At a Missouri fundraiser today, President Obama brought up Joe Barton and his apology to BP again, 22 days after the hearing in which the Texas Republican made his infamous remarks.
In other news, we’re at day 78 of the oil spill. A new simulation “shows oil passing through the narrow channel between the tip of the Florida peninsula and the Bahamas before spreading into the Atlantic in August, then washing ashore on southeastern beaches in October or November.”
Yes, West Virginia, there is a special Senate election this year, or at least the prospects look quite likely:
West Virginia’s attorney general says Gov. Joe Manchin can put the late Robert C. Byrd’s Senate seat on the ballot this November . . . Manchin may now call a special legislative session to settle details such as candidate filing and party nomination deadlines. Manchin will appoint someone to fill the vacancy in the meantime. The Democrat says he may run for Byrd’s seat, but won’t have himself appointed.
A weird wrinkle of the potential matchup of the biggest name on each side? Democrat Manchin is pro-life; Republican Shelly Moore Capito is largely pro-choice.
“A special legislative session to constitutionally ban offshore oil drilling.” Some days, I wonder if Charlie Crist gets his political strategy directly from a focus group.
Marco Rubio today issued the following statement regarding Crist’s call for a special legislative session to constitutionally ban offshore oil drilling, something already prohibited by Florida law:
The Obama/Crist response to the oil spill has been a total failure and Florida families and businesses are suffering because of it. This special session is nothing more than a political sideshow that will do nothing to help Panhandle businesses, keep oil off our beaches, or prevent future spills. In fact, Charlie Crist seeks to ban something that is already illegal under state law. We don’t need more photo ops and finger pointing. We need leadership.
Every available clean-up skimmer in the world should be along our Gulf coast right now. After two months, there is no reason we don’t have containment boom and barriers protecting every vulnerable beach. We need strong leadership that will challenge government to do more before it’s too late. Instead, Charlie Crist seems more focused on releasing birds than releasing skimmers.
We all agree that the Gulf oil spill is a tremendous tragedy that must never be repeated. But drilling is going to happen off our coast whether it’s done by America, China and Cuba, which just last week announced plans to drill 60 miles off the Florida Keys. We still need safer and smarter offshore energy exploration to end our addiction to foreign oil.
Want to know a surprising reason to like Sharron Angle, the Republican aiming to knock off Harry Reid? When she thinks she’s made a mistake, she comes out and says so:
There’s been some confusion this morning regarding my position on BP and the oil spill.
Having had some time to think about it, the caller and I shouldn’t have used the term “slush fund”; that was incorrect.”
My position is that the creation of this fund to compensate victims was an important first step — BP caused this disaster and they should pay for it. But there are multiple parties at fault here and there should be a thorough investigation. We need to look into the actions, (or inactions) of the Administration and why the regulatory agency in charge of oversight was asleep at the wheel while BP was cutting corners. Every party involved should be held fully accountable.
Lord knows I’ve not always written flattering things about Angle. Harry Reid, meanwhile, has never retracted his 2007 declaration that the Iraq War is lost.
Obama is heading to MO and NV today to raise money for Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D), running for an open Senate seat, and Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid.
But Carnahan’s campaign wasn’t able to completely sell out the Folly Theater, where Obama will appear for a grassroots event on Carnahan’s behalf, at the prices they wanted. Tickets once priced at $250 are now going for $99, while $35 tickets are half off.
Yes, but let’s be fair; it’s only natural to charge half price when Obama’s job approval is roughly half what it once was.
Also note the name, “Folly Theater.” The Foolishness Arena was booked, apparently.
Nebraska Democrats are still looking for anybody who wants to run for governor. No, Alvin Greene, the position is not paid.
Their dilemma may be the strongest argument for amnesty for illegal immigrants, as they appear to have finally identified a job that an American won’t do.
Incumbent Republican Dave Heineman is the governor no Democrat is willing to oppose yet.
I chatted with a Washington Republican who’s watching the House races closely, and asked whether there were any signs of old-guard House Democrats from deeply conservative, deeply Republican districts getting knocked off this cycle — incumbents like Chet Edwards in Texas, Gene Taylor in Mississippi, Dan Boren in Oklahoma.
He said that all three could be considered potentially beatable this year, but the one that jumped out most to him was 14-term incumbent John Spratt of South Carolina, who represents an R+7 district and who faces a strong challenge from Mick Mulvaney. The GOP challenger released an internal poll showing him trailing by only two percentage points.
“You saw the Democracy Corps poll which showed independents turning against the Democrats and their vote becoming more of a protest vote, anti-Washington and anti-incumbent,” the Washington Republican said. “The question is, does that mature into an anti-Democrat vote? Is it regional? . . . Voter intensity is driven by voter anger. If it turns into, ‘I don’t care who is on the ballot, I’m going to send a message, this country is going in the wrong direction,’ then guys like Boren would be really in trouble. . . . If a guy like John Spratt goes down, don’t be surprised to see a lot of other Democrats go down, too.”
Then again, Spratt can always try to ride the coattails of Alvin Greene.
The upcoming decision by NBA star LeBron James on free agency is technically a bit outside of the beat of this blog, but there are a few political ramifications.
If LeBron chooses to leave Cleveland, what do you think the right track/wrong direction numbers for Ohio voters will look like next month?
Ted Strickland, the current governor of Ohio and a Democrat, appeared in a video, singing a parody of “We Are the World,” urging LeBron to stay.
I’m not going to give Strickland much grief for a lighthearted moment, but John Kasich, the GOP nominee, actually didn’t think that LeBron’s decision was worth much worry to a governor, what with unemployment above 10 percent. Ohio Democrats think they’ve really got Kasich in a bind here:
If LeBron stays, the incumbent will probably get to joke that his singing helped keep one employee from moving out of state. If LeBron does depart to New York, New Jersey, Miami, or somewhere else, Kasich will note that the governor needs to do more than sing to make Ohio a state where people want to work and live.
“Alan, we’ve lost 400,000 jobs out here and the last guy I worry about is LeBron James. You know I mean, we all hope he’ll stay in Cleveland. We think we’ve got a great guy there that can turn everything around, but we got some serious problems,” Kasich said.
Kasich, flashing a bit of sports knowledge, did sympathize with Cleveland fans who are still waiting for a championship from the Cavs, Browns or Indians.
“It’d have been so great for the Cavs to be playing because Cleveland has struggled with its sports teams and we need a little, we need a little victory so we might need to steal some players out of New York to help us out,” Kasich told Colmes.
I’ll bet Ohio Democrats left off the rest of the quote because they were sick, waylaid by LeBronchitis.
Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer is clinging to a narrow three-point lead (47% to 44%) over her Republican opponent, businesswoman Carly Fiorina, among likely voters in California’s upcoming November general election for U.S. Senate.
Over the past sixteen months The Field Poll has conducted five statewide surveys pairing Boxer and Fiorina in the Senate contest. The results show that Boxer’s once sizeable thirty-point advantage over Fiorina in March of last year has narrowed considerably in recent months.
Since January of this year the image that voters have of Boxer has become more negative. More voters now hold an unfavorable (52%) than favorable (41%) view of her. Also, appraisals of the job Boxer is doing have declined and are now close to the lowest ratings she has received in her eighteen-year tenure. At present, 43% of the state’s registered voters disapprove of the Senator’s performance, while 42% approve. Among likely voters 48% disapprove and 42% approve.
Carly for California deputy campaign manager for communications Julie Soderlund’s statement:
Today’s Field Poll results prove that California voters are ready to fire Barbara Boxer. Her 52 percent unfavorable rating confirms voters have not been fooled by Barbara Boxer’s empty Election Year rhetoric about non-existent job creation when they are staring 12.4 percent unemployment in the face. This poll underscores the fact that California voters are unhappy with Barbara Boxer’s job performance and are ready to show her the door this November.
Meanwhile, despite the distinct party registration advantage and high name identification Barbara Boxer enjoys, Carly has turned Boxer’s once two-to-one lead into a statistical dead heat. California voters have a clear choice in this election: a political outsider with a proven record of success and the know-how to develop real job-stimulating policy versus a career politician who has spent more than three decades voting for more than a trillion dollars in tax increases, onerous government regulation and spending that has caused our nation’s debt to climb to record levels. As this choice becomes clearer to voters, we expect the positive trends in this poll to continue, and we believe Californians will elect Carly to replace Barbara Boxer this November.
At this point, you can’t quite say that Fiorina is favored. But the race looks quite winnable, which may be about as good as it gets for a Republican challenger against a three-term Democrat in California.
From this edition of the Jolt . . . apparently a few readers have missed the perpetual daily nagging and reminders. Yes, it’s subscriber-only. No, there is no charge. No, I can’t help fix tech issues (I’m nudging the powers that be to include some separate e-mail address for that, since I just write it; the magic box helps bring it to readers). It’s written late at night and early in the morning, and gets to readers hopefully by midmorning if Chaka knows what is good for him.
Then again, you have to be deeper in a cocoon than the very hungry caterpillar* to not recognize the epic firestorm of controversy, entirely justified, when you write, as CNN’s Octavia Nasr did, “Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah . . . One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot.”
“One of Hezbollah’s giants.” . . . Was he tall?
She attempted to clarify on her blog, but the explanation actually makes her original reaction even more baffling: “I used the words ‘respect’ and ‘sad’ because to me as a Middle Eastern woman, Fadlallah took a contrarian and pioneering stand among Shia clerics on woman’s rights. He called for the abolition of the tribal system of ‘honor killing.’ He called the practice primitive and non-productive. He warned Muslim men that abuse of women was against Islam. . . . In 1983, as Fadlallah found his voice as a spiritual leader, Islamic Jihad — soon to morph into Hezbollah — bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 299 American and French peacekeepers. I lost family members in that terror attack.”
How do you “respect a lot” someone who had a hand in murdering members of your family? Presuming her statement is accurate, wouldn’t you expect her first reaction to his death to be something akin to, “good, it’s overdue, I hope the internal bleeding hurt and the painkillers failed in his final hours”? Just how much is this woman grading Middle Eastern men on a curve when a kind word or two about women’s rights balances out incinerating some branches of the family tree? I’m reminded of what I suspect is the smartest thing Bill Maher ever said, a quote that I strangely cannot find attributed to him: “You can’t give Hamas credit for starting a widows and orphans fund when their day job is creating widows and orphans.”
No, the initial response makes sense only if you figure Nasr needed to publicly express condolences to remain on the good side of some sources.
Sure, Manchin is relatively popular (hard to tell with so little polling in the state); he would probably be the favorite, but not overwhelmingly so. But this is a year in which the Democrats already have to defend Senate seats in states they never expected — California, Washington, Wisconsin — and so this adds one more battlefront. The DSCC just isn’t going to have enough resources to fight everywhere; Manchin is probably going to be on his own for much of his fight. For what it is worth, Obama is terribly unpopular in the state.
With a Capito-Manchin race, the GOP has at least a decent shot of winning the seat, something they haven’t had in decades of campaigns against Robert Byrd or Jay Rockefeller.
I noted yesterday that as responsive and open as Public Policy Polling is, I have to take PPP results in North Carolina with a grain of salt. They had incumbent Sen. Richard Burr leading Democrat Elaine Marshall by only 38 percent to 33 percent.
Today, Rasmussen finds Burr leading by 52 percent to 37 percent. Interestingly, Rasmussen had them nearly tied last month, a result that showed a huge bounce for Marshall.
Looks like West Virginia Republicans are starting a new push for a special Senate election this year. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito released the following statement today, regarding an election to fill the remainder of the U.S. Senate term left vacant by the death of Sen. Robert Byrd:
While West Virginians continue to honor the life and legacy of Senator Robert Byrd, the process to select a new U.S. Senator has already begun among our state’s elected officials. The U.S. Constitution places the power of filling a vacancy correctly with the voters while allowing for state legislatures to permit temporary appoints by the Governor.
I am confident that a West Virginian with a distinguished record of public service can be appointed in an open and transparent process to serve on an interim basis until a Special Election can be held. The West Virginia Secretary of State announced that under current election law the Special Election will not take place until the 2012 election cycle. While that may be the correct interpretation of the current law, I do not believe it is the right course for West Virginia.
The power of our vote should never be limited or delayed in selecting our elected officials, and 28 months is too long for any person to serve in an elective office through appointment. I encourage the West Virginia Legislature to amend our state’s election code and allow for a Special Election during the current election cycle on November 2, 2010. For the first time in 26 years, voters may go to the polls this November to select a new U.S. Senator. As this process will create intense speculation on potential candidates, it will ultimately allow for a healthy discussion of the pressing problems facing our state and country. Throughout my almost 14 years in public office, I am constantly reminded that elected officials are caretakers of that office on behalf of the people.
If there is a special election, many Republicans would like to see Capito run.
Secretary of State Natalie Tenant has already called on state lawmakers to revise the law to allow for a special election.
“For me, there is a distinct line between how I personally feel and what I can legally do,” Tennant said on her website late last week. “I personally believe that the voters of the state should be allowed to elect a successor to Senator Byrd sooner than November of 2012.”
But as the law is currently written, Tennant has said Gov. Joe Manchin must appoint a successor to serve out the remainder of Byrd’s unexpired term.
By the way, isn’t it refreshing to hear a public official acknowledge that what she wants and what the law requires are two separate concepts?
I read James Pethokoukis and think, “Man, I’d like to write like him.” And then I realize, “Yeah, but to do that, I’d have to study economics for a really long time.”
More and more, the political cake looks fully and thoroughly baked. Oh sure, perhaps congressional Democrats can sidestep the coming Republican wave through clever campaign tactics. Perhaps they can de-nationalize the November midterm elections by successfully waging dozens of bloody, up-close-and-personal knife fights coast to coast. Make every Republican a controversial Sharon Angle or Ron Paul with a radiation vibe.
Yet for that “fight them on the beaches” approach to really work, Democrats probably need a bit of breeze at their backs. They need some some help from the economy, the dominant issue with American voters. As last week’s miserable jobs report made clear, however, help does not appear to be arriving anytime soon. Just 83,000 private sector jobs were created in June, after a mere 33,000 in May . . .
If history is any guide, pushing the unemployment rate below 9 percent by Election Day would take a sudden and dramatic surge in GDP growth to a six or seven percent annual rate. But something between one and three percent seems more likely given recent economic data. Also likely is an unemployment rate back above 10 percent. Even Mark Zandi, Nancy Pelosi’s favorite economist thinks that. Republicans will surely remind voters that Obamanomics was supposed to keep unemployment below eight percent.
Perhaps the economy will kick into gear in 2011. But for the Obama agenda beyond 2010, it’s all about preventing a historic political reversal in November. And with just three employment reports left until Election Day, the economic cake may already be baked, too.
According to the administration’s projections, we were supposed to be at about 7.5 percent unemployment right now, on our way to 7 percent by the end of the year.
Last week Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn said the state is going to have to tighten its belt, and then trimmed $1.4 billion from the new state budget. On Tuesday Quinn downplayed the fact that in the same budget he handed-out pay raises to some of his top staffers. An Associated Press report indicates the governor’s office rewarded a number of top officials with pay increases. Budget director David Vaught, for example, received a $24,000 raise to bring his salary to $144,000 a year.
Quinn said Vaught has earned it.
“He got a new assignment, the budget director, it’s one of the most important jobs in state government. So it has a different salary, yes it has a higher salary. But over all the amount of money spent by taxpayers on the governor’s office is significantly lower today.”The governor said countered the criticism, saying his office has been doing a lot more with a lot less.
But the AP report states that as governor, Quinn handed out 43 pay raises to 35 different people over the past 15 months. The average raise according to the AP came in at 11.4 percent.
Remember, it’s only a recession for the private sector.
Today’s revelation shows there are two rules under Governor Pat Quinn — one for him and the powerful insider crowd, and another for all the rest of us. While working families are tightening their belts and doing more with less, Pat Quinn is doling out massive pay raises to his own staff — and we’re paying for them. Today’s revelation shows, once again, that Pat Quinn is incapable of solving our fiscal crisis, and has lost control of state government. How many other agencies received pay raises?
The Democratic Party is moving faster and more aggressively than in previous election years to dig up unflattering details about Republican challengers. In House races from New Jersey to Ohio to California, Democratic operatives are seizing on evidence of GOP candidates’ unpaid income taxes, property tax breaks and ties to financial firms that received taxpayer bailout money.In recent weeks, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has circulated information to local reporters about Republican candidates in close races . . . Jon Vogel, executive director of the DCCC, said Democrats are merely pointing out that some Republican recruits in competitive House races are “flawed candidates.”
He added, “We have made this election a choice. . . . They’re trying to run this national message in part about fiscal discipline, but they’ve recruited a number of candidates not credible to carry that message.”
Right. So instead the voters, having deemed the GOP options as lacking fiscal discipline at some earlier point in their lives, should reelect the crew who have taken the deficit to $13 trillion and who perpetually promise to do something about it next year.
Although I suppose we should give them one point for reaching across the aisle; right now there is bipartisan agreement that the record of the current Congress is indefensible.
In today’s Jolt, there’s a roundup of Arizona immigration law and Kentucky Senate race news, but also an update on that huge story that I try to feature at least one item on in every edition . . .
The Oil Spill Won’t Disappear, but Discussion of Obama’s Response Might
You thought I was being silly with this one-item-on-oil-every-morning rule, huh? ‘Oh, Jim, the oil spill is one of the biggest news stories in years. There’s no way it will disappear from the front page.’ Well, there was nothing about the spill on the front page of the New York Times on Tuesday. (There was a bottom of the page story on Wednesday.)
About three weeks ago, Obama offered a speech that was widely panned, but that declared, “in the coming weeks and days, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well.” How’s that coming? USA Today: “The renegade well is gushing between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels a day, and current containment systems are catching around 25,000 barrels a day, [Thad] Allen said.” That’s a chunk, but that’s less than half of the high end number.
The president also declared, “make no mistake: We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes. . . . we must make a commitment to the Gulf Coast that goes beyond responding to the crisis of the moment.” Well, a search of Obama’s speeches on the Washington Post website reveals he has not said “BP”, “gulf” or “spill” since June 30. I realize there’s a national holiday in the past week, but it certainly is hard to believe this is still the top priority if he can go a week without even mentioning it. Back on May 27, he was insisting it was his top priority.
It’s as if the entire country decided that the president had bombed in his speech, that the federal response was an immense disappointment, and that the coast was doomed . . . and then moved on to more interesting topics.
The campaign of Hunt Downer, a Republican candidate in the open-seat race in Louisiana’s 3rd congressional district, announces they have raised $274,500 in the six weeks since they began operations, nearly $7,000 per day.
Early in the cycle, the Missouri Senate race appeared to be one of the toughest fights of 2010. But as one interesting Senate race after another cropped up on the map — Florida, Wisconsin, Washington, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Arkansas — the race between Roy Blunt and Robin Carnahan has slipped down the list, and is easy to overlook.
Polling has been pretty sparse and dominated by Rasmussen; Blunt has led every poll conducted since January by one to eight percentage points.
What probably ought to worry Democrats is that their allies have been hammering Blunt with tons of negative ads — $1.3 million worth from the League of Conservation Voters, ProVote, and Vote Vets — with not too much to show for it. At the end of March, PPP found 34 percent having no opinion about Roy Blunt. One might think those negative ads could define him early, but it appears they haven’t yet.
And these Carnahan-allied groups no longer have the airwaves to themselves. Blunt’s campaign is airing its first ad, airing statewide:
My problem with PPP’s North Carolina poll is replicated in their Kentucky poll, showing Rand Paul tied with Jack Conway, with 43 percent each.
In 2008, exit polls showed Kentucky’s electorate splitting 47 percent Democrat, 38 percent Republican, 15 percent independent. Today’s PPP poll splits 52 percent Democrat, 37 percent Republican, 11 percent independent. (They also have a slightly more female sample than 2008; in the last presidential election it split 54–46; in their sample it splits 55–45.)
Democrats will make up a significantly larger share of the electorate in what is largely regarded as a good year for the GOP? I suppose it is possible that the controversy surrounding Rand Paul’s remarks might drive some Republicans to stay home. But enough for a five percent swing when there’s a consensus among pollsters that Obama’s approval rating is pretty darn low in the Bluegrass State? Color me skeptical.
I don’t doubt that Rand Paul will have a tougher time this year than your average Republican. But I have a hard time believing that he’s going to single-handedly repel GOP voters eager to send a message to Washington.
Public Policy Polling offers numbers indicating that in their home state of North Carolina, Republican senator Richard Burr is only up 5 points over Democrat Elaine Marshall. They have Burr at 38 percent, 33 percent for Marshall, and a surprising 10 percent for the Libertarian candidate, Michael Beitler.
In a post–Research 2000 world, I don’t want any quibbling with a pollster to be misconstrued. I think the PPP guys are good guys with generally solid methods. But for not-so-well-publicized reasons, Republicans tend to perform poorly when PPP surveys their own backyard.
Burr’s last total in SurveyUSA: 50 percent. His last total in Rasmussen: 44 percent. His totals in the three preceding polls by Rasmussen: 50, 50, 51. Burr’s total in the four preceding PPP polls: 46, 43, 43, 41.
Is it possible Richard Burr is at 38 percent? I suppose; it is possible that PPP is using some sort of better voter screen than everyone else, and/or it’s possible that Rasmussen’s likely-voter screen is weeding out too many Democrats. But when a pollster has been quoted as saying that he doesn’t want a particular candidate to win, it’s time to exercise some skepticism. This was an issue last year:
The problem, Republicans say, is that PPP is no impartial observer. The firm makes its money by serving as the pollster to an exclusively Democratic roster of clients, ranging from members of Congress to dozens of state legislative and city council candidates. And CEO Dean Debnam has given generously to North Carolina Democratic candidates — including in races where his firm has conducted independent polling. In the heat of last year’s competitive Senate race between former Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) and Democrat Kay Hagan, Debnam donated $5,400 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. He also made two $2,300 contributions to Hagan’s campaign.
“We’re absolutely rooting in the race. We don’t want Richard Burr to get reelected. We wanted Obama to win last fall,” said [PPP's Tom] Jensen. “But our reputation is predicated on getting it right, and we’re not going to cook the numbers just to tweak Richard Burr’s nerves. They are what they are.” The firm’s unconventional method of serving partisan interests while conducting independent polls that are widely reported on by the media has raised hackles among Republicans like Burr, who are on the receiving end of bad numbers. At the national level, Republicans gripe that news outlets don’t always report on the firm’s Democratic background.
I like the guys at PPP, but at this point, you just can’t put too much faith in their North Carolina numbers, not until other pollsters start seeing similar numbers.
UPDATE: Also, note how their sample breaks down: 46 percent Democrat, 36 percent Republican, 18 percent independent. That’s a more heavily Democratic electorate than North Carolina had on Election Day 2008, when it split 42 percent Democrat, 31 percent Republican, 27 percent independent.
Larry Sabato looks at all of the 2010 races for governor and predicts the GOP will win control of an additional 6 or 7 governor’s mansions.
I suppose this is in the eye of the beholder, but the Republicans seem to have a more interesting crop of gubernatorial candidates this year: more candidates with interesting biographies, more candidates who could garner profiles and coverage outside of political publications, more figures who are likely to break through to apolitical voters.
Start with the much-discussed Nikki Haley, now popping up on the cover of Newsweek as “the face of the new South.” (When Newsweek is willing to put a flattering photo of a Republican woman on the cover, you know they really are desperate for sales.)
Then in Oregon, you have a former player for the NBA’s Portland Trail Blazers, Chris Dudley, a professional athlete with deep community ties and winner of USA Today‘s Most Caring Athlete Award. In California, there’s Meg Whitman, a successful chief executive at eBay and a billionaire. In New Mexico, there’s Susana Martinez, a successful three-term corruption-busting district attorney, the first Latina woman nominated by a major party for governor in the U.S. In Nevada, there’s former state attorney general and judge Brian Sandoval, one of the few figures who can say they’ve been recommended by Harry Reid and George W. Bush.
Then in Vermont, there’s Brian Dubie, an incongruous figure as a front-running GOP officeholder who sounds like Chris Christie in the land of Ben & Jerry’s:
In its May 2009 state-by-state examination of social services and benefits, The New York Times ranked Vermont as the most generous in the nation. Statistics from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Census Bureau indicate that Vermont ranks 5th in welfare recipients as a percent of population.
Yet, Vermont ranks in the middle of the states — 24th place — for per capita income. We must bring our human services spending into alignment with Vermonters’ ability to pay. Vermonters have always had a generous heart, but are limited by the size of their pocketbooks. My focus as governor will be on growing our economy, putting Vermonters back to work and restoring economic freedom and security for all Vermonters. The best social program is a good job… The basic reality is that government programs cannot grow faster than the underlying economy.
Sure, the GOP has some familiar faces and second-time-around candidates, in Rick Perry, Robert Ehrlich, Terry Branstad, John Kasich, Sam Brownback, etc. But looking over the Democratic crop of non-incumbents, there is a lot of old guard (Jerry Brown), sons of the old guard (Andrew Cuomo), and candidates who are comparably unknown in their own state. Perhaps one could argue Denver mayor John Hickenlooper has a colorful personality.
I admire the sarcasm of the Republican Governors Association: “In what must have been an oversight, the Democratic Governors Association released their second quarter fundraising numbers late Friday afternoon after much of Washington had already departed for the holiday weekend.”
The RGA announced raising $18.9 million in the second quarter, bringing their total for the year to $28 million with $40 million cash on hand. Their Democratic counterparts raised $9.1 million in the second quarter, bringing their total for the year to $17 million with $22 million cash on hand.
That’s bad news for Jerry Brown, Alex Sink, Ted Strickland, Martin O’Malley, Dan Onorato, Diane Denish, John Kitzhaber, Bill White . . .
Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity
The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity in partnership with one of America's news leaders in original political news content and commentary, National Review Online, seeks to hire special 2010 election reporters in:
Florida
Ohio
Colorado
Nevada
Pennsylvania
The reporters may be based anywhere in the states listed above and the role will require extensive state travel. These reporters will provide unique and original news content for the public on national, statewide and local races and campaigns.
These positions run from June 15th (or after) to November 15th.
Responsibilities for this role include:
Managing research and analysis on a multitude of election related topics including campaign finance and spending by candidates and 3rd party groups
Covering all aspects of elections within the assigned state utilizing all media platforms sessions
Conception and execution of compelling, sophisticated stories and video interviews that reach a broad online audience
Producing a lively mix of news and analysis that consumers find both relevant and interesting
Utilizing new media tools (including Facebook, Twitter, other new media outlets) to maximize public awareness
Taking and editing digital photographs, videos and audio recordings; previous experience with video production a plus
Meeting the highest standards of journalistic competence and professionalism
Partnering with other reporters and journalists from state based news organizations, public-policy institutions & watchdog groups to share leads and information
Candidates must have the following attributes:
Solid background in journalism, investigation, and research
Established record of getting published or broadcast
Strong written and verbal communication skills
Knowledge of new media, website maintenance, and basic video production
Ability to work independently and identify news-worthy stories
Experience utilizing open-records law
Solid understanding of basic economic principles and how markets work
A bachelor’s degree
Interested candidates should submit a résumé, references, writing samples, and a cover letter detailing salary requirements and his/her philosophical interest in the mission of Franklin to claire@talentmarket.org.
About the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity
The Franklin Center is a non-profit group dedicated to providing investigative reporters and non-profit organizations at the state and local level with the training, expertise and technical support necessary to pursue journalistic endeavors.
