The Hispanic Vote
Blog post by John Feehery
May 28, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
Much has been said about the importance of the Hispanic vote.
Some Republican strategists say that for the GOP to be competitive in future presidential elections, they’ll have to capture about 40 percent of this fastest-growing minority group.
President George W. Bush, who spoke a bit of Spanish, had a strategy to reach out to Hispanic voters and actually hit that 40 percent number in the 2004 election.
But it has been a bad couple of years for the Republicans when it comes to the Hispanic vote.
As a Pew survey points out, “Some 57 percent of Hispanic registered voters now call themselves Democrats or say they lean to the Democratic Party, while just 23 percent align with the Republican Party — meaning there is now a 34-percentage-point gap in partisan affiliation among Latinos. In July 2006, the same gap measured just 21 percentage points — whereas back in 1999, it had been 33 percentage points.”
The debate over President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, may make that trend even more pronounced.
What has caused this collapse of Republican support in the Hispanic community?
According to surveys, hard-line opposition to illegal immigration is the big reason for the slide. Again, according to Pew, “By 41 percent to 14 percent, Hispanic registered voters say the Democrats rather than the Republicans are the party doing the better job of dealing with illegal immigration … Immigration has become a more important issue to Latinos since the last election. Some 79 percent of Hispanic registered voters now say it is an ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ important issue in the upcoming presidential race; up from 63 percent who said the same thing in June 2004.”
The Hispanic community is no monolith. Cubans vote differently than Mexicans. Dominicans have different concerns than Venezuelans. Puerto Ricans don’t have the same political impulses as Salvadorans.
But they all have a desire to be respected. They share a similar language. They all have come to America to help their families have a better life. But many of them have loved ones whom they have left back at home.
George Bush understood all of that. He looked at the Hispanic community as an opportunity to get votes, not as a threat to American independence. He viewed Hispanics as hardworking Americans worthy of respect. And as a result, he got a pretty big percentage of their votes.
Unfortunately, the party doesn’t seem to have President Bush's sensitivity to the Hispanic community. The immigration debate at times took on a racist undertone that turned off many potential voters in that community.
And now, we have Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, who seem to want to dig the hole deeper with this vital voting bloc.
Newt is done running for office and Rush has never run for office, so their comments are notable only in how destructive they are for the party. Keep in mind, it was Rush Limbaugh (and Lou Dobbs) who worked hard against an immigration bill that would have fixed our immigration laws and taken that issue off the table for the next election.
The irony in all of this is that it was the Democrats who pulled out all the stops when it came to stopping the first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee. Democrats wouldn’t allow Miguel Estrada to get a vote to become a judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals. They filibustered because they were afraid that Bush would then appoint him to the Supreme Court. It was an unbelievable and unconscionable decision by the Democrats, but somehow they got away with it.
It was Democrats who did nothing to pass an immigration bill in either the House or the Senate, despite President Bush’s best efforts to get something done. And Democrats have put immigration reform on the backburner for their agenda this year.
Democrats have used and abused their Hispanic supporters. Most Hispanics are pro-life. Democrats have a radical anti-life agenda. Most Hispanics are religious, while the Democrat Party is avowedly secular. Many Hispanics (Cubans, Nicaraguans, Venezuelans) are strongly anti-communist, while the Democrats find anti-communism to be passé. Many Hispanics are small-business owners, but the Democrats want to tax small-business owners the hardest.
But Hispanics look beyond all of these issues and continue to flock to the Democrats, because they perceive that the GOP is a bunch of racists who don’t want to welcome them into the country, let alone into the party.
Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich haven’t helped change that perception in these opening days of the debate over Sonia Sotomayor. Senate Republicans, for the long-term good of the party, should strongly condemn incendiary language in the debate, and then vote her onto the Supreme Court. She is going to get in anyway. Let her get in with GOP support.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Another "Rabid" G.O.P. Operative ays the Price!!!
Women in McCain attack hoax sentenced
Bloomfield 'attack' was self-inflicted
Saturday, May 23, 2009
By Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A John McCain campaign volunteer yesterday was sentenced to nine months probation for lying about an alleged attack last year when she claimed a Barack Obama supporter assaulted her and scratched a backwards "B" on her face.
..........Ashley Todd
Ashley Todd, 21, of College Station, Texas, was approved for a program for first-time offenders after she pleaded guilty to filing false reports last Oct. 24.
She told police that she was attacked in Bloomfield by a tall black man who was upset that she had a John McCain bumper sticker on her car.
She said the man knocked her down, pinned her hands with his knees, and scrawled the backwards letter on her face.
Police doubted her story early in the investigation, and Ms. Todd later admitted it was made up.
A district judge, at the start of a preliminary hearing last November, ordered her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. She then waived her right to have the hearing, in lieu of pleading guilty, to enter the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program. Participants who successfully complete terms of the program are eligible to have their public criminal records expunged.
"A lot of you are going to violate, no matter what I say," said Common Pleas Judge Robert C. Gallo, who presided over the hearings for Ms. Todd and the other first-time offenders.
In addition to the probation, the judge ordered Ms. Todd to perform 50 hours of community service within the next six months and to pay court costs.
Ms. Todd's claims of a politically motivated assault with some racial undertones garnered national media attention before the tale unraveled.
After the hoax, she was fired by the College Republican National Committee, which had her working as a field representative in Pittsburgh to the presidential election campaign last fall.
Yesterday, Ms. Todd ran down three flights of stairs at the courthouse to avoid the media. Unable to immediately find the exit, she and a male companion barged through the reporters while declining comment.
"I didn't have any [comment] before, and don't have any now," she said.
Read more: Click Here
Bloomfield 'attack' was self-inflicted
Saturday, May 23, 2009
By Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A John McCain campaign volunteer yesterday was sentenced to nine months probation for lying about an alleged attack last year when she claimed a Barack Obama supporter assaulted her and scratched a backwards "B" on her face...........Ashley Todd
Ashley Todd, 21, of College Station, Texas, was approved for a program for first-time offenders after she pleaded guilty to filing false reports last Oct. 24.
She told police that she was attacked in Bloomfield by a tall black man who was upset that she had a John McCain bumper sticker on her car.
She said the man knocked her down, pinned her hands with his knees, and scrawled the backwards letter on her face.
Police doubted her story early in the investigation, and Ms. Todd later admitted it was made up.
A district judge, at the start of a preliminary hearing last November, ordered her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. She then waived her right to have the hearing, in lieu of pleading guilty, to enter the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program. Participants who successfully complete terms of the program are eligible to have their public criminal records expunged.
"A lot of you are going to violate, no matter what I say," said Common Pleas Judge Robert C. Gallo, who presided over the hearings for Ms. Todd and the other first-time offenders.
In addition to the probation, the judge ordered Ms. Todd to perform 50 hours of community service within the next six months and to pay court costs.
Ms. Todd's claims of a politically motivated assault with some racial undertones garnered national media attention before the tale unraveled.
After the hoax, she was fired by the College Republican National Committee, which had her working as a field representative in Pittsburgh to the presidential election campaign last fall.
Yesterday, Ms. Todd ran down three flights of stairs at the courthouse to avoid the media. Unable to immediately find the exit, she and a male companion barged through the reporters while declining comment.
"I didn't have any [comment] before, and don't have any now," she said.
Read more: Click Here
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Exclusive: Steele associates' pay spurs questions
Some call RNC salaries 'way out of line'
By Ralph Z. Hallow
Some call RNC salaries 'way out of line'
By Ralph Z. Hallow
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
When Michael S. Steele took over as chairman of the Republican National Committee earlier this year, he brought along longtime personal assistant Belinda Cook and gave her a salary nearly three times what her predecessor made.
Mrs. Cook's son, Lee, also landed an RNC job.
Mr. Steele hired another family friend, Angela Sailor, to be the party's outreach director at a salary of $180,000, more than double her predecessor's compensation, though new responsibilities have been added to the job, according to a high-ranking RNC official and Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.
Mr. Steele's early record and personnel decisions figure to be hot topics at a special meeting of Republican state party chairmen Tuesday and Wednesday at National Harbor in Washington's Maryland suburbs. His hiring of friends and the salaries he is paying them already helped to instigate a struggle over who controls the party's purse strings, one that forced the new party chairman to relinquish some control to elected RNC members.
"These salaries we hear about are way out of line for what staff should be paid for working for a political party, which most of us think of as a cause," said Hawaii Republican Party Chairman Willis Lee. "And if certain staff at the national committee are making that much, then the public understandably might think they are examples of cronyism."
RNC Communications Director Trevor Francis declined to address specifically questions about the salaries of Mrs. Cook and Ms. Sailor and the reasons for the increases.
"Salaries aren't secret, just something that we're not going to talk about outside of our [Federal Election Commission] filings," Mr. Francis said.
Mr. Steele could face other headaches at the special meeting as well, including a vote on a resolution he has publicly opposed: to ask the Democratic Party to rename itself "the Democrat Socialist Party." Two other less contentious resolutions - praising Republican lawmakers for opposing pet federal projects, government bailouts and heavy federal spending - also will be voted on.
But many complaints will focus on staff compensation. Some party officials have said that the salaries appear generous compared with those paid for similar positions under previous RNC head Robert M. "Mike" Duncan.
"When we are talking about paying someone three times what his predecessor made, it would be wise to make sure all 168 members of the national committee know who these people being hired are and what their qualifications are for being paid that much," Texas RNC member Cathie Adams said.
According to take-home-pay figures that the RNC filed with the FEC for March of this year, Mrs. Cook, Mr. Steele's personal assistant, earned $7,134.66 for the month, after withholding for federal and state taxes, which would amount to $85,615.92 over 12 months.
The person who held the same post under Mr. Duncan took home $2,436.74 monthly, or $29,240.88 over 12 months, FEC reports showed. The RNC official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to disclose the figures, said Mrs. Cooks salary before deductions is $125,000.
As for Lee Cook, he earned $3,251.77 in March, about $39,021.24 a year after taxes, according to the FEC.
The salary being paid to Ms. Sailor, a former White House aide, is $180,000 a year, according to the RNC official. That is $40,000 more than the $140,000 paid to Jan Larimer, the elected RNC co-chairman, the second-highest elective post in the party directly behind Mr. Steele, the official said.
Ms. Sailor's salary is also $97,000 more than the $83,000 Mr. Duncan paid to his outreach director, Shannon Reeves.
The RNC reported to the FEC in 2008 that Mr. Reeves' salary in May was $4,755.07, which would total $57,060.84 over 12 months. The FEC report lists Ms. Sailor's take-home pay as $8,557.59 for March, which would total $102,691.08 in yearly salary after taxes. The figures are lower than their actual salary because the party reports to the FEC the take-home pay after taxes.
Ms. Sailor's job has been upgraded from what the position was under Mr. Duncan, the RNC says.
"The Coalitions Department is a new RNC division created by Chairman Steele as part of his commitment to creating sustained communications with every constituency," the RNC announced in a recent statement. "The director of coalitions will work to recruit and support Republicans by targeting messages to identified publications, events and emerging issues in communities where the party has opportunities to grow."
Mr. Steele set an ambitious goal for the new coalitions department, saying it "will evaluate every outside constituent organization in the country at the local, state and national levels."
Under the "good governance" pact that he reluctantly agreed to last week, Mr. Steele will retain sole say over who is hired and at what salary at the RNC. State party leaders typically have both their staffs and salary scales approved by executive committees and by the larger state GOP central committees.
Mr. Steele has staunch defenders on the RNC - which is made up of three members from each of the 50 states and five territories - but a growing number of critics as well, some of whom say privately they expect a showdown with Mr. Steele at the special meeting.
Hawaii's Mr. Lee, who says he is not an enemy of the chairman's, is explicit about the need for sharing control of the party's purse strings.
"These types of salaries my friend Michael Steele is paying show why it is important for the protection of all of us to have a signed set of rules of good governance, and I am pleased that all the parties have agreed to have checks and balances in place to avoid any perception of impropriety," Mr. Lee said.
The "parties" he refers to are Mr. Steele and his top advisers on the one hand, and, on the other, Randy Pullen, the elected RNC treasurer; Blake Hall, the RNC general counsel; and three former RNC officers who co-sponsored the "good governance" resolution, which Mr. Steele said is a move to strip him of his rightful powers.
The three resolutions on the agenda will be debated and voted on in open session.
Before that, however, private negotiations are expected between conservatives and Steele supporters over the wording of the "socialist" resolution.
Not up for discussion or a vote is a resolution to limit Mr. Steele's control over the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars from donors across the nation. Mr. Steele agreed to abide by the essence of that resolution until it is debated and voted on at the regularly scheduled annual summer RNC meeting in July in San Diego.
Several of the party's "elders" are co-sponsors of the "good governnance" resolution, including Mr. Pullen, Mr. Hall and former RNC Budget Committee Chairman Ron Kaufman.
Mr. Steele is scheduled to address the National Harbor meeting Tuesday afternoon.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Only 63% of GOP Voters Now Say Party has no clear Leader
As the old political saying goes, you can’t beat somebody with nobody. But a plurality of national Republican voters still think nobody’s running the show for the GOP.
Still, it’s better than two months ago when 68% of Republican voters said the party had no clear leader.
Now only 37% of GOP voters feel that way.
Arizona Senator John McCain , last year’s unsuccessful presidential candidate who is already facing a primary challenge in 2010, is seen as the party’s leader by 18% of Republican voters.
National party chairman Michael Steele, who has been plagued with gaffes since taking the job, is next with 14% support. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, McCain’s running mate, is seen as the GOP leader by 10%.
McCain and Steele were the top vote getters in March, with five percent (5%) each.
Next for Republican voters now is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, another presidential hopeful from last year, who has eight percent (8%) support. He is followed by broadcaster Rush Limbaugh (6%) and former Vice President Dick Cheney (4%).
Among all voters, including Democrats and unaffiliated voters, 48% say the Republicans have no clear leader. Steele is the top named Republican, the choice of 15% of voters. McCain is next with 11%.
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of GOP voters say congressional Republicans have lost touch with the party’s base throughout the country.
Fifty percent (50%) of Arizona Republican voters say the same about McCain but don’t see him having much trouble beating his only announced opponent so far in next year’s GOP Senate Primary.
As Scott Rasmussen points out in a recent analysis, “To be relevant in politics, you need either formal power or a lot of people willing to follow your lead. The governing Republicans in the nation’s capital have lost both on their continuing path to irrelevance.”
As the old political saying goes, you can’t beat somebody with nobody. But a plurality of national Republican voters still think nobody’s running the show for the GOP.
Still, it’s better than two months ago when 68% of Republican voters said the party had no clear leader.
Now only 37% of GOP voters feel that way.
Arizona Senator John McCain , last year’s unsuccessful presidential candidate who is already facing a primary challenge in 2010, is seen as the party’s leader by 18% of Republican voters.
National party chairman Michael Steele, who has been plagued with gaffes since taking the job, is next with 14% support. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, McCain’s running mate, is seen as the GOP leader by 10%.
McCain and Steele were the top vote getters in March, with five percent (5%) each.
Next for Republican voters now is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, another presidential hopeful from last year, who has eight percent (8%) support. He is followed by broadcaster Rush Limbaugh (6%) and former Vice President Dick Cheney (4%).
Among all voters, including Democrats and unaffiliated voters, 48% say the Republicans have no clear leader. Steele is the top named Republican, the choice of 15% of voters. McCain is next with 11%.
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of GOP voters say congressional Republicans have lost touch with the party’s base throughout the country.
Fifty percent (50%) of Arizona Republican voters say the same about McCain but don’t see him having much trouble beating his only announced opponent so far in next year’s GOP Senate Primary.
As Scott Rasmussen points out in a recent analysis, “To be relevant in politics, you need either formal power or a lot of people willing to follow your lead. The governing Republicans in the nation’s capital have lost both on their continuing path to irrelevance.”
Who is in charge in the GOP: Republicans see Their Party as Leaderless
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republican voters say their party has no clear leader, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Another 17% are undecided.
Just five percent (5%) view either John McCain, the GOP's unsuccessful 2008 presidential candidate, or new party chairman Michael Steele as the party's leader.
Two percent (2%) see conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh in that role, and one percent (1%) name McCain's running mate, Alaska Govenror Sarah Palin. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner are each seen as GOP leader by less than one-half of one percent.
Democrats have no question who's in charge. Two-thirds of the party's voters (66%) see President Barack Obama as their leader. Nobody else reaches even the five percent (5%) level.
Only 10% of Democrats say the party has no clear leader. Four percent (4%) say House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in charge, while two percent (2%) list longtime Massachusetts Senator Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy and one percent name political comedian Jon Stewart. Sixteen percent (16%) of Democratic voters are not sure.
Democrats and unaffiliated voters agree on the leaderless GOP. Eighty-six percent (86%) of Democrats say the Republicans have no clear leader or that they're not sure who's in charge. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of unaffiliated voters agree.
Democrats are more likely to see Rush Limbaugh as the GOP leader: Seven percent (7%) of those in Obama’s party hold that view.
Republicans and unaffiliated voters are not as sure that Obama is the Democratic Party leader.
Just 41% of unaffiliated voters see Obama as party chief, along with 35% of Republicans.
Among unaffiliated voters, 24% say there is no clear leader of the Democratic Party, 21% are not sure, and 10% see Pelosi as the real leader of the party.
Among Republicans, a plurality (37%) say there is no clear Democratic Party leader. Sixteen percent (16%) of the GOP faithful are not sure who leads the Democrats, and nine percent (9%) say Pelosi is the boss.
Last week, Rasmussen Reports found that just 11% of Republicans agreed with the statement “Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. He says jump, and they say how high.” This was a comment made by Brad Woodhouse, president of an advocacy group running national television ads linking Limbaugh to the Republican Party. His comment came at the same time that top White House officials were saying Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP.
Some pundits, however, wondered if the harsh nature of the quote might have diminished the apparent support for Limbaugh as party leader. In the current survey, we simply asked if Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. The different wording had virtually no impact on the GOP responses: Only 10% said yes.
However, the different wording had a significant impact on Democrats who were evenly divided over the question when it included the second sentence, “He says jump, and they say how high.” When asked straight out if Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party, only 21% said yes and 60% said no. Among unaffiliated voters, just nine percent (9%) see Limbaugh as the GOP leader and 77% do not.
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republican voters say their party has no clear leader, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Another 17% are undecided.
Just five percent (5%) view either John McCain, the GOP's unsuccessful 2008 presidential candidate, or new party chairman Michael Steele as the party's leader.
Two percent (2%) see conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh in that role, and one percent (1%) name McCain's running mate, Alaska Govenror Sarah Palin. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner are each seen as GOP leader by less than one-half of one percent.
Democrats have no question who's in charge. Two-thirds of the party's voters (66%) see President Barack Obama as their leader. Nobody else reaches even the five percent (5%) level.
Only 10% of Democrats say the party has no clear leader. Four percent (4%) say House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in charge, while two percent (2%) list longtime Massachusetts Senator Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy and one percent name political comedian Jon Stewart. Sixteen percent (16%) of Democratic voters are not sure.
Democrats and unaffiliated voters agree on the leaderless GOP. Eighty-six percent (86%) of Democrats say the Republicans have no clear leader or that they're not sure who's in charge. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of unaffiliated voters agree.
Democrats are more likely to see Rush Limbaugh as the GOP leader: Seven percent (7%) of those in Obama’s party hold that view.
Republicans and unaffiliated voters are not as sure that Obama is the Democratic Party leader.
Just 41% of unaffiliated voters see Obama as party chief, along with 35% of Republicans.
Among unaffiliated voters, 24% say there is no clear leader of the Democratic Party, 21% are not sure, and 10% see Pelosi as the real leader of the party.
Among Republicans, a plurality (37%) say there is no clear Democratic Party leader. Sixteen percent (16%) of the GOP faithful are not sure who leads the Democrats, and nine percent (9%) say Pelosi is the boss.
Last week, Rasmussen Reports found that just 11% of Republicans agreed with the statement “Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. He says jump, and they say how high.” This was a comment made by Brad Woodhouse, president of an advocacy group running national television ads linking Limbaugh to the Republican Party. His comment came at the same time that top White House officials were saying Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP.
Some pundits, however, wondered if the harsh nature of the quote might have diminished the apparent support for Limbaugh as party leader. In the current survey, we simply asked if Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. The different wording had virtually no impact on the GOP responses: Only 10% said yes.
However, the different wording had a significant impact on Democrats who were evenly divided over the question when it included the second sentence, “He says jump, and they say how high.” When asked straight out if Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party, only 21% said yes and 60% said no. Among unaffiliated voters, just nine percent (9%) see Limbaugh as the GOP leader and 77% do not.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Texas Governor's Primary A Toss-Up
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Texas Governor Rick Perry and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison find themselves essentially tied in an early look at their 2010 Primary battle.
The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey shows Perry attracting 42% of the vote while Hutchison earns 38%. Seven percent (7%) say they’d like to vote for somebody else and 13% are undecided.
Perry leads by 15 percentage points among conservative voters but Hutchison leads by 35 points among the moderates.
Favorability ratings for the two candidates are virtually even among Likely Republican Primary Voters. Perry is viewed Very Favorably by 26% and Very Unfavorably by 9%. The comparable numbers for Hutchison are 27% and 10%.
Twenty-five percent (25%) Strongly Approve of the way that Perry has performed his job as Governor while 10% Strongly Disapprove.
These numbers suggest that the Governor’s race is wide open with neither candidate holding a commanding position. This is the first Rasmussen Reports poll of the race. Earlier in the year, other polls had shown Hutchison with a significant lead.
In 2006, Perry won re-election with just 39% of the vote while Democrat Chris Bell earned 30%. Carole Keeton Strayhorn left the Republican Party to run as an Independent in the race and picked up 18% of the vote. Comedian Richard 'Kinky' Friedman also ran as an Independent and attracted support from 12%.
While attending a “Tea Party” protest last month, Perry seemed to suggest that secession was something Texas might consider in the future. He later backed away from those comments. Seventy-five percent (75%) of Texas voters said they would vote to stay in the USA.[LINK]
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Texas Governor Rick Perry and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison find themselves essentially tied in an early look at their 2010 Primary battle.
The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey shows Perry attracting 42% of the vote while Hutchison earns 38%. Seven percent (7%) say they’d like to vote for somebody else and 13% are undecided.
Perry leads by 15 percentage points among conservative voters but Hutchison leads by 35 points among the moderates.
Favorability ratings for the two candidates are virtually even among Likely Republican Primary Voters. Perry is viewed Very Favorably by 26% and Very Unfavorably by 9%. The comparable numbers for Hutchison are 27% and 10%.
Twenty-five percent (25%) Strongly Approve of the way that Perry has performed his job as Governor while 10% Strongly Disapprove.
These numbers suggest that the Governor’s race is wide open with neither candidate holding a commanding position. This is the first Rasmussen Reports poll of the race. Earlier in the year, other polls had shown Hutchison with a significant lead.
In 2006, Perry won re-election with just 39% of the vote while Democrat Chris Bell earned 30%. Carole Keeton Strayhorn left the Republican Party to run as an Independent in the race and picked up 18% of the vote. Comedian Richard 'Kinky' Friedman also ran as an Independent and attracted support from 12%.
While attending a “Tea Party” protest last month, Perry seemed to suggest that secession was something Texas might consider in the future. He later backed away from those comments. Seventy-five percent (75%) of Texas voters said they would vote to stay in the USA.[LINK]
Saturday, May 2, 2009
69% of GOP Voters Say Republicans in Congress Out of Touch With The Party Base
Just 21% of GOP voters believe Republicans in Congress have done a good job representing their own party’s values, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Sixty-nine percent (69%) say congressional Republicans have lost touch with GOP voters throughout the nation. These findings are virtually unchanged from a survey just after Election Day.
Among all voters, 73% say Republicans in Congress have lost touch with the GOP base.
Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans say it is more important for the GOP to stand for what it believes in than for the party to work with President Obama. Twenty-two percent (22%) want their party to work with the President more.
Not surprisingly 72% of Democrats say it is more important for the Republican Party to work with Obama, but 54% of unaffiliated voters hold the opposite view.
“To be relevant in politics, you need either formal power or a lot of people willing to follow your lead. The governing Republicans in the nation’s capital have lost both on their continuing path to irrelevance,” Scott Rasmussen says in an analysis this week.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it's free). let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
Party officials and pundits have been debating for months what direction Republicans should take following Obama’s election and sizable Democratic gains in both houses of Congress. Some argue that the party should move in the direction of the Democrats on issues, while others say the GOP has been hurt by abandoning its core conservative economic and social positions.
The debate flared up again this week with longtime Republican Senator Arlen Specter’s decision to become a Democrat out of fear he would lose his own party’s primary to a conservative challenger next year. Fifty-one percent (51%) of Republican voters say the Pennsylvania senator’s switch will have a significant impact on the laws passed by the Senate.
Voters for the first time since the election now say congressional Republicans are as partisan as their Democratic counterparts. Up till now, Democrats in Congress have been seen as governing in a more partisan fashion than Republicans. Fifty-five percent (55%) now expect politics in Washington, D.C., to be more partisan over the next year.
At the end of April, for just the second time in more than five years of tracking, Republicans led Democrats in the Generic Congressional Ballot. Forty-one percent (41%) said they would vote for their district’s Republican candidate while 38% would choose the Democrat.
In January, 56% of all voters said the Republican Party should return to the views and values of President Ronald Reagan to be successful. Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republican voters agreed.
Just 21% of GOP voters believe Republicans in Congress have done a good job representing their own party’s values, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Sixty-nine percent (69%) say congressional Republicans have lost touch with GOP voters throughout the nation. These findings are virtually unchanged from a survey just after Election Day.
Among all voters, 73% say Republicans in Congress have lost touch with the GOP base.
Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans say it is more important for the GOP to stand for what it believes in than for the party to work with President Obama. Twenty-two percent (22%) want their party to work with the President more.
Not surprisingly 72% of Democrats say it is more important for the Republican Party to work with Obama, but 54% of unaffiliated voters hold the opposite view.
“To be relevant in politics, you need either formal power or a lot of people willing to follow your lead. The governing Republicans in the nation’s capital have lost both on their continuing path to irrelevance,” Scott Rasmussen says in an analysis this week.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it's free). let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
Party officials and pundits have been debating for months what direction Republicans should take following Obama’s election and sizable Democratic gains in both houses of Congress. Some argue that the party should move in the direction of the Democrats on issues, while others say the GOP has been hurt by abandoning its core conservative economic and social positions.
The debate flared up again this week with longtime Republican Senator Arlen Specter’s decision to become a Democrat out of fear he would lose his own party’s primary to a conservative challenger next year. Fifty-one percent (51%) of Republican voters say the Pennsylvania senator’s switch will have a significant impact on the laws passed by the Senate.
Voters for the first time since the election now say congressional Republicans are as partisan as their Democratic counterparts. Up till now, Democrats in Congress have been seen as governing in a more partisan fashion than Republicans. Fifty-five percent (55%) now expect politics in Washington, D.C., to be more partisan over the next year.
At the end of April, for just the second time in more than five years of tracking, Republicans led Democrats in the Generic Congressional Ballot. Forty-one percent (41%) said they would vote for their district’s Republican candidate while 38% would choose the Democrat.
In January, 56% of all voters said the Republican Party should return to the views and values of President Ronald Reagan to be successful. Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republican voters agreed.
Kasich beginning to build campaign
Committee hiring staff, raising cash for governor's race
Saturday, May 2, 2009 2:59 AM
By Joe Hallett
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
John Kasich served in the U.S. House for 18 years before moving to Wall Street and Fox News.
The 2010 race for governor got under way yesterday when Republican John R. Kasich created a campaign committee to begin raising money and hiring staff.
Kasich, 57, a former 18-year congressman from Westerville and an on-air personality for Fox News, is expected to formally declare his candidacy against incumbent Democrat Ted Strickland by early June.
In a filing with the Ohio secretary of state, Kasich created Kasich for Ohio, designating lawyer Bradley K. Sinnott, chairman of the Franklin County GOP Central Committee, as treasurer of the campaign committee.
"We're off and running," said a confidant who has helped Kasich prepare for a gubernatorial bid.
For two years, Kasich has been ubiquitous at Republican Lincoln Day dinners, drawing big crowds at the county events and exciting the party base with fiery speeches. He now can move forward with a full-scale campaign and begin raising the expected $15 million needed for the race.
"We've all been hoping for this day," said Doug Preisse, chairman of the Franklin County Republican Party. "Now that it's happening, there's a great amount of excitement. It's fair to say that not only Republicans but Ohioans have been looking for a strong leader, and now it looks like we're finding one."
Until its collapse in September, Kasich spent six years as a managing director of Lehman Brothers' investment banking division, a position Democrats have sought to exploit. They also are questioning Kasich's call for the gradual elimination of Ohio's income tax, which generates almost $8 billion annually to operate state government and fund its programs and services.
In a statement, Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern said, "Ohio doesn't need a governor from Lehman Brothers, a governor whose only concern is the wealthy and the well-connected and who has spent the last several years making money in the same financial sector that led to the economic collapse we are facing."
Noting that the income tax raises 34 percent of the state's revenue, Redfern questioned whether Kasich plans to replace it "a massive tax increase on working families or by completely eviscerating Ohio's investment in education and health care?"
Kasich was unavailable for comment, but in a message on his campaign Web site -- www.kasichforohio.com -- he noted Ohio's dire economic condition and said, "We have a lot of hard work ahead, but together we can bring Ohio back."
State Sen. Kevin Coughlin, a Cuyahoga Falls Republican, designated his campaign treasurer for a potential gubernatorial bid Feb. 2. But Coughlin has indicated that he will not challenge Kasich in a primary and might run for another statewide executive office.
Meanwhile, Strickland has begun touting his education-reform plan across the state. On Monday, he will discuss the future of education in Ohio at the Columbus Metropolitan Club luncheon, and on Friday he will be joined at an Ohio State University "Rally for Education Reform" by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan.
Committee hiring staff, raising cash for governor's race
Saturday, May 2, 2009 2:59 AM
By Joe Hallett
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
John Kasich served in the U.S. House for 18 years before moving to Wall Street and Fox News.
The 2010 race for governor got under way yesterday when Republican John R. Kasich created a campaign committee to begin raising money and hiring staff.
Kasich, 57, a former 18-year congressman from Westerville and an on-air personality for Fox News, is expected to formally declare his candidacy against incumbent Democrat Ted Strickland by early June.
In a filing with the Ohio secretary of state, Kasich created Kasich for Ohio, designating lawyer Bradley K. Sinnott, chairman of the Franklin County GOP Central Committee, as treasurer of the campaign committee.
"We're off and running," said a confidant who has helped Kasich prepare for a gubernatorial bid.
For two years, Kasich has been ubiquitous at Republican Lincoln Day dinners, drawing big crowds at the county events and exciting the party base with fiery speeches. He now can move forward with a full-scale campaign and begin raising the expected $15 million needed for the race.
"We've all been hoping for this day," said Doug Preisse, chairman of the Franklin County Republican Party. "Now that it's happening, there's a great amount of excitement. It's fair to say that not only Republicans but Ohioans have been looking for a strong leader, and now it looks like we're finding one."
Until its collapse in September, Kasich spent six years as a managing director of Lehman Brothers' investment banking division, a position Democrats have sought to exploit. They also are questioning Kasich's call for the gradual elimination of Ohio's income tax, which generates almost $8 billion annually to operate state government and fund its programs and services.
In a statement, Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern said, "Ohio doesn't need a governor from Lehman Brothers, a governor whose only concern is the wealthy and the well-connected and who has spent the last several years making money in the same financial sector that led to the economic collapse we are facing."
Noting that the income tax raises 34 percent of the state's revenue, Redfern questioned whether Kasich plans to replace it "a massive tax increase on working families or by completely eviscerating Ohio's investment in education and health care?"
Kasich was unavailable for comment, but in a message on his campaign Web site -- www.kasichforohio.com -- he noted Ohio's dire economic condition and said, "We have a lot of hard work ahead, but together we can bring Ohio back."
State Sen. Kevin Coughlin, a Cuyahoga Falls Republican, designated his campaign treasurer for a potential gubernatorial bid Feb. 2. But Coughlin has indicated that he will not challenge Kasich in a primary and might run for another statewide executive office.
Meanwhile, Strickland has begun touting his education-reform plan across the state. On Monday, he will discuss the future of education in Ohio at the Columbus Metropolitan Club luncheon, and on Friday he will be joined at an Ohio State University "Rally for Education Reform" by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan.
Friday, May 1, 2009
CAPITOL LETTERThe Keystone Cause
Specter's partisan switch was made in Pennsylvania.
"Good riddance," crowed the National Republican Campaign Committee, but that sentiment doesn't come close to summing up the reaction among most Senate Republicans to losing Arlen Specter, a stalwart in Beltway politics for more than a quarter century. The GOP is putting up a brave front, claiming that Pennsylvania voters will have a clear choice now that "left-leaning" Republican-in-name-only Specter is out of the closet.
Still, the reaction from Olympia Snowe, now one of barely a half dozen moderate Republicans left in the Senate, might be more accurate. "For me personally and then for the party, its devastating," Snowe told CNN.
The reaction among Democrats, now so very close to a filibusterproof 60-vote majority in the Senate, was understandably more upbeat. "What must Norm Coleman be thinking?" chuckled one Democrat I talked to. "He's fighting to the death to keep the Democrats from getting to 60. He's a former Democrat turned Republican—and he's outfoxed by a Republican turned Democrat. It's all just too funny."
Funny, yes, and seriously Machiavellian, claims one GOP source, who attributes Specter's surprise defection to a Biden-Rendell bank shot. Vice President Joe Biden is from Scranton, Pa., and Ed Rendell is governor of Pennsylvania, ties that put them solidly in Specter's orbit. Biden spent the last three decades in the Senate and knows Specter well. They served together on the Judiciary Committee back in the day when they along with many others made fools of themselves grilling Anita Hill. The self-interest of the Obama-Biden administration in getting that 60th vote in the Senate is self-evident. It changes the calculus for everything going forward (health-care reform, judicial nominations) if Democrats have a filibusterproof majority in the Senate.
Then there's Rendell, whose personal ties to Specter are extensive, but who also has a political stake in seeing him hold his seat in Pennsylvania. Rendell once worked for Specter and regards him as something of a mentor; they're friends. For Rendell, a gregarious, ambitious politician, a Senate seat would cap his career as a former mayor and popular two-term governor. Those who know Rendell say he really wants the seat that Specter holds but would not run against his friend. The scenario that was unfolding had Specter losing in the Republican primary to Club for Growth President Pat Toomy, the favorite of Pennsylvania's conservative Republican base, and then had Toomy losing to a Democrat in November 2010. The Democrat suiting up for that task was Rep. Joe Sestak, a retired Navy admiral in his second term, eager to move up, and at 57 years of age, young enough to stake a claim on the seat.
A Sestak candidacy would derail Rendell's future plans. Keeping Specter in the seat at his age, which is 79, makes it far more likely that the seat would open up in the kind of timetable Rendell would hope for.
There were reports late Tuesday that the Republicans might try to draft former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge to run against Specter, that the GOP would not go quietly into the political night. But even Ridge would have to get by Toomy and the far-right brigades in the primary. A Republican source says Specter met with conservative groups last week to complain about the Toomy challenge, and how it was eroding his ability to keep the seat for the party. He was treated dismissively. "That's our base," they said, apparently not realizing Specter would consider leaving the GOP.
For Specter, the decision to switch parties is a no-brainer. There will not be a Republican majority in Congress in his lifetime, and if Specter earns the trust of the Democrats by voting with them on a few key procedural votes to get over the 60-vote threshold, he may get the coveted chair of the Judiciary Committee, where he is now ranking member, in time to shepherd Supreme Court nominations for President Obama.
Whatever Rendell did to get Specter to this point, their political futures are now inextricably bound together. And if there's any politician you want on your side in a knife fight, it's Rendell. He is the closest thing to a ward boss in Pennsylvania. He can clear the field for Specter, gin up the enthusiastic support and help raise the kind of money Specter will need. And then, in due time, it will be Rendell's turn.
Specter's Surprise = 60 Senators
Republican strategist Scott Reed said: "I always thought Specter would consider switching to become an independent to get re-elected, and it's too bad that Michael Steele pushed him into the Democrat Party."The conservative right-wing Republican Leadership has again overplayed their hand and done it much, much too early. They caused their own total loss of the slim hope they had of curbing the Democrats complete control of Congress and forced one of their own - a party leader - across the aisle. - "Good riddance," crowed the National Republican Campaign Committee, but that sentiment doesn't come close to summing up the reaction among most Senate Republicans to losing Arlen Specter, a stalwart in Beltway politics for more than a quarter century. The GOP is putting up a brave front, claiming that Pennsylvania voters will have a clear choice now that "left-leaning" Republican-in-name-only Specter is out of the closet.
Still, the reaction from Olympia Snowe, now one of barely a half dozen moderate Republicans left in the Senate, might be more accurate. "For me personally and then for the party, its devastating," Snowe told CNN.
The reaction among Democrats, now so very close to a filibusterproof 60-vote majority in the Senate, was understandably more upbeat. "What must Norm Coleman be thinking?" chuckled one Democrat I talked to. "He's fighting to the death to keep the Democrats from getting to 60. He's a former Democrat turned Republican—and he's outfoxed by a Republican turned Democrat. It's all just too funny."
Funny, yes, and seriously Machiavellian, claims one GOP source, who attributes Specter's surprise defection to a Biden-Rendell bank shot. Vice President Joe Biden is from Scranton, Pa., and Ed Rendell is governor of Pennsylvania, ties that put them solidly in Specter's orbit. Biden spent the last three decades in the Senate and knows Specter well. They served together on the Judiciary Committee back in the day when they along with many others made fools of themselves grilling Anita Hill. The self-interest of the Obama-Biden administration in getting that 60th vote in the Senate is self-evident. It changes the calculus for everything going forward (health-care reform, judicial nominations) if Democrats have a filibusterproof majority in the Senate.
Then there's Rendell, whose personal ties to Specter are extensive, but who also has a political stake in seeing him hold his seat in Pennsylvania. Rendell once worked for Specter and regards him as something of a mentor; they're friends. For Rendell, a gregarious, ambitious politician, a Senate seat would cap his career as a former mayor and popular two-term governor. Those who know Rendell say he really wants the seat that Specter holds but would not run against his friend. The scenario that was unfolding had Specter losing in the Republican primary to Club for Growth President Pat Toomy, the favorite of Pennsylvania's conservative Republican base, and then had Toomy losing to a Democrat in November 2010. The Democrat suiting up for that task was Rep. Joe Sestak, a retired Navy admiral in his second term, eager to move up, and at 57 years of age, young enough to stake a claim on the seat.
A Sestak candidacy would derail Rendell's future plans. Keeping Specter in the seat at his age, which is 79, makes it far more likely that the seat would open up in the kind of timetable Rendell would hope for.
There were reports late Tuesday that the Republicans might try to draft former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge to run against Specter, that the GOP would not go quietly into the political night. But even Ridge would have to get by Toomy and the far-right brigades in the primary. A Republican source says Specter met with conservative groups last week to complain about the Toomy challenge, and how it was eroding his ability to keep the seat for the party. He was treated dismissively. "That's our base," they said, apparently not realizing Specter would consider leaving the GOP.
For Specter, the decision to switch parties is a no-brainer. There will not be a Republican majority in Congress in his lifetime, and if Specter earns the trust of the Democrats by voting with them on a few key procedural votes to get over the 60-vote threshold, he may get the coveted chair of the Judiciary Committee, where he is now ranking member, in time to shepherd Supreme Court nominations for President Obama.
Whatever Rendell did to get Specter to this point, their political futures are now inextricably bound together. And if there's any politician you want on your side in a knife fight, it's Rendell. He is the closest thing to a ward boss in Pennsylvania. He can clear the field for Specter, gin up the enthusiastic support and help raise the kind of money Specter will need. And then, in due time, it will be Rendell's turn.
Specter's Surprise = 60 Senators
Specter Switchs Political Party - Now a Democrat
April 28, 2009, 12:13 pm
By Carl HulseDoug Mills/The New York Times
Senator Arlen Specter was surrounded by reporters on Tuesday after it was announced that he will switch parties.Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania said on Tuesday he would switch to the Democratic party, presenting Democrats with a possible 60th vote and the power to break Senate filibusters as they try to advance the Obama administration’s new agenda.In a statement issued about noon as the Capitol was digesting the stunning turn of events, Mr. Specter said he had concluded that his party had moved too far to the right, a fact demonstrated by the migration of 200,000 Pennsylvania Republicans to the Democratic Party.“I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans,” Mr. Specter said, acknowledging that his decision was certain to disappoint colleagues and supporters.If Al Franken prevails in his ongoing court case in Minnesota and Mr. Specter begins caucusing with Democrats, Democrats would have 60 votes and the ability to deny Republicans the chance to stall legislation. Mr. Specter was one of only three Republicans to support President Obama’s economic recovery legislation.The news shocked Senate Republicans, who had been hanging on to their ability to block legislation by a thread. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, called an emergency meeting of party leaders who had no forewarning of Mr. Specter’s plans.
Senator McConnell has spent a wad of money in Minnesota that is now totally lost with this switch. McConnell has been the one right wing Republican tyrant leading the charge against Specter with his belligerent and public support for the Republican Pat Toomey as Specter’s PA opponent. McConnell along with RNC Party Chair Michael Steele have pushed Specter into the Democratic Party – will the Republican Party decide to be a permanent minority party but pure right conservatives and will hey also push more of their elected members out? The Democrats are singing “Happy Days are here again.” - Denny Roberge On Capitol Hill, Mr. Specter arrived for a vote shortly after noon with his wife, and said he would be lunching in the private Senate dining room rather than joining either of the weekly party policy lunches that were being held.Democrats were jubilant about the development.President Obama was handed a note from an aide at 10:25 a.m. on Tuesday during his daily economic briefing. The note, according to a senior administration official, said: “Specter is announcing he is changing parties.”Seven minutes later, Mr. Obama reached Mr. Specter by telephone. In a brief conversation, the president said: “You have my full support,” according to the official who heard the phone call. The president added that we are “thrilled to have you.”“We will welcome him with open arms,” said Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan.Mr. Specter faced a primary challenge from former Republican Congressman Pat Toomey and polls showed him trailing Mr. Toomey. But he had previously resisted overtures to join the Democrats.Doug Mills/The New York Times Mr. Specter’s announcement shocked Senate Republicans.“Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration tobecome Democrats,” Mr. Specter said in a statement released in the early afternoon. “I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.”He said he has experienced a change of heart since the response to his vote for the stimulus legislation.“Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion,” his statement said. “It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.”Mr. Specter, who has a history of finding his own way in the Senate, said he would not be a guaranteed vote for Democratic initiatives and he declared that he would remain opposed to a top labor priority – legislation that would make it easier to unionize American workplaces.“Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes party asks too much,” Mr. Specter said. “When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.”Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and a man with his own history of breaking with his party, expressed regret and said he had no indication that Mr. Specter would change parties. But Mr. McCain said he understood the reason for Mr. Specter’s shift: “It’s pretty obvious the polls show him well behind his primary opponent.”Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, did not mince words about the senator, saying Mr. Specter “didn’t leave the G.O.P. based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Senator Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don’t do it first.”But Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, who also supported the Obama administration’s economic stimulus legislation, said Mr. Specter’s decision reflected the increasingly inhospitable climate in the Republican party for moderates.“On the national level of the Republican Party, we haven’t certainly heard warm, encouraging words about how they view moderates, either you are with us or against us,” Ms. Snowe said. She said national Republican leaders were not grasping that “political diversity makes a party stronger and ultimately we are heading to having the smallest political tent in history for any political party the way things are unfolding.”Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, called the decision “a real problem.”Mr. Specter, who has had serious health problems in recent years, remains active on a variety of major issues and has been a leading advocate for increased funding for health care research.Democrats called the decision a game-changer. “It helps on everything,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California. “This is a substantial change.”Democrats said they made no promises to Mr. Specter about committee positions or other incentives to switch, but the party can provide significant campaign support and deter other Democratic candidates from running against him in the primary next year.The turnabout was reminiscent of the decision in 2001 by Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont to leave the Republican party and become an independent, handing control of the Senate back to Democrats just as President George W. Bush’s first term was beginning. The Jeffords switch flipped party control but some Democrats said Mr. Specter’s move could be just as consequential given the Senate’s recent struggles with filibusters.“Specter’s decision could be more consequential because it came just as the Senate was beginning work on health care reform,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon. “Specter’s decision is a big impact decision.”Mr. Specter’s move to the Democratic column is likely to have a chilling effect on other potential Democratic candidates for the Senate. So far, Joseph Torsella, former head of the National Constitution Center and a former deputy mayor of Philadelphia, is the only Democrat to have declared his candidacy.Others with higher name recognition seem to have been holding back to see how the field would shape up. Even before Mr. Specter announced his switch today, Representative Allyson Schwartz, a Democrat representing parts of Philadelphia and the nearby suburbs, had told The New York Times she was unlikely to make the run. Other possibilities, including Representatives Patrick Murphy and Joe Sestak, had also stayed mum.Gov. Edward G. Rendell, a Democrat, and Vice President Joseph Biden, both of them long-time friends of Mr. Specter, had urged him to switch parties several weeks ago but Mr. Specter declined. Mr. Rendell said in a recent interview that he had promised Mr. Specter that if he became a Democrat, he would help him raise money; Mr. Specter joked that if he became a Democrat, he wouldn’t need Mr. Rendell’s help on that front.There had been speculation in Pennsylvania political circles that something was afoot because Mr. Torsella, a close colleague of Mr. Rendell, said little about Mr. Specter when he announced his candidacy.But Mr. Specter put the kibosh on talk that he might leave the Republican Party and become either a Democrat or an independent, insisting, though without much evidence, that there was room in the Republican Party for moderates.The move brings Mr. Specter full circle with his earlier political leanings. He was a registered Democrat when he first ran for district attorney of Philadelphia in the mid-1960s, though he ran on the Republican line.SNAP ANALYSIS: Specter defection a sharp blow to RepublicansTue Apr 28, 2009 6:37pm BSTBy Steve HollandWASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senator Arlen Specter's abrupt move to switch allegiance to President Barack Obama's Democratic Party was a sharp blow to Republicans and will likely generate more soul-searching for the minority party.His decision to seek re-election as a Democrat next year was a nakedly political move to hang on to power.* If he had remained a Republican, he faced a tough challenge for the party's nomination in Pennsylvania's 2010 Senate race from conservative Pat Toomey. The moderate Specter beat Toomey in a tight primary in 2004 but faced an even tougher battle this time.* As far as the Republican base was concerned, his biggest Achilles' heel was his support for Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus bill. That bill passed the U.S. Congress in February with support from only three Republicans -- Specter and Maine senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.* Specter's announcement sharply criticized Republicans, who lost control of the U.S. Congress in 2006, and lost the White House and more seats in Congress in 2008. "I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," his statement said.* Republicans have been trying to figure out how to rebuild as a party. Some leading figures, such as strategist Steve Schmidt, who ran John McCain's presidential campaign last year, have said the party needs to have a more open-arms policy, and be more welcoming of gays and immigrants.* Republican strategist John Feehery said Republican leaders in the Senate did all they could to hang on to Specter. More broadly, however, he said: "What it says about the party is they have to make a determination on whether they want to be in the majority or whether they want to be intellectually pure."* The new chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, has his work cut out for him. He has his share of critics. Steele said after Specter, Collins and Snowe voted for the stimulus plan that perhaps the Republican Party should not provide funds to help them win their re-election bids. "Oh, yes, I'm always open to everything, baby, absolutely," Steele told the Fox News Channel in February.* Republican strategist Scott Reed said: "I always thought Specter would consider switching to become an independent to get re-elected, and it's too bad that Michael Steele pushed him into the Democrat Party."
MORE STORIES
GOP Senator Specter's Party Switch Gives Obama a 100-Day Gift
Video: Senator Arlen Specter on Switching Parties C-SPAN
Specter says switch to Democratic Party was a 'painful decision' Los Angeles Times
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Steele Is RNC's First Black Chairman
By John Wagner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 31, 2009; Page A06
Republicans yesterday elected former Maryland lieutenant governor Michael S. Steele to lead their party, selecting the GOP's first black national chairman. The outcome also signaled a clear break from the leadership of President George W. Bush, whose hand-picked party chief was among those Steele defeated for the post.
With their party in disarray and seeking a new direction after consecutive electoral defeats, members of the Republican National Committee turned to Steele, who promised in his campaign for the post to help the GOP improve upon its dismal showing among black and Latino voters last fall. The D.C.-raised Steele excited many Republicans as a potential public counterweight to President Obama and a man who could help reframe the way voters view "the party of Lincoln," as he called it.
Marylander Michael S. Steele's election yesterday as chairman of the Republican National Committee capped an improbable political journey for a onetime seminarian that began in an even more improbable place.
Related Articles to this Story
By John Wagner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 31, 2009; Page A06
Republicans yesterday elected former Maryland lieutenant governor Michael S. Steele to lead their party, selecting the GOP's first black national chairman. The outcome also signaled a clear break from the leadership of President George W. Bush, whose hand-picked party chief was among those Steele defeated for the post.
With their party in disarray and seeking a new direction after consecutive electoral defeats, members of the Republican National Committee turned to Steele, who promised in his campaign for the post to help the GOP improve upon its dismal showing among black and Latino voters last fall. The D.C.-raised Steele excited many Republicans as a potential public counterweight to President Obama and a man who could help reframe the way voters view "the party of Lincoln," as he called it.
Marylander Michael S. Steele's election yesterday as chairman of the Republican National Committee capped an improbable political journey for a onetime seminarian that began in an even more improbable place.
Related Articles to this Story
- Unlikely Path Led to RNC's Summit
- Michael Steele Reacts to His Election
- The Fix: Steele Elected RNC Chair
Amid a series of abandoned careers in the church, law and business, Steele began toiling in GOP politics in the early 1990s in Prince George's County, a heavily African American jurisdiction where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans more than 8 to 1.
Powered by charisma, charm and an extraordinary handshake, and undaunted by long odds, Steele ascended to chairman of the beleaguered county GOP, then to chairman of the Maryland Republican Party, before being chosen to run for lieutenant governor in 2002 on the ticket of then-Rep. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.
Ehrlich's election as Maryland's first Republican governor in a generation provided a springboard for Steele to get national attention at a time when his party was seeking to reach out to minorities. He was given a prominent speaking role at the 2004 national convention.
But hopes of realigning Maryland politics were dashed four years later, when "L.G.," as Ehrlich commonly called his highly visible lieutenant governor, branched out on his own and was solidly defeated in a U.S. Senate bid. Steele received ample help from party leaders in Washington but said little about his party affiliation at home.
Steele's only other solo attempt at statewide office, for the more obscure job of comptroller in 1998, also ended in defeat, with a third-place finish in the GOP primary.
Still a favorite among party activists nationally, Steele regrouped quickly after his Senate defeat, taking the reins of GOPAC, a group that recruits candidates nationally and that has provided a platform for his oratory for the past two years. Steele's bid for RNC chairman, in the view of most analysts, was further bolstered by the nation's election of its first African American president.
"This is an era of improbability, and Michael Steele emerged at the right time and the right place," said Ronald Walters, a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland.
Steele's roots are in the District, a fact he alluded to yesterday when addressing the party activists who had elected him. "As a little boy growing up in this town, this is awesome," Steele said.
He was born at Andrews Air Force Base but adopted through a Catholic charity and raised in the Petworth neighborhood of Northwest Washington. Both Steele's mother and stepfather were Democrats, and the Catholic Church was central to his upbringing. In 1977, Steele entered Johns Hopkins University, where he became student government president.
After college, Steele moved to a Catholic seminary. He later joined a handful of other "novices" at an old house in Lawrence, Mass. The program was supposed to last a year, but Steele left after six months, in February 1983.
After giving up a possible career in the church, Steele chose law. He was a paralegal, a law student at Georgetown and then a lawyer from 1991 to 1998, working for a D.C. law office and then for real estate giant Mills Corp. During that time, Steele moved his family -- it now includes his wife, Andrea, and two sons -- to Largo. There, he began his ascent through the party.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Online, Sarah Palin Has Unkind Words for the Press
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 9, 2009; C01
Sarah Palin, still smarting over coverage of her vice presidential run, calls the media's reporting on her family "very scary" and says there may be "a class issue" that explains the more sympathetic treatment of Caroline Kennedy.
The Alaska governor also took a swipe at Katie Couric over the CBS interview in which Palin stumbled badly, saying: "Katie, you're not the center of everyone's universe."
Palin did her venting Monday with John Ziegler, a conservative radio talk show host turned filmmaker, who posted excerpts online to promote the sale of a forthcoming DVD titled "Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected." "I think this woman was assassinated by the media," he said yesterday.
By turns aggravated and bemused, Palin complained in the video that her press office is still getting calls about rumors that she is not the mother of her infant son. She called this "quite absurd," saying she is "frustrated that I wasn't believed that Trig was really my son.
"When did we start accepting as hard news sources bloggers, anonymous bloggers especially? It's a sad state of affairs in the world of the media today, mainstream media especially, that they're going to rely on bloggers, anonymous bloggers, for their hard news information."
Mainstream news outlets reported the rumor in September only after John McCain's campaign revealed the pregnancy of Palin's teenage daughter Bristol, citing the chatter about Trig as the reason for the disclosure. Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan -- who is hardly anonymous -- has questioned why Palin would not release medical records to prove she is the boy's mother, but has also posted information supporting her account.
Although her campaign brushed aside most inquiries on the subject, Palin asked: "What is the double standard here, why reporters would choose to believe lies, reporters especially not just taking one extra step to get to the facts . . . Is it sexism? What is it that drives someone to believe the worst and perpetuate the worst, in terms of gossip and lies?"
Palin also objected to reports that Bristol and her fiance, Levi Johnston, are "high school dropouts and they're going to just look for government handouts to raise their child and stuff, nothing could be further from the truth. And I've asked some in the media to correct that, and they haven't corrected it, and that gets frustrating." Palin contacted People magazine, the Associated Press and the Anchorage Daily News last week. She said Johnston -- who, according to the Anchorage paper, recently quit his job as an apprentice electrician -- is taking a high school correspondence course, and that Bristol is still a student.
Palin was hit by an avalanche of coverage after her surprise nomination in August, some of it critical of her Alaska record and her qualifications for the vice presidency, and some of it more personal, questioning how she could handle the job with five children. Tina Fey's "Saturday Night Live" impersonation cemented an impression of Palin as a bit of a ditz.
Ziegler showed Palin a clip of Fey saying, "I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers." Palin's reaction: "Cool, fine, come attack me, but when you make a suggestion like that that attacks a kid, that kills me."
Palin questioned whether Kennedy's bid for the Senate "will be handled with kid gloves," and if so, "we will perhaps be able to prove that there is a class issue here" when contrasted with the scrutiny of her campaign. Kennedy, of course, is trying for an appointment to be one of 100 rather than running for vice president, and has drawn critical coverage lately for a series of halting interviews.
Palin criticized the McCain camp's decision to send her back for a second round with Couric, and tried to explain why she declined to name a single publication she reads. Palin said she interpreted Couric's question as "Do you read, what do you guys do up there," but conceded: "Perhaps I was just too flippant in my answer back to her." However, Couric made no reference to Alaska in her question, asking, "What newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this?"
Asked by Ziegler how she would have fared as Barack Obama's running mate, Palin accused the press of ideological "hypocrisy," saying: "I think they would have loved me as a candidate. . . . You would have seen an absolutely different and . . . much prettier profile of Sarah Palin and the Palin family and my administration."
Would she do it again? "That's a darned good question," Palin said, before concluding that she would. But she doesn't want people in the "Lower 48" being "sucked into believing what too many in the mainstream media want them to believe."
Ziegler, whose film will be sold online next month, said Palin was "very concerned about appearing whiny" before the 50-minute sit-down at her Wasilla home. He said he found her Republican convention speech "awesome" but had wondered about the media portrayal of her as "a diva or a wack job." He now believes that "the fact that she's mocked is a travesty."
On his Web site, Ziegler says that when Palin saw a picture of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, "she literally let out a shriek and, pointing to his photograph, declared, 'THAT guy is EVIL!' "
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 9, 2009; C01
Sarah Palin, still smarting over coverage of her vice presidential run, calls the media's reporting on her family "very scary" and says there may be "a class issue" that explains the more sympathetic treatment of Caroline Kennedy.
The Alaska governor also took a swipe at Katie Couric over the CBS interview in which Palin stumbled badly, saying: "Katie, you're not the center of everyone's universe."
Palin did her venting Monday with John Ziegler, a conservative radio talk show host turned filmmaker, who posted excerpts online to promote the sale of a forthcoming DVD titled "Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected." "I think this woman was assassinated by the media," he said yesterday.
By turns aggravated and bemused, Palin complained in the video that her press office is still getting calls about rumors that she is not the mother of her infant son. She called this "quite absurd," saying she is "frustrated that I wasn't believed that Trig was really my son.
"When did we start accepting as hard news sources bloggers, anonymous bloggers especially? It's a sad state of affairs in the world of the media today, mainstream media especially, that they're going to rely on bloggers, anonymous bloggers, for their hard news information."
Mainstream news outlets reported the rumor in September only after John McCain's campaign revealed the pregnancy of Palin's teenage daughter Bristol, citing the chatter about Trig as the reason for the disclosure. Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan -- who is hardly anonymous -- has questioned why Palin would not release medical records to prove she is the boy's mother, but has also posted information supporting her account.
Although her campaign brushed aside most inquiries on the subject, Palin asked: "What is the double standard here, why reporters would choose to believe lies, reporters especially not just taking one extra step to get to the facts . . . Is it sexism? What is it that drives someone to believe the worst and perpetuate the worst, in terms of gossip and lies?"
Palin also objected to reports that Bristol and her fiance, Levi Johnston, are "high school dropouts and they're going to just look for government handouts to raise their child and stuff, nothing could be further from the truth. And I've asked some in the media to correct that, and they haven't corrected it, and that gets frustrating." Palin contacted People magazine, the Associated Press and the Anchorage Daily News last week. She said Johnston -- who, according to the Anchorage paper, recently quit his job as an apprentice electrician -- is taking a high school correspondence course, and that Bristol is still a student.
Palin was hit by an avalanche of coverage after her surprise nomination in August, some of it critical of her Alaska record and her qualifications for the vice presidency, and some of it more personal, questioning how she could handle the job with five children. Tina Fey's "Saturday Night Live" impersonation cemented an impression of Palin as a bit of a ditz.
Ziegler showed Palin a clip of Fey saying, "I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers." Palin's reaction: "Cool, fine, come attack me, but when you make a suggestion like that that attacks a kid, that kills me."
Palin questioned whether Kennedy's bid for the Senate "will be handled with kid gloves," and if so, "we will perhaps be able to prove that there is a class issue here" when contrasted with the scrutiny of her campaign. Kennedy, of course, is trying for an appointment to be one of 100 rather than running for vice president, and has drawn critical coverage lately for a series of halting interviews.
Palin criticized the McCain camp's decision to send her back for a second round with Couric, and tried to explain why she declined to name a single publication she reads. Palin said she interpreted Couric's question as "Do you read, what do you guys do up there," but conceded: "Perhaps I was just too flippant in my answer back to her." However, Couric made no reference to Alaska in her question, asking, "What newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this?"
Asked by Ziegler how she would have fared as Barack Obama's running mate, Palin accused the press of ideological "hypocrisy," saying: "I think they would have loved me as a candidate. . . . You would have seen an absolutely different and . . . much prettier profile of Sarah Palin and the Palin family and my administration."
Would she do it again? "That's a darned good question," Palin said, before concluding that she would. But she doesn't want people in the "Lower 48" being "sucked into believing what too many in the mainstream media want them to believe."
Ziegler, whose film will be sold online next month, said Palin was "very concerned about appearing whiny" before the 50-minute sit-down at her Wasilla home. He said he found her Republican convention speech "awesome" but had wondered about the media portrayal of her as "a diva or a wack job." He now believes that "the fact that she's mocked is a travesty."
On his Web site, Ziegler says that when Palin saw a picture of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, "she literally let out a shriek and, pointing to his photograph, declared, 'THAT guy is EVIL!' "
More Bush Secrecy rejected by the court
Judge Rejects Keeping White House Visitor Logs PrivateBy Pete Yost
Associated Press Saturday, January 10, 2009; Page A07
A federal judge yesterday rejected the Bush administration's latest attempt to keep secret the identities of White House visitors, and he declared that the government illegally deleted Secret Service computer records.
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth concluded that the deletions took place before October 2004, when the Secret Service transferred large numbers of entry and exit logs to the White House and then deleted copies of them.
The deletions ceased after the archivist to the United States instructed the Secret Service to stop the practice and after various private organizations went to court in an effort to gain access to the logs, according to papers filed in the case. The deletions date to at least 2001, the government's papers added, the year President Bush took office.
Lamberth's ruling brushed aside the government's argument that revealing Secret Service logs would impede the president's ability to perform his constitutional duties.
The judge said that the likelihood of harm is not great enough to justify curtailing the public disclosure goals of the Freedom of Information Act.
While the case was a setback for the Bush White House, the effect of the claim of a presidential communications privilege succeeded in dragging out the lawsuit until the end of the Bush administration.
The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington asked for the records in 2006 to determine whether nine conservative religious leaders visited the White House and Vice President Cheney's residence. A separate lawsuit by CREW seeks any Secret Service logs for White House visits by a Texas businessman who allegedly tried to sell access to administration officials in exchange for contributions to Bush's presidential library fund.
Anne Weismann, CREW's chief counsel, said yesterday that the group hopes the incoming Obama administration will take heed of the court's decision and ensure that Secret Service records are available to the public.
The administration's request to extend the presidential communications privilege to Secret Service logs is inconsistent with other decisions by the federal courts in Washington, Lamberth said.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said the White House is reviewing the judge's opinion and is considering all legal options.
Secret Service logs have been used in investigations by Congress and federal prosecutors. For example, the logs have revealed the comings and goings of former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky and Clinton campaign donor Denise Rich, the wife of fugitive financier Marc Rich, who was pardoned in the closing hours of the Clinton administration.
In the spring of 2006, amid an influence-peddling scandal involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the White House and the Secret Service quietly signed an agreement declaring that the logs are not open to the public.
Four months later, Cheney's office told the Secret Service in a letter that visitor records for the vice president's personal residence "are and shall remain subject to the exclusive ownership, custody and control of" the office of the vice president.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
