Even Krazier Bill Kristol says Palin can "resurrect herself" with Senate run

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You have to wonder.

Krazy Bill Kristol has a long history of the Krazy. And it's not just partisan Republican or ideological neocon. Sometimes it's just batshit insanity, "analysis" that is so Krazy it makes you wonder if he's serious in his Kraziness or just throwing around bullshit to see what sticks. I used to think he was a fairly bright fellow, if terribly misguided, and so my sense used to suggest the latter. But now I'm not so sure.

To wit:

The Weekly Standard‘s Bill Kristol was one of Sarah Palin’s earliest supporters to be picked as the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, and now he says she can “resurrect herself” by running to be a senator from Alaska.

In an interview on Sunday, ABC's Benjamin Bell asked Kristol if Palin had disappointed him after he pushed so hard for her to be on the 2008 ticket.

"I was for taking the gamble of putting her on the ticket, I don't think it hurt the ticket in 2008," Kristol explained. "I think her stepping down as governor of Alaska was a big problem. People don't like to see a candidate, a governor, an executive — absent some medical reason or whatever — just leave office early. And she had been a good governor — incidentally — of Alaska until then. So, I think that is something, I think, she has to recover from in terms of being a serious leader in the party. Still has a lot of loyalty, still can shape the debate, she still has a great political touch."

"I think the way Palin would possibly resurrect herself — if that's the right word or rehabilitate herself, I think is a better way of putting it — run for Senate in Alaska in 2014," he continued. "I'm not urging that. I'm just saying, if I were her adviser, I would say, 'Take on the incumbent, you have to win a primary, then you have to beat an incumbent Democrat, it's not easy.'" 

Yeah, except that she embarrassed herself in ridiculous fashion during the '08 campaign and certainly did hurt McCain. And that she did step down as governor because she didn't give a shit or something, or because she wanted to pursue fame, fortune, and glory on the right-wing national media stage and, you know, by being a reality TV celebrity. And that she'll never be considered a serious leader of her party except by those on the moron fringe who hang on her every gargle of nonsense. And that many Republicans, including in the leadership ranks, see her as a massive liability. And that there's no way she can shape the debate given her lack of policy ability, not to mention rationality. And that she's shown zero interest in actually being a serious political actor. And that her "political touch," such as it is, is limited to Facebook and Fox News assaults on anyone and everyone she doesn't like, anyone and everyone who doesn't share her wacko right-wing views. And that... well, and that she's Sarah Palin, a huge national joke.

No, Krazy Kristol isn't advising her, isn't urging her, but he sort of is, isn't he? He was her champion well before most anyone had ever heard of her, and it was he and his neocon rabble who got her onto McCain's ticket. He was wrong then, as he is generally, and he's wrong now, the Krazy even Krazier than usual.

Read More

With seniors turning on Republicans, are Republicans done?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(See also Frank's post on this.)

Carville and Greenberg notice something interesting, and perhaps transformational, going on:

There's something going on with seniors: It is now strikingly clear that they have turned sharply against the GOP. This is apparent in seniors' party affiliation and vote intention, in their views on the Republican Party and its leaders, and in their surprising positions on jobs, health care, retirement security, investment economics, and the other big issues that will likely define the 2014 midterm elections.

We first noticed a shift among seniors early in the summer of 2011, as Paul Ryan's plan to privatize Medicare became widely known (and despised) among those at or nearing retirement. Since then, the Republican Party has come to be defined by much more than its desire to dismantle Medicare. To voters from the center right to the far left, the GOP is now defined by resistance, intolerance, intransigence, and economics that would make even the Robber Barons blush. We have seen other voters pull back from the GOP, but among no group has this shift been as sharp as it is among senior citizens.

It's never made much sense to me why seniors would vote Republican given the the Republican effort to dismantle the social safety net, the government programs so many seniors rely on, but I suppose there's something to be said for tradition, and of course part of voting Republican is being motivated by fear of change, of the new, of what is young and different.

But the Republican Party is moving further and further to the right, becoming the party solely of anti-government Tea Party types, right-wing Christian fundamentalists, neocon warmongers, and, of course, the Romney-style rich. And for all the post-election talk of rebranding, the Republican Party is doubling down on pushing away minority voters as well, it seems, as anyone else who isn't of this ideological stripe, including seniors generally.

We'll see if this holds next year. Midterm elections are characterized by low voter turnout dominated by an older, whiter electorate. But if Republicans are losing old white people, at least enough of them to make a difference, what hope do they have?

Read More

Kentucky horse racing

By Mustang Bobby 

It's a little early to be making accurate predictions, but it’s something to at least garner a little attention: Mitch McConnell might be in trouble in his re-election bid:

McConnell faces fights on two fronts in his quest for reelection. First, businessman Matt Bevin announced a primary challenge from the right last week. Bevin's an underdog, but he's got the backing of influential conservatives including Erick Erickson, and as we learned in 2010, longstanding GOP senators can't take reelection for granted these days. Rand Paul also upset establishment pick Trey Grayson in the 2010 primary for the other U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky. 

Assuming McConnell knocks off Bevin, however, he'll face a second challenge from Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Kentucky secretary of state. A poll by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling, conducted for the liberal Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America and out this morning, suggests Grimes will give McConnell a run for his money. Not only is the senator's approval underwater, he also trails Grimes head-to-head...

If you think it's outside the realm of possibility that a powerful Senate leader could end up losing his own election, give Tom Daschle a call. The former Senate Majority Leader can fill you in on what happens when the folks back home decide you're spending too much time on Capitol Hill and not working for them. 

However, Mr. McConnell's biggest challenge isn't the Democrats, it's the move in from the right flank. Making the Kentucky GOP choose between two candidates opens the door a little for Ms. Lundergran Grimes. Or, as they say at Churchill Downs, when the money is split between the favorites, bet on the long shot.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Read More

People will notice if the Republicans get any crazier

By Frank Moraes 

The other day, Jonathan Chait wrote a provocative post, "Are House Republicans Voter-Proof?" In it, he argued that the Republicans likely have nothing to worry about in going full-tilt Michele Bachmann. After all, most people don't even know which party is in control of the House of Representatives. Why would they blame the Republicans?

Under normal circumstances, I agree with Chait. If the Republicans keep doing what they have been doing killing the economy inch by inch, the electorate will not notice. As I wrote last week, I fully expect the Republicans to pick up some seats in the House and also likely take control of the Senate. But I do wish people would stop talking about the Sixth-Year Curse. This is the belief of political observers that the president's party loses big the sixth year of his presidency. Sean Trende has debunked this idea. What actually happens is that the president's party loses big in one of the midterm elections. That already happened to Obama in 2010. Although it is likely that 2014 won't be a good year for the Democrats, they are already doing about as badly as they can. There aren't many seats (in the House at least) that they can gain.

Chait mentions five factors that work in the Republicans' favor. The first is the silly Sixth-Year Curse. The second is that Democrats tend to do badly in midterm elections. That's true, but that's already figured into the calculation. The third is that there aren't many swing voters anymore. I'm not sure how this gives the Republicans an advantage when most of those swing voters are just Democrats now. The fourth is the observation that Democratic voters are concentrated and thus their votes don't count as much. That's true in the Senate races, but not in the House. So I don't get his point given that the big issue is the House. And the fifth is that the 2010 redistricting favors the Republicans. That's true, but again, already figured into the calculation.

All he is saying is that the Republicans can continue to misbehave and get nothing done without a voter backlash. And that's true! But no one is suggesting that the Republicans are idiots. They respond to incentives and they see that in 2014 they are not going to harmed if they vote yet again to defund Obamacare. What people like me have been talking about is the longer term. Over the next six to eight years, if the Republicans don't start to change, they will be overwhelmed by the demographic change. And no amount of redistricting and voter suppression is going to save them.

But this isn't even about the long term. If the Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling or if they simply shutdown the government, people will notice. The TV news will be all about this. Even Fox News will have a hard time blaming it on the Democrats. And people won't have to know who their legislators are or who controls the House of Representatives. They will just freak out about the crazy party that hates the government.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Read More

The next three election cycles

By Frank Moraes 

I've been thinking what the coming elections will bring. And I'm going to present them now, although obviously they are highly uncertain. In 2014, I expect the Republicans to make small gains in both the House and Senate. I figure they have about 50% chance of retaking the Senate. (On the other hand, if the Republicans manage to force the federal government into a default over the Debt Ceiling, it will decimate the party and the Democrats will control both houses at the beginning of 2015.) After this reasonable showing, Republican conventional wisdom will be that they won't have to do anything to reform. Karl Rove will increase his daily dose of Prilosec.

In 2016, the Democrats will have a huge year. They will retain the White House and get or retain control of Congress. At this point, all of the pundits will say that surely now the Republican Party will reform itself. But the party will not make any changes for the same reason they aren't now: they don't want to offend the base of support (which will still be substantial) that they already have. This is when the chance of a Karl Rove heart attack really increases.

In 2018, the Democrats will make small gains. Given that it is an off year elections, the Republican Party will be forced to reconsider. They will note that their gerrymandering is no longer helping. What's more, if they don't do anything, the Democrats will be able to gerrymander them out of existence in 2020. They will note that their efforts at voter suppression have failed. They will see their base dying off and their policies seen as medieval. And they will, at long last, rebuild the tattered remains of a once great American political party. If Karl Rove is still alive, he won't be of much help. Just the same, lots of Republicans will tell him, "We should have listened to you!"

Is this happy horseshit? I don't think so. But it does reflect what I think it will take for the Republican Party to accept the hit from its base: three election cycles. There are lots of other things they could do, but for a party that has been so good at using fear and resentment to political advantage, they've been strangely clueless about everything else. Think of the Democratic Party coming into the the 1960s. It was a racist party! But it saw an opportunity to grab the civil rights mantel.

Republicans could have grabbed the marriage equality mantel. God knows the Democrats were reluctant to do it. And it would have cost them so little. In my experience, the Christian community is far more obsessed with abortion and birth control than they are gay rights. But the Republican Party let it pass. And I suspect that the Republicans will do the same thing with the libertarian anti-war or anti-bank possibilities. The reason is that to its very core, the conservative movement in this country thinks its purpose is to hold the line against modernity. And that just isn't going to work. One day, being against same sex marriage will seem as bigoted as miscegenation laws do today.

It will take three election cycles for Republicans to find their way forward. I just hope that the Democrats don't use this opportunity to become even more the party of big business.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Read More

Sarah Palin is not running for Senate. Full stop.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As she told Hannity yesterday:

I've considered it because people have requested me considering it. But I’m still waiting to see what the lineup will be and hoping that... there will be some new blood, new energy, not just kind of picking from the same old politicians in the state.

Sounds familiar? She spewed the same bullshit in in the lead-up to last year's presidential election, tantalizing her moronic followers, and raking in the dough, with the prospect of a run that was just around the corner.

And it's always the same: "Who, moi? Well, you know, sooooo many people want me to run, and I sooooo believe in serving the people, but I want to wait and see what's going on, and maybe there will be some brilliant candidate we can all get behind, someone just like me, but not me, you know, but yeah, totally, I'm interested, and maybe I'll do it, because I'm sooooo serious about it, if people want me to... so... yeah. America!"

I'll predict now when I predicted then: not gonna happen. Because, you know, running for office -- and then staying in office -- would actually require some hard work, and commitment, and she'd much rather just keep raking in the dough by keeping her moronic followers on the edge of their seats, showing up on Fox to spew her bullshit, and otherwise trying to keep her star shining out on the crazy fringe of the Republican Party.

Read More

Nothing fails like failure

By Richard K. Barry

The Hill is reporting that Mitt Romney would like to lend his name and profile to the 2014 election cycle.

Eric Fehrnstrom, a top adviser to Romney’s presidential bid who has remained close to the former Massachusetts governor, said Romney has already received requests from candidates and campaign committees for support.

“I wouldn’t be surprised to see him out on the campaign trail. He's already received a lot of requests to help candidates and party committees, especially on the fundraising side. Even though Mitt has ruled out another run for elective office, he wants to do what he can to help the party grow and become stronger,” he said.

While it would be very easy to be snarky about how much help Romney could actually provide to Republican candidates, there are probably ways in which he could be useful.

Ryan Williams, a spokesman for Romney during his 2012 bid, outlined three ways in which he expects Romney to help the candidates he endorses: “He can help them tap into his network, help them raise resources and help bring attention to their campaigns.”

Okay on the tapping into networks and resources, but would campaigns really want the kind attention he might bring? I'm just asking. He was, after all, a disaster as a campaigner. Let's just call it what it was.

They could always bring him out to say, "Hey, at least I'm not as bad as this guy."

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Read More

Alaska Sen. Mark Begich (D) is more than a little vulnerable

By Richard K. Barry

We will be hearing a lot about how Republicans have a very good shot at taking back the Senate in 2014. One of the many reasons is Sen. Mark Begich in Alaska. You may know that Alaska is a very red state. It is a state in which President Obama managed only 43 percent of the vote last year.

In 2008, when Begich won the seat, he did it by a mere 47.8 to 46.5 percent margin. And his opponent was the profoundly ethically challenged Ted Stevens who, if reelected, would have been "the first convicted felon elected to the U.S. Senate." (Funny, I would have thought there were others.)

The issue for Begich in 2014 is the competition. Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell is likely going to run for the Republicans as is Joe Miller. You will recall that Miller, with the backing of Sarah Palin, won the GOP Senate nomination in 2010 only to lose in the general election to incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) who famously won as a write-in candidate.

Facing Miller again, who is likely to be as crazy in 2014 as he was in 2010, would be a good thing for Begich. Running against Treadwell would be a problem.

A hint of how tough it will be for Begich can be found on his website, which flashes the slogan:
"As Independent as Alaska."

And then there is the possibility that Palin could run, which I would doubt. You've got to love Sen. Murkowski's comments about that possibility:

I think there are a lot of outside interests that would like to see Sarah Palin in some form of elected office. Most in Alaska recognize our former governor is really not involved in or engaged in the state anymore, that she’s moved to other interests. In order for you to represent the state of Alaska, you’ve got to be in the state.

Brrrrrr. Is it cold in here?

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Read More

Behind the Ad: Dreaming of a House without Michele Bachmann

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.) 

Who: House Majority PAC.

Where: Minnesota.

What's going on: The House Majority PAC is working to help Democrats retake a majority in the House. In a new video, they say that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is "running scared" a day after a new poll shows her slightly behind her Democratic challenger.

The Hill:

The video features news clips outlining a number of investigations into Bachmann's presidential run, including an FBI probe into alleged financial misconduct involving top aides to Bachmann's campaign.

Knocking off an incumbent is never easy but Jim Graves lost by just 4,300 votes in 2012 and he's back for another try in 2014. And he'll have a lot of help from House Majority PAC and other groups just like them.

Defeating crazy Michele would be so sweet for Democrats and they might just be able to do it this time.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Read More

Behind the Ad: Mitch and Rand go fishing for votes

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.) 

Who: The Mitch McConnell Senate campaign.

Where: Kentucky / web ad.

What's going on: Tip O'Neill is famous for having said that all politics is local, and this ad proves the point. In it, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell and his best buddy Senator Rand Paul appear together to tell local fisherman that the Senators will stand up for their right to fish wherever they gosh darn want to fish.

The Hill:

The video features clips of McConnell and Paul talking at a rally for a "Freedom to Fish" measure that protects fishermen's access to portions of the Cumberland River around dams.

The legislation was spearheaded by the two Kentucky senators and a handful of other Republicans and passed last week.

In the video, McConnell and Paul criticize the initial plans to build barriers around the dams, a plan officials said was informed by safety concerns, as "government overreach."

"The nanny state is on full display. Trying to tell us what we can do, where we can do it, how often we can do it, as if they're smarter than everyone," McConnell says in a portion of the video.

We have been hearing a lot about how vulnerable McConnell is going to be in 2014 as multiple polls have him below the magic 50 percent threshold. But Democrats won't beat him if they can't find a candidate, and so far that's been the problem.

Anyway, the ad is a cute bit of anti-Washington/pro-fishing propaganda. How could Kentucky voters not like that? And the music sure is pretty.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Read More