Is Scott Walker ready for this?

By Richard Barry

In a series of short items of campaign news, the New York Times notes: "[Scott] Walker Team Has Experience but No Clear Leader."

Scott Walker has been in elected office since the age of 26 and is known to act as his own political strategist. His organization seems to reflect as much. While several operatives on Mr. Walker’s team have presidential campaign experience — including David Polyansky, Ed Goeas, Rick Wiley, Gary Marx and Gregg Keller — it is unclear who will oversee the strategy.

It's early yet. Walker may well already know who is going to lead his team. But it would be a rookie mistake for him to act as his own chief-of-staff very far into the campaign as all candidates need someone they trust to tell them when they are screwing up or that hard decisions need to be made when, left on their own, the candidate might be more comfortable letting things ride.

We don't know how Walker will campaign on the much bigger stage, and the staffing thing may not be an issue at all, but I have a feeling he is not up to this and will be a huge disappointment to those who are hoping otherwise.

Despite long odds, Chris Christie staffs up for a presidential run

By Richard K. Barry

The Hill reported today that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is staffing up for a presumed Republican presidential run. One of his political action committees has just hired a digital firm to implement a "comprehensive digital presence" for the candidate, including website development, online fundraising and email marketing. 

The Wall Street Journal reported that Leadership Matters for America (one of Christie's PACs) hired Upstream Communications for the job. 

As the Hill states:

Christie’s PACs will provide a momentum boost should he decide to officially launch a bid for the presidency, helping his potential campaign solicit major donors for repeated, large-money contributions.

Both PACs could allow Christie a chance to gauge early fundraising support among donors and build operatives for an eventual campaign apparatus.

This might mean that if the support is not there he could go away quietly, although we've never seen this man do anything quietly. 

For those keeping track, Christie will be entering one of the most crowded GOP presidential fields ever should he run, with at least 19 other Republicans having expressed an interest. 

Maybe Christie has to give it a shot because that's what politicians with massive egos do, but his chances of securing the nomination are certainly slim, as Nate Silver wrote back in early February.

Silver puts New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's chance of winning at just 5%. "I think Chris Christies chances are vastly overrated. In part because he has a lot of issues where he deviates from the Republican base and in part because he’s not a guy who’s seen as a team player." says Silver. Christie's New Jersey administration has been tainted in recent controversy. First Christie received heat over lane closings near the George Washington Bridge and is now under Federal investigation for firing an employee who objected to Christie dismissing indictments against his political allies.

Long, long, long shot. 

Rick Perry is certainly not a talker, on this much we agree

By Richard K. Barry

Who didn't see this coming? I'll take some credit for predicting it shortly after we all began to realize that Rick Perry was an idiot who couldn't string more than a couple of sentences together. But, again, it wasn't hard to predict.

My previous comment was, "Don't worry, Gov. Perry, John Wayne wasn't much for them fancy words neither."

So here he is trying to make that weakness into a strength in a new campaign ad that will air in New Hampshire after having previously run in Iowa.

Senior Perry advisor Paul Young called this move a "significant statewide buy," though he wouldn't say how much they were spending.

It's worth noting that Perry is polling in the single digits in the Granite State.

I know some people might take issue with this statement, but I've always believed that if you can't make yourself understood, you are not thinking clearly. And if you are not capable of thinking clearly, I do not want you as president of my country, aside from the hundreds of other reasons I don't want Rick Perry as my president.

Here's the ad. Hey Rick, how many takes did it require to get this one in the can? Smarmy bastard.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Hatred in America and the future of the GOP

By Richard K. Barry

I know I'm not the first person to notice how mean the GOP has become ever since the Tea Party started calling the shots. Now, you may say that none of this will matter, at least electorally, because so many people are sufficiently frightened about their own future that meanness is okay with them. I just don't think so. I not only choose to believe that the majority of people want to see themselves as compassionate, but that they will become very uncomfortable with too much ugliness in politics and shrink from those who seem to encourage it.

So, what has led Steve Benen and others to point out the current unpleasantness in the GOP? Here are just a few examples from recent GOP presidential debates: 

Wolf Blitzer posed a hypothetical scenario to Ron Paul, asking about a young man who makes a good living, but decides to forgo health insurance. Then, tragedy strikes and he needs care. Paul stuck to the libertarian line. "But congressman," the moderator said, "are you saying that society should just let him die?"

And at that point, some in the audience shouted, "Yeah," and applauded. 

Even Rick Perry said afterwards that he was "taken aback" by cheers from the crowd on this one.

Speaking of Perry, his defence of his policy in Texas to provide educational opportunities for the children of illegal immigrants made him a target of a crowd that normally loved everything he had to say. It seemed for a moment that they might advance on him

What's more, note that in last week's debate, the mere observation that Perry has signed off on the executions of 234 people in Texas, more than any other governor in modern times, was enough to generate applause from a different GOP audience.

Come to think of it, Perry didn't seem overly worried about that response.

I'm just saying that the kind of red meat that these radical conservatives seem to want is, I believe, going to be too much for those all important swing voters, and, I think, the GOP establishment knows it and is worried about it.

This isn't about differences in attitude about policy. People do disagree about what we should do about the uninsured, and the death penalty, and the children of illegal immigrants. But the spitefulness, the, let's call it what it is, the hatred expressed in outbursts like the ones noted above are not only an indication of a warped sense of values, but they are held by people who most of the rest of us would rather not be near, given a choice.

We can disagree about what to do about difficult problems, but, as human beings, we should recognize the tragedy in so many of these situations and not cheer or seethe at the predicament of others.

It's not surprising that the Tea Party, as a movement, is increasingly unpopular with Americans. If we wake up soon enough we may even realize in time that this sort of vicious individualism is not who we are as a nation.

That's what I hope.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Rick Perry's ignorance about the meaning of patriotism

By Richard K. Barry

Andrew Sullivan cited a comment from Rick Perry recently that hit on one of the things I dislike most about this current crop of conservatives. It's the notion that to disagree with them politically means that one is unpatriotic, really not fit to be an American.

Here's what Perry had to say:

One of the reasons that I'm running for president is that I want to make sure that every young man and woman who puts on a uniform of the United States respects the president of the United States.

I don't think we need to doubt that Perry is saying that the man who currently holds the office doesn't deserve the respect of the men and women in uniform.

This really is unbelievable.

As Sullivan writes:

Putting the respect of troops for the commander-in-chief in question is yet another radical assault on existing traditions and institutions. There is nothing these people won't destroy for power.

No, there is nothing these people won't destroy to defend their ignorant view of the world.

There seems to be no end to the claim that we have to agree with every crackpot radical right-wing extremist about what it means to be an American or we are not, by their judgement, worthy to serve.

Speaking in Iowa on Sunday, Perry added this gem:

I think you want a president who is passionate about America - that's in love with America.

As Steve Benen commented, "Perry didn't explicitly say that the president doesn't love America, but the implication wasn't exactly subtle."

Sometimes they leave me speechless. Do they have any idea how much hatred is involved in their grand pronouncements about love of country?

Will they ever understand that wanting to make America a better place to live for everyone is the surest indication of patriotism?

Not likely on either count.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

More on my hate-hate relationship with Tim Pawlenty

By Richard K. Barry

If you have been reading this blog at all, you may know that I really dislike Tim Pawlenty. I don't know what it is. I just have a thing about him.

While all politicians calculate what they can say and do and what they should not say and do if they are to have electoral success, some simply give up their souls without much of a fight. They are so quick to calculate every move that they no longer, if they ever did, have a center. They stand for nothing.

Okay, that would be way too harsh a characterization of anyone, but if you imagine politics as being conducted on a continuum, Pawlenty is, for me, so far to the side where the calculation for success trumps integrity that I can't stand it.

As you might imagine, I am having a rather good time watching his campaign fail to take off in any appreciable way. And this week I have particularly enjoyed watching him screw up as the indicators mount that he is going nowhere in a hurry.

In no particular order, here are some fun facts:

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted from July 14 to 17 had him at 2 per cent. That's behind Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, and New Gingrich, and, obviously, well behind Mitt Romney (30 percent) and Michele Bachmann (16 percent). It is also behind Rick Perry, who hasn't even announced, though he got 11 percent, which is relevant for the next fun fact.

As Daily Kos reports:

In a sign that former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's campaign is still struggling, Public Policy Polling announced Monday night that Texas Gov. Rick Perry will replace Pawlenty in general election polling match-ups against President Barack Obama.

Pawlenty will still be included in the organization's Republican primary polls but his removal from this company's general election poll match-ups bodes badly for Pawlenty, who has faltered in recent polls, leading some observers to speculate that his campaign is sinking.

The point is that a major polling company has made a decision to pay less attention to Pawlenty. That's never good when it happens.

As if to drive the point home, Pawlenty's team seems to be lowering expectations for the Iowa caucuses, despite the fact that he had earlier hoped to do quite well there. Recently, campaign spokesperson Alex Conant said that "[W]e want to show progress in Ames, do better than sixth or seventh." Sixth or seventh? Wow.

But the icing on the cake for me is the fact that he is not only doing poorly, but he is beginning to climb into the gutter, hoping that something, anything, might work. Such was, no doubt, the calculation when he challenged Michele Bachmann's fitness to lead by implying that she might need to take too much time off due to her migraines. As he said:

All the candidates I think are going to have to be able to demonstrate they can do all the job all the time... there's no real time off in that job.

I am certainly no fan of Michele Bachmann, but this kind of thing by Pawlenty just creeps me out and shows some serious desperation.

And then, true to form, when pressed, he backed off the claim that the migraines would be a problem by calling the whole thing a "side show." First you sling the mud and then you claim that's not what you meant at all. What a backbone.

Maybe failure in Iowa will mean a quick and merciful end to his campaign. Maybe he gets out earlier, but that's unlikely, although 2 percent in current polling isn't much to work with.

As I said, I just don't like the guy and it's not even a Republican vs. Democrat thing. I swear.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Can Michele Bachmann outrun her own mouth? Doubtful

By Richard K. Barry

Roll Call reported today that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is using Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-Minn) presidential campaign to "fundraise, rally activists and mobilize supporters online."

Roll Call has learned the DSCC bought sponsored Google ads that

appear when viewers conduct various searches that include Bachmann's name. Clicking on the ad sends viewers to a petitiion page on the DSCC website that reads, "It's simple - Michele Bachmann is too extreme for America."

Search terms that trigger the ads include Bachmann's name, variations of her name - including misspellings - search terms to coincide with her presidential announcement this week and anything about her platform and key issues such as abortion. Other terms included are "John Wayne" and "lies."

The campaign wonk in me loves to see things like this - simple but clever organizing tools.

I also think that Bachmann will scare the hell out of not only true progressives but also independents once they fully understand what this woman is all about. At some level it appears that Bachmann gets this as she is currently working hard to soften the impact of the some of the crazier shit she has had to say over the past little while. Or, as a headline at TPM refered to it: "Michele Bachmann's Big Presidential Campaign Walkbacks."

Evan McMorris-Santoro wrote today:

Rep. Michele Bachmann is a firebreather. It's a significant part of her charm. But as polls show her to be a serious candidate in the Iowa caucuses - and, therefore, the race for the nomination - Bachmann's been up on TV rounding off some sharp edges.

No longer is President Obama "un-American," as Bachmann said in 2008. Nor is eliminating the minimum wage the top priority it was back in 2005. As she steps into the national spotlight - with the help of big-time campaign strategist Ed Rollins - Bachmann is presenting a kinder, gentler face.

As I wrote a few days ago, she is even moderating her typically homophobic views on gay marriage by talking about states' rights and how New York had the right to sanction gay marriage under the the 10th Amendment.

All of this is to say that she is going to try to reinvent herself as a more reasonable person, though I strongly suspect it's too late for that. I also think that the good folks at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee understand this point very well. Looks like they've got a strategy. It's called the truth.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Yes, Chris Wallace, Michele Bachmann is a flake. Thanks for asking

By Richard K. Barry

Okay, Michele Bachmann is certainly the flavor of the moment in American political discourse. Ever since the media decided that she won the New Hampshire GOP presidential nomination debate because she was disciplined enough not to betray her natural wackiness, we have all been talking about her a lot. Sometimes you just can't help talking about things like this. It's like what happens after going to a circus freak show when you're a kid.

The most interesting thing over the past few days, though, was the posing of a question to Bachmann by Fox News personality Chris Wallace, which has to be on the minds of many. You probably know that he asked her, no doubt based on so many of the nutty things she has said in the past, if she was a flake.

For some reason, she took exception, and still appears not to be ready to accept Wallace's apology, which someone in a position of authority at Fox must have suggested he offer. Or maybe Wallace realized himself that pissing off Fox Nation was not a good way to ensure long-term employment with the network.

That was fun.

What is also interesting is the consideration of that question to Bachmann in the context of an earlier comment made by Wallace in an interview with Jon Stewart.

In the interview, Stewart said the following:

The embarrassment is that I'm given credibility in this world because of the disappointment that the public has in what the news media does.

Wallace replied:

I don't think our viewers are the least bit disappointed with us. I think our viewers think, finally, they're getting somebody who tells the other side of the story.

By his comment, it seems obvious to me, as it did to Stewart, that Wallace was blowing the shit out of Fox's claim to be fair and balanced by arguing that it is Fox's job to counter what they see as the liberal bias in the media. Whether or not one thinks the media have a liberal bias, Fox likes to argue that they remain neutral in their presentation of the news, however much nonsense that actually is to most reasonable people.

No great surprise here. It was just nice to have someone at Fox admit that the fair and balanced thing is bullshit. Golly gee, they seem to be driven by an ideological agenda that colors everything they do. Well, duh.

So, when Wallace asked Bachmann if she was a flake, he was badly off script. There is a narrative that all Fox employees are required to embrace. Conservatives are good. Liberals are evil and there are no shades of gray. And that is the so-called "other side" as Wallace sees it.

On that side of things, conservatives are not flakes, and certainly not Michele Bachmann, though she consistently embarrasses herself with mind-blowing ignorance and frightening right-wing extremism.

I'll let Steve Bennen at the Washington Monthly elaborate:

It's a shame Wallace felt the need to apologize for this, because he accidentally asked a good question, even if he regrets it now. Societal norms apparently dictate that unhinged candidates who have no business running for president be shielded from such unpleasantness, but Michele Bachman is arguably the most ridiculous person in Washington. She proudly embraces bizarre conspiracy theories; she routinely says crazy things on national television; she pretends to grasp public policies she doesn't understand; and her worldview is comparable to someone who's suffered serious head trauma. Even as the Republican Party leaps off a right-wing cliff, Bachmann stands out for her unique brand of madness.

So, thank you, Mr. Wallace for asking a question for which very few of us didn't know the answer. I am so very sorry you got in trouble with your network for failing to remember job one at Fox, don't screw around with the pre-approved radical right-wing narrative.

But thank you most of all for putting the question directly to Bachman, on behalf of the non-crazy rest of us, and quite obviously pissing her off. She knew what to expect in an interview on your network. She got the memo from Fox News management. Why didn't you?

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Michele Bachmann bobs and weaves on same-sex marriage, sort of

By Richard K. Barry

Though it makes me very uncomfortable to say this, I continue to be grudgingly impressed by Michele Bachmann. I have no doubt that she is a nut-job right-winger. I am certain that if she got anywhere near the presidency, she would be a disaster for the country, yet her comments on New York's decision to sanction same-sex marriage are interesting.

In essence, she played the state's rights card.

In an interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, she said that despite her view that marriage should be between a man and a woman, she supports New York's right to institute marriage equality because under the 10th Amendment, the states have the right to do so.

BACHMANN: In New York state, they have passed the law at the legislative level, and, under the 10th Amendment, the states have the right to set the laws that they want to set.

WALLACE: So even though you oppose it, then it's ok from - your point of view - for New York to say that same-sex marriage is legal.

BACHMANN: That is up to the people of New York. I think that it's best to allow the people to decide this issue. I think it's best if there is an amendment on the ballot, where the people can weigh in.

WALLACE: But you would agree, if it's passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor then it's the state's position.

BACHMANN: It's state law. And the 10th Amendment reserves the right the states.

As ThinkProgress points out:

Bachmann's position is notable given the large number of politically active anti-LGBT activists and Republican lawmakers across the country that would likely let their opposition to equality trump their belief in state's rights. Bachmann later said, however, that she would prefer a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, but that before such an amendment was enacted, the states should be free to do as they wish.

What makes this clever on Bachmann's part is that, while few are going to doubt her real intention, she attempts to moderate it just enough to appeal to those who may not be particularly energized by the issue one way or the other or who might not like the ugliness of the homophobia that invariably accompanies opposition to same-sex marriage.

It also enables her to maintain her true position, which appeals to her base, while allowing her to sidestep protracted culture war arguments that can only take her and her party off the message that 'it's about the economy, stupid."

I'm not saying it's going to work, but the fact that she is thinking in these terms makes her, or her advisors, a lot smarter than stubborn social conservatives who will never bust through a certain ceiling of national support.

Certainly this is less important in the nomination race than in the general election, but making a serious run at the nomination surely also means cobbling together a coalition of supporters from both the hard-right and the pragmatic right of the Republican Party and Bachmann is at least showing that she gets that.

And if she's still around for the general election, at either the top or bottom of the ticket (God help us), she's got a way to talk about a very important social conservative issue that may not completely alienate swing voters.

Yeah, she's sucking and blowing at the same time, but is there really going to be any other way to get the GOP presidential nomination or for a Republican to get to the White House?

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)