One by one, the old figures of the U.S. senate are being replaced this year. Ted Kennedy died. Chris Dodd has decided not to run again, as have Jim Bunning, Kit Bond, Byron Dorgan, George Voinovich and Roland Burris. Robert Bennett was denied renomination by his own party. Arlen Specter is likely to lose the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, after he switched parties. Nonagenerian Robert Byrd is still in office, but barely, probably sleeping much more than he is awake, and has to be wheeled into the senate chambers when there is a close vote. Majority leader Harry Reid seems headed for certain loss in November. Barbara Boxer may lose her seat.
All of them will be replaced by younger men and women, and the country will be the better for it. Conventional arguments about seniority and experience, once seemingly sensible arguments for keeping old senators in office, now are pathetically empty rationales. Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond were political parodies at the end, no matter how one felt about their earlier careers. Outstanding senators now past their prime are not immune from this self-indulgence. Richard Lugar, Barbara Mikulski, Daniel Inuoye, Jay Rockefeller are among these. Others such as Daniel Akaka, Frank Lautenberg, Jeff Bingaman and Herb Kohl, did not ever make much difference in the senate, and hopefully will be retired soon.
The list above includes Republican and Democrats, and those who have held on too long in the past is also bipartisan. This is not about politics; it is about judgment and able public service.
A few older senators still have lots of impact and political energy. These include Joe Lieberman, Lamar Alexander, John McCain, Orrin Hatch and Diane Feinstein. Chuck Grassley, Thad Cochran and Richard Shelby still make some difference. They are the exceptions that prove the rule. My point is not that age and experience are in any way bad, but that in terms of service in the U.S. senate, they can become an obstacle to that body working well. I don’t know about specific term limits, but I don’t think anyone should serve in the same elective office too long.
As a relatively senior person myself, who expects and wants to be active as long as possible, and long past any conventional dates, I wish for all of the above senators to continue to have long and productive lives. But the U.S. senate is a vital American institution, and needs, especially in this dangerous economic and political time, new blood, fresh thinking and youthful imagination.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
The British Election Aftermath
The results are in for 649 seats in the British Parliament (one seat, very likely to be won by the Conservatives will be decided in a special election later this month), and the Conservatives (Tories) clearly have replaced Labour as the British voters’s favorite political party. With an expected final total of 307 seats, however, Tory leader David Cameron is 19 votes short of an absolute majority. The unwritten British constitution and precedent now allow for several resolutions of who will govern the United Kingdom and serve as prime minister.
The most likely outcome is that Mr. Cameron will become prime minster and that the Tories will govern. They have two main choices, if the queen invites Mr. Cameron to form a government, i.e., the Tories can form an alliance with the Liberal Democrats and run a coalition majority government, or they can govern without a majority and make no alliances. There is another possibility which is that the Liberal Democrats could form a coalition with Labour, but there two very large problems with that. First, the total of all the Labour members and all the Liberal Democrats is short of an absolute majority, and second, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats LOST members in the election (while the Tories made huge gains), so that a Labour-Lib Dem coalition would repudiate the voters. Without claiming to be an expert on British politics, I would predict that a Labour-Liberal Democrat government would be short-lived, unpopular, and a new election called relatively soon.
Gordon Brown has been repudiated by the voters. Nick Clegg’s popularity lasted about a week after he “won” the first TV debate in the election, and his party did much worse than expected, even losing seats in the new parliament. Only Mr. Cameron may fairly make a claim to lead at this point.
It is the queen, it must remembered, who makes the final determination about whether Mr. Cameron or Mr. Brown will be invited to form the next government. She has reigned for more than 50 years, has chosen more than a dozen prime ministers, and has come to represent the long-term stability of the United Kingdom, so a “radical” solution to the resolution of the election in the next few days is unlikely.
Mr. Cameron did close the election strongly, rightly employing the strategy of explaining to the voters that the only true choice was between the Conservatives and Labour, but he allowed an earlier commanding lead to narrow. All great British prime ministers were bold men or women, and if anything is needed on that side of the Pond right now (or on our side of the Pond, for that matter), it is boldness and a return to conservative principles. Mr. Cameron, during the election season did succeed in making himself the better choice for voters. Now he needs to demonstrate that he can govern boldly. This dangerous and extraordinary moment in time requires that the men and women in government rise to an historic set of occasions. This is not happening now in Great Britain, nor in its hitherto very successful former colony the United States of America. The citizens and electorate of both these nations, especially the young and new voters, yearn for boldness, not just in rhetoric but most importantly in action that will transform the present crisis.
The most likely outcome is that Mr. Cameron will become prime minster and that the Tories will govern. They have two main choices, if the queen invites Mr. Cameron to form a government, i.e., the Tories can form an alliance with the Liberal Democrats and run a coalition majority government, or they can govern without a majority and make no alliances. There is another possibility which is that the Liberal Democrats could form a coalition with Labour, but there two very large problems with that. First, the total of all the Labour members and all the Liberal Democrats is short of an absolute majority, and second, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats LOST members in the election (while the Tories made huge gains), so that a Labour-Lib Dem coalition would repudiate the voters. Without claiming to be an expert on British politics, I would predict that a Labour-Liberal Democrat government would be short-lived, unpopular, and a new election called relatively soon.
Gordon Brown has been repudiated by the voters. Nick Clegg’s popularity lasted about a week after he “won” the first TV debate in the election, and his party did much worse than expected, even losing seats in the new parliament. Only Mr. Cameron may fairly make a claim to lead at this point.
It is the queen, it must remembered, who makes the final determination about whether Mr. Cameron or Mr. Brown will be invited to form the next government. She has reigned for more than 50 years, has chosen more than a dozen prime ministers, and has come to represent the long-term stability of the United Kingdom, so a “radical” solution to the resolution of the election in the next few days is unlikely.
Mr. Cameron did close the election strongly, rightly employing the strategy of explaining to the voters that the only true choice was between the Conservatives and Labour, but he allowed an earlier commanding lead to narrow. All great British prime ministers were bold men or women, and if anything is needed on that side of the Pond right now (or on our side of the Pond, for that matter), it is boldness and a return to conservative principles. Mr. Cameron, during the election season did succeed in making himself the better choice for voters. Now he needs to demonstrate that he can govern boldly. This dangerous and extraordinary moment in time requires that the men and women in government rise to an historic set of occasions. This is not happening now in Great Britain, nor in its hitherto very successful former colony the United States of America. The citizens and electorate of both these nations, especially the young and new voters, yearn for boldness, not just in rhetoric but most importantly in action that will transform the present crisis.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
A Curious Note About 2012?
It is very, very early in the 2012 presidential election cycle, and not useful to make, prognostications, but the rapid re-polarization of the electorate (it is only 15 months since Barack Obama was sworn in as president) enables some provisional observations possibly worth remembering at a later date.
We all know the conventional rules of American politics, and how rapidly reversals of public opinion often take place, usually provoked by two main causes: 1. Dramatic change of domestic economic conditions, either for the better or worse; and 2. Sudden international events or developments which directly affect the United States.
In mid-2010 America we have the following condition: a first-term president who is pursuing a radical agenda in both domestic and foreign policy. When I say “radical,” I do not mean automatically that it is bad or wrong. Sometimes, I think, “radical” changes fit the need of the times. But if a radical agenda is enacted, it must be perceived as successful and rally popular support, especially in the more independent political center of the electorate. President Obama entered office facing an economic crisis of significant dimensions. Instead of employing the successful strategies of lowering or stabilizing taxes and reducing government deficits of his recent Democratic predecessors, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, Mr. Obama has chosen to raise taxes and increase deficits. This is not only a “radical” strategy, it has not ever worked in U.S. before, except briefly in wartime. This is the European model which centralizes the economy, raises taxes, but provides a wide range of welfare services to the general population. Ironically, in most European nations where this model originated and was developed over decades, the strategy has been notably modified or abandoned as it, long-term, inhibited growth, entrepreneurship and innovation; and has failed economically.
Of course, “growth, entrepreneurship and innovation” are not deep-seeded Europeanprinciples. That continent has not enjoyed continual democratic governments foralmost 250 years, and it has been the site for persistent and brutal warfare, as well as economic upheaval until almost recently. In short, most Europeans have become used to being told what to do or think by their leaders over the past 1000 years. To be sure, the European Union has seemed to be a step to avoid the worst problems of the past, but the EU creators are attempting to take the potentially positive idea of an economic union to the point of political union, something that simply is not going to happen in a continent of so many different languages, religions and cultural traditions. To complicate everything, Europe has now opened its doors to waves of immigrants who are hostile to the various religious and cultural identities of its member states, and these immigrants are now so numerous, and growing so fast, they threaten, in a relatively short time, the demographic and social integrity of what
has been built over a millenium.
European intellectual elite thinking (most of it advocating socialist or far left views),however, has dominated the U.S. educational establishment, especially at the university level, for decades. This is the environment from which President Obama comes, and where his “radical strategy” originates.
In spite of the reality that Europe has lived off U.S. military protection for 60 years, as well as America’s superpower economy, its entrepreneurship and innovation, much of Europe has a chronic self-image (and delusion) that it remains the center of the world, and this image is unfortunately swallowed whole and perpetuated by American university faculty elites who, in turn, imperiously have tried to impose their ideas on their students.
It unfortunately has followed that Europe, twice rescued from depravity and disaster by the U.S. in the 20th century, grew to resent its benefactor and that nation’s real power. As the world economy has evolved, and the super-populated nations of China and India adopted the American model of capitalism, it has become more and more clear that U.S. global economic dominance, as known in the 20th century, was gradually coming to an end. The United States of America and its global polices became unpopular even among its allies and beneficiaries.
It is this “unpopularity” which President Obama and his supporters are now responding to in U.S. foreign policy. Our major allies (Great Britain, Israel and new democratic nations everywhere) are being “re-evaluated,” and our enemies are being courted. The problem with this courtship is that our enemies have no intention of “marrying” us. In fact, they want to, figuratively and literally, kill us.
These are not political strategies with good prospects for President Obama. He is fighting economic reality and human nature at its most basic level. Anything can happen, but it would seem that after this coming November, he will have to decide on new strategies. If he does not, the main question of the 2012 presidential election would not be who will be the Republican nominee, but who might be, after his party rejects their own incumbent, the Democratic nominee.
We all know the conventional rules of American politics, and how rapidly reversals of public opinion often take place, usually provoked by two main causes: 1. Dramatic change of domestic economic conditions, either for the better or worse; and 2. Sudden international events or developments which directly affect the United States.
In mid-2010 America we have the following condition: a first-term president who is pursuing a radical agenda in both domestic and foreign policy. When I say “radical,” I do not mean automatically that it is bad or wrong. Sometimes, I think, “radical” changes fit the need of the times. But if a radical agenda is enacted, it must be perceived as successful and rally popular support, especially in the more independent political center of the electorate. President Obama entered office facing an economic crisis of significant dimensions. Instead of employing the successful strategies of lowering or stabilizing taxes and reducing government deficits of his recent Democratic predecessors, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, Mr. Obama has chosen to raise taxes and increase deficits. This is not only a “radical” strategy, it has not ever worked in U.S. before, except briefly in wartime. This is the European model which centralizes the economy, raises taxes, but provides a wide range of welfare services to the general population. Ironically, in most European nations where this model originated and was developed over decades, the strategy has been notably modified or abandoned as it, long-term, inhibited growth, entrepreneurship and innovation; and has failed economically.
Of course, “growth, entrepreneurship and innovation” are not deep-seeded Europeanprinciples. That continent has not enjoyed continual democratic governments foralmost 250 years, and it has been the site for persistent and brutal warfare, as well as economic upheaval until almost recently. In short, most Europeans have become used to being told what to do or think by their leaders over the past 1000 years. To be sure, the European Union has seemed to be a step to avoid the worst problems of the past, but the EU creators are attempting to take the potentially positive idea of an economic union to the point of political union, something that simply is not going to happen in a continent of so many different languages, religions and cultural traditions. To complicate everything, Europe has now opened its doors to waves of immigrants who are hostile to the various religious and cultural identities of its member states, and these immigrants are now so numerous, and growing so fast, they threaten, in a relatively short time, the demographic and social integrity of what
has been built over a millenium.
European intellectual elite thinking (most of it advocating socialist or far left views),however, has dominated the U.S. educational establishment, especially at the university level, for decades. This is the environment from which President Obama comes, and where his “radical strategy” originates.
In spite of the reality that Europe has lived off U.S. military protection for 60 years, as well as America’s superpower economy, its entrepreneurship and innovation, much of Europe has a chronic self-image (and delusion) that it remains the center of the world, and this image is unfortunately swallowed whole and perpetuated by American university faculty elites who, in turn, imperiously have tried to impose their ideas on their students.
It unfortunately has followed that Europe, twice rescued from depravity and disaster by the U.S. in the 20th century, grew to resent its benefactor and that nation’s real power. As the world economy has evolved, and the super-populated nations of China and India adopted the American model of capitalism, it has become more and more clear that U.S. global economic dominance, as known in the 20th century, was gradually coming to an end. The United States of America and its global polices became unpopular even among its allies and beneficiaries.
It is this “unpopularity” which President Obama and his supporters are now responding to in U.S. foreign policy. Our major allies (Great Britain, Israel and new democratic nations everywhere) are being “re-evaluated,” and our enemies are being courted. The problem with this courtship is that our enemies have no intention of “marrying” us. In fact, they want to, figuratively and literally, kill us.
These are not political strategies with good prospects for President Obama. He is fighting economic reality and human nature at its most basic level. Anything can happen, but it would seem that after this coming November, he will have to decide on new strategies. If he does not, the main question of the 2012 presidential election would not be who will be the Republican nominee, but who might be, after his party rejects their own incumbent, the Democratic nominee.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
The British Elections A Week Away
A bit more than a week ago, I wrote in this space that the so-called “Cleggomania” in the British elections was not what it seemed, and was likely to wane.
Following the first U.S.-style TV debated between the three major candidates, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg had obviously scored a public relations victory over his better known rivals, and British pollsters indicated that the Liberal Democrats had soared into second place over the ruling Labour Party led by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and just behind David Cameron’s Conservative Party (Tory) which had been leading by double digits for some time. At one point, there were even a poll or two which showed the Liberal Democrats in first place.
I cautioned that this was unlikely to continue as the media and voters took a close look at Clegg, and to their real prospects. It was generally believed that Cameron won the second debate, although not by much, and that Clegg was not quite the “savior” of the kingdom. The Tories’ poll numbers have been climbing back up, (now at about 7% ahead of the Liberal Democrats) while Labour has continued to decline.
The prospects remain for a rare “hung parliament,” but those who calculate what actually happens in the election (there is no “popular” vote; the election is decided by which party wins the most seats) now say that the Tories are now only 10-20 seats away from an absolute majority.
Prime Minister Brown has now made the singular “gaffe” of the campaign by calling one of his own supporters a “bigoted woman” on a live microphone he apparently forgot he was wearing. At this point, all the apologies and rationalizations for this gaffe made by him and his supporters are basically irrelevant. The damage is done. Already unpopular, this would would appear to be the final straw. His party will still come in second, and the Liberal Democrats third, but the real winner from the gaffe is almost certainly Mr. Cameron who now has a chance, not probable only two weeks ago, of either an absolute majority or very close to it.
A third TV debate is an opportunity for Mr. Cameron to show he is “prime ministerial.” His strategy of spending much of the past ten days explaining that the “infatuation” with Mr. Clegg could only produce the result of Mr. Brown and his party being returned to power, was (as I wrote earlier) the right one. Barring still one more “gaffe” by one of the three candidates in the last debate or during the final campaign week, it will be Mr. Cameron who most probably will be invited to Buckingham Palace by the queen to form a government.
Following the first U.S.-style TV debated between the three major candidates, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg had obviously scored a public relations victory over his better known rivals, and British pollsters indicated that the Liberal Democrats had soared into second place over the ruling Labour Party led by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and just behind David Cameron’s Conservative Party (Tory) which had been leading by double digits for some time. At one point, there were even a poll or two which showed the Liberal Democrats in first place.
I cautioned that this was unlikely to continue as the media and voters took a close look at Clegg, and to their real prospects. It was generally believed that Cameron won the second debate, although not by much, and that Clegg was not quite the “savior” of the kingdom. The Tories’ poll numbers have been climbing back up, (now at about 7% ahead of the Liberal Democrats) while Labour has continued to decline.
The prospects remain for a rare “hung parliament,” but those who calculate what actually happens in the election (there is no “popular” vote; the election is decided by which party wins the most seats) now say that the Tories are now only 10-20 seats away from an absolute majority.
Prime Minister Brown has now made the singular “gaffe” of the campaign by calling one of his own supporters a “bigoted woman” on a live microphone he apparently forgot he was wearing. At this point, all the apologies and rationalizations for this gaffe made by him and his supporters are basically irrelevant. The damage is done. Already unpopular, this would would appear to be the final straw. His party will still come in second, and the Liberal Democrats third, but the real winner from the gaffe is almost certainly Mr. Cameron who now has a chance, not probable only two weeks ago, of either an absolute majority or very close to it.
A third TV debate is an opportunity for Mr. Cameron to show he is “prime ministerial.” His strategy of spending much of the past ten days explaining that the “infatuation” with Mr. Clegg could only produce the result of Mr. Brown and his party being returned to power, was (as I wrote earlier) the right one. Barring still one more “gaffe” by one of the three candidates in the last debate or during the final campaign week, it will be Mr. Cameron who most probably will be invited to Buckingham Palace by the queen to form a government.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Illuminations From Duluth
I hope readers from other places in the nation will excuse this second column about the Minnesota gubernatorial race, but I think it may be helpful in illuminating what is happening in many other parts of the country.
Last weekend was the Democratic (DFL) state convention. In Minnesota, the party endorsement decided in the state conventions is a very important part of securing party nomination that officially comes after the state primary (this year in August). In fact, the endorsement of the Republican state convention coming up this weekend will likely be tantamount to nomination. But this is not the case in the DFL where the newly-endorsed gubernatorial candidate will face a very serious challenge of at least three DFL opponents who chose not to seek endorsement.
Speaker of the Minnesota House Margaret Kelliher won the DFL endorsement after leading on all ballots. Going into the convention in Duluth, and coming out of it, she is the strongest candidate the party could have endorsed. Before the convention, her major opponent was expected to be Minneapolis Mayor R. T. Rybak, and although he was second on all ballots, his speech and convention organization were clearly a disappointment, especially since his communication skills created high expectations.
State Representative Paul Thissen, a new face in statewide politics, was expected to be the dark horse of the convention, and he did maintain third place throughout the balloting.
In fourth and fifth place were State Representative Tom Rukavina from the state’s Iron Range, and State Senator John Marty who in 1994 was the DFL nominee for governor (but lost in a landslide to the Republican incumbent).
Rukavina and Marty were the most liberal candidates (although all five would be considered quite liberal by national standards). but it as only Rukavina who electrified the whole convention with a rousing populist speech that seemed to gain him votes on the early ballots. It was also Rukavina, faced with elimination by the drop-off rules, who used his concession speech to passionately endorse Kelliher, and thus made her victory inevitable. (Marty later also endorsed Kelliher after revealing her pledge to him to support single payer health insurance in the state.)
Although the names of Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and other DFL luminaries of the past were mentioned during the convention proceedings, only the late Senator Paul Wellstone’s name roused the convention to tumultuous applause. It was, in fact, Rukavina’s presentation which most explicitly employed Wellstone’s memory.
But the DFL convention delegates are considerably to the left of the whole party (just as the GOP delegates this week will be more conservative than their whole party).
Interestingly, the DFL frontrunner for nomination, former U.S. Senator Mark Dayton, is just as liberal or more so than Mrs. Kelliher, but his reason for eschewing the convention was that 1400 delegates could not fairly represent the will of a DFL that had more than a million voters. He argues, and I think correctly, that the party nomination should be up to voters in a primary. Mr. Dayton has certain advantages that make him so formidable in August. As a former state auditor and U.S. senator, he is known to almost all DFL voters. He has personal resources that will enable him to outspend Mrs. Kelliher, and his program for helping seniors obtain prescription drugs from Canada when he was in the senate has endeared him to many older DFL voters. Dayton has also obtained the endorsement of some of the largest and most powerful unions in the state. In an August primary, seniors and union members will make up a large number of those who will actually vote.
Mrs. Kelliher also has notable union support, and support from rural voters (she grew up on a farm), as well as the party organization. She would also, if elected, be the first woman governor of the state. But many urban DFL voters will be on holiday and out of the state in August. Although she has DFL endorsement, she does not so far have much money in the bank. At least two of her primary opponents will have virtually unlimited funds to spend on TV advertising
I have said that this is the year the DFL would likely win back the governorship after 20 years out of power. With retiring two-term incumbent GOP Governor Tim Pawlenty likely to run for president in 2012, the two major Republican contenders for their party’s nomination have not yet demonstrated any statewide star power, nor an appeal to the largest bloc of voters in the state (according to most polls), that is, those who consider themselves independents. In fact, a credible Independence Party candidate has once again emerged, Tom Horner, and he could draw considerable votes from more centrist voters in the DFL and GOP.
As was demonstrated in the recent Virginia gubernatorial contest, a conservative Republican nominee won by appealing to the political center. It is not clear if the Minnesota GOP nominee will do the same this year. As for the DFL, their party is suffering from voter unhappiness with the Democratic administration in Washington, DC, and with the recently-passed Obama healthcare legislation. Even President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid withdrew the single payer provisions from their legislation because of widespread opposition to it. Would the DFL gubernatorial nominee be helped in November by advocating this unpopular idea?
If the GOP candidate in Minnesota runs on very conservative social issues, and the DFL candidate runs on single payer healthcare and other very liberal issues, the Independence Party candidate will once again take a large share of the vote in November, and determine the winner as has happened here every year since 1998 (when IP candidate Jesse Ventura actually won).
There is not much illuminating political language being spoken today in Minnesota and in the nation. There is a lot of obfuscating rhetoric, outright deceptions, and tired slogans in the political marketplace, but no shortage of economic problems(which they do not really address). The Tea Party is very active in Minnesota,as evidenced by the huge rally featuring Sarah Palin in Minneapolis recently.There are many Democrats, and a number of Republicans, too, who continue to denigrate this growing number of voters (made up of those from all parties), but they are the dynamic of the 2010 election, and any candidate who ignores them does so at their peril this year.
These voters are incensed by issues of high unemployment, higher taxation,growing entitlements, public bailouts, governmental expansion,and on national security. They will, in many cases, determine the outcome of 2010 elections.
Candidates from either major party who try to pretend they are not there, are running against history.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Shifts In The British Elections?
This is going to be a short initial piece on the fascinating (and always brief) British election season now taking place across the Pond.
Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democratic Party, traditionally a relatively small third party in British politics, scored a media coup in the first American-stye TV debate held in Britain a few days ago, and has enjoyed a meteoric rise in the UK polls. Most observers have contended the big loser as a result is David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party (Tories), who had been ahead by double digits in the polls over the current Labour government headed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown (who now is in third place in the polls).
The problem with polling in Britain is that the outcome of the election in not by popular vote, but is determined by which party has the most seats in parliament. Thus, Cameron may be ahead in the polls, Clegg in second, and Brown in third, but Brown may win the election because his party wins the most seats.
Cameron is now responding by turning his attention to the Clegg challenge, pointing out to Britons that a vote for the Liberal Democrats may well return Brown and his party for five more years, something all polls (past and present) indicate that British voters do not want. Some American commentators are suggesting that Cameron is “panicking,” and that he is making political mistake. I’m no expert on British politics, but I could not disagree more with that criticism.
The issue today in Great Britain is five more years of a Labour government or not. Clegg himself will now come under immense scrutiny, and reports indicate that has already begun with negative allegations about him. British voters will have to decide in the slightly more than two weeks left in the campaign if they want to waste their vote for a result they don’t want.
I’m going to write very soon a longer piece about why Americans need to pay attention to this contest, and why our relationship with the United Kingdom is as important, or even more so, than ever. Watch this space.
Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democratic Party, traditionally a relatively small third party in British politics, scored a media coup in the first American-stye TV debate held in Britain a few days ago, and has enjoyed a meteoric rise in the UK polls. Most observers have contended the big loser as a result is David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party (Tories), who had been ahead by double digits in the polls over the current Labour government headed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown (who now is in third place in the polls).
The problem with polling in Britain is that the outcome of the election in not by popular vote, but is determined by which party has the most seats in parliament. Thus, Cameron may be ahead in the polls, Clegg in second, and Brown in third, but Brown may win the election because his party wins the most seats.
Cameron is now responding by turning his attention to the Clegg challenge, pointing out to Britons that a vote for the Liberal Democrats may well return Brown and his party for five more years, something all polls (past and present) indicate that British voters do not want. Some American commentators are suggesting that Cameron is “panicking,” and that he is making political mistake. I’m no expert on British politics, but I could not disagree more with that criticism.
The issue today in Great Britain is five more years of a Labour government or not. Clegg himself will now come under immense scrutiny, and reports indicate that has already begun with negative allegations about him. British voters will have to decide in the slightly more than two weeks left in the campaign if they want to waste their vote for a result they don’t want.
I’m going to write very soon a longer piece about why Americans need to pay attention to this contest, and why our relationship with the United Kingdom is as important, or even more so, than ever. Watch this space.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
More Bad News For Pelosi
If Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her co-conspirator Barack Obama thought that passage of their healthcare bill would solve their political problems, they have made a gigantic miscalculation. As details of the 2700-page bill slowly leak out, the general public is reacting more and more negatively to its various controversial provisions. The Pelosi/Obama strategy was to pass the legislation without anyone reading it. In the short-term sense, this did work, but the long-term consequences for public opinion appear to be politically ominous.
In the Minnesota First District, Democratic (DFL) Congressman Tim Walz is in his second term. He ran originally as a moderate, and on his record as a career U.S. Army soldier. The First District is located in the southern portion of the state, and is half rural. The other half is made up of Rochester, the largest city in the region, and its suburbs. The Mayo Clinic, with thousands of physicians, nurses, medical technicians and administrative staff, are perhaps the largest single bloc in the district, and when you add the thousands of small businesses the huge Clinic supports, the figure is dispositive. The largest plant in the region is also located in Rochester, IBM Corporation.
The congressional vote in recent decades which has had more impact on these voters was for the Obamacare bill pushed through the Congress by the president and the Democrats. I think it is fair to say that most of the medical professionals, their families, and the businesses that support them are unhappy about this legislation. One would think that the area’s congressman, albeit a Democrat, would not have voted for it. (When the previous congressman, a Republican, failed to support Rochester on a railroad issue in 2006, he was, in fact, defeated by then- underdog Walz.) Obamacare is a much more serious threat to the livelihoods of Rochester area voters.
The other half of the district is primarily agricultural. Some are Democrats (DFers), but conservative. The only long-term successful DFL congressman in recent years was Tim Penny, a classical centrist whose economic conservatism reflected the views of the district’s residents.
Tim Walz is a likeable and hard-working person who initially enjoyed much popularity in the First District, and was re-elected by a wide margin in 2008 (although it was admittedly a Democratic tide year). But Walz has become, his critics say, a pawn of Nancy Pelosi (who campaigns in Minnesota for him). Nancy Pelosi represents an ultraliberal district in downtown San Francisco, and the pairing is an odd one for this
Minnesota constituency.
Four-term state Representative Randy Demmer has just been endorsed by his GOP district convention, and this means he will be the Republican nominee in November. Demmer was the underdog against an ultraconservative candidate who many thought would win, and then go on to lose the November election. For this reason primarily, this race has until now not appeared on most lists as a vulnerable Democratic seat.
That’s all changed now. Demmer is a successful small businessman, GOP leader on the state house tax committee, and a solid conservative who seems like a good fit for this area, but he is not well-known outside his legislative district. Nor has he yet shown the communication and campaign skills of his DFL opponent. Demmer’s wife is a long-time and respected nurse at the Mayo Clinic.
This is also not a seat that Walz and the DFL will surrender without a fight. Union members in the district will rally around the incumbent, and will provide him with logistical support. Liberals throughout the state, sensing this is the only competitive congressional race this year, are likely to pour in financial support.
Ironically, Walz was considered a serious contender for the DFL gubernatorial nomination this year, and it was believed he might have won party endorsement. Instead, Walz chose to run for his “safe” seat. But that was before his vote on Obamacare, the nomination of a credible candidate against him, and the tide turning against Democrats nationwide.
With the number of vulnerable Democratic seats rapidly grown to 50-75 (it was only 20-25 a few months ago), the last thing the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee needs is one more seat to defend.
In the Minnesota First District, Democratic (DFL) Congressman Tim Walz is in his second term. He ran originally as a moderate, and on his record as a career U.S. Army soldier. The First District is located in the southern portion of the state, and is half rural. The other half is made up of Rochester, the largest city in the region, and its suburbs. The Mayo Clinic, with thousands of physicians, nurses, medical technicians and administrative staff, are perhaps the largest single bloc in the district, and when you add the thousands of small businesses the huge Clinic supports, the figure is dispositive. The largest plant in the region is also located in Rochester, IBM Corporation.
The congressional vote in recent decades which has had more impact on these voters was for the Obamacare bill pushed through the Congress by the president and the Democrats. I think it is fair to say that most of the medical professionals, their families, and the businesses that support them are unhappy about this legislation. One would think that the area’s congressman, albeit a Democrat, would not have voted for it. (When the previous congressman, a Republican, failed to support Rochester on a railroad issue in 2006, he was, in fact, defeated by then- underdog Walz.) Obamacare is a much more serious threat to the livelihoods of Rochester area voters.
The other half of the district is primarily agricultural. Some are Democrats (DFers), but conservative. The only long-term successful DFL congressman in recent years was Tim Penny, a classical centrist whose economic conservatism reflected the views of the district’s residents.
Tim Walz is a likeable and hard-working person who initially enjoyed much popularity in the First District, and was re-elected by a wide margin in 2008 (although it was admittedly a Democratic tide year). But Walz has become, his critics say, a pawn of Nancy Pelosi (who campaigns in Minnesota for him). Nancy Pelosi represents an ultraliberal district in downtown San Francisco, and the pairing is an odd one for this
Minnesota constituency.
Four-term state Representative Randy Demmer has just been endorsed by his GOP district convention, and this means he will be the Republican nominee in November. Demmer was the underdog against an ultraconservative candidate who many thought would win, and then go on to lose the November election. For this reason primarily, this race has until now not appeared on most lists as a vulnerable Democratic seat.
That’s all changed now. Demmer is a successful small businessman, GOP leader on the state house tax committee, and a solid conservative who seems like a good fit for this area, but he is not well-known outside his legislative district. Nor has he yet shown the communication and campaign skills of his DFL opponent. Demmer’s wife is a long-time and respected nurse at the Mayo Clinic.
This is also not a seat that Walz and the DFL will surrender without a fight. Union members in the district will rally around the incumbent, and will provide him with logistical support. Liberals throughout the state, sensing this is the only competitive congressional race this year, are likely to pour in financial support.
Ironically, Walz was considered a serious contender for the DFL gubernatorial nomination this year, and it was believed he might have won party endorsement. Instead, Walz chose to run for his “safe” seat. But that was before his vote on Obamacare, the nomination of a credible candidate against him, and the tide turning against Democrats nationwide.
With the number of vulnerable Democratic seats rapidly grown to 50-75 (it was only 20-25 a few months ago), the last thing the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee needs is one more seat to defend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)