Category: incumbents

Categories
incumbents national politics & policies

Gravy Train Engineers

A lot of big money in the Republican Party is now actively being marshaled to make sure that Tea Party efforts come to naught.

The latest endeavor bills itself the Conservative Victory Project, and has been written up in the New York Times, which relates the group’s intent: “to counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates over the last two election cycles.”

You see, campaigns to unseat staid, big-government “conservative” Republican incumbents have not gone unnoticed amongst the Old Guard of the GOP. And these folks are worried about the quality of the gravy their gravy train returns. So they seek to shore up the “winners”:

“There is a broad concern about having blown a significant number of races because the wrong candidates were selected,” said Steven J. Law, the president of American Crossroads, the “super PAC” creating the new project. “We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.”

Law is, of course, thinking of several Tea Party candidates in the last election who blew it, Big Time. You know the ones: the candidates who talked weirdly of rape.

But it’s not just Tea Party Republicans who shoot themselves in the proverbial foot, or place foot in mouth. Mainstream “conservatives” blow it, too, as Grover Norquist pointed out in the Times article. “People are imagining a problem that doesn’t exist,” said Grover.

I worry that “the real problem” Law and his cronies (such as Karl Rove) are fighting is the specter of a successful Tea Party contingent, with Rand Paul at its lead. Real change is awfully frightening to the whip hands on the gravy train.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
incumbents term limits

Chavez Shocker

Having chucked presidential term limits, Venezuela dictator Hugo Chavez recently won re-election to a third six-year term in office. Not surprising.

What is surprising, according to Francisco Toro writing in the New Republic, is that the election was so close.

Toro, writing before election day, wasn’t surprised that the failings of Chavez’s socialistic and repressive policies have been getting harder for the public to evade. But in an “increasingly autocratic petrostate, the advantages of incumbency are so deep, [re-election] really ought to be a walk.”

Toro saw Chavez’s own campaign as awkward and unpersuasive, the challenger’s as smart and effective. Come October 7, though, the former tramped across the finish line with 54 percent, a comfortable if smaller margin than he had enjoyed in previous elections.

Chavez’s advantages included rules for political ads permitting each candidate to advertise only three minutes a day on each broadcast outlet — even as the incumbent ran frequent “institutional” ads promoting the government’s doings that looked an awful lot like campaign ads. During the campaign, his government often claimed emergency to take over the air waves to spout campaign pitches. All this is in the context of years of efforts to increase the number of state-owned media and browbeat private media into uncritical silence.

The more tyrannical a government becomes, the more urgently a citizenry needs term limits in self-protection. Yet the more tyrannical a government becomes, the more easily it can get rid of such safeguards.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
incumbents political challengers

Inside Outside Upside Down

Voters in yesterday’s Indiana Republican Primary made history. U.S. Senator Richard Lugar became only the second senator in history with 36 years or more of incumbency to be defeated in his own party’s primary.

It wasn’t close, either — State Treasurer Richard Mourdock trounced Lugar, winning three of every five votes.

During the race, Sen. Lugar’s residency problem became clear: he hadn’t actually lived in Indiana since 1976. Voters tend to dislike the same person wielding power for four decades and only visiting, now and then, the people he represents.Richard Mourdock/Richard Lugar

Nor did it help being tagged “President Obama’s favorite Republican.”

But more substantial issues also mattered. Lugar voted for the TARP bailout. He opposed full Second Amendment rights. He voted to raise taxes and jack up the debt ceiling even further.

That’s what the so-called “outside groups” like the Club for Growth told voters in their ads.

An article in the Indianapolis Star, “Outside money flows in to state’s U.S. Senate race,” informed readers that $4 million was spent by political groups not controlled by the candidates, and that 70 percent backed challenger Mourdock. But Lugar, the powerful incumbent, was still able to raise enough “inside money” to outspend Mourdock by nearly two to one — running nasty attack ads against the challenger.

Without the independent groups and PACs, Lugar’s insider funding and incumbent edge would have been a whopping four to one.

The ability of more voices to speak out helped make the challenger competitive against the incumbent.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
incumbents national politics & policies too much government U.S. Constitution

Emperor Obama

People change.

George W. Bush won the presidency pledging a dose of “humility” in our foreign policy and forswearing the temptation to rebuild failed foreign states. But after the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq . . . followed by even more deadly and difficult nation-building efforts.

Presidential powers expanded.

Along came Barack Obama, the peace candidate. His advantage in winning the 2008 Democratic Party nomination was his unequivocal opposition to the Iraq War. Meanwhile, then-Senator, now Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had voted to give Bush congressional approval to launch that war.

During the campaign, Obama recognized constitutional limits on the commander-in-chief: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

But as president, Mr. Obama launched air strikes against Libya without congressional authorization. In fact, he refused to even report to Congress as required by law.

And then last week, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) asked Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, “Do you think that you can act, without Congress, and initiate a no-fly zone in Syria, without congressional approval?”

“Our goal would be to seek international permission,” Panetta replied, and then added, “and we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this.”

A republic? America goes to war on the order of one man: Emperor Obama.

But empires change. Past empires rarely asked foreign permission for their military adventures.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
incumbents political challengers

To America With Love

Congress’s approval rating just dipped to a mere ten percent — a new all-time low even lower than the all-time low set just months ago when their abysmal approval rating was even lower than the historic low hit a few months before that.

No, Congress, we don’t want to be your Valentine.

About now someone somewhere is saying that folks may not like Congress, but they do like their own member of Congress. Not so. A recent poll showed that voters don’t want their own so-called representative re-elected, either.

So, why do incumbents still get re-elected? Well, in most congressional districts, there is a dominant political party — either the Democrats or the Republicans. The winner of that party’s primary is a virtual shoo-in in the general election.

Most folks turn out to cast their votes in the general election, when in most districts it’s already been decided, but fail to show up in the all-important primary election, when they could actually make a difference.

What to do? Well, several patriots hopped into a phone booth and changed into a SuperPAC, called the Campaign for Primary Accountability. The group says, “We have two parties. Both are irresponsible. Both are unaccountable.”

And already the SuperPAC has raised $1.8 million to target, in their primaries, a number of supposedly safe House incumbents: Representatives Spencer Bachus (R-Ala), Bob Brady (D-Pa.), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), Tim Johnson (R-Ill.), Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Don Manzullo (R-Ill.), Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas), Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio).

There could be no better Valentine for our republic than seeing entrenched incumbents defeated. The primary is a smart place for that battle. You might even want to send your own heartfelt message.

This is Common sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture incumbents

Frankly Speaking

Representative Barney Frank’s recently announced retirement is not exactly a shock. His sense of timing may be better than most of his incumbent colleagues. Perhaps he smells something repellent slouching towards Washington: a secondary bust, another kick in the economy’s collective pants.

Funny, his timing had been a little slow soon after the Crash of 2008, when he protested that it hadn’t been he who had been pushing cheap mortgages and a policy of lax mortgage standards — oh no! — or he who had just recently proclaimed Fannie and Freddie to be doing just fine, thank you.

The New York Times, dubbing him a “top liberal,” cited redistricting as the major spark for his decision. Then it went on to quote Rep. Frank as blaming Newt Gingrich and the “conservative news media” for uglying up the tone in Washington, calling the present ideological climate a “bitter divide.”

Of course, before the Internet and Fox News, a near-monolithic liberal slant dominated major media. Adding an offsetting bias might have made it tougher for Frank, but surely the new toughness reflects actual American opinion better than the previous left-leaning cultural hegemony ever did.

Frank amusingly claims he has, now, but “one ambition: to retire before it becomes essential to tweet.” I bet he tweets soon.

Summarizing the advantages of not running for re-election, he explained that he would no longer “have to try to pretend to be nice to people” he doesn’t like.

No more Mr. Nice Guy? No more Mr. Clean?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.