A Solo Dialogue
SLOW ON THE UPTAKE -
The NY Time seems to be slow on the brewing fun in the Republican Florida Senate primary, just now
writing an article on Katherine Harris' possible run for the Senate and the ensuing fun. And they don't mention at all the possibility that
Bob Smith might be in the race.
Oh well, you know where to come for all the important Florida Senate race news!
REPUBLICAN PARADOX -
This is a fascinating post about similarities between Bush and Clinton and their respective effect on the political parties they lead.
ZELL MILLER -
I heard him give his "I am old and comfortable here" answer to why he stays in the Democratic Party for the tenth time this morning, when it finally struck me. Zell probably doesn't get to be on the Imus show, and #4 on the NY Times bestseller list if he changes parties. Let me say on behalf of all Democrats, even those who do fret that the Party is moving too far to the left sometimes: Zell, thanks for all the help, now shut up.
BOB SMITH (R-NH or FL?) -
The former Senator from New Hampshire, who lost in a primary, is now
thinking about running for the open Senate seat in Florida. Smith, you may remember, in addition to quitting the GOP and running a quixotic campaign for President in 2000 before returning to the Party in order to get a committee chairmanship, and being the most anti-abortion member of the Senate, also inserted himself into the Elian Gonzalez affair.
I, for one, hope that Bob Smith, along with Katherine Harris, gets into the race, because it will quickly become the most entertaining primary in the US.
MORE BUSH POLLING NUMBERS -
This time from the
LA Times, and they continue to be mediocre.
Approval at 54% (lowest that he has gotten in this poll); reelect at 42% yes, 46% no; and losing 38% to 42% to the "Generic Democrat". (I really hope we nominate him/her.)
Overall these numbers are in line with other Presidents at about the same time, but represent lows for Junior. If these numbers don't stabilize soon, there will be some real panicking. The most important number that I am watching is the GOP support number. In this poll that number is at 86%, which is healthy, but still a little down. If that number creeps below 80%, then he will be in some very real trouble.
MASS COURT REACTION -
There is a pretty good analysis of what this decision may mean by
Charles Lane in today's Washington Post.
Because the court put the effect of the decision on hold for 6 months, the impact that I thought it may have on 2004 will probably not materialize. But this will be the source of a big national debate soon thereafter. However, my guess is that both Junior and whoever the Dem nominee is will try to avoid too much commentary on this matter during the Presidential race, because the risks outweigh the benefits politically. My prediction is that the first candidate to make this more than just a minor issue will lose.
MORE BAD POLLING NUMBERS FOR JUNIOR -
Although
these are hardly deadly poll numbers, they do continue a downward trend. Whatever bounce he may have gotten from last month's economic numbers appear to have been cancelled out by Iraq.
MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME COURT -
Has ruled that a ban on same sex marriage in unconstitutional. With this decision the entire tenor of the 2004 Presidential campaign has changed. I will have more thoughts after I can read the opinion and digest it.
(UPDATE - You can read the opinion
here.)
2004 SENATE PREDICTIONS -
My early predictions in the 2004 Senate races are now up
here.
DE'JA VU ALL OVER AGAIN -
In a political version of Groundhog Day, Republicans have a good Election Day (or Democrats have a bad day -- depending upon your view), only to have the conventional wisdom upended in Louisiana. In 2002, it was Mary Landreau getting reelected in the Senate after a surprising mid-term election success, in 2003 it is
Kathleen Blanco winning the Gubernatorial race after Democratic losses in Kentucky, Mississippi and California.
What does it mean for 2004? Not very much, except that the Democratic Party is not completely dead in some parts of the South.
SACRIFICES, WE DON'T NEED SOME STINKIN' SACRIFICES -
It is nice that we Americans are "at war", but unlike our grandparents or great-grandparents don't have to make sacrifices at all. We can have tax cuts, and we can have over $2 trillion in government spending. We can fight a war, but not have to change our lifestyle at all. This is never, neverland, and yet the administration wonders why the country is turning against them over Iraq. Dummies, it is because you sold us a short war with limited casualties and a clear victory. Well we aren't getting either. If you are going to bring this country to war -- tell them why and what they have to sacrifice, then if it goes bad for a while they will rally in support, not act confused and upset.
While I am ranting -- the Republicans may talk small government, but the
proof is in the pudding. A 12.5% increase in discretionary spending? It defies logic to think that you can reduce government income and increase government spending.
Where are Newt Gingrich and his merry band of government reducers now?
Oh wait, that's right, they are the government.
RECESS APPOINTMENTS FOR JUDGES-
In light of the extremely gimmicky, and equally ineffective, "talk-a-thon" that the GOP Senators are performing today (you can read about it
here and
here) it may be time to look again at the whole filibustering judges situation.
(By the way, Senator Frist announced that "We need to work efficiently, we need to work with a lot of focus, we need to stay on schedule . . . We can't have unnecessary delays if we are to complete the nation's business." So he promptly scheduled 30 straight hours where the Senate will do nothing but let the Republicans grandstand about judges -- very efficient, Mr. Majority Leader. Am I the only one who finds this incredibly stupid? Anyway, back to the judges thing. [UPDATE - Apparently
Gregg Easterbrook also thinks like I do.])
The ball is clearly in the White House's (and Senate GOPers) court, today's gimmick not withstanding. They can chose to stay with PR stunts like this one, but they risk alienating some of the conservative base and the still don't get their judges confirmed. They can make some compromises by withdrawing some of the most controversial nominees and agreeing to put some Democratic choices on the bench, but then they risk really alienating the conservative base. They could appoint some judges by recess appointments or they could "go nuclear"; declaring by fiat that you only need 51 votes to confirm a federal judge and that filibuster do not apply.
There is strong sentiment among the conservative base to "go nuclear" and let the chips fall where they may. But the response by Democrats would be to bring the Senate to a complete halt, and nothing would get accomplished, plus it would poison a situation that is already as bad as I have ever seen.
So that leaves recess appointments as the only option that will get you some people on the bench, but doesn't completely blow up the entire system. Democrats will howl and some conservatives will complain that this is not enough, but on the whole, it is a compromise that both sides would live with.
There are practical advantages and disadvantages to recess appointments. On the plus side, it allows any President to put whomever he wants in office, no matter how liberal or reactionary, but only for a limited time. It would also allow for a “test drive” after which they may be able to get confirmed. On the negative side, it would really screw up the efficiency of the judiciary, but neither side really cares about the efficiency of the judiciary.
But in the end, nothing will happen, because this is Washington and as Senator Frist is clearly demonstrating, winning style points from your base is more important than solving a problem, especially if such a solution would anger same said base.
TOWN FOR SALE (AND NOT JUST WASHINGTON) -
This is just a very strange story -- a company buys an entire town to protect itself from litigation. Smart perhaps, but very strange.
TMQ -
Gregg Easterbrook's Tuesday Morning Quarterback has found a home (at least temporarily)
here.
POST -
My latest post over at
SportsBlog is up, discussing the NCAA and conference realignment.
THE BIG NEWS FROM YESTERDAY -
Surprisingly, the biggest political news from yesterday was not the elections, or even the Democratic debate in Boston, but was the news that Howard Dean will, pending the approval of his supporters, opt out of federal financing for the primary election.
In an email sent to supporters he stated:
I have always been committed to public financing. But the federal matching funds law, though it was meant to provide an incentive for ordinary Americans to participate in the funding of our elections, is doing the opposite of what it intended. It could end up punishing a movement that has raised more from ordinary Americans than any campaign in history, while rewarding the campaign that has blatantly abused both the spirit and intent of campaign finance, selling off piece after piece
of our country.
You can read the full letter to supporters
here.
Dean will allow his supporters to vote on the decision.
The announcement gets full court press coverage from the
Times, the
Post and the
AP.
I for one will vote to abandon the finance system. (Even though I don't know if I can call myself a "supporter", but heck he asked me.)
The campaign finance system is broke, and I doubt that McCain-Feingold will fix it, even if it survives the Supreme Court. It is time to blow up the system, and the only way to do that is for campaigns to opt out, like Junior did for the primary in 2000.
Dean is in a unique position because of his fundraising position, but I would encourage all of the Democratic candidates to follow his lead. Any candidate who does not opt out will be killing themselves in the general election, because they will have very little money left to spend (due to spending restrictions that come along with the federal matching funds) after the primaries. So from March to August, Junior would have his $180 millions dollars to spend, and the Democratic nominee will have next to nothing.
What Dean has done isn't about the primary, it is all bout the general election. It is also a move a frontrunner should make. If I were advising Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman and Gephardt, I would tell them to do the same thing, even though it would mean a little less money now. But if they win, it would mean they will have a more balanced fight in the spring and summer.
Also of note is the fact that Dean is asking his supporters for their advice via the Internet. Once again this guy is on the cutting edge of technology, and this helps explain why he has such solid support, compared with the other candidates.
ELECTION DAY RECAP -
I was four for four on my predictions last night (although I didn't really go out on a limb on any of them).
It is difficult to make too much national significance out of the limited voting that occurred yesterday. On a very basic level, the GOP continues to strengthen itself in the South, and the Democrats, with victories in Philadelphia mayor and New Jersey legislature, are consolidating their strength in the Northeast. With the possible exception of the NJ races, these were local races dominated by local issues. (The NJ results were weird because Governor McGreevey's popularity is way down, yet the Democrats were able to pick up seats -- but you can't extrapolate any large significance from just one state.)
It will be hard for the President's people to contend that the GOP's success in the South is a rousing vote of confidence for Junior when that same day
this Marist poll came out that has his reelect number at only 38%, with 44% saying that they will vote for someone else.
If anything, these results reinforce that we are still a 50/50 nation, with the strongest GOP support down South and the greatest Democratic backing in the Northeast.
PREDICTIONS FOR TODAY'S ELECTIONS -
My predictions for today's races:
Kentucky - Fletcher(R) over Chandler (D) - But Chandler has run as good a race as could be expected in these circumstances, and I think we will hear from him again.
Mississippi - Barbour (R) over Musgrove (D) - Hard for any Democrat to win in the South when the GOP makes a concerted effort and doesn't have scandal hanging over them.
Louisiana - I don't expect either Jindal or Blanco to get over 50%, so look for a run off, which will give Blanco a slight advantage.
Danbury, CT - Look for people to triumph over politics (which results in progress) and a Mark Boughton (R) win.
MISSISSIPPI GOVERNOR -
The last poll I can find has Ronnie Musgrove up 42-41, well within the margin of error, but prior polls had Haley Barbour up slightly at 50-45. (These polls were done by different sources.)
I still think that this is Barbour's race to lose, but Musgrove has run a pretty good campaign from what I can tell.
Among the people who have campaigned for Haley are President Bush, who visited the state twice most recently Saturday, Vice President Cheney, Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Kansas senator Bob Dole, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, country music stars the Gatlin Brothers and NASCAR driver Darrell Waltrip.
Needless to say, no big name Democrats are allowed inside the borders to campaign for Musgrove.
Musgrove would be a real shot in the arm to Democratic hopes of not having another bad election night.
GRAHAM (D-FL) NOT TO SEEK REELECTION -
This decision kills any democratic hopes of not losing seats in the Senate next election.
By the way - I will have updated Senate predictions by the end of the week.
