There was a rumor that Rep. Vern Ehlers, Michigan Republican is retiring, and he'll announce his future plans later today.
If he does retire, this should be a relatively easy seat for the GOP to retain. Two Republicans had already announced they were running against Ehlers in the primary: Michael Van Kleeck and state representative Justin Amash. No Democrats had announced for office yet; the filing deadline is May 11. The Grand Rapids-focused district narrowly supported McCain in the 2008 presidential election (49.4 percent to 48.8 percent),while Obama was carrying the state overall by 57 percent to 41 percent. Ehlers won with 61 percent.
Michigan's Third Congressional District has a Cook Partisan Voting index score of R+6.
How Close Is 'Really Close' For Rubio's 'Stimulus Bomb'?
Marco Rubio says he's very close" to achieving his goal with his "Stimulus Bomb." The aim was to raise $787,000 in ten days, ending today, the one-year anniversary of when his rival, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, attended a rally for the stimulus.
I have a hard time believing the Washington Postran these sentences with a straight face:
The president and his allies have started a new political offensive, seeking to rebound from the Democrats' loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat long held by the late Edward M. Kennedy and salvage their effort to enact comprehensive health-care reform.
Obama has begun to try to appeal to voters who see Washington as broken by stressing his commitment to bipartisanship, while aggressively trying to rebut GOP criticisms of his policies. At the same time, he has sought to refocus his energy on the economy and job creation, which remains the public's top priority.
Contradiction One: The President and his allies are seeking to salvage their effort to enact health care reform, while simultaneously refocusing his energy on the economy and job creation. There are only so many hours in a day, and a White House's most valuable and limited resource is the president's time and attention. Between health care and the economy, one issue, inevitably, has to get less attention than the other.
Contradiction Two: Obama is "stressing his commitment to bipartisanship, while aggressively trying to rebut GOP criticisms of his policies." When neither approach seems to work, I can understand why. "I'm trying to work hand-in-hand with those nihilist, ruthlessly partisan, insane teabaggers."
Over on the homepage, I take a look at how the election for the congressional seat formerly occupied by John Murtha will proceed. I note that there are some parallels for last year's New York 23rd District mess, but it appears the Pennsylvania state party is at least trying to get a broad representation of Republicans from the district to weigh in on the candidate selection process:
To vote for one of these two Republicans, or any other, each precinct will get one representative, plus an additional representative for each 1,000 votes it cast for McCain in the 2008 presidential election, explained Michael Barley, the communications director of the Pennsylvania Republican party. Each county Republican party has its own process of selecting its representatives; some will be appointed by the county chair, others may be selected by panels.
Of course, some folks might object that the precinct representatives are a bunch of party insiders. Still, Tim Burns, Bill Russell, and anyone else interested in running will get a chance to make their pitch to the assembled precinct representatives. And the weighting ensures that the most heavily-Republican portions of the district get the most say.
Also note that once again, the National Republican Congressional Committee will not have a say in the candidate selection process.
Of course, whoever loses that party selection process can still run in November; the primary for that election is expected to be the same day: "The winner will proceed to face a Democrat in the special election; since the special election and the primary will take place on the same day, it is possible that two different Republicans could win — the special-election winner would serve out the remainder of Murtha’s term, and the primary winner would run in the general election in November. Barley notes that this has happened in lower-ticket races in the past."
If Hillary Clinton Hadn't Disappeared, She Would Have Rebuked Brennan
Two bits from the Wednesday edition of the Morning Jolt:
Obama’s national security team is like the Iran and Iraq war: I keep looking for somebody to root for, and just find more villains. The one who we thought was the hawk, Hillary, seems to be in the witness protection program; apparently Brennan is there to make Dennis Blair look good, Blair acts like his primary target in the war on terror is Leon Panetta and appears to be in place to make Eric Holder look good; Holder acts like his biggest worry is that bin Laden will run afoul of the mob in The Ox-Bow Incident and yet somehow Holder looks like David Palmer in a crisis compared to Janet “All is Well” Napolitano. You would call them the gang that can’t shoot straight, except that their aim seems to magically improve once the target is somebody pointing out the administration’s failures.
Sen. Kit Bond (R., Mo.), vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, tells National Review Online that Brennan’s op-ed is “baffling” and part of a “political mess at the White House” that “puts our country at risk.” Bond says that Brennan “needs to go,” and is no longer “credible.”
A.J. Strata: “It is clear from the Ft Hood Massacre and the Christmas Day Bombing attempt that Brennan, Holder and Obama succeeded in implementing their plan to be less reactive to every possible lead. They set the warning sensor to the ‘middle’ and it missed two very dangerous individuals as a result. Brennan is out fighting for his life now because he and Holder have been trying to make the claim they had permission from all over the intel community and from the GOP congress to lawyer up Abdulmutallab. As Doug Ross notes – someone is lying. Brennan has to be desperate to cover his tracks by taking on Congressional leaders in the House an Senate. Only a fool calls congressional leaders essentially liars – and the GOP leaders are challenging Brennan.”
I would note Speaker Pelosi claimed that the CIA “lied to Congress all the time” with no serious political consequence.
Erick Erickson will have none of this: “There is no greater aider and abetter of Al Qaeda than Barack Obama’s White House. Through sheer incompetence and arrogance, they are handing over to Al Qaeda vital intelligence and giving them all the PR they need to effectively recruit new terrorists. How many Americans will die because of Barack Obama’s handling of national security?”
Meanwhile, a good indicator of how state governments are quietly strangling any recovery through runaway taxation:
One of my recurring observations is that even if Obama has not raised most taxes in his first year (although he did raise taxes on tobacco products), state and local governments went on a tax-hiking spree in 2009, which adds to the public perception that government at all levels is taking more and expanding wildly. CNN Money spotlights a good example of this: “Employers are getting hit with a massive tax hike at a time when they can least afford it. Companies in at least 35 states will have to fork over more in unemployment insurance taxes this year, according to the National Association of State Workforce Agencies. The median increase will be 27.5%. And employers in places such as Hawaii and Florida could see levies skyrocket more than ten-fold.”
On TechTicker this morning, Gary Shilling highlighted a trend that many folks are increasingly angry about: The growing divergence between private sector and public sector compensation and benefits. Specifically, many public sector employees now make a lot more than their private sector counterparts. And that, says Gary, will eventually lead to a tax revolt.
The number of federal employees making $100,000 or more has increased by 120,595, from 262,163 employees in December 2007 to 382,758 in June 2009, for a 46% increase. The number of federal workers making $150,000 or more has more than doubled since the recession started, from about 30,000 to more than 66,000 (see chart above).
(Actually, there are some government jobs I don't mind paying top dollar for. For example, I'd gladly pay $100,000 or more to the folks out trying to catch bin Laden and his cohorts. But in that case, I'd just prefer to move to a cash-bonus system for each body part they recover.)
So, does this revolt catch fire this tax season or next?
Uh-Oh. When Obama Hears Good Things From CEOs, It Doesn't End Pretty.
An Obama statement from today to file away for future reference: "The CEOs I talked to are saying they are now making investments, and I anticipate that they're going to start hiring at a more rapid clip."
These sorts of statements have a tendency to not work out well for President Obama, at least so far.
Just about a year ago, Obama said, "Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off."
Then in March, Caterpillar laid off about 2,400 workers.
And then in July: "Thousands of Caterpillar Inc. employees will either be on vacation or temporarily laid off in the Peoria area over the next two weeks, the company confirmed Friday."
All told, it was a brutal year: "The company has saved its bottom line from turning red by making a series of vicious cost cuts, including 30,000 layoffs."
So when "they'll be rehiring people" means "tens of thousands will be laid off," perhaps we should be wary of happy talk from CEOs to the president.
It's Fish in a Barrel, but Still a Useful Illustration
The NRCC looks back and edits a 2003 press release from Nancy Pelosi, when she wailed about President Bush's failure on the economy, back when the unemployment rate was . . . wait for it!
I am an admirer of Tim Kaine, whom I backed in his current position and as one of my successors as Virginia governor and even recommended for the vice presidency. But a spate of recent losses in races that Democrats should have won underscores what has been obvious to me for a long time: The chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee is the wrong job for him.
What surprises me most is that RPV is showcasing this comment. Now that we have a real, full-time governor in Bob McDonnell, doesn't the state GOP want Kaine where he can do the most damage?
Looking again at that John Brennan op-ed in USA Today, I see he refers to Abdulmutallab as a "suspect" but asserts that administration critics, ipso facto, "serve the goals of al-Qaeda."
In other words, in the eyes of one the administration's top men on counterterrorism, Abdulmutallab gets a presumption of innocence that you and I don't.
Voters are souring on the economy and the government’s remedies, according to February's IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index. It fell 4.1% to 46.8, matching December’s level and the weakest since July.
“Persisting high unemployment and a wobbly stock market dampened January’s optimism,” said Raghavan Mayur, president of TIPP, IBD’s polling partner. Readings below 50 signal pessimism.
Confidence in federal economic politics dived 7% to 38.3, the lowest since President Obama took office. That's consistent with other polls showing a strong shift by Americans away from big government over the past year. The $787 billion stimulus failed to keep unemployment from soaring to double digits, now 9.7%. But it helped the deficit explode to $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2009, with $1.6 trillion seen in 2010.
And it is indeed focused on the president and his decisions in particular:
Independents disapprove of Obama’s handling of economic issues by a 2-1 ratio (50%-25%). Just 3% think he’s doing an excellent job while 29% say it’s unacceptable. This extends a recent trend.
Swing voters’ view of Obama’s overall job performance sank 7.9% in February to 40.8, a new low for him. A year earlier, the rating was 72.9.
The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.
First lady Michelle Obama launched a nationwide campaign Tuesday to fight childhood obesity, part of her effort to teach America's children about better nutrition and exercise.
Approval Rating of Rep. Shea-Porter (D., N.H.) Hits 35 Percent
There's still the better part of a year to go, but prospects for some GOP House seat pickups in New Hampshire look pretty healthy:
According to a new poll by the University of New Hampshire only 35% of likely voters approve of the job [Rep. Carol] Shea-Porter is doing in Congress. 40% disapprove. 24% are neutral or don’t know for sure how they feel. Even worse, all potential Republican candidates for Congress — even the lesser-known candidates — would defeat her if the election were held today. Former Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta performs best against Shea-Porter, defeating her in a hypothetical match up 43% -33%.
But at least things look better for Democrats in the state's other seat. Oh, wait, they don't.
In the 2nd Congressional District, Smith said name recognition works for Republican Charlie Bass, who has 37 percent of the vote against Democrat Katrina Swett's 30 percent. Bass also is getting 39 percent support against Ann McLane Kuster's 28 percent.
Well, that open seat in the 2nd district is from a congressman running for the Senate, so they've got their A-team of talent in the statewide race . . . eh, no, never mind, things look bad there, too:
In the Senate race, most eyes are on Democratic U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes versus Republican Kelly Ayotte. The poll shows Hodes with 33 percent support compared to Ayotte's 41 percent. But Smith said that even more concerning for Democrats is that even though Hodes leads his other contenders, he never breaks 40 percent. Hodes gets 38 percent against Republican Ovid Lamontagne's 29, 36 percent against Republican Jim Bender's 27 and 34 percent against Bill Binnie, who trails him by 4 points.
Hey, New Hampshire Democrats can look at the bright side. They're on pace to enjoy a really early first-round draft pick in 2011.
Top administration officials revealed last week that bombing suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was again cooperating with authorities. Great. But the news pretty much negates earlier claims that no intelligence was lost when Abdulmutallab was prematurely read his rights.
— In Senate testimony, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair had a "Duh!" moment as he hit his forehead and acknowledged that authorities fumbled the initial questioning of Abdulmutallab by failing to call in the high-value interrogation group, which was created to question terrorism suspects. Refreshingly candid, yes, but not a statement that inspires confidence. Especially when the same day, at another Senate hearing, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified that the high-value unit was still in its "formation stages" and that "there was no time" to get it to Detroit.
All of this follows the string of blunders that allowed Abdulmutallab to carry explosives onto a U.S.- bound plane in the first place. The chaos that followed his arrest now looks just as bad.
According to news accounts, Abdulmutallab was questioned by, and cooperated with, the FBI for a grand total of 50 minutes before going into surgery. When he emerged, he became combative, asked for a lawyer and was read his rights. (At the time, remember, no one knew whether other bombers had been dispatched simultaneously.)
A decision of such magnitude should have involved the top brass in intelligence and law enforcement. But Blair, Mueller and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have all testified they were not consulted. Mueller said the decision to read the suspect his Miranda rights was made by agents in the field.
In television appearances on Sunday, John Brennan, the White House deputy national security adviser, chafed at the criticism the intelligence community is getting. He said it was demoralizing and urged cheerleading instead. But cheerleading doesn't get problems fixed, and it's undeniable that there are plenty to address.
I think the response from John Brennan, President Obama's top counterterrorism adviser, is . . . well, a tad high on the jerk quotient, I think:
We need no lectures about the fact that this nation is at war.
Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda. Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill. They will, however, be dismantled and destroyed, by our military, our intelligence services and our law enforcement community. And the notion that America's counterterrorism professionals and America's system of justice are unable to handle these murderous miscreants is absurd.
I wonder if he thinks the editors of USA Today "serve the goals of al-Qaeda."
Because Calling for a Bipartisan Summit Never Fails to Solve a Problem
Upon hearing of Obama’s call for a bipartisan summit on health care, my first instinct is that Team Obama is just trying to get a goose in their numbers – already down a new low, 44 percent, in Marist. He’s going to, what, chat with them on television for a few hours? A longer version of his Q-and-A at the House Republican retreat is going to be a game-changer, and suddenly make Americans like a bill they’ve grown to detest? Boy, this guy thinks he can speech-ify his way out of anything, huh? But apparently he’s serious.
Rush: “Let me remind my dear friends the Republicans: Obama does not have a plan. He has not presented a plan. He does not have his own sheaves of paper that he can throw out and say, "No, right here in my plan on page 2,940 it says you can keep your insurance plan." There is no Obama plan. Negotiating with Obama is a waste of time. All it's doing is helping him fulfill a photo-op promise of having this stuff televised, and it's also to set you up as the reason this didn't pass. Obamacare reality check: The Senate Democrats, the senators of "no," cannot agree with the House Democrats. The House Democrats, the representatives of "no," can't agree with the Senate Democrats. What's the result? Obama and the Democrats want to say Republicans are the party of "no." And I'm here to tell you: wear that badge with pride and honor. Wear "The Party of 'No' to Democrat Health Care Reform as We Know it" as a badge of honor, and get out of the way of the support and campaign contributions that will flood your coffers.”
The initial response from GOP leaders is wary, with a list of questions. “Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can’t afford and don’t support. ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President’s rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality.”
If the GOP does go forward with the idea, Tom Maguire lays out the playbook: “If Republicans choose to play along with this charade I suppose they can just hammer the abortion and "Cadillac tax" questions. Obama can get on national television and explain why we will or will not have Federally subsidized abortions. Then he can explain why the promise he made that people who like their health care can keep it is not compromised by the excise tax (which he derided during the campaign) and why loyally Democratic union members shouldn't be subject to that tax like the rest of us. If the conversation lags, I suppose Republicans could come back to the individual mandate to buy insurance - there are endless clips from the campaign of Obama explaining why those mandates were unnecessary and a bad idea. Even if he has changed his mind, it does not seem that all of the independents who voted for him have. The guy who ran against the excise tax now supports it (maybe depending on whether Dems cross that bridge by Show Time). The guy who ran against individual mandates now support them. If Republicans want to help Obama stage a debate, maybe they could just re-read the things he said during the campaign.”
Jules Crittenden: “Obama’s half-day televised bipartisan makeup session sounds more like a gimmicky setup. Something between a Survivor Tribal Council and a Hail Mary pass. After that back-and-forth with GOP House newbies, he figured out he scores more points with vapid showiness than he does when he actually tries to accomplish something. The GOP would be well-advised to dismiss it for what it is and demand that the president approach serious matters seriously, rather than with a quickie reality TV session. Or better, just dismiss it as a gimmick, inform him the clock’s running out on that game already, and let him dangle through the mid-terms.”
At NRO, Stephen Spruiell notices liberals arguing simultaneously that Republicans have no real ideas for health care reform, and that the Democrats have already incorporated the GOP’s best ideas.And he lays out how they have a funny definition of “incorporate”: “Eliminating the tax exclusion for employer-provided health benefits is a good idea, but the Democrats can't really do it — it would anger organized labor, which benefits from the preferential arrangement. So the Democrats’ Potemkin version — an excise tax that would effectively cap the value of employer-provided plans — would exempt unions. Allowing consumers to purchase insurance across state lines would reduce premiums, but it would weaken states’ power to regulate insurance companies. The Democrats’ Potemkin version — a provision allowing the formation of state compacts — is meaningless: Their bill would create a massive federal regulatory apparatus that would render state regulation obsolete!”
Obama's Latest Gallup Numbers Seem Somewhat Late Bushian
According to the latest Gallup poll, President Obama is underwater — higher disapproval than approval — in six of nine categories. He's at a 48/49 split on terrorism, a 36/60 split on health care, 36/61 split on the economy, and 32/64 split on the deficit.
Among independents, his approval is at 35 percent on Iran, 24 percent on health care, 29 percent on the economy, 24 percent on the deficit.
It's not a particularly surprising endorsement, but it's still welcomed by Team Rubio: "Congressman Mike Pence (IN-06), who currently serves as House Republican Conference Chairman, today announced his endorsement of Marco Rubio for U.S. Senate."
Marco Rubio says his Stimulus Fundraising Bomb (www.StimulusBomb.com) has raised $411,000, just one week after launching with the goal of raising $787,000 by February 10.
“There is no better symbol of Washington’s broken politics and policies than the failed stimulus,” said Rubio campaign spokesman Alex Burgos. “Through StimulusBomb.com, we’re offering people a way to voice their support for limited government and opposition to the Crist-Obama agenda of tax, borrow and spend. With two days to go until the anniversary of the unforgettable Crist-Obama stimulus rally, we’re pleased with the positive response we’ve received so far.”
I'm sure the turnout at the press conference would have been greater if the entire Washington metro area weren't coated in more white powder than a cartel processing room, with another ten inches or more of Winter Slurpee coming our way. Hey, guys? When schools like Loudoun are announcing they'll still be closed four days from now, everybody's got less time to worry about how warm we'll be a hundred years from now.
