Moderator: Super Moderators
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/ ... e_day.html
November 22, 2010
Bonus Quote of the Day
"I sat next to her once, thought she was beautiful, and I think she's very happy in Alaska. And I hope she'll stay there."
-- Former First Lady Barbara Bush, in a CNN interview, giving her opinion on Sarah Palin.
Rest of Article at:
November 22, 2010 - American Voters Could Deny Obama Reelection, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; President Tied With Romney, Huckabee But Leads Palin
President Barack Obama does not deserve a second term, American voters say 49 - 43 percent, and he is in a statistical dead heat with possible Republican challengers Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. President Obama leads Sarah Palin 48 - 40 percent.
Romney, Huckabee, Palin and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich are bunched together when Republican voters are asked who they prefer for the GOP's 2012 presidential nomination, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University survey finds.
Democratic voters say 64 - 27 percent they do not want anyone to challenge President Obama for their party's nomination in 2012.
"The Democratic base remains squarely behind President Barack Obama when it comes to his re-election, but his weakness among independent voters at this point makes his 2012 election prospects uncertain," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
"The demographic splits in the electorate when voters are asked whether the president deserves a second term is a roadmap for his re-election strategists on how they need to focus their appeal. Only 39 percent of men, 34 percent of whites, 35 percent of political independents and 38 percent of those over age 35 think he deserves four more years in the Oval Office."
In trial heats for 2012, former Massachusetts Gov. Romney receives 45 percent to 44 percent for Obama, while the president gets 46 percent to 44 percent for Mr. Huckabee. Matched against Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a virtual unknown to most voters, the president leads 45 - 36 percent.
"At this point, former Alaska Gov. Palin runs the worst against President Obama. Daniels is essentially a generic Republican because of his anonymity to most voters. Obama only gets 45 percent against him while he gets 48 percent against Ms. Palin," said Brown. "She is very unpopular among independents and although she recently said she thought she could defeat Obama, the data does not now necessarily support that assertion." . . .
Complete Article at:
Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 11/23/2010
Sarah Palin's Mike Huckabee problem
By Aaron Blake and Felicia Sonmez
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said Monday that Sarah Palin might well "run away" with the Republican nomination for president.
It's funny Huckabee should say such a thing, because he's got a lot of say over whether she does just that. And it has to do with whether he even runs in the first place.
As potential 2012 candidates weigh their prospects and determine their plans for the next presidential race, one thing is clear: that Huckabee and Palin inhabit largely the same space -- i.e. they each would perform well without the other, but they might undercut each other if they are in the same race.
There is currently a four-candidate top-tier consisting of Palin, Huckabee, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. And indeed, a new Quinnipiac University poll on Monday showed the four of them all huddled between 15 and 19 percent of the vote.
But while Huckabee and Gingrich have pretty broad support, the base of support for Huckabee and Palin is readily apparent, and for both of them, it starts with born-again evangelicals. The two of them combine for 46 percent of that vote, compared to just 26 percent for Gingrich and Romney. Palin and Huckabee are also the top two vote-getters among women and people without college degrees.
So why is that important? Because if any of the four frontrunners seems least likely to run for president, it would be Huckabee. And, if he doesn't take the plunge, where is his 26 percent share of evangelicals going to go? Where is his 18 percent share of women going? Who gets his 17 percent share of those without college degrees?
The obvious answer to all three of those questions is Palin. Gingrich has been married three times and has some baggage to show for it. Romney's ability to connect with rural, Christian voters, meanwhile, remains suspect because of his Mormonism.
It's hard to see Palin having a path to victory that doesn't include Iowa or South Carolina, and both of those early states happened to be Huckabee's strongest in 2008 (he won Iowa and came in second in the Palmetto State).
At a speech Monday in the Hawkeye State, Huckabee went on to joke that, if he does run, "I prefer she not and that she endorse me."
He's only half kidding. They each stand to lose plenty by seeing the other one in the race. . . .
Rest of Article at:
Latino leaders swirl around idea of Tequila Party
By Delen Goldberg
Sunday, Nov. 28, 2010 | 2 a.m.
Latino leaders in Nevada and nationwide are quietly debating whether to sever their traditional Democratic ties and form an independent grass-roots political group.
The idea, born of frustration over the party’s inaction on immigration reform and fears that as a voting bloc they’re a political afterthought, Latino leaders have discussed the idea among themselves locally and in conference calls with colleagues across the country.
The unlikely model for the movement they would like to launch is the Tea Party — not in substance, of course, but in its grass-roots organizational style. Acknowledging the source of their inspiration, Latino leaders have dubbed the proposed movement the “Tequila Party.”
These Hispanic leaders have noticed that while the Tea Party has had spotty electoral success, it has called attention to its concerns and values and put the establishment on notice.
“I don’t know if it’s going to happen, but there’s talk,” said Fernando Romero, president of the nonpartisan Hispanics in Politics, Nevada’s oldest Hispanic political group. “There’s discussion about empowerment of the Latino vote.”
Hispanics have proved to be a powerful political force in Nevada and nationally. They were instrumental in electing President Barack Obama and are credited with saving Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s re-election this month. In Nevada, Latinos accounted for 15 percent of voters in 2008 and a record 16 percent in this month’s midterm elections.
Despite, or perhaps because of, their robust turnout, many Latinos have become disillusioned with party politics. Their efforts haven’t led to the changes in policy they would like to see.
Hispanic Republicans complain that party officials court their vote but often advocate policies that marginalize the community.
For example, Gov.-elect Brian Sandoval, the state’s first Hispanic governor, reached out to Latino voters while also embracing Arizona’s controversial immigration law. GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle aired campaign ads on illegal immigration that portrayed Mexicans as menacing criminals. A spokeswoman for Angle, who is also the chairwoman of the Nevada Republican Hispanic Caucus, was put in the awkward position of denouncing her own candidate’s ads.
Latino Democrats, on the other hand, wonder if their support is taken for granted. They express frustration and anger at the lack of movement on immigration and education reform in Washington. They bristle at being underrepresented in the state Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee. Community organizers complain they are recognized only near the end of campaigns, when polls are tight and their votes are needed.
“There’s a feeling that Democrats aren’t listening,” said Louis DeSipio, a Chicano studies and political science professor at the University of California, Irvine.
Congress’ actions over the next month could decide the fate of the burgeoning Tequila Party. If comprehensive immigration reform is shelved again, some Hispanics will likely decide to strike out on their own.
“It would definitely induce us,” Romero said. “We would have to do something at that point to get ready for 2012.” . . .
Rest of Article at:
The Race To The Top
By Josh Kraushaar
November 28, 2010 | 9:23 AM
Here's a statistic to pore over this Thanksgiving weekend: In 2011, there will be more Republican minorities holding governorships, Senate seats and representing majority-white House districts than Democrats.
There are only 18 elected officials who fit that category -- 10 Republican, eight Democratic. Republicans got a major diversity boost from the midterms, seeing their ranks of minorities expand from one (Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal) to nine, with the elections of Govs.-elect Susana Martinez (R-N.M.), Nikki Haley (R-S.C.), Brian Sandoval (R-Nev.), Sen.-elect Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Reps.-elect Jaime Herrera (R-Wash.), Bill Flores (R-Texas), Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), Allen West (R-Fla.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.).
Gov. Deval Patrick (D-Mass.) heads the Democratic list of minority elected officials winning white voters, along with Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) -- and Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), Andre Carson (D-Ind.) and David Wu (D-Ore.).
Overall, the clear majority of minorities in Congress are Democrats. But the numbers above reflect an inconvenient reality that, even with their much more diverse caucus, Democrats face similar challenges as Republicans in recruiting, nominating and electing minority candidates to statewide office and in suburban and rural districts that are majority-white. The vast majority of Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus members hail from urban districts where it doesn't require a crossover vote to win, or represent gerrymandered seats designed to elect a minority member of Congress. They are markedly more liberal than the average Democrat, no less the average voter, making it more difficult for them to successfully mount a statewide campaign. . . .
Complete Article at:
Posted at 10:15 AM ET, 12/ 5/2010
Gingrich: I'm 'more inclined to run' in 2012
By Matt DeLong
During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said that he is "much more inclined to run" for president in 2012 than not run. Gingrich has been hinting for months that he may seek the presidency -- though he has a history of making a lot of noise about running before deciding against it, as he did before the 2008 election. On Sunday, Gingrich said that after speaking with friends and colleagues, he is "more inclined to think it is doable." However, he said he would not make a decision until the "end of February, beginning of March." . . .
Asked to analyze the field of likely GOP contenders, Gingrich described former Alaska governor Sarah Palin as a "phenomenon in her own right." He said "structurally" former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is the front-runner, while former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee leads the pack in terms of popularity. He described himself as "competitive."
newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&threadid=43623
December 06, 2010
Will Huckabee Run?
Politico: "If Huckabee gets in, he will unquestionably be a force to be reckoned with in the fight for the nomination. He'd be the undisputed frontrunner in lead-off Iowa, where he won by nine points in 2008. He'd be the candidate to beat in South Carolina, which he narrowly lost to John McCain two years ago in part because of a divided conservative vote. His weekly Fox show, thrice-daily radio program and Grisham-like ability to crank out a book-per-year has given him a direct media presence akin to Palin's - but without the sky-high negatives."
Rest of Article at:
Steele to reveal decision Monday
By: Mike Allen and Jonathan Martin
December 12, 2010 12:33 PM EST
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele intends to announce his reelection plans on Monday evening, and key supporters expect him to drop out of the hotly contested race, top Republicans tell POLITICO.
A new chairman will be elected next month during the committee’s winter meeting.
Steele, a former Maryland lieutenant governor, has built no known reelection team or structure, making the prospect of a campaign unlikely in the face of competition that grows fiercer by the day. But allies said Steele has not revealed his plans, and the chairman has been nothing if not unpredictable. . . .
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/ ... e_gop.html
December 12, 2010
The Soul of the GOP
"This weekend is a pivotal moment for D.C. Republicans and how they hold the line on the tax cut deal," notes The Hotline
"Too many Republicans have already voiced support for the deal for them to turn against it unanimously, but you already see supportive members like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) questioning the actual substance of the bill. It will be interesting to see if the GOP leadership can hold their members in line, because the Tea Party leaders like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) have already come out against it. As cliché as it sounds, it really is a battle for the soul of the GOP, and whether a place for compromise exists within the party."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 38_pf.html
A decade after Bush v. Gore
By George F. Will
Sunday, December 12, 2010; A25
The passions that swirled around Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case that ended 10 years ago Sunday, dissipated quickly. And remarkably little damage was done by the institutional collisions that resulted when control of the nation's supreme political office turned on 537 votes out of 5,963,110 cast in Florida.
Many controversies concerned whether particular votes could be said to have been cast properly. Chads are those bits of paper that, when a ballot is properly cast by puncturing spots next to candidates' names, are separated from the ballot. In Florida, there were "dimpled" chads that were merely dented and "hanging" chads not separated from the ballots. Furthermore, there were undervotes (ballots with no vote for president) and overvotes (votes for two presidential candidates) and ill-designed (by a Democrat) butterfly ballots.
The post-election lunacy could have been substantially mitigated by adhering to a principle of personal responsibility: Voters who cast ballots incompetently are not entitled to have election officials toil to divine these voters' intentions. Al Gore got certain Democratic-dominated canvassing boards to turn their recounts into unfettered speculations and hunches about the intentions of voters who submitted inscrutable ballots. Before this, Palm Beach County had forbidden counting dimpled chads.
Once Gore initiated the intervention of courts, the U.S. Constitution was implicated. On Nov. 7, Gore finished second in Florida's Election Day vote count. A few days later, after the state's mandatory (in close elections) machine recount, he again finished second. Florida law required counties to certify their results in seven days, by Nov. 14.
But three of the four (of Florida's 67) counties - each heavily Democratic - where Gore was contesting the count were not finished deciphering voters' intentions. So Gore's lawyers persuaded the easily persuadable state Supreme Court - with a majority of Democratic appointees - to rewrite the law. It turned the seven-day period into 19 days.
Many liberals underwent instant conversions of convenience: They became champions of states' rights when the U.S. Supreme Court (seven of nine were Republican appointees) unanimously overturned that extension. But the U.S. high court reminded Florida's court to respect the real "states' rights" at issue - the rights of state legislatures: The Constitution gives them plenary power to establish procedures for presidential elections.
Florida's Supreme Court felt emancipated from law. When rewriting the law to extend the deadline for certification of results by the four counties, the court said: "The will of the people, not a hyper-technical reliance upon statutory provisions, should be our guiding principle." But under representative government, the will of the people is expressed in statutes. Adherence to statutes - even adherence stigmatized as "hyper-technical" - is known as the rule of law.
In the end, seven of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices (and three of the seven Florida justices) agreed on this: The standardless recount ordered by the Florida court - different rules in different counties regarding different kinds of chads and different ways of discerning voter intent - violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
Two of the seven U.S. justices favored ordering Florida's court to devise standards that could pass constitutional muster and allowing the recount to continue for six more days. Five justices, believing that the recounting had become irredeemably lawless, ended it.
Once Gore summoned judicial intervention, and Florida's Supreme Court began to revise state election law, it probably was inevitable that possession of the nation's highest political office was going to be determined by a state's highest court or the nation's. The U.S. Supreme Court was duty-bound not to defer to a state court that was patently misinterpreting - disregarding, actually - state law pertaining to a matter assigned by the U.S. Constitution to state legislatures.
Suppose that, after Nov. 7, Florida's Legislature had made by statute the sort of changes - new deadlines for recounting and certifying votes, selective recounts, etc. - that Florida's Supreme Court made by fiat. This would obviously have violated the federal law that requires presidential elections to be conducted by rules in place prior to Election Day.
Hard cases, it is said, make bad law. But this difficult case seems to have made little discernible law. That is good because it means no comparable electoral crisis has occurred. What the Supreme Court majority said on Dec. 12, 2000 - "our consideration is limited to the present circumstances" - has proved true. And may remain true, at least until the next time possession of the presidency turns on less than one ten-thousandth of a state's vote.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/ ... _deal.html
December 13, 2010
Poll Finds Broad Support for Tax Deal
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that 69% of Americans back the tax deal negotiated last week by President Obama and congressional Republicans.
Large majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike favor the agreement -- including 69% of liberal Democrats.
racehorse wrote: Excellent Analysis, as usual, George Will!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 38_pf.html
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/ ... palin.html
December 13, 2010
More Republicans Come Out Against Palin
Several more prominent Republicans have questioned Sarah Palin's qualifications for president because she quit in the middle of her term as Alaska governor.
Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) told the Kansas City Star, "I have reservations about anyone who quits as governor halfway through the term."
Former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman (R) told CNN that, "I mean, she was a governor. But the fact that she left office before even completing her first term is -- that's just not an attitude that I think is necessarily in the best interest of your constituents -- rather what's in your best interests."
Interestingly, a new Bloomberg poll shows Palin's favorability rating at just 33% while 57% have an unfavorable view.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/ ... under.html
December 13, 2010
Bond Says Obama Worst of Presidents He Served Under
Outgoing Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) told the Kansas City Star that President Obama deserves "a bad C" grade for his first two years in office.
Said Bond: "He came in promising to make it more open and less partisan and it's been totally partisan and totally non-transparent."
As for rating other presidents, Bond gave Ronald Reagan an "A," President George H.W. Bush a "B", President Bill Clinton a "B-plus" and President George W. Bush an "A-minus."
