dagblog - Comments for "Pawlenty quits as Romney campaign co-chair"

it is the nature of American

Elusive Trope — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:09:40 +0000

it is the nature of American media, old-school and new-school, and politics that presidential candidates become the focus of the battle over the national agenda. a senator from Maine in the end still represents Maine, not Oregon or Kansas. A Representative from district 2 still represents the interests of the people in that district (do they have military base? dependent on coal jobs? tech jobs? imports? exports?) and not the people in other districts in that state, let alone other states. No other politician is suppose to represent all Americans than the president, and thus the national agenda, i.e. the agenda of the nation, not this state's agenda or this district's agenda. That is why Romney's comments during the fundraiser is so repugnant to so many.

If Romney-Ryan fails to put a

acanuck — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:43:17 +0000

In reply to One thing I was listening for

If Romney-Ryan fails to put a dent in Obama's numbers by the debates, I think the president can afford to redistribute a bit of the love down the ticket. There has been a lot of gerrymandering, but this has the feel of a true wave building. Early days, I admit.

I get the impression the

acanuck — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:36:51 +0000

In reply to Uh, how about "We need a

I get the impression the American people are starting to figure out which party's intransigence and ideological rigidity led to four years of gridlock. Let's see what they tell us in early November.

One thing I was listening for

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:23:33 +0000

In reply to Coming amid the weeks-long

One thing I was listening for and did not hear at the Democratic Convention was a reference to the Congressional elections by Obama in his speech. Genghis asked where were the big ideas in his speech and I agree with him that there were no specific proposals, just the five broad goals.

A different way Obama might have chosen to go on that question would have been to identify 2 or 3 proposals or initiatives that he would like to pursue in a 2nd term, should he be re-elected--provided that the voters elect a constructive Congress.

Based on nothing more than observation as to his MO and cautious nature--and also the fact that he is being lacerated for widespread perceptions he generated expectations in 2008 that he was unable to fully deliver on--my guess is that he opted not to go that route because of a perception that the chances of the House flipping are (were) very small. So that he wouldn't want to come off, again, as over committing or promising.

Any effort to speak about the Congressional situation would have been dicey in at least three ways:

It might have been perceived as him passing the buck.

It might have been seen as implicitly acknowledging he will not be able to do much more than play goalie for at least the next 2 years IF, as appeared likely at the time, the House remains Republican. Which might have left a sour note on an otherwise energizing convention, the last thing he'd want to do.

Any specific areas he might commit to "work on" with a constructive Congress, if the voters elect one, would carry risk of blowback or alienating some whose support he believes he needs to win the election.

It happens to be the truth that unless the voters elect a constructive Congress we are guaranteed that any positive legislation on jobs, climate change, further financial reform, etc. will be dead on arrival in the House for at least the next 2 years. We will surely see continued harassment and obstruction from Congress of the sort we've seen these past 4 years.

In that light, is there something to be said for treating the voters as adults and simply leveling with them about that, saying something along lines of: "There are no secrets as to what has been going on in Washington in recent years. It's ugly and it holds us back from what we could otherwise accomplish. If that is ok with you, then keeping the Republican party in the majority in the House of Representative may be what you decide you want to do. But if, like me, you believe we need to do everything we can to continue to move forward in our country, then know that electing a constructive Congress--including constructive Republicans as well as Democrats--genuinely interested in addressing key issues the public says it wants addressed, such as jobs, then I ask you to consider your votes for the House and Senate races in that context."

Of course, treating people as adults often does not work--where it does not backfire, that is. I would think in the back of his mind, if not closer to the front of it, must be: "How far can I go before they come up with some pretext to try to impeach me?" As it is, as we see with Holder and the appropriations bills that are stuck until the lame duck session, as just two examples, there's been no reluctance to use their considerable power to harass and obstruct.

In response to the sure continuation of that, or worse under a GOP House, is the better decision to remain silent on the House outcome, focus solely on his own race and hope he can generate a downticket wave large enough to sweep the Democrats back in? Or to say something explicit about the Congressional outcome aimed at communicating clearly to the voters the stakes in the Congressional as well as presidential outcomes?

This little article got to me

Richard Day — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:21:45 +0000

In reply to Pawlenty quits as Romney campaign co-chair

This little article got to me too!

He was my gov and I always hated him....switched from the dems to the repubs and now we know why!

Plenty of big bucks for Pawlenty now!

These people have no ideals or scruples or morals....

Uh, how about "We need a

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:09:43 +0000

In reply to Over at TPM, Josh Marshall

Uh, how about "We need a Congress free of gridlock" - to pass legislation Obama might not want passed. Why is it all about Barry? What happened to the American people?

Over at TPM, Josh Marshall

acanuck — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:48:54 +0000

In reply to Coming amid the weeks-long

Over at TPM, Josh Marshall quotes a reader on the vulnerability of the GOP House majority. I totally agree.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/is_it_all_about_the_house....

The Dems must pivot their main message to "OK, it's great people want a second Obama term, but he needs a Congress free of gridlock." I already see a coattail effect in, for example, Warren's resurgence. But the party needs to get on the same page -- and aim higher than just the White House.

Rove and Company's greatest

Elusive Trope — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:34:15 +0000

In reply to Coming amid the weeks-long

Rove and Company's greatest fear: All those Republican voters who only vote in the general election during a presidental year, seeing Romney doomed, will stay home. Consequently they will not cast a vote for the down ticket Republicans.

Of course, the Obama campaign and the Dems have a similar worry: Democratic voters who only vote in the general election during a presidental year, seeing that Obama has it all "wrapped up" don't go stand in line for two hours to cast their vote. That is why the enthusiasm (and the GOTV effort) is so critical.

Coming amid the weeks-long

acanuck — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:10:59 +0000

In reply to Pawlenty quits as Romney campaign co-chair

Coming amid the weeks-long implosion of the Romney-Ryan campaign, Pawlenty has to know how bad this decision looks. There isn't even anyone on Capitol Hill to lobby right now! Somehow Pawlenty couldn't tough it out seven weeks?

I think he's concluded there is no cabinet office waiting for him at the end of those seven weeks. Like most Americans, he can read the polls. Obama is going to be president for four more years. That being the case, I'd suggest that voters have decided to give him a Congress that won't stop him from governing.

Nate Silver is forecasting 52 Democrats in the Senate. He hasn't looked at the House in a while, perhaps because it is harder to predict and also appeared a lost cost cause. But is it? Back in June, he wrote:

Republicans, who were in control of the redistricting process in far more places than Democrats, were able to shore up some of their vulnerable incumbents. In a true wave election, these defenses might prove feeble or even counterproductive.

Got that? "A true wave election." Check the item from Gallup, two posts up: Democratic Enthusiasm Swells.