Breaking news today: Somewhere in America, at this very moment, a right-wing favorite son is preparing to launch a primary campaign in a swing state against an establishment-anointed frontrunner of dubious conservative orthodoxy.
Someday, everyone's going to get sick of writing this story. But not yet!
Joining the conservative revolutionary vanguard this week is former congressman and presidential candidate Tom Tancredo. Probably best known as the Republican Party’s foremost nativist, Tancredo confirmed Thursday that he is preparing to run for governor of Colorado in 2010. The ex-representative told a reporter that he “fully intends to run.”
Tancredo has entertained running for higher office a number of times in recent years, but the general consensus was that the guy is unelectable statewide in Democratic-trending Colorado. (So naturally, he ran for president instead.) He was planning to stay out of the current gubernatorial race, he says, because state Sen. Josh Penry was already in, providing the necessary conservative challenge to the leading Republican candidate, former Rep. Scott McInnis.
McInnis -- much like former Tancredo presidential rival Mitt Romney -- used to be pro-choice. McInnis explained in a recent debate, “You grow older and you have kids and grandkids and friends die and you realize how important life is.” As with Romney, that explanation isn't cutting it for conservative activists, and doubts about McInnis’ credibility were the basis of Penry’s campaign. (One important factor here: Though the state may be going blue, areas of it are bases of the evangelical movement.)
But earlier this week, Penry dropped out of the race, saying he couldn’t raise enough money to win, and didn’t want to wound McInnis if he couldn’t beat him. This opened up a spot on the right for Tancredo, who describes himself as “not a part of the Republican establishment. My allegiance is more to a philosophy than it is to a party." He added, "The Republican Party has lost its soul and it's looking in all the wrong places to find it.”
This is the guy, of course, who suggested the United States should use the Muslim holy city of Mecca as a nuclear hostage against terrorist threats. He described Miami as looking like “a third-world country.” And he said that Justice Sonia Sotomayor is a “member of the Latino KKK,” and, because he appointed her, President Obama “may indeed be a racist.” Tancredo might be the closest thing to a Rep. Pat Buchanan there has ever been -- but he’s running in an increasingly Latino state.
Meanwhile, once-popular Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter has been struggling in the polls. Ritter's surely thrilled to hear that the GOP's still set to have another intra-party ideological throwdown as it picks an opponent for him.
There is a significant amount of buzz today about Bart Gordon's announcement that he will retire from Congress at the end of his term.
Gordon is one of the more conservative members of Nancy Pelosi's House majority. He is in his 13th term representing the 6th District of Tennessee--one of those states where a more than a smattering of counties voted for Barack Obama last year at lower rates than they did five years ago for John Kerry. Gordon is also, not surprisingly, one of the 49 so-called "McCain Democrats"--i.e., a Dem who won in a district that Obama lost. In fact, best I can tell only six "McCain Democrats" won in districts where McCain's margin was wider than the 25 points by which the Arizona senator carried TN-6. (They are, in order: MS’s Gene Taylor, 36 points; TX’s Chet Edwards, 35; OK’s Dan Boren, 31; TN’s Lincoln Davis, 29; ID’s Walt Minnick, 26; and AL’s Bobby Bright, 26)
The Post's fixer, Chris Cilliza, writes: "Gordon has held the central Tennessee 6th district since 1984 but was headed to his most serious race in recent memory in 2010 as national Republicans had aggressively recruited against him due to the GOP lean of the seat....Gordon along with Reps. Brian Baird (Wash.), John Tanner (Tenn.) and Dennis Moore (Kans.) have announced their retirements in recent weeks from seats that will be major Republican targets in 2010."
The Politico's adds this gleeful quote from National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Andy Sere: “Tennessee is now the place where Democrat congressional candidacies go to die. Within a matter of weeks, four Volunteer State Democrats have abandoned their campaigns for Congress because voters there are rejecting the Obama-Pelosi agenda."
Retirements tend to plague two types of congressional parties: Those who are projected to suffer losses, and those who just did. This was the case leading up to 2006 for the GOP majority and again for Republican minority leading up to 2008. With 10 House Dems retiring, and in the kind of seats that only a longtime Blue Dog could hold back a pending Republican takeover from happening, the weight on Chris Van Hollen's shoulders just got a bit heavier today.
Influential liberals have begun arguing a funny kind of liberal Catch-22: The health insurance "public option" is already so diluted, it's no longer worth fighting for. Got it? Because liberal Dems got played by conservative Dems, they should forfeit the entire game.
Crazy as it sounds, it might also be true.
American Prospect co-editor (and Clinton administration health policy advisor) Paul Starr kicked off this line of reasoning in the New York Times Nov. 28. "Liberals should be prepared to give up what is now a mere symbol for changes in the bill that would deliver affordable insurance more effectively and quickly to the millions of Americans who desperately need it," Starr wrote. Starr's preferred changes included moving up the bill's start date from 2014 to asap -- which is practically and politically smart -- and establishing federal "regulatory authority to prevent insurers from engaging in abusive practices and subverting the new rules" that prevent discrimination based on age and preexisting conditions. Those were great ideas but they should have come along with a public option, not instead of one.
But now that a so-called Gang of 10 -- five liberal Senate Dems, five conservative Senate Dems -- has begun meeting to seek a public option compromise, the argument for substance over (public option) symbol is getting real traction. Two "compromise" proposals have been floated: Letting Americans as young as 55 buy into Medicare, and ditching the public option for a proposal to let individuals use their own money, or federal subsidies, to buy into the federal workers' plans administered by the Office of Personnel Management -- the same plans offered to Congress and the president.
Letting older but still Medicare-ineligible people buy into the popular public plan for seniors seems like a clear win. (Although Democrats seem to know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, so without details, it's hard to say that conclusively..) People aged 54 to 65 are the hardest hit by our current system -- they're most likely to be denied care or dropped by insurance carriers for health troubles, all while also being hit hard by layoffs. Plus, adding a big chunk of "younger" folks to Medicare seems like a way to stabilize Medicare as well as -- assuming the experiment is successful -- gradually make a case for "Medicare for all."
The proposal to let the uninsured buy into the same federal programs that Congress uses has political appeal, but even more implementation problems than lowering the age for (possibly self-funded) Medicare eligibility. The biggest problem is that it leaves the private insurance system basically untouched, unless the OPM began negotiating more fiercely.
At any rate, the power of both proposals is in their implementation, so it's too early to declare either of them good or bad. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden told Rachel Maddow Monday night that the liberal Senate negotiators' goal is: "We want to be able to give an ultimatum to the insurance industry: You treat the consumer right or they're going to take their business somewhere else." We'll see.
I'm coming to reluctantly accept the conventional political wisdom that a flawed bill is better than no bill for the Democrats and President Obama, mainly because Democrats have shown no talent for making the GOP pay for its obstructionist tactics. Hard-liners like MSNBC's Ed Schultz -- I was on "The Ed Show" today debating this issue -- seem to think liberal Democrats could make political hay out of the GOP's defeating healthcare reform in 2010. But since they've been unable to make such a case in 2009, I'm not sure why it would work next year.
At any rate, here are a few of the more interesting summaries I read today:
From Jonathan Cohn in the New Republic, on what liberals should demand for compromising on the public option.
Ezra Klein on the same question.
Here's Firedoglake Action's Jon Walker on flaws in the plan to open federal workers' coverage to the uninsured.
And here's Talking Points Memo's frequently updating Health Care Wire.
Republicans may have been working to co-opt the Tea Parties that have been so popular on the right, but fundamentally the movement always had soem anti-GOP feeling at its core. And while the protests may still end up helping Republicans next year, in part by getting conservative voters, to borrow a phrase, fired up and ready to go, there are some signs that the whole thing could still end up badly for the party.
One of those signs is contained in a poll out Monday from Rasmussen. The pollster asked respondents to imagine that "the Tea party organized itself as a political party," then had them choose between generic Democratic, Republican and Tea Party candidates in their district. Not too surprisingly, the Democratic candidate ended up benefitting from the split, with 36 percent of respondents -- a plurality -- saying they'd vote that way. But in a somewhat shocking result, 23 percent said they'd vote for the Tea Party candidate compared to 18 percent who chose the Republican and 22 percent who said they weren't sure.
When just unaffiliated voters are counted, things are worse for the Republicans: 33 percent chose the Tea Party candidate, 25 percent opted for the Democrat and only 12 percent picked the Republican.
Still, things probably aren't nearly as bad for the Republican Party as this poll would indicate. For one thing, it's hard -- impossible, really -- to imagine the Tea Parties organizing into a single political party in time for next year's midterms. (They can't even keep the protest movement from fracturing.) And polls that ask about third parties always find more support for the third party candidate than he or she ends up with come Election Day.
This is, however, another demonstration of how powerful the Tea Party movement could be in a situation where a moderate Republican's running in a swing district. Call it the Doug Hoffman effect, after the conservative candidate who ended up forcing out the GOP's choice in a Congressional special election held in upstate New York earlier this year.
If you worried, even for a second, that the Republican presidential primary might turn boring come 2012, you can rest easy. If nothing else, the possibility that former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., will be jumping into the race should make things interesting.
Santorum has certainly been acting as if he at least wants to keep the door open. He's been visiting early primary states and stumping for other Republicans there, building up a list of favors he could potentially call in down the line. And in an interview with ABC News on Monday, he said he's "absolutely taking a look" at running.
For now, though, Santorum says he's more interested in the short-term future of his party. "I'm doing it in the context that right now, there's, you know, there's very important matters and I want to weigh into those matters as to what the Republican Party stands for in 2010," the former senator said. "I think I've been very clear that, you know, we need to stand foursquare on the traditional values. When I say traditional values people think, ‘Oh that means, you know, social conservatism and the family.' It also means the free enterprise system and that government shouldn't be large and controlling things."
Santorum seems like a long shot to capture the nomination, at best. And were he to get that far, he doesn't seem like much of a general election candidate -- he's just too far to the right for that, especially on social issues. But anything can happen.
When Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter switched parties and became a Democrat, he immediately got the support of his new party's leadership, including President Obama, for his upcoming re-election fight. But now another party leader has given Congressional liberals room to back the man challenging Specter in the Democratic primary next year, Rep. Joe Sestak.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., will be endorsing Sestak during an event in Philadelphia on Monday. It's an important get for Sestak; an endorsement from your average House liberal is nice, but Frank's nod means more.
Because he's one of the most influential men in the House, Frank can bring other members of Congress along with him. At the very least, he gives those among his colleagues who might otherwise worry about angering the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid some cover.
"No one calls it like they see it quite like Barney Frank," Sestak said in a statement provided to Salon. "He's not willing to let Senator Specter get away with running from his record as a loyal Bush Republican. Just like Barney and I, Pennsylvanians won't be fooled by election year conversions."
You might assume that Texas politics would still be a wild and woolly business, full of eccentric candidates who’d pull all kinds of crazy stunts to squeak by each other. Like how Lyndon Johnson lost one stolen election for the Senate and, having learned his lesson, probably stole the next one himself. Or like Gov. Lee "Pass the biscuits, Pappy" O’Daniel, the flour-peddling model and namesake for the politician character in "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" But modern Texas has settled into a situation of relatively quiet Republican dominance. Despite the best efforts of novelty-singer and 2006 independent gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman, there hasn’t been a genuinely close general election for a Senate seat or the governorship since the mid-1990s.
But this year, Texas looks like it’s getting back to its old self. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is going through with a long-anticipated run for governor, which sets her up for a major run-in with incumbent Gov. Rick Perry in the Republican primary. Hutchison has amassed a lot of support from the GOP establishment, but Perry is burnishing his right-wing credentials to a fine gleam. (In case you were wondering, he landed Sarah Palin’s coveted endorsement back in February.)
This weekend’s New York Times Magazine will run a piece by Robert Draper on the race. Frankly, Draper leaves Perry looking like something of a buffoon. This is the governor, after all, who started talking about Texas’ right to secede from the union earlier this year. Perry suggested that Lino Graglia, a conservative legal scholar, would back up his view, so Draper called Graglia. Said the law professor, "No, I don’t think there’s any basis to that claim." In the article, Perry also expresses a fantasy about Sam Houston running for president in 1860 and beating Abraham Lincoln. This would, Perry claims, have prevented the outbreak of Civil War. No word, of course, on slavery.
This guy has actual bizarre policy ideas, though, not just Confederate reenactment fantasies. Perry claims that last year’s economic panic was overblown, and the only necessary response to the financial meltdown was to "cut the spending, cut the taxes," instead of passing any emergency bailout. Judiciously, Draper comments, "Most economists might take issue with the governor’s sentiment. Then again, economists are unlikely to decide the outcome of the Texas primary."
Perry’s flirtation with the far right is the basic rationale for the candidacy of the comparatively moderate Hutchison. As she puts it, "I’m in it to save our party."
And that’s just the issue. Perry, with his talk of states’ 10th Amendment rights and his accusation that the president is “hell-bent on socialism,” is as prime a specimen as you can find of tea party influence on the GOP. He’s a politician who’s trying to go as far as possible into right-wing fantasy world while still actually running a state.
Of course, there are some repercussions for acting like that. Assuming that he survives Hutchison’s challenge, Perry will have to put in a real fight in the general election. His approval numbers are relatively weak, and he’s dragging the GOP one way while Texas’ demographics run the other. As Draper points out, Texas has recently become of the few so-called majority-minority -- that is, majority non-white -- states in the country.
On top of all that, on Friday the Democrats landed their ideal challenger. In Houston Mayor Bill White, who confirmed that he will enter the race, Democrats have easily their strongest gubernatorial candidate since Ann Richards. Hutchison might be the voice of relative sanity in the Republican Party, but it's hard not to wonder what a Perry-White contest would be like.
The Republican comeback of 2010
The midterm elections are only two years away. Can the Democrats defend their gains?
By Thomas Schaller, Salon
Five things the Virginia election results don't mean
Tuesday's Democratic gubernatorial primary might seem like a first glimpse at the 2010 election. But it's not.
By Mike Madden, Salon
The Specter of a shrinking GOP
Arlen Specter's defection likely means a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate majority. Choose your metaphor -- rats, ships, small tents -- but will the last Republican to leave please turn out the light?
By Mike Madden, Salon
Michael Steele is here to stay
Plenty of conservatives want to eighty-six him. But the P. Diddy-loving RNC chair isn't going anywhere.
By Mike Madden, Salon
The Reintroduction of Kirsten Gillibrand
After a shaky first hundred days, the junior senator from New York is trying to start over.
By Stephen Rodrick, New York Magazine
Patrick picks Obama aide for his 2010 campaign
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is tapping David Plouffe, the architect of Barack Obama's presidential campaign, to help run his bid for reelection next year.
By Matt Viser, The Boston Globe
Who can possible govern California?
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s latest ambition is to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger as the governor of California.
By Mark Leibovich, The New York Times
Giuliani out, and maybe in, in 2010.
The Honeymoon's over.... But not the Marriage
What a Difference a Year Makes
