2010 elections

It had been the topic of lots of rumors in CT political circles over the past few weeks, but at 5pm tonight Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell ended the speculation.

She will not seek re-election in 2010

Needless to say, there's a lot of speculation now as to the proximate cause. Rell's incredibly positive image took a hit over the summer due to the state budget crisis; her effort to force fiscal conservatism resulted in a state budget agreement she expressed little enthusiasm for. It's hard to be a moderate Republican and stay popular when you have to tell a ravenous liberal legislature the cupboard is bare.

I think the bigger reason is Rell is a 63 year old woman with a chronically ill husband.  Can't fault that as a reason for retirement.

This of course shuffles the deck for the 2010 election with Rell's Lieutenant Governor, Mike Fedele, seeking to run as the GOP candidate. Other possiblities are State Senate Minority Leader John McKinney and State House Minority Leader Larry Cafero.  None of them are household names, which has led some to wonder if Senate candidate Rob Simmons might be lobbied to change races.

As for the Democrats, the most notorious candidate is 2006 Senate candidate Ned Lamont.  No word if that causes Joe Lieberman to endorse a Republican. Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy and Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz have been running for months, but might be eclipsed by the Lamont entry.

The Democrats haven;t won an election for Governor in CT since 1986. Their chances of breaking the streak improved tonight.    

There's a must read over @ the New Ledger which I think makes a point missed by the Beltway brain trust.

Yet the assumption that these protesters are right-wingers — or as others have accused, fake grassroot anger, or “astroturf” — seems a vast oversimplification. While we hardly have data on the people who have been attending these townhalls and shouting down members attempting to sell health care insurance reform, anecdotal evidence indicates that this is hardly manufactured dissent. Obama’s plan is hardly popular, and many Americans who are not Republican or conservative are opposed to the package and nervous about its outcome.

Domenech makes the point that this appears much more to be a sudden resurgence of the Ross Perot phenomena than any Republican party inspired movement. I tend to agree. Recent polls show that Republican party identification is still rather low; it's been deterioration in Democratic support over recent months that's kept the gap from widening. To the extent any national figures have stoked the flames, they are media hosts like Limbaugh, Hannity , Beck and Levin and not Republican elected officials.  And the "feel" of the crowds doesn't reflect the losing late decade Republican coalition of preachers and lobbyists.

These protesters aren’t really fans of either party (George W. Bush is no more popular at Tea Parties than Barack Obama), but driven by a strong sense — and basic American ideas of liberty — that the government shouldn’t be intruding on their lives, taking their money and giving it to companies that don’t deserve it, telling them which doctor to go to, and generally mismanaging things.

Indeed, the only contemporary Republican political figure who seems to be aligned with this inchoate anti-establishment vibe is Sarah Palin, who as we are well aware marches to her own drummer.  While Palin is often pigeonholed by the MSM as a 'social conservative champion", much of the energy she brought to the McCain campaign during its brief burst of success was appealing to these sorts of voters who had tuned out the Republican establishment.

These voters are "middle American radicals"--distrustful of big government but usually skeptical of movement conservatism or corporate Republicanism.  I suspect that one will find a rather substantial number sat out the 2008 election, and clearly they decided to abstain from the 2006 midterms in droves, costing us both houses of Congress. 

So here's the challenge:

if those on the right aren’t able to present a strong, coherent alternative, they will be unable to rally these Perotistas to their side. In 1994, the Republicans were successful at this, combining a package of populist governmental reforms with outrage against irresponsible governance to attain victory — but more recently, they’ve given no signs of having this capability. Whether they can recapture it, and claim enough of the independent middle to win, will be a very challenging thing indeed.

And what are Republicans doing to harness this energy for the 2010 elections?  Nominating a bunch of "certified pre-owned candidates"

The latest example is from Colorado, where it appears failed 2006 gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez is about to challenge appointed Democratic senator Bennet. 

Beauprez appears to be a perfectly satisfactory guy; he won a swing House district twice and seems to have done a credible job in Congress.  But how much pizazz are we getting running a guy whose been around awhile and lost his last statewide race by double digits?  Maybe the alternatives haven't shown to be able to get it done, but I'd like to think we'd do better than a "round up the usual suspects" approach to nominating candidates in this unconventional election cycle  

Same for Roy Blunt or Charlie Crist. Are we giving ourselves our best shot in 2010 by running old time corporate Republicans? And let's assume they do win. Are these the sorts of people that are going to inspire a new generation to become active Republicans?

Lemme throw a race where we should be thinking outside the box. Nevada. Harry Reid has anemic approval numbers but all the prominent Republican officeholders of late have legal problems or think they'll wait for John Ensign to step aside in 2012.

Fine. Why don't we look to a nonpolitician to run against Reid. Make this the classic outsider vs. the classic insider.

Half of Nevada's voters weren't around when Reid got into the Senate. Nevada is a state built on gambling, this seems like a good bet to me.

Or will we find the last political warhorse who lost a statewide race or hold some obscure legislative post and hand the keys off to him?

Stop looking for old jalopies. The Republican party is not going to thrive in the future running its own version of "cash for clunkers". Time for the bright new models!  

I caught a bit of Rush in my travels recently taking Frank Luntz to task over his health care strategy memo

Let's just say Rush does not think the Luntz plan advocates a teachable moment in conservative principals--and basically is a return to tactical engagement on the opponent's turf.

I'm not going to read a 26 page memo and dissect it and opine on whether this is  fair criticism. I have a much more strategic problem with this.

We are letting the Democrats change the subject.

I noted a few weeks back

Health care is tailor made for Democrats for 2010. It enables them to justify massive federal spending to help all those cast adrift by the misfortunes of the private sector economy, while avoiding an explanation as to how they intend to restore the economy to health. 

Chris Dodd is a leading indicator. He's already fired his bullets and is quickly exhausting the ammunition he has on failed bailouts.  Barring a completely unexpected rebound in the nation's economy, he will have nothing to add to the public discussion on the economy prior to the midterms.....

Watch other Democrats mirror this approach as the public sours quickly on the "bailouts to nowhere"

I don't think this line is in Luntz's magmun opus, but I offer it gratis to Republican congressional candidates.

After what Chris Dodd has done to the Banking Industry, why in God's name would we let him try and reform health care? 

The Democrats "own" the economy now.  Let them defend Bailout Nation. Do not let them relocate the political battlefield to more favorable ground.

FYI: Dodd's given up on beating the health care drum up here in CT.. As the Google ads how, he's now identified credit card issuers as the new bad guy. Hope Vice President Biden has heard this.

(I know both Rob and Billy and think quite highly of both. I certainly intend to write more on this - Soren)

With the 2008 elections behind us, its time to start taking a look at rising stars in the Republican Party who are running for Congress.

The candidate I'm most excited about is Rob Wasinger, who is running for Congress in the 1st District of Kansas. I got to know Rob from my work for Sen. Sam Brownback.

One of the first things I noticed about Rob is a characteristic that is hard to find: Rob understands both policy and politics. Rob seems to have a gene I am most definitely missing -- I love politics, but put me in some committee hearing on the Hill and I'll be in a deep sleep within 10 minutes. Having been a legislative director, campaign manager, and chief of staff, Rob has seen it all and gets it. Furthermore, Rob has nine -- yes nine -- children. Its defintiely a 24/7 party at the Wasinger house -- trust me, I've seen it!

I know its been said over and over, but it is important that the leaders of the Republican Party communicate their ideas online. Rob gets it, and is on it -- just in the past two days, Rob has made two posts on Redstate -- an intro post followed by a policy post.

Here is a great line from his intro post:

The sands have shifted for many of the people in Washington, DC. It sometimes seems we have more convictions than conviction. Our country is paying the price for that.

Many politicans get elected, go to Washington, and forget who sent them there. Rob has been tested and proven over the years in Washington to keep true to his values and convictions (I think his days as a conservative rebel at Harvard helped prepare him for that).

And a good line from his front-page policy post, titled Stop Passing the Taxpayers' Buck:

There are thousands of small business owners across the First District of Kansas who do not get bailed out if they make a poor decision. They know they own the consequences of their actions. Sure, it’s not always easy, but here in Kansas we wouldn’t have it any other way. We don’t ask for much, except to be left alone, allowed to keep our hard-earned profits, and to run our businesses as we see fit.

Personally, having grown up in the DC area, it was great to go away from home for college to a small town in Ohio. That is most definitely the consensus message to Washington from here -- just leave us alone!

To learn more about Rob, feel free to visit his website, and make sure to check out the "Big Family, Big First" blog, run by Rob's wife, Meg, which chronicles the adventures of the family of 11 on the campaign trail, its quite the read.

I really don't know quite what to make of this breaking news story

Gregg withdraws as commerce secretary nominee

but it certainly does not paint New England Republicans in a good light (good thing I was born in Brooklyn, ;) )

I also don;t know where this leaves us for the 2010 election in NH. Will Gregg return as a candidate, or an embarassed lame duck?

And I'm also not sure who look worse after all is said and done--Obama's incompetent vetters or Mitch McConnell's inept management of the senate minority? One hopes for the Republic's sake it will be the former, but who knows?

Evidently the President has identified the one federal program that was not underfunded by his predecessor, George W. Bush.

The defense budget

I'll allow those more steeped in geopolitics to discuss the message this sends to Moscow, Beijing, Teheran and some cave on the Pakistan-Afghan border, but it certaintly doesn't convey the Reaganesque message of "peace through strength"  

The other problem, is much as I am a spending hawk, is we don't have a "peace dividend" to give away like we did in the 1990's. U.S. defense spending is only about 4% of GNP (relatively small compared to its 1980's level).  Moreover, what is spent is now largely devoted to the "boots on the ground" deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As a result of needing to properly fight these wars, much of the planned technological upgrades to the U.S, military to apply the "revolution in military affairs".  haven't been rolled out quickly and are in dire need of being procured promply to avoid serious functional deterioration of American defense capabilities. (as part of the "peace dividend", a lot of 1990's era weapons like the Seawolf submarine weren;t purchased in bulk or cancelled in toto)

Case in point is the F-22.   This "shovel ready" aircraft already has had it's proposed deployment reduced, although the plane it is replacing, the F-15 has been beset with numerous crashes owing to age; the planes were originally developed in the 1970's.  So, the Air Force's idea to keep these planes in service beyond 2025 seems more based on political correctness than operational requirements. Not replacing the older F-15C's may make the numbers work. And that's it. 

And the Air Force was playing "nickel and dime" under the Bush budgets.   And this isn;t the only weapon system rolled out slowly to put off the cost.  The Virginia class submarines were procured at a rate of one boat a year.  Congressman Joe Courtney  has been vocal in pressing for a two sub a year procurement, which will keep both the EB yard in CT and Newport News in the sub business. This is likely to fall by the wayside, as will be the goal of building 30 new subs. Even at buildout, this fleet will be inadequate to replace the Los Angeles class fleet; maybe we can keep the 688i's running; but  even then we are talking about trying to secure millions of square miles of water with about 50 boats.

And let's not forget the aerial tanker debacle which the Obama team needs to address on their watch; or  the fact the Navy hasn't gotten a proper replacement for their surface warfare ships in the pipeline.. And if the budget gets cut, the U.S.S. Gerald Ford may be the last flattop we launch for a very long time.

So why do I think the hardware gets slashed. Because even if Obama cuts the cost of the Iraq deployment. he;s already proposed to recommit those troops and funds into an augmented effort in Afghanistan.. And cancelling weapons systems is what Democrat presidents like to do even when the world isn't at peace.

Now for the political ramifications. The defense industry is a major component of that long lamented sector known as American manufacturing. It's employees are well paid and highly skilled. And if you don't buy weapons, these workers are forced into lower paid service sector jobs.

Now perhaps the Obama team thinks that angering folks in Georgia, where the F-22 is built doesn't matter.  But the engines for new aircraft are made in Ohio   and Connecticut.. And naval vessels are built in Connecticut,  Maine ,  and Virginia . Hmm, didn;t Obama win these states---and by only a narrow edge in VA and OH?

So, look for this effort to be a major issue in House and Senate races in many states. I could readily see this being unpopular for Democrats in the open Senate seats in Ohio and Missouri (the F-18 is manufactured in St. Louis), as well as a number of House seats which have recently flipped to the Democrats ( OH 1; VA 2 ; CT 2).

The bottom line is that not surprisingly the former community organizer wants to hire more community organizers with tax dollars.     while putting people who make weapons out on the street.  I have to admit this is not a choice I would have thought John McCain would have made.

Yep, elections have consequences. Perhaps the trade unions at the defense plants who endorsed Obama ought to chew on that idea a bit. 

If the economy sucks as an issue--change the subject

Right now the economy is not the biggest issue, to paraphrase Vince Lombardi, it's the only issue 

So what is Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd talking about in his travels across Connecticut?

Health Care 

This is the issue Dodd is attaching himself to as he tries to help an ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy deliver universal health care, a possible capstone for Kennedy's career and a potential savior for Dodd's.It's a gamble that could lift his sagging job-approval rating or hasten the stunning erosion of support for Connecticut's senior member of Congress.

Of course, there was no problem finding hundreds of folks who feel they;ve been done wrong by the American health care system.  The irony, of course, is that Dodd has had nearly thirty five years to fix the problems in health care, yet I am sure the folks who showed at this event think matters have gotten worse. 

The CT Republicans have characterized this as   

Dodd Enters Political Rehab , and as for the situation surrounding Dodd's health care record, maybe the folks in the victim class ought to examine who got what they paid for from the dear senator. And it was more than a shoulder to cry on. Open Secrets documents that lawyers and the insurance industry were among the top contributors to Dodd's quixotic Presidential race.  Indeed, lawyers and insurers have contributed over $5 million to Dodd's various re-election campaigns.

BTW, want a definition of chutzpah, Dodd once denounced Hillary Clinton for "mismanaging health care"

Now there is a way to make changes to health care that both lawyers and insurers like. This , of course means consumers, taxpayers or providers get to choose who gets the pipe.

But why is Dodd not touting his expertise on the economy?  His own Senate web claims his role in the TARP bailout was "his finest hour"?    Then again, after playing "a central role" in drafting the bailout, he complains that it failed. (which is why I said he "pulled a Plaxico")

I believe Dodd will need more health care of his own tending to self-inflicted GSW's Just today, despite lamenting the poor results of TARP, Dodd lavished praise on one of its architects and voted him in as Treasury Secretary 

  Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said that while he would "not minimize" the tax issue, he assured colleagues that, "This is, I believe, one of the most talented people I've met in the area of financial services."

Well, Chris , remember when you said the banks were sound; well, now, Joe Biden is saying we will need another massive TARP II bank bailout.

Let's see, a trillion bucks or so for stimulus, more than a trillion for banks, another auto bailout  on the way ,  pretty soon, we are talking real money, now aren;t we? 

And every indication is that Dodd's signature effort--to try and slow down foreclosures--is a dismal failure.  

So what to do when the economy is in the tank and lots of folks think you put it there?

Change the subject!

Health care is tailor made for Democrats for 2010. It enables them to justify massive federal spending to help all those cast adrift by the misfortunes of the private sector economy, while avoiding an explanation as to how they intend to restore the economy to health. 

Chris Dodd is a leading indicator. He's already fired his bullets and is quickly exhausting the ammunition he has on failed bailouts.  Barring a completely unexpected rebound in the nation's economy, he will have nothing to add to the public discussion on the economy prior to the midterms.

The Republicans would be in need of the political version of national health care to deal with insanity if they follow the obvious script herein. Try and get the Republicans to buy into bipartisan Bailout Nation, and then, once they have as little credibility on the economy as the Democrats will have going into the midterms; change the agenda into a referendum on "helping the less fortunate" and paint the Republicans as cold hearted.

Watch other Democrats mirror this approach as the public sours quickly on the "bailouts to nowhere"

Many folks on message boards in CT have an obvious riposte which the national Republican party ought to emulate.

After what Chris Dodd has done to the Banking Industry, why in God's name would we let him try and reform health care?