2010 election

There's little doubt that there's been a groundswell against the traditional leadership of the Republican party. Efforts by party insiders to anoint one of the "usual suspects" have fallen incredibly flat.

And there's plenty of reason to believe that the types of people motivated by the "tea party" movement against the Obama Administration are not going to be automatically enamored of the "Certified Pre-Owned candidates" the Beltway brain trust are eager to promote this cycle.

I note that James Carville, who may be as partisan as they come but surely not dumb, noticed how little respect the Republican voter base has for its elected leadership.  

So what are the political insiders to do with a bunch of voters looking for something completely different? Well, it's simple. They have stolen a page from the world of product marketing.

Make something sold by Corporate America look like it's from some new fresh upstart business by putting a new, different label on the product.

I predict 2010 will be the year of the "Blue Moon" candidates.  We will see many candidates who are products of the world of political insiders, but relabelled and rebranded as anti-establishment candidates expressing populist resentment.

Why "Blue Moon"?. Because that's exactly what we are dealing with

Seems one of the good ole macrobrews, Coors, wanted to start selling some different flavors of beer. But if they put the Coors label on it, people would think it wasn;t like those nice quaint microbrews and imports; it was just a spinoff from the billion or so cans of Silver Bullet quaffed every year by the masses.  So guess what.: Coors decided to sell a beer that pretended to be new, quaint and from an independent brewery.

Coors does not actively advertise the fact that the brew is owned by Coors on the belief that being associated with a major national brewery would diminish its credibility among aficionados. Blue Moon is instead branded as being brewed by the "Blue Moon Brewing Company." [5]

My local example of a "Blue Moon" candidate is liberal wrestling tycoon Linda McMahon, who will probably do something useful for real conservatives a lot less often "than once in a blue moon"  

There are some in the media who are going to be honest enough to see through the charade that people like the "Wild RINO" are trying to pull off. But in this economy, plenty more in the media will simply go along with the carnival as long as the well funded candidate buys print ads and air time from their employers. Take this example of circular reasoning.

Some Republicans wonder if McMahon’s message of an outsider is a mere contrivance. After all, she criticizes business as usual, but is often seen with veteran lobbyist Patrick Sullivan.

Nevertheless, McMahon showed she may indeed be something different when explaining at an event in Windsor that her generous campaign contributions to Democrats were “the cost of doing business.” It’s not a truth we like to hear, but it rings with authenticity.

Perhaps there's some form of "truth in advertising" herein. But I would submit that this makes Ms. McMahon's political compass much more closely aligned with that of Heidi Fleiss than that of Barry Goldwater.

Yep, we will see tycoons accustomed to buying favors from career politicians go and buy the allegiance of other career politicians.  But they will try and insist with a straight face that they will be "A different kind of Senator" when all objective indicia suggests they will be a carbon copy of the Capitol Hill lifers they seek to replace.  They'll just take their calls from Rahm Emanuel in the Republican cloakroon instead of the Democratic cloakroom.  

Much as Blue Moon beer is really dressed-up Coors, all these various rebranded political insiders are ever going to be are the campaign version of trick-or-treaters, dressed up to play the role of angry commoners. 

The worst aspect of all this is that we have a real opportunity to build a new Republican party that Middle America can once again have faith in. But that will require hard work finding and promoting new candidates for statewide office and congressional races.

 What it appears much of the political establishment thinks it can do is simply play make-believe; instead of doing the work to win a worthwhile victory.  This will fail for two reasons. First, the voters are probably going to figure this out long before the election. The resulting loss of volunteer energy and voter turnout is going to doom us.  In a low turnout election, a true-believer lefty is likely to outpoll someone who appears only to give lip service to what he claims to be running on.

One thing the various poseurs also may underestimate that even if the media lets the party roll on, the Democrats will have a full dossier of every insider deal and favor these folks got before they put on populist airs, and will simply wait to drop the hammer after they get nominated. Oops!

And if the "Blue Moon" candidates do skate through to election then what are we left with? A bunch of personality cult officeholders with a cadre of paid retainers, committed to no political agenda more important that gaining re-election. Hmmm; isn't that why we got shown the door in 2006? 

Douglas MacArthur said that in war, there is no substitute for victory. I believe in the election environment of 2010 there is no subsitute for authenticity. Either you have it- or you don't.

Republican candidates in 2010 who think they can excuse away their phoniness by massive media blitzes or slick PR tactics will find out that there is a subsitute for victory: defeat.  

I'm sure many people here did too.  It was a fundraising letter on behalf of the NRCC.  I"m sure you also realize that there is a lot of buzz on our side of the aisle when it comes to the 2010 elections.  In short, people are pumped up and excited about voting the Dems (and RINOs) out of office.  Republicans have a real shot at capturing back the House.

Now I know that many people here disagree with the current direction of the Republican Party generally.  But, as a practical matter, 2010 is an opportunity to take Congress in a rightward direction, and we shouldn't squander it.  This doesn't mean that we should necessarily line up and march lockstep, but we should appreciate the opportunity that arises.

So even if you think the Republican Party is too socially conservative, too beholden to business interests, too inept in its leadership - criticisms I share, BTW - I still think we owe it to our principles overall to seize upon this opportunity.  I think it would be a mistake to pout and sit out one more election.  In 2006 - yeah, the Republican Congress had lost its way.  In 2008 - yeah, McCain was a terrible candidate.  But now?  So even if we don't agree with the Republican Party in every detail, this is a big opportunity to put the brakes on our current socialist joyride.

I'm sure think this is a day Chris Dodd looks forward to ending

Right around sunrise, Quinnipiac released their latest poll results. In recent weeks, Dodd and his special interest allies have spent probably over $1 million on a TV blitz promoting Dodd's credit card and health care bills. So I expected Dodd to be temporarily given some political health.

Nope. Since the last poll Rob Simmons actually increased his lead over Dodd.  

Simmons now leads by 9 points

And each of the other Republicans is in a dead heat with Dodd.

True , Dodd's job approval improved from an utterly disgusting level to a merely dismal 40%; but it seems the only people swayed were partisan Democrats; he's now crushing the unknown Merrick Alpert in a putative primary. But by a 2/1 margin, CT voters simply don't find Dodd trustworthy. And that's hard to spin your way out of.

I have to think that this reverberated on the Hill. Dodd had assumed the mantle of trying to write the public option health care bill when his BFF Ted Kennedy fell ill, and actually got a bill out of his committee on a party line vote. And then his home state---dark blue as they come---gives him a raspberry for all his efforts (playing attention, Orrin, you dummy!)  

 So, by day's end, the Democratic leadership on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue was in disarray; shelving the health care issue until the fall. As Michael Barone points out. "Thursday have been bad days for the Democrats’ health care efforts this month....It looks like July 23 is another bad Thursday for the Dems".

You know, it's just a bit after 8pm. There's still time for something else bad to happen to Chris Dodd before he deals with Frriday.

Yesterday was a slow day at the office, so I spent a lot of time on the I-phone seeing if we could actually give the lefties a shiner by defeating their "cap and trade" fiasco.

Then I got home, saw the result, and traded e-mails with various people in the "movement" The kindest response to the eight turncoats that enabled Waxman-Markey to pass was roughly along these lines

I don't think one can minimize why this was a truly hideous vote for those eight folks. Here we had a chance to derail the Obama socialism train and restore the Republican party to policy relevance, and these guys bailed out so they could get a nice mention in the NY Times tomorrow. Swell.  Even the White House is giving up on the "global warming" issue and you guys sign up for the mission.  Putzes,

The immediate response that I had was that the kindest thing to do to these "fredos" was to throw them out on an ice floe with the polar bears. And others were along those lines. Or at least, shut off their campaign money, demand retirements, or find primary challengers  But that's my spleen talking. Today my brain took over.

No. it's time for a more "reasonable" approach.

See we now have an even more serious threat to the future of the Republic, and that would be a socialized health care system. I'll let John Hinderaker explain.

One of my law partners asked me yesterday which of the Democrats' current initiatives is worse, the tax on carbon or the health care "public option," otherwise known as socialized medicine. I replied unhesitatingly that socialized medicine is much worse. Carbon tax-and-trade can rather easily be repealed once people realize what a dumb idea it is. However, once our health care system has been destroyed and replaced with "single payer" socialized medicine, there is no going back

We need to explain to the Octofail Republicans that there is only one way out of the flaming pit they have dug for themselves. They need to become hard line zealots against the "public option" health care "reform".

And not milquetoast statements and a quiet vote "nay" on final passage. I mean going medieval on the whole concept 24/7/365. I mean like righteous 100 decible opposition. I mean like Rudy Giuliani vs. squeegee men or Michael Moore v. the Hometown Buffett bad.

Anything less, and we re-send the pink slips with no remorse and no reconsideration.

Now for our political geniuses.  First off, let's dispense with the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" canard here. This was a statist bill from the word go and there wasn't a libertarian idea within the same zip code. It was simply an energy tax.  Ok if you want to keep the government out of my bedroom. How about letting people afford to heat their bedrooms? 

Second, this bill is going to appeal to the vocal but few Saab Socialists who put the environment ahead of the economy. It is going to be painfully unpopular with blue collar America. Maybe Dave Reichert's uber green district will like it; but if Mark Kirk or Mike Castle think this isn't going to backfire on them big time in Rockford and New Castle they are going to find the Democrats whacking them with their own bill next November.

And please explain Mary Bono Mack.  Both her and the lame hubby from SW FL are painful underachievers, proving surnames don't equal leadership. (Something we know well in CT!)

So that's the offer.  Back before he went girlie man in Sacramento Arnold Scharzenegger told John Connor this

Come with me if you want to live

Well, "Cap and Tr8-ors".....either make sure Obama's health care reform fails...or

Hasta la vista, baby!

Chris Dodd's effort to change the subject for the 2010 election to health care made a pit stop yesterday at Derby's Griffin Hospital.

Since the Senator got it from both sides, maybe he should have skipped the event and checked himself in.

Before he got there, he was greeted by a picket line of protesters from Dump Dodd. This is a sight he was unaccustomed to seeing in his travels around Connecticut.

Then it got worse, Dodd may have thought he was going to run a pep rally for Obama-style "health care reform", but was confronted with a cadre of militants demanding the immediate adoption of single payer health insurance.

Needless to say, it looks like it was ugly.

DERBY — A “town hall discussion” on health care reform held at Griffin Hospital Saturday became contentious when advocates of a single-payer health insurance system shouted at U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd to put the plan back “on the table.”.......The two people evicted from the meeting in Derby Saturday were members of the group Single Payer Action. Russell Mokhiber of West Virginia, formerly of Simsbury, was the first to stand and shout at Dodd. He asked him several times, “Why did you take single pay off the table?” Then he added, “Tell us about your corporate connections.”Jerry Kann of New York was the second person to stand and ask Dodd why he had taken the single-payer proposal “off the table.” He, too, was escorted from the building. 

The Democrats in general have a rather large problem on their hands which us poor Republicans can;t solve.  There are millions of lefties out there who actually believed their party's diatribes and think the Democrats are going to hand the Gitmo detainees a plane ticket home and an ACLU lawyer; and implement every social policy pipe dream that got a favorable mention in Mother Jones or the Nation.  

The Obama  Adminstration and folks like Dodd now have to cater to Rachel Maddow's whims as well as trying to run a government. Reap what you sow, folks.

Chris Dodd is a lot of things, but if you think he's going to crush the private insurance industry in CT, which only accounts for 65,000 jobs and is the highest concentration of such jobs in the nation, might I suggest you move on to marijuana legalization.

The internal contradictions of "health care reform" are rather immense; it appears to be the theory that somehow better management will lower costs to consumers; lower costs to the government. cover everybody, and maintain the expected standard of care.  I'm not bright enough to figure out how this is going to work, but then again maybe Peter Orslag has invented a perpetual motion machine in his spare time.  It doesn't seem NY Governor Paterson has had much luck reducing the excess cost of his state's health care system  and closing hospitals and laying off insurance workers is not going to be an easy sell in what is likely to be a jobless economic recovery.

So, the Obama team has decided that rather than engage in the merits of the issue, it will merely accuse skeptics of "swiftboating". To wit.

We knew healthcare reform would face fierce opposition -- and it's begun. As we speak, the same people behind the notorious "swiftboat" ads of 2004 are already pumping millions of dollars into deceptive television ads. Their plan is simple: torpedo healthcare reform before it sees the light of day by scaring the public and distorting the President's approach

 Dunno guys, looks like the more dangerous squadron is coming at you from your exposed left flank, arguing you guys aren;t socialist enough.  Gonna explain why healthcare costs money to the likes of them?

Looks like this prescription isn't going to restore the ailing Dodd back to political health.  Then again, every day he spends on this is a day he isn't socializing the financial services industry.

* Full disclosure: My wife works in the CTICU at a local CT acute care hospital (Not Griffin).

Chris Dodd has a new silver bullet to rescue his sinking political career.

He's hot to pass a "credit card reform bill" to "protect consumers"

No doubt this will be more popular than say, sweetheart mortgages or signing off on bonuses to his contributors, or having his wife earn millions from corporate boards.

But why now? After all Dodd's been chairman of the Senate Banking Committee for almost three years and just got around to getting this bill moving....even though he's claimed to have supported reform for two decades?  (Perhaps that's the "lifetime of leadership"...complain over and over again about the same stuff you never fix)

Well, when you spend over 100 days in Iowa your work in Washington does tend to suffer. 

But why is credit card reform now moving through the Senate faster than a speeding bullet?

Because it's just a trojan horse for another bailout.

Tucked deep inside Chris Dodd's "credit card reform bill" is this little nugget.....an increase of up to $500 billion in borrowing authority for the FDIC.

The bill would provide a permanent increase in the FDIC’s authority to borrow from $30 billion to $100 billion and would provide a temporary increase of up to $500 billion under certain conditions"

Think another $500 billion bank bailout would go over too well right now? So, guess what , we'll just make it the "fine print" in the "credit card reform' bill and make anyone who votes "No" out to be "anti-consumer"

How is that any less sleazy than the fine print in credit card statements this bill claims to prevent? Seems like the banks may be prevented from secretly changing your credit limit, but politicians think nothing of doing it themselves. 

Besides, why do we need to give the FDIC more money? Weren't we told last summer that Dodd "didn't expect many more banks to fail" 

We're up to 33 banks already this year, Chris. 

This is one of the more intriguing opportunities of 2010. -Patrick

For the first time in a generation, a Republican U.S. Senate nomination in CT might be worth something, as the state GOP has noted there is "blood in the water"  concerning the re-election chances of Senator Chris Dodd (D- Countrywide). 

Indeed the worst thing for CT Republicans would be if Dodd were to pull a "Mark Dayton" and stand down due to abysmal poll numbers  since Dick Blumenthal, the state's extremely popular Attorney General, would probably replace Dodd in the race.

Cahnman evidently caught wind while I was earning a living this afternoon that Larry Kudlow might be interested in running. Well, the field is looking a bit crowded already with Rob Simmons , Sam Caligiuri and Peter Schiff all showing various levels of interest.

I'm not sure Kudlow is a game changer given the credentials of the present possible aspirants. Here's the tale of the tape.

Simmons:  Vietnam War vet and retired CIA officer; turned three term Congressman for Dodd's old House District, the 2nd District. Simmons was a stalwart in bringing home defense dollars and saving the New London sub base. He also did a great job appealing to blue collar voters in rural eastern CT. It is a testament to the 2006 political tsunami that a candidate like Simmons could be beat; but it was by only 83 votes.

Simmons is clearly a strong campaigner. To the extent I can identify downsides they are less than optimal age (67 next year) and having to defend some votes during the GOP control era of the House. 

Caligiuri:  One of the few outspoken CT Republicans on conservative issues, Caligiuri voted against the failed state budget in opposition to Governor Rell. He also is a vocal advocate for long prison terms for repeat violent offenders.  A generation younger than Dodd, he would offer a clear contrast stylistically to Dodd. He also won major kudos early in the decade for assuming the Mayor's office in Waterbury under duress (the incumbent was arrested on child sex charges) and leading the city out of the disaster. That enabled Caligiuri to win a Democrat leaning state senate seat in the absymal environment of 2006.   Caligiuri's one drawback is he is an old ally of ousted CT Governor Rowland; but given that Dodd has his own vacation home scandal.       Dodd may be hestitant to press that line of attack.

Schiff:  Pete Schiff was very prescient as to the dimensions and causes of todays financial meltdown back when other TV financial talking heads were still blowing bubbles. And he is beloved by the Ron Paul fans out there. The problem is that Ron Paul, is , let me be polite, not a mainstream figure in CT political culture.  Schiff's dad is a convicted tax protester; the son seems not to challenge authority in that fashion.  Schiff would easily serve Dodd up as fillets in a TV debate; the problem is Schiff's recent economic outlook might be so gloomy as to turn voters off from both candidates. A good renegade pick, not a safe one. And he's not revved about running yet anyway. 

Where does Kudlow fit in? He is more media savvy that the guys herein; but on economic issues he wasn't as negative as Schiff and won't look as good pointing out Dodd's flaws. On the other hand, Kudlow can attract a broader voting audience and will dominate what little is left of CT's free media.      

Then again, if Dodd's utter financial incompetence is already a known quantity to CT voters maybe a politician with a proven record of getting Democrats and independent voters to support him is the better direction.

Usually the CT Republicans have to beat the bushes to find candidates; now they are coming out of the woodwork. Times have changed.  

Connecticut's leading pollster, Quinnipiac University, released it's latest poll today. And the temperature reading on CT's senior senator , Chris Dodd, continues to drop into hypothermia conditions

 

 

A total of 42 percent of voters say they "definitely" or "probably" will vote to reelect Sen. Dodd in 2010, while 51 percent say the "probably won't" or "definitely won't" vote for him.

By a 54 - 24 percent margin, Connecticut voters say they are not satisfied with Sen. Dodd's explanation of allegations that he received preferential mortgage treatment and 56 percent of voters say they are less likely to vote for him because of this controversy.

"Sen. Dodd is vulnerable. His approval has sunk to a new low. More voters disapprove than approve of the job he is doing for the first time in 15 years of polling," Schwartz said. "The mortgage controversy has taken a toll on his approval rating. Most voters are not satisfied with Dodd's explanation and say they are less likely to vote for him next year because of it."

 

 If anything, the polls's internals are even more horrific for Senator Dodd than the widely reported toplines

11% of CT voters will "defintively" vote to re-elect Dodd; while  32% of CT voters will "definitely" vote against Dodd.

So the "intensity" in this race is starting off 3 to 1 against the incumbent; who will need 67% of those voters who aren't committed to firing him in order to hold office.

On the question of trust, unaffiliated voters  break 39%- to 45% against Dodd being "honest and trustworthy"  By a 19% to 59% measure they aren;t satisfied with Dodd' explanation of how he got "VIP" treatment from Countrywide Mortgage.

Perhaps most ominously for Dodd, he is losing the re-elect question in CT's three rural eastern counties . where he once represented in Congress and where his possible opponent (Fmr. Congressman Rob Simmons) is from.  Even people living near Dodd Stadium are sick of Chris Dodd.

Now how bad are these numbers? Well, I'm thinking Chris Dodd is in Rick Santorum sorta trouble; especially since in July 2005 Quinnipiac had Santorum with positive job approval. a and a plurality edge on the re-elect question. 

As we know, Santorum went down by something like 18 points in a purple state. CT is bluer than PA is red, and the CT GOP is unlikely to find as strong a votegetter as Casey; but I challenge Nate Silver to explain why Chris Dodd isn't high on 538.com's list of vulnerable 2010 senate seats. 

The problem for Dodd is he's already done his damage control on Countrywide and suffered more damage.  Sure he promises to fight back, but let's "fisk" this statement, why don;t we. 

 When the time comes, Sen. Dodd will be ready with a vigorous, well-funded (by special interests) re-election campaign," said Dodd's spokesman, Bryan DeAngelis. "Now is the time for leadership and that is why Sen. Dodd is focused on helping Connecticut families get out of this economic crisis and hardship."

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hcu-qpoll-0210,0,4411573.story

The Hartford Business Journal's Dean Pagani has suggested Democratic senior statesmen will intercede to get Dodd to go quietly into the night off to his Connemara cottage, so they can run the more popular Attorney General Dick Blumenthal or perhaps chomping at the bit Congressman Chris Murphy. But I think someone who thinks his family owns this senate seat is going to go down swinging irregardless of whether he hurts his party; he did waste over a year of his life on a risable race for President.   

So, folks, if you thought 2006 was a fun senate election in CT, well we have an encore!!!...and one that a registered Republican can win!

I think Dodd is going to go down along with the economic disaster he helped create. Shouldn;t mess with karma, I say 

The immediate focus should be on neither the 2012 presidential race nor the 2010 Congressional race.

There are bigger fish to fry.

2010 is a census year.  That means, it is also a re-districting year.  The immediate goal has to be on capturing as many state assemblies and governorships as possible.  To the victors of 2010 go the spoils, and the spoils are the rights to draw state congressional districts to the greatest partisan advantage.  You might find this unseemly, but the fact is, the Democrats will do it in the states they win and we better be prepared to do the same. 

The bulk of our energies the next two years should go toward building state house majorities.  That will pay longer term benefits down the road in recapturing the Congress and White House by (a) ensuring fair district drawing and (b) electing the next cohort of leaders who will one day advance to the national stage.

To paraphrase an old lefty battlecry:  Think nationally, act locally!