Able Archer

Republican labor policy

The Republican Congresses of this decade were among the most corrupt and decadent in U.S. history.

Now some of their most damning deals are coming back to Colorado U.S. Senate candidate and former Representative Bob Schaffer.

—Douglas Carlucci

A No-campaign Campaign

New Jersey Republicans can’t catch a break. They haven’t won a state-wide campaign since 1997. But with a bench like this, it’s no surprise there aren’t any runs on the board.

PolitickerNJ.com talks to Mark Duffy, spokesman for lousy (but leading) Republican U.S. Senate candidate—and heir to a bean fortune—Andrew Unanue:

Looking to the days ahead, "He will keep an aggressive campaign schedule," Duffy said of his candidate.

Asked if any events have been scheduled, Duffy said, "none." Asked if Unanue has staked out a locale for a campaign headquarters, Duffy said to date he had not, but that in the coming days he would.

Unanue has already overcome two serious challenges to his Senate bid: he finally returned back from a family vacation in Vail, Colorado, and has stated his intention to move to New Jersey. Yes, you read that correctly. His primary residence is in Manhattan, where he runs a fancy-pants nightclub. But, he says, he’s been voting from his parents address in Bergen County—which is supposed to assure us of his commitment to New Jersey, but really just comes across as a petty fraud.

Snark aside, this is pretty sad for the party. This Senate race would have been a great opportunity for the Republicans to introduce a young new talent. Just because they're not likely to beat incumbent Senator Frank Lautenberg—or Rob Andrews if he pulls off a surprise in the primary—does not mean they should write off the campaign entirely. They'll have to run someone against Governor Jon Corzine in 2009 and this is the best opportunity to get a new face out there to sell some of the party's policies. Choosing a dissolute bean heir to run the only statewide campaign before the 2009 gubernatorial race seems to show that the party has neither new talent or many compelling ideas.

At least this is all very entertaining.

Update

On second though, if one were to run for the Senate this year, one would have a hard time raising enough money to run for Governor the following November. Which, I think, is a shame. Obviously it is exacerbated by Corzine's wealth.

And now that I think about that, it is an unjust advantage generally and especially as an incumbent. I'll check on Corzine's money tomorrow.

—Douglas Carlucci

Greenwald's theory of the establishment right

Glenn Greenwald is one of the smartest and most consistent progressive bloggers. His new book, "Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics", is coming out April 15 and, although I might not be able to afford it just now (those hardcovers are pricey) I encourage everyone to read it. Today, Glenn summarizes his theory of the right-wing media-political establishment. As usual, he's on target.

—Douglas Carlucci

Republicans lose in former Speaker's district

Saturday, in a probable omen of failures to come in November, a Democrat won the special election to fill former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert’s seat.

Hastert’s district—Illinois’s 14th—has turned out strong for Republicans in the past. Hastert represented the district for 20 years before announcing his retirement, and its voters went for Bush by more than 10 points in the last two presidential elections.

That seems to be over now. Bill Foster, the Democrat, beat Republican James Oberweis 53 percent to 47 percent. Although the election only fills the seat until November, when the two men will face off again, Oberweis is unlikely to overcome a six-point difference.

Things are bad for the House Republican caucus and its campaign committee. The seats formerly occupied by former Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Hastert are now in the hands of Democrats.

The committee spent one-fifth of its cash-on-hand in its failed attempt to retain Hastert’s seat. It now has about $30 million less than its Democratic counterpart. This quote says a lot:

“By itself, this would not be that big of a deal, but coupled with everything else it will just deflate the [House Republican] Conference,” said an aide to one top GOP lawmaker. “And symbolically, losing Hastert’s seat is like the toppling of the Saddam statue in Baghdad for Republicans.”

—Douglas Carlucci

Choose your battles with care

The New Jersey Republican Party is having a big fight to see who will get to lose the November U.S. Senate election to incumbent Frank Lautenberg this year, and the party chairman has had enough.

—Douglas Carlucci

'You still have to investigate crimes, not people.'

If you missed it, here’s 60 Minutes’ devasting piece on the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. This is the best piece of broadcast journalism I’ve seen in a very long time:

Scott Horton has been reporting on this case for months on his weblog at Harpers.org—his work is absolutely essential reading. There is no better example of what eight years of the Bush administration has done to American politics than this phony prosecution. Siegelman sits in prison today for no other reason than that he was a successful Democrat in a Republican state. I am sure that if the whole of this conspiracy becomes known before January 2009, several former high-level Bush administration officials will be prosecuted.

For what it’s worth, Karl Rove denies Jill Simpsons’s allegations. I don’t believe him and you shouldn’t either—his career is deception, and he’s a veteran of dirty-trick politics in Alabama.

And as though the whole sad affair were not maddening enough, at least one CBS affiliate in Alabama went dark while it was broadcasting the Siegelman piece. The station manager claims he lost the network feed from New York for 12 minutes—almost the exact length of the segment.

Update

The Times looks into the CBS blackout here. Horton called CBS:

I contacted CBS News in New York and was told that “There were no transmission difficulties. The problems were peculiar to Channel 19, which had the signal and had functioning transmitters.”

—Douglas Carlucci

GOP testing the limits of hate

Accroding to this report in The Politico, the Republican National Committee is working with focus groups to see just how much anti-black and anti-woman vitriol they can spew between now and November without making too many people uncomfortable:

Top Republican strategists are working on plans to protect the GOP from charges of racism or sexism in the general election, as they prepare for a presidential campaign against the first ever African-American or female Democratic nominee.

The Republican National Committee has commissioned polling and focus groups to determine the boundaries of attacking a minority or female candidate, according to people involved. The secretive effort underscores the enormous risk senior GOP operatives see for a party often criticized for its insensitivity to minorities in campaigns dating back to the 1960s.

The RNC project is viewed as so sensitive that those involved in the work were reluctant to discuss the findings in detail. But one Republican strategist, who asked that his name be withheld to speak candidly, said the research shows the daunting and delicate task ahead.

Republicans will be told to “be sensitive to tone and stick to the substance of the discussion” and that “the key is that you have to be sensitive to the fact that you are running against historic firsts,” the strategist explained. ...

“Republicans will need to exercise less deafness and more deftness in dealing with a different looking candidate, whether it is a woman or a black man,” Republican strategist Kellyanne Conway said. “But at the same time, really charge back at any insinuation or accusation of sexism or racism.

“You can’t allow the party to be Macaca-ed,” she continued, referring to a much-publicized remark made by former GOP Sen. George Allen that played a significant role in his 2006 defeat. “I think the standards are higher and the bar is lower for the Republican Party.”

Republicans interviewed for this story uniformly believe they will have to be especially careful. Many expect to be held to a higher rhetorical standard than is customary in campaigns, in part because of perceptions of intolerance that still dog the party.

“Fair or unfair, but that’s going to be a reality,” said GOP strategist John Weaver, a longtime confidant of John McCain. “The P.C. [politically correct] police will be out and the standards will be very narrow.”

In what other business will someone pay you for something such as this?

—Douglas Carlucci

Action-movie politics

I can't wait to see this movie!

It's remarkable how much the show "24" has influenced the Republican Party. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has, with a straight face, repeatedly used the show's scenario to justify beating and torturing terrorist suspects. Every police-state tactic the Bush administration would like to make legal gets the Jack Bauer treatment: the argument goes that while "liberals" sit around and quibble about rights and government power, terrorists are presently trying to kill us, and every second we waste considering the morality of our actions gives the terrorists an advantage. It's a convenient argument, and hardly novel. What is novel, though, is for an entire political party to be so influenced by a television political thriller. Usually, when political leaders use fear to manipulate the public, the examples they use are from real life, not Fox. Terrorism is a very real threat; however, the real terrorists we have to fight don't have anything in common with television terrorists. If you believe "24" is a truthful account of counter-terrorism operations, you are simply too stupid to be responsible for the country's national security—this goes for Scalia and anyone else. Turn off the TV, go down to the library, and read some of the many analytical works on Islamic terrorism and al Qaeda. One would think conservatives, of all people, would understand that television—Fox, for chrissakes!—is not an accurate reflection of reality nor is it morally instructive.

—Douglas Carlucci