Politics Daily

Presidential Primary Calendar in Peril as Florida Insists on Early 2012 Date

Tom Diemer — 2011-02-18T12:28:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Primaries, Republican Convention, Voting, 2012 President, Governors, Campaigns, Barack Obama

A top Florida Republican says his state will likely hold to a Jan. 31 date for its presidential primary next year, upsetting the campaign calendar that traditionally has Iowa and New Hampshire leading off the season.

"I think we belong at the beginning of the national conversation about who the next president is," Florida House Speaker Dean Cannon told CNN on Thursday. ". . . I am aware of the risks, and people say it should be moved later, but I definitely favor keeping it early rather than moving it back like the parties are saying."

If Florida sticks to its plan -- despite protests from the national Republican and Democratic parties -- Iowa officials may be tempted to move up that state's caucuses, now set for Feb, 6, and the same thing could happen in New Hampshire, where the primary is now scheduled for Feb. 14. Nevada and South Carolina are next in line, with all other states ordered by the parties not to hold elections before March 1.

Cannon, noting that the Republican National Convention will be held next summer in Tampa, said he isn't too worried about sanctions from the national GOP. But he said Florida could consider moving back the primary date "a little bit, if the end result, whatever that date is, keeps Florida at the beginning or early in the dialogue." Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is lobbying the state to stick to the rules, protecting the Iowa and New Hampshire dates. And Florida Gov. Rick Scott seems amenable to a compromise, the National Journal said.

In recent campaigns, officials in some states have scrambled for early primary dates to shine a spotlight on their regions while the presidential race was still competitive. In 2008, the urge to go early pushed the Iowa and New Hampshire contests ahead to just days into the new year, which forced candidates, their aides and reporters to spend time during the holidays on the campaign trail.

Unless a formidable primary challenger emerges to take on President Obama, the Republicans have far more at stake than Democrats in this argument, since Obama's nomination for a second term would be all but assured.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

New RNC Chief Reince Priebus Fires GOP Convention Staff

Christopher Weber — 2011-01-17T14:27:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Conventions, Republican Convention, 2012 President, White House, 2012 Elections

Reince Priebus is cleaning house. Just days after being elected the head of of the Republican National Committee, Priebus has sacked the staff involved in planning the 2012 GOP convention.

In a written statement, Priebus said changes were necessary to ensure that the convention in Tampa, Fla., "will be worthy" of the Republican candidate for president.

"Those changes start today. I have discontinued the employment of the convention liaison and the employees of the Committee on Arrangements, effective immediately," Priebus said. "I look forward to bringing on top-notch staff and planning a convention that all Republicans, especially our 2012 presidential nominee, can be proud of."

New RNC Chief Reince Priebus 'Never Forgot the Roots of the Party'

Christopher Weber — 2011-01-14T20:52:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Conventions, Republican Convention, 2012 President, Conservatives, 2012 Elections

Now that Reince Priebus has been named as the GOP's choice to lead the party into 2012's presidential election season, let's get the big question out of the way first: It's pronounced "ryns PREE-bus." (Click here to hear it said aloud.)

We're going to be hearing a lot of the hardworking Midwesterner with the uncommon name in the next two years, as he tries to unify the membership, expand the outreach and organize the muddled finances of the Republican National Committee.

Priebus, the former RNC general counsel who won the chairmanship Friday after seven rounds of voting, unseated his former ally, Michael Steele. He was head of Steele's 2009 bid to run the committee and a close adviser.

Why the Next Republican VP Nominee Will Likely Be Hispanic

Matt Lewis — 2010-11-29T09:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Republican Convention, 2012 President, Governors, Conservatives, Matt Lewis and the News

Pencil it in: The next GOP vice presidential nominee will be Hispanic.

That's my prediction, at least.

There are primarily two reasons for this. First, of course, is math: Hispanics represent a growing percentage of the voting population, and there is reason to believe they are "winnable" for Republicans.

As Texas Rep. Lamar Smith recently wrote in The Washington Post,

Exit polls reported by CNN . . . reveal that a historically robust 38 percent of Hispanic voters cast ballots for House Republican candidates in 2010 -- more than in 2006 (30 percent) and 2008 (29 percent). In fact, since 1984, Republican House candidates have only won a higher percentage of the Hispanic vote in one election: 2004. This level of Hispanic support for Republican candidates came despite widespread pre-election claims by advocates for illegal immigration that the Arizona law and a pro-rule-of-law stand would undercut Hispanic support for Republicans.

Though the efficacy of this is highly debatable, Republicans will most likely assume that nominating a Hispanic Republican might help increase that 38 percent -- not so much because Hispanics want to elect a fellow Hispanic but because of the symbolic commitment such a selection might show.

But while vice presidential picks are (despite what politicians say) always political, playing cheap identity politics doesn't work, either.

Which brings me to my second reason: Republicans are now in the enviable position of having a new generation of qualified Hispanic leaders to choose from. The two most obvious picks would be Florida Sen.-elect Marco Rubio and New Mexico Gov.-elect Susana Martinez.

Back in April, I outlined all the reasons for why I thought Republicans should nominate the charismatic and eloquent Rubio for president in 2012. It was always going to be tough for him to achieve that in such a short period of time, and the fact that Charlie Crist launched an independent bid against him, forcing Rubio to campaign hard in the general election, probably ended what would have been a slight possibility to begin with.

I still think Rubio, who has the good fortune of representing the important state of Florida, has a good shot at becoming president someday, and his road to the White House may go through the vice presidency. After all, becoming vice president in 2012 might negate what would have been his biggest negative in 2016 or 2020 -- having been a U.S. senator for too long.

On the negative side, Carlos Eire, a Yale professor and author of "Learning to Die in Miami," tells me: "The U.S. news media would undoubtedly bungle most [of] its reporting by trying to portray Rubio as a traitor to his natural 'Hispanic' constituency, adding fuel to the fire."

He went on to add that it would be a mistake to assume other Hispanics might identify with a Cuban-American:

"Marco Rubio is a white guy, and the Mexicans and Central Americans who love to think of themselves as 'brown' or as a separate race (La Raza), are not going to gravitate to Rubio just because his parents spoke Spanish at home," he said.

While it might be a mistake to assume that someone from Peru would automatically vote for a Cuban-American, Republicans may conclude that a Mexican-American candidate could appeal to the large numbers of that constituency living in key states in the southwest.

As Eire notes,

There are serious reasons for those 17 different countries south of the border [retaining] their separate identities and autonomy. I don't know a single "Hispanic" who thinks of himself or herself as anything other than someone from a specific country: Peru, Guatemala, Argentina, Colombia, etc.

This very fact might open the door for Martinez, the daughter of Mexican-American parents (who would also be poised to become the first female vice president).

Of course, the obvious caveat, is that neither Rubio nor Martinez has even begun his/her term. It could be that they both implode -- though I seriously doubt that will happen.

This sort of strategic thinking, of course, is typically not advertised.

But you can bet the top advisers of whoever wins the GOP nomination in 2012 will take these factors into consideration. Either way, my very premature prediction is that Rubio and Martinez are already on the short list for vice presidential picks in 2012.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Mean Girl Alert: Is Meghan McCain Jealous of Bristol Palin?

Bonnie Goldstein — 2010-11-05T16:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Republican Convention, 2012 President, Woman Up

With all she had to keep track of, still kicking "Dancing With the Stars" contestant Bristol Palin, the 20-year-old daughter of GOP 2012 presidential nopeful Sarah Palin, forgot to send her absentee ballot back to Alaska in time for Tuesday's election. With characteristic candor, she incautiously admitted the oversight when asked by a celebrity interviewer about her vote.

(Suggestion for SarahPAC: Not everyone is as intuitively magnetic as your principal -- spend some of those $ millions you've been raising getting media training for the rest of the Palin family.)

Bristol's unguarded moment was blasted across celebrity gossip Web sites and bled over into the political press but (unless Lisa Murkowski wins her still-undecided write in campaign by one vote) it was basically a harmless gaffe. Yes, the oversight reflects poorly on the Palin family commitment to the political process, but let's face it, that boat sailed a long time ago.

That the newly reinvented dance show contestant and single mother of a 2-year-old has less interest in her mother's political image than the oft-mentioned potential 2012 contender would hope for is of little consequence when you consider the publicity savvy grizzly mama's increased value from her integrity challenged but exquisitely executed video production victory lap for her winning endorsements. (In fairness to the family dynamic, both Palin women have had a busy week. Sarah almost missed Bristol surviving DTWS's latest elimination on Tuesday).

Bristol is not the only candidate's daughter on the 2008 GOP presidential ticket in need of media training. John McCain's daughter Meghan launched her own political punditry, blogging, tweeting, book-writing and talk-show career in the days and weeks before the GOP national convention (where coincidentally Bristol was reluctantly outed as the most famous unmarried 17-year-old pregnant girl in the world) and, as Miss McCain's Web site modestly proclaims, "her profile has only risen since the election."

Of the two GOP candidates' children, 26-year-old Meghan, (frequently described as McCain's "hot daughter") is the older and more established political scion. Her father has been a United States senator "since I was 2," and she has had considerably more experience with privilege, polish and press exposure than still-experimenting Bristol. But, it seems to me that McCain needs her own lessons in knowing when to shut the blazes up.

An example of over playing her media access might be her appearance on Jay Leno's nighttime talk show Wednesday when Meghan took umbrage at the dilution of presidential dignity ( "kinda trashy" ) by Barack Obama's election-eve appearance on the Ryan Seacrest radio show. (Awkwardly, Seacrest's booker Amy Sugarman subsequently revealed on air that Meghan had repeatedly sought and been refused an invitation to the program.)

Partisan sniping was just the warm-up on the "Tonight Show" guest sofa as Meghan confided to Leno her view that her father's successful challenger was not alone in lowering presidential standards. Known for injudiciously oversharing, Meghan told Leno her father's former running mate, the aforementioned Sarah, who will soon be starring in her own Learning Channel reality show, also waters down Oval Office prestige by being "unpresidential." While she was dishing, the Ivy League grad (Columbia -- art history), took a gratuitously mean-spirited smack at Palin's daughter who, in an alternate universe, once contemplated tossing a wedding bouquet in a McCain White House.

When Leno brought up Bristol's absentee ballot indiscretion ("if you didn't vote, don't tell people," he joked) Meghan sniffed that the lapse by the younger woman was "bad news." Wrinkling her nose and shaking her curls while citing suffragist struggles, she added "anyone that doesn't vote is ridiculous."

If Meghan continues to cultivate political aspirations in the Grand Old Party, she may want to start censoring herself or adopt a more generous stance toward other women, especially sister Republicans.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

'Draft Chris Christie for President' Website Launched

Matt Lewis — 2010-10-14T10:24:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Primaries, Republican Convention, 2012 President, Governors, Conservatives, Campaigns, Matt Lewis and the News

On the heels of his presidential straw-poll victory at the Virginia Tea Party convention, a new website has been launched urging New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to run for president.

The Draft Chris Christie for President site is the work of former New Jersey Republican Assembly Executive Director Donald Sico. According to a news release, Sico has no affiliation with Christie or the New Jersey GOP.

The site, which is little more than a splash page, encourages supporters to fill out a contact form. By collecting the names and contact information of Christie supporters, the site's organizer hopes to demonstrate to Christie that there is a large contingent of citizens who want him to run.

"We have to make him run because, quite frankly, he is the right person for the job at the right time. America has never needed someone with his fiscal common sense than she does right now," Sico says.

Presumably, these same supporters could also be tapped to support a Christie campaign if he were to throw his hat into the ring.

What is more, it's not as if the 2012 GOP field of potential presidential candidates is terribly strong. Unlike many years, where there is a presumed nominee seemingly waiting for coronation, there is potential for a dark horse candidate to emerge as the standard bearer.

While it would be wrong to read too much into this development (after all, it's just a website), it is clear that Christie has impressed many Americans by his authenticity, willingness to tackle difficult problems (instead of just kicking the can down the road), and by his courageous stance against the powerful New Jersey teachers union.

Is this just an anomaly, or a harbinger of things to come?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Ayotte Wins New Hampshire GOP Senate Primary

Alex Wagner — 2010-09-15T00:39:00+00:00

Filed under: Primaries, Republican Convention, Voting, 2010 Elections, Tea Party

In one of the country's tightest and most-anticipated Republican Senate primaries, New Hampshire former attorney general Kelly Ayotte beat conservative lawyer Ovide Lamontagne by just 1,600 votes. With 90 percent of the vote counted Wednesday afternoon, the New York Times had Ayotte in the lead over Lamontagne by a mere one percentage point.

Both Republican candidates had received high-profile endorsements from conservative leaders: Lamontagne, considered the Tea Party favorite, received (via Twitter) the endorsement of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), as well as Tea Party leader and Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck, who headlined a fundraiser for Lamontagne.

Ayotte had initially been viewed as the more moderate of the two candidates, but had lately succeeded in making the case for her conservative bona fides. In doing do, she won the support of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin -- who dubbed Ayotte a "Granite Grizzly" and made robocalls for her in the weeks leading up to the primary.

More Primary Elections Coverage:

- Tea Party Upsets in Delaware, New York
- O'Donnell, Paul and the Primaries
- NY: Charlie Rangel Wins, Rick Lazio Loses
- Wisconsin: Johnson to Face Feingold
- Rep. Stephen Lynch Survives in Mass.
- O'Donnell Stuns Castle in Delaware
- Robitaille, Caprio, Chafee in RI Gov. Race
- O'Malley to Face Ehrlich in Maryland
- Politics Daily: Full 2010 Elections Coverage

Despite the involvement of Tea Party leaders, New Hampshire political analysts cautioned against interpreting any Ayotte's win as a referendum on the movement's power inside the state. "Palin muddied the waters," said James Pindell, political director for New Hampshire television station WMUR, arguing that the tight race had little to do with Tea Party insurgents battling establishment candidates. "Kelly Ayotte never made herself a target [for the Tea Party] -- she's no Mike Castle," said Pindell, referring to the long-serving Delaware Republican senator who lost in a surprise upset to Tea Party insurgent Christine O'Donnell.

Andrew Smith, the director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, concurred. "The endorsement from Palin changed the media cycle about Ayotte -- but I don't think it [had] an impact at the polls," he said. "As far as [Jim] DeMint and [Ken] Buck, I think a lot of voters have no idea who they are." Smith made the argument that the Tea Party movement is made up of traditional social conservatives, and "New Hampshire doesn't have that many social conservatives up here. These are Rockefeller Republicans, pro-choice Republicans." Pindell pointed to the low voter turnout on Tuesday, saying, "It's highly speculative to say we know who these people are."

In terms of policy, Ayotte and Lamontagne shared views on social issues and the economy, favoring the elimination of earmarks, a repeal of health care reform, and an end to stimulus spending. Both candidates swept past candidate Bill Binnie, who finished third in the race with was widely acknowledged to be the most moderate of the three Republican candidates. Yet Binnie far outpaced either candidate in terms of cash: Binnie spent an estimated $6 million on his campaign, while Ayotte spent $3 million and Lamontagne a mere $500,000.

As winner of the Republican primary, Ayotte will go on to battle Democratic Congressman Paul Hodes in the general election. Public Policy Polling data earlier this month showed both Ayotte and Lamontagne beating Hodes by roughly the same margin.

In the Republican House races, former Manchester mayor Frank Guinta beat defense industry executive Rich Ashooh and businessman Sean Mahoney to win the GOP seat for New Hampshire's 1st Congressional District. With 86 percent of precincts reporting, Giunta had received 32 percent of the vote, while Ashooh and Mahoney each had 28 percent, respectively. Giunta will now face sophomore incumbent Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter in November. Guinta was the initial favorite, though Ashooh won the endorsement of the state's conservative Union Leader newspaper, while Mahoney was a late-breaking front runner. He pumped over $900,000 of his own money into the race and rallied strong support late in the primary season.

In the state's 2nd Congressional District, Republican Charlie Bass -- who held the seat until 2006, when he lost to Democrat Paul Hodes -- was the winner of his party's nomination and will face Democrat Anne McLane Kuster in the general election. With 85 percent of precincts reporting, Bass had 43 percent of the vote, leading challengers Jennifer Horn, who had 35 percent of the vote, and Bob Guida, with 17 percent. Once considered a moderate Republican who voted in support of cap and trade legislation and is pro-choice, Bass has since moved right, though he is considered more moderate than Horn -- a former radio talk show host and Tea Party favorite. In 2008, Horn ran for the seat (and lost) to Hodes.

Kuster, a strongly left-wing Democrat, swept past centrist Katrina Swett -- a human rights lawyer and daughter of former congressman Tom Lantos and wife of former congressman Richard Swett -- to win her party's nomination to compete for Hodes' former seat in the 2nd District. With nearly 85 percent of districts reporting, Swett had received only 29 percent of the vote, while Kuster had a sizable lead with 71 percent.

Kuster, also an attorney, appealed to New Hampshire's core Democratic base: she supports health care reform, comprehensive immigration reform and has called for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. In recent weeks, Kuster faced blowback from revelations about her work as a registered lobbyist serving clients including pharmaceutical companies -- something her opponent is likely to seize upon in the general election.

Should Swett have won the nomination, it would have marked the third time the Swett family had faced Republican Charlie Bass in the race for the 2nd CD seat. In 1994, Bass beat then-incumbent Richard Swett; in 2002, Bass trounced Katrina Swett for the seat by a 57-41 percent margin. For those looking for a third Bass-Swett rematch, the showdown doesn't appear to be in the cards.

The results in New Hampshire -- namely, whether Democrats can pick up a seat in the Senate or hold onto the ones they have in the House -- is likely to have an effect on the national stage. As for the prospects going forward in the 2nd CD race, GOP leaders have expressed confidence in Bass' chances to take Hodes' old seat, though they reserve particular optimism for their prospects in the state's 1st CD race, where they have said the probability of a victory over Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter is "very good."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Charlotte a Step Closer to Bringing 2012 Democratic Convention South?

Mary C. Curtis — 2010-08-07T23:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Barack Obama, Conventions, Democratic Convention, Republican Convention, 2012 President, Woman Up, Campaigns

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Four cities are officially in the running to host the 2012 Democratic National Convention. But after a recent site visit from about a dozen Democratic Party representatives, Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx likes his city's chances. Not that he would say one negative word about St. Louis, Cleveland or Minneapolis. He would rather talk about Charlotte's "great new facilities" and "vibrant, can-do attitude."

"For almost an entire generation, the Democratic Party has had a hands off attitude toward the South," Foxx told me on Friday. Though it was barely 8 a.m., we watched as workers in a city that keeps bankers' hours grabbed their coffee-to-go on the way to their offices. "The storyline is making the South a battleground," the youthful Democratic mayor said, "coming to a state that has been significantly impacted by the economic downturn, proving its resilience every day."

During the two-day trip, the Democratic National Committee visitors toured the city's facilities, checking hotel capacity, convention space, and transportation, police and other services. They walked downtown streets and ate lunch at The King's Kitchen, a nonprofit restaurant that employs troubled community members and uses its profits to aid causes that feed the hungry.

Foxx said he thought the group was "impressed," an opinion seconded by Democratic National Committee chairman Tim Kaine, who spoke at a College Democrats of America gathering at UNC Charlotte later in the week. However, Kaine did not offer a preview of the DNC's final decision, expected later this year. (Republican National Committee members, at the group's summer meeting in Kansas City, Mo., unanimously voted on Friday to ratify the recommendation of the Tampa Bay region to host the 2012 Republican National Convention.)

Though economists have estimated the potential economic boost to Charlotte from $20 million to 10 times that - depending on how you measure the pluses and minuses of hosting such an event -- supporters look at the bigger picture.

Foxx, who attended the 2008 convention in Denver, said what's equally important is the "opportunity to implant in the national and international consciousness a brand that captures the great character of Charlotte, N.C., and the South."

Duke Energy chief executive Jim Rogers, who co-chairs the effort, told the Charlotte Observer that more important that the economic benefit is leaving "a legacy of a can-do attitude." (There's that phrase again.) Rogers, with Foxx and Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue, said at a news conference following the DNC visit that they could raise the money needed to host the convention. Charlotte, they said, represents "the future."
Some residents, however, are grumbling that Charlotte's desire to be world class is causing it to overestimate the convention's benefits and underestimate the cost and inconvenience. Mecklenburg County has been hit by an increase in home foreclosures, and cutbacks in schools and libraries. In a Wednesday editorial, the Charlotte Observer, endorsing the city's bid, added a caveat: "But as convention-boosters spend the coming weeks honing their sales pitches to persuade the Democratic Party to come to the Queen City, we hope they'll also spend significant time thinking through how best to use the convention, if it happens here, for long-lasting help for Charlotte." A guarantee of private, not public, funding for the estimated $40 million to $45 million convention cost would be a good place to start, the paper said. (Meanwhile, a recent statewide poll of 624 voters -- a small sample -- found that 58 percent support the 2012 convention coming to Charlotte, according to Public Policy Polling.)

While the talk now is mostly of cost benefits and hotel rooms, the political calculation cannot be forgotten, Foxx told me. "In 2008, the Obama campaign mobilized hundreds of thousands of voters in the South and transformed this part of the country." Is it a permanent transformation or a blip in a state Barack Obama won by just 14,000 votes? And will a Democratic convention in Charlotte make a difference in 2012?

City leaders want the chance to find out.

Click here to follow Mary C. Curtis on Twitter.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

RNC Votes to Change Way it Nominates Presidential Candidates

Christopher Weber — 2010-08-06T18:38:00+00:00

Filed under: Primaries, Democratic Convention, Republican Convention, 2012 President

The way the GOP nominates its candidate for president will be changed dramatically under a resolution passed Friday by the Republican National Committee.

The proposal will move primaries to later dates and require many states to allocate their delegates on a proportional basis, reducing the chance that the nominating process could end early if a candidate prevails in a delegate-rich state, Hotline On Call reported.

The earliest contests -- in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada -- will be moved back from early January to February, according to Hotline.

Supporters hope the new rules will compel candidates to build a grassroots campaign and spend more time crisscrossing smaller states, instead of just focusing on the ones with the most delegates.

"This is not a perfect rule, but it is the best possible rule under the circumstances we have now," John Ryder, the national committeeman who helped craft the measure, told Hotline.

Both parties have worked together to overhaul the nominating process, which many believe is flawed. The Democratic National Committee is expected to vote on a similar measure later this month.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Tim Pawlenty: Man of the Moment for a New GOP?

Eleanor Clift — 2010-07-27T15:40:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Republican Convention, Sarah Palin, 2012 President, Woman Up, Conservatives

I first met Tim Pawlenty when he came by for an interview with Newsweek reporters and editors at the 2008 Republican Convention in Minnesota. He had been passed over for the vice presidency, and the slight was still raw. You could tell he was hurting -- more by his body language than anything he said. He walked us through the vice-presidential vetting process, which for him was quite extensive, as questions swirled about how much the Republican nominee, John McCain, knew about Sarah Palin, his surprise pick, and the pregnancy of her teenage daughter, which dominated news coverage as the convention got under way.

The consensus around the table after an hour with Pawlenty was that McCain had made the wrong decision in passing over the solid and serious Midwesterner in favor of a mystery woman with soap-opera baggage. l don't think McCain could have won the election regardless of who he picked, but if he'd chosen Pawlenty, he would have positioned a next-generation candidate who is more plausible as a nominee with broad appeal than Palin, whose passionate following is restricted to a relatively small sliver of the electorate.

My next encounter with Pawlenty was at an education-reform meeting last year where he shared top billing with Education Secretary Arne Duncan, aligning himself with the Obama administration's "Race to the Top" initiatives. I remember thinking that while he's a conservative, he's not in the far-right camp that once fantasized abolishing the Department of Education. And when he met with reporters in Washington Monday morning at a breakfast organized by the Christian Science Monitor, among the points he made was that he comes from the state that produced Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Jesse Ventura, Paul Wellstone and Al Franken, among other progressive icons. "I'm a bit of an interloper as a conservative Republican," he noted.

His message, delivered throughout the hour-long breakfast, is that he can co-exist and even thrive outside the GOP's comfort zone. He goes down easy even when he's embracing his party's right-wing dogma. He's "Minnesota Nice," as my colleague Jill Lawrence points out. That could be a handicap in today's ruthless politics, but it could also serve him well with an electorate tired of the rhetorical baiting that politicians do, and it could preserve relationships within the GOP to secure him a spot on the ticket in the event he falls short of winning the nomination.
He's hoping to ride the new diversity wave within the GOP, stressing that he's not a CEO like you-know-who (He didn't mention Mitt Romney by name; he didn't have to). Pawlenty is working class, the son of a truck driver. Of his other major rival, Sarah Palin, whom he did mention by name, he said she can wait longer than others to declare her intentions.

He'll make a decision early next year, but in reality he's already made the decision - devoting the next two years to full-time running, the playbook that Jimmy Carter as an unknown former governor with time on his hands successfully pioneered in 1974-'76. At this point, Pawlenty seems as unlikely as Carter did (Jimmy who?), but at the very least, given the swing state he's from and those working-class roots, he could continue the Minnesota tradition. The state has produced two vice presidents, Humphrey and Mondale, and as a reporter noted, the perennial presidential candidate, the late Harold Stassen, hailed from the same St. Paul area as Pawlenty. "He probably ran too many times but we're proud of him," Pawlenty said, sounding like a man who knows what it's like to be passed over, but then again, given his state's history, maybe the third time is the charm. "Who best to open the door to people not yet Republicans?" he said, a line that he offered as a criteria for selecting the next GOP nominee and which happens to sum up his pitch to be the one.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Can Charlotte Regain Its New South Swagger With 2012 Democratic Convention?

Mary C. Curtis — 2010-07-06T23:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Conventions, Democratic Convention, Republican Convention, 2012 President, Woman Up

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina -- The Democratic National Committee has put Charlotte where it wants to be, in the running for a shiny, potentially lucrative prize. All that stands in the way of the city hosting the 2012 Democratic National Convention are Cleveland, St. Louis and Minneapolis. Though Ohio, Missouri and Minnesota are also states with electoral votes the party craves, Charlotte likes being in the hunt.

Private supporters of the idea have set up websites, a Facebook page, a Twitter feed and a YouTube channel with a video extolling the city's virtues, with plenty of images of office towers and tree-lined streets.

Not only would the convention bring $150 million to $200 million to the region's economy, as estimated by the mayor's office, it would also draw thousands of visitors, and "put our city, our region and our state on an international stage," according to Mayor Anthony Foxx. Charlotte's DNC 2012 Host Committee is co-chaired by Foxx and Duke Energy's chief executive, Jim Rogers.

There are, of course, political reasons that make Charlotte a logical choice for national Democrats. President Barack Obama won North Carolina by 14,000 votes in 2008, and a national convention -- with the spotlight and the money that go with it -- could help keep the state competitive, which is looking like a long shot right now. It would be a Democratic showcase in the South, a strong region for the GOP and right next door to marquee Republican and Newsweek cover subject Nikki Haley. Republicans have already chosen Tampa as its 2012 convention site.

But Charlotte would have been just as excited by a Republican bid. As North Carolina's Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue said, "Regardless of party, this event could generate economic benefits through the Queen City area and the state." (Queen City? Charlotte and the county containing it are named in honor of the German Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg, who married British King George III. Visitors to the convention, if Charlotte is chosen, can see a statue of her at the airport.)

The city has something to prove. The institutions that made Charlotte the second largest banking center in the country -- after New York, as most anyone would tell you a few years ago -- took a hit during the financial crisis. Bank of America has a new chief executive; the onetime regional giant Wachovia is part of San Francisco-based Wells Fargo.

Despite some recent bad news -- such as library cutbacks and teacher layoffs that have dogged cities across the country -- Charlotte has some experience at beating out other places for sought-after attractions. The NASCAR Hall of Fame, which opened in May, added a gleaming swoop to the skyline. By 2012, the Mint Museum Uptown will have opened at the Wells Fargo Cultural Campus, which also includes the Knight Theater, the Harvey B. Gantt Center for African-American Arts and Culture and the Bechtler Museum of Modern Art, designed by Mario Botta. (The New York Times approves.)

After hosting 60,000 to 70,000 visitors for the National Rifle Association annual meeting in May, Charlotte is confident it can handle the Democratic convention. Mike Allen's Politico Playbook predicts Charlotte for the win, with St. Louis as backup. Taking a different view, Charlie Cook, editor of the Washington-based Cook Political Report, said he would "be astonished" if Charlotte were picked. The DNC is expected to announce its choice by the end of the year.

Though the city has never hosted a national political convention, the state has had some Final Four experience. The Legislature celebrated keeping the NCAA men's basketball championship in North Carolina's borders two years in a row (UNC-Chapel Hill last year; Duke in 2010). That favored son Michael Jordan now owns the NBA's Charlotte Bobcats has got to be a good sign for a city that's at its best when it's in a fight.

Click here to follow Mary C. Curtis on Twitter.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Sarah Palin Hits Washington on Friday for Anti-Abortion Fundraiser

Lynn Sweet — 2010-05-12T21:18:00+00:00

Filed under: Abortion, Fundraising, Republican Convention, Sarah Palin, 2010 Elections, Campaigns, Tea Party

Sarah Palin hits Washington on Friday to headline a sold out fundraiser for an anti-abortion group, the Susan B. Anthony List at the Ronald Reagan Building, down the street from the White House.

Meanwhile, Palin is readying her second book, due out in November, titled, "America By Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag."

Palin is such a draw that the annual Susan B. Anthony event was revamped from a tea to a larger "Celebration of Life Breakfast," with some 550 attending, the most the room can hold. Tickets range from $150 to $25,000, which includes a VIP reception. A spokesman for the group told me Palin is not charging for her appearance.

"We are thrilled that Governor Palin will be joining the Susan B. Anthony List for our May fundraiser," said General Chairman Jane Abraham in a statement. "As a mother, wife, and successful leader -- she embodies what it means to be a pro-life feminist today. From moms at the PTA to women leaders in the boardroom, Sarah Palin continues to serve as a role model for what it means to be a true American woman leader, and we are honored to have her stand with us."

GIANNOULIAS MAKING PALIN AN ISSUE IN ILLINOIS SENATE CONTEST

Palin was to be the star at a Wednesday night fundraiser in the Chicago suburb of Rosemont for the Illinois Republican Party. Tickets ran from $500 to $25,000 for the VIP treatment. GOP Senate nominee Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.) planned to skip the fundraiser, saying he needs to be Washington. Democratic Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias is trying to capitalize on Kirk's absence.
During the primary, when Kirk was challenged from the right, he sought Palin's backing. But in a general election contest, Palin's embrace is not kind of help Kirk wants, as he looks for Democratic and crossover voters in an effort to to prevail in the heavily Democratic state. Kirk is running a bit ahead of Giannoulias in polls.

"Mark Kirk may be keeping his physical or geographic distance from Sarah Palin, but if you look at what he says and where stands when it comes to opposing and obstructing President Obama's agenda, they might as well be walking arm-in-arm," said Giannoulias spokesman Matt McGrath in a statement. Earlier on Wednesday, the Giannoulias campaign posted a web video using tape of Kirk praising Palin in 2008 after Sen. John McCain picked her to be his vice presidential running mate.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

GOP Chooses Tampa for 2012 Republican National Convention

Christopher Weber — 2010-05-12T18:23:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Conventions, Republican Convention, Voting, 2012 President, Michael Steele

Tampa, Fla., has been picked as the site for the 2012 Republican National Convention, which will nominate the party's candidate for president.

The Republican National Committee announced Wednesday that its selection team voted to recommend Tampa following a months-long search. After terms are hammered out with the city, the full RNC will vote on the recommendation in August.

"The Tampa area boasts state-of-the-art facilities, exciting and vibrant downtowns, and a clear enthusiasm from the community to host our convention. We look forward to joining our compatriots in the Sunshine State for our convention in 2012," RNC Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement.

The convention will be held the week of August 27, 2012.

Phoenix and Salt Lake City were also in the running.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Six Reasons Barack Obama is Still the Odds-on Favorite in 2012

Carl M. Cannon — 2010-03-08T05:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Republicans, Barack Obama, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Economy, Primaries, Media, Health Care, Polls, Bill Clinton, Republican Convention, Sarah Palin, Predictions, Obama Administration, 2012 President, 2010 Elections, Congress, Campaigns, Newt Gingrich, Liberals, Moderates, Unemployment, Jobs

Less than six months after he took office, Barack Obama was labeled a "lame duck" president by a few overeager conservative commentators. Before his first year in the White House was up, some nervous liberals began pronouncing their hero more Jimmy Carter than J.F.K. Now, independents are apparently casting gimlet eyes at the president. In a recent Gallup Poll, Obama was losing by 14 points among these swing voters in a 2012 matchup to something called the "generic Republican."

"The real bad news for the White House in the poll is the continued souring of independents on Obama," wrote Mark Hemingway in The Examiner. "It would be very hard to win re-election if that trend continues." True enough, but why should it continue? History is instructive, it is never static, and to those who believe President Obama will be easy pickings when he runs for re-election, I'd just say, "Wanna bet?"

So with no disrespect intended toward Mark Hemingway, or even Jimmy Carter, that human punching bag of ex-presidents, here are six reasons why the person who occupies the White House on Jan. 21, 2013 is most likely to be ... the man who occupies it now.

Reason 1: There is no such beast as a "generic Republican." To be sure, there will be a GOP presidential nominee, and that person will have a name, a history, a sex, a voting record, and -- unless the Second Coming takes place between now and the GOP convention in the summer of 2012 -- at least some of the normal human frailties. (No, Mitt Romney, despite never having a hair out of place you are not perfect!) In other words, the next Republican nominee will come before the electorate carrying baggage of his own -- or her own - whether that candidate hails from Wasilla, Alaska, or anywhere else in this big wonderful nation of ours.

In the summer of 2005, as he planned his own presidential run, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana told me he knew Hillary Rodham Clinton was a formidable front-runner and that going into New Hampshire against six or seven other Democratic candidates, most of them senators, she was likely to win. After that, the field would winnow rapidly, Bayh believed, until only one other strong contender remained. "Then it will be a binary election," he said, adding that Clinton could certainly lose a two-person race. This is indeed what happened, although it turned out to be a candidate not even on the scene at that early stage, Barack Obama, who pulled it off.

The point here is that in a "binary" general election campaign, voters won't be choosing between Obama and any idealized view of a "generic" Republican. This is important to keep in mind because we are in a politically polarized period in our nation's history. This doesn't mean that nastiness reigns in our political discourse - although polarization tends to lead to incivility -- it means that Democrats must hew to the views of their party's liberal base, as much as Republicans must pass various conservative purity tests. Thus, by the time the Republicans have chosen their standard-bearer, that candidate will almost certainly have staked out policy positions well to the right of the country as a whole. The upshot is that generic Republican numbers in 2010 are higher among independent or moderate voters than a real Republican's would likely be after surviving the cauldron of the primary season.

This is not sheer speculation on my part. That same Gallup Poll on the generic Republican issue put an open-ended question to respondents asking them to name "the leader" of the Republican Party. Officially (and unofficially) there is no designated leader, and this poll bore it out: Mitt Romney came in first at 14 percent; Sarah Palin was second with 11 percent. But neither Romney nor Palin defeat Obama in a mock 2012 matchup -- at least not so far.

Reason 2: It might not be a "binary" election, anyhow. Taking nothing away from the two winning presidential campaigns Bill Clinton ran in 1992 and 1996, each time it was a three-man race -- with Ross Perot being the third wheel. Clinton was clearly chagrined that Perot kept him from winning 50 percent of the vote in '96, but some of his top aides were more philosophical about it: They realized that Perot may have given Clinton the presidency in the first place. In 1992, Ross Perot siphoned 19.5 percent of the popular vote away from the two major candidates. That "giant sucking sound" Perot loved to talk about? That was not the sound of jobs going to Mexico. It was the sound of the twangy Texan vacuuming up disaffected Americans who likely would have shuffled into the voting booth, held their noses, and voted for George H.W. Bush.

Which histrionic populist could play a similar role in 2012? It's hard from watching his television performances to know exactly what Glenn Beck is thinking half the time, but "Glenn Beck for President" stickers were all the rage at this year's CPAC meeting in Washington, and there's a Facebook page and even a petition of those who'd like to see the Fox showman enter the fray. Likewise, there's a "Draft Lou Dobbs" movement that exists -- at least online -- seeking to transfer anger over immigration into a third party candidacy. These men cannot be elected, but they can run if they want to. And it ain't rocket science figuring out which political party would be hurt most in 2012 by a Glenn Beck or Lou Dobbs (or any Beck-Dobbs imitators) candidacy.

Reason 3: He's already got the job. Incumbency is supposed to be a disadvantage in the current political environment, but that perception is worth a closer look. It's certainly true that people have a low opinion of Congress. A recent Gallup Poll put the percentage of Americans who approve of the job Congress is doing at 18 percent, the lowest figure in a year. A number of governors have seen the bottom fall out of their polling numbers, too. So yes, anti-incumbency is potent right now. But so is the bully pulpit. At this point in his presidency Ronald Reagan's job approval rating was in the mid-40s, lower than Obama's is now. In the 1982 midterm elections, Reagan's party lost 26 seats in the House. Two years later, Reagan carried 49 states while winning 58.5 percent of the popular vote in his re-election bid.

"In a midterm election, it's possible to get really far by just saying 'no,'" astute political observer Bill Schneider said at a breakfast meeting with political reporters last week. "In a presidential year, you have to present a real alternative."

In 1994 when I was covering the White House for the Baltimore Sun, I spent the week of the midterm elections vacationing in Arizona. It turned out I missed a pretty big political story -- the first GOP takeover of Congress in 40 years, to be precise -- and when on my return our congressional correspondent told me breezily, "While you were gone, your beat disappeared." I accepted the needle, but remember my private reaction, "I don't think the White House disappears."

As it happened, Bill Clinton had some of those same feelings: "The president is still relevant here," he said somewhat defensively in a news conference the following April. Clinton was right, even if he was mostly bucking himself up. The president appoints judges, vetoes bad legislation (and sometimes legislation that isn't so bad), manages the executive branch, and serves as the commander-in-chief. He also is the person this nation turns to when tragedy strikes. They can rise to the occasion, or not. For Reagan it was the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger. In Clinton's case it was the Oklahoma City bombing.

"We needed a president," former Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry recalled later. "That was a kind of a moment that turned around his presidency."

So, yes, presidents are relevant, and the past century or so has shown us that they are more than twice as likely to be re-elected (Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush) than rejected after one term (Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush). Occasionally they are deemed a failure and the public tunes them out. That usually happens in the second term, not the first, and it has not yet happened to Barack Obama, who demonstrated as recently as the Feb. 25 health care summit that he can command any room of his fellow politicians, no matter how big the egos and ambitions around him.

Reason 4: The midterm elections can be cathartic. It's clear that Democrats in Congress are dragging Obama down a bit --- and that they are also paying a price for some of the disillusionment with the president. It's a mutually reinforcing problem like the drowning guy who grabs the lifeguard around the neck pulling them both toward the bottom of the lake. But nature often has a solution for this problem: There's a possibility that Obama won't have Nancy Pelosi to carry on his back after November.

If that turnaround occurred --- if the House (or the Senate) goes Republican in this year's midterms -- the Republicans would smell blood in the water. They would do well to make sure it isn't their own before letting the sharks loose. In 1954, Republicans lost both houses of Congress even though their party standard-bearer was in the White House. As it happened, this didn't do much to derail Dwight Eisenhower. It turned out that Ike could do just fine negotiating with fellow native Texans Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson, and he was re-elected easily in 1956. Likewise, that GOP takeover in 1994-95 actually enhanced Clinton's political prospects: He was always best in full-throated campaign mode, and he outfoxed then-Speaker Newt Gingrich and the other GOP leaders on issues ranging from the budget to impeachment.

Reason 5: Youth will be served. For four decades, it was the Democrats' recurring fantasy that young voters would buck their elders and put a hip liberal in the White House. Lowering the voting age to 18 gave George McGovern and his campaign brass visions of riding a tide of youthful disaffection into the White House. This hope proved to be delusional. Turns out young people voted like old people -- only less frequently. To the consternation of liberals, when a generational gap finally did emerge it helped Ronald Reagan, the oldest and most conservative candidate in memory. Young voters recoiled from the Carter malaise and embraced Reagan's aspirational appeal.

But that has all changed --- and Obama is the beneficiary. The trend began in 2004. Remember the old line about not trusting anyone over 30? If the only people who could vote in 2004 had been the 18-29 crowd, John Kerry might be president: He carried the Millennial Generation by some 9 points, the only demographic group the Democrats won. In 2008, this trend became a tsunami of support. It evidenced itself in the primaries, when young people probably made the difference for Obama -- and it crested in November when the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Joe Biden defeated the GOP tandem of John McCain and Sarah Palin by a stunning 2-1 margin.

Much was made last month when a study by the Pew Research Center showed that the Democrats' support among Millennials had shrunk from a 32-point advantage to 14. Their love affair with Obama has tempered some, too. Pew's study, one of the most ambitious ever done of the so-called "We Generation," shows approval for Obama's job performance declined from 73 percent to 57 percent in just a year. It's not a great trend, for sure, but that's still solid support -- and it seems poised to rebound if conditions in the country improve. Young Americans still like Obama better than anyone else. Also, they are an uncommonly optimistic crowd: Although unemployment has hit the young disproportionately, they have a sunny view of their own futures.

The most immediate beneficiary of that positive outlook may be Barack Obama -- three years from now. Another in-depth survey of under-30s that will be released Tuesday by Harvard's Institute of Politics also found general slippage in support for Obama, and dissatisfaction about the president's job performance on the economy and health care. But, like the Pew poll, the IOP survey finds a residual reservoir of support for the president that ought to concern Republicans. "Among the Millennials who told us that they volunteered on behalf of the Obama campaign in 2008, 85 percent said they'd be likely to engage in similar activities in 2012," John Della Volpe, IOP's director of polling told me this weekend.

Reason 6: Bad news is driving the public dissatisfaction. This president inherited two wars and an abysmal economy. For a while, the public didn't blame him: But Iraq seems to have settled into a slog where progress is elusive -- and Obama's delay in forging a new Afghanistan strategy didn't help him either. Moreover, economic conditions worsened markedly during his first year in office while the president seemed obsessed with health care. But, again, nothing stays the same forever. Health care reform legislation will either pass or it won't, and either way Obama will likely be better off on this issue than he is now. If it passes, by 2012 the public is likely to have learned to live with it -- and may discover it actually likes elements of the new law. If it is not enacted, the failure is no more likely to be the campaign's driving narrative than it was in 1996, two years after the Clinton plan went nowhere.

As for the economy: If it goes up, so inevitably will the president's popularity. Like Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama is presiding over a deep recession in his first two years in office. Reagan famously vowed to "stay the course," which served him well when the economy came roaring back in late 1983 and 1984. Obama's critics have noted dryly that Obama has pointedly not told Americans he'd stay the course, perhaps because it's not clear what that course would be. Nor did Obama achieve the kind of legislative success in his first year in office that Reagan did. Still, the president of the United States retains the microphone even in times of trouble -- perhaps especially in times of trouble -- and if the chief executive keeps cool, makes sound decisions, and things actually get better, so do the president's own political prospects.

History offers no guarantees, of course. Most prominent economists seem confident that economic conditions will be much better in 2012. If that's true, Obama should be in good shape. If not, well, then this is no longer the Great Recession. It's the second Great Depression, and Obama won't be Reagan or Clinton -- or even Jimmy Carter. He'll be Herbert Hoover, and we'll all be in the soup (or soup kitchens) and Barack Obama's re-election chances will be the least of our worries.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Arizona, Florida, Utah Finalists for 2012 Republican Convention

Christopher Weber — 2010-03-01T15:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Conventions, Republican Convention, 2012 President

Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Tampa, Fla., are the possible sites for the 2012 Republican National Convention, which will nominate the party's candidate for president.

The Republican National Committee's site selection team will visit the cities in late March and early April, Talking Points Memo reported.

The 12-member panel will submit its findings in time for a July vote by the full committee membership.

"Phoenix, Tampa, and Salt Lake City are all amazing American cities and I wish them the best of luck with their bids," RNC chairman Michael Steele said in a statement.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Mitt to Mac: I'm on Your Side in Arizona Re-Election Campaign

Tom Diemer — 2010-02-23T08:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Endorsements, Senate, House, Republicans, John McCain, Primaries, Veepstakes, Republican Convention, Culture, 2010 Elections, Congress, Conservatives

The rapprochement continues. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who sparred with Sen. John McCain in the hard-fought 2008 Republican presidential campaign, said Tuesday he is endorsing McCain's bid for re-election in Arizona, where he faces a conservative challenger.

"For years, I've been an admirer of John McCain. Then, we became competitors. Today, I'm proud to call him my friend," Romney said in a statement reported by Politico. ". . . I believe that it is his core value of courage, faith and honor -- forged in battle and confirmed by a lifetime of service to America -- that make Senator McCain's leadership in the United States Senate so necessary in these perilous times."

In 2008, the contest between the two men for the Republican nomination often became personal in a clash of distinctly different backgrounds and personalities. But Romney quickly came on board when McCain clinched the nomination and even received some consideration for the No. 2 spot on the ticket.

McCain is being challenged in Arizona by former Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth, an outspoken conservative hard-liner.

Romney could also need McCain's help down the road. He has made no secret of his ambition to run for president again in 2012.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Latest Round-Up Of Obama Poll Ratings by State

Bruce Drake — 2009-12-19T20:33:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, Immigration, Polls, Republican Convention, Obama Administration, Poll Watch

The latest round-up of President Obama's job approval or favorability ratings by state updates or adds California, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota and Utah. One bit of good news for Obama -- he's back in positive job approval territory in North Carolina for the first time since July, although barely.

Alabama

SurveyUSA, Nov. 20-22

2008 election: McCain 60 percent, Obama 38 percent

SurveyUSA says 59 percent of Alabamans disapprove of Obama's job performance, 38 percent approve and 3 percent are undecided, about the same ratio as in its September poll. Eighty-six percent of Republicans disapprove, 73 percent of Democrats approve and 75 percent of independents disapprove. Republicans make up 38 percent of the sample, Democrats comprise 37 percent and independents make up 19 percent.

Arizona

Arizona State University/KAET, Nov. 19-22; Rasmussen Reports, Nov. 18

2008 election: McCain 53 percent, Obama 45 percent

Arizona voters split at 48 percent each on whether they approve or disapprove of the job Obama is doing, with 4 percent expressing no opinion. They believe by 45 percent to 40 percent that he should send more troops to Afghanistan. Fifteen percent expressed no opinion.

Rasmussen says 60 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing while 40 percent approve.

Arkansas

2008 election: McCain 59 percent, Obama 39 percent

Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 1; Daily Kos/Research 2000, Nov. 30 - Dec. 2

Rasmussen Reports says 65 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing while 34 percent approve.

Daily Kos/Research 2000 says 55 percent view Obama unfavorably and 42 percent see him favorably. Independents see him unfavorably by a 64 percent to 31 percent margin.

California

Public Policy Institute of California, Dec. 1-8; SurveyUSA, Nov. 20-22; Los Angeles Times/USC, Oct. 27 - Nov. 3

2008 election: Obama 61 percent, McCain 37 percent

PPIC says 61 percent approve of the job Obama is doing compared to 33 percent who disapprove, with 6 percent undecided. Forty-two percent said Obama's economic policy have had no effect on conditions since he took office while 31 percent say they are better and 21 percent describe them as worse. Fifty-two percent support the proposed health care changes advocated by Obama and Congress while 39 percent oppose them, with 9 percent undecided. Forty-four percent say the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan should be decreased over the next year, 33 percent support an increase, 14 percent say they should be kept the same and 9 percent are undecided. Obama's timeline for bringing troops home is longer than that, with withdrawals to begin in July, 2011.

SurveyUSA says 53 percent of Californians approve of Obama's performance while 38 percent disapprove and 8 percent are undecided. Independents, who make up 20 percent of the sample, disapprove by a 50 percent to 44 percent margin. The margin of error is 4.1 points. In September, SurveyUSA had Obama's approval ratio at 62 percent to 33 percent.

The LA Times poll says Californians approve of the job Obama is doing by 60 percent to 34 percent with 6 percent undecided. Sixty-five percent view him favorably while 33 percent see him unfavorably. By 59 percent to 35 percent, voters want a senator elected in 2010 who will support Obama.

Colorado

Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 8

2008 election: Obama 54 percent, McCain 45 percent

Rasmussen says 57 percent approve of the job Obama is doing compared to 43 percent who disapprove. Fifty-one percent oppose the health care plan he and congressional Democrats are advocating while 48 percent support it. Forty-two percent rates his handling of Afghanistan as excellent or good, 27 percent grade it fair and 31 percent call it poor. But 44 percent support the overall strategy he has announced for Afghanistan while 35 percent oppose it and 21 percent are undecided. Fifty-four percent support his decision to send 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, 27 oppose it and 19 percent are undecided. Forty-eight percent supports the commitment to start bring troops home in 18 months, 39 percent are opposed and 13 percent are not sure.

Connecticut

Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 7; Quinnipiac University, Nov. 3-8

2008 election: Obama 60 percent, McCain 38 percent

Rasmussen says 57 percent approve of the job obama is doing compared to 43 percent who disapprove. Fifty-one percent oppose the health care plan he and congressional Democrats are advocating while 48 percent support it. Forty-two percent rate his handling of Afghanistan as excellent or good, 27 percent grade it fair and 31 percent call it poor. But 44 percent support the overall strategy he has announced for Afghanistan while 35 percent oppose it and 21 percent are undecided. Fifty-four percent support his decision to send 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, 27 oppose it and 19 percent are undecided. Forty-eight percent support the commitment to start bring troops home in 18 months, 39 percent are opposed and 13 percent are not sure.

Quinnipiac says 58 percent of voters approve of Obama's job performance compared to 35 percent who disapprove with 7 percent undecided. They approve of his handling of the economy by 52 percent to 43 percent with 4 percent undecided. But his coattails are not long enough to help an incumbent senator in political trouble, Chris Dodd. Seventy-five percent say Obama's support of Dodd would make no difference to them. They trust Obama more than congressional Republicans on health care by 56 percent to 37 percent with 8 percent undecided.

Delaware

Public Policy Polling, Nov. 30 - Dec. 2; Daily Kos/Research 2000, Oct. 12-14

2008 election: Obama 62 percent, McCain 37 percent

PPP says 53 percent approve of Obama's job performance while 41 percent disapprove, with 6 percent undecided.

Research 2000 says Obama is viewed favorably by 64 percent and unfavorably by 32 percent with 4 percent expressing no opinion. Independents view him favorably by 69 percent to 25 percent with 6 percent having no opinion.

Florida

Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 14; St. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald/Bay News 9, Oct. 25-28

2008 election: Obama 51 percent, McCain 48 percent

Rasmussen says 55 percent disapprove of Obama's job performance while 44 percent approve.

The St. Petersburg Times poll says 51 percent rate Obama's performance as fair or poor while 46 percent say he is doing a good or excellent job.

Illinois

Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 9

2008 election: Obama 62 percent, McCain 37 percent

Rasmussen Reports says percent approve of the job Obama is doing while 42 percent disapprove. Fifty percent favor the health care plan advocated by Obama and congressional Democrats while 42 percent oppose it. Forty-five percent support Obama's overall Afghan strategy compared to 38 percent who oppose it, with 13 percent undecided. Fifty-five percent back Obama's decision to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan while 33 percent oppose it and 12 percent are undecided. Forty-nine percent back him on setting a timetable to begin withdrawing troops in 2011 while 38 percent disagree, with 13 percent undecided.

Iowa

Des Moines Register, Nov. 8-11; Daily Kos/Research 2000, Oct. 12-14

2008 election: Obama 54 percent, McCain 44 percent

The Register says 49 percent approve of Obama's performance while 44 percent do not, with 7 percent undecided. That's a falloff from 53 percent in September and 19 points lower than January. Fifty-five percent of Iowans disapprove of how Obama is handling health care, up from not quite half in September. Nearly two-thirds of likely voters in Iowa disapprove of Obama's budget policies when it comes to the burgeoning size of the deficit.

Research 2000 says Obama is viewed favorably by 55 percent and unfavorably by 36 percent with 9 percent expressing no opinion. Independents view him favorably by 56 percent to 32 percent with 12 percent voicing no opinion.

Kansas

SurveyUSA, Nov. 20-22

2008 election: McCain 56 percent, Obama 41 percent

SurveyUSA finds 58 percent of Kansans disapprove of Obama's performance compared to 38 percent who approve and 4 percent who are undecided, about the same margin the pollster found in September. The disapproval rate among Republicans (44 percent of the sample) is 87 percent, while Obama's approval rating among Democrats (27 percent of the sample) is a lesser 75 percent. Independents (23 percent) are split at 46 percent approving compared to 45 percent disapproving. They make up 23 percent of the sample. The margin of error is 4 points.

Kentucky

SurveyUSA, Nov. 20-22; Rasmussen Reports, Sept. 30

2008 election: McCain 57 percent, Obama 41 percent

SurveyUSA says 58 percent of Kentuckians disapprove of Obama's performance compared to 38 percent who approve and 4 percent who are undecided. This is about the same margin SurveyUSA found in September. Eighty-seven percent of Republicans disapprove, but the figure that catches the eye is that Democrats approve of Obama's performance by only 56 percent to 41 percent. Independents are divided with 48 percent disapproving and 46 percent approving. Republicans make up a third of the sample, Democrats comprise 46 percent and independents account for 18 percent. The margin of error is 4 points.

Rasmussen says 53 percent disapprove of Obama's performance compared to 37 percent who approve, with those who "strongly" disapprove -- 41 percent -- being the largest group by a double-digit margin. Fifty-seven percent oppose the health plan that Obama and Democrats are pushing compared to 39 percent who favor it.

Maine

2008 election: Obama 58 percent, McCain 40 percent

Daily Kos/Research 2000, Oct. 26-28; Public Policy Polling, Oct. 16-19

Daily Kos/Research 2000 says 67 percent of voters view Obama favorably compared to 25 percent who see him unfavorably with 8 percent undecided. Independents see him favorably by 73 percent to 18 percent.

Public Policy Polling says voters approve of Obama's job performance by 49 percent to 41 percent with 10 percent undecided. They are split on his health care reform proposal with 41 percent favoring it, 40 percent opposed and 19 percent undecided.

Massachusetts

Suffolk University/7News, Nov. 4-8; Rasmussen Reports, Oct. 22

2008 election: Obama 62 percent, McCain 36 percent

Suffolk says 60 percent approve of Obama's job performance compared to 36 percent who don't with 4 percent undecided.

Rasmussen says 54 percent of voters approve of the job Obama is doing while 44 percent disapprove and 1 percent is not sure. Fifty percent favor the health care plan he is pushing while 46 percent oppose it and 4 percent are undecided.

Michigan

Rasmussen Reports, Oct. 21; Epic-MRA, Oct. 11-15

2008 election results: Obama 57 percent, McCain 41 percent

Rasmussen says voters approve of Obama's performance by a 52 percent to 47 percent margin, with 1 percent undecided.

EPIC-MRA says Obama is seen favorably by 51 percent and unfavorably by 45 percent with 4 percent undecided. In June, this poll reported that 60 percent regarded Obama favorably and 34 percent unfavorably.

Minnesota

St. Cloud State University, Oct. 26 - Nov. 4

2008 election: Obama 54 percent, McCain 44 percent

Fifty percent say Obama is doing an excellent or good job, 22 percent rate him only as fair, and 25 percent as poor.

Missouri

Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 15; SurveyUSA, Nov. 20-22; Public Policy Polling, Nov. 13-15

2008 election: McCain 49.3 percent, Obama 49.2 percent

Rasmussen says 53 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing while 47 percent approve. Fifty-seven percent oppose the health care reform plan that Obama and congressional Democrats are advocating while 40 percent support it. Forty-seven percent fall into the "strongly" oppose category. Thirty-eight percent oppose Obama's overall new strategy for Afghanistan while 34 percent support it and 27 percent are undecided. (The margin of error is 4.5 points). But 55 percent approve of his decision to send more troops compared to 27 percent who do not, and 51 percent favor the timetable he has set for beginning to bring troops back home while 40 percent do not.

SurveyUSA says 58 percent of Missourians disapprove of the job Obama is doing compared to 38 percent who approve with 4 percent undecided. Independents, who make up 32 percent of the sample, disapprove by 65 percent to 33 percent.

PPP says Missourians disapprove of the job Obama is doing by 52 percent to 43 percent with 6 percent undecided. They oppose his health care plan by 55 percent to 34 percent with 12 percent undecided.

Nevada

Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 9; Las Vegas Review-Journal/Mason Dixon, Nov. 30 - Dec. 2

2008 election: Obama 55 percent, McCain 43 percent

Rasmussen says that 55 percent of voters approve of the job Obama is doing while 46 percent do not. (Rasmussen explains the 101% result of adding those two numbers this way: "In the world of statistics, it is generally recognized that results from a given survey may not add to precisely 100% due to rounding of individual results. Reported numbers can accurately end up tallying anywhere from 99-101% due to rounding.") Fifty-four percent oppose the health care reform plan advocated by Obama and congressional Democrats while 44 percent support it. Forty-four percent oppose Obama's announced strategy for Afghanistan while 34 support it and 22 percent are not sure. Fifty-seven percent support sending the additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan while 28 percent do not and 15 percent are undecided. Forty-seven percent oppose the timetable for withdrawal outlined by Obama while 44 percent back it and 9 percent are undecided.

The Mason-Dixon poll says 44 percent of Nevadans see Obama favorably and 43 percent see him unfavorably, with 13 percent undecided.

New Hampshire

Rasmussen Reports, Sept. 14

2008 election: Obama 54 percent, McCain 44 percent

Voters split 50-50 on Obama's job performance.

New Jersey

Fairleigh Dickinson University, Oct. 22 - Nov. 1; Public Policy Polling, Oct. 31 - Nov. 1; Rasmussen Reports, Oct. 29; Quinnipiac, Oct. 20-26

2008 election: Obama 57 percent, McCain 41 percent

Fifty-three percent approve of the job Obama is doing compared to 37 percent who don't with 10 percent undecided, according to Fairleigh Dickinson.

Public Policy Polling has voters divided at 45 percent each on whether or not they approve of Obama's performance with 10 percent undecided.

Rasmussen says 55 percent approve of Obama's performance and 44 percent disapprove with 1 percent undecided.

Quinnipiac says voters approve of the job Obama is doing by 55 percent to 39 percent with 6 percent undecided. The New York Times says Obama is viewed favorably by 62 percent and unfavorably by 25 percent with 12 percent not expressing an opinion.

New Mexico

SurveyUSA, Sept. 27-28

2008 election: Obama 57 percent, McCain 42 percent

Fifty percent approve of Obama's performance compared to 45 percent who do not with 4 percent undecided. The margin of error is 4.1 points. Whites disapprove by 59 percent to 38 percent while Hispanics, 39 percent of the sample, approve by 68 percent to 29 percent.

New York

Quinnipiac University, Dec. 7-13; Siena Research Institute, Dec. 6-9; SurveyUSA, Nov. 20-22

2008 election: Obama 63 percent, McCain 36 percent

Quinnipiac says 59 percent approve of Obama's performance compared to 27 percent who do not, with 11 percent undecided. That's the first time he's been under 60 percent in this poll.

Siena says 63 percent of voters see Obama favorably while 32 percent regard him unfavorably, with 8 percent undecided.

SurveyUSA says New Yorkers approve of the job Obama is doing by a 53 percent to 39 percent margin with 8 percent undecided. Independents, who make up 22 percent of the sample, disapprove by 58 percent to 23 percent with 19 percent undecided. This is down from SurveyUSA's September survey which has New Yorkers approving of Obama by a 63 percent to 33 percent margin.

North Carolina

Public Policy Polling, Dec. 11-13; Elon University, Oct. 26-29

2008 election: Obama 49.7 percent, McCain 49.4 percent

PPP says that Obama's job approval rating is back in positive territory for the first time since July...although not by much. Forty-eight percent approve of his performance, 47 percent do not and 5 percent are undecided. Fifty percent oppose his health care plan while 41 percent support it, with 9 percent undecided. Fifty-four percent support his Afghanistan strategy while 31 percent oppose it, with 15 percent undecided.

Elon University says 52 percent approve of Obama's performance compared to 44 percent who disapprove with 3 percent undecided. Forty-nine percent disapprove of his handling of the economy while 43 percent approve and 7 percent are undecided. Thirty-four percent trust Obama to deal with the key issues facing the country compared to 12 percent for congressional Democrats and 26 percent for congressional Republicans. Twenty-one percent don't trust any of them and 5 percent are undecided. Forty-three percent disapprove of Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan compared to 41 percent who approve with 12 percent undecided.

Ohio

Rasmussen Reports, Dec, 7; Quinnipiac University, Nov. 5-9

2008 election: Obama 51 percent, McCain 47 percent

Rasmussen says 53 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing while 46 percent approve.

The big news in the Quinnipiac poll was that for the first time more Ohio voters disapproved of Obama's job performance than approved, with 50 percent giving him negative marks compared to 45 percent who viewed him positively with 5 percent undecided. Obama's approval had been in the 60s from February through May, dipped to 49 percent in July and stood at 53 percent approving and 42 percent disapproving in September. And, for the first time, when asked who voters trusted more on handling health care, congressional Republicans tied Obama at 40 percent with 21 percent undecided. In September, respondents favored Obama by 49 percent to 28 percent. Voters oppose Obama's health care plan by 55 percent to 36 percent with 9 percent undecided and disapprove of his handling of the issue by a similar margin. They disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy by 53 percent to 42 percent with 5 percent undecided, compared to 48 percent who approved and 46 percent who disapproved in September

Oregon

SurveyUSA, Nov. 20-22

2008 election: Obama 57 percent, McCain 40 percent

SurveyUSA says Oregonians are split on whether they approve or disapprove of Obama's job performance at 47 percent each, with 6 percent undecided. Independents (24 percent of the sample) disapprove of Obama's performance by 52 percent to 37 percent with 11 percent undecided. In September, 59 percent had approved of Obama's performance compared to 37 percent who didn't in SurveyUSA's poll.

South Carolina

2008 election: McCain 54 percent, Obama 45 percent

Public Policy Polling, Dec. 3-6

PPP says 49 percent disapprove of Obama's job performance while 46 percent approve, with 5 percent undecided.

Pennsylvania

Franklin & Marshall, Oct. 20-25; Quinnipiac University, Sept. 22-28

2008 election: Obama 54 percent, McCain 44 percent

F & M says Obama is seen favorably by 45 percent and unfavorably by 39 percent with 13 percent undecided, the first time since taking office that his favorable number was below 55 percent. Forty percent say he is doing an excellent or good job, 31 percent rate his performance as only fair, and 28 percent give him poor marks.

Quinnipiac says voters approve of the way Obama is handling his job by 49 percent to 42 percent with 9 percent undecided. They are split on his handling of the economy with 47 percent disapproving, 46 percent approving and 7 percent undecided. They oppose the health care plan Obama is pushing by 47 percent to 41 percent.

South Dakota

Public Policy Polling, Dec. 10-13

2008 election results: McCain 53 percent, Obama 45 percent

PPP says 52 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing while 41 percent approve, with 8 percent undecided.

Texas

Rasmussen Reports, Nov. 11; University of Texas/Texas Tribune, Oct. 20-27

2008 election: McCain 55 percent, Obama 44 percent

Rasmussen says that 58 percent of Texans say the stimulus plan that Obama and Congress enacted earlier this year has hurt the economy, 26 percent said it has had no impact and 12 percent believe it has helped. Eighty-seven percent oppose the health care reform package being pushed by Obama and congressional Democrats (with 76 percent "strongly" opposing it) while 12 percent are in favor.

The University of Texas poll says 52 percent disapprove of Obama's performance compared to 41 percent who approve and 7 percent who have no opinion.

Utah

2008 election: McCain 62 percent, Obama 34 percent

Deseret News/KSL-TV, Nov. 19-23

Sixty percent disapprove of Obama's job performance while 38 percent approve.

Virginia

2008 election: Obama 53 percent, McCain 46 percent

SurveyUSA, Nov. 20-22; Public Policy Polling, Oct. 31- Nov.1; Suffolk University, Oct. 26-28; Roanoke College, Oct. 21-27; Rasmussen Reports, Oct. 27; Virginia Commonwealth University, Oct. 21-25

SurveyUSA says Virginians disapprove of Obama's job performance by 60 percent to 37 percent with 3 percent undecided. Ninety-one percent of Republicans (42 percent of the sample) disapprove. A lesser 73 percent of Democrats (32 percent of the sample) approve of Obama's performance. Independents (26 percent of the sample) disapprove by 59 percent to 39 percent with 3 percent undecided.

Public Policy Polling says Virginians disapprove of Obama's performance by 52 percent to 41 percent with 6 percent undecided.

Suffolk says 50 percent approve of Obama's performance, 42 percent disapprove and 8 percent are undecided.

Roanoke says 46 percent disapprove of Obama's job performance, 45 percent approve and 10 percent give him mixed marks.

Rasmussen says 51 percent disapprove of Obama's job performance while 49 percent approve and 1 percent is undecided.

VCU says 49 percent rate Obama's performance excellent or good while 48 percent say it is fair or poor with 3 percent undecided.

Washington State

SurveyUSA, Nov. 20-28

2008 election: Obama 57 percent, McCain 40 percent

SurveyUSA says Washingtonians are split at 48 percent each, with 4 percent undecided, on whether they approve or not of Obama's job performance. Independents (35 percent of the sample) disapprove of his performance by 52 percent to 46 percent. The margin of error is 4.1 points. In September, SurveyUSA reported that 53 three percent approve of Obama's performance compared to 42 percent who disapprove with 4 percent undecided.

Wisconsin

University of Wisconsin, Oct. 29 - Nov. 20; Public Policy Polling, Nov. 20-22

2008 election: Obama 56 percent, McCain 42 percent

The University of Wisconsin survey finds that 60 percent of adults approve of the job Obama is doing while 37 percent do not. His approval margin among independents is lower at 54 percent to 43 percent.

PPP says those approving or disapproving of Obama's job performance are tied at 47 percent each with 6 percent undecided. Voters oppose his health care plan by 52 percent to 37 percent with 11 percent undecided. Independents (37 percent of the sample) disapprove of Obama's performance by 50 percent to 42 percent with 7 percent undecided, and they are against his health care plan by 58 percent to 21 percent with 11 percent undecided.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Levi Johnston, Put Your Pants On

Bonnie Goldstein — 2009-11-25T05:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Media, Republican Convention, Sarah Palin, Woman Up

Seriously, Levi, put on your pants.

You posed nude. Things got out of hand. You got in over your head, got bad advice, let the attention flatter you. You were tempted by the easy money and the first-class travel, I understand. I'm sure it's difficult for an unemployed and uneducated young man to resist such enticing persuasion. That said, you need to get out of the shower and clean up your act. It's fine to have an appetite for publicity, but that's no reason to be infamous. There can be no good end to this course you've taken.

Porn is a huge industry in the United States. Playgirl Magazine is a player in that universe, and now, Levi, so are you. You are the Fleshbot awardee of an "11-inch dildo made of silver." The porn magazine that hired you has over 200 "arty," unclothed images of you for sale, several accessorized by a hockey stick. They will be releasing them to the public in a slow dribble.

I'm not saying adult entertainment isn't viable commerce, it's just really distasteful: ugly, exploitive, abusive and yes, dirty. They may be paying you what feels like a lot of money, (OK, $100,000 is a lot of money -- although I wonder how much of a cut goes to Sherman "Tank" Jones, your mentor, handler, spokesperson, business manager and bodyguard). But is it enough to make yourself into a punch line?

If political matters completely out of your control had not happened in the summer of 2008, most likely you'd have lived a quiet, unremarkable life in the wilds of Alaska. This opposite, media-centric version of Levi life you're experiencing is bound to be more interesting, but it is perilous and carries almost certain disappointment. When normalcy vanished, maybe turning yourself into a commodity was the only option you saw, but think about it. You have one important thing at the center of your life besides yourself: you are the father of a little boy. You didn't plan that. Abstinence is a great concept but it's bad preparation.

Such mistakes happen. When yours did, I don't know whether you and Bristol considered other scenarios beyond the one her parents laid out for you. (If ever there was an argument to explore reproductive options, it was yours.) But that's all history. However things transpired, you now have a tiny son, Tripp, 11 months old, who will need a dad. Act like you could be one.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Ron Paul Wins! (Sort Of)

Christopher Weber — 2009-11-02T18:03:00+00:00

Filed under: Ron Paul, Primaries, Conventions, Republican Convention

A count of missing delegate ballots from Nevada's Republican convention last year concluded with a surprising result. It turns out three delegates supporting Rep. Ron Paul should have been sent from the Silver State to the national GOP convention in Minneapolis.

The result has no bearing on Nevada's role in nominating John McCain as the GOP candidate for president, the Reno Gazette-Journal reported. But a group of discontented Republicans who fought for the count say it's vindication for what they've been claiming all along: Ron Paul, who ran as an independent before dropping out in June, deserved a voice at the national convention.

In April 2008, the Nevada GOP convention was abruptly shut down by party leaders after a group of Paul supporters won a rules change that allowed them to alter the way national delegates were elected. As a result, a box of ballots from the 2nd Congressional District was locked up before being fully counted.

For 18 months Paul supporters demanded the remaining ballots be counted, stoking divisions within the Nevada Republican party. The count was finally made Friday and it was determined that delegates supporting Paul should have represented the 2nd District in Minneapolis.

"It's good to get it done," Paul supporter Wayne Terhune told the Gazette-Journal. "It's nice to be vindicated. The fact the three Ron Paul people won, indicates that might have been the reason they shut down the convention. Now it's done. We can put it behind us."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Did The Press Corps Unfairly Pick on Palin?

Bonnie Goldstein — 2009-07-12T17:03:00+00:00

Filed under: John McCain, Joe Biden, 2008 President, Republican Convention, Sarah Palin, Woman Up

On Meet The Press this weekend, former presidential candidate John McCain, discussing his running mate Sarah Palin, gave a shout out to Politics Daily's Carl Cannon for this piece about Palin bashing by the media during the campaign. If you haven't read Carl's piece yet, you should stop reading this and click over to read it now. I'll wait.

Carl's shaming of our colleagues in the press for stampeding and trampling Sarah Palin made me embarrassed. Over the course of the campaign, I personally read, shook my head over, laughed at, linked to, quoted, and wrote many unflattering Palin posts.

He also writes that the liberal ideology of members of the press corps is partly to blame. Politically neutral journalists are rare and I admit my political principles tend to be on the "liberal" side of the spectrum. Many of my friends outside of journalism have worked for Democrats or in support of traditionally Democratic issues. Most of my friends in the profession also lean to the left. That said, while there are many politicians whose platforms I support, including Mr. Obama, there are none I would hesitate to expose for looking ridiculous, hypocritical, or uninformed.

I do agree with Carl that Palin's counterpart on the opposing ticket, Joe Biden, got a much softer ride in the media but I don't believe that was due to political bias. I was willing to give Palin the benefit of the doubt, but, after seeing her poor performance in interviews, it was hard to take her seriously. She did not seem very informed. And though Joe is fun to make fun of -- I personally have a long history of finding Biden insufferable -- the familiar pleasure of mocking him could not compete with the fish-out-of-water frontier flamboyance of the Palin family on the campaign trail.

This is embarrassingly shallow, but the woman on the GOP ticket was also more interesting to cover because she was a giant celebrity, unusually attractive and, with the help of doppelganger comic styling by Tina Fey, hugely quotable. We were groupies. From the moment the press corps and most of the country met the VP candidate at the Republican convention in St. Paul, we were hooked by her unusual background, her natural public speaking ability, and, for tabloid fans, the most oddball press release of any budding ticket in history.

Much was made by Palin critics of her itinerant undergraduate career but she actually completed more schooling than I did. I am not from the Ivy League-educated circle of news reporters that Carl cites in his essay; I dropped out of my state university my freshman year and found my way to journalism through an instinct for investigative research and a love of the written word. But when I find myself out of my league, I try to lay low until I bone up, ask experts and read in. I don't want to make a fool of myself; Washingtonians are a tough crowd.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Politics Daily

Presidential Primary Calendar in Peril as Florida Insists on Early 2012 Date

New RNC Chief Reince Priebus Fires GOP Convention Staff

Related Stories

New RNC Chief Reince Priebus 'Never Forgot the Roots of the Party'

Related Stories

Why the Next Republican VP Nominee Will Likely Be Hispanic

Mean Girl Alert: Is Meghan McCain Jealous of Bristol Palin?

'Draft Chris Christie for President' Website Launched

Ayotte Wins New Hampshire GOP Senate Primary

Charlotte a Step Closer to Bringing 2012 Democratic Convention South?

RNC Votes to Change Way it Nominates Presidential Candidates

Tim Pawlenty: Man of the Moment for a New GOP?

Can Charlotte Regain Its New South Swagger With 2012 Democratic Convention?

Sarah Palin Hits Washington on Friday for Anti-Abortion Fundraiser

GOP Chooses Tampa for 2012 Republican National Convention

Six Reasons Barack Obama is Still the Odds-on Favorite in 2012

Arizona, Florida, Utah Finalists for 2012 Republican Convention

Mitt to Mac: I'm on Your Side in Arizona Re-Election Campaign

Latest Round-Up Of Obama Poll Ratings by State

Levi Johnston, Put Your Pants On

Ron Paul Wins! (Sort Of)

Did The Press Corps Unfairly Pick on Palin?