Came In On Saturdays

Congressman Doug Lamborn—Obama’s Latest GOP Boycotter    January 27, 2012

 In his 1/24/2012 State of the Union (SOTU) address before a joint session of Congress, President Obama nailed  a perfect “10” on a political and national “balance beam.” CNN analyst David Gergen, who has worked under several presidents, called Obama’s address “a politically shrewd speech.” Obama’s SOTU will, according to Gergen, “likely satisfy his Democratic base while winning over some independents,” (CNN Politics, Lothian, Yellin, & Cohen, 1/24/12),” crucial to Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. State of the Union speeches are always part- political, but at the same time, constitutionally required (U.S. Const., Article II, Section 3). The nation has to hear in a dignified manner what is happening in the U.S. and in the world, as well as the president’s key proposals for tackling major issues.

      President Obama did not have to mention the name of the man who will probably be his GOP opponent in the fall, Mitt Romney. As the NY Times noted, Romney was “the natural foil,” for President Obama’s policies (Landler, 1/25/12). On the very day of the State of the Unions speech, in which Pres. Obama proposed that millionaires pay a tax of 30%, venture capitalist Romney finally released his 2010 tax return. That document showed that Romney paid just 13.9% on income of more than $20 million, putting him in a tax bracket far lower than most Americans. Revelations of a former Swiss Bank account and Cayman Islands tax shelters were also part of this disclosure. Obama demolished Romney’s “class warfare and politics of envy” comments. Obama stated, “You can call it class warfare all you want, but asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes is what most would call ‘common sense.”’ Obama, like super rich Warren Buffett, wants billionaires to pay as much or more than their secretaries, the “Buffett Rule (Buffett’s secretary sat as a guest with Michelle Obama.).” Obama took it to Romney again by saying that Americans “admire and don’t envy the rich. They just want the rich to pay their fair share, because they understand somebody else, (hard pressed-middle class families, seniors, and students) has to make up the difference (McManus, LA Times, 1/25/12, Landler, NY Times, 1/24/12, CNN, Lothian et al, 1/24/12, LA Times, Vartabedian et al, 1/24/12).”

        While D.C. GOPers and Democrats were polarized over the speech, a focus group made up of Colorado swing voters reacted very positively to Obama’s State of the Union proposals. After his address, Obama’s rating in this key group, composed of Democrats, GOPers, and independents, went from 50-58% (Lauter, LA Times, 1/24/12, Kos, DemFromCt.,1/25/12). Obama received 70%-80% favorable ratings for his “Buffett Rule.” Obama’s opening remarks spoke about how our “selfless, U.S. armed forces, working together, and not obsessing their differences, killed Osama bin Laden.” That statement received an 80% score from this dial-turning group. Obama ended his speech going back to how the Special Forces that took out Bin Laden were in this mission together as soldiers, “just looking out for the person next to them. They did not care about ethnicity, sexual orientation, income, or whether some were Democrats or Republicans.” In Obama’s words, “This nation is great because we built it together, worked as a team, and get each other’s backs. If we hold fast to that truth, and retain our common resolve, no mission is too hard, and the state of our union will always be strong.”  

    Some, GOPers, however, still don’t get that “we are all together in this mission to better America.” They are still intent on scoring cheap political points. Meet Cong. Doug Lamborn. On 1/23/12, the day before the speech, Rep. Lamborn declared he would boycott Obama’s State of the Union address. He was following in the footsteps of a previous GOP boycotter, Ill. Tea Party GOPer, Cong. Joe Walsh. Walsh had refused to hear Obama’s 9/08/11 jobs speech before a joint congressional session because that would make him “a prop” for the President (Huffington Post, 9/02/11).” Cong. Lamborn was not going to the State of the Union because he wanted to “send a clear message that he does not support the policies of Barack Obama (KDVR, Stokols, 1/23/12).” Lamborn didn’t even personally see his fellow representatives and Pres. Obama give an emotional farewell to courageous Ariz. Dem. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Cong. Giffords, still recovering from a bullet wound to her head that she received during a 1/08/11 shooting spree, resigned on 1/25/12. Let’s take a look at Cong. Lamborn, whom he speaks for, and his political views.

       Third-term Congressman Doug Lamborn (57) represents Colorado’s 5^th Congressional District (C.D.). The 5^th contains Pike’s Peak, the most visited mountain in N. America, and the city of Colorado Springs. The 5^th has the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), a fortified bunker 1,000 feet below Cheyenne Mountain, built in the 1960’s to theoretically survive a Soviet nuclear missile strike. The 5^th C.D. contains other key military installations-- Peterson Air Force Base which has NORAD’s surveillance operations and rapidly growing Ft. Carson, the Air Force Academy’s home. The 5^th  also has Schriever Air Force Base, named for ballistic missile developer, Gen. Bernard A. Schriever (Barone 12 Almanac, CQ 12 Almanac).

       The 5^th C.D. takes in El Paso County, where Colorado Springs is located, plus all or most of four mountain counties to the west. One of these, Lake County, contains the old mining town of Leadville and usually votes Democratic. However, 87% of the votes come from El Paso County, the district’s largest. The 5^th is the most GOP district in Colorado. “God and country” dominate this overwhelmingly conservative Colorado Spring’s-centered district. The 5^th has a GOP +14 Cook Partisan Voting Index. In 1994, evangelical James Dobson’s Focus on the Family located its headquarters in Colorado Springs and other conservative Christian groups have followed. In 2004, W clobbered Kerry in the 5^th C.D., 66%-33%. In 2008, McCain beat Obama here, 59%-40%. Colorado Springs and its “ruby Red” metropolitan area are a GOP counterpoint to liberal Denver County (Barone 12, CQ12).

         Doug Lamborn, a Leavenworth, Kan. native, received degrees in journalism and law from the Univ. of Kansas. Lamborn’s father was a farmer who supplemented his income as a federal prison guard.  Son Doug  voted for Carter in 1976, but decided to enter GOP politics because of Ronald Reagan (Barone12, CQ12). He moved to Colorado Springs in 1987. In 1994, Lamborn was elected to the Col. House where he served till 1998. He went on to membership in the state Senate (1998-2006), where he was president pro tempore. During his 12 years in the state legislature, Lamborn compiled a reliable social and fiscal conservative record. He opposed abortion rights, advocated tax cuts, and backed legislation that would have ended some benefits to illegal immigrants (CQ 12, Barone 12). When GOP Cong. Joel Hefley retired in 2006, he endorsed his aide Jeff Crank. However, with the help of the right wing anti-tax Club for Growth and the Christian Coalition, Lamborn won the 8/2006 GOP primary by 892 votes. In the general election, Hefley refused to endorse Lamborn and accused him of running a “sleazy” primary. However, in this “dripping Red” district, Lamborn easily defeated his Democratic rival 60%-40%. Lamborn coasted to victory in his subsequent races (CQ 12, Barone 12).

         In 2010, the National Journal named junior member Lamborn the “most conservative member of Congress,” and he continues to remain up there ideologically (Huffington Post, 1/24/12). He is a member of Michele Bachmann’s Tea Party caucus and is part of the Republican Study Committee (RSG), the most conservative bloc and dominant force within the House GOP caucus. In 2010, Lamborn endorsed anti-immigrant fanatic and former GOP Rep. Tom Tancredo for Col. Governor. In the House, Lamborn has voted against providing legal status for some children of illegal immigrants. In the RSG, Lamborn is part of the 10^th Amendment Task Force, whose goal is to “disperse power, money, and decision making back to the states.” He is a member of the Congressional Sovereignty Caucus whose goal is “to protect Americans from the increasing influence of international organizations.” Lamborn presently sits on the House Armed Services, Natural Resources, and Veterans’Affairs Committees. On the Natural Resources Committee, he is chair of the subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, a plum assignment for a Coloradan. Lamborn is the GOP point man for increasing production of oil, natural gas, and coal. He has erroneously attacked Obama for “locking up energy, which has made America great (CQ 12, Barone 12).”

          In his first four years in Congress, Lamborn has sided with his right wing GOPers 99% of the time. Lamborn is proud that he “is standing up and not compromising conservative values (CQ12).” Lamborn voted against Obama’s key 2009 stimulus bill, against health care reform, and even against expanding health benefits for middle class children, the SCHIP bill. He was against the hugely successful “cash for clunkers” program that helped the auto industry and voted against the Wall Street reform Dodd-Frank bill that both Romney and Gingrich want to repeal. Lamborn was against the cap and trade system to eliminate greenhouse gases and voted against both lifting the oil spill liability cap and improving oversight of offshore oil drilling. In 2010, right wing polluting Koch Industries gave Lamborn $5,000. He voted against repealing the anti-gay military standard of “don’t ask, don’t tell (CQ12, Barone 12, OpenSecrets.org).” He sponsored a bill to bar federal funds to schools that provide emergency contraceptive services. Lamborn unsuccessfully tried to pass amendments to eliminate funds for the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (Barone 12).

           Lamborn was an “Aye” for the “kill Medicare” budget authored by House GOP economic “intellectual” Paul Ryan, that died in the Democratic Senate. He voted for the economically harmful balanced budget constitutional amendment that failed to get the 2/3 needed to pass the House. He voted against the final raising of the debt ceiling bill, which kept the U.S., at the last minute, from defaulting on its debts and throwing us and the rest of the world into economic chaos (Wash. Post, Congress Votes Database).  

           Besides being a true “Red” reactionary ideologue on major economic matters, Lamborn finds it an important “priority” to co-sponsor a resolution to “protect” the symbols and traditions of Christmas and support their use (Krueger, opposingviews.com). And how is Christmas being repressed in a country with a numerical Christian majority, Cong. Lamborn?

           We should not be surprised by Lamborn’s outspokenness and disrespectful boycott stunt. In the summer of 2011, Lamborn called Pres. Obama a “tar baby,” a derogatory term with anti-black racist connotations. After a huge outcry, Cong. Lamborn sent a letter to Obama apologizing for using that phrase (KDVR, Stokols, AP, 8/01/11).

          The Denver Post noted that “basic professional courtesy” should have required Lamborn to attend Obama’s address. The Post editorialized that most Democrats did not like W’s policies but still attended his State of the Union speeches. The Post stated that Lamborn had opposed Obama from 2009-2011, but had gone to those State of the Unions. The Denver Post noted that Lamborn has just drawn a primary challenger. That opponent, Robert Blaha, is a businessman who can independently finance his own campaign against Lamborn (Denver Post, 1/24/112, Col. Gazette, Roeder, 1/21/12). IMHO, Lamborn’s boycott was also a petty stunt to get attention and “out Tea Party” Blaha and any other possible challenger. Lamborn is trying to be seen as “Mr. Ultra-right Wing Hero” to get more campaign funds.

         Letters to the editor from Lamborn’s constituents roundly condemned Lamborn’s boycott. However, even under the new re-districting lines that have been drawn for 2012, (Denver Post, Bartels, 12/06/11), Lamborn’s district remains a safe GOP “lock.” And despite this primary challenge, Lamborn’s recognition  and Tea Party voting line make him the  GOP primary favorite (See, Second Reading, jschroyer, 1/18/12, Denver Post, L. Bartels, 12/06/11). The only way to relegate Lamborn to a cranky minority back-bencher is for Democrats to vote in droves, win back the two competitive Colorado seats, and take back the House in 11/2012.         

South Carolina Decides-- It’s A “Whole Newt World”— January 22, 2012

       South Carolinians love to boast that since 1980, their GOP presidential primary has been the “decider.” Translation, the Palmetto State gives the nation its Republican nominee. On 1/21/2012, South Carolinians overwhelmingly voted for former GOP House Speaker and right wing ideological firebrand Newt Gingrich. S. Carolina voters shellacked the national frontrunner and GOP establishment “darling,” Mitt Romney. With 99% of the votes counted, Gingrich had 40.4% to Romney’s 27.9% a 12.5% landslide (NY Times, 1/21/12). In S. Carolina, Romney barely went above his 25% Iowa finish, what he was nationally polling prior to his 1/10/2012,  39%  New Hampshire win (LA Times, P. West, 1/04/12, Nir & Magnifico, Daily Kos, 1/03/12, 1/04/12). Ten days after Romney’s 1/10/2012 New Hampshire massacre of Gingrich, the GOP presidential race is a muddled mess and conventional wisdom of Romney’s “inevitability” has been put on hold. Gingrich, written off as “dead,” early in the summer and after Iowa and New Hampshire, is the political cat with more than “9 proverbial lives.” S. Carolina has given GOP voters their “anti-Romney” candidate (Rutenberg, NY Times, 1/21/12). Let’s look at the current primary results and focus on S. Carolina and its voters. We should also try to figure out if Florida, the next primary state, will join the Newt bandwagon or become Romney’s “tie breaker.”   

    We have had three primaries and three different political “gold medalists,” the first time such a situation has occurred since 1980 (CNN Election Center, 1/21/12, Acosta, Bash, Hamby, et al.).  After the 1/03/2012 Iowa caucuses, Romney and his crew talked non-stop about their 8- point victory. However, former Penn. Sen. Rick Santorum was later determined to have won that contest by 34 votes (NY Times, Shear & Zeleny, 1/19/12). Romney went on to win the New Hampshire race, and now Newt sits on top of the S. Carolina podium.  After Newt’s fourth place finish in New Hampshire, pundits were talking about “calling” the S. Carolina race for Romney and “anointing him” the GOP nominee. Talk shifted to whom Romney would select as his running mate. As late as 1/17/2012, Romney still had a double -digit lead in most S. Carolina polls. However, in politics, one day, let alone four, is a lifetime plus. “Funny things happened on the way to Mitt’s ‘coronation.’”

       In quick succession, the political world rotated wildly off its axis in this first Dixie primary. Two debates were held in S. Carolina, one on 1/16/2012 in Myrtle Beach, and the second on 1/19/2012 in Charleston. Newt, who lives to debate, trounced his rivals with his verbal switchblade jugular thrusts. Romney, when challenged, did not look “crisp” and “above the fray.” Mitt hemmed and hawed about releasing all of his tax returns and Newt implied that Romney may be hiding something damaging. Romney has at least six Cayman Islands offshore accounts with investments worth from $7-32 million (AP S. Braun, S. Ohlemacher, 1/20/12). At the second debate, Newt announced he had just released all of his tax returns. During that week, Romney admitted he only paid about 15% in taxes, less than Gingrich or Obama, and certainly far less than many working Americans (CNN, Avlon, 1/21/12, CNN, Hamby, 1/20/12). Romney has a rich man’s “Warren Buffet problem,”-- his secretaries pay more income taxes than he does.

        Newt won the Debate #2 from the get go. Moderator John King opened up by asking whether Newt wanted to respond to the claim of his second ex-wife Marianne. Marianne had just told ABC that Newt had asked her for an “open marriage” while he was having an affair with staffer Callista, now his third wife. Newt hit that question into Charleston Harbor to rest with the Confederate shells that took out Ft. Sumter. Newt played to the erroneous belief among 3/4 of GOPers that news organizations are “politically biased against them and are too liberal (Blow, NY Times, 1/20/12).” Newt stated that he “was appalled that you (King) would begin a presidential debate on a topic like this.” Newt called the “open marriage” accusation “false.” He boldly stated that raising the “issue is as close to despicable as anything that I can imagine, and is destructive, vicious, negative.” Newt continued hitting political nerves with the GOP base and using anti-press “dog whistle” terms. He called King’s question an attempt by the “elite media” to protect Obama and help his reelection by “attacking Republicans (Wash. Post, M. Henneberger, 1/20/12).” Never mind that Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky was “fair game” for the media, Newt, and the GOP base.  

    Exit polls showed Newt’s debating prowess was crucial to Palmetto State voters in erasing Romney’s lead. According to CNN, 65% stated the debates were important to their vote, and Gingrich won those people by more than a 2:1 margin over Romney (CNN, Hamby, Steinhauser, Helton, 1/22/12). Romney was hoping the GOP “not Romney” vote would remain splintered in S. Carolina, so he could sneak through as did McCain in 2008. Instead, Gingrich consolidated most anti-Romney voters. Santorum’s and Paul’s 17% and 13% showings did not hurt Newt. Santorum helped Newt in one key way. On 1/19/2012, two days before the S. Carolina contest, Santorum was declared the belated Iowa winner.  Santorum shredded Romney’s  “inevitablility” claim that he was the only GOP candidate to win both Iowa and New Hampshire. Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Newt just before the primary helped. Tex. Gov. Rick “gray matter challenged” Perry’s dropping out on 1/19/2012 and endorsing Newt added anywhere from 1-5% to his vote (See CNN Acosta, Bash, et al, 1/21/12). Gingrich, who had been slaughtered in Iowa by Romney’s millions in Super PAC ads, was able to level the financial playing field. Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson gave the pro-Gingrich group, Winning Our Future, a $5million pledge. This money allowed Gingrich to answer Romney’s attacks and go on the offensive attacking Mitt as a flip-flopper on gun control and abortion rights. More importantly, Gingrich was able to put out a devastating film about how Mitt’s venture capital firm, Bain coldly destroyed jobs and towns for profits. Although 2/3 of voters polled still had a generally positive view of Mitt’s business background, (Rutenberg, NY Times, 1/21/12), 2/3 is not close to the 80-90% Mitt should have had for this key part of his resume in a “lobster Red State.” In more moderate swing states, Romney’s Bain role will hurt even more. Mitt’s top argument is that he is the candidate most likely to beat Obama because of his business experience in creating jobs. S. Carolinians didn’t weren’t buying. Nearly 2/3 of them stated that the economy was the most important issue and the top priority of GOP voters here was to defeat Pres. Obama. Who carried those voters? Newt (NY Times, 1/21/12, Edison Research for the AP). About 2/3 of the voters were born-again or evangelical Christians and Gingrich took from 40-42% of them compared to 20-31% for Romney(CNN Exit Poll, Edison Poll). About 37% of the primary voters were very conservative, 32% somewhat conservative, or 69% to 32% moderate or liberal. Gingrich won the votes of both men and women and Tea Partiers (CNN, Edison Poll). And which “key” blocs did Romney win? Those making over $200,000, the “Montgomery Burns” Simpsons’ cartoon set, moderates, and non-Tea Partiers. These groups really “count,” in S. Carolina (CNN, Avlon, 1/21/12).

       The big question is can bomb thrower Gingrich duplicate this win in Florida and really cause the GOP establishment to panic?  Florida, remember, is a key swing state in both the primary and general elections. It has far more moderates and wealthier people. In 2008, 27% of the voters were very conservative, 34% somewhat conservative, or 61% to 38% moderate or liberal (N. Silver, NY Times, 1/21/12).  It has much more ethnic diversity with its Cuban and other Hispanic -American groups. True, Florida, like S. Carolina, has some Dixiecrat pockets. Florida’s Panhandle borders Alabama. The Panhandle and the area north of Jacksonville that goes to the Georgia border, Newt’s home state, have voters similar to those in evangelical Tea Party S. Carolina. In 2010, this Fla. group of conservatives showed up in force and gave that state Tea Party stalwarts Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. Rick Scott (CQ 12, Barone12). 

      However, to be competitive in the 1/31/2012 Florida primary, with its numerous television and radio markets, requires oodles of money and great organization, which Romney has. Gingrich, in his S. Carolina victory speech, begged for funds. Early voting has already started in Fla. Romney’s organization is targeting its super rich and moderate voters, as it did in N. Hampshire to get out and vote now. Romney had a big lead in a CNN Poll taken last week. He is already on the air unopposed with anti-Gingrich attacks (P. West, LA Times, 1/22/12). Romney has already stated that he will release at least his 2010 tax return and an estimate of his 2011 one on 1/24/2012 (CNN, T. Cohen, 1/22/12). Count on Romney to go “nuclear” against Gingrich in the two scheduled Fla. debates and to never let up. Romney is on the ballot in all states, while Gingrich is having trouble getting on in Illinois. The courts have kept him off in Virginia. Romney has the upper hand as the GOP race moves into a protracted battle to win the needed 1,444 delegates. Romney will play well in many areas outside the Deep South, in the swing Midwest, as well as in the Western states (See NY Times, J. Zeleny, 1/21/12).  

    Gingrich talks about Obama being the “Food Stamp” President and a “Saul Alinsky radical.” He says children (read, “lazy” black children) should do janitorial work in schools. These comments are “red meat” in S. Carolina. S. Carolinians hear quite well these “dog whistle appeals” attacking a black President schooled by a Northern Jewish “radical.” Gingrich was the fellow who also told the National Review Online in 9/2010 that Obama followed a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview (Blow, NY Times, 1/20/2012). Get it? Gingrich is letting his angry white crowd hear that Obama is both un-American and an illegitimate president to boot, born in Kenya, conspiracy “birther” talk. S. Carolina was the state where the GOP Southern Strategy, or using coded race appeals to get white votes, was perfected by Nixon aide Harry Dent, and Karl Rove’s mentor the late Lee Atwater.

    Gingrich wants to require job training in exchange for an unemployment check. He told a S. Carolina business audience, “We never again pay anyone (read, lazy shiftless blacks) for doing 99 weeks of nothing.” Even Newt’s right wing stands are not enough for S. Carolina outspoken conservative state senator Kevin Bryant. Bryant is sponsoring a bill to require drug tests for people who apply for unemployment benefits. Bryant and many other S. Carolinians could care less that making unemployment benefits harder to get hurts the economy. S. Carolina is one of the poorest states with its official unemployment rate just under 10%. It ranks 45^th in the amount of money it gives people who lost jobs ($235 a week) and cuts off benefits six weeks earlier than other states.  Bryant believes unemployment benefits “subsidize poor behavior (CNN Politics, 1/20/12, L. Lewis).” You get the idea.

      Even though Romney will probably take Florida and be the 2012 GOP standard bearer, he will, hopefully, be bloodied before the general election. The longer the GOP race continues, the longer Romney will be forced to fight with Gingrich over his Bain record. Romney will have to go farther to the right and end up a “born again” member of the Tea Party. This severe GOP feuding should help President Obama and his fellow Democrats.                

  Mitt “1%” Romney—A Great Match for His Out- of- Touch GOP—January 12, 2012

       Barring a cosmic turn of political events, former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney will quickly put away his GOP’s presidential primary opponents. After winning both the 1/03/12 Iowa caucuses and the 1/10/2012 New Hampshire primary, Romney has an excellent chance to triumph in the key 1/21/2012 South Carolina Republican primary. Since 1980, S. Carolina’s contest has been the GOP “decider” (CNN Wire Staff, 1/11/12). In the Palmetto State, The GOP economic and religious conservative base will be splintered among several candidates, including Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Ron Paul. So far, the attacks on Romney by fellow GOP candidates have been infrequent and have been clumsily executed. Romney has a strong financial base and a broad set of backers including Sen. John McCain, South Carolina’s Gov. Nikky Haley, and N. Jersey’s Gov. Chris Christie (Epstein, “Politico”,  Shear, NY Times, “The Caucus,” 1/10/12, Daily Kos, Kos, 1/09/12 ). Even before the New Hampshire thumping of his rivals, Romney was leading in a 1/04-05/12 CNN-Time Poll of South Carolina primary voters (37% v. 19% Santorum and 18% Gingrich). Romney is the first non-incumbent Republican to win Iowa and New Hampshire. These victories will help trigger a bandwagon effect that will push him over the top. The Obama reelection campaign and fellow Democrats rightly gambled from the “get go” that Romney would be the GOP standard bearer, and have focused on him with laser plus intensity (NY Times, M. Shear, 12/30/2011). Mitt “1%” superrich Romney has a record that makes him the perfect nominee for his out-of-touch Wall Street-oriented party. Romney is also one out –of- touch clueless fellow when dealing with ordinary Americans not in his income bracket.

        The GOP’s winning strategy in most elections is to try to hide from the 99% the stands it takes for its true 1% top economic base. GOP candidates attempt to present themselves as flannel-dressed “average Joes,” while attacking Democrats as “elitists” who look down at “regular” Americans (See T. Frank, “What’s The Matter With Kansas?”) Many GOP candidates are quite good at this fakery. Look at successful 2010 truck-driving, Fenway Park fan Mass. Sen. Scott Brown, one of Wall Street’s biggest champs. However, Mitt Romney can’t play the “I’m just one of you” role well. The Wall Street Journal, no liberal paper, noted that Romney’s political career “has been marked by struggles to connect with ordinary Americans (WSJ, 6/16/11).”

    Even before he made his humungous Bain Capital fortune, Mitt was no up from the bootstraps guy.  He was “to the economic and political manor” born. Mitt is the son of American Motors chief executive George Romney. George Romney went on to become Gov. of Michigan and run unsuccessfully for President in 1968. Son Mitt has a summer home in New Hampshire and a mansion that he has expanded in La Jolla, California. In 2009, during a time of severe unemployment, “average Joe/ Mitt” put up for sale a palatial ski chalet in Deer Valley, Utah (Press release, Americans United For Change, WSJ, 6/16/11). On 6/16/2011, Romney infamously remarked to some unemployed workers in Tampa, Fla., that he was “also unemployed.” Romney called that remark a “joke.” He had previously made that tasteless “unemployed joke” in Iowa and New Hampshire (AP, 6/16/11, Time, “Swampland,” M. Scherer, 6/16/11, Zelney, NY Times, “Politico,” Burns, 6/16/11, J. Martin). Romney is one of the wealthiest candidates ever to run for President, with a Bain Capital fortune estimated at $190-250 million. Since he left Bain Capital about 13 years ago, much of his wealth has gone into investments outside the company or into family trusts, including $100 million set aside for his five sons. As part of his negotiated retirement agreement with this venture capital firm, his former partners have paid him a share of the profits ever since, bringing him millions of dollars in yearly income. “Unemployed” Romney can pursue his political career while still being, in effect, a Bain partner (NY Times, N. Confessore, C. Drew, J. Creswell, 12/18/11). He ran unsuccessfully for Sen. against Ted Kennedy in 1994, then won the Mass. Governor’s race in 2002, but declined to run again in 2006. Since 2006, he has been running non-stop for President.

        And the gaffes continue. In a 2011 Iowa debate, he challenged Tex. Gov. Rick Perry to a $10,000 bet. As most analysts and Democrats pointed out, $10,000 is “chump change” to 1%er Romney. That sum could help a lot of people. How many ordinary Americans bet in that range? Mr. 1% “out-of-touch” Romney declared and even defended his absurd comment that “corporations are people.” We should not, therefore, be surprised that Romney argued and doubled down on the idea that Obama should not have rescued the auto industry. That industry is a key employer in Romney’s native state of Michigan as well as in much of the swing state Midwest. Romney wanted Detroit to “go bankrupt.” He told John King that the “bailout was a waste of money and gave the companies over to the United Auto Workers (National Journal, 6/14/11, NY Times, 6/13/11),” utter nonsense. Romney is no friend of organized labor. He called Obama’s recent labor board appointments “union stooges (“The Hill, Lederman, 1/05/12, USA Today, M. Moore, 1/09/12).” Romney could care less if the 1.4 million middle class American jobs up and down the automotive supply chain disappeared. Obama, with his aid to Detroit, created a revival of the U.S. car industry (CNN, Brazile, 1/07/12). Out-of-touch Romney, with all his mansions, told people losing their homes that the foreclosure process should hit “rock bottom.” Translation, let investors and speculators swoop in and make a quick buck, but don’t help families in this mess (CNN, Brazile, 1/07/11).

       And the gaffes get worse. Romney recently stated he had feared getting a “pink slip” during his private sector career. Give me a break! Romney has inherited wealth, family connections, and “elitist” Harvard MBA and law degrees. He has the utter nerve to compare his career track worries at Bain to the insecurity of the average assembly line worker or small business employee (NY Times, “The Caucus, Parker, 1/09/12). And how callous can he get? On 1/09/12, Romney told people in Nashua, N. Hampshire how he “liked being able to fire people.” Democrats and GOP rivals correctly jumped on that comment. True, as VP Biden noted, Romney was talking about individuals being able to fire bad health insurance companies. Again, Romney is not living in the real world. Almost no individual can fire their health provider and get a better one. Only under the health care law Romney helped pass in Mass. and under Obama’s bill, based on Romney’s, can you fire an insurance company and get a better one. Under these two plans, insurance companies can not deny coverage or charge extra for having a pre-existing condition. Romney now wants to keep the rest of the country from having what he passed in Mass. by repealing Obama’s health care reform legislation (CNN, Carroll, 1/11/12). Biden still correctly rebuked Romney for his glee about “firing people.” As Biden stated, Romney’s “fire people” quote was “not out of context because he (Romney) thinks it’s more important for the stockholders, shareholders and the investors, the venture capital guys do well than for the employees to be part of the bargain (LA Times, Memoli, 1/10/12).” Spot on!

       In running for the White House, Romney’s main claim is that he was a successful businessman who knows how to create lots of jobs and his record at Bain Capital is proof. Since he is making his leadership at Bain the key to his candidacy, what Romney did at Bain is a fair issue for his GOP rivals, Democrats, and the media.

       When Romney led Bain Capital from 1984-1999, that company invested in 77 businesses. Of those businesses, 22% either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with heavy job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all the money Bain had invested in them was lost. Bain produced stellar returns for its investors, yet the bulk of those profits came from just a small number of investments. Ten deals produced more than 70% of the dollar gains. And of those 10 businesses, 4 later landed in bankruptcy court. Some experts said the rate at which Bain investments ran into trouble appeared to be higher than rival buyout firms during that era (Wall Street Journal, 1/09/12). Bain Capital initially specialized in venture capital deals, where an investment firm takes an equity stake in a developing or struggling company that needs capital, a perfectly legitimate practice that helps the free market economy. However, under Romney’s leadership, Bain became one of the nation’s top leveraged-buyout firms. Under leveraged buyout practices, companies are acquired using debt often pledged against their own assets or earnings. Leveraged deals make the acquired company more vulnerable to economic downturns and bankruptcy. Romney, like other leveraged buyout firm leaders, also maximized returns by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies for large profits. Bain investors gained even when companies went broke (Riley, CNNMoney.com, 1/10/12, LA Times, Hamburger & Gold, 12/03/11).

         Campaigning in S. Carolina, Rick Perry, not known for his fluent use of the English language, finally said it right. He called Romney’s work at Bain “vulture” capitalism. Such companies, he said, waited for businesses to “get sick, then sweep in, eat the carcass, and leave the skeleton.” On 1/09/12, Perry visited a Gaffney, S. Carolina photo-manufacturing company, where a Bain takeover deal cost 150 people their jobs (LA Times, Finnegan, 1/11/12). Newt Gingrich is running a devastating attack movie in S. Carolina, “When Mitt Romney Came To Town.” This video goes into detail about how Mitt Romney under Bain ruthlessly wrecked many American jobs and businesses and shows how the people and towns involved were personally affected (NY Times, Shear, 1/09/12, G. Sargent “The Plum Line”). Before the Iowa caucuses, Democrats brought in Randy Johnson, who lost his job thanks to Romney and Bain. Johnson said that “Romney did not care about the worker. It was all about profit before people.” Johnson worked at American Pad & Paper in the 1990’s when Bain took it over. Bain laid off dozens of workers in this Indiana company. Bain made tens of millions of dollars from its investment. American Pad filed for bankruptcy. Johnson called Romney “out of touch with the average person (Kos Labor, L. Clawson, 1/02/12).” Romney keeps saying that he created over 100,000 jobs. Independent fact checkers have concluded this claim is unsubstantiated, and there is no way of being sure that under Romney Bain had more jobs than layoffs (Carroll, CNN, 1/11/2012). When Romney was the Gov. of  Mass. (2003-2007),  that state was 47^th out of 50 in job growth. At the end of those 4 years, the Bay State had only a 1% net gain in payroll jobs, compared to 5.3% of the nation (Benen, Wash. Monthly). Mitt Romney, a job creator?  No way.

       When Romney won the Iowa caucuses, his D.C. K Street group of 15 fundraisers jumped for joy. These people have already raised over half a million dollars for him. Romney’s PACs (Political Action Committees) have come through with millions. Romney’s “K Street Army” has lobbied for the likes of JP Morgan Chase, the Mortgage Bankers Association, Visa, and MasterCard. Add Eli Lily, Bristol Meyers, and Verizon to this list. Romney  (NY Times, Edsall, 1/08/12). Romney also has veteran lobbyist Charlie Black, who advised McCain, in his camp. Black worked for foreign dictators, including Filipino Pres. Ferdinand Marcos as well big business concerns (M. Shear, 1/02/12, NY Times).  Mr. 1% Romney wants to repeal the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act which would prevent another disastrous recession from which we are still recovering (Dantz,politics.gather.com, 8/25/11). I am shocked, shocked!

        Romney, of course, is “Political Flip-Flopper” #1. Romney, who once bragged of running to the left of Ted Kennedy on gays and abortion, now says he “lines up pretty well with the Tea Partiers,” and is the “ideal candidate of the right.” He sees no right to privacy in the Constitution and wants to overturn Roe v. Wade (GOP 1/07/12 debate). He called Obama’s $1,000 middle class tax cut a “band aid.” His own plan would only give families $54, half a band aid, Mitt? He is now in lock step with his fellow Tea Party GOPers for GOP Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget that would kill Medicare, Social Security, and slash education (CNN Brazile, 1/07/12).

         Many GOPers are defending Romney’s Bain “vulture capitalism” as “free market virtue capitalism.” They claim the people who attack such practices are “anti-capitalist  (NY Times, Rutenberg & Zeleny, 1/11/12, “Politico,” Epstein, 1/12/12).”  Even if these attacks fail to stop Romney in the primaries, these charges will have traction among millions of Democrats and independents just tuning in to the race. Obama and his Democrats must make these arguments against Romney in the fall campaign despite false GOP claims that the Bain matter is “old news.” Democrats must also hit Romney for his constant “flip- flops” and for his Tea Party stands. He must not be allowed to “run to the moderate middle.” In addition, we must have our Get Out the Vote turnout machine in 100%+ condition and come out in droves this fall. Romney won big in New Hampshire because he micro-targeted to the tenth power the voters he knew would support him, just as W did in 2004 (M. Reston, LA Times, 1/10/12). Twenty-first Century America can not afford electing a callous out-of-touch 1% er whose claim to fame is practicing “dog- eat- dog vulture capitalism.”  

Now Exiting Iowa—Rick “New GOP Flavor” Santorum v. Mitt “8 Vote Landslide” Romney – January 6, 2012

      Move over Florida. The Sunshine State does not have a monopoly on close volatile political races. The opening contest of Campaign 2012, the Tuesday January 3, 2012 Iowa GOP caucuses, made the Bush-Gore edge of 537 votes look like a chasm (J. Toobin, “Too Close To Call”). After hours of being separated by only a sliver of votes, Mitt Romney was declared the winner over Rick Santorum early Wednesday morning. The final tally gave former Mass. Gov. and millionaire venture capitalist Romney 30,015 votes to Santorum’s 30,007, a “landslide” margin of 8. Romney and Santorum had roughly 25% of the Iowa vote. Texas Cong. Ron Paul came in third with 21%.  Ex- House Speaker Newt Gingrich claimed fourth with 13%, followed by Tex. Gov. Rick Perry with 10%.  Rep. Michele Bachmann with 5% and Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman with 1% made up the rear. Bachmann has since left the race. The closest previous margin of victory in a GOP presidential contest occurred in 1936 when Kan. Gov. Alf Landon won the South Dakota primary with 257 votes. (CNN.com Breaking News 1/04/12, CNN Political Unit, 1/04/12). Just weeks ago, Rick Santorum, a former Penn. Congressman and Senator, had polled in single digits. The final Des Moines Register Poll had Romney in first with 24%, Paul in second with 22%, and Santorum in third with 15% (CNN Political Unit, 1/04/12, Daily Kos, Dem FromCt, 1/01/12). Issues remain over just what Iowa tells us about Romney’s strength, GOP divisions, and 2012 Republican voter enthusiasm. The major question is whether Santorum is the final GOP “not Romney candidate” or just the brief Republican “flavor of the week.” Let’s hone in closely on those matters and take a look at Rick Santorum and his chances against Romney.

           The Romney camp is in overdrive celebrating its Iowa victory.  However, the closeness of this race  diminishes his win and demonstrates the obstacles Romney still faces in getting the GOP social conservative base to like and unify around him (See LA Times, Barabak & Mehta, 1/05/12). In getting just 25% of the Iowa vote, Romney appears a very weak front-runner for the GOP nomination. He remains stuck at his anemic 25% national polling support level. Translation, 75% of GOPers want anyone other than Mitt. In fact, as the 2012 first place Iowa finisher, Romney received 6 votes less than he did when he came in second to Ark. Gov. Mike Huckabee in 2008 (2008-30,021votes  v. 2012- 30,015 votes). Iowa 2012 is an expectations-crushing blow for Romney (LATimes, P. West, 1/04/12, Nir and Magnifico, Daily Kos, 1/03/12, 1/04/12 ). While Romney pummeled Gingrich, Santorum swept under the radar and nearly pulled an upset. Because the 2012 evangelical right wing vote ( about 60% of the electorate as in 2008), was splintered and didn’t unite behind a single candidate, Romney just cleared the political “end zone” for his winning Iowa Bowl “touchdown (West, LA Times, 1/03/11, CNN, P. Hamby, Election Center, 1/04/12).”

         The storm-free cold weather did not keep Iowans from voting publicly in their schools, firehouses, homes, and churches. Still, only 3,067 more Iowans voted in the 2012 GOP caucuses than in 2008 (122,255 v. 119,188). And there are more registered Iowa GOPers now than in 2008 (643,950 v. 607,927). Obviously, there is little Iowa enthusiasm for the GOP and its current crop of presidential candidates. The GOP incorrectly believed that the 2012 contest would inspire huge turnout, as did the 2008 Dem. Obama-Hillary Clinton Iowa race (LATimes, West, 1/03/12, Kos Magnifico, 1/04/12).

        Polls of Iowa GOP caucus goers were also split between GOP social and economically concerned voters. According to an Edison Research Poll conducted for the National Election Pool of TV networks and the AP, 46% of caucus goers did not decide until the last few days. Santorum benefited the most here, with 33% backing him. The nearly 60% born-again/ evangelical group gave Santorum 32% of their votes. The “very conservative” went to Santorum as did 30% of the Tea Party set.  Just more than 40% said the economy was the key issue, while about 30% stated the budget deficit was their main concern. When asked what quality was most important in a candidate, 30% said the ability to defeat Obama. Twenty-five percent opted for someone being a true conservative, and another 25% called a candidate’s having a strong moral character the most important matter. Among people who believed the economy was most important, Romney, who emphasizes his business background, took about 1/3 of the vote. Romney received the most support among voters most concerned with defeating Obama (NY Times, J. Zeleny, 1/03/12). Romney did well in the urban areas and won 38% of Iowa’s non-evangelical vote (Chalian, YAHOO!NEWS, 1/04/12).

        Rick Santorum (53), is the latest GOP’s “not Mitt Romney” standard bearer. Santorum was a two- term Penn. Congressman and then that state’s U.S. Senator for two terms (Barone 12 Almanac, CQ 12 Almanac). A Winchester, Virginia native, Santorum grew up in West Virginia, and later in Butler County, Pennsylvania. He is the son of an Italian immigrant father and an Irish-American/Italian-American mother. His father worked at the VA (Veterans’ Administration) Hospital in Butler, Penn. Son Rick was nicknamed by his Butler school classmates, the “Rooster,” for being “dogged and determined like a rooster and never backing down (U.S. News, Aldo Santorum Obituary, Santorum genealogy, Santorum’s Sen. website).” Before earning a law degree in 1986, Santorum volunteered for the late Penn. U.S. GOP Sen. John Heinz. In 1990, dogged “Rooster” Rick scored an upset victory over a 7-term Dem. Congressman in a heavily Democratic Pittsburgh suburban area (51%-49%). He campaigned hard and personally  criticized the incumbent for living outside of the district most of the year (The Pittsburgh Press, 11/07/90). Santorum won re-election in 1992 with 61%, even though this district was redrawn with a 3:1 Democratic margin. In the 1994 anti-Bill Clinton year, Santorum ran for the Senate and defeated Dem. incumbent Harris Wofford 49%-47%.  

          In the Senate, Santorum became the Senate’s third ranking GOP leader. He sided with W 98% of the time. He is for converting Medicare into a voucher system and cutting back on Social Security (See Barone 12, CQ12, R. Brownstein, National Journal, 1/06/12). Santorum was best known for his hard line social ideology. A devout Catholic, Santorum, was, of course, anti-abortion. However, he went even further in his views than most. Santorum often stated he did not believe that a “right to privacy” exists under the Constitution, even for married couples. He opposed the 1965 Griswold v. Conn. U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned a law prohibiting the sale and use of contraceptives. Griswold was the decision that established a constitutional right to privacy for sexual matters that was the basis for the Roe v. Wade abortion case. According to Santorum, contraception is a “license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be (Santorum, 7/19/05, National Review, Wehner, Commentary, 10/24/11).” Read, sex is only for reproduction, nothing else. In 2002, Santorum wrote an article in a Catholic publication that blamed the priest sex abuse scandal on “liberalism and moral relativism in America.” He said it was no surprise that liberal Boston was “at the center of the storm (Santorum, 7/12/02, “Fishers of Men” Catholic Online).” In 2001, Santorum authored, with the help of the anti-evolutionary Discovery Institute, an amendment to W’s “No Child Left Behind” education bill. This “Santorum Amendment,” would require hearing about “intelligent design,” when teaching evolution. “Intelligent design” is a stalking horse for the Biblical creation story, a violation of the 1^st Amendment’s separation of church and state (Santorum, 12/18/01, Conference Report, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 354:227-2281, 5/26/06). Santorum is also hostile to gay unions of any kind as he noted in his “It Takes a Family” book. He is infamously known for comparing gay relationships to “man on dog” ones (USA Today, AP, 4/23/03).

       “In your face” hard driving Santorum showed a knack for winning tough elections in “Blue” Penn., a state heavy with its cultural conservatives in Pittsburgh and its central area. In 2000, Sen. Santorum defeated an underfunded Democratic congressman to win his second term. In 2006, however, “rooster” Santorum’s cries faded. In this Dem. year when voters did not like Santorum’s support for W’s Iraq War and his rubber stamp GOP record, national Democrats recruited Penn. Treasurer Bob Casey, Jr. Casey Jr. is the pro-life son of the popular late Dem. Gov. Bob Casey, Sr. Because the abortion issue had now been neutralized, Casey, Jr. was able to attack Santorum easily and shellacked him by 18 points (59%-41%) (Barone 12).

       After his defeat, Santorum, a favorite of K Street lobbyists in the Senate, practiced law and worked for a conservative think tank. Like Gingrich, “outsider” Santorum became a successful lobbyist and consultant. Ex-Senator Santorum worked for health management and energy interests. He contributed to the GOP-tilted Fox News Channel (National Review, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, NY Times Luo & McIntire, 1/05/12, LA Times, Mason & Hamburger, 1/06/12). His 2006 loss was “cushioned” by his private sector success. He now has at least a net worth of $1.2- 4 million (NY Times, Luo & McIntire, Mason & Hamburger, LA Times). Although backing Romney against McCain in 2008, Santorum decided Romney and the other 2012 candidates could not “step up to the plate (for conservative views) (CNN).”  On 9/06/11, Santorum entered the presidential ring.

       Santorum remained at the back of the pack until the other “not Romney” conservative candidates faltered. Persistent “Rooster” Rick crisscrossed Iowa in a 2006 Dodge Ram pickup, racking up 138,000 miles and visiting all 99 Hawkeye counties. He had a small group of top dedicated aides from his own Senate races, as well as people who had previously worked for Romney and Huckabee in the 2008 Iowa caucuses. They ran a smart campaign on a shoe-string budget. Santorum just spent $30,000 on ads (Hamby, CNN, 1/04/12, Blitzer, CNN, NY Times, M. Leibovich, 1/03/12). Santorum, the father of 7, also played down his prickly cranky image in Iowa. He did 382 town hall meetings (LA Times, Oliphant, 1/03/12). He spoke about how he was even willing to cross the aisle and work with “radical” Calif. Dem. Sen. Barbara Boxer. He played up his blue collar roots, when he talked about how his coal-miner grandfather had fled Mussolini’s Italy (LA Times,Abcarian 1/05/12). Santorum’s endorsement, two weeks ago, by Bob Vander Plants, the head of the influential Christian advocacy group the Family Leader, was helpful (Oliphant, LA Times, 1/03/12).

        Iowa, a meet-and-greet caucus state with a huge evangelical vote, was tailor made for Santorum. In New Hampshire, which holds its primary on 1/10/12, there are far fewer religious conservatives. Romney holds a commanding Granite State lead. He almost lives there, as the former governor of next door Mass. In the 2-hour 1/07/1 N. Hampshire debate, the other candidates will start to target Santorum as a new front runner and his record is already under media scrutiny. Santorum is a strong debater. However, although his fundraising totals have started to climb since his near Iowa upset, he is way behind front-runner Romney in the money chase (Babarak, LA Times,1/03/2012).

    Romney has yet to savage Santorum, as he did Gingrich in Iowa. In Iowa, Romney toppled Gingrich with his three-week barrage of $2.8 million plus negative ads coming from one of his “independent” super- PACs ( Political Action Committee), “Restore Our Future” group. Many of the people running Romney’s super PACs worked for him in 2008. They include Larry McCarthy, the producer of the 1988 Willie Horton ads that help defeat Dem. Michael Dukakis. Donors to the key Romney “Restore Our Future” PAC also torpedoed Kerry in 2004 with the Swift Boat ads. Romney, under the Supreme Court’s disgraceful 2010 Citizens United opinion, now does not have to spend a dollar on these ads. He can just “outsource” them to super-PACs who can spend unlimited sums (NY Times, 12/30/11, Confessore & Rutenberg). Although Romney won an Iowa nail-biter, he his already leading in South Carolina ( 37% to 19% and 18% for Santorum and Gingrich respectively)  Rick Perry also takes 5% of the conservative base (CNN/Time/ORC Poll, CNN 1/06/12). Once again, because the evangelical/ social conservative base is split between Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry Romney may be able to wrap up this race after three state victories, unless this anti-Romney group unites behind one candidate and sufficiently bloodies him.

         IMHO, it would be nice for the GOP to have a long knock down drag out fight between the economic and social crazies. However, President Obama and Democrats can not count on that. Obama and his team have correctly gambled that Romney will be the nominee. Obama has nearly $1 billion in funds to take on Romney. He will have to start hitting him without let up very soon and make sure Democrats come out in droves to vote.                

 Meet GOP Congressman Tim Huelskamp--A Stellar Member of the “Apocalypse Caucus”—January 1, 2012

       You have to hand it to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). In the year end battle to pass Pres. Obama’s employee payroll tax cut, Boehner ended up hitting into a disastrous political “triple play.” Out #1-- Boehner demonstrated poor leadership, a “No, No” for any Speaker. Boehner initially came out for a two-month extension that would keep the employee payroll tax at the current 4.2% level, instead of rising to 6.2% on 1/01/2012. Had that 6.2% figure gone into effect, 160 million Americans would have been socked with an average tax increase of $1,000, no way to promote economic growth. This deal, overwhelmingly passed by a bipartisan 89-10 Senate vote, also extended emergency unemployment benefits and kept doctors from facing a 20% cut in Medicare payments (CNN Politics, T. Cohen & A. Silverleib, 12/21/11, LA Times, L. Mascaro & K. Hennessey, 12/20/11). When Boehner heard from many of his Tea Party freshmen fanatics that they opposed this deal, he immediately opposed the Senate agreement. Many pundits viewed Boehner as a powerless legislative caboose that the minority Tea Party locomotive was dragging down the legislative tracks. A stronger Speaker would have cobbled enough GOP and Democratic votes together to override the Tea Party extremists. Out #2—Boehner’s bowing down to the Tea Party was one beautifully packaged holiday gift to the Democrats. Boehner’s tax deal opposition made the GOP, the “so-called” party of tax reduction, appear to stand solely for millionaire tax cuts, not breaks for the middle class. No Democratic ad could have said that better. The most recent Washington Post Poll shows Obama and the Democrats have reversed the GOP’s previous edge on who is more trusted on taxes (NY Times, J. Calmes, 12/21/11). Out #3—Boehner started a civil war with his fellow conservative GOP Senators. He cut the proverbial rug from under them by not supporting their tax cut vote. Even the right wing Wall Street Journal editorial page thrashed Boehner for the way he botched this payroll tax issue (CNNPolitics, 12/23/11, Silverleib & Cohen).

       With Boehner’s side “retired,” the Speaker had to “cave.” On 12/22/2011, Boehner agreed to the Senate deal. Boehner stated, “It (his opposition to the Senate agreement) may not have been the smartest thing in the world.” Echoing Tea Party talking points, Boehner called that stance the “right thing to do (SeeCNNPolitics, 12/23/11, Silverleib & Cohen).” However, many GOPers remained furious over Boehner’s “surrender.” On 12/23/2011, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (HYUELS-kamp) declared he was “disappointed in our entire leadership team.” Huelskamp added, “After one year watching what’s occurred and seeing our conservative principles falling by the wayside numerous times in these debates, we’ve got a lot of progress to make (NY Times, Steinhauer, 12/23/11).”  In Huelskamp’s words, “We were sent here with a clear set of instructions from the American people to put an end to business as usual in Washington, yet here we are being asked to sign off on yet another ‘gimmick (Silverleib & Cohen, 12/23/11).’” Who is Cong. Huelskamp, who does he represent, and for whom does he stand?

       Freshman GOP Congressman Tim Huelskamp (43) represents Kansas’ 1^st Congressional District (C.D.). Kansas’ “Big First” takes in all of that state’s western area. The 1^st C.D. covers 70% of Kansas and has more land area than most U.S. states. The “Big First,” contains 66 full counties and parts of three others. The 1^st stretches west of the Flint Hills and Abilene, the boyhood home and burial place of WWII General and President Dwight D. (Ike) Eisenhower. The 1^st’s largest city is Salina.  Wyatt Earp- famed Dodge City, Emporia, Hutchinson, and Garden City are also located here. This former prairie flatland was first settled by New England Yankees and German Catholics. Although large in area, the Sunflower State’s 1^st C.D. has not grown much since the 1890’s, and now has the smallest population of all four Kansas congressional districts (CQ Almanac 12, Barone Almanac 12).

   Agriculture is “king.” From 1995-2009, the 1^st received the second-highest percentage of federal farm subsidies of any congressional district.  Hutchinson has food-related industry, manufacturing, and health care jobs. The 1^st also has oil and gas. Drought has hurt local crop yields. The average age of the 1^st’s farmers is 60. Big meat packing plants have become prominent in Dodge City, Garden City, and Liberal. Large numbers of Hispanic immigrants live in trailer parks and work in these plants. Hispanics constitute 2/3 of the children in the 1^st’s schools. Despite the increasing amount of Hispanics (14.8%) and the agricultural subsidies from “Big Government,” the 1^st C.D. is “lobster-Red”. The 1^st has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of R+23. In 2004, W clobbered Kerry by a nearly 3:1 margin, and in 2008, McCain bested Obama by more than 2:1. In the 2010 gubernatorial race, the 1^st went heavily for current GOP Governor and former U.S. Senator Sam Brownback. Many counties in the 1^st have no Democratic Party organizations (Barone12, CQ 12).

        Tim Huelskamp, a native of Fowler, Kansas, worked on the farm his grandparents founded in 1925. Huelskamp was active in 4-H and Future Famers of America. After graduating as high school valedictorian, he briefly attended a Catholic seminary in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Huelskamp later received his BA from the College of Santa Fe. While at that school, he worked part- time as a state government and legislative analyst. In 1995, he obtained his doctorate in political science from D.C.’s American University. He then returned to his Fowler farm. In 1996, he won a seat in the Kansas State Senate where he served for 14 years (Barone 12, CQ 12). Huelskamp became interested in politics at the age of 11, and became “enamored” of Ronald Reagan.  According to Huelskamp, Reagan “had a way of communicating basic American principles and concerns in a way that people really got it (Barone12).”

        Huelskamp’s stalwart conservative record and actions in the Kansas legislature correlated 100% with his right-wing views and behavior in the current 112^th Congress. In the State Senate, Huelskamp authored the state’s anti-gay marriage amendment that Kansans passed in 2005. He was active on anti-abortion rights issues. In 2009, Huelskamp called for an amendment to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding for Kansas family planning programs. As early as 2003, Huelskamp lost his seat on the State Senate Ways and Means Committee. Huelskamp claimed he was booted from that post because he opposed wasteful spending. However, two state GOP leaders told the Topeka Capital Journal in 2010 that he was kicked off that committee because he could not work with the leadership (Barone 12, CQ12).

    In 2010, Huelskamp ran in a six- person GOP primary to replace retiring GOP Rep. Jerry Moran. Huelskamp won the primary with the help of former GOP Ark. Gov. Mike Hucakbee’s endorsement, as well as that of the anti-tax Club for Growth. Huelskamp also ran an ad proclaiming he was “not one of those weak-kneed Republicans.” In the general 11/2010 election in the “fiery Red” 1^st, Huelskamp smashed his Democratic opponent 74%-23%. Huelskamp took in more than $1.2 million compared to just $162,000 for his rival. Right wing Koch Industries gave Huelskamp $10,900 (OpenSecrets.org, CQ12, Barone 12).

       Huelskamp stated he would be “a reliable conservative vote” in Congress (CQ12). Call that comment an understatement. Heulskamp is a proud member of Cong. Michele Bachmann’s extremist Tea Party Caucus. He is also part of the Republican Study Committee (RSC) and a member of its budget task division. The 170 member RSC is the most conservative bloc and dominant force within the House GOP caucus (CQ12, Barone 12). Cong. Huelskamp won assignments on the House Budget, Agriculture, and Veterans’ Affairs Committees. His Agriculture post is a key one for the Kans. 1^st. Huelskamp’s appointment to the Budget Committee is a rare plum for a freshman, and a good place where he can push his hard line views on slashing spending (CQ 12, Barone 12). Huelskamp’s Budget slot indicates that the GOP leadership intends to reward and satisfy its Tea Party base. Huelskamp hired as his chief of staff, Jim Pfaff, a fellow with no Capitol Hill experience. Pfaff was a former conservative Denver talk show host who had worked as an organizer against gay marriage and abortion (Barone 12, Cong. At Your Fingertips 112^th Congress).

      And the most important group Cong. Huelskamp belongs to isn’t even formally listed. It’s what the Washington Post calls the “Apocalypse Caucus.” This gang is an unofficial group of 20 congressmen, including 12 hard right GOPers. They think that “the best way to fix government is to act as if you wouldn’t mind if it burned down.” This group hates compromise and believes that power goes to those who seem “least afraid of catastrophe (D. Fahrenthold, 10/04/11).” In 4/2011, the House needed to pass two budgets to prevent a government shut down. How did Cong. Huelskamp vote? “No and No.” In 8/2011, the House needed to pass a debt-ceiling agreement to prevent a national default. And where did Cong. Huelskamp cast his lot? In the “No” column. Had the majority voted his way, the U.S. would have defaulted on its debts and plunged itself and the rest of the world into an unparalleled economic catastrophe. In the fall of 2011, the House voted three times to keep the government going. Huelskamp’s votes here? “No, No, and No (Farenthold, 10/04/11, Wash. Post).” Huelskamp told CNN he “considered” returning to D.C. to block the payroll tax bill on 12/23/2011. However, “the problem was by the time we were notified that a unanimous consent agreement would be offered, where I come from in Kansas, I can’t get back to D.C. quick enough.” (Unanimous consent is a Senate and House procedural move used to quickly pass a measure even though most members were already home—CNN 12/23/11, Silverleib and Cohen, See also CQ Pocket Guide to Language of Congress). Cong. Tim “NO” Hueslkamp stands far beyond most Tea Party extremists. He hasn’t heard or doesn’t know the meaning of the word “compromise,” the key to successful legislating, the glue that keeps our government running.

        In early 2011, it was “déjà vu all over again” for Cong. Huelskamp. As he did in Kansas, Cong. Huelskamp voted against funding Planned Parenthood on a catchall spending bill for the 2011 budget. Unlike most GOPers, he voted against the short term resolution to fund the government in 3/2011. He stated that not enough money had been slashed, and that this bill specifically failed to rule out money for Planned Parenthood. Contrary to most GOPers, Huelskamp was a “Nay” on the final vote on the 2011 budget (Barone 12, CQ 12, Wash. Post, U.S. Cong. Votes Database).

    Huelskamp voted with his fellow GOPers for the radical “kill Medicare” 2012 House GOP budget authored by Cong. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) that died in the Dem. Senate. He voted for the harmful balanced budget amendment that failed to get the necessary 2/3 votes to pass the House (Cong. Votes Database).  Huelskamp voted with the GOP House majority to repeal Obama’s health insurance reform, a bill the Democratic Senate defeated. He promised to keep trying to defund that law (Swanson, Dodge City Daily Globe, 2/04/11). As in Kansas, he has a perfect anti-abortion record. He follows the anti-regulation Koch Industries line. He is for more offshore oil drilling and voted against EPA regulating greenhouse gases. He says the EPA has “a real anti-farmer agenda,” because it bans chemicals farmers use to grow crops. Huelskamp also takes a hard line stance on immigration, pushing for more secure borders. He believes that it should be “difficult to become a citizen (CQ Guide to New Congress, Huelskamp on the Issues).” You get the idea.

       Prickly Huelskamp can get re-elected as many times as he wants in his safe GOP district. Had enough Democrats come out to vote in 2010, Nancy Pelosi would still have the gavel and Huelskamp’s “tear down the government” views would constitute irrelevant rantings by an obscure backbencher. Again, folks, elections, whether congressional or presidential, count. Democrats must not make the same mistake in 2012. They must come out in droves to take back the House, keep the Senate “Blue,” and re-elect Obama. Obama will probably be running against the well-funded right wing pandering, job out-sourcing, and Wall Street champ Mitt Romney. GOP candidates take the pledge not to raise taxes. Registered Democrats must, above all, take the pledge/ New Year’s Resolution to vote.        

  Congressman Mike “Tea Party” Coffman— Let’s Say Goodbye to Him in 2012   December 14, 2011

     Redistricting, the constitutionally required redrawing of state and congressional districts to reflect population changes, is not an inside political baseball game played for fun by governors and state legislators. Republicans have long understood the importance of drawing as many state and federal districts as possible to contain overwhelming numbers of GOP voters. As early as the 1970’s, Newt Gingrich realized that should the GOP prevail in this process, it could lock in the ability to shape an unbeatable House majority. In Gingrich’s words, “redistricting is everything (“The Nation”).” Despite the many GOP 11/2010 mid term victories in gubernatorial and state legislative races, Democrats have been able to make gains and level the playing field in several states (See C. Hulse, NY Times, “The Caucus,” 12/12/11). These Democratic advantages could help them win the 25 seats they need to take back the House in 2012. Exhibit A-Colorado.

      After the 2010 elections, Colorado has a Democratic Governor and a 20-15 Democratic majority in the State Senate. The Colorado House has a 33-32 GOP majority (Barone 12 Almanac CQ 12 Almanac). Colorado U.S. House Democrats went from a 5-2 majority to a 4-3 minority (Cong. At Your Fingertips, 111^th & 112^th Standard Versions). On 12/05/2011, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the ruling of a Denver district court judge, who after a trial, selected the Democrats’ 10 year map for congressional and state redistricting.  Colorado GOPers wanted to keep the seven congressional boundaries close to how they were drawn a decade ago. Democrats, Hispanic groups, and the city of Aurora argued that population had been changed and the new maps should, therefore, undergo revisions. Under the  map chosen by District Court Judge Robert Hyatt and affirmed by the State Supreme Court, Aurora receives its own congressional district, while GOP-leaning Douglas County is split. Normally conservative Larimer County was moved from an Eastern Plains GOP district to progressive Boulder. Political analysts view this new congressional map as creating three very competitive districts where Democrats have a chance to unseat two GOP incumbents, Reps. Mike Coffman and Scott Tipton. Rep. Coffman’s district is the most competitive. Coffman’s seat has been changed from that of a safe GOP one to a district that either party could win, depending on the candidates and the political climate (L. Bartels, Denver Post, 12/05/11, Colorado Springs Gazette, 11/11/11, CBS Denver, D. Dezzutti, 12/08/11). Let’s hone in on Cong. Mike Coffman and his district.

       Second-term Cong. Mike Coffman (56) represents Colorado’s 6^th Congressional District (C.D.). The 6^th   currently takes in Arapahoe County, which includes a small portion of Aurora, Colorado’s third most populous city. The 6^th also has Jefferson County as well as Elbert County. The district is basically centered on Littleton and Douglas County. Douglas County has exploded in population. From 2000-2008, Douglas grew 51%, the fastest growing county in the Centennial State. That county’s population is more than three and one half times larger than it was in 1990. The 6^th’s economic mainstays include white collar jobs in the high tech, scientific, and telecommunications fields. Comcast, Echo Star, and Lockheed are major employers (Barone 12, CQ12).

        Politically, Douglas County, which accounts for 36% of the 6^th’s residents, is a GOP stronghold. Douglas County’s affluent educated families have conservative cultural values. Because of Douglas County, the 6^th has a +8 GOP Cook Partisan Voting Index. The 6^th is the only Colorado district in which minorities make up less than 20% of the population. Democrats constitute just 25% of registered voters. After the Colorado Springs- based 5^th C.D., with its strong military and evangelical base, the 6^th is the state’s most GOP district. In 2004, the 6^th gave W  60% of its vote. In 2008, McCain bested Obama 53%-46% (Barone 12, CQ12).

      Mike Coffman won his first congressional election in 2008. In a district with about a 9% Hispanic population, Coffman replaced anti- immigration firebrand GOP Rep. Tom Tancredo. Tancredo had launched an unsuccessful 2008 White House bid (Huffington Post, J. Bendery, 10/14/11, Congressional Biographical Directory, Barone 12, CQ 12, Co. Springs Gazette, 11/11/11). The son of an Army doctor, Coffman served both in the Army and Marine Corps and received his undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado. After his active duty ended, Coffman started several Denver area property firms. After winning several terms in the Colorado House and Senate, Coffman was elected State Treasurer in 1998. He resigned that post in 2005 to go to Iraq for six months (Barone 12, CQ12).

    In 2006, Coffman narrowly won the office of Colorado Sec. of State by touting his experience working on Iraqi elections. During his two years in that post, Coffman was criticized for taking several voting machines out of commission and not replacing them in time for the next election. Coffman opposed an all mail ballot voting system that county clerks wanted. Many voters did not receive their absentee ballots for the 8/2008 primary, and that contest was plagued with errors (Barone12). Shortly before the 11/2008 election, Coffman purged thousands of state voters from the rolls and was sued by a national voting rights group. A federal judge ordered Coffman to reinstate the purged voters for the 2008 election and stop removing additional names (CQ 12, Barone12, CNN 10/27/08, moritzlaw.osu.edu, 10/30/08). Despite this controversy, Coffman clobbered his Democratic congressional opponent with 66% of the vote in the “Red” 6^th (CQ12).

         Cong. Coffman’s attitude toward government endorses the standard GOP line, “take care of national security and the troops and make the government stay within its means (CQ12).” Cong. Coffman is a strong opponent of Pres. Obama’s initiatives.  In 2009, he told the conservative publication “Human Events” that “they (Obama and his administration) are taking us down the road to a European-style social welfare state.” In 2009-2010, Coffman voted with his hard right party 97% of the time (CQ12, Barone 12). In the 111^th Congress, he voted with the GOP 95% of the time, and in the current 112^th session, he has a 91% lock-step GOP voting record (Wash. Post, U.S. Congress Votes Database).  In 2009-2010, labor’s AFL-CIO gave him an 11% rating, and the liberal ADA (Americans for Democratic Action), a “basement” 3% score (CQ12). Coffman is a proud member of Michele Bachmann’s Tea Party Caucus as well as the Republican Study Committee (RSC). The 170 member RSC is the most conservative bloc and dominant force within the House GOP caucus (CQ12).

        And here’s where Rep. Coffman lines up on key issues. Coffman voted against Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill that started our recovery and kept us out of a second recession. He was against the successful and popular “cash for clunkers” program that helped auto sales. He put himself in the “Nay” column on the Wall Street reform bill, legislation that would prevent future financial meltdowns. Like his anti-immigrant/anti-Hispanic predecessor, Tom Tancredo, Coffman opposed giving legal status to some children of illegal immigrants. He voted against a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions. He is a strong opponent of abortion and voted to defund Planned Parenthood (CQ 12, Barone 12,Ntl. Right To Life, nrlc.capwiz.com). Coffman voted against Obama’s health care reform bill. He called it “an affront to the Constitution and an unlawful expansion of federal power (Denver Post, Coffman commentary, 1/13/10).” In 1/2011, he had no reservations about voting to repeal health care reform, a GOP House-passed bill the Democratic Senate defeated (coffman.house.gov, 1/19/11). Coffman even voted against expanding health insurance for middle class children, the SCHIP bill Obama signed (CQ12).

         And Coffman’s extremist hits “just keep on coming.” On a 9/14/2011 Denver radio program, “Kelly and Company,” Cong. Coffman called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme,” agreeing with GOP presidential candidate Tex. Gov. Rick “gray matter challenged” Perry. He joined most House GOPers in voting for the crippling Balanced Budget Amendment which failed to get the 2/3 votes necessary to pass that chamber. He was in favor of Speaker Boehner’s radical “cap, cut, and balance,” bill that the Senate quashed this past summer. Coffman voted for the “kill Medicare” 2012 GOP budget authored by Republican economic “intellectual” Cong. Paul Ryan. Coffman also voted against repealing the anti-gay DADT, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” standard. You get the idea.

         Douglas County’s growth made Colorado’s 6^th that state’s most populous district. As a result, under the new reapportionment plan, the 6^th C.D. would have to shed tens of thousands of residents to a neighboring district (CQ 12). The plan the State Supreme Court upheld no longer guarantees “slam dunk” Coffman victories. The new 6^th C.D. encompasses all of Aurora and some of the south Denver suburbs. The remapped 6^th is split in thirds between GOPers, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters. The new 6^th’s Latino population increases from around 9% to about 20% (K. Lee, Denver Post, 12/06/11). In their drive to take back the 25 seats needed to recapture the House, the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) has concentrated on going after GOP congressmen who took seats by winning less than 55% of the vote. The DCCC is also targeting the 20 districts won by Kerry and the more than 40 that Obama carried that are represented by GOPers (“Politico,” Isenstadt, 12/09/10, Hulse, NY Times, 12/12/11). The DCCC has added 30 incumbent GOPers to their attack list, because redistricting has put them in very competitive and friendlier Democratic turf. Since his district lines have changed, Cong. Coffman is now considered vulnerable for the first time. The DCCC has launched ads against Coffman for demanding “more tax breaks for millionaires,” and for leaving D.C. on holiday vacation without extending the payroll tax cut for 160 million middle class Americans (Lee, Denver Post, 12/01/1, “The Hill,” R. Berman, 12/09/11). DCCC spokeswoman Amber Moon argued that in his new district, Con. Coffman is going to have a tough time selling his extreme Tea Party record.” Frankly, calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” won’t be popular in this newly configured 6^th (Lee, Denver Post, 12/01/11, Bendery, Huffington Post, 10/14/11).

      However, elections are not played on paper or with armchair theorists who can cite favorable polls. They are won in the real world on the ground, where the candidates, financing, and, above all, turnout is everything. In 2012, when Coffman runs for a third term, Colorado will be flooded with money from Democrats, GOPers, and third party political groups not only in the congressional races but in the presidential one, where Colorado is a major battleground (“How Obama Won,” Todd & Gawiser). Presently, progressive Dem. State Rep. Joe Miklosi is garnering endorsements from Democrats, including former Co. House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, who declined to run in the 6^th.  However, Miklosi is not well known.  He may be challenged in a primary by wealthy chiropractor Perry Haney, or other candidates. Miklosi has raised about $130,000. Coffman, however, raked in $800,000 from just one fundraiser with GOP House Speaker John Boehner and can surely count on more GOP money and funds from the likes of Karl Rove, the Koch Bros., and other GOP-leaning groups. Coffman has run successfully twice statewide (CBS Denver, Dezzutti, 12/08/11, Co. Statesman, Lunning, 12/09/11, Denver Post, Lee, 12/07/11, 24-7 pressrelease.com, 11/17/11). Turning out Hispanic voters and other members of the Democratic base will be essential. While some pundits believe Democrats will get a boost with the 6^th’s new boundaries, others such as local analyst Floyd Ciruli believe this race “will be very difficult (Co. Springs Gazette, 11/11/11, Denver Post, Lee, 12/06/11).”

        Control of the House includes giving Coffman his “pink slip” in the 6^th C.D. As we enter the holiday season and approach 2012, Democrats must make this New Years’ resolution—to support their primary winners and come out in droves in 11/2012 to re-elect Pres. Obama, keep the Senate “Blue,” and take back the House. Failure to turn out, in Bill Clinton’s words,  constitutes “political malpractice.”   

Another Battle Royal in the Sunshine State— Democratic Senator Bill Nelson v. Connie Mack IV   December 7, 2011

      In modern American politics, count on one constant—Florida ranks at the top as a political battleground. In presidential, gubernatorial, and other political races, volatile and close contests often occur. In the 2000 election, W bested Al Gore 48.85% - 48.84%. W’s win came after a 36-day recount that featured butterfly ballots, “pregnant” chads, and a U.S. Supreme Court 5-4 assist (Toobin, “Too Close To Call, Barone Almanac 12). Among the 10 largest states, only Ohio joined Fla. in giving their winning presidential candidates margins of less than 5% in 2000, 2004, and 2008 (Barone 12). In the 2010 Fla. gubernatorial race, Tea Party GOPer hospital executive Rick Scott defeated Dem. Alex Sink, Fla.’s Chief Financial Officer,  48.9%-47.7%, a 1.2% margin ( Time, T. Padgett, 2/28/11,CQ12 Almanac). In 2006, Vern Buchanan beat Christine Jennings for Fla.’s 13^th Cong. District by just 369 votes, the third-closest race of that year (CQ12). President Obama is presently polling neck and in the Sunshine State against Mitt Romney (PPP Polling, Daily Kos Election Digest, S. Singiser, 12/03/11). And the GOP is delighted that Rep. Connie Mack IV has decided to challenge Dem. Senator Bill Nelson in 2012. Many Republicans and political analysts believe that Mack can make this race into another Fla. battle royal. A Fla. GOP Sen. pickup would help Republicans recapture the Senate. Unlike the two previous cycles where more GOP seats were in play (2006 and 2008), Democrats will be defending 23 Senate seats (CQ12). And not all of those Democratic contests are “slam dunks.” Democrats face tough fights in swing, “Red,” and “Red” leaning states. Let’s focus on Sen. Bill Nelson and his GOP challenger Cong. Connie Mack IV.

      Two- term Democratic Senator Bill Nelson (69) won his first election to the U.S. Senate in 2000. A Miami native, Nelson grew up in Melbourne, Florida. Nelson’s mother was a teacher. His father was an attorney and real estate investor who died when Nelson was 14. From his Melbourne area home, Bill Nelson could see rockets blast off in the 1950’s and 1960’s from what is now the Kennedy Space Center. His interest in space exploration came from these experiences.  Nelson graduated from Yale in 1965 and received his law degree in 1968 from the Univ. of Virginia. He joined the U.S. Army Reserve in 1965 and served on active duty from 1968-1970, attaining the rank of captain (Barone 12, CQ 12, WhoRunsGov.com).

  In 1978, Nelson ran for Congress.  He won a House seat in the “Space Coast” area that included Brevard and most of Orlando’s Orange Counties. His folksy manner, strong religious faith, and tireless campaigning made him popular in this “Red” trending area. He stayed in the House for six terms, and was chair of the House Science Committee’s Space Subcommittee. Nelson boosted the space program. In 1986, Nelson rode on the space shuttle Columbia for six days, just two weeks before the Challenger shuttle exploded (Barone 12, CQ 12).

       After leaving the House, Nelson won election in 1994 to the office of Fla. Insurance Commissioner. He dealt with the devastation of Hurricane Andrew and compiled an activist record (CQ 12, Barone12). In 2000, while Al Gore and W’s Fla. race came down to chads, recounts, and court fights, Nelson dispatched GOP Rep. Bill McCollum 51%-46% in that state’s U.S. Sen. contest. McCollum was one of the House managers of Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Nelson won the seat of retiring GOP Senator Connie Mack III, the father of his present challenger, Connie Mack IV (Barone 12, CQ12). Nelson ran for a second term in 2006, and clobbered former Fla. Sec. of State and 2000 W partisan Katherine Harris, 60%-38% (Barone12).

        In the Senate, analysts see Bill Nelson as a deliberative legislator. He has compiled a moderate-to-liberal voting record. In both 2009 and 2010, the National Journal gave him a 62%-38% Liberal v. Conservative rating (Barone 12). He has high rankings from labor’s AFL-CIO and the liberal ADA, Americans for Democratic Action. The ACU, the American Conservative Union, gives him low scores (CQ12). Sen. Nelson usually votes with his party in the high 80 to mid 90’s range (CQ 12). Although not that well known nationally, he takes important stands on issues relevant to much of Fla.’s population. He sided with W on the Iraq War resolution. He was against warming relations too fast with Communist Cuba, a matter of concern to Florida’s strong Cuban-American community (Barone 12). Despite the Challenger and 2003 Columbia shuttle disasters, Nelson pushes for strong funding of NASA and its shuttle-related workforce. Nelson has proposed creating regional enterprise zones to attract commercial jobs to areas with an existing population of scientists and engineers (CQ12, Barone12). Nelson has worked to limit expanded oil drilling along the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico. After the disastrous BP oil spill, Nelson sought to increase the cap on oil spill damages from $75 million to $10 billion (Barone 12).

        Sen. Nelson voted for Obama’s key 2009 stimulus bill as well as for his major health care reform law. Nelson helped Fla.’s senior citizens, 17% of  that state’s population.  He successfully allowed them to take through 2016, an itemized deduction for medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of their adjusted gross income. Other Senators had wanted to raise that figure to 10% (CQ12, Barone12). Nelson voted to expand health care for middle class children, the SCHIP program. Nelson was a “Yea” for the key Wall Street reform bill that was aimed at preventing future financial meltdowns. He voted to ratify the START nuclear treaty with Russia and to repeal the military anti-gay DADT, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell standard. He voted for giving legal status to some children of illegal immigrants. He confirmed Obama’s two Supreme Court nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, which did not hurt him with his Hispanic and Jewish American constituents (Barone 12, CQ12).

         In the current 112^th Congress, Nelson voted against repealing the health reform bill and against the House GOP’s “kill Medicare” Paul Ryan 2012 budget plan. He voted for the final 2011 budget deal and for the agreement to raise the debt ceiling that kept the U.S. government from defaulting. Nelson’s thoughtful moderate to liberal record is not outside Florida’s mainstream.

        Contrast Connie Mack IV’s (Cornelius Harvey McGillicuddy IV) background and record. Fourth term Cong. Connie Mac IV (44) represents Florida’s 14^th Congressional District (C.D.). Florida’s 14^th C.D. takes in the southern half of the Gulf Coast below Tampa Bay. The 14^th includes a small part of Port Charlotte and Charlotte County, all of Lee County, and the coastal strip of Collier County. Affluent Naples and Marco Island are in the 14^th. Two-thirds of the 14^th’s residents live in Lee County, in Fort Myers, Bonita Springs, and on Sanibel and Captiva Islands. Cape Coral is located here. The 14^th is a haven for wealthy retirees and tourists. Politically, the 14^th bleeds “Red,” with a Cook Partisan Voting Index of R+11. The 14^th is no swing Fla. district. In 2008, 48% of the 14^th‘s residents were registered Republicans, the second- largest GOP voter registration in the state. Just 29% were Democrats, the lowest Dem. percentage of any Fla. congressional district. In 2008, McCain received 57% of the 14^th’s vote and trounced Obama with a 15% margin (CQ 12, Barone 12).

        Connie Mack IV, a Fort Myers native, is to the political and economic manor born. His father, Connie Mack III, held the same congressional seat his son had for three terms in the 1980’s and then served two Senate terms. One great-great grandfather, John L. Sheppard, was a Democratic House member from Texas. His great-grandfather, Morris Sheppard, served in the House and went on to 28 years in the Senate. Cong. Mack IV’s other great-grandfather, the original Connie Mack, was the legendary owner of the Philadelphia Athletics baseball team (CQ 12, Barone 12). In 2006, Mack IV divorced his first wife to whom he had been married for 9 years. In 2007, he married Palm Springs, Calif. GOP Rep. Mary Bono, the widow of Rep. and former pop star Sonny Bono. Mary Bono Mack had divorced her second husband in 2005 (CQ 12, Naples Daily News, 8/05/06).

      Connie Mack IV, a graduate of the Univ. of Fla., first worked as a marketing consultant. In 2000, Mack IV won election to the Fla. House from a district in wealthy Broward and Palm Beach Counties. In Tallahassee, Mack IV formed the anti-tax Freedom Caucus which stood against state spending, for lower taxes, and for limits on attorneys’ fees in personal injury and malpractice cases. In 2004, when GOP Rep. Porter Goss left the House to head W’s CIA, Mack IV moved back to this district where he had been born and raised. Despite claims that he was a lightweight and carpetbagger, Mack IV won the GOP primary in which he raised $1.4 million. In 11/2004, he handily beat his Democratic opponent and has coasted to victory in three succeeding elections (Barone 12, CQ 12).

         Mack IV presently sits on Democratic witch-hunter Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) Oversight and Government Reform Committee as well as the House Foreign Affairs Committee. On Foreign Affairs, he chairs the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee (CQ12). Like his father, Cong. Mack IV is a fiscal conservative with a libertarian streak. A spending hawk, Mack IV voted against Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill as well as against the successful  rescue of banks and the auto industries. Mack IV called the stimulus “little more than a massive spending plan filled with earmarks and liberal-social spending programs,” the usual GOP drivel. Mack IV voted against health care reform and within days of the bill’s passage, introduced legislation to repeal the law. In the 112^th Congress, he voted with the GOP House majority to repeal health care reform, a proposal that died in the Democratic Senate. He was even against expanding health care to families of middle class children, the SCHIP bill (CQ12, thepoliticalguide.com). He cast his vote against the successful repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Rep. Mack IV voted against the “cash for clunkers,” bill. He opposed the cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions. He was a “No” vote for stricter oversight of offshore drilling and lifting the oil spill cap. He voted against reforming Wall Street financial dealings. He was not in favor of providing a path to legal status for some children of illegal immigrants (CQ 12). He was for the economically harmful balanced budget amendment. He opposed the final deal to raise the debt ceiling which prevented a catastrophic U.S. default. He voted for the “kill Medicare” 2012 Ryan budget plan which died in the Senate, but voted against the final 2011 budget bill because it did not cut enough. (CQ 12, Wash. Post, U.S. Congress Votes Database). From 2006-2010, he voted with the GOP 96% of the time. In the 111^th Congress, (2009-2010), Mack was with his hard right party 97% of the time. From 2006-2010, he had 5% ratings from the AFL-CIO, but a 94% score from the American Conservative Union (CQ12). Mack also backed unpopular GOP Fla. Gov. Rick Scott’s rejection of rail funds that would have created jobs. Floridians of both parties opposed Scott’s move (Mack Letter to 3/07/11).

       In 3/2011, Mack IV stated he would not run for the Senate in 2012. However, on the 11/28/2011 Fox News “Hannity” show, Mack IV threw his pedigreed hat into the ring. He stated he was running for the Senate, because, “the people of Florida are fed up.” Mack IV called Bill Nelson one of Obama’s go-to guys in the Senate.”

       Mack IV has astronomic name recognition and is crushing his four GOP rivals (PPP Poll, blogs.miaminewtimes, 12/01/11, Muzenrieder). Tea Party voters give him strong support. Forty-three percent of Tea Partiers view him favorably (PPP). In 2/2011, Nelson only led Mack IV by 5 points in a Sachs/Mason Dixon Poll (Tampa Bay Times 10/28/11). Around the time Mack IV jumped in, Quinnipiac gave Nelson just a two-point lead and Rasmussen even had Mack leading Nelson by 4 points. The latest PPP poll, however, has Nelson up by 11, 46%-35% similar to PPP Polls taken in March 2011 and Dec. 2011. According to PPP’s latest analysis, Nelson gets 14% of the GOP vote and 42% of the Independents. However, we are polling Florida. Political opinion can be “all over the map” and change overnight. Nelson can take nothing for granted. Nelson stated he “is going like there is no tomorrow (NY Times, Hulse 5/14/2011).” Nelson will need lots of money to run ads in Fla.’s huge multi-media market. For starters, Mack IV will be heavily funded by the national GOP, Karl Rove’s group, and the anti-environmental Koch Brothers. In 2010, when Mack IV faced an easy House re-election, Koch gave Mack $7,500. Nelson and Obama have tepid approval numbers in Fla. (Nelson- 38%-45% approval, PPP, Roll Call; Obama, 39% approval, Roll Call 11/28/11).

        Turnout is everything. In 2010, a GOP year, turnout was horrible in the Democratic strongholds of S. Fla. African American and young voters also did not show, while Tea Party GOPers came out strongly (SunSentinel.com). In 2008, Obama and many Democrats won because traditional Democrats and especially baby boomers, voters in the 45-64 age range, came out in droves (“How Obama Won”). In 2012, Fla. Democrats must repeat their 2008 performance to re-elect Obama, Bill Nelson, and help take back the House. Cong. Connie Mack IV may be in tune with his rich “lobster Red” district. He is, however, just too extreme for the Sunshine State.          

Surgeon General Richard Carmona— Just What The Doctor Ordered In Arizona   November 29, 2011

     We are driving head on into Campaign 2012. Presently, the Senate remains in Democratic hands, but this hold is shaky. After the 11, 2010 midterm “shellacking,” the Senate Democratic numbers went from 59 to 53, a GOP net gain of 6 seats. Should the 2012 Republican presidential ticket win, the GOP needs just a net gain of 3 Senate seats. If President Obama and Senate tie-breaker VP Joe Biden triumph, the GOP “magic number” becomes four. In 2012, unlike the two previous cycles when more GOP seats were in play (2006 and 2008), Democrats will be defending 23 Senate seats (CQ 12 Political Almanac). And not all of those Democratic seats are cakewalks. Democrats face tough fights in “Red” and “Red” leaning states. Democratic retirements also give the GOP opportunities. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), however, believes Democrats have chances to pick up GOP-held Senate seats. These wins would make a GOP Senate take back harder (LA Times, L. Mascaro, 10/12/11). Democrats may have their strongest opportunity to recapture a GOP Senate seat in normally “Blue” Massachusetts, the one held by Wall Street’s “champ” Scott Brown. He is facing consumer advocate and financial reformer Elizabeth Warren. The Nevada race, where Las Vegas Congresswoman Shelley Berkley is taking on right wing GOP appointee Dean Heller, is also high on Democratic radar. Let’s look closely at another possible Democratic pick up. Should former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona win the Arizona Democratic primary, he may actually have a shot at beating GOP icon Cong. Jeff Flake (S. Lemons, 11/26/2011, Phoenix New Times Blogs). Both of these candidates are running to replace retiring third-term GOP Senator Jon Kyl.

      Vice Admiral Richard Carmona (62) served as the 17^th Surgeon General of the United States from 8/05/2002-7/31/2006 (Ariz. Republic, D. Nowicki, 11/10/2011). Carmona’s background is an “only in America” story. A Puerto-Rican American native of New York’s Harlem, Carmona dropped out of high school and joined the Army in 1967. While enlisted, he earned his high school General Educational Development (GED) degree. He joined the U.S. Army Special Forces as a medic. A Vietnam War veteran, Carmona received the Purple Heart and Bronze Star (Phoenix New Times Blogs, S. Lemons, 11/25/11). After leaving active duty, Carmona obtained an Associate of Arts degree in nursing. Carmona received his BS (Bachelor of Science) and M.D. degrees in 1977 and 1979 respectively from the Univ. of Calif., San Francisco (UCSF). UCSF recognized him as its top medical school graduate.

     In 1998, Carmona earned a Master’s degree in Public Health (M.P.H.) from the Univ. of Arizona. Dr. Carmona has worked as a physician, paramedic, and registered nurse. He completed a surgical residency in UCSF and a National Institutes of Health sponsored-fellowship in trauma, burns, and critical care. Carmona was a professor of medicine at the Univ. of Ariz., a hospital CEO, and a public health officer. Since 1986, he has been with the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, and worked his way up to deputy sheriff. He was a peace officer leader of the SWAT division, with expertise in special operations and emergency preparedness, including weapons of mass destruction. He served as medical director Pima County’s police and fire departments. In 2000, Dr. Carmona was honored by the National Association of Police Organizations as one of the nation’s top cops (Time, NY Times, 3/27/2002, news.googl.com/newspapers).

       In 2002, W nominated Carmona to be Surgeon General, and the Senate  confirmed him (Boston Globe, newsgoogle.com /newspapers). In 2006, Carmona issued a major Surgeon General’s report on the health effects of secondhand smoke. Carmona stated the debate about secondhand smoke is “over.” He declared, “The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard (AP, 6/28/06).” Carmona’s report called for the adoption of indoor smoking bans and noted that such restrictions did “not appear to have a harmful effect on bars and restaurants.” Carmona had previously told Congress he would “not object to a ban on all tobacco products.” W’s administration distanced itself from this statement (M. Kaufman, 6/04/03, Wash. Post).

        On 7/10/2007, Carmona, along with former Surgeon Generals C. Everett Koop and David Satcher testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This trio criticized the W Administration for political and ideological interference with the Surgeon General’s mission. At this hearing, Carmona accused the Bush Administration of preventing him from speaking out on certain public health issues when W’s political stance conflicted with scientific and medical opinion. The White House muzzled Carmona from talking about embryonic stem cell research, climate change, emergency contraception, and abstinence-only sex education. Carmona told Congress that W’s Administration had tried to “water down” his report about secondhand smoke danger and pressured him not to testify at a tobacco industry racketeering trial. In Dr. Carmona’s words, “Anything that doesn’t fit into the political appointees’ ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried.” Carmona also testified he was ordered not to attend the Special Olympics because the Kennedy family sponsored this event. According to Carmona, he was told he had to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches ( J. Rovner, NPR, 7/10/07, H. Gardiner, 7/10/07, NY Times, W. Dunham, 7/10/07, Reuters, G. Beckerman, 7/10/07, “The Kicker,” Columbia Journalism Review). Former Surgeon Generals Koop and Satcher agreed with Carmona about the high level of political interference he had experienced. They stated, “We have never seen it as partisan, as malicious, as vindictive, as mean-spirited as it is today, and you clearly have worse than anyone’s had (Dunham, Reuters).”

       Since leaving office, Carmona moved back to Tucson and continued to work in public health and medicine. The GOP unsuccessfully tried to recruit him for several political offices (S. Lemons, Phoenix New Times Blogs, 11/25/11, rothenbergpoliticalreport.com, rossu.edu/news).  On 11/10/2011, Dr. Carmona, although registered as a political independent, announced he would seek the Ariz. Democratic nomination for the 2012 Senate contest. Carmona describes himself as a “radical centrist”, not an extremist (Wash. Post, 11/10/11, S. Lemons, Phoenix New Times Blog).

        Should Carmona defeat former Ariz. Democratic Party Chairman Don Bivens, he will probably face Ariz. GOP “hero” Cong. Jeff Flake. Sixth-term Cong. Jeff Flake (48) is no “radical centrist.” On the political spectrum, Flake wins the title of “radical extremist.” Flake presently represents Arizona’s 6^th Congressional District (C.D.). The Ariz. 6^th takes in parts of Mesa and Chandler as well as Gilbert. Politically and culturally, the 6^th C.D. is Arizona’s most Republican, with a 20 point GOP voting registration edge. The 6^th has a +15 Republican Cook Partisan Voting Index. In 2008, McCain received 61% of the 6^th’s vote, his highest percentage in the Grand Canyon State (Barone 12 Political Almanac, CQ12).

    Before winning election to Congress in 2000, Flake led the Goldwater Institute, a conservative policy think tank. The late Ariz. Sen. Barry Goldwater, the icon of modern conservatism, is one Flake’s political heroes (CQ12). Like Goldwater, Flake could care less about taking lonely stands and has stated he wants to “rock the boat.” Flake is a proud member of the Republican Study Committee (RSC).The 170 member RSC is the most conservative bloc and dominant force within the House GOP caucus. Flake also serves on the Liberty Committee or the Liberty Caucus, a group of libertarian-leaning GOP congressmen (CQ12, the libertycommittee.org, “Politico,” Cogan & Sherman, 10/10/11). Flake believes that many of his fellow GOPers have often overridden states on social policy and regulatory matters, basic Tea Party dogma.

   Flake wants to replace the income tax with a national sales tax, a regressive proposal that super rich and conservative ideologues favor (Barone 12, CQ12). From 2006-2012, Flake had zero ratings from labor’s AFL-CIO, while having nearly perfect 100% scores from the American Conservative Union (ACU). Flake opposed needed aid to the financial and auto industries which even W backed. He voted against Obama’s key 2009 stimulus bill. He was one of W’s original backers of “reforming,” read, “gutting,” Social Security by creating personal saving accounts that could go into the mercurial stock market (CQ 12, flake.house.gov, Flake 6/15/05 press release). Flake was a strong opponent of Obama’s health insurance reform law. He voted with his fellow House-majority GOPers for its repeal in 1/2011. This bill died in the Democratic Senate. Flake was against regulating tobacco as a drug. Flake even voted against expanding health care for middle class children, the SCHIP bill that Obama signed (1/09, Flake On the Issues). He is a strong opponent of a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion, and against embryonic stem cell research. He opposes the EPA regulating greenhouse gases. Flake is for making W’s tax cuts, including those on the top 1%, permanent. He has pledged not to raise any taxes, which would force the middle class to shoulder disastrous budget cuts.

       Flake voted against the final deal to raise the debt ceiling. Had his vote prevailed, the U.S. government would have defaulted on its debts and put the world economy into a tailspin.  Flake voted for GOP Rep. Paul Ryan’s “kill Medicare” 2012 budget plan which the Dem. Senate quashed. Flake voted against keeping the government running from 10/2011-11/2011, because he wanted disaster aid for hurricanes, fires, floods, and tornadoes offset with budget cuts in other areas, a heartless and unprecedented move (LA Times, Mascaro, 10/04/11). He voted for the harmful balanced budget amendment that failed to pass the House.  He also voted against keeping the government open through mid-Dec. 2011. In Flake’s book, not enough radical cuts have been made in the deficit (Wash. Post, U.S. Cong. Votes Database, “The Hill,” 9/23/11, CNN, 11/18/11).

   Flake has endorsed the GOP king of flip-floppers Mitt Romney for president. As in Romney’s case, Flake has flip-flopped on immigration. Flake, like Romney, formerly supported immigration reform that would have allowed many illegals to gain legal status. Flake and Romney now have dropped any support for such a measure. (See Daily Kos, J. Lewison, 11/28/11). FAIR, an anti-immigration group has given Rep. Flake a 100% score.  In 7/2011, Flake falsely stated that most Mexican illegal aliens have ties to drug cartels (“Politico,” Hohmann, 9/20/11, Flake On The Issues).

      The 2012 election is still a lifetime away. Flake, the great-great grandson of an Arizona Mormon pioneer, has high name recognition (CQ 12, Barone12). However, a recent poll from PPP, Public Policy Polling outfit, has Carmona trailing Flake by just 4 points, 40%-36% (PPP Poll, 11/17/-20/2011). Carmona’s primary opponent, former Ariz. Democratic state chair Don Bivens, loses to Flake by 10 points. In a state that has more registered GOPers than Democrats (CQ12, Barone 12), Carmona has strong crossover appeal. He gets 10% of the GOP vote and has more enthusiastic supporters than Bivens. Carmona has strong favorable ratings, even though he is less known than Flake. Carmona has room to “grow” in recognition. Bivens alienated many grass roots party activists when he was Dem. chair and is seen as a weak candidate. Pres. Obama personally called Carmona to get him to run. Carmona’s stand as an “independent,” should also help in a state where in 2008, 30% of the voters sport this label. When Carmona said he would run, he stated that his medical, business, and law-enforcement experience required “working together to get results,” with no time for “petty squabbles and gamesmanship.” Such language appeals to independents who hate congressional bickering and gridlock (LA Times, Memoli, 11/10/11, Lemons, New Times Blog, PPP/Kos Elections, Lewison, 11/28/11, Todd & Gawiser, “How Obama Won”).

       Arizona is becoming less the state of Barry Goldwater and Chief Justice Bill Rehnquist and more of a swing state. Clinton won it in 1996. It has the fourth highest Hispanic population in the country (29.6%). In 2008, Obama carried 8 out of 10 states with a Hispanic population of 10% or more. In 2008, 47% of Ariz. voters had a college degree. Obama carried 20 out of 23 states and D.C. where college grads made up more than 44% of the electorate. Only Ariz., N. Dakota and Texas went “Red,” and Ariz. had “favorite son” McCain running (“How Obama Won,” Barone 12, CQ 12). True, Ariz. passed the draconian anti- immigrant/Hispanic SB 1070 bill which propelled Gov. Jan Brewer to a 2010 electoral victory. Now, however, Brewer’s popularity has dipped to 42%. Arizonans do not like her meddling with the non-partisan redistricting commission. And State Senator Russell Pearce, the author of that anti-immigrant law, was recalled by voters on 11/08/2011 (NY Times, 11/10/11, Kos, 11/25/11). Carmona, a political novice, must survive a primary and compete against the well-funded likely GOP nominee Flake. The national GOP, Koch Industries, and Karl Rove will open their purses “big time” for Flake. PPP’s director Tom Jensen, however, calls a Carmona primary win the Democrats’ third best chance to pick up a former GOP Senate seat. Hopefully, in Nov. 2012, Arizona Democrats, moderate GOPers, and independents will come out in droves to make centrist Democrat Dr. Richard Carmona their next Senator. Disaster-aid foe Cong. Jeff Flake is too extreme for both swing state Arizona and the nation.        

Ohio Governor John Kasich— A Poster Boy For Voter Buyers’ Remorse Gets His Comeuppance November 10, 2011

          The Democratic “shellacking” in the 11/02/2010 midterm elections was not limited to Congress. The GOP tsunami also hit governors’ offices. Going into the 11/02/2010 midterms, Democrats held 26 governorships, the GOP 23. After the 2010 electoral dust settled, the GOP held 29 governors’ mansions, the Democrats 20. The GOP won gubernatorial contests in some very big electoral states, including Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (U.S. gubernatorial elections, 2010, Wikipedia).

          Winning governors’ races is not just a matter of bragging rights. In most states, governors get to influence federal and state redistricting, required every 10 years by the Constitution. If re-districting is not done by a bi-partisan group, governors can help members of their own party draw districts that lopsidedly favor them (See Barone Almanac 10). Governors also have the state “bully pulpit” to set the agenda for spending, budgeting, and expanding or cutting labor rights for state employees. Big state governors are frequently viewed and encouraged to run for the White House. Look at W and his Texas successor Rick Perry. Governors also are strong backers of their party’s presidential nominees. They campaign, get out the vote, and raise money for them. Fla. Gov. Jeb Bush’s assistance, especially in the post-election recount, helped older brother W win that state, which gave him the presidency.

       In 2010, many Democrats did not vote. GOPers with their anti-government Tea Party wing turned out in force. Independents, soured by the still weak economic recovery, bought the GOP talk of cutting state and federal deficits to increase job growth. Now, however, one year after the 2010 elections, many voters are having an acute case of “buyers’ remorse.” In 2012, GOP Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker will face a recall for his anti-union actions against state employees. Wisconsin voters already recalled two state GOP senators who were allied with Gov. Walker, and the GOP now controls that body by just one vote. In the 11/08/2011 elections,  Michigan GOP state senator Paul Scott, who helped his GOP governor pass laws weakening teacher tenure, was also recalled  (LA Times, P.West, 11/08/11, Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest, D. Nir, 11/09/11, Fletcher, Wash. Post, 10/28/11). In Florida, Tea Party/ GOP Gov. Rick Scott has awful ratings. Scott refused federal funds, sacked thousands of teachers, and vetoed millions in his budget. Ohio Governor John Kasich, however, presently beats Scott in the unpopularity “sweepstakes.” According to a recent survey by Public Policy Polling (PPP), 54% of Ohio voters disapprove of Kasich’s job performance, making him the most unpopular governor in the country. Scott has a “mere” 50% negative rating (Quinnipiac Poll 9/11) (LA Times, 10/28/11, M. Fletcher, M. Bender, St. Petersburg, Fla. Times 9/22/11). On 11/08/2011, one year before the 2012 presidential and congressional elections, Ohio voters gave Gov. Kasich his comeuppance. In a landslide 61%-39% vote, Ohio voters repealed Senate Bill 5 that was passed at the end of March, 2011. Senate Bill 5, the cornerstone achievement of Gov. Kasich and his GOP-led legislature, limited collective bargaining rights for public employees, including police officers and firefighters (NY Times, Seeyle & Tavernise, 11/08/11, Cleveland Plain Dealer, R. Fields). Let’s look at Gov. Kasich, his background, record, and what the defeat of Senate Bill 5 means for Ohio and national politics.

     Republican John Kasich (59) is the Buckeye State’s 69^th Governor (“Kasich Biography”). Kasich (KAY-sick) is no political newcomer. After graduating from Ohio State University, Kasich, the son of a mail carrier, worked for a state legislator. In 1978, he beat a Democrat for a state senate seat. In 1982, with the help of a favorable redistricting plan, he defeated a Democrat in the Columbus area to win a seat in Congress. Kasich served in the House for 9 terms (1983-2001). In 1996, Kasich turned down chances to run for statewide office and to be Bob Dole’s Vice-Presidential running mate (Barone 12 Almanac).

       In the House, Kasich established a reputation as a fiscal “cut spending” hawk who helped defeat Bill Clinton’s 1993 economic stimulus bill. Kasich was also known as a co-sponsor of the failed Penny-Kasich bill, a no taxes budget cutting proposal that had both GOP and conservative Democratic backing. When the GOP took over the House under Speaker Gingrich in 1995, Cong. Kasich chaired the Budget Committee and pushed for drastic GOP slashing of government programs. Kasich, however, underestimated Bill Clinton’s ability to turn the Gingrich-led government shutdown against the GOP (Barone 12).

       In early 1999, Kasich formed a presidential exploratory committee. He disbanded it that July, after failing to raise much money. Kasich’s then undisciplined approach and ties to the unpopular Gingrich, now a GOP presidential candidate, also hurt. Kasich left the House in 2001. He took a job as managing director of Wall Street giant Lehman Brothers, which later went broke in the 2008 financial meltdown. He hosted the Fox News talk show “From the Heartland with John Kasich” until 2007 (Barone12).

      In 2009, Kasich decided to run against Ohio Dem. Gov. Ted Strickland. Strickland, elected to the governorship in 2006, was popular enough in 2008 to be considered by Obama as a possible running mate. However, Strickland’s ratings declined because of the loss of over 300,000 jobs. Kasich called Strickland a “nice guy” who lacked the toughness and skills necessary to “right the ship.” Kasich pushed for balancing the budget and cutting the bureaucracy. He argued he was not a “rigid” GOP partisan and that Ohio’s problems were not limited to “one political party.” The Cleveland Plain Dealer endorsed Kasich as “someone who has a “can-do, roll-the dice mindset.” That paper argued conservative Kasich “could work across partisan lines without using divisive hot button tactics (10/03/10, Editorial).” Kasich won, 49%-47%. Democratic turnout was low, while GOP voters flocked to the polls. Besides the governor’s race, the GOP took every other statewide office, 13 of the state’s 18 congressional seats, a 5 seat pick up, and a majority in the Ohio House of Representatives. The GOP kept its hold on the Ohio Senate (CNN, P. Sracic, 11/07/11).

      The Cleveland Plain Dealer and many voters quickly found they had been conned by another mild talking “I’m not a partisan GOPer.” Kasich, like other elected GOP governors, saw the 2010 results as a broad “mandate” to implement the anti-government, anti-middle class, anti-labor agenda that party has always stood for. Kasich rejected $40 million in federal money for a passenger rail line through the state that Strickland had wanted. Kasich called for 25% cuts in local government funding in 2012 and 2013. He also pushed for a $55.5 billion two-year budget that would share services among agencies, pool health care costs, and reduce prevailing wage requirements on public construction contracts (Barone 12). Finally, as with Wisconsin’s Gov. Walker, Kasich made it a personal crusade to change Ohio’s collective bargaining law the minute he took office. Kasich sponsored this anti-union measure under the guise of “controlling costs (Cleveland Plain Dealer, Fields, 11/08/11, newsnet5.com, J. Kosich, 11/03/11).”

      Senate Bill 5 (SB5) had been introduced by GOP state Sen. Shannon Jones, but it was pushed past the finish line by Gov. Kasich. Kasich took the unusual step of going to statehouse hearings on the bill. When it appeared  SB5 did not have enough votes to clear the Senate, Kasich personally lobbied senators one-on-one and privately in his office. He was able to get SB5 to clear the Senate by one vote, and was easily able to sell this bill to the more conservative Ohio House. Gov. Kasich’s fingerprints were all over SB5 (Plain Dealer, Fields, 11/08/11).

        The backlash from organized labor, police, and firefighters went off the charts. Once this measure, eliminating many collective bargaining rights for Ohio’s 350,000 public employees was enacted, opponents, including public employee unions and their allies, gathered 1.3 million signatures to put repealing this law on the November 8, 2011 ballot. The ballot measure or referendum, labeled Issue 2, asked voters whether they would vote “yes” or “no” to approve or to reject SB5 (PPP, Daily Kos, L. Clawson, 11/07/11).

         This “local” Ohio issue became a national one, which many analysts saw as the opening battle of Campaign 2012 (CNN, Sracic, 11/07/11). Organized labor and President Obama strongly supported repealing SB 5 or casting a “no” vote on Issue 2. Labor, Obama’s organizers, as well as the normal GOP-leaning Fraternal Order of Police brought in thousands of volunteers to do phonebanking, get out the vote drives, and leafleting. Millions of voters were contacted by the AFL-CIO. Obama’s group alone recruited 12,000 volunteers, assisting with voter turnout and enabling  Democrats to rebuild their Ohio organization way ahead of 2012, crucial in this key swing state (LA Times, West, 11/05/11, Greg Sargent).

      Kasich stumped for a “yes” vote on Issue 2 and was booed (newsnet5.com, Kosich, 11/03/11). At first, “courageous” GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney ducked taking a stand on this controversial issue. After rival Rick Perry and other conservative groups jumped all over him for his cowardice, Romney stated he was “110 percent behind the measure (Wash. Post, Fletcher, 10/28/11).” Conservative groups including the Tea Party’s Freedom Works, Building a Better Ohio, the GOP Governors Assoc., and Liz Cheney’s Alliance for America’s Future funneled in millions to support Issue 2. The right wing Koch Brothers Americans for Prosperity group, an early Kasich funder, also entered the fray. Fortunately, We are Ohio, a coalition of labor, Democrats, and grassroots activists, outspent the right wingers by a 3:1 margin, and was not shy about getting outside help (Fields, Plain Dealer, 11/08/11, Kos, Clawson, 11/08/11). Polls showed Issue 2 was going down. However, the only poll that counts, to quote the late “Honey Fitz,” JFK’s maternal grandfather, is the “one taken on Election Day (Fletcher, Wash. Post).”

        The 61%-39% final thumping of SB5 had GOPers finger pointing at each other as they played the blame game. Most analysts agree with Ohio State election law professor Dan Tokaji that Gov. Kasich received a “major political black eye.” John Green of the Akron, Ohio Ray Bliss Institute aptly stated, “the organizational efforts seem to be reviving portions of the Democratic coalition and that will likely have a beneficial effect on the presidential campaign for the Democrats (Fletcher, Wash. Post, Fields, Plain Dealer).” In an AFL-CIO Hart Research post-election poll, 26% of those who voted for Kasich in 2010 voted against Issue 2. In this 26% group, 62% now disapprove of Kasich. In addition, 66% of those polled support collective bargaining for public employees. Fifty-six percent of respondents stated they would be less likely to vote for a state legislator who voted for a similar bill in the future. And get this, about 49% and 51% were less likely to vote for Mitt Romney and Rick Perry respectively because they supported Issue 2. Ohio is clearly in play for Obama and the Democrats at the national and state levels.

       Democrats must not rest on their proverbial laurels. They must repeat again and again that Obama was against Issue 2 while the GOPers at all levels of government were in favor of this anti-union bill. And on November 6, 2012, Ohio Democrats must duplicate the turnout they mustered for Issue 2 to re-elect Obama, re-elect progressive Senator Sherrod Brown, and defeat the 5 GOP freshmen elected in 2010. There must be no more “buyers’ remorse” in this nation and no more poor Democratic voter turnouts. Voting for the right candidates in the first place is far easier than recalling politicians and conducting referenda.         

Wall Street’s Champ Scott Brown Gets A Heavyweight Challenger—Main Street Advocate Elizabeth Warren   October 19, 2011

     We are, of course, heading into Campaign 2012. President Obama is running for re-election, and because of the still weak economy, he may face a tough contest against Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, or another GOP standard bearer. All 435 House seats and one-third of the Senate (33) will also be up for grabs. In the legislative branch, Democrats will be trying to flip at least 24 GOP seats to make House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) give up his gavel. Approval of Congress, especially the GOP House, is at an all time low, 13% in 10/2011, according to Gallup. The Gallup Poll has Congress currently on track to register its lowest annual average approval rating, 17.8%, for the past 10 months (“Politico,” T. Mak, 10/12/11).

    Presently, the Senate remains in Democratic hands, but this hold is tenuous. After the 11/02/2010 midterm “shellacking,” the Senate Democratic 59 seat margin went to 53, a net GOP gain of 6 seats. Should the Republican 2012 presidential ticket win, all the GOP needs is a net gain of 3 Senate seats. If Pres. Obama and Senate tie-breaker VP Biden prevail, the GOP requires a net 4. In 2012, unlike in the two previous cycles (2006 and 2008), when more GOP seats were in play, Democrats will be defending 23 of those Senate seats (CQ 12 Political Almanac). And not all of those Democratic Senate seats are cakewalks. Democrats face tough Senate races in “Red” and “Red” leaning states. Democratic retirements in other states also give the GOP good chances. According to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Democrats, however, do have chances to pick up GOP-held Senate seats. Such pick ups would make the GOP attempts to take back the Senate harder (LA Times, L. Mascaro, 10/12/11). Democrats may have their strongest chance to pick up a GOP Senate seat in normally “Blue” Massachusetts, the one held by Scott Brown. Sen. Schumer put this race at the top of his pick- up list (LA Times, 10/12/11). Brown is facing a strong challenge from Dem. Elizabeth Warren. Let’s look closely at these two individuals and their records.

        Senator Scott Brown (52) is the first Mass. GOPer to serve in the Senate in more than 30 years. On 1/19/2010, Brown won this seat in a 52.2%-46.8% special election upset victory. He replaced Democratic liberal icon Ted Kennedy, who had died of brain cancer in 8/2009. Brown was blessed with Democratic Atty. General Martha Coakley who ran a textbook “Political Malpractice 101” campaign.

       Brown is also tied up “big time” to the extremist Tea Partiers. The Tea Party Express endorsed him in his special election race and gave him at least $32,000. That same group broadcasted an ad for Brown all over Mass. Tea Party groups came into Mass. to help Brown get out voters (Salon.com, M. Madden, Daily Kos, 1/13/10). As early as 4/15/09, Brown spoke to a Tea Party rally. On 1/02/2010, Brown hosted a breakfast in Westborough, Mass. sponsored by the Greater Boston Tea Party Group that encouraged attendees to give between $25-500 to Brown. Brown posted an advisory to this reception on his own website (Huffington Post, Stein 1/14/10).

   Brown also received money from right wing anti-environmentalist Koch Industries. In a video posted by Think Progress, Sen. Scott Brown thanked David Koch on 3/04/2011 for supporting his 2010 election. Brown then made a plea to Koch to help him in his 2012 bid. Koch gave Brown $5,000 right before his 2010 special election. Brown stated Koch’s support made a “ton, a difference, and I could certainly use it again.” Brown also received Koch support through GOP Senate committees. Many Wall Street contributors also gave money to Brown’s special election campaign (See Boston Globe, Arsenault, 3/07/11). Brown voted against the Clean Air Act, and months later, the Koch Bros. gave him the maximum amount allowed under campaign finance laws (M. Haigh, 7/21/11, 350.org).

         In the Senate, “independent” Scott Brown has voted with the GOP  nearly 80% of the time (Wash. Post .com). “Moderate” Brown called himself a “Reagan Republican (Boston Globe, 11/2009).” Sen. Brown has a 25% rating from labor’s AFL-CIO, but high ratings from business and anti-tax organizations, a record more in tune with Southern and Western GOP voters than those in mainly “Blue” Mass. Brown supported GOP Mass. Gov. and now presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s health care reform bill. Obama used Romney’s legislation as his model. Brown, however, campaigned against Obama’s health care reform and pledged to be the 41^st vote to kill it in any filibuster. He voted against the reconciliation bill that avoided a filibuster and allowed health care reform to pass (CQ 12, ABC News, J. Brownstein, 1/21/10). Brown has low scores from the Mass. chapter of the National Organization for Women. “Pro-choice” Brown wants parental consent for minors facing abortions. He also stated he would vote for a Supreme Court Justice opposed to the Roe v. Wade decision (DSCC Blog, NEWS, 1/13/10, Parker, K., Wash. Post, 1/10/10). Brown ultimately voted for Obama’s Wall Street financial reform bill, but only after he significantly weakened it to help Mass. and out of state banking firms. Brown also threatened to withdraw his support from the bill unless a $19 billion bank fee was removed. During the 3 week time that reform bill was being debated, executives from Mass. Mutual, Liberty Mutual, and State Street, among others, gave him $29,000.  Goldman Sachs, UBS, and JP Morgan Chase and others contributed $50,000 to Brown (Slack, Boston Globe, 12/12/10).

         Brown is against raising taxes on the top 1% or closing tax loopholes for big oil (“Think Progress, B. Johnson, 8/09/11). On 10/11/2011, Brown also stood with all the GOP Senators to kill through filibuster an up or down vote on Pres. Obama’s entire strong jobs package. Most economists claim this legislation will hire many Americans and lower unemployment. However, this bill contains a 5.6% surtax on income exceeding $1million. GOPers, Brown among them, can never, ever tax the top 1%, their true base (Mascaro, LA Times, 10/11/11).

    Brown also voted against the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. He introduced this former Harvard Law School Dean to the Senate and said he was satisfied with her answers to questions. However, hours before the vote, he came out against her. He suddenly said she “lacked  judicial experience,” because she had not been a judge. Kagan had “only” been Solicitor General (SG), the U.S. Govt.’s chief lawyer before the Supreme Court. As SG, Kagan had argued 6 cases before the Court. W. appointee, Justice Sam Alito, had previously argued 12 cases in that office. He called his training there, not as a judge, the one “most directly related to his present job (C-SPAN Court book).”  Sen. Brown, an attorney, didn’t remember or didn’t know that conservative Chief Justice Rehnquist did not have judicial or much litigation experience before he went on the High Court (CQ 12). Brown may have been burnishing his conservative credentials with his fellow GOPers. Some “independent” thinker (See Hayden, Atlantic Wire, 8/05/10)!

        Although Brown had an approval rating of 73% as late as 3/30/2011, that number is now moot. Brown has drawn a strong progressive Democratic opponent, Elizabeth Warren. On 9/14/2011, Warren entered the U.S. Sen. race to challenge Scott Brown. Warren said she was running to help the middle class who don’t have lobbyists to aid them, are facing growing income inequality, and are hammered and squeezed. In a fantastic video that she shot in 8/2011, Warren clearly explained that taxing the wealthy does not amount to “class warfare.” In the key words on this video, Warren stated: “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. Now look, you built a factory and turned it into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.” Since it was posted, this video has been seen over 100,000 times on YouTube (USA Today, C. Camia, 9/22/11). Brown immediately tried to attack Warren as a Harvard “elitist,” because Warren taught law there. Few Bay Staters care about Brown’s playing the “Harvard card (Political Wire, 10/07/11).” Brown went to Tufts Univ. undergrad and Boston College Law, more “prestigious” schools than Warren’s Univ. of Houston and Rutgers Law, if anyone is remotely concerned. Brown came from a broken family home, but he does not identify with the middle class (Brown, “Against All Odds”). Warren has never forgotten her middle class roots and wants to help others similarly situated.

       A native of Oklahoma, City, Warren (62), faced hardship early. When she was 12, her father had a heart attack. The family faced a pay cut, excessive medical bills, and the loss of their car. Her mother had to go to work at Sears and as a waitress. Warren was married at 19 and had two children. Divorced in 1979, she married a Harvard professor and moved to Mass. She started teaching at Harvard Law in 1992, and worked on business law and bankruptcy issues. She wrote many articles and books including a best-selling one. One of her books, “The Two-Income Trap” (2003), discusses how middle class couples earn less today because of health care bills, mortgages, and other expenses. Warren was appointed by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to chair the oversight panel implementing the government bailout of Wall Street, where she pushed strongly to rein in big financial institutions. She was also for the creation of a strong Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to oversee the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act. Pres. Obama made her a special advisor on implementing this bureau, which the GOP still wants to gut (Wash. Post, Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post). In its 5/24/2010 cover story, Time Magazine named Warren one of the “New Sheriffs of Wall Street.”

        Since entering the race, Warren is crushing all her Democratic primary rivals (PPP, 9/16-9/18/11). She is neck and neck with Brown in the most recent polls (PPP Warren +2, 9/16-9/18/11, U. Mass. Lowell Boston Herald Poll, Brown +3, 10/03/11). And Warren has room to get more support, since 37% of the respondents still haven’t heard of her. She is also receiving positive reviews from the New York Times, while GOP “leader” Rush Limbaugh pours vitriol over her, a badge of honor for Warren. Warren was praised for her performance against her Democratic challengers by both the liberal Boston Globe and conservative Boston Herald in their 10/04/2011 debate. Warren stated she had stood “toe to toe” against large financial institutions and would take the fight “directly to Wall Street and Washington.” Warren noted that Forbes Magazine named Scott Brown, “Wall Street’s favorite senator.” Warren proudly and correctly declared, “I was thinking that’s probably not an award I’m going to get.” Warren also showed a comfortable stage presence, knowledge of the facts, and flashes of wit (Boston Globe, 10/05/11 Boston Herald 10/04/11). When Scott Brown mocked her as scary in an ad, Warren answered him right back in another fine video (Kos, Clawson, 10/14/11). Warren is no Martha Coakley.

        National Democrats, including Obama’s advisors, are very excited about Warren’s candidacy. Since getting into the race, Main Street candidate Warren raised an amazing $3,150,000. Over 11,000 donors came from Mass., and 96% of them gave less than $100 (Kos, Bowers, 10/10/11). Dems. and labor unions are forming a super political action committee so that Warren can raise huge sums of money to keep competitive with Wall Street’s champ, Brown. Sen. Brown has a war chest of about $10 million, which the GOP and their allies will surely keep pumping up (Huffington Post, 10/14/11).

         This contest will be no “slam dunk.” The GOP and their friends will pour everything into this race, upon which control of the Senate may turn. Although many think Mass. is a strong Dem. state, independents are the biggest bloc of voters (51.4%, v. 37% Democrats) and the key to victory. Mass. also has a strong talk show anti-Dem. set backed by the right wing Boston Herald. Women have never been elected to the Senate in Mass. Coakley lost by 5 points, the same margin by which Mitt Romney won the governorship in 2002 over then State Treasurer Shannon O’ Brien. GOPers can probably get 40%-45% of the vote in many Mass. races (Barone, Almanac 10). Too many Democrats nationwide are still showing an “enthusiasm” gap as they did in 2010, (Blitzer, CNN), which led to the GOP’s victories and the present gridlock. The public overwhelmingly supports Obama’s jobs plan and taxing the top 1%, stands Warren supports (CNN Poll, 10/14-16/2011). However, if Democrats and independent leaning Democrats don’t come out in droves in Mass. or the rest of the nation in 2012, the GOP will continue to govern only for their 1% base. The GOP will then have total control of Congress and the White House, not a formula for success in the 21^st Century.                        

Congressman Bob “Tea Party” Dold—In 2012, “It Is Time For Him To Go”  September 22, 2011

      President Obama gets another A+ in the framing of a key political issue. Too many Democrats still ignore political framing at their own peril (G. Lakoff, “don’t think of an elephant!”). In his 9/08/2011 powerful speech before Congress, President Obama labeled his economic plan the “Jobs for America” Act, a simple appeal to prosperity and patriotism, not obscure Washington Beltway talk. In this address, he also repeated the easily remembered mantra, “Pass this bill,” a phrase his enthusiastic audiences chant over and over when he pushes his jobs message throughout the country. Obama has now added another framing gem to his arsenal with which he can pound the GOP. In his 9/19/2011 proposal to reduce the national debt, Obama introduced the “Buffet Rule.” The “Buffet Rule” is named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett. Buffet has frequently argued that the very rich are not taxed enough, and that he pays less in taxes than his secretary and other middle-income workers (CNNMoney.com, J. Sahadi, 9/19/11, NY Times, 9/18/11, B. Knowlton, J. Calmes). Under Obama’s Buffet Rule, people earning more than $1 million would not be allowed to pay a lesser percent of their federal income taxes than Americans lower down the income scale. In emotionally framed words few can easily forget, Obama declared, “It is wrong that in the United States of America a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher taxes than somebody pulling in $50 million.” Obama also told the bi-partisan congressional deficit committee, which is now starting its work, that “I will veto any bill that changes benefits for those who rely on Medicare but does not raise serious revenues by asking the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share (H. Cooper, NY Times, 9/19/11).” Spot on!

      Even before Obama’s plan was officially released, the GOP went ballistic over the Buffet Rule. On “Fox News Sunday,” House Budget Chair and GOP economic guru Paul Ryan (Wis.) called the Buffet minimum tax rate for millionaires “class warfare (NY Times, Knowlton & Calmes, 9/18/11).” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S. Carolina) and Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) echoed Ryan’s remarks. House GOP Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) is also in this camp (NY Times, Knowlton & Calmes), as well as all the GOP presidential candidates (CNN). Ryan and the GOP leadership have some nerve to talk about “class warfare.” Ryan’s “kill Medicare,” bill which the GOP overwhelmingly backed, is nothing but “class warfare” on the middle class. In this time of economic uncertainty, the GOP only cares that its real base, the top 1%, keep and add to all of their billions, mansions, jets, and yachts. The House Tea Party GOP freshmen “Gang of 87” strongly back their leaders’ “save the millionaires/ billionaires” anti-Buffet Rule stance. Any closure of corporate loopholes and repeal of W’s tax cuts on the top 1%, which Obama also advocated, is nothing but deadly poison in the Tea Partiers’ brew. One of those newly elected Congressmen, Robert Dold, will stand strongly against the Buffet Rule and similar proposals. Let’s focus on Cong. Dold’s district, his background, record, and 2012 electoral prospects.

      Rookie Congressman Bob Dold (42) represents Illinois’ 10^th Congressional District (C.D.). The Illinois 10^th C.D. consists of the North Shore suburbs of Chicago. The area hugs Lake Michigan and takes in southeast Lake County and northeast Cook County. Many of Chicago’s old- money elite live in these areas. Rich Wilmette, Kenilworth, and Winnetka are in this district. Affluent Evanston, Highland Park, Lake Forest, and part of blue collar Waukegan are also in the 10^th C.D. Waukegan is 45% Hispanic and 20% African American. The 10^th has many suburban well-educated white collar workers and a large Jewish community (Barone 10 Almanac, CQ12 Almanac). The Great Lakes Naval Station is also located in the 10^th. The 10^th C.D. is home to several Fortune 500 companies, including Allstate Insurance in Northbrook and Walgreens in Deerfield. Abbott Laboratories in North Chicago is in the 10^th (CQ 12).

         Politically, the Illinois 10^th has a +6 Democratic Cook Partisan Voting Index. The 10^th went narrowly for Gore, for Kerry by 6 points, and for Obama by 23. Although this suburban Chicago district has trended toward Democratic presidential candidates since the 1990’s, it has a fiscally conservative/socially liberal tilt. In recent times, it has been represented in the House by moderate GOPer John Porter and from 2001-2010, by Porter’s former staffer Mark Kirk (CQ 12, Barone 10).

         In 2010, Cong. Kirk successfully ran for the Senate against Dem. Alexei Giannoulias to take the seat formerly held by Obama. Kirk’s departure triggered an open congressional race in the 10^th (CQ 12, CQ Roll Call, “Guide to the New Congress”). After winning a crowded GOP primary with 38% of the vote, Bob Dold faced Democrat Dan Seals in the general election. Seals had run twice against Kirk. He had lost to him by 7 points in 2006 and 5 in 2008. In the 10^th C.D., Dold had to come across as a moderate GOPer or he would never have stood a chance. Dold’s campaign, therefore, downplayed “big time” his conservative views, comments, and right wing friends.

    Dold was endorsed by the Tea Party in the primary (D. Weigel, Slate, 9/15/10). Before winning his congressional seat, Dold attended all the events sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots, a group organized by Freedom Works. Freedom Works is a key GOP front that endorses deregulation of corporations and is “in bed” with chemical polluters as well as tobacco. Freedom Works wants to end or at least privatize Social Security. When talking about the Tea Party, Dold called it “a great voice out there.” Dold also supported a lower corporate tax rate. Dold declared he was proud to have Grover Norquist come into the 10^th C.D. and campaign for him. Norquist, of course, is the “no new tax pledge” architect to whom GOPers vow 10,000% loyalty. In 8/2010, Dold himself took the Norquist “no new tax” pledge (on theissues.org). Norquist has famously stated he wants to “drown the federal government in the bathtub.” Dold himself has said, “I am more conservative then I let on.” Dold, of course, wasn’t broadcasting this statement with a megaphone in the Democratic-leaning 10^th.

     Dold usually spoke in general terms of “getting people to work (CQ New Congress Guide).” Even before his 11/2010 win, “moderate” Dold put on his Facebook page that he “encouraged” people to learn more about Cong. Paul Ryan’s plans, with which he “agreed.” Ryan’s views consist of privatizing and later eliminating Medicare and Medicaid, as well as Social Security. Ryan also wants to raise taxes on the middle class while slashing those on multi-millionaires. Dold, however, realized his “gaffe.” He quickly removed the Ryan endorsement to preserve his “moderate” image. In 2010, right wing Koch Industries also gave Dold $5,000 (ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com, 3/16/10, 3/09/11, archpundit.com, 7/26/10).

    In a YouTube campaign video and on Facebook, Dold claimed he had lived in the 10^th “all his life.” However, his own biography indicates he only came back to the 10^th in 2007, after 20 years of absence. For three years, 2004-2006, Dold also received tax breaks for the principal home he owned, one outside the 10^th C.D.  Dold has, in short (LOL), real “deep”10^th C.D. roots (Pallasch, Chicago Sun Times, 9/28/10, Huffington Post, W. Guzzardi, 9/29/10).  However, IOKIYAR, (“It’s okay if you’re a Republican”), to play fast and loose with the truth.

      Dold always had great conservative credentials. During the 1990’s, he was an intern in the office of H.W. Bush’s VP Dan Qualye. Later in the 1990’s, Dold worked as counsel for the GOP House Oversight and Gov. Reform Committee. Dold, an attorney, was also the owner of a business, Rose Pest Control. He says that regulations hurt small businesses, the usual false GOP line. Dold wants to lower the corporate tax rate for businesses. He supports an indefinite extension of W’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, including those on the top 1% (Roll Call, “New Congress Guide,” CQ12, S. Sadin, Glenview.patch.com, 1/21/11). He is also against the health care reform law Obama and the previous Democratic Congress passed. Dold “claims” he is pro-choice “with exceptions.” Apparently, those “exceptions,” are so wide that the Illinois Federation Right to Life and Illinois Family Institute endorsed him (“Lake County News-Sun, 7/20/10, R. Miller, “The Capitol Fax,” 10/25/10). At Dold’s request, the Eagle Forum, a well-known conservative pro-life group, rescinded its endorsement. IMHO, their endorsement would have totally destroyed Dold’s “moderate” campaign image. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a big conservative player in Campaign 2010, endorsed Dold, as well as the conservative Chicago Tribune. Polls seesawed throughout the summer and fall in the Seals-Dold race. In the end, Dold won 51%-49%. Dold was helped by a poor Democratic turnout, while the GOP had a strong voter upswing in the 10^th. Dold was also aided by the fact that local “favorite son,” Senate victor Mark Kirk, was beating Dem. Giannoulias by nearly 40,000 votes in the district. In fact, even losing gubernatorial GOP candidate Bill Brady had a 9,000 vote plurality in the 10^th (Chicago Sun Times, D. Rozek, R. Hussain, 11/06/10, 1/03/11, S. Sadin, wilmette.patch.com).

           In the 112^th Congress, Dold joined 4 other new freshmen GOP congressmen now representing formerly Democratic-leaning suburban Chicago. In the new GOP House, Cong. Dold sits on the key Financial Services Committee. With his current voting record, Cong. Dold has shed any image of a “moderate.” On 1/19/2011, he voted with his fellow GOPers to repeal the health care reform law. He voted with nearly all of his fellow GOPers and no Democrats for the Ryan “kill Medicare” 2012 budget plan. He was also for Speaker Boehner’s extreme budget slashing cap and cut plan, which the House GOP wanted to pass before it raised the debt ceiling. Boehner’s radical plan quickly died in the Democratic Senate. Just in the nick of time, Dold voted with the GOP leadership to raise the debt ceiling. Dold put himself in the “yea” column, only after holding the budget hostage to more cuts and keeping any tax increases on the top 1% out of the agreement. Dold also voted to cut federal funding for NPR, National Public Radio, a GOP obsession, but a station many of his well educated constituents like (Wash. Post, U.S. Cong. Votes Database).

   “Pro-choice” Dold voted to defund Planned Parenthood. On 5/04/2011, Cong. Dold voted to ban federal health coverage that includes abortion. That bill, H.R. 3, banned  tax subsidies for private health insurance plans that included abortion as a covered service and prevented most abortions from being deducted as medical expenses. Pro-choice groups aptly labeled Dold’s “unique” definition of pro-choice as allowing any restrictions except a “complete ban on abortion.” Dold voted against sensible environmental protections, including letting the EPA regulate greenhouse gases (4/11). He also voted to open the huge Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling (5/11) (on theissues.org, S. Sheffey, 8/17/11, Tenth News). Dold was way out of line with his district’s political views.

          Despite GOP Kirk’s Senate win and the five new freshmen Illinois Congressmen in the Chicago suburbs, Democrats won the governorship and both state house chambers. In Illinois, Democrats, therefore, control federal and state redistricting required by the Constitution every 10 years. Under the new redistricting map signed by Gov. Quinn, the 10^th C.D. will be even more Democratic. Dold’s old hometown GOP stronghold of Kenilworth has now been shifted to Dem. Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s overwhelmingly Dem. 9^th C.D. More Democratic areas in the north will also be in the new 10^th C.D. Dold barely won in the 2010 GOP tsunami, and many analysts now feel he won’t stand a chance in 2012 (Sheffey, Tenth News, tenthdems.org, 8/17/11, grayslake.patch.com). The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has put the Illinois 10^th C.D. up there on its list of the 24 seats it needs to take back the House. (FYI, NY 9^th C.D. GOP special election winner, Bob Turner, will probably have his district carved up, keeping the take back number at 24). DCCC chair Rep. Steve Israel (NY) called the Illinois suburban districts “the center of gravity in the 2012 election.” He noted the 10^th is high on the Dems’ list, because it voted for both Kerry and Obama. He also stated Dold is “no Mark Kirk.” In Cong. Israel’s words, “there’s no daylight between Dold’s record and that of Tea Party head Michele Bachmann (Daily Herald, K. Lester, 5/05/11).”

        President Obama said the idea of the wealthy paying their fair share is “not class warfare. It’s math.” Similarly, in the Illinois 10^th C.D. and in about 50 other GOP House seats, it’s “math.” This math requires Democratic 2012 turnout to be similar to that in 2008. In 2012, Democrats must come out in droves to re-elect a fighting Obama, to keep the Senate “Blue,” and to take back the House from  Dold and Company. To paraphrase Al Gore, “In 2012, it is time for Cong. Dold to go.”                   

Congressman Chip Cravaack—This Pilot Voted To Crash The U.S. Economy August 5, 2011

    The political and economic dust is still settling from the 8/02/2011 last minute deal to raise the debt ceiling. One of the 66 GOP hostage taking ideologues who voted against raising the debt ceiling was Rep. Chip Cravaack.  Let’s look at Cravaack’s district, record, and 2012 electoral prospects.

      Freshman Raymond “Chip” Cravaack (51) presently represents Minnesota’s 8^th Congressional District (C.D.). The Minnesota 8^th is located in that state’s northeast quadrant and takes in the cities of Duluth, Hibbing, and Brainerd. This C.D. includes the Iron Range, where tons of ore have been mined since the late 19^th Century. Duluth is the shipping point for much of the grain from the Plains States. There is a strong timber industry and many farms. The Univ. of Minn. has more than 11,000 students in its Duluth branch. Northwest of Duluth is Chisholm. Chisholm has a reservation center for Northwest Airlines, recently bought by Delta that has 500 jobs. There are casinos near the Canadian border. The 8^th also has the 61-mile Superior National Forest Scenic Byway, a huge draw for winter sports, fishing, and canoeing (Barone 10 Almanac, CQ 10 Almanac).

      The 8^th C.D. was populated by numerous white ethnic groups that worked in the mines and related areas, Italians, Poles, Serbs, Croats, Jews, Swedes, and Finns. Life was very harsh because of the cold climate and punishing low wage work. After WWII, living conditions improved but the 8^th still has a rough-hewn quality to it. The 8^th was a strong bulwark of Minn.’s Democratic-Farmer Labor Party with its progressive emphasis on good jobs and good working conditions. Cravaack was the second GOPer   to win in the 8^th, and the first one since 1947. The 8^th C.D. was considered by many to be Minn.’s strongest and safest Dem. region outside of Minneapolis and St. Paul (Minneapolis Star Tribune, Diaz & Roper, 11/13/10, Star Tribune, Roper, 10/14/10, Barone 10). However, the fast growing southern counties in the 8^th   are trending GOP, and the 8^th is culturally conservative, anti-abortion, and pro-gun rights. In 2004, Kerry carried the district by 7 points. Obama won by 8 in 2008. The Cook Partisan Voting Index gives the 8^th C.D. a +3 Democratic edge (Barone 10). In 2010, the Congressman from this area was 18-term 76-year old James Oberstar, a D.C. powerhouse who chaired the 75 member Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the largest in the House. Oberstar grew up in Chisholm, the son of an iron miner and union official. Oberstar, a Catholic, held a progressive record but was against abortion and gun control. He had several perfect ratings from Labor’s AFL-CIO and strongly looked out for his district’s interests. Until 2010, he was easily re-elected (CQ 10, Barone 10).

         Cravaack was raised in a GOP family that had a military background. Cravaack graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy (1981) and served as a helicopter pilot. He also served in the Naval Reserve doing office support work for an aircraft carrier. He retired in 2009 as a Captain (AP, Karnowski, 11/03/10, Diaz & Roper, Star Tribune, 11/13/10). Cravaack, who grew up in Ohio, moved to Minn. and worked as a pilot for Northwest Airlines from 1990-2007 (Karnowski, Diaz & Roper). Cravaack was inspired to run for Congress by a talk show host who suggested that voters demand town hall meetings with their congressmen during the anti-health care Tea Party protests in 8/2009. When Cravaack went to Oberstar’s office to ask for a meeting and Oberstar did not come, Cravaack decided to challenge him in 2010 (Karnowski, Diaz & Roper).

       Cravaack ran his campaign like a military operation and toured the district in a motor home called “The War Wagon”(Diaz & Roper, 11/13/10, Roper, 10/14/10).” Cravaack attacked Oberstar for supporting Obama’s legislation, especially health care reform, which he promised to repeal. Cravaack criticized Oberstar for voting to limit carbon emissions. Cravaack called for a free-market /hands off business approach and for government spending cuts. He wrongly attacked abortion foe Oberstar as supporting government payments for abortion in the health care bill. He said Oberstar’s health care vote encouraged “euthanasia for the elderly,” and socialized medicine, complete falsehoods. Minnesota’s largest anti-abortion organization endorsed Cravaack as well as the Duluth News Tribune. Cravaack called for keeping all of W’s tax cuts, including those on the top 2%, which Oberstar wanted repealed. Although Cravaack was a union steward while at Northwestern, he was against allowing easier labor organizing rules (CQ 112^th Cong. Guide, Roper, Diaz 10/14/10, Bisping, Star Tribune, 10/23/10, Eisele, Minn. Post, 11/04/10). On 11/02/2010, rookie Cravaack defeated veteran Oberstar 48%-47%, by 4,000 votes. Tea Party and anti-abortionist activists helped Cravaack win. However, once again, a low Democratic turnout was fatal. Democratic turnout for Oberstar fell by nearly 112,000 votes from 2008-2010 (U.S. House Elections, 8^th Cong. Dist., Minn.).

          In the 112^th GOP House, Cravaack has voted with his party 90% of the time. He voted to repeal health care reform and against funding for National Public Radio. He also supported the kill Medicare and Social Security Ryan budget in a district that has a senior citizen population of nearly 16% (Barone 10).  However, unlike most of his fellow GOPers, Cravaack did not support passage of the final  last minute 2011 budget deal. Failure to have passed that bill would have triggered a government shut down. Despite all of Speaker Boehner and his lieutenants’ arm twisting (Star Tribune, 7/29/11, Spencer & Herb), Cravaack was one of the 22 GOPers who voted against Boehner’s initial debt ceiling plan that quickly died in the Senate on 7/29/2011. And, again, ideologue Cravaack and 65 other GOPers went against GOP leadership on the final debt deal (Wash. Post, U.S. Cong. Votes Database).

         Cravaack’s voting record is way out of touch with that of his Democratic district. The Democratic Congressional Committee (DCCC) had designated him one of its initial GOP freshmen Congressmen to be defeated in its “Drive to 25” program (now 24, after NY Kathy Hochul’s victory), to take back the House. The 8^th is one of 61 seats Obama carried in 2008 that Democrats feel are in play (“Politico,” Isenstadt, 12/09/10). Several strong Democratic challengers are getting ready to take on Cravaack (Kos, Sterle, 7/20/11). Besides his anti-union and anti-senior votes, Cravaack came under criticism from Duluth, U. of Minn. students for voting to cut Pell Grants. Thirty percent of those students presently receive those key grants. Cravaack also had the nerve to falsely imply that Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca was furthering the goals of Muslim terrorist groups (Minn. Public Radio, Kelleher, 3/03/11, Minn. Post, Kimball, 3/11/11). During the 2010 campaign, Cravaack made a fuss that “D.C. Beltway” Oberstar was “out of touch” with the 8^th because he had a home in Md. where he and his family lived. Oberstar, however, always kept his original home in the 8^th’s Chisholm and constantly campaigned in the district. Cravaack just recently sold his Minn. home and moved to New Hampshire with his family. His wife has a job in a Boston drug company. Cravaack will now only spend certain Saturdays in the Minn. 8^th C.D. Cong. Cravaack says he moved to be with his family, but will only see his children on Sundays. Cravaack is the one “out of touch” with his district and will still not be having much contact with his children. Minn. Democrats are rightly jumping all over “family values/out of touch” Cravaack (Star Tribune, 7/29/11, Kos, keewatinrose, 7/19/11, Kos, Sterle, 7/20/11).

         Analysts think Rep. Cravaack faces a rough uphill re-election battle. Elections, however, are won by turnout, not by armchair pundits. Democrats have to stop grousing about Obama who has done his level best and then some against this band of GOP Tea Party fanatics/ hostage takers. In 11/2012, Democrats must come out in droves to re-elect Obama, keep the Senate “Blue,” and take back 24 plus seats to reclaim the House. Democrats must “ground” pilot Cravaack and his friends for trying to crash the U.S. economy.         

“Unemployed” Mitt Romney— Another Out Of Touch, Clueless Republican  June 23, 2011

        A key to the GOP’s winning strategy is to try to hide the stands it takes for its true base, the top economic 1%. GOP candidates present themselves as “average Joes,” while attacking Democrats as “elitists” who look down at “regular Americans” (See Thomas Frank, “What’s The Matter With Kansas?”). However, this GOP “common man” talk is sometimes exposed as nothing but an act. Then GOPers are seen for what they actually are, the real elitists completely out of touch with the American people.

     At the 6/13/2011 Manchester, New Hampshire GOP presidential primary debate, the seven 2012 GOP candidates present showed a “near-monolithic” consensus in being as “anti-big” government as possible. These GOPers had no problem backing Cong. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wi.) Kill Medicare budget that would hurt the elderly and disabled. The American public overwhelmingly oppose Ryan’s plan. Mitt Romney, however, went further. He praised former Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s newly unveiled economic plan as displaying the “right instincts.” No other candidate dissented from that view. Pawlenty’s plan would make Ryan’s budget look “moderate.” The Tax Policy Center projects Pawlenty’s plan would reduce federal revenue by as much as $11.6 trillion over the next 10 years, more than double the 10-year cost of extending W’s tax cuts.

     The GOP candidates also suggested eliminating or privatizing FEMA, the EPA, Medicaid, food stamps, and the Federal Labor Relations Board. They all wanted health care reform repealed as well as the Wall Street reform regulations. They even wanted an end to W’s post-Enron corporate reforms. Ask residents in tornado stricken Joplin, Mo. how they feel about abolishing FEMA. How many people, short of Koch Industries and its enablers, want regulations against air and water pollution, which the EPA makes and enforces, gutted? How many voters in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan, where GOP governors are radically stripping workers’ rights, like the idea of further weakening labor? The public does not want a repeal of health care. Millions of uninsured are now being covered. They certainly don’t want a repeat of the Enron shenanigans or another financial meltdown (M. Goldberg, YAHOO!News, 6/14/11, Whiteside, YAHOO!, R. Brownstein, “National Journal,” 6/17/11). The GOP is sure in touch with its Tea Party base, a small disliked minority, but is clueless about the rest of America. And Mitt Romney, folks, wins hands down the “clueless and out of touch with America” crown.

        Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, the GOP front-runner for the 2012 presidential nomination, was praised by commentators for his N. Hampshire “presidential” presentation. He didn’t have much competition in this field of wing nut ideologues. These included pizza executive Herman Cain, zany Rep. Ron Paul, wacky Newt “Tiffany spender” Gingrich, extremist Tea Party Caucus head Rep. Michele Bachmann, and social values zealot, former Penn. Sen. Rick Santorum. None of Romney’s GOP opponents attacked him for his numerous flip-flops on issues. Many analysts initially thought former Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty might be Romney’s strongest opponent. Just one day after Pawlenty coined the phrase “Obamneycare,” to criticize the health reform bill Romney pushed and signed in Mass., Pawlenty “chickened out” at the debate. When CNN moderator John King pressed Pawlenty to criticize Romney to his face about how his bill was similar to Obama’s, Pawlenty declined to do that, and wrongly suggested that Pres. Obama had made up the “Obamneycare” phrase (B. Reinhard, National Journal, 6/14/11, Zelney & Rutenberg, New York Times, 6/13/11).  

         Romney decided to go on a post-debate “victory lap” tour in the South. On 6/16/2011, in a Tampa, Fla. coffee shop, Romney tried to show his aw-shucks sympathy with the problems of the jobless. Introducing himself there to a group of business owners and unemployed workers, Romney stated, “I should tell my story. I’m also unemployed (AP, Tampa, Fla., 6/16/11, Time, “Swampland,” M. Scherer, 6/16/11, J. Zelney, NY Times).” This was not the first time Romney had made this “I’m unemployed comment,” which he called a “joke.” He had uttered this “joke” during the 2008 campaign in Iowa, and a few days before the 11/2010 midterm elections in N. Hampshire (“Swampland,” 6/16/11, “Politico,” Burns, 6/16/11, J. Martin). DNC (Democratic National Committee) chair, Fla. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, quickly and correctly hammered Romney in a strong press release.

    In Wasserman Schultz’s words, “Folks in my home state and across the country, who are struggling every day to make ends meet, do not need someone making light of their situation. Equating his run for the presidency with the difficulties of these honest hard-working Americans is shocking and is a reflection of his inability to comprehend the struggles of the American people.”

      Mitt Romney, a former head of Bain Capital, worth at least $200 million, does not have to work for a living, and hasn’t for the better part of the last five years. He has used that time to fully concentrate on running for the presidency (Bailey, YAHOO, 6/16/11). In addition to Wasserman Schultz’s comments, N. Hampshire Dem. Chairman Ray Buckley stated, “I am not sure that I can think of anything more out of touch with Granite Staters than ‘chuckling’ at unemployment as Mitt Romney did today in Fla.”

           The Wall Street Journal, no liberal paper, noted that Romney’s political career “has been marked by struggles to connect with ordinary Americans (WSJ, 6/16/11).” Romney, like W, was born “to the economic and political manor.” Mitt is the son of American Motors chief executive George Romney. George Romney became the Gov. of Michigan and ran unsuccessfully for President in 1968 (See WSJ). Son Mitt had four houses in 2009. In that year, “average Joe/Mitt” put up for sale a palatial ski chalet in Deer Valley, Utah. How many unemployed Americans get to do that? They have trouble making payments on just one home (Press release, Americans United For Change, WSJ, 6/16/11). This “unemployed” comment was deemed a “gaffe” by Guy Benson on the right wing Townhall blog (6/16/11). YAHOO’s Holly Bailey also called the “unemployed” crack “a line that’s sure to come back to haunt Mitt Romney (Bailey, YAHOO, 6/16/11).”

          And there is much more in Mitt Romney’s record that should “come back to haunt him” as way out of touch. In the 6/13/2011 debate, Michigan native Mitt Romney repeated a stand that shows he has a “tin ear” toward the Wolverine State and much of the Midwest. He attacked the successful federal bailout of the auto industry. When moderator John King stated that this rescue had been a success, Mitt called it a failure because “the bailout program wasted a lot of money and gave the companies over to the United Auto Workers (National Journal, 6/14/11, NY Times, Zeleny& Rutenberg, 6/13/11).” Mitt said the auto industry should have gone into bankruptcy first! Mitt is completely wrong in his assessment of labor taking over the industry. He also could care less if labor, numerous auto suppliers, and many related businesses were badly hurt. A more severe economic tailspin could have occurred without this rescue. Mitt cares about Tea Party ideology and union bashing, not Midwest voters and most Americans.

         At Bain Capital, where Mitt made his millions, and as Governor of Mass., Romney was a great believer in outsourcing American jobs, or shipping them overseas. In 2008, when Mitt first ran for the White House, the Mich. Dem. Party put up an ad saying he won the “gold medal” for outsourcing jobs when he dismantled companies. As Gov., Mitt constantly took positions that undercut American jobs, including vetoing a bill that would have stopped state jobs from going overseas (Mi. Dem. Party, 8/14/08). Mitt Romney is, once more, out of touch with America.

          Mitt’s big single issue argument for becoming president is that he knows how to create jobs, both in the private sector and in government. The real record is another story. At Bain Capital and in the Mass. state house, Romney was, once again, an out of touch business executive and politician who could care less about employees/ constituents. During his 15 years at Bain Capital, Mitt made tons of cash by using leveraged buyouts. Mitt bought companies with money borrowed against their assets, groomed them to be sold off, and in the interim collected huge management fees. He bought, sold, and merged dozens of companies. Mitt had the chance to fight to save jobs, but didn’t. As Mitt’s partners explained, “his ultimate responsibility was to make money for Bain’s investors.” A review of Bain’s investments during Romney’s time there indicated that “job growth was not a particular priority (Boston Globe, Gavin, 1/27/08, S. Benen, Wash. Monthly, 6/12/11).”

      Romney’s campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom acknowledged that, “layoffs are sometimes necessary for a company’s health.” Translation, for Bain’s and other investors’ health, not for employees. In some cases, in order to make money for Bain’s investors, Mitt shuttered plants, slashed hundreds of jobs, and put these companies into bankruptcy. During Mitt’s time at Bain, at least 5 companies that he bought up went broke. However, Bain still made big money on those business failures. Bain, in fact, made more from one of those failures, Ampad, than on its successes. Ampad, an Indiana paper plant,  yielded more than $100 million on Bain’s $5 million investment, while successful Staples, a Framingham, Mass. retailer, returned “just” $13 million on a $2 million investment (WSJ, 6/16/11, Boston Globe, Gavin, 1/27/08). In Romney’s view, it’s not about job growth. “It’s that their (Bain’s) investment grows (H. Anderson, MIT Sloan School of Management Professor).” A former employee of one of Mitt’s Bain-acquired business stated Romney and his firm did not “care enough to consider saving this business and create jobs. It was very clinical. Like a doctor. When the patient is dead, you just move on to the next patient  (Boston Globe).” Randy Johnson, a worker and union official at Ampad, personally wrote Romney to tell him how disappointed he was by his excuses not to save the company. The failure of Ampad became a key issue in Romney’s Senate loss to Ted Kennedy in 1994. When Romney’s record at Ampad was disclosed, Romney, who had been even with Kennedy, took a dive in the polls (See Boston Globe, Gavin). 

      As governor, jobs, again, were not a high Romney priority. During Mitt’s 4 years in office (2003-2007), Mass. ranked 47^th out of 50 states in job growth. His state record on job creations was one of the worst in the country. By the end of his 4 years in office, Mass. had just a 1% net gain in payroll jobs, compared to 5.3% for the nation (Benen, Wash. Monthly, 6/12/11). Mitt doesn’t want the rest of the country to know his real out of touch callous economic record.         

    Of course, Mitt also hopes everyone forgets that he is the “king” of flip-floppers, another characteristic many American voters heartily dislike. To many Americans, flip-floppers look like inauthentic, out of touch politicians. Such people are not worthy of the presidency. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) put it perfectly. “Romney was for gay marriage when governor, now he’s against it. As governor, he was for abortion, now he’s against it.” And Reid pointedly added, Obama and the Democrats “modeled our (federal health care reform) bill to be to a large degree about what he did in Mass. Now he’s trying to run from that.” He sure is. Romney is contorting himself into a pretzel trying to say that his health plan with an individual mandate, requiring people to get health insurance, was fine for Mass., but wrong for the nation (“Slate,” Dickerson, 5/12/11, Las Vegas News, Demirjian).

       Harry Reid also remarked that “if someone (Mitt) doesn’t know who they are, they shouldn’t be President of the United States.” Mass. Cong. Barney Frank, who saw Romney in action as his Governor, was even harsher. Frank stands by his 2007 statement that Mitt was “an extraordinarily ambitious man with no perceivable political principle whatsoever, and the most intellectually dishonest human being in the history of politics.” Rep. Frank noted Mitt has lately “flip-flopped even more.” In Frank’s opinion, Mitt’s only consistent principle is “he thinks he should run the world (CNN, Political Ticker, 6/17/11).” IMHO, Mitt is Richard Nixon to the tenth power. Romney is the GOP front runner in polls, name recognition, and financial backing. GOP voters tend to give the previous presidential primary loser the nomination when he runs the second time around. Witness the cases of Reagan and McCain. Rank and file GOPers are also “hell bent” to make Obama a one-term president. Many GOPers say they will ignore 1,000% right wing ideology to go with the person who has the best chance to defeat Obama. Romney fits that bill (Quinnipiac Poll, ABC Wash. Post Poll, 6/06/11, see Daily Kos joelgp, 6/08/11, Bailey, YAHOO, 6/08/11).  Should Romney get the nod, Democrats, independents, and moderates must come out in droves to re-elect President Obama in 2012. Clueless, out of touch Mitt must remain “unemployed.”