Bill Whalen

Bill Whalen

Bill Whalen is a research fellow at Hoover. An expert on California politics, U.S. politics, and political campaigns, he writes frequently for the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and San Diego Union Tribune. From 1994 to 1999, he was chief speechwriter and director of public relations for then-governor of California Pete Wilson. From 1985 to 1991, he was a political correspondent for Insight Magazine in Washington, D.C., where he was honored for his profiles and analyses of candidates, campaigns, Congress, and the White House.

  • A A A

    • California’s Ballots: If’s, And’s…and Butts

    | May 17, 2012 | 12:24 pm

    I just voted in California’s June 5 primary.

    No, that’s not a typo.

    About 58% of all primary ballots in the Golden State pending election are so-called “vote by mail”, a fancier way of saying “absentee ballot”. Call it California’s special way of decision-making, with a Netflix twist.

    A scintillating ballot, it’s not. The Republican presidential race is long over; Dianne Feinstein’s quest for a fifth U.S. Senate win has all the drama of an old-style Soviet election.

    Still, there’s a stopping point on the ballot that says oodles about the voters’ zeitgeist: Proposition 28 & 29.

    Let’s take them, in numerical order.

    Prop 28 would alter California’s term-limits law. Instead of the current 14-year limit (at max, three two-year terms in the State Assembly and two four-year stints in the State Senate), the new limit would be 12 years in the State Legislature.

    Click to read more.

    Big Blue State…Big Red Numbers

    | May 14, 2012 | 1:08 pm

    Maybe someone forgot to carry the number . . .

    Or, the state’s Department of Finance misplaced the decimal point in doing its budget math . . .

    Or . . .

    California’s economy really is this wretched, its governor wasn’t terribly honest with the revenue projections he offered back in January, and the feds and the courts are doing their darnedest to complicate matters.

    Such is the very sorry state of the State of California, now that Gov. Jerry Brown has unveiled the state budget’s “May Revise” – one featuring a deficit sinkhole that’s spread from $9 billion to a walloping $16 billion in just four months’ time, plus the threat of additional spending cuts (here’s a pdf of the gory details).

    Why the $7 billion accounting error?

    Three culprits: (a) Brown over-estimated tax revenues by $4.3 billion; (b) the federal government and courts blocked $1.7 billion in cuts California wanted to make; (c) the state’s on the hook to spend more on its schools thanks to a messy voter-approved law.

    Now that Brown’s updated the state’s finances, look for three California storylines in the weeks and months ahead:

    Click to read more.

    Purple States, Purple Reign for Romney?

    | May 11, 2012 | 11:47 am

    As far as shock polls go, put this one somewhere between strong jolt and solid zap.

    Rasmussen Reports’ daily tracking survey of the presidential race for Friday has President Obama losing to Mitt Romney, 50%-43% (4% would vote for a third-party candidate; 3% are undecided).

    It’s the first time Romney’s reached 50% in Rasmussen’s polls. It also comes on the heels of statistical evidence of eroding consumer confidence and, of course, the big political news of the week – Obama not surprisingly but at long last coming out in favor of same-sex marriage.

    A few words of caution about dancing around this May poll: it’s a long way to November.

    Take the 2004 race, for example. As you’ll see here, George W. Bush and John Kerry swapped the lead until October, when Bush finally achieved separation.

    As for his father, in May 1992 Gallup had the president race at George H.W. Bush 35%, Ross Perot 30%, and Bill Clinton at 29%. You probably know how that one turned out.

    Click to read more.

    Obama, Somewhere Over the Rainbow

    | May 09, 2012 | 2:30 pm

    Ordinarily, there wouldn’t be much to this column – at least, as far as North Carolina is concerned.

    On Tuesday, Tar Heel voters approved a ballot measure that added a marriage amendment to its constitution. While North Carolina already bans same-sex marriage, the vote likely means civil unions and other forms of domestic partnership likely will go unrecognized as well.

    That North Carolina would choose to do this isn’t earth-shattering news. Thirty other states have opted for the same policy course.

    Likewise, it’s not a surprise that the measure received about 60% of the vote in Tuesday’s light-turnout primary.

    For all the talk of North Carolina representing a purplish “New South” (Obama carried it by 14,000 votes out of 4.3 million cast in 2008), it’s still a socially conservative state. The moral of this ballot fight: Chelsea Clinton (she wrote a letter denouncing the ballot measure) is no match, on his home turf, for the Rev. Billy Graham (who appeared in a signed newspaper ad statewide supporting Amendment One).

    So much for politics as usual.

    Click to read more.

    California’s Ballot Ballet – Danse Macabre

    | May 02, 2012 | 2:32 pm

    Here are two developments out of Sacramento that should concern you if (a) you worry about the plight of the state’s finances, and (b) you fret over how the state’s elected leaders can make a bad situation worse.

    First, the financial health – a state budget that’s reached “code red”, as in a rising tide of red ink.

    According to California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state’s General Fund is now $3 billion shy of the year-to-date target. Unless that changes, it’ll mean more nasty budget cuts this summer regardless of the outcome of Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax-hike ballot proposition.

    This latest bad news didn’t go unnoticed by Standard & Poor’s, which already gives the Golden State a nation’s-worst A- minus rating. S&P likely won’t downgrade California any further (for now), but it is concerned about Sacramento’s direction.

    Which takes us to the second reason to reach for the Tums: Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg’s plan to amend California’s initiative process.

    Steinberg’s fix, introduced in this speech to the Sacramento Press Club:

    1)  Allow the Legislature to place initiatives on the ballot via a simple-majority vote (at present, a two-thirds majority is required – Steinberg wouldn’t change that for constitutional amendments);

    Click to read more.

    Will Indiana Discharge Its Lugar?

    | April 30, 2012 | 2:15 pm

    There are two ways to explain why some veterans of Congress find themselves in unexpectedly deep trouble come voting time.

    One theory: political Darwinism.

    Like natural selection and the thinning of the herd, the candidate is long in the tooth and a step slower – and slow to react to a younger, more cunning predator challenger.

    Another theory: political climate change.

    Like a shift in temperature, the electorate undergoes a shift in thinking – about Washington and the officeholder’s relevance. Not a thinning of the herd – more like an anti-incumbent, herd mentality.

    Keep this mind if, a week from now, Republicans in Indiana kick Sen. Richard Lugar to the curb in the state’s May 8 primary.

    Click to read more.

    Seoul Searching

    | April 26, 2012 | 8:31 am

    Earlier this week, I took a lengthy flight from California to discuss a problem for which there are no quick fixes: civility, or a lack thereof, in American society.

    As a participant at the 2012 Asan Plenum in Seoul, I had the honor of sharing a panel with fellow Hooverites David Brady and Tod Lindberg on the state of social polarization in the U.S.

    I’ll leave it to my colleagues to express their thoughts on this topic – they’re far more eloquent in their words than anything I could paraphrase.

    As for my contribution to the panel, I chose to focus on civility in U.S. politics – which seemed appropriate, given the editorial space devoted in recent months to the anticipated long and ugly campaign Americans can soon expect.

    A few thoughts:

    In my opinion, there’s a decided roughness around the edges in American society – decay in decency and decorum. Symptoms of the disease: people littering their bodies with graffiti, overt vulgarities, and society’s choice to lionize those who lead their lives with a decided lack of dignity (on that latter point, I’m on Jon Hamm’s side).

    One can see this on display in, off all places, San Francisco – ironically, a city forever congratulating itself for its supposed tolerance.

    Click to read more.

    Conversely, Four Encouraging Signs For President Obama

    | April 22, 2012 | 2:55 pm

    Recently, I authored a post on this site positing four reasons to be encouraged about Mitt Romney’s candidacy – (1) national polls showing a real horse race; (2) Romney offering a sensible big-picture message; (3) his campaign smartly exploiting opportunities; (4) the Obama economy hardly a hothouse of growth.

    In the spirit of “fair and balanced” (and because I can’t bring myself to write about the intricacies of Tuesday’s Delaware primary), here are four reasons why President Obama’s followers can keep the faith, the past week’s spate of bad headlines notwithstanding.

    To wit:

    1)  The House Always Usually Wins. If you want to lay down some money on the presidential election (we’re talking overseas gaming, as opposed to a down-payment on a federal appointment), here’s a betting line – Obama’s the favorite, Romney’s a 2-1 underdog. The White House isn’t a casino. That said, in presidential elections as in Vegas the odds are definitely with the house. Including this year’s contest, over the past century elected incumbent presidents (this rules out Coolidge, Truman, LBJ and Ford) have sought re-election a total of 14 times. Their record: 10 wins, 4 losses. But in three of those contests, the incumbent faced in intraparty challenger. The lone exception: Herbert Hoover, 1932. If Obama survives this fall, history will show his first break was avoiding a sideshow challenge from a liberal gadfly. This is not to suggest that Romney has a 1-in-14 chance of unseating Obama – the weak economy and a “leg thrill” gone missing make this a more competitive race. But it does suggest that matters could be far worse, as far as dissatisfied base and unhappy convention are concerned.

    Click to read more.

    The Week That Was: Four Encouraging Signs for Romney

    | April 15, 2012 | 12:09 pm

    It wasn’t the greatest of weeks if (a) you play the market, or (b) you happen to be one of those procrastinating souls who wait until the 11th hour to make nice with the IRS.

    The Dow industrial average lost 1.6% for the week; Standard & Poor’s 500 index fell 2% — for both financial yardsticks, their worst weeks of the year.

    But someone’s whose fortune ran in the opposite direction: Mitt Romney, who had maybe his best week in all of 2012, beginning obviously with Rick Santorum’s decision to call it a day.

    Here are four things, in addition to Santorum’s exit, that went well for Romney – and why his uphill climb to unseat President Obama perhaps isn’t as steep as some think.

    1) The Polls. During the first 14 weeks of 2012, Romney’s experienced both gratifying peaks (big wins in New Hampshire, Florida and the Midwestern showdown states) and dismaying valleys (embarrassing losses in South Carolina and those Feb. 7 caucus states). He’s been bruised by movement conservatives and second-guessed by the political chattering class – the markings of a candidate destined to lose.  And yet . . . a Fox News poll released Thursday put the race at Romney 46%, Obama 44%. Another survey (this one by Rasmussen Reports) shows a lack of enthusiasm among Republicans – not a surprise after a prolonged and grumpy primary fight. But Obama has problems too: among young voters, only 20% strongly approve of the job he’s doing; among uncommitted voters, only 22% give him a hearty thumbs-up. And there’s the right-track/wrong-track question. For the third straight week, it’s only 29% positive, giving Romney an opening – if he can distill and then address why it is that voters are so vexed.

    Click to read more.

    Exit, Stage Right

    | April 10, 2012 | 12:45 pm

    Gettysburg, Pennsylvania: “High-water mark of the Confederacy” and low water mark of Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign, which came to a sudden halt on Tuesday (technically, his campaign was “suspended”, meaning the former Pennsylvania senator can still raise money and remain on the ballot at the national convention).

    A few thoughts:

    1)  A No-Brainer. This was the only sensible choice facing Santorum. He could have soldiered on, more than likely losing the primary in his native state on April 24. Had he then carried his campaign past that humiliation and into May, Santorum was looking at making a lot of enemies among Republican higher-ups – enemies with long memories. Which leads us to . . .

    2)  2016. So what happens if Romney, now the nominee-in-waiting, fails to unseat President Obama this fall? Santorum will celebrate his 54th birthday next month. That makes him a pup in the dog’s life of Republican presidential hopefuls. George W. Bush was the same age – 54 – when he won the presidency in 2000. Otherwise, it’s an older man’s game – Romney turned 65 last month; John McCain turned 72 during the 2008 general election; Dole was 73 when he was the Republican nominee back in 1996; George H.W. Bush was 64 when he won the presidency in 1988, succeeding Ronald Reagan who was a few days shy of his 70th birthday when he took office in 1981. The point is: Santorum is still young enough to have a future (as some evangelical conservatives have reminded him), which probably factored into his decision to exit gracefully.

    Click to read more.

    Plenty of Pizza…But Not Enough Dough

    | April 09, 2012 | 3:03 pm

    Apparently, not everyone’s feeling the pinch of this recession.

    According to published reports, President Obama will travel to Detroit on April 18 for what the local media have dubbed a “$1 million pizza party”.

    The party’s hostess: Denise Ilitch, daughter of Little Caesars’ founders Mike and Marian Ilitch (dad also owns the Detroit Tigers; the daughter flirted with a run for governor of Michigan back in 2010).

    It won’t take a large crowd to hit that $1 million target: invitees are being asked to cough up $40,000 to attend a cocktail reception/dinner/presidential photo-op; $10,000 gets you dinner and a photo.

    And, presumably, all the pizza you can eat – “we’ll be serving it on sterling silver plates,” Ms. Ilitch quipped (hey, at least she didn’t say: “Let them eat pie”).

    (Btw, to show that a change in baseball ownership can also mean a change in political philosophy: the previous owner of the Tigers, Domino’s founder Tom Monaghan, is a staunchly conservative Catholic and donor to Republican causes.)

    Getting back the politics of pizza and campaign dough, you can expect plenty more money stories like this in the weeks ahead. And that’s because:

    Click to read more.

    GOP Spring Training Ends, Spring Break Begins

    | April 03, 2012 | 9:36 pm

    On the last day of major-league baseball’s spring training, it seemed apt that the Republicans held three low-drama presidential primaries that had the look and feel of exhibitions.

    Mitt Romney cruised to easy wins in Wisconsin, Maryland and the nation’s capital (you know it’s a good night when you’re on and off the victory podium by 10 p.m. EDT).

    My only quibble: Romney’s gigantic flag backdrop, which had a Bulworth style to it.

    Collectively, those three contests (total of 98 delegates at stake) pushed Romney’s delegate total to nearly 650, more than halfway to the 1,144 needed for a convention win on the first ballot. Progress, inch by inch.

    First, a warning about the 2012 baseball season: it may be over before it began.

    On Monday night, the University of Kentucky claimed the men’s college basketball crown. The last six times the Wildcats won a national title (1998, 1996, 1978, 1958, 1951 and 1949), the New York Yankees won that fall’s World Series.

    Game over?

    For Romney or Obama?

    Click to read more.

    Republicans and an Age-Young Problem

    | March 29, 2012 | 2:30 pm

    Unless you work or reside in the proximity of the 916 or 619 area codes, odds are you’ve never heard of Nathan Fletcher.

    A second-term Assemblyman from San Diego, Fletcher is the first War on Terror combat vet (Marine Corps Intelligence specialist) to serve in California’s State Legislature.

    Fletcher’s young (turned 35 in December), an active legislator (28 bills enacted, including 2010’s “Chelsea’s Law” targeting sex offenders), politically connected (his wife served as a deputy chief to former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and was a spokesperson in the two Bush 43 presidential campaigns), and very ambitious (he’s currently a candidate for mayor of San Diego).

    And, until earlier this week, Fletcher was a Republican and potentially a rising star in the party.

    But no more.

    On Wednesday, and with only 70-or-so days remaining until a June 5 mayoral primary in which he’s trailing badly, Fletcher stunned California’s political community by announcing that he was now an independent – in California-speak, “decline to state” (here’s his explanation).

    Thus begging two questions:

    1)  Is this the case of a candidate leaving a party . . . or more a matter of the party leaving the candidate?

    2)  What, if anything, does it say about the GOP’s struggles to make inroads into the “millennial” vote – children of the 1970s and later?

    Cynics didn’t waste any time noting that, as recently as earlier this month, Fletcher was touting himself as anti-tax, family-values conservative – i.e., run-of-the-mill Republican talking points.

    Click to read more.

    Comedy is Hard, Campaigning is Easy

    | March 28, 2012 | 2:34 pm

    If NBC should decide to resurrect Last Comic Standing, here are three acts you likely won’t be seeing during sweeps week:

    1)  Arlen Specter, the former Pennsylvania senator and moderate skeleton in Rick Santorum’s conservative closet, doing 12 minutes of stand-up at Caroline’s Comedy Club in Manhattan.

    2)  President Obama, trying to deflate accusations that he’ll sell out to Russia on missile defense once reelected, jokingly asking reporters:“Are the mics on?”

    3)   Mitt Romney, in the course of his first 2012 appearance on The Tonight Show, telling Jay Leno that David Letterman would be a good running mate – and Santorum a good . . . press secretary.

    In Romney’s defense, his reason for appearing on the Leno show wasn’t to offer himself as the king of one-liners.

    The goal was laying the foundation for something far more crucial to his chances of becoming POTUS 45: coming across as the more amiable and likeable choice in the fall election.

    If that sounds overblown, consider what’s transpired over the past two decades of presidential contests. The race hasn’t always gone to the man who was younger, or taller, or richer – or, arguably, more accomplished or better tested.

    But, without exception, each election has tilted to the man who seemingly was more empathetic . . . and easier to relate to.

    In 1992 and again in 1996, Bill Clinton better connected with voters than George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole. In 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush was more personable than the sighing Al Gore and the wooden John Kerry. Ordinarily, John McCain – he of the Hanoi Hilton, maverick persona and comfort cracking wise on late-night TV – might have enjoyed the empathetic upper hand.  But he ran into the Obama buzz saw – and a once-fawning media that dumped McCain for a new flame.

    That takes us to 2012 and the question of whether Romney can, in some respects, out-Obama Obama by being the guy who rolls up his sleeves, throws himself into adoring crowds and offers himself as an agent of change versus an unacceptable status quo.

    Granted, there’s an argument to be made that a lot of what worked for Obama in 2008 doesn’t apply to 2012 – good luck selling the American people a second consecutive time on lofty promises and gilded rhetoric in an election defined in part by an incumbent who didn’t live up to his hype (figure it this way: in July 2008, then-candidate Obama drained a three-pointer, on his first attempt, in front of the troops in Kuwait; in 2012, the less-lucky President Obama would probably clang the jumper off the rim, with his aides claiming he was fouled).

    Still, the numbers suggest that Romney has some ground to make up with the national electorate. He’ll soon emerge from March with a comfortable lead in delegates – and, according to various polls, the worst primary-season favorable-unfavorable split of any major-party nominee over the past 36 years.

    How does Romney overcome this? History suggests securing the nomination is a first step: both Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, the last two gentlemen to unseat presidential incumbents, trailed badly in the spring – when they still weren’t nominees.

    However, Clinton and Reagan were able to offer themselves not only as new-direction candidates, but candidates with compelling personal narratives – Reagan, the patriotic/optimistic westerner; Clinton, the product of “a place called Hope”.

    This too has been an importance (and dubious) change in presidential politics since 1992 – the expectation of a Horatio Alger story for each candidate to tell. It began with the story of Bill Clinton’s biological fatherdying in a car crash three months before the future president’s birth, was followed by tales of younger George Bush kicking the bottle at his wife’s insistence, and then continued with Barack Obama as a global metaphorfor breaking through racial barriers.

    No such narrative for Romney currently exists. To date, his campaign has been long on his private-sector skills set and institutional advantages (money, ground game) over his GOP rivals – Romney’s campaign resembling his friend Meg Whitman’s failed gubernatorial bid in California.

    The good news: assuming he’s the nominee, Romney has until the end of August and the national convention In Tampa – at which time he’ll have a big soapbox and a waiting national audience time to offer both a compelling video biography and speeches by the nominee and the nominee’s spouse. It’s his opportunity to put a human face on a campaign that Democrats are certain to challenge as lacking in humanity.

    Romney isn’t the first presidential hopeful to face the challenge of how to show a more personable side. Richard Nixon played the piano and laterappeared on Laugh In.  Bill Clinton donned Wayfarers and tooted his own horn (literally) on Arsenio Hall’s show.  Al Gore did a Top-10 list andsmashed ashtrays with David Letterman. Sarah Palin “raised the roof” onSaturday Night Live.

    So far, what we know about Mitt Romney is he’s definitely not hip-hop, maybe or maybe doesn’t own a pair of Ray-Bans, and sings rather than plays the sax.

    In other words, there’s a lot we don’t know about the candidate – and it’s the candidate’s choice as to what he chooses to tell us.

    Read It and Veep

    | March 26, 2012 | 9:42 pm

    It’s chilly and overcast in Northern California, weather more befitting of winter than spring, so what better time to delve into summertime political fare: choosing a running mate for Mitt Romney.

    This might seem premature, considering Romney’s delegate count isonly halfway to the magic number needed for a first-ballot win. Still, it’s already part of the national political conversation, as evidenced bythis exchange between Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan and Fox News’ Chris Wallace.

    The key thing to remember in this quadrennial exercise nicknamed the “veepstakes”: the expectation is a running mate who’s the difference between victory and defeat. But with the exception of Lyndon Johnson, who delivered Texas (and thus the White House) for John F. Kennedy in 1960, it doesn’t happen. In fact, it seldom skews the final outcome.

    Examples:

    1. Geraldine Ferraro. As the first woman on a major party’s national ticket, she generated substantial buzz. That said, the Mondale-Ferraro ticket lost 49 of 50 states.
    2. Dan Quayle. Seen as an inroad to Baby Boomers, Quayle (born in 1947) never got over the hump of self-inflicted wounds – most famously, this debate zinger. But a campaign albatross? Not at the time he was chosen. The 1988 Bush-Quayle ticket carried 40 of 50 states.
    3. Sarah Palin. Want to start an argument among Republicans? All you have to do is posit whether the high priestess of “mama grizzlies” was an asset or a liability in 2008.

    Moving ahead to the summer, let’s envision the “veepstakes” process from Team Romney’s perspective. The Republican campaign won’t lack for choices – the GOP has a deep vice presidential bench. But it’s not a simple choice, given competing concerns. Does Team Romney opt for a running mate who can deliver a battleground state; a running mate who balances the ticket in terms of resume, ideology or voting blocs; or, do chemistry and comfort win out, with Romney choosing someone he simply likes and trusts?

    Time will well.

    Meanwhile, here are some potential running mates to get the conservation going.

    Alphabetically, they include:

    1. Chris Christie. Argument for: New Jersey’s governor offers a pugnacious style and blue-collar appeal that Romney currently lacks. Argument against: Christie’s operating on a different political calendar, facing re-election in 2013. A failed vice presidential run, compounded by a failure to win a second term, assumedly would be a dagger to Christie’s national ascent.
    2. Bobby Jindal. Argument for: Louisiana’s governor is a textbook study of how to make the argument for smaller government and less spending vs. the Obama approach in Washington (Jindal being reelected to a second term last November with 65.8% of the vote, winning every state parish). Argument against: memories of – and fears of a repeat of – his nationally televised response to President Obama’s first address to Congress, which drew mixed reviews.
    3. Susana Martinez. Argument for: New Mexico’s governor is the first Hispanic woman to head any state; she’s solidly conservative on all fronts. Argument against: in addition to the Palin parallel (is she ready for prime time?), elevating Martinez signals the Romney campaign’s intent to compete for Mountain West votes in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, when the Upper Midwest might be a better use of its time; illegal immigration gets in the way of Romney keeping the focus on Obama’s economic performance.
    4. Bob McDonnell. Argument for: Virginia’s governor, who hasn’t been shy about fueling veep speculation, could help deliver 13 electoral votes in a commonwealth the Democrats have carried only once since the ’64 landslide. Argument against: if re-staining a state from blue to red is the lead criterion, this might be the place to start as Obama’s sitting prettier in Virginia than most other battleground states.
    5. Tim Pawlenty. Argument for: the former Minnesota governor and presidential dropout has chemistry going for him – he’s beena tireless surrogate and counter-puncher on Romney’s behalf; reportedly, he and the likely nominee get along famously. Argument against: Pawlenty made scads of sense in 2008, when he was the sitting governor of the state hosting that year’s GOP national convention; in 2012, he’s not the sexiest of picks (however. don’t rule out a cabinet post).
    6. Rob Portman. Argument for: not only one of the most genial individuals in these uncivil times, but a killer c.v. (U.S. senator and congressman from Ohio; head of OMB and USTR; son of a small businessman). Argument against: hard to quibble with someone who was crucial to Romney barely surviving Ohio’s primary; might be the wrong temperament if it’s an attack dog Team Romney seeks (think Bob Dole, the hatchet man of 1976).
    7. Condoleezza Rice. Can’t remember the last time I gave a talk during which her name didn’t come up, so she goes on the list. Argument for: shores up Romney on foreign policy; she’d give the ticket a much-needed People jolt. Argument against: I’ll let her words do the talking – “I think we should go another direction and find somebody who really wants to be in elected office.”
    8. Marco Rubio. Eighth on this list, but maybe the top seed considering Florida’s junior senator brings youth (he turns 41 in May), diversity (the son of Cuban émigrés), a Tea Party fan base, and the lure of the Sunshine State’s 29 electoral votes. Argument against: Hard to make one, if he can both deliver Florida make an inroad elsewhere with Hispanics. What about superstition? Only once in the nation’s history – James Buchanan and John Breckenridge, 1856 – has either party (Republican or Democratic) run a one-monogram ticket. Yes, the Democrats won that year. And that was followed by 24 years of GOP control of the White House. Doesn’t bode well for “MR Squared”, does it?
    9. Paul Ryan. Argument for: The Wisconsin congressman andfederal budget maven is a fiscal Diogenes – looking not for an honest man, but honest answers to the nation’s crushing debt burden. Argument against: in terms of shaping the debate in D.C., it might be better to be the chair of the House Budget Committee than the number-two man in the Romney Administration; that somehow Ryan’s budget plan would swing the election in Obama’s favor by scaring the poor and elderly (Paul Gigot weighs the pros and cons of all of this).
    10. Donald Trump. Your reward for making it to the end of this list. The odds of Trump landing on the GOP ticket? About the same as his going on a double date with Rosie O’Donnell. But he does represent something we haven’t discussed so far – the “Game Change” approach of choosing a running mate from out in left field whose unexpected appearance shakes up the dynamics of the race. Two notables in this category: (a) New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (he’s pro-choice; pro-gay marriage; cared little for the Republican label; his billionaire fortune could easily finance a fall campaign all on its own; (b) CIA Director David Petraeus (a non-political background; America trusts his leadership skills; he could do for the present GOP what Eisenhower did for Republicans 60 years ago).

    Some Dreams Die Harder Than Others

    | March 20, 2012 | 9:55 pm

    On the same day that the good people of Illinois went to the polls, Pope Shenouda III, head of Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox Church, was laid to rest after a funeral Mass in Cairo.

    His successor will be chosen as follows:

    Three candidates will come forward as finalists. Each name is written on a piece of paper, those three ballots then placed in a hat. A young boy (I’m not making this up) will be blindfolded, then told to reach into the hat and pull out one ballot.

    The man whose name happens to be on that piece of paper becomes the new pope.

    There’s no word yet if the GOP plans to adopt this system for 2016.

    For the past month or so, I’ve had a recurring dream. And it goes something like this:

    It’s Tuesday night, voters have gone to the polls, and I’m watching Mitt Romney give a “victory” speech.

    Only, once he’s done speaking, the media soon convince me that Romney’s declaration deserves an asterisk, at best.

    Maybe he got the evening’s most votes, and perhaps even the most delegates, but there’s something troubling about Romney’s performance (though he’s now carried 21 of the GOP 33 contests to date). And so the dream goes.

    Sarcasm aside, this dream has been the Republicans’ uneasy reality going back to the night of Feb. 28 and the GOP primary in Michigan, where native son Romney prevailed by all of 32,000 votes – 3.2% of the popular take.

    A week later, Romney “won” the Super Tuesday vote in that he came away with both the biggest number of delegates and the night’s biggest prize: Ohio. But again, the asterisk: Romney carried Ohio by a scant 10,000 votes (a margin of less than 1%).

    From Super Tuesday, it was on to the following Tuesday and the pupu platter of Alabama, Mississippi, Hawaii and American Samoa. Romney garnered 40 delegates to Santorum’s 38 – technically, a number more important than winning fewer states. Yet, once again, the buzz was the frontrunner underperforming.

    The buzz was nowhere to be found on Tuesday night in Illinois. Romney carried a large, hodgepodge state – just like Florida, Ohio and Michigan. Nothing new there.

    Only, for the first time since winning big in Florida back on Jan. 31 (46.4% to Newt Gingrich’s 31.9%), Romney could point to both quality (47% of the popular vote in Illinois) and quantity (at least 41 delegates, putting Romney about hallway to the 1,144 needed for the nomination).

    Takeaways:

    1. Might Proves Right. Different state, same formula; Caesar would have been proud. Romney came, he saw, he conquered. But most of all, he and his super PAC friends spent – perhaps seven times what Santorum invested in Illinois media markets (btw, Obama strategist David Axelrod is claiming Romney outspent Santorum 21-1 in Chicago). It was enough to sell the economic/electability message to white-collar Republicans around Chicagoland, plus slam his more conservative rival in radio ads statewide as someone “who’s never run a business or a state” and just “another economic lightweight”. Though turnout was alarmingly low (the first Illinois primary since 2000 not to include a race for governor or U.S. Senator), the money advantage finally paid the kind of dividend that Team Romney was hoping for – but very publicly failed to achieve – in the two previous Midwestern showdowns.
    2. Santorum Is Running Against Mitt . . . and Rick. Back when newspapers ruled the jungle, the adage was never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. In the Information Age, it would be: avoid a spat with someone with a Web site that drives more traffic than Facebook. Why, then, would Santorum suggest that Matt Drudge and his eponymous Report are in the tank for Romney? Is it coincidence that, after his impartiality was attacked, Drudge posted a most unflattering photo of Santorum sunbathing in Puerto Rico and, a few days later, a screaming headline revisiting Santorum’s endorsement of Romney back in 2008? Part of the election post mortem is certain to dwell on Santorum’s ill-advised decision to campaign in Puerto Rico last week instead of focusing on the more winnable, strategically important Illinois. Nor did it help than Santorum got into a language flap in Puerto Rico and made a klutzy aside about unemployment in Illinois. But getting into a feud with The Drudge Report? Dumb move.
    3. Don’t Give Up the Dream – Just Yet. The Republican road show’s next stop is this Saturday in Louisiana – that state’s biggest presidential primary since 1996, when Patrick Buchanan squashed then-Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, setting up Buchanan as the conservative alternative to Bob Dole in that year’s race. Romney, who’s coming into Louisiana only on the day before the vote (translation: downplaying expectations) would like to campaign with Drew Brees, not to mention the still-undecided Gov. Bobby Jindal. He might have to settle for the state’s lieutenant governor and ag commissioner. If Santorum (or Gingrich) somehow finds new life in the Pelican State, the road takes the candidates to Maryland, the District of Columbia and Wisconsin – all on April 3. The first two are safely in the Romney camp. Wisconsin’s another matter. Another Tuesday, another complex state chock full of urban and rural voters. Not to mention a strong religious base and the same dynamics of Romney outspending and attempting to outmaneuver Santorum. All followed by a media jury voting to convict or acquit Romney of underperforming.

    Proving only: some dreams die harder than others.

    Deep in the Heart of (California) Taxes

    | March 19, 2012 | 2:53 pm

    The good news: California’s initiative load for this fall is lighter by one, now that Gov. Jerry Brown and the California Federation of Teachers cut a deal have agreed to merge their respective tax-hike measures.

    The bad news: Californians will still have to endure a hard sell on higher taxes, its state leaders the while failing to address larger problems having to do with government spending and unreliable revenue streams.

    First, some background on what’s going on at the ballot box.

    Earlier this month, Californians were looking at the prospect of not one but three tax initiatives this fall. Brown’s plan was a half-cent increase of the state tax for four years, beginning in January, plus a higher income tax for five years on those Californians earning over $250,000 annually.

    The governor’s pitch: it’s temporary; it’s shared pain. However, voters weren’t all that enthused.

    The second option, courtesy of CFT (the lesser of California’s two big teachers’ unions): permanently raise taxes on California’s millionaire earners.

    CFT’s pitch: soak the 1% — voters liking the sound of that, more so than Brown’s initiative.

    The third tax option, courtesy of Pasadena attorney Molly Munger (her billionaire father is Warren Buffett’s partner at Berkshire Hathaway; her half-brother quarterbacked California’s redistricting reform movement): raise everyone’s income tax by 1% (assuming you make more than $7,316 a year), with the entire $10 billion in annual revenue dedicated exclusively to K-12 and early childhood education programs.

    Munger’s pitch: with California now $2,580 below the national average in per-student spending, it’s time to give Golden State schools a serious cash infusion.

    The problem is, Munger’s initiative is box-office poison – only 45% support in last month’s Field Poll (as a rule of thumb, an initiative that starts at 60% or better is destined to fail). Moreover, the combined weight of all three measures, coming at recession-weary voters all at once, threatened to doom to defeat this November.

    Thus Brown’s move to merge his initiative with the teachers’ union (details here) – and hope that Munger has a change of heart, even though she kicked in another $1.5 million to her campaign the deal after the governor announced his deal.

    All of which tells of three things about California’s current state of affairs.

    1. Can Jerry Close? If you want to watch a movie to better understand the inner workings of a California governor, start with Glengarry Glen Ross – specifically, the part having to with “always be closing”. Last year, Jerry Brown tried to cut a tax deal with legislative Republicans. They didn’t buy it – in part, because of rigid ideology; in part, because he couldn’t close. This year, it’s safe to assume he tried (however he could) to get Molly Munger to abandon her initiative. Though the governor did reach a settlement with the teachers, Munger was another matter. Those dealings were behind closed doors. This fall, assuming his new measure qualifies (courtesy of some expensive signature-gathering), Brown has to close in a new venue – the court of public opinion – and the toughest jury of all: the persnickety California voter.
    2. The Power of Checkbook Democracy. Last year, billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer floated the idea of raising taxes on California businesses, in part to fund clean-energy. This year, it’s Munger and her obsession with classroom. What they and a longer list of Californians have in common: (a) a desire to do good; (b) the personal resources to make good on that desire; (3) the threat of making a further mess of California’s already jumbled finances by reallocating money in a way that sounds humane but isn’t fiscally sound. Should Munger not only go through with her initiative but get it passed, let’s see if she also sparks talk of reforming California’s initiative process so as to build a firewall between naïve voters and mischief-making millionaires.
    3. Everyone Talks About the Weather Reliable Revenue, No One Does Anything About It. Getting back to the Brown-CFT measure: if it passes, does it solve the long-term problems with California’s financial structure? Not even close. It’s a Band-Aid, plain and simple. I defer to my Hoover colleagues, Michael Boskin and John Cogan, and what they describe as “California’s Greek Tragedy” – an underperforming economy; a spending bill that’s come due. They know of what they speak: the two economists were members of the state’s Commission on the 21st Century Economy, which back in September 2009 offered this blueprint for revenue stability and long-term economic growth and competitiveness.

    That plan was considered too bold for California and never moved forward.

    Here’s a thought: why not put it on the ballot, rather than a pair of flawed tax increases?

    (photo credit: tornatore)

    My Dinner with Barack

    | March 15, 2012 | 12:34 pm

    As a hobby of sorts (and because I’m also a cheapskate and it don’t cost nothin’), I like to sign up for campaigns’ free emails – to see what messages they’re pitching, and new ways they’ve devised to pick my pocket.

    In that latter regard, President Obama’s re-elect hasn’t disappointed. Here’s what I found in my in-box earlier this morning:

    Friend –

    I’ve set aside time for four supporters like you to join me for dinner.

    Most campaigns fill their dinner guest lists primarily with Washington lobbyists and special interests.

    We didn’t get here doing that, and we’re not going to start now. We’re running a different kind of campaign. We rely on everyday Americans giving whatever they can afford, and I want to spend time with the folks who make this possible.

    That’s why if you make a donation now, you’ll be automatically entered for a chance to be my guest for dinner. Please donate $3 or more today.

    I always look forward to meeting supporters like you, and this will be the kind of casual meal among friends that I don’t get to have as often as I’d like anymore. So I hope you’ll consider joining me.

    But I’m not asking you to donate today just for a chance to meet me. I’m asking you to chip in if you believe in the kind of politics that gives people like you a seat at the table — whether it’s at the dinner table with me or the table where decisions are made about what kind of country we want to be.

    It starts with a gift of whatever you can afford.

    Please make a donation of $3 or more today, and we’ll throw your name in the hat:

    https://donate.barackobama.com/Join-Me-for-Dinner

    I’ve said before that I want people like you to shape this campaign. This is your chance to share your ideas with me face to face.

    Hope to see you soon,

    Barack

    I love the timing of this missive given: (a) last night’s White House state dinner in honor of British Prime Minister David Cameron, featuring such “regular folks” as George Clooney, Vogueeditor Anna Wintour (the real-life Devil Wears Prada) and 40-or-so fat-cat money bundlers (here’s the dinner list); (b) Karl Rove’s Wall Street Journal column suggesting Obama 2012 might be underperforming on the fundraising front – that $1 billion target not as easy as they’d envisioned.

    Feel free to enter the dinner sweepstakes if you like – even if it’ll cost you the same as a bottle of “Three-Buck Chuck” (speaking of no-so-bargain domestics, the White House isn’t sayingwhat American wines were consumed at Wednesday night’s dinner).

    The cynic in me says your odds of winning will improve significantly if you (a) hail from a “swing” state and (b) fall into one of the following categories:

    1. Working single mother deeply concerned about the rising cost of gasoline birth control;
    2. Latino college student from the Rockies or Sierras;
    3. Returned Iraq veteran who just got some sweet financing on his/her previously foreclosed home;
    4. Upstart organic farmer (gotta keep the First Lady happy if “friends” are crashing her house for supper);
    5. African-American faith-based social worker;
    6. Midwestern small businessman – ideally, buying and selling used officeware from failed Bain Capital ventures.

    Best of luck, and enjoy your dinner if you make the cut.

    Tuesday Takeaways

    | March 13, 2012 | 10:00 pm

    In all, a curious night.

    Rick Santorum won the Alabama and Mississippi primaries, yet gave his victory speech in neighboring Louisiana (scene of a Mar. 24 Republican primary) before leaving for Puerto Rico, which votes this weekend.

    Mitt Romney was competitive in both Deep South states – a surprise given the conservative, evangelical makeup of the vote. He spent Tuesday in Missouri, which is about to continue its caucus process, before jetting off to a New York fundraiser.

    The one man who bothered to stick around – Newt Gingrich, who rode out the returns in Alabama – probably wished he were elsewhere. The former Speaker lost both states (he’s now 2 for 28 in all primaries and caucuses), in the process suffering major blows in terms of prestige and relevance.

    As for what can be gleaned from Tuesday’s contests:

    1) Grits and Gridlock. Maybe it was all those cheesy grits the candidates said they were ingesting. Romney’s aides are now telling reporters that it’ll take two months (hello, California) before they reach 1,144 delegates and the GOP nomination. Santorum and Gingrich aides are speaking openly about existing mainly to deny Romney the prize – no spinabout their guy winning on the first ballot. The honesty is refreshing. Not so pleasant is a likely repeat of what’s been happening for weeks now: Romney needing to validate his frontrunner status in the showdown state; Santorum and Gingrich dividing the conservative vote.

    2) Bartender, Another Round, Please. The suggestion, heading into Tuesday’s vote: Romney could “seal the deal” with a strong showing in the two Dixie states. Not quite. As much as the media want a knockout moment, the reality of the 2012 GOP race is that of a slog – something entirely different for Republicans. The last prolonged GOP presidential race – Ford vs. Reagan, back in 1976 – was a matter of the incumbent president taking an early lead (Ford won the first 6 primaries) before his conservative challenger got back in the game (starting in North Carolina, Reagan won 10 of the final 23, including Texas and California). This year’s race is the opposite: the establishment Romney campaign looking for a moment to surge and achieve separation, but hampered by his own limitations and a process that’s built for distance, not speed. The next rounds: Illinois (Mar. 20), Louisiana, and then Wisconsin (April 3).

    3) The War on . . . Obama? Newt Gingrich was the first to recognize rising gasoline prices as a potent campaign issue; his fellow Republicans soon followed. So far, Gingrich is the lone Republican (not counting Ron Paul, who’s never been a fan of American involvement overseas) to suggest the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is “not doable”. Compare that to Santorum lamenting a situation that’s become “very, very difficult”, or Romney talking about “kinetic activity”. Santorum did suggest, earlier this week, that perhaps it’s time to review America’s options in Afghanistan – including pulling out earlier than the Obama timeline, if need be. We’ll see if the issue mushrooms as: (a) events in Afghanistan warrant or (b) changing public attitudes necessitate. Gingrich may not win the GOP nomination; there’s no doubting his political instincts.

    4) Marco . . . Rubio. Not the kids’ swimming-pool game, but a different game nonetheless. On the same day that the presidential hopefuls were in the Deep South or scattered about, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was in swing-state Ohio, campaigning for State Treasurer Josh Mandel, who’s running to be one of Rubio’s 99 colleagues next year. Mandel is the first 2012 endorsement by Rubio’s Reclaim America PAC. The junior senator from Florida reportedly is busy finishing his memoirs, is deeply concerned with image control, and has hired an investigator to look into his own background – that’s a lot of behind-the-scenes machinations for a gentleman who insists he wants nothing to do with the vice presidency.

    5) Bobby Jindal. Louisiana’s charismatic governor faces a tough choice. He endorsed Rick Perry’s presidential campaign (the Texas governor is long departed from the race, and is now campaigning for Gingrich). Who does Jindal support in his state’s upcoming primary? Snubbing Romney might be regrettable, come the “veepstakes” speculation. What if he snubs Santorum, only to see Romney lose the state? Or there’s the Gingrich option, given the Perry connection. Perhaps Jindal takes his cue from Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, who let it be known that he cast his ballot for Santorum – though the governor refused to make an official endorsement before Tuesday’s vote.

    6) Gone But Not Forgotten: American Samoa. The media focused on Alabama and Mississippi. Hawaii’s first-ever GOP caucuses received scant attention (as in Alabama, former Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle, currently a Senate candidate, took a pass on endorsing a presidential hopeful). But what about American Samoa, which also caucused on Tuesday? In case you’re curious as to how it’s done in the far flungs of the Pacific: about 50 Republicans gathered at the local Toa Bar & Grill to decide how to allot the territory’s 9 delegates (and 3 alternates). Why such a low turnout? Because local elected officials don’t run on party lines. Suggesting that, when it comes to setting aside partisanship and getting beyond the gridlock brought on by party i.d., American Samoa might be ahead of time, even if it is furthest to America’s west.

    As Maine Goes, So Goes … the Senate?

    | March 13, 2012 | 2:32 pm

    While we await further clarity from the presidential trail, let’s take a look at a less-discussed aspect of the 2012 election: control of the U.S. Senate.

    Why bother?

    Three reasons:

    1. Assuming President Obama’s re-elected, a Republican-run Senate could affect the choice of one, maybe two or more Supreme Court nominees – the White House, faced with a conservative Senate, probably settling on nominees not as uber-liberal as the President’s base would prefer.
    2. Assuming a Republican replaces Mr. Obama, the GOP-run Senate becomes the POTUS 45’s means for getting judicial and executive appointments through the congressional pipeline, though judicial appointments will remain a political hot potato as long as either side can effectively mount filibusters – currently a source of friction between Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
    3. Regardless of who occupies the Oval Office, the odds are good that a Republican Senate, working in tandem with a GOP House, will forward a federal spending plan to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue – the Senate having failed to produce such a document in the past 1,000-plus days.

    So which way will the Senate tilt come next January?

    At present, the “world’s most deliberative body” is made up of 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans and two independents – Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman and Vermont’s Bernie Sanders. As both “independents” caucus with the Democrats, this Senate is, in effect, a 53-47 split.

    The key stat to remember: 23 Democratic-held seats are on the line in 2012, versus only 10 for Republicans. If the GOP held serve in all of its races, Republicans would need only 4 pickups to get to 51 and control of the chamber. Given that a GOP gain seems likely in North Dakota, the bar might actually be set at 3 for a takeover.

    So what races are worthy following? Try, these four:

    1. Massachusetts. The Democrats’ best chance for stealing a GOP seat, the race features Harvard professor and consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren versus Republican incumbent Scott Brown, who won the seat in the special election following Edward Kennedy’s death (a precursor to the Democrats’ meltdown in the 2010 elections). The contest is good-government deluxe. The two candidates have agreed to a “people’s pledge” – if an independent third-party group spends money on a candidate, the beneficiary of that independent expenditure will contribute half the cost of that i.e. to the charity of his/her opponent’s choice. So far, both candidates have made good on the pledge. This could end up being the most expensive Senate race in Massachusetts’s history. The most recent polls show Brown with an 8-point lead, which has local Democrats feeling uneasy.
    2. Montana. The Democrats’ turn to play defense, with first-termer Jon Tester facing an uphill climb in a state he carried by a mere 3,600 votes in 2006 (a little over 400,000 Montanans voting in that election). Six years ago, Tester was a self-styled dirt farmer and Washington outsider with a questionable buzz cut. Today, he’s an incumbent in a race being largely defined by out-of-state money. Whereas in Massachusetts the two candidates found common ground on campaign finance, no such deal was struck in Montana.Statewide polls give the Republican hopeful, Rep. Denny Rehberg, a narrow lead in what handicappers see as a tossup race (fyi: Montana was the fourth closest state in the 2008 presidential election, trailing only Missouri, North Carolina and Indiana).
    3. Nebraska. Next year is the 30th anniversary of the Oscar-winning Terms of Endearment. Part of that movie was filmed in Nebraska – one of the co-stars, Debra Winger, had a much-publicized romance with Nebraska’s governor at the time, Bob Kerrey. Kerrey’s now the Democrats’ best chance of keeping the seat currently held by the retiring Ben Nelson. The race obviously tests Kerrey’s star power – decorated Navy Seal, former governor, U.S. senator and presidential hopeful trying for one more encore. It’s a testament to the lack of centrist Democrats who can play in Flyover America (just as there are fewer moderate Republicans in the bluer coastal states – more on that in a minute). Kerrey, who’s already launched his TV campaign, has two immediate problems: Obama lost the state by 15 points back in 2008, so forget about coattails; Karl Rove is accusing him of cutting a backroom deal with Harry Reid over Senate tenure.
    4. Virginia. As in Nebraska, another case of political recycling with Republican George Allen – like Kerrey, a former governor and senator – looking for a return ticket to Washington. His opponents: former DNC Chair and Va. Gov. Tim Kaine and a cat named Hank. As in Massachusetts and Montana, money is an issue – Allen getting a Super PAC. Like Nebraska, Obama’s popularity is a wildcard – he was the first Democrat to carry the commonwealth since 1964; the attorney general is trying to kill health care reform while the governor wants to be on the Republicans’ national ticket; given its robust economy and proximity to the nation’s capital, it’s one of Obama’s preferred places to talk jobs.

    We’ll see how all of this shakes out come November. In the meantime, here’s an entertaining scenario for some post-November Senate skullduggery.

    And it goes like this:

    1. Republicans pick up three seats on Election Night. The new Senate numbers: 50 GOP, 48 Democrats, and 2 Independents.
    2. One of those Independents is the re-elected Bernie Sanders, giving the Democrats a 49th vote.
    3. That puts the Senate at 50 Republicans, 49 Democrats and 1 Independent – the newly elected Angus King, Maine’s former governor and the replacement for Republican Olympia Snowe, who surprised Washington by announcing on Leap Day that she wouldn’t be seeking a fourth Senate term (ironically, Snowe sparking the same political chaos as in 1994, when George Mitchell’s surprise retirement opened the door for . . . Olympia Snowe).
    4. Senate Republicans and Democrats vie desperately for King’s vote – committee slots, pork as high as an elephant’s eye – all spawning a million and one bad puns about the freshman senator demanding a King’s ransom.

    Depending on where he lands: the Senate ends up 51-49 GOP, or a 50-50 tie. In other words, as Maine goes, so goes . . . control

    « Older Entries