The judgment of Sarah Palin and her family, Todd in particular, is amazing. Rather than just taking it in stride and leaving it alone, she decides to take a moral stand against David Letterman?
Well, at least one question is answered: Sarah Palin has no national political aspirations. No one with even the least amount of political savvy would publicly attack David Letterman if they had a national agenda.
Now, Dave and his writers should have been more aware as to which of the Palin daughters were on the trip before making those jokes, but this is an amateur, headline grabbing way of responding. Much like the miserably failed presidential campaign Palin was involved in, it does rally the base at the expense of that large swath of the middle that she only think she appeals to.
Congratulations, Sarah! The good news is that the presidential campaign season doesn’t really get going for another year and a half or so. There is time to recover although I am confident there will be plenty more forthcoming.
I missed this video interview that TPM's Matt Cooper did with former Gov. Mitt Romney at CPAC last week:
The stock market has dropped 10% because of Barack Obama? Seriously? It has had nothing to do with the (still) out of touch, greedy bankers? It has had nothing to do with the failed economic policy of the last eight years? Come now, Mitt! We know you want to embellish your conservative persona over the next 4 years but wow! You are almost starting to sound as idiotic as some of the Palin-Jindalites!
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
Here's one key part of the statement from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's response the other night:
During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee, a Democrat and a good friend of mine. When I walked into his makeshift office I'd never seen him so angry.
TPM goes after both his office's (multiple) response(s) to questions about whether he was there, which are reported by Ben Smith at Politico, as well as Smith's reporting of their responses.
Short version, Jindal's office essentially confirms that he wasn't exactly there at the time while eventually maintaining that it is still consistent with the story he told. I point to the highlighted section, which pretty explicitly states "During Katrina." Not "Shortly after Katrina." Smith gets ripped into for offering their analysis (that's it's just fine) without further commentary and letting it stand.
The level of stupid amongst Republican "leaders" has seemingly been permanently raised a few notches since August 29, 2008. That's the day Sarah Palin was introduced by John McCain as his running mate, for those who don't recall.
The only hope for the Republican's may be that Constitutional Amendment that allows Arnold Schwarzenegger to run. Of course, he might have a hard time picking up California for them at this point, but still. ;)
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
Senator Charles Schumer today came out firing at Governor Bobby Jindal, et al. over the idea of rejecting only part of the stimulus money for their states. Specifically, what our dear potential Republican 2012 nominee wants to reject, is an expansion of unemployment benefits to certain part-time workers who get laid off.
It amounts to a little more than 1% of what the State of Louisiana is slated to get from the stimulus. His 'problem': That the effect isn't temporary. In other words when the government stimulus money runs out his state will still have to cover this expanded pool of workers without extra money from the government. Solution (for him): Don't expand it in the first place. Screw 'em.
Today Senator Chuck's office released a letter he sent to Peter Orszag, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. It essentially says that the Governor's of the states have no such option to decline portions of the stimulus package. They must either accept or reject it in full.
Video:
Now I like Chuck. I grew up in the tri-state area of NYC and followed his career in the House and marvelled at his defeat of Senator Pothole (Al D'Amato). But this is playing with fire. It could play right into the Republican's hands.
The Republican's spent a good deal of the 80's and early 90's trying to bash the Democratic Congresses upside the head because of "unfunded mandates." It's one of the things that helped them make inroads in the south as well as they did. Hell, I don't really like "unfunded mandates". That is exactly how Bobby and the boys and girls (I see ya Sarah!) are gonna play this.
Up until here, it's been all about the idiocy of a Governor, who may possibly want the presidency in 2012, trying to make political points with his base by refusing to accept about 1% of the stimulus package slated for his state. Now, it may well become how the big spending Democrats in Washington are trying to force the states to spend more not only now, but in the future.
That's not really a message we want playing on the nightly news. The one about the Governor who wants to reject a measly 1% of his states stimulus package that will go to the poorest of his constituents; that's the message we want. The one that makes him look like a self serving, grandstanding meany; that's the one we want.
We do not want to make him the poster boy for how the state's are getting screwed by the Federal government ramming spending requirements down their throats without ongoing funding for those requirements.
In other words, you just made his message more relevant Chuck. Congratulations.
President Obama, presumably, is going to stay way the heck out of the way on this one. Listening to him yesterday speaking to the National Governor's Association, he sounded like he didn't want to hear any crap about rejecting the package by states when their constituents need the money. He was sympathetic to the idea that there might be some things in there that some governors didn't want. In other words, exactly the opposite message Chuck is giving. (Hey Chuck, it was on C-Span. Guess you didn't catch it.)
Now, there are apparently avenues for governors to explore, for example: having legislatures pass legislation that automatically contracts the unemployment pool back to normal when the federal funding runs out. Sensible answers.
We may not hear them now because there is a s#!t storm brewing about this now. Now it becomes a pissing contest. Our only hope is that, when President Obama does weigh in, he does so in a way that makes the combatants look like fools for starting the pissing contest to begin with. If that means Sen. Chuck Schumer gets egg on his face along with Gov. Jindal, so be it.
It could have been just this stuff:
The words that would stick there are, "Let's be honest about it, they'd probably be stupid not to take it.." That's what everybody would have heard. On every interview. Not the justification that follows from Sen. Orrin Hatch. The "they'd proably be stupid" part. Now, we may lose that.
I don't think this was a well thought out play. Sorry Chuck.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
A week or so ago, Utah's Republican Governor Jon Huntsman surprised and shocked people by announcing his support of civil unions. No reason he had to. Just did. In a state that opposes that idea 70-30%.
Now, at the time the speculation was that he was positioning himself nationally. He has no intention of running for a third term as Governor of Utah. He is considered a contender for the Republican nomination. But open support of civil unions? Wow.
Now, he has come out, in an interview in the Washington Times, and called the Republican congressional leadership "inconsequential."
"I have not met them. I don't listen or read whatever it is they say because it is inconsequential - completely."
Now if that isn't a shot across the bow I don't know what is. Just dismissing Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner out of hand? Whoa! Wonder how he feels about Michael Steele? The Washington Times also posted video of the interview:
Now that is one scary guy. I don't mean George W. Bush, Vice President Dark Lord or Sarah Palin scary. I mean, if he were to be nominated, he might actually attract votes kind of scary. Imagine, a Republican that wants to have a results oriented message for the voters. A Republican who wants to identify and fulfill the needs of the voters. It's terrifying!
Fortunately for us, I don't think it's going to happen. In 2012, at least. The way things are playing out thus far, it still appears that the Republican Party hasn't fallen far enough to understand that it's the right wing nutjobbies that are the problem with their brand, not the solution. Thus, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal grandstanding about how he will reject about 2% of the stimulus package coming his state's way. Exactly the sort of empty rhetoric Huntsman talks about in his interview. But it's what the "right" wants at the moment.
Huntsman will position himself as the leader of the party if he plays his cards right but not until after 2012. I fully expect the GOP to fall flat on it's collective face in it's rush to the right in both 2010 and 2012. They'll blame 2010 on Obama's popularity and how lucky he was that the recession is starting to lift. It will take a Jindal, Tim Pawlenty or Sarah Palin running on a hard right platform and losing badly in 2012 for them to finally start dismissing the idea that they aren't "right" enough.
In other words, I expect 2012 to be kind of like Ford/Reagan in 1976 but in reverse. Oops! We went too far to the right!
If they're smart, they'll learn the lesson sooner and maybe Huntsman will have a real shot in 2012. He resembles, in some ways, the John McCain I might have voted for in 2000 without the 'maverick'. (Although the civil union thing belies that.) That is worrisome to those who want a Dem in the Oval Office. I don't think the Republicans will be smart enough to do it in 2012 but 2016? He's obviously drawing a line in the sand with Jindal. (And not the wishy washy Mitt Romney kind either.)
While I would generally much prefer a Democrat to a Republican in the White House, I could live with what I've seen so far of this Republican. Therein lies the danger. I have seen plenty of political blowups and flameouts in presidential races in just the last 3 years. So who knows what may be 3 or so years down the road? But if this guy is still hanging around at that point, I think it would be best if President Obama kept his eyes open to this Governor if he wants to get a second term.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
