2012 Elections

Deval Patrick: Obama’s canary in the coal mine?

If the Massachusetts governor loses this fall, will it be an omen for the president in 2012?

President Barack Obama and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick

It’s understandable why the Washington Post would write that Deval Patrick’s reelection campaign this fall is  ”a test case” for Barack Obama’s in 2012.

After all, the two men attained sudden national prominence at roughly the same time a few years ago, each sounding the same themes of hope, change and unity and each activating large grass-roots armies. Obama was only the third African-American to win a Senate seat when he was elected in 2004, while Patrick in 2006 became only the second African-American in history to win a governorship. And the political trajectory of Obama’s first term as president (at least so far) matches up with Patrick’s: enormous expectations and high early approval ratings that quickly gave way to popular discontent and middling poll numbers.

Patrick, of course, is two years farther along than Obama, which means he’s facing the voters this fall. Hence, the “test case” theme that you can expect to hear a lot about this fall.  As the Post noted today, “Many of the top strategists in Obama’s political circle are helping to orchestrate Patrick’s reelection campaign, and they are looking to his contest for clues to what might work for the president in 2012.” Or, as Democratic strategist Mary Ann Marsh put it to Politico a few months back, if Patrick loses, “many people would say, ‘This is the way to try to beat Barack Obama in 2012.’”

There’s a problem with this, though: Patrick is running in a midterm election year in which the political climate — thanks in no small part to the economy — is poisoned against his party. His example will only really be telling if a similar climate prevails in ’12.

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t plenty of non-national factors that have contributed to Patrick’s predicament. He’s shot himself in the foot several times. And governors are simply more liberated from national partisan tides than, say, senators. During the Gingrich/Bush era in Washington (1995-2009) voters in Massachusetts were supremely hostile to GOP candidates for federal office. In the first election after the ’94 GOP revolution, the state’s two Republican congressmen — Peter Blute and Peter Torkildsen — were voted out, and the Bay State hasn’t sent a Republican to the House since then. But in that same period, the state elected two Republican governors, Argeo “Paul” Cellucci and Mitt Romney. In other words, Patrick won’t just be a victim of the national climate if he loses in November.

Still, the national climate, particularly when it’s slanted so strongly against one party, does loom large in gubernatorial races. It’s no coincidence, for instance, that Romney’s 2002 win came in a Republican year — one that saw GOP governors elected in blue states like Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland and Hawaii. There were individual factors in all of those races, yes, but the national mood was key to making swing voters in those states receptive to the GOP candidates — and putting them over the top. Similarly, it’s no coincidence that the record-shattering 71 percent that Republican William Weld posted in his 1994 gubernatorial reelection came in the year of the GOP revolution. Weld would have won in any year, yes, but not necessarily by that margin. With swing voters, even in blue states like Massachusetts, far more receptive to voting for Republican candidates than they’ve been in a long time this year, the national climate could swing numerous close gubernatorial contests — like Massachusetts’ — to the GOP.

But the idea that that means much for ’12 is pretty hard to swallow. It’s worth remembering that 15 states that elected Republican governors in 1994 ended up voting for Bill Clinton in 1996. If Patrick loses a close race this fall, it will be possible to connect the outcome to voters’ frustration with Obama and the Democrats, which is driven by the economy.  But all that will tell us about ’12 is what we’ve known all along: that if the economy is still weak then, Obama will be in trouble.

Steve Kornacki

Steve Kornacki writes about politics for Salon. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki

Monday link dump: Keynesian kings & socialist queens

North Korea joins Twitter, reasonable Republicans find a doomed 2012 candidate, and the history of assimilation

Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

“Big John” Cornyn: Mosque issue will hurt Obama

Junior Texas senator predicts that the President's tolerance stance will be used by Republicans in 2010 elections

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican senator is suggesting there could be political fallout from President Barack Obama’s remarks about building a mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks in New York City.

Texas Sen. John Cornyn (KOHR’-nihn) says Obama is “disconnected from mainstream America” and that voters this fall will “render their verdict.” Cornyn leads the GOP’s Senate campaign committee.

Obama has said that religious freedom allows the mosque to be built. But he says he’s not commenting on “the wisdom” of building a mosque two blocks from ground zero.

Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island says the economy will remain the dominant election issue.

The senators appeared on “Fox News Sunday.”

 

Who’s funding Newt Gingrich?

Oil companies, coal companies and real estate barons shell out big dollars for Gingrich's political committee

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife told Esquire that the former speaker cares more about getting rich than running for president. So we decided to take a closer look at who is funding Gingrich’s primary political committee, a 527 group called American Solutions for Winning the Future. A significant chunk of its funding comes from oil and gas and coal companies and wealthy real estate evelopers, with the rest raised in $100 and $200 increments from conservatives around the country, according to the group’s IRS filings.

American Solutions doesn’t appear to pay Gingrich a direct salary, but it has spent millions on private jets to ferry him and his staff around the country and generally allow him to promote his books and movies. (There are other groups, like Gingrich’s for-profit Center for Health Transformation, that may be paying Gingrich directly, but such information is private.) So far this election cycle, American Solutions has taken in over $20 million, and poured much of it back into fundraising expenses.

We’ve taken a look at the IRS forms that American Solutions files periodically showing what’s coming in and what’s going out. Here are some of the group’s biggest funders:

  • American Electric Power: Michael Morris, the CEO of this Ohio-based power giant, gave $100,000 last year. Along with generating lots of electricity, the company operates the nation’s largest power transmission network, operating over much of the East Coast and Midwest.
  • Plains Exploration and Production Co.: This Houston-based oil and gas company that operates in the Gulf gave $100,000.
  • Workforce Fairness Institute: A Washington, D.C.-based anti-union pressure group, the institute’s own source of funding is not known. It gave $150,000 to Gingrich’s organization this cycle. Its website says it is “funded by and advocates on behalf of business owners who enjoy good working relationships with their employees, and would like to maintain those good relationships without the unfair interference of government bureaucrats, union organizers and special interests.” Mark McKinnon, the longtime GOP operative and Bush aide, has been a spokesman for the institute.
  • Hubbard Broadcasting: Stanley Hubbard, a billionaire GOP donor from Minnesota, gave Gingrich’s group $100,000. He owns radio and TV stations in several states as well as ReelzChannel, a movie news channels on cable.
  •  Devon Energy: A huge Oklahoma-based oil and gas production company, it has given American Solutions $250,000.
  • Arch Coal: Based in St. Louis, Arch boasts it provides 16 percent of America’s coal supply from 11 mining complexes around the country. That makes it the second largest coal producer in the country. It gave Gingrich $100,000.
  • Crow Holdings: A privately held Dallas real estate investment firm, it gave Gingrich’s group a whopping $350,000. Harlan Crow, son of the late real estate investor Trammell Crow, is active in a range of conservative causes including the Club for Growth and the American Enterprise Institute. He is a patron of Clarence Thomas and once gave the justice a Bible owned by Frederick Douglass worth $19,000.

Unsurprisingly, given the contributor list, American Solutions has run national TV ads opposing the cap-and-trade bill. But more than anything, the group is a vehicle for self-promotion for Gingrich, one that he benefits from financially.

This is particularly notable because Gingrich struggled through much of his earlier career with financial problems. Speaking to Esquire, his ex-wife Marianne recounted one story when she and Newt, burdened with child support payments and other debts, didn’t have $10 to buy a charity ticket. Then in 1997, when he was fined $300,000 by the House for ethical lapses — some involved financial shenanigans with his network of charities — he simply didn’t have the money to pay. This led to an embarrassing episode in which he was going to get a loan from Bob Dole to pay the fine before scrapping the arrangement when it came under scrutiny.

So if what Gingrich really cares about is making money, as his ex-wife contends, American Solutions is a significant accomplishment.

Continue Reading Close
Justin Elliott

Justin Elliott is a reporter for ProPublica. You can follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin

Tricky Mitt: Romney’s mosque calculations

Don't think it was an accident that he waited more than three weeks to say anything about the "ground zero mosque"

FILE PHOTO 9AUG74 - Former U.S. President Richard M. Nixon gives his farewell speech to members of his cabinet and staff in the East Room of the White House, following his resignation August 9, 1974. On Monday it will be 25 years since Nixon resigned his office, or "resigned in disgrace" as many of the news accounts would say, as it became clear the House of Representatives would impeach him for Watergate misdeeds and the Senate would follow by convicting him. In the quarter century since that day, historians, politicians and Nixon himself until he died on April 22, 1994, have argued his legacy and how his resignation - the first by an American president - changed the highest office in the land. Date changed BM/JDP(Credit: © Str Old / Reuters)

Ben Smith has a helpful post documenting the likely 2012 GOP contenders’ public statements on the “ground zero mosque.” Not surprisingly, none of them are for it. What is surprising, though, is how long it took Mitt Romney to express his opposition.

It was, after all, more than three weeks ago that Sarah Palin called on “peace-seeking Muslims” to “refudiate” the planned community center — a pronouncement that spurred Newt Gingrich to declare that the Cordoba House shouldn’t be built until churches are constructed in Saudi Arabia. Others have followed suit, and the political incentive is obvious: As I wrote on Sunday, Islamophobia binds the GOP’s voters together today like anti-communism did a generation or two ago.  The mosque is an easy red meat issue for any Republican thinking ahead to Iowa and South Carolina.

And yet, Mitt has been AWOL from the pile-on. We asked his spokesman for a comment more than a week ago, and never heard back. Smith, apparently, had a similar experience. Only after his piece went up this morning did Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s press guy, say that his boss opposes the mosque because of “the wishes of the families of the deceased and the potential for extremists to use the mosque for global recruiting and propaganda.”

At first glance, it seems like Team Romney may have been caught sleeping. But I doubt that’s what’s going on. Romney has been pursuing the presidency with single-minded determination since 2004, when he began junking the moderate image he’d used to win election as Massachusetts’ governor in 2002 and rebranding himself as a fire-breathing conservative.

Back then, Mitt had a lot of compensating to do. He’d left an extensive paper (and video) trail of cultural liberalism (and a boast that he’d voted for a Democrat for president) in the Bay State. So his strategy was simple: get as far to to the right as possible and do it as quickly and loudly as possible on every issue that resonates with the national GOP electorate — abortion, gay rights, immigration and so on. Past positions be damned. If doing so threatened to make him a tougher general election sell — well, he’d deal with that when he got there. And he’d never get there if he couldn’t overcome the skepticism of the GOP’s very conservative base. This was the Mitt who, for instance, called for the wiretapping of mosques in 2005.

It worked well enough in 2008. Romney won a lot of admirers, briefly emerged as the GOP front-runner, then finished in second place. Which was fine with him: By February ’08, when he dropped out, it was clear that the fall campaign would be a very heavy lift for any GOP nominee. So finishing second in the primaries and establishing himself as the next-in-line candidate for ’12 wasn’t a bad consolation prize.

And now, as ’12 approaches, the challenge is a little different for Mitt. His Massachusetts past is more distant. There’s still skepticism on the right about his commitment to the cause (and there always will be), but it’s not as intense. He has, in other words, just a little more wiggle room — more of an opening to balance general election calculations with GOP primary imperatives.

Here, a parallel can be drawn to Richard Nixon, like Mitt an ideological chameleon with an overpowering drive to claim the White House. Back in 1966, when a midterm election with eerily similar dynamics to this year’s, was playing out, Nixon was furiously positioning himself for the ’68 presidential race. With riots breaking out in cities and Vietnam protests growing in size and volume, the major issue, by far, was “law and order.” With little subtlety, GOP candidates were playing on white America’s racial fears and resentments, peeling off the white ethnic base of the Democratic Party. It was a political gold mine — the GOP ended up picking up 47 House seats. But, as Rick Perlstein points out in “Nixonland,” Nixon — who kept up a frantic schedule campaigning with GOP candidates all year — tried hard to avoid talking about “the hottest Republican issue”:

It served a political requirement. What Richard Nixon was campaigning for now was respectability. Yes, law and order was breaking down; the crime rate was making ordinary Americans terrified to walk the streets; “the cities” were becoming wastelands. But others were doing just fine tying these facts to Lyndon Johnson, softening him up for 1968: George Wallace, Ronald Reagan, dozens of lesser figures. There was no percentage for Nixon in adding to the pile-on. The task now was making sure the pundits and the papers no longer considered the idea of him competing for the presidency as a joke. The key to that was raising his stature.

I’d chalk up Mitt’s mosque reluctance to the same basic calculation. Sure, he’s staked out his share of embarrassing red-meat positions this year; he only has so much wiggle room, after all. But where’s the percentage for him in the mosque issue? The Mitt of  2006 and 2007 would have been all over it, but in 2010, he has a little less to prove to the right. Which made staying out of the fight a chance for Romney to gain a subtle stature advantage over the rest of the field. Of course, once the media started asking questions about his silence, he had no choice but to dive in, lest the GOP’s Islamophobic base think he was going soft on Muslims. But I’d say Mitt’s silence these past few weeks was quite intentional.

Continue Reading Close
Steve Kornacki

Steve Kornacki writes about politics for Salon. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki

Ex-wife: Newt’s too busy getting rich to run for president

A decade after Newt dumped her, Marianne Gingrich gives a wide-ranging, eye-opening interview to Esquire

Former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich speaks during a fundraising breakfast for Iowa Congressional candidate Brad Zaun, Monday, July 12, 2010, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)(Credit: AP)

Esquire’s John H. Richardson has an epic profile of Newt Gingrich that features extensive interviews with Marianne Gingrich, Newt’s second wife and the woman he divorced in 2000 to marry an aide who is 23 years his junior.

Despite the recent hype, Marianne does not believe Newt is really serious about running for president. Why not? He’s too busy making lots and lots of money. Here’s Esquire:

He wants to run for president.

She gives a jaundiced look. “There’s no way,” she says. She thinks he made a choice long ago between doing the right thing and getting rich, and when you make those choices, you foreclose other ones. “He could have been president. But when you try and change your history too much, and try and recolor it because you don’t like the way it was or you want it to be different to prove something new … you lose touch with who you really are. You lose your way.”

So how is Newt making all this money?  With a network of non-profit and for-profit groups that are financed by industry and are devoted above all to promoting Gingrich himself. It turns out this very much resembles the setup that got Gingrich fined $300,000 by the House ethics committee in the 1990s. A sample:

Then there’s the Center for Health Transformation, another group Gingrich runs. On its Web site, it describes its work in Georgia as a model for all its efforts and says the “cornerstone” of its work is a group called Bridges to Excellence. But CHT “had zero role in creating Bridges to Excellence,” says François de Brantes, the group’s CEO. CHT helped with organization for one year and hasn’t been associated with them since 2008. The CHT Web site also singles out the “Healthy Georgia Diabetes and Obesity Project” as its major diabetes effort, but that was news to the American Diabetes Association. “We were not able to find any information about this,” says the ADA’s communications director, Colleen Fogarty. “The person that was in contact with them is no longer here.” It turns out that the CHT is a for-profit outfit that charges big health insurers like Blue Cross and Blue Shield up to $200,000 a year for access to the mind of Newt Gingrich.

One of Gingrich’s former advisors told The Washington Post that he’s “making more money than he ever thought possible, and doesn’t have to tell everybody where it’s coming from.”

 Other highlights: Marianne claims, among other things, that Gingrich started dating his first wife, his high school geometry teacher, when he was 16 — not 18, as he has said.

The whole profile is definitely worth a read.

Continue Reading Close
Justin Elliott

Justin Elliott is a reporter for ProPublica. You can follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin

Page 181 of 200 in 2012 Elections