In a little more than a week, Wisconsin will have the electoral climax that has been building since the 2010 election of its Republican governor, Scott Walker. Walker's opponents gained the necessary signatures for an unusual recall election, and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett won nomination to run against Walker.
Walker's recall is not because of misconduct in office, but because his politics don't suit a large number of Wisconsinites--and not just a little, they really hate them. Basically, he has taken on the public unions and tried to break them, something he promised in his 2010 campaign. Progressive forces from inside the state have appealed to national forces--particularly labor unions, but also political action committees--to take on Walker, and the battle has been joined, virtually continuously, for some 18 months now. (See my post from February, 2011--little has changed except the position on the timeline.)
A week from Tuesday, Walker's fate as governor--whether he can complete his term, or be removed from office immediately--will be determined. The race is very close, and there are very, very few undecided voters. Recent polls generally show Walker leading Barrett, but usually within the margin of error. In this battle, Wisconsin's politics have become the most polarized of any state's. The result will depend on the ability of the two competing forces to turn out their supporters at the polls. Or to somehow suppress their opponents' supporters: the Republicans' camp has tried both to make voting more difficult in Wisconsin, and to bury undecided voters with TV ads.
The Democrats' forces have behaved somewhat curiously in the short campaign since the primary, just a month or so ago. There was some bitterness in the contest for the right to take on Walker, but generally the domestic forces have unified for the greater good. I have personally been deluged by appeals for money since then: the strange note was from some groups, like moveon.org or Daily Kos, to complain about the absence of support from the Democratic Governors' Association and the Democratic National Committee. Both of these groups have since come around and contributed, but it seems that they don't want to commit too much capital in this contest, one that may be a bit of an uphill battle. If it is so--and Intrade.com quotes the chances of Walker surviving the recall now at 93%, up from 80% or so a few weeks ago-- it is because the Republicans have so much more money, and that they are extremely fired up.
The big question is whether President Obama will make an appearance to help motivate the Democratic ground forces for a final push in these days. If the calculation is that the President does not want to further inflame an already heated political environment, I think that is a mistaken one. Everyone should realize that this is not going to die down after the recall vote, and that the winning party is going to have great momentum going into the general election. Wisconsin has been going consistently Democratic in recent elections, but consistently very narrowly so. The loss of its 10 electoral votes from the Democratic column would be a serious blow in a Presidential race that is far from safe (there is also an open Senate seat, with the Democrats slight underdogs to hold onto it). Obama may lose some political face if he goes and Walker still wins, but he has more than face to lose next week.
I previously compared this contest to the Spanish Civil War, and how it both previewed World War II and allowed the forces to try out their weapons. The Fascist forces won the Civil War because their opponents were too disorganized and too outgunned; the Democrats should take heed.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Monday, May 21, 2012
Euroinflammation (2)
Re-reading my post of last weekend, I realize I need to elaborate a bit more. Clearly there are many possible outcomes at this point; the G-8 countries' announcement emphasized those nations' (four of which--Germany, France, Italy, and the U.K.--are in the European Union) intention to favor stimulus over austerity, and to try to save Greece's participation in the Euro. The current deal will have to be re-negotiated; for one thing, it requires a referendum in Ireland (by that country's constitution), and the Irish will be glad to cock their snook at the central continental bankers whom they blame for the severity of their recession five years ago.
So, there will be an attempt to find a more favorable formula, which might--if it is sufficiently strong and sufficiently timely--could interrupt Greece's progression toward rejectionist parties and increased unrest. I suspect that behind that announcement, though, there may be a feeling--which is fully justified--that Greece is too far down the path, and that its continued participation may need to be sacrificed to allow the remaining members to pull together, more strongly, and do what must be done to strengthen the Euro for the rest. Greece's economy was too weak, its observance of the required norms for entry to the Euro a sham from the beginning, and the biggest thing that country had going for it, Euro-wise, was the distinction of having invented the term a couple thousand years ago.
Regardless of Greece's "Eurovian" fate, the next move across the continent will be a loosening of some restrictions on government spending to allow some reflation of their nations' economies. The current approach is turning out to be an unmitigated political disaster, toppling the governments of Spain, Italy, France, Netherlands, and threatening to do something similar to both the U.K. and Germany. We in the U.S. bemoan our weak recovery, but Europe is heading toward a double-dip recession if it doesn't do something fast, or maybe even if it does.
Chicago and NATO: To Be, or NATO Be?
Thankfully, the tension that was NATO coming to town has ended, and nobody got blowed up. It seems there were a few folks who talked a bit too openly about doing some dirty deeds, and there were a few unforunate scenes, but there was neither a massive police riot nor a massive anarchist one, and we can move on.
NATO is an organization that hasn't had a very clear mission ever since the Iron Curtain came down. Since that time, it has been a useful device for the US to bring to bear multinational forces for its own international objectives, no matter how ill-defined. This meeting showed that clearly, even if it brought no clarity on any long-term purpose for the organization.
The agenda for this meeting was fairly limited and produced some canned agreements. The first was to unite around the principles of the US' accord with Afghanistan for phased withdrawal by the end of 2014, with some presence, and lots of aid, thereafter. Shades of the later stages of the Vietnam War, to be sure. The second was some sort of agreement on the US' turning over responsibility for the missile defense of Europe from those nasty Iranian missiles to NATO.
This latter seems like a perfect NATO project: standing united in a blustering effort to camouflage ineffectiveness. The whole game with this one is to add force to our will to stand up to Iran: if they can't hit Europe, then they can't threaten to do it and thus hold the Europeans hostage for the ransom of allowing Iran to build nuclear weapons. Oh, that and to irritate Russia.
Only the last part makes any sense, and only to an unreformed Cold Warrior (there are plenty of them, in the US and in Europe, too). Iran doesn't have missiles that can threaten Europe, they would have no interest in attacking Europe anyway (Israel would be a much more inviting, and close, target), and even if they could it would make no strategic sense as they are far and away the weaker country and would be devastated in the retaliation that would surely follow. Oh, and the anti-missile missiles have probably something like a 25% chance of successfully intercepting an attack, if there were to be one.
Other than that, it's a great idea.
Euro 2012
Now we must move on to more important matters, namely European football. The European championships in June and early July will provide a bit of much-needed economic stimulus to the host countries, Poland and the Ukraine, and a brief burst of well-channeled nationalism for all participants. The format is 16 teams in four groups playing a round robin; the top two in each move on and play an elimination tournament of eight.
Following my "inflammatory" theme, the Ukraine has irritated many with its political prosecution (persecution, perhaps even torture) of former Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko. It's not quite Moscow Olympics 1980, but there was some serious annoyance about the choice of this country, made back during its democratic "Orange Revolution" some years ago; politically things have gone downhill ever since.
Here are the groupings and some brief commentary:
A--Poland, Greece, Czech Republic, Russia--a very weak grouping; Czech should be favored, Russia will be the villains (but sometimes villains win), and a real opportunity for Greece to salvage some national pride.
Even Poland, which has usually had weak performance in these international tourneys, might be able to make it through.
B--Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Portugal--a ridiculously tough grouping, with three of the top five ranking teams in the world! Pity poor Denmark, not a half-bad squad but should have no chance here. Germany always gets the results somehow, so the game between Netherlands and Portugal (on the last day of the first round, June 17, in Kharkiv) shapes up as the most critical of the whole first round.
C--Spain, Italy, Ireland, Croatia--Spain is the favorite, the defending champs both in Europe and the World Cup holder. They will be under a lot of pressure but still have the guns, and a fairly weak set of opponents. Italy is rebuilding, and expectations will be relatively low. They will either fail miserably or make it to the finals, but I would expect the former, so I'd pick Croatia--another very unpredictable team--to be the other making it through besides Spain.
D--Ukraine, Sweden, France, England--It will be interesting to see if France has got it together again after their disaster in South Africa with the World Cup. England is looking strong with a good mix of youngsters and veterans and should be able to win this group.
My prediction: England defeats Germany in the semifinal and somehow wins over Spain, in a mild shocker. It is informed by the Champions League results discussed below.
Chelsea: King for the Day
I don't know if there was ever a European champion which finished as low as Chelsea did in its domestic league this year (6th), but the Blues certainly rank up there for the most unlikely route to victory. Time and again through the qualifications they trailed and looked the lesser team in their matchups: vs. Napoli, vs. Benfica, vs. Barcelona, and then, in the final, vs. Bayern Munich. Somehow, destiny was on their side this year as it was not in previous Champions League tourney runs, and their victory last weekend completes a remarkable decade of unprecedented success for the team.
I didn't read the German reaction to the game, but I am sure it was a lot like the Barcelona players' and fans': frustrated, angry, and bitter. Yes, somewhat inflamed. Bayern had 30-something shots, 15 or so corner kicks, to Chelsea's five (maybe), and one (according to the official stats, but I'm sure I saw another). Several times I heard it from the broadcasters--Bayern is the better team--just as I heard it during the Barcelona series. Nonsense: Bayern failed to win the match (Barcelona actually clearly lost it), so Chelsea picked it up, like found money. Based on quality of squad and beauty of style, the final should have been between the two great Spanish teams, Barcelona and Real Madrid, but Barcelona came out of its match with Chelsea proud, but looking somewhat stubborn and stupid (they failed to make necessary adjustments), and Real Madrid came out a bit unlucky (losers in a penalty shootout, as their conquerors Bayern would do in the final).,
There were several Chelsean elements in common between the two-game match vs. Barcelona (the replay a 2-2 tie, after the 1-0 Chelsea win at home) and the final against Bayern Munich, apart from the obvious one, that being the Italian-inspired style of play that coach Roberto di Matteo employed: lay back, let them hammer away futilely, then break free from defensive discipline and score when the moment is right. The key elements were Ashley Cole in a critical defensive role, Petr Cech playing great in goal, Frank Lampard contributing key linkages, and Didier Drogba as the principal "actor" (as the German coach said it, mis-translated--he meant "performer"). Drogba scored the goal in the first Barcelona game and played a key role on the perimeter in the second. In both the second Barcelona game and the final, he made a defensive blunder and giving Chelsea's opponents a penalty kick--which, each time, they failed to convert! (Missed by two of the greatest players in the world, Leonel Messi of Barcelona and--former Chelsea player--Arjen Robben of Bayern Munich.) Then, Drogba scored a huge goal two minutes before the end of regulation time against Bayern, and he made the last, winning penalty shot in the last act of the finale.
Only a longtime Chelsea fan like myself can fully appreciate the long, often-painful 10-year road which the team has traveled to get here, providing the definitive vindication of the billions that our moneybags owner, Russian kleptocrat Roman Abramovich, has spent to fulfill his dream. This is not the best Chelsea team of this period, but it is the one that pulled down the ultimate prize. Chelsea Rule OK! For a day, anyway....
So, there will be an attempt to find a more favorable formula, which might--if it is sufficiently strong and sufficiently timely--could interrupt Greece's progression toward rejectionist parties and increased unrest. I suspect that behind that announcement, though, there may be a feeling--which is fully justified--that Greece is too far down the path, and that its continued participation may need to be sacrificed to allow the remaining members to pull together, more strongly, and do what must be done to strengthen the Euro for the rest. Greece's economy was too weak, its observance of the required norms for entry to the Euro a sham from the beginning, and the biggest thing that country had going for it, Euro-wise, was the distinction of having invented the term a couple thousand years ago.
Regardless of Greece's "Eurovian" fate, the next move across the continent will be a loosening of some restrictions on government spending to allow some reflation of their nations' economies. The current approach is turning out to be an unmitigated political disaster, toppling the governments of Spain, Italy, France, Netherlands, and threatening to do something similar to both the U.K. and Germany. We in the U.S. bemoan our weak recovery, but Europe is heading toward a double-dip recession if it doesn't do something fast, or maybe even if it does.
Chicago and NATO: To Be, or NATO Be?
Thankfully, the tension that was NATO coming to town has ended, and nobody got blowed up. It seems there were a few folks who talked a bit too openly about doing some dirty deeds, and there were a few unforunate scenes, but there was neither a massive police riot nor a massive anarchist one, and we can move on.
NATO is an organization that hasn't had a very clear mission ever since the Iron Curtain came down. Since that time, it has been a useful device for the US to bring to bear multinational forces for its own international objectives, no matter how ill-defined. This meeting showed that clearly, even if it brought no clarity on any long-term purpose for the organization.
The agenda for this meeting was fairly limited and produced some canned agreements. The first was to unite around the principles of the US' accord with Afghanistan for phased withdrawal by the end of 2014, with some presence, and lots of aid, thereafter. Shades of the later stages of the Vietnam War, to be sure. The second was some sort of agreement on the US' turning over responsibility for the missile defense of Europe from those nasty Iranian missiles to NATO.
This latter seems like a perfect NATO project: standing united in a blustering effort to camouflage ineffectiveness. The whole game with this one is to add force to our will to stand up to Iran: if they can't hit Europe, then they can't threaten to do it and thus hold the Europeans hostage for the ransom of allowing Iran to build nuclear weapons. Oh, that and to irritate Russia.
Only the last part makes any sense, and only to an unreformed Cold Warrior (there are plenty of them, in the US and in Europe, too). Iran doesn't have missiles that can threaten Europe, they would have no interest in attacking Europe anyway (Israel would be a much more inviting, and close, target), and even if they could it would make no strategic sense as they are far and away the weaker country and would be devastated in the retaliation that would surely follow. Oh, and the anti-missile missiles have probably something like a 25% chance of successfully intercepting an attack, if there were to be one.
Other than that, it's a great idea.
Euro 2012
Now we must move on to more important matters, namely European football. The European championships in June and early July will provide a bit of much-needed economic stimulus to the host countries, Poland and the Ukraine, and a brief burst of well-channeled nationalism for all participants. The format is 16 teams in four groups playing a round robin; the top two in each move on and play an elimination tournament of eight.
Following my "inflammatory" theme, the Ukraine has irritated many with its political prosecution (persecution, perhaps even torture) of former Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko. It's not quite Moscow Olympics 1980, but there was some serious annoyance about the choice of this country, made back during its democratic "Orange Revolution" some years ago; politically things have gone downhill ever since.
Here are the groupings and some brief commentary:
A--Poland, Greece, Czech Republic, Russia--a very weak grouping; Czech should be favored, Russia will be the villains (but sometimes villains win), and a real opportunity for Greece to salvage some national pride.
Even Poland, which has usually had weak performance in these international tourneys, might be able to make it through.
B--Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Portugal--a ridiculously tough grouping, with three of the top five ranking teams in the world! Pity poor Denmark, not a half-bad squad but should have no chance here. Germany always gets the results somehow, so the game between Netherlands and Portugal (on the last day of the first round, June 17, in Kharkiv) shapes up as the most critical of the whole first round.
C--Spain, Italy, Ireland, Croatia--Spain is the favorite, the defending champs both in Europe and the World Cup holder. They will be under a lot of pressure but still have the guns, and a fairly weak set of opponents. Italy is rebuilding, and expectations will be relatively low. They will either fail miserably or make it to the finals, but I would expect the former, so I'd pick Croatia--another very unpredictable team--to be the other making it through besides Spain.
D--Ukraine, Sweden, France, England--It will be interesting to see if France has got it together again after their disaster in South Africa with the World Cup. England is looking strong with a good mix of youngsters and veterans and should be able to win this group.
My prediction: England defeats Germany in the semifinal and somehow wins over Spain, in a mild shocker. It is informed by the Champions League results discussed below.
Chelsea: King for the Day
I don't know if there was ever a European champion which finished as low as Chelsea did in its domestic league this year (6th), but the Blues certainly rank up there for the most unlikely route to victory. Time and again through the qualifications they trailed and looked the lesser team in their matchups: vs. Napoli, vs. Benfica, vs. Barcelona, and then, in the final, vs. Bayern Munich. Somehow, destiny was on their side this year as it was not in previous Champions League tourney runs, and their victory last weekend completes a remarkable decade of unprecedented success for the team.
I didn't read the German reaction to the game, but I am sure it was a lot like the Barcelona players' and fans': frustrated, angry, and bitter. Yes, somewhat inflamed. Bayern had 30-something shots, 15 or so corner kicks, to Chelsea's five (maybe), and one (according to the official stats, but I'm sure I saw another). Several times I heard it from the broadcasters--Bayern is the better team--just as I heard it during the Barcelona series. Nonsense: Bayern failed to win the match (Barcelona actually clearly lost it), so Chelsea picked it up, like found money. Based on quality of squad and beauty of style, the final should have been between the two great Spanish teams, Barcelona and Real Madrid, but Barcelona came out of its match with Chelsea proud, but looking somewhat stubborn and stupid (they failed to make necessary adjustments), and Real Madrid came out a bit unlucky (losers in a penalty shootout, as their conquerors Bayern would do in the final).,
There were several Chelsean elements in common between the two-game match vs. Barcelona (the replay a 2-2 tie, after the 1-0 Chelsea win at home) and the final against Bayern Munich, apart from the obvious one, that being the Italian-inspired style of play that coach Roberto di Matteo employed: lay back, let them hammer away futilely, then break free from defensive discipline and score when the moment is right. The key elements were Ashley Cole in a critical defensive role, Petr Cech playing great in goal, Frank Lampard contributing key linkages, and Didier Drogba as the principal "actor" (as the German coach said it, mis-translated--he meant "performer"). Drogba scored the goal in the first Barcelona game and played a key role on the perimeter in the second. In both the second Barcelona game and the final, he made a defensive blunder and giving Chelsea's opponents a penalty kick--which, each time, they failed to convert! (Missed by two of the greatest players in the world, Leonel Messi of Barcelona and--former Chelsea player--Arjen Robben of Bayern Munich.) Then, Drogba scored a huge goal two minutes before the end of regulation time against Bayern, and he made the last, winning penalty shot in the last act of the finale.
Only a longtime Chelsea fan like myself can fully appreciate the long, often-painful 10-year road which the team has traveled to get here, providing the definitive vindication of the billions that our moneybags owner, Russian kleptocrat Roman Abramovich, has spent to fulfill his dream. This is not the best Chelsea team of this period, but it is the one that pulled down the ultimate prize. Chelsea Rule OK! For a day, anyway....
Friday, May 18, 2012
Euroinflammation
This week's stock market results show us yet again evidence why Americans need to care what happens in Greece. Of course, this illness (which I'm titling "Euroinflammation" and will label future posts as such) has several variations and extends well beyond the well-known Grecian Formula. Portugal has it bad; Spain and Italy are infected. It's all about bad economics, poor taxation enforcement, unfavorable demographics, and xenophobic protection of the nations' workforce from lower-cost (and higher-reproducing) foreigners.
That is part of the problem; the real problem is the uncertain, insecure nature of European Union and Euro monetary governance. German Premier Angela Merkel is quite happy to nominate herself to answer Dr. Kissinger's caustic question, "Who do you call when you want to speak to Europe?" Unfortunately or not, the other countries are reluctant to confirm her nomination. They did it her way at the last--or I should say, the latest--last-ditch summit meeting to save Greece from default, disgrace, and departure from the Euro. Once again, though, that deal is coming apart.
The Greeks had to have Parliamentary elections, and the results were worse than settling nothing: they settled any thought that the Greeks might be able to assemble a government to get them through the crisis. Parties refusing the deal shot up in the results, enough to make it impossible for either of the "respectable", deal-respecting leading parties to have a chance to get a majority together. Neither could the leading refusal party, but I suspect that it (Syriza) will be the beneficiary of yet another round of voting, which will be necessary since the Greek President dissolved the new Parliament, as he was constitutionally authorized to do.
Civil order in Athens is tenuous; I suspect the forces that would repudiate the deal will continue to grow; now that Greek voters have seen one rejectionist party emerge as a major force, I would expect it will attract a lot more support from responsible voters who choose national irresponsibility (the other significant rejectors are the Communists and neo-Nazis). I expect that party would eventually lead a government which will attempt to restore order by rejecting austerity and threatening to leave the Euro (unless the other Euro countries come up with a much more palatable approach than the current formula).
I'm not sure how that brinkmanship will work out, but I see one possible conclusion in the form of Greece leaving the Euro, permitting massive devaluation of the "new drachma", and then a shocking rapprochement with their traditional enemy, Turkey, something that could actually work out. The Turks are feeling their oats, smarting from rejection by the EU (not formal, but clearly signalled), and they might see a benefit in working things out with their near neighbors, "one people separated by religion", as I've heard them say. Remember you heard that one here first!
What will happen to Europe and the Euro, once Greece puts itself on the rack? The debt servicing for the other weaker Euro countries will worsen dramatically, and Germany--now without France's support--will feel ever more heavily the pressure to authorize a Eurobond, a step that should have been taken months ago. In order to preserve their shaken union, they will need to strengthen it.
That is part of the problem; the real problem is the uncertain, insecure nature of European Union and Euro monetary governance. German Premier Angela Merkel is quite happy to nominate herself to answer Dr. Kissinger's caustic question, "Who do you call when you want to speak to Europe?" Unfortunately or not, the other countries are reluctant to confirm her nomination. They did it her way at the last--or I should say, the latest--last-ditch summit meeting to save Greece from default, disgrace, and departure from the Euro. Once again, though, that deal is coming apart.
The Greeks had to have Parliamentary elections, and the results were worse than settling nothing: they settled any thought that the Greeks might be able to assemble a government to get them through the crisis. Parties refusing the deal shot up in the results, enough to make it impossible for either of the "respectable", deal-respecting leading parties to have a chance to get a majority together. Neither could the leading refusal party, but I suspect that it (Syriza) will be the beneficiary of yet another round of voting, which will be necessary since the Greek President dissolved the new Parliament, as he was constitutionally authorized to do.
Civil order in Athens is tenuous; I suspect the forces that would repudiate the deal will continue to grow; now that Greek voters have seen one rejectionist party emerge as a major force, I would expect it will attract a lot more support from responsible voters who choose national irresponsibility (the other significant rejectors are the Communists and neo-Nazis). I expect that party would eventually lead a government which will attempt to restore order by rejecting austerity and threatening to leave the Euro (unless the other Euro countries come up with a much more palatable approach than the current formula).
I'm not sure how that brinkmanship will work out, but I see one possible conclusion in the form of Greece leaving the Euro, permitting massive devaluation of the "new drachma", and then a shocking rapprochement with their traditional enemy, Turkey, something that could actually work out. The Turks are feeling their oats, smarting from rejection by the EU (not formal, but clearly signalled), and they might see a benefit in working things out with their near neighbors, "one people separated by religion", as I've heard them say. Remember you heard that one here first!
What will happen to Europe and the Euro, once Greece puts itself on the rack? The debt servicing for the other weaker Euro countries will worsen dramatically, and Germany--now without France's support--will feel ever more heavily the pressure to authorize a Eurobond, a step that should have been taken months ago. In order to preserve their shaken union, they will need to strengthen it.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
The Week That Was
The big news of the week was President Obama's statement that he, personally, thinks that same-sex marriage should be allowed. Obama had been under some pressure to make his "evolving" views known after Vice President Biden had come forward in a "Meet the Press" interview and said something similar. Obama hastily arranged an interview with Robin Roberts of ABC-TV and said what everyone had thought he believed.
The Internet was abuzz in the aftermath; the reaction overwhelmingly positive. This is the kind of statement--I wouldn't classify it as an "action", because it does not have any immediate legislative, executive, or judicial implications--that is likely to help his standing with the younger generation, which he needs to do for this campaign. Further, it should help loosen the pursestrings of some big-money contributors, another big need as we go towards the Season of Super PAC's.
Electorally, though, it could make his task more complicated rather than easier. The support he will gain from the gay community, he was largely already going to get, though here will be a gain in intensity. On the other hand, there are some swing states where his stance is likely to hurt him: North Carolina, for sure, which had just voted fairly decisively just days before in favor of an anti-same-sex "Defense of Marriage" referendum; but also it may hurt his chances to win Iowa, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, all of which are key Presidenial battleground states in 2012.
We shall see. Maybe I am too pessimistic. Public opinion has moved rather dramatically in favor of allowing same-sex marriage nationally, and if that continues, Obama may yet find that he is on he right side of the issue politically, as much as he is hailed for being on the right side of it historically. Certainly, it gives more credence to his campaign's newly-minted theme, "Forward".
As for his major-party opponent, Mitt Romney was boxed in by his previous stance against same-sex marriage and the expectations of his party. He seemed disinclined to attack Obama's position directly, though, as the attention brought forth an old embarrassment: he featured prominently in a mild but distasteful gay-bashing attack in his prep school, holding down and shearing the hair off a presumed homosexual classmate. Romney apologized for any and all of his childish mischief, not addressing the specific allegations directly.
Overreach to the Rescue
The Indiana Republican Senatorial primary this week helped demonstrate why the Republicans' greatest obstacle to regaining control of the government is their own excess. A "constituionalist" Tea Party favorite, state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, took the primary nod over six-term incumbent Senator Richard Lugar. The event changes the seat from a safe Republican hold to one in which there's a real chance for a Democratic pickup, just what they need to improve their chances of holding their majority. Moderate Democratic Representative Joe Donnelly, who gave up his seat to run for the Senate, now looks both confirmed in his wisdom, and the likely recipient of a flood of contributions from Democratic funders across the country.
The country is likely to be the worse for Lugar's loss, especially if Donnelly finds the task too difficult. Lugar was no moderate, but he was well-informed and responsible on foreign affairs. Mourdock, a two-time House primary loser, opposed Lugar's willingness to consider bipartisan solutions to national problems. Indiana went narrowly Democratic in 2008, but that is now viewed as a bit of fluke; the question is whether a moderate still has a chance to win statewide office there.
In Wisconsin, this week's primary determined the Democratic opponent for the recall election for Governor Scott Walker coming up next month. It will be Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett. Barrett, like Donnelly, will be the recipient of huge inflows of monetary support (and, in this case, campaign workers) in an effort to turn back the tide of Tea-flavored reaction. The outcome of this power showdown will be indicative both of whether the Republicans will have a chance to win the state in the Presidential contest in November (which would be a crucial success) or the open Senate seat there, as well as a testing ground for the weapons which will be rolled out nationally in November. Sort of like how the Spanish Civil War was a preview for World War II.
A Final Note
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (who was elected as a Republican) won the nomination of the Libertarian Party this week. Johnson made an early run in the Republican nomination contest last year, but he found little support or respect (he was excluded from most of the very many party debates) and pulled out of it well before the first primary. Johnson may draw some votes from both parties, as his libertarian views include support for drug legalization and a program similar to Ron Paul's for cutting both domestic and military government spending. If he can get some wealthy supporters' monetary backing, or a berth in a debate (unlikely), he could make some waves in the general election.
The Internet was abuzz in the aftermath; the reaction overwhelmingly positive. This is the kind of statement--I wouldn't classify it as an "action", because it does not have any immediate legislative, executive, or judicial implications--that is likely to help his standing with the younger generation, which he needs to do for this campaign. Further, it should help loosen the pursestrings of some big-money contributors, another big need as we go towards the Season of Super PAC's.
Electorally, though, it could make his task more complicated rather than easier. The support he will gain from the gay community, he was largely already going to get, though here will be a gain in intensity. On the other hand, there are some swing states where his stance is likely to hurt him: North Carolina, for sure, which had just voted fairly decisively just days before in favor of an anti-same-sex "Defense of Marriage" referendum; but also it may hurt his chances to win Iowa, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, all of which are key Presidenial battleground states in 2012.
We shall see. Maybe I am too pessimistic. Public opinion has moved rather dramatically in favor of allowing same-sex marriage nationally, and if that continues, Obama may yet find that he is on he right side of the issue politically, as much as he is hailed for being on the right side of it historically. Certainly, it gives more credence to his campaign's newly-minted theme, "Forward".
As for his major-party opponent, Mitt Romney was boxed in by his previous stance against same-sex marriage and the expectations of his party. He seemed disinclined to attack Obama's position directly, though, as the attention brought forth an old embarrassment: he featured prominently in a mild but distasteful gay-bashing attack in his prep school, holding down and shearing the hair off a presumed homosexual classmate. Romney apologized for any and all of his childish mischief, not addressing the specific allegations directly.
Overreach to the Rescue
The Indiana Republican Senatorial primary this week helped demonstrate why the Republicans' greatest obstacle to regaining control of the government is their own excess. A "constituionalist" Tea Party favorite, state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, took the primary nod over six-term incumbent Senator Richard Lugar. The event changes the seat from a safe Republican hold to one in which there's a real chance for a Democratic pickup, just what they need to improve their chances of holding their majority. Moderate Democratic Representative Joe Donnelly, who gave up his seat to run for the Senate, now looks both confirmed in his wisdom, and the likely recipient of a flood of contributions from Democratic funders across the country.
The country is likely to be the worse for Lugar's loss, especially if Donnelly finds the task too difficult. Lugar was no moderate, but he was well-informed and responsible on foreign affairs. Mourdock, a two-time House primary loser, opposed Lugar's willingness to consider bipartisan solutions to national problems. Indiana went narrowly Democratic in 2008, but that is now viewed as a bit of fluke; the question is whether a moderate still has a chance to win statewide office there.
In Wisconsin, this week's primary determined the Democratic opponent for the recall election for Governor Scott Walker coming up next month. It will be Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett. Barrett, like Donnelly, will be the recipient of huge inflows of monetary support (and, in this case, campaign workers) in an effort to turn back the tide of Tea-flavored reaction. The outcome of this power showdown will be indicative both of whether the Republicans will have a chance to win the state in the Presidential contest in November (which would be a crucial success) or the open Senate seat there, as well as a testing ground for the weapons which will be rolled out nationally in November. Sort of like how the Spanish Civil War was a preview for World War II.
A Final Note
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (who was elected as a Republican) won the nomination of the Libertarian Party this week. Johnson made an early run in the Republican nomination contest last year, but he found little support or respect (he was excluded from most of the very many party debates) and pulled out of it well before the first primary. Johnson may draw some votes from both parties, as his libertarian views include support for drug legalization and a program similar to Ron Paul's for cutting both domestic and military government spending. If he can get some wealthy supporters' monetary backing, or a berth in a debate (unlikely), he could make some waves in the general election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
