Google Search

Friday, August 31, 2012

Ryan accepts Republican nod for VP

TAMPA – Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan accepted the vice presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday in a speech that set a goal of creating 12 million jobs in four years.

Republican vice presidential nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, speaks at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night in Tampa. By H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY

Republican vice presidential nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, speaks at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night in Tampa.

By H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY

Republican vice presidential nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, speaks at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night in Tampa.

"I accept the calling of my generation to give our children the America that was given to us, with opportunity for the young and security for the old," Ryan told the crowd in the Tampa Bay Times Forum before turning his attention to his top-of-the-ticket running mate, Mitt Romney.

"His whole life has prepared him for this moment — to meet serious challenges in a serious way, without excuses and idle words," Ryan said. "After four years of getting the run-around, America needs a turnaround, and the man for the job is Gov. Mitt Romney."

Ryan was far less kind to President Obama, blasting him for failing to revive the economy and pledging to bring down the "Obamacare" health program.

"We have a plan for a stronger middle class, with the goal of generating 12 million new jobs over the next four years," he said. "In a clean break from the Obama years, and frankly from the years before this president, we will keep federal spending at 20% of GDP, or less. That is enough. The choice is whether to put hard limits on economic growth, or hard limits on the size of government, and we choose to limit government."

The speech came one day after former Massachusetts governor Romney was formally nominated to lead the ticket and Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, was approved as his running mate by acclamation.

"The present administration has made its choices," Ryan said. "And Mitt Romney and I have made ours. Before the math and the momentum overwhelm us all, we are going to solve this nation's economic problems. And I'm going to level with you: We don't have that much time.

"But if we are serious, and smart, and we lead, we can do this."

After the speech, Ryan's family joined him on the stage to rousing cheers. Romney will take the stage for Thursday's finale.

Other Day Two headliners included former secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Arizona Sen. John McCain, the party's 2008 nominee, and former Arkansas governor and current conservative media personality Mike Huckabee.

McCain pressed the case of Romney as world leader and commander in chief. McCain said that under Obama, the country has "drifted away from our proudest traditions of global leadership" and exacerbated international problems.

"I trust (Romney) to know that our security and economic interests are inextricably tied to the progress of our values," McCain said. "I trust him to know that if America doesn't lead, our adversaries will, and the world will grow darker, poorer and much more dangerous."

Huckabee hammered at Obama for failing to create jobs, saying that "with Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan we will do better."

"Mitt Romney turned around companies that were on the skids; turned around a scandal ridden Olympics that was deep in the red into a high point of profitable and patriotic pride; and turned around a very liberal state by erasing a deficit and replacing it with a surplus," Huckabee said.

McCain and Huckabee took ample shots at President Obama; Rice made no mention of him. But she had good words for Romney and Ryan.

"Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will rebuild us at home and they will help us lead abroad. They will provide an answer to the question, 'Where does America stand?' " she said. "The challenge is real and the times are hard. But America has met and overcome tough challenges before. Whenever you find yourself doubting us — just think of all the times that we have made the impossible seem inevitable in retrospect."

But on this night, Ryan was to be the star.

Romney campaign political director Rich Beeson told USA TODAY that Ryan's addition to the ticket finally gives Romney a teammate against the "double team" of criticism from President Obama and Vice President Biden. And Ryan strengthens the ticket demographically, Beeson said.

"You've got a Generation Xer," he said, adding that he believes Obama's advantage among younger voters is fading. "And Wisconsin became a tossup the day (Republican) Gov. Scott Walker won his recall," Beeson said.

After 14 years in Congress, Ryan has become the Republican Party's brand name for conservative economic policies: low taxes, reduced spending and entitlement overhaul, all wrapped into a GOP budget plan that bears his name.

Ryan, 42, now must sell voters on a different proposition: his own readiness to become president of the United States.

"Can he step in and do the job? That's really the only thing that matters," said Romney pollster Neil Newhouse.

Speeches aside, the now three-day conservative fest has had its struggles. The convention started a day late amid concerns Isaac would hit the city just as the convention was supposed to kick off Monday.

The storm dodged Tampa and instead took on the coasts of Louisiana and Mississippi. Mitt Romney tweeted his concern Wednesday morning: "Support the #Isaac relief effort by donating to the Red Cross. Text REDCROSS to 90999 or click here: http://rdcrss.org/PSpvi2."

A Red Cross appeal appeared on large video screens in the hall during Wednesday's proceedings.

Tuesday brought a mini-revolt from a small but vocal group of Ron Paul supporters. Backers of the Texas congressman and former GOP presidential contender objected loudly to new party rules designed to discourage insurgent presidential candidates from amassing delegates.

Paul backers, believing they were being squeezed out, chanted "Object! Object!" RNC Chairman Reince Priebus declined to recognize them, saying at one point, "Guys, we will proceed with the order of business."

That wasn't the only problem in the hall: Convention organizers later ejected two people from Tuesday night's session for allegedly throwing nuts at a black CNN camerawoman, and saying, "This is how we feed animals."

"Yesterday two attendees exhibited deplorable behavior," said a Republican statement posted by Talking Points Memo.

And there have been logistical problems. After the Tuesday sessions, delegates were to board shuttle buses destined for parking lots at a football stadium miles away and, from there, board buses to their hotels. But after Tuesday night's session recessed, thousands of delegates descended on the shuttles at once.

"It was like a mob," said Sally Beach, an alternate delegate from Florida who said she didn't reach her hotel until after 3 a.m. Convention spokesman Kyle Downey said Wednesday that organizers were "working closely with our transportation management company" to fix the problems.

Contributing: Gregory Korte; David Jackson; Paul Flemming, Tallahassee (Fla.) Democrat; Jackie Kucinich; Krystal Modigell; Associated Press

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

Wars haven't taught GOP much

As Republicans gather in their national convention, the chief problem with restoring them to governance is their obliviousness to learning any lessons from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

That's particularly true regarding their nominee, Mitt Romney, who combines foreign-policy inexperience with an unrealistic view of the extent to which the United States can impose its will on other nations.

So far, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost American taxpayers $1.4trillion. More than 6,500 soldiers have lost their lives in those conflicts. Nearly 40,000 have been wounded.

Those are very big costs. A reflective nation would ponder what has been gained from incurring them. The only honest answer is: not much.

Al-Qaida was chased out of Afghanistan. But that was done with very little cost or American casualties. We deployed very few ground troops to oust al-Qaida and the Taliban. More than a decade later, we have 84,000 troops there to keep them from coming back.

Saddam Hussein wasn't the imminent threat thought regarding weapons of mass destruction.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States built security forces and infrastructure local governments cannot maintain. Both countries are among the most corrupt places to do business in the world. Neither has a stable future in sight. Neither is a natural ally of the United States.

With respect to the wars, however, the Republican Party is not a reflective party. And Romney is not a reflective nominee.

For Republicans, the costs don't matter. The only thing that matters is winning, whatever the cost. Even if winning in these two countries has no intelligible definition.

When George W. Bush was elected in 2000, he pledged to have a more humble foreign policy and eschew nation building. He said that 9/11 changed everything for him. As it did for all of us.

Bush thought we had to take the fight to the enemy and led the country to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. He thought the United States had to ramrod democratic change in Islamic countries. And he thought the United States had to divide the world into those who are with us and those who are against us in the fight against terrorism.

The country followed Bush in all this. But today, the Bush approach seems out of touch with reality.

The United States did not purchase $1.4trillion worth of additional security from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. efforts to ramrod democratic transformation in the Middle East came a cropper and were quickly abandoned. Then, the Arab Spring erupted, taking the U.S. entirely by surprise.

And the world clearly cannot be divided between those who are with us and those who are against us.

Yet the Republican Party remains committed to the Bush view of the world. And Romney, if anything, sounds more bellicose than Bush.

Republicans deride Barack Obama's foreign policy as naive and, in some respects, accurately so. Obama clearly came into office with unrealistic views of what good intentions and deeds can purchase in international diplomacy.

But Romney believes the United States is still boss of the world. That we can tell China, Russia and Iran what to do, and they will do it. That's equally as naive. Romney also wants to massively increase defense spending, saying he would put a floor under it of 4 percent of GDP. That's considerably more than is in the budget of his running mate, Paul Ryan.

Romney's defense-spending pledge undermines one of his chief claims to office: that he will fix the finances of the federal government.

Romney and Ryan deserve enormous credit for saying that domestic-entitlement spending cannot be sustained. But neither can the country's massive military footprint around the globe.

Libya offers the best illustration of why putting Republicans back in charge of the military and foreign policy is so troubling. Republicans are mad because the United States played a secondary role in ousting Moammar Gadhafi. We shouldn't have ceded leadership to France, Britain and Qatar, they complain.

For the rest of the country, after the experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, letting someone else do some of the fighting probably seems like a capital idea.

Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Strong races await in fall

(PNI) This week's primary election set up intriguing matchups and themes for November's general election.

The 9th Congressional District. Black Republican Vernon Parker and bisexual Democrat Kyrsten Sinema will face off. These two likely would not have been their parties' nominees a decade or two ago.

Both have compelling personal stories. Both grew up in humble circumstances that influenced, in diametrically different ways, their politics today. Both earned law degrees and a level of personal success.

Parker found his answers in the Republican Party, which led him to high positions in both Bush administrations. He returned to Arizona and won election as mayor of upscale, nearly all-White Paradise Valley.

Sinema entered politics through the fringes of the Green Party. She was elected as a Democrat to the Legislature, where she was a liberal bomb thrower early in her early career. But she matured, moderated some positions, learned to work across the aisle and moved into legislative leadership.

In both candidates' pasts is material for negative ads, but voters will be better served if the campaigns let it be.

These two candidates disagree on every significant issue facing America. They are articulate, forceful advocates for their views. This should be a debate about ideas, philosophy and the future of the country. Differences will be obvious without needing to twist the truth or engage in character assassination.

The U.S. Senate race between Rep. Jeff Flake and former Surgeon General Richard Carmona.

Flake, on the strength of his overwhelming victory in the Republican primary, begins the race as the front-runner. His record as a budget hawk puts him in a good position in a year when Rep. Paul Ryan is his party's vice-presidential nominee.

But he has a weakness: The state's business community has seen Flake do virtually nothing to support economic-development efforts and the creation of good Arizona jobs. Supporting business is not the same thing as dispensing pork. If Carmona can make the case that he would be better for job creation, this could be a closer race than pundits predict.

Arizona Senate races.

Primary results have nudged the legislative body in a more moderate direction, where debate can focus on issues that matter instead of unproductive saber rattling.

Bob Worsley's defeat of former Senate President Russell Pearce and Rich Crandall's victory over John Fillmore were wins for pragmatism. And, as a bonus, gun-packing, rumor-spreading Sen. Lori Klein is gone after a single term.

If several races around the state go the right way, the Senate will become the place where silly ideas go to die. It would be a welcome development.

Immigration. It's no longer a winning issue.

The appetite for anti-illegal-immigration legislation had already faded after the bad publicity and high legal bills from Senate Bill 1070. The defeat of five bills during Pearce's final year as Senate president was the first sign of immigration weariness.

Pearce's drubbing in his attempt to return to the Senate should be a warning to any legislator contemplating picking up his baton.

Arizonans are tired of this fight. They want a Legislature focused on the economy and basic state services. Those who won Tuesday and will win in November should give voters what they want.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Paul Ryan aims to convince voters of readiness

TAMPA – After 14 years in Congress, Paul Ryan has become the Republican Party's brand name for conservative economic policies: low taxes, reduced spending and entitlement reform, all wrapped into a GOP budget plan that bears his name.

Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan speaks at a campaign rally in Powell, Ohio, on Saturday. By Jack Gruber, USA TODAY

Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan speaks at a campaign rally in Powell, Ohio, on Saturday.

By Jack Gruber, USA TODAY

Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan speaks at a campaign rally in Powell, Ohio, on Saturday.

As he prepares to give the most important speech of his career tonight as the Republican nominee for vice president and introduce himself to millions of Americans, the 42-year-old congressman from Wisconsin must sell voters on a different proposition: his own readiness to become president of the United States.

"Can he step in and do the job? That's really the only thing that matters," said Romney pollster Neil Newhouse.

For voters, it's a calculus that takes into account not only his age and experience, but the intangibles of his confidence, competence and preparedness.

The question bedeviled Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, Dan Quayle in 1988 and Sarah Palin in 2008.

As the freshest face among the four men atop the Republican and Democratic tickets, Ryan has the best opportunity to make a first impression — but the shortest time to prepare. He's been a national candidate for 18 days.

"You have to pass a threshold plausibility test," said Joel Goldstein, a law professor at St. Louis University and leading expert on the vice presidency. "Do they have the credentials or the résumé significant enough that you can see him as president?"

Ryan's years in the House of Representatives provide the foundation for that résumé. After serving as a congressional staffer, he first ran for Congress at age 28 and has served 14 years. He catapulted past more senior members to become chairman of the House Budget Committee in 2011 on the strength of his reputation as a budget "wonk."

Age: 42

Hometown: Janesville, Wis.

Family: Wife Janna, a tax attorney, and three children

Religion: Roman Catholic

Education: Miami University of Ohio, bachelor’s in political science and economics, 1992

Career: Economist for Senate Small Business Committee, 1992; Speechwriter for Empower America, 1992-1995; Aide to Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., 1995-1997; marketing consultant, 1998; U.S. House of Representatives, 1999-present; Budget Committee Chairman, 2011-present

From that position, Ryan authored the Republican budget plan passed by the House earlier this year that included deep spending cuts and a restructuring of Medicare that has become a flashpoint of debate in the political campaign season.

"From that standpoint, he's at least in the ballpark" of the kind of experience voters expect a vice president to have, Goldstein said.

President Obama— then a first-term senator after eight years in the Illinois Legislature— faced similar questions about his readiness in 2008, a fact Ryan now reminds voters of.

"Obviously, I have a lot more experience than Barack Obama did when he became president," Ryan told Fox News' Sean Hannity last week.

Republicans most hope to contrast Ryan's experience with Vice President Biden's. Though a seven-term senator, two-time presidential candidate and sitting vice president, Biden's extemporaneous speech is often looser than Ryan's carefully measured statements.

Ryan "says what he thinks — but not in the same way Joe Biden does. I think Paul has been relatively gaffe-free," Newhouse said. "I think you're defined more by your mistakes than by your accomplishments or your record, and that's where Joe Biden is lacking."

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken right after Ryan was named showed 48% of Americans thought him qualified to serve as president — higher than Quayle or Palin, the two modern candidates closest to him in age, but lower than prior vice presidential nominees.

'The Bentsen test'

As Ryan begins introducing himself to a national audience tonight, Goldstein says his most important goal is addressing the "Bentsen test."

By Carolyn Kaster, AP

Ryan, who chairs the House Budget Committee, holds up a copy of President Obama's proposed fiscal year 2013 budget on Feb. 16.

In 1988, Quayle — a year younger than Ryan is now — said his 12 years in Congress meant he had "as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency." That led Democratic nominee Lloyd Bentsen to famously blistering retort in a debate, "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

The lesson, Goldstein said, is that the length of experience isn't as important as how voters judge the quality. And when Ryan debates Biden on Oct. 11, he will, like Quayle, be facing an adversary decades older, who occupied senior leadership positions in government while his younger opponent was still in school.

Ryan's backers say tenure isn't everything.

"Twenty-five years of experience can be 25 years of making the same mistakes over again," said former Education secretary William Bennett, a mentor of Ryan's at the conservative group Empower America.

"Readiness is all," he said, quoting Hamlet. "And I think he's ready."

"The Budget Committee is pretty big time," Bennett said. "He knows what a full day is. He's agile and smart and prepared. Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat or for him or against him, you know that he has serious ideas and he means business."

Democrats have picked at pieces of Ryan's record, noting his lack of significant foreign-policy experience and his failure to push a legislative agenda through a mostly divided Congress, but the thrust of their attacks has been more that Ryan is a conservative extremist than a lightweight.

A background document on Ryan circulated by the Obama campaign contains six items attacking his foreign-policy pedigree — and 26 on abortion and women's rights.

It's Ryan's positions on federal spending, taxes and fiscal policy that have made him the Republican gold standard.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., is probably the Democrat who knows Ryan best — so much so that he's been tapped to play Ryan during Biden's preparations for the vice presidential debate.

As the ranking Democrat on Ryan's Budget Committee, he and Ryan have enjoyed an unusually collegial relationship. He said Ryan is easy to like but difficult to work with. "There's a big difference between collegiality and a willingness to compromise on policy issues."

Attacks on Ryan started within minutes of him being named to the ticket and have helped to polarize public opinion on him. Heading into the convention, Ryan was the most controversial running mate in a generation: 38% of Americans view him favorably, but 36% have an unfavorable view, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. That's the highest unfavorable rating at the convention of any non-incumbent vice presidential candidate in the 20-year history of the poll.

Ryan doesn't have the typical vice presidential résumé. Indeed, parties have rarely looked to the House to fill out a ticket. The last sitting House member nominated as vice president was Ferraro, a three-term New York Democrat picked by Walter Mondale in 1984 as the first woman to run on a major national ticket. The last Republican was Rep. William Miller, R-N.Y., Barry Goldwater's running mate in 1964. Both lost.

Yet Ryan's rise is proof of how influential House Republicans have become to the GOP, said Guy Harrison, the chief strategist for the House Republicans' campaign operation.

"We have a House candidate as our vice president. I think that shows you a pretty good idea of how House Republicans are going to be involved in the presidential race," he said. "We take a lot of pride in Paul Ryan."

Is the jump from the House to a national ticket too high a hurdle? Ryan has never run for statewide office, and each House member represents only about 0.2% of the nation's population.

Senators tend to get much of the attention on Sunday talk shows, especially on foreign policy, but Ryan is a veteran of the TV circuit, getting more Sunday morning face time this year than any member of Congress but Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., according to a database of appearances maintained by the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call.

The foreign policy question

Obama and Biden both earned their foreign-policy stripes by serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a résumé gap with the GOP ticket that Democrats hope to exploit.

"Whether it's the Cold War or the age of terror, to not have someone with national security credentials is unusual," Goldstein said.

In addressing his foreign-policy experience, Ryan has noted his votes in favor of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — "that's a vote you take very seriously, very solemnly," he said in New Hampshire last week — and his work on the budget, which proposes maintaining robust defense spending.

While addressing the Alexander Hamilton Society, a neoconservative group, last year, Ryan tied the nation's fiscal underpinnings to foreign policy and national defense: "Our fiscal policy and our foreign policy are on a collision course; and if we fail to put our budget on a sustainable path, then we are choosing decline as a world power."

Ryan also has noted his congressional travel has focused on the Middle East, including trips to Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus shrugs off questions about whether Ryan is ready, telling USA TODAY that Ryan has been preparing for this moment his entire career.

"He tries to win the mission every day. He works hard, he waits on God's timing and generally good things happen," he said. "I've seen Paul on big stages. There is no doubt that Paul will hit it out of the park."

Contributing: Jim Norman in McLean, Va.; Susan Davis and Jackie Kucinich in Tampa

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Sources: Romney to pick Ryan

NORFOLK, Va. — NORFOLK, Va. Entering a critical point in his election campaign, Mitt Romney is set to announce Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate today, according to sources in the Romney camp.

Citing several insiders in the Romney campaign and a senior Republican with knowledge of the decision, the Associated Press and NBC News reported late Friday that the presumptive GOP presidential candidate would unveil Ryan as his running mate during a campaign event in Virginia this morning. Romney's campaign would officially say only that he would announce his pick today.

Romney and Ryan are expected to make their first appearance together in Norfolk, Va., at the start of a four-state bus tour to introduce the newly minted GOP ticket to the nation.

With polls indicating Romney losing ground to President Barack Obama, the move to add Ryan to the GOP ticket is likely to appease conservatives who have been publicly fretting that Romney has lost the summer.

Ryan, 42, a seven-term congressman who chairs the House Budget Committee, is viewed by some in the Republican Party as a bridge between the buttoned-up GOP establishment and the riled-up "tea party" movement that has never warmed to Romney.

In recent days, conservative pundits have been urging Romney to choose Ryan in large part because of his authorship of a House-backed budget plan that seeks to curb overall entitlement spending and changes Medicaid into a voucherlike system to save costs.

On Thursday, Romney fueled the buzz around Ryan, telling NBC that he wants a vice president with "a vision for the country, that adds something to the political discourse about the direction of the country."

Ryan on the ticket could help Romney become more competitive in Wisconsin, a state Obama won four years ago but that could be much tighter this November.

Under pressure to alter the course of his campaign, the announcement of a running mate is the first of several opportunities for Romney to make a move to recapture momentum over the next three weeks. At the end of the month, Republicans will gather in Tampa for a four-day convention that will provide the former Massachusetts governor a chance to reintroduce himself to the country and reset the race on his terms.

Romney's effort gets under way today in Virginia, when he begins a four-day bus tour through four critical swing states in as many days: North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Ohio. All are battlegrounds where Obama won in 2008. Romney will be accompanied by his wife, Ann, and his new running mate.

By showing the candidate connecting with blue-collar America, the tour is designed to help Romney shed the caricature that the Obama campaign has tried to draw of him as an elitist who looks out only for the wealthiest. Romney plans to tour the USS Wisconsin in Norfolk and to swing by a bakery in Ashland, Va., today. He will stage a rally Sunday at the NASCAR Technical Institute in Mooresville, N.C., near Charlotte.

Aboard his campaign plane Friday, Romney told reporters: "Bus tour, it's great! It's great to be out campaigning. ? Campaigning is the most fun, is the most enjoyable and rewarding." Romney then clapped his hands and returned to his seat at the front of the plane. "Back to my yogurt," he said.

Romney's focus on the middle class will carry into the convention at the end of this month. The national spotlight will shine brighter in Tampa than at any other moment in Romney's campaign, and his supporters are betting that many voters will form their impressions of him then.

"To borrow a phrase, the convention has the potential to be an 'Etch A Sketch moment,'" said Mark McKinnon, a longtime Republican image-maker who advised the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain. "Conventions often wipe the slate clean. A crucial bloc of undecided voters, though there aren't many this year, will just start paying attention when the convention starts."

Romney's advisers are putting finishing touches on plans to reintroduce the candidate to the nation. They have filmed new videos with Romney and his family at his lakefront vacation home in Wolfeboro, N.H., and are devising a prominent role onstage for Ann Romney and their extended family.

"Americans are going to get a real close look at Governor Romney, his wife, Ann, and the entire family," senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom told reporters Friday. "I think that they're going to be impressed by the fact that this is a family that shares their values. He shares their values of hard work, of patriotism, of sacrificing so that the next generation has it better than the current one."

For Romney, a big moment couldn't come soon enough. Weeks of pummeling by Democratic ads depicting Romney as an out-of-touch plutocrat and possible tax evader appear to have taken a toll.

Three national polls released over the past two days have Obama widening his lead over Romney to as much as 9 points. The surveys of registered voters, all conducted from Aug. 2 to Aug. 8, also have Romney's unfavorable ratings rising. Two of the polls indicate his support among independents is slipping.

A Fox News poll indicated the largest deficit, with Romney trailing by 9 points -- 49 percent to 40 percent -- the widest gap Fox has reported.

A senior Romney adviser played down the new polls at a news briefing Friday morning at Boston headquarters, saying they must be midsummer flukes because there had been no "precipitating event" to move the numbers so much.

The adviser pointed to the latest Gallup polls, which have the two candidates in a dead heat, as well as to Rasmussen, an automated poll that usually leans Republican and has Romney ahead of Obama.

The Romney campaign is predicting a post-convention "bounce," noting in a presentation to reporters that presidential challengers on average jump 11 points in polling after their party conventions.

"People are not paying as much attention to this process as we all think they are," the adviser said. "Let's get to the conventions, Labor Day, the debates -- that's when people will really be paying attention."

Republican strategists unaffiliated with the Romney campaign agreed.

"When people start to pay attention at the convention time, they can put their bullets in their gun and fire away," said David Carney, a veteran strategist who ran Texas Gov. Rick Perry's presidential campaign. "Yes, there's pressure. You never want to be behind. But ultimately, what happened in the summer is much less relevant than what happens in the fall."

The developments of the past few weeks have ratcheted up the pressure for Romney and his campaign to execute their strategy and avoid the kind of missteps and distractions that marred his summer.

Romney is emerging from a rocky foreign trip and criticism that his responses to Obama's onslaught of attack ads were too weak. And he has not quieted questions about his personal finances, because of his refusal to release more than two years of federal income-tax returns.

On Friday, a prominent supporter, Utah businessman Jon Huntsman Sr., joined a chorus of Republicans calling on Romney to disclose more tax filings.

Washington Post and Associated Press contributed to this article.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Romney campaign is on three-month fundraising winning streak

WASHINGTON – President Obama and his aides have been warning supporters for weeks that they're in danger of losing the money battle.

Mitt Romney leaves a hardware store in Wolfeboro, N.H., during a day off from the campaign trail on Monday. By Charles Dharapak, AP

Mitt Romney leaves a hardware store in Wolfeboro, N.H., during a day off from the campaign trail on Monday.

By Charles Dharapak, AP

Mitt Romney leaves a hardware store in Wolfeboro, N.H., during a day off from the campaign trail on Monday.

They weren't just crying wolf.

Mitt Romney and the Republican Party said Monday that they picked up $101.3 million in July, the third straight month they have outraised the incumbent's campaign.

Obama and the Democrats raised just over $75 million in July, his campaign announced.

Romney's July advantage was the biggest yet, leading to increasingly urgent fundraising appeals from Obama and the Democrats.

One e-mail to supporters from Obama's campaign chief operating officer, Ann Marie Habershaw, used the subject line, "This is why I keep asking."

"We've been outraised by Mitt Romney and the Republicans for two months running," she said in the Aug. 2 e-mail, one of hundreds collected by ProPublica.org. "Right now, Romney and his allies are clobbering us on the airwaves in nearly every single battleground state — we've got to make sure our message can get through, too."

Romney's national finance chairman, Spencer Zwick, said Romney's financial support shows "this is more than a campaign — it is a cause."

Comparing monthly campaign fundraising:

Source: Romney and Obama campaigns

The release of monthly fundraising figures — which include money raised by the campaigns and the national party committees — has become a ritual for the presidential contenders. Romney's campaign announced his totals in an early-morning e-mail to reporters; the Obama camp followed up via Twitter hours later.

Obama boasted that 98% had given $250 or less (Romney's figure was 94%) and that 26% of his July donors had never contributed before.

Romney and his allies have $185.9 million cash on hand, but Obama did not disclose how much he has left to spend — an important number as the campaign enters the final three months. That number will come when the campaigns make their required federal disclosures on Aug. 20.

"There's not going to be inadequate resources for either candidate," said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a money-in-politics research group. Even so, she said, it's nice to have the freedom that money brings: when and where to run ads, when and where to travel and which field offices to staff with more people.

If Romney does wind up with a money advantage, Krumholz said, "there will be a lot of nervous people on the Obama side."

Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the campaign's not panicking. She said fundraising is on track to produce "the biggest grass-roots campaign in history," one capable of "reaching voters in the key target states."

"We are where we need to be," she said.

On Monday night, Obama was scheduled to headline his 196th and 197th fundraisers since launching his re-election bid in spring 2011. That puts him on pace to triple the 86 fundraisers George W. Bush held in his 2004 campaign.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

Monday, August 20, 2012

Tea Party's battle in Texas shows it's 'maturing'

DALLAS – The Tea Party is trading in town halls and tricorn hats for phone banks and voter-turnout drives.

Sarah Palin, far left, stands with her husband, Todd, and Ted Cruz, Texas candidate for the U.S. Senate, and his wife, Heidi, on Friday in The Woodlands, Texas. By Johnny Hanson, AP

Sarah Palin, far left, stands with her husband, Todd, and Ted Cruz, Texas candidate for the U.S. Senate, and his wife, Heidi, on Friday in The Woodlands, Texas.

By Johnny Hanson, AP

Sarah Palin, far left, stands with her husband, Todd, and Ted Cruz, Texas candidate for the U.S. Senate, and his wife, Heidi, on Friday in The Woodlands, Texas.

The conservative movement that captured the nation's attention in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and helped fuel Republican 2010 election victories across the country is transitioning from a protest movement to one more targeted, local, and with less theatrical engagement.

"I think it's a maturing of the Tea Party movement," said Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, a fiscally conservative advocacy group that has worked closely with the Tea Party.

Activists have been scrapping efforts such as the confrontational town-hall-style meetings that defined the summer of 2010 in favor of more traditional political engagement in local races, particularly in nominating processes to boost candidates they support.

"It's been pretty dramatic, but it's been so systematic that I'm not sure that people noticed," Kibbe said.

One of the biggest tests of strength for the movement's ability to upend the GOP establishment in 2012 is Tuesday, when formerly long-shot candidate attorney Ted Cruz is favored by election analysts to upset Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in the Senate Republican primary runoff in a race to replace retiring GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Cruz started the race underfunded, lesser-known and without the support of the Texas Republican Party establishment, including Gov. Rick Perry. Endorsements from GOP activists, such as former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky, brought in national attention and money. That was coupled with on-the-ground organizing support from local Tea Party activists such as Toby Marie Walker, and it has transformed Cruz to the odds-on favorite.

"This race with Ted Cruz has sat close to my heart," said Walker, 45, who volunteers full-time for the Waco Tea Party. She said Tea Party activists were discouraged at the onset of the race that no candidate could overcome Dewhurst's money juggernaut.

By Danese Kenon, AP

Jean Johannigman sings "The Star-Spangled Banner" at the beginning of the FreedomWorks rally for GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock on May 5 in Indianapolis.

After Dewhurst failed to win more than 50% of the vote in the May primary, conservative activists were emboldened for the runoff election, knowing that such races traditionally have lower turnout and tend to favor the candidate whose supporters are most engaged. "We have an election cycle under our belts, and we're more attuned to how the game is played," Walker said.

Cruz's youth — he's 41 — and biography — he's the son of a Cuban-American father who was imprisoned in Cuba before fleeing to Texas — have drawn comparisons to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a Tea Party-favored candidate in 2010.

"I think Ted Cruz is a superstar for the conservative movement," said Torin Archbold, 48, a car salesman from Austin.

Republicans control the House of Representatives, but Democrats control the Senate 53-47, which has led activists to focus on Senate primaries as part of a two-part effort to get GOP control of the chamber and populate it with more conservative Republicans. The results have been mixed.

In Indiana, Richard Mourdock handily defeated incumbent Sen. Richard Lugar by running to his right, but Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, waged a successful re-election campaign against a Tea Party-supported opponent. Senate GOP establishment candidates Heather Wilson of New Mexico and George Allen of Virginia likewise won primaries despite challenges from the right. In Nebraska, Tea Party allies were divided in the primary, opening up a surprise victory for Deb Fischer, who was not as closely identified with the Tea Party but secured an endorsement from Palin in the closing days of the race.

FreedomWorks for America, a political organizing group associated with the Tea Party, has endorsed in upcoming primaries businessman John Brunner, who is in a three-way GOP primary to take on Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.; Rep. Jeff Flake in Arizona; and businessman Eric Hovde who is running against establishment favorite, former governor Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin.

The endorsements underscore how the Tea Party movement remains loosely organized and often contradictory. For instance, although FreedomWorks has endorsed Brunner, Tea Party Express, another activist group, has endorsed Brunner's primary opponent, Sarah Steelman. In Arizona, Flake is facing wealthy businessman Wil Cardon, who is self-funded and challenging Flake's Tea Party credentials.

"It's a principled movement, but there's a lot of differences," Walker said. "Some work well with their Republican Party, others want nothing to do with their Republican Party. Some Tea Parties are all wrapped up in Ron Paul; some focus on things like constitutional teachings … but they are all much more engaged in the political process."

DeMint, a lawmaker popular among Tea Party supporters, said he views the phrase "Tea Party" in more symbolic terms. "The Tea Party is kind of a visual representation of a lot of citizen activism."

If Cruz wins Tuesday, he is all but guaranteed to win in November in Republican-leaning Texas. Mourdock is favored to win, as is Fischer, who is running for a Democratic-held seat and would provide a Republican pickup. The eventual Republican nominees in Missouri and Wisconsin will also likely be in competitive races for Democratic-held seats.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

Romney again tops Obama in fundraising

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON For the third straight month, President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party significantly trailed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and the Republican Party in fundraising.

Recent polls

Washington: Obama +17 (SurveyUSA)

Indiana: Romney +16 (Rasmussen)

Romney's campaign on Monday reported a July haul of $101million with the Republican National Committee, compared to the $75million that Obama's campaign said it had brought in with the Democratic National Committee.

Romney also raised more cash than Obama in May and June.

The July fundraising reports came as Obama was set to raise at least $2.5 million at a pair of events in Connecticut.

GOP-aligned super PACs also are raising and spending tens of millions of dollars to defeat Obama on Nov. 6.

Romney was taking another day off the campaign trail while the president worked at the White House.

Romney's campaign announced that he will spend Saturday through Aug. 14 campaigning by bus through a different state each day. The trip opens in Virginia, hits North Carolina and Florida and ends next Tuesday in Ohio.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Business Fears the Fiscal Cliff

As Nelson Schwartz reported in The Times on Monday, a number of manufacturers say they are canceling plans for investing and hiring, in part, because they fear that some $100 billion in budget cuts will take effect in 2013. In all, the law currently calls for $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts over 10 years, starting Jan. 1, divided between nondefense programs and defense projects.

Republican lawmakers demanded the cuts last year as part of their brinkmanship over the debt ceiling, and business lobbies have generally supported slashing the deficit. But now that the cuts are imminent, corporate executives seem to have realized that the last thing the economy needs is a large budget cut across the board.

They’re right about that. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the combined impact of the automatic spending cuts plus the scheduled expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts — the so-called fiscal cliff — would cause the economy to contract in the first half of 2013. Some business leaders seem to think the solution is for Congress to act as soon as possible to avert the spending cuts and to extend all of the tax cuts. That would avoid an economic downturn next year, but it would also mean no progress toward long-term deficit reduction.

The best approach is to delay the blow of lower federal spending, thus shielding businesses from a sudden drop in support, and, at the same time, temporarily extend the Bush-era tax cuts for most Americans and let them expire for those making more than $250,000 a year, as President Obama has proposed. That would raise revenue and be a credible step toward long-term deficit reduction, without harming the recovery, because high-end tax increases do not cut deeply into consumer spending.

Politically, such a deal can probably be struck only in 2013, after the spending cuts have kicked in and the tax cuts have expired, assuming Mr. Obama wins re-election. Republican lawmakers, confronting the consequences of the spending cuts, would have to come to the conclusion that delaying both defense and nondefense spending cuts would be best for today’s economy. As for the tax cuts, letting them all expire could pressure Republicans to renew them for the middle class, while letting them end for the rich.

That is crucial because higher taxes for top earners is necessary for the nation to begin to raise the revenue it needs. And until the rich pay more, there will never be a national consensus for tax increases on middle-income Americans, which will eventually be needed to further curb long-term deficits.

Even business leaders are starting to complain. Now it is up to Democrats to force Republicans to rework the coming spending cuts and tax increases in a way that benefits most Americans and the broader economy.


View the original article here

Saturday, August 18, 2012

The Clinton Tax Challenge for Republicans

DESCRIPTION

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. He is the author of “The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform – Why We Need It and What It Will Take.”

Republicans are adamant that taxes on the ultra-wealthy must not rise to the level they were at during the Clinton administration, as President Obama favors, lest economic devastation result. But they have a problem – the 1990s were the most prosperous era in recent history. This requires Republicans to try to rewrite the economic history of that decade.

Perspectives from expert contributors.

In early 1993, Bill Clinton asked Congress to raise the top statutory tax rate to 39.6 percent from 31 percent, along with other tax increases. Republicans and their allies universally predicted that nothing good would come of it. They even said that it would have no impact on the deficit.

Ronald Reagan himself was enlisted to make the case the day after President Clinton unveiled his program. Writing in The New York Times, the former president said, “Taxes have never succeeded in promoting economic growth. More often than not, they have led to economic downturns.”

Of course, Reagan himself raised taxes 11 times between 1982 and 1988, increasing taxes by $133 billion a year, or 2.6 percent of the gross domestic product, by his last year in office. Presumably he supported these measures because he thought they would raise growth; otherwise he could have vetoed them.

Speaking before the Heritage Foundation’s board on April 16, 1993, former Representative Jack Kemp, Republican of New York, predicted budgetary failure from the Clinton plan. “Will raising taxes reduce the deficit?’ he asked. “No, it will weaken our economy and increase the deficit.”

Conservative economists were often quite specific about exactly what the negative impact of the president’s plan would be. On May 8, The New York Times interviewed several. John Mueller, a Wall Street consultant, said inflation would rise to “at least 5 percent within the next two or three years.”

In fact, the inflation rate did not rise at all until 1996 and then went up to 3.3 percent before falling to 1.7 percent in 1997 and 1.6 percent in 1998.

In the same article, the economist John Rutledge also saw higher inflation from the Clinton plan and said it would raise the deficit. “Look for a higher, not lower, deficit if the Clinton package passes Congress,” he said.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal budget deficit fell every year of the Clinton administration, from $290 billion in 1992 to $255 billion in 1993, $203 billion in 1994, $164 billion in 1995, $107 billion in 1996, and $22 billion in 1997. In 1998, there was a budget surplus of $69 billion, which rose to $126 billion in 1999 and $236 billion in 2000 before it was dissipated by huge tax cuts during the George W. Bush administration.

Among the most detailed economic analyses of the negative impact of the Clinton plan was one made by the economist Gary Robbins in August 1993. He predicted that G.D.P. would be $244.4 billion lower in 1998 compared with the C.B.O. baseline. He did not provide the baseline figure, so I looked it up. In its January 1993 projection, the budget office put G.D.P. at $7,953 billion in 1998. Subtracting Mr. Robbins’s estimate of the economic cost of the Clinton plan yields an estimated G.D.P. of $7,709 billion in 1998.

If one goes to the government Web site where the G.D.P. figures appear and looks up the one for 1998, one finds that it was $8,793 billion. Thus Mr. Robbins was off by more than $1 trillion. G.D.P. was 14 percent higher than he predicted.

Nevertheless, Republicans continue to rely upon Mr. Robbins’s estimates of the effects of the economic impact of tax cuts, which always show hugely positive effects from tax cuts. Recently, he was the author of the 9-9-9 tax plan put forward by Herman Cain as he sought the Republican presidential nomination last year.

In my posts on May 22, 2012, and Nov. 22, 2011, I presented other data on the positive economic consequences of President Clinton’s high-tax policies compared with the poor economic consequences of President Bush’s low-tax policies. Nevertheless, it is conservative dogma that we need more policies like President Bush’s and must not, under any circumstances, replicate President Clinton’s policies.

However, there are still a few people around old enough to remember the 1990s and 2000s. Even without looking up government statistics, they know that the 1990s were a time when the economy boomed, while the 2000s were a period of economic stagnation.

This has created a problem for Republicans, leading to economic revisionism.

Last year, the Republican anti-tax activist Grover Norquist asserted that the boom of the 1990s resulted from the election of a Republican Congress in 1994, because business people and financial markets somehow knew this would lead to a cut in the capital gains tax. The capital gains tax was in fact cut in 1997. But the boom and the improvement in the budget deficit long predated that event.

In July, Charles Kadlec, a Forbes columnist and author of the book “Dow 100,000” (New York Institute of Finance, 1999), insisted that it is a “myth” that the economy prospered under President Clinton’s policies. He offers no actual evidence for this assertion except to say that the economy would have done even better under Reagan-type policies. Like Mr. Norquist, he attributes anything good that happened in the 1990s to the Republican Congress, which did not take office until 1995.

Last week, the investor Edward Conard, author of a recent book glorifying the ultra-wealthy, addressed the Republicans’ Clinton problem in a commentary in The Wall Street Journal. He said that the boom of the 1990s was the result of Internet-driven growth and that President Clinton was just lucky that it happened on his watch.

Maybe so, but Mr. Conard left unexplained why the budget went from a large deficit to a large surplus simply because of the Internet or why the big tax cuts on the rich he favors failed to raise growth one iota in the 2000s.

I would not argue that tax increases are per se stimulative. It all depends on circumstances. But it is clear from the experience of the 1990s that they can play a very big role in reducing the budget deficit and are not necessarily a drag on growth. And the obvious experience of the 2000s is that tax cuts increase the deficit and don’t necessarily do anything for growth. Those arguing otherwise need to make a much better case than they have so far.


View the original article here

Romney's Fund-Raising Outpaces Obama's Again in July

The fund-raising machine behind Mitt Romney and the Republican Party once again bested President Obama’s effort last month, raising $25 million more in July than the president and his Democratic allies did.

Mr. Romney and the Republican National Committee raised $101.3 million in July, his campaign announced Monday, as Republican donors rallied behind their presumptive nominee with the national convention only a few weeks away.

The president’s campaign announced on Twitter on Monday morning that his July fund-raising topped out at about $75 million. “Every bit helps,” the campaign tweeted, noting that 98 percent of the contributions were under $250.

Mr. Obama’s advisers have all but conceded the money race to Mr. Romney. Fund-raising e-mails from the campaign have taken a more urgent tone over the summer, repeatedly warning supporters of the financial advantage that the Republicans will hold going into the final weeks of the presidential campaign.

More detailed information about the July fund-raising has not yet been released by the two candidates. All campaigns are required to report their fund-raising to the Federal Election Commission by Aug. 20.

But the Republican figure keeps Mr. Romney and his party on pace to bring in $800 million for the cycle, the target set by Mr. Romney’s team in April. Roughly a quarter of the Republicans’ haul, $25.7 million, came in donations of under $250, as Mr. Romney worked to increase his appeal among small donors.

The campaign, the Republican National Committee, and a joint fund established by the Republicans to raise presidential campaign cash ended July with $185.9 million in cash on hand. They did not disclose what proportion of the money would end up in Mr. Romney’s campaign coffers, which can only accept $5,000 from each donor every election cycle, and how much to the R.N.C., which can accept 10 times that amount from each donor.

The strong fund-raising puts renewed pressure on President Obama to bring in more cash and underscores the near-certainty that Mr. Romney will remain financially competitive with an incumbent whose fund-raising prowess has long been a hallmark.

While Mr. Obama steadily raised more than Mr. Romney in 2011 and early this year, he has also spent far more, amassing a campaign tab of more than $400 million with the Democratic National Committee through the end of June.

Follow Michael D. Shear on Twitter at @shearm.


View the original article here

Friday, August 17, 2012

In Kansas Primaries, Conservatives Attack Fellow Republicans

But after publicly criticizing elements of Gov. Sam Brownback’s tax plan this year, Mr. Kelsey found himself among a cluster of conservative Republican state senators that a more conservative coalition here is working to defeat in Tuesday’s primary elections.

Kansas politics have been tilting more to the right for at least the last two decades. And now that shift is prompting a bitter clash within the state’s Republican Party. Conservatives are feverishly working to win the Senate and drive out the last remnants of what they see as moderate Republicanism in a state with a deep-rooted history of centrist Republicans in the mold of Bob Dole, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Nancy Kassebaum.

The divisive primary campaign reflects the ambivalence gripping Republicans across the country, yet the situation here is more complicated than the typical conservative-versus-establishment disputes.

What sets the battle in Kansas apart is the distance between the factions. Conservative and moderate Republicans essentially operate as separate parties, and so far, no one — including Mr. Brownback — has stepped forward to try to bridge that gap in the popular tradition of moderation. Instead, each side claims to represent the soul of the party.

“We don’t even know what it means to be a Republican in the state of Kansas,” said Casey W. Moore, a conservative Senate candidate from the Topeka area.

Nationally, conservatives have been defining the party in their image. Last week, they scored a big victory in Texas when a Tea Party favorite defeated Gov. Rick Perry’s favored candidate in the primary for an open United States Senate seat. That outcome followed conservative victories this year over established Republicans in Senate primary races in Indiana and Nebraska.

Kansas conservatives are optimistic that they can do the same on the state level and upend long-held assumptions that the people of their state prefer moderate lawmakers.

Two years ago, conservative Republicans here captured a majority in the Kansas House of Representatives — around 70 of 125 seats — for the first time in about four decades, and, for the first time in at least half a century, Kansans elected a conservative governor, Mr. Brownback. Conservatives need to pick up three or four seats to win control of the 40-member Senate, where 14 moderate Republicans and 8 Democrats often vote together to maintain a coalition that gives them a majority.

The move toward a more conservative Kansas began about 25 years ago, when a small group of fiscally conservative legislators, feeling marginalized by the Republican leadership, began promoting an agenda that emphasized free markets, tax cuts and reducing government spending. They teamed with grass-roots social conservatives and, in 1994, gained a significant number of seats in the Kansas House and ousted its moderate speaker.

Conservatives continued to gain seats in the Legislature, and the rest of the country began to take notice of their brand of politics. “What’s The Matter With Kansas?,” Thomas Frank’s 2004 book, which was made into a film, documented that rise.

Now that conservatives are closer than ever to full control of the state’s government, fighting between the two factions of the Republican Party has become more overt, and nastier.

“The conservatives, they hate the moderate Republicans,” said Burdett A. Loomis, a political science professor at the University of Kansas. “They think they really have conspired with Democrats and have prevented conservative forces from their rightful place of dominating the government.”

Mr. Brownback is openly challenging the moderate members of his party. Interest groups like the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperity are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on ads attacking moderates and rallying support for conservatives.

Moderates have gotten a lift from Bill Graves, the former two-term Republican governor who has held fund-raisers for the candidates he supports. Mr. Graves, who was in office from 1995 to 2003, is familiar with intraparty scuffling: the conservative state party chairman resigned to challenge him in 1998, when he successfully ran for re-election. Moderate candidates have also benefited from hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from labor and teachers’ unions.


View the original article here

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Condoleezza Rice and John McCain to Speak at Republican Convention

Condoleezza Rice, Susana Martinez and Nikki Haley are among the speakers scheduled for the Republican National Convention.Saul Loeb/A.F.P. – Getty Images; Frederic J. Brown/ A.F.P – Getty Images; Logan Mock-Bunting for The New York TimesCondoleezza Rice, Susana Martinez and Nikki Haley are among the speakers scheduled for the Republican National Convention.

Republicans plan to highlight three high-profile women as “headliners” during the national convention in Tampa later this summer, officials said this weekend.

Gov. Nikki Haley of of South Carolina, Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico, and Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state under George W. Bush, will each have prominent speaking roles.

“They are some of our party’s brightest stars, who have governed and led effectively and admirably in their respective roles,” Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in a statement. “Ours will be a world-class convention, worthy of the next president of the United States.”

Republican officials did not name the convention’s keynote speaker, a coveted spot that is often used to highlight a rising political star. Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, has been mentioned as a possible candidate.

The Democrats announced last week that Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio, will be the keynote speaker at their national convention in Charlotte, N.C.

Republican convention officials did not indicate any role for the people most often mentioned as possible vice presidential nominees: Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, or Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota.

But the speakers’ list also includes a series of politicians whose speeches could help fire up the convention crowd ahead of Mr. Romney’s acceptance speech.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, the party’s nominee in 2008, will get a speaking slot, as will Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas. Both men were rivals of Mr. Romney’s in the 2008 primary.

Rick Scott, the governor of Florida, will get a headliner slot, as will John Kasich, the governor of Ohio.

Follow Michael D. Shear on Twitter at @shearm.


View the original article here

Sunday Breakfast Menu, Aug. 5

August 07

Political news from today's Times and around the Web, plus a look at the latest happenings in Washington.

August 06

President Obama finished an evening of fund-raising with an event at the Connecticut home of the movie mogul Harvey Weinstein.

August 06

The president coins a phrase that he hopes will keep voters thinking of Mitt Romney's tax plan.

August 06

Mitt Romney will embark on a four-day bus tour on Saturday that will take him to Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Ohio, his campaign announced Monday.

August 06

In the latest installment of The Agenda series, David Leonhardt writes that the income stagnation of the last decade stems, in simplest terms, from the economy's overall sluggishness and the concentration of its modest gains among a small share of the population.


View the original article here

Republicans Step Up Attacks Against Reid

Top Republicans condemned Senator Harry Reid Sunday, accusing the Senate majority leader of fabricating an assertion that an unnamed Bain Capital investor had told him that Mitt Romney has not paid taxes over a 10-year period.

“I just cannot believe that the majority leader of the United States Senate would take the floor twice, make accusations that are absolutely unfounded, in my view, and quite frankly making things up to divert the campaign away from the real issues,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, was even more direct in his criticism of Mr. Reid on ABC’s “This Week,” dismissing the speculation about Mr. Romney’s tax returns as “a made-up issue” and calling Mr. Reid a “dirty liar.”

“As far as Harry Reid is concerned, listen, I know you might want to go down that road — I’m not going to respond to a dirty liar who hasn’t filed a single page of tax returns himself,” Mr. Preibus said.

The back-and-forth this week over Mr. Romney’s unreleased tax returns spilled onto the Sunday talk shows after Mr. Reid told The Huffington Post he had learned of what he said was Mr. Romney’s failure to pay taxes from a caller to his office, an assertion he repeated on the Senate floor. But the senator has provided no evidence to support his claim, and Mr. Romney has released two years of tax data showing he paid taxes for the years of 2010 and 2011.

While campaigning in Mr. Reid’s home state of Nevada Friday, Mr. Romney said he had paid taxes every year, firing back, “Harry Reid really has to put up or shut up.”

Meanwhile, Democrats continued their attacks on Mr. Romney Sunday, with Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, questioning why Mr. Romney won’t release more of his tax returns.

“I don’t know who Harry Reid’s source is, but I do know that Mitt Romney could clear this up in 10 seconds by releasing the 23 years of tax returns that he gave to John McCain when he was being vetted for vice president. Or even 12 years of tax returns that his own father said were what was appropriate,” she said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to the Obama campaign, told CNN’s “State of the Union” that Mr. Romney could easily put the issue to rest with a trip to Kinko’s to make copies of his tax returns.

“I’ll send him the nickels,” he said.


View the original article here

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Aug. 4: Likely No New Blue States in November

Saturday was a light day for polling, with only the national tracking polls and a South Dakota poll out; our forecast was essentially unchanged.

The South Dakota numbers were not bad for Mr. Obama — putting him down by 6 points, closer than the margin by which he lost the state in 2008 — but look like something of a fluke. In North Dakota, which has been more heavily polled because of the competitive Senate race there, Mr. Obama has consistently trailed by double digits.

Indeed, with the presidential election likely to be much closer than it was in 2008, Mr. Obama is unlikely to paint any new state blue this year. The forecast model gives him a 15 percent chance of carrying Montana, which has been sparsely polled; a 14 percent chance of winning Missouri; and an 8 percent chance of winning Arizona. Fourth on the list is South Dakota, where the model gives Mr. Obama about a 4 percent chance after the new survey, followed by Georgia at 2 percent.

Mr. Obama is an underdog in two states that he won in 2008, Indiana and North Carolina.

An earlier post in this space about poll oversampling was published in error and will be updated and published later this week.


View the original article here

Fear of ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Has Industry Pulling Back

Executives at companies making everything from electrical components and power systems to automotive parts say the fiscal stalemate is prompting them to pull back now, rather than wait for a possible resolution to the deadlock on Capitol Hill.

Democrats and Republicans are far apart on how to extend the Bush-era tax breaks beyond January — the same month automatic spending reductions are set to take effect — unless there is a deal to trim the deficit. The combination of tax increases and spending cuts is creating an economic threat called “the fiscal cliff” by Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Until recently, the loudest warnings about the economy have come from policy makers and economists, along with military industry executives who rely heavily on the Pentagon’s largess and who would be hurt by the government reductions.

But more diversified companies like Hubbell Inc. in Shelton, Conn., have begun to hunker down as well.

Hubbell, a maker of electrical products, has canceled several million dollars’ worth of equipment orders and delayed long-planned factory upgrades in the last few months, said Timothy H. Powers, the company’s chief executive. It has also held off hiring workers for about 100 positions that would otherwise have been filled, he said.

“The fiscal cliff is the primary driver of uncertainty, and a person in my position is going to make a decision to postpone hiring and investments,” Mr. Powers said. “We can see it in our order patterns, and customers are delaying. We don’t have to get to the edge of the cliff before the damage is done.”

The worries come amid broader fears that the economy is losing momentum — the annual rate of economic growth in the second quarter fell to 1.5 percent from 2 percent in the first quarter, and 4.1 percent in the last quarter of 2011.

On Thursday, the Commerce Department reported that factory orders unexpectedly fell 0.5 percent in June from the previous month, while data on the labor market released Friday showed job creation still falling short of the level needed to bring down the unemployment rate.

All told, the political gridlock in the United States, along with the continuing debt crisis in Europe, will shave about half a percentage point off growth in the second half of the year, estimates Vincent Reinhart, chief United States economist at Morgan Stanley.

More than 40 percent of companies surveyed by Morgan Stanley in July cited the fiscal cliff as a major reason for their spending restraint, Mr. Reinhart said. He expects that portion to rise when the poll is repeated this month.

“Economists generally overstate the effects of uncertainty on spending, but in this case it does seem to be significant,” he added. “It’s at the macro- and microeconomic levels.”

Unless Congress acts to extend the tax provisions and comes up with a budget deal that averts the planned reductions in military spending and other government programs, taxes will rise by $399 billion while federal government spending will fall by more than $100 billion, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. The end-of-year battle comes after Democrats and Republicans have failed over the last year to reach long-term agreements on how to tackle the budget deficit.

Last week, Congressional leaders did manage to agree tentatively to keep the government financed through next March, extending a deadline that had been set to expire Oct. 1, but that deal did not address the extension of the tax cuts or spending reductions.

All together, the fiscal cliff’s total impact equals slightly more than $600 billion, or 4 percent of gross domestic product, and if no action is taken, the Congressional Budget Office projects the economy will shrink by 1.3 percent in the first half of 2013 as a result.

With many Fortune 500 companies now setting budgets and planning for 2013, chief executives say they cannot afford to hope for the best. Wall Street is also paying more attention: over the last few weeks, chief executives of companies like Honeywell, U.P.S. and Eaton all cited the uncertainty as a threat to earnings in the second half of 2012.


View the original article here

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

A Détente Before the Election

Does voter fraud sometimes happen in the United States? You bet.  But we are dealing with this relatively small problem in an irrational and partisan way.

In a 1996 primary in Dodge County, Ga., rival camps for county commissioner set up tables at opposite ends of the county courthouse and bid for voters’ absentee votes in what a county magistrate later called a “flea market” atmosphere.

Recently, officials in Cudahy, Calif., admitted intercepting absentee ballots and throwing out ballots not cast for incumbents. Every year we see convictions for absentee ballot fraud. Not a lot, but enough to know it’s a problem.

So you might think that Republicans, newly obsessed with voter fraud, would call for eliminating absentee ballots, or at least requiring that voters who use them show some need, like a medical condition. But Republicans don’t talk much about reining in absentee ballots. Eliminating them would inconvenience some voters and would likely cut back on voting by loyal Republican voters, especially elderly and military voters.

If only Republicans would apply that same logic to voter-identification laws. The only kind of fraud such ID laws prevent is impersonation: a person registered under a false name or claiming to be someone else on the voter rolls.

I have not found a single election over the last few decades in which impersonation fraud had the slightest chance of changing an election outcome — unlike absentee-ballot fraud, which changes election outcomes regularly. (Let’s face it: impersonation fraud is an exceedingly dumb way to try to steal an election.)

Pointing to a few isolated cases of impersonation fraud does not prove that a state identification requirement makes sense. As with restrictions on absentee ballots, we need to weigh the costs of imposing barriers on the right to vote against the benefits of fraud protection.

Consider Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law, now before the courts. The state conceded that it knew of no instances of impersonation fraud. A top election official did not know how the law worked and played down official estimates that more than 750,000 Pennsylvania voters lacked photo ID, and that an additional 500,000 appeared to have expired ID’s. The law gives dangerous discretion to local officials to decide which ID’s should be acceptable.

Pennsylvania is a symptom of a partisan system gone wild. Republicans say they want to get rid of fraud, but they want to get rid of only some kinds — using remedies that are likely to at least modestly depress Democratic turnout.

A series about the complexities of voters and voting.

While Republicans have been more to blame than Democrats, partisanship runs both ways. Democrats reflexively oppose efforts to deal with ineligible voters casting ballots, likely out of fear that the new requirements will make it harder for casual voters supporting Democrats to cast a ballot. They have adamantly opposed the efforts of Florida and other states where Republican election officials want to remove noncitizens from the voting rolls. Noncitizen voting is a real, if small, problem: a Congressional investigation found that some noncitizens voted in the close 1996 House race in California between Robert K. Dornan, a Republican, and Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat, but not enough to affect the outcome. Unlike impersonation fraud, noncitizen voting cannot be dismissed as a Republican fantasy.

We need to move beyond these voting wars by creating a neutral body to run federal elections and to ensure that all eligible voters, and only eligible voters, can cast a vote that will be accurately counted on Election Day. The agency could start with a program to register all eligible voters and provide a free national voter ID card with an optional thumbprint to prove identity.

But we are very far from such a comprehensive solution. Congress took a baby step toward uniformity in 2002 when it created the Election Assistance Commission to advise states. But the commission was hobbled from the start by inadequate financing and opposition from some state officials. Today, three months before the election, all four of its seats are vacant.

Sadly, broader bipartisan compromise appears unlikely. Short of a grand solution, we need a moratorium on additional partisan changes to election rules that cannot be implemented before November without a significant risk of disenfranchisement. The courts should put Pennsylvania’s law on hold, and Florida should hold off on its plan to remove noncitizens until the off-season. Purging the rolls now risks removing many more eligible citizens than noncitizens.

Almost a dozen years after the Florida meltdown, partisan attempts at manipulation of election rules have become more entrenched and sophisticated. Things will have to get even worse before they get better.

Richard L. Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine, is the author of “The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown.”


View the original article here

Monday, August 13, 2012

Ducking The Donald

To be The Donald is to possess The Confidence. It’s to revel in your own appeal. That hair, that birtherism — who could resist? Certainly not the Republican Party, at least not in The Donald’s objective estimation. So when the first round of speakers for the party’s late August convention leaked out Sunday and he wasn’t on it, he fretted not a whit. In due course he would surely get his summons to participate.

“I know they want me to,” he said on Monday on “Fox and Friends.” “I’ll see what happens.”

So will we. The giddy excitement of Convention Season is here.

The Republicans go first, in Tampa, while the Democrats follow a week later, and just as humidly, in Charlotte. In the matter of convention sites, neither party gave much thought to global warming.

But the lineups of speakers: that’s an issue of the utmost deliberation and sometimes consternation and enormous, epic consequence. All party stalwarts agree on that, until they think about it a bit longer and realize that, well, they’re really not so sure.

On Monday I talked to two prominent Republican strategists in a row who said that Mitt Romney’s choice of keynote speaker, not yet determined, was essential. Then they tried to recall who that essential choice from the 2008 Republican convention was, and came up blank.

I myself had to Google it: Rudy Giuliani. There are some things you really do force yourself to forget.

One of the strategists asserted that Romney’s greatest mistake would be to emulate the Democrats in 2004, when the keynoter, a certain Barack Obama, shone brighter than the nominee, John Kerry, perhaps making him look duller in contrast. The strategist did not admit per se that Romney had a luminescence problem. There are some things you really needn’t say.

He recommended that Romney take a page from the Republican grand master of stagecraft, Ronald Reagan, and select a keynote speaker of restrained wattage.

“Do you know who did the 1980 keynote for Reagan?” he asked.

I said I was mortified that I didn’t. I wasn’t being entirely truthful about the mortification part.

“Guy Vander Jagt,” he said.

“Guy who?”

“Exactly,” he said. “Reagan understood what it meant to be the star, and he had seen ‘All About Eve.’ ”

Has Romney? And does Eve ride in an Escalade with Florida or New Jersey plates?

Those are the home states of the other strategist’s suggested keynoters, Marco Rubio and Chris Christie. This strategist said that a real dynamo was just what the convention and Romney needed, and that Rubio and Christie qualified. Bear in mind that everything is relative, and that the dynamo yardstick includes Mitch McConnell and Roy Blunt.

The conventions indeed speak volumes about each party’s anxieties and stratagems, two words that fittingly bring us to Bill Clinton.

He was among the first speakers confirmed for a prime-time slot during the Democratic convention, proving that all is forgiven when everything’s on the line. And he’s meant, clearly, to remind Americans of the sustained prosperity during his administration, a Democratic one.

Another confirmed speaker, Elizabeth Warren, symbolizes the party’s supposed taming of Wall Street, while the chosen keynoter, Mayor Julián Castro of San Antonio, underscores the importance Obama places on the Latino vote.

Over recent presidential elections, that vote has grown while the Republican share of it has shrunk. George W. Bush got 44 percent in 2004, John McCain just 31 in 2008. According to a recent poll, Romney is poised to get 23. That’s a dismal projection and disastrous trend line.

And Republicans will try to counter or at least camouflage it with convention staging. The first list of confirmed speakers includes Susana Martinez, the New Mexico governor. There’s not an iota of doubt that Rubio will be added to the roster, and there’s a chance that Ted Cruz, the Republican nominee for the Senate from Texas, will be, too.

Will that help?

“Well,” said one Republican strategist, “Bob Dole chose Susan Molinari as his keynote speaker and proceeded to lose the women’s vote by 16 points.” That was in 1996, the year of Clinton’s re-election, when the health care debacle was receding from memory and Monica Lewinsky had not yet sidled into view.

I’m less heartened by whom the Republicans have included than by whom they haven’t, at least so far: Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain. It suggests a limit to the party’s enthusiasm for carnival barkers.

And it doesn’t bode well for The Donald. He may have to make do with the “Statesman of the Year” award that he’s inexplicably receiving from the Republican Party of Sarasota County a day before the convention and an hour’s drive down the road.

Though if he re-emerges as El Donald, with fluent Spanish, all bets are off.


View the original article here

U.S. Officials Brace for Huge Task of Operating Health Exchanges

The markets, known as exchanges, are a centerpiece of President Obama’s health care law, and running them will be a herculean task that federal officials never expected to perform.

When Congress passed legislation to expand coverage two years ago, Mr. Obama and lawmakers assumed that every state would set up its own exchange, a place where people could shop for insurance and get subsidies to help defray the cost.

But with Republicans in many states resisting the creation of exchanges or deterred by the complexity of the task, federal officials are preparing to do the job, with or without assistance from state officials.

“We realize that not all states will be ready to establish these exchanges by 2014, so we are setting up a federally facilitated exchange in those states,” said Michael Hash, the top federal insurance regulator. “We are on track to go live in October 2013, which is the beginning of the first open season for the individual and small group markets.”

Governors of 13 states with nearly one-third of the United States population have sent letters to the Obama administration saying they intend to set up exchanges. Complete applications are due on Nov. 16, just 10 days after the presidential election.

Federal and state officials and health policy experts expect that the federal government will run the exchanges in about half of the 50 states — a huge undertaking, given the diversity of local insurance markets.

The federal exchanges will vary from state to state. The Obama administration will not define a single uniform set of “essential health benefits” that must be provided by all insurers, but will allow each state to specify the benefits within broad categories.

In running an exchange, federal officials face a delicate political task. They will encourage people to enroll, promoting the exchange as an important part of Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul. But they do not want to feed fears of a federal takeover or alienate state officials whose help they need.

Much work will be done by contractors. With public opinion deeply divided over the new law, the Obama administration has invited advertising agencies to devise an elaborate “outreach and education campaign” to publicize the federal exchanges and their potential benefits for consumers.

In addition, federal officials are looking for private contractors to provide “in-person assistance” to consumers and to operate call centers. A contractor will also help the government decide who gets federal subsidies, expected to average $6,000 a person, and who is exempt from the tax penalties that will be imposed on people who go without insurance.

Federal officials have turned to the American subsidiary of a Canadian company, the CGI Group, to provide information technology services to the federal exchanges under a contract that could be worth $93.7 million over five years.

An exchange is a sort of supermarket where people can compare prices and benefits of health plans offered by insurance companies. People will be able to file applications online, in person, by mail or by telephone.

Mr. Hash, the director of the federal Office of Health Reform, said the federal exchanges “will operate essentially in the same manner as the state-based exchanges.” However, they differ in a significant way. States have done their work in public, but planning for the federal exchanges has been done almost entirely behind closed doors.

“We have gotten little bits of information here and there about how the federal exchange might operate,” said Linda J. Sheppard, a senior official at the Kansas Insurance Department. “I was on a panel at Rockhurst University here, and I was asked, ‘Where is the Web site for the federal exchange?’ I chuckled. There really isn’t any federal exchange Web site.”

Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at the Health Policy Institute of Georgetown University, said the federal exchanges were “much more opaque” than the state exchanges.


View the original article here

Donna Campbell Is the New Face Some San Antonio Republicans Wanted

A significant number of Republicans and business leaders in San Antonio decided last year that they would like to replace their longtime state senator.

They got what they were after, sort of, when Republican primary voters chose Donna Campbell in Tuesday’s runoff. She is a transplant who lived in Columbus before moving to New Braunfels to qualify as a district resident. That means the San Antonio folks succeeded in moving the district’s home base out of their city and into the next county to the north. And they got a candidate who is beholden not to the San Antonio establishment but to the grass-roots Republicans who are sending her to Austin.

The incumbent Republican, Jeff Wentworth, has been in the Texas Senate since 1993 and served in the House for four years before that. Some of his detractors —  inside and outside the district — decided he had been there long enough. Some were persuaded by Texans for Lawsuit Reform and other groups that he wasn’t with them on every single vote and should be replaced by someone who would take their side 100 percent of the time.

Others were unhappy with the public scolding he gave Texas State University System regents for picking another legislator over him when they were hiring a new chancellor.

Whatever you may think of Mr. Wentworth, he is smart, hard-working and independent. He’s with the Republicans most of the time, but he has also staked out some solitary positions.

For instance, he has taken on the somewhat unpopular position — unpopular with the politicians, that is —  that the state’s redistricting should be done by a panel that isn’t beholden to the Legislature.

Another one: Texas senators regularly vote to suspend a rule that is meant to make them wait a day between their tentative votes and their final votes on legislation. Mr. Wentworth thinks that is a good rule and will not play in that particular reindeer game.

Every once in a while, his habit becomes an obstacle, and every time it does, some official wanders over to the press table in the Senate to whine about it.

So this unofficial Society for the Abolition of Jeff Wentworth had some material to work with.

They recruited like crazy, promising financial and political support to potential Republican challengers to the incumbent.

They settled on Elizabeth Ames Jones, a Texas railroad commissioner (in spite of the name, the commission is the three-member panel that regulates oil and gas in the state) and former Texas House member. At the time, she was running for the United States Senate, hoping to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison. But Ms. Jones wasn’t getting any traction in that race and switched before the filing deadline to run against Mr. Wentworth.

And she has done this sort of thing before. She was preceded in the House by Bill Siebert, a Republican who fell out of favor with the establishment. They recruited her and knocked off that incumbent in 2000.

In that race, the political maneuverings kept the seat in San Antonio while removing the incumbent. And it all came out in the wash, because the seat is now held by Joe Straus, the Republican speaker of the House.

Well played.

But Ms. Jones finished third in the primary. You could see the conspiracy start to unravel in the finance reports that followed.

For the runoff, Mr. Wentworth suddenly had the financial support of business leaders like Peter Holt — Ms. Jones’s treasurer during her challenge —  who gave Mr. Wentworth’s campaign $50,000 during the runoff.

The winner, Ms. Campbell, looks like the real deal: a bona fide anti-establishment Tea Party candidate. She ran against United States Representative Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Austin, two years ago, building the base of support in that overlapping congressional district that fueled this year’s win.

She and Mr. Wentworth ran a civil campaign —  a rare thing in Texas this year  — and she started it by saying she didn’t want to be beholden to trade groups and lobbyists that had supported Ms. Jones.

Ms. Campbell is willing to take some help, however. She raised $84,200 before the May 29 primary and raised $438,244 for the runoff. And on the Friday after the election, she held a fund-raiser at the Austin Club, the home of the establishment in the state capital.

Now if they could just get her to move to San Antonio.


View the original article here

Sunday, August 12, 2012

In Missouri Senate Race, Ads Beset Incumbent Democrat

As the three Republican candidates have battled it out, Ms. McCaskill has had to buckle down as well. Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, David and Charles Koch’s Americans For Prosperity, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the 60 Plus Association have dumped as much as $15 million into the state since July 2011 to keep her on her heels.

In their advertisements, Ms. McCaskill’s face is sometimes bloated, sometimes goofy, sometimes exhausted. She is usually joined at the hip with President Obama. And she is always almost single-handedly to blame for Missouri’s economic travails, the nation’s skyrocketing debt, the Democrats’ health care law and a scandalous level of duplicity.

“As one guy said to me in rural Missouri, ‘Don’t worry, they’re trying to tenderize you before they pick a candidate,’ ” Ms. McCaskill said Thursday.

The sustained campaign could become a textbook for future efforts in a new era of anything-goes campaign financing, both Ms. McCaskill and her opponents say.

Most of the spending is coming from tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organizations like Crossroads GPS, which may accept large corporate and individual donations without disclosing donors’ identities. And the outcome could show that third-party advertising from these organizations and from “super PACs” — like Now or Never, which works on behalf of Sarah Steelman, one of the Republican candidates — could tip the balance to a larger degree in a statewide or Congressional race than in the presidential contest.

In other states with contested Republican primaries, like Arizona, Indiana and Wisconsin, outside money flowed in to take sides in the primaries themselves, leaving the Republican contenders wounded and the Democrat in better shape. In Missouri, it flowed in largely to take down the Democrat, providing vital air cover while the Republicans fought each other below the radar.

The three Republican candidates may be lesser known and less dynamic than Ms. McCaskill, a mainstay of Missouri politics, but she is possibly the most endangered incumbent in the Senate. A Mason-Dixon poll published on July 28 in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch found her trailing all three of her potential opponents, John Brunner, a businessman; Ms. Steelman, a former state treasurer; and Representative Todd Akin.

“When you have a late primary like in Missouri’s, the ability to keep a sustained message-fire on the incumbent is going to be important to whoever the nominee is going to be,” said Kenneth Goldstein, president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks campaign television spending.

Republicans are reluctant to give the outside groups too much credit. They say Ms. McCaskill’s uphill climb to a second term is due to her fealty to Mr. Obama’s legislative agenda in a state where he is unpopular.

“Certainly the outside spending has reminded voters why they might not like her much,” said Todd Abrajano, an aide to Mr. Brunner. “But if there was no outside money, she’d still be in the predicament she is in today.”

But when pushed, Republicans do not deny that the groups have helped.

“They are keeping the pressure on McCaskill,” Mr. Akin said. “And that’s making any of us think, ‘We can do it, we can do it.’ ”

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, allowed, “I can’t deny it’s had some impact.”

The Missouri Senate race has drawn outside money from more than a half-dozen groups: two Democratic outfits, the Majority PAC and Patriot Majority USA; and five Republican allies. The Campaign Media Analysis Group tallied $5.2 million in ads since June 1, compared with $4.8 million in Ohio, $2.9 million in Florida, $1.5 million in Montana and $1.1 million in North Dakota, where other contested Senate campaigns have drawn outside attention.

The Majority PAC has spent $722,000 since June to help Ms. McCaskill. Crossroads GPS has spent $857,000 against her, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce $190,000.

Democratic strategists say those numbers understate the impact. Crossroads GPS’s first ads ran in early July 2011, and since then, nine separate ads have come in a rolling barrage. When Crossroads GPS eased up in June, the chamber peaked in July. By the Democrats’ count, anti-McCaskill spending has already reached $15.2 million, with an additional $18 million in advertising slots reserved for the fall.

“People will look back at Missouri and look back at the money that’s been spent by outside forces and say this is an election that shows whether or not these anonymous masters of the universe can buy these elections,” Ms. McCaskill said. “If it works in Missouri, then I think we’re in for a rough ride in this country.”

Her opponents dismiss that. Since Ms. McCaskill’s narrow Senate victory in 2006, her state has drifted right. Mr. Obama lost Missouri in 2008 by fewer than 4,000 votes out of nearly three million cast. But in a 2010 Senate race, Roy Blunt, then a Republican representative, crushed Robin Carnahan, a Democratic scion of Missouri political royalty, by nearly 14 percentage points.

Some Missouri Republican strategists said the outside groups knew that Ms. McCaskill could not win and flooded the state to claim a scalp to take to their donors. Others said they saw her weakness and decided they could not forgive themselves if they let her off the mat.

For her part, Ms. McCaskill has made the outside money the main opponent of the campaign.

One McCaskill advertisement says: “They just keep coming back. Secret money attacking Claire McCaskill. These big oil and insurance companies don’t want you to know who they are.” As a stream of televisions showing her competitors’ ads moves across the screen, it continues: “Claire McCaskill will fight them. Always has, always will.”

Republicans say her effort has proved to be a major strategic error. Ms. McCaskill’s focus on the money has only intensified awareness of the campaign’s national importance, made her look defensive and increased the resolve of the outside groups to stay in, they say.

But Ms. McCaskill said that once her opponent was chosen, she could shift gears and try to move the race from a referendum on her to a choice between her and her opponent.

“I’ve had to tread water,” she said, “while they have been pounding me with certainly more per capita than anybody else in the country.”


View the original article here