Beltway Insider Feed

Faced With Reality, Crist Prepares to Go Indie

Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:59:49 GMT

Florida Governor Charlie Crist has seen better days, to put it lightly. Just eight months ago, as the popular chief executive of one of the largest states in the country, he was able to install a trusted former staffer into a Senate spot that he fully expected to waltz into a little over a year later. Of course, even the best-laid plans will go astray, and he’s now facing a strong challenger in his party’s primary, as conservative state house speaker Marco Rubio has exploded onto the scene, feeding off of much of the same energy as the Tea Party crowd. Governor Crist quickly slipped from shoe-in for the post to long-shot for the nod, and it’s caused a great deal of conjecture (not wholly unfounded) over whether or not he will split with the GOP and make an independent run—an option that would be too maverick even for John McCain.

It’s hard to argue that the move would be anything but a good one for Crist. Hardly a staunch conservative, Crist has proven himself willing to take moderate stances and even make bipartisan concessions in the past. He famously (or infamously, depending on your views) stood on stage with President Obama early last year, helping him sell his economic stimulus plan, and he recently vetoed an education bill that his party supported. These moves may have been acceptable at a different time, but right now political polarization is the dominant theme, and Republican voters are responding to the far-right ideals of folks like Rubio. It’s been obvious for a while that Crist will not be winning the GOP nomination.

Still, while Crist trails Rubio by double digits in the GOP primary polls, it’s not all bad news for the governor. He’s projected to make a strong showing against both Rubio and expected Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek (D-FL, 17th) in the general. This is likely due to the fact that, while the party bases are polarized, the mass of moderates in the middle is feeling disillusioned by the current partisan atmosphere. It may be perfect timing for an independent candidate, who can benefit from the discontent with both parties that’s being expressed across the country.

While Rubio enjoys a number of positives going into the election, it’s not all sunshine for him either. He can probably be expected to get a boost from the substantial Latino population in the state, but Florida Hispanics voting Republican is not as reliable a phenomenon as it once was, when in years past the Cuban exile community in Miami provided the GOP with a solid base of support. In the 2008 election season, the number of Hispanic registered Democrats in Florida jumped by almost 150,000, pulling ahead of Republicans by a decent margin. Rubio will likely need more strengths than just his shaky demographic base if he’s caught in a three-way race. He’ll also be facing the problem that many Tea Partiers and other right-wing conservatives are up against: while very popular with their base, their polarizing nature makes them a turn-off to many voters that make up the middle – just the kind of people that Crist appeals to.

Rubio is facing other problems as well, as his tax records are reportedly under investigation by the IRS. Whether or not the story has any actual teeth to it could be immaterial, as even the scent of scandal can be very damaging in an election year.

Watching the GOP fight from the outside, the Democrats have to be reasonably happy with the way things have played out. While their front-runner, Kendrick Meek, is not faring well in the polls, they have to like his chances in a three-way race better than one-on-one with either potential Republican nominee. There’s also the chance that Crist will win the seat and decide to take revenge on the party that turned its back on him, and side with Senate Democrats on key votes; sort of like a bizarro-Joe Lieberman. Considering the fact that Florida, while probably a bit more conservative than it was in 2000, is still a swing state, and based on his strengths amongst moderates, expect Crist’s indie announcement to come soon, and sit back for what will surely be an entertaining campaign.

Florida Special Election Brings Few Surprises

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:05:22 GMT

It’s been six months since self-proclaimed fire-breathing liberal Robert Wexler left his position as Representative of Florida’s 19th Congressional District to head the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation. Yesterday, the state finally got around to holding the special election to see who would replace him for the remainder of his term. While the 19th is a strongly Democratic district – President Obama took roughly 65% of the vote in 2008 – there was still some worry that the Republican challenger, Ed Lynch, would succeed in making the contest a referendum on the recently-passed healthcare reform legislation, and make a strong showing. While that may have been his plan, it proved to be unsuccessful as Democratic candidate, state Senator Ted Deutch, easily defeated his opponent, taking 62% of the vote to Lynch’s 35%.

As far as special elections go, it’s hard to use the results of this one to gauge public opinion on the President and his party. Straddling parts of north Broward and southern Palm Beach counties, the district is one of the most Democratic in the state. While a loss or close victory would have been disastrous for the Democrats, yesterday’s numbers were so close to status quo that it’s unlikely either side can claim it as a resounding victory. Still, avoiding a situation like Scott Brown’s election earlier this year is a plus for a Democratic party that is looking forward to a potentially problematic November. Considering the fact that voter turnout was high (for a special election), it also means they were able to keep their base energized, which may be a problem in the upcoming fall elections, as the GOP has the advantage in that regard.

While health care reform was apparently a non-starter in this race, Middle East foreign policy played a big part as it always does in the heavily Jewish district. As President Obama has had his share of troubles in dealing with Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government, there was some concern over how American Jewish voters would react to the situation. To still come away with a convincing victory in this district has to be comforting news for the Democrats. Heading into what will undoubtedly be a tough election season, they could not afford to have alienated any portion of their voting base.

Yesterday’s contest may not have told us all that much about what to expect from November’s elections, but there will be two more next month that could provide a better look. In Pennsylvania’s 12th it appears that the Republicans will once more keep health care reform as the crux of their campaign. While John Murtha represented the district for a long time, much of that was due to a personal connection with the people of his district. The demographic makeup makes the district appear ripe for the picking as Republican Tim Burns will try to defeat Democrat Mark Critz, a former staffer in Murtha’s Pennsylvania office. Look for Critz to try to ride Murtha’s name to victory. The other race to look forward to is the one over Hawaii’s First District, where two Democrats – former Rep. Ed Case and state Senate President Colleen Hanabusa – are both vying to replace Neil Abercrombie in the winner-take-all special election. The GOP is looking to take advantage of the Democratic split, uniting behind Honolulu city councilman Charles Djou. A Republican win in the President’s home state would be quite the coup, as Hawaii has been reliably blue for quite some time. Still, it would be hard to read too much into a race happening thousands of miles from the mainland where local politics, as well as ethnicity and gender, will be playing a major part.

Ted Deutch will be sworn in at the end of the week, giving him roughly seven months before he will be facing re-election. While that isn’t enough time to make a name for himself, it’s also short enough that he probably won’t get blamed for anything either. Considering the makeup of his district, and the results of yesterday’s election, Deutch will win his November contest handily, and if he can keep the support of the national party, he’s likely to be representing Florida’s 19th for many years to come.

Stevens Sparks SCOTUS Scuttlebutt

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:36:03 GMT

Compared to the executive and legislative branches of government, the judiciary receives little media attention. A major ruling from an appellate court might stir up some headlines, while a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court may even make the front page, but usually the world of our nation’s judges goes largely overlooked. One thing guaranteed to get journalists’ attention, though, is the slightest rumor involving the retirement of a Supreme Court Justice. Such is the case this week, as Justice John Paul Stevens, who turns 90 next week, recently sparked off a firestorm of speculation after an interview with the New Yorker in which he hinted at potentially retiring at the end of this term. The most senior Justice, both in age and tenure, Stevens has made it clear that he will retire during President Obama’s first term, but that still leaves a bit of leeway in his decision. While the news is still in the rumor stage, it’s basically a fait accompli that Stevens will step down in the near future, so we may as well take the chance to examine the implications of his decision.

While the decision on when to retire is a personal one which is ultimately up to Stevens, politics will play a part in it as well. The timing of his retirement will have a big effect on what kind of nominee President Obama can put forth to replace him. As it’s currently an election year for a third of the Senate, Democrats in the upper chamber are wary of having to take a stand on something as controversial as a SCOTUS vote. Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation was met with some strong opposition, but after a bitter fight over health care reform, Republican Senators are likely to be even more set on contrarianism than they were last summer. With the Democrats already looking at a troublesome November, the last thing they need is a nasty confirmation fight to provide more ammunition for the GOP on the campaign trail. If the President wants to replace Stevens with someone that shares his ideological views, it could turn into quite the heated battle. It’s more likely to force his hand into picking a center-left compromise candidate, if he’s still focused on the need for bipartisanship. If the Senate Democrats get their way, however, Stevens will stay on until after the elections, pushing his replacement’s confirmation back to the next Congressional term. Of course, with the way things are going now, the Democratic majority will probably be slimmer next year than it currently is, potentially affecting the President’s decision in the same way.

Aside from the politics of the situation, we’re still left with speculation over who the nominee will be. Many of the same faces from last year’s short list are reappearing, such as Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Circuit Court Judges Merrick Garland and Diane Wood, but there are some new names being mentioned as well. Some progressives are hoping for Pamela Karlan of Stanford to get the nod, although her outspoken nature would likely stir up a good deal of opposition. Although a bit of a long shot, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm is coming up on some lists, as her second term is ending this year and she cannot run for re-election due to term limits. While she lacks experience on the bench, she has been both an Assistant U.S. Attorney and Michigan’s Attorney General. One name that won’t be on the list, though, is Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu, who was nominated to a post on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. His appointment is currently wallowing in committee, and has become a lightning rod for GOP opposition.

While demographics always plays a part in SCOTUS decisions, President Obama doesn’t have as much pressure as he did last time. After his appointment of Sotomayor, gender and ethnicity won’t be as much of a focus as they were last year. One issue the President will have to consider, though, is the religious makeup of the high court. As of now, Stevens is the only Protestant on the Court; there are six Catholics and two Jewish Justices. While it’s debatable whether or not religion has any effect on Justices’ decisions, it’s highly unlikely that a Catholic will be picked once more.

For a number of reasons, Elena Kagan seems like the most logical pick. She’s already faced the gauntlet of Senatorial confirmation, so she can pass muster once more. While her lack of experience as a judge may seem like a big negative, historically this has not been the case. Choosing a woman is not a necessity, as mentioned above, but it can’t hurt either. Kagan isn’t a Protestant, but her Jewish faith won’t get in her way, as Justice Ginsburg will likely be leaving in the not-too-distant future, dropping the Jewish Justice quotient to one. If anything, the President may be criticized for going with the too-safe choice, disappointing his liberal base once more. However, they may be placated by her relative youth – at 49, Kagan could be sitting on the bench for a number of years.

We still have an indeterminate amount of time before the confirmation process actually begins, but there’s good news for folks who enjoy the circus that surrounds such appointments. While Stevens is certain to retire in the near future, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg may be stepping down soon as well. After surviving two bouts of cancer, it’s been expected for a while that she would consider retirement. Still, if President Obama is able to replace both of these Justices with rabid, socialist liberals, he won’t have changed the ideological makeup of the court by much. Both Stevens and Ginsburg are amongst the most progressive of the Justices, meaning unless he wins a second term, President Obama will likely leave the Court in the same situation in which he found it.

Defeat From the Jaws of Victory: The GOP Blunder Its Way Toward the 2010 Elections

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:27:46 GMT

On the surface, the GOP has everything going for it right now. Poll numbers show them ahead of the Democrats in generic ballot surveys, and approval ratings for Members of Congress are abysmal – a good sign for the party out of power in an election year. With many on the far-left feeling a bit disillusioned with the recent moves of the Administration (like yesterday’s off-shore drilling announcement), the Republicans have also had the edge when it comes to enthusiasm within their base. While they’ve so far enjoyed a significant edge in the intensity gap, however, the passage of health care reform gave the Democrats a bit of a boost in that department. Add to that the fact that some prominent conservatives are distancing themselves from the RNC, and November might not be the resounding victory that Republicans are hoping for.

While we’re years removed from one Republican comparing the GOP brand to dog food, the RNC has still seen better days. Led by the hapless Michael Steele, the organization was rocked by an embarrassing scandal this week involving several young members taking a trip to a Hollywood strip club on the party’s dime. While a low-level staffer has been fired over the incident, it caused enough anger inside the party that some people have wondered whether Steele’s job is at risk. He’s probably safe for now, since there haven’t been many calls for his head from within the party, but the party itself may is facing some backlash over it. Tony Perkins, who heads the religious conservative group the Family Research Council, has come out urging donors to forgo giving to the RNC and instead donate directly to candidates. This is bad news for the party, which is raising a good amount of cash, but also spending record amounts. Considering the importance of the elections coming up in November, they’re going to need every dollar they can get in order to maximize their gains.

The RNC is involved in another tiff with a prominent conservative as well. Aides of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin have asked the Committee to remove her name from an invitation for its Southern Republican Leadership Conference being held next week in New Orleans. While she will be speaking at the conference on Friday, she will not be involved in any fundraising events. Because Palin is a special case – she currently holds no elected office and is not running for any office (at this time) – this incident is more about brand name than politics. Since she left office, Palin is more marketing machine than candidate, publishing books and appearing in television shows. It’s likely that this was a calculated move in an attempt to distance the Palin brand from the Republican brand, as many in the Tea Party crowd have no special allegiance to the GOP. Still, it’s troubling news for the Republican Party when a highly visible rising conservative star wants to separate herself from them in any way. It might even be a sign that she’s strongly considering a third party run in 2012, which could all but guarantee a second term for President Obama.

The Republican Party is still in a strong position, virtually guaranteed to win a number of House and Senate seats in the coming midterm elections. There’s a big difference, however, between narrowing the Democrats’ majorities and seizing their own. Some strategists see signs that the GOP peaked too early, and that may be the case. Still, much depends on how the Democrats use the momentum they’ve gained from health care, and whether they can parlay it into victories in the fall. If the bad news for the GOP continues, though, it will make it that much easier for the Democrats to do so.

Life After Health Care Reform

Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:41:19 GMT

While last week’s bill-signing ceremony provided a nice climax to the year-long health care reform process, and the action following it in the Senate comprised an appropriate denouement, Democrats in Washington have little time to rest on their laurels. A number of issues still await Congress when they return from their current two-week recess, as well as a laundry list of nominees awaiting confirmation. A mile down Pennsylvania Avenue, President Obama has kept up a hectic pace, signing a landmark nuclear arms treaty with Russia, surprising troops in Afghanistan with an visit and recess-appointing 15 nominees that had been held up by Republican Senators, all in the last few days. Boosted by a big win, Democrats seem to have all the momentum on their side as they return home to their constituencies for a short break in the action – at least as far as legislative work goes.

Most Congressional Democrats are taking the next two weeks to further sell the recently-passed health care bill to the voters at home. While there is some fear that the narrative could spiral out of their control, as it did in August with the rowdy town hall meetings, the homeward-bound legislators are armed with information and statistics about how the bill will help the average American. They’re faced with another kind of fear, though, as the past week has seen a number of threats to elected officials over their votes on this controversial issue, as well as some acts of vandalism perpetrated against their property. Republicans and leaders of the Tea Party movement attempted to distance themselves from the violence and those behind it, but that didn’t stop Democrats from accusing them of inciting the threats or at the least doing too little to discourage them. While the raucous atmosphere of the August town halls helped the Republicans undermine the popularity of the Democrats’ reform efforts, the current crop of grassroots mayhem is more likely to harm them, creating unease amongst moderates and causing them to shy away from any association with their extreme measures. The next two weeks are important for both sides, as they wrestle over control of the narrative so that when they return to work they’ll have taken the wind out of their opponents’ sails.

Of course, the end of this recess will be just the beginning of the long road ending with the November midterm elections, which until recently were looking like very bad news for the Democrats. Republicans looking to keep it that way have made it clear that they will be using opposition to “Obamacare” as a central focus of their campaigns. How that plays across the country is still uncertain; polls show that the country is divided, almost neatly down the middle, on how they feel about the reform legislation. While the bill’s opponents outnumber its supporters, a portion of the opposition crowd consists of progressive voters who believe that it didn’t go far enough, desiring a robust public option. Just as outspoken Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH, 10th) was eventually convinced to vote for the legislation, it’s reasonable to assume that many of those left-wing voters will come back to the fold by November. The Democrats also have to consider what to do with the 34 members of their party that bucked pressure from the leadership and voted against the reform legislation. Luckily for most of them, they’ve either already secured the party’s nomination, or are facing weak or nonexistent primary competitors. While they may have some trouble winning the votes of all their Democratic constituents, it’s unlikely that they’ll be losing those votes to Republicans. With the way November is expected to play out, with every seat being crucial to maintaining the Democratic majority, the national party probably won’t undermine the reelection efforts of these Reps, but with so many seats needing to be defended, they won’t be giving any financial support either.

Though the political repercussions of the health care reform passage will be many and far-reaching, right now it’s nearly impossible to say how it will all play out. Both sides can use this to drum up support amongst their respective bases, but the real question is how it will play with the middle. A failure to pass anything would have been a huge embarrassment to the Democrats, so avoiding that was a big win for them. Of course, the passage of such a highly-contentious bill will prove to be a negative amongst some moderates, but if they are successful in controlling the narrative they may be able to turn it into a net positive. The White House has done a good job of taking the momentum and running with it, and if Congress can do the same upon their return from recess, with legislative victories in energy or financial reform, the remainder of 2010 could look quite different than the year so far. Of course, they’re just as likely to be sandbagged by recalcitrant and obstructionist Republicans, making any governance difficult, if not impossible. The specter of health care reform will be hanging over the 2010 midterm elections, but it won’t be as strong a force as the economy. Democrats will still need to turn around unemployment numbers, or through some other measures convince the electorate that things are getting better. If they manage to do that, they have a good shot at maintaining majorities – albeit thinner ones – in both chambers.

Let the Voting Begin

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:43:49 GMT

Tuesday’s ceremony at the White House was an historic moment, as Barack Obama signed the House-passed legislation into public law before a packed room and a cavalcade of cameras, but not all the work is done quite yet. The Senate must still vote on a package of fixes to the bill, and although the Republicans’ attempt to derail it by appealing to the Senate parliamentarian failed, they still have a trick or two up their sleeves. While debate in the Senate is limited to 20 hours on the reconciliation package, the number of amendments that Senators can put forward is unlimited, and they’ve already proposed a number of them. This results in a “vote-a-rama”, which occurs when there are many amendments for one bill and little time to address them all. Each amendment is debated for one minute, and then subjected to a ten minute vote. This is only a delaying tactic, however, because if any of them pass, the bill will simply be sent back to the House for a re-vote.

Among the numerous amendments put forth by Republican Senators is one, proposed by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), prohibiting the prescription of Viagra or other E.D. medication to convicted child molesters and sex offenders. Another would stop Medicare payments for drugs prescribed to or by dead people. Apparently the new GOP tactic is an attempt to embarrass Senate Democrats over voting against such common-sense amendments as these. With a solid majority on their side, and no need for 60 votes to bust a filibuster, it’s unlikely that any of these motions will pass, despite the supposed shame in ignoring them. This kind of obstructionism is nothing new to this Congress, and it’s unlikely to have any effect. The House has already proven that it can pass the health care legislation as is, and the minor changes that are being put forth – even if they were to pass – are unlikely to change the results if they see it again. With the momentum that President Obama and the Democrats have from yesterday’s bill-signing, it’s unlikely that the Republicans can gain anything tangible through these tactics. If anything, they risk exacerbating their status as the party of “no”; a refrain that voters may grow weary of as Congress turns to issues that have a direct impact on their daily lives.

House Democrats Succeed in Passing Comprehensive Health Care Reform

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:42:07 GMT

Whether you were for or against its passage, it’s hard to argue that the Sunday House vote on health care reform was anything short of historic. After decades of failure, Democrats in Congress have reached one of their longest-standing goals: Passage of some form of comprehensive legislation dealing with the nation’s health care system, and a huge step toward universal coverage. While it took a year of Congressional debate and partisan bickering, as well as impassioned protests and activism on both sides, President Obama is on the verge of signing one of his most ambitious legislative goals into public law. The victory was hard-fought, and the Administration used up a great deal of political capital to get it done, but the President was able to use the proper mix of pressure and concessions to line up the number of votes needed to ensure the bill’s passage. President Obama will sign the bill into law on Tuesday.

The week leading up to Sunday’s vote saw a number of Democratic representatives making announcements regarding their votes, with many of them announcing that they would change their minds after initially opposing the measure back in November. One of the highest-profile members to do so was Dennis Kucinich (D-OH, 10th), who succumbed after some direct pressure from President Obama himself. The President used a number of tactics to convince members of his party to support the vote, despite many progressives opposing it on the grounds that it didn’t go far enough. Still, Sunday came with the whip count falling just short, requiring a last-minute solution to rally the remaining few votes. It came in the form of an executive order that would clarify the language of the bill involving the use of federal funds to support abortions. This proved enough to mollify Bart Stupak (D-MI, 1st) and six of his pro-life colleagues, who agreed to back the bill due to this compromise, ultimately ensuring its passage.

There’s still a bit of work to be done on the Senate side, as Republicans are expected to meet with the Senate parliamentarian to determine whether reconciliation may in fact be used to pass certain provisions in the bill. Senate rules prohibit using the reconciliation process to alter Social Security in any way, and the parliamentarian must determine whether or not that will be the case with this legislation. A ruling in favor of the Republicans would not ultimately overthrow the Democrats’ reform movement, but it would require the measure to be returned to the House for another vote, causing some delay. Considering the fact that the President of the Senate has the final say, it’s unlikely that any negative rulings will be issued. The Republicans can override Vice President Biden’s decision, but it requires 60 votes, which is pretty far out of their reach.

While Congressional Democrats can breathe a sigh of relief right now, they’re not totally out of the woods yet. Because so many of the provisions within the bill will not take place for a number of years, Republicans are holding out hope that they will be able to repeal them before they are enacted. It’s virtually a certainty that the GOP will make the upcoming midterm elections a referendum on “Obamacare”, rallying the troops around the flag of opposition to socialized medicine, but it’s unknown whether or not they’ll pick up enough seats to gain majorities in both chambers. They’re not just relying on legislative means, however, as some state attorneys general, including Virginia’s Ken Cuccinelli and Florida’s Bill McCollum, are already planning on fighting it through legal means, including a suit over the legality of the provision mandating the purchase of insurance. Sunday’s vote is undoubtedly a major victory for the Democratic Party, but it may ultimately be for naught if the legislation fails to pass this gauntlet of challenges. Even if the bill holds up, its passage may have been enough to ensure defeat for Democrats in the crucial November contests.

The Road to Reform: Rounding the Final Curve?

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:46:54 GMT

It’s true that things rarely happen quickly on Capitol Hill, but the pace which the landmark health care reform legislation has moved at is slow even for Congress. After numerous self-imposed deadlines have passed, March 18th is nearly upon us, and it seems unlikely that House Democrats will be able to “get something done” by then. Leaders in the House are still trying to rally the requisite number of votes to pass the Senate version, although they may be looking to use a technical parliamentary procedure to accomplish it. It still remains to be seen whether or not all House progressives will jump on board with this bill, or whether they will recast their “no” votes from the initial November decision.

House Democrats received a boost to their efforts this morning when outspoken progressive and former Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-OH, 10th) announced his decision to change his vote on the health care bill to “yes” after originally opposing it in November. While still harboring misgivings over the contents of the bill, the Ohio congressman changed his mind shortly after President Obama made a public appearance in his district, giving Kucinich and Rep. Marsha Fudge (D-OH, 11th) a ride to the event on Air Force One. Despite the appearances, Kucinich insists that no deal was struck to gain his vote, such as the infamous Nebraska Medicaid deal involving Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE). He claims that the President impressed upon him the urgency of the moment in order to support the bill which he considers severely flawed. As a leading liberal, Kucinich’s vote could go a long way toward convincing left-wing holdouts as the House prepares for a potential weekend vote on the Senate bill.

With all the talk of passing the bill through budgetary reconciliation in the Senate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA, 8th) brought up the possibility of using yet another parliamentary procedure in the House to pass the Senate’s version of the bill. Called the “self-executing rule,” or “deem and pass,” it would involve passing the Senate bill not by voting on the legislation itself, but rather a “fixes package”. While far from simple and straightforward, the rule is used somewhat frequently, although not for legislation of this magnitude. Republicans have already attacked the idea, as they did with reconciliation when it was initially considered in the Senate. House Democrats are banking on the public caring more about the substance of the bill and whether it’s passed rather than how they go about doing it. The move does have the potential to backfire, though, so the Democrats will likely use this as a last resort.

After the year-long ordeal of crafting, changing and (possibly) passing this legislation, it appears that the end is approaching. Politically, much is on the line over this vote: if the Democrats bring the vote up and it fails, it will be an embarrassing loss. Of course, if they have misread the electorate’s desires, even the bill’s passage could have disastrous consequences. The upcoming vote has the potential to make or break the Obama Administration, although he could weather its failure as Bill Clinton did in 1994. It will surely have an affect on the results of the 2010 midterm elections, and it’s unlikely to be a positive one for the Democrats. Of course, there’s also the fact that it could determine whether or not millions of Americans get access to affordable medical care. The Democrats are walking a tightrope, and the odds of skillfully pulling this off are quite long, but in just a few short days history will be made in some way.

Conspiracy, Sexual Harassment and Naked Shower Fights: The Makings of Popular Political Theater

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:23:46 GMT

It should come as a surprise to no one that the media loves a good circus, and that’s especially true when it comes to political news. That goes a long way toward explaining the attention that former Rep. Eric Massa has been getting the last week, since he announced that he would leave Congress due to health complications related to lymphoma which he had previously survived. Of course, things are rarely that simple, and it’s since come to light that he was also facing an ethics probe into his alleged sexual harassment of a male aide. Unwilling to let things stand at that, Massa took the opportunity of his newfound notoriety to launch criticisms at his party and its leadership, pointing fingers at White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, among others.

In a statement released on his website last Friday, Massa owned up to the ethics violation, admitting to using “salty” language, connecting it to the two decades he spent serving in the Navy. However, in a radio interview that took place over the weekend he fired off a salvo of parting shots at Rahm Emanuel, describing a nude confrontation he had with the Chief of Staff in the House gym, as well as accusing the Administration official of being a “son of the devil’s spawn” “who would sell his mother to get a vote.” In the same interview, he claimed that he was being forced out of office by the Democratic House leadership due to his vote against healthcare reform. Responding to those accusations, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD, 5th), dismissed them as untrue. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs later joined in, calling the story “silly and ridiculous.”

While his actions haven’t made him any friends within the Democratic Party, Massa has received praise from some unlikely sources. Conservative icon Rush Limbaugh was quick to take up Massa’s case, pushing forward the claims of Massa’s unceremonious ouster over health care reform. However, he was almost as quick to rescind that support. Fox News firebrand Glenn Beck followed suit by scheduling the embattled former Congressman on this afternoon’s show for the full hour. He may be regretting that decision by now, however, as some conservatives pointed out that hitching one’s wagon to a man being investigated for sexual harassment of an employee may not be the most prudent of moves.

Beyond the sideshow aspects of this story, there are some important implications for the Democrats. Massa’s abrupt resignation does bring the number of votes needed to pass health care reform back down to 216: the amount it was to fall to once Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA, 9th) left the House, as he was expected to do shortly after announcing his resignation earlier this month. Upon realizing the effect it would have on the landmark vote, Deal decided to push his departure back to a time after the vote takes place. While the Democrats are losing a member of their coalition in the short-term (and perhaps long-term, as the Cook Political Report now lists his seat’s race as “leans Republican”), there’s also one less vote against the healthcare legislation. While they will likely miss him come November, his voting record combined with the current scandal marks him as more of a liability. The noise will likely blow over in a short time and Massa will fade into obscurity, leaving a slight blemish on the Democratic brand during a crucial election year.

As far as replacing Massa goes, Governor Paterson has a couple of options. He can schedule a special election to replace the Congressman, held no less than 30 and no more than 40 days after his announcement. He also can choose to leave the seat vacant until the November general election. This is a tough decision to be laid on the beleaguered Governor’s head, as he’s had a lot on his plate lately, so he’s apparently in no hurry to make the call. We’ll let you know what the Governor decides whenever it is announced.

The Week in Review

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:13:36 GMT

It’s been a busy week inside the beltway, with Democrats facing another round of bad news. Here are a handful of the highest-profile stories that took place and the effects they may have on the future:

Starting outside of Washington, Texas held its primary contests on Tuesday, and the results came as expected. Current governor Rick Perry handily defeated U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in the Republican gubernatorial primary. Hutchison had her work cut out for her from the beginning, as she trailed in polls early on and never made much headway. Even with Tea Party favorite Debra Medina siphoning off nearly 20% of the vote, Perry still received the 50+% of the vote required to avoid a run-off. With Hutchison conceding on Tuesday night, the state GOP can now turn its guns on former Houston mayor Bill White, who won the Democratic nomination with over three quarters of the vote. The contest should be a good one, as the Cook Political Report has named the race a toss-up, with early polls showing White within striking distance of Perry.
Two Democratic House Members have announced their retirements this week. This morning, Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA, 10) announced that he won’t seek re-election after seven terms in Congress. Asserting that politics were not involved in the decision, the 68-year old Congressman told reporters that he had been considering a retirement previously, but was talked out of it by his friend, the late Ted Kennedy. It’s unlikely that the Democrats will lose the seat, but as the seventeenth announced retirement, it’s still troubling news. On Wednesday, Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY, 29) informed reporters that he would not try for re-election due to a return of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which had been in remission. That same day, reports surfaced of a House Ethics Committee investigation into allegations that Massa had harassed a male staffer. Massa denied the allegations, blaming it on his use of “salty language”. Former GOP Congressman John “Randy” Kuhl has already expressed interest in pursuing Massa’s seat. Definitely bad news for Democrats, as another open House seat means another decision on how to apportion national campaign funds.
Of course, Massa isn’t the only embattled Congressman from New York. Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY, 15) is the subject of his own ethics investigation. Under fire for a litany of violations, including tax evasion, Rangel survived efforts to censure him two years ago, but it appears that he is under closer scrutiny this time. The long-time Representative “temporarily” stepped down from his influential position as Chair of the Ways and Means Committee earlier this week. This is a blow to the Democrats, as the veteran legislator, with four decades of service under his belt, could have provided invaluable leadership in a time when House Democrats need it most. Instead, House leaders were forced to choose between admonishing him and coming to his defense. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA, 8) chose the latter option, which could have political repercussions in this tight election year. The prospect of an open seat race already has drawn the interest of a number of potential candidates.
While House Democrats thought they’d caught a break with the impending retirement of Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA, 9) temporarily lowering the number of votes needed to pass legislation from 217 to 216, Deal came to his senses and announced that he will be staying on until the landmark health care vote takes place. That means he will remain in Congress until at least March 18^th, which is the deadline that the White House gave for when the final bill should be passed.
Finally, the big news that carried over from last week is Senator Jim Bunning’s (R-KY) one-man stand. Last week, Bunning placed a hold on a $10 billion unemployment benefits extension bill, claiming that it violated the principle of pay as you go. While this may be true, it was a curious time to stand on that principle, and it may have cost his party politically. While most Americans are probably on the side of controlled spending in order to stop the deficit from spiraling further out of control, messing with unemployment benefits in a time of sky-high jobless rates is not the best way to get that message across. Of course, Bunning has little reason to care about that, as he will not be facing re-election this year, after essentially being forced out by party leadership. While his stand may have been more principled than spiteful, it did Congressional Republicans little good. In a time when they have significant advantages over the party in power, missteps like this are one of the few ways for the GOP to relinquish the upper hand. On Tuesday, he relented, and the Senate passed the bill anyway, but the damage had already been done, with the perception being that Bunning stood in between thousands of Americans and their unemployment benefits. Of course, fiscal conservatives came to his defense, and it’s possible the narrative will turn in the Republicans’ favor. It may have been just a brief blip, but Bunning’s stand could have long-lasting effects, carrying over as far as the November election.

Jobs Bill Vote Keeps Bipartisanship Alive – For Now

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:38:27 GMT

Those folks still holding out hope for the possibility of bipartisanship in Washington were greeted with some good news today, as the Senate voted to pass a $15 billion jobs bill by a healthy margin of 70-28, with thirteen Republican Senators contributing votes. This comes one day after the same bill passed a cloture motion with 62 votes, squeaking past the possibility of a filibuster. On the eve of Thursday’s health care summit, this looks like positive news for those in Washington that are hoping a consensus can be reached between Senators from both parties on the reform measure still hanging in legislative limbo. But is it truly proof that Democrats and Republicans will be able to work together over the coming year to pass landmark legislation, such as health care reform and a climate change bill? Probably not.

While having a dozen or so Republicans back Harry Reid’s jobs bill is a big step, it’s a far cry from the type of bipartisanship that the White House has in mind. The bill itself is far from controversial, as it addresses an issue that many Americans view as the highest priority facing the nation right now. Tax incentives and write-offs for businesses are unlikely to cause Republican voters to turn against their legislators come election time, so a vote for this bill is relatively safe, electorally speaking. Make no mistake: this is a good sign for the President, who has placed much stock in bipartisanship with little results up to this point. Whether this translates into a working relationship still remains to be seen, though. The outcome of tomorrow’s summit will go a long way toward letting the country know whether or not Senators really are making progress toward working together. If Republicans come to the table with sound health care policy recommendations that are openly considered by their Democratic counterparts, and possibly even absorbed into the final bill, that will be a major step forward, but it’s more likely that the GOP will decide that it has more to gain by remaining in the obstructionist position on this issue. There’s also the possibility that Democrats will ignore the issues brought forth by their colleagues, such as medical malpractice reform, further undermining efforts at bipartisanship.

As far as aisle-crossing is concerned, the Senator to watch over the coming legislative year is Scott Brown (R-MA). While his victory was rightfully hailed as a huge win for the GOP, he is still representing a considerably liberal constituency. He won’t be able to march lockstep with his party, so Democrats may be able to look to him for that final sixtieth vote they’ll need if they choose not to go the route of reconciliation. Brown’s neighbors, Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME), may also be willing to work with their opponents on some legislation as well, providing a few extra votes in case there’s trouble getting the Democratic caucus in line. While the Obama Administration has some cause for optimism going forward, much remains to be seen on the biggest issues. Much will be made of the results of tomorrow’s summit, and it may just set the tone for the coming year in Congress.

With Summit Approaching, White House Releases Health Care Proposal

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:00:47 GMT

After starting off the year focused largely on economic issues – as well as trying to stop the bleeding after the Massachusetts special election – Democrats on the Hill and in the White House are turning their attention back toward the still-controversial health care reform bills. This Thursday, the Administration will hold a televised summit, inviting Members of Congress from both parties to discuss the issue in an open and substantive manner. The invitation was met with mixed reactions by Republicans, some wary of a trap. Whatever the motives, the President is giving the opposition a forum where they may display their own ideas on health care reform before Democrats in both chambers move forward on enacting the legislation. It’s something of a last chance shot at bipartisanship, with the results likely setting the tone for the months between now and the November mid-term elections.

In anticipation of the summit, this morning the Administration released a proposal of what it believes would be a good compromise between the bills produced by the two different chambers. With many parts closely resembling elements of the Senate plan and others staying more true to that passed by the House (and even some coming from Republican suggestions), the proposal intends to arrive at a coherent whole that will be able to attract enough votes to be passed. One point that likely upset progressives is the lack of a public option, but that was unlikely to pass with the 60-vote majority in place in the Senate. Scott Brown’s (R-MA) election all but eliminated the possibility of it being included.

The big issue is whether or not any Republicans will play ball with the President and his party, and the initial reactions of folks like Mitch McConnell (R-KY) make the odds of that happening appear long. Still, the Democrats would only need a few Republican Senators to break ranks and vote for cloture, giving health care reform the up-or-down vote that the Administration asserts the American people want. This is unlikely to happen, however, with Senate Republicans proving to be unwilling to budge up to this point. That’s why many people see this proposal as a sign that President Obama is implicitly backing the use of reconciliation in passing the bill, which requires just a simple majority to pass. The President seems to be using this summit as an effort to give Republicans one last shot at getting on board before moving ahead – with or without them.

In a way, McConnell may have been right in asserting that the summit is a trap. Republicans are being called on to provide substantive solutions to health care reform, and potentially have them included in the finished product. However, playing ball with their opponents is not something Republicans have shown themselves particularly eager to do as of late. While attaching medical malpractice reform to the bill might be a big win for the GOP, it may involve contributing votes to the bill’s final passage or undermining an attempt at a filibuster. Their election year strategy seems to leave no room for that, however, as playing along implies that there may be something of worth in the Democrats’ ideas. The results of the summit are almost set in stone, but the larger narrative will be how the two parties look coming out of it. Will the Administration succeed in painting the Republicans as uncooperative obstructionists who refused to budge on an issue crucial to the nation, or can the GOP frame it as the Democrats steamrolling an unpopular piece of legislation past the American people, using parliamentary trickery and loopholes? The results will go a long way toward determining the outcome of the 2010 elections – oh, and whether or not a few million Americans receive health care.

The Last True Bayh-Partisan is Leaving the Senate

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:12:42 GMT

With the coming mid-term elections roughly ten months away, and state primaries rapidly approaching – indeed, some having already come and gone – you’d think that the candidate fields for the November Congressional elections would have been all but finalized by now. That’s hardly the case, however, with a new incumbent candidate announcing their intent to retire every few days, it seems. The latest Member of Congress to forego any efforts at re-election is Senator Evan Bayh, a moderate two-term Democrat representing Indiana. The news came as a surprise to many Washington observers, largely because Bayh – unlike embattled Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) and many retiring House Democrats – had been enjoying a healthy lead in the polls over his projected opponent. While this is obviously a blow to Democrats, it also could spell trouble for Republicans in Congress as well, because it highlights the difficulties that all incumbents will be facing come November. A recent poll showed just 36% of Americans plan to vote to re-elect their current representative.

Retirement decisions always leave pundits and analysts trying to divine the motives behind them, so Senator Bayh decided to end speculation and provide them himself. He cited such reasons as the lack of bipartisanship in Congress, with narrow ideologies interfering with actual legislative accomplishments. Coming from a moderate, this is a reasonable argument, as no one wants to be caught in between two groups as they loudly scream at one another. He also made mention of the fact that he has no love for working in Congress. While some legislators have a particular passion for their positions, Bayh never seemed to relish it. As one Politico article put it, “From his election in 1998, though, it seemed his chief political interest was in how quickly he could get out of the Senate.” Of course, just because he provided his reasons doesn’t mean they were taken at face value. Some analysts believe that Bayh is planning something, harboring future ambitions that may reach as far as 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It does seem true that if he is planning on a Presidential run in 2016, it will be best to leave Congress now, as the aforementioned poll numbers point to the fact that holding a seat in either chamber could be political poison. While faith in the legislature may return over time, it may be best to run as a political outsider in the next few election cycles.

Coming on the tail of other major announcements, and so relatively late in the election cycle, this retirement will be another blow to the Democrats’ 2010 hopes. While Senator Bayh seems optimistic that his party will be able to retain his seat, the Cook Political Report responded to the news by shifting the contest to “Leans Republican”. While forecasts were already dim for Senate Democrats, they were still reasonably sure of holding onto a thin majority. This latest news has undermined their faith, and many experts believe that the GOP has a very real shot at eliminating that majority. While there are a number of candidates that Democrats could choose to replace Bayh, none of them come off as particularly strong. Indiana is also a state ripe for Republican picking: with an unemployment rate of nearly 10%, and in an election year where the party in charge is going to get a lot of blame, look for the Republican candidate – probably former U.S. Senator Dan Coats – to make a strong showing, with a very good chance at claiming the seat for the GOP.

Plenty of Surprises in Early Gubernatorial Primaries

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:25:10 GMT

Since the National Capitol area is currently covered in a thick blanket of snow, causing Congress to close and postpone the week's work, today we'll look beyond the Beltway to check out some governors' races that are heating up as primary season is already under way.

While the Illinois governor contests ended up too close to call on both sides, the runner up on the Democrat's side, state comptroller Dan Hynes, wasted little time in conceding the race to incumbent governor Patrick J. Quinn, removing the possibility of a long and controversial recount. Of course, nothing is simple in politics, and there's since been trouble in the Democrat's lieutenant governor's race. In Illinois, lieutenant governors run independent primary campaigns, although they often join forces as a team with a gubernatorial candidate. This was not the case with Quinn and the winner of the race for second-in-command, Scott Lee Cohen. Quinn kept his distance from Cohen, going as far as to call for him to drop out of the race based on a 2005 arrest for domestic battery of Cohen's then-girlfriend, a former prostitute. While Cohen remained in for the duration of the race, and accumulated the most votes in the primary, he stepped down shortly after the election, leaving the state Democratic Party with the task of choosing the candidate themselves. Somepeople are now even questioning whether the position itself is necessary, resulting in a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would abolish the post.

While that proposal will take months to enact, if it ever happens, Illinois Democrats now have the undesirable task of bypassing the results of the actual election and choosing a candidate themselves: an inauspicious start to a gubernatorial race that will likely be a close one. While Illinois is usually reliably blue, and has the added bonus of being the current President's home state, Quinn has had his share of troubles, taking much of the blame for the state's budget woes of the past year. He'll be facing state senator Bill Brady on the Republican side, with political newcomer Jason Plummer as Brady's running mate. Both candidates barely edged their way to victory in a crowded field, but they will likely enjoy the support of an energized Republican base come November.

The next big primary to take place will be in Texas, and the Republican side has its share of surprises. While Governor Rick Perry is enjoying a strong lead, he is still polling shy of the simple majority needed to avoid a runoff election between himself and the second place finisher. For a while it appeared as though U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) had a lock on that spot, but Debra Medina – Tea Partier and state coordinator for the Campaign for Liberty – has gained ground on her, with the most recent poll showing the Senator just 4 points ahead of the woman once thought to be a fringe candidate. While Sarah Palin's endorsement of Rick Perry should have gone a long way to shoring up his support with the far right, Medina's populist rhetoric has helped her gain a good amount of ground with that crowd.

Meanwhile, Hutchison has the backing of former President George H.W. Bush and former VP Dick Cheney, but those mainstream names might not cut it in this environment, where being a political insider is a black mark on one's candidacy. Perhaps Hutchison foresaw her troubles in the fall, causing her to repeatedly postpone her planned resignation from the Senate. Regardless, with the polls trending the direction they are, the odds of a GOP candidate reaching the 50%+1 mark are long, and it's looking more and more like the runoff will be between Perry and Medina. While Democratic candidates might have a shot at the top spot in Texas in a good year, they're unlikely to wrest it away in this political climate, leaving Perry with a very good chance at extending his tenure – already the longest in state history – for another term.

Congressman Jack Murtha Dies At the Age of 77

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:17:43 GMT

Western Pennsylvania received some tragic news yesterday, as long-time Congressional powerbroker, Rep. John “Jack” Murtha (D-PA, 12), passed away after complications from a late January surgery. He was 77 years old. Murtha was the first Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress, and was famous for using his position as the Chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to procure hundreds of millions in federal spending for his district. First elected in a special election in 1974, he had just become the longest-serving Congressman in Pennsylvania history two days before his untimely death. While hawkish for a Democrat, he made waves in 2005 when he came out vocally against the Iraq war, and how it was being handled by the Bush Administration. Ultimately his legacy will be that of a man who was devoted to his district and spent considerable efforts to provide for his constituents – efforts that were rewarded by re-election after re-election as well as numerous public projects enshrined with his name.

A special election to decide who will serve the remainder of Congressman Murtha’s term must be held at least 60 days after a vacancy emerges, which means it will likely be held on May 18, to coincide with Pennsylvania primary elections. While Murtha was able to count on reliable re-elections, the Democrat chosen to replace him will have their work cut out for them. The Cook Political Report has moved the race from “likely Democrat” to “toss up”. Of course, whoever wins will face another contest just six months later, as all House seats are up for election in November.

The Senate Welcomes its Newest Member

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:32:03 GMT

Roughly two weeks after Massachusetts voters hit the polls to choose the replacement of the late Ted Kennedy, the election results have been certified, clearing the way for Scott Brown (R-MA) to be sworn in to the United States Senate. The newest Member of Congress will take the oath this afternoon at 5:00pm, replacing interim Senator Paul Kirk and shifting the balance of the upper chamber enough to remove the 60-vote majority that the Democrats had enjoyed for roughly six months. While the newly-elected Congressman had initially seemed willing to wait until next week, when the swearing-in was originally scheduled, he changed his tune on Wednesday when he demanded that the Governor certify his victory as soon as possible. This development will likely have little effect on health care reform or any of the other major items on the President’s agenda, as none of them were expected to be voted on in the next week anyway. However, it could prove to be a stumbling block for some of the nominees still awaiting confirmation. Even as the 41st Republican Senator, it’s possible that Brown may be more willing to work with Democrats than his fellow party members currently are. While he did win the election, he still represents the people of Massachusetts, and if he wants to be re-elected, he probably can’t get away with toeing the party line.

Illinois Senate Candidates Chosen; Governor Races Too Close to Call

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:42:13 GMT

As with most Groundhog Days, there weren’t many big surprises yesterday. Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow, predicting six more weeks of winter – not shocking to those of us that woke up this morning to a few inches of snow on the ground. On the political front, none of yesterday’s Illinois primary races had any shocking results, either. While some of the races were very tight – indeed, some are still too close to call – none of them had big upset victories for the underdog.

Alexi Giannoulias won the Democratic Senatorial primary, meaning the only thing standing between him and President Obama’s former seat is Republican challenger Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL, 10). As the polls predicted, Giannoulias’ closest opponent, David Hoffman, finished just behind the winner, within five points. This isn’t a good sign for the state treasurer, as he’s going to be facing a tough road to the election. Republicans will likely harp on his youth and relative inexperience, as well as his past as a banker, which could be a big negative so soon after the recent financial crisis. Of course, Kirk himself has issues, as both he and his Democratic opponent proved to be weak closers. The relative poor showings of the victors could point to dissatisfaction with the establishment across the electorate. Which candidate that most applies to is up for debate, however: Kirk has served five terms on the Hill, but Giannoulias represents the party currently in power. It should be an interesting race, although the Republicans might be more optimistic, as it appears they got the opponent they were hoping for.

As expected, both party’s contests in the governor’s race ended up being very close. With 99% of the vote counted, incumbent Patrick Quinn leads his opponent Dan Hynes by roughly 7,000 votes. At the time of this posting, Hynes has yet to offer a concession. For the Republicans, three candidates finished within 9,000 votes of each other: Bill Brady leads fellow state senator Kirk Dillard by about 500 points, and Andy McKenna finished less than 8,000 votes behind Dillard. With both contests ending so closely, the possibility of recounts on both sides has been raised. Don’t expect either primary to be resolved all that quickly.

Finally, the one House race we highlighted yesterday did have a bit of an upset. Ethan Hastert, son of former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, lost his bid to run for his father’s seat. He was defeated by Randy Hultgren, who used the healthy head of steam he had to push past the heir to the House spot. Apparently name recognition wasn’t enough for the young Hastert – or maybe dirty politics was enough to win the day. Hultgren will go on to face incumbent Bill Foster (D) and Dan Kairis of the Green Party in the November election.

Illinois Voters Brave the Cold on Primary Day

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:10:22 GMT

While most eyes are focused on Punxsutawney, PA today, to see if that prognosticator of prognosticators will predict a short end to winter, the political establishment is fixing its attention on Illinois this February 2^nd, where the first primary of the 2010 political season will be taking place. Just like the famed groundhog’s shadow, today’s contests will be seen as a sort of bellwether. Political analysts are eager to decipher whether the anger at the established parties, as displayed by Scott Brown’s (R-MA) surprise victory from last month, will continue unabated, or if that contest’s results were more of a fluke based on a weak Democratic candidacy. There will be primaries for governor and a number of House seats, and not to mention the Senate seat once occupied by President Obama. While the Administration hasn’t injected itself into any of the races, they will certainly be watching the results closely along with everyone else in Washington.

For most people, the Senate race is the one to watch. The Democratic side is highly competitive, and with Roland Burris (D-IL) opting out, there is no incumbent. The frontrunner for much of the race, state treasurer Alexi Giannoulias has watched his lead slowly erode as former Chicago inspector general David Hoffman and Cheryle Jackson, president of the Chicago Urban League, have crept up in the polls. While it still appears to be a long shot, if Jackson, or especially Hoffman, were to pull off a victory, it would be seen as another rejection of the establishment: Giannoulias may not be a classic insider, but he has the support of the party leadership behind him. Another potential negative for the treasurer is the fact that he’s a former bank executive in a time where banks aren’t the most popular institutions around. While he’s still favored, an upset is far from out of the question. On the Republican side, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL, 10) has a strong lead over his opponent Patrick Hughes. Hughes tried to make himself out to be the conservative answer to the moderate Kirk, but it just hasn’t clicked with the voters. Expect Kirk to walk away with it, and talk of Tea Parties to be absent from the analysis.

Next on the list is the race for governor, with a rare example of an incumbent potentially losing his party’s primary. Governor Pat Quinn (D), who was Rod Blagojavich’s lieutenant governor until the infamous governor was impeached last year, finds himself neck and neck with state Comptroller Dan Hynes (D). Quinn may have built his career as an outsider, but in this race he’s firmly on the inside, which could be a crucial blow in this political climate. Add to that the fact that the state is in a fiscal crisis, and the current chief executive is firmly fixed with a target on his back. As befitting Illinois races, the ads have been a bit below the belt, including one associating Hynes with grave-robbing. The numbers are as close as can be, though, and there’s a very real chance that Hynes will be facing off against the winner of the today’s Republican contest. There’s a big crowd on that side, too, with seven candidates jockeying for position, including former state GOP party chair Andy McKenna, former state attorney general Jim Ryan and Bill Brady and Kirk Dillard, both state senators. It’s little wonder that they’re all gearing up for a race that usually doesn’t attract Republicans in such numbers, as a weakened incumbent and the current conditions make it an attractive proposition. Look for whoever wins to put up a strong fight through the fall, and possibly even take the spot at the top in the Land of Lincoln.

There’s one House race that’s particularly interesting, as well: the seat of former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R) is being pursued by his son Ethan. Standing in his way is fellow Republican and state Senator Randy Hultgren. As one would expect based on name-recognition, Hastert is the favorite, but Hultgren had made strides toward narrowing his lead – that is, until his campaign released an ad loosely linking Hastert’s law firm with human trafficking. The winner of the primary will go on to a three-way race with Democrat incumbent Bill Foster and Green Party candidate Daniel Kairis. While that contest may not be as personal as the primary has been, it’s going to be extremely hard fought as the Democrats try and defend their ground in a House that may swing hard to the right this year, undermining the President’s efforts to enact landmark legislation.

Obama Heads Toward the Middle in State of the Union Address

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:20:04 GMT

On a night when the nation’s eyes were turned to Washington, with all the major stars of government (well, all but two) on display in the House chamber, and in a political climate that can charitably be described as hostile, the President delivered his annual address to Congress. Having suffered a number of setbacks to his agenda in the last year, and reeling from some recent electoral losses, President Obama faced a daunting task: speak to a largely reticent Congress and reach out to a disillusioned American people in a time of economic hardship where support for government in general is lacking. In an artfully crafted, 71 minute long address, he managed to accomplish that feat remarkably well – something that should come as little surprise, considering his penchant for rhetoric as displayed during the 2008 campaign.

The speech was a mixture of humor and pathos, with a number of jokes sprinkled throughout but also containing a healthy acknowledgement of the dire situation the nation currently faces. The President frequently invoked his campaign promises and rhetoric, such as bringing a culture of post-partisanship and change in Washington. Despite having not delivered on much of it, his words managed to not ring hollow. He effectively made his case, reminding the nation that many of the problems he’s facing were there when he arrived, and asserting that he never claimed he could go at it alone, needing the help of Congress and the American people.

This theme of unity and post-partisanship was a common one, and it underlines the overall reach of the speech, which appeared to be aimed largely at the independent voters that have jumped ship on the President over the last year. Many of the proposals he outlined are decidedly centrist, and a far cry from the socialism that he’s often accused of. The economic policies focused on tax cuts and spending freezes: hardly staples of the far left. He also made mention of off-shore drilling and nuclear power plants, which are preferred energy policies of Republicans. In a move sure to be popular with those folks in the middle, he took potshots at the unpopular bogeymen of Washington: lobbyists, partisan politics and the endless campaign culture in Congress. Of course, he also sprinkled the speech with the names of small towns and touching anecdotes about letters received from average Americans. It is little wonder, then, that a reported 83% of Americans that watched the address approved of the proposals it contained.

Though much of the speech was aimed at the voters seated before their televisions at home, some salvos were fired directly at the Members of Congress in the chamber itself. While attacking obstructionist Republicans, he also addressed members of his own party, calling on them to reject the path of political expediency and embrace reforms that, while unpopular, are necessary. These comments were largely referring to the stalled health care reform movement; although considering the loss of the Senatorial supermajority it involves any other controversial issues as well. While a pep talk is what Congressional Democrats needed, it’s uncertain how effective it will be. In an election year, rhetoric – no matter how soaring – will rarely trump re-election considerations.

Congress wasn’t the only branch of government that the President went after last night. He briefly addressed the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision, urging both parties to address it through legislation. It was an odd moment for the Supreme Court, which is rarely criticized by the other branches, especially on national television. It provoked the closest example of a “You Lie!” moment, with Justice Samuel Alito mouthing “not true” in response. It’s a testament to the unpopularity of the ruling, that the President felt secure in attacking it in such a way.

The reaction to the speech was mixed, as one would expect. Initially resistant, as the address went on Republicans applause became more and more evident. Whether it was because the lines were designed to appeal to them or they were responding to outside pressure is unknown, but toward the end a large majority of the chamber was showing appreciation for some of his choicer quotes. Of course, it’s difficult not to support such concepts as “freedom and human dignity”. Still, this address managed to come closer to surpassing partisanship than his previous attempt.

Republicans in Congress weren’t the only ones split on the speech, though. Pundits and analysts on the left differed on their reactions, with some praising it as a masterpiece while others showed more restraint, holding off until they see if it has consequences in the real world. That really gets to the heart of the issue. As far as rhetoric is concerned, the speech was a resounding success. Well-written, well-delivered and inclusive, it had broad appeal in a time when the Democratic Party must reach out to all voters. It did undermine the Republicans a bit by taking over the center (and to some extent, the near-right). Ultimately, though, the address will have to be judged on its effectiveness: if it fails to change the climate in Congress and Washington as a whole, than it will be seen as just more nice words from a man who can deliver one hell of a speech.

Fiscal Policy Takes Center Stage in 2010

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:33:51 GMT

After a tough first year for the President, who saw his party lose two state governor’s races and a key Senatorial special election, it appears that he’s finally trying to show the American people that he gets it. After spending a quarter of his term focusing largely on health care reform and, to some extent, national security, he and the folks on the Hill have turned their attention to the economy and fiscal policy – a wise move in the current economic climate, as it tends to be the issue that most determines how people vote, especially in times of hardship.

This Wednesday, during the State of the Union Address, the President is expected to announce a three year spending freeze on all non-Defense related Departmental budgets. The move is expected to save $250 billion over the next ten years – a drop in the bucket of the projected $9 trillion in debt that the government is expected to accrue over that time. The plan may help to lessen the stigma of “tax-and-spend” policies that Democrats are frequently saddled with, and since Defense and National Security programs are exempt, the President can still appear strong on that front. Of course, there are some risks in this route, and the choice has already drawn the ire of many liberals and progressives who are already upset with the Administration over perceived capitulation on health care reform. Another issue that he’ll have to face is getting Congress to approve the budget restraints in an election year. Members of Congress – especially those on the Finance and Budget Committees – often use their ability to provide more services to their constituents to garner support amongst voters. While the specter of fiscal responsibility may be attractive to voters this year, folks who are hurting may see the freeze as a negative, as it will lessen the assistance they receive from the government. Coming on the heels of the Massachusetts Senate loss, this move comes off as a reaction to public opinion meant to score political points. Whether it helps in the 2010 mid-terms is a question we’ll have to wait to see answered.

On the Hill, the Senate will vote today on establishing an independent commission to examine the national debt in order to find bipartisan methods of reducing it. It’s not expected to be very popular with members from either party, however, as Republicans worry it will involve raising taxes and Democrats fear it could result in cutting entitlement spending. Both sides have strong political reasons to avoid such measures, so it may be nearly impossible to get the 60 votes needed to pass it. Given the current culture in Washington, and the fact that it’s an election year, bipartisanship is unlikely to come into play either. The Congressional commission isn’t the only method being considered: should the bill fail, the President is expected to establish such a commission by executive order, and an independent group of former government officials announced their own task force yesterday. Either one of these routes are preferable to Members of Congress, as they would provide political cover for those unwilling to stick their necks out. In an election year environment, political considerations are huge, and often trump moves that may be effective but would be unpalatable to the folks at home. This vote, and all votes for the next 10 months, will be made with the November elections firmly in mind.

Landmark SCOTUS Ruling Removes Campaign Financing Restrictions

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:49:28 GMT

Fresh from the appointment of a new Justice, the Supreme Court is looking to have a busy year, and they’ve already got a landmark decision under their belts. In a rare special session today, the court announced its ruling in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The subject of the case was campaign financing, and, essentially, whether or not corporate spending should be restricted in federal elections. In a 5-4 decision the court ruled that corporations may spend freely from their general treasuries on campaigns, easing previously established limits on their participation. Penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the majority opinion concluded that, since the court has recognized that the First Amendment applies to corporations, political speech in the form of monetary contributions by corporate entities should also be protected. The ruling also overturned a portion of the McCain-Feingold bill that banned corporate-backed ads in the final days of an election. Some requirements remain upheld, however, including disclosure of individuals contributing more than $1000 and the inclusion of disclaimers in ads not specifically authorized by a candidate.

The repercussions of the Court’s decision are still uncertain. Campaign finance reform advocates worry that it will lead to a flood of campaign spending by corporations and other moneyed interests, such as labor unions. Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion, worried that “the ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.” With mid-term elections taking place this fall, it shouldn’t be long before we find out what affect this will have on political contests. In a country where politics is already dominated by special interests, this decision gives corporations and other organizations nearly unlimited influence in elections. Ironically, a decision heralded as protecting freedom of speech may end up diluting that of the average individual, further undermining the power of the people in this democracy.

Democrats Sent Reeling by Massachusetts Senate Race Results

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:47:36 GMT

If you want a good summation of the bizarre times we’re in, politically speaking, simply read the following sentence: The Republican candidate, Scott Brown, was victorious in yesterday’s Massachusetts special election, and will take the place of Ted Kennedy in the United States Senate. As difficult as it is to believe, it’s true, and Democrats and analysts alike have already begun pointing fingers (indeed, some had already started before the votes were counted). Some blame the weak candidacy of Martha Coakley, while others in her camp claim she never received adequate help from the national party. Regardless of who’s to blame, the narrative shows the Democrats losing a race in one of the bluest states in the country at a time when they desperately needed a victory. While they may have had a pessimistic outlook for the 2010 midterm elections before, now they’re sure to be in panic mode. They may also be facing more retirement announcements soon, as centrist Democrats decide that a tough campaign in this toxic environment is simply not worth it. While yesterday’s results have far-reaching consequences in the Washington political arena, the most immediate affect it has will be on the health care reform debate.

When Brown is seated, the Democratic caucus will be whittled down to 59; still a considerable majority, but ineffective in this political climate. With Republicans united in their refusal to cooperate, Congressional Democrats will be hard-pressed to accomplish any of the President’s legislative goals. The health care reform movement is currently stuck between the House and Senate as lawmakers are in the process of reconciling the two disparate bills. With the threat of a filibuster now looming, some Democrats believe that they must act quickly, and vote on the bill that the Senate passed. This would involve the House capitulating on a number of issues, which is unlikely to happen. Some Senate Democrats have already come out against voting on health care before Brown is seated, so it’s unlikely they’ll be able to get anything passed quickly. This leaves them in a tough position: walking away without passing any bill could be disastrous, but forcing through unpopular legislation is just as likely to backfire. They may be able to court a single Republican vote out of Olympia Snowe (R-ME) or Susan Collins (R-ME), but after watching a Democrat lose in neighboring Massachusetts they’re unlikely to jump on board. Of course, they may need more than one or two Republican votes, as Democratic Senators in swing states who were already reticent will be even more wary of voting for such obviously unpopular legislation, especially in an election year.

Beyond health care, there are a number of issues that Democrats in Congress believed they had another year to tackle. Still on the back burner is the Employee Free Choice Act as well as an energy bill that would enact cap-and-trade. With the Republicans having little incentive to do business, it’s unlikely that much progress will be made on any of these initiatives. The Democrats will also likely have to shift priorities to reflect the national will. While health care reform may have been a major campaign issue for the President, the average voter is now much more concerned with reducing joblessness and boosting the economy. If the Democrats want to make any progress at the polls, they will have to change tactics to make it clear to the American people that they’re doing everything they can to turn the economy around. If they fail in doing this, and stay on their current path, the loss of the Kennedy Senate seat will be the first in a long line of electoral losses.

All Eyes on Massachusetts for Today's Special Election

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:14:28 GMT

Back in December of 2009, a sliver of the Massachusetts electorate took to the polls to pick each party’s candidate for the race to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate. Over a month later, it’s Election Day, and few political prognosticators could have predicted the events of the last few weeks. In a Democratic stronghold deep in the northeast the Republican candidate has surged in the polls and gained the edge, sending national Democratic officials scrambling to prevent what could be a disaster for their party. Whether the cause is a weak candidate, a poorly-run campaign or simply problems with the party’s brand name, if the most recent poll numbers hold up, the GOP will walk away with a stunning victory. Not only will they have gained control of a Senate seat in the region where they’re least powerful, they’ll also have eliminated the 60-seat majority that the Democrats had enjoyed in the Senate. While Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration expected another 11 months with which to enact their agenda, they may now have just 11 days.

Flying under the radar for the bulk of the contest, the Massachusetts special election race really caught the national media’s eye last week when it became apparent that not only had the polls tightened up, but Republican candidate Scott Brown had actually taken the lead. The Democratic Party responded by injecting some national party cash into the race in order to assist Martha Coakley’s efforts. They also hoped that visits from some Presidents – both past and present – would help shore up their efforts and stop the bleeding. How successful they were will be determined by the results of today’s voting. Gaining ground amongst independents, Brown is also buoyed by an energetic base. Considering that turnout may be sparse in this special election, where the weather may convince many voters to stay home, the party with the most enthusiasm has the edge. Couple that with the fact that excitement is dampened for many progressives who were expecting a more robust health care reform bill, and the Democrats will have trouble stirring up their base. The Democratic Party does have an advantage in the get-out-the-vote front, with a strong party structure throughout the state, but in the end that may not be enough.

Tomorrow morning the analysts and experts in the media will dissect every aspect of this race. Whatever the results, the GOP will come away with a lot of positives. They managed to play it very close in a race that few thought they had a chance in, and if they win it will be even more impressive. The Democrats could be sent reeling, and even if they squeak out a victory it will likely be by a small margin, and this in a race that was supposed to be a cake walk. In the big picture, the results of this race will be seen as indicative of the problems on the horizon for the Democrats, with the potential for a bloodbath in November becoming that much more of a reality. Already troubled by high-profile retirements, more and more Congressfolks could decide that retirement is preferable to fighting a hard re-election campaign, causing the outlook for 2010 to become that much bleaker for the Democratic Party.

Harold Ford is in a New York State of Mind

Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:12:52 GMT

With all the electoral troubles the Democrats will be facing in the coming year, (including what could be a disastrous special Senatorial election in Massachusetts on Tuesday) one might expect members of the caucus to unite and show support for struggling incumbents within their party. This is hardly the case, however, as some prominent politicians are set to face tough opponents in their party’s primaries. Whether it’s Joe Sestak challenging Arlen Specter (D-PA) or Michael Bennet (D-CO) having to play defense against former state house speaker Andrew Romanoff in Colorado, across the country Democratic incumbents are being undermined by opponents of varying strength. The latest to jump into this intra-party challenger ring is former Tennessee Representative Harold Ford, Jr.

Earlier this week, Ford turned the concept of carpetbagging on its head and announced his interest in challenging Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) for her position as Senator from New York. Appointed to the position after Hillary Clinton left for the State Department, Gillibrand has faced the possibility of a primary before, with Carolyn Maloney (D-NY, 14) and Steve Israel (D-NY, 2) having briefly flirted with campaigns of their own. They both eventually backed out, after President Obama made it clear that he was supporting Gillibrand, thereby paving the way for a November contest against a Republican opponent – or so it was assumed. It’s unclear what made Ford step into the race at such a late date, and considering his short residency in the state, people are wondering: why New York? Ford’s politics are somewhat conservative for a Democrat, which may be ideal for Tennessee, but not so much for the Empire State. In an effort to introduce himself to the people of New York, he did an interview with the New York Times this week in which he tried to clarify some of his policy positions, but he ended up coming off as elitist and out of touch. When asked “Jets or Giants” he replied with which team owners he was closer to personally. He even used the word “helicopter” as a verb. For a man who spent the last few years working for Merrill Lynch, he’s going to have his work cut out for him as he attempts to change his image to be more palatable to voters in these economic conditions. The New York Times interview alone may have been enough to scuttle his hopes.

With a big head start in time and money, as well as the incumbency, it would appear that Gillibrand has little to fear from Ford. While his Wall Street connections will likely allow him to raise a good amount of campaign cash in a hurry, it will also hurt him a great deal with the voting public. While Gillibrand may be safe, Ford’s move still highlights a troubling development for the Democrats. In a year when they’ll be scrambling to defend their majorities from eager Republicans, it seems that expensive primaries would be the last thing they need. Of course, there is the possibility that tough primaries make for stronger candidates, as with the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primaries. However, with so many races in play this election cycle, finances are going to be a big issue. Any money spent on a primary won’t be there for the general.

In the end, the real problem that this underscores is the seeming inability of Democrats to unite as a cohesive party. Unlike the Republicans under Bush, Democratic leaders have had trouble getting their members to fall in line over major votes, such as health care reform. Part of it is the difficulty of uniting folks with such differing ideals behind one banner: the Democratic coalition includes Members from the Blue Dogs to Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and everyone in between. It’s a small wonder that President Obama has trouble getting his ducks in a row, and the fact that the Chair of the DLC has decided to challenge the Administration’s chosen candidate in a high-profile Senate race is just another symptom of the Democratic Party’s problems.

Massachusetts Senate Race Much Closer Than Expected

Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:00:39 GMT

As we begin 2010, it’s apparent that there’s potential for it to be a very bad year for the Democratic Party. According to the nonpartisan Cook Political Report midterm forecasts, the Democrats can expect to lose anywhere from 20-30 seats in the House, and five or more Senate spots. Among those folks most in danger of losing their seats is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and recent events will likely make things that much harder for him. There are also a number of governorships up for grabs, and given the political climate across the country, the GOP will likely have an advantage in most of them. While these all point to problems on the horizon for the Democrats, there’s actually a glaring one coming up right around the corner: the race to replace Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts.

The Bay State is about as blue as it gets, so most analysts, myself included, predicted the outcome of the Senatorial special election to be nearly certain back in December of 2009. The winner of the Democratic primary was projected to waltz into the Senate and take the place of current appointee, Paul Kirk (D-MA). Recent events have caused many to change their expectations, however, as Republican candidate Scott Brown has closed the gap between himself and Democratic nominee and state Attorney General Martha Coakley. Much of the reason for the tightening is an increase in support for Brown from independents, which make up a larger part of the voting populace in Massachusetts than Democrats and Republicans combined. Much like in the rest of the country, non-affiliated voters are expressing dissatisfaction with the party in charge, and it shows in the poll numbers. Brown is also enjoying a boost from an energized Republican base, which, in a low-turnout, mid-winter special election, could ultimately end up being the difference.

This news is a shock to the Democrats, and they’ve reacted by pouring cash into the race, hoping to stave off what would be a crushing defeat. Not only is the former seat of Ted Kennedy in danger of slipping out of their hands, but a Brown victory would reduce the Democratic Senatorial caucus to 59. Considering their borderline ineffectuality when they have the filibuster-proof majority, this could effectively halt any progress on legislation that the Obama Administration is planning for the coming year. Even health care reform, which many have considered a done deal since Christmas Eve, could be dealt a devastating blow and ultimately fail.

There’s still a bit of time for the Democrats to make up lost ground before Tuesday’s election, but the apparent momentum is on the Republicans’ side. The fact that the race is as tight as it is has Democrats scared, and rightfully so. If this race ends up as close as it seems, November could be a very rough month for them. Financially, they’ll need to make tough decisions on where to spend the national party’s money, and it looks like they’ll basically need to play defense in all but the most solidly blue areas. While a lot can change in 10 months, the Democrats may need a miracle to retain the seats they need to accomplish anything, and if they lose, it could even spell trouble for the President’s chances in 2012.

Dodd, Dorgan Opt Out of Reelection Bids

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:14:07 GMT

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was greeted with a double dose of bad news last night, as two Senators announced their decision to forgo reelection in 2010 within hours of each other. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Chris Dodd (D-CT)’s seats will be open game in the coming mid-term elections, and the moves could spell trouble for Democrats who were already wary of losing a working majority in the coming contests. While they are likely to retain more than fifty seats after the November elections, it’s apparent that they’ll lose a few, thereby making a filibuster-proof sixty votes seemingly unreachable.

Dodd’s announcement is not terribly surprising, as his poll numbers have been abysmal over the last year, when he, as the Chair of the Senate Banking Committee, started receiving a good amount of the blame for the financial crisis. While Dodd is one of the most senior members of the upper chamber, his departure isn’t a huge blow to the party, as he was a weak candidate, and Connecticut is likely to remain blue regardless. In fact, the expected Democratic front-runner to replace him, state attorney general Richard Blumenthal, fares much better against the prominent Republican candidates. While Republicans may pick up some Senate seats later this year, Connecticut isn’t likely to be one of them.

Dorgan’s decision is much more damaging to the party’s election outlook. Dorgan is a moderate member of the caucus who was popular in a red state where no reliable heir apparent is waiting in the wings. Democratic strategists will now have to devote money and resources to a difficult race where the cards may be stacked against them. Expected to run on the Republican side is popular governor John Hoeven, and right now it appears that he is the early favorite for victory. Unless the Democrats find a strong candidate – and it’s uncertain whether or not MSNBC’s outspoken Ed Schultz is the best choice – they could lose a Senate seat in a year where every spot is crucial. The GOP appears to be satisfied with their status as the party of no, so without the full sixty seats, Democrats may be unable to advance any more of their legislative agenda beyond December of 2010.

Congress Kicks Off the New Year with Old Issues

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:11:55 GMT

With the long winter holiday break coming to a close, Congress will return to the Capitol today, officially kicking off the second half of the 111^th term. For Democrats in both Houses, as well as the Obama Administration, there are still a number of items remaining on the agenda, and it’s doubtful that things will be getting any easier for them. While the efforts of the Senate culminated in a successful Christmas Eve vote on health care reform, the bill must still be reconciled with the version that the House passed back in November. Also on the legislative calendar is the issue of climate change, and the Democratic leadership will not be having an easy time over it. Add to that the renewed focus on terrorism and national security due to the failed Christmas Day airline attack, as well as the embassy closures in Yemen, and lawmakers in DC will be facing scrutiny on how well they’re keeping Americans safe. Of course one can’t overlook the still-shaky economy, and the President and Congress will certainly have their plates full in the coming 12 months – not the best scenario for Democrats hoping to minimize losses in the upcoming mid-term elections.

After the Senate’s last-minute bill passage, there remain two separate items of health care reform legislation that must be shaped into one cohesive whole. Normally, this is done through a formal conference committee composed of members selected from each chamber. The resultant bill is then reported to each chamber for a final vote, and if passed in both Houses, it is sent to the President for approval or veto. It appears, however, that Democrats in Congress are attempting to bypass this step by holding informal negotiations between the leadership in each chamber in order to iron out the differences between the two bills. This legislative “ping pong”, where Members in the House and Senate bounce legislation back and forth between the two chambers until they arrive at a bill that they both agree on, has drawn criticism from both sides of the political spectrum. Republicans are predictably upset about being locked out of the process, and liberals decry the move as lacking in transparency. While the eventual legislation will still need to pass votes in both the House and the Senate, it will bypass a number of procedural hurdles, allowing Congress to get the bill to the President’s desk that much quicker. Despite this fact, it’s unlikely that it will be passed into law before the end of January.

Once (or if) the health care reform movement overcomes its final hurdle, Democrats in Washington will have to shift their attention to other issues. One of the major ones they’re likely to tackle is climate change, and they’re sure to meet resistance from some powerful industry groups as they try and find the right methods of combating the environmental issue. Currently awaiting debate in the Senate, the House passed a bill in June which would cut carbon dioxide emissions using a cap-and-trade program where companies could meet ever-tightening restrictions by either cutting their emissions or purchasing allowances to continue to release greenhouse gases. This move is likely to be unpopular with manufacturing and other high-emissions industries, as well as coal-rich states, and could therefore be met with strong resistance in the Senate. There are a number of alternatives being put forward, including the monthly auctioning of “carbon shares” by the government, the proceeds of which would go to taxpayers. Some are also pushing for an energy bill, forgoing carbon restrictions for moves such as increasing offshore drilling and adding incentives for the construction of nuclear power plants and other renewable energy sources. Congressional Democrats will be hard-pressed to construct a bill that adequately addresses the climate issue without appearing to stifle economic growth in a time when that’s the biggest issue facing the average American.

There are still a number of other issues that are also going to gain attention, not least of which is the status of the economy. While there are some signs of a turnaround, there are also concerns over the speed of the recovery. Joblessness remains an issue for many Americans, and unless unemployment and underemployment numbers decrease drastically, the Democrats are likely to receive most of the blame as the party in charge. This may translate into electoral losses in the November elections, although it’s unlikely that they will lose their majorities. Considering their relative impotence with 60 seats in the Senate, though, they’ll likely be largely ineffective in the 112^th Congress. This leaves President Obama with roughly 12 months to enact any highly controversial legislation that remains on his agenda, and he’ll have his work cut out for him when it comes to attracting moderate Democrats in a year where they’ll be facing elections back home.

Early Morning Vote is Big Step on Road to Reform

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:02:32 GMT

Despite sheets of snow blanketing much of the mid-Atlantic and bringing life in the District to a virtual stand-still, Senators put in long hours over the weekend in order to continue progress on health care reform legislation. The efforts of Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid (D-NV) culminated in a 1:00am Monday morning vote, labeled historic by the Majority Leader, which is a major step toward passing a bill in the Senate. The vote to invoke cloture and advance the bill past debate fell down strict party lines, with all Democrats and the two Independents voting in the affirmative and all 40 Republicans voting against it. It wasn’t the easiest vote to pass, with a good deal of new state-specific language added to the bill in order to entice some reticent Senators into coming aboard. While a big step for Democrats in the Senate, the bill faces two more procedural votes before the chamber votes on the official passage of the bill on Christmas Eve. The movement for reform wouldn’t be out of the woods yet, however, as the Senate bill will then go on to a conference committee where it must be reconciled with the version that the House passed earlier this year.

That’s beginning to look like a near-Herculean task, as some Senators, such as Max Baucus (D-MT) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) made it clear shortly after the vote that the conference committee bill must be nearly identical to the one the Senate passes in order for them to vote for it. Ben Nelson (D-NE) has also stated that the inclusion of a public option is a deal-breaker, as are any tax increases on the wealthy. Abortion is another bone of contention that threatens to scuttle the attempts at reform, with Members of Congress on both sides of the debate taking issue over language in the Senate’s bill, as well as the Stupak amendment in the House’s version. As much of a problem as it was to rally the 60 votes needed in the Senate, it may be as difficult a task to wrangle the necessary number of House Members to vote for a bill that many progressives see as less-than ideal.

While there’s still work to be done on the reform front, this vote is a big plus for President Obama and his goals for health care. He may not be signing anything into law before the New Year, but getting a bill out of the Senate will be a major step toward accomplishing one of his most important legislative goals. While the bill is unlikely to be exactly what his progressive constituency desires, its passage could go a long way toward improving his standing amongst liberals and may help the President and his party weather the upcoming storm of the 2010 elections.

Health Care Reform Movement Runs Out of Joementum

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:18:07 GMT

As shocking as it sounds, little has been accomplished by the Senate on the health care front in the two weeks since I last wrote aboutthe reform efforts. There are a number of reasons for that, and the highly controversial nature of the issue is just one of them. It appeared that progress had been made last week, as the Democratic leadership began considering the idea of scrapping the public option due to the fact that a certain member of their caucus suddenly decided that it was unpalatable. They then developed a compromise which removed the government-run public option and included an expansion of Medicare benefits to include individuals 55 and older. This compromise was met with surprising warmth by progressive activists, who largely believe that the public option is the central issue of the entire reform movement. In fact, it looked to be the compromise that would solve the issue, enabling the Senate to hammer out the last details on the final bill. That is, until the same Senator who had obstructed the public option the week before made it clear that he was more than willing to derail the reform movement if it included the Medicare expansion.

If you’ve been paying any attention to the beltway brouhaha over the last two days, you know that the Senator is none other than Joe Lieberman (I-CT). The man who just 9 years ago was selected to be the Democratic Party’s vice presidential candidate is now apparently the biggest obstacle to passing one of the central planks of the party’s platform. While long considered a member of the 60-vote supermajority that the Democrats have cobbled together, he’s since disabused everyone of that notion. Despite consistently voting in line with the party on social issues in recent years, he’s decided to break ranks over this, and the timing couldn’t be worse for liberals waiting on reform. Over the last few days, Lieberman’s colleagues and pundits in the press have tried to divine the Senator’s motives. Some believe that he’s aware of his precarious electoral position; he lost the party primary in 2006 to Ned Lamont, and may need the support of Republicans and right-leaning centrists to win in 2012. Others assert that he’s kowtowing to the special interests of the numerous insurance corporations that call his state home. Some of the fringe progressives even believe that he is simply having his revenge on the party that turned their backs on him during his last election. While the veracity of those theories is debatable, the one idea that hasn’t seemed to cross anyone’s mind is that he’s simply following his principles.

While that may seem disingenuous to the man, the facts actually support this assertion. Shortly after he met with Administration officials on Sunday, progressives in the press found numerous examples of Lieberman professing support for Medicare expansion; the very idea that he now claims is unacceptable. While some examples come from years ago, back when he and Al Gore were running for President, others came as recently as three months ago. In light of that, it’s hard to argue that he’s simply doing what he feels is right. Considering the fact that nearly 3 out of 5 Americans currently support some form of public option, it’s also difficult for him to argue that he’s trying to represent the will of the people. We’ll likely never know why Joe Lieberman decided to pull an about face on this issue during such a crucial time period, but one thing’s for sure: he managed to gain a lot of attention. With the Democrats in such a precarious position where every vote counts, he managed to use his leverage to increase his power dramatically. Unfortunately for liberals hoping for real health care reform, it appears that he’s chosen to use his power to obstruct.

The one thing that you cannot say about Joe Lieberman is that he’s a bad politician. If the Democrats had a stronger, more united caucus, they may have had some recourse in dealing with dissension such as this – he could be stripped of his committee chair spots, as well as his seniority. As it is, they likely need Lieberman’s vote to pass any sort of reform bill, or other major legislation in the years to come. While Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) may still be willing to come to the table, any bill that they support will likely be rejected by House progressives. Even now, progressives have begun to debate whether or not to sink the reform process entirely, dubbing it pointless without some sort of public option. Most worrisome for the Democrats are the findings of a recent poll saying that fully one third of Democrats are less likely to vote in 2010 if they fail to pass a public option. It will be ironic if, in the end, all the centrist Democrats shied away from health care reform, only to lose their precarious positions due to that very opposition.

Little Ado About Something: Results of the Mass. Senate Primary

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:53:36 GMT

Despite it being a primary, yesterday’s special election was far from the first thing on the minds of most Massachusetts residents. Voter turnout was predictably low for the early December contest, with reports from across the state of nearly-empty polling centers and a dearth of sign-waving partisans on the sidewalks outside. Whether it was the early-winter weather or the low-profile nature of the race that kept the numbers down, only about ten percent of the voting population showed up to cast their ballots.

While turnout may have been anemic, the winners' leads were far more substantial, with Attorney General Martha Coakley besting her three Democratic opponents by wide margins, and state Senator Scott Brown walking away with nearly 90% of the Republican total. These results are far from surprising, with Coakley having jumped out to an early lead that she never relinquished, and Brown enjoying the support of the bulk of the state GOP leadership. The two will face off on January 19^th to decide who will go on to replace Ted Kennedy in the U.S. Senate, and most experts will tell you that Coakley has quite the advantage. As one of the most liberal states in the nation, Massachusetts is unlikely to send a Republican to Washington in place of one of the most prominent Democrats of the last half-century. That means that in all likelihood the Bay State will soon be represented by a woman Senator for the first time in its history.

Is That Tomorrow? Massachusetts Prepares for Senate Primary

Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:12:37 GMT

For a race that seems to happen just once a generation, with the winner getting a disproportionate chance at national prominence and even a Democratic Presidential nomination, the Massachusetts Senate contest has been garnering an astonishingly small amount of attention. Maybe it’s the health care debate raging in Congress, the state of the national economy or the military action in Afghanistan that’s stealing all the attention. Perhaps it has more to do with the race itself, with little movement as far as poll numbers go and barely-measurable differences between the candidates, policy-wise. Also, with the lack of a Kennedy on the candidate list, and most members of the family keeping notably quiet on the endorsement front, there haven’t been many gripping headlines for the national media to run. Regardless, in the liberal stronghold that is Massachusetts, whoever wins tomorrow’s Democratic primary will likely be representing the state in the Senate, and probably for a good long while.

As the numbers show right now, and basically have from day one, state Attorney General Martha Coakley has a strong lead over her Democratic opponents. The first candidate to enter the race, Coakley is also the only one who has won a statewide election. Still, she’s seen her closest competition, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA, 8^th), edge higher with every poll while her numbers have dipped slightly but steadily. Even the numbers for self-funded millionaire and co-owner of the Boston Celtics, Steve Pagliuca, have risen from the beginning. Part of the reason for this is the gradual increase in name recognition for the other candidates, but the shortness of the race hurts those who have started out trailing Coakley. Of course, voter turnout could play a big part in the results, and the stragglers can do a lot to boost their numbers if they can get out the vote; difficult to do without the support of local party officials, but easier for the elected officials who have experience running campaigns.

While easy to overlook, the Republicans aren’t just sitting this one out. There are two candidates in the race on the GOP side: state Senator Scott Brown and Jack Robinson, a self-funding lawyer who has unsuccessfully pursued the Senate seat before. While Brown has the backing of the state party, Robinson claims that his internal polls show the two virtually even. Branding himself a progressive Republican, Robinson also hopes to use his private-sector experience as a positive in these times of economic uncertainty. Brown is a more attractive candidate for your average Republican, but there aren’t a whole lot of those in Massachusetts. While the winner of the primary will go on to the general election in January, they’ll have their work cut out for them when they face off against the winner of the Democratic race. While electing a Republican isn’t entirely unheard of in Massachusetts – after all, it’s been less than a decade since Mitt Romney was elected governor – it’s highly unlikely that the people of the Bay State will replace the liberal lion with a conservative.

With so little attention having been paid to this race, it’s possible that tomorrow’s results could be surprising. Michael Capuano could pull off an upset, helped along by low turnout rates and a general lack of enthusiasm in his opponents’ corners. In the end, though, this election will likely play out exactly as one would expect, with Coakley moving on to the general and eventually becoming the first female Senator to represent the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The Final Stretch: In the Senate, Health Care Debate Takes Center Stage

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:55:01 GMT

As you can probably tell if you’ve been to a mall or watched any television lately, Thanksgiving is behind us and we’re now in the thick of the Holiday Season. While for most of us that means hours of shopping for presents for our loved ones and a host of seasonal shindigs, members of Congress will be working hard this December hammering out the last kinks in the health care plan in order to get a finished bill to the President by year’s end. The odds of that happening seem rather long, with a number of hot-button issues threatening to scuttle all efforts – not least of which is how to pay for it all. The Senate has moved on to open debate, attempting to weave the various threads of the reform issue into a coherent whole, which will then, if passed by a floor vote, move on to a conference committee. Once there, it will have to be reconciled with the bill that the House passed last month. It’s going to take a monumental effort of legislative leadership to accomplish all of this, and a lot could be riding on the success or failure of this legislation, including the results of next year’s Congressional elections.

As one would imagine, the method of paying for any kind of reform – whether it includes a public option or not – is a topic of intense debate. Right now, the White House and Democrats in the House and Senate have all introduced different plans for how to finance these efforts. Originally, the Obama Administration had floated the concept of lowering the charitable tax deduction for families making over $250 thousand per year, although that idea was met with dismay from many non-profit organizations wary of how it would affect their income – especially at a time where charitable donations are down due to the economic slump. On the House side, the leadership included a new tax on the wealthy, adding a 5.4% surcharge to individuals who make over $500 thousand per year and families making over $1 million. This proposal is unlikely to remain in the finished bill, as it was poorly received in the Senate, where some members predictably shied away from a tax increase – not to mention the fact that many members would be directly affected by this increase. Finally, Senate leadership proposed a two-fold method, where an excise tax would be placed on high-end, or “Cadillac”, insurance plans, as well as a half-percent increase in the payroll tax. This plan drew resistance from labor unions, however, as many of their past negotiations have resulted in generous health plan benefits, which would be negatively affected by this method. A number of other proposals have been tossed around, including a sugar tax, which was predictably opposed by a number of food-industry interest groups. While developing a plan for financing is no easy task, Democrats in the Senate have been receiving good news from the Congressional Budget Office lately, including a report released yesterday that says insurance premiums of most plans will likely remain unchanged or decrease slightly if the reform efforts are passed. Folks hoping for reform can take heart at the findings of the non-partisan CBO, but financing these efforts is not the only hurdle that will have to be overcome.

One of the most contentious aspects of this debate is the question of abortion, or, more specifically, whether federal dollars should go toward plans that include coverage for them. The Stupak Amendment to the House bill has become a lightning rod for folks on both sides of this controversial issue. The pro-life crowd is adamant that no public money be used to provide abortions, while the pro-choice crowd sees this as an attempt to undermine the legality of the procedure, which may eventually affect women’s abilities to get them in the future. The amendment essentially bans any federal money, including the government-run public option or subsidies paid to low-income individuals, from being used to purchase a plan that covers abortions. It would require any policy available in the insurance exchange that covers the procedure to provide a nearly-identical plan that removes the funding of abortions. Progressives have been very vocal on this subject, with women’s health advocates planning a rally in Washington to fight what they see as an assault on a woman’s right to choose. Folks on the other side are fighting just as hard, including many religious groups, such as the Conference of Catholic Bishops. Senate Democrats will have a remarkably difficult time with this one, as they walk an incredibly fine line between capitulation and compromise. Add to that the fact that there are at least two members of their coalition who are anti-abortion – Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Bob Casey (D-PA) – and they may be stuck between their constituents and a hard place.

Of course, the issue that has been at the forefront of the debate for months hasn’t gone away. Whether or not to include a government-run public option, and what it should look like, is just as likely to impede the passage of a reform bill as anything at this point. The current Senate bill being debated includes such an option, although it has language allowing states to opt out of the system if they so choose – a compromise that is popular amongst centrists, although some, such as Ben Nelson, would prefer a plan that states would need to actively opt into. There’s also the concept of a trigger option, where a public option would be created in a number of years if certain criteria, such as lowered premium costs, are not met. This has been embraced by Mary Landrieu (D-LA), as well as possible aisle-crosser Olympia Snowe (R-ME). A Republican vote or two may be necessary, as some members of the Democratic caucus, including Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), seem to be opposed to the public option entirely. Harry Reid (D-NV) is opposed to using budget reconciliation to pass health reform, so he’s going to need as many votes as he can get to reach the 60 needed to overcome an inevitable filibuster. Bringing Snowe – and perhaps her fellow Maine Senator, Susan Collins (R-ME) – aboard could be the Democrats’ only option when it comes to the final passage.

With so many issues stacked up against it, health care reform appears to be too beleaguered to have much of a chance of survival. As with any legislation, compromise will be the name of the game as the Senate debates the issue over the next few weeks. While it’s unlikely that nothing will get passed, the odds of the final bill satisfying the desires of most progressives are quite long. In the end, this issue will have resounding consequences, not just for the millions of sick and uninsured in our country, but for President Obama. He’s staked an awful lot of his political reputation on passing health care reform, and if he fails to do so it could put a damper on his efforts in other areas for the remainder of his Administration.

The Road to Congress: 2010 (Part 2)

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:04:59 GMT

As promised, here’s a look at a few more 2010 Senate primaries that are sure to be of interest.

In Connecticut, the Republicans smell blood in the water, and they’re lining up for the chance to take on the embattled Senate veteran Chris Dodd (D), who has borne the brunt of the popular anti-Wall Street sentiment that has cropped up over the last year. There’s a large field preparing for the primary, but the candidates with the strongest chance at victory are former WWE CEO Linda McMahon and former Rep. Rob Simmons. Right now, McMahon is using her considerable wealth to finance her campaign, giving her a big monetary edge over her opponents. This also allows her to take time she would spend raising funds and use it to get her name out – not that she’s suffering from a lack of popularity. Despite her financial advantage, McMahon still trails in the polls, lagging behind first-place Republican candidate Rob Simmons. As you’d expect, there’s still a big portion of the electorate that’s undecided, so there’s plenty of time for the numbers to change. The best news for the GOP is that both of the candidates are polling ahead of the beleaguered Dodd, although Simmons puts up better numbers than McMahon. Also, don’t overlook Peter Schiff, a stock broker and economist whose claim to fame is that he predicted the current economic collapse and recession. While a dark horse candidate, his libertarian ideals have been shown to resonate with a vocal minority in the Republican Party. He’s currently polling at the rear of the pack, but the same polls show that even he would give Dodd a run for his money. What it all boils down to is that, no matter who wins the Republican primary, Dodd will have to completely revamp his image in the next year or the long-serving Senator may find himself out of government for the first time in nearly three decades.

Over in the Bluegrass State, both sides are gearing up for what look to be contentious primaries. With Republican Senator Jim Bunning declining to run for re-election, the Republican side has produced two strong candidates: Secretary of State Trey Grayson and ophthalmologist Rand Paul, son of 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Rand is off to a strong start, gaining grassroots momentum and internet fund-raising much like his father did in last year’s Republican primaries. He hopes to rely on the support of the Tea Party crowd as well as young energetic college-aged conservatives, and his message of small-government libertarianism seems to have struck a chord with a sizable piece of the Kentucky electorate. Conversely, Grayson has the support of the party establishment, with fellow Kentuckian and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell throwing his weight behind him. That might not be enough to push him past Paul, who currently enjoys a slight lead in the polls. More significant than the current lead, though, is the trend, which shows him gaining support with Grayson’s numbers shrinking. While Rand’s father, Ron, wasn’t able to win any primaries in his Presidential bid, he managed to raise a good amount of money and was competitive in a number of races. While he was largely ignored by the party establishment at the time, his son’s success may make the leadership take pause and realize that the Pauls’ ideals are popular with a portion of their base, and must be addressed somehow.

The Democratic side of the Kentucky race is also a close one, with Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo enjoying a double-digit lead over his opponent, state Attorney General Jack Conway. Similar to the GOP race, Conway has the backing of the party establishment but is trailing his opponent. This could be explained by Mongiardo’s lead in name recognition, which would follow from his holding a higher-profile position. With six months left before the votes are cast, Conway can go a long way toward getting his name out there to the sizable minority of the Democratic electorate that remains undecided. Whichever candidate comes out on top will have his work cut out for him, as the general election promises to be a close one – not surprising, as it will be one of the eight open races taking place across the country.

Finally, out in Colorado, Senator Michael Bennet (D) is hoping to earn the post that governor Bill Ritter (D) appointed him to, although he’ll have to get past his primary opponent – state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff – first. Bennet is one of a handful of appointed Senators who are saddled with the difficult task of convincing the electorate to validate what the governors did earlier this year and send them to Washington for a full six-year term. He is holding onto an early fund-raising lead, although much of his money is coming from out of state, which is usually a troubling sign. While Romanoff got off to a slower start than he was expecting since joining the race in September, his electoral experience should be a plus as he takes on Bennet in the appointee’s first campaign. Whoever wins this contest will have to face the winner of the Republican contest. There are four candidates in that race: former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, businessman Cleve Tidwell, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck and former state Senator Tom Wiens. The race is too close to call, with all four candidates sounding similar on most of the issues. Wiens may be able to use his personal wealth to separate him from the pack – an important factor, since the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee has opted out of spending money on the Colorado race. Both primaries should be reasonably close and the general election as well. As a western state, Colorado defies most “red” or “blue” labels, so it’s hard to say which party has that advantage, but if the economy continues in its slump, the party in power will likely get the blame.

Keep in mind that these races are still months from now, and a lot can change in that time in the world of politics. The biggest factor is likely to be the economy, and if jobs start returning, the Democrats could hold onto their seats. If things remain largely the same, or if the economy improves without the generation of new jobs, the Republicans will likely make big gains in both houses of Congress. Democrats are unlikely to lose their majorities, but if they have trouble getting legislation through with sizable majorities now, they could be totally neutered if their advantages are whittled down further.

The Road to Congress: 2010

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:12:38 GMT

It’s late November, which means that in a little under a year there will be another Election Day. While that may seem far off to those of us not in the running, the candidates are in full campaign mode already. That’s also largely due to the fact that party primaries will be taking place relatively soon, and there are a number of hotly-contested races that will be coming up in the next six months or so – not to mention a special election that will determine the final makeup of the Senate until next November. Here’s a run-down of some of these key races.

Right now, the race to see who will officially replace Ted Kennedy up in Massachusetts is being largely ignored by the national media. That’s mostly because the primary isn’t taking place until December 8, and the actual election won’t be held until well into January. The race is also confined to one small, overwhelmingly blue state, meaning the odds of the seat changing party are very slim. It’s also partly because the race has been a quiet one, without much movement in the polls since the election dates were announced. State Attorney General Martha Coakley still leads the Democratic pack, with a comfortable margin between herself and the second-place candidate, businessman Steve Pagliuca. Right behind him is U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA, 8th), who also recently earned the endorsement of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA, 8th). The wording of the endorsement made it appear to be more about support for his vote on the health care bill than the race itself. While its nice to have the House leadership behind you, it probably won’t be enough to get him out in front, so look for Coakley to be the newest member of the gang of 100, come January.

The next race to watch will be the first Senate primary of 2010, taking place on February 2nd in Illinois, where Alexi Giannoulias leads the Democratic field, although he doesn’t have quite the advantage over his opponents that Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL, 10th) enjoys over his GOP competition. Giannoulias may be the front-runner, but the Democratic race could tighten up before the initial votes are cast. Former Chicago Urban League head Cheryle Jackson is still in the running, as is former Inspector General of Chicago, David Hoffman. While both are long shots, they’ve managed to eke out support in key areas and could give Giannoulias a run for his money. The Hoffman camp is already trying to tie him to developer Tony Rezko: a tactic sure to be emulated, if Giannoulias wins, by the eventual Republican candidate. That’s very likely to be Mark Kirk, who polls comparably with Giannoulias in head-to-head matchups. That’s not to say Kirk has it wrapped up, though, as his main competition – real estate developer Patrick Hughes – is trying to gain support from conservatives, to see if he can pull off an upset similar to Doug Hoffman’s over Dede Scozzafava in New York’s 23rd District. While the primaries should be interesting, the general election is almost certainly going to be a close one. The major difference between this and most of the rest of next year’s races is that the prize being pursued is President Obama’s old Senate seat; if the President is going to have a positive effect for his party in any of the mid-term elections next year, it will certainly be this one. It will spell big trouble for the Democrats if they can’t hold onto it.

There are also a number of head-to-head primary contests that will be politically intriguing as well as have wide-ranging consequences. There’s the showdown in Florida, between Governor Charlie Crist (R) and former state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R). This race has taken over where NY 23 left off, bringing the clash within the Republican Party to the forefront, with the popular moderate governor playing defense against the conservative, Club For Growth-backed Rubio. The Tea Party crowd will definitely be all over this one, hoping to accomplish what they came close to doing in upstate New York; getting a truly conservative candidate elected over a center-right Republican. Despite it being one of the last primaries, taking place in late August, it will gain national attention throughout the next year because of the major implications. Expect Rubio’s camp to try and tie Crist to the Obama Administration, especially over the acceptance of stimulus money from earlier this year. What will be most interesting to see is whether either candidate can survive the onslaught that they’ll both be facing in the primary and finish the last month strong enough to defeat the Democratic choice.

Let’s not forget the case of Arlen Specter (D-PA), who will be facing a challenge from Joe Sestak (D-PA, 7th) on May 18. There’s a lot of bad news for Specter, with his approval rating hovering around 25%. His lead is also shrinking with each poll, although he does still have a double-digit advantage. How long that holds up is still uncertain as his opponent gains name-recognition across the state. The bad news for both Democrats is that neither fares all that well against the likely Republican candidate, Pat Toomey. Sestak still has six months to improve his image and boost his numbers, but it’s not likely that Specter goes down without a fight. As an experienced campaigner, he’s going to have a lot of advantages and he’ll probably pull off the victory, but it’s likely to end up being too close for comfort.

Check back tomorrow, as I examine a few more Senate primary races that promise to be close.

What to Take from the 2009 Elections

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:34:21 GMT

A week has passed since last Tuesday’s off-year elections, and the results gave both parties plenty to ruminate over. While the Democrats managed to pull off a win in New York’s 23^rd House District, the biggest news was the GOP victories in the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey. While the Democrats had recently made headway in Virginia, and have long had an advantage in the Garden State, voters in those states rejected their candidates and embraced the Republicans’. The GOP was quick to grab onto these as examples of a sea-change in the American electorate, with the rout of 2008 behind them and major momentum carrying them forward to the 2010 Congressional midterms. I made the argument last week that the gubernatorial races were more about weak candidates on the Democrats’ side: Corzine was incredibly unpopular and Deeds never really resonated with his electoral base. It’s foolish to downplay these victories for the Republicans, though, as they are important for practical reasons as well as predictive. However, the most important lesson to take away from the elections may have come from New York.

The presence of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the race should have been considered a black eye for the Republicans. While the party chiefs chose Dede Scozzafava as the candidate they believed had the best chance at victory, Hoffman, the Club for Growth and a number of prominent conservatives had other plans. As Newt Gingrich pointed out, his refusal to back Hoffman wasn’t so much ideological as it was practical: if a third-party candidate decides to ignore the will of the party, he should not be rewarded, as it undermines the authority of the party leaders on the local level. While the local party leaders may have been woefully wrong in thinking that Scozzafava was the best choice for victory, it was still their decision to make. It’s especially ironic coming from the Republican Party, which rejects this very kind of top-down, national-level control as a matter of principle. On an even more pragmatic level, what if a fringe, hard-right candidate were to lose a primary in one of the upcoming Senate races, but then decide to pursue the spot regardless, splitting the Republican base and allowing a Democrat to walk away with the race – basically what happened in New York’s 23^rd, where a Democrat won a seat previously held by a Republican. Now this race wasn’t so pivotal, because the Democrats already have a healthy majority in the House, but next year the balance could be much different and the consequences more dire for the GOP.

While Hoffman’s loss is bad enough on its own level, it also hints at a possible problem for the GOP in 2010. Many in the party (including some prominent figures as far as 2012 is concerned) are currently arguing for a hard-right turn, rejecting centrist principles and trying to appeal directly to their conservative base. A number of high-profile Senate contests have seen candidates step forward to challenge more moderate Republicans, including some incumbents. Marco Rubio is a perfect example of this: he’s challenging the popular governor Charlie Crist in the race for Florida Senate next year. His poll numbers have been steadily increasing, and he was recently endorsed by the above-mentioned Club for Growth. It’s looking like he may have a legitimate chance at winning the primary, but who’s to say how he will fare against a Democratic candidate in a general election? While the Club for Growth crowd, along with the newly-relevant Tea Party crew, are very vocal and have a lot of money to toss around, the one general election that they really threw themselves behind turned out to be a flop. Right now, independents are showing a bit of buyers’ remorse when it comes to the Democrats they sent to Washington. The Republicans have a good shot at taking back a lot of seats, but it’s unlikely that they’ll be able to appeal to moderate independents with hard-right candidates.

The Chair of the GOP, Michael Steele, recently had some harsh words for those Republicans in Congress that might cross the aisle on important issues, such as health care. Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana did just that over the weekend, and his words echo the lesson of the above paragraph: Michael Steele purports to know how to get elected in Cao’s district better than someone who actually lives there. Cao knows that he’s going to have a hard time being elected in a relatively liberal district if he toes the party line. The Democrats are aware of this dynamic and benefited greatly in 2006 and 2008 by running center-left and even center-right candidates in more conservative districts. The Republicans could certainly make back a lot of ground in 2010, and eat away at the majorities that the Democrats currently enjoy by quite a bit, but it’s unlikely to happen if they continue shrinking their tent. We’re still a ways off from the spring’s primaries, but the way the winds are blowing now, it looks like the Marco Rubios and Doug Hoffmans of the party may decide the future of the GOP.

And the Winners Are...

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:01:04 GMT

The results from yesterday’s contests are in, and there are few surprises amongst them. The Republicans made big gains by taking the Virginia governorship, with their candidate Bob McDonnell smashing his Democratic challenger, Creigh Deeds, in a race that finished a bit wider than even the polls suggested. The GOP also emerged victorious in the race for New Jersey’s chief executive spot, with Chris Christie earning just shy of 50% of the vote, and incumbent Jon Corzine barely gaining 44%. The remainder went to independent candidate Chris Daggett, whose influence may have been enough to tip the race in Christie’s favor. The Democrats can take solace in the two House Special Elections held yesterday, however, as they re-claimed California’s 10^th District seat, with Lt. Gov. John Garamendi winning handily. They also pulled off a close one in New York’s 23^rd, where support from prominent national politicians wasn’t enough to push Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman past Democrat Bill Owens.

Election Day 2009: What Do Today’s Gubernatorial Races Say About President Obama?

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:31:10 GMT

Today is Election Day, and while that doesn’t mean much for most of the country in this off-year, two states (well, a state and a commonwealth) are currently voting on their chief executives. The much-anticipated contests in New Jersey and Virginia are upon us, and, as we’re likely to discover in the next few days, will have wide-ranging consequences in the political world. While the official results won’t be in for hours, it’s looking like there will only be one close race, with the polls in Virginia showing a widening gap between the two candidates. Still, anything can happen, so don’t count anyone out until the votes are actually tallied. It could come down to the wire in both contests.

While once polling quite close, the difference in the Virginia governor’s race has been increasing over the past couple weeks, with Republican Bob McDonnell establishing and building on a significant lead over his Democratic opponent, Creigh Deeds. Depending on the poll you look at, McDonnell entered the day with a lead of anywhere from 12 to 18 points, which makes a Deeds victory incredibly unlikely. That’s a big blow to state Democrats, as they’ve enjoyed eight years at the helm of Old Dominion, as well as the election of two U.S. Senators in that time. Naturally, folks are trying to figure out what went wrong in the race, and some in the party are probably ruing the day that Terry McAuliffe (D) lost the primary. Some will choose to blame the candidate, criticizing Deeds for a poorly-run race. The White House began this a couple of weeks ago, claiming that he ignored good advice proffered from the Oval Office early on, which resulted in the current state of his campaign. Considering the fact that the President is still pretty popular in Virginia (he enjoys a 57% approval rating), Deeds may have been well served to take that advice. Of course, it could also be an example of the Administration distancing itself from a doomed candidate, in order to make it more difficult for the national media to paint the inevitable loss as a referendum on Obama – not that that will actually stop them. Still, considering the fact that Deeds is looking to come up short in many of the demographic groups that helped President Obama take the Southern state last year, it does seem apparent that the main thing missing from this Democratic campaign is the enthusiasm and energy that was so vital to last year’s victories. Look for McDonnell to win it in a cake-walk, and for the Republicans to sweep the down-ballot elections, too.

The other gubernatorial election taking place today is decidedly closer, with Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine and his Republican challenger Chris Christie at a virtual tie in the polls. This is thanks in large part to the relatively strong showing by independent candidate Chris Daggett. In true New Jersey spirit, the race has been a nasty one, with both major-party candidates resorting to negative advertisements early on, as well as trading personal insults. It’s a bit surprising, however, that Corzine has managed to stay in it, as he has a number of factors going against him: general dissatisfaction with the state tax situation, connections with the much-maligned Goldman Sachs and overall poor approval ratings. He’s also likely to face the same problem as Deeds in Virginia, as the party base is unlikely to come out in the same numbers as last year. The closeness of the race alone is a bad sign for the Democrats, as New Jersey should be reliably blue. Of course, the economic conditions make it hard for any incumbents to win right now, so the fact that Corzine is still in it is a big boost for them. In the end, the biggest factor is likely going to be where the independents go, and it’s looking like many of them will go with Daggett; something that Democrats are counting on and Republicans fear. Unfortunately for Daggett, he had little in the way of funds, and third-party candidates don’t have the same get-out-the-vote infrastructure as the two main parties. He’s entering the day polling just under 10%, and he probably won’t be able to scratch that in the final results. What that does mean is that whoever pulls off the victory will do so with less-than 50% of the vote. We probably won’t know the official results until some time after the polls close, but look for Corzine to pull off a squeaker.

Over the next few days, there will be countless analyses of these races, with experts extrapolating the final numbers to represent the national electorate. Folks will try and point to the results (likely to include a number of Republican victories) as a sign of dissatisfaction with the current Administration. As noted above, however, the President’s approval rating in these states doesn’t exactly match up with the performance of the Democratic candidates. In the end, the results of the races will depend mostly on the quality of the candidates running in them. Deeds’ predecessors, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, struck a chord with their state’s electorate, which is something Creigh just wasn’t able to replicate. With the approval ratings Corzine is saddled with, it’s a wonder he’s been competitive at all. Combine these factors with the current economic situation (always one of the biggest elements in an election), and the President’s popularity hardly seems like the major component in these races.

2009 Election Preview: Will Tomorrow’s House Races Be an Indicator of 2010?

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:50:25 GMT

It’s been nearly a full year since Election Day 2008, when the Democrats – led by a phenomenally popular Barack Obama – rode a wave of electoral support to big majorities in both chambers of Congress, as well as securing the Oval Office. Since then, we’ve had a number of special elections to replace both Reps and Senators, who moved on to positions in the Obama Administration. Tomorrow, we have two more such contests taking place, and while the race to replace Ellen Tauscher in California’s 10^th seems to be one-sided, the match up in New York’s 23^rd looks to be going down to the wire. While these two seats won’t significantly change the makeup of the House, they are (most likely) going to be the last such high-profile elections before next year’s midterms, so the pundit class will be dissecting them to see what – if anything – can be gleaned from them about the state of the national electorate.

The race in California won’t be discussed much by the national media this week, as it’s something of a “Dog Bites Man” story. The 10^th District, which is just east of the state’s Bay Area, is heavily Democratic, with Republicans making up less than 30% of the electorate. Add to that the fact that the Democratic candidate is Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, who happens to be one of the most popular political figures in the state, and it would appear that the GOP’s David Harmer stands little chance of pulling off the upset. Still, the state’s Republican Party leadership isn’t ready to throw in the towel: while an electoral victory is unlikely, if Harmer manages to finish close, and the numbers show higher-than-expected turnout amongst Republicans and Independents, they’re ready to claim it as a sign of dissatisfaction with the party in power in Congress. While most experts assert that off-year races, with their low turnouts and lack of voter enthusiasm, make bad measuring sticks, the Republicans will take any sign of momentum that they can get. Regardless, expect Garamendi to be able to add “U.S. Representative” to his already extensive resume come tomorrow evening.

The race that most eyes will be turned to tomorrow is taking place in upstate New York, where a number of national Republicans have inserted themselves into the picture, backing Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman over Republican Dede Scozzafava. It got so bad, in fact, that Scozzafava suspended her campaign over the weekend, effectively dropping out of the race just days before the voting was to take place. Despite leading in the polls early on, Scozzafava was unable to raise much money compared to her opponents, and her liberal stances on issues such as abortion and gay marriage hurt her within her own party. Add to that the fact that many prominent Republicans, including Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty, threw their support behind Hoffman as a way to prove their conservative bona fides on the national stage, and Scozzafava essentially became the GOP candidate in name only. Perhaps that’s why she chose to endorse her Democratic opponent, Bill Owens, over Hoffman shortly after dropping out of the race. The latest polls show a close race, with Hoffman having the edge over Owens. It’s looking more and more like Hoffman will walk away with this one, which should come as little surprise based on the conservative nature of the electorate. Still, it could be troubling news for those within the Republican Party who are worried about it leaning further and further to the right, and alienating the big swath of Independents in the center.

Folks in New York and California would like to paint their race as a referendum on the national political scene. Most of the Republicans hoping to make a Presidential run in 2012 spent the last month flocking to the district to get their two cents in, and the majority of them chose to back Hoffman. One of the biggest reasons for this is that the GOP county leaders chose a weak candidate in Scozzafava; while they may have been going for someone closer to the center, they ended up alienating a large portion of their base due to her liberal stance on some key policies. Much will be made of how Hoffman’s success points to the rising power of far-right conservatives in the Republican Party, but it’s important to remember that the two candidates on the forefront of the 2012 pack – Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee – chose to remain on the sidelines. Yes, there was some very vocal support from conservatives for the Conservative candidate, but many of them were folks simply scrambling to get their names out there in any way possible and drum up support within their base. In the end, it’s looking like there will be a rare third-party member of the House come Wednesday, and the New York Republican Party will have to rethink their strategy on choosing candidates for the next time around.

Battleground New York: Conservatives at Odds with GOP's Chosen Candidate

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:15:14 GMT

While conservative Republicans are hoping for a replay of the 1994 elections, they’re also spurning the man who helped bring it about. Appearing on the Sunday talk shows, Newt Gingrich coyly flirted with the idea of a 2012 presidential run, implying that he would enter the race if he felt none of the other candidates adequately represented Republican ideals. But reaction from the far-right of his party was less than positive, and much of the reason for that has to do with the lines being drawn in upstate New York, with Newt on the opposite side of many prominent conservatives.

While mid-term and special elections tend to be framed as a referendum on the sitting President, the race for New York’s 23^rd district is looking more like a battle for the heart of the Republican Party. With just a week to go, it’s a three-way race, with the GOP candidate, Dede Scozzafava, trailing Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman. From the very start, conservatives expressed concern over the choice of Scozzafava, who was seen as too much of an insider politician, as well as out of step with the party on an ideological level. Since then, prominent conservative politicians, including Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson and Tim Pawlenty, have flocked to Hoffman’s banner, and the effect is showing in the polls; it has turned into a race between Hoffman and Owens, and with a week left, it’s unlikely that the Republican candidate will be able to regain lost ground – especially with much of her party’s national leadership against her.

While many of the endorsers have made it a point to emphasize that they made their choice for ideological reasons, Gingrich has made it clear that his choice was a practical one, framing it as a defense of local and state authorities’ control over their own political futures, as well as a need for party unity. While some in the party are calling for a hard veer to the right, purifying the organization on an ideological level, Newt is a leading advocate for broadening the party’s appeal to include as wide a base as possible. It’s a tough decision that opposition parties have to make, especially when they suffer a defeat as severe as 2008 was for the GOP. With only about 20% of the electorate actively identifying as Republican, they may have shrunk too far already. While Gingrich may have the right idea, the lack of solid leadership at the top could make it difficult to bring about the change he desires.

Considering the sticky situation, it’s a wonder that so many prominent Republicans waded into the race. While they’re obviously trying to increase their name recognition on a national level, there’s real potential for their choice to backfire. If Owens wins, they could be blamed for subverting their party’s chosen candidate and allowing the Democrats to take a seat in a historically Republican district. If Scozzafava wins, as unlikely as that may be, they will appear totally out of touch with their party, which will obviously be bad news for them in 2012. Even if Hoffman wins, they’ve proven that they’re willing to subvert the official choice of their own party. Perhaps that’s why former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R) chose to stay out of the imbroglio – and is performing better in the polls than his GOP counterparts.

In the end, the winner of the race will enter Congress a little under halfway through his or her term, and will do virtually nothing to change the makeup of the House. In other words, their effect in Congress will be negligible, but the real consequences of this race will be a good indicator of the outcome of next year’s elections, and what the future holds for the Republican Party.

The Campaigner in Chief

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:37:27 GMT

While few can deny that President Obama is a capable campaigner, his last big effort – to bring the summer Olympics to Chicago in 2016 – ended in failure. He received a lot of flak for it at home, but in the end it probably didn’t do all that much damage on the domestic political front. This week he’s back at it, although the stakes are a bit higher now as he’s out in support of struggling Democratic candidates who will be facing elections in just a few weeks. While the balance of power in Congress is a high-profile number, state governorships are big prizes for either party as well, and a few of them appear to be hanging in the balance. Burdened by some middling approval ratings, the President is hitting the road over the next week to support his party’s candidates, and to try to keep some states’ executive offices within the fold.

On Wednesday, the President will be in New Jersey, once more trying to help Governor Jon Corzine (D) in his re-election bid. The race is currently dead even, with both major candidates pulling 39% of the vote, and Independent candidate Chris Daggett garnering almost 15%. While Daggett’s ascendancy has had a big effect on the race’s narrowing, Obama’s support may be partially responsible as well. Back in July, Corzine was lagging behind his Republican opponent, Chris Christie, by double digits. That was before the President appeared on behalf of the governor, and considering Corzine’s abysmal job approval rating which has remained relatively stable, it’s unlikely that the shift has anything to do with the voters’ views of the governor himself. While it’s still too close to call, Corzine’s chances look better now than they have all year. If he pulls of a squeaker of a victory, it will probably have a lot to do with the President’s help.

The other impending gubernatorial contest is in Virginia, where Creigh Deeds (D) is trailing his opponent Bob McDonnell (R) by about 8 points with just a couple weeks left to go. The President had originally stumped for Deeds back in early August, and the results were mixed at best: at the time, McDonnell enjoyed a lead of roughly 14 points, with the margin shrinking to almost zero during September. How much of that was caused by Obama’s support is up for debate; much of the poll movement came after McDonnell’s controversial thesis came to light, and Deeds’ momentum receded as that story fizzled. Regardless of the effect his previous appearances have had, Obama will be returning next week in order to throw some eleventh-hour support behind the Democrat. This could help the struggling candidate improve his bona fides with loyal Democrats, which is a group he’s been struggling with and one which was so instrumental in helping the President win the state last year. Deeds will also get the help of some other party stalwarts: former President Bill Clinton and primary challenger Terry McAuliffe will be campaigning in Northern Virginia as well. It looks like Deeds is a long shot for victory as the election rapidly approaches, but don’t count him out completely. While the country as a whole is showing itself to be dissatisfied with the party in charge, the opposition isn’t faring all that well either.

This afternoon, the President will be attending a fund-raiser in New York, being held to benefit Bill Owens (D) who is running for the vacant house spot in NY-23. The seat was last held by John McHugh, who was recently confirmed to be the Secretary of the Army. The remarkable thing about this event is that Owens is a conservative Democrat who is hardly ideologically aligned with the President; in fact, Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava holds more liberal beliefs on abortion and same-sex marriage. This could explain why Obama isn’t speaking at the event, despite initially having been slated to make a few remarks. Regardless of their differences over policy, the President knows that every Democrat within the Congressional coalition is a win, so he’s making his appearance, but because the district is relatively conservative itself, he’s not making a big push. While Owens would appear to be at a distinct disadvantage due to the district’s general Republican lean, the fact that Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman is undermining the Republican candidate could tip the race to his favor. It’s still a tight race, but there’s a good chance that Owens will pull off the victory – and a bit of extra money raised by the Chief Executive certainly can’t hurt.

Ten Months In, Members Still Leaving the 111th Congress

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:16:51 GMT

Considering the hard work and luck that it takes to get elected, it seems a bit surprising that so many folks in Congress have quit their seats so far this year. While many of them left to fill spots in the Obama Administration, a few have simply opted out for greener pastures in the private sector. The record-low approval ratings that Congress is facing could go a long way toward explaining this mini-exodus, but whatever the reason behind it, it’s apparently not over yet.

This week, House member Robert Wexler (D-FL, 19^th) announced that he will be leaving Congress in order to take a position as head of the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation. The Congressman initially made a name for himself in 2000, when he was an outspoken representative of his party during the presidential election recount. He is a self-described “fire-breathing liberal” who argued against the impeachment of President Clinton, as well as for that of President Bush. Wexler was also one of the earliest and most vocal supporters of President Obama during the 2008 election, emphatically campaigning on his behalf and helping increase support for him amongst Jewish communities.His close association with the President leads some experts to believe that this move is about strengthening support for the President’s two-state initiative within those same Jewish communities.He’s expected to take his new position in January of 2010, meaning he won’t be serving out the end of his term, and a special election must be held in order to find his replacement.

Wexler’s district is heavily Democratic, representing portions of Broward and West Palm Beach counties, so his party is unlikely to lose his seat to a Republican. Still, the announcement came as something of a surprise, so potential successors will have little time to prepare and execute a campaign. Those scrambling to get their names in the hat include state Senators Jeremy Ring and Ted Deutch, West Palm Beach Mayor Lois Grankel, Broward County Mayor Stacy Ritter and former Broward County Commissioner Ben Graber. It’s still very early, and, due to the unexpected nature of the race, it’s anyone’s game. We’ll keep you updated with the special elections date, when it’s announced, and to let you know if any candidate jumps ahead of the pack.

Wexler isn’t the only member planning to prematurely vacate his spot in Congress; faithful readers will remember that, back in August, Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) announced that she would be stepping down from her Senate seat this fall in order to pursue her candidacy for governor of Texas. It looks like she may have had a change of heart, however, as she had originally planned to leave her post sometime in October, but yesterday, in a radio interview, she made it seem as if she could be staying longer. Citing the wishes of “some people”, as well as the need to fight against the President’s health care reform proposal, Hutchison refused to set a concrete date, and it appears she could remain in her post through the March primary. Her gubernatorial opponent, Governor Perry (R), has already jumped on her apparent indecisiveness, accusing her of the dreaded waffling. While the Senator was wise not to set an exact date for departure, one can only wonder why she brought it up at all. It was obvious back in July that health care would be a hot-button issue through the end of the year, so citing that as her reason rings a bit hollow. It is a minor issue, but it gives her opponents some ammunition, which could go far in what will likely be a very close primary.

Bonus health care coverage:

Yesterday, the Senate Finance Committee voted on whether to send the infamous Baucus bill to the Senate floor, and it passed with a tally of 14-9. As expected, the vote fell largely down party lines, with all Democrats voting for, and all but one Republican voting against it. The lone aisle-crosser was Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who was seen as the last great hope for President Obama to achieve some kind of bipartisan support for his reform initiative. The White House was quick to praise the Senator, as well as the other members of the Committee. Snowe made it clear, however, that she was supporting the Finance Committee’s bill, and might not necessarily support one with any significant changes. Snowe’s fellow Senator, Susan Collins (R-ME), released a statement supporting her colleague, but expressing concerns over the contents of the bill. While this is comforting news to those hoping for a bipartisan bill, progressives hoping for the inclusion of a government-run public option see it as a potentially bad sign. While there are currently four other health care bills – three in the House, and one from the Senate HELP Committee – which all contain a public option, the Baucus bill is likely to be the basis for the final legislation that is sent to the President, due to the modicum of bipartisan support it has behind it.

CBO Gives Baucus Bill Positive Diagnosis; Public Option Still on Life Support

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:39:02 GMT

When it comes to the inner workings of Congress, it can often be difficult to tell when things are actually getting done. So much of what happens occurs in committee or behind closed doors, and it often takes so much time, that it gives the appearance of inaction. This week is a notable exception, though, as there’s been a lot of movement lately on the hottest issues on the Hill; especially health care reform.

The biggest news coming out this week is that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has completed its preliminary analysis of the bill that Max Baucus (D-MT) and the Senate Finance Committee have hammered out, and the resulting report is positive news for the President and Senate Democrats. The projection shows that the bill will cost a total of $829 billion over the next ten years – well beneath the $900 billion mark that the President is shooting for. It’s also estimated that the bill will reduce the federal deficit by $81 billion in the same timeframe, which is a blow to anyone opposing reform attempts. Congressional Republicans were hardly fazed, however, as shortly after the report was published, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA, 7^th) sought to undermine the CBO report on twitter, posting, “On government cost estimates. In 1967, official estimates said Medicare would cost $12b (in 1990 $) - it ended up costing $110 billion.” One might question the reasoning of having the CBO if one is simply going to brush off their findings, but such is often the way on Capitol Hill: the admission of defeat is simply out of the question.

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) also attempted to dampen enthusiasm, saying “This partisanFinance Committee proposalwill never see the Senate floor, since the real bill will be written by Democrat leaders in a closed-to-the-public conference room somewhere in the Capitol.” This is technically true, as there is another incarnation of the health care bill from the Senate HELP committee, which will have to be merged with Baucus’ bill. This report is still an important and necessary step in getting to the point where a single bill can actually be presented to the floor. While the final legislation that eventually winds up on the President’s desk will not be this exact bill, because of the favorable marks from the CBO, it’s certainly going to have much in common with it. Of course, that’s a mixed blessing for progressives hoping for a public option, as Baucus’ bill doesn’t include one. It does establish a mandate for obtaining health insurance, as well as setting up insurance exchanges and expanding Medicaid eligibility. The Finance Committee expects to finish their markup and vote on the bill by next Tuesday. It remains uncertain whether they will be able to court any Republicans on the committee, with Olympia Snowe (R-ME) being the most likely to break ranks.

Once the bill arrives on the Senate floor, it will be debated and amended quite a bit, and a new potential compromise has been brought up by Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) which could be included in the Senate’s final draft. His idea, which is backed by Hill heavyweight Chuck Schumer (D-NY), is to include a federal public option which would allow states to opt out of it if they so choose. This could go a long way toward assuaging the opposition of many of the conservative Democrats that threaten to scuttle the idea of a public option altogether. Granted, the CBO hasn’t examined a bill with this provision in it, and it will be difficult to add it in while keeping costs low. One plan to help pay for the bill that’s gained the opposition of many Democrats is to tax certain expensive health insurance plans, sometimes referred to as “Cadillac” plans. Another option that’s being considered is a windfall profits tax on health insurers, which is gaining a bit of ground, as the insurance companies have brought little to the table so far, as far as concessions go.

Of course, there’s still another chamber of Congress, and Democrats in the House have their own plans for health care reform. The House progressive caucus is still intent on having a public option in the finished legislation, and some members are adamant about it being included. While they expect that the final House bill will include one, as well as a controversial tax increase on wealthy Americans, progressives fear that these motions will not survive the conference committee, and will be left out of the final draft. The good news for them is that they appear to have the American people on their side; while support for the President’s health plan remains low, certain provisions get high marks in recent polls, including the public option. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA, 8^th) also announced that she will be sending three different drafts to the CBO for cost estimates, in order to begin to reconcile the bills residing in three separate committees. While it will still be some time before a final bill is sent to the White House, the action this week goes a long way toward helping assure that the President achieves his goal of passing comprehensive health care reform by year’s end.

Republicans Looking for a Replay of Their Revolution

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:47:55 GMT

Because it’s so hard to predict the comings and goings of your average election, political analysts love to turn to historical trends in their efforts to guess at what the future may hold. Lately, a lot has been made of the similarities between the upcoming 2010 Congressional elections and those that took place in 1994, when the Republicans made sweeping gains and took over both houses of Congress. There are certainly a number of similarities: back then, the Democrats had just taken the White House the cycle before and held a majority in Congress. Health care was a major topic, with the Clintons’ efforts at reform being stymied, which some analysts point to as a major source of the Republican resurgence. While you can get arguments from either side on whether we’ll be having a repeat of that next year, one thing’s for certain: the GOP is doing everything in its power to bring one about. That includes recruiting strong candidates in states where Democrats are noticeably weak.

In Nevada, the GOP is going all-out in an attempt to oust Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), with a number of candidates vying for the spot. The field of Republican candidates includes state Senator Mark Amodei, Reno attorney Chuck Kozak, former UNLV basketball star Danny Tarkanian, former state Assemblywoman Sharron Angle and, most recently, former state GOP Chair, Sue Lowden. Early polls give the Republican candidates cause for optimism, as Lowden and Tarkanian are both currently ahead of the embattled Reid – not to mention the fact that his favorability rating is sub-par. The Democrats could be looking at a repeat of Tom Daschle’s loss in 2004 (which paved the way for Reid to take his current spot), although it’s not all doom and gloom for them quite yet. The Nevada GOP isn’t at its strongest, as current Governor Jim Gibbons (R) is having his share of troubles, as is Reid’s fellow Senator, John Ensign (R). Also, the candidate most courted by the national party, Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV, 2^nd), opted out of the race in favor of defending his current position. Still, Reid’s numbers are nothing to overlook, and it does appear that he’s getting the lion’s share of the blame that’s falling on all of Congress lately. While things look dire for Reid right now, it’s unlikely that he will actually lose next fall. As Heller noted, Reid is a tough campaigner, and anyone trying to upset him is in for an uphill battle. If the economy shows no signs of resurgence, though, it will be largely up in the air. It will be an interesting race to watch, though, no matter who emerges from the Republican primary with the victory.

For another good example, one can look to Delaware, where Beau Biden (D) has just returned from his tour of duty in Iraq to continue his job as state attorney general. The son of Vice President Joe Biden, many political analysts expect Beau to run for his father’s old seat, which is currently filled by Ted Kaufman (D), who was appointed to the spot when the Vice President was sworn into office. Kaufman is a long-time aide and advisor to Joe Biden, and has already announced that he will not be running in the 2010 election. Of course, it’s still uncertain whether Beau will run or not, as he has yet to announce his plans one way or the other. Regardless, the Republicans have been searching for someone to take the spot next year, and it appears they may have found a solid contender. Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE, at large) announced today that he will be entering the race, which is very good news for the GOP. Castle is a popular choice, as he has held elected office in the state for nearly three decades, starting out as lieutenant governor in 1980 and following that up with two terms as governor. He’s been the state’s lone Rep. ever since he left the chief executive spot seventeen years ago – the longest term for a representative in state history. Add onto that the fact that a recent poll shows Castle leading Beau Biden by five points and the Republicans appear to have a very real shot at taking the seat next year. Before Castle made his candidacy known, the sole Republican in the race was marketing consultant Christine O’Donnell, who had unsuccessfully run for Senate in 2006 and 2008. Castle’s declaration has even caused a number of political analysts to change their view of the race, with one even going to far as to change it to “Lean Takeover”. Beau Biden will have his chance to turn the numbers around, but it’s very possible that Delaware will have a Republican Senator come 2011.