Yesterday, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska shocked the political world by announcing that not only would she not seek re-election in 2010, but she would resign from being Governor on July 26. While many expected she would forego re-election, nobody predicted her early departure as governor.
What does Palin's move mean? The early reaction has been scattered, though the conventional wisdom seems to be that Palin is all but finished as far as 2012 is concerned. At this point, it's too early to tell how things will shake out.
Overall, Plain's resignation has many negative consequences. If Palin does want to run for President, she must do so without finishing a full term of any major elected office. Sarah Palin's biggest problem is the public's perception that she's a lightweight and not ready to hold true responsibility. Resigning only magnifies this concern. Opponents will surely say, "How can we rely on Gov. Palin to finish a term of the Presidency, if she could not stand the heat of being governor of Alaska?"
If Sarah Palin did want to launch a 2012 Presidential bid, she would have been better off saying so yesterday. Such an announcement would have, at the very least, provided a rational explanation for her actions, even if many would have still disagreed with them. Instead, she leaves the political pundits with plenty to discuss this Independence Day weekend.
Of course, another possibility is that Gov. Palin has had it with electoral politics and that she wants to retreat from public life. That would make sense. The constant negativity thrown at her from the left would wear down anybody over time. Moreoever, Palin's national profile has surely put a financial strain on her family - many estimate that Palin had $500,000 or more in legal bills stemming from ethical complaints that have so far been proven completely false. Freed from the constraints of holding public office, Palin could easily raise enough money to pay her legal bills and fly around the country in style.
The problem with this last theory is that Gov. Palin's speech yesterday did not sound like one being made by a politician looking to get out of the business. Taken at face value, it seems that Palin was seeking to make an unconventional move that will allow her freedom to do something bigger.
If Sarah Palin does run for President, she will have steep hurdles to overcome. Before the resignation, Palin generally enjoyed the support of conservatives. She will retain much of this popularity, but at least some conseratives will question whether she does have the chops necessary for the Presidency (one conservative friend noted, "This just makes her look like too much of a flake). Palin's biggest problem has always been proving that she is up to the job - now, she will have to make an affirmative case that she is up to the challenge.
Palin's resignation will probably hurt her standing among conservatives to some extent, but she is still the most high profile Republican in the field of candidates looking at 2012. If she chooses to run, Palin will be a fundraising powerhouse and a formidable force. Will the public be willing to entrust a 3 year governor with the Presidency? That's the bigger question that remains unanswered.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Gov. Sarah Palin's Mysterious Move
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Sanford Admits Affair
Republican South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford aroused suspicions earlier this weekend when staffers could not identify the Governor's whereabouts. They later said that he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail. Some reports indicated that the Governor was trying to get away from a hectic legislative session. However, how often does a sitting governor essentially disappear for a few days?
Today, reports were released indicating that Sanford had been in Argentina for the weekend. In a press conference, the governor admitted that he had an extramarital affair with someone in Argentina. Sanford has stated that he will resign as the head of the Republican Governors Association.
Sanford's behavior is mind boggling. Did Governor Sanford seriously think he could disappear to a foreign country without arousing suspicion? Sanford is a major public figure and he had to know that his Presidential aspirations would place him under a microscope every day. How could he possibly make such a blunder? It's impossible to know, but politicians frequently get into these problems when their ego's become too large or they just do something plainly dumb. It is unfathomable that so many politicians, like Sanford, are willing to gamble their careers away for an extramarital fling.
Is Sanford's political career over? It's too soon to tell, but his 2012 Presidential ambitions are likely finished (rightfully so). Sanford is a huge embarrassment for the Republican Party and South Carolinian's, but he has done the most harm to his family.
Friday, June 5, 2009
NJ-Gov: Christie Exceeds 50% In Post Primary Poll
On Tuesday night, former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie defeated former Mayor Steve Lonegan to win the Republican nomination to run for Governor. While Lonegan had a passionate group of supporters, Christie is probably the strongest candidate the Republicans could have fielded. Of course, the decisive factor in this rate is unlikely to be the Republican nominee. Instead, November's election will be about Gov. Jon Corzine.
This has been a good week for Christie's campaign. A new Rasmussen Poll gave Christie a 51%-38% lead over Governor Corzine. Christie's lead is significant because it is the first time either candidate has exceeded 50% in a head-to-head matchup.
Corzine's weakness stems from his poor job approval numbers and low favorability - a whopping 37% of voters have a "Very Unfavorable" opinion of the Governor. Still, Republicans cannot be too optimistic - past candidates have showed signs of strength, only to lose in the November election.
Corzine has a tough road ahead, but New Jersey's Democratic tilt should keep him in the game through November. Beyond The Polls currently rates this seat as LEANS REPUBLICAN.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Lonegan Ad - Ineffective?
This is an ad that Mayor Steve Lonegan is running in New Jersey. I saw it on television yesterday for the first time, and I was struck by not only the poor production value, but also the ad's utter ineffectiveness. In the ad Lonegan says "We must go forth with a clear vision," adding he wants to "Make New Jersey the great state it once was and will be again" (nothing like bashing the state you want to run), and that he will "make this a great state in 4 minutes." Uh huh. How do you plan on doing that, sir? The ad certainly does not tell us.
Lonegan's ad shows what can happen when a candidate is desperate to get on television, but they do not have enough money to do it effectively. This ad does little for Lonegan, aside from letting viewers know that he is actually running for something tomorrow. It says absolutely nothing about Lonegan's plans for the future and it does nothing to distinguish him from Chris Christie. Overall, this ad has very little positive benefit for Lonegan and its poor production and confusing content run the risk of turning off the few voters who actually see it.
Christie Posts Leads In 2 Polls...
While this year is a relatively quiet one when it comes to electoral politics, there are two significant races coming this fall - the gubernatorial races in both New Jersey and Virginia. Tomorrow, the Republican Party holds its primary in New Jersey. The primary will see former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie face off against former Bogota mayor Steve Lonegan.
Christie, who has had an enormous fundraising advantage, has led every poll taken of the race, though some have indicated that Lonegan is within striking distance. A Rasmussen Poll released today gave Christie a 46%-35% lead over Lonegan. Lonegan does best among voters aged 30-49, whereas Christie did better among younger voters and older voters. Interestingly, conservatives were divided evenly among the candidates, even though Lonegan has portrayed himself as the true conservative in the race.
A new Fairleigh Dickinson poll gave Christie a much larger lead - 54%-30% over Lonegan.
In primaries with low turnout, anything can happen, but Christie clearly has the edge. Christie would also enter the general election better positioned to face Gov. Corzine than Steve Lonegan. Not only does Christie have better name recognition and a proven ability to raise campaign funds, but his moderate image may be more acceptable to New Jersey's liberal/moderate voters.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Was 2008 A Realignment?
On The Real Clear Politics Blog, author Sean Trende takes an interesting look at whether 2008 was a realigning election by historic standards. It is an interesting read for anyone who enjoys political analysis.
More amusingly, Trende quotes two columns from Ron Brownstein - one from 2004, in which he heralds the coming of a new Republican era and one from 2009, in which he discusses the sorry state of the Republican Party and the possibility that the GOP's power could be shrinking substantially.
Brownstein's column is clearly a reflection of "follow the leader." In 2004, the conventional wisdom was that Republican strength was growing, so Brownstein penned a column stating that. Of course, the conventional wisdom has taken a complete reversal since then, so Brownstein, too, has shifted with the wind.
In politics, substantial changes rarely rapidly occur and 2008 seems to be no exception. Trende's blog post does an excellent job of showing how drastically things DID change from 1888 to 1896. However, Trende's analysis demonstrates that there is little evidence to suggest that 2004-2008 represents a drastic change from previous years. Did the nation as a whole vote more Democratic in 2008? Sure. Did the nation as a whole permanently become more Democratic in 2008? Only time will tell, but Ron Brownstein's columns demonstrate that the conventional wisdom can change quickly.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
State of the Day - Arkansas
The Natural State has developed a marked dichotomy. It is a quite conservative state, especially socially, and this is reflected in the fact that Arkansas has become a reliably Republican state in Presidential elections. In fact, it was one of the few states that gave John McCain a bigger margin of victory than it ever gave George W. Bush. Locally, however, the partisan balance is a different story. Arkansas Democrats tend to be much more conservative than their national counterparts. These conservative Democrats personified in Governor Mike Beebe and the state’s Congressional delegation dominate Arkansas politics on all levels. The Republican Party, aside from some strength in Northwest Arkansas, is disorganized and demoralized. This has led to some embarrassingly poor performances for Republican candidates in a state that should be friendly to the GOP.
Not much looks to change in the near future. Governor Beebe and Senator Blanche Lincoln will likely coast to reelection. The hapless Republicans have shown no evidence they can compete for any of the three Democratic House seats or cut into the Democrats’ 3 to 1 advantage in the State Legislature. The status quo looks to continue to reign in Arkansas.
President – 6 Electoral Votes
2000: George Bush (R) 51%, Al Gore (D) 46%
2004: Pres. George Bush (R) 54%, John Kerry (D) 45%
2008: John McCain (R) 59%, Barack Obama (D) 39%
Aside from going solidly for native son Bill Clinton twice, Arkansas has been a reliably Republican state since 1980. It has gotten more Republican this decade. In 2000, George W. Bush won a narrow victory over Al Gore. In 2008, Arkansas was one of one of John McCain's best states. Unlike many other southern states, Obama did not stand to gain much from increased African-American turnout, since Arkansas has the lowest black population of any Southern state. Arkansas has a large enough Democratic base to make it possible for Obama to perform better here but if the Republican nominee does not win this state in 20120, then he or she will be headed for an historic wipeout.
Governor – Mike Beebe (D)
1998: Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) 60%, Bill Bristow (D) 39%
2002: Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) 53%, Jimmie Lou Fisher (D) 47%
2006: Mike Beebe (D) 56%, Asa Hutchinson (R) 41%
A recent PPP poll gave Beebe a 68% approval rating and Arkansas Republicans have neither a credible candidate nor any demonstrated competence. Beebe should win another term easily.
Senior Senator – Blanche Lincoln (D)
1992: Sen. Dale Bumpers (D) 60%, Mike Huckabee (R) 40%
1998: Blanche Lincoln (D) 55%, Fay Boozman (R) 42%
2004: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) 56%, Jim Holt (R) 44%
Looking at Lincoln's previous numbers and McCain's big win here would lead one to believe that Republicans have a great shot at picking up this seat in 2010. However, the weak state of the Arkansas GOP gives Lincoln an edge she would not otherwise enjoy.
A recent PPP poll showed that Lincoln had lukewarm approval ratings (45% approve, 40% disapprove), though she had leads over two potential Republican candidates - former U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin and state senator Gilbert Baker. Mike Huckabee could probably beat her, but he looks busy with his Fox News show and he seems to have his eye on the 2012 Presidential race.
Lincoln is definitely a favorite to win in 2010, but Arkansas' preference for Republicans at the federal level means that under the right circumstances, the GOP could make this a competitive race.
Update (05/26/09 12:53 PM): Former U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin said he will not run against Blanche Lincoln in 2010. State Sen. Kim Hendren is the only announced Republican candidate so far.
Junior Senator – Mark Pryor (D)
1996: Tim Hutchinson (R) 53%, Winston Bryant (D) 47%
2002: Mark Pryor (D) 54%, Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R) 46%
2008: Sen. Mark Pryor (D) unopposed
I know the conservative Pryor, blessed with a great Arkansas name, would be tough to beat, but Republicans should be ashamed for not nominating anybody. 2014 is a long way off, but Pryor has a good chance at matching his father's three terms in the Senate.
House 1 – Marion Berry (D)
2004: Rep. Marion Berry (D) 67%, Vernon Humphrey (R) 33%
2006: Rep. Marion Berry (D) 69%, Mickey Stumbaugh (R) 31%
2008: Rep. Marion Berry (D) unopposed
While Al Gore won this district in 2000, it has been trending heavily toward the GOP at the Presidential level - McCain won the district by over 20 points. Still, Berry's association with Blue Dog Democrats and the Republicans' ineffectiveness have made this seat safely Democratic in the last several election cycles.
Berry is a solid favorite for 2010, but it looks the GOP will not give him a free pass again. The NRCC has already spent money on ads criticizing Berry for supporting the President's stimulus bill. Republican businessman and veteran Rick Crawford, who participated in some of the Tea Party activism, is planning to run against Berry.
House 2 – Vic Snyder (D)
2004: Rep. Vic Snyder (D) 58%, Marvin Parks (R) 42%
2006: Rep. Vic Snyder (D) 61%, Andy Mayberry (R) 39%
2008: Rep. Vic Snyder (D) unopposed
Snyder, like the rest of Arkansas's Democratic Congressional delegation, has a good profile for this conservative state. Between that and a lack of decent Republican challengers, Snyder seems to be perpetually safe in this Little Rock centered district.
Some Republicans believe they will have a shot here if there is an anti-Democrat mood in 2010. The NRCC has already targeted Synder in some early advertising.
House 3 – John Boozman (R)
2004: Rep. John Boozman (R) 59%, Janice Judy (D) 38%
2006: Rep. John Boozman (R) 62%, Woodrow Anderson (D) 38%
2008: Rep. John Boozman (R) unopposed
This district is so Republican that even Arkansas Republicans cannot lose it.
House 4 – Mike Ross (D)
2004: Rep. Mike Ross (D) unopposed
2006: Rep. Mike Ross (D) 75%, Joe Ross (R) 25%
2008: Rep. Mike Ross (D) unopposed
Ross is your typical successful Arkansas Democrat. By definition, this means Republicans don't bother making his life difficult. The Hot Springs/Southern Arkansas district looks like it can go either way on paper, but the Republicans' weakness in the state means that Ross has little to fear.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Happy Memorial Day
Beyond The Polls would like to wish its readers a Happy Memorial Day. While the day is most often associated now with barbecues, beaches opening, and the traditional start to summer, the holiday's origins are found in the years that immediately followed the Civil War. The day was originally known as Decoration Day, to honor the practice of decorating and commemorating the graves of Union soliders. New York was the first state to recognize the day in 1873. Memorial Day, intended to honor those who have fought valiantly for our country, was originally celebrated on May 30, but it was moved to its current day (last Monday in May) in the late 1960s.
We are blessed with freedom and liberty because of the sacrifices that were made for us over the last couple of centuries. So today, while we celebrate the holiday with our friends and family, it is worthwhile to take a minute to think about the wonderful men and women who made it all possible. Happy Memorial Day!
Saturday, May 23, 2009
State of the Day - Arizona
The Grand Canyon State has historically been one of the more Republican states. Since World War II, the state has only voted for two Democratic Presidential candidates - Harry Truman and Bill Clinton (in 1996). However, things may be changing. The state voted Republican for President again, but that had more to do with the candidacy of Arizonan John McCain than anything else. Former Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano was very popular and anti-immigration rhetoric has hurt Arizona Republicans. The immigration issue was largely responsible for the Democrats' gain of two House seats in 2006. Republicans, who lost another House seat in 2008, run the risk of alienating the rapidly growing Hispanic population that went heavily toward the Democrats in 2008.
Democrats will be in strong position to continue their good work in 2010. President Obama's choice of Janet Napolitano to lead the Department of Homeland Security led to a new Republican Governor, Jan Brewer. Still, Democrats will have a strong chance of regaining the governorship in 2010. Sen. John McCain should be safe for another term in the Senate, but Democrats will likely keep the three House seats they picked during the past two cycles. Democrats have made huge strides in the West over the past four years, and they can make big strides in Arizona, too.
President – 10 Electoral Votes
2000: George Bush (R) 51%, Al Gore (D) 45%
2004: Pres. George Bush (R) 55%, John Kerry (D) 44%
2008: John McCain (R) 54%, Barack Obama (D) 45%
Native son John McCain kept Arizona from becoming a true battleground in 2008. Obama's campaign did advertise in Arizona during the last days of the campaign, but he never made a serious effort here. Obama won the reservation counties and the heavily Hispanic border area, but lost everything else. Interestingly, McCain also performed well among young voters in his home stating, winning 48% of those under 30.
Arizona will be Obama's best chance to pick up a new state in 2012. The state still leans Republican, but McCain's nine point margin overstates Republican strength in this state.
Governor – Jan Brewer (R)
1998: Gov. Jane Hull (R) 61%, Paul Johnson (D) 36%
2002: Janet Napolitano (D) 46%, Matt Salmon (R) 45%
2006: Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) 63%, Len Munsil (R) 35%
Republican Jan Brewer, the former Arizona Secretary of State, became Governor when Janet Napolitano became Secretary of Homeland Security on January 20, 2009 (in Arizona, a gubernatorial vacancy is filled by the Secretary of State since there is no Lieutenant Governor). Brewer seeks to follow in the footsteps of Napolitano, who maintained high approval ratings throughout her tenure. Brewer has her hands full - she has already drawn the ire of some conservatives with her proposal to temporarily raise taxes to close the state's budget deficit.
Brewer has not announced her intentions for 2010, though many believe she will run for a full term. If the Governor does decide to run for office in 2010, she will likely see primary opposition. Former state representative Karen Johnson has already announced her candidacy. Other candidates include libertarian Roy Moore, pastor Tim Willis, and Tempe insurance agent Janelle Wood. Two possible wild cards are Congressmen John Shadegg and Jeff Flake.
The Democrats' best potential candidates are Attorney General Terry Goddard or Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon.
Right now, this race has no clear favorite. Brewer could benefit from being the incumbent, but it is too early to know whether Arizonans will embrace their new Governor.
Senior Senator – John McCain (R)
1992: Sen. John McCain (R) 56%, Claire Sargent (D) 32%
1998: Sen. John McCain (R) 69%, Ed Ranger (D) 27%
2004: Sen. John McCain (R) 77%, Stuart Starky (D) 21%
John McCain has already announced plans to run in 2010. McCain may face a few minor primary challengers, such as Minuteman founder Chris Simcox and Jim Deakin.
Governor Janet Napolitano would have been the Democrats' strongest candidate, but her appointment as Secretary of Homeland Security almost certainly takes her out of the race. The only Democrat who has announced his candidacy so far is Rudy Garcia, who was Mayor of Bell Gardens, California (Garcia has only lived in Arizona since 2004).
Even though McCain is not as strong as he was in 2004, he is a solid favorite to win re-election.
Junior Senator – Jon Kyl (R)
1994: Jon Kyl (R) 54%, Sam Coppersmith (D) 40%
2000: Sen. Jon Kyl (R) unopposed
2006: Sen. Jon Kyl (R) 53%, Jim Pederson (D) 43%
In 2006, Kyl scored an impressive victory over stiff competition despite the awful Republican environment of that election cycle. Kyl cannot be totally safe given Arizona’s Democratic trend, but he seems to be in good shape for 2012.
House 1 – Ann Kirkpatrick (D)
2004: Rep. Rick Renzi (R) 59%, Paul Babbit (D) 36%
2006: Rep. Rick Renzi (R) 52%, Ellen Simon (D) 43%
2008: Ann Kirkpatrick (D) 56%, Sydney Hay (R) 40%
Ann Kirkpatrick easily won this contest to replace former Republican Rep. Rick Renzi, who retired because of ethical and legal problems. While Democrats had the wind at their back in 2008, Kirkpatrick's win was impressive since this district was designed to be competitive. Republicans will surely target Kirkpatrick, but she definitely has an edge. The district seems to be trending toward the Democrats and Kirkpatrick may be the type of Democrat that fits this district well. One Republican challenger could be State Representative Bill Konopnicki, who declined to run in 2008.
House 2 – Trent Franks (R)
2004: Rep. Trent Franks (R) 59%, Randy Camacho (D) 39%
2006: Rep. Trent Franks (R) 59%, John Thrasher (D) 39%
2008: Rep. Trent Franks (R) 60%, John Thrasher (D) 37%
This Sun City based district is a mostly Republican seat. As Franks has easily survived the last two cycles, it is hard to see him being in much danger. He is probably set for life.
House 3 – John Shadegg (R)
2004: Rep. John Shadegg (R) unopposed
2006: Rep. John Shadegg (R) 59%, Herb Paine (D) 38%
2008: Rep. John Shadegg (R) 54%, Bob Lord (D) 42%
In February 2008, Rep. John Shadegg announced plans to retire from this North Phoenix seat. Ten days later, he retracted this statement and announced that he would be running. Bob Lord provided stiff opposition, but came nowhere close to Shadegg in this Republican leaning seat. Shadegg may continue to see competition given the Democratic trend in the suburbs, but the seat will continue to lean his way as long as he holds it.
House 4 – Ed Pastor (D)
2004: Rep. Ed Pastor (D) 70%, Don Karg (R) 26%
2006: Rep. Ed Pastor (D) 73%, Don Karg (R) 24%
2008: Rep. Ed Pastor (D) 72%, Don Karg (R) 22%
This is an utterly safe Democratic district. Pastor, one of the most liberal members of Congress, has no worries.
House 5 – Harry Mitchell (D)
2004: Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R) 59%, Elizabeth Rogers (D) 38%
2006: Harry Mitchell (D) 50%, Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R) 46%
2008: Rep. Harry Mitchell (D) 53%, David Schweikert (R) 44%
This Scottsdale/Tempe seat leans Republican, but Mitchell took advantage of a controversial incumbent to pick the seat off in 2006. He faced a decent, but hardly sterling challenge in 2008. This is type of seat where Democrats have done very well in the past two cycles, but continued success is hardly guaranteed.
The NRCC would be wise to target this seat for 2010. With a strong Republican in a year more conducive to Republicans, this is a total tossup, if not a slight Republican advantage. This is a district to watch in determining whether the Republicans can make serious gains in the House of Representatives in 2010.
House 6 – Jeff Flake (R)
2004: Rep. Jeff Flake (R) unopposed
2006: Rep. Jeff Flake (R) unopposed
2008: Rep. Jeff Flake (R) 63%, Rebecca Schneider (D) 35%
Flake is not a standard issue Republican, often angering GOP leadership by opposing any sort of spending. Nevertheless, this is a safe Republican seat and Flake looks safe for 2010.
House 7 – Raul Grijalva (D)
2004: Rep. Raul Grijalva (D) 62%, Joseph Sweeney (R) 34%
2006: Rep. Raul Grijalva (D) 61%, Ron Drake (R) 35%
2008: Rep. Raul Grijalva (D) 63%, Joseph Sweeney (R) 33%
This district is so Democratic that Grijalva’s margins of victory aren’t really very impressive. He may attract a competent opponent, but he’s not going to lose.
House 8 – Gabrielle Giffords (D)
2004: Rep. Jim Kolbe (R) 60%, Eva Bacal (D) 36%
2006: Gabrielle Giffords (D) 54%, Randy Graf (R) 42%
2008: Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) 55%, Tim Bee (R) 43%
Giffords is a rising star and could be a future statewide candidate. She won this Tuscon based seat against a weak opponent in 2006, but held it impressively against a very strong opponent in 2008. Giffords may face a stiff challenge in 2010, but she remains a favorite. So far, Iraq veteran Jesse Kelley is the only announced Republican candidate.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Dave Ramsey's GOP?
It's not exactly news that these are tough times for the GOP, what with Obama continuing to enjoy a surprisingly steady honeymoon, Bush still being blamed for the recession, and Michael Steele getting things embarrassingly screwed up at the RNC. If it weren't for Nancy Pelosi and the occasional "tea party," the GOP would have few signs of light this year.
But who's minding the store for the long term? While the media focuses on near-term tactics and the prospects for gaining a few House seats in 2010, we're not hearing any candid assessments of the tough decisions the GOP must make in the coming months and years concerning the massive debt burden and overall "financialization" of the U.S. economy.
Instead of sitting around the echo chamber with Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, GOP strategists should take a little time off the shouting circuit and spend an afternoon watching the Dave Ramsey Show, on the Fox Business Network.
Dave Ramsey: Financial Guru of the Conservative Heartland
Dave Ramsey is a Tennessee-born financial adviser, motivational speaker, and former real estate broker whose successful call-in radio show won him a coveted spot on Fox's new all-business cable channel. Ramsey is starker--and in many ways less sophisticated--than Suze Orman or other pop financial advisors. His focus is plainly on the elimination of debt, pure and simple. He characterizes credit cards as the greatest evil of our day, and considers materialistic overspending childish and irresponsible.
When people call in, he encourages them to seek therapy for their marital troubles, seek religious counseling for their low self-worth, sell the house and the second car, and start eating "rice and beans" for as long as it takes to get out of debt and live in financial freedom. He calls his series of books and lectures "Financial Peace University."
If you're looking to find out how everyday people--and especially Southerners--view the current American debt debacle, look no further. Ramsey's attitudes are rooted in America's traditional conservative Protestant work ethic of putting family first in all things, and in pursuing a life of modesty and carefully managed, slow-speed wealth accumulation. It's true that his advice is a bit too simple to be true, failing to capture the time-value of money or the positive possibilities of well-managed debt. But by sticking to simple truths, Ramsey makes for a compelling show and presents a seemingly clean ethical case for personal decisionmaking. He often criticizes Congress on the show for its irresponsible deficit spending. He has no praise for either political party.
Ramsey's Ethic vs. the Ethic of Credit-Card America
Since Ramsey's chief villain is the credit card, the contrast is extreme between the values he promotes on his show and the values that have dominated American culture and politics for some thirty years--namely, boosterism of Wall Street, deregulation of corporate behavior, and the spread of personal debt throughout society (to the further advantage of Wall Street firms who reap the benefits through interest charges and other fees). We have all been breaking Dave Ramsey's rules, and neither political party is innocent. Everyone who has overspent has colluded in this binge.
How ironic, then, that GOP lawmakers criticize Obama's staggering deficit spending, but also criticize his efforts to regulate the financial industry and control the excesses of business. For the past thirty years, these two philosophies--opposition to government debt and support for private debt speculation--somehow managed to mesh in the rhetoric of the Republican Party. But now, in the wake of the economic crisis, this union may have been swept away as a viable political strategy.
Only since the 1980s has conservatism been so associated with adventuresome banking practices. And never before has a political party rooted in the rhetoric of Southern populism been so tied to an ideology of deregulated, highly leveraged gamesmanship by the rich and overspending by the burdened middle class.
The question for today's GOP, then, is how to come to terms with what we might call its potential "Dave Ramsey wing." Will its strategists and elected officials rediscover an old economic conservatism to match its social conservatism? Will the party embrace an ideology of prudence, modesty, and economic family values to match its opposition to abortion and its fear of urbanity, cosmopolitanism, and secular culture?
The Politics of Today's "Financialized" America
Southern populist rhetoric has not traditionally been joined with boosterism of unfettered Wall Street risk-taking. When FDR beat Hoover in 1932, he didn't have any Wall Street tycoons in his coalition. Amidst a traumatic financial crisis that affected most of society, he made his appeal against the "malefactors of great wealth" and used the rhetoric of the populist South and West to build a new regulatory regime that reined in Wall Street excesses. Back in 1896 and 1900, when William Jennings Bryan ran for president, he railed against the big monied interests of the Northeast and declared that religion was the source of all true morality. Even Andrew Jackson, in the 1820s and 1830s, ran against big Northeastern wealth in the name of the common people and their values.
It's all the more amazing, then, that for the past thirty or forty years, the Republicans have used the rhetoric of the old Democratic Party in pursuit of the goals of the old GOP. One can't help but wonder if this odd configuration can survive the new economic realities facing America. And in this era of massive fundraising and unregulated campaign contributions, can any corporate interest be opposed in the name of the people? Can any political party afford to clarify its message to voters at the expense of key financial supporters on Wall Street and elsewhere?
Conservative Republicans have an opportunity today, at least in theory, to hone an effective message against the Democrats, thanks to the bizarre half-measures Obama and Geithner have taken to keep the banking crisis under control. If Republicans can match their criticisms of Obama with a legitimate economic program that truly breaks from the Bush record by taming Wall Street and aiding the middle class, then they will vindicate the Dave Ramsey wing and bring many new supporters to their cause.
If they don't, or can't, then our economic recovery lies entirely in the hands of the Democrats, with a much-reduced GOP doing little more than sniping at Obama's heels. If that's the direction we're heading, then we had better pray Obama is truly free of influence from his Wall Street backers. Because if the Democrats fail to rein in our speculative, debt-driven economy, then we are in for a bigger fall than we have yet sustained, as the rest of the world retreats from buying our debt and bailouts turn into explicit government support for financial corporations. Such a turn of events would signal a decline in our share of the world's economic revenues and would also be accompanied by a loss of confidence in our bonds by foreign governments--which would mean a very dramatic devaluation of the dollar (in other words, hyperinflation).
Economics = Destiny
Economic observers from every political persuasion have noted with alarm that Geithner's policies largely perpetuate the profligacy and lack of vision that characterized the final Bush-Paulson years. Commentators as diverse as Paul Krugman and Niall Ferguson now agree that aggressive federal action is needed to restructure de facto insolvent banks (like Citigroup and Bank of America), and that a comprehensive rewrite of our regulations--and a new spirit of enforcement among our bureaucrats--will be needed to interrupt the unending cycle of speculation and bailout that has dominated our financial sector since the early 1980s. Will Obama and Geithner really do this? Or are they too beholden to the same Wall Street interests that dominated the Clinton administration? There is reason to be pessimistic, as the amount of Wall Street money donated to Obama in 2008 vastly outstripped the amount given to McCain.
In Kevin Phillips's recent book, Bad Money, one of the many illuminating charts lists the various bailouts our government has engineered since the early 1980s, sometimes with the help of Congress (such as the S&L Bailout of 1989-1992) and sometimes through the Federal Reserve alone (such as the bailout of Long-Term Capital Management in 1998). Phillips explains that these bailouts, which had already cost trillions of dollars before the current crisis began, helped prop up an economy of unprecedented debt speculation which ended up making the financial industry the single largest sector of our GDP, dwarfing the manufacturing sector after the mid-1990s. This "financialized" economy relied, ultimately, on America's international economic preeminence to manage its debt. Now, with East Asia rising and holding most of our debt, we are reaching the limits of our ability to fund this system.
Even worse, the East Asian financial systems are command-driven, dominated by government goals and operating as anything but free markets. If America is to show the world that a free market can work, we will have to change the way our banks lend money, reducing their speculative impulses and returning some of that capital to the middle class. With an economy less based on boom-and-bust and on endless government bailouts, and more on prudence, thrift, and taking the long view, we can restore our place in the world as the nation of successful free-market risk-takers who know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.
Dave Ramsey and the Power of Opposition
In the end, there is no substitute for an effective opposition with a coherent and workable economic theory to keep the governing party honest. America desperately needs a GOP that makes a genuine appeal to the conservative roots of its Southern base. The GOP must dispense with its nostalgia for Reagan and Bush and promote a new kind of conservatism for an era of overblown debt and financial adventurism on the home front, and increasing economic precariousness abroad. It must base this new conservatism on the traditional heartland values that work around the kitchen table: integrity, avoidance of debt, commitment to family, self-reflection, and deferral of gratification. If it can articulate these principles with sincerity--and match its policies to its rhetoric--then the GOP can become a coherent challenge to Obama's sprawling economic policy and earn the title of Dave Ramsey's party.
If, on the other hand, the GOP finds itself unable to wrench free of its old-GOP creed of deregulation, debt speculation, and government-bashing in favor of corporate interests, then we are truly stuck. No other coherent opposition to Obama is likely to emerge, considering the expense involved in political campaigns. That would mean it's all in Obama's hands, and if he fails to change the system, we're at the mercy of a two-party political system with only one economic policy: speculating and leveraging and financing this country into increasing disparities of wealth, an increasingly burdened middle class, and significant economic decline.
Interesting Article on Guantanomo
In the political debate over what to do with Guantanamo Bay's prison facility that currently holds several suspected terrorists, the facts are often tossed to the side. In Commentary Magazine, Pulitzer Prize finalist Arthur Herman takes an extensive look at the history of the Guantanamo Bay prison and allegations of torture and abuse. Whatever your political affiliation, I highly recommend the article.
Read More......Thursday, May 21, 2009
State of the Day - Alaska
The Last Frontier generally despises the federal government. This has led to serious Republican domination here over the past thirty years. Until 2009, Republicans had held the two Senate seats and one House seat since 1980. Tony Knowles, elected Governor in 1994 and 1998 against multiple candidate fields, is the only Alaska Democrat to have any success here in the past twenty years, and even he lost statewide races in 2004 and 2006. Alaska politics entered the national spotlight with the selection of Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate. Democrats finally won a statewide race, as Democratic Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich barely ousted longtime Republican Senator Ted Stevens. However, they fell well short of ousting embattled Republican Rep. Don Young.
2008 exhibited the weakness of Alaska Democrats. Begich almost certainly would not have won had Stevens not been convicted of seven felonies, and he will be a decided underdog for reelection in 2014. Young could still be vulnerable if his legal problems worsened, but his victory despite them in 2008 helped his standing. Governor Palin should easily win reelection in 2010, and looks to be a strong national contender.
President – 3 Electoral Votes
2000: George Bush (R) 59%, Al Gore (D) 28%
2004: Pres. George Bush (R) 61%, John Kerry (D) 36%
2008: John McCain (R) 60%, Barack Obama (D) 37%
Some evidence suggests that Alaska was competitive before McCain selected Sarah Palin to be his running mate. Without Palin on the ticket, Obama may have done slightly better, but it is hard to believe that Obama could have come very close to winning. Looking forward, Alaska is a major energy producer and hates federal government interference with state decision making. That is not a the type of profile that will enjoy an Obama Administration. The Republicans will win Alaska easily in 2012, with or without Sarah Palin.
Governor – Sarah Palin (R)
1998: Gov. Tony Knowles (D) 51%, Jon Lindaeur (R) 17%
2002: Frank Murkowski (R) 56%, Fran Ulmer (D) 41%
2006: Sarah Palin (R) 48%, Tony Knowles (D) 41%
Governor Palin actually saw her approval rating drop during her time on the ticket. That said, she still enjoys a healthy approval rating of nearly 60%. Palin will have no problem raising money for her candidacy. While Democrats have made several ethical complaints against the Governor, she has successfully defeated all of them so far. It is hard to see Palin facing any sort of threat for re-election.
The Democratic field is fairly weak. Consultant Bob Poe and activist Rob Rosenfeld are running. Former State Representative Eric Croft has also expressed interest. The two strongest candidates the Democrats could recruit - former Governor Tony Knowles and Senator Mark Begich - will probably not run. Knowles has already lost two statewide elections in recent years, and Begich is unlikely to leave the Senate at this early stage in his career.
Should she choose to run, Palin would be a strong contender for the Republican nomination for the White House in 2012. Grass roots conservatives absolutely love her, so she would have a strong fundraising and volunteer base. Her biggest weakness, especially with non-conservatives, is an impression that she is a lightweight or not qualified. Expect her to stay engaged in national issues in a quest to combat this perception. She may never get over first impressions, but she’ll certainly try. One makes a mistake to underestimate her. Despite her claims of being Joe (or Jane) Six-Pack, her career success shows she is anything but ordinary.
Senior Senator – Lisa Murkowski (R)
1992: Sen. Frank Murkowski (R) 53%, Tony Smith (D) 38%
1998: Sen. Frank Murkowski (R) 74%, Joseph Sonneman (D) 20%
2004: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) 49%, Tony Knowles (D) 46%
Senator Murkowski survived in 2004 against the strongest Democratic challenger she could draw despite furor over the fact that her father appointed her to the Senate in 2002. With a moderate record she may face a primary challenge, but it is hard to see Alaska Democrats making a serious challenge for this seat. For a time, some speculated that Gov. Palin might run against Murkowski in a primary, but Palin put that speculation to rest by announcing that she would raise funds for the Senator. Murkowksi is a solid favorite for 2010.
Junior Senator – Mark Begich (R)
1996: Sen. Ted Stevens (R) 77%, Theresa Obermeyer (D) 10%
2002: Sen. Ted Stevens (R) 78%, Frank Vondersaar (D) 11%
2008: Mark Begich (D) 48%, Sen. Ted Stevens (R) 47%
Senator Ted Stevens long run in the United States Senate came to a close with the 2008 election. Stevens had been indicted and placed on trial in the months preceding Election Day. In a case of bad timing for Stevens, he was convicted just a week before votes were to be cast. Amazingly, despite his conviction, Stevens still managed to win the votes cast on Election Day, but Begich swept the absentee vote to pull out a narrow win. The narrow margin shows major weakness for Begich and Alaska Democrats. To maintain viability in his home state, Begich will have to compile a relatively moderate record and focus on Alaska issues. Nevertheless, at this very early stage Begich is a likely one term Senator.
The Justice Department dropped the charges against Stevens in early 2009, citing problems at Stevens' trial. While some (including Gov. Palin) called for Begich to resign so that there could be another special election, this will not happen.
House At Large – Don Young (R)
2004: Rep. Don Young (R) 71%, Thomas Higgins (D) 22%
2006: Rep. Don Young (R) 57%, Diane Benson (D) 40%
2008: Rep. Don Young (R) 50%, Ethan Berkowitz (D) 45%
Young continues to face major ethical issues and possible indictment. This was supposed to sink him in 2008 but he won a shockingly comfortable victory over Democrat Ethan Berkowitz. He may be vulnerable to another primary challenge, which he just barely survived in 2008. Republican Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, who only lost to Young by 304 votes in the 2008 Republican primary, is keeping the door open to running again in 2010. On the Democratic side, there are no obvious challengers, though Berkowitz could run again.
It will be difficult for Democrats to dislodge Young. If he is convicted before the 2010 primary, Lt. Gov. Parnell or another Republican will likely replace him on the ballot. If Young is not convicted, he is still a favorite in 2010.