They may forget what you said, but they will never forget how you make them feel.
Carol Buchner
Election Watch
The RCP House GOP projections of lean/likely/safe lead widened by 2 to 222-173 as 2 New England seats (in Maine and Rhode Island) shifted from lean-Dem to toss up, raising the number of toss ups back up to 40, all but 2 of which are currently Democratic-led seats. In particular, RI-1, currently held by retiring, scandal-prone Patrick Kennedy, has seen John Loughlin (R) close all but 2 out of an initial 23-point lead by Democrat David Cicilline in a Scott Brown-like surge. The New England surge is notable because of a stunning wipeout in the 2008 election which left New England without a Republican (among 22 House members) for the first time since the nineteenth century. Shays (CT) was the sole survivor in 2006 (when 2 Connecticut and 2 New Hampshire Republicans were ousted). This year one of the 2 New Hampshire is leaning-GOP, the other remains in play (former Congressman Bass had been leading until the most recent poll), MA-10 (where Brown got 60% of the vote) is competitive, and two Connecticut races are rated toss ups. This means potentially a pickup of up to 7 seats (not counting the uphill battle to retire Barney Frank).
There are some lessons here for the Tea Party Express; first and most importantly, sniping more pragmatic/moderate candidates (e.g., Mike Castle, Bob Bennett and Lisa Murkowski) was extremely counterproductive. If the Democrats had fielded a stronger candidate in Florida and/or Crist had adopted a more Murkowski-style (independent Republican) campaign, Rubio would be in big trouble. The Tea Party gained nothing in Utah, because that seat would have been won by any Republican. Rand Paul can probably attribute a more comfortable margin to a critical faux pas late in the race by Attorney General Conway. Sharron Angle and Ken Buck may pull out their elections, but their challengers would have clinched the election.
The story was that the Tea Party represented a mainstream movement including disaffected Democrats and independents. What we have seen is more of an ideological Tea Party Express and/or Sarah Palin trying to knock off moderate Republicans; the only reason that Senate California and New Hampshire seats are still in play (not to mention the Maryland governor's seat) is because more ideological candidates were defeated.
I'm hearing warnings from the ideologues that they'll be sniping more moderate Republicans. No one bothered noticing that Congressman Castle's pragmatic Republicanism was compatible with Scott Brown's, but Mike Castle's vote is less important than Scott Brown's? We have seen bizarre, idiosyncratic issues surface in Kentucky, Delaware, Alaska, Nevada, West Virginia and South Carolina races that rarely happen with vetted, experienced candidates. There was a reason the Harry Reid camp was ecstatic about Sharron Angle's nomination, just as the Chris Coon's campaign celebrated going from a 15-point underdog to a 20-point favorite.
Congressmen Mark Kirk and Mike Castle have particularly drawn fire for votes on cap-and-trade, but one should never underestimate the political impact of environmental concerns in coastal areas (in Kirk's case, Lake Michigan). Unfortunately, the Tea Party Express did not recognize the reality of earlier Tea Party guidelines which were more flexible in terms of a political agenda.
I don't think the Tea Party Express took the right approach to the election; sniping at Republicans largely in agreement with fiscal restraint (there's a big difference between $500B and $1.4T deficits) was counterproductive. Look at typical tax-and-spender Democrats receiving modest competition (I have to reluctantly include my favorite in the Maryland US Senate race, Eric Wargotz, whom I still haven't seen in a TV commercial during the general campaign): both New York Senate seats, Vermont, Maryland, and Hawaii. Why wasn't the Tea Party Express trying to snipe incumbent progressives and replace them with moderate or conservative Democrats which would have been a far more effective use of their time and resources?
What the Tea Party Express failed to grasp is that over the next 2 years, Obama retains the veto as a weapon. I think Obama will cut a budget deal with Republicans rather than hand trillion-dollar deficits to his 2012 race opponent on a silver platter, but the GOP needs to avoid a Gingrich-style confrontation. The point is, does anyone really believe that ideologues like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul are going to lead in coming to a necessary compromise with a sitting President wielding a veto? I find it far more likely they'll see any compromise as a sellout and vote against it. We need pragmatic legislators, with negotiation skills, whom are able to strike the best deal possible with a progressive President.
It's Dude-in-Chief to You, Jon...
No, Obama didn't say "we are the ones whom delivered what we've been waiting for", but you get the same old same old political spin about "comprehensive" health/financial "reform". Somehow yet another interview fails to question Obama why he insists all his problems are due to "greedy Wall Street" but his "reform" doesn't address the companies that have most fed off the federal teat--i.e., AIG, the auto makers, and the GSE's, when only a tiny fraction of his $860B stimulus plan, his "saving us from another Depression", had been spent by the time that government economists had declared the recession over, and when his health care "reform" not only aggravates inflationary pressures in the sector but is paid for by politically-promised, unprecedented cuts in Medicare which is in and of itself all but insolvent?
Jon Stewart let him get away with lame defenses of job growth in the private sector that don't even reach the minimum number of 120,000 or so just to accommodate new job seekers in the market. How many times is Obama going to try to drive that car, before the repo man from China tows it out of the ditch? What's his winning motto for 2012: "yes, we can...spend your money"? Why hasn't the President acted sooner on tax cuts due to expire in 2 months? What has he specifically done to foster broad-based business growth?
No, I really didn't expect much more than a fawning interview from a progressive comedian like Jon Stewart. But I will point out that Obama has spent more time making unprecedented visits to shows like The View and the Daily Show than negotiating with Republicans. And what has he said that we haven't already heard ad nauseam dozens of times? He still doesn't think after 30 speeches on health care the American people don't buy his health care program; he just hasn't found the right words--it certainly can't be they actually don't like his program... It's rather like Joy Behar trying to explain to The View audience that her use of the term 'bitch' with respect to Sharron Angle was actually a term of endearment she uses with her closest friends...
But letting Jon Stewart at one point get away with calling him "dude"? Well, I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that Obama didn't say, "Don't call me 'dude'; call me by my title: Mr. President. I worked so hard to earn that title..."
Spoof on the Dems via "The Real Housewives of Washington DC"
Political Humor
A few originals:
- The Obama's have finally installed family-safe filters on their cable. It's not just that Bristol Palin is on "Dancing With the Stars" and Sarah Palin's innumerable appearances as a contributor on Fox News Channel; these days you can't even trust TLC, with their new series, "Sarah Palin's Alaska".
- I'm not saying incumbent Alaska US Senator and Republican write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski is rethinking her stand on education, but some constituents are misspelling her surname 'Mercowsky'. And they're her relatives....
Henry Mancini, "Love Theme from Romeo and Juliet"
