Pennsylvania

Is there an echo in Pennsylvania? You better you bet.

Republicans and especially hard-core conservatives are foaming at the mouth over the defection of Pennsylvania Republican Senator Arlen Specter, decrying him as another Benedict Arnold. One of the most fevered cries is that Specter put politics ahead of principle. Whether you believe that or not (if the principle Specter is upholding is to win then I guess he’s being principled…) it has brought the battle for the soul of the GOP to the forefront. And the front page of the New York Times.

The question, which to be fair has been central to the Republican conversation at least since Rudy Giuliani first started talking about running for President, is whether Republicans need to become more purely conservative or need to do a Reagan and open up the tent. For the Republicans in charge of the effort to reclaim some of the 15 Senate seats lost in the last two years, the answer is clear:

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he would seek to recruit candidates who he thought could win in Democratic or swing states, even if it meant supporting candidates who might disagree with his own conservative views.

Mr. Cornyn said he was taking a page from Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the last head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who led his party to big gains by embracing candidates who, for example, opposed abortion rights or gun control.

“If you think about it, Schumer has been very good at this; I complimented him this morning in the gym,” Mr. Cornyn said, adding, “Some conservatives would rather lose than be seen as compromising on what they regard as inviolable principles.”

That is, of course, not how everyone sees it. Here was Rush Limbaugh’s take on Wednesday:

The Republican Party is moving left and that is why it is in trouble, and there is certainly a greater diversity of viewpoint in the Republican Party. For crying out loud, I guarantee you the Democrat (sic) Party would never, ever nominate their equivalent of John McCain. 

I guarantee you The Democrat (sic) Party would never, ever nominate somebody who rips, and has made his name by ripping and criticizing, his own party and his own presidents. That would never happen. Democrats throw those people out of the party or they bury them. We nominated a guy whose claim to fame is criticizing his own president and criticizing his own party, and they say we’re monolithic. The monolith is the Democrat (sic) Party. 

But as usual, Rush either has amnesia, is lying, or is simply entertaining his gullible audience. But he’s missing something crazy obvious. Rush is just like Kos (in one respect anyway). Really! Let me explain.

Democrats were once a pretty ideologically pure party while Republicans (under Nixon and the Reagan) made less of ideology and more of winning.

That changed a bit when Bill Clinton was elected but soon the party was in what seemed to be a downward spiral of alleged liberal thinking and hidebound candidates. After the drubbing in 2004, things changed. Howard Dean took over at the DNC pushing the 50-state strategy and embracing the netroots. And New York Senator Chuck Schumer (the hardest-working man in politics) took over the reigns at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Schumer lined up candidates he thought could win even if that meant pissing off the liberal version of the conservative blogosphere — the netroots.

In Ohio Schumer forced a progressive Iraq war vet out of the Senate race in 2006 to clear the way for a veteran Ohio politician named Sherrod Brown. That’s Senator Brown to you.

In North Carolina Schumer encouraged a progressive gay candidate to step aside (and was slammed by a blog named “down with Tyranny” — ring any bells, conservatives?) so that a woman named Kay Hagen could run against Libby Dole. That’s Senator Hagen to you.

And in Pennsylvania Schumer encouraged Bob Casey Jr. to run despite being anti-abortion rights. Liberals — especially women’s groups were enraged — but Casey won the primary against pro-choice candidates and wiped Republican Senator Rick Santorum from office.

Republicans should linger in Pennsylvania a bit longer because the echo there is even stronger: Casey’s pro-life father was refused a spot at the Democratic National Convention in 1992 when he wanted to speak about abortion. The tent wasn’t big enough for that. At the convention in Denver last year, his son got a prime speaking spot where he spoke about his disagreement with Obama (and much of the party) on abortion.

And the change didn’t only come from Schumer. The netroots actually fought for a few candidates that did not follow the pure Democratic line. Gun-toting Montana Senator Jon Tester was not the choice of the establishment but won his primary in 2006 thanks to support from liberal activists. 

So when “pure” conservatives say Specter’s defection is welcome because it cleanses the party, they ought to consider what the Democrats learned in Pennsylvania about ideology. There’s a reason there are only 40 Republican Senators right now and it’s not because they’re all too liberal.

News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch

As much as we love to reward those who own up to their mistakes it’s a little hard to take Rupert Murdoch’s mea culpa over the NY Post Chimp-Obama cartoon at face value. Here’s what he wrote in an item place in a small box at the bottom of Page 2 in Tuesday’s Post.

“As the Chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me. Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted. Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you – without a doubt – that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such. We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community.”

Why it took six days for someone in charge at the Post to apologize is a valid question and one the paper’s PR folks have not answered for Get Real yet. But it’s probably a fairly simple case of following the money.

Al Sharpton is meeting with the FCC in Washington tomorrow to discuss the waiver the agency granted Murdoch that allows him to own two TV stations (Channels 5 and 9) and a newspaper (Post) in a single market in violation of Federal law. In the wake of the cartoon Sharpton said he wanted to go not after the newspaper but after the corporate parent and the license waiver was a major benefit to News Corp.

So Rupe’s mea culpa is likely tinged with more than a bit of practicality. Still, at least he said it.

The other mea culpa comes from me. Back at the end of January on the heals of several polls testing what New Yorkers thought of Governor Paterson I wrote: “Pundits be damned, the public is NOT blaming Paterson for the Caroline Kennedy fiasco (and) Paterson is still widely popular, and all things being equal, he is not in a particularly tough position for a campaign that will begin a year from now.”

I continued after noting that one poll showed Paterson to be essentially tied with Andrew Cuomo in a hypothetical primary: “Oooo delicious, right? Not so fast. Andrew Cuomo has clawed his way back to respectability after primarying Carl McCall in 2002 thus earning what looked to be the everlasting enmity of African-American (and plenty of other) Dems who thought it mighty uncool for the brash young scion to try and keep New York from possibly electing it’s first black Governor. So what’s he gonna do now that he’s in (almost) everyone’s good graces? Take on New York’s actual first black Governor? Not on your life unless top African American politicos like Rangel, Sharpton, and some guy named Obama throw Dave over the transom. If that happens there won’t be a primary because Paterson will resign or find himself Ambassador of [insert obscure country here].”

Well, fast-forward one month and Jay doesn’t look so smart any more. A new Siena Poll shows just how badly things have gone from not-so-bad to meltdown. In this survey Paterson’s favorables are now down to 40% with his unfavorables at 47%. The damage is in the suburbs (34%-55%), among women (35%-48%), and worst for him, among Democrats (44%-41%).

Put another way only one quarter of registered Democrats say they would vote for him in 2010 and in that hypothetical primary Cuomo now would beat Paterson 53% – 27%. When Siena then ran hypothetical general election matchups with Rudy Giuliani as the Republican candidate (which some very smart observers believe is a very unlikely prospect for the now wealthy jet-setting former Mayor and failed Presidential candidate) against Paterson or Cuomo, Giuliani handily beats Paterson but Cuomo handily beats Rudy.

So…I was wrong, or at least premature in January to say Paterson was not in a tough position for 2010. He has spent the last month mired in ineffectiveness making his Caroline-Gillibrand kerfuffle look like a stroke of managerial genius. As I noted in January Democrats — especially prominent African American Democrats — will need to make the first move but if Paterson’s performance in the polls is not better by the fall watch the Rangels and Sharptons of this world very closely.

If they move an “irresistible” offer of an ambassadorship to East Wintogia won’t be far behind.

Gov. David Paterson

Oh how quickly the news has moved on from Kirsten Gillibrand the “accidental Senator” to David Paterson the “doomed Governor.” Newspapers across the state from Buffalo to Gotham wrote up Paterson’s big problems this morning after the botched selection process to replace Hillary Clinton.

Now two new polls, one from Quinnipiac and the other from Siena, make several things abundantly clear:

1. Pundits be damned, the public is NOT blaming Paterson for the Caroline Kennedy fiasco (despite Liz Benjamin’s excellent report this morning indicating the public might want to think again).

2. Paterson is still widely popular, and all things being equal (which they are not but chill — I’m getting there), he is not in a particularly tough position for a campaign that will begin a year from now.

3. Kirsten Gillibrand will be elected Senator in 2010.

First, the Q poll shows voters are giving Paterson a pass on the Caroline mess blaming Kennedy and her people by huge margin (49% say it was Caroline’s fault, 15% say it was Dave’s). Furthermore his approval rating is down pretty significantly from it’s high last August (64% then, 50% now) but considering all the bad news about the budget, his State of the State, and Caroline he can’t be too unhappy that only 30% disapprove of the way he’s doing (that’s roughly the percentage of Republicans in the state so whaddya expect?) Finally there’s great news for Gillibrand here.

Voters who say they have an opinion like her 25% to 10%. Nice, but focus on the 63% who don’t have an opinion. For an aggressive campaigner and fundraiser who’s taken classes at the Chuck Schumer School of Politics, 63% undecided is pure gold. Gillibrand skillfully went to work moments after she was announced last Friday and hasn’t stopped. The poll shows she has great appeal upstate and among Republicans — even among NYC Dems who critics say will abandon her over her support for gun rights she has positive ratings and a vast pool of undecideds. Combine that with the support of her mentor and macher Senator Schumer and Gillibrand is the closest thing to a sure bet you’re gonna get in politics.

So back to Paterson’s polls and his problems. While his approval rating is still pretty good the Siena poll put him into a head to head match-up with Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and found it to be thisclose in a hypothetical primary (35% Paterson to 33% Cuomo). Oooo delicious, right? Not so fast.

Andrew Cuomo has clawed his way back to respectability after primarying Carl McCall in 2002 thus earning what looked to be the everlasting enmity of African-American (and plenty of other) Dems who thought it mighty uncool for the brash young scion to try and keep New York from possibly electing it’s first black Governor. So what’s he gonna do now that he’s in (almost) everyone’s good graces? Take on New York’s actual first black Governor? Not on your life unless top African American politicos like Rangel, Sharpton, and some guy named Obama throw Dave over the transom. If that happens there won’t be a primary because Paterson will resign or find himself Ambassador of [insert obscure country here].

Finally remember who now rules the Democratic Party of the State of New York. King Charles. Schumer no more wants Andrew Cuomo in the Governor’s Office than he wanted the ambitious competitor in the Senate. If Paterson can muddle through this budget year (and I’m betting he can with the help of some big $$ help from Schumer and Obama) Schumer will do whatever it takes to make sure he stays in office and the politial pecking order stays the same. With Schumer firmly on top.

UPDATE 1/27/09

A third poll from Marist may give Paterson more pause. Marist has his “How am I doin’?” numbers at 46% Excellent/Good versus 48% Fair/Poor and shows him losing to either Rudy Giuliani or Bloomberg (who almost certainly would never run) albeit by narrow margins.