Election 2012 Post-Mortem

Well that was fast.  Before the returns started coming in last night I believed that we'd wake up this morning and still not have a good grasp on who the next President would be.  Instead my prediction was wrong and the predictions of the Media (who I thought were way off base) were correct.  Especially those who had Obama getting around 303 electoral college votes.

You can see my predictions here

So how'd I do?

President: I predicted an Obama win, but a close Obama win with Romney taking the popular vote.  As it stands now Obama will win the popular vote by around 2 Million.

Texas Senate: I predicted a Cruz win with a percentage close to 60 than 50. He got 56.62% of the vote.

US Senate: I predicted the Dems would retain control of the Senate with around 52 senators elected.  Currently they have 51 with 2 Independents that caucus with them. 

US House: I predicted the Republicans would retain control of the House and possibly pick up a seat or two. They did retain control, but the Dems closed the gap.

Texas Statewides: No shocker here, Republicans swept the Statewide races.

Texas House: I thought the Republicans had a better than average chance of keeping the house super majority. I was wrong.

Texas Senate: On this I was correct, not much movement on overall numbers, but a lot of new faces.

Harris County specific races:  I predicted all of the bonds would pass and I was right.  The Metro referendum passed with 79% of the vote. (I predicted it would get more than 60%).  If nothing else this means that fringe groups like Houston Tomorrow and the Citizens Transportation Coalition need to realize that they are outside of the mainstream. (They won't, but if they want to effect policy they should). The county races went just as I predicted. (Sheriff, Tax Assessor-Collector, etc.)

Harris County Judges: I predicted that Harris County Democrats would point to this as a "win" considering everything else that went on.  I was correct here.

You saw this coming: It took about 5 minutes for ChronBlog to write their first negative, post election, smear piece on Cruz.


So what does all of this mean?

The pundits are already going mad suggesting that the GOP blew it because they were "too extreme" or too "right wing".  An analysis of the results doesn't really support this theory however.  In the areas where the GOP did not perform well (President, US Senate) the candidates that lost were more of a moderate bent (Romney, Thompson, etc.) than conservatives. As a matter of fact, the BEST results for the GOP was in the supposedly too conservative House of Representatives.  The GOP is not dead, but they need to make some changes in order to be competitive in the future, most notably when it comes to courting the Hispanic vote.

Future policy is a mixed bag.  ObamaCare is certainly here to stay and, in the immortal words of Nancy Pelosi we're about to find out "what's in the bill".  If implementation is a failure (and the odds of that are better than 50% given government history) then the GOP will be looking at a very favorable climate in 2016 and beyond.  If it succeeds, then America just became a lot more of a European social democracy and taxes must increase to try and offset the increased expenditures.  Either way, things will not continue on as they always have, and America is now a much different place than the nascent country cobbled together by the founders.

Here's the thing: A majority of the American populace wants it that way, the GOP is going to have to find a way to convince them otherwise, a strong platform of reform legislation in the House is a good start.

Texas Run-off winners and losers

By now you've probably heard the news regarding Ted Cruz lopsided win over David Dewhurst and you might have paid attention to some of the other races as well.  Whether or not this was a "change" election I'll leave to others to decide.  For one, Texas is the tip of the conservative spear in America, so what happens here doesn't necessarily transfer elsewhere, for two, there is still a general election to get through and while I think many races were decided last night, there could be some surprises.

Winners:

Ted Cruz: Obviously. Anyone saying that someone else was the big winner of the evening has an agenda, or is pulling for Paul Sadler. The simple fact is Ted Cruz faced withering personal attacks from Dewhurst and beat him by double digits.  The overall vote count in the race was somewhere around 1.1MM w/ Cruz taking around 680K of those votes.

The Anti-Incumbency movement:  On the Republican side, incumbents were the real losers.  Medina, Miller, Wentworth.  If you were an incumbent Republican you had a better than average chance of getting voted out.  Some consultants are already trying to spin this as having nothing to do with the Tea Party but they're paddling outside of the water.  This certainly was the Tea Party election, time will tell whether or not this volatile group can sustain their current momentum.

Indy Media:  There has been much better analysis and tea-leaf reading by bloggers & alt-media professionals on this race than anything being written by the so-called "experts" of the MSM (more on them later.)  If you're still going to your newspaper or Texas Monthly (although that's about to change w/their recent hiring of Josh Trevino) exclusively for your political opinion you're missing out.

Losers: (more of these than winners)

David Dewhurst:  Any list not mentioning him first is just wrong.  The sexy pick (for the MSM) is Rick Perry, but these have to be taken with a huge grain of salt because of personal vendettas.  Dewhurst had every advantage going into this race and he, for lack of a better term, blew it.  Already the sharks are in the water.  Jerry Patterson sent out a text saying that he "respected Dewhurst" but was running against him in 2014.  When he fell behind Dewhurst went scorched earth.  If that resonates then a candidate can emerge stronger.  If the voters reject it then there are a lot of hard feelings and the candidate is weakened.  David Dewhurst is a weakened candidate right now.  That said, voters can have short memories.

Stan Stanart:  This is a Harris County specific issue granted, but no elected official took it on the chin during the night quite like Harris County's Republican Clerk. During election night, the Clerk has one job. Post the election results accurately and timely. On the latter part, Stanart's shop failed.  And his excuses saying that "Reliant gave us some garbage lines" ring hollow considering he was slow during the first round of elections as well.  Stanart is one of the growing ranks of County politicians running for local, technical jobs using sweeping national rhetoric.  Perhaps it's time for the Republicans to find candidates who are willing to handle the requirements of the job for which they're elected first, BEFORE trying to save us from the evils of DC?

Paul Burka:  Ah Burka the clown.  What else can you say about a guy who authored four "live blog" election posts and couldn't even get the numbering sequence right.  I, II, IV, V  It's also funny to see Burka try and re-cast himself as calling it for Cruz from the outset. If anything, Burka called this race wrong early and has been trying to back-track every sense.  His analysis is hackery, too often propped up by uncorroborated "staffers" and little else.  He's a Selectric talking head in a digital world.  Texas Monthly was right to go and snag Josh Trevino to increase the credibility of their political opinion.  One last note: In his post mortem Burka casts Rick Perry as the "big loser" of the evening  That's bunk.  I'm going to name four people here that were bigger losers than Perry, and I'm not even going to touch on Straus, who seems to have taken another hit in his power base.  It's one thing to hold a personal grudge against an elected official as Burka (And Wayne Slater) seem to have against Rick Perry.  It's another to allow it to color every inch of your analysis.

JayDave* Carney:  Perry's rough political campaign, now a failure in the Dewhurst for Senate campaign.  Rough year.  It remains to be seen whether attack ads are on the out, or if Carney's shop just did a terrible job with the attack ads in THIS campaign.

At least they didn't hurt themselves:

The Texas Democratic Party:  I could call this a "win" given the recent past of this group, but when your nominee comes out and calls himself the "only major party nominee" for the US Senate and says that his opponent is outside of the mainstream, despite losing in the vote count by a total of 5-1, then really it's not a victory at all.  "Radical", "Crazy" and vulgarities are all the Democrats have right now.  I had a brief Twitter discussion with a Democratic talker last night discussing whether Cruz left them room to make a case.  I think there is room, but the State Democratic Party doesn't have the intellectual firepower to make it right now.  To compete in Texas the Dems need three things that they don't currently have:  Competent candidates (these take time to grow), a winning message (They haven't learned to play to the crowd) and better campaign consultants. (Good luck)  Whoever decided that Sadler coming out in his first big minute in the sun and insulting 680K Texas voters would be a good idea needs to be summarily dismissed from the campaign.  That won't happen, which is why they're going to get trounced (again) in November.



















*Thanks to Kevin Whited for pointing out my obvious typo. (not that Jay Carney would ever be termed a "winner".)

Early voting day one: Harris County

Probably not enough data to suggest a trend but interesting nevertheless:

According to data provided by Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart's office the total Republican early vote numbers are as follows:

Republican:
8,231 - In person voters
14,750 - Mail-in ballots returned (25,007 sent out)

Democratic:
1,537 - In person voters
6,621 - Mail-in ballots returned (13,458 sent out)

If these numbers hold this is going to be a VERY low turn-out election.

However, I would expect these numbers to pick up as the week goes on, but I'm unsure of how far they can realistically be expected to increase given the low voter attention being paid to this election.

Bill King on the Texas Primaries.

Bill King comes out with an odd piece of complaining today.....

The Primary System is Broken, Bill King. Chron.com

If anything emerged with crystal clarity from last week's primaries in Texas it is that the primary system is horribly broken and the greatest contributor to our national political gridlock.

King goes on to illustrate the ridiculousness of the system by complaining that Ted Cruz beat out Tom Leppert for the US. Sen run-off, he also chastises the system for putting former Rep. Paul Sadler into a run-off with Gary Yarborough.

What's clear to this writer is that King is not upset about the primary system, but instead that his favored candidates and those closest to his political viewpoint did not fare well.  It's also clear that King is not planning on embracing the Tea Party movement at all when (if) he decided to throw his hat into the Houston Mayoral ring.

Look, I get not liking the Tea Party.  While I sympathize with the rank and file members of the movement the leadership has been co-opted by attention-mongers like State Sen. Dan Patrick and Americans for Prosperity.  While I'm more of a fan of Michael Quinn Sullivan than some, I do believe that he is spending too much time tearing down Republicans and not enough time focusing on winning general elections.  His targeting of Rob Eissler was just odd.  By all accounts Eissler was a thoughtful, reliably conservative representative who, by doing his job as education committee chair, drew the wrath of AFP.

I know what King was going for here, he's running to the middle faster than Bill Clinton during campaign season, trying to win some mythical group of cross-over Democrats.  The problem with this logic is that those cross-overs aren't materializing any more.

I've stated before (on previous blogs) that, after they fell out of power, in Texas the Democrats purged themselves of most of their moderate members.  What remained was a dedicated, albeit small, group of progressive true-believers.  Unfortunately, for them, the result of this purge has been a slew of sub-par candidates with no shot at winning a State-wide race given the ideological make-up of the current Texas voting population.  The Republicans are now doing the same thing that the Democrats did, but with a sizable voting bloc behind them.  What they need to guard against is an overreach, making sure they don't take out the good with the bad.

In closing, I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with Republicans attacking our democratic system just because a handful of elections didn't turn toward their preferred candidates.  It's one thing to bemoan a decision, it's another to question our governing system.  It's still another thing to chastise the electorate for seeing things differently than you.

Whatever the case, scrapping democracy is not the answer.  The answer is for the Republican party to bring forward strong candidates and let the people decide.  The Democrats just need to get their butts in gear and return themselves to a viable 2nd option.  Until then, the results could be weird.

I just can't help but wonder what replacement system Mr. King would advocate?

US Senate Election Day Meme:

I've seen this pop up from time to time today, most recently in the comments to this story.

Let Cruz run for some office locally and get some kind of record we can analyze.

Obama is also a baby boomer with enthusiasm. A little experience is a good thing and Cruz will benefit by getting some before he runs for a major office

I understand this line of reasoning because I've used it before.  Most notably as justification against a vote for Barbara Ann Radnofsky, Glenn Addison and Lela Pittenger.  In these cases however the candidates in question were clearly not yet ready to run, fund and be competitive in a Statewide campaign.  Unfortunately, Radnofsky overreached once too often and is now probably facing the reality that her too-high sites have ended a political career.  Any further runs draw her directly into the perennial candidate discussion. (See: Chris Bell)  Addison and Pittenger have only ran and lost (C'mon, they're not going to win) once so there's still time for them to regroup in the next election cycle and set their sites appropriately.

Ted Cruz however has held an (unelected) State-wide position as Texas Solicitor General, he's known inside Texas Republican circles and he's shown the ability to fund-raise.  All of these things the previous three candidates lacked.  In short, I don't think this attack applies here.

I realize that Dewhurst would have us believe that the commenters in question are NOT campaign staffers but c'mon.  It's a little too obvious seeing the same idea germinate independently. 

It's not as bad as his "amnesty", borderline racist attack I'll give you that, but it still doesn't make any sense.

Vote: Today, in Texas (one time only)

Just in case you're reading this and you haven't voted yet, here's your friendly reminder to go and do so*.

And not just because it's the day after Memorial Day and you've been deluged with "they died so you can vote" stories by bloggers and media.  Go vote because it's the right thing to do. Just because the Presidential primary has been decided doesn't mean that there aren't important issues to be voted on.

1. U.S. Senator  - The primary between David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz has been a fascinating case-study on why mud-slinging in politics still exists.  Because, on some level, it works.  You could also cast a vote for Tom Leppert (if you feel like, as does the Apple Dumpling Gang, that Republicans should be more like Democrats) or Craig James (if you feel like being a bad football announcer with severe control issues over your son's dodgy football career is good experience) if you so choose.  While it's not in this blog's nature to make predictions (although I have, in the past, endorsed Cruz and hold solid to that endorsement today) I will say that a run-off in this race is the most likely outcome.

2. U.S. House - There are too many to mention.  But redistricting has opened up some new house seats and should lead to some interesting results come returns time.  Unfortunately, for me, I'm in Ted Poe's district, so my primary is pretty blah.  (It's not unfortunate for me that Poe is my rep however. I'm fine being represented by him.)

3. Texas Rail Road Commission. - Possibly the most important state-wide race on the ballot.  Warren Chisum vs. Christi Craddick vs. a handful of 1% vote-getters.  If nothing else, this race has given us The Sledge Hammer who has created the most humorous ads this election cycle.

4. Texas State House. - Again, there are way too many races to mention.  My own personal choice is between long-time incumbent Dwayne Bohac and Democrat running as Republican Whet Smith.  Smith has used Democratic talking-points in his campaign messaging and is supported by the liberal group Texas Parent PAC. This group is a "throw more money at the problem" proponent of 'fixing' Texas schools. I agree that Texas schools need fixing, but dusting off Mrs. White's old catapult and hurling more money at them is not the answer that needs to be explored.

5. Harris County DA - I'm not going to link to either Republican candidate's website, because I'm not sure either candidate is worthy of a vote.  My friend Kevin, on his Diigo feed, suggested that the best option in this race might be the Democrat. I am in concurrence with that theory.  Therefore, the two Democratic candidates are Zack Fertitta and Lloyd Wayne Oliver (Note: Oliver does not have a campaign website that I can find)


And that's just a partial list.  There are tons of races out there where the primary is probably going to determine the outcome of the entire race.  In many cases (especially the Statewides) the Opposition party will offer up either weak candidates, or no candidate.

The short story here is that your vote matters.

Oh, while I'm not one to throw out many endorsements, those of you who can vote for 151st District Court would do yourselves a service voting for Leif Olson.


Vote early, but not often. (that would be illegal)

















*The preceding post fulfills a requirement stated in the bloggers code Sec 23 sub 15 p17-2 stating that all elections must be discussed and treated as if they are of upmost importance.  There you go.

Early Voting (Day 1)

According to Stan Stanart's Harris County Clerk office the early vote totals for day one came in just shy of 5,000 total. (both Republican and Democratic primaries)  The rough party split was 2/1 in favor of Republicans, which should surprise no one since a large swath of the Democratic vote takes advantage of the free stuff bus rides to polling places on election day. Another telling number are the mail-in ballots.  A record 35K have been requested (so far) in Harris County alone.  What to make of these numbers?

Well.....

 - It's not been confirmed but some political insiders may have already speculated that the Statewide races are being called, in advance, for the eventual Republican nominees.

 - Fun fact: Of the nearly 5000 that voted, 25 had the first name Hubert.*

 - State Senator Dan Patrick has already declared that the election results will show that State Senator John Carona is a traditional-marriage hating poopy head.

 - In advance of the election, State Dems are saying that these early voting numbers prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that voter fraud is a fraud.

 - Yesterday marked the start of the post-election Democratic interest group infighting season.

 - Despite relatively high expected voter participation, the losers of this election will caution about "any judgments made on the public mood" based on the results.

 - No word yet when Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee is planning her first, post election, staffer purge.

 - Based on these numbers we can, fairly safely, assume that ALL of Ron Paul's supporters in Harris County have voted.

 - No voter won the "5,000th voter of the day" sack of used bumper stickers planned to be handed out by Jared Woodfill and the HCRP.

 - There was a winner of the "Hey, we got 100 voters!" stack of Obamacare waivers handed out by the HCDP.  No word on the identity of the lucky recipient.


Things to watch for in the future:

 - Big Jolly's annual "Terry Lowry's Link Letter is a rotten egg" blog posting. (c'mon Dave, we're waiting.)
 - The next attack ad in the Dewhurst/Cruz tie.
 - Bicyclist Stein's electoral 'analysis' stating these numbers are "positives" for local Democrats.

Worst Awards:

Worst Campaign slogan:  Leslie Johnson - Harris County Attorney "Not just a lawyer, a LEADER". - Um...no, what I want in this office is a competent lawyer.  We've seen enough of what happens when 'conservatives' try and lead movements instead of performing the jobs that they were elected to perform.

Worst Campaign ad: Carl Pittman - Joe Arpaio ad. Not only is it poorly produced (you can barely make out the beginning the audio quality is so bad) but Sheriff Joe sounds as if he's an automaton. It's like the computer voice in War Games.















*(OK, it's not a fact.  But it would be fun.)

Texas Senate Mash-up

Some thoughts I had about last night's US Senate "forum" on PBS....

Cruz continues attack on Dewhurst, Joe Holley, Chron.com


The Republicans:

Dewhurst, as befits the front-runner, tried in his interview segment to keep his eye on Washington, basically ignoring his rivals. The 66-year-old touted "the Texas model" for the rest of the nation.

This is what Dewhurst should have done. The only poll that I've seen is the PPP poll, that was taken at the very beginning of the Dewhurst attack ad run, and it showed Cruz closing. I'm not sure that is the case now.

Asked about an ad the Dewhurst campaign released last week questioning Cruz's connection as an attorney in a case involving Chinese copyright infringement, Cruz called Dewhurst a liar.

I've a feeling that Cruz' internal numbers are showing this attack is effective. It's very rare to counter-attack head-on if it's not.

"For too long Washington has over-taxed, over-spent and over-regulated," said Leppert, who was the chief executive officer of Turner Construction before being elected mayor.

Leppert's big problem is that his campaign message is out of sync with his record. Unfortunately, for him, it's a bad time to try and run as "the moderate Republican option."

James, 51, called for a corporate tax rate of zero percent, which, in his view, would create jobs.

Craig James.....yeah. He also called for eliminating the EPA, which is not a bad idea, in theory, but as a practical matter is impossible. The focus should be on reform.


The Democrats:

Hubbard said he was older than Joe Biden, the vice president, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate from Delaware at 29. "I'm the only one in the race who isn't a career politician or a super-wealthy person," he said.

It's like a mish-mash of Republican anti-Washington sentiment and Democratic populism. Also, a comparison to VP Joe Biden is probably not the way to win friends and influence people in a State as Red as Texas.

Sadler, an acknowledged expert on public school finance when he served in the Texas Legislature from 1991 to 2003, used his interview time to talk about education.

He spent the entirety of the debate for the US Senate, speaking on an issue that won't be directly addressed at a Federal level. This is what people mean when they say the Democrat's bench strength is weak.

Overall I didn't see anything in two excruciatingly boring hours that convinced me Dewhurst is going to lose. Cruz' hope is a low-turnout run-off and, while there's a chance that might happen, it will be telling to see what the next round of polling reveals. I just wish that someone other than PPP or The Texas Tribune's online poll would bring out some new numbers.

I've a feeling they'll show Dewhurst starting to pull away.

Flawed logic

Interesting item today in Obama's (recurring) stump speech regarding his fiscal policy.....

Obama: Millionaires should pay 'fair share'. David Jackson, The Oval, USA Today

"One in four millionaires pays a lower tax rate than millions of hardworking middle-class households," Obama told a group of business executives gathered at the White House.

That's 1 in FOUR or, 25%. That means that 75% (3 in FOUR) of Millionaires and Billionaires pay a higher tax rate than "hard-working middle-class households."

Based on Obama's own numbers the majority of his campaign fiscal policy is based on an anecdotal event that doesn't even apply to the vast majority of those he's trying to demonize.

Strangely, he's not being laughed off of the public stage right now. A sure sign that the media focus for this election is (again) going to be less about fact and more about dreamy speeches given when the tele-promp-ter is working.


Joy.

Don't believe the hype.

Polls such as this typically aren't worth much....

("Wave" election could be coming. Mackenzie Weinger, Politico)

Less than a quarter of Americans say most members of Congress deserve reelection — the lowest number ever found in the 20-year history of Gallup/USAToday polling — and the dismal numbers could mean another “wave election” is in the cards for Washington.

A wave "could" be coming, but it's probably not. A better poll question to ask would be whether or not people believe that THEIR congressional representative deserves re-election. Typically people feel this way about other people's representatives, but they prefer to keep theirs. That this is coming from Politico (which I consider to be a fairly conservative news organization that runs the occasional Prog friendly story) tells me that, on the political beat, the media is scrambling to frame 2012.

Also to add: The poll was a CNN poll. They do a pretty good job on specific elections (see: Machin WV Senate) but tend to trend further left as the issues become less granular. The problem seems to be a clear selection bias. Having not seen the crosstabs for this poll however I will admit this is a guess based, in part, on recent history.

Finally: Even IF this poll contains some type of selection bias I can't believe it would flip the numbers. If that's the case, then the Prog's should be happy because it means their finger-pointing on the debt fiasco has been more effective than the Conservatives. Given the media coverage surrounding this issue that should not come as much of a surprise.

There's a problem with hating the voters....

One that the Prog's are discovering is oh so real. The problem is, you can't continually insult the intelligence of the Country and have them identify with you.

Per that recent Gallup survey 41% of Americans now self-identify as "conservative" with the "liberal" numbers down around 21% and with "moderates" hanging around 36%. Here's the rub....

"Millionaire" and "Billionaire" have been publicly re-defined as anyone making more than $200K per year (the family income floor for Obama's proposed "tax increases on the wealthiest Americans".) That doesn't make those making more than $100K feel very comfortable because they now understand that they're next. And "next", in terms of having your wealth given to those who haven't worked for it, sucks.

Is it any wonder then that the Prog's are angry with their candidate while the Republicans seem to be on the verge of coalescing around theirs?

My friend Kevin used to quip that the Americans typically let Prog's get in charge for a little while and then quickly remember why this is a bad idea. It seems that could be the case here although I would argue the Republicans need to finish before there's any talk of a "Tea Party Spring" in America. (This is even before the debate of what it should look like and who should lead it or, if it should even happen in the first place.)

Until then, here's a love note from Jonah Goldberg to the MSM. Enjoy.

In defense of the Tea Party...

I know, I've been hard on the Tea Party of late, telling them to get out the Kiddie Pool and offering the opinion that they might have to accept some tax increases as a part of the debt ceiling deal (I was wrong on that one, the Democrats have caved). All that being said, is it really fair right now to blame the Tea Party for this mess?

Last I checked, the Republicans PASSED a plan that the Democrats unilaterally rejected. While I still hold the position that the Tea Party is going to have to accept some compromise going forward, it's very hard to make the case that they're the drivers of this mess.

The Democrats have gone from a request for a clean increase, to the demand that no increase without a tax increase would be unethical, to now (apparently) abandoning the call for tax increases. Paul Kurgman this morning on "This Week" on ABC called for kicking the can down the road until after 2020 (Is Bill White advising him now?) Meanwhile the clock is ticking on the deadline imposed by the President, a deadline that may, or may not, be a real time for worry.

Today the thing to follow is the Grand Agreement 2.0. If one is reached, and is passed through the Senate, will Boehner and Co. be able to ram-rod it through the House. The unasked question, by the media, is whether or not they should.

Bullet Points!! (Debt ceiling version)

- Matt Lewis of the Daily Caller has a pretty solid take. My thought is an imperfect deal from the right would be far better than an imperfect deal from the left.

- Case in point. If Harry Reid is out-flanking you you're not doing it right.

- It is fair to question Boehner's leadership at this point.

- It's also fair to question the political viability of the Tea Party movement at this point. Any group that doesn't understand the mechanics of turning around the ship of state might not be the ideological group you want manning the wheel.

- Turning this mess around is going to be a long, steady, plodding slog. America needs a course correction but attempting to do so too rapidly could buckle an already weakened hull.

- The Republican establishment politicians (McCain, Hutchison) are missing the boat again. Adopting the Democrats plan was never the right answer, the strategy should have been to develop one of your own that would pass.

- Important lesson: Even RINO's serve a purpose. The Tea Party would be wise to understand this, and not let their anger get in the way of using them to garner a deal.

- There has never been a President that would be considered "conservative enough" to satisfy the current demands placed on our elected officials by today's Tea Party. There's a reason for that. Think about it.

- Finally: My guess is the Reid bill gets passed and signed on Sunday, signed into law on Monday. This was seen as a chance for Republicans to keep momentum, the question is: would they blow it? If Reid's bill is the one that survives, the answer will be: "Yes, they blew it."

Get out of the kiddie pool Tea Partiers....

It's called political reality. In this case Tea Party members need to understand that the Democrats control the Senate and the Executive branch of the government. From that perspective the "other side" controls two of the three levers of legislative deal-making. What this means is that any deal that's made is going to HAVE to include buy-in from the other side.

This doesn't mean that Republicans should just roll over, to the contrary, they need to fight to make this as big a win as possible. The key word is POSSIBLE. Not a wish list, not something that's a complete sell-out to the other side, but a bill that has enough in it that you can claim a win with a straight face, all while blaming the bad things on the other side.

Tax increases? Bad idea during a recession. However, since the Democrats are full of bad ideas during a recession you let them have some and then drape them over them like a cheap suit come election time. You hammer that issue, and Medicare, and Social Security, and ObamaCare. You tie them to those issues so tight they can't burp without people thinking about how much the Democrats are costing them.

Was the Boehner plan perfect? Far from it, but it was a whole lot better than Reid's mess of a plan, or the non-plan, things-we-cross-our-heart-promise list of things Obama's press secretary claimed to be a plan. Was Cut, cap and balance better? In a way, but since "balance budget" is a loaded phrase these days (and one that the public doesn't entirely believe) it had it's flaws as well.

Granted, there's no way the so-called "gang of six" plan could go anywhere, not if Republicans still remember their historic rout of the Dems in 2010 that is. But there are still realities in any plan that have to be recognized.

1. The debt ceiling has to be raised. - True, Democrat threats are probably overblown, but their is going to be a legitimate price to pay if it's not done. The thinking that Obama will get most of the blame for this is a risky proposition. Far better to pass a bill with his fingerprints on the bad things in the bill, while playing up your (hopefully good) contributions.

2. Any deal is going to need some tax increases. - Remember that 2 out of 3 thing from earlier? Yeah, it's still there. The trick is to force Democrats out of their class war mentality and force them to raise taxes on ALL economic levels, not just the one's they use to club the voters over the head with.

3. A worse fear is a debt downgrade. - If you want to see things get really bad, let S&P and Moody's lower America's credit rating. If that happens it might not matter whose in power. Plus, you never know who the public is going to blame with no legislative DNA scattered around for evidence.


So instead of your name-calling of Boehner, arguing with aging relics such as Kay Bailey and McCain and get to focusing on the business at hand. Then go back to continuing to elect more fiscal conservatives so this isn't an issue the next time around.

Out of the kiddie pool Tea Party. Tweeting and rallying with mis-spelled signs is the easy part, governing is hard.

One poll does not an election make....

Case in point.

I've no idea whether Perry can compete nationally, although my early inclination is no, however, anyone seriously entertaining the idea that Obama would have a chance against Perry in Texas needs to walk down off the partisan ledge and take a couple of shots of something pretty strong. An on-going economic war by the President's party against Texas is only going to make this worse as we roll into the worst season of all*.







*For those of you not paying attention, it's pre-election season. The period of time before the campaigns get really serious and all you have are reporters and amateur bloggers speculating about who, what, why and how.

Rethinking 2012 and other ramblings

The idea by David Brooks that an Obama win in 2012 is a dead-lock certainty took another hit today with the release of these numbers by Gallup. To summarize, Obama's Job approval rating fell to 41%, and he's down to a 35% approval rating among so-called "independent" voters.

For a long time now I've considered myself one of those independent voters. In the past I've voted for several Democrats, and will continue to do so (locally probably, because my State Senator and State Rep are two of the worst in Texas Government) in future elections. However, unlike in the past, my "democratic" (yes, the small d is intentional) votes won't be 'for' a candidate, but against the sitting incumbents. They will also be wasted votes because I live in one of the most conservative districts in the Country.

Oddly enough, I started my political journey as a Democrat. Granted, I was a moderate Democrat, possibly even a conservative one. My Democratic heroes were John F. Kennedy, Del Miller and other old-school Democrats. When the Democrats of convenience switched over to the Republican Party, I followed most of them because, honestly, what was left-over, was too progressive for my tastes. At the beginning of my blogging career I tried to play nice with everyone. That didn't last long because of one fact: Progressive Democrat activists are, as a whole, a very angry group of people. It was their vitriol that fully drove me away from the Democratic Party, just as it was the anger from what eventually became the Tea Party folks that kept me from fully embracing the Republicans.

Now I'm left with a problem. I still don't like many planks of the Republican platform, but I have difficulty identifying with ANYTHING the Democrats are currently offering. Having something in common with one party and nothing in common with the other pretty much strips away your so-called "independence" doesn't it?

I'm guessing this problem is something a lot of moderates are experiencing right now. I'm certainly never going to be a progressive Democrat because I believe in guiding principles like free markets and personal freedoms. I'm never going to be a Republican because I'm not a social conservative. However, I'm closer ideologically to Republicans than I am Democrats right now, a fact that most readers of this blog have probably already figured out.

Because of this I'm just going to admit that I identify as a Republican. That doesn't mean that the Republican Party is going to welcome me into the fold, or that I'm ever going to vote a straight (R) ticket (I'd rather skip the ballot than ever cast a vote for Sarah Palin or Dan Patrick) but more often than not I'm going to back the candidate with the (R) behind their name.

I say all that to say this: (about time eh?)

I've already made my choice for President of the United States.

That choice is Sen. Marco Rubio. My dream Republican ticket would pair Rubio with Rep. Paul Ryan for Veep.

My friend Evan, has been on the Rubio for a while, and I've checked the evidence, listened to the speeches and, most importantly, studied the Ryan plan and I believe it's the only sustainable course for the Country to follow. I'm not suggesting I'm ever going to be an activist, and you won't see me at a Tea Party rally unless I'm working on something for Iconoclast, but I will be working to see that Republicans bring more politicians like them to the ballot box to give the voters a real choice.

It's a choice that I think will put the Republicans on top. I think the oratory and vision of Rubio matched with the policy of Ryan is a winning combination. I think that a majority of Americans understand that the bloated social compact is doomed to fail, and that we have to make a course correction or something terrible is coming down the pipe. That being said, I believe the Republican Party needs to move away from their corporate welfare, and needs to embrace policies that strengthen the middle class, not through class warfare, but through sensible tax policy that doesn't allow companies such as GE pay no taxes. Yes, this means that I'm against heavy subsidies for oil and gas companies, not because they're "evil" but because it's money the government doesn't need to spend. However, I don't want to see those subsidies go to ethanol or other green energy gimmicks either. If green is going to work, then let the market decide.

So that's it then. This blog post has been a long time coming. I realize that it's going to result in squeals of glee from some on the InterLeft but I just don't care. They were squealing on the few occasions that I agreed with them, why should they change now?*



UPDATED: Wouldn't you know it, I talk good about Rubio and express my distasted for the Tea Party and along comes this story about Rubio speaking to the Tea Party. *sigh* Such is the thin line I'm going to have to walk I guess.










*Having said that, I'm not going to go out of my way to pick fights with them. I don't view politics as "fighting", it's more negotiating and working to forward your ideas. The comments on this blog, and the content of the blog itself, will (hopefully) remain civil. Any Democrat who wants to come on here and debate an issue is welcome, just keep the personal shots to your blogs. Mine are reserved for the humorous posts.

How the Mighty have Fallen.

Kay Bailey Hutchison announced her (inevitable) no-go for re-election in 2012 today, and, predictably, ChronBlog wastes no time attempting to place Bill White at the head of the pack....

(Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison won't run again. Richard S. Dunham, ChronBlog)

Former Texas Comptroller John Sharp and former Houston Mayor Bill White are potential Democratic prospects. Republicans who have expressed interest in the seat include Secretary of State Roger Williams, Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams, Railroad Commission Elizabeth Ames Jones and state Sen. Florence Shapiro. Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst has not announced his plans but is considered a strong contender for the job.

And well....of course it would be Bill White and John Sharp leading the way. For ChronBlog that is.

For most of Texas it's going to boil down to who wins the Republican primary. The smart money is on Dewhurst. I've never been accused of being that smart so I'm still predicting State Sen. Dan Patrick will cut some kind of deal with Dewhurst that's designed to clear the way for the age of KDAN in DC. After starting his political career with anti-establishment rhetoric, Sen. Patrick has quietly spent most of his time in office wooing the establishment while throwing crumbs to his constituents. Can he win a State-wide race with no name ID outside of Houston? Who knows?

But based on the reaction of the News-ish organizations he probably could if he ran against Bill White:

(Kay Bailey Hutchison announces she will not run for re-election in 2012, Luke Johnson, The Texas Independent)

Among the many names that could seek Hutchison’s seat include Texas Railroad Commission members Elizabeth Ames Jones (R) and Michael Williams (R), former Secretary of State of Texas Roger Williams (R), former state solicitor general Ted Cruz (R), state Sen. Florence Shapiro (R) and former Democratic Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts John Sharp.

That a far-left, news-ish site doesn't even mention Bill White as a contender is a bad omen for his chances to eventually win the seat. It seems like only yesterday that White was being held up as the beacon leading the way forward for Texas Democrats. One absolutely horrendous* campaign later and he's found himself relegated to unpaid editorials and being blockquoted by members of the InterLeft. From Mayor of Houston (elected with 90% of the vote) to the vulgarity spewing fringe. That's quite a fall.





*Horrendous is probably too soft a word for the levels of bad that the White campaign plumbed. He cam out looking like a micro-managing nerd with honesty issues, hardly the type of person you want in government. (You want someone who will smile and shake your hand while lying to you. Bonus points if they have good hair and teeth.)

Kay goes all-in....

What else could this mean?

(Kay Bailey Hutchison backs tea party's earmark moratorium, Todd J. Gillman, Dallas Morning-News*)

Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison – an ardent purveyor of earmarks throughout her congressional career – fell in line this morning behind a two-year moratorium demanded by tea party conservatives.

That Establishment Kay has seen the handwriting on the wall and is tweaking her campaign message for 2012 to something that is Tea Party friendly speaks volumes. For her to have a chance at surviving the Senatorial primary in 2012 the damage done in the Gubernatorial primary against Perry must be undone. I've no doubt Rick Perry will aid her in doing this, but she's going to have to make some concessions. I imagine this is just the first of many.

Here's the thing. If she adopts this message and sticks to it, she's probably going to win. The only people who are mad about her continual breaking of the "term limits" promise are Democrats who would love to get control of the seat. Speaking of Democrats, I wonder if Bill White knew something we didn't yesterday? He couldn't win either way, but I'd rather run against Dewhurst than KBH in a senate race, partially because she's not the best campaigner. Dewhurst is a merciless campaigner when he needs to be.


If she gains the Tea Party vote and can keep a hold of her moderate base however, all bets are off. If those things happen she's unbeatable....except by Perry. All bow down to the campaign focus of Rick Perry & team.


Expect the "news-ish" agencies to go mad running breathless exposes of pretty much every earmark she's successfully procured during her time in the Senate.
















h/t to Kevin Whited of BlogHouston for the link.

Just like Democrats.....

....Texas Republicans just can't help themselves. Win an election, go away from what got you there and focus on social issues. This has happened before so I'm assuming it should come as no surprise.

What's sad is there are real financial issues that Republicans need to deal with.


Why do I have a feeling that while the financial situation in Texas is blowing up, Republicans will have their equivalent of the Democrat-led steroid in baseball hearings focusing on creationism in schools, or making the phrase "Pro choice Republican" a thing of the past?

Of course, there's nothing that says a social-issues Republican can't be a fiscal conservative at the same time, but there's nothing that says a liberal social-issues Republican can't be either. This will be forgotten in the fight over making sure one is ideologically pure.

Chin-up Democrats, there's hope for you yet.

Why KBH staying is GOOD news for Texas Democrats

Coming as no surprise to anyone, KBH is staying put until at least the end of her term in 2012.

Republicans, some of whom are feigning happiness, should understand that this could work against them in several ways:

1. Obama's not that popular in Texas right now. And neither are National Democrats. Understandably these are heady times for the former progressive set but, in Texas anyway, things are not looking rosy. It's far more likely that a special election in the near future would trend toward the pachyderms than it would the donkeys. Having a Republican elected two years before the term is up would give the winner....


2. ...the power of the incumbency. Despite protestations to the contrary a sizable portion of voters make some decisions based on name ID alone. I still maintain that there is no way KBH survives another Republican primary should she run again. Her image as the Grand Dame of Texas politics withered under the glare of Rick Perry's hair spray. Even if she does run again, she's damaged goods now. Not only will she have to overcome the punishing attacks from the Perry camp, but she's have to fight.....


3. ...the power of the straight-ticket vote. Current popularity drop aside, two years is an eternity in politics. Plenty of time remains for Obama to direct legislation at enough special interest groups to win their support in 2012. He's also still very popular with two key Presidential voting blocs: African-Americans and the Youth vote. Both probably won't be there, in significantly increased amounts, in 2010 but in 2012, when Obama is back on the ballot, expect there to be a VERY strong push to have him re-elected in 2012. A big part of that push will be straight-party ballots.


Granted, there's always a chance that the Obama administration could go down in flames, that the attempted jobs-killing dog-pile of healthcare reform, immigration reform and climate change legislation could paint a scenario where the maximum amount of votes ANY Democrat could get in Texas hovers somewhere around 20%. The Hispanic/Latino voting blocs are hardly as monolithic as are the African-Americans. It's possible that Republicans could lose the anti-immigrant rhetoric and take strides to woo minority (and majority) groups with whom they have many shared values. For my purposes I'm going to assume that no major ideological shifts occur in either party between now and 2012.

When viewed from that angle, were I a Democrat, I'd be celebrating KBH's decision today with a sparkling wine. Were I a Republican I'd pray for the strongest candidate we've got in 2012. You're gonna need it.