Scott Brown: Massachusetts moderate

By Richard K. Barry

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama nominated former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Of course, a bunch of Republicans feigned outrage with Obama for sidestepping the Senate with this recess appointment, as if such manoeuvring hasn't been the approach taken by presidents of all parties over the years. But who needs facts when you are mostly all about being indignant?

The most interesting part of all this is that Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown decided to support Obama, much to the annoyance of his own party. As he said:

I support President Obama's appointment today of Richard Cordray to head the CFPB. I believe he is the right person to lead the agency and help protect consumers from fraud and scams. While I would have strongly preferred that it go through the normal confirmation process, unfortunately the system is completely broken. If we're going to make progress as a nation, both parties in Washington need to work together to end the procedural gridlock and hyper-partisanship.

Gee, I wonder if this had anything to do with the fact that the Democratic challenger for his Massachusetts Senate seat is Elizabeth Warren, the president's first choice to lead the agency?

That's what you get when you're a Republican trying to hold onto a Senate seat in a generally liberal state going into a presidential election cycle that will surely bring out a lot of Democrats on election day. You try to out-progressive your progressive opponent. 

Could Brown be one those "Massachusetts moderates" Newt Gingrich likes so much to talk about? Why, those people will say anything!

Everywhere else in the country, the GOP panders to the right. In Massachussets, it panders to the left. 

Give him credit, his campaign spokesman is spinning hard as he said this about Brown:

Scott Brown promised to be an independent voice when he ran in 2010, and he is keeping that promise. He looks at every issue on the merits and does what he thinks is best for Massachusetts and America regardless of partisan politics.

I'm just not sure this is the election for independent minded Republicans to be hawking their wares. More like, "be a true believer or be gone."

Like the old joke: "The only thing you get by standing in the middle of the road is run over." Truer words were never spoken for Republicans this time around. 

Bye, Scott.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Elizabeth Warren ahead in Mass. Senate race

By Richard K. Barry

Late last week, the Boston Herald reported on a new poll in Massachusetts showing Democrat Elizabeth Warren now ahead of Republican incumbent Scott Brown for the first time in their contest to grab a U.S. Senate seat in the 2012 election. 

In the University of UMass-Lowell/Boston Herald poll, Warren is ahead of Brown 49 to 42, "outside the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 5.3 percentage points":

The poll of 505 registered Massachusetts voters was conducted for UMass-Lowell by Princeton Survey Research from Dec. 1 - Dec. 6, and shows Warren with her largest lead yet in the campaign. A UMass-Lowell/Boston Herald poll taken in late September showed Brown ahead by a 41-38 percent margin, so the new poll represents a 10-point swing in Warren's favor in less than two months.

It's early days, but this is the first lead for Warren against Brown. The poll also indicates that the barrage of attack ads from both sides is having an impact, with the negatives for both candidates inching up.

[L]ess than half of Massachusetts voters -- 48 percent -- now say they have a favorable view of the Republican from Wrentham, down from 52 percent in the UMass-Lowell/Herald poll in late September. The percentage of voters who say they have an unfavorable view of Brown has increased from 29 to 35 percent, according to the poll. 

But Warren has also apparently suffered from a Karl Rove-led TV attack ad campaign, which focuses on her stated support for the Occupy Wall Street movement. Just 18 percent of voters had an unfavorable view of Warren in late September, and that number has now jumped nine points to 27 percent. Warren's favorable numbers have increased only slightly, from 30 to 34 percent.

However:

Warren right now appears to be winning the battle of campaign messages... Asked who would do a better job of looking out for middle class families, 43 percent of voters cite Warren and 33 percent identify Brown. Nearly half of Massachusetts voters also say Warren would do a better job of regulating Wall Street institutions.

Yes, it's early days, but one of the keys to the 2012 election, both for the White House and for Senate and House races, will be the extent to which the unfairness of the growing gap between rich and poor resonates with independent voters. If the right is successful in blaming Obama for the sluggish economy, that's trouble for him. But if enough people understand, despite some populist sleight of hand, that the GOP has always embraced its role as mouthpiece for Big Money, the Democrats benefit.

If the ballot question in 2012 is, Who will best stand for the middle class against Wall Street, Warren wins and so, maybe, does Obama. Because Elizabeth Warren has been such an effective voice as a critic of wealth and power in America, it will be interesting to see how this argument plays out not only in Massachusetts, but across the country. 

But as the impact of political ads from both side shows, it will be some time before we know how the American people are likely to see the election. Karl Rove would like to frame it as a campaign about stopping dirty hippies and other supposed slothful sorts from getting money for free. Democrats would like to frame it as about the grossly unfair distribution of power in the country and the impact it has on the ability of most hard working America to get a fair shake.

Massachusetts could well be a testing ground for the effectiveness of competing messages.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Elizabeth Warren, class warfare, and what politics means right now

By Richard K. Barry

I have said before in this space that I am very excited by Elizabeth Warren's campaign to reclaim a Massachusetts Senate seat for the Democrats, a seat won in a surprise result by Republican Scott Brown in 2010.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Warren is her willingness to engage in a kind of discourse that isn't afraid to state the obvious: politics is about power. Those with wealth and access to power are generally pretty successful at rigging the rules of the game to their benefit. And when this is pointed out with any degree of coherence, they scream that the accuser is engaging in class warfare.

But, really, all the accuser is doing is, again, stating the obvious: politics is about power. It's about having the resources to influence decision makers to do things that benefit you and those who share your interests.

When the resources in question are votes, democracy is working as it should. When the resources are wealth, we are not really living in a democracy at all (see Aristotle's Politics).

When the right says that someone is engaging in class warfare, what they really mean is that someone is getting close to clearly explaining how the minority have come to use their wealth to control so much of what goes on in America.

Those with wealth and power don't want anyone to define the battle lines too clearly because the 1% are, by definition, in the minority. If people actually started to understand the nature of the facts in all their simplicity, things might change rapidly.

Unless you are a part of the 1%, your goal should be to understand how the few control so much as a basis to help you agitate for a more equitable, fair and just society.

If you are not a part of the 1% and still think that the Republican Party has your best interests at heart, you are delusional.

Obama has never wanted to go there, in the direction of understanding that politics is about power, not until recently anyway. Elizabeth Warren has always seemed to be okay with that fight and that is what makes her interesting.

In a better world, politics might be something else, but this is what it is right now.

If you haven't seen her campaign launch announcement made some weeks ago, here it is.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Joe the Congressman?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, Joe the Plumber, also known as Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, is running for Congress.

Or rather, let's not get ahead of ourselves, seeking the Republican nomination to run against Democratic incumbent Marcy Kaptur in Ohio's 9th District.

It'll be tough. Even if "Joe" wins the nomination, he'll go up against a highly respected woman seeking her 15th term, the longest-serving woman in the House -- in an overwhelmingly Democratic district that runs along Lake Erie from Sylvania and Toledo in the west past Sandusky in the east

Still, he's got the name and minor celebrity status in Republican circles to make a few waves. And winning the nomination would make him even more of a media sensation than he is already.

Almost makes you want to stop paying attention to politics.

**********

I'm tempted to call this a Sign of the Apocalypse -- haven't done one of those in a long time. But it's not quite at that level yet. Let's wait and see how this goes.

Mass. Senator Scott Brown's futile attempt to sell himself as an independent

By Richard K. Barry

I am on a mission. It is to assist, in whatever small way I can, the candidacy of Elizabeth Warren for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. Well, sure, I'm not likely to have much of an impact. I know that. But I have noticed that Ms. Warren is so effective at getting under the skin of conservatives everywhere that it will be no end of fun to follow her campaign and attack and counterattack those who would try to stand in her way.

Early good news is that Warren seems to be polling well. According to a new Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey, she is now leading the incumbent, Republican Scott Brown, by two points. While that may not sound like much, earlier in September a different poll had Brown with a nine point lead.

As The Wall Street Journal suggests, this may:

[R]eflect a growing number of moderates who perceive Ms. Warren as a viable and palatable alternative to Mr. Brown, whom they've cooled to since Republicans took the House.

Mr. Brown's poll numbers last year made him look untouchable. In December, he posted a 53% approval rating and a 24% positive differential in a PPP survey. By June, however, his approval rating had slipped to 48% and his positive differential to 12 points. His differential has since turned negative and his approval rating now hovers at 44%. His approval rating among moderates, which proved critical in his upset of Democrat Martha Coakley two years ago, has slipped 12 points, though moderates still favour Mr. Brown over Ms. Warren by six points. The poll also shows that independents increasingly view the senator as more Republican than independent. Independents also perceive the GOP as more extreme.

As the numbers game is likely to be played:

Independents and moderates make up about 45% of Massachusetts' electorate, while Democrats constitute 40%. Should she win the primary, Ms. Warren almost certainly has the Democratic vote tied up. So Mr. Brown would probably have to win roughly 75% of the independents to prevail in November.

Frankly, I'm not quite sure I follow their math, but if they mean that Brown will have to paint himself as a centrist while standing with one of the most conservatives incarnations of the Republican Party in American history, good luck to him. It simply will not be possible. If there is one truth about the GOP in 2012 it is that apostates need not apply, with a corollary that the term "moderate Republican" has become an oxymoron. So, no matter how hard he tries, he will be judged by the company he keeps.

Yes, Warren needs to win the nomination, which I think she will do. At the end of the day, much to Brown's consternation, she will also prove herself, I am sure, to be no Martha Coakley and he will prove himself incapable of putting enough distance between himself and his party - though he will have to try.

To put a fine point on it, the good citizens of Massachusetts thought they elected an independent who just happened to be a Republican. They didn't and Ms. Warren will make sure that everyone knows the truth.

Should be fun to watch.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren to run for Senate from Massachusetts

By Richard K. Barry

Here's a bit of exciting, if not entirely unexpected, news. It seems that consumer advocate and Democrat Elizabeth Warren is going to enter the Massachusetts Senate primary to seek an opportunity to challenge Republican incumbent Scott Brown for his seat.

It's not just that I have been thoroughly charmed by Ms. Warren whenever she has happened to appear on the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, although that is true, or that she really gets under the skin of Republicans in Washington, which is also true. No, I am excited because she is an immensely intelligent, articulate and principled voice, and she will make a top notch candidate and, I hope, really give Brown a run for his money.

In a statement release on Tuesday, Warren remarked that:

The pressures on middle-class families are getting worse than ever, but it is the big corporations that get their way in Washington. I want to change that. I will work my heart out to earn the trust of the people of Massachusetts.

Ah, be still my heart.

Warren is a Harvard Law professor who set up the new consumer protection agency last year at the request of the president only to have Republicans successfully oppose her appointment as its director.

While it is true that she has never run for public office, and that this sort of thing usually concerns me, I think she has performed admirably in the public spotlight over the last while and will likely continue to do so as a candidate.

According to The Boston Globe, other Democrats already announced include:

Setti Warren (no relation), the first-term mayor of the affluent Boston suburb of Newton; City Year youth program co-founder Alan Khazei; immigration attorney Marisa DeFranco; state Rep. Tom Conroy and Robert Massie, who unsuccessfully ran for lieutenant governor.

There is no guarantee that Elizabeth Warren will get the nomination, though her profile will help. And there is surely no guarantee that Brown can be beat, as he's gotten good at speaking out of both sides of his mouth, but you'd have to think Warren has a shot in this traditionally Democratic state.

This could be fun.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Karl Rove on the perils of GOP radicalism

By Richard K. Barry 



Somehow Karl Rove has become my "go-to-guy" on assessing the relative radicalism and potential "un-electability" of GOP candidates. When Karl gets nervous, I'm having a good day. In fact, The Wall Street Journal is even a bit spooked by this Bachman/Perry surge, so I'm having a very good day, but I digress. 



As Karl said recently on Fox News:

You don't want these candidates moving so right in the Republican primary that it becomes impossible for them to win the general election, because it becomes a self-defeating message in the primary.



People want to win. They don't want somebody who goes so far to the extremes of either party that they lack a chance to carry a victory off in November. 

 

My point just after Rick Perry got in the race was that he will serve to pull Romney further to the right. This is simply because Romney will now have an opponent powerful enough to force him to defend his right flank. By the time Romney becomes his party's nominee, which he will become, there will be an extensive record of things said he will wish he could take back. 



Romney will have no choice but to rise to Perry's bait and Rove will have been proven right: extremism in the defence of the Tea Party view of the world is no way to win in November 2012. 



Here's Rove saying exactly what is quoted above, but he looks uncomfortable saying it, and I like that.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Senator Orrin Hatch bows to the Tea Party

By Richard K. Barry

A lot of people expect Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah to get a challenge from his political right in 2012. In fact, Rep. Jason Chaffetz looks to be the one who will take on the task.

And Chaffetz, should he challenge Hatch for the Republican nomination, will have some juice as the principle author of the "Cut, Cap and Balance" legislation in the House.

Hatch's sin is mostly that he's been around too long. In fact, he's been around so long that he has a history of working with Democrats to actually pass legislation and govern the country in a responsible manner. Of course, that's not allowed if you're a Tea Partier. Working across the aisle is proof positive that you need to be replaced. Chaffetz intends to continue hammering away at Hatch for having done things like vote to increase the debt ceiling in the past and for supporting the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

As Chaffetz has said:

Part of the reason we are in this debt crisis is because 26 times Sen. Hatch had an opportunity to vote no and he voted yes to raise the debt ceiling. Sixteen times a direct vote for yes, and 10 times allowed unanimous consent for the increase in the debt ceiling. That's why, in part, we're in this mess.

(And how many of those debt ceiling increases were under Ronald Reagan? Was it 18?)

Along with Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, who is also likely to face a Tea Party challenge, Hatch has just been around so long that there is too much history of his having worked in a bi-partisan manner for the good of the country, of actually having governed. And, like I said, that just won't do if your a Tea Party type.

It's all about right and wrong. They are right and everyone else is wrong and don't get caught so much as smiling at the enemy.

Having said that, there is a real sadness in what is happening to someone like Hatch who has served his country for so long, no matter what one might think of his politics. He's reduced to making cringe-worthy statements like "I'm a Tea Party person," or "The fact of the matter is I've been a Tea Party person I think since before the Tea Party came into existence."

Yeah, right.

How much do you want to bet that Hatch comes close to gagging when he says those words, that he hates what he's being forced to say and do by the insane ideological purity of what has become of the radical right of the Republican Party?

When Hatch says "I'm a Tea Party Person," it sounds very much in tone like what a social misfit might say to prove he is worthy of the notice of the supposed in-crowd, while knowing all along that he shouldn't lower himself in such a way, but he's just so damned terrified of being left on the outside.

This is nothing short of a purging of those who were once the most revered figures in a political movement because they have failed to keep up with the ideological requirements of the new regime. We've seen this before in history and it never ends well.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Made in the GOP

Republicans Seek Credit for a Debt Ceiling Solution

By Nicholas Wilbur

It's pretty clear at this point that the debt ceiling debacle isn't about spending cuts and tax increases and entitlement reform and balanced budget amendments.

It's about 2012.

That is the only logical explanation for the Republican Party's blanket opposition to every attempt by Democrats to solve this impasse over an otherwise routine debt limit increase. Republicans need something they can campaign on in 2012.

After three years of saying no to everything – health care reform, Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal, the Dream Act, a nuclear treaty with Russia, the Libya intervention, unemployment benefits, and most recently the debt ceiling increase itself – Republicans need a legislative victory they can show off to the voting public.

They fared well in the midterm election by campaigning against policies that were already on the books, but they've failed to achieve any of the repeals and nullifications they placed at the center of their 2010 campaign: "Obamacare" is still in place, the stimulus bill was not reversed, and the debt continues to grow.

They also failed to end federal funding for Planned Parenthood and NPR, to gut the regulatory oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency, and to turn Medicare into a voucher program. As for the far-right Tea Party conservatives out there who thought the 2010 election would mark a turning point for the morality of the United States, every day is another reminder that Republicans have also failed to make abortion illegal, to replace biology with Intelligent Design in our nation's schools, to abolish the IRS and the Department of Education, to return to the gold standard, and to protect our government against Sharia law with a constitutional amendment.

They cannot win another election simply by campaigning against everything, especially not when they've fallen short of achieving any of the goals they sought. Republicans need a legislative victory. This debt ceiling fight may be the last opportunity to campaign for something in 2012. (God knows they can't point to the 2011 budget negotiations and boast about how they slashed the deficit; according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the bill they agreed to eventually ended up costing $3.2 billion, not saving the $78 billion they claimed.)

And that is why Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor stormed out of negotiations last month. It's why Speaker John Boehner abandoned negotiations with President Obama last week. Every deal Democrats have offered, whether to slash government spending by $4 trillion or to cut entitlements, may have been a capitulation to Republican demands; it may have been snatched up without pause by any other Republican Party; but it was still offered by Democrats.

Democrats are the opponents, and accepting a deal crafted by the enemy is sacrilege in Washington, D.C., today – even if doing so provides a means to achieving the ends you campaigned on in the last election.

Republicans need to draft their own bill. They need to prove that they are capable of governing, of leading. They must be able to demonstrate to their constituents that the Grand Old Party represents more than obstruction. They need to pass a law that has a "MADE in the GOP" label on it.

And so they did. Or tried.

It was titled the "Cut, Cap and Balance" bill, and it did everything Republicans wanted. It cut spending, capped total outlays based on average GDP growth, and called for an amendment to the Constitution requiring balanced annual budgets. (See "The Balanced Budget Amendment that Wasn't")

Despite being heralded by Speaker John Boehner as a "bipartisan bill," CC&B passed along party lines in the House, receiving only five Democratic votes to 229 from Republicans. Not a single Democrat voted for it in the Senate.

In a speech following the president's national address on the debt ceiling crisis, Boehner claimed, "there's no stalemate here in Congress." It wasn't his only false claim.

  

"I want you to know," he said, "I made sincere effort to work with the president, to identify a path forward that would implement the principles of 'Cut, Cap and Balance' in a manner that could secure bipartisan support and be signed into law."

The bill "could" secure bipartisan support if it were a bipartisan bill, but it didn't because it isn't – and neither was the proposal Boehner came up with after Democrats rejected the CC&B bill in the Senate.

CBS News poll

In attempting to solve one problem, Republicans have created another. Like everything Republicans have proposed this year – repealing health care reform, eviscerating the EPA, defunding public radio – Boehner's proposal is slated for failure because it makes no concessions to Democrats.

What's more, not only will the new proposal fail to garner bipartisan support in the upper chamber, it is also failing to unite Republicans in the House.

Rep. Jim Jordan, standing alongside Boehner at a press conference, thanked the speaker "for fighting for Republican principles," but said "I cannot support the plan that was presented to House Republicans this afternoon."

Instead, Jordan is urging Republicans to stick with the CC&B proposal, even though it couldn't garner a simple majority in the Senate; even though it requires a supermajority to pass.

Republicans have found their footing with a bill that the majority of Republicans support, but they have isolated their opposition such that voting on their bill represents nothing more than a symbolic gesture aimed at creating the perception of party unity.

Boehner's speakership is on the line. The Republican Party's majority hold over the House may be in jeopardy, as well. A strong majority of the American people have shunned the GOP for holding up a deal to avert default. A strong majority supports tax increases. A strong majority supports compromise.

Any debt ceiling deal that cuts federal spending, reduces the national deficit, and averts disaster by preventing U.S. default will be seen by voters of both sides as a policy victory for the ages.

Republicans appear incapable of taking the steps that are necessary to allow them to claim even partial credit in that historic deal. They cannot accept anything they themselves didn't create, and they cannot make concessions that will allow Democrats to accept anything they did create.

Congress is no closer to a debt ceiling agreement today than it was six months ago, and the Republican Party's goal of having a legislative record on which they can base their 2012 campaign is still out of reach.

At this point, Plan B is likely a repeat of the 2010 "blame Obama" strategy.

Unfortunately for Republicans, public opinion polls consistently show a "blame Republicans" mentality.

According to the latest CBS News poll, 71 percent of the American public holds Republicans responsible for the impasse.

If the United States defaults, Democrats would be wise to take a page from the Republican Party's 2010 campaign playbook. A "repeal the GOP" platform could prove effective in 2102.

Then again, if Republicans let the nation default, Democrats might not have to campaign at all.

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)

Can Michele Bachmann outrun her own mouth? Doubtful

By Richard K. Barry

Roll Call reported today that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is using Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-Minn) presidential campaign to "fundraise, rally activists and mobilize supporters online."

Roll Call has learned the DSCC bought sponsored Google ads that

appear when viewers conduct various searches that include Bachmann's name. Clicking on the ad sends viewers to a petitiion page on the DSCC website that reads, "It's simple - Michele Bachmann is too extreme for America."

Search terms that trigger the ads include Bachmann's name, variations of her name - including misspellings - search terms to coincide with her presidential announcement this week and anything about her platform and key issues such as abortion. Other terms included are "John Wayne" and "lies."

The campaign wonk in me loves to see things like this - simple but clever organizing tools.

I also think that Bachmann will scare the hell out of not only true progressives but also independents once they fully understand what this woman is all about. At some level it appears that Bachmann gets this as she is currently working hard to soften the impact of the some of the crazier shit she has had to say over the past little while. Or, as a headline at TPM refered to it: "Michele Bachmann's Big Presidential Campaign Walkbacks."

Evan McMorris-Santoro wrote today:

Rep. Michele Bachmann is a firebreather. It's a significant part of her charm. But as polls show her to be a serious candidate in the Iowa caucuses - and, therefore, the race for the nomination - Bachmann's been up on TV rounding off some sharp edges.

No longer is President Obama "un-American," as Bachmann said in 2008. Nor is eliminating the minimum wage the top priority it was back in 2005. As she steps into the national spotlight - with the help of big-time campaign strategist Ed Rollins - Bachmann is presenting a kinder, gentler face.

As I wrote a few days ago, she is even moderating her typically homophobic views on gay marriage by talking about states' rights and how New York had the right to sanction gay marriage under the the 10th Amendment.

All of this is to say that she is going to try to reinvent herself as a more reasonable person, though I strongly suspect it's too late for that. I also think that the good folks at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee understand this point very well. Looks like they've got a strategy. It's called the truth.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Florida Governor Rick Scott's "tough love" not so popular - are we surprised?

By Richard K. Barry

Quick update here on the woeful performance of Republican Governor Rick Scott of Florida, at least by the standards of current approval ratings. Yes, the New York Times reported today that Scott has the lowest approval of any governor in the country. What a distinction!

Not surprisingly, when asked about his 29 percent approval rating in a Quinnipiac University poll conducted in May, he said, "I don't think about it." Well, he might want to start.

As the Times reports:

His negative rating has soared from 22 percent in February shortly after he entered office to 57 percent, suggesting that the more Floridians get to know him, the less they like him.

No matter how this may impact him whenever he has to face the voters again, the real issue could be what it does to federal races in Florida in 2012.

The Times story continues:

Mr. Scott's sinking popularity has Republican politicians and some strategists worried that his troubles could hamper their chances of tilting the state's 29 electoral votes back into their column in 2012. President Obama won Florida by 2.8 percentage points in 2008.

Republican Senate and House candidates are also worrying, strategists say, that the governor's rapidly declining popularity will affect their chances of winning election.

Mr. Scott's unpopularity is mostly rooted in his aggressive push for large cuts in the budget and pubic-sector work force, his decision to reject $2.4 billion in federal money for a high speed rail project, and the dismissive and even abrasive way he deals with those who disagree with him or ask a lot of questions.

He also promised to create many jobs, and it has been the mantra of his tenure so far. But the state's unemployment rate, down from a high of 11.9 percent, is still at 10.6 percent.

And, of course, the Republican push at the federal level to "re-tool" Medicare can't help politicians at the local level in a state with so many elderly residents.

Here's the thing. Karl Rove and other GOP spinners want to argue that unless the economy substantially improves by 2012, which now seems unlikely, Obama is toast. But it does seem to me that at the local level (props to Tip O'Neill), the Republican governors who are inflicting all the pain better have a lot to show for it by the time the polls open again, or voters could decide to go with the president and the party that have at least tried to help and haven't been such pricks about it.

Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan are all states with relatively new and precariously perched Republican governors. There are a lot of electoral votes there that could go either way and not a few interesting House and Senate races. We'll see who pays the most for a poor economy in 2012.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Wisconsin GOP likely to redistrict Ryan's seat to make it even more red. Taking no chances, eh?

By Richard K. Barry

I have written a few times that Congressman Paul Ryan, of the Wisconsin 1st District, would be wise to forget about any presidential aspirations in 2012 and instead focus on retaining his own seat. In truth, I don't think there is much chance that he would lose it but for the fact that the budget plan carrying his name, which would essentially privatize Medicare, is so unpopular.

Sure, Democrats are salivating over what happened in the special election in the New York 26th, and it will be a good issue to run on, but Ryan has been winning easily for quite some time and has never received less than 63% of the vote.

Again, it's a hard pick-up for the Democrats, though an item today in The Huffington Post did catch my eye. It read:

Ryan's 1st Congressional District stretches along the Illinois border from industrial Racine to the rolling farms of Rock County. Republicans, who control the state legislature, are expected to use redistricting to make it more red, pulling it west away from the bluer communities along the shore of Lake Michigan.

So, while Ryan losing seems a long-shot, the fact that his Republican friends at the Legislature are stacking the deck to help him along to victory is interesting. Maybe they know something we don't know, or maybe they know exactly what we know.

The 1st as constituted now is a swing district, going for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008. Governor Walker's budget-cutting measures and assault on public sector unions have certainly helped to make Republicans more vulnerable than they would otherwise be, and then there's that pesky Medicare issue.

To state the obvious, as Kyle Kondik, analyst at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, has done:

It's difficult to imagine that Ryan will lose. But if he does, it will be because there is a Democratic tidal wave. A tidal wave that will have been created in no small part because of Ryan's budget proposal.

If that tidal wave comes, and that's a huge "if," Ryan could be vulnerable. Without his budget plan, we are not even having this conversation. Ryan says that's not a problem for him because his budget is more important than his seat. Okay. I'd be interested to know how many others in the GOP House caucus feel the same way - those who don't typically win with 63% of the vote.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

The GOP's continuing angst over spinning Medicare reform

By Richard K. Barry

The Republican Party is continuing its bizarre approach of suggesting that it is being smeared when its opponents correctly represent its plans to gut Medicare -- this time in New Hampshire.

As Roll Call reports:

A day after launching an attack ad against New Hampshire Representative Charles Bass, two liberal groups have released new polling that suggests that the Republican is deeply unpopular just seven months after his election.

Just 29 percent of likely voters in New Hampshire's 2nd district approve of Bass' job performance, according to a survey conducted May 31 and June 1 by Democratic firm Public Policy Polling on behalf of Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

Sixty percent of New Hampshire respondents said they oppose cutting Medicare. And 69 percent said they support raising federal taxes on those with incomes over $250,000 a year "to save programs like Social Security and Medicare."

The ad (see below) features a New Hampshire social worker who claims to have voted for Bass in the past but will not again as she calls GOP plans for Medicare reform "an attack on New Hampshire families like mine."

We note that while Bass did hold the seat from 1996 to 2006, his successful campaign to regain it was only accomplished by less than 2 points in 2010, an election that saw the GOP surging across the country. In other words, at the best of times this would be a hard "hold" for Bass and these, likely, are not going to be the best of times.

So freaked out is Bass that he asked the New Hampshire TV stations airing the ad to take it down because, in his view, it incorrectly asserts that Republicans will "end Medicare" The stations have refused, which has prompted the groups responsible for the piece to increase their ad buy.

In a letter obtained by Greg Sargent at The Washington Post, Bass makes his case to the TV stations. He writes:

The Budget Resolution as approved by the U.S. House of Representatives does not end Medicare. In fact, the Budget Resolution makes no changes at all to Medicare for current or near retirees, as none of the Medicare-related provisions in the Budget Resolution would even take effect until 2022. This fact makes the Advertisement especially misleading, as the woman featured in the Advertisement is a current Medicare beneficiary, and would not have her Medicare benefits ended, or even changed in any way, under the Budget proposal.

Additionally, the Budget Resolution ensures that Americans aged 54 and younger will still have Medicare when they retire by implementing a new, sustainable model of Medicare. This version of Medicare would actually require insurance companies to guarantee coverage for seniors.

The main argument is that the claim that Republicans would "end Medicare" is "blatantly and wholly false, and has been deliberately crafted to mislead and frighten voters."

To this, Sergeant replies that:

[T]here are plenty of people making the opposite case. That the GOP plan does, in fact, end Medicare. The argument is that the GOP plan would do away with the current, single payer, government-run system that guarantees payment for your major health care costs as you head into retirement. The GOP proposal would replace this with a system in which government gives premium support - that could over time fall short of health care costs - to seniors to purchase their own private plans. In other words, the new plan does away with a program called "Medicare" and replaces it with a different program - and, hence, "ends it."

Finally, as Paul Krugman writes:

The plan would replace our current system, in which the government pays major health costs, with a voucher system, in which seniors would, in effect, be handed a coupon and told to go find private coverage.

The bottom line is that stating that the Republican proposal would end Medicare as it currently works is a very defensible stance. The GOP can call their plan anything they like, a ham sandwich if they want to, but they can't and shouldn't be allowed to call it Medicare. It is not what people think of when they think of Medicare.

What is important about this discussion is that it begins to provide an outline of the GOP/Democratic Party positions on Medicare that are likely to feature so prominently in the 2012 election. It doesn't look like the GOP is going to want to or be able to walk away from this kind of thinking, and if the best they have to offer by way of explanation is contained in Bass' letter, I can see why they would be worried.

One of the older adages in politics and one of the best is "if you're explaining, you're losing."

Here's the ad that has Bass so exercised:

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Paul Ryan, still trying to find a way to lose his own congressional seat

By Richard K. Barry

Shortly before the hugely significant upset win by Democrat Kathy Hochul in the special election for the New York 26th Congressional District, I mused about what it would take for Paul Ryan, architect of the Republican plan to privatize Medicare, to lose his congressional seat in Wisconsin.

I said then that it takes a lot for incumbents to lose, but they sometimes do.

In the disastrous 2010 midterm elections, the Democrats lost 63 seats. In 2008, the GOP lost 21 and 30 in 2006. Keep in mind, though, that all 435 seats are up for re-election every two years, so chances are much better of holding on than getting the boot.

But, when the the boot comes in significant numbers, it can be because one side was successful in framing the debate in a way that makes the other side vulnerable. It is therefore no wonder that Paul Ryan was out there yesterday addressing the press corp, after the House GOP caucus met with the president, admonishing Democrats not to "demagogue" Medicare reform. In other words, he was more or less begging Democrats not to use the best issue they are ever likely to be handed to beat the crap out of the GOP.

Anyone with a memory that goes back more than a few minutes will enjoy the hypocrisy of Republicans saying this, given all the rich bullshit about death panels and threats to Medicare they were peddling on their way to a House majority back in November. But no one ever said Republicans were principled.

Anyway, back to Ryan's home district, the Wisconsin 1st. After election day in the NY-26th, it didn't take Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, long to say that it was in fact the Democrats plan to beat the hell out of the GOP with Medicare reform, as if anyone needed to be told.

As Israel said:

Even in one of the most Republican districts, seniors and independent voters rejected the Republican plan to end Medicare. The American people will continue to hold House Republicans accountable for their plan to end Medicare from now until election day 2012.

The lesson was certainly not lost on Ron Zerban, a Democrat running against Ryan in 2012, who told Talking Points Memo:

I just am overwhelmed at the results from this election [in the NY-26th]. It's a harbinger of things to come. I'm certainly going to make this a key issue in the 1st Congressional District in Wisconsin. Democrats are going to focus on how we can actually shore up, strengthen and keep Medicare solvent, and this will be a clear distinction in the 2012 cycle.

Just to beat this argument to a pulp, as noted above, the Republicans were quite successful in frightening seniors during the midterm elections that Obama's health care plan would somehow work to deny them treatment or interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Everyone recalls the bizarre signs at protest rallies saying things like "keep your government hands off my Medicare." That may have been a silly comment, but it spoke volumes about how attached people are to Medicare and how ready they are to punish politicians they think are going to tamper with it.

As Reuters recently commented,

Elderly voters who turned against President Obama's Democrats last year for tampering with Medicare are now threatening to punish Republicans in the 2012 election over their plans to scale back the health care program for seniors.

The shift will likely be most pronounced in important swing states with older populations such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and New Mexico.

It's interesting to note that of this list of states, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have new Republican governors whose cost cutting measures are being greeted by plummeting polling numbers. To be sure, I suspect that Paul Ryan is not unaware of the relatively older demographic of his own state.

Yes, it's hard to beat incumbents, but there is something plaintive about the way Paul Ryan has been asking that Democrats not "use" the Medicare issue to their own political advantage. It's almost as if he knows that he may have screwed up in a big way, even to the point of putting his own congressional seat at risk.

But, to be clear, what the Democrats have been doing is simply speaking the truth about what Paul Ryan and the Republicans plan to do to Medicare. If Ryan wants to call that "demagoguing," he really needs to get himself a dictionary.

It is hard to know what issues will be top of mind on election day 2012, especially if the economic recovery continues to be weak. Right now, though, a plan to take something so important away from so many people seems like a safe bet to do electoral damage to those most responsible.

In an otherwise nonsensical piece in the Washington Post by Jennifer Rubin, she offered her opinion that Paul Ryan, by virtue of his budget plan and his attempt to sell it, has become the de facto leader of the Republican Party. She thinks that's a good thing. I wouldn't be so sure.

No, no one's going to take Ryan down by running a local campaign. The only way he loses this one is if he beats himself. Lucky for Democrats he's giving it his best shot.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost)