Monday’s political round-up

April 30, 2007

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:

* Rudy Giuliani is claiming endorsements in New Hampshire that he didn’t earn. Oops.

* The LA Times reported over the weekend, “President Bush’s unpopularity and a string of political setbacks have created a toxic climate for the Republican Party, making it harder to raise money and recruit candidates for its drive to retake control of Congress.” The Republicans’ fundraising advantage has dwindled and the GOP’s campaign committees are finding that many of their top recruiting targets aren’t interested in running in a cycle in which the Republican “brand” is in sharp decline. It’s also not helping with incumbents who are mulling retirement.

* On a related note, private polls conducted for the House Dems of the 50 most competitive congressional districts suggest the party, at this early stage, believes it can add another 9 to 11 seats to its House majority.

* Bob Novak noted that former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) has “won straw polls at the Oklahoma Republican convention, the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference, the California Republican Assembly and Georgia’s 9th Congressional District party convention,” all without actually announcing his candidacy.

* The WaPo had a fascinating profile over the weekend on John Arthur Eaves, running for governor in Mississippi as a pro-life, pro-school prayer evangelical Democrat. The Post put it this way: “[A]n Eaves victory would also be a shot across the bow to the Democrats’ liberal base, raising the question of how far the party is willing to go in jettisoning its support for abortion rights, gay rights and a high wall of separation between church and state for a chance at electoral success. Eaves’s campaign asks: Just how big should the Democrats’ tent be?”

* Dems in Texas believe Sen. John Cornyn (R) may be vulnerable next year, but haven’t identified a top-tier challenger. Rep. Nick Lampson (D), who just won Tom DeLay’s old seat last year, is mulling a bid. “He has been getting a lot of calls from lots of friends and supporters around the state asking him to look into it,” said Mike Lykes, who just traded in his job as Lampson’s chief of staff to become his campaign finance director.

* And finally, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), who caught some flack for naming Byron White as his ideal Supreme Court justice last week, responded to questions with a confused response. Told that White voted in the minority on Roe, Richardson said, “Are you sure? Roe versus Wade? He was in the ’60s.” For the record, White served from 1962 to 1993 — and was one of two justices in the minority on Roe.

Surely what Bill Richardson meant by his love of Byron White is that Supreme Court justices should have flashier nicknames, like “Whizzer.” Face it, “Scalito” just don’t cut it.
In my private thoughts, Justice Ginsberg is “Warrior Princess” and Stephen Bryer is “Matter-Eater Lad”.

Here’s another item of interest, mentioned by Glenn Greenwald. The San Francisco Chronicle quotes a Democratic strategist who calls netroots bloggers “irrational.”

“It’s amplified by the anonymity, and it can be scary that it’s so irresponsible.”

The kicker is that this scurrilous accusation is quoted… anonymously.

My rule: anonymous sources should only be used for factual information when the source would be harmed by exposure. Anonymous opinions don’t deserve to be printed.

By others. I’m allowed to post my opinions pseudonymously without being a hypocrite.

  • Eaves’s campaign asks: Just how big should the Democrats’ tent be?”

    The question isn’t the size of tent; the question is: “Can the policy of the national party be unduly compromised to gain power among social conservatives”?

    My answer: As long as it stays on the farm—to paraphrase: As long as “what happens in Mississippi stays in Mississippi.”

  • In 1994, Newt Gingrich secured the Supreme Court for pro-life forces by silencing criticism of pro-choice Republicans in New England that was instrumental in the Congressional takeover by the GOP.

    The Democrats would do well to follow suit by supporting Eaves just as they elevated Reid to center stage. By allowing respectful, regional dialog to take place, Democrats can bolster their majority nicely while never allowing the pro-life agenda to restrict women’s religious freedom (the true stakes of the choice / abortion debate). Welcome, Mr. Eaves. Let us work together to make abortion safe, legal but RARE.

  • IMO, if a “pro-life, pro-school prayer evangelical Democrat” wants to run, that’s fine with me. But the politicians who want the support of the Democratic base will remember that under pro-choice Clinton, abortions declined, and that the American people will only support school prayer until they say which religious nutjob gets to dictate the prayer.

    ================

    I predict that Fred Thompson is going to be the GOP nominee, because he’s a good actor, and that’s exactly what they’ll need if they’re going to have a snowball’s chance in hell. But I would like to point out that he is a Hollywood Conservative.

    There, how’s that for a frame for him to try to get out of?!?!

  • Eaves’s campaign asks: Just how big should the Democrats’ tent be?”

    Shouldn’t the proper question here be “Just how big does Eaves think that the Democrats’ tent should be?” Eaves represents the forces and intolerance and exclusion. In abortion rights, the pro-choice side includes everyone – regardless of whether they personally wish to have an aboriton or not. The anti-choice side only wishes to include those who are against abortions and specifically excludes the wishes of those who want abortions. Same thing on same sex marriage rights. So the question really needs to be asked of Eaves – why should the Democratic Party embrace his form of intolerance?

  • Grumpy with the sweet GbV reference. Nice.

    As for the Mississippi question, I couldn’t agree more with commenters #2 and #3. Rather than focusing on the points of difference–the “culture war” crap that’s contributed so much to our avoiding more universal problems from the ever-tilting economic landscape to infrastructure problems (e.g. overpasses in Oakland) to global warming–let’s focus on what brings us together as progressives.

    An added bonus–in addition to involuntarily retiring Haley “Boss Hogg” Barbour–is that the country is overwhelmingly with us on these issues, as opposed to the other ones.

  • Guided By Voices? No — it was a reference to the Matter-Eater Lad, Tenzil Kem of Bismoll.

  • Eaves running as a Dem is just the first shot in a war that is coming. The Evangelical right has already infiltrated and destroyed the GOP. Now, they are coming after our party.

    Man the battlestations!

  • The WaPo had a fascinating profile over the weekend on John Arthur Eaves, running for governor in Mississippi as a pro-life, pro-school prayer evangelical Democrat. The Post put it this way: “[A]n Eaves victory would also be a shot across the bow to the Democrats’ liberal base, raising the question of how far the party is willing to go in jettisoning its support for abortion rights, gay rights and a high wall of separation between church and state for a chance at electoral . Eaves’s campaign asks: Just how big should the Democrats’ tent be?”

    Not something we have to worry about – any kind of Democrat winning in Mississippi. And none of the “Democrats” who used to win in Mississippi were actually Democrats ever anyway.

    Isn’t that the state that drags down the national IQ by 10 points? Nope, that’s Texas. Mississippi only pulls it down 7 or 8 points.

  • Eaves can run as a Dem if he wants to– I doubt he’ll win anyway. And, honestly, having one or two DINOs in the party won’t undermine our whole cause– after all, did Linc Chafee set the agenda in the Republican congress? Not by a long shot. Just as the Repubs grit their teeth and deal with having Chris Shays and Olympia Snowe in their ranks, we put up with Ben Nelson and, possibly, John Arthur Eaves. It’s not as if the Democratic party will become a party of Eaves’s. He is a regional candidate, with no chance of being elevated to a national level of power.

  • The story about private Democratic polls showing the possibility of a 9 to 11 seat gain next November is by Robert Novak. Which makes me wonder: who is leaking private Democratic polls to Novak? That’s a person who needs to be exiled from the Democratic Party, pronto.

  • Is that all the Democratic party is about? Pro-choice and anti-school prayer? Because the way you put that, it appears that we’d be jettisonning everything we’re about for electoral success. I need to know what else this guy is about and if his other issues are Democratic or Republican. We’ve known for a long time that not every Democrat is pro-choice. Look at Kucinich. And wasn’t it only a year or so ago that all of the Democratic senators felt the need to recite the pledge to make clear that they didn’t stand behind the atheist who wanted it removed from the schools?

    Sure I care about those things.

    But I also care about universal health insurance and stopping the handouts to the rich. Where’s this guy stand on these issues?

  • One wonders why Fred Thompson is winning so many “straw polls” since he is not running, therefore not putting out any policies/stances. Could it be his haircut?

  • Katherine’s comments are right on. Democrats are about more than just two issues, and on the ones most Democrats care most about, Eaves is walking in lockstep if not leading the way. The paragraph after the one quoted in this post reads as follows:

    The political calculus behind Eaves’s candidacy is simple. By neutralizing the traditional GOP advantage on social issues, Democrats hope to focus on economic issues, where, particularly in poverty-stricken Mississippi, they believe they have the upper hand. Eaves, a graduate of Ole Miss and now a wealthy lawyer whose dirty-blond mane is a fixture in legal ads across the state, is an unabashed populist. He supports universal health care, large increases in public school funding and a so-called living wage. He attacks Barbour for opposing a “tax swap” that would slash the grocery tax and raise the tobacco tax and for pushing 50,000 low-income residents off state Medicaid rolls.

    I checked out his website (and announcement speech on it) and there is a lot to commend him to Democrats…www.eaves2007.com

    • Comments are closed.