is who we stand for, this is what we’re going to do.”
He told them not to forget about November’s midterm elections in their rush to focus on the next presidential election.
“I know everybody wants to talk about 2016,” Biden said. “That’s lifetimes away. No, no, no, think what happens if we do not succeed, we do not succeed in 2014. Just think of what is at stake for all that brought us into this process to begin with.”
Biden said winning should be easy this year since the majority of voters agree with Democrats on key issues, including raising the minimum wage, same-sex marriage, immigration and infrastructure development.
“We have to narrow, we have to make more clear, we have to define more precisely what it is we’re about,” Biden said. “Let’s make sure if we run on what we believe, if we run on our value set, which happens to be totally consistent with where the American people think we should be on the substance of the issues, we will win.”
His speech comes as the DNC finds itself $15 million in debt and candidates are facing a slew of attacks from conservative groups.
“What we’re worried about is the Koch brothers and their friends bringing in millions and millions and millions of dollars,” he said. "Money can’t buy an election when you’re selling a bad set of goods.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Biden: 'There is no Republican party'
By Anita Kumar, February 27, 2014
Vice President Joe Biden told fellow Democrats from around the nation visiting Washington this week that their party should be able to win elections in November despite the pessimism that he's heard.
"Folks, I am so tired of hearing about the demise of the Democratic party," he said. "Gimme a break. There is no Republican party."
Biden said has agreed to campaign in “more than 120 races” and that he and President Barack Obama are trying to help raise money for Democrats. "I’ll campaign for or against you, whichever helps you most,” he quipped.
Biden spoke to a meeting of the Association of State Democratic Chairs jn town for the Democratic National Committee meeting in Washington.
"We should not apologize for a single thing,” he said. “We should go out and flatly lay out each of the races…This is who we are, this is who we stand for, this is what we’re going to do.”
He told them not to forget about November’s midterm elections in their rush to focus on the next presidential election.
“I know everybody wants to talk about 2016,” Biden said. “That’s lifetimes away. No, no, no, think what happens if we do not succeed, we do not succeed in 2014. Just think of what is at stake for all that brought us into this process to begin with.”
Biden said winning should be easy this year since the majority of voters agree with Democrats on key issues, including raising the minimum wage, same-sex marriage, immigration and infrastructure development.
“We have to narrow, we have to make more clear, we have to define more precisely what it is we’re about,” Biden said. “Let’s make sure if we run on what we believe, if we run on our value set, which happens to be totally consistent with where the American people think we should be on the substance of the issues, we will win.”
His speech comes as the DNC finds itself $15 million in debt and candidates are facing a slew of attacks from conservative groups.
“What we’re worried about is the Koch brothers and their friends bringing in millions and millions and millions of dollars,” he said. "Money can’t buy an election when you’re selling a bad set of goods.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Jan Brewer's speech: "... the latest astonishment in an astonishing American revolution"
...................................................................................................................................................................
JAN BREWER: “SO IS NONDISCRIMINATION”
By Hendrik Hertzberg, February 27, 2014
It was obvious almost from the evening of Friday, February 21st, the day that the Arizona Senate passed Bill 1062 (“An Act Relating to the Free Exercise of Religion”), that Governor Jan Brewer would veto it whether she wanted to or not. Mitt Romney told her to; more important, so did locally influential fellow-Republicans like the state’s two U.S. senators, McCain and Flake. The “business community,” from groovy GoDaddy to Mormon Marriott, recoiled in such horror that you’d think the bill would also have raised the top marginal tax rate. When the N.F.L. strongly suggested that a new venue would have to be found for Super Bowl XLIX, the bill, already in the I.C.U., flatlined. And yesterday, just hours before Brewer stepped to the podium, Major League Baseball, invoking the memory of Jackie Robinson, did a solemn dance on the corpse.
So Brewer’s veto was no surprise. What was a surprise was the powerful, profoundly un-weaselly nature of her statement. Here it is, interspersed with my comments [in italics]:
Speaking of ugliness, don’t get me wrong: Jan Brewer’s governorship has not exactly been a thing of beauty. She abolished state-administered health insurance for children whose families weren’t quite poor enough for Medicaid. She has been unbelievably cruel in her treatment of undocumented immigrants. And before she was against discrimination she was for it, supporting ballot propositions banning not just marriage equality but civil unions, too.
But it was a damn good speech—unequivocal, ungrudging, and stern. That it was delivered by a Republican governor in a Republican state—and delivered with every sign of sincerity, even passion—is simply the latest astonishment in an astonishing American revolution. The change is, as Governor Brewer says, dramatic. It is tectonic. It is unstoppable. In an otherwise foreboding political landscape, it’s a blazing sunrise.
...................................................................................................................................................................
JAN BREWER: “SO IS NONDISCRIMINATION”
By Hendrik Hertzberg, February 27, 2014
It was obvious almost from the evening of Friday, February 21st, the day that the Arizona Senate passed Bill 1062 (“An Act Relating to the Free Exercise of Religion”), that Governor Jan Brewer would veto it whether she wanted to or not. Mitt Romney told her to; more important, so did locally influential fellow-Republicans like the state’s two U.S. senators, McCain and Flake. The “business community,” from groovy GoDaddy to Mormon Marriott, recoiled in such horror that you’d think the bill would also have raised the top marginal tax rate. When the N.F.L. strongly suggested that a new venue would have to be found for Super Bowl XLIX, the bill, already in the I.C.U., flatlined. And yesterday, just hours before Brewer stepped to the podium, Major League Baseball, invoking the memory of Jackie Robinson, did a solemn dance on the corpse.
So Brewer’s veto was no surprise. What was a surprise was the powerful, profoundly un-weaselly nature of her statement. Here it is, interspersed with my comments [in italics]:
Good evening, and thank you all for joining me here this evening. I’m here to announce a decision on Senate Bill 1062.
As with every proposal that reaches my desk, I give great concern and careful evaluation and deliberate consideration, and especially to Senate Bill 1062. I call them like I see them, despite the cheers or boos from the crowd.
I took the necessary time to make the right decision. I met or spoke with my attorneys, lawmakers, and citizens supporting and opposing this legislation. I listened and asked questions. As governor, I have protected religious freedom when there is a specific and present concern that exists in our state.Sounds an awful lot like she doesn’t think any such concern exists, doesn’t it?
And I have the record to prove it.
My agenda is to sign into law legislation that advances Arizona.Guess what’s not on my agenda and doesn’t advance Arizona?
When I addressed the legislature earlier this year, I made my priorities for this session abundantly clear. Among them are passing a responsible budget that continues Arizona’s economic comeback. From C.E.O.s to entrepreneurs to business surveys, Arizona ranks as one of the best states to grow or start a business. Additionally, our immediate challenge is fixing a broken child-protection system.Nice. One red item, one blue one.
Instead, this is the first policy bill to cross my desk.Here’s where she really picks up steam. This line drips with disgust, disdain, and contempt.
Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona. I have not heard one example in Arizona where a business owner’s religious liberty has been violated.One of the week’s big Rachel Maddow/Anderson Cooper talking points.
The bill was broadly worded—and could result in unintended and negative consequences.
After weighing all the arguments I have vetoed Senate Bill 1062 moments ago.Oh, boy. Here comes the nut—or non-nut—graf.
To the supporters of this legislation, I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before. Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes.These are indisputable points, stated neutrally at worst. Indeed, to my ear, she sounds more sympathetic than not to the new dispensation. The norms are being “challenged,” a good thing, not “undermined,” a bad thing. The changes are “dramatic,” an adjective with a positive valence. What’s changing is “society,” which implies an organic, bottom-up evolution, not some unnatural deformation imposed by activist judges and the gay-friendly liberal media. And note what she doesn’t say. She doesn’t say what I’d expected her to, which would have been something like, “To the supporters of this legislation, I want you to know that I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Those are my personal convictions. But my obligations as governor are different. It has become clear that this bill, for all its good intentions, would inflict severe costs on the economy of our state. I cannot in good conscience demand that the people of Arizona pay those costs,” blah, blah, blah.
However, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve.“Purports” implies that the bill’s sponsors acted in bad faith, which, of course, many of them did. But I didn’t expect her to acknowledge it.
It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine, and no one would ever want.
Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value.She has already said that religious liberty is not under threat.
So is nondiscrimination.Wow. She’s saying that discrimination is at the very heart of the bill.
Going forward, let’s turn the ugliness of the debate over Senate Bill 1062 into a renewed search for greater respect and understanding among all Arizonans and Americans.It’s not really “the debate” that she’s calling ugly. The ugliness is the bill, without which there wouldn’t be a debate. And what is respect and understanding if not tolerance and acceptance?
Speaking of ugliness, don’t get me wrong: Jan Brewer’s governorship has not exactly been a thing of beauty. She abolished state-administered health insurance for children whose families weren’t quite poor enough for Medicaid. She has been unbelievably cruel in her treatment of undocumented immigrants. And before she was against discrimination she was for it, supporting ballot propositions banning not just marriage equality but civil unions, too.
But it was a damn good speech—unequivocal, ungrudging, and stern. That it was delivered by a Republican governor in a Republican state—and delivered with every sign of sincerity, even passion—is simply the latest astonishment in an astonishing American revolution. The change is, as Governor Brewer says, dramatic. It is tectonic. It is unstoppable. In an otherwise foreboding political landscape, it’s a blazing sunrise.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Bobby Jindal has rebranded himself as the epitome of one of the members of the "stupid party"
...................................................................................................................................................................
Race of the 2016 Elephants Begins
By Joe Gandelman, February 27, 2014
They’re off and running for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination — and as they run you can see the elephants’ different styles.
Last year, after the GOP’s loss in the elections, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said: “We’ve got to stop being the stupid party. It’s time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults.” Some conservatives and talk show hosts weren’t happy with his call for less over-the-top polemics and partisan hackery, and Jindal seemed to be trying to inch away from it. So it wasn’t surprising that he’d use President Barack Obama’s recent meeting with the bipartisan National Governors Association to send a message to the conservative choir that he’s still singing their political tune.
As the meeting ended and governors talked about how meeting with Obama was a way to work together on common ground, Jindal offered a different take: “The Obama economy is now the minimum wage economy,” he declared, adding that on job growth Obama was “waving the white flag of surrender.” This shattering of NGA bipartisan protocol infuriated Connecticut’s Democratic Gov. Dan Malloy, who called Jindal’s comments “the most insane statement I’ve ever heard.”
Jindal doubled-down: “If that was the most partisan statement [Malloy] heard all weekend, I want to make sure that he hears a more partisan statement which is I think we can also grow the economy more if we delayed more of these Obamacare mandates.” Malloy called Jindal a “cheap shot artist” as he departed.
NBC’s First Read noted: “Since we’ve been covering politics, there have been plenty examples of bipartisan governors …Those days are long gone…” Indeed, the next day, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, you could almost smell Jindal’s pride for his bipartisanship-shattering work and successful attention grabbing, as he used straw men rhetoric to answer critics.
“To those that are offended that I didn’t follow the [NGA's] etiquette book, the reality is the substance is more important,” he said, noting that “in America we don’t have a king… I know Democrats sometimes don’t like the second amendment. I thought they were still for freedom of speech and the first amendment, so I’m a little surprised. Instead of having a debate about the substance, they just act offended.”
So “substance” is accusing Obama of surrender on job growth? It’s as if the guy who once said the party should stop looking “stupid” now is saying: “Wait, I didn’t mean it! Can you ever forgive me? I can act as hyper partisan as anyone else. See how I riled the Democratic governors? See how I sandbagged a normally bipartisan event that I knew from the start is normally bipartisan? See how I’ll never cease stop promoting your cause? See how I got lots of press and sound bites? I’m just who you need to take on Hillary!”
Meanwhile, another, quieter apparent campaign is also being waged. Republicans and GOP donors upset over New Jersey Gov. Christ Christie’s national political stock falling as quickly as Piers Morgan’s ratings are reportedly encouraging former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to run. The Washington Post calls whether Bush runs “the single biggest question mark” of 2016, but some reports say Bush now open to the idea. Bush does not view bipartisanship or expanding the GOP tent as vices.
Bush remains the hope for Republicans who don’t want to see a too-far-right conservative or a libertarian who breaks from Republican establishment tradition on foreign policy issues heading the ticket. And a new poll finds he now has considerable support. A CBS News-New York Times poll finds 41 percent of Republicans would like to see Bush run, 39 percent would support a bid by GOP libertarian Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, and only 31 percent want Christie.
The poll story doesn’t mention Jindal. But here’s good news for Louisiana’s Governor: his almost gleeful partisan comments following a meeting known for its bipartisanship erased his branding as the person who urged the Republican Party not to be known as the “stupid party” — and rebranded him as the epitome of one of its members.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Race of the 2016 Elephants Begins
By Joe Gandelman, February 27, 2014
They’re off and running for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination — and as they run you can see the elephants’ different styles.
Last year, after the GOP’s loss in the elections, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said: “We’ve got to stop being the stupid party. It’s time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults.” Some conservatives and talk show hosts weren’t happy with his call for less over-the-top polemics and partisan hackery, and Jindal seemed to be trying to inch away from it. So it wasn’t surprising that he’d use President Barack Obama’s recent meeting with the bipartisan National Governors Association to send a message to the conservative choir that he’s still singing their political tune.
As the meeting ended and governors talked about how meeting with Obama was a way to work together on common ground, Jindal offered a different take: “The Obama economy is now the minimum wage economy,” he declared, adding that on job growth Obama was “waving the white flag of surrender.” This shattering of NGA bipartisan protocol infuriated Connecticut’s Democratic Gov. Dan Malloy, who called Jindal’s comments “the most insane statement I’ve ever heard.”
Jindal doubled-down: “If that was the most partisan statement [Malloy] heard all weekend, I want to make sure that he hears a more partisan statement which is I think we can also grow the economy more if we delayed more of these Obamacare mandates.” Malloy called Jindal a “cheap shot artist” as he departed.
NBC’s First Read noted: “Since we’ve been covering politics, there have been plenty examples of bipartisan governors …Those days are long gone…” Indeed, the next day, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, you could almost smell Jindal’s pride for his bipartisanship-shattering work and successful attention grabbing, as he used straw men rhetoric to answer critics.
“To those that are offended that I didn’t follow the [NGA's] etiquette book, the reality is the substance is more important,” he said, noting that “in America we don’t have a king… I know Democrats sometimes don’t like the second amendment. I thought they were still for freedom of speech and the first amendment, so I’m a little surprised. Instead of having a debate about the substance, they just act offended.”
So “substance” is accusing Obama of surrender on job growth? It’s as if the guy who once said the party should stop looking “stupid” now is saying: “Wait, I didn’t mean it! Can you ever forgive me? I can act as hyper partisan as anyone else. See how I riled the Democratic governors? See how I sandbagged a normally bipartisan event that I knew from the start is normally bipartisan? See how I’ll never cease stop promoting your cause? See how I got lots of press and sound bites? I’m just who you need to take on Hillary!”
Meanwhile, another, quieter apparent campaign is also being waged. Republicans and GOP donors upset over New Jersey Gov. Christ Christie’s national political stock falling as quickly as Piers Morgan’s ratings are reportedly encouraging former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to run. The Washington Post calls whether Bush runs “the single biggest question mark” of 2016, but some reports say Bush now open to the idea. Bush does not view bipartisanship or expanding the GOP tent as vices.
Bush remains the hope for Republicans who don’t want to see a too-far-right conservative or a libertarian who breaks from Republican establishment tradition on foreign policy issues heading the ticket. And a new poll finds he now has considerable support. A CBS News-New York Times poll finds 41 percent of Republicans would like to see Bush run, 39 percent would support a bid by GOP libertarian Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, and only 31 percent want Christie.
The poll story doesn’t mention Jindal. But here’s good news for Louisiana’s Governor: his almost gleeful partisan comments following a meeting known for its bipartisanship erased his branding as the person who urged the Republican Party not to be known as the “stupid party” — and rebranded him as the epitome of one of its members.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republicans, how do you like being on the receiving end?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Montana Democrats Demand To See GOP Senate Candidate's Birth Certificate
By Samantha Lachman, February 26, 2014
The Democratic Party of Montana is calling on GOP Rep. Steve Daines, who is running in the state's high-profile Senate race this year, to release his birth certificate -- echoing the "birther" strategy employed against President Barack Obama.
Daines has alternately asserted that he is third-generation Montanan and fifth-generation Montanan, though he was born in California.
"No matter what generation Congressman Daines claims to be, he's a stranger to both the facts and Montana values -- and Montanans deserve the truth," Bryce Bennett, a Democratic Montana state Representative, said in a statement. "Montanans can't afford a Washington politician who thinks he can get away with fooling the people he's supposed to represent."
The statement continues, reading "Congressman Daines has to get his bio straight."
Daines' campaign dismissed the claims.
"Democrats have always worked to dictate Montanans' health care decisions, how they run their businesses, and what choices they make for their families, but it's really par for the course that they're now trying to dictate someone's personal history," Daines spokeswoman Alee Lockman told Politico. "They may be able to dictate they way Montanans live their lives, but unless Montana Democrats want to move Steve’s great-great-grandmother’s grave, they can't change Steve’s strong heritage as a fifth-generation Montanan."
Daines is running in the Republican primary to challenge interim Sen. John Walsh (D-Mont.), who was appointed this month to fill the seat opened when former Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) was confirmed as ambassador to China.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Montana Democrats Demand To See GOP Senate Candidate's Birth Certificate
By Samantha Lachman, February 26, 2014
The Democratic Party of Montana is calling on GOP Rep. Steve Daines, who is running in the state's high-profile Senate race this year, to release his birth certificate -- echoing the "birther" strategy employed against President Barack Obama.
Daines has alternately asserted that he is third-generation Montanan and fifth-generation Montanan, though he was born in California.
"No matter what generation Congressman Daines claims to be, he's a stranger to both the facts and Montana values -- and Montanans deserve the truth," Bryce Bennett, a Democratic Montana state Representative, said in a statement. "Montanans can't afford a Washington politician who thinks he can get away with fooling the people he's supposed to represent."
The statement continues, reading "Congressman Daines has to get his bio straight."
Daines' campaign dismissed the claims.
"Democrats have always worked to dictate Montanans' health care decisions, how they run their businesses, and what choices they make for their families, but it's really par for the course that they're now trying to dictate someone's personal history," Daines spokeswoman Alee Lockman told Politico. "They may be able to dictate they way Montanans live their lives, but unless Montana Democrats want to move Steve’s great-great-grandmother’s grave, they can't change Steve’s strong heritage as a fifth-generation Montanan."
Daines is running in the Republican primary to challenge interim Sen. John Walsh (D-Mont.), who was appointed this month to fill the seat opened when former Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) was confirmed as ambassador to China.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
"... Tea Party popularity has been steadily shrinking since it first became known, with only 22 percent of Americans considering themselves supporters ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Did the Tea Party Brew Their Cup Too Strong to Survive 2014?
By Anthea Mitchell, February 25, 2014
The Tea Party, a more conservative group considered farther right than the average member of the Republican party, has rapidly carved a place for itself in politics. However, it has had some ups and downs in recent months, and not all Republicans are fond of their relative in Washington, which makes the longevity of the Tea Party an item up for some debate. Most members of the Republican party considered the Tea Party a separate entity, according to a Pew Research Poll, or at least, they did back in October when the political climate was slightly different.
For the most part, it seems that the Tea Party and Republican Party have something of a ven diagram relationship, with some Republicans considering themselves Tea Party Republicans, and others considering themselves unaffiliated, and visa versa. That said, Tea Party Republicans are “more likely than non-Tea Party Republicans to say that the Tea Party is part of the GOP, rather than a separate movement,” a 41 percent to 27 percent comparison.
Tea Partyists have had a rough go of things in Washington as of late, and with primaries coming up in Congress, their strength could wax or wane depending on how the election season goes. Their role in politics place the Republican party as a whole in a more precarious position. When Republicans have fallen more towards middle of the road compromises, as in the case of the budget deal and debt-limit, the Tea Party response was highly negative. This means, according to the Wall Street Journal, that Ohio saw conservative activists increasing endeavors to win GOP seats following the debt limit vote, with candidates from Kentucky and Mississippi also working to snatch up seats that could be in greater risk due to a frustrated public.
Some issues will be especially sensitive to the Tea Party, such as immigration, meaning that discussion on the topic between Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner (R-Ohio) and President Barack Obama Tuesday would be under more strain. This makes the outcome of the elections that much more important, as some factions of the Tea Party and the GOP have grown rather divisive. “I don’t have any problem with the tea party,” said Boehner, according to the Journal. ”Those people have brought great energy to the political process. My problem was with some Washington organizations who purport to represent the tea party. There’s nothing I could to that was ever conservative enough for them,” he said.
“This civil war has broken into actual warfare. We will never get the governance we seek until the people voting on policy are there to represent the people and not special interests,” said Tom Zawistowski to the Journal, as the president of Ohio Citizens PAC, a section of the Tea Party that’s heading up the first GOP primary challenge to Ohio. Mississippi will likely also have competition, perhaps even more so than Ohio. Still, based on a Gallup poll done in early December, Tea Party popularity has been steadily shrinking since it first became known, with only 22 percent of Americans considering themselves supporters, 24 percent opponents, and 48 percent saying they are neither.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Did the Tea Party Brew Their Cup Too Strong to Survive 2014?
By Anthea Mitchell, February 25, 2014
The Tea Party, a more conservative group considered farther right than the average member of the Republican party, has rapidly carved a place for itself in politics. However, it has had some ups and downs in recent months, and not all Republicans are fond of their relative in Washington, which makes the longevity of the Tea Party an item up for some debate. Most members of the Republican party considered the Tea Party a separate entity, according to a Pew Research Poll, or at least, they did back in October when the political climate was slightly different.
For the most part, it seems that the Tea Party and Republican Party have something of a ven diagram relationship, with some Republicans considering themselves Tea Party Republicans, and others considering themselves unaffiliated, and visa versa. That said, Tea Party Republicans are “more likely than non-Tea Party Republicans to say that the Tea Party is part of the GOP, rather than a separate movement,” a 41 percent to 27 percent comparison.
Tea Partyists have had a rough go of things in Washington as of late, and with primaries coming up in Congress, their strength could wax or wane depending on how the election season goes. Their role in politics place the Republican party as a whole in a more precarious position. When Republicans have fallen more towards middle of the road compromises, as in the case of the budget deal and debt-limit, the Tea Party response was highly negative. This means, according to the Wall Street Journal, that Ohio saw conservative activists increasing endeavors to win GOP seats following the debt limit vote, with candidates from Kentucky and Mississippi also working to snatch up seats that could be in greater risk due to a frustrated public.
Some issues will be especially sensitive to the Tea Party, such as immigration, meaning that discussion on the topic between Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner (R-Ohio) and President Barack Obama Tuesday would be under more strain. This makes the outcome of the elections that much more important, as some factions of the Tea Party and the GOP have grown rather divisive. “I don’t have any problem with the tea party,” said Boehner, according to the Journal. ”Those people have brought great energy to the political process. My problem was with some Washington organizations who purport to represent the tea party. There’s nothing I could to that was ever conservative enough for them,” he said.
“This civil war has broken into actual warfare. We will never get the governance we seek until the people voting on policy are there to represent the people and not special interests,” said Tom Zawistowski to the Journal, as the president of Ohio Citizens PAC, a section of the Tea Party that’s heading up the first GOP primary challenge to Ohio. Mississippi will likely also have competition, perhaps even more so than Ohio. Still, based on a Gallup poll done in early December, Tea Party popularity has been steadily shrinking since it first became known, with only 22 percent of Americans considering themselves supporters, 24 percent opponents, and 48 percent saying they are neither.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Packwood's "... success as a lobbyist suggests we overestimate something else entirely: the degree to which a scandal impedes a former member of Congress"
...................................................................................................................................................................
Who Says There Are No Second Acts in Politics?
How Bob Packwood and other disgraced former members of Congress found salvation as lobbyists.By Jordan Michael Smith, February 25, 2014
“I find people in the political arena are very understanding and forgiving,” former Oregon Senator Bob Packwood told me recently. We were talking about his life these days, his comfortable recovery from the tawdry headlines of 20 years ago that forced him from his job in Congress. Given the successful lobbying career that the former Republican lawmaker continues to enjoy at 81, there’s substantial evidence to support his contention about Washington being a land of redemption—even absolution.
There was, after all, a lot to be forgiven when Packwood left the Senate. His drawn-out downfall came after the emergence of a good many stories of sexual harassment directed at staffers and lobbyists. One woman who worked in his office said Packwood suddenly kissed her on the neck. Soon after, he followed her into a room, stood on her feet, pulled her ponytail and tried to yank down her girdle. The woman escaped but he threatened her, saying, “If not today, some other day.” She resigned.
It wasn’t just accusations of his randy behavior that ended his lawmaking career. Packwood kept a diary in which he damned himself, writing with incredulity about being rebuffed once by an employee in the copy room. “She made this big stink about it,” Packwood wrote. “I have one question—if she didn’t want me to feather her nest, why did she come into the Xerox room? Sure, she used that old excuse that she had to make copies of the Brady Bill, but if you believe that, I have a room full of radical feminists you can boff.”
After the diary was subpoenaed by the Senate Ethics Committee, it was discovered that Packwood had removed some incriminating material, including threats to his colleagues (ever the confessor, he wrote in the journal about making the edits). In the end, he said, he was a victim of “dogmatic women,” and wrote in his diary that he didn’t know what all the fuss was about. “I am accused of kissing women,” Packwood wrote, “on occasion of perhaps overeagerly kissing women, and that is the charge—not drugging, not robbing, kissing.”
The committee took a different view of his profligate affections and recommended unanimously that he be expelled from the Senate for ethics violations. Packwood went ahead and announced his resignation in October of 1995, leaving Congress as a “pariah in his state,” observed the New York Times. But while the lion’s share of the negative publicity focused on the senator’s sexual appetites, his promiscuity of a different kind—with Washington’s lobbyists—was also remarkable. In one instance documented in the diary, he arranged to have a cash retainer paid to his then-wife by a lobbyist; in another entry, he pledged to a lobbyist working for Shell Oil that he’d pass a special oil tax bill to thank him for raising campaign cash. “Ron, I still hate the oil companies,” he told the gentleman, “but I’ll do you a favor.”
Indeed, Packwood was in a good position to do favors. The chairman of the powerful Finance Committee, he had spent his career serving as one of those now-extinct species called a liberal Republican, currying favor with friends on both sides of the aisle—and growing powerful with the lobbying community. A spokeswoman for Shell once acknowledged in an interview that the company hired a particular lobbyist because it believed he had “a way to get in and meet with” Packwood’s top staffers. Another lobbyist, according to Packwood’s diary, once told the senator that he could offer Packwood’s wife $37,500 for five years of part-time work, adding, “If you’re chairman of the Finance Committee I can probably double that,” Packwood then became chairman of the committee, though he had his sights set on an even better job. He confided to his diary that he dreamed of working on K Street, hoping one day to “become a lobbyist at five or six or four hundred thousand” dollars annually.
He did better. Soon after departing office amid the diary scandal, Packwood founded the Sunrise Research Corporation, a lofty-sounding one-man-lobbying shop that has routinely made as much as $1 million per year for that one man, who works on issues ranging from health care to food regulations to tax policy. “My clients have come from across the political spectrum, from the AFL-CIO to United Airlines to the Court of Ohio,” he told me, explaining that he finds a way to be useful to all comers.
By any measure, life is pretty good for Packwood these days. He spends half the year in Washington—about 80 percent of the time Congress is in session—and the balance of his days in the posh Portland suburb of Dunthorpe. As a lobbyist does, he fills the weeks he’s in D.C. trudging up to Capitol Hill to buttonhole congressional staffers or lawmakers. The work reminds him not of his own days in Congress, but of his first career. “It’s similar to my time as a lawyer,” he says, explaining how he discerns what his clients could benefit from on the Hill and then presses their interests vigorously (“in clear, Anglo-Saxon language”). His old connections and his once-powerful perch count for very little in his new line of work, Packwood would have me believe. “There really is very little legalized bribery inside or outside Congress,” he says, and his tone is even and earnest as he says it. “I find people vastly overrate the importance of money and power.”
While Packwood may or may not be correct, his own success as a lobbyist suggests we overestimate something else entirely: the degree to which a scandal impedes a former member of Congress. Rather than slink away from Washington—and the local notoriety of their sins—plenty of lawmakers who’ve exited office under less-than-ideal circumstances have, perhaps not surprisingly, found soft landings on K Street. For instance, Senator Larry Craig, the Idaho Republican who left office after a notorious incident with an undercover cop in a bathroom stall in 2007, promptly took up work as a lobbyist, launching a firm called New West Strategies, which has earned north of $200,000 working on behalf of Murray Energy Corporation of Ohio and the veterans group Operation Military Family. Last year, he took in more than $150,000 representing Western Pacific Timber. “When you have significant experience in Congress, it’s assumed you’ll have clients come to you automatically,” he told a reporter. “But that’s not the case, you have to hustle, and you always hustle.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Who Says There Are No Second Acts in Politics?
How Bob Packwood and other disgraced former members of Congress found salvation as lobbyists.By Jordan Michael Smith, February 25, 2014
“I find people in the political arena are very understanding and forgiving,” former Oregon Senator Bob Packwood told me recently. We were talking about his life these days, his comfortable recovery from the tawdry headlines of 20 years ago that forced him from his job in Congress. Given the successful lobbying career that the former Republican lawmaker continues to enjoy at 81, there’s substantial evidence to support his contention about Washington being a land of redemption—even absolution.
There was, after all, a lot to be forgiven when Packwood left the Senate. His drawn-out downfall came after the emergence of a good many stories of sexual harassment directed at staffers and lobbyists. One woman who worked in his office said Packwood suddenly kissed her on the neck. Soon after, he followed her into a room, stood on her feet, pulled her ponytail and tried to yank down her girdle. The woman escaped but he threatened her, saying, “If not today, some other day.” She resigned.
It wasn’t just accusations of his randy behavior that ended his lawmaking career. Packwood kept a diary in which he damned himself, writing with incredulity about being rebuffed once by an employee in the copy room. “She made this big stink about it,” Packwood wrote. “I have one question—if she didn’t want me to feather her nest, why did she come into the Xerox room? Sure, she used that old excuse that she had to make copies of the Brady Bill, but if you believe that, I have a room full of radical feminists you can boff.”
After the diary was subpoenaed by the Senate Ethics Committee, it was discovered that Packwood had removed some incriminating material, including threats to his colleagues (ever the confessor, he wrote in the journal about making the edits). In the end, he said, he was a victim of “dogmatic women,” and wrote in his diary that he didn’t know what all the fuss was about. “I am accused of kissing women,” Packwood wrote, “on occasion of perhaps overeagerly kissing women, and that is the charge—not drugging, not robbing, kissing.”
The committee took a different view of his profligate affections and recommended unanimously that he be expelled from the Senate for ethics violations. Packwood went ahead and announced his resignation in October of 1995, leaving Congress as a “pariah in his state,” observed the New York Times. But while the lion’s share of the negative publicity focused on the senator’s sexual appetites, his promiscuity of a different kind—with Washington’s lobbyists—was also remarkable. In one instance documented in the diary, he arranged to have a cash retainer paid to his then-wife by a lobbyist; in another entry, he pledged to a lobbyist working for Shell Oil that he’d pass a special oil tax bill to thank him for raising campaign cash. “Ron, I still hate the oil companies,” he told the gentleman, “but I’ll do you a favor.”
Indeed, Packwood was in a good position to do favors. The chairman of the powerful Finance Committee, he had spent his career serving as one of those now-extinct species called a liberal Republican, currying favor with friends on both sides of the aisle—and growing powerful with the lobbying community. A spokeswoman for Shell once acknowledged in an interview that the company hired a particular lobbyist because it believed he had “a way to get in and meet with” Packwood’s top staffers. Another lobbyist, according to Packwood’s diary, once told the senator that he could offer Packwood’s wife $37,500 for five years of part-time work, adding, “If you’re chairman of the Finance Committee I can probably double that,” Packwood then became chairman of the committee, though he had his sights set on an even better job. He confided to his diary that he dreamed of working on K Street, hoping one day to “become a lobbyist at five or six or four hundred thousand” dollars annually.
He did better. Soon after departing office amid the diary scandal, Packwood founded the Sunrise Research Corporation, a lofty-sounding one-man-lobbying shop that has routinely made as much as $1 million per year for that one man, who works on issues ranging from health care to food regulations to tax policy. “My clients have come from across the political spectrum, from the AFL-CIO to United Airlines to the Court of Ohio,” he told me, explaining that he finds a way to be useful to all comers.
By any measure, life is pretty good for Packwood these days. He spends half the year in Washington—about 80 percent of the time Congress is in session—and the balance of his days in the posh Portland suburb of Dunthorpe. As a lobbyist does, he fills the weeks he’s in D.C. trudging up to Capitol Hill to buttonhole congressional staffers or lawmakers. The work reminds him not of his own days in Congress, but of his first career. “It’s similar to my time as a lawyer,” he says, explaining how he discerns what his clients could benefit from on the Hill and then presses their interests vigorously (“in clear, Anglo-Saxon language”). His old connections and his once-powerful perch count for very little in his new line of work, Packwood would have me believe. “There really is very little legalized bribery inside or outside Congress,” he says, and his tone is even and earnest as he says it. “I find people vastly overrate the importance of money and power.”
***
While Packwood may or may not be correct, his own success as a lobbyist suggests we overestimate something else entirely: the degree to which a scandal impedes a former member of Congress. Rather than slink away from Washington—and the local notoriety of their sins—plenty of lawmakers who’ve exited office under less-than-ideal circumstances have, perhaps not surprisingly, found soft landings on K Street. For instance, Senator Larry Craig, the Idaho Republican who left office after a notorious incident with an undercover cop in a bathroom stall in 2007, promptly took up work as a lobbyist, launching a firm called New West Strategies, which has earned north of $200,000 working on behalf of Murray Energy Corporation of Ohio and the veterans group Operation Military Family. Last year, he took in more than $150,000 representing Western Pacific Timber. “When you have significant experience in Congress, it’s assumed you’ll have clients come to you automatically,” he told a reporter. “But that’s not the case, you have to hustle, and you always hustle.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Whatever their constitutional rights, are the Koch brothers right to degrade our democratic process with lies?"
...................................................................................................................................................................
Mellman: Koch brothers’ ads shameful
By Mark S. Mellman, February 25, 2014
Having a right is not the same thing as being in the right.
In some instances, we have the right to behave immorally. For example, the First Amendment gives some people, in some circumstances, the right to lie.
Let’s set aside for a moment whether the billionaire Koch brothers have the right to run a flurry of dishonest ads about ObamaCare and ask instead whether spending millions of dollars to mislead and even lie to the American people is the right thing to do.
There is no legitimate debate about the integrity of the ads. In Louisiana, the Kochs’ political front group placed an ad that, to all appearances, features a group of Louisianans opening letters from insurance companies informing them about problems they face as a result of the Affordable Care Act.
Except that, as ABC News has documented, the individuals in their ad are not Louisianans. They are paid actors who are not reading actual letters sent by any real insurance company.
In other words, nothing about the ad is true.
The response from the brothers’ organization: “The viewing public is savvy enough to distinguish between someone giving a personal story and something that is emblematic.”
Were this an ad for Stainmaster carpet, a Koch product, Federal Trade Commission guidelines would require the ad to “conspicuously disclose that the persons in such advertisements are not actual consumers.” Moreover, the FTC would require them to either demonstrate that these results of ObamaCare are typical or make clear in the ad that they are not.
Needless to say, the ad meets none of these requirements, thereby conforming to the legal definition of false advertising.
Not all Koch ads feature actors. Even those with real people, though, are not necessarily factual. Witness the attack on Rep. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) in a Koch-funded ad featuring a Michigan leukemia patient.
Everyone sympathizes with her struggle, as well they should. But neither her bravery nor her suffering makes the words she utters true. They aren’t.
In the ad, the patient claims, with ObamaCare “the out-of-pocket costs are so high, it’s unaffordable.” The Detroit News reports the “ad makes no mention that [the patient] successfully enrolled in a new Blue Cross plan where she’s able to retain her University of Michigan oncologist and continues to receive the life-saving oral chemotherapy. ... The ad also does not mention that [her] health care premiums were cut in half.”
The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler did the math. She saved $6,348 a year on premiums. And because ObamaCare caps out-of-pocket costs for individual plans at $6,350, she will be paying, at most, $2 more this year for her care.
It’s hard to call that an unaffordable increase.
If it were just these two egregious examples, someone might suggest I’m picking on the Koch brothers. Now, I do not always agree with fact checkers, who are sometimes wrong. But it is striking that PolitiFact reviewed 11 ads placed by the brothers’ organization, and not a single one was rated “true” or even “mostly true.” Nine were rated “false” or worse.
So, I return to my original question. Whatever their constitutional rights, are the Koch brothers right to degrade our democratic process with lies? Are they right to use tactics that are, by legal definitions, deceptive and dishonest? Are voters choosing a candidate due any less respect and honesty than consumers buying carpet?
We in the consulting profession need to ask ourselves hard questions about where the line is that we won’t cross. When does the pursuit of victory at any cost exact too high a price? When does dishonesty distort democracy?
Politicians, political parties or media that fail to condemn these tactics, as well as broadcasters that air these ads, and the consultants who make them, are all complicit in the Kochs’ immorality.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Mellman: Koch brothers’ ads shameful
By Mark S. Mellman, February 25, 2014
Having a right is not the same thing as being in the right.
In some instances, we have the right to behave immorally. For example, the First Amendment gives some people, in some circumstances, the right to lie.
Let’s set aside for a moment whether the billionaire Koch brothers have the right to run a flurry of dishonest ads about ObamaCare and ask instead whether spending millions of dollars to mislead and even lie to the American people is the right thing to do.
There is no legitimate debate about the integrity of the ads. In Louisiana, the Kochs’ political front group placed an ad that, to all appearances, features a group of Louisianans opening letters from insurance companies informing them about problems they face as a result of the Affordable Care Act.
Except that, as ABC News has documented, the individuals in their ad are not Louisianans. They are paid actors who are not reading actual letters sent by any real insurance company.
In other words, nothing about the ad is true.
The response from the brothers’ organization: “The viewing public is savvy enough to distinguish between someone giving a personal story and something that is emblematic.”
Were this an ad for Stainmaster carpet, a Koch product, Federal Trade Commission guidelines would require the ad to “conspicuously disclose that the persons in such advertisements are not actual consumers.” Moreover, the FTC would require them to either demonstrate that these results of ObamaCare are typical or make clear in the ad that they are not.
Needless to say, the ad meets none of these requirements, thereby conforming to the legal definition of false advertising.
Not all Koch ads feature actors. Even those with real people, though, are not necessarily factual. Witness the attack on Rep. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) in a Koch-funded ad featuring a Michigan leukemia patient.
Everyone sympathizes with her struggle, as well they should. But neither her bravery nor her suffering makes the words she utters true. They aren’t.
In the ad, the patient claims, with ObamaCare “the out-of-pocket costs are so high, it’s unaffordable.” The Detroit News reports the “ad makes no mention that [the patient] successfully enrolled in a new Blue Cross plan where she’s able to retain her University of Michigan oncologist and continues to receive the life-saving oral chemotherapy. ... The ad also does not mention that [her] health care premiums were cut in half.”
The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler did the math. She saved $6,348 a year on premiums. And because ObamaCare caps out-of-pocket costs for individual plans at $6,350, she will be paying, at most, $2 more this year for her care.
It’s hard to call that an unaffordable increase.
If it were just these two egregious examples, someone might suggest I’m picking on the Koch brothers. Now, I do not always agree with fact checkers, who are sometimes wrong. But it is striking that PolitiFact reviewed 11 ads placed by the brothers’ organization, and not a single one was rated “true” or even “mostly true.” Nine were rated “false” or worse.
So, I return to my original question. Whatever their constitutional rights, are the Koch brothers right to degrade our democratic process with lies? Are they right to use tactics that are, by legal definitions, deceptive and dishonest? Are voters choosing a candidate due any less respect and honesty than consumers buying carpet?
We in the consulting profession need to ask ourselves hard questions about where the line is that we won’t cross. When does the pursuit of victory at any cost exact too high a price? When does dishonesty distort democracy?
Politicians, political parties or media that fail to condemn these tactics, as well as broadcasters that air these ads, and the consultants who make them, are all complicit in the Kochs’ immorality.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Geez, this year Texas is the home of "wackos non-anonymous"
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP Senate Candidate Defends Use Of 'Wetbacks' Slur As 'Normal As Breathing Air'
By Mollie Reilly, February 25, 2014
A U.S. Senate candidate is facing fierce criticism after saying ranchers should be free to shoot "wetbacks" on sight, using a derogatory term that the candidate describes as "normal" in his home state.
Texas Republican Chris Mapp, who is challenging Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) in the upcoming GOP primary, made the remarks during an interview with the Dallas Morning News' editorial board. The board noted Mapp's remarks in its February 16 endorsement of Cornyn.
"South Texas businessman Chris Mapp, 53, told this editorial board that ranchers should be allowed to shoot on sight anyone illegally crossing the border on to their land, referred to such people as 'wetbacks,' and called the president a 'socialist son of a bitch,' the editorial reads.
Mapp later defended his remarks to the San Antonio Express-News, claiming use of the racial epithet is as "normal as breathing air in South Texas."
“We can't have illegal immigrants, drug cartels, human traffickers or terrorists coming across our border,” Mapp said. “Our borders can either be sealed by choice or force, and so far choice hasn't worked.”
Mapp has also detailed his views on immigration on his campaign website.
"Let's face it, there would be a lot less concrete, roofs, and landscaping without illegal immigrants (yes, illegal immigrants - that is what they are)," Mapp writes. "The only reason they flood here is because of opportunity and because we allow it. There is no reason we can't stop the influx at the border - remove the politics and let the Border Patrol do their job."
"That kind of rhetoric is discouraging from anybody," Cornyn said Friday of Mapp's use of the racial slur. "I recognize this is a free country but that's not the sort of way to gain people's confidence that you care about them and you want to represent their concerns in the halls of Congress."
The Republican primary will be held March 4. In addition to Cornyn and Mapp, six other candidates are vying for the nomination, including Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas).
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP Senate Candidate Defends Use Of 'Wetbacks' Slur As 'Normal As Breathing Air'
By Mollie Reilly, February 25, 2014
A U.S. Senate candidate is facing fierce criticism after saying ranchers should be free to shoot "wetbacks" on sight, using a derogatory term that the candidate describes as "normal" in his home state.
Texas Republican Chris Mapp, who is challenging Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) in the upcoming GOP primary, made the remarks during an interview with the Dallas Morning News' editorial board. The board noted Mapp's remarks in its February 16 endorsement of Cornyn.
"South Texas businessman Chris Mapp, 53, told this editorial board that ranchers should be allowed to shoot on sight anyone illegally crossing the border on to their land, referred to such people as 'wetbacks,' and called the president a 'socialist son of a bitch,' the editorial reads.
Mapp later defended his remarks to the San Antonio Express-News, claiming use of the racial epithet is as "normal as breathing air in South Texas."
“We can't have illegal immigrants, drug cartels, human traffickers or terrorists coming across our border,” Mapp said. “Our borders can either be sealed by choice or force, and so far choice hasn't worked.”
Mapp has also detailed his views on immigration on his campaign website.
"Let's face it, there would be a lot less concrete, roofs, and landscaping without illegal immigrants (yes, illegal immigrants - that is what they are)," Mapp writes. "The only reason they flood here is because of opportunity and because we allow it. There is no reason we can't stop the influx at the border - remove the politics and let the Border Patrol do their job."
"That kind of rhetoric is discouraging from anybody," Cornyn said Friday of Mapp's use of the racial slur. "I recognize this is a free country but that's not the sort of way to gain people's confidence that you care about them and you want to represent their concerns in the halls of Congress."
The Republican primary will be held March 4. In addition to Cornyn and Mapp, six other candidates are vying for the nomination, including Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas).
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Republican primaries usually amount to coronations ... Democratic contests are often messier affairs ..." but now "... the two parties appear to be swapping their usual roles."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Stability and Chaos, Hallmarks of Presidential Races, Swap Parties
By Jonathan Martin, February 23, 2014
For generations, the two major political parties have taken strikingly different approaches to picking their presidential candidates: Republican primaries usually amount to coronations, in which they nominate a candidate who has run before or is otherwise deemed next in line, while the Democratic contests are often messier affairs, prone to insurgencies and featuring uncertain favorites.
Or, as former President Bill Clinton likes to put it, “Republicans fall in line and Democrats fall in love.”
But as the early positioning for the 2016 presidential primaries gets underway, the two parties appear to be swapping their usual roles. With former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s widely presumed candidacy overwhelming the Democratic field and dominating the news media’s attention, Democrats are playing the part of the royalists seeking a smooth succession. At the same time, the Republicans are acting like the Democrats of yore, anticipating a free-for-all primary that highlights the competing and at times fractious constituencies in their coalition.
“The Democrats look like they’re going to have a strong front-runner like we usually do and we look like we’re going to have a very large, very competitive field like they do when they win the White House,” said former Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, a onetime Republican National Committee chairman who has worked on presidential campaigns since 1968.
Gov. Mike Beebe of Arkansas, a Democrat who has also participated in many campaigns over the decades, phrased the 2016 circumstances less charitably for Republicans: “They’ve adopted our model of total chaos.”
The reversed roles were on display over the weekend as the nation’s governors gathered in the capital for their annual winter meeting, traditionally a showcase event for ambitious chief executives of both parties to talk up their records and test out their messages for a future presidential campaign. This time was no different, but it was the silence of one potential candidate and the shadow of another that vividly illustrated the contours of the coming race.
The Republican who many in his party believed was the closest thing they had to a presidential front-runner, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, attended the conference but avoided the news media and therefore questions about his administration’s role in closing down the George Washington Bridge as a form of political payback.
Even though he is effectively the spokesman of his party’s governors as chairman of the Republican Governors Association, Mr. Christie declined sit-down interviews and avoided impromptu encounters with reporters that are typical of the event. Into this void stepped a bevy of Republican governors who are also thought to be eyeing the White House; they used the weekend to appear on Sunday political programs and begin making their case for the nomination.
Of course, few will admit to planning a presidential campaign even before the midterm Congressional elections, but conversations with governors and political operatives suggest that as many as seven current Republican governors are considering bids. Then there is the prospect of Senators Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, all Republicans considering the presidency. All told, 2016 is shaping up to be the most unpredictable Republican primary in decades, perhaps since 1964, when the party was facing an internal struggle much like the one today.
“I think it’s great,” said Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, one of the Republican prospects, referring to what he called his party’s “wide-open race.” “All of us candidates always say we hate primaries, but the fact of the matter is we’re always much better for them.”
The Republican contest in 2016 could bring some clarity to whether the Tea Party wing or the establishment-aligned forces are in control of the party. It will also offer insights on more complex questions about the party’s tendencies on foreign policy, social issues and the economy. One reason there is no obvious Republican presidential heir is that the party has not yet resolved its own identity in the Obama era.
Former Gov. Jim Hodges of South Carolina, a Democrat, compared the Republicans’ plight to his party trying to find its way in the late 1980s and early 1990s after Ronald Reagan’s two terms.
“They’ve lost several elections in a row, so they are faced with a question of whether they go back to their core or become something else,” Mr. Hodges said.
If the Republicans are in the middle of trying to determine who they are, the Democrats are focused on the more calculating question of how they retain presidential power.
“My party is in a little bit of a just-don’t-blow-this-thing mode,” said James Carville, Mr. Clinton’s former chief strategist. “The idea that we’re now consistently winning presidential elections isn’t lost on us.”
After decades of internal feuding when they were mostly shut out of the White House, the Democrats are much more unified now on policy, particularly social issues.
Further, after electing the country’s first black president, Democrats want to make history again.
“I just think it’s going to be the year of the women,” Mr. Hodges said of 2016.
So while Mrs. Clinton may not have been at the JW Marriott for the governors’ meeting, her political presence was unmistakable.
The Democrats who would like to run for president dutifully paid homage to the former first lady, but could not help but show a touch of frustration.
“I do think that the clock ticks and while folks certainly want to give her some time to think and rejuvenate and get ready and all that sort of stuff, I do think you get past this November and people start toeing lines,” said Gov. Jay Nixon, of Missouri, a Democrat, taking care to add that if Mrs. Clinton ran he would help her “carry the Show Me State.”
Another Democrat, Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware, noted that the campaign should be about policy not primogeniture.
“It would be a huge mistake to forget the lessons that we learned in the ’80s and the ’92 election that elections are supposed to be about ideas and about how do you move the country forward,” said Mr. Markell, while calling Mrs. Clinton “an incredible candidate.”
As for Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who has been more candid about his presidential aspirations than any other Democrat, he said Mrs. Clinton would not freeze his ambitions.
“I spoke in New Hampshire about three months ago, I’ll be going to California to talk to the state convention there, I’ll be going to Wisconsin, so I don’t feel particularly frozen by anything,” he said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Stability and Chaos, Hallmarks of Presidential Races, Swap Parties
By Jonathan Martin, February 23, 2014
For generations, the two major political parties have taken strikingly different approaches to picking their presidential candidates: Republican primaries usually amount to coronations, in which they nominate a candidate who has run before or is otherwise deemed next in line, while the Democratic contests are often messier affairs, prone to insurgencies and featuring uncertain favorites.
Or, as former President Bill Clinton likes to put it, “Republicans fall in line and Democrats fall in love.”
But as the early positioning for the 2016 presidential primaries gets underway, the two parties appear to be swapping their usual roles. With former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s widely presumed candidacy overwhelming the Democratic field and dominating the news media’s attention, Democrats are playing the part of the royalists seeking a smooth succession. At the same time, the Republicans are acting like the Democrats of yore, anticipating a free-for-all primary that highlights the competing and at times fractious constituencies in their coalition.
“The Democrats look like they’re going to have a strong front-runner like we usually do and we look like we’re going to have a very large, very competitive field like they do when they win the White House,” said former Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, a onetime Republican National Committee chairman who has worked on presidential campaigns since 1968.
Gov. Mike Beebe of Arkansas, a Democrat who has also participated in many campaigns over the decades, phrased the 2016 circumstances less charitably for Republicans: “They’ve adopted our model of total chaos.”
The reversed roles were on display over the weekend as the nation’s governors gathered in the capital for their annual winter meeting, traditionally a showcase event for ambitious chief executives of both parties to talk up their records and test out their messages for a future presidential campaign. This time was no different, but it was the silence of one potential candidate and the shadow of another that vividly illustrated the contours of the coming race.
The Republican who many in his party believed was the closest thing they had to a presidential front-runner, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, attended the conference but avoided the news media and therefore questions about his administration’s role in closing down the George Washington Bridge as a form of political payback.
Even though he is effectively the spokesman of his party’s governors as chairman of the Republican Governors Association, Mr. Christie declined sit-down interviews and avoided impromptu encounters with reporters that are typical of the event. Into this void stepped a bevy of Republican governors who are also thought to be eyeing the White House; they used the weekend to appear on Sunday political programs and begin making their case for the nomination.
Of course, few will admit to planning a presidential campaign even before the midterm Congressional elections, but conversations with governors and political operatives suggest that as many as seven current Republican governors are considering bids. Then there is the prospect of Senators Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, all Republicans considering the presidency. All told, 2016 is shaping up to be the most unpredictable Republican primary in decades, perhaps since 1964, when the party was facing an internal struggle much like the one today.
“I think it’s great,” said Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, one of the Republican prospects, referring to what he called his party’s “wide-open race.” “All of us candidates always say we hate primaries, but the fact of the matter is we’re always much better for them.”
The Republican contest in 2016 could bring some clarity to whether the Tea Party wing or the establishment-aligned forces are in control of the party. It will also offer insights on more complex questions about the party’s tendencies on foreign policy, social issues and the economy. One reason there is no obvious Republican presidential heir is that the party has not yet resolved its own identity in the Obama era.
Former Gov. Jim Hodges of South Carolina, a Democrat, compared the Republicans’ plight to his party trying to find its way in the late 1980s and early 1990s after Ronald Reagan’s two terms.
“They’ve lost several elections in a row, so they are faced with a question of whether they go back to their core or become something else,” Mr. Hodges said.
If the Republicans are in the middle of trying to determine who they are, the Democrats are focused on the more calculating question of how they retain presidential power.
“My party is in a little bit of a just-don’t-blow-this-thing mode,” said James Carville, Mr. Clinton’s former chief strategist. “The idea that we’re now consistently winning presidential elections isn’t lost on us.”
After decades of internal feuding when they were mostly shut out of the White House, the Democrats are much more unified now on policy, particularly social issues.
Further, after electing the country’s first black president, Democrats want to make history again.
“I just think it’s going to be the year of the women,” Mr. Hodges said of 2016.
So while Mrs. Clinton may not have been at the JW Marriott for the governors’ meeting, her political presence was unmistakable.
The Democrats who would like to run for president dutifully paid homage to the former first lady, but could not help but show a touch of frustration.
“I do think that the clock ticks and while folks certainly want to give her some time to think and rejuvenate and get ready and all that sort of stuff, I do think you get past this November and people start toeing lines,” said Gov. Jay Nixon, of Missouri, a Democrat, taking care to add that if Mrs. Clinton ran he would help her “carry the Show Me State.”
Another Democrat, Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware, noted that the campaign should be about policy not primogeniture.
“It would be a huge mistake to forget the lessons that we learned in the ’80s and the ’92 election that elections are supposed to be about ideas and about how do you move the country forward,” said Mr. Markell, while calling Mrs. Clinton “an incredible candidate.”
As for Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who has been more candid about his presidential aspirations than any other Democrat, he said Mrs. Clinton would not freeze his ambitions.
“I spoke in New Hampshire about three months ago, I’ll be going to California to talk to the state convention there, I’ll be going to Wisconsin, so I don’t feel particularly frozen by anything,” he said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Helping millions of America's invisible people, the working poor, has to be a feature of our politics, not a bug
...................................................................................................................................................................
America's cruel political math -- where the working poor equal less than zero
By Will Bunch, February 23, 2014
Remember the 2000 presidential campaign and the whole flap about "fuzzy math"? Those were the days, huh? In the 2010s, America's political math is not fuzzy but hard, cruel to the point of nearly inhuman, and so unrooted in common sense it makes the Flat Earth Society look like the National Academy of Science.
You've probably heard that last week the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office came out with a report on the proposal -- backed by President Obama and most Democrats on Capitol Hill -- to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Most places you looked, the headline was about jobs. The CBO -- a body that I have a lot of respect for, and still do -- found that one effect of a minimum wage hike would be to cause some employers to trim their payroll. Their rough estimate was that raising the minimum wage could cost 500,000 jobs nationwide -- although maybe as many as 1 million, and maybe none at all.
Conservative politicians and economists -- who've long made this their marquee argument against a raise for America's working poor -- raced in with a collective "told-you-so." Never mind that many economists believe that the CBO went outside the parameters of most research now on the books that shows little or no employment loss when the minimum wage has been increased in the past. (This state-of-the-art study, conducted right here in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, found zero impact on jobs.)
And never mind this: That Republicans who crowed for several days about the CBO report, who were suddenly the unemployed's best pals, have done NOTHING since the crash of 2008 to create jobs. That goes from opposing infrastructure work and other forms of economic stimulus, to seeking a repeal of Obamacare even though the head of the CBO (the same people who did their beloved minimum wage report!!!) says that health care reform is a job creator. Over the last five years, the only jobs that Republicans have been eager to create have been poll workers checking the IDs of elderly and minority voters and workers in the transvaginal ultrasound industry.
My hunch -- keeping in mind the legendary (and true) story of Henry Ford giving his assembly line workers a raise so they could afford to buy his Model T -- is that within a few years, a higher living wage for so many workers would create jobs in places like Wal-Mart, which is suffering economically now because too many low-wage workers can't even afford its low-end goods.
But for the sake of argument, let's accept the CBO number that a $10.10 minimum wage would cost a half-million jobs in the short term. Why is that even the headline number? The same report found that the proposed wage hike would also mean an improved standard of living for 16.5 million Americans, and that 1 million citizens who are now below the official poverty line would be raised up and over.
Let me re-state that: The $10.10 wage -- if you accept the CBO report -- would make life better for 33 TIMES as many people who would lose their job (for a time), and bring TWICE as many people out of poverty. Think how many working families would be able to get off food stamps and feed their kids a nutritious meal every night of the week, or not have to chose between going to the supermarket or paying the heating bill, or simply buy the things that we once considered the bare minimum of middle-class life in America. So why is that not a slam dunk?
Before answering that question, let's also note that the minimum wage is just one of many policy debates in America in which policy initiatives that would help large numbers of citizens -- at the expense of the few -- are casually dismissed as simply not worth it.
Exhibit A, or [sic] course, is Obamacare. Yes, the chaos of cancellation notices late last year, before new options were available online, was highly regrettable. And under the system -- which is certainly flawed in comparison to the much better alternative of a single payer -- there will be a small pool of folks whose coverage isn't quite as good. But in the early months of the program, we also know that it's added millions of people who were uninsured -- certainly at least 4 million and probably more, plus the millions more with pre-existing conditions or under age 26 -- and would have increased rolls by millions more if some GOP governors like Pennsylvania's Tom Corbett weren't determined to play politics rather than connect their constituents with health care. These are people who will live healthier, maybe even longer lives, who won't be one doctor's bill away from bankruptcy -- yet that doesn't seem to compute in our civil ledger.
Programs for the poor and the so-called "working poor" never compute. Look at the farm bill that Congress passed and President Obama signed just this month. Lawmakers bent over backwards to ensure that farmers would keep their generous subsidies, but food stamp recipients got whacked -- $7.8 billion over the next decade, falling hardest here in the East where the poor are reeling from a brutal winter, and falling disproportionately on seniors and the disabled. Where was the urgency to keep this basic thread of the safety net intact?
There was none. This is where we are at as a society. After a generation in which millions of Americans -- especially the lower middle-class, the working poor -- have lost ground, we have a body politic that no longer sees it as part of its mission to make their life any better. There is no honest math here, no cost-benefit analysis -- basic policy changes that could help huge swaths of the American people in a time of crisis are routinely rejected or, in the case of Obamacare, stymied, for fear that a handful of the more politically visible classes might lose a little of what they have. The working class is the foundation of our 21st Century working pyramid -- our restaurant servers, our health-care aides, our store clerks -- and yet that are the new incarnation of James Baldwin's "Invisible Man"...or woman.
America wasn't always this heartless. It was 50 years ago this winter that a president made a "war on poverty" the centerpiece of his State of the Union address and not just a throwaway line, and he was applauded for that. A couple of years ago, I read a fascinating book about Robert Kennedy's 1968 campaign for president -- The Last Campaign by Thurston Clarke -- and it was striking that RFK made eliminating poverty his signature issue; he even spent a couple of days visiting a Native American reservation on the Dakotas, not because it gained him a single vote but because he wanted to be there. Said Kennedy: "I believe that, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil."
There's no leader today -- not even President Obama, to be honest -- with that type of courage or commitment, and instead there's a huge class of so-called "leaders" who see more gain in lashing out at these folks as "moochers" instead of working to improve the options for these, their fellow Americans. And they and their enablers in talk radio, Fox News and elsewhere are conning lots of regular folks to buy into this, when mostly the beneficiaries are the wealthiest elites. Since 1973, worker productively in America has risen 80 percent, yet it was shareholders who benefited, as workers' wages only rose 11 percent.
The higher minimum wage is the first step toward fixing that. It should be a no-brainer -- as profits flow to CEOs and others in the 1 Percent, it's the rank-and-file American taxpayer who pays for their greed by footing the bill for the food stamps their underpaid workers need just to get by. And a living wage -- and a reduction in income inequality -- will grow the U.S. economy over time. But we need to the first step -- seeing America's invisible people, and realizing that helping millions of them has to be a feature of our politics, not a bug. In 2014, it's disgraceful that anyone would still need to carry a sign that says simply, "I Am a Man," or "I Am a Woman."
...................................................................................................................................................................
America's cruel political math -- where the working poor equal less than zero
By Will Bunch, February 23, 2014
Remember the 2000 presidential campaign and the whole flap about "fuzzy math"? Those were the days, huh? In the 2010s, America's political math is not fuzzy but hard, cruel to the point of nearly inhuman, and so unrooted in common sense it makes the Flat Earth Society look like the National Academy of Science.
You've probably heard that last week the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office came out with a report on the proposal -- backed by President Obama and most Democrats on Capitol Hill -- to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Most places you looked, the headline was about jobs. The CBO -- a body that I have a lot of respect for, and still do -- found that one effect of a minimum wage hike would be to cause some employers to trim their payroll. Their rough estimate was that raising the minimum wage could cost 500,000 jobs nationwide -- although maybe as many as 1 million, and maybe none at all.
Conservative politicians and economists -- who've long made this their marquee argument against a raise for America's working poor -- raced in with a collective "told-you-so." Never mind that many economists believe that the CBO went outside the parameters of most research now on the books that shows little or no employment loss when the minimum wage has been increased in the past. (This state-of-the-art study, conducted right here in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, found zero impact on jobs.)
And never mind this: That Republicans who crowed for several days about the CBO report, who were suddenly the unemployed's best pals, have done NOTHING since the crash of 2008 to create jobs. That goes from opposing infrastructure work and other forms of economic stimulus, to seeking a repeal of Obamacare even though the head of the CBO (the same people who did their beloved minimum wage report!!!) says that health care reform is a job creator. Over the last five years, the only jobs that Republicans have been eager to create have been poll workers checking the IDs of elderly and minority voters and workers in the transvaginal ultrasound industry.
My hunch -- keeping in mind the legendary (and true) story of Henry Ford giving his assembly line workers a raise so they could afford to buy his Model T -- is that within a few years, a higher living wage for so many workers would create jobs in places like Wal-Mart, which is suffering economically now because too many low-wage workers can't even afford its low-end goods.
But for the sake of argument, let's accept the CBO number that a $10.10 minimum wage would cost a half-million jobs in the short term. Why is that even the headline number? The same report found that the proposed wage hike would also mean an improved standard of living for 16.5 million Americans, and that 1 million citizens who are now below the official poverty line would be raised up and over.
Let me re-state that: The $10.10 wage -- if you accept the CBO report -- would make life better for 33 TIMES as many people who would lose their job (for a time), and bring TWICE as many people out of poverty. Think how many working families would be able to get off food stamps and feed their kids a nutritious meal every night of the week, or not have to chose between going to the supermarket or paying the heating bill, or simply buy the things that we once considered the bare minimum of middle-class life in America. So why is that not a slam dunk?
Before answering that question, let's also note that the minimum wage is just one of many policy debates in America in which policy initiatives that would help large numbers of citizens -- at the expense of the few -- are casually dismissed as simply not worth it.
Exhibit A, or [sic] course, is Obamacare. Yes, the chaos of cancellation notices late last year, before new options were available online, was highly regrettable. And under the system -- which is certainly flawed in comparison to the much better alternative of a single payer -- there will be a small pool of folks whose coverage isn't quite as good. But in the early months of the program, we also know that it's added millions of people who were uninsured -- certainly at least 4 million and probably more, plus the millions more with pre-existing conditions or under age 26 -- and would have increased rolls by millions more if some GOP governors like Pennsylvania's Tom Corbett weren't determined to play politics rather than connect their constituents with health care. These are people who will live healthier, maybe even longer lives, who won't be one doctor's bill away from bankruptcy -- yet that doesn't seem to compute in our civil ledger.
Programs for the poor and the so-called "working poor" never compute. Look at the farm bill that Congress passed and President Obama signed just this month. Lawmakers bent over backwards to ensure that farmers would keep their generous subsidies, but food stamp recipients got whacked -- $7.8 billion over the next decade, falling hardest here in the East where the poor are reeling from a brutal winter, and falling disproportionately on seniors and the disabled. Where was the urgency to keep this basic thread of the safety net intact?
There was none. This is where we are at as a society. After a generation in which millions of Americans -- especially the lower middle-class, the working poor -- have lost ground, we have a body politic that no longer sees it as part of its mission to make their life any better. There is no honest math here, no cost-benefit analysis -- basic policy changes that could help huge swaths of the American people in a time of crisis are routinely rejected or, in the case of Obamacare, stymied, for fear that a handful of the more politically visible classes might lose a little of what they have. The working class is the foundation of our 21st Century working pyramid -- our restaurant servers, our health-care aides, our store clerks -- and yet that are the new incarnation of James Baldwin's "Invisible Man"...or woman.
America wasn't always this heartless. It was 50 years ago this winter that a president made a "war on poverty" the centerpiece of his State of the Union address and not just a throwaway line, and he was applauded for that. A couple of years ago, I read a fascinating book about Robert Kennedy's 1968 campaign for president -- The Last Campaign by Thurston Clarke -- and it was striking that RFK made eliminating poverty his signature issue; he even spent a couple of days visiting a Native American reservation on the Dakotas, not because it gained him a single vote but because he wanted to be there. Said Kennedy: "I believe that, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil."
There's no leader today -- not even President Obama, to be honest -- with that type of courage or commitment, and instead there's a huge class of so-called "leaders" who see more gain in lashing out at these folks as "moochers" instead of working to improve the options for these, their fellow Americans. And they and their enablers in talk radio, Fox News and elsewhere are conning lots of regular folks to buy into this, when mostly the beneficiaries are the wealthiest elites. Since 1973, worker productively in America has risen 80 percent, yet it was shareholders who benefited, as workers' wages only rose 11 percent.
The higher minimum wage is the first step toward fixing that. It should be a no-brainer -- as profits flow to CEOs and others in the 1 Percent, it's the rank-and-file American taxpayer who pays for their greed by footing the bill for the food stamps their underpaid workers need just to get by. And a living wage -- and a reduction in income inequality -- will grow the U.S. economy over time. But we need to the first step -- seeing America's invisible people, and realizing that helping millions of them has to be a feature of our politics, not a bug. In 2014, it's disgraceful that anyone would still need to carry a sign that says simply, "I Am a Man," or "I Am a Woman."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Monday, February 24, 2014
Another example of a Republican a**h***..... hmmm, does he call his own mother a "host"?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Virginia Republican Says A Pregnant Woman Is Just A 'Host,' Though 'Some Refer To Them As Mothers'
By Laura Bassett, February 24, 2014
A pregnant woman is just a "host" that should not have the right to end her pregnancy, Virginia State Sen. Steve Martin (R) wrote in a Facebook rant defending his anti-abortion views.
Martin, the former chairman of the Senate Education and Health Committee, wrote a lengthy post about his opinions on women's bodies on his Facebook wall last week in response to a critical Valentine's Day card he received from reproductive rights advocates.
"I don't expect to be in the room or will I do anything to prevent you from obtaining a contraceptive," Martin wrote. "However, once a child does exist in your womb, I'm not going to assume a right to kill it just because the child's host (some refer to them as mothers) doesn't want it." Martin then changed his post on Monday afternoon to refer to the woman as the "bearer of the child" instead of the "host."
Scroll down to see a screenshot of Martin's original post.
Martin voted for Virginia's mandatory ultrasound bill and supported a fetal personhood bill, which would ban all abortions and could affect the legality of some forms of contraception. The Virginia Pro-Choice Coalition had sent him a Valentine's Day card asking him to protect women's reproductive health options, "including preventing unwanted pregnancies, raising healthy children and choosing safe, legal abortion."
Martin reacted strongly to their letter.
"If it's your expectation that I should support such nonsense, I will be breaking your heart," he wrote. "You can count on me to never get in the way of you 'preventing an unintentional pregnancy.' I'm not actually sure what that means, because if it's 'unintentional' you must have been trying to prevent it."
Martin said Monday that he edited the original wording calling women hosts because people took it the wrong way, even though he felt it was clear he was being sarcastic. "I don't see how anyone could have taken it the wrong way," he said. "It was me playing their argument back to them. Obviously I consider pregnant women to be mothers."
Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, told The Huffington Post in an email that Martin's rant reveals the "contempt" that anti-abortion lawmakers have for women.
"Sen. Steve Martin obviously has zero understanding of the reality of reproductive choice and what it means for women to have control over their bodies, families, and lives," Keene said. "His remarks demonstrate what exactly these extreme lawmakers mean when they talk about 'personhood' - that pregnant women are no more than vessels. Even more outrageous, he also fails to understand how he as a lawmaker can help empower women to reduce unintended pregnancies -- something that should be a common goal for all."
This story has been updated with news that Martin changed his post and with a statement from Martin.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Virginia Republican Says A Pregnant Woman Is Just A 'Host,' Though 'Some Refer To Them As Mothers'
By Laura Bassett, February 24, 2014
A pregnant woman is just a "host" that should not have the right to end her pregnancy, Virginia State Sen. Steve Martin (R) wrote in a Facebook rant defending his anti-abortion views.
Martin, the former chairman of the Senate Education and Health Committee, wrote a lengthy post about his opinions on women's bodies on his Facebook wall last week in response to a critical Valentine's Day card he received from reproductive rights advocates.
"I don't expect to be in the room or will I do anything to prevent you from obtaining a contraceptive," Martin wrote. "However, once a child does exist in your womb, I'm not going to assume a right to kill it just because the child's host (some refer to them as mothers) doesn't want it." Martin then changed his post on Monday afternoon to refer to the woman as the "bearer of the child" instead of the "host."
Scroll down to see a screenshot of Martin's original post.
Martin voted for Virginia's mandatory ultrasound bill and supported a fetal personhood bill, which would ban all abortions and could affect the legality of some forms of contraception. The Virginia Pro-Choice Coalition had sent him a Valentine's Day card asking him to protect women's reproductive health options, "including preventing unwanted pregnancies, raising healthy children and choosing safe, legal abortion."
Martin reacted strongly to their letter.
"If it's your expectation that I should support such nonsense, I will be breaking your heart," he wrote. "You can count on me to never get in the way of you 'preventing an unintentional pregnancy.' I'm not actually sure what that means, because if it's 'unintentional' you must have been trying to prevent it."
Martin said Monday that he edited the original wording calling women hosts because people took it the wrong way, even though he felt it was clear he was being sarcastic. "I don't see how anyone could have taken it the wrong way," he said. "It was me playing their argument back to them. Obviously I consider pregnant women to be mothers."
Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, told The Huffington Post in an email that Martin's rant reveals the "contempt" that anti-abortion lawmakers have for women.
"Sen. Steve Martin obviously has zero understanding of the reality of reproductive choice and what it means for women to have control over their bodies, families, and lives," Keene said. "His remarks demonstrate what exactly these extreme lawmakers mean when they talk about 'personhood' - that pregnant women are no more than vessels. Even more outrageous, he also fails to understand how he as a lawmaker can help empower women to reduce unintended pregnancies -- something that should be a common goal for all."
This story has been updated with news that Martin changed his post and with a statement from Martin.
...................................................................................................................................................................
More about the Koch's AFP "Julie's story" ad
...................................................................................................................................................................
Conservative group won’t back up anti-Obamacare ad
By Benjy Sarlin, February 24, 2014
The conservative group Americans for Prosperity is defending a television ad claiming Obamacare jeopardized the life of Julie Boonstra, a Michigan cancer patient, after fact checkers raised concerns over its accuracy. But the Koch brothers-backed AFP is still refusing to provide documented evidence to back up its characterization of her story.
The ad targets Michigan Rep. Gary Peters, a Democrat running to succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Carl Levin. It features a leukemia patient, Julie Boonstra, who says that because of Obamacare her out-of-pocket health care costs have become unaffordable after her previous plan was canceled – meaning she might not be able to obtain cancer medication necessary to keep her alive.
What the ad didn’t mention is that Boonstra had obtained new coverage through her state’s Obamacare health care exchange in a network that included her physician. In addition, the monthly premiums under her new plan were cut almost in half, from $1,100 a month to around $568.
The drop in price for Boonstra’s monthly premium is especially significant because the savings over a year are almost identical to the maximum $6,350 that insurance companies can legally charge an individual for out-of-pocket expenses under Obamacare. That means, on an annual basis, it’s virtually impossible for Boonstra to pay more for care under her new plan.
Lawyers for the Peters campaign contacted managers at the TV stations running the ad and asked them to obtain substantiation for the ad or pull it down. In response, AFP sent a document to the stations that provided no new information about Boonstra’s situation, but instead directed them to a Politico story from September on how some consumers faced higher deductibles and co-pays under their new plans.
When the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler asked AFP spokesman Levi Russell last week about the apparent discrepancy between the ad’s claims and Boonstra’s actual insurance plan, Russell didn’t deny that Obamacare’s caps would prevent Boonstra’s annual costs from going up. Instead, he said the primary problem was that Boonstra’s costs in any given month before she hits the $6,350 limit could be too high to pay all at once.
This new explanation may have thrown Fox News’ Steve Doocy on Monday, who asked Boonstra in a televised interview to explain her “new policy with premiums of $1,100.” Boonstra corrected him, saying her new plan actually cost much less but that she was afraid of a new payment schedule.
“Under my old policy, I knew what I could afford every single month because I wasn’t hit with extra charges,” she told Doocy. “Now, I don’t know what I have to pay month to month based on that out-of-pocket expense. Leukemia tests are extremely expensive and I just don’t have the five or six thousand dollars in the bank to cover that expense.”
Boonstra may well be frustrated with having her old plan cancelled, just like many people whose plans were cancelled under Obamacare. And she’s clearly worried about paying higher expenses under the new one. But one of the ad’s central claims is that Boonstra, right now, cannot afford lifesaving treatment thanks to higher costs.
“Now, the out-of-pocket costs are so high, it’s unaffordable,” she said in the ad. “If I do not receive my medication, I will die.”
As Kessler noted in his fact check, it’s impossible to evaluate AFP’s claim that Boonstra’s month-to-month costs have gone up, let alone to the point that they actually threaten her health, without knowing what Boonstra’s bills are and what her payment schedule is. Russell suggested to msnbc that the group was unlikely to furnish such documentation.
“Given that your past reporting on this appears to be no more or less than an attempt to smear and discredit Julie, you can imagine I’m not rushing to provide you any information,” Russell told msnbc in an e-mail.
He added, “After being lied to and having her plan cancelled, Julie has made a reasonable judgment that her new plan is unaffordable due to ongoing unexpected out-of-pocket costs that have been impossible to budget for. That simple concept is one that most people readily understand.”
Boonstra did offer some clarification in an interview with The Dexter Leader, saying she was upset to find a prescription that was once covered is no longer in her new plan. But she added that she wasn’t sure yet how her overall costs had changed.
“I truly would love to show the public my numbers, but like I said I just don’t have that because I haven’t had those visits,” Boonstra said. “People don’t have that certainty – they don’t have the stability of knowing every month what they’re going to be paying now and it’s the ability to actually have that sum of money to pay.”
No doubt, it’s an extremely stressful experience: In addition to navigating a new plan while facing a life threatening illness, Boonstra said she briefly went without coverage due to technical problems with the health care website.
But the ad’s central claim isn’t about a glitchy website or general anxiety about bills, it suggests her care has become “unaffordable.” By Boonstra’s own account, it sounds as if she’s still figuring out where and how much her expenses have changed. And the new debate over month-to-month versus annual expenses – which AFP raised only after the ad had already aired – is a big step away from the initial TV spot, which implied that under Obamacare she might have lost her old doctor or faces higher expenses because she has no health plan at all.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Conservative group won’t back up anti-Obamacare ad
By Benjy Sarlin, February 24, 2014
The conservative group Americans for Prosperity is defending a television ad claiming Obamacare jeopardized the life of Julie Boonstra, a Michigan cancer patient, after fact checkers raised concerns over its accuracy. But the Koch brothers-backed AFP is still refusing to provide documented evidence to back up its characterization of her story.
The ad targets Michigan Rep. Gary Peters, a Democrat running to succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Carl Levin. It features a leukemia patient, Julie Boonstra, who says that because of Obamacare her out-of-pocket health care costs have become unaffordable after her previous plan was canceled – meaning she might not be able to obtain cancer medication necessary to keep her alive.
What the ad didn’t mention is that Boonstra had obtained new coverage through her state’s Obamacare health care exchange in a network that included her physician. In addition, the monthly premiums under her new plan were cut almost in half, from $1,100 a month to around $568.
The drop in price for Boonstra’s monthly premium is especially significant because the savings over a year are almost identical to the maximum $6,350 that insurance companies can legally charge an individual for out-of-pocket expenses under Obamacare. That means, on an annual basis, it’s virtually impossible for Boonstra to pay more for care under her new plan.
Lawyers for the Peters campaign contacted managers at the TV stations running the ad and asked them to obtain substantiation for the ad or pull it down. In response, AFP sent a document to the stations that provided no new information about Boonstra’s situation, but instead directed them to a Politico story from September on how some consumers faced higher deductibles and co-pays under their new plans.
When the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler asked AFP spokesman Levi Russell last week about the apparent discrepancy between the ad’s claims and Boonstra’s actual insurance plan, Russell didn’t deny that Obamacare’s caps would prevent Boonstra’s annual costs from going up. Instead, he said the primary problem was that Boonstra’s costs in any given month before she hits the $6,350 limit could be too high to pay all at once.
This new explanation may have thrown Fox News’ Steve Doocy on Monday, who asked Boonstra in a televised interview to explain her “new policy with premiums of $1,100.” Boonstra corrected him, saying her new plan actually cost much less but that she was afraid of a new payment schedule.
“Under my old policy, I knew what I could afford every single month because I wasn’t hit with extra charges,” she told Doocy. “Now, I don’t know what I have to pay month to month based on that out-of-pocket expense. Leukemia tests are extremely expensive and I just don’t have the five or six thousand dollars in the bank to cover that expense.”
Boonstra may well be frustrated with having her old plan cancelled, just like many people whose plans were cancelled under Obamacare. And she’s clearly worried about paying higher expenses under the new one. But one of the ad’s central claims is that Boonstra, right now, cannot afford lifesaving treatment thanks to higher costs.
“Now, the out-of-pocket costs are so high, it’s unaffordable,” she said in the ad. “If I do not receive my medication, I will die.”
As Kessler noted in his fact check, it’s impossible to evaluate AFP’s claim that Boonstra’s month-to-month costs have gone up, let alone to the point that they actually threaten her health, without knowing what Boonstra’s bills are and what her payment schedule is. Russell suggested to msnbc that the group was unlikely to furnish such documentation.
“Given that your past reporting on this appears to be no more or less than an attempt to smear and discredit Julie, you can imagine I’m not rushing to provide you any information,” Russell told msnbc in an e-mail.
He added, “After being lied to and having her plan cancelled, Julie has made a reasonable judgment that her new plan is unaffordable due to ongoing unexpected out-of-pocket costs that have been impossible to budget for. That simple concept is one that most people readily understand.”
Boonstra did offer some clarification in an interview with The Dexter Leader, saying she was upset to find a prescription that was once covered is no longer in her new plan. But she added that she wasn’t sure yet how her overall costs had changed.
“I truly would love to show the public my numbers, but like I said I just don’t have that because I haven’t had those visits,” Boonstra said. “People don’t have that certainty – they don’t have the stability of knowing every month what they’re going to be paying now and it’s the ability to actually have that sum of money to pay.”
No doubt, it’s an extremely stressful experience: In addition to navigating a new plan while facing a life threatening illness, Boonstra said she briefly went without coverage due to technical problems with the health care website.
But the ad’s central claim isn’t about a glitchy website or general anxiety about bills, it suggests her care has become “unaffordable.” By Boonstra’s own account, it sounds as if she’s still figuring out where and how much her expenses have changed. And the new debate over month-to-month versus annual expenses – which AFP raised only after the ad had already aired – is a big step away from the initial TV spot, which implied that under Obamacare she might have lost her old doctor or faces higher expenses because she has no health plan at all.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Steyer's motivation not same as that of the Koch brothers
...................................................................................................................................................................
Don't Call Tom Steyer the Liberal Answer to the Koch Brothers
By Clare Foran, February 24, 2014
Tom Steyer doesn't want to be labeled the liberal version of the Koch brothers, a pair of heavy-hitting libertarian financiers who have long backed conservative candidates.
In an interview with NPR's Morning Edition, Steyer argued that he and the Koch brothers have different motivations.
"I want to draw some very, very big distinctions between me and the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers are pushing ideas that directly benefit them. They're pushing things where it is going to result in their pocket books being a lot fatter," Steyer said. "If you just simply look at what they're supporting and what the implication is for their businesses...they're aligned and that's not true of me," he added.
The New York Times reported earlier this month that Steyer hopes to pour up to $100 million into the midterm election cycle in support of candidates with a strong record fighting climate change.
That push has prompted comparison between Steyer and the Koch brothers. But Steyer is resistant to such claims.
"We really strongly believe we are answering a challenge for our generation of Americans and for all Americans," Steyer, who is also the founder of NextGen Climate Action, a climate advocacy group, said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Don't Call Tom Steyer the Liberal Answer to the Koch Brothers
By Clare Foran, February 24, 2014
Tom Steyer doesn't want to be labeled the liberal version of the Koch brothers, a pair of heavy-hitting libertarian financiers who have long backed conservative candidates.
In an interview with NPR's Morning Edition, Steyer argued that he and the Koch brothers have different motivations.
"I want to draw some very, very big distinctions between me and the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers are pushing ideas that directly benefit them. They're pushing things where it is going to result in their pocket books being a lot fatter," Steyer said. "If you just simply look at what they're supporting and what the implication is for their businesses...they're aligned and that's not true of me," he added.
The New York Times reported earlier this month that Steyer hopes to pour up to $100 million into the midterm election cycle in support of candidates with a strong record fighting climate change.
That push has prompted comparison between Steyer and the Koch brothers. But Steyer is resistant to such claims.
"We really strongly believe we are answering a challenge for our generation of Americans and for all Americans," Steyer, who is also the founder of NextGen Climate Action, a climate advocacy group, said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Texas Republican lunatic fringe has redefined normal very far to the right
...................................................................................................................................................................
Mainstreaming Radicalism in Texas
By Jason Stanford, February 24, 2014
Hide your wallets and shield the children, because they’re voting down in Texas. Texas Republicans will be testing the strength of the Tea Party as they pick their first post-Rick Perry slate of statewide candidates since the 1980s. But Texas Democrats might end up missing Perry, as there is a decent shot that Republicans will nominate not their best-qualified, most-electable candidates but an entire clown car full of crazypants.
Let’s start at the top of the ticket, where incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, rated the second-most conservative senator in 2012, was apparently not conservative enough to escape a primary challenge. Into that breach leapt Steve Stockman, the congressman who once Tweeted, “If babies had guns, they wouldn’t be aborted.” This race should have been great fun, but Stockman has campaigned mostly by hiding from public view and skipping votes in congress. Going into the candidate protection program is working. One poll shows Stockman could force Cornyn into a runoff.
Below Greg Abbott on the ballot is a quartet of candidates for lieutenant governor, the most reasonable of whom advocates changing the 14th Amendment to prevent anchor babies from attaining citizenship. All of the Republicans seeking this office oppose abortion exceptions for rape and incest and supported keeping a dead woman on life support because she was pregnant. Even on this stage, state Sen. Dan Patrick, who faces good odds to advance to the next round, stands out for calling undocumented immigrants an “illegal invasion.” What’s smart in a Texas Republican primary can be politically fatal in a state that’s 40 percent Hispanic.
We lower ourselves in more ways than one when we go down the ballot to the Algonquin Round Table known as the primary to succeed Abbott as attorney general. The candidates make a point of agreeing that their main job is to continue legally fruitless and patently political lawsuits against the Obama administration. They differ only in emphasis: The frontrunner touts his support for school prayer, damn the constitution. Another claims the allegiance of Ted Cruz. And the last, Barry Smitherman, is on the air with an ad that looks more like a declaration of war against Mexico to protect Texans “from cartels and crimes like human trafficking.”
In almost any other state, Smitherman would occupy an unelectable outpost in the political boondocks. But this is Texas, where his sort of yee-haw radicalism is mainstreamed. Already elected to a different statewide office, Smitherman has spent this campaign claiming that most aborted fetuses “would have voted Republican,” that Texas has “made great progress in becoming an independent nation, an ‘island nation’ if you will,” and that the United Nations Small Arms Treaty endangers 2nd Amendment rights in Texas. He has raised millions of dollars and is polling in the double digits. Pray for us, America.
Smitherman, Patrick, and Stockman are hardly exceptions. Elsewhere on the Republican primary ballot you’ll find a 9/11 Truther, the legislator who mandated that doctors perform sonograms on women seeking abortions to give them the shocking news of their pregnancy, and another state lawmaker who is running to protect, he says, “the gift of oil and gas God has given us.” And if they win their primaries, these walking affronts to logic and reason would be favorites to rule over the second-biggest state in the union. Some days I think Lincoln should have let the Confederacy go.
The nuthouse radicalism these candidates espouse has a significant constituency among the Texas Republican voters, 35 percent of whom support secession. Highlighting the lunatic fringe does not legitimize them. The voters who support them in statistically significant numbers do. To treat these credible candidates as outliers undersells the danger. Texas Republicans have redefined normal so far to the right as to make Genghis Khan look like a squishy moderate.
Rick Perry earned a few attaboys when he condemned Ted Nugent for calling Barack Obama a “subhuman mongrel,” a phrase the Nazis used to justify the mass-murder of Jews. Texas Republicans have defined deviancy so far down that criticizing a phrase Joseph Goebbels coined comes across as refreshing candor. When the votes come in on March 4, we’ll see just how far down that is.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Mainstreaming Radicalism in Texas
By Jason Stanford, February 24, 2014
Hide your wallets and shield the children, because they’re voting down in Texas. Texas Republicans will be testing the strength of the Tea Party as they pick their first post-Rick Perry slate of statewide candidates since the 1980s. But Texas Democrats might end up missing Perry, as there is a decent shot that Republicans will nominate not their best-qualified, most-electable candidates but an entire clown car full of crazypants.
Let’s start at the top of the ticket, where incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, rated the second-most conservative senator in 2012, was apparently not conservative enough to escape a primary challenge. Into that breach leapt Steve Stockman, the congressman who once Tweeted, “If babies had guns, they wouldn’t be aborted.” This race should have been great fun, but Stockman has campaigned mostly by hiding from public view and skipping votes in congress. Going into the candidate protection program is working. One poll shows Stockman could force Cornyn into a runoff.
Below Greg Abbott on the ballot is a quartet of candidates for lieutenant governor, the most reasonable of whom advocates changing the 14th Amendment to prevent anchor babies from attaining citizenship. All of the Republicans seeking this office oppose abortion exceptions for rape and incest and supported keeping a dead woman on life support because she was pregnant. Even on this stage, state Sen. Dan Patrick, who faces good odds to advance to the next round, stands out for calling undocumented immigrants an “illegal invasion.” What’s smart in a Texas Republican primary can be politically fatal in a state that’s 40 percent Hispanic.
We lower ourselves in more ways than one when we go down the ballot to the Algonquin Round Table known as the primary to succeed Abbott as attorney general. The candidates make a point of agreeing that their main job is to continue legally fruitless and patently political lawsuits against the Obama administration. They differ only in emphasis: The frontrunner touts his support for school prayer, damn the constitution. Another claims the allegiance of Ted Cruz. And the last, Barry Smitherman, is on the air with an ad that looks more like a declaration of war against Mexico to protect Texans “from cartels and crimes like human trafficking.”
In almost any other state, Smitherman would occupy an unelectable outpost in the political boondocks. But this is Texas, where his sort of yee-haw radicalism is mainstreamed. Already elected to a different statewide office, Smitherman has spent this campaign claiming that most aborted fetuses “would have voted Republican,” that Texas has “made great progress in becoming an independent nation, an ‘island nation’ if you will,” and that the United Nations Small Arms Treaty endangers 2nd Amendment rights in Texas. He has raised millions of dollars and is polling in the double digits. Pray for us, America.
Smitherman, Patrick, and Stockman are hardly exceptions. Elsewhere on the Republican primary ballot you’ll find a 9/11 Truther, the legislator who mandated that doctors perform sonograms on women seeking abortions to give them the shocking news of their pregnancy, and another state lawmaker who is running to protect, he says, “the gift of oil and gas God has given us.” And if they win their primaries, these walking affronts to logic and reason would be favorites to rule over the second-biggest state in the union. Some days I think Lincoln should have let the Confederacy go.
The nuthouse radicalism these candidates espouse has a significant constituency among the Texas Republican voters, 35 percent of whom support secession. Highlighting the lunatic fringe does not legitimize them. The voters who support them in statistically significant numbers do. To treat these credible candidates as outliers undersells the danger. Texas Republicans have redefined normal so far to the right as to make Genghis Khan look like a squishy moderate.
Rick Perry earned a few attaboys when he condemned Ted Nugent for calling Barack Obama a “subhuman mongrel,” a phrase the Nazis used to justify the mass-murder of Jews. Texas Republicans have defined deviancy so far down that criticizing a phrase Joseph Goebbels coined comes across as refreshing candor. When the votes come in on March 4, we’ll see just how far down that is.
...................................................................................................................................................................
OK, Dems, shape up and work on winning the midterms
...................................................................................................................................................................
Obama is right: Democrats’ ‘meh’ attitude toward midterms is a major problem
By Chris Cillizza, February 23, 2014
President Obama’s speech at a Democratic Governors Association fundraiser in Washington on Thursday night contained a key pearl of political wisdom for his party:
“We know how to win national elections, but all too often it’s during these midterms where we end up getting ourselves into trouble, because I guess we don’t think it’s sexy enough,” Obama said. “But the fact of the matter is, is that that’s where so much of the action is.”
Obama is exactly right. His party — from the donor community to the activists — gets very excited about presidential elections but tends to lose interest (at least when compared with Republicans) in midterm elections. Put another way: Democrats love the Super Bowl; they are less attracted to the mid-season game between two teams they probably haven’t heard of. (Browns-Vikings .?.?. it’s fantastic!)
Young people — a key pillar of the Obama coalition — tend to stray from politics during midterms. Attempts by Democratic operatives in past midterm elections to build outside organizations to battle conservative groups on the airwaves fizzled for lack of interest. And so on and so forth.
That lack of focus/interest has hurt Democrats nationally far more than the average person — or even the average political junkie — understands. The 2010 election is a perfect example of this reality. While most people focus on the 63-seat Republican gain that brought the GOP control of the House, what often gets lost is the remarkable turnover in governorships and state legislatures.
Republicans picked up eight governorships in 2010 — including those in critical swing states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. They also held on to the governorship in Florida. The change at the state legislative level was even more striking — and arguably more impactful.
Before the 2010 election, Democrats held full control in 27 state legislatures while Republicans controlled 14, and eight had split control. (Nebraska has a unicameral legislature.) After the 2010 election, Republicans enjoyed full control in 25 state legislatures, compared with 16 for Democrats. Eight remained split. State legislatures that moved to full Republican control in 2010 included those in large and electorally critical states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan and North Carolina.
Tim Storey, who focuses on state legislative races for the National Conference of State Legislatures wrote in the aftermath of the 2010 midterms that “Republicans have added over 675 seats to their ranks in this election, dramatically surpassing 1994 gains. ... The success by Republicans at the state level could give the GOP a dramatic advantage in the redistricting cycle that will start in just a few short months.”
Boy, was Storey right. Republican gains in 2010 led to a redistricting process nationwide in 2011 that entrenched the Republican House majority, making it very difficult — though not impossible — for Democrats to recapture the chamber any time soon.
And the impact of the 2010 midterm elections at the gubernatorial and state legislative level also had considerable policy consequences. The most high-profile of those was Gov. Scott Walker’s successful fight to outlaw collective bargaining for public-sector unions in Wisconsin. More abortion restrictions were passed in state legislatures between 2011 and 2013 than in the entire previous decade. In the first six months of 2011 alone, six states passed stricter voter ID laws. You get the idea.
There is some evidence that Democratic donors have woken up. The Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic-aligned super PAC designed to run ads in Senate races, collected almost $9 million in 2013. House Majority PAC, a mirror group for House races, raised almost $8 million.
And, because Democrats were so badly swamped in 2010 at the state and local level, the party does have ample opportunity to make gains — with GOP-controlled governorships in Pennsylvania and Florida in deep trouble. Democrats also see opportunities to win back the governor’s mansions in Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, although all three are uphill fights. Forty-six states will hold state legislative elections for 91 chambers, with traditional swing states such as Iowa, Colorado and Nevada likely to hold pitched battles for control this November.
The massive number of contests coupled with the long-lasting importance of winning them — as demonstrated by GOP gains in 2010 — make the November election important for more than just who controls the U.S. House and Senate.
Still, most Democratic strategists — including the current occupant of the White House — acknowledge that state and local contests, particularly in a midterm election, are the one place where the Republican infrastructure (funders + organizations + activists) trumps their own. And that’s a major problem for the party.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Obama is right: Democrats’ ‘meh’ attitude toward midterms is a major problem
By Chris Cillizza, February 23, 2014
President Obama’s speech at a Democratic Governors Association fundraiser in Washington on Thursday night contained a key pearl of political wisdom for his party:
“We know how to win national elections, but all too often it’s during these midterms where we end up getting ourselves into trouble, because I guess we don’t think it’s sexy enough,” Obama said. “But the fact of the matter is, is that that’s where so much of the action is.”
Obama is exactly right. His party — from the donor community to the activists — gets very excited about presidential elections but tends to lose interest (at least when compared with Republicans) in midterm elections. Put another way: Democrats love the Super Bowl; they are less attracted to the mid-season game between two teams they probably haven’t heard of. (Browns-Vikings .?.?. it’s fantastic!)
Young people — a key pillar of the Obama coalition — tend to stray from politics during midterms. Attempts by Democratic operatives in past midterm elections to build outside organizations to battle conservative groups on the airwaves fizzled for lack of interest. And so on and so forth.
That lack of focus/interest has hurt Democrats nationally far more than the average person — or even the average political junkie — understands. The 2010 election is a perfect example of this reality. While most people focus on the 63-seat Republican gain that brought the GOP control of the House, what often gets lost is the remarkable turnover in governorships and state legislatures.
Republicans picked up eight governorships in 2010 — including those in critical swing states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. They also held on to the governorship in Florida. The change at the state legislative level was even more striking — and arguably more impactful.
Before the 2010 election, Democrats held full control in 27 state legislatures while Republicans controlled 14, and eight had split control. (Nebraska has a unicameral legislature.) After the 2010 election, Republicans enjoyed full control in 25 state legislatures, compared with 16 for Democrats. Eight remained split. State legislatures that moved to full Republican control in 2010 included those in large and electorally critical states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan and North Carolina.
Tim Storey, who focuses on state legislative races for the National Conference of State Legislatures wrote in the aftermath of the 2010 midterms that “Republicans have added over 675 seats to their ranks in this election, dramatically surpassing 1994 gains. ... The success by Republicans at the state level could give the GOP a dramatic advantage in the redistricting cycle that will start in just a few short months.”
Boy, was Storey right. Republican gains in 2010 led to a redistricting process nationwide in 2011 that entrenched the Republican House majority, making it very difficult — though not impossible — for Democrats to recapture the chamber any time soon.
And the impact of the 2010 midterm elections at the gubernatorial and state legislative level also had considerable policy consequences. The most high-profile of those was Gov. Scott Walker’s successful fight to outlaw collective bargaining for public-sector unions in Wisconsin. More abortion restrictions were passed in state legislatures between 2011 and 2013 than in the entire previous decade. In the first six months of 2011 alone, six states passed stricter voter ID laws. You get the idea.
There is some evidence that Democratic donors have woken up. The Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic-aligned super PAC designed to run ads in Senate races, collected almost $9 million in 2013. House Majority PAC, a mirror group for House races, raised almost $8 million.
And, because Democrats were so badly swamped in 2010 at the state and local level, the party does have ample opportunity to make gains — with GOP-controlled governorships in Pennsylvania and Florida in deep trouble. Democrats also see opportunities to win back the governor’s mansions in Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, although all three are uphill fights. Forty-six states will hold state legislative elections for 91 chambers, with traditional swing states such as Iowa, Colorado and Nevada likely to hold pitched battles for control this November.
The massive number of contests coupled with the long-lasting importance of winning them — as demonstrated by GOP gains in 2010 — make the November election important for more than just who controls the U.S. House and Senate.
Still, most Democratic strategists — including the current occupant of the White House — acknowledge that state and local contests, particularly in a midterm election, are the one place where the Republican infrastructure (funders + organizations + activists) trumps their own. And that’s a major problem for the party.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)