Friday’s political round-up

June 30, 2006

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* In Florida, state Attorney General [tag]Charlie Crist[/tag] (R) is not only leading comfortably in the Republican gubernatorial primary, he’s also building a big general-election lead. In a new Rasmussen poll, Crist now leads Rep. [tag]Jim Davis[/tag] (D), 49% to 35%. The likely GOP nominee holds a smaller, but still large, lead over state Sen. [tag]Rod Smith[/tag] (D), 46% to 36%. Crist is viewed favorably by 62%, Davis by 44%, and Smith by 41%.

* With Lt. Gov. [tag]Michael Steele[/tag] (R) running for the Senate, Maryland Gov. [tag]Bob Ehrlich[/tag] (R) announced a new running-mate yesterday, [tag]Kristen Cox[/tag], the legally blind head of the state disabilities office. Cox, 36, has lived in Maryland for only six years after having been raised in Utah. As a relative unknown with little political experience, Cox’s views on the issues are still unknown, and Ehrlich campaign officials would not allow reporters access to her yesterday.

* Helping highlight a blue-state/red-state divide, the president makes appearances in two new ads from Democratic Senate candidates — but in very different contexts. In Nebraska, Sen. [tag]Ben Nelson[/tag] (D) shows [tag]Bush[/tag] praising him as “a man with whom I can work, a person who’s willing to put partisanship aside to focus on what’s right for America.” At the same time, [tag]Ned Lamont[/tag] (D) features Bush morphing into Sen. [tag]Joe Lieberman[/tag] (D) in a new ad in Connecticut.

* In South Carolina, Gov. [tag]Mark Sanford[/tag] (R) still enjoys a big lead over state Senator [tag]Tommy Moore[/tag] (D), but the gap has narrowed a bit. In the latest Rasmussen poll, Sanford is ahead, 51% to 39%, but a month ago, Moore was trailing by nearly twice as much, 52% to 33%.

* And in 2008 news, New York City Mayor [tag]Michael Bloomberg[/tag] (R), who has deflected questions about any presidential ambitions, seems to be taking the idea a bit more seriously. The New York Daily News reported this week that Bloomberg has “privately said he has more than enough money to run for President – and now he may have a potential entry strategy.” Bloomberg’s main political adviser, [tag]Kevin Sheekey[/tag], said if John McCain stumbles in the GOP primaries, and Dems nominate someone Bloomberg considers unelectable, then the NYC mayor believes he might be able to fill a third-party niche.

At the same time, Ned Lamont (D) features Bush morphing into Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) in a new ad in Connecticut.

And what a great ad it is.

  • ” 51% to 39%, but a month ago, Moore was trailing by nearly twice as much, 52% to 33%.”

    The first is a 12 point lead and the second is 19, which is not “nearly twice as much”.

  • GO BLOOMBERG!

    I recognize and somewhat concede the validity of the argument against him–that a Bloomberg candidacy might divide the left/center electorate and open the door for a fascist dimwit like Allen or Brownshirt–I mean, Brownback–to win with 38 percent. But a Bloomberg presidency would be supremely good for this country. He’s a fiscally responsible, socially progressive problem-solver without the branding problems and special-interest baggage any Democrat would face–IMO, exactly the president we need at this critical point.

    And I have serious doubts whether he could win, given that he’s Jewish (as I am) and unmarried. I think it’s safe to say that the guy has had a lot of sex and made a lot of uncouth remarks–all stuff that our infantile “gotcha” press will seize upon. But basically his candidacy would advance a message this country badly needs to hear: “Grow the hell up. Stop worrying about whether you’d like to have a beer with the president, or whether he’d be comfortable in your church, or whether he agrees with you on a laundry list of issue positions. Pick someone who’s competent and honest–no more ideologues and charismatics.”

    A guy can dream.

  • that a Bloomberg candidacy might divide the left/center electorate

    Given that he is a Republican’t, why wouldn’t he be more likely to divide the center/right electorate and thus help a Dem nominee to win (ala Perot in 1992)?

  • Because he is, loudly and proudly, a Republican in Name Only. Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat before switching his registration to run for Mayor of NYC in 2001. Why? Because there were four Dems in the running and no Republicans.

    He’s pro-choice, pro-gay rights, fiscally prudent, against Social Security destruction, a skeptic on Iraq. You’d be hard-pressed to find anything substantive on which he agrees with Bush. All this would come out over the course of the campaign, and the letter he currently has after his name would disappear.

  • A curious choice of running mate for Ehrlich. I imagine he hopes to get brownie points for giving a boost to the visually challenged, which is certainly not a bad thing to do. But when that person is relatively young, relatively new to the state, not in a high-profile position and with little political experience, I have to wonder how many other people he asked to take the job and who turned him down? Not a good sign for his campaign, to my way of thinking.

  • I’d be OK with Ben Nelson being defeated this fall by a real Republican. That way we’d know all the time we’re dealing with The Enemy. He’s right up there with Whiny Joe on the “with friends like these guys we don’t need enemies” list.

    Is there any important issue that’s come up in the past six years in which he’s actually voted with the party he claims membership in????

  • That’s a great reference, Leisure Guy, and everyone should take it to heart, regardless of political affilication.

    I’m not sure about using the tag “Values Voter” with it, though. That moniker has been pretty much co-opted by the fanatical right wing and coupling it with any Bible verse, no matter how positive, might just reinforce the myth that only Bible readers are capable of having positive values at all.

    I’m thinking of something more along the lines of “These are the values that Democrats hold dear. Aren’t they yours?” to try and reclaim the meme from those who hold any ideas of charity and compassion in total contempt. It’s a bit more pointed than your original concept, but these days mincing words is ineffective. And too long for a bumper sticker, I know, just saying.

    The message has to be clear and straightforward to have any chance of penetrating the skulls of those who still think George Bush would be doing ok if not for all them gol’dang libruls confusing up the boy’s head and all.

    Maybe just saying “Democratic Values – Matthew 25: 35-40” would do the trick. How does that sound?

  • The problem is, Tom, Ben doesn’t have much of a choice. That’s the difference between him and Lieberman – Lieberman can be as liberal as he wants in opposing the war or protecting SS, but Nelson can’t – Nebraska is no Massachusetts. And when Nelson disagrees with the rest of the Dems, he doesn’t say they’re more interested in politics than doing the right thing, he just says he respectfully disagrees with his colleagues.

    And as for Bloomberg, I’m not seeing that working out. A Northeastern, white male running on “competence?” Haven’t we seen that episode at least once before? Sure, he’s got the money to run, but how many people outside of New York know/care/respect Mike? But anyway, I liked the “Dems nominate someone Bloomberg considers unelectable” – Hmm… I wonder who he might mean by that…

  • Curmudgeon: That’s a great reference, Leisure Guy, and everyone should take it to heart, regardless of political affilication.

    I’m not sure about using the tag “Values Voter” with it, though. That moniker has been pretty much co-opted by the fanatical right wing and coupling it with any Bible verse, no matter how positive, might just reinforce the myth that only Bible readers are capable of having positive values at all.

    I don’t know…

    Like Leisure Guy, I didn’t know what those verses meant (thanks for the quotes, LG!), but I bet a lot of my neighbors would. Or, at least, they’d have the Bible handy, to check (whether or not they’d start cogitating on the meaning is something else again). The *definite advantage* of that bumper sticker is that it would catch the attention of those people we want to sway; it’s something familiar for them to hang their eyes on — and maybe remember till they get home and check — while they’re idling their pick-ups at the traffic lights.

    It sure as heck beats all the Dem stickers I used to view at traffic lights (admittedly, not many, in my town ) in ’04… They all started with a prominent W, at which point I’d disconnect and stop reading; there’s not enough time at a traffic light to process the small print (“stole your vote in ’00; don’t let him do it again”) A rusty pick-up, with a rifle rack and a “some village in Texas is missing its idiot” in big print on its bumper was much more likely to catch the 30-seconds of my attention better, if only because it was unexpected. I bet Biblical quotes on a Mercedes (et all) would have the same startling (and therefore memorable) value

  • Many thanks for the comments. I just happened to check back here, since I thought the comments would appear on my site.

    Yeah, I had the same thought: that “Values Voter” is a red flag (much as are “Liberal” “Democrat” “Republican” “GOP” etc. — those words will automatically raise barriers for some readers). But what I thought this wording did was to sneak under the radar of the Religious Right (who see themselves as Value Voters, I believe) and get them to start processing and evaluating the values before realizing the direction those values led in terms of politics and government. Putting a big “Democratic” on the sticker gives away the game and keeps the reader from coming to his/her own conclusions—those being so much more convincing than conclusions pointed out to one. Maybe: “Govern by Matthew 25: 35-40” would be a compromise. What do you think?

    I think the bumper sticker is, indeed, addressed to Christians and Bible readers. We do want those people voting Democratic, right? And it’s hard to get one bumper sticker that will appeal to ALL. Different strokes for different folks, as we used to say here in California. 🙂

  • Here’s something you aren’t hearing enough about in the blog world – the Akaka primary in Hawaii.

    It’s a reverse Lieberman situation, where anti-war Akaka is being challenged by Bush sympathizing Case. Akaka is one of 13 Senators to vote for a firm timetable of withdrawl of U.S. troops from Iraq, while Case rubberstamped Bush’s war in a house vote the week before. I wrote some blog postings about it that you might be interested in. Akaka needs as much support as we can give him.

    Wouldn’t it be ironic if Lamont goes to the Senate from CT, yet his votes are cancelled out by D-in-name-only, pro-Bush/Pro-Iraq war Ed Case from Hawaii? We need to fight to keep Akaka in the Senate. Spread the word and Support Akaka!

  • It occurs to me that bumper stickers are of two sorts: First are those meant to proclaim one’s identity or allegiance, without regard to convincing others (e.g., “I’m Pro-Choice and I Vote”)—bearing witness as it were. The others are those intended to engage and convince the reader, getting past their normal defenses so they can consider the idea. And that’s the sort that “Values Voter: Matthew 25: 35-40” is. The idea is exactly to appeal to “Values Voters” and have them absorb the meaning before their natural defenses are triggered.

    • Comments are closed.