Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch paper
Democracy for NH
Granite State Progress
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Pickup Patriots
Re-BlueNH
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
New Hampshire Labor News
Chaz Proulx: Right Wing Watch
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Landrigan
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Campaigns, Et Alia.
NH-Gov
- Maggie Hassan
NH-01
- Andrew Hosmer
- Carol Shea-Porter
- Joanne Dowdell
NH-02
- Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Among the many reasons Democrats took a shellacking in 2010 was the lack of brand identity. No one knows what the heck we are.
The Republican brand is clear: anger, passion, as little government as possible. But the Democrats' brand is ... what?
Obama's brand has taken a hit because, instead of ending up with compromise, that's how they start. It usually works better when you first take a stand and then consider compromise.
Now comes a group urging the worst imaginable remedy: No Labels.
No Labels has attracted some New Hampshire Democrats who appear to be planning to run for election in 2012, including former Portsmouth mayor Steve Marchand who held his own No Labels gathering, and former Sen. Maggie Hassan, who attended the recent big New York event.
If Democrats want to give up any hope of power, the No Labels recommended appeasement is the perfect tactic.
Surely the intentionally calculated result of Democrats going along to get along is that, at the next election, the decimated, left-behind middle class won't be able to blame just Republicans.
Courage, to these folks, is some sort of bygone currency with no value in modern politics. After all, if you really stand for something, you may actually have to face criticism. I am reminded of the words attributed to Winston Churchill: If you're a politician and you are not making some people angry, you're not doing your job.
One thing the old bulldog Churchill did say: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last."
Encouraging the plutocrats who are determined to complete their transformation of America from a republic governed of, by, and for the people to a blatant oligarchy wherein the government openly serves the moneyed interests, the No Labels group now cheerily waves the white flag of surrender.
The No Labels website calls for strengthening the "mainstream." But what is "mainstream"? No Labels wants Americans to accept that the far right is now the new "mainstream." In whose interest is that? Certainly not traditional American values.
The one-sided bipartisanship they exalt has already produced some interesting results: the USA Patriot Act, two unpaid-for wars where the outcome and exit strategy remain a "work in progress," billions (more likely a trillion-plus) of taxpayer dollars bailing out the institutions that caused the worst financial meltdown in generations, thus consolidating even more money and power into even fewer and more systemically connected, unchecked mega-banks.
We don't need more such bipartisanship.
When the Republicans got shellacked in 2006 and 2008, they did not attempt to imitate the victorious Democrats. They dug in, stuck with their guns, retained a backbone, and were rewarded in 2010.
What we had in 2010 was largely a failure to communicate, about health care and many other issues. That lack of a messaging strategy must be addressed long before 2012. But communicating no brand at all is a guaranteed recipe for failure.
It's really not so hard to define the Democratic brand: We support equal opportunity, equal responsibility, and equal justice for all. We stand for aggressively revitalizing the American economy for the 21st century. We stand for quality education, a sustainable planet, and the old notion of government of, by, and for the people, a republic and not a plutocracy. It's time for Democrats to stand up, not lie down.
Politics ain't beanbag. It's not about playing nice in the schoolyard. It's about standing up and fighting for your constituents and your principles.
While mentioning his name only order to rule him out of the "Top 5" GOP contenders NRO's Jonah Goldberg has given us something to talk about on this quiet day before the holiday.
Meanwhile, Gregg, New Hampshire's retiring senator, acts likes he's not running but hasn't ruled it out. (If he did run as New Hampshire's favorite son, it would complicate things for Romney.)
(For the record, I also have not ruled it out.)
Fosters Daily Democrat picks up the story and piles on with quotes from GOP Activist Mike Dennehy
"No one knows better than Judd Gregg what it takes to run for president; raising money, putting together a national organization," he said.
NHBR may have started it all with this piece by Brad Cook
Taking all of those characteristics into account, it occurs to me that New Hampshire's retiring U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg fits all of the criteria well. Gregg was an executive councilor, congressman, two-term governor during difficult economic times and served three terms in the U.S. Senate, where he was in influential and responsible positions.
Meanwhile up in Concord Shira documents the efficient shut down of Greg's operations
"For assistance please contact another member of the state's congressional delegation," said voicemail messages at Gregg's offices in Manchester and Portsmouth. No one answered the phone at his Washington office, and the answering machine was full in Concord.
What do you think? Will Judd Gregg use his home field advantage to launch a presidential bid? We know he has a history of being lucky.
Update: Was it James Pindell that started the whole thing back in July? at NH Magazine.
Third, a presidential campaign could be part of a lasting political legacy. What better way to exit a career for the state's most successful politician ever, but with a win in the New Hampshire Presidential Primary, an institution he and his father spent lifetimes preserving as first-in-the-nation?
Thinking about how we, progressive democrats, can proceed in the face of the President's clear turn to the right following election losses. I don't see any way forward for us other than to mount a challenge to him in 2012. Our choices from here on out are going to be just as bad if not worse than the tax cut bill that stinks to anyone with progressive inclinations.
The message between now and 2012 is going to be all about the middle. Maybe a no name brand of middling or the Obama brand of middling. The GOP will be uncompromisingly as right as they can get. That's the playing field as it looks now. You've got your right-as-right-can-be GOP and 2 teams in the middle somewhere. There will be no left of center in the conversation unless we put someone there. The middle will occur, not as a dialectic, but as a resistance to one force on the right. It will not be tugged by a left-wing narrative or left-wing policies, it will continue the drift to the right because no one is pulling on the left.
Of course, Obama will triangulate anyone who runs on his left. The center is going to be crowded and over-sold by 2012. I don't think people are going to go the polls to vote for the middle. I think they are going to want something strong! something heroic.
One of the less-discussed costs of the tax bill is that it has undermined Obama's leadership. Because he had to renege on one of his campaign pledges, he has become a weakened advocate for the middle class. He is seen as a weak negotiating partner and that will be played up by the GOP from now on. He caves!
I think it's worth the effort if we can find someone to run who is willing to fight the communication war and to take on FOX News orthodoxy. If you listened to Bernie Sander's speech the other day, you know there is a great case to be made for the progressive side. It's not going to be made effectively in a presidential run by a self-proclaimed socialist, however.
If we don't find someone to run against Obama, we will be out of the game entirely.
It might seem like a suicide mission for anyone to run to the left when the center has shifted so dramatically to the right. I think that a populist can get a lot of air time and gain a lot of hearts and minds if (s)he speaks from the heart and mind.
The right has its villains and heroes, the right has its narrative, the right has its stories and ideas. What do we have? We have the negotiator in chief... and not a very good one at that!
First of all, congratulations on your victories in 2010. You've earned the right to celebrate. For a moment, though, I hope you'll indulge me in a discussion of a profound responsibility shared by New Hampshire voters of all persuasions: picking Presidents.
Ten years ago, the Iowa Caucus sent you George W. Bush, and you picked John McCain-an admirable choice. In 2008, the Iowa Caucus sent you Mike Huckabee, and you again picked John McCain-a shadow of his former self, but still a superior choice. In both cases, you saw an unreasonable choice out of Iowa and with the eyes of the world on you, you said no. I respect you for that. Although I'm a Democrat who supported Gore and Obama, I'm proud of my state to think of what you Republicans did in those primaries.
We need you to do it again.
All signs point to the disturbing possibility of former Governor Sarah Palin running for President in 2012. I don't need to explain to you all the ways in which she isn't worthy of the job; we've all become very familiar with her in the past few years. McCain's choice of Palin as a running mate was staggeringly irresponsible. Governor Palin's entry onto the national political stage is an insult to the intelligence of the American people, and especially to that of Republicans.
America can do better than Sarah Palin. Republicans can do better than Sarah Palin. Republican women can do better than Sarah Palin. Republican women from Alaska can do better than Sarah Palin. You better believe that New Hampshire Republican primary voters can do better than Sarah Palin. And, fellow New Hampshirites, I hope you do.
I want to make it clear that I do not fear she'd win a general election. I will vote to re-elect President Barack Obama no matter whom you nominate, and I happen to think he would defeat former Governor Palin very easily. But even though I want President Obama to be re-elected, I believe America deserves a real choice. I hope your party nominates someone who, regardless of ideological persuasion, is good enough to be President. New Hampshire Republicans, it's up to you to make sure that happens.
(What a distinguished guest Sununu has invited! - promoted by Dean Barker)
Tonight the crème de la crème -- such as that is -- of the NH GOP will gather in Bedford to toast a very special guest. So special, in fact, that they have been forced to set the price of admission at $500 in order to keep the throng of admirers at a manageable size.
Who is this great man? Who is this celebrity with the magic touch to restore the GOP to the position of high esteem it once held with NH voters?
This is the man who, when an aide made an over-the-top racist comment in front of reporters, figured that the best response was to warn him that if he kept saying things like that, he'd "be reincarnated as a watermelon and presented to the blacks." Ha ha ha! Oh, that Haley.
(And so it begins. Or does Mittens making his lake home his primary residence count as the first official primary visit? - promoted by Dean Barker)
Well, the Washington Post is reporting that Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour is coming to New Hampshire. Gov. Barbour will be the speaker at a $500 a pop fundraiser for the Republican State Committee at C.R. Sparks on June 24.
Believe it or not, this is a significant upgrade in Barbour's choice of fundraisers to attend.
This revelation Ambinder caught hold of from an "RNC rules maven" is disturbing, to say the least:
Republican rules for the first time give the members of the Republican National Committee, by a 2/3 vote, the option of adopting a mandatory 2012 state primary election calendar.
States whose legislatures, which may be controlled by Democrats, refuse to schedule a primary that complies with RNC rules face a draconian choice.
Either their party gives up its presidential primary and instead holds (and pays for) a presidential preference caucus -- or the state suffers a loss of 1/2 of its delegates to the 2012 Convention.
Many party leaders, who, for ideological or personal reasons, prefer a low-participation caucus rather than a higher-participation primary, see this Rule as a great opportunity to transform the party. (It would become more conservative.)
I'd dismiss this if the particulars on the ground weren't so apt for those words. Think about it - the RNC chair race is dominated by southerners, and the New Hampshire Primary this time around resurrected a candidate, John McCain, that was widely unappealing to the southern base, at least before Palin entered the picture. I would not at all be surprised if the southern GOPers were blaming '08 on Granite State Republicans who they see as not representative of the hard-right national core.
And then there's the whole disenfranchising aspect of the plan, which just fits perfectly into what we've come to see from the national elephants.
I'm no expert on what Fergus worked out for 2012, and/or whether that negates any of this danger for our state that Ambinder's post implies. Those who are, please fill me in.
p.s. And didn't the NHGOP delegates have to endure losing half their voice this time around too, IIRC?
Note: It's becoming more apparent to me that, if I'm serious about this Blue News Tribune thing, I have to get innovative about establishing its identity, and that's going to take more mental energy than I have to spare. In short, I really have to leave Dean's farm. But I figure I owe him this one.
Last week, speaking at Harvard on the same stage as David Axelrod -- and therefore, having every reason to lie or toss blame around -- McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said the Republican politician with the highest favorability rating in the country was Sarah Palin.
That doesn't surprise me at all. It shouldn't surprise you either. Ask yourself: Do you hate Sarah Palin? Politically, you should: her views are as scary, her ambition as callously rampant, as any American politician in my lifetime. She shows contempt for process, for the public's right to know, or for any limitation on her own behavior. She has been compared to Bush, and I find that apt. The dangerous thing is: after all these eight years, you don't hate Bush. Even if you hate what he's done, you don't hate him personally.
Palin has something most politicians would kill for: people like her. On a basic, gut check, "Do I understand this person?" level, people like her. It's difficult to explain (I'd be rich, or I'd have it at least), but I can tell you how it manifests. All political figures, in America, are desperate to be liked. The best, like Obama, invite you to work with them. The worst are so needy that their need becomes their platform and eventually their life, and they end up either in crushing defeat for higher office or stuffing cash into their clothing and getting caught. Palin is something else: her need to be liked is evident, but somehow, it is engaging. Think of her answering debate questions: John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton all had moments when you could see their wheels turning, when they were searching for the right answer. Palin's attempts, plus the winking, were famously ridiculed, but they also were sincere, in a strange way. They never stopped. Katie Couric asked her what newspapers she reads -- I remind you, we are talking about the Governor of our largest state -- and she couldn't name one. Oh. My. G-d. All she had to say was Anchorage Daily News. What, she was worried Katie had a killer follow-up question based on an item in the Anchorage Daily News?
Media in general was a bugaboo for Palin. Clearly, hatred of the media was a cornerstone of her political identity, but she became a media star. How to react? Katie liked her shoes; it had to be puzzling.
For most of the campaign, Palin walked a delicate line. She was put forward as "regular folk," but suddenly she was a national political figure, so even people willing to accept her as regular folk knew something had happened to put her there. McCain didn't throw a dart at a map. So for 12 weeks or so, she did this dance, and she was the most watchable figure in American politics simply because you never knew what she was going to do. The madman theory was playing itself out on the domestic stage, and it breathed life into a dull as dishwater McCain campaign, until economic events forced McCain to retake the stage.
Obama, brilliantly instinctive, stepped back. He threw out "lipstick on a pig" to remind people he was running, and that stopped the Palin juggernaut for a bit. Dared not to compare their records, he compared their personae. His holds up, hers (for now) does not. His numbers began to move. Then the economic crisis occurred, McCain threw his hissy fit, and Obama's numbers accelerated.
Palin, meanwhile, tried to play her role. When McCain announced he was pulling out of Michigan, she said, "Todd and I might go." I think she meant this to be helpful, but it was spun as rebellion. Perhaps stayed by her condescending handlers, she said nothing further.
"Clothesgate" was a key moment. Everyone acknowledged her right to do some shopping to be on TV 24 hours a day. But, she spent too much. She went to Neiman Marcus. Suddenly, she didn't seem so much like regular folk. Maybe some portion of the electorate would have taken the same opportunity, but they would have stopped well shy of 150 grand.
But the only real scandal -- the question that still lingers -- is young Trig. Without getting into the particulars, there is some evidence that Trig is actually Bristol's child. That, people could accept -- but the notion that Palin claimed Trig is hers to protect her daughter (really, to protect her political career) is over the line. The story was never fully explored because people ran from it. The alternative, that a pregnant Bristol "made the choice" to have the child doesn't sit very well either. It's the sort of situation where there are no right answers, but there are enough questions to make one wonder what Palin was thinking. Bristol, it appears, did not come first. That's unsettling.
For the moment, let's suppose Trig's origins are not mysterious. Suppose Sarah is his mother, and the messy Palin family is really no more messy than my family or yours. Then, if this is true and this view takes hold, look out. You have a national figure whose negatives are already out there and (unlike, say, being married to a president who inspires strong feelings) completely surmountable. Not a geography expert? What American is? Don't read the paper much? Develop the habit. She remains the best copy on the political scene, other than the president himself, and she is a star in a party riddled with losers and has-beens.
She will be back. My advice: she should sit out 2012, let someone else lose to Obama. In 2016, she'd be tough to beat.
I recently thought through the succession of Presidents throughout American history, and an interesting though occurred to me: if President Bush remains President until the winner of the '08 election is inaugurated on 1/20/09, it will have been the first time in our nation's history that two consecutive Presidents of different parties each served two full terms. In fact, it will be the first time since the early 19th century that any two consecutive Presidents have each served two full terms.
