Right now the Senate is poised to vote on additional funding for the "cash for clunkers" program. For those not familiar with this program, a consumer would receive $4500 for trading their old car in for a newer model. The plan has actually proven to be successful, in the sense that the program has already run out of money.
Cash for clunkers has received some negative publicity recently, but I actually believe the original intent of the idea is something worth keeping. The main idea of this program is to encourage people to drive newer, fuel-efficient vehicles because they are better for the environment than older cars.
The issue that I have with the program right now is that there has been a seperate agency created to administer the program. Anytime the federal government creates a new entity its almost impossible to get rid of it. I think the program can keep its intent and save time and money if people received a tax credit instead. The advantage of this program is that the tax credit will be administered by the IRS, an entity already in existence.
Tax credits, breaks, or rebates should be the preferred way the government incentivizes a preferred behavior rather than paying a car dealerships directly.
The other advantage of a tax credit is that the consumer can actually benefit by getting money for their trade-in from the dealer and getting the tax credit from the government on top of that.
So far the cash for clunkers program has been credited with the recent increase in auto sales. Some critics point out that most of the new cars purchased are actually foreign cars. My belief is that any increase in auto sales at this time is a good thing. Even if Toyotas and Hondas are being purchased there still is an American car salesman making commission, an American car dealership owner making a profit, and an American factory worker who can keep their job. Just because Toyota and Honda have benefited from the program does not mean the program should end. Keep in mind prior to this program Toyota and Honda were the the top selling cars in the US and it should not be a shock that they are still the top selling cars in the US after the creation of this program.
It is important to keep in mind foreign automakers are not the only benefactors, Ford Motor Company actually did better this recent month because of the program. Isn't any increase in auto sales no matter how short a good thing for US automakers? My belief is that US automakers need any help that they can get.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Update: 2010 Senate Race
Although just earlier this week Al Franken was sworn as the 60th Democratic Senator, giving that party a filibuster proof majority there is good news on the horizon for the GOP. cRepublicans chances are helped by some recent polling indicating an American distaste for President Obama and Democratic leadership. One recent Rasmussen poll shows that Americans trust Republicans more than Democrats on eight issues including: Economy, Taxes, Social Security, Abortion, Iraq, National Security, Immigration, and Government Ethics. The only two issues Republicans lost to Democrats were Education and Health care.
In today's Rasmussen Preisdential Tracking Poll 38% of Americans Strongly Disapprove of President Obama's performance versus 30% strongly approving.
The other good news is how some of the key Senate races are shaping up across the country. Here is current break down of some key races with news to report.
New Hampshire: I first thought, Republicans would not have a chance when former Senator John Sununu said he would not challenge Rep. Paul Hodes to the Senate seat. My initial thinking was wrong when current state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte decided to enter the race. A recent University of New Hampshire poll shows Ayotte leading Hodes by 4% points. The other good news is that there are multiple other credible Republicans thinking about entering the race.
Illinois: There was some very big news that came out this week, Rep. Mark Kirk, a Republican, has decided he will run for the Senate seat. Rep. Kirk is by far the strongest Republican and makes this race competitive. The other news that came out today is that the current Senator Roland Burris will not seek re-election. Burris did not have any chance of actually winning a full term. Rep. Kirk's chances look even better now that state Attorney General Lisa Madigan has decided to seek a third term rather than run for the Senate. The only credible Democratic challenger is state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias who has raised a considerable amount of money. Rep. Kirk can run on his experienc and not being party of the Chicago political machine, both of which would be Giannoulias' weaknesses.
Nevada: Democratic Senate Majority Harry Reid may have to fight to keep his Senate seat. A recent Mason-Dixon poll in that state shows Harry Reid's approval sits at 34% which is 5 points below Nevada's other Senator John Ensign. The key to this poll is that it was taken right after the news of Senator Ensign's sex scandal. I believe the key to this race is finding a credible Republican to run against Reid.
Texas: Could have a Senate race as long as current Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison decides to resign her seat and challenge Republican Governor Rick Perry. I still have questions whether or not Hutchison will run. A recent Univeristy of Texas poll shows her trailing by 12% in the Republican primary. I'll update information on a Texas Senate race when I know there actually will be one.
New York: There are actually two Senate races but the only one that could be a challenge is the seat currently occoupied by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. The race is going to be competitive for sure on the Democratic side with Rep. Carolyn Maloney challenging Gillibrand. Rep. Maloney's has been helped by the support from President Bill Clinton, whose wife used to have that particualr Senate seat. The Democratic primary can be very bruising with democrats having to decide between the candidate supported by President Clinton and the candidate supported by President Obama. A Republican can have a chance if they play off of the democratic internal fights. Right now there is not a strong potential Republican challenger, Rep Pete King has said he probably will not run for the seat. Senator Gillibrand is a moderate and I think Republicans would have a better chance if there was a bitter Democratic primary and Gillibrand lost. Angry Gillibrand voters could become potential Republican voters.
Kentucky: No real news here with what current Senator Jim Bunning is doing. Signs show he probably is not running but does not have any motivation to say so. The recent news is that Rand Paul, song of Ron Paul, a Republican Congressmen from Texas and former presidential candidate is going to run whether Bunning is running or not.
So far so good for Republicans. The key is at this point though is to remember that polls can change based on events. If approval ratings of President Obama continue to trend the way they have he will be very unpopular on election day in 2010. If he is unpopular there are more Senate and House rates that can be competitive. At this point though, Democrats have huge majorities in the House, filibuster proof majorities in the Senate, and the White House, whatever happens between now and election day is going to be on Demorcrats, good or bad.
In today's Rasmussen Preisdential Tracking Poll 38% of Americans Strongly Disapprove of President Obama's performance versus 30% strongly approving.
The other good news is how some of the key Senate races are shaping up across the country. Here is current break down of some key races with news to report.
New Hampshire: I first thought, Republicans would not have a chance when former Senator John Sununu said he would not challenge Rep. Paul Hodes to the Senate seat. My initial thinking was wrong when current state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte decided to enter the race. A recent University of New Hampshire poll shows Ayotte leading Hodes by 4% points. The other good news is that there are multiple other credible Republicans thinking about entering the race.
Illinois: There was some very big news that came out this week, Rep. Mark Kirk, a Republican, has decided he will run for the Senate seat. Rep. Kirk is by far the strongest Republican and makes this race competitive. The other news that came out today is that the current Senator Roland Burris will not seek re-election. Burris did not have any chance of actually winning a full term. Rep. Kirk's chances look even better now that state Attorney General Lisa Madigan has decided to seek a third term rather than run for the Senate. The only credible Democratic challenger is state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias who has raised a considerable amount of money. Rep. Kirk can run on his experienc and not being party of the Chicago political machine, both of which would be Giannoulias' weaknesses.
Nevada: Democratic Senate Majority Harry Reid may have to fight to keep his Senate seat. A recent Mason-Dixon poll in that state shows Harry Reid's approval sits at 34% which is 5 points below Nevada's other Senator John Ensign. The key to this poll is that it was taken right after the news of Senator Ensign's sex scandal. I believe the key to this race is finding a credible Republican to run against Reid.
Texas: Could have a Senate race as long as current Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison decides to resign her seat and challenge Republican Governor Rick Perry. I still have questions whether or not Hutchison will run. A recent Univeristy of Texas poll shows her trailing by 12% in the Republican primary. I'll update information on a Texas Senate race when I know there actually will be one.
New York: There are actually two Senate races but the only one that could be a challenge is the seat currently occoupied by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. The race is going to be competitive for sure on the Democratic side with Rep. Carolyn Maloney challenging Gillibrand. Rep. Maloney's has been helped by the support from President Bill Clinton, whose wife used to have that particualr Senate seat. The Democratic primary can be very bruising with democrats having to decide between the candidate supported by President Clinton and the candidate supported by President Obama. A Republican can have a chance if they play off of the democratic internal fights. Right now there is not a strong potential Republican challenger, Rep Pete King has said he probably will not run for the seat. Senator Gillibrand is a moderate and I think Republicans would have a better chance if there was a bitter Democratic primary and Gillibrand lost. Angry Gillibrand voters could become potential Republican voters.
Kentucky: No real news here with what current Senator Jim Bunning is doing. Signs show he probably is not running but does not have any motivation to say so. The recent news is that Rand Paul, song of Ron Paul, a Republican Congressmen from Texas and former presidential candidate is going to run whether Bunning is running or not.
So far so good for Republicans. The key is at this point though is to remember that polls can change based on events. If approval ratings of President Obama continue to trend the way they have he will be very unpopular on election day in 2010. If he is unpopular there are more Senate and House rates that can be competitive. At this point though, Democrats have huge majorities in the House, filibuster proof majorities in the Senate, and the White House, whatever happens between now and election day is going to be on Demorcrats, good or bad.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
What Will Palin Do?
Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin shocked the political world when she announced her intention to step down as Governor at the end of July. Palin worded her resignation in a way that makes me think that she is interested in other political offices. But I believe she made a significant political miscalculation in resigning as governor.
One reason given for her resignation was that the Governor did not want to waste taxpayer money by being an ineffective lame duck governor. I respect her attempts at trying to save tax payer dollars but I believe she is flawed in her logic. Governor Palin's replacement will be Lt. Governor Sean Parnell who is running for governor in 2010. Alaskans will not be better off because instead of having a full-time governor, in Palin, they will now have a part-time governor whose focus will be on being elected governor, in Parnell.
Being a lame duck office holder is not really a place any politician wants to be but quiting is not really the appropriate action. In November of 2008 it would not have been appropriate for President Bush to resign and have Vice President Cheney take over. A governor or a president still has official duties that must be done. I cannot think of anyone at least in modern history that has resigned because they were a lame duck.
Governor Palin appears to have higher aspirations and I can see her not wanting to run for re-election but stepping down is odd. If anything being a lame duck governor for an aspiring politician is the best thing that can happen to that politician. The lame duck governor won't have to worry about legislative battles instead they can focus on their other official duties and still use their pulpit as a governor to gain attention on the national stage.
The more murky area is what exactly Palin will do now, her resignation was worded indicating she is not done with public service and I believe there are four sceanrios that could happen for Palin.
Sceanario 1: Palin runs for Congress
There are three offices that Palin could take over for potentially, the two US Senate seats or the US House seat. Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski is up for re-election next year and so is Rep. Don Young, both are Republicans. Both Murkowski and Young have had some ethical issues in the past and Palin could be looking to capitalize on their issues to defeat them for re-election. Palin does have a history of fighting corruption and challenging members of her party.
Palin was elected Governor by beating Govenor Frank Murkowski (father of the Senator) and she might have an agenda to elminate the whole family from public office.
Competitive Republican primaries are not unusal in Alaska, Rep. Young was challenged in last year's primary by none other then, Lt Governor now soon-to- be-Governor Sean Parnell.
If Palin runs for Congress I think her easiest competition would be against Rep. Young, who only won his primary by 304 votes.
Sceanario 2: Palin goes to Congress
No this scenario is not redundant, Palin might not have to challange an incumbent. For being a rather densely populated state Alaskan politicians have had some corruption issues in the past. I don't want to start rumors but it is possible there could be some corruption charges coming down the pipeline that Palin might have been made aware of. In very recent history Senator Murkowski and Rep. Young have had ethic probes or complaints filed against them. The other Alaskan Senator Mark Begich, a Democrat, has actually had a clean past that I know of, but there were some shady areas in his recent Senate campaign.
If there was some sort of ethical issue that could cause one of the senators or congressman to step down Palin now would be in an excellent position to be appointed to that office. The person that would be making the appointment to fill any vacant seat would be by the person Palin just made Governor.
Of course, this sceanrio is not really probable and there would probably be more questions and suspicion of Palin if it came true.
Sceanario 3: Palin prepares to run for the Presidency
Presidential campaigns are time consuming and expensive. President Obama starting running in 2006, two years before winning the office. If Palin wanted to run in 2012 she could have a headstart over everybody else in the race.
However, I think that her resignation to leave office early to run for president is not something that will sit well with voters and will be a big negative her campaign will have to deal with. Of course, Palin is 45 years old, and being president in 2012 might not be her goal. The Governor is young enough to be able to run in 15 years if she wanted to be president.
If Palin's looking to be president in the future she would have to do something now to prepare her resume. With President Obama in the White House I don't think she can expect a high level appointment of some kind. A good private sector job though could certainly help her resume and she can wait until 2014 when Senator Begich is up for re-election (who realistically will be a one term Senator).
Sceanario #4: Palin remains a semi-private citizen
There certainly is no question that the governor and her family have had their lives turned upside down since joining the national stage. It is possible the Governor resigned for the sake of her family and will work for the public good but not hold any public office.
The former Governor would be a great hire by any not for profit organizations and would be a great spokeswoman for multiple causes. If Palin stays out of public office her and her family stay out of the spotlight and won't be the blunt of latenight talkshow jokes.
What Governor Palin really plans on doing is not known and she has not indicated any desire to let the media or the public know until she is ready to tell people. We regretably will have to wait this out and see what exactly the Governor will do.
One reason given for her resignation was that the Governor did not want to waste taxpayer money by being an ineffective lame duck governor. I respect her attempts at trying to save tax payer dollars but I believe she is flawed in her logic. Governor Palin's replacement will be Lt. Governor Sean Parnell who is running for governor in 2010. Alaskans will not be better off because instead of having a full-time governor, in Palin, they will now have a part-time governor whose focus will be on being elected governor, in Parnell.
Being a lame duck office holder is not really a place any politician wants to be but quiting is not really the appropriate action. In November of 2008 it would not have been appropriate for President Bush to resign and have Vice President Cheney take over. A governor or a president still has official duties that must be done. I cannot think of anyone at least in modern history that has resigned because they were a lame duck.
Governor Palin appears to have higher aspirations and I can see her not wanting to run for re-election but stepping down is odd. If anything being a lame duck governor for an aspiring politician is the best thing that can happen to that politician. The lame duck governor won't have to worry about legislative battles instead they can focus on their other official duties and still use their pulpit as a governor to gain attention on the national stage.
The more murky area is what exactly Palin will do now, her resignation was worded indicating she is not done with public service and I believe there are four sceanrios that could happen for Palin.
Sceanario 1: Palin runs for Congress
There are three offices that Palin could take over for potentially, the two US Senate seats or the US House seat. Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski is up for re-election next year and so is Rep. Don Young, both are Republicans. Both Murkowski and Young have had some ethical issues in the past and Palin could be looking to capitalize on their issues to defeat them for re-election. Palin does have a history of fighting corruption and challenging members of her party.
Palin was elected Governor by beating Govenor Frank Murkowski (father of the Senator) and she might have an agenda to elminate the whole family from public office.
Competitive Republican primaries are not unusal in Alaska, Rep. Young was challenged in last year's primary by none other then, Lt Governor now soon-to- be-Governor Sean Parnell.
If Palin runs for Congress I think her easiest competition would be against Rep. Young, who only won his primary by 304 votes.
Sceanario 2: Palin goes to Congress
No this scenario is not redundant, Palin might not have to challange an incumbent. For being a rather densely populated state Alaskan politicians have had some corruption issues in the past. I don't want to start rumors but it is possible there could be some corruption charges coming down the pipeline that Palin might have been made aware of. In very recent history Senator Murkowski and Rep. Young have had ethic probes or complaints filed against them. The other Alaskan Senator Mark Begich, a Democrat, has actually had a clean past that I know of, but there were some shady areas in his recent Senate campaign.
If there was some sort of ethical issue that could cause one of the senators or congressman to step down Palin now would be in an excellent position to be appointed to that office. The person that would be making the appointment to fill any vacant seat would be by the person Palin just made Governor.
Of course, this sceanrio is not really probable and there would probably be more questions and suspicion of Palin if it came true.
Sceanario 3: Palin prepares to run for the Presidency
Presidential campaigns are time consuming and expensive. President Obama starting running in 2006, two years before winning the office. If Palin wanted to run in 2012 she could have a headstart over everybody else in the race.
However, I think that her resignation to leave office early to run for president is not something that will sit well with voters and will be a big negative her campaign will have to deal with. Of course, Palin is 45 years old, and being president in 2012 might not be her goal. The Governor is young enough to be able to run in 15 years if she wanted to be president.
If Palin's looking to be president in the future she would have to do something now to prepare her resume. With President Obama in the White House I don't think she can expect a high level appointment of some kind. A good private sector job though could certainly help her resume and she can wait until 2014 when Senator Begich is up for re-election (who realistically will be a one term Senator).
Sceanario #4: Palin remains a semi-private citizen
There certainly is no question that the governor and her family have had their lives turned upside down since joining the national stage. It is possible the Governor resigned for the sake of her family and will work for the public good but not hold any public office.
The former Governor would be a great hire by any not for profit organizations and would be a great spokeswoman for multiple causes. If Palin stays out of public office her and her family stay out of the spotlight and won't be the blunt of latenight talkshow jokes.
What Governor Palin really plans on doing is not known and she has not indicated any desire to let the media or the public know until she is ready to tell people. We regretably will have to wait this out and see what exactly the Governor will do.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Update: 2010 Senate race
Since my last post there has been quite a few updates/primaries and I wanted to update everyone on how the Senate race is shaping up:
Illinois: Early last week Rep. Jan Schakowksy announced that she would not run for the seat. Early polls showed Schakowsky had a very real chance of winning the nomination and the general election. The three democrats that appear interested in the race is Senator Roland Burris, State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, and Chris Kennedy, a Chicago businessman and son of Robert Kennedy. On the Republican side, the only credible candidate is Rep. Mark Kirk. Kirk hasn't said what he's going to do but did announce earlier this week he is getting a divorce from his wife. It is not known on this event will impact his decision.
Oklahoma: Senator Tom Coburn announced that he is going to seek another term, basically guaranteeing the seat stays in Republican hands
Connecticut: The latest poll shows Senator Chris Dodd trailing Rep. Rob Simmons in a hypothetical general election and he is still unpopular with most of the state. The good news for the Dodd campaign is that he is only losing by 6 percent and his numbers have been improving since my last update.
Pennsylvania: No official word on whether Rep. Sestak will actually run. I believe the general election will be very interesting one way or the other.
Colorado: The candidates for this race seem more like excellent candidates for a mayoral race rather than a Senatorial race. The current incumbent is Michael Bennet who was actually appointed to the seat and is a former school superintendent. The two Republican challengers are a county sheriff and a city councilman. Rumors have former Congressman Bob Beauprez looking at the race. If he entered he would be the only real prominent name. I think the Republicans need to look at this race because there is real opportunity to take back the seat.
Pete Coors, the Coloradoan businessman ran for the seat in 2004. If he wanted to really be in the Senate this year could be his year.
Florida: Governor Charlie Crist anounced he will run for the seat and he quickly snatched up key endorsements. Crist has some star-power and national fame. I think he wins the nomination and the general election.
Missouri: No big changes in terms of candidates, this race right now is a toss-up.
Delaware: Vice President Biden's seat could go into Republican hands if Rep. Mike Castle enters the race, sources say that he is leaning at running.
The most exciting thing in my opinion are the possibilities available to Republicans in 2010. This past November pundits and critics were telling Republicans that they were out of the mainstream. What a difference six months can make considering Republicans have good prospects in winning Senate seats in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Delaware, Colorodo, and Illinois, which are hardly states considered red or purple.
Illinois: Early last week Rep. Jan Schakowksy announced that she would not run for the seat. Early polls showed Schakowsky had a very real chance of winning the nomination and the general election. The three democrats that appear interested in the race is Senator Roland Burris, State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, and Chris Kennedy, a Chicago businessman and son of Robert Kennedy. On the Republican side, the only credible candidate is Rep. Mark Kirk. Kirk hasn't said what he's going to do but did announce earlier this week he is getting a divorce from his wife. It is not known on this event will impact his decision.
Oklahoma: Senator Tom Coburn announced that he is going to seek another term, basically guaranteeing the seat stays in Republican hands
Connecticut: The latest poll shows Senator Chris Dodd trailing Rep. Rob Simmons in a hypothetical general election and he is still unpopular with most of the state. The good news for the Dodd campaign is that he is only losing by 6 percent and his numbers have been improving since my last update.
Pennsylvania: No official word on whether Rep. Sestak will actually run. I believe the general election will be very interesting one way or the other.
Colorado: The candidates for this race seem more like excellent candidates for a mayoral race rather than a Senatorial race. The current incumbent is Michael Bennet who was actually appointed to the seat and is a former school superintendent. The two Republican challengers are a county sheriff and a city councilman. Rumors have former Congressman Bob Beauprez looking at the race. If he entered he would be the only real prominent name. I think the Republicans need to look at this race because there is real opportunity to take back the seat.
Pete Coors, the Coloradoan businessman ran for the seat in 2004. If he wanted to really be in the Senate this year could be his year.
Florida: Governor Charlie Crist anounced he will run for the seat and he quickly snatched up key endorsements. Crist has some star-power and national fame. I think he wins the nomination and the general election.
Missouri: No big changes in terms of candidates, this race right now is a toss-up.
Delaware: Vice President Biden's seat could go into Republican hands if Rep. Mike Castle enters the race, sources say that he is leaning at running.
The most exciting thing in my opinion are the possibilities available to Republicans in 2010. This past November pundits and critics were telling Republicans that they were out of the mainstream. What a difference six months can make considering Republicans have good prospects in winning Senate seats in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Delaware, Colorodo, and Illinois, which are hardly states considered red or purple.
Friday, June 12, 2009
It's action time for Obama on the torture photos
Congress this week has had a big discussion on what to do with abuse photos from Abu Ghraib prison. If you haven't been following the news, Congress is working on funding legislation for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. In the Senate version of the spending bill, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) attached a provision to bar the Abu Ghraib photos from being released for five years
A handful of very liberal members of the House of Representatives, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have said they would not vote for the spending legislation if that provision was in the spending bill. Due to this opposition, the conference committee, the group tasked with smoothing out the differences between the House and Senate version were forced to drop the provision after the urging of the Obama Administration.
President Obama himself has said that he does not want the photos released and supported the McConnell amendment. Obama stated he opposed the measure because of the anger it will cause among Muslims and the harm that could come to our troops. I agree with President Obama on this idea.
The problem though is that the Obama adminstraton was not able to use its influence to get the necessary support for the spending measure and asked the conference committeee to remove the amendment from the spending bill.
I have two issues at this point, one issue is why some members of Congress want the photos released ( I feel this is more political and a topic for another blog) . The main issue I have is that the photo issue has not been resolved and the Obama administration needs to act now.
Congress has shown they are not capable of making the photos classified and the responsibility now lays with the president. I urge President Obama to classify these photosl for national security purposes and end the debate in Congress. These photo's should have never been taken and their existence is a black mark on the United States but no one benefits from their release. The photos should not be released now, in five years or ever, their release serves no function but political enjoyment for some of the exteme liberal members of Congress.
A handful of very liberal members of the House of Representatives, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have said they would not vote for the spending legislation if that provision was in the spending bill. Due to this opposition, the conference committee, the group tasked with smoothing out the differences between the House and Senate version were forced to drop the provision after the urging of the Obama Administration.
President Obama himself has said that he does not want the photos released and supported the McConnell amendment. Obama stated he opposed the measure because of the anger it will cause among Muslims and the harm that could come to our troops. I agree with President Obama on this idea.
The problem though is that the Obama adminstraton was not able to use its influence to get the necessary support for the spending measure and asked the conference committeee to remove the amendment from the spending bill.
I have two issues at this point, one issue is why some members of Congress want the photos released ( I feel this is more political and a topic for another blog) . The main issue I have is that the photo issue has not been resolved and the Obama administration needs to act now.
Congress has shown they are not capable of making the photos classified and the responsibility now lays with the president. I urge President Obama to classify these photosl for national security purposes and end the debate in Congress. These photo's should have never been taken and their existence is a black mark on the United States but no one benefits from their release. The photos should not be released now, in five years or ever, their release serves no function but political enjoyment for some of the exteme liberal members of Congress.
Run! What's KBH waiting for?
I have written a lot about the Texas Governor's race and a recent event has really made me think. Yesterday current US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison sent out a letter to her supporters basically asking for money. Of Course what made her letter interesting is that she included the phrase
" I am running for Governor because Texas must prepare for the future. I am running because I believe it is conservative to demand results and hold government accountable - with integrity and responsibility."
Now this is not the first time that KBH has said she is running but there has not been an official announcement of her campaign. At this point I am wondering what the hold up is in making an official announcement.
I am actually questioning the strategy of the campaign. When Senator Hutchison does finally announce she is running, the news won't be so shocking to Texans. Normally a candidate, any candidate gets a bounce in the polls when they actually say they are running. At this point its not news that she is running.
The only thing that would really be news is if Sen. Hutchison did not run. My thinking right now is that KBH would really like to run and be governor of Texas but wants a safety net and the ability to quickly back out of the race. Hutchison is looking to challenge incumbent Governor Rick Perry, who is not popular in the state by any means. The one issue the senator might have is that Perry is still very popular with conservatives. The senator has at times been at odds with some in the conservative wing of the party. We know from previous elections that devoted ideologues are usually the ones that turn out and influence a primary result. If Perry can get a enough of his base to turnout and Hutchison has issues connecting with voters it's possible Perry can win the nomination.
I do believe even though Texas is a very Republican state, I don't think Governor Perry has a good chance a general election if he is the nominee.
Right now, all Sen. Hutchison has really done is form an exploratory committee. She has also announced she is about to tour the state to discuss the future of Texas. After Senator Hutchison's listening tour it would not be too late for her to back out of the race if the polls don't look good. In fact she could easily back out of the race by saying "After touring our state and talking with Texans I have found that the best thing for Texas is for me to continue my work in the United States Senate."
Hutchison has backed out of the governor's race in years past and it still could happen this time around. If Hutchison does decide to run all the way I have to question the public relations strategy, I feel they the campaign might lose some of its momentum with multiple pseudo-announcements.
" I am running for Governor because Texas must prepare for the future. I am running because I believe it is conservative to demand results and hold government accountable - with integrity and responsibility."
Now this is not the first time that KBH has said she is running but there has not been an official announcement of her campaign. At this point I am wondering what the hold up is in making an official announcement.
I am actually questioning the strategy of the campaign. When Senator Hutchison does finally announce she is running, the news won't be so shocking to Texans. Normally a candidate, any candidate gets a bounce in the polls when they actually say they are running. At this point its not news that she is running.
The only thing that would really be news is if Sen. Hutchison did not run. My thinking right now is that KBH would really like to run and be governor of Texas but wants a safety net and the ability to quickly back out of the race. Hutchison is looking to challenge incumbent Governor Rick Perry, who is not popular in the state by any means. The one issue the senator might have is that Perry is still very popular with conservatives. The senator has at times been at odds with some in the conservative wing of the party. We know from previous elections that devoted ideologues are usually the ones that turn out and influence a primary result. If Perry can get a enough of his base to turnout and Hutchison has issues connecting with voters it's possible Perry can win the nomination.
I do believe even though Texas is a very Republican state, I don't think Governor Perry has a good chance a general election if he is the nominee.
Right now, all Sen. Hutchison has really done is form an exploratory committee. She has also announced she is about to tour the state to discuss the future of Texas. After Senator Hutchison's listening tour it would not be too late for her to back out of the race if the polls don't look good. In fact she could easily back out of the race by saying "After touring our state and talking with Texans I have found that the best thing for Texas is for me to continue my work in the United States Senate."
Hutchison has backed out of the governor's race in years past and it still could happen this time around. If Hutchison does decide to run all the way I have to question the public relations strategy, I feel they the campaign might lose some of its momentum with multiple pseudo-announcements.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Specter Switch
In case you missed one of the biggest stories of last week's news cycle, Senator Specter announced that he was switching parties and deciding to run for re-election as a Democrat. This decision of course does not only impact the 2010 election but also the current balance of the Senate. Officially there are now 59 Democratic Senators and 40 Republicans. The one remaining seat is still being debated in Minnesota but it looks very likely the Democrats will be successful and have the 60 votes any party would want.
Specter's announcement is not particularly shocking to the political world because at best Specter was a moderate Republican. There are numerous events where Specter has been in the middle opposing a conservative initiative.
Specter faced a very difficult Republican primary against former Rep. Pete Toomey and his chances in the general election as a Republican were not great either. If Specter was able to beat Toomey for the Republican nomination I think his campaign would have been out of money in a general election fight.
In terms of how this announcement changes the prospects in 2010 is hard to tell right now. Former Pennsylvania Governor and Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge is now "seriously considering" a run for the Senate seat. I believe Republicans would have a better chance of winning the seat if Tom Ridge was the nominee over former Rep. Pete Toomey.
Furthermore, Specter may not have a wideopen Democratic field for him. Rep. Joe Sestak is at least open to challenging Specter. Sestak certainly has a chance and a good bit of money on his side. Keep in mind Specter might have switched parties but he is not a liberal, he is a moderate. Pennsylvania Democrats might look to Sestak as someone who could win a general election and someone who agrees with them on all issues.
Republicans certainly can be positive about their chances in Pennsylvania. The Senate race is not over because Specter is not running as a Republican, in fact they could be better off due to Democrats potential hesitation towards him.
My prediction is if Tom Ridge wins the nomination, the general election is too close to call against Specter. If Rep. Sestak wins the Democratic nomination and faces Ridge this seat could go back into Republican hands.
Specter's announcement is not particularly shocking to the political world because at best Specter was a moderate Republican. There are numerous events where Specter has been in the middle opposing a conservative initiative.
Specter faced a very difficult Republican primary against former Rep. Pete Toomey and his chances in the general election as a Republican were not great either. If Specter was able to beat Toomey for the Republican nomination I think his campaign would have been out of money in a general election fight.
In terms of how this announcement changes the prospects in 2010 is hard to tell right now. Former Pennsylvania Governor and Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge is now "seriously considering" a run for the Senate seat. I believe Republicans would have a better chance of winning the seat if Tom Ridge was the nominee over former Rep. Pete Toomey.
Furthermore, Specter may not have a wideopen Democratic field for him. Rep. Joe Sestak is at least open to challenging Specter. Sestak certainly has a chance and a good bit of money on his side. Keep in mind Specter might have switched parties but he is not a liberal, he is a moderate. Pennsylvania Democrats might look to Sestak as someone who could win a general election and someone who agrees with them on all issues.
Republicans certainly can be positive about their chances in Pennsylvania. The Senate race is not over because Specter is not running as a Republican, in fact they could be better off due to Democrats potential hesitation towards him.
My prediction is if Tom Ridge wins the nomination, the general election is too close to call against Specter. If Rep. Sestak wins the Democratic nomination and faces Ridge this seat could go back into Republican hands.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Update: 2010 Senate Races
Last week the RNC and DNC released their first quarter fundraising results The good news is that Republicans are in good shape financially raising $25.3 million. Democrats raised a total of $13.8 million. The bad news is that Republicans are going to need all the financial help they can get. There are total of 19 seats that Republicans are defending versus 17 for the Democrats.
The way I see this election there are about 6 Republican seats that are up for grabs (Missouri, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio). These seats are up for grabs because either the seat is open due to retirement or an unpopular incumbent. One important thing to keep in mind is the number one, all it takes is one of these seats to go Democratic and there are 60 Democratic votes in the Senate. The races break down like this:
Missouri
A real mess for Republicans. The seat is from retiring Senator Kit Bond (R). The other senator is a Democrat. The state basically went 50-50 in 2008. The dems seem to already have their nominee Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, who comes from a very famous political family in the state. On the Republican side there is one announced candidate Rep Roy Blunt but he is doing all the well in terms of polls and money.
Kentucky
In 2004 Senator Bunning barely won and it looks like if he does actually go forward and run he might actually lose. Bunning has not been getting any help from Senate Republicans. What's worse is that there aren't many possibilities the Republicans can put up against Bunning.
New Hampshire
The seat is open after the retirement of Judd Gregg. The democratic nominee looks like it could be between current democratic Rep. Paul Hodes and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter. Former Senator John Sununu seems to be the only likely Republican that would get into the race.
Florida
Another open seat after the retirement of Republican Mel Martinez. This race is a toss-up at least until the nominees are decided. The state went for Obama in 2008 but right now in a head to head matchup a generic republican leads by 1%.
Pennsylvania
Senator Arlen Specter is running for re-election but will face a primary fight against former Rep. Pete Tooomey and a tough general election. Pennsylvania is a blue state and the 2004 race was very close. I see Specter surviving the primary challenge, but I can see him running out of energy and money to put up a good fight.
Ohio
Open seat due to retirement of Republican Senator George Voinivich. I think this seat will stay in Republican hands. Former Rep. Rob Portman seems to have a good hold on the race. At the end of the day the state is Ohio and has been a toss-up in recent national elections.
The Democrats will have to work hard in about 4 states (Colorado, Illinois, Connecticut,Nevada). What you should note about that statement is that I said "work hard" in 4 states. Each one of these states are unique on their own.
Illinois
Illinois could be a possibility (I know I am optimistic) depending on who the Republican nominee is. The only real chance this could be a race is if Rep. Mark Kirk decides to run for the Senate. Even with Kirk in the race it will be tough, Illinois is a very blue state. Illinoisans are mad at the corruption of their former governor and the scandals around their Senator Roland Burris, but I don't think they are mad enough to vote for the other party just another Democratic candidate.
Connecticut
I blogged entirely about this race last week. For more details see that post but the bottom line is Dodd is not popular in the state and losing in the polls right now. If the banking scandals surronding him continue he very well may be out of a job. What you should keep in mind though is Connecticut is as blue as the Atlantic Ocean.
Nevada
Could be a race depending what happens in the Senate between now and election time. It is not an impossibility that a Senate Majority Leader loses a re-election bid.
Colorado
Colorado is just a purple state and you can't quite tell what can happen with it. The state went for Obama and the current Senator is Michael Bennet, who was appointed to the seat and has never been on a statewide ballot.
As with every election time will obviously tell, it does not look good for Republicans right now. I can see a very real possibility that Dems pick up 3 or 4 seats.
The way I see this election there are about 6 Republican seats that are up for grabs (Missouri, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio). These seats are up for grabs because either the seat is open due to retirement or an unpopular incumbent. One important thing to keep in mind is the number one, all it takes is one of these seats to go Democratic and there are 60 Democratic votes in the Senate. The races break down like this:
Missouri
A real mess for Republicans. The seat is from retiring Senator Kit Bond (R). The other senator is a Democrat. The state basically went 50-50 in 2008. The dems seem to already have their nominee Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, who comes from a very famous political family in the state. On the Republican side there is one announced candidate Rep Roy Blunt but he is doing all the well in terms of polls and money.
Kentucky
In 2004 Senator Bunning barely won and it looks like if he does actually go forward and run he might actually lose. Bunning has not been getting any help from Senate Republicans. What's worse is that there aren't many possibilities the Republicans can put up against Bunning.
New Hampshire
The seat is open after the retirement of Judd Gregg. The democratic nominee looks like it could be between current democratic Rep. Paul Hodes and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter. Former Senator John Sununu seems to be the only likely Republican that would get into the race.
Florida
Another open seat after the retirement of Republican Mel Martinez. This race is a toss-up at least until the nominees are decided. The state went for Obama in 2008 but right now in a head to head matchup a generic republican leads by 1%.
Pennsylvania
Senator Arlen Specter is running for re-election but will face a primary fight against former Rep. Pete Tooomey and a tough general election. Pennsylvania is a blue state and the 2004 race was very close. I see Specter surviving the primary challenge, but I can see him running out of energy and money to put up a good fight.
Ohio
Open seat due to retirement of Republican Senator George Voinivich. I think this seat will stay in Republican hands. Former Rep. Rob Portman seems to have a good hold on the race. At the end of the day the state is Ohio and has been a toss-up in recent national elections.
The Democrats will have to work hard in about 4 states (Colorado, Illinois, Connecticut,Nevada). What you should note about that statement is that I said "work hard" in 4 states. Each one of these states are unique on their own.
Illinois
Illinois could be a possibility (I know I am optimistic) depending on who the Republican nominee is. The only real chance this could be a race is if Rep. Mark Kirk decides to run for the Senate. Even with Kirk in the race it will be tough, Illinois is a very blue state. Illinoisans are mad at the corruption of their former governor and the scandals around their Senator Roland Burris, but I don't think they are mad enough to vote for the other party just another Democratic candidate.
Connecticut
I blogged entirely about this race last week. For more details see that post but the bottom line is Dodd is not popular in the state and losing in the polls right now. If the banking scandals surronding him continue he very well may be out of a job. What you should keep in mind though is Connecticut is as blue as the Atlantic Ocean.
Nevada
Could be a race depending what happens in the Senate between now and election time. It is not an impossibility that a Senate Majority Leader loses a re-election bid.
Colorado
Colorado is just a purple state and you can't quite tell what can happen with it. The state went for Obama and the current Senator is Michael Bennet, who was appointed to the seat and has never been on a statewide ballot.
As with every election time will obviously tell, it does not look good for Republicans right now. I can see a very real possibility that Dems pick up 3 or 4 seats.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
You spent my money on what?
If you can't guess political campaigns interest me if not consume most of my attention. But a recent story released by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram stating Texas Congressmen Joe Barton has lost a significant amount of money ($700K) in the stock market.
"What's new?" you might ask. Well he invested his campaign fund into the stock market. To be fair to Rep. Barton what he has done is completely legal. Also, this story probably wouldn't have made news if the market had not dropped about 50% from its October 2007 highs. But I think the underlying principle of what Congressman Barton and other public officials are doing or trying to do with their campaign cash that really irks me.
Correct me if I am wrong but when I or you give money to a political candidate I expect that money to be used, you know, for their campaign, or at least their future campaigns. The reason why I give money is because I hope that the person I gave the money to wins public office and votes the way I think they should vote.
This incident raises the question of what exactly should politicians do with their spare campaign cash when they don't have to spend it for their campaigns?
Barton is acting liking a capitalist and I think capitalism is a great thing, but could there be a conflict of interest with a Congressman's investments and what might be before him on the floor of the House? People have talked about conflicts of interest politicians have based on a politicians private investments. A politicians private investments, like what they invest in their retirement account should be for the most part private. But, I think the issue changes when the funds come from the voting public and to be used specifically for running for a public office.
But the campaign cash being invested is not the only issue. Rep. Barton probably has some fees associated with his investment account like commission etc. Who here would be willing to give money to a politician to pass along to a broker?
I know the family who scrimped and saved money to contribute to a politician because they believed in the politician wouldn't be happy to know their contribution went to pay a broker.
But, what Rep. Barton and others have done pales in comparison to what former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is trying to do with his campaign fund. The former governor has asked that his campaign be allowed to use his campaign fund for his legal defense. If you don't know the ex-governor is on trial for racketeering and fraud.
The decision for the Blagojevich matter is in the hands of US District Judge James Zagel and a decision is not expected to be made until May 1st. I hope the good judge comes to his senses and doesn't allow the ex-governor access to campaign funds.
I think it would be refreshing if politicians couldn't use their campaign contributions to get them out of jail for crimes they committed while they were in public office. I also think it would be refreshing if politicians invested their cash maybe in US Treasury bonds rather than the stock of the day. What do you think?
"What's new?" you might ask. Well he invested his campaign fund into the stock market. To be fair to Rep. Barton what he has done is completely legal. Also, this story probably wouldn't have made news if the market had not dropped about 50% from its October 2007 highs. But I think the underlying principle of what Congressman Barton and other public officials are doing or trying to do with their campaign cash that really irks me.
Correct me if I am wrong but when I or you give money to a political candidate I expect that money to be used, you know, for their campaign, or at least their future campaigns. The reason why I give money is because I hope that the person I gave the money to wins public office and votes the way I think they should vote.
This incident raises the question of what exactly should politicians do with their spare campaign cash when they don't have to spend it for their campaigns?
Barton is acting liking a capitalist and I think capitalism is a great thing, but could there be a conflict of interest with a Congressman's investments and what might be before him on the floor of the House? People have talked about conflicts of interest politicians have based on a politicians private investments. A politicians private investments, like what they invest in their retirement account should be for the most part private. But, I think the issue changes when the funds come from the voting public and to be used specifically for running for a public office.
But the campaign cash being invested is not the only issue. Rep. Barton probably has some fees associated with his investment account like commission etc. Who here would be willing to give money to a politician to pass along to a broker?
I know the family who scrimped and saved money to contribute to a politician because they believed in the politician wouldn't be happy to know their contribution went to pay a broker.
But, what Rep. Barton and others have done pales in comparison to what former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is trying to do with his campaign fund. The former governor has asked that his campaign be allowed to use his campaign fund for his legal defense. If you don't know the ex-governor is on trial for racketeering and fraud.
The decision for the Blagojevich matter is in the hands of US District Judge James Zagel and a decision is not expected to be made until May 1st. I hope the good judge comes to his senses and doesn't allow the ex-governor access to campaign funds.
I think it would be refreshing if politicians couldn't use their campaign contributions to get them out of jail for crimes they committed while they were in public office. I also think it would be refreshing if politicians invested their cash maybe in US Treasury bonds rather than the stock of the day. What do you think?
Sunday, April 19, 2009
A Connecticut Lesson: Dodd has something to learn from Lieberman
The 2010 Senate race is getting interesting already. Republicans have a challenge ahead of them trying to prevent the Democrats getting 60 seats. But could they gain a seat in Connecticut? That's right I didn't mistype the state, Connecticut. Senator Chris Dodd is in for a tough re-election fight.
To give a little background on Connecticut right now their entire congressional delegation is Democratic and in fact the entire New England Delegation is Democratic. Connecticut hasn't voted for a Republican in a presidential election since 1988. Right now there are three potential Republican challengers and each one is beating Senator Dodd in a head to head match up. A recent Quinnipiac University poll has the race as follows:
Match-up #1
Candidate Vote%
Former Rep. Rob Simmons 50%
Senator Dodd 34%
Match-up #2
Candidate Vote%
State St. Sam Caliguri 41%
Senator Dodd 37%
Match-up #3
Candidate Vote%
Ambassador Tom Foley 43%
Senator Dodd 35%
Not only are the poll numbers frightening for Dodd and his allies, his fundraising abilities (or lack thereof) within Connecticut shows he might be in trouble. Dodd recent filing with the FEC shows he has $1 million raised the first quarter but only $4250 came from within the state. Those numbers highlight his unpopularity within the state but also a larger issue with campaign finance
Keep in mind $1 million is still a $1 million and Dodd still is an incumbent. There also is no doubt Dodd will get help from his Senate colleagues and former Senate colleagues like President Obama and Vice President Biden. The White House is already talking about Senator Dodd and their eagerness to help come 2010 (which means they are already scared).
But I believe there is a lesson Senator Dodd should learn from the other Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Lieberman when he ran for re-election lost the Democratic nomination in 2006 but won as an Independent. The lesson Liberman learned was if Connecticut likes you, you will win. The same logic can be applied for Dodd, if Connecticut doesn't like you, you can lose. In 2006, a lot of national Democrats did not like Liberman but Connecticuters did. In 2010, a lot of national democrats like Dodd, but so far Connecticuters don't. In the end, Connecticut picks their Senator.
It's still very early in this Senate race and a lot of anger towards Dodd is directed at him from what he has done (or not done) as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. If the economic situation improves people may be more forgiving of him but he does have some other ethical accusations against him. I certainly can't call this race yet but I believe in 6 months we can have an idea of where this race is heading.
To give a little background on Connecticut right now their entire congressional delegation is Democratic and in fact the entire New England Delegation is Democratic. Connecticut hasn't voted for a Republican in a presidential election since 1988. Right now there are three potential Republican challengers and each one is beating Senator Dodd in a head to head match up. A recent Quinnipiac University poll has the race as follows:
Match-up #1
Candidate Vote%
Former Rep. Rob Simmons 50%
Senator Dodd 34%
Match-up #2
Candidate Vote%
State St. Sam Caliguri 41%
Senator Dodd 37%
Match-up #3
Candidate Vote%
Ambassador Tom Foley 43%
Senator Dodd 35%
Not only are the poll numbers frightening for Dodd and his allies, his fundraising abilities (or lack thereof) within Connecticut shows he might be in trouble. Dodd recent filing with the FEC shows he has $1 million raised the first quarter but only $4250 came from within the state. Those numbers highlight his unpopularity within the state but also a larger issue with campaign finance
Keep in mind $1 million is still a $1 million and Dodd still is an incumbent. There also is no doubt Dodd will get help from his Senate colleagues and former Senate colleagues like President Obama and Vice President Biden. The White House is already talking about Senator Dodd and their eagerness to help come 2010 (which means they are already scared).
But I believe there is a lesson Senator Dodd should learn from the other Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Lieberman when he ran for re-election lost the Democratic nomination in 2006 but won as an Independent. The lesson Liberman learned was if Connecticut likes you, you will win. The same logic can be applied for Dodd, if Connecticut doesn't like you, you can lose. In 2006, a lot of national Democrats did not like Liberman but Connecticuters did. In 2010, a lot of national democrats like Dodd, but so far Connecticuters don't. In the end, Connecticut picks their Senator.
It's still very early in this Senate race and a lot of anger towards Dodd is directed at him from what he has done (or not done) as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. If the economic situation improves people may be more forgiving of him but he does have some other ethical accusations against him. I certainly can't call this race yet but I believe in 6 months we can have an idea of where this race is heading.
Update: Texas Governor's Race
There have been quite a bit a news since I last wrote about the Texas Governor's race and I wanted to give everyone an update.
Republicans:
The Republican nomination appears to be between just two candidates. Of course, the two candidates are two big name candidates. Governor Perry has already announced his candidacy and Senator Hutchison has announced her exploratory committee (a big step for her).
There are rumors that Lt. Governor David Dewhurst will run but I believe those are just rumors. Two others have announced their candidacy, Larry Kilgore (former gubernatorial and senate candidate) and Debra Medina( former Wharton County Republican Chair). I think this blog will be the last you hear of those candidates. I cannot see any other big name Republican entering the governor's race. I think people like Dewhurst are actually waiting for Hutchison to run so they can run for her senate seat.
The two big pieces of news since I last wrote is that, Hutchison is in, more or less. She's tried in the past to run for governor but I truly believe she is very serious this time. This election cycle her only competition at this point is winning the nomination against an unpopular incumbent governor. Her exploratory committee is now official and she has transferred funds from her Senate campaign fund to her gubernatorial fund. Hutchison does have until January 2010 to announce her candidacy but I truly believe she will announce and much sooner than January.
The second piece of news is the national fame Governor Perry has gained from his participation in the Texas Tea parties. My guess is Perry recognized that Hutchison is running and knows he's in for a rough race so he's trying to increase his appeal to the parties base. The tea parties were very popular around the country and every participant leans to the right on their political views. Most Texans can see through Perry and his pitiful attempt at leaving the door open for secession from the union. We will see what else Perry does to try and re-invent himself for this race.
Democrats
There has been a lot of progress on the Democratic side of the race. There are now two official candidates Kinky Friedman and Tom Schieffer. Friedman ran as an independent in 2006 but his campaign never really got traction and most people did not take him seriously. Schieffer is a former Texas state representative and Ambassador to Japan and Australia. His brother is Bob Schieffer the host of CBS's "Face the Nation."
Aside from these two canidates there are not many other potential candidates. Houston Mayor Bill White was rumored to be considering a run but he has indicated he is going to run for the Senate assuming Hutchison runs for governor. Texas Senator Leticia Van de Putte may run, there are "Draft Leticia" campaigns on Facebook, but a successful candidacy is a stretch. Van de Putte represents the San Antonio area and does not have much statewide recognition.
The Democratic Nomination looks like it will between Schieffer or Friedman. Who will win depends largely on how serious Friedman is taken. His campaign theme so far seems to actually be copying Senator Hutchison's theme "Texans for Kay" and he announced his candidacy in a letter to Texans the same way Hutchison did. Kinky does have statewide name recognition having run for governor before. He might have a chance in the general election if he can get Democrats to actually support him and he can get the same number of independent voters he got in 2006.
Schieffer actually has credible qualifications for a governor. The big question with Schieffer is: Can he excite Democrats? If Schieffer can get his campaign some steam and Kinky is considered a joke the nomination is no doubt his. I will say this about the democratic nomination Texas Democrats are looking for a serious candidate who can actually win the Governors Mansion. Whoever is successful in showing they can win statewide will immediately get massive Democratic support.
Time will tell about the Democratic candidates. The way things look right now, the Republican nomination is going to be fun to watch, so grab your popcorn!
Republicans:
The Republican nomination appears to be between just two candidates. Of course, the two candidates are two big name candidates. Governor Perry has already announced his candidacy and Senator Hutchison has announced her exploratory committee (a big step for her).
There are rumors that Lt. Governor David Dewhurst will run but I believe those are just rumors. Two others have announced their candidacy, Larry Kilgore (former gubernatorial and senate candidate) and Debra Medina( former Wharton County Republican Chair). I think this blog will be the last you hear of those candidates. I cannot see any other big name Republican entering the governor's race. I think people like Dewhurst are actually waiting for Hutchison to run so they can run for her senate seat.
The two big pieces of news since I last wrote is that, Hutchison is in, more or less. She's tried in the past to run for governor but I truly believe she is very serious this time. This election cycle her only competition at this point is winning the nomination against an unpopular incumbent governor. Her exploratory committee is now official and she has transferred funds from her Senate campaign fund to her gubernatorial fund. Hutchison does have until January 2010 to announce her candidacy but I truly believe she will announce and much sooner than January.
The second piece of news is the national fame Governor Perry has gained from his participation in the Texas Tea parties. My guess is Perry recognized that Hutchison is running and knows he's in for a rough race so he's trying to increase his appeal to the parties base. The tea parties were very popular around the country and every participant leans to the right on their political views. Most Texans can see through Perry and his pitiful attempt at leaving the door open for secession from the union. We will see what else Perry does to try and re-invent himself for this race.
Democrats
There has been a lot of progress on the Democratic side of the race. There are now two official candidates Kinky Friedman and Tom Schieffer. Friedman ran as an independent in 2006 but his campaign never really got traction and most people did not take him seriously. Schieffer is a former Texas state representative and Ambassador to Japan and Australia. His brother is Bob Schieffer the host of CBS's "Face the Nation."
Aside from these two canidates there are not many other potential candidates. Houston Mayor Bill White was rumored to be considering a run but he has indicated he is going to run for the Senate assuming Hutchison runs for governor. Texas Senator Leticia Van de Putte may run, there are "Draft Leticia" campaigns on Facebook, but a successful candidacy is a stretch. Van de Putte represents the San Antonio area and does not have much statewide recognition.
The Democratic Nomination looks like it will between Schieffer or Friedman. Who will win depends largely on how serious Friedman is taken. His campaign theme so far seems to actually be copying Senator Hutchison's theme "Texans for Kay" and he announced his candidacy in a letter to Texans the same way Hutchison did. Kinky does have statewide name recognition having run for governor before. He might have a chance in the general election if he can get Democrats to actually support him and he can get the same number of independent voters he got in 2006.
Schieffer actually has credible qualifications for a governor. The big question with Schieffer is: Can he excite Democrats? If Schieffer can get his campaign some steam and Kinky is considered a joke the nomination is no doubt his. I will say this about the democratic nomination Texas Democrats are looking for a serious candidate who can actually win the Governors Mansion. Whoever is successful in showing they can win statewide will immediately get massive Democratic support.
Time will tell about the Democratic candidates. The way things look right now, the Republican nomination is going to be fun to watch, so grab your popcorn!
Pirates of the Horn of Africa
I know this post is a little late following the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips, but I felt it was important to send such much needed praise.
First and foremost, I am happy Captain Phillips is now home with his family. His family should be so proud of him, it is refreshing to know there are people out there in this world that are willing to put their lives on the line for the safety of others. Captain Phillips made himself a hostage so that his crew and his ship could be safe. How many of us can honestly say we would make ourselves a hostage for our coworkers?
Secondly, I need to pass praise to the Navy Seals who rescued Captain Phillips. There is no doubt they are incredibly skilled. What we can learn from this experience is that our military knows what it's doing.
Lastly, I feel it is appropriate to pass praise to President Obama. I admit I was very worried how the hostage situation would end going into the last weekend. I was worried because it appeared the pirates were at least willing to challenge the US Navy and the White House was rather quite on the issue. After Captain Phillips was rescued and I learned that President Obama had authorized the use of deadly force multiple times, I grew confidence in our commander in chief. I don't celebrate the death of anyone, but, unfortunately we live in a world where extreme military action is needed in appropriate situations.
The pirate situation has fallen out of the daily news cycle at this point but I don't think it is an issue that is going to go away. There is so much commerce and ship traffic that goes through the Horn of Africa it is only a matter of time that a hostage situation occurs.
First and foremost, I am happy Captain Phillips is now home with his family. His family should be so proud of him, it is refreshing to know there are people out there in this world that are willing to put their lives on the line for the safety of others. Captain Phillips made himself a hostage so that his crew and his ship could be safe. How many of us can honestly say we would make ourselves a hostage for our coworkers?
Secondly, I need to pass praise to the Navy Seals who rescued Captain Phillips. There is no doubt they are incredibly skilled. What we can learn from this experience is that our military knows what it's doing.
Lastly, I feel it is appropriate to pass praise to President Obama. I admit I was very worried how the hostage situation would end going into the last weekend. I was worried because it appeared the pirates were at least willing to challenge the US Navy and the White House was rather quite on the issue. After Captain Phillips was rescued and I learned that President Obama had authorized the use of deadly force multiple times, I grew confidence in our commander in chief. I don't celebrate the death of anyone, but, unfortunately we live in a world where extreme military action is needed in appropriate situations.
The pirate situation has fallen out of the daily news cycle at this point but I don't think it is an issue that is going to go away. There is so much commerce and ship traffic that goes through the Horn of Africa it is only a matter of time that a hostage situation occurs.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Texas' musical chairs
A recent poll conducted at the end of February shows that current US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has a 25 percent lead over current Texas Governor Rick Perry. This poll in my opinion only strengthens the notion that there will be a contested Republican primary for the Governor's Mansion.
What I think will be more interesting is what a vacant US Senate will do to the rest of Texas. An open Senate seat can allow some of the younger and ambitious Republicans who have been sitting on the sidelines to emerge to the forefront and run for some other higher office. There are already rumors floating around that Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst and Attorney General Greg Abbott are interested in the job. In addition, there is the possibility some current member of Congress might be looking for a promotion. There is also the chance Texas Railroad Commissioner L. Michael Williams might throw his hat into the ring as well. Williams has been seen all around the state recently meeting with various Republican groups. Williams might not have his eye on the Senate though, but could be setting himself up for a run for Lieutenant Governor, if say, the job were open.
Of course, Williams, Dewhurst, or Abbott cannot run for anything yet if Hutchison doesn't decide to run. This is not the first time the Senator has dipped her toe in gubernatorial politics before. There are some people, like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who are nervous about having to defend another Senate seat. Right now the Republicans have 19 seats to defend compared to the Democrats 15 seats in the 2010 elections. Defending all 19 seats will be tough considering some of the Senators up for re-election: Jim Bunning (Kentucky), Judd Gregg (New Hampshire), Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania) , and Mel Martinez (Florida). Martinez's seat might be tougher to defend in part because it will now be an open seat after the Senator announced his retirement. Also, in this year's past election Obama won Florida and that state seems to either be trending Democratic, at the very least it's a very very purple state.
Republicans also don't seem to have a lot of options of taking seats away from the Democrats up for re-election. There are two possibilities in my opinion, in Colorado, where Michael Bennett will be up for election after being appointed to the Senate. The other possibility is in Nevada, the one challenge is the seat is currently held by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Nevada is a big maybe and it in part comes down who the Republican nominee is and Nevadans opinion of Reid's leadership in the Senate.
Getting back to Texas though, the National Republican Senatorial Committee would like to not have to spend any money at all in Texas, just to keep a seat in a state that wouldn't have a senate race at all. Texas is still a Republican state but you can't quite tell what could happen and the Democrats could pull out an upset. If the economy begins to improve and the Democrats are credited with its recovery and President Obama stays popular, anything can happen.
Right now the polls show Dewhurst and Abbott leading over hypothetical Democratic candidates John Sharp and Bill White. Abbott does have a slightly bigger lead over these opponents than Dewhurst. However, in any of these hypothetical match ups there is still about 25% of the electorate that did not have an opinion one way or the other.
All in all 2010 will be a fun year for national electoral politics, with or without a Hutchison run for Texas governor.
What I think will be more interesting is what a vacant US Senate will do to the rest of Texas. An open Senate seat can allow some of the younger and ambitious Republicans who have been sitting on the sidelines to emerge to the forefront and run for some other higher office. There are already rumors floating around that Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst and Attorney General Greg Abbott are interested in the job. In addition, there is the possibility some current member of Congress might be looking for a promotion. There is also the chance Texas Railroad Commissioner L. Michael Williams might throw his hat into the ring as well. Williams has been seen all around the state recently meeting with various Republican groups. Williams might not have his eye on the Senate though, but could be setting himself up for a run for Lieutenant Governor, if say, the job were open.
Of course, Williams, Dewhurst, or Abbott cannot run for anything yet if Hutchison doesn't decide to run. This is not the first time the Senator has dipped her toe in gubernatorial politics before. There are some people, like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who are nervous about having to defend another Senate seat. Right now the Republicans have 19 seats to defend compared to the Democrats 15 seats in the 2010 elections. Defending all 19 seats will be tough considering some of the Senators up for re-election: Jim Bunning (Kentucky), Judd Gregg (New Hampshire), Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania) , and Mel Martinez (Florida). Martinez's seat might be tougher to defend in part because it will now be an open seat after the Senator announced his retirement. Also, in this year's past election Obama won Florida and that state seems to either be trending Democratic, at the very least it's a very very purple state.
Republicans also don't seem to have a lot of options of taking seats away from the Democrats up for re-election. There are two possibilities in my opinion, in Colorado, where Michael Bennett will be up for election after being appointed to the Senate. The other possibility is in Nevada, the one challenge is the seat is currently held by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Nevada is a big maybe and it in part comes down who the Republican nominee is and Nevadans opinion of Reid's leadership in the Senate.
Getting back to Texas though, the National Republican Senatorial Committee would like to not have to spend any money at all in Texas, just to keep a seat in a state that wouldn't have a senate race at all. Texas is still a Republican state but you can't quite tell what could happen and the Democrats could pull out an upset. If the economy begins to improve and the Democrats are credited with its recovery and President Obama stays popular, anything can happen.
Right now the polls show Dewhurst and Abbott leading over hypothetical Democratic candidates John Sharp and Bill White. Abbott does have a slightly bigger lead over these opponents than Dewhurst. However, in any of these hypothetical match ups there is still about 25% of the electorate that did not have an opinion one way or the other.
All in all 2010 will be a fun year for national electoral politics, with or without a Hutchison run for Texas governor.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
A New Public Relations Firm
After the 2006 and 2008 elections some are counting out the GOP. I for one am not. Recently, the Republican party voted former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele as new the Chairmen of the Republican party. Being Chairmen of the Republican party puts Steele as at least one of three leaders of the Republican party along with House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
I personally have enjoyed hearing and watching Steele in his various radio and TV appearances since rising in prominence from his 2006 senate race. But, I applaud Steele's chairmanship more for the the change that he represents (not what you think). I was actually almost glad to see former Chairman Mike Duncan fail in his bid to be reappointed. I don't get any pleasure from a persons failure but rather I think it's healthy for a party to see change, particularly the Republican party. Steele represents something different because he has not spent his career as a party representative but rather a public official. Most of the other candidates for the chairmanship were previous or current heads of various state republican parties.
With Steele as the Chairman there is now an opportunity to change the Republican presentation. I believe that Republican principles are great and a good thing for this country but we have not been winning the public relations battle and if we do not make adjustments we will continue to lose.
Steele has already shown he is aware of some of the Republican party faults. Tomorrow the Republican party will host a Technology Summit and figuring out ways how the party can better utilize the web (things like blogspot, twitter, facebook, myspace, etc) . I believe President Obama was so successful in part because of his grasp of technology. The best part about using the web to get out the message is that you can reach a massive audience in a short period of time for a very minimal cost.
In terms of candidates embracing technology I believe it should be mandatory for any candidate to update and maintain facebook, twitter, and myspace pages. They should also maintain a blog. I must give kudos to Zach Wamp, current US Congressmen, who has been very active on Twitter as he works to lay the foundation for a gubernatorial run. Wamp stands out to me as a tech friendly candidate and I am sure I am missing others (hopefully).
To be honest though technology itself will not win us elections. We need to rephrase our arguments and our points for or against something. I am reminded of watching the Republican presidential primary debates last year, every candidate was talking about being like Ronald Reagan. I love Ronald Reagan for everything that he did for this country but he finished his presidency 20 years ago. Candidates must run forward and talk about the future. Americans don't always vote on how the past 4 years have been, they vote on what they want the next 4, 8, or even 20 years to be like.
Republicans have proven they can win elections on their ideas not on a distaste for the opposition. I argue Democrats have been successful the last two elections because Republicans were unpopular and not because the American people wanted Democratic ideals. People are shocked at the actions of President Obama because he is doing things that they don't really agree with or that weren't really talked about during the campaign.
The 2010 election cycle is crucial because we cannot afford to allow Democrats to gain any more control or to control the campaign language. I will write more specifics in the future but I wanted to get my opinion out because it is something that has been bothering me for sometime now.
By the way, to prove I am a man of action and not just words I have recently created a "political" twitter. You can find my tweets at www.twitter.com/talkingelephant.
I personally have enjoyed hearing and watching Steele in his various radio and TV appearances since rising in prominence from his 2006 senate race. But, I applaud Steele's chairmanship more for the the change that he represents (not what you think). I was actually almost glad to see former Chairman Mike Duncan fail in his bid to be reappointed. I don't get any pleasure from a persons failure but rather I think it's healthy for a party to see change, particularly the Republican party. Steele represents something different because he has not spent his career as a party representative but rather a public official. Most of the other candidates for the chairmanship were previous or current heads of various state republican parties.
With Steele as the Chairman there is now an opportunity to change the Republican presentation. I believe that Republican principles are great and a good thing for this country but we have not been winning the public relations battle and if we do not make adjustments we will continue to lose.
Steele has already shown he is aware of some of the Republican party faults. Tomorrow the Republican party will host a Technology Summit and figuring out ways how the party can better utilize the web (things like blogspot, twitter, facebook, myspace, etc) . I believe President Obama was so successful in part because of his grasp of technology. The best part about using the web to get out the message is that you can reach a massive audience in a short period of time for a very minimal cost.
In terms of candidates embracing technology I believe it should be mandatory for any candidate to update and maintain facebook, twitter, and myspace pages. They should also maintain a blog. I must give kudos to Zach Wamp, current US Congressmen, who has been very active on Twitter as he works to lay the foundation for a gubernatorial run. Wamp stands out to me as a tech friendly candidate and I am sure I am missing others (hopefully).
To be honest though technology itself will not win us elections. We need to rephrase our arguments and our points for or against something. I am reminded of watching the Republican presidential primary debates last year, every candidate was talking about being like Ronald Reagan. I love Ronald Reagan for everything that he did for this country but he finished his presidency 20 years ago. Candidates must run forward and talk about the future. Americans don't always vote on how the past 4 years have been, they vote on what they want the next 4, 8, or even 20 years to be like.
Republicans have proven they can win elections on their ideas not on a distaste for the opposition. I argue Democrats have been successful the last two elections because Republicans were unpopular and not because the American people wanted Democratic ideals. People are shocked at the actions of President Obama because he is doing things that they don't really agree with or that weren't really talked about during the campaign.
The 2010 election cycle is crucial because we cannot afford to allow Democrats to gain any more control or to control the campaign language. I will write more specifics in the future but I wanted to get my opinion out because it is something that has been bothering me for sometime now.
By the way, to prove I am a man of action and not just words I have recently created a "political" twitter. You can find my tweets at www.twitter.com/talkingelephant.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
End Guantanamo?
Before proceeding please read my inspiration for this post:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/mideast/detainee.1-414168.php
I don't know if shock is the right word because it does not really surprise me that a former Guantanamo prisoner, in this case Said Ali al-Shihri, is out prison and back to his terrorist ways. This time though al Shihri is not a pawn in any terrorist network, he is now a leader of al Qaeda. I don't know what bugs me more that fact that this individual was even released from prison or the idea that shutting Guantanamo Bay is a being considered.
Let me be clear I don't like the idea that Gitmo exists or any other prison for that matter. I don't like the idea we have terrorists in this world. But I cannot live in fantasy land, I have to live in the real world. There are people in this world that want to do absolute harm to the United States. There are people that are willing to die for their cause. Remember the 19 hijackers from 9/11 who were willing to die for their cause? Or look at the news from Israel with terrorists walking into cafes, onto buses or any other public venue and blowing themselves.
I believe people can be reformed and rehabilitated...but to an extent. I believe someone who has a drinking or drug problem can be cured. I even believe a murderous teenage gang banger can one day wake up in prison and realize what they've done, feel remorse, and try and change the lives of at-risk youths.
I am not ignorant, however, terrorists don't feel remorse, you cannot change their mindset. I am scared of someone who associates themselves with an organization that is upset only that more innocent bystanders were not hurt or killed. 9/11 was a day for me that will live in infamy and I remember seeing footage around the world and seeing some in the Middle East let off guns in celebration. When someone decides to celebrate the death of thousands of people that's when I put that person in a different category. I don't even call that human anymore.
I recognize that what some people don't like about Gitmo is that the prisoners there haven't had a trial or a conviction. I do have trust in my government, I do not believe that the government just picked up some middle easterners and put them in prison. I don't have a security clearance , I don't know all who is there at Gitmo, but I trust the government had reason to detain those that are at the prison.
There should be a time and place for the identity and charges of Guantanamo prisoners to be known, but right now I don't really care. The harm that can be caused by their release and the shutting down of Gitmo in my mind is greater than the harm caused by the prisoners sitting in prison. If we released these prisoners, what do we expect to happen? It's not like there is going to be parole officers monitoring them, there aren't halfway houses for them to stay at. We would be releasing prisoners out into the world (literally the world) in a day and age where it takes one person to get ahold of one nuclear weapon to do unheard of damage and destruction. Isn't there a better idea?
Essentially what Preisdent Obama wants to do with some prisoners is move them out of Guantanamo Bay but shift the responsibility to another country. Is this really changing anything?
Now we have people imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay being held by the United States. President Obama suggests closing the prison and shifting them to other countries. I don't understand what's different. Either way the terrorists are imprisoned, its more of a matter of would you rather have the US run the prison or another country?
For President Obama the answer is clear he would would rather have another country run the prison because liberals in the United States don't like Guantanamo Bay and if he shifts the responsibility to another country he can get brownie points with his base.
Maybe I am wrong about his intentions, I just don't see any other benefit to shutting down the prison other then the political benefit to President Obama. I beleive we cannot play politics with this issue it is too important for the sake of our own national security.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/mideast/detainee.1-414168.php
I don't know if shock is the right word because it does not really surprise me that a former Guantanamo prisoner, in this case Said Ali al-Shihri, is out prison and back to his terrorist ways. This time though al Shihri is not a pawn in any terrorist network, he is now a leader of al Qaeda. I don't know what bugs me more that fact that this individual was even released from prison or the idea that shutting Guantanamo Bay is a being considered.
Let me be clear I don't like the idea that Gitmo exists or any other prison for that matter. I don't like the idea we have terrorists in this world. But I cannot live in fantasy land, I have to live in the real world. There are people in this world that want to do absolute harm to the United States. There are people that are willing to die for their cause. Remember the 19 hijackers from 9/11 who were willing to die for their cause? Or look at the news from Israel with terrorists walking into cafes, onto buses or any other public venue and blowing themselves.
I believe people can be reformed and rehabilitated...but to an extent. I believe someone who has a drinking or drug problem can be cured. I even believe a murderous teenage gang banger can one day wake up in prison and realize what they've done, feel remorse, and try and change the lives of at-risk youths.
I am not ignorant, however, terrorists don't feel remorse, you cannot change their mindset. I am scared of someone who associates themselves with an organization that is upset only that more innocent bystanders were not hurt or killed. 9/11 was a day for me that will live in infamy and I remember seeing footage around the world and seeing some in the Middle East let off guns in celebration. When someone decides to celebrate the death of thousands of people that's when I put that person in a different category. I don't even call that human anymore.
I recognize that what some people don't like about Gitmo is that the prisoners there haven't had a trial or a conviction. I do have trust in my government, I do not believe that the government just picked up some middle easterners and put them in prison. I don't have a security clearance , I don't know all who is there at Gitmo, but I trust the government had reason to detain those that are at the prison.
There should be a time and place for the identity and charges of Guantanamo prisoners to be known, but right now I don't really care. The harm that can be caused by their release and the shutting down of Gitmo in my mind is greater than the harm caused by the prisoners sitting in prison. If we released these prisoners, what do we expect to happen? It's not like there is going to be parole officers monitoring them, there aren't halfway houses for them to stay at. We would be releasing prisoners out into the world (literally the world) in a day and age where it takes one person to get ahold of one nuclear weapon to do unheard of damage and destruction. Isn't there a better idea?
Essentially what Preisdent Obama wants to do with some prisoners is move them out of Guantanamo Bay but shift the responsibility to another country. Is this really changing anything?
Now we have people imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay being held by the United States. President Obama suggests closing the prison and shifting them to other countries. I don't understand what's different. Either way the terrorists are imprisoned, its more of a matter of would you rather have the US run the prison or another country?
For President Obama the answer is clear he would would rather have another country run the prison because liberals in the United States don't like Guantanamo Bay and if he shifts the responsibility to another country he can get brownie points with his base.
Maybe I am wrong about his intentions, I just don't see any other benefit to shutting down the prison other then the political benefit to President Obama. I beleive we cannot play politics with this issue it is too important for the sake of our own national security.
Hope and Change? More like Hype and Nothing New
I feel my title for this blog says it all.
This past week week three of President Obama's nominees have either withdrawn their own nomination or are having their nomination held up because of tax related issues. I am now flat annoyed at being told someone is a person of integrity and strong moral character because they have been nominated for a Cabinet level position.
On Tuesday, two of nominees took themselves out of the running for Cabinet jobs, former Senator Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer. And on Thursday the nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis is for the time being at least being held up because of back taxes her husband owes from 16 years ago! 16 years? Really? How does someone get away with skipping out on their taxes from 1992? Senator Daschle owes the IRS about $130,000 in taxes. How has the IRS not arrested him?
Well lucky there is now Change in Washington and we can count on the new head of the IRS, Secretary of Treasury Tim Geitner to crack down on these tax cheats. Oh, wait a minute he had tax problems too. I love how people seem to only address their IRS issue or other personal issues when it comes time to get a promotion and a high-ranking job.
Now I understand people make mistakes and I am even willing to acknowledge President Obama's nominees have more complicated tax situations then me. But, the IRS contacts you and lets you know you misfiled your taxes. All of these tax problems are not recent issues concerning some one's 2008 tax return. These are issues that have been going on since at least the first term of President George W. Bush. People make mistakes and when you are confronted with a tax return mistake you should handle that immediately. But I don't know maybe that's just me.
President Obama and any other presidential administration should not look for perfect people to help run the country because they won't be able to find people to fill the position (particularly if they only look in Washington). An administration should look at the crocheter of someone. For example I would accept Tom Daschle's errors and nomination if for example he paid his back taxes when he was confronted with the information. I don't trust a person who is using their power, influence , and money to avoid doing what they are suppose to do.
I hate paying taxes more then anybody, but while we have a tax system in this country, I believe I have a duty to pay what I owe. Please don't misunderstand I am a fiscal conservative and think taxes should be as low as possible and it would be great if we could operate without paying any taxes at all. But at least at this time, people pay taxes and should pay the amount on the line. Not paying what the IRS says you owe is like going into the store and not feeling its necessary to pay for your goods.
The tax problems of four of President Obama's nominees are not the only problems that make me question the truth of President Obama's campaign. Former Governor Bill Richardson stepped aside from his nomination as Secretary of Commerce because he is under investigaion for giving state contracts to political supporters. Is this what we call change? So far there is nothing new about President Obama's administration compared to other administrations. If there is any change in the Obama administration maybe they should pass a hat around and use the change to pay off their colleagues tax debt.
Now there has been one change regarding lobbyists working in the Obama Administration. On the campaign trail then Candidate Obama said lobbyists would not work in his White House. Well there's a change...to his campaign promise at least. President Obama granted a waiver to his Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn, a former lobbyist for Raytheon, a defense contractor.
Now I didn't vote for President Obama, in part beacause I felt what he had to say seemed to good to be true. I am not seeing a highly ethical, lobbyist free Cabinet. And most recently when trying to encourage the passage of the Stimulus package, he said if the bill did not pass our economic crisis will turn from a "crisis to catastrophe." What ever happened to the end of the politics of fear? What type of change was President Obama referring to because I haven't seen anything yet. I wonder if the people that did vote for him are feeling a little bit had?
This past week week three of President Obama's nominees have either withdrawn their own nomination or are having their nomination held up because of tax related issues. I am now flat annoyed at being told someone is a person of integrity and strong moral character because they have been nominated for a Cabinet level position.
On Tuesday, two of nominees took themselves out of the running for Cabinet jobs, former Senator Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer. And on Thursday the nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis is for the time being at least being held up because of back taxes her husband owes from 16 years ago! 16 years? Really? How does someone get away with skipping out on their taxes from 1992? Senator Daschle owes the IRS about $130,000 in taxes. How has the IRS not arrested him?
Well lucky there is now Change in Washington and we can count on the new head of the IRS, Secretary of Treasury Tim Geitner to crack down on these tax cheats. Oh, wait a minute he had tax problems too. I love how people seem to only address their IRS issue or other personal issues when it comes time to get a promotion and a high-ranking job.
Now I understand people make mistakes and I am even willing to acknowledge President Obama's nominees have more complicated tax situations then me. But, the IRS contacts you and lets you know you misfiled your taxes. All of these tax problems are not recent issues concerning some one's 2008 tax return. These are issues that have been going on since at least the first term of President George W. Bush. People make mistakes and when you are confronted with a tax return mistake you should handle that immediately. But I don't know maybe that's just me.
President Obama and any other presidential administration should not look for perfect people to help run the country because they won't be able to find people to fill the position (particularly if they only look in Washington). An administration should look at the crocheter of someone. For example I would accept Tom Daschle's errors and nomination if for example he paid his back taxes when he was confronted with the information. I don't trust a person who is using their power, influence , and money to avoid doing what they are suppose to do.
I hate paying taxes more then anybody, but while we have a tax system in this country, I believe I have a duty to pay what I owe. Please don't misunderstand I am a fiscal conservative and think taxes should be as low as possible and it would be great if we could operate without paying any taxes at all. But at least at this time, people pay taxes and should pay the amount on the line. Not paying what the IRS says you owe is like going into the store and not feeling its necessary to pay for your goods.
The tax problems of four of President Obama's nominees are not the only problems that make me question the truth of President Obama's campaign. Former Governor Bill Richardson stepped aside from his nomination as Secretary of Commerce because he is under investigaion for giving state contracts to political supporters. Is this what we call change? So far there is nothing new about President Obama's administration compared to other administrations. If there is any change in the Obama administration maybe they should pass a hat around and use the change to pay off their colleagues tax debt.
Now there has been one change regarding lobbyists working in the Obama Administration. On the campaign trail then Candidate Obama said lobbyists would not work in his White House. Well there's a change...to his campaign promise at least. President Obama granted a waiver to his Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn, a former lobbyist for Raytheon, a defense contractor.
Now I didn't vote for President Obama, in part beacause I felt what he had to say seemed to good to be true. I am not seeing a highly ethical, lobbyist free Cabinet. And most recently when trying to encourage the passage of the Stimulus package, he said if the bill did not pass our economic crisis will turn from a "crisis to catastrophe." What ever happened to the end of the politics of fear? What type of change was President Obama referring to because I haven't seen anything yet. I wonder if the people that did vote for him are feeling a little bit had?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Politics of Positive
I like to try and blog as often as I can. I have found that it helps clear my mind of the political issues that bother and in a small way allow my opinions to be voiced at least to a small audience. I feel most of my blogs have been somewhat negative or angry towards the new Democratic leadership in Washington, D.C.
I am a positive person and although President Obama was not my first choice and there are plenty of other problems to complain about, I am going to choose to be positive.
The economy is not in good shape in any way, there are two wars being fought overseas, and Washington almost looks just as partisan as it was before the election. The only difference in Washington now is that before it was Democrats and Republicans fighting now it is Democrats fighting the even more liberal wing of the Democratic party.
However, America has been tested before and has always made it through. There has and there always will be critics of our country but their skepticism does not mean we will not succeed.
Depending on what you listen to and what you read you can hear some comments about the decline of the US as a whole. There is a belief that every empire falls whether its the Roman, the British or the United States. I believe the problems in this world are big but not big enough that they are unsolvable or that will bring this country down.
There was a time in this world, back in the late 1700's, when people doubted the success of democracy in America. The world had never seen a fully functioning democracy before and surely it would not work in the former British colonies. The events of this past Tuesday didn't just show the world the inauguration of President Obama it showed the success of America vis-a-vis the success of American democracy.
As I said earlier, I didn't vote for President Obama, but I didn't riot in the streets in protest either. You saw a smooth transition of power and not President Bush trying to cling onto power or declare himself leader for life like in some countries. I have always been a fan of watching inaugurations and yes I watched far more TV on Tuesday then I did actual work. Inaugurations show us what's great about America. We can have disagreements, we can have elections, we can keep peace, and we can keep our democracy.
If the early states were able to survive on their own, if we could beat the British empire (at the time the world's best military), if we survived a brutal Civil War still early on in our nations life, if we survived the Great Depression, if we survived two world wars, if we survived presidential scandals and assassinations, if we survived discrimination and segregation, who is to say we can't and won't survive our current crisis?
You can't stick a fork in the United States, because we're not done. The economy is cyclical as history proves and we will recover. Our recovery might not come this quarter or this year but it will happen. Tomorrow will be a better day
I am a positive person and although President Obama was not my first choice and there are plenty of other problems to complain about, I am going to choose to be positive.
The economy is not in good shape in any way, there are two wars being fought overseas, and Washington almost looks just as partisan as it was before the election. The only difference in Washington now is that before it was Democrats and Republicans fighting now it is Democrats fighting the even more liberal wing of the Democratic party.
However, America has been tested before and has always made it through. There has and there always will be critics of our country but their skepticism does not mean we will not succeed.
Depending on what you listen to and what you read you can hear some comments about the decline of the US as a whole. There is a belief that every empire falls whether its the Roman, the British or the United States. I believe the problems in this world are big but not big enough that they are unsolvable or that will bring this country down.
There was a time in this world, back in the late 1700's, when people doubted the success of democracy in America. The world had never seen a fully functioning democracy before and surely it would not work in the former British colonies. The events of this past Tuesday didn't just show the world the inauguration of President Obama it showed the success of America vis-a-vis the success of American democracy.
As I said earlier, I didn't vote for President Obama, but I didn't riot in the streets in protest either. You saw a smooth transition of power and not President Bush trying to cling onto power or declare himself leader for life like in some countries. I have always been a fan of watching inaugurations and yes I watched far more TV on Tuesday then I did actual work. Inaugurations show us what's great about America. We can have disagreements, we can have elections, we can keep peace, and we can keep our democracy.
If the early states were able to survive on their own, if we could beat the British empire (at the time the world's best military), if we survived a brutal Civil War still early on in our nations life, if we survived the Great Depression, if we survived two world wars, if we survived presidential scandals and assassinations, if we survived discrimination and segregation, who is to say we can't and won't survive our current crisis?
You can't stick a fork in the United States, because we're not done. The economy is cyclical as history proves and we will recover. Our recovery might not come this quarter or this year but it will happen. Tomorrow will be a better day
Sunday, January 11, 2009
I wanted to show everyone this story because I don't think it's getting enough press.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30143
In summary what Speaker Pelosi is planning on doing is changing the way the House of Representatives have operated since 1995. They key reforms include:
-Ending a six year term limit for Committee chairs
-Restrict Republicans (or any minority party) from offering alternative legislation
-Restrict Republicans from attaching amendments to democratic bills
I personally believe that repealing this options is undemocratic. In fact I am surprised it look until 1995 to create rules like the one's above. I have not seen comments from Speaker Pelosi or other members of the Democratic Majority discussing why it is vital that these reforms be reversed. I do not believe that the House of Representatives should operate in this manner in which an alternative opinon is not allowed. I think that our founders created Congress to be the place where there is open debate about issues that effect America. I have many questions that come to my mind including:
How does the reversal of these reforms create any sort of open debate?
Is this something the American people would actually want?
Why aren't Democratic leaders openly talking about their plans?
I can answer the first two questions, I believe this squashes the opinon of the minority party and I believe most Americans would oppose this idea. I am not able to figure out why Democratic Leaders are not more public about their plans other then they know it would spark outrage across America.
I don't believe there is anytime in this country where we should shut down the minority opinion. There is going to be a large debate about how to spend trillions (that's right trillions) of dollars and Speaker Pelosi wants to have a debate in the back room with only her friends. That is shameful. That is change but not positive change.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30143
In summary what Speaker Pelosi is planning on doing is changing the way the House of Representatives have operated since 1995. They key reforms include:
-Ending a six year term limit for Committee chairs
-Restrict Republicans (or any minority party) from offering alternative legislation
-Restrict Republicans from attaching amendments to democratic bills
I personally believe that repealing this options is undemocratic. In fact I am surprised it look until 1995 to create rules like the one's above. I have not seen comments from Speaker Pelosi or other members of the Democratic Majority discussing why it is vital that these reforms be reversed. I do not believe that the House of Representatives should operate in this manner in which an alternative opinon is not allowed. I think that our founders created Congress to be the place where there is open debate about issues that effect America. I have many questions that come to my mind including:
How does the reversal of these reforms create any sort of open debate?
Is this something the American people would actually want?
Why aren't Democratic leaders openly talking about their plans?
I can answer the first two questions, I believe this squashes the opinon of the minority party and I believe most Americans would oppose this idea. I am not able to figure out why Democratic Leaders are not more public about their plans other then they know it would spark outrage across America.
I don't believe there is anytime in this country where we should shut down the minority opinion. There is going to be a large debate about how to spend trillions (that's right trillions) of dollars and Speaker Pelosi wants to have a debate in the back room with only her friends. That is shameful. That is change but not positive change.
There is no doubt that the political world in 2009 will be an interesting one. Today we are 12 days away from the inauguration of the first African-American president. As President-elect Obama transitions into the oval office, it is hard not to notice the drama around some of his appointees and there is little doubt the drama will end anytime soon.
I am sure by now everyone has heard of the political and legal fight over the US Senate seat once held by President-elect Obama. On Tuesday (the day the 111th Congress took the oath of office) Roland Burris, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's pick to fill the vacant senate seat was denied his seat by the Secretary of the Senate. It now appears that Burris has come to some agreement with Democratic Senators, particularly Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and he will be seated. What Burris does need is Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White's certification on the official appointment papers for Burris to be seated. My guess is that Burris will take White to court and have the court force White to sign his certification papers. I will make my first of many bold predictions and say that Roland Burris will be Senator Roland Burris by next Friday.
The Democratic party has a large interest in seeing the drama surrounding Obama's senate seat end so that Obama and Congress can turn their attention to bigger things...like the economy. Although I should mention the Burris situation is not the only Illinois problem for Obama. This statement leads me to my next bold prediction: Governor Rod Blagojevich will still be Governor Rod Blagojevich by the end of this year. The Burris appointment is certainly a victory for Blagojevich and it does not appear the Illinois Legislature is willing or capable to impeach the Governor. I believe the only thing that will force the governor out of office is a guilty verdict and I doubt his trail and subsequent appeals will conclude by the end of the year.
Obama's headaches don't end with political issues from his home state, he is getting a pretty good amount of questions surrounding his pick of Leon Pannetta for CIA Director. For those of you who don't know, Pannetta is the former 8 term California Congressmen, Director of OMB, and White House Chief of Staff in the Clinton White House. The Pannetta pick is making a few heads turn because traditionally the head of the CIA is someone from the intelligence community and not a rather political person like Pannetta. Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein of California even expressed her concerns about Pannetta. I do predict that Pannetta will be the CIA Director but I can say that I don't think he will have the easiest time in that role.
My next bold prediction regards the potentially vacant New York Senate Seat of Hillary Rodham Clinton. I say potential because Senator Clinton will not resign her senate seat until she is officially confirmed by the Senate to be the next US Secretary of State. I undoubtedly belive Senator Clinton will be Secretary Clinton. The debate really is over what will happen with the vacant seat. New York Governor David Paterson has the sole power to appoint someone to the seat and as you probably heard Caroline Kennedy is interested in the seat. Another less nationally known candidate is New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. A recent poll taken by a New York news agency showed that New Yorkers prefer Cuomo over Kennedy by 20%. There are some National Democrats who would like to see Kennedy appointed because of her "star power" and her ability to fundraise so that she can keep the seat in Democratic hands in the 2010 election. I believe in the end Governor Paterson will select Andrew Cuomo to the seat. While Caroline Kennedy certainly has a national prescence, Cuomo's qualifications cannot be taken from him. Cuomo is certainly well known in New York and appointing him does not hurt Democrats chances in 2010 in keeping the seat. As a side note, Cuomo's father is the former Governor of New York. The 2010 Senate race will be interesting for sure with the possibility of two big name Republicans Rep. Peter King and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani vying for the spot.
The Obama camp must be thankful that the New York Senate spot is no where near as controversial as his own vacant senate seat. At this time. I cannot say that his transistion will be the easiest with the potential sticky nomination process of Pannetta and the withdrawal of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson as Secretary of Commerce. 2009 could (and thats a big could) be very damaging to Obama with the trial of Blagojevich and potential indictments of key advisors like future White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. I also believe whatever made Bill Richardson step away from the Commerce post is something that might not go away and at the very least not look good for Democrats.
I know I appear to be acting harshly towards Obama but I want to be clear I do wish him the best of luck for the sake our country.
I will close by making three bold predictions from the Lone Star State. My first predicition is probably not particularly bold for anyone who follows Texas politics but for the sake of consistency I will call it a bold prediction: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison will challenge incumbent Republican Governor Rick Perry to his current job. If KBH does decide to run she will have to resign her Senate seat and that creates a rather interesting Senate race. Rumors have a few members of congress interested in the Senate seat including: Rep. Jeb Hensarling, Rep. Joe Barton, Rep. Kay Granger, and state Railroad Commisioner L. Michael Williams. This leads me to to my final two predictions i) Rep. Kay Granger will not run for the Senate seat and ii) Texas will elect an African-American Republican to the Senate in L. Michael Williams. Williams is already known statewide and no one can deny his charisma that will play well all across the state.
Please stay tuned for future posts and of course to see the accuarcy of my predictions.
I want to begin my first blog post by saying "Welcome."
My goal for this blog is to share my thoughts on events as they happen both in Texas and on the national level. I feel creating an open dialogue is the best way to solve problems that we all have together.
I hope you find my opinions interesting and feel comfortable posting your opinions as well!
My goal for this blog is to share my thoughts on events as they happen both in Texas and on the national level. I feel creating an open dialogue is the best way to solve problems that we all have together.
I hope you find my opinions interesting and feel comfortable posting your opinions as well!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
