He’s Not Nixon…He’s Incompetent

In the last couple of weeks, the folks in the Obama White House have been howling about the unfair treatment they have received from the media on the IRS, Benghazi and the AP scandals.  Yes, the fourth estate has turned on the president. The fawning and Messiah-like coverage he has enjoyed for the last 5 years appears to be over, at least for now.  That’s what happens when you turn on one of your own, which is apparently what the Holder Justice Department did to the venerable Associated Press, by collecting phone numbers, and secretly investigating who might have leaked what to whom.

An understandable comparison which has sprung up is to Richard Nixon and his delusional paranoia about leaks, conspiracies and enemies which fueled the disgraced former president into a paralyzing fear of losing power to his enemies.  Nixon’s biggest problem was that he was a megalomaniac who believed he needed to destroy his political enemies before they destroyed him.  Unfortunately President Obama appears to suffer from the same affliction. Or does he?

In Obama-World every problem, every question or challenge made about the president’s policies, remarks or policy decisions - especially those that might come from  Republicans – have been viewed as an affront, a personal assault to the Office of the Presidency.  Even when members of the media would question the president’s policies before the recent “scandals,” Obama and his aides greeted such plebeian inquiry as insulting, uninformed and unjustified attacks on a chief executive with a God complex who views himself as infallible.

Obama is about as cold and aloof as any president in history.  He makes Lyndon Johnson look warm and fuzzy.  He makes Dwight Eisenhower look like Mr. Rogers. He makes George W. Bush appear to have been an unscripted, unguarded guy who shot from the hip saying whatever he wanted, whenever he felt like it.  Obama is brooding and cool. Removed and distant.  Obama is uninterested and unwilling to reach out even to leaders in his own party to make deals, to introduce any human connection, friendship or collaboration into the process of governing and legislating.

The closest he comes to being Nixonian is his clear discomfort with forging relationships with either party on the Hill or even within his own administration.  The Pope likely has a less formal opinion of himself when he’s hanging out at the Vatican water cooler.

And so the long knives of President Obama’s many enemies are now out and they are honed upon Caesar himself. The president has no real friends or allies in Washington.  Let’s hope Bo the White House Dog doesn’t turn on him next.

All of this “scandal” may be less than it’s cracked up to be.  The comparisons to Nixon’s “high crimes and misdemeanors,” “abuses of power” and possible “impeachable offenses” continue as more layers of the onion are peeled away.  However I’m not sure this is quite as malignant as the political skullduggery wrought by Nixon, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean, Mitchell and Hunt.  As they say, never assume malice when incompetence is far more likely.

The president’s responses to all of this are pretty pathetic: “We never knew about it,” “We were unaware,” “I had no knowledge,” “We first learned about this when we read it in the newspapers.”  These are rope-a-dope answers designed to suggest that this president, his staff and indeed the bloated government he has built are too big, too complicated and too disconnected for anyone to manage - even the Messiah himself!  The excuse is we can’t know what everyone is doing every minute of every day.  You didn’t communicate with your Secretary of State?  What about your Attorney General (speaking of arrogant and aloof!)? How about your Secretary of the Treasury who has reporting oversight of the IRS? 

These excuses are ridiculous at best. For the chief executive of any company, the governor of any state, or the cabinet secretary of any agency who presides over a scandal like the ones we are seeing today, the correct behavior is to stand up and say: “It happened on my watch and it’s my responsibility to find out what the hell went on, identify the parties responsible and remove them from positions of responsibility so that this kind of foolishness never happens again.”  We call it personal responsibility, but the concept is an anathema to this administration for which the buck stops anywhere except with them. The Obama administration’s collective reaction points to one other thing besides a sense of infallibility and misplaced self-importance.  It points to pure, undeniable incompetence.

This president wants government to do all, provide for all, know all and fix all, and he is now forced to admit that the very same concept of government, without adult supervision, can tread on constitutional rights, violate personal freedoms and misuse the very power it has amassed.  Corruption, scandal, conspiracy and cover-up are much sexier, but the reality that is due to incompetence and an inability to take responsibility is far more troubling to me.

History will ultimately judge this president by his actions and his accomplishments.  

But for a guy who wants the government to run everything and now wants to turn healthcare over to the same bureaucracy whose Justice Department decided to snoop into the phone records of a supposedly free press is … troubling, to say the least. Who knows, one day Eric Holder or his successor may want to know a little more about your personal health history.  But that could never happen…right?    

The “New” Language of the Massachusetts Special Senate Race

Edward Markey, the lumbering T-Rex of yesterday’s liberal politics, strode onto the stage of Boston’s Omni Parker House on Tuesday night to collect his prize.  As expected, Markey - the nearly 37-year congressman who has been in Washington since Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford roamed the Beltway’s concrete jungles - easily defeated Congressman Stephen Lynch for the Democratic nomination for United States Senate.

Markey accepted his prize the way old time pols always do, promising more free stuff from the government and branding his opponent as anti-choice, pro-assault weapon and wanting to take Massachusetts backwards.  He suggested that Republican nominee Gabriel Gomez, the fresh-faced son of Colombian immigrants would be a puppet of the extreme right and of the “Tea Party Republicans.” Blah, blah, blah…..

Markey’s acceptance speech was pretty standard stuff, it’s the same speech every old-time Democrat gives.  People need more from Washington: more federal programs, more government spending more of the “one size fits all” approach that the ruling class of old Democrats always spew. Markey, you see, is the quintessential “Old Democrat,” and I’m not simply referring to his age (although he is 66, and has spent well over a quarter century trapped in Washington).  No, I’m talking about his politics, his tone, even the language he uses to convey to voters that he and Washington know what’s best. That big government will save us from all things, and that the nanny state will take care of all of us in our time of need, in the midst of worldwide economic and political instability.  That healthcare and Social Security, terror policy and the minimum wage are best determined by a behemoth government centered in Washington.  That they will decide, they will dole out ,they will keep America going the way they always have - with more social programs and  more federal spending funded by hardworking taxpayers.  Markey is, in short, more of the same.

Markey is old. Markey is yesterday.  Markey is artificial-not natural or organic. Markey believes the seeds of economic opportunity best grow in the concrete canyons and marbled floors of Washington, the ground he has trod for so long. Contrast that with the compelling political narrative of his opponent, Gabriel Gomez. Gomez is the son of Colombian immigrants; a former Navy Seal, Harvard-educated and a self described “New Republican.” Gomez is all about tomorrow, while Markey is quintessential yesterday.

Gomez believes that the federal government has a role, but shouldn’t interfere with America’s ability to do a better job of making decisions closer to home in our own states, cities and towns.  Gomez is all about individual and equal opportunities for all.  His Harvard education and entrepreneurial success indicates that while Markey has been roaming Washington and growing the size, scope and reach of the federal government, Gomez has been out there living and working toward the quintessential American dream.  Gomez has made it clear that he is personally pro-life, but that he believes Roe v Wade was settled long ago and is the law of the land. He has pledged not to try and overturn it or hamper a women’s right to choose. On guns: Gomez supports the constitutional right for citizens to legally own guns, but says he would have supported the President’s bill for common sense background checks.  Once again, Gomez sees a role for government, but believes in individual responsibility.

The language of this race is fascinating.  The tone, the approaches, the philosophies mirror the candidates themselves.  Markey is old, Gomez is new.  Markey is big federal government; Gomez is states, towns and individuals.  Markey’s  approach: Washington knows best. Gomez: Washington needs to step back, provide support when and where we need it, but leave individuals with the space and opportunity to succeed.  Markey believes Washington should define our economy and grow jobs with artificial federal spending. Gomez has a more natural and organic approach, believing real jobs and economic opportunities come from private business both large and small.  Markey is all top down, Gomez is bottom up.

All of this is most interesting because this special Senate election in Massachusetts is the only one in the country right now.  The special interests will flock here, likely spending millions to affect the outcome of the race.  All eyes are on deep blue Massachusetts to see if there is any kind of “canary in a coal mine” precursor from the Obama fatigue that has set into the first one hundred days of the President’s second term. What will this race in Massachusetts mean for the nationwide elections in 2014?

The economy is still stumbling, consumer confidence is shaky, and this remains a largely jobless recovery - especially in the private sector where real jobs get created. Can Gomez, who labels himself a “New Republican,” give Markey who is clearly an “Old Democrat” a run for his money?  Is Massachusetts ready for a new tone in the political debate?

This race will tell us.  And while Gomez is very much his own man, with a group of very capable advisors, one need look no further for this change in the tone and language of this race than to my old pal Alex Castellanos. Alex, a partner in the Alexandria, Va. – based Purple Strategies, has started a new project which explores and contrasts a new branding and positioning for the GOP. It is typical Castellanos in its simple brilliance and practicality.  You can learn more about it by logging onto www.newrepublican.org, where the thinking and rationale are spelled out in clear and concise terms.  The premise: Republicans don’t need to change our values, we need to communicate our ideas in bold, new ways, that are more inclusive and attract more voters than we have of late.  The results of the GOP being perceived as the party of “NO” speak for themselves.  

Hence, New Republicans believe that top down from Washington is the old way, bottom up from the individual – and the communities, towns and states where they live – is a new and better way.  Old Democrats want a one size fits all solution for every challenge we face, manufactured and operated by the federal bureaucracy in Washington.  One size, one color, one model … take it or leave it, but you can be sure you will have to pay for it.  New Republicans are pro-business, whether it’s an international corporation or a small, family run enterprise. And they are against the rules, demands, regulations and outdated requirements of a federal government that only tolerates private sector success to the extent it can tax it.

Castellanos and a growing number of Republican candidates and strategists around the country are onto something.  Most Americans, no matter what their party, identify themselves as fiscally moderate to conservative in the way they manage their own households and businesses.  As long as we are a reasoned and reasonable group who respects the rights of individuals over the government, we are an attractive party.  As long as the GOP welcomes those who are different, accepting the power of the individual over the coercive and corrosive control of Washington, we win.  If we are viewed as the grumpy old man that sits on the front porch yelling at kids to “get off my lawn”, then we are perceived, and rightfully so as “Old Republicans” – the “party of no.”  And we all know how that turns out.

The New GOP needs to be the party of ideas, the party of tomorrow,and the party that is tolerant, accepting applications for successful Americans no matter what their ethnicity or color, no matter what their sexual orientation or view of the “moral choices” of others. That’s the party that can win.  This means there will be some soul searching inside the New GOP - but soul searching is far better than living in denial and eventually the exile of irrelevance and continued defeat.  In order to govern, the GOP must win; and in order to win, we have to speak to Americans in a new tone. We need a new way to defend and promote our principles of individual success and opportunity.  

 The language of the New Republican is the language of winning.  We all owe my friend Alex a debt of gratitude for his usual fine thinking and his big ideas.  As for Gabriel Gomez and Ed Markey, let’s keep an eye on that race.  In a place like Massachusetts, it will take a New Republican to beat an Old Democrat. Scott Brown did that once, Gabriel Gomez could do it again.

Scott Brown: Shaheen’s nightmare, or a dream matchup?

There is a lot of speculation right now about what one Scott Brown might chose to do when it comes to the prospect of challenging incumbent New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen. Brown is the most middle of the road of Rock Star Republicans (and Rock Star Republicans are pretty much an endangered species these days.) But legend is still on Brown’s side. Yes, he lost re-election in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts to Saint Elizabeth (Warren) of Cambridge in the tidal wave created by the 2012 Obama juggernaut. But New Hampshire (as I like to remind folks) is NOT Massachusetts. Sure, the Granite State has gotten bluer in recent elections, but New Hampshire is still a place full of Independent voters who tend to have a Libertarian streak. This could certainly help Brown who is fiscally conservative, business friendly, pro-choice and not likely to get bogged down in social issues that have hurt the GOP in recent contests.

Scott Brown’s legend is still based on the fact that he turned the Senate seat once owned by Edward M. Kennedy into “The People’s Seat” in Massachusetts. Had Brown’s re-election not fallen in a presidential year, a year where the Obama campaign effectively turned out every low-information voter from under every conceivable rock…he might have pulled off a successful re-election. Certainly the race would have been much closer. Here’s the good news: most of the Obama Low-Infos will not turn out again, certainly not in an off year election. Second, the thing that helped Brown win the special election in Massachusetts was a midterm malady known as “Obama-fatigue.” Fast forward to 2013. Given the battle over guns, the still sputtering economy, a still- jobless recovery and a world which becomes more uncertain each and every day, Obama midterms could become the gift that keeps on giving for the GOP again in 2014.

Let’s assume the Obamacare rollout continues on its disastrous track, the economy does not improve, and world events continue to make Americans question the President’s foreign policy leadership, people could begin to realize that they were voting more against Mitt Romney than for Barack Obama. If the environment turns sour for the President again as it did in 2010, Scott Brown could find himself in the money again, this time a few miles north in the Granite State.

.

Brown would face a formidable challenge in incumbent Jeanne Shaheen. The former three-term NH Governor is popular and well respected. She is also more moderate than the wing nut lefties from the state’s two congressional districts; Carol Shea Porter (who if she loses will immediately secure a job haunting houses somewhere) and Tax Scoff Annie McLane Kuster, who is so steeped in liberal partisanship that she regularly drives on the left side of the road. Shaheen is quite different.

Shaheen is smart and about as politically savvy a pol as I’ve ever met in either party. In the last week, Team Shaheen has launched a series of fundraising mailers from which they claim to have netted big dividends, by directly mentioning the possibility of a Brown challenge. In spite of their bragging while dialing for dollars the fact is that if Brown were to jump in, Jeanne Shaheen at the very least would have an “uncomfortable” campaign. It would certainly be more than the walk down the beach she was planning on. Brown is well known, particularly in the southern tier of the state due to the influence of the Boston media market. That is critical, because that is where the voters are, and where he has the potential to rack up big wins in larger towns where voters have followed his career since he first claimed the Kennedy seat. Brown also has name ID and a certain built-in appeal given the many years he and his family have owned a second home on the NH seacoast. Brown’s mother and sister still live in New Hampshire and could be good surrogates on the campaign trail.

While Jeanne Shaheen will no doubt try and throw the “carpetbagger” label at Brown, his friends and neighbors in Rye can readily attest to the high profile presence he and his wife Gail have had in and around that town for more than 20 years. Speaking of Gail, her presence on WCVB proved to be a strong asset for Brown in his Massachusetts campaign, and she could do the same for him in NH next year.

Brown is not the Republican Shaheen was counting on for her upcoming reelection campaign. He is a big name who has already proven he can raise big money in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and nationwide. Brown’s fundraising prowess netted him over $68 million for his Massachusetts effort. That’s the kind of haul Shaheen can only dream about. And $60 million to spend in NH? That would be more than enough gross rating points to get his message across. Ideologically, both candidates are fairly moderate and well known, but with one significant difference. Scott Brown would not be caught in a potential “Obama vortex” in 2014. He could in fact refurbish his image as the giant killer he is known to be.

There is also something bigger at stake in the 2014 midterm.  It is the fact that while this will be a non-presidential year, it will clearly be the prelude to the launch of the ground game for the expected coronation of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee in 2016. This is, after all, New Hampshire. Shaheen and Hillary are strong allies and you can expect the Clintons, including even the Big Dog himself, to return the many years of support afforded to them from the Shaheens by all but taking up residence in New Hampshire. Who knows, maybe Bill and Hill will buy a place and we can collect some hefty property taxes from the two of them. Democrats are laughing the Brown challenge of in NH. In fact last week, a DSCC spokesperson was asked about a potential Brown challenge and responded “Is it possible to quote someone laughing?”

These people may be whistling by the proverbial graveyard if the potential environment turns against Shaheen or the Democrats based on public opinion with regard to the President. This is the not the first time Brown has been laughed off by the Democrat chattering class (see “Marsha” Coakley 2010).

Clinton and Co. will be preparing a ground game for the Hillary 2016 effort. One Dem told me that this race will help us to build an unshakable organization, and the ability to ID and turn out voters in preparation for the 2016 NH Presidential Primary as well as the general election (in which NH might find itself once again to be a small but critical swing state).

In short, Shaheen becomes Hillary’s dry run for 2016. Shaheen’s people know it, and in many ways it is comforting to them. So for now at least, Team Shaheen feels reasonably optimistic. Brown’s overtures to the Granite State (including a series of visits) is allowing them to raise money, Hillary’s got their back and besides, Brown will never really do it anyway. Right?  He’s not serious…is he??  He couldn’t be.  

Maybe he is. For all the Democratic bravado that a potential Brown challenge is “no problem,” you can be sure that the Senator’s staff, and even the Senator herself, are not sleeping as well these days.

Brown is pushing the brand, pushing ratings with his FOX News appearances, and likely helping to drive clients to his newly minted partnership with the Nixon Peabody law firm. Is Scott Brown really going to do it? The Shaheen people might not be worried, but they should be.

For now let’s assume that Scott Brown might just do it. He might decide after reviewing a poll or two that he’s got one more giant to slay. It would make for a fascinating race and give Team Shaheen many more sleepless nights. They might want to rest up while they can.

The Washington Post Gets It at Least Half Wrong Once Again.

This week, in an opinion piece penned by that great arbiter of political fairness and objectivity, liberal toady and left wing Washington Post scribbler, Richard Cohen, suggests that one of the GOP’s biggest challenges is the caucus and primary contests which traditionally start in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Cohen lecturing the GOP on its challenges is a little like Barack Obama lecturing Cyprus on austerity.

In fairness, Cohen gets it at least partly correct. 

Iowa is NOT representative of the rest of America, but more importantly Iowa doesn’t even closely resemble the minority of general election voters who checked Mitt Romney over Barack Obama in 2012. This is something we from New Hampshire are never supposed to do: challenge the sacred bond of Iowa first, New Hampshire second.  We have a holy alliance to keep those other pesky would-be interloper states from grabbing the first contests. It’s “omerta,” the Sicilian word used by the mob to describe their code of silence. It’s Skull and Bones, a secret society of coercion dedicated to keeping Iowa and New Hampshire forever first and the rest of you…well, pissed off.  Our two states have carefully guarded their long and rich traditions of being “First in the Nation.”  And let’s be honest, it’s pretty good for business and the notoriety for both states. 

But New Hampshire has a few other things going for it besides First in the Nation status: mountains, a beautiful seacoast, and a real primary election held by real voters who vote secretly in a voting booth as opposed to arguing late into the night in some church basement.  There are big differences between Iowa and New Hampshire.  Someone needs to inform Mr. Cohen of this fact as his column weakly attempts to suggest that they are one and the same.

Iowa’s raucus caucus brings actual people to Iowa and they stay…at least as long as they have to in order to cover the campaigns.  For the Hawkeye State, having journalists from across the globe come to your little hamlet of a state to stay in overpriced hotel rooms in the middle of winter and report live from some hayseed’s farm or a snow bank in Gillett Grove, are good for rooms and meals tax revenue. But anyone who knows anything about both states, knows that it is simply ignorant to lump the two together suggesting that they are both equal right of center bastions for Christian conservatives whose main concerns are tent revivals, abortion and speaking in tongues.  Ideologically speaking, Iowa and New Hampshire are like two separate countries.  Maybe Mr. Cohen might be able to get one of his editors to approve a trip to both states, so he could see that for himself. I know it’s tough for a reporter to get travel expenses approved from a newspaper that’s bleeding $50 mil a year, but maybe it would make Mr. Cohen’s “observations” a bit more precise, better yet, accurate.

According to 2012 Iowa exit polling, here is the ideological profile of Iowa Republicans.  They are overwhelmingly (99%) white. Those claiming to be born-again or self “evangelical” weighed in at 57%. 47% of Iowans identified as very conservative, and over 64% identified as “strong” Tea Party supporters. On the issues Iowa GOP voters thought matter the most, 13% said abortion and 4% said healthcare.  Another 34% said the federal budget deficit, and more than 42% said the economy.  About 80% of Republican voters said abortion should always be illegal.

It’s safe to say that Mr. Cohen gets it half right. Iowa is a pretty conservative place!  It’s also a place where they hold the big Iowa State Fair in Ames every summer, a perennial stop for candidates who wish to become president and the very same place the Iowa GOP holds its quadrennial Ames Presidential Straw Poll.  This silly sideshow costs a fortune for campaigns to play in and rarely results in even coming close to choosing the eventual party nominee.  That likely explains why Michele Bachmann won in 2011.

The fair itself is certainly an odd event. I’m not certain Mr. Cohen has been, and no doubt if he has, his beltway liberal sensibilities were not impressed with the deep fried Twinkies and the Speaker’s Corner, a place where candidates are expected to hop up on a hay bale and let it rip.  Had he been there, he also would have certainly not been impressed with the life-size sculpture of The Last Supper done in….. pure butter.  And of course, the crusading demonstrations by the candidates’ supporters, and the spontaneous outbursts of near histrionic support for guys like Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are pure Iowa.  Iowa is different, Iowa is conservative and Iowa does in fact set the wrong tone for the GOP.  That’s about where Mr. Cohen’s hypothesis ends any semblance of reality.

Compare Iowa to New Hampshire.  New Hampshire is also a largely white state, almost 95% of GOP voters claiming not to be persons of color. Compared to Iowa, New Hampshire has far fewer primary participants registered as members of the GOP with about 49% compared to 75% in Iowa.  Unlike Iowa, Independent voters play a huge role in New Hampshire and account for about 47% of voters in 2012  compared to 23% in Iowa.  In New Hampshire, about 21% identify themselves as “very conservative” and only 22% claimed “strong” Tea Party support. Furthermore, the number of primary participants claiming to be born-again or “evangelical” was only about 22%. The issues that mattered most to New Hampshire voters were the economy with 61% of the vote, followed by the federal budget deficit at 24%. Abortion came in at 6%. The New Hampshire electorate overall supports abortion rights, all or most of the time, with about 71% in support, and only 27% of those surveyed indicate they would support overturning Roe vs. Wade.

It’s one thing for the out of touch Obama squad at the Washington Post to take a whack at the GOP, it’s another to simply misreport the facts.  New Hampshire’s demographic and ideological voter profile looks far more like the rest of America than does Iowa’s.  I’ll likely never be able to get off a plane again in Des Moines after this piece, but Iowa looked for a short time in 2012 as though it at least would have the good sense to get behind the eventual GOP nominee by giving Mitt Romney a slight edge over Rick Santorum (who has about as much chance of becoming president of the United States as I do).   But Iowa once again relegated itself to near irrelevance a couple of days later when after Romney was announced the narrow winner, they then announced that once they actually certified the vote Santorum had won by 34 votes. Hence the saying “As Iowa goes, nobody cares!”

So Mr.Cohen, in some of the most misguided and uninformed opining to come out of the WaPo fish wrapper in a long time, believes Iowa and New Hampshire are equally trivial, and ideologically problematic for the GOP?  Interesting. Maybe data and fact are simply not important.  There is a clear and distinct difference between Iowa and New Hampshire and the numbers prove it.

It seems to me that last person to come out of Iowa on Wounded Knee was a Democrat.  Hillary Clinton was nearly embarrassed out of the race for the nomination by the way she was treated by Dems in Iowa.  Surely they too must be as misguided as the Republicans.  Yet Hillary came to New Hampshire and upset Obama by nearly 3.5%.

There are probably a lot of things that are problematic with the Iowa caucuses.  That’s one good reason for that old saying “Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks Presidents.”  I look forward to seeing Mr. Cohen in the Granite State sometime soon.  In fact, if the Post won’t pay for his plane ticket here, I will.  Then maybe he’ll get to see the difference between Iowa and New Hampshire for himself.  The other option? I could buy him a plane ticket to Gillett Grove. I hear mud season is a real big deal there.

Hey Ed….Why the Long Face?

Edward J. Markey, the 20 term Congressman who claims to be from Malden, by way of Maryland (go figure) should be the happiest guy on earth.  He’s certainly the luckiest (politically speaking) for now. Markey has been the anointed successor to the Massachusetts Senate seat formerly held by now Secretary of State John Kerry. When it appeared Kerry would be nominated by President Obama and that the seat would provide yet another special election in Massachusetts, we talking heads were all a-gaggle over the possibility that like a Phoenix, defeated Senator Scott Brown would rise from the ash heap Saint Elizabeth of Cambridge subjugated him to in the November election, when Our Lady of Harvard beat Brown convincingly.  There was so much hope.  This was, after all, a “Special Election”, like the one Brown won in 2010 claiming the “Kennedy Seat” as “The People’s Seat,” making Brown a rock star at home and in Washington.  But Brown demurred, clearly understanding another special election for the remainder of Kerry’s term would mean he would have to stay in perpetual campaign mode from the time he took office.  Brown is smart.  So smart, he’s earned himself a handsome FOX News deal and a gig with legal giant Nixon Peabody’s Boston office.  Good for Brown and his family….bad for the rest of the Commonwealth!

Without Brown, or Bill Weld, or Charlie Baker who is clearly eyeing a race for Governor, the Mass GOP was left with… nothing.  There is a 3 way GOP primary among Gabriel Gomez, Dan Winslow and Mike Sullivan.  These three guys don’t have enough name ID to get themselves arrested, never mind elected. They are all good decent guys, but if Scott Brown couldn’t do it, I dare say none of them will, even in another special election.  Brown caught lightning in a bottle. He was the perfect candidate at just the right time.  Massachusetts is suffering from election fatigue after the special election, the endless TV ads aimed at primary and swing state voters who reside in New Hampshire, but who can only be reached using Boston television, and of course the Brown/Warren donnybrook that went down the bar and out into the alley.  Yes, the voters of the Commonwealth are tired of politics.

Enter Ed Markey, the Congressman from the 5^th District who has been in DC longer than the monument.  That’s really not fair to the monument, because it likely has more intellectual heft and a far better sense of humor than Markey.  Markey is gliding to the nomination and ultimately to the US Senate.  He will roost there, obedient to the far left of his party, until such time as he is tapped on the shoulder and informed that young Joseph P. Kennedy III has passed puberty and is ready for a promotion.  With that, Markey will bid public life good bye.  That’s the deal.   He’s a toady, a “Coat Holder.” Markey won’t make waves, he’ll vote left of the party line and he won’t get too comfortable.  The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is in on the racket, as is the Massachusetts Democratic Party.  Warren, Kerry, Obama and even the mayor all seem to be giving Markey the nod. Now comes one Stephen Lynch. The Southie Congressman who was told clearly not to mess with the party guys.  Lynch did.  He jumped into the Senate race with both feet and has been the typical happy warrior he always is on the campaign trail.  Facing an uphill battle against the Markey establishment, the former SEIU labor lawyer watched this week as his own union announced they were backing Markey.  Lynch is a good and decent guy, but he’s also nobody’s fool. He got into this race for the right reasons and has chosen not to take orders from anyone on his own political future.  

So far Lynch is having a hard time getting oxygen.  So too are the 3 GOP candidates. It appears to most that the seat is Markey’s to lose. So why is Ed Markey so glum?  Well for one thing, that’s the way Markey always is.  Uncharismatic, timid, a sheep who goes along to get along (unless of course that means coming home to his house district which, based on his absence, may be a little too long for him) Markey is the single most uninspiring, under-achieving, dim-witted franchise candidate any party could put forward, and he’s winning the thing so far in a walk!  Yet Markey is as glum as ever.

In his first TV spot, “Courageous Ed” takes on guns, speaking to camera from what appears to be a spot just outside the gates of Mount Auburn Cemetery.  There he is in all his glum mediocrity. Glassily reading teleprompter copy, dark circles below his eyes, the 1970’s Bee-Gee’s haircut and the black undertaker’s coat.  You half expect the guy to step into the front seat of a hearse, or maybe to take the arm of a grieving widow and walk out of camera frame at the end of his read.  Ed Markey needs to lighten up!  He’s unfortunately about to become the next United States Senator from Massachusetts and yet he appears to be the unhappiest man on earth.  Maybe Ed’s not so sure.  Maybe he’s anticipating those debates with Lynch.  Eddie’s never taken a political punch and he knows Lynch can deliver one.  Maybe Ed Markey’s in mourning.

Because despite the establishment, the backroom deals, the anointing by the party bosses and union guys, he’s still going to have to step on the stage by himself and explain why he’s the best candidate for the job.  That’s no easy task, and that’s likely why Ed Markey is indeed feeling glum. 

The Jester of Sequester

It is Monday March 4th…day 3 of Sequester.  This morning the dawn came just after six A.M. as predicted, electricity still working, no sign yet of missing co-workers, disappearing school buses or seniors thrown from assisted living communities.  This morning, like yesterday America was still functioning.  Those of us who still have jobs reported dutifully for work.  The “crisis” as predicted by the President of The United States was yet to be felt.  It was quiet…too quiet.

I climbed my driveway to the mailbox and found that mail had in fact been delivered over the weekend-on a Saturday no less.  A neighbor jogged by with his dog as I stood rifling through junk mail and bills.  He actually waved, smiled and said “Good morning.”  Surely he had not heard yet, that the dreaded sequester was upon us.

For the last month interrupted only by a brief golfing getaway with Tiger Woods, the president has spent nearly every waking moment bemoaning the evil Republicans for forcing us into this unspeakable horror of actually cutting government spending.  He has sounded the clarion call like Chicken Little pointing to the sky that Armageddon was coming.  Teachers would be fired.  Education Secretary Arne Duncan went so far last week as to patently make up the fact that teachers in Northern Virginia had already been “pink slipped” when in fact they had not.  Memo to Secretary Duncan, teachers are largely funded by local school districts who get their money from the taxpayers of that district.  Duncan later retracted the statement.

Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano warned of impending long lines at airports due to the immediate furloughing of hundreds of TSA officers.  And Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood indicated that air traffic controllers would be on the street soon, tying up the skies causing unspeakable delays across America’s airports.

I called Boston/Logan airport this morning run by the friendly folks at Mass Port who indicated to me that all flights were at present running on time. How could this be?  Did Logan not get the memo?  Had they not yet been informed that doom was upon us?

It has been assumed by most in Washington - especially the President and House and Senate Democrats - that this whole mess would blow up in the faces of hapless Republicans.  If chickens were still laying eggs before their forced work stoppage, John Boehner and Eric Cantor would have that egg on their collective faces.  It hasn’t quite worked out that way.  

After the president ran around the country last week holding rallies, issuing dire warnings and preparing American’s for the giant sinkhole of sequestration that was about to suck them collectively underground..America kept going.  Much like The Grinch who thought Christmas would disappear just because he had stolen the holiday trappings of the Whos down in Whoville, Obama thought sequestration would kill the country.  It didn’t, it hasn’t and it won’t.

The “cuts” the president and his minions of misery makers have been squawking about are not cuts at all.  They are reductions in proposed spending increases.  Only in Obama’s Washington can a modest cut from an increase actually net out to be a cut.  The fact is this: the people who run this little enterprise known as America had called for about a 4% increase over the previous year’s budget (and the fact is, the Democrat-controlled Senate never even produced an actual budget). I know it’s hard to imagine as every family in the country continues to tighten their own belts in this Obama economy, but the federal government is giving itself a 4% raise.  Because the Super Committee of Democrats and Republicans (which turned out not to be so super after all) failed to reach agreement on self-imposed spending cuts to avoid the last disaster we faced as a nation (the “fiscal cliff”), the president introduced this idea of sequestration.  Unless or until Congress could come up with cuts in defense, entitlements and more, these sequestration cuts would automatically be imposed unilaterally.  The idea was that defense cuts would be unacceptable to Republicans and the President’s own party would never allow cuts to entitlement programs, so one way or another somebody would find some money to avoid both.  Well to their credit, Boehner and the Republicans took POTUS up on all the huffing and puffing, rightfully claiming that increased revenues (taxes) were off the table for these 4% increases that the government decided it deserved, and there would be no way to pay for the additional spending. The real sham is that the actual spending cuts would be 2% of the increase and result in less than a .05% decrease in GDP spending.  Does anyone really believe that a .05% reduction in federal spending will truly result in the end of civilization as we know it?  Anyone…Bueller?

Obama and the Democrats hedged that this was a winner for them. Sort of like blaming the evil Republicans for shuttering the government.  The problem is the president’s histrionics have made him look like the Whiner In Chief that he is and that’s not a good thing to be perceived as, especially when you’re the leader of the free world.

America has moved on.  Too many Americans are still out of work.  The unemployment rate has edged back up to 7.9%, consumer confidence even with Wall Street humming along remains low, and most significantly a majority of Americans still feel the country is on the wrong track and that the “recovery” Obama’s been crowing about is simply not real.

The president wants to put this behind him.  He wants to get to the important business of taking folks’ guns away, and finding a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants so more of these “patriots” can take advantage of the disaster that Obamacare is already fast becoming.  This guy may provide Republicans with bigger gains in the House and Senate than he did in the mid-term elections of Obama Part I.  We can only hope.   

In 2016 Will Democrats Look Like Republicans?

I know it’s early, but let’s face it - the 2016 race for the presidency has already started, and it’s never too soon to speculate in politics, especially of the presidential variety.

The Time Has Come

Last Friday morning just as the Pledge of Alliance was completed and attendance taken, the students of Sandy Hook Elementary School in a small Connecticut suburb began what felt at first like just another ordinary day.  It was in the midst of Hanukkah and just days before Christmas.  The day was cold and clear, with a bright blue, nearly cloudless sky.  To every child and teacher there was reason to believe that last Friday would begin and end as nearly every Friday did.

But around 9:30 in the morning, all that changed.

Witnesses including the school nurse and other teachers and administrators say it began with a loud “pop-pop-pop.”  Can we imagine what went through the minds of the adults? The teachers and administrators whose job it was to care for these children, to mentor, teach and protect them?  Whenever what was happening began to crystallize in the protector’s minds there must have been an awful, sick and helpless feeling that ran through their very souls.  They were here, in a building that was supposed to be safe, locked, and secure with hundreds of children assigned to their collective care.  And now someone had penetrated that fragile veil of safety.

This was a tragedy that no one could ever conceive of…no one.  We tend to try to justify tragedies like these as the limited work of a few sick and twisted souls-an irregularity, a fluke, just innocent people being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But the school children at Sandy Hook were exactly where they were supposed to be, last Friday morning and exactly at the right time.  They were in their school on a sunny winter Friday on the cusp of the holidays.  The school was securely locked, the administration had protocols in place and drills had been done for fire escapes, storm winds and even “lockdown procedures.”  But none of it was adequate to deal with a deranged 20 year old who apparently had exhibited significant social and psychological issues much of his life.  A man-boy who killed his own mother that very morning and took weapons  from her upscale suburban home, including two handguns and a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle. He dressed in military garb, donned body armor and deliberately drove his mother’s car to the front door of the school.

There have always been sick and deranged people in our society.  Those who fall through the cracks, or go unnoticed or ignored.  People viewed as “odd-but not someone I ever thought capable of that kind of thing.”  How many times have we heard that…after the fact?

Here however is a real fact: every year in this country thousands of children lose their lives in violent attacks by people who used guns, many of them automatic weapons.  I am specifically referring to military issue assault weapons that fire multiple rounds per clip.  No deer hunter or self respecting target practice aficionado could credibly suggest that “practicing” with one of these weapons makes you a good shot.  These are killing machines which allow even the worst marksman to hit almost anything. Surely no hunter, sportsman or true marksman could make the case that automatic weapons, or body piercing artillery makes for a better hunting season.  The statistics and facts in all of this are inconvenient especially for this of us who believe that 2nd Amendment rights are important.

Here’s where I make my big pronouncement:  It is clear to almost any reasonable person, even the most ardent supporters of 2nd Amendment rights, that the framers of our Constitution never meant for 20 year old psychopaths to murder innocents with automatic weapons in a public school.  Clearly the framers meant that the citizen’s rights in their words “to maintain a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” never ever fathomed the kind of carnage we have witnessed in recent years-especially the kind we witnessed last Friday in Connecticut.  Those who suggest otherwise are irrational, delusional or both.  Either way, if a country such as ours which also guarantees its citizens the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” under the very same Constitution, but doesn’t find this in at least some conflict with the mass murder of children in a public school, then they are missing something indeed.

I do not believe amending the Constitution is a good thing, or something we as a nation should take lightly.  That is the brilliance of this document of liberty.  The language chosen by the framers is purposeful and in at least some cases open to interpretation by reasonable men and women.  This maniac who shot all these kids and their teachers…I’m thinking it’s a long shot to call him the member of any “militia.”  We have a pretty good militia in this country already, several branches in fact; we call them the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, US Coast Guard and the National Guard and Army reserves.  They do a pretty good job protecting our nation and each of our “inalienable rights.” Now some in my party would suggest that we need other militias to protect us from those “militias.”  That’s all well and good, although slightly paranoid, but by any definition we can hardly call the slaughtered innocents of Sandy Hook a militia that threatened anyone.  The security of a free state means that we should be able to walk the streets, go to the movies or the mall or send our kids to school and not expect a maniac with an assault rifle and unstable mental capacity to gun them down.  And while the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be “infringed” - does that mean it should be enhanced?  How about hand grenades?  They make great Christmas gifts!  What about homemade bombs? Another great gift for the holidays! Those of the pipe bomb variety make wonderful stocking stuffers-as long as the stockings aren’t too close to the fire.

For 30 years I have worked for Republican candidates –all of whom have supported 2nd Amendment rights.  I have supported the 2nd Amendment and still do, but the time has come for conservatives, those who respect the idea of law and order, of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to wake up and realize there is NO cogent or reasonable argument to license assault weapons.  There, I said it.  I know the old line “if guns are criminalized, only criminals will get guns.”  In fact I’ve used it myself again and again to justify 2nd Amendment freedom.  And the bottom line is that banning these weapons is no guarantee that the sick and deranged won’t get their hands on them.  But as a just and moral and allegedly civilized society, we must be pragmatic enough to see some moral imperative to preventing this kind of carnage from ever happening again.  That gun show loophole with regard to background checks - close it NOW.  Instant background checks for anyone purchasing a gun anywhere?  Make it better, tighter, stronger.  Eliminate the right to “keep and bear” assault style weapons-they serve no useful purpose and make gun owners look like idiots who fight to keep these things in public circulation.  Give states and towns more control over the oversight of individuals who have weapons.  Don’t ban guns-hunters and sportsman should have the right to collect guns for the purpose of engaging in hunting for deer, game birds and moose…..not children.

Every person should also have the right to protect themselves and their property and that’s why I maintain support for any person who applies for a weapons permit and who qualifies to own such a weapon.  If you can’t stop someone from entering your home with the business end of a rifle, or hand gun, then forget it.  You don’t need an AK-47 to stop a would-be attacker or thief who means you, your family or your property harm.

I believe we need to protect the rights of gun owners to own guns-but not just any gun.  I believe that unless or until we accept the fact that with such freedoms come personal responsibility and a moral obligation to regulate, provide oversight, education and compliance to reasonable controls that we have failed a fundamental moral test.  Just as record federal deficits left for our children are fundamentally amoral, so too is leaving to chance the possibility that one more nut job has the chance to kill one more child.  If we turn a blind eye from the fate of these innocents, from the dedication and bravery shown by teachers, administrators, the police and others who witnessed the Newtown tragedy, we have failed a moral imperative that will forever jeopardize our Republic.

I have long believed that when the federal government attempts to control too much, it often fails.  But it is clearly time to look toward some sense of at least trying.  We need to be able to say that we did what we could, we didn’t just sit back and watch, we realized as a civilized society that government has a role and responsibility to try to keep these weapon away from those who would harm our innocents and take away our right to the pursuit of happiness.  Look to Newtown this day for a lack of happiness and the deep morass of loss, helplessness and ruin felt now by so many families.  The time to make uncomfortable choices is now.  We have an obligation.

Abraham Lincoln said it best:

“When an end is lawful and obligatory,

The indispensible means to it

Are also lawful and obligatory” 

The time has come for gun owners and defenders of 2nd Amendment rights to admit that an assault weapons ban is necessary and past due. For the GOP - and all of us who have fought for and will continue to fight for reasonable, responsible rights of gun owners - this is a chance to stand up and be part of a constructive dialogue. If we who understand this issue and believe in the 2nd Amendment most don’t fight for what is right, then our opponents will, and some of them believe the answer is to ban all guns. That too is an absurd alternative.  For who has more credibility, more moral authority on gun ownership this issue than we do?

Let’s Do Lunch!

A multi-tasking Obama hosts Romney at the White House, while simultaneously screwing the GOP.

It was the clearest sign yet that the 2012 presidential campaign was finally, mercifully over! 

White Turkey Chili (love the fact that the White House kitchen makes good use of Thanksgiving leftovers, it’s probably the single austerity measure the place has implemented under President Obama) and Southwestern Chicken Grilled Salad.  Sounds like a light, healthy and nutritious way for Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to break the ice after the long bitter campaign.

You can’t help but feel bad for Governor Romney: ever the gentlemen, Mitt did what vanquished challengers for the presidency do these days: the concessional “perp walk” into the Lion’s Den for a bite of humble crow (or Southwestern Grilled Humble Crow) followed by the requisite hand shake with the winner in the Oval Office.  You can’t help but feel bad for Mitt.  Here he is in the very office he fought so hard for 8 years to claim for himself.  All the while Obama is playing the gracious “host,” happy to show the Republic that he is bi-partisan and that there are “no hard feelings.” about the “Obama-loney” line Mitt’s gag writers came up with on him.  And there was Romney smiling, shaking hands, his other hand nearly touching the Resolute Desk-the Holy Grail he had sought, right there within his grasp.  The whole thing was almost a cruel and demoralizing episode of “Punk’d”.  I was waiting for Ashton Kutcher to jump out from behind a bookcase.

The President indicated through White House Press Secretary Jay Carney that the he wanted to meet with Romney because the governor had some “good ideas.”  How open minded and bi-partisan, what a sincere and devoted chief executive - the welcoming host prepared to be open minded to the ideas he excoriated Mitt for in the campaign, with more than a billion dollars of personal attacks on the man’s character, career, service and policies.  The worst part had to be the titillating aides likely listening outside the private study door just off the Oval hoping to hear Romney make yet one last unforced error by mentioning the 47% or perhaps that he liked “firing people.”

And just as all this Kumbaya bi-partisanship was unfolding over at The White House, Obama’s Treasury Secretary and Head Tax Cheat Timothy Geithner was throwing down the gauntlet on the administration’s proposed plan to deal with the budget deficit and avoid the fiscal cliff over which the nation currently hangs. Geithner (with an apparent straight face) went to congressional Republicans and proposed $1.6 trillion in additional federal spending over 10 years, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits. Now that’s the way to get a bipartisan discussion started.  All of this for a nation that will now see the Bush era tax cuts disappear at the end of this month, business taxes and surcharges increase, the implementation of Obamacare and an astronomical budget deficit.  Oh and here was another neat twist: Geithner apparently still with a straight face indicated that the administration would be seeking an additional stimulus spending plan of $50 billion dollars.  Nice.  Nothing sends the message of economic surety to the free enterprise system like the continued federal “spending like a drunken sailor” strategy made famous by the Obama administration.  The concept sent chills from Main Street to Wall Street and the President and congressional Democrats reported being “shocked” that the Republicans were shocked by their attempts at reverse austerity.

Speaker John Boehner correctly indicated that he thought Mr. Geithner and the President had suffered a “complete break from reality” with their proposal.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly laughed out loud when Geithner made the proposal.  It would be pretty funny if it weren’t so serious!

So as the dishes were cleared from the private lunch table and the President walked his guest toward the West Wing parking lot door, no doubt with his right hand set on Mitt’s shoulder, thanking him for his service to his country and for being such a noble and worthy opponent. Something also tells me his left hand was tucked neatly behind his back, and I’m betting if you looked very carefully you could catch a glimpse of the President’s fingers clearly crossed.

Warren Rudman: A model of principled public service

Every once in a while someone comes along in public service who simply stands out.  Someone who makes you feel good about our country, our democracy and the role and responsibility of those we elect to do the actual governing in America.  If ever there was such an individual he was embodied in the form of New Hampshire’s former US Senator Warren B. Rudman.

Senator Rudman passed away yesterday at the age of 82.  Warren would likely have said that he had lived a full, rich and vibrant life.  That he was blessed to be a public servant and that he was proud and humbled to be part of the national discussion about America’s future and our responsibility quite simply to pay our bills, live within our means and not saddle our children and grandchildren with a mountain of debt.

It is ironic that just after the most divisive presidential campaign in my lifetime, we are all re-visiting the legacy of the former Senator.  Rudman by his very nature believed in collaboration, cooperation and bi-partisanship.  He was a principled fiscal conservative whose Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act plan became an early blue print for a national discussion of facing the fact that our national debt was killing us.  Later Senator Rudman teamed up with the late Senator Paul Tsongas a Massachusetts democrat to form the Concord Coalition.  Together they fought for tighter rein on federal spending and traveled almost everywhere with their famous “National Debt Clock” to illustrate in real time the billions and now trillions the government was spending as they implored us to take collective action.

The irony is that while Warren Rudman’s Republican credentials as a fiscal conservative were impeccable and unassailable, he was socially about as middle of the road as you could be.  For Warren, the social stuff was deeply personal.  He was pro-choice and believed that abortion was an issue best left to women, their doctors and their religious and moral beliefs. He was the very kind of Republican who re-defined the brand and as a result was deeply admired by Republicans and Democrats alike.

I had a chance to work with Senator Rudman on a number of campaigns.  He was the perfect guy to step into a general election and let all sides know why one candidate was a better choice than the other.  He was there for Judd Gregg, George Bush (after initially supporting Bob Dole for president) and he promoted Bob Smith for the Senate even though he and Smith disagreed on a number of issues.  I recorded radio spots with him for countless candidates and shot him to camera in nearly a half dozen television endorsements.  In the studio he was a “no headphones” guy.  ”Just count me down and hold your hand up when I have 10 seconds left,” he would request.  Then in his distinct Rudman baritone he would begin “This is Warren Rudman…” although he really didn’t need to introduce himself.  People recognized the face and the voice and when Warren talked, they listened.

In one studio session I presented Senator Rudman with a radio script in which he would endorse George H. W. Bush for President.  He read the script, made a number of changes with a red pen and handed it back to me.  ”Not your best work Pat” he said. “But let’s go, I’ll make it work.”  He did, in about 2 takes.  ”Let me know what else I can do” he said after the session.  I looked over the marked up script like a student getting back a mid-term from his favorite professor.  At the top of the page he gave my script a letter grade: B- with a note in his distinctive hand scrawled under it: “Always great to work with you, next time write less!”  

I still have that script and will keep it always as a reminder of this amazing citizen who served New Hampshire and our country so honorably, so respectfully and with such eloquence and grace.  Like I said, they don’t make Warren Rudmans any more and you simply cannot find enough of his kind of patriot in the US Senate. That is a truly a great loss for all of us.