The musings -and occasionally rantings - of a disaffected 20-something Republican and once and future GOP hack. Politics, culture, politics, sports, politics...getting the picture?
In his weekend column, Bob Novak suggests that former Congressman, US Trade Representative, and OMB Director Rob Portman is somewhere near the top of the McCain campaign's VP list. As Novak says,
"Portman's background is legislative (House Republican leadership), executive (George W. Bush's Cabinet), diplomatic (U.S. trade representative) and economic (Office of Management and Budget director). He comes from a swing state (Ohio), is young enough (52) to contrast McCain and conservative enough (89 percent lifetime American Conservative Union rating)."
I see the argument, and again I think that McCain's not forced to pick a governor because of the absence of governing experience on the Democratic side. Also, we have to assume he's vetted and thus free of any skeletons in the closet.
The Wright flap would seem to indicate, as in 2x4 across the face indicate, that Obama's a Christian. Apparently 1 in 10 voters don't read the news and still think he's a Muslim (that includes 10% of Democrats).
Wright himself is a mixed bag - a new poll suggests his disgusting comments don't actually hurt Obama - but the AP would have us believe that faith isn't exactly helping him either.
On Good Morning America today, Howard Dean tried to lay down the law, announcing that he wants superdelegates to make a decision by July 1.
Personally speaking, I think it will be decided by then - unless Hillary somehow puts together a late-season run which I view as increasingly unlikely. Among other things, some of the as yet-uncommitted supers can probably be be put in the Obama column; here in North Carolina, Congressman Mel Watt (chair of the Congressional Black Caucus) is almost a sure-thing Obama super, yet hasn't officially endorsed. Even the letter from her moneybags supporters to Pelosi, chastising her for suggesting that supers should back the pledged delegate leader, may not save her if it's not close (this merits a story in itself...).
But Dean didn't say, at least not this morning, what others in the party have been repeating in recent days: supers should not override the "will" of the electorate - basically refuting the Clinton supporters. If the supers do? Goody. But again, doubtful. What's interesting is in that Politico piece, both Pelosi and TN Governor Phil Bredesen are quoted; might Bredesen be making a play for the #2 spot? Chris Dodd has also urged the party to find a way to end this mess...("I know! Nominate me!").
Speaking of Obama picking up supers, it's come out this morning that Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey has endorsed Mr. Change, and will join him on the bus tour. On the face of it, this is significant because Casey could give Obama some badly-needed help among the white working class voters who were decisive in Clinton's wins in Ohio and Texas. But that's not the fun part about Casey's endorsement: the fun part is that Casey's father, Bob Casey Sr., was governor back in the 80s and 90s. He tried to get a speaking slot at the 92 Democratic Convention to voice his opposition to abortion. Organizers, probably pressed by the Clintons, refused. Revenge, unlike a Philly cheese steak, is a dish best served cold.
Or at least your own Democratic outcome - RCP's Jay Cost has put together an HTML-based spreadsheet (Google Docs, perhaps?) which allows you to play with potential outcomes of the remaining Democratic nomination contests (super-delegate primary not included) and see how that affects Hillary's final vote total.
Me? I don't think she's going to lose Montana by 10 points, even though Chris Cillizza took a good look at that yesterday and Obama's clearly got the edge in the ground game; I also think that South Dakota's being closed will result in a closer race or even a Clinton victory (though the fact that SoDak's sole Rep, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, is an Obama supporter - thanks to CC for that tidbit as well - probably helps him in a big way).
Of course, Hillary's trying to move the goalposts, so to speak, once again, with surrogate/super-del Evan Bayh arguing a few days ago that the real metric should be comparing the electoral college votes of states Hillary won versus those Obama own. This is a new spin on Clinton's tired old "I won big states therefore I'm more electable" argument, which no one bought; whether the change of clothes will change perceptions remains to be seen. The irony, of course, is that a few years ago Hillary was all for doing away with the Electoral College and going to a popular election - popular election=popular vote=Obama's winning - thus she's switched sides. However, it's interesting to compare those numbers. So, using the Post's fun Electoral College tool, let's take a look.
Clinton's Wins:
Obama's Wins:
Clinton's got a 61 vote lead by this count, and isn't far from "victory," though the visual effect of this is to show just how many states Obama's won. How many of those he'd carry in a general election is a different question. If Clinton somehow pulls off a near-sweep in the remaining contests, that'll even at least the coloring but only narrow the popular vote and delegate counts (barring a resolution of Florida and Michigan). I'm not going to predict this one...
A few weeks ago, the folks over at Hot Air brought attention to a new initiative of Mitt Romney's, an effort to become the "ideas factory" of the GOP and presumably pour some money into candidates. Can we say running again? (Which of course shows a lack of confidence in McCain's prospect). Any sort of unstructured group like a 527 is obviously ideal for Romney as he can dump unlimited amounts of his own cash in, though I didn't think he would.
I didn't think he would, at least until Chris Cillizza blogged about a new Republican soft money group calling itself the American Future Fund. It's not a 527 per se, rather it's a 501(c)(4), which according to CC means "it is a nonprofit that can engage in some political activity and is not required to disclose its donors, all of whom can give unlimited sums to the effort. It cannot directly advocate for or against a candidate and its pitch must be issue-centered." The emphasis is my own; issue-centered is exactly what Romney would be going for. Obviously, we don't know who's funding this group, but I immediately found myself wondering whether Mitt did indeed have a role.
That thought was strengthened when CC listed who was involved, a top-notch slate of Republican activists, most of whom were involved with Romney's campaign. It's entirely plausible that the ex-governor's behind this; he attempted something similar before his presidential campaign using his Commonwealth PAC, but that was limited. If he's behind the AFF, he can pick up some serious IOUs: IFF is on the air in Minnesota in support of threatened incumbent Senator Norm Coleman, and could do the same thing elsewhere.What's fascinating about this ad, as CC noted, is that it's issue-based; but it's not just issue-based, it plays up his record of bipartisanship in the Senate, an intriguing twist. Even if the NRSC had the money to go on the air up this early in the Gopher State, it'd either be attacks on Al Franken or pro-Coleman ads that might not play too well in such a purple state. The other value of this ad is that it puts Coleman astride the aisle, allowing for some pretty easy contrasts against Franken, who I think Merriam-Webster would define as left-wing extremist.
I awoke to the usual slew of emails today. One of them announced that an ACLU speaker was coming to speak here - but not just any ACLU speaker, a fellow named King Downing, head of the group's national Campaign Against Racial Profiling. CARP. Obviously I was amused, given that Merriam-Webster defines carp, when used as a verb, as "to find fault or complain querulously." How apropos.
