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.)

Pity the poor Koch Brothers, just a couple of regular guys trying to do the right thing

By Richard K. Barry

Big joke. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) says that it inadvertently sent a letter to the Koch Brothers asking for a political contribution. Given the Koch Brothers' long history of financing fake "grassroots movements" and throwing money at every conceivable roadblock to creating a fairer society for more Americans, it does, at first blush, appear to be an obvious mistake.

Having said that, like most corporations in America, the Koch Brothers have probably, over time, financed both Democrats and Republicans if the candidate in question happened to be either on side with a particular corporate interest or deemed "swayable."

It seems too obvious to say, but, because corporations have so much cash to distribute, they throw their money in all directions on the chance that it might somehow have an impact consistent with whatever public policy goal they find useful.

That the Koch Brothers would have ended up on a list of those who had previously donated to individual Democratic candidates, and therefore be a potential target for a DSCC fundraising pitch, seems not only possible, but likely. It's the nature of list management in the world of high volume political fundraising. Lists are the real currency of politics: donors, supporters, opinions leaders, volunteers, sign locations, etc.

In fact, Politico reports that the Kochs did donate almost $200,000 to Democratic organizations in 2010 and $30,000 to the DSCC in the same cycle.

So, the "how dare you" response by the Koch Brothers seems a little strained to me, but predictable.

Clearly, though, if the DSCC had been paying more attention they would have pulled the letter, knowing that it would be a minor public relations bonanza for those on the right with too little else to do with their time. In that sense, it was a mistake.

Blah, blah, blah.

More interesting for me, though, was the final paragraph in the letter sent by a Koch Companies public affairs hack to the DSCC complaining about the request for financial support. It read:

It is troubling that private citizens taking part in the discourse have become the targets of White House and DSCC fundraising missives, and we would certainly encourage you to rethink that approach.

Give me a break. Holding aside that whole bizarre thing about corporate personhood, an entity as large, influential and powerful as the Koch Companies is a behemoth able to act in the public sphere in a way so dramatically different from what a "private citizen" could do as to make the Koch claim ridiculous.

In 2008, Forbes called Koch the 2nd largest privately held company in the United States, stating that it had an annual revenue at that time of $98 billion. Say it to yourself slowly, "an annual revenue of $98 billion."

I guess Koch's political activities would sort of be just like the guy down the street with a photocopier and a pet political issue to flog, except that it would be totally different from that.

It seems that we are supposed to feel sorry for the Koch Brothers because some would want to shine a light on their political activities to get a firmer grasp on how they spend some of that money to makes friends and influence people.

Oh, cut the crap.

Koch Industries is a monster corporation that has and will continue to grease whatever palms it thinks might be useful on whichever side of the aisle.

Nice try at indignation. Not buying.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

All eyes will be on the newly open Wisconsin senate seat in 2012

By Richard K. Barry 

It's getter harder and harder to contemplate how the Democrats hold onto the Senate in 2012. As we have been saying over and over again, 33 seats are up for grabs. 21 of these are Democratic seats (two additional independents caucus with the Dems) and, of course, only 10 are GOP seats.

On Friday, Herbert Kohl, Democratic senator from Wisconsin, announced that he would not be seeking reelection in 2012, which probably pushes this one into the "toss-up" category. That at least is where the Cook Political Report now has it.

No sure thing in politics, but Kohl got 67% of the vote when he last ran in 2006, which was his fourth win in a row so his reelection wouldn't have been a bad place to put your money.

So here we go. Kohl is the fifth Democrat to announce that he was not running again. The others are Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Jim Webb of Virgina. Joe Lieberman is one of the aforementioned independents, who caucuses with the Democrats, who is not running.

One of the possible Democratic candidates that has to come to mind is Russ Feingold, who had been a senator from Wisconsin from 1993 to 2011 before being defeated by Republican Ron Johnson in the 2010 election by a margin of 52% to 47%.

For the moment, Feingold is taking things slow, but pressure will no doubt build as Democrats try to figure out how they hold the seat. In any case, there will be no shortage of interested candidates.

On the other side of the aisle, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan is already considering making a run for the vacant seat. In some classic "political speak" he said he is going to:

take some time over the next few days to discuss the news with my family and supporters before making a decision about how I'm best able to serve my employers in the First Congressional District, our state and our nation.

Translation is that he will be burning up the phone lines to make sure he can raise the money needed to win, maybe do some polling to see how he's doing statewide, and otherwise get a read on how good his chances of victory might be.

This will be interesting, though, if Ryan runs and gets the nomination. Gov. Scott Walker's assault on public-sector unions has already guaranteed that there will be a national focus on Wisconsin come 2012. Ryan's budget with its radical plan to end Medicare as we know it will surely put more focus on him regardless. His entry into the senate race would only add fuel to the fire that Democrats are likely to stoke from now until election day. I think that might work for the Democrats, actually. I can't imagine that a lot of Republicans are going to want to see a high profile senate race in Wisconsin with a debate about Medicare constantly on the front pages of national newspapers and in other media.

Herbert Kohl is 76 years old and I doubt that his decision to step aside reflects any concerns on his part that the seat can't be held. My guess is that if the Democrats are in any shape at all in 2012 and Obama is running the kind of campaign we know he can run, they should be okay. That's a lot of "ifs" but that's where my money is today.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Democrats can DREAM

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Following upon President Obama's immigration speech in El Paso yesterday, Senate Democrats will re-introduce the DREAM Act (in full, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act), which would give undocumented young people a path to citizenship if they go to college or serve in the military. The bill passed the House in December but met obstruction in the Senate, where, of course, Republicans will again do their utmost to block it.

So what's the point? Well, it's the politics, not the policy (although the policy is good), and it's all about the Latino vote and its possible inclusion in a long-term Democratic majority.

In this case, it isn't just that the DREAM Act is broadly popular, or that the military supports it, it's that Latinos (or Hispanics, as the two terms are generally used interchangeably), perhaps the key emerging demographic group in the U.S., see it as essential.

As Janet Murguía, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, wrote about the House vote in December, this vote is "defining," meaning that it will be remembered. And what will be remembered is that Democrats supported the legislation and Republicans opposed it.

For more on this, and specifically on how Democrats and Republican stand in stark contrast to one another on immigration, see my post from last December.

Virginia Senate race in 2012 looking to be very close (again)

By Richard K. Barry

A Washington Post poll came out a few days ago, which would make the 2012 race for the Virginia senate seat about as tight as possible. The presumptive front runners for their parties, George Allen (R) and Tim Kaine (D), find themselves with 46% support each if the election were held today. You will recall that Allen was a senator as well as governor of the state, while Kaine also served as governor and was on President Obama's veep shortlist.

In one of the more interesting races of 2006, Democrat Jim Webb beat Allen, who was at that time the incumbent. Despite Allen's early lead in the polls, Webb closed the gap and won by a mere 49.59% to 49.20% margin (or just 9,329 votes). Most observers have attributed Allen's use of an ethnic slur in reference to a Webb campaign worker as contributing to his loss.

Now Webb has decided that he won't seek reelection, which has thrown things wide open likely making Virginia, once again, one of the most interesting races of 2012.

While Allen's behaviour in the 2006 race may continue to be a problem for him, it has been pointed out that Tim Kaine's close relationship to the Obama White House could be an issue for him especially among independents. Look for the Republicans to be airing ads using the cheerleader motif to describe that relationship. I can almost see the pom poms now.

As The Washington Post points out, Virginia has changed dramatically in recent years, noting that:

Kaine draws support in portions of northern Virginia, which has rapidly gained in population, wealth and clout. Allen, the ex-governor and senator, remains strong in the remainder of the state.

Other details of poll as reported by the Richmond Times-Dispatch are that:

• 58 percent of voters approve of the way Kaine handled his job as governor; 55 percent approve of Allen's performance as a U.S. Senator.
• 57 percent of voters have a favourable impression of Kaine; 52 percent of Allen.
• Kaine leads in northern Virginia but trails among independents in the outer suburbs; Allen struggles with female and minority voters.
• Allen is far outpacing his GOP rivals. He had the support of 57 percent of Republicans. Tea Party Candidate Jamie Radke has just 2 percent.
• Kaine would, at this point, also make short work of other Democratic challengers.

As we've commented, it is going to be tough slogging for the Democrats to hold onto the Senate in 2012 as they must defend 23 seats to the Republicans' 10. Virginia would clearly be an essential "keep" if they were to have a chance of doing that.

In the 2008 presidential election, Obama beat McCain in Virginia by a margin of 53% to 47%, but Bush beat Kerry by roughly 54% to 45% in 2004.

Virginia has 11 members of the House. In the 2010 mid-term elections, the Republican picked up 3 seats now holding an 8 to 3 margin over the Dems. In 2008, as a part of the Obama surge, the Democrats took 6 seats to the Republican 5 and prior to that in 2006 the Republican were ahead with an 8 to 3 seat margin.

This one certainly seems to be shaping up to be as close as the polls suggest. Perhaps as much as any place in the country, we'll see what kind of coattails President Obama has.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Is Maine Republican Senator Olympia Snowe completely safe in 2012?

By Richard K. Barry 

There is no doubt that Olympia Snowe, Republican senator from Maine, has typically rankled the hard right by being generally less ideologically rigid than they require. First she supported George W. Bush's TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) bill and then President Obama's stimulus package not to mention voting in favor of Obama's health care reform bill at the committee level.

As of late April she has attracted two GOP challengers to her right -- Maine Tea Party Patriots head Andrew Ian Dodge and businessman Scott D'Ambroise -- but according to local press neither seems particularly strong.

This doesn't mean that the right challenger coming along at the right time with significant resources couldn't give her trouble. As Mark Brewer, University of Maine political scientist, said recently, "I do think there is a possibility that if there were someone -- a good candidate from the right of her -- in the Republican primary, they could possibly give her some problems, but at this point I just can't seem to come up with much in the way of names."

It's not that she hasn't made some powerful enemies. Recently, Club for Growth President Chris Chocola lumped her in with Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah saying that he didn't rule out getting involved in primary contests against Hatch and Snowe and that they are "on his radar."

The Club for Growth has made a mission of taking on establishment Republicans who they don't feel support the Club's "pro-growth" ideals such as "limited government, low taxes and economic freedom."

And the national group the Tea Party Express has sent out a press release saying that Snowe will be one of their top targets in 2012. These folks have money and they have had some success.

But it may be one of those cases where Tea Party and radical fiscal conservative anger is more potent outside the state than in. It's interesting to note that the new governor of Maine, Tea Party favorite Paul LePage, has said he is backing Snowe.

Still, it has been noted that Snowe, generally a more pragmatic Republican, has been getting her right-wing bona fides in order more recently.

In Maine, the Morning Sentinel has pointed out that in meetings with Tea Party activists she has been expressing strong opposition to the Affordable Care Act and has pledged her support to make sure that Sharia law doesn't infiltrate American Courts (which I doubt is a huge problem in Maine). As well, she has been voting more conservatively as of late to the point of changing her positions on the DREAM Act and the Bush-era tax cuts.

As another sign that she is preparing for battle, she recently released fundraising numbers to show that she has over $2 million in cash on hand.

In 2006 Olympia Snowe beat her Democratic challenger by a margin of 74% to 21%. Despite this, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Chair Patty Murray has identified Maine as a possible Democratic pickup in 2012. Seems unlikely and more likely that Snowe's headaches will come from her right flank if at all. It also seems clear that national right-wing forces would like to make trouble for her. It's less clear that they will be able to do so. But Snowe is not taking any chances, and that, all by itself, should tell us something.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Hot Senate races in 2012

By Richard K. Barry

If we are counting correctly, the next general election in the United States will take place in about eighteen months on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. Between now and then there will be a great many nomination races not only to see who the Republicans put up against President Obama but also for House and Senate seats in both parties.

And then comes the general election itself, which will determine the composition of the executive and legislative branches of our government. In other words, many, many contests to think about.

It's occurred to us here at The Reaction that it might be useful to begin wrapping our heads around some of the more important or, to put it differently, more hotly-contested races.

As a starting point, we thought we would look at the United States Senate, which, as any grade school child knows, elects a third of its membership of 100 every two years, who then get to serve six-year terms. In other words, those 33 who will be elected on November 6, 2012 will serve from January 3, 2013 to January 2, 2019.

At the moment, Democrats control the Upper House by a margin of 53-47, which means that the GOP would need to win 3 or 4 seats to take control, depending on who wins the White House because the President of the Senate, who is also Vice President of the United States, gets to break a tie.

Unless something changes, Democrats are expected to have 23 seats up for election, which include two independents, who caucus with the Democrats, while the Republicans have only 10 seats up for election.

Predicting what things will look like in a year and a half can be dodgy business, but the simple fact that far more Democratic seats need to be contested might suggest that there is greater potential for Republicans to win back the Senate. It may also be true that some Senate seats currently held by Democrats are in states which are more traditionally Republican.

In any case, our goal here is to have a look at some of these races to see how things are developing and to provide some background to educate ourselves and to perhaps solicit some comments from those who may be closer, both geographically and in terms of intimate knowledge, to some of these races. That would be fine too.

Just to have a starting point, here are 17 of the 33 Senate races that could bare some scrutiny, either because they could flip to the other party or because they could be seriously contested in nomination battles. Others, of course, may be interesting for all sorts of reasons.

Listed is the incumbent and his or her status:

Republicans who are retiring (or have resigned):

• Nevada: John Ensign has resigned; U.S. Rep. Dean Heller (R) has been appointed to fill out the term
• Arizona: John Kyl

Republicans who are running again:

• Massachusetts: Scott Brown
• Maine: Olympia Snowe
• Indiana: Dick Lugar
• Utah: Orrin Hatch

Democrats who are retiring:

• Virginia: Jim Webb
• North Dakota: Kent Conrad
• New Mexico: Jeff Bingaman

Democrats who are running again:

• Florida: Bill Nelson
• Michigan: Debbie Stabenow
• Ohio: Sherrod Brown
• Missouri: Clair McCaskill
• Montana: John Tester
• Nebraska: Ben Nelson
• Pennsylvania: Bob Casey
• West Virginia: Joe Manchin

So, that'll keep us busy for a while and along the way we fully expect to get to some of the more interesting House and gubernatorial races -- in fact, we've already started. It will be, we are sure, a very interesting year and a half.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost)