In Other Wordz

Put your money where your campaign is

2009-04-17T14:48:00.000-07:00

Let the horse race begin! Politico has released its first 2010 campaign fundraising scorecard, and is already naming the winners and some embarrassing missed-the-mark losers. And this is just the first quarter.

So what gives? The game has hardly begun, right? Wrong.

The most important part about the media picking up on the candidates fundraising support thus far is that it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. People read reports like these and think "Well, I was going to support Carolyn McCarthy to challenge Kristen Gillibrand, but why contribute to a losing battle?" Then what was still maybe a close game really does become a losing battle.

And my oh my, Sen. Burris, have you got a losing battle on your hands. Maybe he can take a hint from former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer: disappear from politics for a while, come back slowly, tail nicely tucked between the legs, and become a political pundit.

Franken v. Coleman: A sign of the times?

2009-04-13T13:36:00.000-07:00

Are we in the beginnings of a new political era in which lawyers and recounts are as much part of the election process as attack ad's and American flag lapel pins? Some political scientists are claiming that as campaigns become more precise in targeting and mobilizing voters, the closer the elections are getting, which means long, drawn-out last resort measures to keep us trekking the campaign trail much longer than most of us want to be.

I say there are still contestants in this country willing to bow out (gracefully or otherwise) when their time is up. But they may be a dying breed and I can't help but wonder if this is all a product of this country's elementary school mindset that there are "no losers." Consolation prizes are great, but at some point kids need to understand that yes, there are losers and one day you might just be one of them. At which point, the next lesson would be how to congratulate the winner and move on with your life.

That being said, hopefully the everlasting Minnesota Senatorial race will give rise to a new precedent which will dissuade this type of litigation -- as opposed to encourage it as the Supreme Court did when it decided the 2000 Presidential race.

The tides need a 'changin, and I see no better time than now.

Media got you seeing double?

2009-04-10T13:48:00.000-07:00

Anyone heard about the ethics probe Jesse Jackson Jr. is now facing in relation to the political pay-for-play Bloagojevich scandal? The media, like white on rice, was all over this story so maybe you saw it here. No? here? Maybe here, then? Well if you didn't see it there, you definitely saw it here!

There's no denying that media plays a big role in what stories get told on a daily basis and what constitutes "news". So, is this news? Word of Jackson's involvement has been out in the open for months, so why is this making headlines in mainstream and alternative media now? Something we in the biz like to call the "echo chamber effect." You just can't let the NY Times and The Washington Post cover something and let that be that. Every other reporter wants their byline on the story, too.

Sometimes this is a good thing. Different angles can be covered, bias unfolded, etc. Other times it's just plain ad nauseum.

We can also see how politicians use media to their advantage to score political points. Jackson is claiming he's the one who voted in favor of this ethics committee and he has nothing to worry about. Cooperation is his middle name, after all. So you have to wonder, as the smart news consumer that you are, why is this making headlines right now? Well, Jackson set up a press conference of course. If he wants to stay in politics and begin campaigning for any seat in 2010, he needs to be setting the debate on his terms, and not let others define him. If he stayed in the shadows it would look like he did something wrong -- doesn't matter if he really did or not. Especially with a case such as this where just the controversy alone could seriously damage his career.

Oh, I know...you must've seen it here.

Mayor for sale

2009-04-01T19:25:00.000-07:00

What do these two pictures have in common? Upon a recent visit to Albuquerque New Mexico I've found the connection. Anyone interested in running for mayor in "the Q" has to resort to panhandling to even be considered for candidacy. A campaign finance law passed in 2005 requires those interested in the office to collect about 3,300 individual $5 contributions in a 45-day period if they want to go the public funding route.

Bottom line: If you arent independently wealthy enough to finance your own campaign, you need to convince thousands of people to cough up $5 for you to run. And it doesn't matter if someone gives you $5 or $500 -- they still just count as one $5 contributor.

While this may be easy for incumbents or sitting councilmembers interested in the seat or people with 3,000+ facebook friends, it would be near impossible for an unknown challenger to convince people to give up a five-dollar-foot-long to give him a shot in hell's chance of being a candidate -- not to mention actually winning the seat.

This is just not democracy as it was intended. People should be supporting candidates by voting (what a concept) instead of worrying about giving money to every possible candidate to level the playing field and inevitably losing money on the candidates who didn't win or couldn't collect enough contributions to even make it on the ballot.

Unemployed Texans get the boot

2009-03-30T12:10:00.000-07:00

Texas Governor Rick Perry accepted $14 million in federal stimulus dollars, but rejected $555 million which would have gone to increased unemployment benefits. How furious are Texans over Gov. Perry's decision? While a slew of youtube members have voiced their concerns, the real measure will be his 2010 run for reelection. Republican Senator Kay Hutchison, a key primary opponent in the race, said earlier in the year that although she opposed the stimulus package, she would not turn down money from it if it were to pass. Texans will have to decide if that makes her wishy-washy or just plain smart.

Of course Perry's first and foremost goal is to please those who will have a hand in making him the Republican candidate, then he'll have to worry about pleasing the masses. Although with a 6.8% unemployment rate, the masses are hardly negatively impacted by the $555 million rejection, but those who are affected will certainly not suffer in silence...not if youtube has anything to do with it.

Photo courtesy of AP

Will AIG be the straw on the donkey's back?

2009-03-23T14:06:00.000-07:00

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been busy making his rounds shedding light on the mishandling of the AIG bailout and the lavish bonuses that ensued.

What kind of impact will this and other blunders have on the 2010 midterm elections? I think Democrats can expect to lose some seats, especially where there are open contests in which no incumbents are running. And this will happen not necessarily because all faith is lost in the Democratic party. I think people will be smart to give Republicans a bigger voice in Congress, not just on Sunday evening talk shows.

Yes, right now they are the "party of opposition," and who's to say their method would've fared any better than what Obama's administration has done so far. But let them put their money where their mouth is for a bit and see what evolves. Both parties (hopefully) realize what is at stake here -- and it's not just open Congressional seats, it's the livelihood of their constituents.

Democrats, as much as I support their cause, will have to live with the consequences of their recent actions. Big, big details were overlooked and they just couldn't afford that kind of flub right now. On the other hand, there is not a shadow of a doubt that Republican's also would have screwed up somewhere along the line, but their defense is a little different because of their 'hands-off' approach. Dem's inherently don't have that luxury, because if you chose to take control of a situation you need to see to it that it is controlled properly to the very end.

Now, damage control will be on the top of the Democratic agenda. But until that giant white-out pen does its job, and it will, the Republicans definitely will have a slight upper hand at the polls in the upcoming election.

Bent Steele

2009-03-13T11:27:00.000-07:00

A Republican leader who is pro-choice with regards to both life and liberty? That's what it looked like in Michael Steele's interview with GQ magazine, but good thing I didn't hold my breath...it didn't take long for him to swallow his words (again) when conservative Republican's came a 'knockin.

Steele has been decidedly contradictory on these positions, first campaigning for a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion, then in the GQ interview saying its a woman's choice or really, he said it's the states choice to decide if it's the woman's choice (how's that for circumlocution), and then later retracting that statement to say he is definitely pro-life and it should definitely be a federal matter to ban abortions completely.

In terms of gay rights, he said in the GQ interview that it is not a choice to be gay, in fact it's as much of a choice as being black. But he also argued in another interview that it is crazy to let them marry, or to give them rights via civil unions.

This man clearly has some personal issues to work out before he does any more interviews. He's not said anything lately that he hasn't retracted, even the most agreeable statement that sometimes Rush Limbaugh can be "ugly." I'll ditto that.

Unfortunately Steele's time may be up because of these recent outburts of rationality, and the GOP will be back to the drawing board in its search for a leader. I gotta give it to them, they tried real hard to branch out -- looking to a woman and a minority for leadership roles, but it looks like "old, white, male" may still be the winning combination.

The dynamic duo strikes again

2009-03-11T15:23:00.000-07:00

For a hundred years politicians have been able to bank favors to score Senate appointments during periods of vacancy, but recently the temptation to capitalize on this process has been too strong to bear. Enter Russ Feingold, the charismatic young buck in the video above with a reformers spirit.

Teaming up with Feingold is our other favorite maverick, John McCain, as well as Sen. Durbin (D-Ill) and Rep. Conyers (D-Mich) to introduce an amendment to end the gubernatorial rationing of Senate seats.

The McCain-Feingold camp has been successful before with enacting legislation in an attempt to keep government fair and balanced, but this one is quite a hefty request. The deciding factor, after all, will not be whether the amendment will give adequate power to the people, but how much time and money it will suck out of an already depleted well. Elections are expensive, so chances are, in the end, the decision will remain in the states hands and many will continue to go the appointment route to save money. Not to mention maybe even make some in the process.

Burris, Kaufman, Gillibrand and Bennet are our current appointed Senators who will have to run in the 2010 midterm elections to retain their positions. However, Burris might be pressured into not running by fellow Democrats, and Kaufman has been accused of being a seat holder for when Joe Biden Jr. is ready to inherit the seat. Also, had Judd Gregg of New Hampshire not gone back on his work to join Obamas cabinet, Bonnie Newman would've been included in this line up.

Political documentaries breaking the law?

2009-03-06T11:03:00.000-08:00

What's the problem with this pre-election documentary, and why is the high court bothering to watch it? And no, it isn't just "popcorn and a movie Friday" at the Supreme Court.

Funny story actually, since her husband is the one who pushed the envelope with how he could raise campaign funds and what he could buy with them. "The Lincoln Bedroom hit the headlines during President Bill Clinton's first term, when he was accused of rewarding generous campaign donors with a night's stay there."

Basically, the McCain- Feingold law was enacted to put limitations on how campaign funds could be raised, and what they could be used for. For example, it is not ok to use "Levin funds to pay for any part of a federal election activity if the activity refers to a clearly identified
federal candidate." Levin funds are contributions made to spend only on "get out the vote" activities in federal elections. So these funds can be used on ad's that say "Rock the Vote" but they cannot be used on ad's that say "Ba-rack the Vote."

So this takes us back to Hillary: The Movie. The McCain- Feingold Act also bans corporate-funded broadcasts of "electioneering communications" 30 days before a primary and 60 days before the general election. But the film was not broadcast on cable or satellite, it was played in movie theaters. So the question is: is it constitutional to ban these documentaries in theaters the same way it is banned on television, or is that plain old censorship?

I say the latter. If someone is willing to pay the increasingly ridiculous price to watch a movie like this, they probably already have preconceived notions about Hillary, which the movie will likely reinforce. But, if they went to the movie expecting triumphant praise of the woman, they will see it as radical right-winged nonsense deserving of a laugh...then maybe try to get their money back. Bottom line: The law is good as is. If this documentary was played on television in the outlawed time-frame it would be a problem, but it wasn't so it's not. It's like political porn -- in a pant suit.

No Republican Left Behind

2009-03-02T15:48:00.000-08:00

State budget, shmate rudget, have you seen the NRCC budget lately? That's what needs fixing if Republicans want to keep their jobs.

It's looking like the main duty of a representative is not service to their constituents, but rather haggling their money away from them. Well, John Boehner (R-Oh), House Minority Leader, is taking this job seriously and has long been fundraising for his 2010 re-election with his own PAC. The only problem? Getting his fellow Republicans to do the same. Nothing a little ultimatum can't fix:

"Boehner is threatening to deny help to GOP members who fail to hit specific benchmarks for raising money, putting together effective campaign operations, hiring the right people and smartly managing their campaign resources."

True, it is getting time to buckle down and raise some money, but uhm, nobody's got any. It seems just about as rational as the No Child Left Behind Act -- if they can't hit a benchmark, cut them off at the knees. That'll show em.

Boehner's got his own reasons, though. First of all, "House Majority Leader" has such a better ring to it. Well, I guess there's only one reason, but it's reason enough.

Hurricane Cao: another blow to New Orleans

2009-02-26T10:09:00.000-08:00

Even Rep. Anh Cao (R-La) admits that his 2008 win in New Orleans was due to low turnout at the polls. Since we know that high turnout usually means more Democratic votes, especially in a highly Democratic region, it makes sense that Dem.'s just didn't show up to cast their votes that fateful day.

Well that choice is coming back to haunt them. The city, desperately in need of financial aid, elected a representative who voted against the stimulus package because "I never had a chance to read the bill, and I felt uncomfortable voting for a bill I didn’t read,” Cao said. He also said his vote was not the result of party affiliation. So, when in doubt, just vote against it? Sounds like GOP strategy to me. The governor is also refusing to accept funds from the stimulus package. Incredible -- the only people in Louisiana who don't want government is the Louisiana government.

Bad move, Cao, bad move. Saying one thing (you're a representative of the people, not your party) and then doing another (forgetting about the people to go with your party) is an awful strategy.

Hardware store, we've found your next greeter. People will come out in waves to get this guy out of office in 2010, I'm sure of it.

Blagojevich stench is now the Burris stench

2009-02-25T10:24:00.000-08:00

Sen. Durbin (D-Ill) must have been reading In Other Wordz, because he has come to the correct conclusion that Burris running in 2010 would be an absolute massacre. I can't imagine where else he would've gotten that idea?

“I told him I would not be supporting him in the 2010 election,” Durbin said.

It's hard not to feel bad for the guy, until I think about how politically corrupt he probably is. But the verdict is not out yet, so I can't fight my tinge of pity about his entire party turning against him, along with probably the entire country. Maybe it's a girl thing: Dianne Feinstein also must have felt that tinge, since she was the only one supporting his immediate seating in early January. Although, I don't think I would've gone that far.

So where will Burris go in 2010 with his finished political career? Hardware store greeter, of course, where all failed politicians go to rest ... amongst a bunch of tools, no less.

District with an identity crisis

2009-02-25T09:30:00.000-08:00

Word is, Washington D.C. might actually get some representation in the coming years. But it won't happen without a fight. True, it really is not constitutionally lawful to give the district a real seat in the House because, well it needs to be a state first, which D.C. is not. But so what, we'll amend the Constitution- that can be done. The funny part is Republicans thinking they are so inconspicuous by hiding under the constitution cloak. In reality, they know D.C. residents will vote in a Democrat, God forbid, so they will fight it tooth and nail.

So here comes the bartering: maybe they'll go for it if Utah gets another seat, which will no doubt be a Republican. The problem is, it's still unconstitutional! I can't imagine Pres. Obama signing a bill which is clearly unconstitutional, unless its a bill to amend. Sadly, it will probably just open the old can of worms no one outside the Beltway really wants to deal with- unless Alabama gets an extra seat, too!

Goodbye...Newman!

2009-02-12T14:41:00.000-08:00

Wow, I guess he really couldn't handle the silent treatment. Ok, so a few steps are being taken back. Now former Secretary of Commerce designate Judd Gregg will reestablish himself as New Hampshire's Senator and I can already hear the Republican party's cheers.

So you didn't like the Applebee's appetizer trio that looked so good on the commercial. Whatever, send it back. But you made the wrong choice to accept a Presidential appointment? You don't send that back! Especially in the wake of all the other nominations that have gone awry. Don't you have a soul, Gregg??

Ok, I'm finished. Seriously though, this means some serious shuffling around in terms of the 2010 elections. First, both Gregg and Lynch (the governor who crossed party lines to appoint Republican Bonnie Newman in Gregg's place) have terms ending in 2010. Gregg won't suffer any of the ramifications that Lynch might because rumor is that Gregg won't be running again. Lynch, on the other hand, has an unnerved base to answer to about his choice to appoint Newman. I can just see the campaign signs now: "Lynch for Governor: Remember, she was a moderate!"

Dem's jumping the gun

2009-02-12T13:41:00.000-08:00

Burris was turned away from the Capitol once before. This time, it might not be so literal. Photo courtesy of AP

"One Democratic operative in the state said “there is talk” among Illinois Democrats of pushing the White House to broker a deal to appoint Burris to a position that would take him out of the Senate and help clear the field in 2010."

Really? The only way to get a strong Democrat in the Illinois Senate seat and the title off of Burris' business card is to (yet again) appoint him to another office? And what exactly would that position be? I understand that his possible running in 2010 might result in a Republican win, but this has gotten out of hand. This is just another questionable appointment of a questionable guy to make a questionable political move. By the way, some congressmen are going to be introducing an amendment to end these appointments.

Seeing as Illinois residents don't quite know what to make of their newly appointed junior Senator, Burris might just run thinking he still has shot. And he'd be wrong. All he'll really do is create tumultuous political climate and give me more to write about (so run on Burris, run on!). Also, all this publicity is just exposing the Democrat's Achilles heel so it's a mystery to me why they are even acknowledging Burris right now.

No running mate required

2009-02-11T10:34:00.000-08:00

Here he goes again, and this time with two fund raising outlets - the tried and (maybe not so) true "Friends of McCain," campaign committee, and a new Political Action Committee called "Country First," (deja vu anyone?) designed to raise money for all "like-minded Republican candidates." Makes me wonder if Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are left off that list considering their recent divergence from the Republican vote on the ESP.

I regress.

So did McCain attribute his recent loss of the presidential election to the fact that Obama raised substantially more money on the campaign trail? Well, what did he expect? I can't help but think that when you represent the party of fiscal conservatives that your constituents and supporters will also be, you guessed it, fiscally conservative. And with so much controversy surrounding these so-called leadership PAC's, you'd think our favorite maverick would steer clear. Unless, of course, he's attributing his recent loss to lack of funding, so a PAC would serve as the obvious fix. Why the controversy? Some think the leadership PAC's are a way of getting around caps in donations by allowing people to donate first to the specific politician, then to his PAC, which presumably goes all into one big pot, but obviously McCain will get his cut.

Let the bidding begin

2009-02-10T11:55:00.000-08:00

Former president and CEO of eBay, Meg Whitman, has announced her running in the 2010 California gubernatorial election. This should be an interesting one to follow.

So here are the variables: Whitman is a Republican, and in its most recent history, California has elected Republican governors, and thrown Democratic ones out of office, so that looks like a point in her favor. Also, CA was a blue state in the 2008 presidential elections, so maybe residents will want to balance that with a conservative local vote. I think we (CA residents) agree that all we really, really want right now is a balanced budget (seriously, it's gotten ridiculous). Whitman has proved to be successful in creatively transforming small businesses into money making machines. CA is no small business, but it's definitely in need of a serious financial overhaul and voters may see that potential in Whitman.

So what are the strikes against her? Well, "change" is on the tip of all our tongues, so why not elect a Dem and give it a whirl. Especially if that Dem turns out to be Dianne Feinstein - fuggetaboutit. They are working hard to fix the national economic crisis - which we all hope will do the trick - so why not get a shiny new Democrat for ourselves to fix our statewide economic crisis? Ok, so he's not really shiny or new, but current Lieutenant Gov. Garamendi is the only formal opposition at the moment, and has already raised more than $1 million in campaign funds.

The Crist Fix

2009-02-09T15:48:00.000-08:00

With Florida Senator Mel Martinez announcing resignment for the 2010 term, Republican's are probably crossing their fingers for Gov. Charlie Crist to step up to the plate and run for the office. Despite the not-so-distant controversy regarding Crist's sexuality, his popularity is soaring in the Sunshine State. I don't think he would dare put any word of consideration and then go back on it - he would get eaten alive by his comrades. He's just floating the balloon in cloudy skies to check out public opinion, which obviously is going to be favorable (if anyone doesnt want him going to the Senate it's because they don't want to lose the governor that they apparently love), and then chances are he will announce his running. "Freeze" is right; if he really will wait until the end of the Florida legislative session, all the rest of us will have to wait until May for the announcement. My official prediction? Crist's eyes are on Washington; I think he's secretly anxious for the opportunity for some national accreditation.

Red rover, red rover, send Blago away!

2009-02-05T11:01:00.000-08:00

Despite the plethora of funny youtube clips featuring Blagojevich, I think we all need a little break from his voice right now, so this picture should do. It's not just me, Democrats are also eager to see Blago disappear from the radar since his presence will be much ado for the Republicans to capitalize on in the 2010 elections. They couldn't ask for better timing. This is where name recognition bites politicians in the butt. Voters remember corrupt politicians- especially ones who won't...stop...doing....tv....interviews. So will the stigma rub off on Dem's competing for the Illinois Senate seat in 2010? If Burris runs in 2010 there's no way he'll win the seat, and I'm guessing he's not saying whether or not he's running yet so he can get a feel for public opinion and to maybe do some good things in the seat to sway some people over to his side before everyone completely writes him off. Good luck Burris- you'll need some serious elbow grease to clean away the Blagojevich stench. I don't think Illinois will swing right just yet; I think most realize that corruption is not a Democratic trend, rather it is usually isolated within bad individuals and groups of those individuals. A way to avoid all those bad apples? How does Sen. Winfrey (D-Ill) sound?

Wow- nothing gets to this guy.
Photo Courtesy of rrstar.com

Voinovich splits from Senate and GOP

2009-02-04T21:22:00.000-08:00

Ok so the clip has nothing to do with Sen. Voinovich (R-OH) retiring in 2010- but he did mention why he ran back in 2004 for his second and last term. Maybe the pending economic stimulus package is giving him some hope for his children and grandchildren. In fact, Voinovich has voted against his party 15 times so far in 2009 - even on the GOP-despised stimulus package. To put that in perspective, John McCain has voted against his party only 3 times since Jan. 1 2009. Why would Voinovich be so oppositional to his own party? The fact that he is resigning in 2010 has everything to do with it. Even though it will be impossible to see the long term benefits or shortfalls of the ESP, in 2010 incumbent Senators up for re-election will all have one thing in common: the voted against it. "Fiscal conservatives," they will say, on their million dollar TV ad campaigns. To be sure, the campaigning has already begun and Voinovich serves as a perfect control for which to observe the phenomenon.

And they're off

2009-02-04T11:26:00.000-08:00

Sticking to their plan, Republicans have their eyes on New York's 20th Congressional District to replenish the party's representation...not to mention image. In a game of political musical chairs, the seat was left open when Gillibrand was appointed to fill Clinton's seat in the Senate. Democrat Scott Murphy is expected to challenge Republican Jim Tedisco (see above). While the office was previously held by a moderate Democrat, the seat was long held by Republicans and the current political climate suggests partisan voting will ensue. The fact that Dem's have swept up a lot of seats may just bring more Republicans out to the polls to reclaim territory, especially since plenty of them realize what an important win this will mean for the GOP. Will the district be a case of one step left, two steps back to the right? Maybe they were testing the waters with Gillibrand but now will realize the party needs their votes now maybe more than ever.

Hello...Newman

2009-02-03T16:52:00.000-08:00

Here is a prime example of the benefits of being a moderate. Republican Bonnie Newman was tapped to take Gregg's Senate seat in New Hampshire after he was nominated today to become Pres. Obama's next commerce secretary. It's what's looking like the first bipartisan act during Obama's administration (the governor who appointed her is a dem.), despite his desperate pleas for everyone to work together regardless of party affiliation. On one hand I think this sends a great message to Congress that you can cross arbitrary party lines to hire a well qualified person who will do her job. It's not all about nor should it be all about what party you belong to. On the other hand, I feel as though they just got what they wanted and won't really connect those dots. Still, not everything on the GOP's wishlist was granted. Newman says she will not run again in 2010, which will leave an opening for a strong democrat to run for the office- and they just might win. Steele: party's over, time to get to work. In the mean time, Newman's appointment means that Republican's will keep bill-blocking power in Congress. GOP, I think a thank-you note is in order for Governor John Lynch.

Man of Steele

2009-02-02T11:09:00.000-08:00

Michael Steele, newly elected RNC chairman, is eloquent enough. But with all the revamping left to do in his party, will he be the man for the job? Well, he can certainly go back to next years "State of the Black Union" with proof that he "took ownership of the diner." And we all know how a much good power washing and an "Under New Management" sign can stir up some much needed business. The hard part is keeping the new customers. Ok, enough with the diner analogy. What's the real plan? Steele says putting a Republican in New York's 20th Congressional District (formerly Gillibrand's seat), in governorships in New Jersey and Virginia along with reapportionment will be the key to getting the GOP up and running again. Maybe Steele will re-energize the party, but if I recall correctly, the same was said about another governor of a different U.S. coastline - one you could see Russia from.

Click here for NPR clip

2009-02-02T08:32:00.000-08:00

Oh, the controversy. I can just imagine Pres. Obama sitting up at night thinking "what the hell is wrong with these people?!" Part of the drama is in the nominations themselves (i.e. the political move to pluck a Republican out of the Senate which triggers the possibility of simultaneously scoring a democratic supermajority), but it seems like every other cabinet nominee has some skeletons in their closet which aren't too hard for the opposing parties to dig out. To name a few:

Clinton (Secy. of State) : discrepancies with her husbands charity and its contributors. A conflict of interest question was raised here.
Geithner (Secy. of Treasury) : failure to pay more than $34,000 in back taxes...statutes of limitations kept him from legally having to pay more
Daschle (Secy.- designate of Health and Human Services) : Another tax mishap. This time more than $100,000 worth (see above NPR and CBS clips)
Richardson (former candidate for Secy. of Commerce) : Withdrew his nomination as he was being investigated for possibly exchanging expensive favors for lucrative contracts in New Mexico.

Beggers can't be choosers

2009-02-01T22:08:00.000-08:00

This picture would be so much more appropriate if Bonnie Newman was perched right between the former presidents. It will do for now, though, since I'm sure Mrs. Newman's photo will be in the news quite a bit in the upcoming cycle. If reports are materialized, she just may be Gregg's replacement in the Senate if he get asked, says yes, becomes nominated and confirmed into the commerce secretary position in Obama's shiny new cabinet. The picture sounds too good to be true- Gregg needs a republican to replace him to avoid some serious dissaproval by his right winged peers and Newman just so happens to be on the good side of New Hampshire's democratic governor- the man with the appointing power. But is Newman too liberal for their taste? Not that the GOP has a choice; the governor will choose who he thinks is best fit and they should be grateful that he may be considering inching a little to the right in his decision. We'll see how this pans out but in the mean time the negotiations are a nice start and hopefully it won't turn out to be too good to be true. The party doesn't need another clone who will buckle under tradition and expectation- which are not always the sturdiest pillars to stand upon.

The ultimate GOPickle

2009-01-30T18:31:00.000-08:00

Lets face it, the Grand Ole' Party is shakin in its boots. “It would be like the Steelers recruiting Larry Fitzgerald right before the Super Bowl,” Alexander said, referring to the Arizona Cardinals’ star wide receiver. Really?? You'd think they would be happy having an experienced member of their party up for the nod, but no, instead they are acting like he would be a traitor. If Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire, does get offered the commerce secretary position there is no doubt in my mind he'll take it. Like the politico.com article says, Gregg is up for re-election in 2010 and job security isn't lookin so hot these days. On the other hand, he'll face serious consequences from his peers- and no one enjoys the silent treatment. Maybe he, and his party, may be able to save face, though, if the Democratic governor agrees to appoint a Republican in Gregg's place. Again, I'm going to make a prediction that no such bargain will be made. It's a tough decision, but in the mean time I think the GOP needs to relax a little, be happy for Gregg and realize this may not be such a bad thing.

It's lonely at the top...expensive, too

2009-01-30T13:18:00.000-08:00

According to politico.com, Harry Reid is all geared up and ready to take on any Republican coming his way in 2010. The only problem? No such person has stepped up to the plate yet. Armed with $3.3 million, is Reid just being paranoid? Doesnt look like it. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has already began attacking Reid, labeling him a "super-spending partisan." Those are fighting words if I've ever heard em. Also words that strike right to core of every Republican in this country because, really what could be worse? So what's Reid's next move? For now, looks like the only thing left to pull out of his pocket is a big F-U.

Photo Courtesy of 762justice.com

Instant opponent: Just add guns

2009-01-30T10:08:00.000-08:00

Democrat vs. moderate democrat? Representative McCarthy from Long Island is obviously heated that Gillibrand was chosen to fill Hillary's shoes and has already vowed to run against her in 2010.
Maybe her reason is substantiated- her husband was killed by gunfire. The fact that there are probably plenty of New Yorkers who can relate to her gut wrenching story just may give her an upper hand in the upcoming race. So the interesting thing will be this: In the end, will voters recognize Gillibrand as an NRA-friendly-moderate Democrat and oust her or just see a "D-NY" stamped to a recognizable forehead and call it a day? While McCarthy now has a solid "other" platform from which to run, Gillibrand made it clear in the 2006 elections that she is no pushover and can defeat even the big dogs (I'm assuming "good ole' boys" is no longer fashionable).