Centrist Pundits

Tonight, Massachusetts voted a Republican in to the Senate. This would surprise anyone who was looking at the race a few months ago, but comes as no surprise to those who’ve been looking at it for the last couple of weeks.

What does this mean for centrism? Well, you have to look at how the race was run.

On the one hand, it definitely reminds us that almost no state is a red state or a blue state. Like all states, Mass has a mix of people with a vast, muddy middle area. They elected Romney to office, after all, though he was a bit more liberal at the time. So it might be tempting to note this as a victory for centrists – that even in a “solid blue” state, moderates can and do influence the politics. A lot of people have said that Republicans could be in trouble if they go to the right particularly hard, and this might bear that out – for both parties.

On the other, neither side ran a typical campaign. Brown, for one, hardly ever called himself a Republican, knowing that word is anathema in Massachusetts. Coakley, on the other hand, sold herself mostly as a person with a penchant for misspeaking. Democrats didn’t take this race seriously, and it might have had another outcome if they had. But Brown’s strategy worked – Brown sold himself as a moderate, and yet a look at his record, while hardly the most conservative record in the world, if fairly solidly in the Republican camp. Whether or not the votes of Massachusetts will hold him to his promise of “social consciousness” while he has his personal beliefs tend towards the conservative side of the aisle will remain to be seen.

Now, the question is, what does this mean for the legislative centerpiece of the Democratic Congress, health care reform? I’ve seen a surprising number of posts tonight indicating that its dead, most of them in the “ding dong the witch is dead” vein (mostly from my conservative friends). And it could mean that. But keep something in mind: neither side really wants it dead, and neither side has to accept its death.

Democrats may actually come out ahead (at least in terms of how liberal a health care bill is passed), if they are willing (which is always the question with them.) The only option left to them is reconciliation, a concept I admittedly don’t understand well. I thought it could only be used for the budget. But people talk about using it for health care reform. If Democrats move this direction – costly as it may be in terms of making them look like they are playing fair – then they only need 51 votes in the Senate. They can tell Lieberman and Nelson to take their amendments and shove them, and pass the House version generally in tact. This might be a monumentally unwise move by the Democrats, but cornered animals tend to do strange things.

On the other hand, while no Republican in the world would admit it, they need Health Care as an issue. If they kill it now, it – meaning the need to repeal the bill – doesn’t help with the mid-terms and doesn’t help in 2012. I wonder if we’ll see Snowe or another moderate Republican have a change of heart, though that may be the cynical part of my brain.

What does this mean for the future? Not a whole lot. It will keep Steele in his job a little longer, and it will re-energize the morale of a number of downtrodden Republicans, but like NY23, it won’t maintain its party switch. Come 2012, barring a truly popular Republican with incredible coat tails, one Kennedy or another will decide to run, and take it from Brown. In short, what this race does is one thing only – remind us that the political pendulum in America is ever-swinging.

JC Congress, Political Parties, State Politics Congress, Health care, Massachusetts, Scott Brown, senators

(No, I’m not really back yet – new job and all – but I may post a bit this month.  I expect December to be when I start getting back in to this regularly.)

You know, the New York Senate was completely messed up this summer, and it barely made the national news.  But one not even particularly interesting Congressional race gets a bit weird, and suddenly, it’s everywhere.  I speak, of course, of New York 23, a bit north of where I live… but on my TV a lot these days.

Now, of course, normally, there would be no Congressional election this year.  But the previous Congressman is now the Secretary of the Army, and so a special election needed to be held to fill the seat.  Normally, this would be a remarkably open and shut case.  New York 23 is one of the more conservative districts in the state, and the area hasn’t had a Democratic representative since just after the Civil War, if  I understand it correctly.  Its Republican country until tomorrow.

Tomorrow, it may be Democrat country, or, more likely in this blogger’s opinion, Conservative country.    Now, I have no problem with a Conservative campaigning and winning an election (although he doesn’t live in the area, which I do have a problem with) but that’s not really the story.  The story is that a moderate – something that this website is interested in – was completely forsaken by the party – in favor of a conservative.

We all know the country, generally, leans to the middle, by most guesses, a little right of center, but towards the middle.  We also know that politics is completely defined by the two extremes of the political spectrum, both in their own self-definition and in their opposition’s definition of who they are.  Right now, the Republicans are looking towards their future, to figure out how they’ll define themselves.  And most of the bigwigs look like they’ve decided that they will define themselves as the far-right.

The vast majority of the party leaders said that the candidate for the Republican party (who is, admittedly, a moderate – but let’s face it, NY Republicans are never the standard bearers of conservatism – and who, admittedly, was not elected but appointed as the candidate by 11 NY Republican Party county chairs) wasn’t conservative enough to be a Republican, and endorsed the Conservative Party’s candidate.  I’m not one for blind party loyalty but I think the least one can expect when one is the candidate for a party is the endorsement of the party’s movers and shakers, whether its enthusiastic or not.  It seems pretty basic.

The Republican, Dede Scozzafava, on the other hand, isnt showing much loyalty to the ideals of the Republican party either.  Not because of her moderate stances on things like gay marriage – which isn’t nearly the issue here in NY that it is, say, in Oklahoma – but because when she withdrew from the race, she endorsed the Democrat.  Again, not one for blind party loyalty, and she’d been rogered pretty badly by her party, but you probably shouldn’t endorse your party’s traditional opposition, as a general rule.

The parties exist, whether they should or not, because like minded people pooling their resources make for more power than a bunch of individuals.  In exchange, sometimes, you take one for the team.  If either part of that equation falters, the party suffers.  Right now, it seems like no one is remembering why parties exist.  I’d normally be okay with that, except I think at the moment it plays in the political extremist hands, rather than the rise of the center.

I suppose some might say that this is the beginning of the rise of a Conservative party.  And maybe they are right.  But if they are, is that good for conservatism in America?  If most Americans are center or center-right, does a stronger national party that always plays far-right get elected?  Or do they split the vote with moderates and start to consistently lose to Democrats?  When people say that parties are, by definition, big tents, they aren’t just saying that because they like to see a few people of color, a few women, and a few homosexuals around.  They are pointing out that you need to get to at least the plurality of votes.  A Conservative party that ignores moderates only works if moderates themselves go by the wayside.  Right now, it looks like the only two Republicans who realize that are Newt Gingrich and Meghan McCain.

The sad part about it is, this election isn’t some sort of bellweather.  If the Democrat wins, it is because the vote was split.  If the Conservative wins, it is because of outside influences.  If the Republican wins – which is basically impossible – it is because the district votes Republican by default.  There’s no… data… to be garnered from the results.  Just noise.  And noise is what those who endorsed the Conservative want – they want their names in the papers for their own ambitions – Palin, Pawlenty, Pataki and more.  Because if they can say “Hey, I don’t toe the line, I do what’s right, heck, I don’t even endorse my own party’s candidates if they are the wrong person” they can claim to be mavericks, free-thinkers, and movers and shakers, even if all they are is an ideologue.

JC National Politics, Political Parties, State Politics Congress, Conservative Party, elections, Palin, Pawlenty

I was going to write on the Mel Martinez resignation here, but… well, Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight did an excellent job summing it up.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/mel-martinez-to-resign-senate-seat.html

So I’ll just link it.

JC State Politics Crist, elections, Martinez, senators

I was listening, a bit, to Glenn Beck this morning, and while there’s a lot I don’t like about Beck, today he let me in on an interesting story that I don’t think has hit the airwaves much.  Go to http://tinyurl.com/nh72hj – the entire article is actually worth reading, but of particular interest is paragraph four, where they talk about a vote to expunge the record.

I’m sorry, but that just seems to go against everything democracy is about.  I sympathize with the tough job California – and most other state – legislatures have right now, because the economy sucks and they need to figure out ways to keep their state going.  But nothing in our system should allow for anything other than disclosure of the truth to the people you represent.  You are, after all, there to represent their wishes, and while you certainly aren’t bound to obey them in every situation, you are certainly bound to answer to them when they have questions.

Any politician who votes for expunging the record of a vote they have taken has decided the wrong thing about what their job is.  They’ve decided their job is to keep getting re-elected.  While certainly, getting elected and re-elected is an aspect of being a legislator, it is subservient to serving the people and to being accountable to the people.  I have no problem with voting against the oil industry in this case – even if, not knowing all the facts, I have to think that it might have been a good way to make some money – but if you can’t tell your constituents why you voted that way, then you did something wrong.

It actually approaches common sense, if nothing else – if you feel obligated to hide the fact that you did something, then you know on some level that you did something wrong.  It might be “wrong” as in corruption or a sin, or it might be “wrong” only as in awkward or hard to explain, but it is still wrong.

The secret ballot is a cornerstone of Democracy when it comes to the individual.  I get to choose who I vote for and I don’t have to share it, though I often do.  But anyone who chooses not to is allowed that right, to free them from intimidation and petulance from those who feel differently.  But that’s an individual right at an individual level – as soon as you are voting on behalf of others, they get to see your record, and they get to evaluate it as they see fit… and then cast their secret ballot on whether or not you get to keep voting on their behalf.

Kudos to CalChannel for recording things, and I hope they air the vote, and I hope the public remembers this.

JC State Politics California, public record

Name recognition is a powerful thing.  A short while ago, news agencies started reporting that Jim Bunning wouldn’t be running for Senate again in 2010.  Bunning has cited a lack of funds and a lack of support from the NRSC as his main reasons.  This kind of shocked me, as I figured a senator who’s name I recognized so easily shouldn’t have any fundraising problems.

Except that while I may know his name, simple research in to him to remind myself of the details of his political career reveal that this shouldn’t be a surprise at all.  He’s always had a rocky relationship with the NRSC and the Republican leadership in general, and he’s never won his elections by large margins on his own merit.

He was a fairly popular Representative in his heavily-Republican district, but for his first Senate term he won only by half a percentage point.  His second term should have been an easy sailing in to office when his first opponent had a marriage scandal and his second was an unknown.  But then Bunning started saying stupid things, and apparently it turned off a lot of people (and the Democrats started pouring more money in to the race to capitalize on those stupid statements) and he only won by one point.  Wide-spread assumption is that he actually rode Bush’s coattails in to office, which is saying something, because Bush’s coattails were short and slippery.

His state openly talked about recruiting someone to run against him in the primary, and Bunning has suggested that lawsuits might be the solution to that.  He has ongoing financial disagreements with Republican fundraising bodies and leadership disagreements with, well, Republican leaders.

Time Magazine has called him one of America’s 5 worst senators – which ironically may be where my name recognition of him comes from, because I remember reading that article (it was in 2006).  His popularity is astoundingly low in a fairly Republican state, leading one to wonder just how badly one has to perform to be polling behind all of 4 Democrats interested in the seat… in Kentucky.

I saw the breaking news blurb about his choice not to run and originally thought it this was going to be a piece on how badly the economy is affecting candidates fundraising efforts, especially Republicans, if even someone I’d heard of like Jim Bunning was having trouble.  But upon rereading and analysis, the only conclusion I can come to is maybe, just maybe, Jim Bunning isn’t worth Kentucky’s… or America’s… time.  They have very clearly said he’s not worth their dollar.

JC Personalities, State Politics elections, fundraising, senators

The New Jersey State Seal has a horse’s head on it.  I know it wasn’t actually inspired by the mafia in The Godfather, but there are times it seems like it was.

This morning, dozens of arrests were made in New Jersey.  Since it was New Jersey – sorry, NJ Centrist – it had to be about corruption.  What’s unusual is not that there was corruption in New Jersey but that they caught a staggering amount of it all at once.

It’s actually a triumph of law enforcement.  From one guy they caught a few years ago being corrupt, they got a cooperating witness who was able to show how dozens of others were also corrupt.  3 mayors and at least one mayoral aide, who got caught accepting bribes that would let the cooperating witness have an easier time doing business in their city.  Rabbis indicted on assisting in a money laundering scheme.  State legislators charged, again with accepting bribes.  Yeah, yeah, these guys are innocent until proven guilty, but come on.  They’re guilty.

Heck, some part of the case seems to involve illegal trade in kidneys.  That story has national potential right there.

This is bad news, in my opinion, for the embattled Democratic Governor, Corzine.  For one thing, he ran on an anti-corruption campaign.  For another, you never want to be known as the governor of a state that is now being nationally publicized as having systemic, all encompassing corruption.  And while not all were, many of those arrested were Democrats.  The shame of it is, while I don’t really have a stake in the race between Corzine and his Republican opponent, Christie, I’m not sure Republicans in New Jersey are any more or less corrupt – or corruptible – than the Democrats.  Were lots of Democrats arrested?  Yes, but only because, in a general sense, New Jersey is a Democratic state.

So now you might be saying to yourself “JC, so what?  It’s not like this case has any of the lovable ballsiness of Rod Blagojevich!” and you would be right.  We will likely hear a lot of protestations of innocence in the next few days and I suppose some might be eloquent, but there’s nothing that, so far, really matches the protests of Rod B. compared to the tapes of him talking about his gold mine that he won’t give away for nothing.  No, so far the best money quote we have – and its not on tape, as far as I can tell – is the Mayor of Hoboken, Mr. Cammarano, saying days before his election: “I could be indicted and still get 85% to 95% of the vote.”

One of the problems with corruption is not only the corruption, but also the sheer contempt most corrupt politicians hold for the electorate.   Politicians fail at working for the people most of the time anyway, but corrupt politicians lack any veneer of doing so, in the end.

JC Crime and Punishment, State Politics corruption, New Jersey

Today, the South Carolina legislature voted to censure, but not ask for the resignation of, Governor Mark Sanford.  I haven’t commented much on Governor Sanford because other things came up and because, frankly, he’s pretty boring.  I suppose it is important because he was considered a serious contender for 2012 but man, I don’t think the Republicans are so stupid as to nominate a guy who makes Al Gore look like Metallica and John Kerry look like the Stones.

And let’s all face it, the world would be a much more interesting place if Sanford had resigned out of not wanting to do it anymore, and Palin was resigning over having an Argentinean mistress.  That parallel universe is way more awesome than our own.  But alas, we have to live in this one.

If Sanford does wind up resigning, which I think is unlikely, I hope it is for the right reasons.  Having an affair is not the right reason.  It isn’t really the kind of issue I think people should vote on.  I guess I can’t tell people what they should or shouldn’t vote on, but it isn’t anyone’s real business but Sanford and his families what the state of their marriage is.  I suppose it would be nice if Sanford acknowledged his own hypocrisy in criticizing previous adulterers – a “Geeze, President Clinton, having lived through my own period of infidelity, I realize I was totally harsh on you.” would be in order.  But all in all, if I was okay with Clinton keeping his job, I have to be okay with Sanford keeping his.

Really, there’s only two things I’ve heard that give me any pause, one of which seems to have been addressed.  The one that was addressed was if Sanford used any government money to see his mistress.  The Attorney General of the state says no, and Sanford is paying back some questionable flights just to be on the safe side.  That said, I don’t know if paying it off after you get caught is enough, and I don’t know that I trust the AG, who I assume is a Sanford appointee.  If I’m wrong, I apologize.  Still, for now, the information we have to go on is that there wasn’t anything wrong with the finances.  Which is good for Sanford, because while voters may be slightly uncomfortable with the affairs, they’d be downright furious over misappropriation.

The other is whether or not he endangered the state.  The theory on that is that by being out of touch, he was unavailable to take certain actions that only the Governor can take.  One example is reversing the highways if an evacuation is needed.  Apparently, that power does NOT fall to the Lt. Governor if the Governor is merely out of touch.  I’ve not heard much said on this lately, so I’m not sure how the people of South Carolina.

In the end, though, it is an issue for the people of South Carolina.  You and I (unless you’re a South Carolinian) aren’t really stakeholders in this conversation.  The decision on whether or not Sanford should stay in office is up to Sanford and his family, the legislature of South Carolina, and ultimately, the people.  Other parties may have a vested interest – the Republican party for example – but it isn’t really their call.

Photo is from the South Carolina Governor’s website,  allowed for use if attributed  to the South Carolina Governor’s Office: http://www.scgovernor.com/news/photos/

JC Personalities, State Politics Mark Sanford

So here it is, Monday, and the Palin resignation fallout is still the news story of the day.

I still think those who say she’s done in politics are underestimating her chances; more specifically, they are over-estimating the American people.  I’m a strong believer in democracy but unfortunately the electorate rarely gives me reasons for confidence.  And while all the people who talk about “knowing politics” think she’s done for – one even compared her to Kathleen Harris, which I thought was fairly cruel – I’m still not sure her base will see it that way.  Of course, one needs more than a base to run for office with, and Palin has always had some issues with going beyond the base, at least outside of Alaska.

I find it interesting how many major news stories seem to happen the Friday before the Daily Show and Colbert are off for a week.  I’m beginning to think it is planned.

While I don’t know that this is a death blow to Palin the way some think it is, it certainly was… weird.  Her news conference was bizarre.  You hold a news conference to make announcements and answer questions, not raise new ones.  And I’m curious as to who she was referring to in a followup when she said that there are plenty of people who’ve resigned with honor, but since it is her, she gets mistreated by the press.  I’m not going to say the press hasn’t been harsh on her in the past (though not as harsh as she makes them out to be) but I can’t think of anyone who’s resigned from office halfway though their first term that we now think of as a major American influence.  And she still needs to improve her speaking skills.

The current Lt. Governor, the next Governor of Alaska, says that Palin is Alaska’s greatest gift to America.  I don’t know.  Natural splendor, hockey players, and oil reserves are good gifts too.

But lastly, I’d like to take a moment and blast the DNC spokesperson, Brad Woodhouse, for coming on a bit overly strong and partisan.  He said of Palin: “Her decision to abandon her post and the people of Alaska who elected her continues a pattern of bizarre behavior that more than anything else may explain the decision she made today.”  And I believe that Woodhouse truly thinks that.  And I know that the DNC is diametrically opposed to Republicans and will do what they feel necessary to tear down Republicans.  But, everyone else was saying pretty much the same thing.  The DNC could have made the official response of the party feel a bit classier than that, a bit more reflective and a bit more positive for the future.  “We wish Palin luck in her future endeavors, and we’ll be ready to run against her and win if she chooses to rejoin politics” type thing.

Oh, and to those who are counting her out: hey… we’re still talking about her, aren’t we?

JC 2012 Election, Media, State Politics 2012, Palin

As Greg mentioned, Sarah Palin has decided not only to not seek re-election as the governor of Alaska, but to step down by the end of the month.

JC 2012 Election, National Politics, Personalities, State Politics 2012, Palin

So, previously, I had mentioned how dysfunctional the New York State Senate is right now.  I discussed the “coup” and how the Republicans had taken power in a Democrat-dominated chamber based on some private bankrolling and a couple of people changing their minds on who to caucus with.

Since then, the situation has gotten worse, with court orders to meet and each party holding their own Senate sessions, court challenges regarding the requirement to meet, and gavel-in, gavel-out sessions of the Senate.  New York is easily the most dysfunctional state in the Union right now, leadershipwise, and I’m including the 15 or so states that may have to shut down or write IOUs to employees because they failed to pass budgets.

It took an even more childish turn yesterday when Democrats claimed to have a quorum:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/nyregion/01albany.html?ref=nyregion

The claim is based on the fact that one Republican senator was forced to divert his path to get around reporters when all he wanted was some coffee or a soda.  It is insane.

Look, I’m no expert.  It looks to me like Republicans are the legitimate leaders of the Senate right now, but I don’t know.  I think with a 31-31 split there should, in fact, be some sort of power-sharing arrangement reached.  But my real problem is this: whatever legitimate questions there are here about the Senate leadership, they are being completely masked by the childishness of 62 New York State senators.  This isn’t 2 rival kindergarten classes, these are 62 elected officials who need to get back to work.

I haven’t seen the full list yet, but there are literally dozens of important things waiting on New York legislative approval.  I’m not talking big things like taking up gay marriage issues, I mean little things that have big impacts on communities, like money for schools.  When the only thing the two sides can agree on is that they should keep getting paid, I really think we have to consider whether any of them deserve their jobs.

JC Political Parties, State Politics New York