House Passes Temporary Medicare Fix After Senate Again Fails To Pass More Comprehensive Legislation

Nancy Pelosi’s misguided attempt to use Medicare as leverage to pass the unemployment and jobs measures in the tax-extenders bill failed. Fortunately Pelosi quickly realized there was no point in continuing this strategy when Senate Republicans again blocked passage. Forty Republicans and Ben Nelson voted against the measure, blocking the measure supported by 57 Democrats. Subsequently Pelosi backed down and the House passed the temporary Medicare fix.

While misguided, at least it can be said that Pelosi meant well, motivated by a desire to promote economic recovery, which certainly could not be said of the Republicans. After the Senate passed a Medicare fix as a separate measure, she was under the mistaken belief that she had some leverage over Senate Republicans by blocking a vote on the Senate measure.

I am surprised at how badly Pelosi misread the Republicans. Republicans were willing to vote for the Medicare “doc fix” but certainly would not be heartbroken if it failed and they could blame Democrats for destroying Medicare. Even if they were actually in support of the measure, their opposition to spending money on jobs or the unemployed certainly trumped any such feelings.

Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan (where we recently fell to the number two in unemployment, nowg surpassed by Nevada)  summed  up the Republican mind set here:

It is very clear that the Republicans in the Senate want this economy to fail. They see that things are beginning to turn around. You know the numbers. When this president took office, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. … Now we are gaining jobs. … Unfortunately, and cynically [on their part], in cynical political terms, it doesn’t serve them in terms of their elections if things are beginning to turn around.

I believe when you look at this bill, which is all paid for — we raised revenues to pay for it — the one piece that is technically not paid for [is the federal unemployment benefit extensions and] that is done in a way that we have always done it, … [those are] always categorized as an emergency. And, frankly, if 15 million people without jobs is not an emergency, I don’t know what is.

Ezra Klein provided this political interpretation earlier in the day when he anticipated the loss on the jobs measures:

And still, it looks like Democrats might lose the vote today. And when I say “lose the vote,” I don’t mean that a majority of the Senate will vote against it. I mean that 58 senators, rather than 60, will support the legislation. All Republicans, and possibly Ben Nelson, appear to remain opposed. And why not? The less that Democrats appear to be doing on jobs — and the fewer jobs that Democrats actually create — the better Republicans will do in November. Substantial compromises on the bill haven’t brought any new votes, and that’s in part because Republicans see no political upside in passing the legislation.

While it made no sense for Pelosi to believe that the threat of not passing the Medicare fix would get Republicans to vote for unemployment benefits, at least she did quickly back down and get the Medicare fixed later the same day.

Getting this passed quickly was important for a number of reasons. After postponing the processing of payments since the beginning of June, Medicare began processing payments with the 21 percent cut. It will now be necessary to reissue these checks with the updated amount. Earlier in the week I saw estimates that this would cost $15 million, and this would increase with every batch of Medicare payments which must be reprocessed. The delay also increases expenses for physicians and undermines confidence in Medicare. This might lead more doctors, who now see Medicare patients at a considerable discount compared to commercial payers,  to decide against accepting Medicare patients.

Now that it is established that both parties agree that this needs to be fixed, hopefully we can also achieve a permanent fix to the Medicare payment formula before the end of the year. Attempts last year failed because the Republicans had wanted to include this cost in the cost of health care reform and use it as another bogus argument against reform. Now that health care reform has been passed hopefully the Republicans will not see further political gain in blocking a permanent fix.

Share or Print:
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • blogmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • email
  • PDF
  • Print

Barack Obama To Give Commencement Speech At Kalamazoo Central High

Michigan did not get to see very much of Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign. Obama did not compete in the Michigan primary due to Michigan moving up the primary date in violation of party rules. John McCain conceded Michigan during the presidential campaign over the protests of Sarah Palin. Now Michigan is getting more of a chance to see Obama in person during commencement season.

Barack Obama already spoke at the University of Michigan commencement. The White House has also had a competition to have Obama speak at a high school commencement. Kalamazoo Central has won and Barack Obama will be the commencement speaker on June 10.

Other top ranking Obama administration members will be speaking at the schools which were finalists. Will Joe Biden be the booby prize for the losing school?

Share or Print:
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • blogmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • email
  • PDF
  • Print

POTUS In The Big House: Barack Obama Commencement Speaker at The University of Michigan

Hope and change were two big themes at the University of Michigan 2010 commencement in Ann Arbor Saturday morning as President Barack Obama gave the commencement speech. Several of those speaking prior to Obama discussed hope and change, relating it to both national policy and the changes in the University of Michigan football program in recent years.

Governor Jennifer Granholm thanked Obama for supporting the auto industry and other measures to help the economy recover. She also thanked Obama for delivering on many promises such as health care, along with thanking him for coming to Michigan rather than that school to the south.

Prior to speaking, President Obama was awarded an honorary Doctor of Law degree. Obama began by saying “Go Blue” as he admitted he was going for the “cheap applause line to start things off.” He discussed letters he reads to remain in touch with the world outside of Washington, including ones from children:

But it was the last question in the letter that gave me pause. The student asked, “Are people being nice?”

Well, if you turn on the news today – particularly one of the cable channels – you can see why even a kindergartener would ask this question. We’ve got politicians calling each other all sorts of unflattering names. Pundits and talking heads shout at each other. The media tends to play up every hint of conflict, because it makes for a sexier story – which means anyone interested in getting coverage feels compelled to make the most outrageous comments.

He noted that this is nothing new with political conflict being common through our history. Obama cited accomplishments of previous presidents of both parties, and those who opposed them, along with the proper role of government:

Of course, there have always been those who’ve opposed such efforts. They argue that government intervention is usually inefficient; that it restricts individual freedom and dampens individual initiative. And in certain instances, that’s been true. For many years, we had a welfare system that too often discouraged people from taking responsibility for their own upward mobility. At times, we’ve neglected the role that parents, rather than government, can play in cultivating a child’s education. Sometimes regulation fails, and sometimes its benefits do not justify its costs.

But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad. One of my favorite signs from the health care debate was one that read “Keep Government Out Of My Medicare,” which is essentially like saying “Keep Government Out Of My Government-Run Health Care.” For when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it conveniently ignores the fact in our democracy, government is us. We, the people, hold in our hands the power to choose our leaders, change our laws, and shape our own destiny.

Government is the police officers who are here protecting us and the service men and women who are defending us abroad. Government is the roads you drove in on and the speed limits that kept you safe. Government is what ensures that mines adhere to safety standards and that oil spills are cleaned up by the companies that caused them. Government is this extraordinary public university – a place that is doing life-saving research, catalyzing economic growth, and graduating students who will change the world around them in ways big and small.

The truth is, the debate we’ve had for decades between more government and less government doesn’t really fit the times in which we live. We know that too much government can stifle competition, deprive us of choice, and burden us with debt. But we’ve also seen clearly the dangers of too little government – like when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly led to the collapse of our entire economy.

So what we should be asking is not whether we need a “big government” or a “small government,” but how we can create a smarter, better government. In an era of iPods and Tivo, where we have more choices than ever before, government shouldn’t try to dictate your lives. But it should give you the tools you need to succeed. Our government shouldn’t try to guarantee results, but it should guarantee a shot at opportunity for every American who’s willing to work hard.

Obama discussed the lack of civility and some of the more extreme and absurd attacks:

But we cannot expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down. You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question someone’s views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism. Throwing around phrases like “socialist” and “Soviet-style takeover;” “fascist” and “right-wing nut” may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, or our political opponents, to authoritarian, and even murderous regimes.

Again, we have seen this kind of politics in the past. It’s been practiced by both fringes of the ideological spectrum, by the left and the right, since our nation’s birth.

The problem with it is not the hurt feelings or the bruised egos of the public officials who are criticized.

The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation. It prevents learning – since after all, why should we listen to a “fascist” or “socialist” or “right wing nut?” It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences to sit down at the same table and hash things out. It robs us of a rational and serious debate that we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation. It coarsens our culture, and at its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.

Obama talked about how the echo chamber can lead to greater polarization, advising people to pay attention to sources with other views. For example, he advised fans of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh to read The Huffington Post, and those who read The New York Times to read The Wall Street Journal, even if it makes their blood boil.

Today’s twenty-four seven echo chamber amplifies the most inflammatory soundbites louder and faster than ever before. It has also, however, given us unprecedented choice. Whereas most of America used to get their news from the same three networks over dinner or a few influential papers on Sunday morning, we now have the option to get our information from any number of blogs or websites or cable news shows.

This development can be both good and bad for democracy. For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we will become more polarized and set in our ways. And that will only reinforce and even deepen the political divides in this country. But if we choose to actively seek out information that challenges our assumptions and our beliefs, perhaps we can begin to understand where the people who disagree with us are coming from.

This of course requires that we all agree on a certain set of facts to debate from, and that is why we need a vibrant and thriving news business that is separate from opinion makers and talking heads. As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

Still, if you’re someone who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in awhile. If you’re a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post website. It may make your blood boil; your mind may not often be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship.

Obama encouraged the graduating students to be involved in public life. He cited John F. Kennedy speaking in Ann Arbor fifty years ago describing “the ideals behind what would become the Peace Corps.”

Before the conclusion of the commencement ceremony, Barack Obama was called upon again. In his role of Commander in Chief, President Obama swore in the members of the ROTC.

Videos of the speech are available here and here.  The full text is available here.

Go Blue!

Share or Print:
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • blogmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • email
  • PDF
  • Print

Big Ten Network To Cover Obama’s Commencement Address at the University of Michigan

The Big Ten Network has announced they will be carrying Barack Obama’s commencement address at the University of Michigan this Saturday morning. The full commencement ceremony will also be streamed live:

The Big Ten Network will offer live television coverage of President Barack Obama’s commencement address at the University of Michigan. Live coverage of the commencement from Michigan Stadium will begin at 10:30 a.m. ET on Saturday, May 1, as a special edition of the network’s University Showcase programming.

President Obama’s speech will be the first televised commencement address for the three-year-old network, a partnership between the Big Ten Conference and Fox Cable Networks. The entire commencement ceremony will also be streamed live at www.BigTenNetwork.com.

Share or Print:
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • blogmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • email
  • PDF
  • Print

The Holocaust Was Not Rated G

There is a protest against the local high school for showing Schindler’s List as part of the state’s requirement to include  the Holocaust in the American History class, which is taught in tenth grade locally:

A winner of seven Academy Awards recently shown in a sophomore history class has struck a nerve with one Grand Haven High School parent.

Last week, sophomores in 20th Century History classes at GHHS watched “Schindler’s List” over the course of three days. The R-rated movie depicts Oskar Schindler’s portrayal of how he first used Jews to start a factory in Poland during World War II, but discovered the horrors they were subjected to under the Nazi regime and begins to save them. It includes scenes with full frontal nudity of men and women, violence, adult intimacy, and profanity.

The mother of a student who lodged the protest is concerned about the language, apparently oblivious to the language which high school students are already exposed to on a daily basis:

As a parent, DeWitt questions why the school’s student code of conduct, which does not allow harassment or profanity on the premises, is not adhered to during the classroom viewing of an R-rated movie.

“If my son were to stand in the hallway and yell profanities, there would be disciplinary action,” DeWitt said. “… Yet they can sit in a classroom for 70 minutes hearing words that the school does not condone. … We don’t use that language at home and we don’t use that language at Grand Haven High School.”

While the intimate adult scenes in “Schindler’s List” were edited out for the classroom viewing, Evink argued that editing out the film’s violence and profanity would alter the historical and tragic lesson that is the Holocaust. She said showing the film in an educational setting provides students with the opportunity to raise questions and discuss their feelings about the film among their peers, as well as discuss how the message relates in today’s society.

This all started with former Republican Governor John Engler. The school district continued making an exception for this R-rated movie with a policy which certainly makes sense:

When “Schindler’s List” debuted in movie theaters nationwide in 1993, Gov. John Engler provided grant money to allow GHHS teachers to take their 10th-grade history students to watch the film at a nearby movie theater, school officials said. The movie has since been shown in the American history class every year, GHHS Principal Scott Grimes said.

While the school district has a policy to not allow R-rated movies be shown in classrooms, films deemed to have an extraordinary educational value are allowed.

“It is our practice to now allow R-rated movies in classrooms,” GHAPS Superintendent Keith Konarska said. “In the case of ‘Schindler’s List,’ an exception has been made because of the tremendous educational value it brings to the classroom. I believe it allows students a better understanding and feeling for what occurred during the Holocaust than what a textbook could.”

When we have a G-rated holocaust we can limit instruction to G-rated shows from the History Channel. Otherwise we should consider movies based upon their educational value, not based upon whether they tone down the language.

Share or Print:
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • blogmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • email
  • PDF
  • Print

Stupak Postpones Press Conference

Bart Stupak has postponed his eagerly anticipated news conference. It is still unclear how abortion will impact Sunday’s vote.

Update: It appears that Pelosi may have the votes to pass health care reform without the anti-abortion people and has told them to take a hike. So much for Jane Hamsher’s latest claims. She is rapidly becoming the Glenn Beck of the left.

Share or Print:
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • blogmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • email
  • PDF
  • Print

Stabenow Blasts GOP Leadership For Allowing Bunning To Block Vote on Benefits

Michigan Senator Debbie Debbie Stabenow has criticized Republican leaders following Jim Bunning’s acts late last week to block necessary spending measures. These included extensions of federal spending for unemployment benefits, COBRA subsidies, and stopping a reduction in Medicare payments which  would lead to many seniors being unable to obtain medical coverage. The Hill reports:

The senator said that by remaining silent on Sen. Jim Bunning’s (R-Ky.) objection to a unanimous consent motion on the bill, GOP leaders implicitly offered their support for the move.

“Where is the Republican leadership on Monday? Where will the Republican leadership be next week,” Stabenow said on a conference call with reporters organized by the Democratic leadership. “Are they going to stand up and stop this…or are they going to continue by their silence to support Sen. Bunning?”

The report provides mixed signals as to whether other Republicans were prepared to join Bunning in a filibuster or if Bunning is solely to blame for stopping the measure. It also states that Don Stewart, communications director for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, stated that “senators entered into a unanimous consent agreement for the full tax extenders bill for next week, which will include the stalled unemployment and COBRA extensions.”

The Medicare cuts which would also be postponed are a result of a flawed formula which calls for cuts based upon overall health care costs. For the last several years Congress has voted to over rule the automatic cuts. Last year House and Senate Democrats attempted to achieve a permanent fix but Republicans blocked this measure. Instead a temporary freeze on the cuts  lasting through February was enacted.

It is anticipated that if the Medicare cuts are enacted a large percentage of physicians will stop accepting new Medicare patients and reduce the number they see. In order to prevent such action this week, CMS has ordered a ten day freeze on Medicare payments under the expectation that Congress will act on this problem next week.

Share or Print:
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • blogmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • email
  • PDF
  • Print

President Barack Obama To Deliver Spring Commencement Address At University Of Michigan

From Michigan Today:

President Barack Obama will deliver the spring 2010 commencement address at the University of Michigan, President Mary Sue Coleman announced today. The ceremony will be held on May 1 in Michigan Stadium. Obama will receive an Honorary Doctor of Laws Degree, and he will be the fourth sitting president to visit U-M in Ann Arbor, following George H.W. Bush, Gerald R. Ford and Lyndon B. Johnson; former president Bill Clinton spoke at the 2007 commencement.

Go Blue!

Share or Print:
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • blogmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • email
  • PDF
  • Print

Media Continues To Exaggerate Problems For Democrats

Predicting an election months ahead is risky, but the pundits will certainly keep trying. As I also noted on Tuesday, the media also likes to make matters look worse for the Democrats than they actually are. There are more examples, such as The Note claiming that Democrats Are Dropping Like Flies.

This year is likely to be a bad year for many incumbents of either party, but the media is paying more attention to Democrats who are dropping out than Republicans. Steven Benen notes that fourteen Republicans and ten Democrats are not seeking reelection to the House. Six Republicans and two Democrats are not seeking reelection to the Senate. Three Democrats beyond those prevented by term limits are not running while four current Republicans (and five if we count Sarah Palin) are not seeking reelection.

While often harmful to a party’s chances, sometimes it even helps if the incumbent does not run. Byron Dorgan’s retirement will make it very difficult for the Democrats to hold on to the North Dakota Senate seat. On the other hand, Chris Dodd dropping out makes it very likely the Democrats will hold onto his seat, with Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal leading all Republican candidates by at least thirty seats.

The effects are more difficult to call in Colorado where Bill Ritter has decided against running for reelection as Governor. Ritter has divided the Democratic Party in the state and the party’s chances might be better without him running. Among those considering running is Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. The Denver Post reports that the White House is fine with the idea of him leaving if he chooses to run.

The anti-incumbency mood has also led Michigan Lieutenant Governor  John Cherry to drop out of the race to replace Jennifer Granholm. A member of the Granholm administration would have a tough time getting elected. Granholm inherited a weak economy in Michigan when she became governor, and national economic conditions have limited the possibilities for a recovery. It might be tough for any Democrat to win this race, but turning to an outsider as opposed to the sitting Lieutenant Governor should increase the chances.

Political conditions can be very different by November. Unexpected events such as 9/11 and Katrina resulted in rapid changes in how the parties were viewed. Democrats might be at their lowest point now while engaged in a difficult fight over a controversial health care reform measure. It is unlikely they will take up such controversial matters this year.

Republicans do benefit from being the party out of power, especially considering the historical trend for such parties to do well in off-year elections. Republicans, however, might have a problem due to cash problems after spending so much money in 2009. The tea baggers have made a lot of noise (further amplified by the right wing media) but they are not contributing much money to either political party.

Share or Print:
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • blogmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • email
  • PDF
  • Print

Why Did The Bomber Return To His Seat?

Andrew Sullivan posted an email from a reader wondering why the “undie-bomber” didn’t just set off the explosion from the bathroom as opposed to returning to his seat. On first read it is a compelling theory that al Qaeda wanted the bomber to be seen by other passengers:

If the intent of al Qaeda in this latest instance was to bring down an airplane, then it failed.  But if its intent was to create fear and overreaction, then it succeeded  Personally, I think it was the latter.  It is quite possible (in fact I think probable) that the people who planned this event, and used the young man from Nigeria as a tool, were aware that due to security measures in place, there was no way they could actually get a bomb through that would actually work.  The detonation equipment needed would have been detected.  The same applies, by the way, to the shoe bomber.

Again, think about it.  If you wanted to blow up a plane, would you attempt it from your seat, where somebody could quite possibly stop you?  No, you would go to the washroom where you could set off the bomb without disruption.

To have plausibility, it is probably necessary to assume that al Qaeda was using him as a tool. We know that al Qaeda would have no problem recruiting people who are willing to die in such a bombing. It’s the old 70 virgins reward. The same thing which makes some willing to take up such a deal would also make many reluctant to set off a bomb which is not intended to explode in their pants. I suspect that it would be harder to recruit someone to ignite such a device near their testicles knowing they were going to both live and be apprehended. (This brings to mind an episode of The Sopranos where Tony was confronted by a religious individual who did not fear death and would not give into his demands. The target complied when the threat was changed from death to castration.)

I really have my doubts that al Qaeda’s main goal was anything other than for the plane to explode. Yes, they had a partial victory with the fear they created in this country, but that was nothing compared the reaction they would have obtained from a successful bombing.

There is a good explanation for why the Nigerian returned to his seat. He was intentionally seated over the fuselage. I’ve heard speculation that the intent was not only to destroy the plane, which might not have been successful from another location, but to have an explosion while the plane was descending which would have resulted in casualties on the ground in suburban Detroit. While still not as dramatic as 9/11, this sounds far more what an al Qaeda organization would plan than an intentionally failed bombing attempt.

This is not to say that they it is not possible that they realized that the could salvage some degree of a psychological victory even if the bomb did fail to explode.

Share or Print:
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • blogmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • email
  • PDF
  • Print

News Not As Gloomy For Democrats As Media Describes

If this year follows historical trends for an off-year election, the Republicans should pick up at least 25 to 30 house seats. Beyond the usual advantage for the party out of power in such off-year elections, the Democrats have to defend many House seats which have traditionally been in Republican hands. Repeating the victories of the last two election cycles will be difficult in some of these areas without Obama on the ballot and with Bush gone. Despite this, recent news has sometimes been overly pessimistic for the Democrats.

There has been a lot of talk about Democrats retiring, which can be taken both as a sign of pessimism and as another obstacle to holding onto some districts. Chris Cillizzia shows that the situation is not as bad as much of the media has described:

While much of the focus for the last month (or so) has been on Democrats’ retirement problems — set off by a quartet of announcements in swing and Republican-leaning districts over the last month — a broad look at the open seat playing field suggests more parity in terms of the two parties’ opportunities and vulnerabilities than conventional wisdom suggests.

Republicans currently carry 14 open seats while Democrats have 10. Each side has three seats won by the other party’s presidential candidate in 2008; for Democrats, that’s Louisiana’s 3rd district and Tennessee’s 6th and 8th districts while for Republicans it’s Delaware’s at-large seat, Illinois’ 10th district and Pennsylvania’s 6th district…

All told, Republicans are defending nine open seats that McCain either lost or won with less than 60 percent of the vote in 2008 while Democrats are on defense in seven seats lost by Obama or won with less than 60 percent…

What a close examination of the current open seat landscape reveals, however, is that the talk of a doomsday scenario for House Democrats simply hasn’t materialized yet. Are they likely headed to double-digit losses come November? Yes. But, talk of a switch in House control is, at least at this point, premature.

Republican Open Seats (14)
Delaware’s at-large (Obama 62 percent)
California’s 19th (McCain 52 percent)
Florida’s 12th (McCain 50 percent)
Georgia’s 9th (McCain 75 percent)
Illinois’ 10th (Obama 61 percent)
Kansas’ 1st (McCain 69 percent)
Kansas’ 4th (McCain 58 percent)
Michigan’s 2nd (McCain 51 percent)
Missouri’s 7th (McCain 63 percent)
Oklahoma’s 5th (McCain 59 percent)
Pennsylvania’s 6th (Obama 58 percent)
South Carolina’s 1st (McCain 56 percent)
South Carolina’s 3rd (McCain 64 percent)
Tennessee’s 3rd (McCain 62 percent)

Democratic Open Seats (10)
Alabama’s 7th (Obama 74 percent)
Florida’s 17th (Obama 87 percent)
Hawaii’s 1st (Obama 70 percent)
Kansas’ 3rd (Obama 51 percent)
Louisiana’s 3rd (McCain 61 percent)
New Hampshire’s 2nd (Obama 56 percent)
Pennsylvania’s 7th (Obama 56 percent)
Tennessee’s 6th (McCain 62 percent)
Tennessee’s 8th (McCain 56 percent)
Washington’s 3rd (Obama 53 percent)

While I don’t know the specifics in most of these districts, don’t expect a Democrat to win  Pete Hoekstra’s seat in Western Michigan despite the 2008 presidential election results.

Republicans have tried to capitalize on Parker Griffith’s defection, but this means little as he was previously a conservative Democrat who fit in better with the GOP. It appears that things are not even going all that well for Griffith. His staff has walked out on him in protest over his change in party affiliation. Most of his political consultants already dropped him. Steve Benen and David Weigel have also noted how the Republicans are not exactly welcoming him as he faces challenges from the far right.

Share or Print:
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • blogmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • email
  • PDF
  • Print

Republican Attacks Failing To Create Political Backlash

The Republican attempts to play politics with the attempted terror attack in Detorit on Christmas do not appear to be working. Eric Kleefeld has reviewed recent polls on Obama’s approval:

In the Gallup daily tracking poll released on December 24, before the attack, Obama’s approval rating was 51%, with 42% disapproval. In the daily Rasmussen daily tracking poll, conducted during that same baseline period of December 21-23, Obama was at 44%-56% (Rasmussen consistently has Obama’s approval lower, and disapproval higher, than other outlets).

In the polls released yesterday, which were both conducted entirely after the attempted bombing, Gallup has Obama at 53%-41%, and Rasmussen has him at 47%-52%. Today’s Rasmussen poll is 46%-53%. Although the two polls are in different positions, the movement is roughly the same, with a very slight increase in Obama’s approval compared to the week before.

The numbers are small but at least show no backlash, at least yet. The question remains as to whether these attacks will obtain more traction after the holidays. Another question is whether playing politics with national security will backfire and create a backlash against the Republicans instead. It is possible that further attacks on Obama will help the Republicans, but hopefully more people will consider the facts as Eugene Robinson has in this op-ed and realize that the attacks are based upon lies.

Share or Print:
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • blogmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • email
  • PDF
  • Print