Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
Quick Iowa Caucus Observation
Folks, I’m watching the coverage of the Iowa Caucuses right now, and it’s pretty much going the way I’d expected. Paul, Santorum and Romney all have around 23% of the vote, while Gingrich has fluctuated at 14-15%, sometimes dropping a bit, sometimes rising.
Here’s my observation, though; in politics, 5% of the vote can often determine the outcome of a close election. We know this from history; there have been many races that had more than two candidates, and every time, if one of those “extra” candidates garnered 5% or more, that definitely affected the outcome.
But the pundits aren’t mentioning it on any of the channels I’ve monitored this far — Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. Instead, they’re concentrating on the “sexier” three-way race between Romney, Paul, and Santorum.
But the fractured electorate in Iowa is the real story (make no mistake about it). Consider that Rick Perry, a candidate basically left for dead, has a solid 10% of the vote — this is actually a story, folks, because if you get over 10% in an election you’re expected to lose, that shows you do have some traction even in “unfriendly territory.”
Even Michele Bachmann has a very solid 6% — this means she has considerable support, and yet the pundits have written her off in the same way they’ve written off Gingrich and Perry.
Look. It’s obvious that the Iowa electorate isn’t impressed, at all, with Mitt Romney, as overall he’s getting fewer votes this time around than when he last ran in 2008. It’s also obvious that the Iowa electorate likes many of the other candidates — and if there was an “anyone but Romney” option on the ballot, I bet that option would win in a landslide.
So keep this in mind as you listen to the after-action reports from the pundits, folks: 5% of the vote is a significant slice of the electorate. And know that every serious Republican candidate who went to Iowa (remember, Jon Huntsman didn’t, which is why he’s sitting at 1%; in some ways to have even that much is a shock) did accomplish something, because getting 5% or more of the vote is significant and every single last one of them — even Bachmann — accomplished this goal.
Whither Iowa? Thoughts on the 2012 Iowa Caucuses
If you watch politics on television as much as I do, you probably have seen a great deal of hoopla surrounding the 2012 Iowa Caucuses. This is the first test of several Republican candidates** who’ve had their moments in the sun — including Michele Bachmann (who won the Ames Straw Poll last year), Newt Gingrich (ahead in the polls in Iowa in early December), Rick Perry (ahead in the polls in mid-September), Ron Paul (ahead in some Iowa polls as little as two weeks ago), the hard-charging Rick Santorum (who could actually win tonight) and, of course, well-heeled frontrunner Mitt Romney, who ran in 2008 and whose support seems to run a steady 25% whether he campaigns hard — or doesn’t — in Iowa.
But the question remains, “Why does what the people in Iowa think of these candidates matter so much year after year?”
There’s an easy answer that goes like this: “Well, c’mon, Barb! These Iowans see the candidates every four years. They’re less likely to glom onto a candidate who’s all talk and no action — that goes without saying!”
But that’s a facetious answer. The real reason Iowans matter so much is because most of ’em are middle-income folks and below. These are as close to “real people” as the candidates on both sides are likely to see; between Iowa and New Hampshire, ordinary citizens get to have more dialogues with candidates than anywhere else. And this may give campaigns like Romney’s a better idea of what middle-income people want out of their government, especially as the words “Romney” and “middle-income” go together about as well as a bullwhip and iced tea.
As a long-time political watcher, I’ve seen candidates do well in Iowa but flash-and-fade otherwise (2008 Republican winner Mike Huckabee comes to mind, here; so does 1980 Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush). I’ve seen some candidates, like Barack Obama, do very well — surprisingly so — in Iowa, which helps them overall, yet others who’ve done well in Iowa, like Howard Dean and/or John Edwards, aren’t able to maximize their opportunities down the road and end up with that flash-and-fade effect, which looks the same regardless of party.
See, some of the candidates just peak too soon, that’s all. Newt Gingrich seems to be one example of this, though he may well rally as he’s an intelligent, highly-seasoned political operative and if anyone can do it, he can. Rick Perry is yet another one, though in Perry’s case he’s been his own worst enemy in the debates and that has definitely hurt him.
Over time, what the Iowa caucuses have shown is this: if a politician is smart, and can rally from this experience (whatever it may be), he or she will do well. But you must learn from whatever it is the Iowans are telling you; if they’re saying, as I believe they are to Rick Perry, “Rick, we really like you, but you don’t have the gravitas. You need to go work on your public speaking, develop a foreign policy, and come back in four to eight years,” the best thing Perry could do going forward is give himself a crash course in foreign policy, do his best to look like a statesman, and study up before he goes into another debate lest he have another one of those “oops!” moments.
Or if they say to Ron Paul, “Ron, we really like your energy. You’re a breath of fresh air and we wish that more Republicans were like you in speaking their minds,” Paul needs to realize that what they’re saying, while gratifying personally, may not translate to electoral success in other states. I’ll be interested to see if Paul can indeed follow up what I’m sure will be a very strong showing tonight — top four, easily, and he could possibly win the state as Romney isn’t beloved in Iowa — with a good showing in New Hampshire and a halfway decent one in South Carolina. If he can do that, then he has real potential nationally.
And the guy with the most to gain — or lose — is obviously Rick Santorum. The pundits have claimed for the past several days that Santorum will win, or come in second or maybe a close third, but that Santorum will definitely be a major factor.
As I see it, Santorum could gain much if he wins Iowa; he’ll have instant national attention, a bigger flow of money toward him (as many people back a winner, but fewer flock to those who are seen to lose unless they’re super-committed — and those, in this crowd, mostly go for Paul or Gingrich, not Santorum), and more media types reporting on what he does every day, thus an easier way to get on free TV and make a bigger difference nationally.
But what he loses if he doesn’t come in the top four (assuming the top four will be nearly evenly split) is breathtaking, considering how far the expectations for his campaign have been ratcheted up.
My prediction, for what it’s worth, is that Romney, Paul, Santorum and Gingrich will all have around 15% of the vote (or a bit more). I think it’s more likely than not that Paul will win Iowa because his voters are passionate, committed, will caucus, will stay as long as is necessary and are vocal about their support. But I have a sneaky suspicion that Gingrich will do better than he’s polled, too, because the folks who are backing Gingrich do it for these reasons: he’s smart. He has good answers in the debates. He’s a wily, resilient old pol in the best sense of that word; he knows how to roll with the punches. And best of all for Gingrich’s supporters, Gingrich is the only one of the lot who seems to understand that to become President someday, you must turn your liabilities into strengths. (I’m not totally sold on whether or not Gingrich has actually done this. But I can see that he’s really tried to do so and that attempt matters.)
And I believe that Santorum, at the end of tonight, will either be ecstatic — in that he’s greatly exceeded expectations — or crushed. I’m unwilling to say at this time which is more likely.
———–
Note: As President Obama is running unopposed in the Democratic caucuses, those are expected to be far more quiet — and far less well attended — than the Republican caucuses. (As you might expect.)**
Ohio Voters Have Spoken; It’s “NO!” on Issue 2
Tonight, Ohio voted on Issue 2, which was whether or not Senate Bill 5 should be upheld. By a 61-39% margin, Ohio’s voters have spoken — and the word is “No.”
Don’t know what Senate Bill 5 was? Well, in essence it struck down collective bargaining for everyone in the state of Ohio, including firefighters, nurses, teachers, policemen, and snowplow drivers. And while most people believe public employees should pay more for their health care coverage or not get raises during a terrible economic climate, most don’t want to go so far as eliminating all forms of collective bargaining, as it’s a classic Republican overreach.
That’s why many people wanted it overturned, and voted accordingly. Because SB 5 went too far.
Here’s a link to the Huffington Post article:
Ohioans overturned a divisive anti-union law on Tuesday, delivering a significant defeat to Republican Gov. John Kasich and a victory to labor unions.
Ohio voters rejected Issue 2, a ballot referendum on Senate Bill 5, a measure that restricts collective bargaining rights for more than 360,000 public employees, among other provisions. Opposition to the legislation inspired large protests from residents around the state this year.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka was quoted in this same article as saying:
“One message rang loud and clear tonight in Ohio and across the country: those who spend their time scapegoating workers and pushing a partisan agenda will only strengthen the resolve of working people,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. “From the very beginning, it’s been clear that Gov. Kasich, and indeed many politicians, were pushing an agenda that was about politics, not about solving our nation’s problems or creating jobs.”
Ohio Governor John Kasich (R), who worked hard to keep Senate Bill 5 on the books, was quoted as saying that he needs to “take a deep breath,” though his concession speech was gracious. From the same HuffPo article:
“The people have spoken clearly. You don’t ignore the public. Look, I also have an obligation to lead. I’ve been leading since the day I took this office, and I’ll continue to do that. But part of leading is listening and hearing what people have to say to you.”
(An aside: hear that, Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI)? Heed Kasich’s message and you might be retained; no matter what, you will be recalled.)
Someone the HuffPo article describes as “a spokesman for the International Association of Firefighters, who was not authorized to speak on the record,” had this to say:
“Kasich ran on a platform of growth, and his first thing is to give tax breaks to the rich, increase the pay of his staff significantly — while at the same time, he’s trying to cut the firefighters and police and teachers and nurses. It’s an overreach,” he said. “They went a little too far, and what’s happening here in Ohio is another step in what happened in Wisconsin.”
So that’s it; the people of Ohio have spoken. Senate Bill 5 has been defeated.
May the happy dance commence.
WI D Legislators Pro-Jobs; WI Rs Dither; Scott Walker Recall Starts Nov. 15
Last night at the Roma Lodge in Racine, WI, there was a jobs forum sponsored by the Wisconsin AFL-CIO where four state Democratic legislators showed up — Representative Robert Turner (D-Racine), Representative Cory Mason (D-Racine), Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha — also a former United States Representative for district 1, which includes Racine and Kenosha), and Senator Bob Wirch (D-Kenosha). The Democrats listened patiently to the concerns of Racine residents, which included the following comments (pulled from this article from the Racine Journal-Times):
Barbara Rankin of Kenosha, 78, told the four legislators that of the sixty-six people in her family, only four have jobs that pay over $10 an hour. “Jobs shouldn’t be that hard to get,” she said.
According to the Journal-Times article, person after person stood up to talk about their problems with jobs. They mentioned looming cuts to the Racine bus budget, the need for a casino in Kenosha (or something to replace Dairyland Greyhound Park, which closed at the end of 2010), and the need for greater funding for technical colleges, which also got their budgets cut as part of the Scott Walker budget bill earlier this year.
This is why Scott Walker needs to be recalled, folks, in an nutshell; Walker’s done nothing to help Wisconsin workers find jobs for nearly a year, yet he ran on a “pro-jobs” platform. I’m tired of Walker “talking the talk” but refusing to “walk the walk,” and the other Rs in the Legislature are obviously taking their cues largely from him.
Now, what are the other Wisconsin Rs doing in response to this? Not a whole lot. Senator Van Wanggaard, R-Racine, recently killed a bill that would’ve prevented the state’s main utility company (WE Energies) from charging customers for faulty meters, despite this bill being proposed by another member of his own party, Mike Ellis (R-Neenah — also the President of the Senate).
Yes, that’s right — Wanggaard voted against consumers. Against the people of his own district. (Why am I unsurprised?)
Wanggaard has also recently drafted a “jobs bill” — as in, finally in October of 2011, nearly a full year after he was sworn into the state Senate, he’s finally figured out that we’re in a jobs crisis. That the City of Racine, the area he currently represents, has consistently had 13% to 14% reportable unemployment for the past three years or more (those of us working part-time don’t count on that; those of us who’ve fallen off the unemployment rolls also do not count) — of course, Wanggaard will soon represent the counties of Racine and Kenosha, who aren’t doing so bad, due to the 2011 state Legislature’s gerrymandered map; perhaps that’s why Wanggaard doesn’t care too much about the City of Racine as he knows his days as its Senator are numbered?
Now, apparently Wanggaard had this jobs bill on his mind for at least a month, as I was able to find a reference to it back to September 12, 2011. And much of it, I actually agree with (from the Milwaukee television channel’s Fox 6 News report of the same date):
Sen. Wanggaard’s proposal would provide help for hiring. The plan would give businesses a $5,000 tax credit if they hire someone unemployed for more than 60 days and keep that employee for more than a year. Rep. Wanggaard says, “We can’t continue to throw money at things that aren’t working. We’ve got to think outside the box.”
I agree.
Going on, Wanggaard also says that the current situation is “unacceptable.” Again, I agree.
But was he at this jobs forum? No, he wasn’t — and my guess is, he probably did know about it as courtesy invitations usually go out to both sides.
Going back to the Journal-Times article I referenced above, Rep. Cory Mason said this situation is awful:
“It is a sad state of affairs in the United States of America, where you can work full time and still be poor,” Mason said.
I agree, wholeheartedly.
At any rate, the recall of Scott Walker will start on November 15, 2011. I plan to be out there on the first day getting signatures, because I believe Walker has failed — failed on jobs, and failed as a Governor, period.
And while I do not know when the recall of Van Wanggaard will start, whenever it does, I’m going to be right there, too — because to me, it’s flat unacceptable that Wanggaard hasn’t done any better in the ten months he’s had in office to get any new jobs into Racine City (or County).
Kenosha News Refuses to Print my Election Letter
The Kenosha News, in their infinite whatever, refused to print my election letter on the grounds that I’m not a Kenosha County resident, and that I’m not a subscriber to their paper. Yet as far as I know, their “Voice of the People” section (what most papers call the “letters to the editor”) does not contain anything that says you must be a Kenosha County resident or a subscriber in order to comment on current events or anything else — I’ve read the Kenosha News many times because I don’t live that far from the Kenosha County line and often pick it up at a local gas station.
At any rate, since the Kenosha News refused to print my election letter, I’m going to print it here, in its entirety; you see if you find it objectionable in any way, shape or form:
To the Editor:
Though I live in the city of Racine, I have a great appreciation for Senator Bob Wirch and wish he were my state Senator. Here’s why.
In 2006, Sen. Wirch discovered that Gateway Technical College (which had a $2.4 million budgetary shortfall at the time) had appropriated five million dollars of taxpayer money to create two private organizations. One of these was actually run for profit, but did the taxpayers of Wisconsin ever see a dime? No!
Without Sen. Wirch bringing this to light, we’d have likely had no idea about what had happened to that five million dollars.
At a time of unprecedented belt-tightening, we need Bob Wirch to stay in the Senate to make absolutely sure that our money is spent wisely; we can’t afford to waste a single penny.
During these unsettled times, where Republicans run “fake Democrats” in recall primaries to give themselves more time to raise money, and Gov. Walker told the “fake David Koch” that he’d seriously considered planting fake protestors in Madison to cause further unrest, we need Sen. Wirch more than ever. He’ll fight against bad budgetary decisions while continuing to fight for a transparent, honest and accountable government.
We need more people like Bob Wirch in the state Senate, which is why I urge you to please cast your vote for him on August 16, 2011.
Sincerely,
Barb Caffrey
Racine, WI
Now, what’s wrong with this letter? That I like Bob Wirch? (That’s what election letters are for — expressing your appreciation, or your disgust, for a candidate running for office.) That I think it’s great he’s been able to bring things to light that otherwise would’ve gone unknown and unheeded? That it’s under 250 words, which fits their guidelines? What?
Mind, if the Kenosha News had prominently said on their Opinion page that they do not, emphatically do not, accept letters from people who neither live in Kenosha County nor subscribe to their paper, then I’d not be as upset. I’d still not be happy about it, but I’d not be upset.
My letter to them in return after they said they were uninterested in my “voice” was something to the effect that I didn’t appreciate this, at all. And that as I live in Racine County — right up the road from Kenosha — it’s ridiculous to think I don’t know what’s going on in this election, especially as part of Bob Wirch’s district runs straight through Racine County.
I also sent a voice mail, which, while again polite and using no four-letter words, expressed my outrage over this. Emphatically.
So, now I know that at least one newspaper in this area doesn’t care what real people think about the important recall elections. And that’s not just bad, sad, or shameful — it means they’re unwilling to do their real job, which in part is to report on what real people in their area think about the issues at hand. Including this recall election.
John Nichols said it best: in WI, no checks, no balances, exist.
Folks, all week I’ve resisted the impulse to post anything after the recent “victory” by Scott Walker and his allies on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Please see this article from John Nichols at the Capital Times, who agrees with me that after this week’s decision, no effective checks or balances to the power of Gov. Scott Walker (R) may be seen to exist.
Then, see this extraordinary decision by the WI state Supreme Court, along with the incendiary dissents of Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and learned, scholarly judge N. Patrick Crooks.
Now, as for what I feel about all this?
After several days of reflection, I’m spitting mad. I believe that the four Rs on the court — including two who seem heavily tainted, Michael Gableman and the recently re-elected David Prosser — have not done the people’s business here. Further, they’ve made a mockery out of the whole “separation of powers” that is inherent in the United States Constitution and re-affirmed in the Wisconsin state Constitution — these four Justices appear to remember, always, that they are conservative Republicans first, and Supreme Court justices second. And, apparently, being a conservative R seems to trump everything else.
Justice N. Patrick Crooks, a renowned legal scholar, said on p. 11 of his dissent that:
The ready availability of a direct appeal by aggrieved parties makes this all the more puzzling. The majority does not really come to grips with the obvious fact that an appeal is an available remedy here. As many of the parties to these cases have argued, it would be a simple matter for an aggrieved party to intervene in this matter and file an ordinary appeal, which would proceed the usual way.
In other words, there was no need to create a precedent here, but the four Rs on the court did just that; they set aside Dane County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi’s ruling in total, because they felt Sumi had overstepped her authority — yet her ruling was detailed, thorough, and took months to decide. Whereas the Supreme Court of the state of Wisconsin took only a few days.
Abrahamson’s dissent (most relevant parts quoted in Nichols’s article) is stinging, but Crooks’s dissent is even worse in a scholarly, non-argumentative way. Crooks seems completely dismayed with what’s occurred here; he doesn’t get it, and if people as knowledgeable about the court as Abrahamson, Crooks, and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley don’t get it, I suppose it’s not too surprising that I don’t get it, either. (Nor does Nichols seem to understand why the four Rs did this, except for purely political, rather than legal, reasons. While I hope that isn’t the case, it surely doesn’t look good at this time for those four conservative Justices.)
* * * * *
UPDATE: Blogger Rick Ungar of conservative Forbes magazine agrees with Nichols, and me, that this ruling is seriously messed up.
Relevant (unfortunately rather lengthy) quote:
While the State of Wisconsin has a lot on its plate in the recall department, I’m afraid they now have little choice but to consider taking a look at some of their Supreme Court Justices for similar action.
Not because the court handed down a ruling that will make people unhappy – but because the people of Wisconsin now have every reason to believe that their Supreme Court has been corrupted and their opinions subject to invalidation.
Make no mistake. This is not about a judicial philosophy with which I might disagree. Reasonable, learned judges can – and often do – apply the law to a fact situation and come up with different opinions and they do so in the utmost of good faith and their best understanding of the law.
However, the minority opinion issued yesterday in the Wisconsin Supreme Court did not charge mistaken application of law. The opinion charged perversion of the facts and the law to meet a desired result.
If this is true, this is court corruption at its absolute worst and the people of Wisconsin cannot permit this to stand.
Amen, brother!
* * * * * end update * * * * (Now, back to our regularly scheduled posting.)
Really, there was no need to create a precedent here; the Supreme Court should’ve taken its time and decided this case solely on the narrow merits — did the Fitzgerald Brothers (Jeff in the Assembly, Scott in the Senate) break the Open Meetings Law, or not? Justice Sumi said they did; the three Supreme Court dissenters appeared to believe Sumi had done her job thoroughly and that more time needed to be given, by them, to figure out whether or not Sumi’s judgment was inherently flawed. But those four Rs apparently believed there was no need for deliberation; Scott and Jeff Fitzgerald said the case needed to be decided by Tuesday night, and thus, perhaps not so coincidentally, those Justices decided that case by Tuesday night.
This is why the recall elections are so important. Right now the Court (judicial branch) is in the hands of the Republican Party, the Governorship (the executive branch) is in the hands of the Republicans, and the Legislature (legislative branch) is also in the hands of the Republicans. This is too much power for any given party, and it must not be allowed to stand.
That some Republican Senators, like Alberta Darling (who will face a recall election on July 12, 2011) and my own R Senator Van Wanggaard, seem to think this was a good result and have said so, quite loudly and vociferously, just shows how out of touch they are. And how badly they need to be recalled, because they just aren’t listening to their own constituents, the people of the state of Wisconsin.
We know that times are tough. There would have been hard choices to make, economically, this year for any Governor, and any Legislature. But the choices being made thus far have disproportionately affected the low-income folks, the disabled, children, senior citizens, and the unemployed. This is no way to run a government, and it is not the Wisconsin way to throw people out just because right now they are ill, or injured, or have no money, or can’t give you a campaign donation.
Whoever our elected representatives are, regardless of their respective offices, they should be trying to do the best they can for all the people of Wisconsin. Writing a budget that cuts $800 million from the public schools and gives tax breaks to rich people so they can send their kids to private schools is plain, flat wrong — yet people like Darling and Wanggaard believe that’s the right way to go.
The only thing we can do, as voters, is educate ourselves as to what our representatives are doing. And then, if we disagree with them, as we have the power to recall our duly elected representatives in Wisconsin if we feel they are failing to do their jobs by listening to us and acknowledging our concerns in some way — then, it’s time to first recall them, then vote them out.
Those of you who have a Republican Senator, if you disagree with him or her, kick your Senator to the curb. And if you have a Democratic Senator who is up for recall, and you don’t agree with him — then you also have the right to vote him out. But I’d rather you concentrated on the folks who have proven they aren’t listening — the Republicans, who control all three branches of Wisconsin state government at this time — and re-install the checks and balances we depend upon by voting in someone new in those races against the six Republican Senators.
Voting the Rs out is the only way — the only way — to guarantee that your representatives, Dem or R, will start to listen. Because if the people of Wisconsin send a message by voting out those who aren’t listening, that should finally make the others listen, or be voted out in turn. (And yes, Van Wanggaard, I’m looking squarely at you.)
Barb Caffrey's Blog 