Tag: David Weigel

Covering a presidential campaign can be a soul-deadening exercise. But it can be unpredictable. Anyone paying a little attention might predict which candidate will win a party’s nomination (Romney in 2012, obviously, from the get-go), but who thought Rick Santorum would rebuild his public image by camping out at Iowa Pizza Ranches? Who, in 2008, thought that Ron Paul would launch a national movement? Most media organizations were too busy embedding with sleepy Fred Thompson’s campaign to notice Paul.

I’m thinking of this in the wake CNN’s announcement that it will relaunch Crossfire, and Newt Gingrich will be one of the co-hosts. A cynic might say that the other co-hosts — S.E. Cupp, Van Jones, Stephanie Cutter — suggest that Gingrich has fallen to earth. But c’mon, a struggling cable network is giving him its new tentpole politics show! That wouldn’t have happened without Gingrich’s 2012 bid.

With this in mind, here’s an ordinal ranking of the 2012 GOP candidates and how much good they did themselves by running for president.

11. Michele Bachmann. Before she launched her campaign, Bachmann was the resilient star of Tea Party politics. Once she affixed a “kick me” sign for national reporters and embeds, she imploded, and nearly lost re-election to her House seat. (This after running a bowing, scraping campaign focused on what she could do for the district, the opposite of her national campaign rhetoric.) She’s retiring next year instead of losing to a well-funded Democrat.

10. Thad McCotter. Actually, he fell even further than Bachmann, but from a lower starting point. McCotter gave up a House seat he’d basically drawn for himself in order to blow a bunch of money on the Iowa Straw Poll, get fewer votes than people who didn’t show up, and bungle his re-election campaign by submitting too few signatures. He also squandered his reputation as a congressional wit by letting national TV viewers actually see and hear him.

9. Mitt Romney. Maybe the least-loved losing candidate of either major party since Michael Dukakis. There is no Mitt Romney legacy in the GOP — Paul Ryan was an iconic figure before Romney got to him, and tarred him with the loser brush.

8. Rick Perry. No campaign has fallen apart as spectaculary as this one. Rudy Giuliani’s 2008 bid was always going to run up against the barricades of GOP social conservatism. Perry was a perfect-on-paper candidate who ran when it was too late, and after he had gone loopy from undisclosed experimental back surgery. He returned to govern a state that’s still booming, but he’s diminished as a national figure.

7. Gary Johnson. Had he run in 2008, Johnson’s social-focused libertarianism might have beaten out Ron Paul’s and defined that sector of the American right. Johnson’s delay meant he existed in Paul’s shadow, settling for a third-party campaign as a popular fringe figure.

6. Tim Pawlenty. Would the Financial Services Roundtable have hired him had his profile not been boosted by years of running for president? He’s benefited financially from the campaign like no other candidate.

5. Ron Paul. He did the most good for himself in 2008, but in 2012 Paul came within spitting distance of two caucus wins (Iowa, Maine) and his movement consolidated control of several state parties. Plus, he turned his Fed and gold stances into Republican orthodoxy.

4. Jon Huntsman. The press loves Republicans who Speak Truth to Power (i.e., tell Republicans that they should take positions that appeal more to the press), so the utter failure of Huntsman’s campaign did not stop him becoming a reasonably-well-cited centrist pundit and No Labels… leader? Is that the word?

3. Herman Cain. By quitting the race as a sex scandal brought him down, by not fighting on, Cain retained most of the fandom he’d won in his primary debates. His “CainTV” empire isn’t impressing anybody, but his radio show is, in the words of still-consigliere Mark Block, “kicking ass.”

2. Newt Gingrich. See above.

1. Rick Santorum. I vividly remember the 2008 Values Voter Summit in D.C., when I ran into an incredibly bored-looking Santorum manning an exhibit hall booth. He was running an organization that offered to place Christian-specific V-chips in TVs, and trying to end conversations with teenagers who wouldn’t stop talking. Five years later, he’s enough of a national figure that reporters will quote his opinion when the Supreme Court rules or the Congress kills a bill. He’s received, for the first time, sympathetic press coverage about his personal life (namely his disabled daughter, who has long outlived doctors’ pessimistic predictions). He’s doing okay, thanks to his awareness that being “the non-Mormon guy who didn’t have an affair” would be a great position in the stretch of a primary season dominated by Mitt Romney.

via Weigel http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/06/27/newt_gingrich_is_a_tv_host_now_which_failed_2012_candidate_did_himself_the.html

If you’re a fan of political jujitsu and political jackassery, the Mitch McConnell/Mother Jones story has taken on the dimensions of a classic. To recap: On Tuesday, David Corn of Mother Jones published a taped recording from a McConnell campaign meeting, in which campaign staffers discussed secret plans to attack possible first-time candidate Ashley Judd on a host of vulnerabilities. McConnell’s campaign pushed back, calling this a “bugging” in the style of Watergate. Mother Jones responded, saying the magazine was “provided with the tape by a source who wishes to remain anonymous” and “it is our understanding that the tape was not the product of any kind of bugging operation.”

What had been a pretty lame package of revelations from a tape became a much better story about the possible illegal taping of a campaign office. (The lameness argued against the theory that a McConnell campaign mole had leaked it. Why blow your wad on 12 minutes of staffers making fun of a candidate who’d dropped out already?) On Thursday, a Kentucky NPR affiliate got a break in the story. Jacob Conway, a Democratic official in Jefferson County (Louisville), revealed that Shawn Reilly and Curtis Morrison of Progress Kentucky had “bragged to him about how they recorded the meeting,” which took place after a party at a new campaign office.

“They were in the hallway after the, I guess after the celebration and hoopla ended, apparently these people broke for lunch and had a strategy meeting, which is, in every campaign I’ve been affiliated with, makes perfect sense,” says Conway. “One of them held the elevator, the other one did the recording and they left. That was what they told to me from them directly.”

If this was true, the blitheringly incompenent Progress Kentucky had handed McConnell a gift — the second gift from them to him, actually. It was Progress Kentucky, a registered “Super PAC” that hasn’t actually raised money, that tweeted a conspiracy theory about McConnell’s wife, predicated on the fact that she was born in China. At his Tuesday press conference, McConnell blamed “the left” for “bugging” his office, and he was right. Republicans started digging into Kentucky law, with RNC spokesman Sean Spicer tweeting:

Legal Fun fact: Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 526.060 Divulging info obtained thru illegal eavesdropping is a crime, punishable a misdemeanor

So, Progress Kentucky may have broken the law, and broken it for no great gain, which is… totally unsurprising, considering. But conservatives in the NRSC and media are seeking to accuse David Corn of a crime. At the Weekly Standard, Daniel Halper quotes a “GOP operative” who says “If Corn knowingly took this tape from the ‘Louisville Plumbers’ he’s breaking the law here too.” But that’s not quite how it works. As Erik Wemple wrote on Tuesday, the 2001 Supreme Court precedent of Bartknicki v. Vopper effectively protects a media organization in a situation like this. “A stranger’s illegal conduct,” wrote John Paul Stevens, “does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern.” As weak as MoJo’s story was, the Kentucky Senate race is a “matter of public concern.”

So the Get Corn campaign has started stretching. In the most meta post of the data, Jennifer Rubin cites Republican operatives to ask whether MoJo colluded with Democratic operatives, as liberals are wont to do.

Republicans are pointing to 
a report that left-wing groups met to plot out their attack strategy and that a non-editorial Mother Jones employee attended. However, there is no evidence that any particular escapade was discussed at the meeting. (Rather it smacks of the sort of JournoList conduct, a blurring of lefty pundits and Democratic operatives, we’ve seen before.)

When “no evidence” is dropped in the middle of a graf, the rest of the graf might have issues. Why do we know about that meeting? Because Mother Jones reported on it, calling it (heh) “the kind of meeting that conspiratorial conservative bloggers dream about.” Who was at the meeting? “Top brass from three dozen of the most powerful groups in liberal politics.” What was discussed? “Three goals: getting big money out of politics, expanding the voting rolls while fighting voter ID laws, and rewriting Senate rules to curb the use of the filibuster to block legislation.” This is supposed to be the smoking gun:

[Nick Nyhart of Public Campaign] said the Kentucky battle would likely involve trying to oust Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Public Enemy No. 1 for campaign finance reform, who faces reelection in 2014.

Well, okay — but was Progress Kentucky part of this plan? Sean Reilly hasn’t answered my call or email, but his LinkedIn page tells us that he took over in January 2013 — i.e., after the fateful December 2012 meeting. He was a delegate to the 2012 DNC, but not much of a player beyond some anti-Iraq War activism. Maybe he became the linchpin to beat McConnell. If it turns out that he got into the “Democracy Alliance” meeting, it’ll look that way. McConnell has been extraordinarily lucky in his enemies, but probably not that lucky.

UPDATE: Alex Seitz-Wald has more on the heaping pile of uselessness that is ProgressKY. It just stretches credibility that these guys would be let in on a top-level operation to defeat McConnell. Liberal donors want McConnell gone, yes, but there’s nothing connecting them to a group that barely hauled four figures worth of donations in 2012.

via Weigel http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/04/11/unwinding_the_moronic_conspiracy_to_nail_mitch_mcconnell.html

The day ends with the NRA issuing a “key vote” threat on Manchin-Toomey. After all that. The wording is credited to Chris Cox, the NRA’s executive director of legislative action, a rare media presence.

We hope the Senate will replace the current provisions of S. 649 with language that is properly focused on addressing mental health inadequacies; prosecuting violent criminals; and keeping our kids safe in their schools. Should it fail to do so, the NRA will make an exception to our standard policy of not “scoring” procedural votes and strongly oppose a cloture motion to move to final passage of S. 649.

And so we have a test, at 11 am, of whether Republicans and red state Democrats are willing to buck a fringey NRA position even though it’ll knock their ratings down by, at most, a letter grade.

The whole letter:

Dear Senator,

I am writing regarding the National Rifle Association’s position on several firearms-related proposals under consideration in the Senate.

S. 649, the “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013”, introduced on March 21, contains a number of provisions that would unfairly infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.  This legislation would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by honest citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. The NRA is unequivocally opposed to S. 649.

In addition, the NRA will oppose any amendments offered to S. 649 that restrict fundamental Second Amendment freedoms; including, but not limited to, proposals that would ban commonly and lawfully owned firearms and magazines or criminalize the private transfer of firearms through an expansion of background checks.  This includes the misguided “compromise” proposal drafted by Senators Joe Manchin, Pat Toomey and Chuck Schumer.  As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools.  Given the importance of these issues, votes on all anti-gun amendments or proposals will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.

Rather than focus its efforts on restricting the rights of America’s 100 million law-abiding gun owners, there are things Congress can do to fix our broken mental health system; increase prosecutions of violent criminals; and make our schools safer.  During consideration of S. 649, should one or more amendments be offered that adequately address these important issues while protecting the fundamental rights of law-abiding gun owners, the NRA will offer our enthusiastic support and consider those votes in our future candidate evaluations as well.

We hope the Senate will replace the current provisions of S. 649 with language that is properly focused on addressing mental health inadequacies; prosecuting violent criminals; and keeping our kids safe in their schools.  Should it fail to do so, the NRA will make an exception to our standard policy of not “scoring” procedural votes and strongly oppose a cloture motion to move to final passage of S. 649.

via Weigel http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/04/10/the_nra_will_score_a_cloture_vote_for_gun_control_after_all.html

Yesterday I wrote about the Facebook punditry of Dave Agema, a Michigan RNC committeeman who was’t going along with the whole “try to sound nicer when you talk social issues” thing. He posted a quasi-viral list of anti-gay lifestyle arguments from Frank Joseph, M.D., and some Republicans were spooked. Agema, one of 168 Republicans who helps write the national party’s rules and choose its chairman, was good enough to explain his views in an email.

His findings and others confirm its an unhealthy lifestyle. The gay activists portray themselves as innocent victims ; however, we who believe in traditional, time tested values are being bullied. Because I disagree with their views, I have had threats to me and my family- thats hate! This is not about hate but a lifestyle that is against 230 years of American history and filled with medical, psychological, legal and costs reasons to oppose it. If you truly loved someone, you would want them to know their lifestyle usually leads to early death. It’s about common sense. It’s about maintaining the family and its importance to the well being of the children and this nation.

And here’s the problem with the wise, beltway-driven Rebranding effort. You’re a D.C. Republican consultant who gets booked on TV to talk about the glories of gay marriage? Good for you. I agree with you! But most of your party adamantly disagrees with you, and these people know how to write or say things that can make their way onto the Internet.

via Weigel http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/28/the_rnc_committeeman_who_s_not_on_board_with_this_whole_gay_rights_thing.html

I spent yesterday morning at The Atlantic‘s economy summit, one of the media empire’s frequent let’s-sit-around-and-discuss-ideas confabs. It was there that I saw White House economic adviser Gene Sperling birth a new talking point. James Bennet, editor of the magazine, kept pushing Sperling for details of what a White House grand bargain might look like. (Washingtonians are never not talking about this.)

“The president of the United States put an offer on the table,” said Sperling. “It includes $400 billion in medicare savings. It includes, ah, ah, correcting the CPI, which is a very difficult policy decision to make.”

Normally it’s cheap to include verbal stops in a quote — ah, ah — but I put ’em in because I had never heard that talking point. “Correcting the CPI?” That used to be called “chained CPI,” as someone referred to it in a Reddit AMA with Sperling, eliciting this answer: “The President would prefer to have this adjustment in the context of a larger Social Security reform.”

My colleague Matthew Yglesias has written about “chained CPI” many times, and David Cerpner has a good, worried explanation here about what would change if benefits were tied to a revised consumer price index. It’s far less progressive than a reform progressives want, and have wanted: Raising the cap on Social Security taxes. And it’s underlined and highlighted in the White House’s playbook.

via Weigel http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/14/_correcting_the_cpi_the_birth_of_a_talking_point.html