Richardson, Geithner, now Daschle – is there a pattern here?
In three cases, President Obama’s nominees have encountered potentially nomination-wrecking problems. Richardson withdrew, Geithner brushed past all objections, and to date anyway Daschle is benefiting from senatorial courtesy.
So: multiple sloppiness on the part of the Obama vetters? Not impossible, but unlikely. Richardson’s issue was common knowledge; Daschle volunteered the information about his tax difficulties.
The Obama administration went ahead anyway – even though Geithner’s and Daschle’s issues were at least as serious as those that blocked the confirmation of Linda Chavez in 2001 and Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood in 1993.
So why is Obama succeeding where Bush and Clinton failed?
It’s not just that President Obama has the votes in the Senate: Clinton and Bush both started with Senate majorities too. (50 votes plus the vice president in Bush’s case.)
It’s not just that he has the press on board: Clinton started with a favorable press too.
What Obama has that Clinton and Bush lacked is the self-confidence that comes from facing a thoroughly defeated opposition.
In 1993 and 2001, it was the administration that wanted to avoid unnecessary fights. This time it is the Senate minority that feels it has to choose its battles carefully. The administration is aware of that weakness, and is taking full advantage of it, not only in confirmations but in major matters like the stimulus.
What is most galling about the situation is that the administration is right. Had Republicans seriously tried to stop the Geithner nomination, they would have done more damage to themselves. Wall Street wanted Geithner confirmed. The financial industry is already pathetically beholden to the Obama administration; a fight over Geithner would only have tinted this important constituency even deeper blue. And the broader American public would almost certainly have backed the new president over senators who would have been accused of playing congressional games during a financial emergency.
What’s the lesson here? It’s this: Popular vote margins matter. On paper, the Republican bloc in the Senate is stronger than it was in 1993. In practice, defying a 52% President Obama is more difficult and dangerous than defying a 42% President Clinton.
When people like me worry about losing the political center, we are worrying precisely about the situation in the Senate today. Probably no campaign on earth could have saved the Republican nominee in 2008. But not all losses are created equal. A narrower loss in November would have real world benefits in February.
We should keep that fact in mind as so many of our fellow Republicans succumb to enthusiasm for a 1964-style Palin kamikaze campaign for 2012.
58 responses so far
1 AT from ID // Feb 2, 2009 at 5:14 am
Is there a glitch on your website? I just noticed that one of the older posts (was not yours by the way) disappeared – I cannot tell whether there are more because I just joined the forum. Do you delete the posts?
2 Neo // Feb 2, 2009 at 5:26 am
If the last few months has shown anything, its that all politicians should be monitored 24/7 and anything they produced, should be checked.
The IRS should audit every member of Congress and an every appointed member of the Administration with no exceptions or waivers. Then they should audit former members of Congress and past Administrations, who seem to have lost contact with reality and how to do their taxes.
The alternative is that all Americans get to invoke the “Rangel Rule.”
Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.
3 gblittle // Feb 2, 2009 at 6:03 am
Good piece David. I do believe however that the press does have a bigger role in this. I don’t know if it fear or just plain puppy love. Clinton did have favorable press early on during his Presidency, but he was also investigated pretty darn well during his campaign. When you have the likes of Tom Brokaw say on national television during President Obama’s swearing in that “we still don’t know much about” him all I can ask is “So who’s problem is that – where was the press”. I really don’t see any differece in the misteps Obama has made versus any other President elect. The difference is the press was pouncing on misteps like vultures but not in Obama’s case. If Geithner is the ONLY one who can save us were in big trouble. The mess on Wall Street took place right under his very nose. Where was he? I don’t know how long the press love affair will last with Obama, but I sure would like to have a lot more questions and digging into the facts. The press can define the Presidency pretty well – such as Slick Willie or Bush’s grammar problems. Right now all I see is a President that may infact be “Slicker” than Clinton, and uses “uh, uh” as a verbal crutch.
4 Robert Graves // Feb 2, 2009 at 7:31 am
Frum asserts that “Popular vote margins matter We should keep that fact in mind as so many of our fellow Republicans succumb to enthusiasm for a 1964-style Palin kamikaze campaign for 2012. Why is Frum so afraid of Sarah Palin? Isnt she a proven vote getter? Lets see. In the popular vote, 58, 319,442 people (47% of the total) voted for John McCain, and 66,862,039 people (53% of the total) voted for Barak Obama. The popular vote gave Obama 365 Electoral College votes (68% of the total), and John McCain received 173 Electoral College votes (32% of the total). So, a 6% popular vote margin gave Obama a 36% EC margin, thus making him our president. This translates to one EC vote for Obama for every 183,184 people who voted for him. On the other hand, John McCain received one EC vote for every 337,106 people who voted for him. This means that a popular vote for McCain was worth only about half as much as a popular vote for Obama. Why? Because the states McCain carried had relatively few EC votes. Frum wants to throw Sarah Palin out of the Republican house because he assumes that the popular votes she would receive would come from states with too few EC votes to enable her to win an election. In other words, Sarah Palin could win the popular vote, but lose the EC vote. But, would purging the party of Sarah Palin and her influence result Republican candidates winning more governorships, seats in the House, and seats in the Senate? Remember, the EC only elects presidents. Popular votes elect governors, representatives, and senators. And remember, each state has two senators, regardless of how many electoral votes it has or doesnt have. Comments?
5 czs // Feb 2, 2009 at 8:44 am
I disagree with this anlaysis:
“Had Republicans seriously tried to stop the Geithner nomination, they would have done more damage to themselves.” (Your site doesn’t allow blockquote tags in comments?)
If we had seriously gone after Geithner, we would have won. The facts were damning; this was clearly more tax evasion than tax error. The press loves personal, relatable stories like this and would have amped up the coverage (even while tilting it with memes like “Republicans try to bring ‘old politics’ to the Age of Obama”). Finally, depsite biased coverage, the narrative of a wealthy, arrogant tax ‘cheat’ who now wants to run the IRS would have provoked a strong response from the ‘center’ (i.e., the mass of disinterested, ‘low information’ voters who respond to whichever compelling narrative they most recently heard.)
Also, I do not agree that Wall Street is an important constituency. There is no longer any such thing as an American investment bank. The industry of underwriting and trading securities is fast becoming a service arm of commercial banks. Commercial banks have a completely different outlook because their primary income streams lay far outside the Amtrak corridor (or whatever we are calling it these days). So, Wall Street – which never represented any votes – is likely to have severely diminshed fundraising ability from 2010 forward. Why, then, are they an important constituency?
Finally, the kamikazes did a lot of damage at the end of World War II. Just something to think about.
6 Bulldoglover100 // Feb 2, 2009 at 9:03 am
David
Kudo’s! . It is right on the money up to and including the issue we will face if people do not get the trtue meaning of Palin 2012.
This is why I wrote to you prior to your starting this site. As a Republican I NEED somewhere to go that deals in REALITY regarding the situation we find ourselves in at this point in time.
The Dems are in control and when we do nothing other than distort or constantly whine (listening Moria?) about events and issues regarding the Dems, we dig the hole deeper…and even more so when our collective hands are not clean (still listening Moria?) We MUST start dealing with the issues facing this country without pointing fingers at the Dems. It looks petty and childish to the public at a time when leadership is not only needed but REQUIRED if we are to survive as a Party.
7 Bulldoglover100 // Feb 2, 2009 at 9:08 am
NO Palin is NOT a proven Vote getter or the she, and McCain, would have won the 2008 election. Period. What about losing do you not understand Robert Graves?????
She cost McCain the election. He was gaining in the polls until he put her on the ticket!
What do you NOT get about leadership? Just because someone fires up the Rush/Sean Hannity base does not win elections! We MUST have the votes of Independents and others in order to win National elections and Palin is a joke when it comes to education and leadership.
A pretty face will get one so far and then when that curtain is pulled aside you better have someone who can offer this country leadership….and Sarah Palin has shown her leadersip skills…..hell ANY skill other than running her ignorant mouth, is lacking.
8 JoetheVeep // Feb 2, 2009 at 9:25 am
It seems like Republicans could’ve gotten real traction by opposing Geithner. “Golden Boy of Wall St” isn’t exactly a selling point, and installing a tax cheat as Treasury Secretary is an awfully easy thing to explain to voters. In the end, it may work to our benefit anyway, as we can use him (and Rangel, and Daschle) as a rhetorical bludgeon to oppose coming tax increases. (Nice gratuitous Palin dig, David. Jeez.)
9 Oneon1isto // Feb 2, 2009 at 9:48 am
It might be muscle, or it might just be the story. Geithner would’ve been a tough story to sell, wasn’t much traction or anything really juicy about it. Public cares little about cabinet appointments to begin with, and “Treasury Department nominee missed $34k in taxes, paid them back” doesn’t really beat football, Jessica Simpson, and Oprah. There’s far more defensible positions for the administration to take than there are lines of attack. “Senate Republicans slow down confirmation of Secretary in charge of your TARP tax money” sounds bad enough to me.
10 pooldude1 // Feb 2, 2009 at 9:53 am
I don’t really see a “clean” resolution to the current problem with the House/Senate/White House. With our allegedly “free enterprise” Wall Street wanting ever Socialist solutions to their problems, we’re in for a bloody ideological war at the ballot box.
In order for us not to Europeanize our country and it’s culture, we need politicians who are not only solidly in the conservative column, but remain there once elected.
As for McCain (and speaking as a former Arizonan), McCain is no more conservative than Arnie Schwarzenegger. When a candidate makes Bob Dole look energized, you had to know we were in serious trouble.
As for Palin, I agree with the analysis that she’s not yet ready for prime time. However, if there’s a politician out there that can gen up the conservative base like she did, I would love to know who it is. Maybe a Romney/Palin ticket would work? I dunno. I’m just tired of voting “Anyone but (fill in the liberal candidate here).”
11 gblittle // Feb 2, 2009 at 9:57 am
Hey, excellent posts/points everyone. If there is anything I have noticed here is that be it conservative or republican points of view they seem to be pretty well rounded and not like the democrats or media portrays us. A lot bigger tent than we are described as a bunch of old white-Christian-bible thumping rednecks.
Which leads me to this thought. Why do we need to move center? Because the way we are demonized by the press? I hope that Michael Steele can verbalize better than past RNC chairmen and members of our own party take up/defend the party. I tired of being defined as a bunch of bigots and narrowly defined on issues like women rights, abortion, etc. (The democrats are winning the PR war)
Personally I would like to see a poll here conducted on what we expect from government, especially our Republican leaders. We may be trying to reinvent ourselves rather than clearly defining who we are. I think that there would be more common treads than most people think among far-right, right, center-right and even moderates (Independents).
Personally when it comes to abortion I am against it. This does not mean I want to take that choice away from someone who does. They have to live with that choice. But on the other hand I dont want tax dollars used. They can pay for it or the father can. (If you can track a package down Im sure we can track an irresponsible sperm donor down) If someone wants to be personally responsible for their body they should be personally responsible for the bill. I bet 90 percent of the population agrees.
Compassion for the poor? Who has the better idea, democrats or republicans? What republican has kicked to the streets a homeless person or single mother? Yet the democrats are the heroes on these issues. The difference being the democrats want to keep them there with endless entitlements. (They have created generations of individuals who have no desire to better themselves and will NEVER vote conservative) The republican view, well help you but you also need to help yourself. Who can disagree with that?
Its funny that Obama and Democrats want Wall Street to be accountable, blast executives for bonuses and private aircraft for TARP funds, yet the people who they so lovingly care about, want to improve their life, etc., are not asked to be accountable. The Democrats want them to stay poor, uneducated and at the bottom rung of the economic ladder. Now that is real compassion and leadership! (Up Chuck)
(Bulldoglover) Palin may or may not have been the best choice but to tie the loss to her is wrong. I dont think any Republican candidate could have won this go around. I voted for McCain but he clearly was not even close as a favorite for me. My vote was more against Obama than anything.)
12 senorlechero // Feb 2, 2009 at 10:09 am
Frum…Your theory that Obama’s confidence in appointing crooks comes from “….facing a thoroughly defeated opposition.” may have some merit (though I am pained to credit you). Obama has always had over inflated self confidence, yet before the election he was well known for throwing his friends and confidants “under the bus”. To me the only thing that changed is that he is now President. You may be right and that he sees no threat from Republicans so he will do as he pleases. Or there may be something more sinister involves, something many conservatives fear could lead to real negative CHANGE in America. Perhaps Obama did what he needed to do to get elected, and now plans to do what he wants to do no matter the cost. What better way to impliment drastic change than to appoint crooks to high office. Nobody will expect these crooks to act in any way different than they have already acted. Leftism is full of crooks, thugs and murderers. So far Obama’s white house is doing pretty good on the crooks and thugs part. Perhaps he’ll appoint Teddy and fill the slot for murderers.
13 Robert Graves // Feb 2, 2009 at 10:22 am
OK, Bulldoglover 100, do two things. First, refute each statement I made, not with your opinions, but with facts and data.Cite the sources of your information. Then, prove each of the statements you made, using facts, data, and logical analysis to make your case. No more acting out online.
14 Chekote // Feb 2, 2009 at 10:34 am
Regardless of the reason why Obam is pushing his “tax cheat” nominees, he is only hurting himself.
15 Chekote // Feb 2, 2009 at 10:42 am
Robert, Have you seen this article by Barone?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/the_gop_should_go_upscale.html
16 gerrysh // Feb 2, 2009 at 10:46 am
Wow, just wow! Do you know anyone who served in WWII, Frum? Do you know how many Americans and other allied sailors died in kamikaze strikes? Do you know any of their surviving relatives?
A conservative Republican running as a conservative Republican is an example of integrity in politics. No casualties are involved.
Waiting for an apology that will never appear …
17 Robert Graves // Feb 2, 2009 at 11:09 am
Great article, Chekote! Thanks! I’ll study it carefully.
18 Chekote // Feb 2, 2009 at 11:20 am
I do hope to get better analysis here at NM than “the RINOs and the MSM are critical of Palin, they must fear her”. You can find that kind of insight in just about every conservative blog. I am not prepared to say that Palin “cost” Mac the election. However, there is two point that every Palinista needs to consider. First, Palin did not have the political skill/deftness to handle a softball question like “What do you regularly read?” Second, think of how different the situation would have been if someone like Romney has been on the ticket instead of Palin to handle questions about the financial meltdown.
19 JJWFromME // Feb 2, 2009 at 11:28 am
Whoo-hoo!! Palin/Wurzelbacher, 2012!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/14/palin-fox-news-newsweek
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BE0rc2aZpc
Decades of Country and Western Marxism come to Glorious Fruition.
20 ireign // Feb 2, 2009 at 11:33 am
1. Palin’s national career is pretty over. The best she can do is become elected Senator. As a Senator, she would be no worse than Stevens or Murkowski. So stop insulting her. We don’t need to reply the current election at this time.
2. Republicans should oppose Daschle. He was a partisan hack in the Senate who was considerably more liberal than he led on to constituents. There are conservative and moderate Democrats, Daschle was not one of them by 2004. Republicans supporting Daschle is a tacit admission that they want single payer coverage. Only a handful of Democrats supported Ashcroft, why should Republicans treat Daschle any better? He will get confirmed, anyway but at least get the opposition on the record.
3. Let’s fight where we can win. For example, judges. The Democrats (including Obama) just tried to block Alito and Roberts. Some Democrats are hoping to nominate a justice in the mold of Brennan should a vacancy arise. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/weekinreview/01liptak.html?_r=1&ref=weekinreview Republicans are much closer to the center on judges than Democrats.
It is fair to say that the Supreme Court both now and historically has been to the left of the American public, said Nathaniel Persily, a law professor at Columbia and an editor of Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy (Oxford, 2008).
21 JJWFromME // Feb 2, 2009 at 11:40 am
So no “up or down vote” on Daschle?
22 Chekote // Feb 2, 2009 at 11:58 am
Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. Senator Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507
23 JJWFromME // Feb 2, 2009 at 12:28 pm
“Palin’s national career is pretty over.” Unfortunately, someone’s gotta tell the base: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/poll-republicans-want-party-to-be-like-palin.php
24 Oneon1isto // Feb 2, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Not a fan, but even Hugh Hewitt thinks the tax confirmation squabbles are a little silly: “Errors on tax returns related to unusual circumstances and nanny issues are simply not the sort of character issues for which confirmation should be denied. Fixing the “confirmation mess” requires some restraint when presented with targets. The GOP should stay fixed on the stimulus bill, and not go chasing Daschle.”
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/36407569-f0e1-42c9-bac0-92b8910bc94c
25 sw // Feb 2, 2009 at 12:39 pm
You’re making a mistake when you put down Sarah Palin. Not only that, you are giving the other side ammunition: “they are hopelessly divided,” etc. The Governor of Alaska may or may not be a candidate in four years; she deserves your respect regardless. Don’t leave yourself open to the charge of sexism, elitism, etc.
26 Chekote // Feb 2, 2009 at 12:42 pm
JJW, Do you REALLY want someone who couldn’t handle a softball question like “What do you regularly read?” heading the GOP?
27 JJWFromME // Feb 2, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Yes. (I’m not a member of the GOP. The “Whoo-hoo!!” comment is tongue in cheek.)
28 HollywoodBill // Feb 2, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Frum is totally accurate. Probably no Republican could have won the Presidency in 2008 and all losses are not equal. While McCain never had much in the way of coattails in the West, he and the Moose Hunter, despite both being from the West, lost big. In California alone, they lost the state by 23 points, a feat unparallelled in almost 60 years and even more than doubling Bush’s 10 point loss in 2000 and 11 in 2004. Kamikaze campaigns is a great term that we use out here whenever the GOP runs a social conservative statewide. That doesn’t stop the primary voters from voting for the candidate. It’s just that the results are totally predictable and always the same. And that would be the case with Palin. She could win the 2012 nomination. But she would suffer a 1964 style loss. The tired old cliche of everyone is afraid of her is laughable. Frum is right. Palin on a national ticket in 2012 is a kamikaze run with totally predictable results.
29 Kaz // Feb 2, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Richardson, Geithner, Daschle – winning isn’t a matter of defeating their confirmation, and winning isn’t something that’s immediately apparent. These nominees, along with Obama’s waivers to allowing lobbists to join his merry gang, are the drip, drip, drip of hypocracy that will eventually erode Obama’s credibility as an agent of change. The culmulative effect of all these seemingly small things is what matters.
30 Robert Graves // Feb 2, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Any analysis of political prospects that doesnt correlate age and economic class distribution isnt worth the time to read. I couldnt find anything (at least in the limited time I had to look), so I did my own. I found the data I needed (US Census Bureau) and a recognized definition of economic classes (theyre all pretty much the same). I did a correlation of age (in five year increments) and economic class (upper class, upper middle class, lower middle class, working class, and lower class). I was dismayed by what I found. If the Republican Party cant find a way to work with Governor Palin to develop her personal and political potential, its doomed to frustration and failure. Some within the Republican Party may not be able to live with Palin, but they wont be able to live without her. Doubt me? Do your own analyses and see for yourselves. Its not difficult, nor is it time-consuming. If you want to know my sources, let me know.
31 JJWFromME // Feb 2, 2009 at 4:13 pm
What Kaz wrote brings to mind a recent piece in the New York Review of Books: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22117 The whole thing about the “drip drip” of petty scandal- we saw it a decade ago with Clinton. What happens when we have a country permanently mired in scandal? It’s a way to never take problems seriously. I found it interesting that Sam Tanenhaus called this kind of politics *revanchist* at his AEI talk a year ago: http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1550/event_detail.asp He said revanchists won’t even acknowledge problems in the first place, so I suppose it doesn’t even matter to them. If you want to know the reason why there’s a media/new media arms race between the parties (without which, this site probably wouldn’t have a reason to exist) this permanent state of scandal and mudslinging is a lot of it. Obama practically ran on this as a campaign theme. It served him pretty well.
32 Bulldoglover100 // Feb 2, 2009 at 4:27 pm
GBLITTLE
i hear you and agree with most everything you posted except the part regarding Sarah Palin. While you may feel she had nothing to do with the loss in 2008, I beg to differ. Too many people that I know personally changed their vote over the first month of her announcement. If you follow the polls you would see where McCain was gaining prior to the convention..afterwards? for about a week…before Sarah Palin showed the world just how frightening she was…., then he began to fall behind again.
Was she the only problem? No but she was the biggest and the one that chased the Independents away in my opinion….and with out the Independents? We cannot win a National election.
I mean come on, do YOU really think Sarah Palin is smart enough to lead this country? Do you think she has the ethics to lead? Good gosh education is not a friend to her nor is it important. Look at her record. If that isnt enough, look at her children! One is off to war without a High School degree, one has a child at 17 and is not in High School and is getting ready to marry a drop out. Yes, she has stated they are taking “correspondence” classes but that has been proven to be yet another lie.
I cannot, and will not, shut up about this blight on our Party. I just can;t.
33 HollywoodBill // Feb 2, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Great stuff Bulldoglover100! Palin is 100% not acceptable to the the center of the GOP–that section that decides elections. While the flawed McCain chalks up the loss as his own, there was a second name on the ticket that couldn’t deliver either and violated the cardinal rule of selecting a VeeP. Palin did harm to the ticket. Two Westerners, besides losing the Pacific Coast states, managed to lose Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. And damned near lost Montana too. McCain was the only reason Arizona stayed in the GOP column in 2008, but all bets are off for 2012 if the present trends continue. Some of us not only will not live with her, we will do everything possible to defeat her on a national ticket.
34 Chekote // Feb 2, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Robert, why do you think that Palin is the only answer for the GOP? Also, I was listening to the Hugh Hewitt show and he had someone who teach at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He said that the new generation of evangelicals are quite different than the current leadership. More tolerant on the issue ofy marriage, they are pro-life but believe that just being anti-abortion is not enough. They do no listen to Rush and other talk shows hosts. Are tuned into Jon Stewart and Steve Cobert. So it looks like that in a couple of election cycles the GOP will not even be able to rely on the evangelical vote. Time for a new direction.
35 gerrysh // Feb 2, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Americans Approve of Most Obama Actions to Date
Note the policy change that only 35% favored.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114091/Americans-Approve-Obama-Actions-Date.aspx
36 Chekote // Feb 2, 2009 at 6:10 pm
There has been a lot of discussion here about the poor showing of the McCain/Palin ticket in the West. Here is some analysis:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2008/11/14/abortions-death-as-a-wedge-issue-in-the-west.html?PageNr=1
37 Robert Graves // Feb 2, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Chekote, actually, I don’t think Palin is the only answer for the GOP, but she seems to be one big answer, at least for 2012 (beyond 2012 I can’t comment). I think the GOP denies/ignores this at its peril. Here’s why I say so:22% of voters are 18-29 y/o; 61% are 30-64 y/o, and 17% are 65+ y/o. But 84% of American voters fall into three economic classes: 32% lower middle class (some college), 32% working class” (high school), and 20% lower class.Are we becoming more liberal? Sure. But we haven’t arrived at a point where SP and her supporters are irrelevant. How is Frum going to build a “New Majority” without older (40+), less well educated, less “upscale” voters, aka, Palin voters? He can’t. The numbers aren’t there. Can he bleed his “New Majority” off from the Democratic Party? No. The Dems can out-moderate the Repubs any day. Is SP the only answer? No. Can she be the “transition candidate” in 2012 we need — someone who brings us through where we are to a point in the future where the profile of the American electorate has changed, and SP (at least as we know her now) can’t be a player anymore? Definitely. And let’s not forget that the RP needs to get its House, Senate, and Governor candidates elected and re-elected — sate by state, district by district. Can Frum’s New Majority do this job as well as SP and her “type”? No.
38 petty boozshwa // Feb 2, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Maybe we could call this the Leona Helmsley cabinet – only little people pay taxes. Michael Steele really needs to start a public integrity office at the RNC. Why has the MSM given Chris Dodd a free ride on his $100K mortgage perk? He said he’d release docs several months ago, the media has treated this like Kerry’s military records. The only problem is too many of our guys are just as crooked.
39 Chekote // Feb 2, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Robert, to make your case you should look at the electoral college. Most of the voters Palin appeals to are in the South and some mountain states. That is not enough to win the WH and it is definately not enough to regain control of Congress. The GOP needs to get back the middle to upper middle income suburban vote. If it does, it can expand its playing field. As things stand right now, the GOP electoral footprint is shrinking. Palin is not the cure. I was a big fan of Sarah when she first appeared. During the campaign I defended her experience vs. Obama’s. However, did she honestly believe that she could be elected VP without making ONE appearance on the Sunday talk shows? Sorry but unless she demonstrates that she is versed in national and international issues, unless she stops the folksy mama grizzly persona, she will not be viable in 2012.
40 Leeschwa // Feb 2, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Let’s be honest here, too. The American people don’t care so much whether or how the Big Guys in government faltered; they worry more about whether or how they can get their own taxes done correctly. Do we pay enough attention to faulty systems, rather than faults of people individually? I don’t mean to be trite here, but anyone can make a mistake, and as long as either party is willing to waste more time pointing to the errors of the others, actions or inactions, the less the regular American people are willing to trust them.
41 Robert Graves // Feb 2, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Chekote, please check my 7:31 AM comment re SP, the popular vote and the EC vote. A New Majority/Me-Too Moderate candidate could not motivate Palin voters like she can, nor could he/she draw off enough Dem voters to win. Frum is on a fool’s errand if he thinks he can build a New Majority w/o the great majority of Palin voters. (I assume that Frum means a New Republican Majority.) A New Majority candidate (not Sarah Palin) versus a Democratic candidate would make the states with relatively few Electoral College votes the battleground states. Sarah Palin would hold the cards. So, again, let’s learn how to work with her and her supporters.
42 Bulldoglover100 // Feb 2, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Robert….while your entitled to your opinion you should stop short of thinking that everyone feels as you do…they don’t. The facts don’t lie nor do the polls…and they show that the Southern base may vote for Palin but too many Republicans won’t and the Independents ran likel from her. Without all Republicans and a majority of the Independents? She will lose, thank God.
Push her all you want but you will hurt the party because you will pull votes away from a candidate that does read, can discuss policy issues and understands the economy and does not have a problem telling the truth.
As for electoral college votes? LOL The Republicans only have 5 safe states at this time and Palin is a National Joke in case you were not paying attention. Give it up and be productive by helping find a candidate that people can trust.
43 dragonlady // Feb 2, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Frum, I find it interesting you insist posters have a civil tone but you just can’t resist bashing Sarah Palin. If she’s not your candidate, fine. As for the anti-Sarah Palinista posters, you’re pratically calling her supporters (and Alaskans) stupid to their faces. I think there were legitimate concerns about her gravitas and interviews in this election but 2012 is a long way off. While she appealed to the base, that was the role the McCain campaign casted her in. Her actual policies as governor have been quite moderate. I’m open to her candidancy, but I believe she has to prove herself like any other candidate. How do we define a New Majority by being exclusive? So only “moderates” get to chose our national candidates now? I thought we were all in this together, social conservatives, moderates, conservative libertarians, etc. If site is going to keep pretending to be inclusive except towards you know who then you can kiss social conservatives good-bye and the GOP will remain divided and out of power.
44 Robert Graves // Feb 3, 2009 at 5:35 am
Bulldoglover says, “Robert….while your entitled to your opinion you should stop short of thinking that everyone feels as you do…they don’t.” I have never supposed, implied, or asserted that everybody agrees with me. Why else would I have written so much, if not to persuade the many people who don’t agree with me? Re-read my posts. I challenge you to find anything that supports what you’ve said. Yesterday, I challenged you to refute my arguments and prove your assertions, using hard data and credible third party analysis. You becide who’s credible, but don’t include Frum. He has an agenda that rules him out as credible. Once again, Bulldog, the ball’s in your court. It’s a crude way to put it, I’ll admit, but it’s time for you to put up or shut up.
45 Chekote // Feb 3, 2009 at 6:37 am
Robert, I disagree with your assertion that Frum is on fool’s errand. Look at the ideological composition of the electorate Liberal (22%), Moderate (44%) and Conservative (34%). The Conservative number includes people who are primarily economic and foreign policy conservatives. So it will not be very hard for Frum to build his NM simply by de-emphasizing social issues.
46 pooldude1 // Feb 3, 2009 at 6:53 am
I’m amazed at the dogma displayed by the posters here. There seems to be this thought that “if you’re not for me then you’re against me.” Really? If that’s how you all are in your personal relationships, it might help explain the insane divorce statisics in our country.
Do I agree with everything that Mr. Frum, Limbaugh, Beck, and other Right-Leaning intelligentia’s opinion? Hardly.
I’m likely a bit “right” of Mr. Frum but highly value his opinion and insight that is backed with an impressive resume. While I would likely disagree with certain aspects of his opinions on key issues, I think that I can “disagree agreeably” and, after the bell has run on the verbal boxing matches, enjoy going out to dinner with him and discuss less serious issues.
We need to focus on being persuasive in our arguements so as to influence those around us who really don’t know what they believe.
FYI (for those who love demographics), I happen to be a “Bible-thumping Southerner” who would have the “mud” scared right out of me if there was a “Moral Majority Party” dominating our politics. Why? Because then the battle would switch from being between the Moral vs. Immoral to an inter-denominational civil war. More demo: Middle-aged, non-angry, pasty white boy who is often mistaken for a beached while when I go to the beach.
Keep it civil, gang, and keep up the great work, Mr. Frum!
47 narciso // Feb 3, 2009 at 7:26 am
No, David, this who what you endorsed, what you signed on to in your hatred for Sarah Palin., two tax cheats, one who did so while working for the IMF, an institution that punishes whole countries for the sins of someone like Geithner, a National Health Czar, who apparently can’t handle his own affairs. An open ended negotiation, with the parties that murdered our soldiers, sailors, marines, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon. A surrender to Putin, on the defense of our allies in Eastern Europe. A ‘get out of jail’ free card for Salafists and Wahhabis from Gitmo. This is what popularity buys you, I guess. Brought to you from the same institutions that sundered the subprime market, who filled his campaign coffers. And End to Evil, how about “An Invitation to Evil”
48 HollywoodBill // Feb 3, 2009 at 8:16 am
Try as they might, the Palinistas are never going to be able to sell their heroine to the country. She is 100% totally unacceptable to the moderate wing of the GOP. She is now a proven failure, actually having harmed the Republican Party in the Western states. We have already served notice that we will not vote for another social conservative. Bush will be the last. If the Dems win, then the Dems win. But the GOP is not going to be held hostage by religious zealots demanding that we turn the GOP into a traveling revival tent. Not going to happen. Wouldn’t be prudent.
Some of you think that David has magically come up with the NEW MAJORITY on its own. Try googling it. It has some very suprising California roots. There have been some good results and some disappointments, but the work is hardly over. It’s just getting started.
49 Chekote // Feb 3, 2009 at 9:19 am
More tax problems for Obama’s nominees. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96463C80&show_article=1
50 Chekote // Feb 3, 2009 at 9:22 am
I do hope that this site doesn’t become nothing more than a pro vs. con debate about Sarah Palin. If we are going to build a New Majority we need to put forth an agenda. This site needs to spell out how they would change the GOP’s agenda, party platform.
51 HollywoodBill // Feb 3, 2009 at 9:57 am
Comrade Chekote–the GOP platform changes are going to come from the grassroots up. Not just empty rhetoric from behind the anonymity of computer keyboards, but what actually wins races. And Steele appears to be willing to roll the dice and give new ideas and outside of the box thinking a fair shake. That’s why Steele’s admission that New England races for Hillary’s old seat and the Governorship of New Jersey are exciting goals. And 2010 has some good opportunities for new ideas, as in the gubernatorial race in California that has only social moderates running on the Republican ticket.
52 Chekote // Feb 3, 2009 at 10:11 am
HBill. You are right that the changes will come at the grassroots level. Still it would be nice to see actual ideas being posted instead of just general discussions. After losing deep red states like IN and NC and coming within 4% of losing the Dakotas, I can’t believe that there are still people out there saying that focusing only on the base will do the trick.
53 JJWFromME // Feb 3, 2009 at 10:58 am
“…New England races for Hillary’s old seat and the Governorship of New Jersey are exciting goals. ” Dude–those aren’t New England. Red Sox fans would have your head… ; )
54 Chekote // Feb 3, 2009 at 11:32 am
Daschle is out! The title should change from Obama’s muscle to Obama’s folly.
55 dragonlady // Feb 3, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I’m not trying to make this as Sarah Palin debate since 2012 is a long way off. But if Frum wants social conservatives to be open towards moderate candidates, he should display some open mindness towards why they gravitate towards someone like Palin. I’m conservative all the way through (fiscally, national security, socially but I would have voted for any moderate GOPer like Giuliani in the last election). The person most acceptable to the base and moderates should come out as the primary winner with caucus and early voting in states like Iowa, NH, SC, and FL. I’m tired of conservatives candidates being labelled dumb–that is a leftist tactic. Reagan was an amiable dunce, Quayle was dumb, Bush dumber, and of course, Palin the dumbest of them all. I’m just surprised I’m hearing that sort of rhetoric from fellow Republicans (or perhaps they’re posers).
56 Kaz // Feb 3, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Daschle and Killefer out. Drip, drip, drip.
57 HollywoodBill // Feb 3, 2009 at 1:41 pm
David Frum, Kathleen Parker, Peggy Noonan provided valuable and much needed commentary about Palin. It countered the bombast from Rush, Hannity and Laura Ingraham. Not all Republicans are dittoheads and people forget that Reagan brought together the Western state based libertarians with the Southern based social conservatives. Like many coalitions, it had a good run. It appears to be going on fumes right now. It is time for a New Majority. Palin appeals to one segment of the GOP, but most certainly not all. There comes a point when backing certain candidates becomes a bridge too far to cross.
58 gerrysh // Feb 3, 2009 at 4:24 pm
So, where’s the retraction, Dave?
You must log in to post a comment.