Contact Us        
   Click here to Listen to KDUR
   Click here to Watch DCAT
 
Loading...
Forecast Radar Cameras Photos
WeatherBug
Your weather just got better.
Home

Politics

Local, National and World political news

Who can save the GOP from it's base?

If Mitt Romney fails to win Michigan next Tuesday, a few high-powered Republicans have started saying, the party needs to go back to square one and recruit a new candidate. Yes, maybe it does. But what will that fix? Not much. What the party needs is not simply a new candidate. It needs someone with the courage to stand up and say that the GOP has gone completely off the deep end—and that the party could run an amalgam of Ronald Reagan and Mahatma Gandhi and he wouldn’t win as long as the party’s inflamed base keeps with its current attitudes. But it lacks such a person utterly. It’s a party made up of on the one hand unprincipled cowards, and on the other of people devoted to principles so extreme that they’d have serious trouble attracting more than about 42 percent of the vote.

Allen summarized a chat between an unnamed Republican senator and ABC’s Jonathan Karl this way: “The senator believes Romney will ultimately win in Michigan but says he will publicly call for the party to find a new candidate if he does not. ‘We’d get killed,’ the senator said if Romney manages to win the nomination after he failed to win the state in which he grew up. ‘He’d be too damaged’ … Santorum? ‘He’d lose 35 states,’ the senator said, predicting the same fate for Newt Gingrich. It would have to be somebody else, the senator said. Who? ‘Jeb Bush.’”

In the plus column for the Republicans, I’d make two points. First, whoever they get sure can’t be worse than Romney, who (as some of us were noting a few weeks ago, back when he was theoretically riding high) really is living down to my expectations. And he or she—well, he; it’s going to be a he if it happens—obviously can’t be worse than Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich. Our senator might be exaggerating about 15 states, but not by much. It’s long been my conviction, for example, that if Gingrich were the nominee, he’d manage to lose Georgia because for every Georgian who likes him there are surely at least 1.5 who are repulsed by him.

Second, it’s still only February. There’s time for people to wrap their heads around someone new. If a Jeb Bush or Chris Christie or Mitch Daniels were to declare an intention to run, they’d have time to solidify support. True, they will have missed the filing deadlines to get on most primary ballots (although not to participate in caucuses). But it’s still not too late to file, for example, for California’s June 5 primary—the filing deadline is March 23. If a late-entry candidate dominated the contests he did manage to enter, he could make a reasonable case that the voters really wanted him. This can’t wait until the convention, which isn’t until late August. That would be awfully late to be getting started with a presidential race in this day and age.

OK, so those are the grounds on which such a move is plausible. But here’s the problem. First, let’s consider the three men named above. What’s so savior-y about them? The Bush name? Please. It’s better than Nixon, but that’s about all that can be said for it. Christie’s tough-talking personality? That appeals to people on the right. But it could wear thin. And yes, the avoirdupois factor is an issue. Most Americans don’t want a president who looks like that. And Daniels has the charisma of an econ-department chair.

click here for full story

GOP: Contraception fight is not over

Buoyed by the support of the Catholic bishops, congressional Republicans say they’re going all out against President Barack Obama’s modified contraceptives policy, ensuring that the compromise hasn’t ended the controversy over the health care reform rule after all.

Senate Republicans say they want to force a vote on conscience legislation as soon as possible, and the House has already been drafting legislation in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

“We to need to work out a strategy and that probably involves the House,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), one of the Republicans’ leaders on the issue, said Monday. “But the next step is to really get this thing done. This is a critical constitutional issue and I would like to see this get on a piece of legislation the president is obligated to sign.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” this weekend that he would attempt to force a vote “as soon as possible.”

And House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa is holding a hearing on the regulation on Thursday. The tone of the hearing is clear from the question posed in the title: “Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?”

But the strategy could backfire. While the original policy, which would have required religious-affiliated institutions to cover contraceptives, was rejected by Republicans and many Democrats on Capitol Hill, the modified policy could have more support and is getting at least a closer look from potential critics.

It’s also not clear that the public is as offended by the contraception rule as congressional Republicans are. Even before Obama announced the compromise Friday, a Fox News poll of 1,110 registered voters conducted Feb. 6-9 found that the public approved of the original policy, 61 percent to 34 percent. Democrats and independents favored the policy, while Republicans opposed it.

How Super PAC's rake it in

Super PACs raised about $181 million in the last two years — with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people.

Those are the findings in a new study that confirms what public interest groups have long feared and campaigns are learning the hard way in 2012 — that the cash for big-ticket campaign spending like TV advertising is increasingly controlled by an elite class of super-rich patrons not afraid to plunk down a million bucks or more for favored candidates and causes.

Last year alone, just 32 donors gave $34 million — and that’s not including an eight-figure donation from billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson in January.

The concentration of donors was discovered in Federal Election Commission filings analyzed by two nonprofit groups, U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Demos that are pushing to strengthen disclosure and spending rules. Their results appear in a report published Wednesday that maps where super PACs are getting their cash.

Alongside individuals, corporations chipped in another $17 million last year. And unions kicked in $6 million. Another $2 million came from more shadowy sources difficult to trace, according to the report.

Expect “an unprecedented surge” in cash, particular secret money, later this year as Election Day approaches, predicted a co-author of the report, Blair Bowie of U.S. PIRG, pointing to 2010 patterns. As campaigns brace for that deluge, here’s a primer on the five ways the new outside groups are pulling in money — from secret gifts to transparent donations — and why each might be attractive to a donor:

Individuals

A relatively few wealthy backers are keeping super PACs afloat — and they’re saying so. Last year alone, individuals gave super PACs $63 million.

That includes 15 people who gave $1 million or more, such as DreamWorks co-founder Jeffrey Katzenberg, who gave $2 million to Priorities USA Action, the super PAC supporting President Barack Obama, and John Paulson, a hedge fund billionaire who gave $1 million to a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney’s GOP presidential campaign, according to FEC reports.

The figures don’t even include the $10 million that Adelson and his wife gave from their personal accounts to the super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich’s GOP presidential campaign after the year-end FEC reports.

Giving from a personal account, rather than a corporate or non-profit account, is seen as a way for wealthy corporate types to shield their business interests from the controversy that such mega-donations can bring. But it doesn’t always work, as New Balance Chairman James Davis found out last year, when his sneaker company penned an apology to gay activists upset by his $500,000 contribution to the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future.

Big personal donations also can be a way to advertise support for a candidate, said Foster Friess, a Wyoming mutual fund guru who is a major donor to super PACs supporting Rick Santorum’s GOP presidential campaign.

“I can say I endorse Rick Santorum and am going to vote for him, but it means a little more if I put up some green for him. There’s no need for me to be surreptitious about this,” said Friess, who had given $381,000 to a pair of super PACs supporting Santorum, according to FEC disclosures covering through the end of last year. Friess said he’s given more since then, and will continue giving as long as Santorum “needs me.”

click here for full story

Mitt Romney and GOP Enthusiasm Gap

In the aftermath of Rick Santorum’s clean sweep of Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, Mitt Romney is still, in fact, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. But the lack of enthusiasm for his candidacy among conservatives foreshadows a potentially ugly road ahead to Tampa and general election problems if he is nominee.

There are all kinds of reasons Romney advisers can offer for his anemic showing Tuesday. Some of them were cited in a memo issued as the polls were opening. Romney was coming off two consecutive victories that should have given him some momentum. The defensively worded memo was designed instead to dampen expectations.

The arguments advanced by Romney advisers are not incorrect. He did not spend real money in these states. He did not campaign in them very much. There were no delegates awarded in any of the three. Missouri was simply a beauty contest. Arizona and Michigan, whose primaries are at the end of the month, look favorable for Romney. Super Tuesday offers more opportunities to win. Santorum and Newt Gingrich have limited resources.

The campaign memo also said this: “It is difficult to see what Governor Romney’s opponents can do to change the dynamics of the race in February.” In writing that, Romney’s top advisers could not have been anticipating that their candidate would suffer a triple defeat Tuesday.

The issue is not whether Romney has been significantly derailed from his path to the nomination, but rather what kind of nominee he might be and what kind of party would be behind him.

The contests on Tuesday were not all inhospitable states for the former Massachusetts governor. Four years ago, he won Minnesota and Colorado. He captured about 60 percent of the vote in Colorado, about 40 percent in Minnesota. He ran third in Missouri in 2008. He got 29 percent of the vote, just four points behind winner John McCain.

On Tuesday, he won just 35 percent of the vote in Colorado and a paltry 17 percent in Minnesota (in a third-place finish). In Missouri, he managed only 25 percent of the vote to Santorum’s 55 percent, though the 2008 primary awarded delegates and this year’s did not. In raw votes, he was well below his 2008 levels.

All front-runners lose states along the way. Four years ago, McCain certainly did, and so did President Obama. Obama became the Democratic nominee without winning New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania or California. He lost a Florida beauty contest and he didn’t compete in Michigan. Yet today he is president of the United States.

So Romney and his advisers can look around and say that they are still on what they call the methodical path toward the nomination, that they are winning delegates whenever delegates are being awarded. That’s all correct.

But that methodical path they describe also could give him the nomination while leaving his party fractured, the base uninspired and his opponents bitter and slow to reconcile. Once again Tuesday, turnout was below the levels of 2008. Republicans are fervent in their desire to defeat the president in November but can’t work up much enthusiasm for their own candidates.

click here for full story
 

GOP Blocks Crucial Consumer Protection Bureau Nominee

President Obama lashed out at Congress on Thursday for blocking his nomination to head a consumer financial watchdog agency, saying Americans are frustrated with legislators for holding up critical appointments to win concessions on other matters.

Speaking shortly after the Senate rejected his appointment of former Ohio attorney General Richard Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Obama said his Capitol Hill adversaries were not acting “on the level” in their consideration of the public interest. And he complained that Republicans in Congress were systematically delaying his political appointments.

“This makes no sense,” Obama said during a short news conference in the White House briefing room. “Consumers across the country understand part of the reason we got into the financial mess we did is because regulators are not doing their jobs. ... There is no reason why Mr. Cordray should not be nominated or confirmed by the Senate and should not be doing this job.”

Obama added that he would press forward with trying to install Cordray, including a potential recess appointment during the holiday break, a move that Congress could not block if it were not in session.

“We are not giving up on this; we’ll keep on going at it,” Obama said. “We will not allow politics as usual on Capitol Hill to stand in the way of American consumers being protected from unscrupulous operators.”

He added that Congress has been systematically holding up many of his other appointments.

“Well-qualified judges do not get a vote. Assistant secretaries to the Treasury get held up for no reason,” Obama said. “They are trying to see if they can use that to reverse some sort of law that’s already been passed. That’s what part of what gets the American people so frustrated. The do not think this is on the level.”

Senate Republicans on Tuesday filibustered Obama’s nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Then in the long-awaited vote Thursday morning, Senate Republicans relied on a procedural vote to keep the Senate from even considering Cordray for the top job at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

By a vote of 53 to 45, Senate Democrats were unable to close off debate to allow the confirmation to proceed; 60 votes were needed to end a filibuster.

Syndicate content