Election Central Morning Roundup
Mitt Laying Groundwork For 2012, Using Leadership PAC Money
The Boston Globe reports that Mitt Romney appears to have his eyes on 2012 -- and he's using money from his personal leadership PAC, which was ostensibly set up to support other Republican candidates. Only 12% has actually gone to down-ticket GOP candidates, a fraction of the total amount that has been spend on political consultants and fundraisers.
No Obama Or Biden Events Today
Barack Obama is holding private meetings today in Chicago, while Joe Biden also meets with people in Washington. There are no public events scheduled for today.
WaPo: Obama Will Change Balance Of Federal Courts
The Washington Post reports that Barack Obama and the big Democratic majority in the Senate now have the opportunity to flip the ideological balance in many lower federal courts -- the places where most case law is truly handed down. "The change will be most striking on the Richmond-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, long a conservative bastion and an influential voice on national security cases, where four vacancies will lead to a clear Democratic majority," the Post says.
CQ: 2010 Senate Map Narrowly Favors Dems
CQ points out that Senate Republicans face another tough map in 2010, though it's not quite as bad as 2008 was. More Republican seats will be up for election than Democratic ones, with six GOP-held seats in states won by Barack Obama, compared to only two Dem-held seats in McCain states.
Senate Dems Don't Rule Out Joining Minnesota Dispute
Roll Call reports that Senate Democratic leaders are not ruling out an intervention into a disputed election result in Minnesota. "As the process moves forward, Sen. Reid will be watching to make sure that the proper authorities in Minnesota are looking very carefully to make sure that no voter is disenfranchised," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley.
Mark Penn Denies Calling Obama Unelectable
Mark Penn told the Independent in England that he did not write in internal Hillary campaign memos that Barack Obama was unelectable. "Huh. No. It doesn't say that at all," Penn said. For the record, Penn wrote: "The right knows Obama is unelectable, except perhaps against Attila the Hun."
Penn is as inept at lying as he is at everything else.
December 8, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's very adept at filling rooms with stiflingly moist hot air and sucking the oxygen out of debates. I see him as our Lee Atwater, only with fewer redeeming qualities.
He is icky.
December 8, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lee Atwater was scummy and successful. Mark PIG is just scummy.
December 8, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who knew Atilla would come from the North wearing female garb?
December 8, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
True that.
December 8, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, but he is surely the gold standard for arrogance, egomania, stupidity and incompetence.
The good news is, the more corporate America hires him and his ilk, the more likely it is that the Obama agenda will be enacted.
December 8, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Penn's ability to rewrite history into pure fantasy makes him perfect to join the Bush Legacy Project(TM). If Hillary attempts another run in 2016, she would be well served to steer clear of Penn and his ilk.
PEACE
December 8, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark PIG is such a liar and a bad one at that. He also said that people would not elect someone who is "not American at his core" and to save the internationalism for 2050.
December 8, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go Mittens! What a perverse pleasure it would be to witness Sarah Palin and him battle it out for the GOP nomination. The Mormon vs. the Moron!
December 8, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. Good one.
December 8, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only legitimate threat I see in the 2012 field is Jindal, so if Palin/Romney want to be the GOP's McGovern, I'd more than welcome it.
December 8, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree - Jindal is a Rhodes scholar who has actually accomplished stuff. And he does well in front of the cameras. He's a popular governor of a real state, one that is much more difficult ot run than Alasks, and one that has more - much more - than its share of corruption to combat. He's smart enough to know that he can't cater to the crazies - even if he is on himself - and expect to win a general election. I've seen some moderation in him already.
That said, with Goddess Sarah in the mix, I see a difficult path for Jindal in the GOP primary unless the GOP wakes up and realizes that the crazies who loves them some Sarah will be the death of their party. Right now, in a head-to-head, I can't see the GOP primary base going with a brown Catholic guy who is very smart, whose parents weren't born here, and who was once a Hindu, over a hot, gun toting, g-dropping, Christianist, barely able to get through JuCo, firebreather from Alaska. Maybe if Jindal plays up the exorcism...but I don't even know if that bit of Catholic wackiness would play well with the fundies and, again, that's the type of stuff he'll want to keep under wraps re: the general election.
December 8, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of people are reading qualities in Jindal that he doesen't have.
First, he's an inept politician. He was elected governor of La. virtually by default, thanks to his Demo predecessor's extreme unpopularity after Hurrican Katrina. In the 2007 campaign he did not hold a single press conference or participate in a single candidates' forum. All he did was keep his mouth shut.
He screwed up royally during this year's legislative session by breaking his word to legislators that he would not veto a pay raise they voted themselves.
In today's (New Orleans)Times-Picayune is a story
pointing out that the Division of Administration in the governor's office has spent a huge amount of money in overtime, prompting legislators to recommend hiring additional staff and save money.
Meanwhile, he's a creationist and a self-proclaimed partipant in the exorcism of a "demon."
December 8, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two brief responses:
1) For what little my opinion is worth, I think that Huckabee would be just as formidable an opponent as Jindal. Remember, Gov H has his own show on FOX now, so he will have four (or at least three) years to cultivate a following without ever having to enact a policy or vote for a piece of legislation that someone might not like. I certainly agree, however, that watching Romney and Palin duke it out would be ever so much fun.
2) It is a near certainty that the sort of issues that motivate voters right now will not be the sort of issues that will be motivating voters (especially on the right) in another 3-4 years, so I expect that we can look forward to the emergence of candidates over time who are presently on no one's radar screens.
December 8, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree on Huck. For all of his wacky Christian views, he is a guy who is hard to dislike. (heck, I can even stand to watch his show for a few minutes here and there) He was the guy who scared me the most this year because I thought he could use his charm and comfort with the media and on the stump to keep people distracted from the fundie factor...and that in terms of likeability and charisma, he was the only one who could rival Obama. Of course, Huck's apparent desire to actually govern like a real Christian - ie, using government to help those in need - was why the elite wingers hated him. On the right, you have to please both sides or, as in the case of McCain, become the default candidate by not offending either side too much. (and by being the only legit option in a year like 2008) Perhaps Huck will use these 4 years on Fox and off the trail to make himself more appealing to the Norquist/Club for Growth crowd. Or maybe after a few years of economic pain, those economic wingers won't have as much influence in the GOP.
I also agree that assuming the 2012 field will include the same folks as this year's field is the wrong thing to do, as history often shows.
December 8, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
A Jindal/Huckabee ticket would be formidable -- that is until you realize they'd be running against Obama, and my money's on "That One" to win handily in 2012, no matter who the GOP nominates.
December 8, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also a MO voter...I am reading all these comments based on "personalities" rather than "policies" and that IS the republican game. All these future republican candidates still represent the 'tried and failed' policies that produced our current disaster. Is it more important that Jindal can better implement failure than Palin or Huckabee/Norris. These goobers have no plans or policies or ideas that haven't been proven to fail.
We must never forget the horrors of the Bush/Cheney administration or how republicans attempted to continue leading us toward a fascist corporate state, protecting only the wealthy. It's not two sides both leading to success...it's progress vs obstructionism to our democracy and our constitution, including our Bill of Rights.
If republicans ever came around to seeing what was good for the country they'd be democrats but not DINOs. Since Bush, one can be a good citizen or a good republican, but not both.
December 8, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who you gonna believe -- Penn, or your lying eyes?
December 8, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody know how much $ Obama has left over from the campaign?
He could have a heck of a head start for 2012.
Anybody know how rolling over his cash works?
December 8, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
30 millinon. I say he should upgrade the 50 state strategy, but that's just me.
December 8, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are many reasons for cheering about the election of Obama, but this:
is most definitely one of the biggest.
December 8, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh yeah, they said there were four openings on the conservative fourth circuit. That's great.
I just hope that the older SCOTUS members who were rumored to be retiring actually do it during the next four years. Although I was amazed at how sharp Stevens was when I saw him on C-Span recently. He sure didn't look like he was almost 90.
December 8, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm hoping that Scalia decides he'd rather do something else than be a Justice. Or that Clarence Thomas decides he'd rather spend time with his family, or some such reason. As it stands now, the replacements that Obama will be able to make will be replacing the so-called "liberal" Justices.
(And it's hilarious that John Paul Stevens is now considered a staunch liberal).
December 8, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I rather have it balanced than tilted one way or the other to be honest.
December 8, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about the next four years, but Scalia could likely retire in a second Obama term. He's already over 70, I think. Same with Kennedy, although from what I've read he's got a big ego and likes the attention being a swing vote.
True, the likely retirees are the "liberals", but better to have Obama replacing them than McCain.
Thomas will never retire, except by death or near death. Although I was suprised to see how much he's aged in recent pictures--more gray and heavier than I remembered.
I don't really know what "balanced" means with the SCOTUS, it's all subjective. I just know that 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republicans, and most of them have been judges or government attorneys for most of their careers. It will be a long time before that imbalance changes.
December 8, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like I told Repubs, 2010 won't get any better for them. Plus 2012 is an Obama coattail year. However, 4 straight elections is very unlikely (unless we do right by the American people)
December 8, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Under your theory, 2012 will be the fourth election because Dems also won in 2006. Don't assume a second term for Obama. As much as we want him to succeed, the tide of opinion may change quickly if things don't go well during the interim.
December 8, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rice: "Well yes we would have done everything different..." Like stopped lying about WMDs and Sadam's connection to 9/11? Like not firing the Iraqi army which started the insurgency, or giving out no bid contracts and losing $12 billion in cash in a war zone...hell, we could go on all day but she is trying to claim none of this would have happened if we would have just had the right intelligence...you know, intelligence that would have matched what we were making up.
Pleasant thoughts: Brokaw falls down a flight of stairs landing on David Gregory. MTP..."We just couldn't find anyone more sickening than pie face". The invasion of Paliens continues.
Being a Rhodes scholar certainly does not mean you are not a freak. It's the policies that are failures no matter what personality they pick to drive them...that's why it is always character and personality with these conservatives, their tried and failed policies produced our current disaster with the dems giving Bush everything he asked for the past 8yrs. Jindal is just another highly buffed turd shined up to look like a minority which he is not, religious except he's a fanatic (a Rhodes scholar who believes in creationism over evolution??) but repubs will keep buffing that turd to a high gloss hoping we won't notice...he still represents failed policies.
The only real opposition to the democratic party is the democratic party which apparently is half republican. The so called republican party has fallen into the abyss they created, composed of members cultivated by Rush, Coulter, Hannity,O'Reilly, Savage, Gingrich, Delay, Rove and many other gutter crawlers. Bush learned nothing but we sure as hell did...that our dem leaders don't listen to us.
The flood of conservative Judicial appointees Bush managed to install was never challenged by dems as compared to the repubs blocking nearly every court nominee Clinton tried to install. I'm just thankful they blocked some of the more outrageous nominations like Sarkovski (sp?) to the FEC....or a bill containing telecom immun...oh wait...coffee break.
December 8, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink