Goldmanusa Posts

by Paul Goldman
I have seen situations like this escalate for no good reason into unwarranted criminal stuff for all the wrong reasons. So with all due respect, at this point in the situation, it doesn't help Patrick Moran for his father's campaign or for anyone else in the Democratic Party to try and make this into a right wing "gotcha plot" now that the investigation has been formally started by local authorities.
As I wrote yesterday, of course these fanatics plotted to ensnare Patrick. But once the investigation is formally launched, trying to make Patrick into a victim of these ide...

By Paul Goldman
Let's talk about the "politics of personal destruction," as Bill Clinton called it. As many know, I was a target of it; as one famed Virginia reporter once said, I was an "easy target" for those who played that game. Her words, not mine: and in that regard, it got me to thinking about Patrick Moran.
In politics, it is easy to kick a guy when he is down. Surely that applies to Patrick Moran right now, as he had to resign from his dad's campaign with the Virginia political world laughing at him &nbs...

by Paul Goldman
Anyone got Dr. Sabato's number up there at UVA? Using the latest Virginia poll most favorable to Mr. Romney (I don't want to get called out again by Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity and "my friend" Ann Coulter to use a Bidenism), I have to say: explaining the gender gap is way beyond this boy's pay grade. I know a thing or two about winning statewide elections in VA, even making history more than most, statewide and locally, hoping to do it again real soon.
But I know my limits: And that includes not being able to explain a 27% gender gap? That's a gender canyon! Romney led m...

by Paul Goldman

Conservatives seem convinced the national polls are significantly OVERSTATING the actual voter support for President Obama. But what if the real story is the exact opposite: what if the polls actually are UNDERSTATING voter support for the President?

The OVERSTATING claim has become a mantra on the right. Some conservative talk show hosts, blog posters, and newspaper columnists even suggest the pollsters, along with those paying for the allegedly "neutral" surveys, are in league to create a bandwagon effect aimed at keeping Romney voters home on election day, as well as pushing undecided voters to the President since they may want to vote for the "winner."

Whatever floats your boat.

BUT: There is better historical evidence to suggest the national polls may be UNDERSTATING support for Obama's re-election. The national polls basically are showing a 3-4 point Obama lead on average. As an historic marker, the national polls have proved a better barometer of the ultimate electoral college outcome than the state by state polls, which is admittedly counter-intuitive since electors are allocated by state results. But it is what is, so we will use the national polls.
 

There have been only two incumbent Presidents in the history of the modern two-party system who won a first term with a higher percentage of the popular vote than candidate Obama, and then lost a re-election bid four years later. Of the 10 President's winning a second elected term - Lincoln, Grant, McKinley, Wilson, FDR, Ike, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and W -  EVERY SINGLE ONE received a higher percentage of the popular vote the second time.

Admittedly, the  Lincoln, Wilson, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton re-election campaigns didn't face the same intense three-way, even four-way contests the second time. But pundits sensed an increase in their base support, as was self-evident in the other five presidential re-elects.

The point being: There may very well be a tipping point in presidential re-election campaigns. Once the public decides, to use Lincoln's phrase, not to "switch horses in midstream", there may be a move toward the incumbent by those: a) who voted for him last time but had remained lukewarm; b) who had voted against him the last time but see him now as the lesser of the evils when compared to an unimpressive challenger; and c) new voters who have trended strongly Democratic in recent years.

Bottom statistical line: The trend toward Obama in the last few days may indicate this tipping point is approaching in the form of next week's presidential debate.

Right now, the polls are likely reflecting lukewarm 2008 Obama voters starting to return to the President after a far amount of time being unhappy and hoping to get comfortable with Romney. The polls still show a considerable amount of unhappiness with the economy, along with the direction of the country. These feelings have always been projected onto the incumbent.

Four months ago, two months ago, they provided an opening for the GOP presidential candidate. But as I have previously written, the level of voter discontent relative to economic issues with the incumbent in 2012 is not as great as other elections where the perceived state of the country led to the defeat of the sitting president.

There is statistical evidence that among a group of dispirited 2008 Obama voters, their unhappiness with the president has diminished to a considerable degree, turning them into 2012 Obama supporters now. Could this change?

Sure, their commitment is reluctant albeit real. But given they spent months trying to feel comfortable with Romney - and could not - the former governor will have to do in the next six weeks what failed do for the last six months.

Likely? Not historically.

In terms of statistics, the best argument against the UNDERSTATEMENT thesis is the historic fact that in the last week, undecided voters are swung strongly toward the challenger. There is thus a built-in pro-Romney move among some percentage of voters due by election day. But what about the next five weeks of the remaining six? By the time Romney gets that built-in move, could the President have pulled so far ahead  on a net-net basis, his national voter margin will exceed the current 3-4% anyway?

On an historical basis, the answer is: Unless Romney can up his "game", there is a strong historic case to be made that President Obama has a real shot at approaching if not exceeding his roughly 7-percentage-point margin in 2008.

As a statistical matter, it could, of course, be said that given the margin of error in polling, a 3-4% lead doesn't preclude the margin being 7% right now. So in that sense, I suppose you can't say these surveys are therefore UNDERSTATING HIS SUPPORT if this indeed is the final outcome.

But from where the numbers stand now as reported, a final winning 7% margin is an significant increase from 3-4%.

Bottom line: The conservatives have a point in saying the polls do seem to reflect a return to a 2008 turnout model, which had high Democratic excitement and lackluster GOP interest. This has not been the expected relative performance this year. But even if they are correct in saying their side is going to vote far bigger in 2012, it still doesn't answer history's question: Why have all of the re-elected Presidents done better the second time in terms of getting a higher percentage of the popular vote?

If the 2008 Obama voter returns, as is happening this month so far; if Romney has alienated lukewarm pro-McCain voters who weren't driven by anti-Obama feelings; and if the GOP nominee has also turned off new registrants - then history says the President has a decent shot at growing his vote over where it stands now.

Did this seem likely before the party conventions?No. But is it now a possible scenario as the candidates head into their first debate? Increasingly so.

As readers of Politico.com know, I said last year that Romney was a sure loser should he get the GOP nomination. So far his campaign is following precisely the path predicted back then. It is mind-boggling to see the basic prediction play out when for so long it seemed Romney would defy history in that regard.

If Romney insists on playing out my 2011 prediction, then the current polls could easily be be UNDERSTATING the Obama's popular vote percentage come election day.  

by Paul Goldman

For some reason, George Allen refuses to give up the ghost: he thinks he can ride the anti-tax horse back to the Senate. To be sure, it was a big horse back in the 1990's when Allen was the most powerful politician in the state. But it is now been reduced to a One-Trick Pony in 2012.

Yet the GOP posse thinks Tim Kaine made a huge "mistake" yesterday in discussing taxes. The Democratic candidate made an uncharacteristic bobble by answering a hypothetical tax question with a hypothetical answer. For a Harvard lawyer, that is unusual.

But let's assume, arguendo, that Kaine is guilty as charged: He is more likely to raise taxes than George Allen. First: This is not a new charge, Allen has been saying it for the last 446 days, and will say it for the remaining 46. If it hasn't worked yet, then why would what Kaine said yesterday move the needle? Is Tim Kaine more likely to vote for a tax increase than George Allen? Considering Allen says he will never raise taxes, then logically Kaine can't be less likely to raise taxes now can he? Nor can anyone else.

So okay: let's assume that Kaine is more likely to raise taxes in some way than Allen. Indeed, Kaine admits it: he is willing to raise taxes, or more accurately let the Bush tax cuts expire, for people making $500k in taxable income a year. That is not all that many people, by the way, according to the IRS.

In 2008, Virginians elected the President despite his promise to raise taxes on those making $250k net a year. Right now, Virginians favor the President once again, who is making the same pledge again. Okay, so he didn't do in the past 4 years, so you can say voters may not believe he will do it this time either.

However, he has made it very clear: he intends to do it, although the Congress is more likely to draw the line at $1 million. Again, this covers a very small number of Americans.
When Allen was winning in the 1990's, the anti-tax argument was very strong. It has been less so recently as Mitt Romney is finding out. Virginians ain't dumb: they know we are in a fiscal mess. So let's cut through the stuff.

Everyone in Virginia likely believes that all things being equal, Tim Kaine, the Democrat, is more likely to raise taxes than George Allen the Republican. Mark Warner, the Democrat, is not only more likely to raise taxes, he has been trying to do it for several years in the Congress. He is also the state's most popular politician. Why?

Because there is a difference between raising taxes for the purpose of giving the government more money to waste and raising taxes for the purposes of fixing the fiscal mess caused in large measure by giving a handful of people tax cuts we can't afford.

Bill Clinton raised taxes: and he is the most popular ex-President since Eisenhower. The point being, as Republicans have made clear: they are going to be more anti-tax than any Democrat, no matter what. People get that. But they also get that Republicans have for some reason stopped giving Virginians, and Americans, credit for having any brain power at all.

Tim Kaine is seen as a decent, fiscally responsible guy who is not ideological and actually a little more cautious on stuff than he needs to be. But better to be safe than sorry. He isn't going to tax and spend us into bankruptcy: quite the opposite, he can be trusted to help fix the mess in Washington. And Americans suspect this will require raising taxes on people making a million bucks a year at some point.

And it will, given the fiscal cliff straight ahead. But even then, there will be reductions in the business taxes paid by their companies; it is going to be a reform of the code, not just adding taxes. A one-trick pony can't carry America to the head of the class. Moreover, the tax increase will only go back to what the rate was under Clinton although with less deductions, that is true.

The bottom line: George Allen has turned his once powerful Anti-Tax horse into a One-Trick Pony. As I have said for months now, I know George. He did some good things as Governor that helped our state, and showed a practical streak in many areas, not purely ideological. But like so many contemporary Republicans, the politics of getting nominated has caused him to have a brain cram.  

There was a time when calling a Democrat a "tax raiser" - without any proof - would work to get you elected in Virginia. Those days are over. Tim has a very responsible record of tax and fiscal issues. Virginians know that. He is a man who can be trusted to govern responsibly. To be sure, the tax issue isn't his strongest. It isn't for Warner either; it never is for a Democrat. But that has been baked into the pie for years now.

If all George Allen has left is 46 days of calling Kaine a big tax-and-spend guy - and to seize on every little thing possible to try and prove it - this election is over, the only question left to decide being the margin of Kaine's victory.  

by Paul Goldman

Pressure from the AG, including a threat not to cover the legal bills of members of the Board of Health, proved too strong to resist. As a result, the Board today has reversed itself and gone along with regulations that are geared to force the women of Virginia to leave the state to have an abortion.

No reason to call this anything other than it is: a cruel and unnecessary vindictive action by the government which serves no necessary state interest.

It takes guts to oppose this type of thing in Virginia, for some reason. But you must. I advised Wilder and Warner of the same thing: and they took my advice. They got to be Governor. Not for that reason along, for sure. But there is a basic pro-people philosophy behind it.

That people have moral objections to abortion I understand. But their objections don't make their moral views right, certainly don't make it right to impose them vindictively on others.

The Jewish religion, for example, teaches that life begins at birth, not at conception. The idea that life begins at conception is not what many religions teach. In that regard, a public official is not supposed to impose his or her personal religious values on the rest of us. This is what began the lead up to the American revolution, in case conservatives have forgotten, at least in some substantial measure. Freedom of religion is in the First Amendment for that reason.

But violating freedom of religion is precisely what is happening in the case of the Virginia Board of Health regulations: they are being used to promote the personal, religious views of Attorney General Cuccinelli, and others who think as he does on this issue.
Let's be clear: There is no medical necessity with these regulations, nor is there a legitimate case for claiming the previous Board of Health regulations were in violation of the General Assembly mandate.

To repeat: This is, pure and simple, the exercise of raw political power, with the threat of huge financial consequences if you don't go along with a public official's personal, political agenda.

When I was on the Board of Higher Education, I disagreed with Governor Wilder on a point of personal belief and voted my conscience. He wasn't happy but he understood.  Or maybe not, I really don't know.

The point being: Government should not be forcing the views of those who temporarily hold government office on the citizens of Virginia, especially on the principle of "might makes right." How does that jibe with allegedly principled conservatism?

What the Bd of Health did today is vindictive politics under the guise of something else. The Board knows this: that's why they voted differently weeks ago before the AG put on the political squeeze play.

The Governorship is a far more powerful position. The AG has given the Democrats a big issue, if they know how to use it. Cuccinelli is a tough player all right. That's fine with me; I just wish he would use that power to push for reforms we need, such as in the election area, where HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF VIRGINIANS ARE being denied their first amendment rights.

Virginia's women, faced with the most personal of personal decisions, deserved a lot better from their government officials today. They didn't get it. The hand of Big Government Power won today. We shall see what the voters of Virginia choose to do about that in 2013.

by Paul Goldman

Dick Morris, as you probably know, has made a living as the Obama-bashing former Clinton aide turned Republican/Conservative campaign stalwart. Recently, Morris has been getting more than a little help from his friends in actively promoting his poll showing Romney winning by 7% percentage. It is the "it" poll on the conservative Internet right now.

Mr. Morris is quite the self-promoter, and one has to admit to his unique ability to morph from lefty liberal Manhattan Democratic consultant to his current perch as the go-to guy on conservative television talk shows. No small feat. Moreover, Morris is a very knowledgeable and highly competent political guy, one has to concede this as well. Dick has game.

But it's very lame relative to his new poll which he promotes as the only honest one in the business right now, he basically accuses the "mainstream" polls as having an anti-Romney bias right now.

n slightly more than two months, we will know the truth or perhaps not, anything can happen in this presidential contest.

However, in terms of what we know for sure today, we can be absolutely certain that Mr. Morris has cleverly, and grossly, manipulated his poll. Remember, there are no laws to be broken here: anyone can be a pollster or hire someone to do a poll.  So it is "profession" loosely defined. As for Mr. Morris' poll, it is, as I say, cleverly designed.

Manipulating a poll to get better numbers for Romney isn't all that hard in this climate. For example, in 2008, the national exit polls of the electorate found 39% identifying as Democrats, 32% as Republicans. In the Morris poll, it is 33% DEM, 31% Republican. Or in pollster jargon, it goes from a +7 DEM to + 2 DEM, or a shift of 5 percentage points.

That's huge: but is it wrong? No one knows. In 2004, the exit polls said the electorate had as many Democrats and Republicans. The point being: Given the incredible partisanship right now, where there is almost no cross over voting, the 5-percentage-point shift in the Morris poll basically explains why his poll has Romney up +7, while other polls, whose turnout model is more like 2008, would have a statistically significant difference in result.

Likewise, the Morris poll reflects a significantly lower turnout among minority voters than in 2008.

Right now, there is no need to do anything but get pollsters to spend their time trying to determine how best to project the most accurate turnout model for this coming November. It is all about turnout right now, not persuasion. The folks left to persuade appear to be largely unhappy with both major party candidates. This may change: but these folks are also the hardest to reach in terms of getting them new information and in terms of believing their vote really matters in the final analysis.

But those who say they are likely to vote but undecided will vote in decent numbers: and depending on the percentage of Democrats and Republicans who vote, these non-aligned folks could easily decide the presidential election.

Logic suggests that Mr. Morris has decided to lay down a marker for being the most pro-Romney pollster out there: his + 2 DEM electorate with underrepresented minority voters strikes me as at the far edge of the boundary of responsible polling. It is the most pro-Romney one could get without stepping over the line.

A +2 Democratic electorate in 2008 would have resulted in a narrow Obama victory. In 2012, a movement of independent voters toward Romney within a + 2 Democratic electorate raises all kinds of possible election night outcomes given the Electoral College.But + 7 for Romney doesn't compute, even with the Morris assumptions. However, a win is a win.

The bottom line: Morris is manipulating the top line numbers by playing with the internals of his electorate, skewing it as far pro-Romney as he can without stepping over the line. Morris also cleverly timed his poll to allow results to be released as the RNC convenes. You got grin at his play here, like I say, the boy knows how to game the system.

by Paul Goldman

The Winners:

1. Tim Kaine

As I wrote last year, George Allen's biggest opponent this year would be the uncanny luck that Tim Kaine seems to have when running for office. When a guy with real talent also invariably has campaign luck, he is a very hard person to defeat. As Professor Rozell and I predicted last June to much derision, Romney was going to take a Catholic running mate. Of all those on the list, Paul Ryan figured to be by far the best for Tim Kaine. Had Romney chosen Governor McDonnell - clearly the best "do no harm" pick - it would have been a considerable plus for Allen. Had Romney gone with Governor Christie, that could have been a bigger plus, since the New Jersey governor has a certain persona that could easily have caught on. McDonnell and Christie both were "outsider" picks, never having served on Capitol Hill. Right now, the most unpopular people in American politics are GOP House members, especially in the critical area of NOVA.

Net, net: Kaine got his dream GOP VP nominee.

2. Ken Cuccinelli

The AG wants to be the next Governor of Virginia. So does Lt. Governor Bill Bolling. This means Mr. Cuccinelli has mixed political emotions about Romney winning, since that will surely mean a cabinet position for Governor McDonnell, in turn elevating Bolling to Governor. History says a Cuccinelli intraparty challenge to a sitting GOP Governor is a fool's mission: you either lose the nomination or your victory so badly fractures the Republican coalition that it guarantees a Democratic victory.

On the first stop in Virginia after the announcement of Ryan's selection, Mr. Romney made his preference for Mr. Bolling - head of the former Governor's campaign in Virginia - crystal clear to all Republicans. To be sure, the GOP presidential nominee "walked back" the comment, but no one believed it. This frees Mr. Cuccinelli to do as little as possible to help Mr. Romney. The same for his political allies. How much could they have helped? I don't know. But whatever the potential plus, it is now eliminated.

Bolling is "all in" for Romney. If Romney loses, Bolling has no chance of being nominated for Governor under anything resembling normal political circumstances.

3. Terry McAuliffe

T-Mac figures to do better running against Cuccinelli than Governor Bolling.

 
4. Bob McDonnell

If he had run on a losing Romney/McDonnell ticket, the VA Governor would have been through as an elected politician. But now, he has the best of both worlds. He will get a cabinet post if they somehow manage to win. If they lose, the pundits will say that McDonnell would have been a better choice, thus putting him on the contender list for 2016. It also means McDonnell will work more closely with the Obama Administration on various issues, as this is the smart play for his last year in the Governor's Mansion.

5. Mark Warner

There is now no reason for McDonnell to run against Warner in 2014. He will either be in the cabinet, or thinking about a run for the White House in 2016.

6. The 2013 VA Democratic ticket

Either way the presidential election goes, the Ryan pick is a big plus. If the GOP duo wins, they will energize the Democratic base in 2013, as Republicans try to impose the Romney/Ryan budget plan. If they lose, Democrats will have two popular statewide figures who understand how to win the Governorship - Warner and Kaine - ready to help. Moreover, unlike 2009, Warner will be far more invested, since he doesn't want a new GOP Governor recruiting a candidate to run against him in 2014.

8. Eric Cantor

Ryan was a rival of Cantor for Speaker of the House, or head of the Republicans in the House. Now, Ryan will either be the Vice President, or a defeated candidate for the job blamed for the party's defeat. Either way, he will be removed as a Cantor rival.

The Losers:

1. Professor Rozell and Paul Goldman

We were the only ones in the country to write an article for a respected publication explaining why Romney would definitely choose a Catholic running mate. This violated the new rules for political commentators, since it was not only based on logic, it was not only publishable quality, but it turns out we were right. That's a real no-no in Virginia. Today's commentators have: (1) never actually run a successful, much less noteworthy campaign; (2) never made a prediction that is different than the conventional wisdom; and (3) never say anything which makes them accountable.

So in that regard, we stand out among the others in the noise machine. We are also on record since last August with a national article and national TV appearance explaining why Romney can not win in 2012 based on an analysis of the 150-year history of the two-party system.

For actually having the audacity to take a firm opinion based on fact - and refusing to join the noise machine - our being right about Ryan makes us the big loser.

2. Virginia's Hopes For a National Candidate

State residents Newt Gingrich gave it run for President, and Governor McDonnell for Vice President. They both lost. Tim Kaine just missed being tapped for VP in 2008, and Mark Warner had to drop out of the 2008 run for President. And yes, I almost forgot: former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore ran for President. But was that in 2008 or this year? I can't recall. Either way, he never made it to Iowa. In the history of the modern two party system, no Virginian has ever made it onto a national ticket. Former Senator Harry Byrd won a handful of electoral votes as a protest candidate. But in terms of being a serious player in a presidential election, it is a 150-year drought.

3. Virginia May No Longer Be A Key Swing State

Choosing Ryan of Wisconsin over McDonnell of Virginia might indicate that Republicans believe they might not be able to win Virginia. The states are close in electoral votes and both were carried by the President in 2008. By winning Wisconsin and neighboring Iowa, Romney would make up for losing Virginia.

4. Virginia GOP Conservatives

As the Chinese say, don't wish for something, you might get it. The Ryan selection puts them in a no-win position. If Romney/Ryan win, they will have to back Bill Bolling for Governor, who the polls say they don't want. If the duo loses, then the President is re-elected, something they don't want either. Lose-lose as I see it.

5. Virginia Democratic Liberals

If they are right about Ryan, then this means their Darth Vader - Ken Cuccinelli - will be the GOP gubernatorial nominee with a Democrat in the White House. This equation has led to Republicans winning every time since 1977. If they are wrong about Ryan, they get a Republican President and they won't much care who is the Governor. Lose-lose as I see it.

Three men and a baby was a fun movie: How will it play as three men and a bipartisan baby of a Medicare fix.

by Paul Goldman

The Mainstream Media, including the left of center Talk shows, are focusing on Paul Ryan's original Medicare Plan: let's call it Ryan Medicare 1.0. The liberal bloggosphere and Democratic campaign gurus didn't need any medical weed from the West Coast to get high this time: They are Cloud Ryan, higher than Cloud 9 [by the way, why is it Cloud 9? Anybody know?).

BUT: The original 1.0 has been replaced since last year by Ryan-Wyden Medicare 2.0.

The "Wyden" being liberal Democratic Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon.

Late last year, the two of them reached a widely reported  "compromise" on the Medicare issue. Indeed, Wyden's joining with Ryan was regarded as "traitorous" on the left in some quarters and earned him a stern rebuke from key players in the White House according to press reports out West if I remember correctly.

The reason Democrats were so upset: It gave Ryan a political "Get Out of Blunderville" free card.

As best I can remember - to lazy to look it up - the "compromise" was simply this: instead of doing away with traditional Medicare as we know it (the original Ryan plan) in the future, the Republican leader agreed that seniors would always have the option of the traditional Medicare program if they didn't want to join the new "free market plans" envisioned by what passes for conservative thinking these days.

In terms of basic politics, the Ryan-Wyden "split the baby". Each side gets what it wants for the future. "Liberals" get government-administered Medicare program forever for those who wanted it. "Conservatives get their private plans as an officially sanctioned alternative based on their voucher approach.  

Does this seem, as Dr. Sabato likes to say, "two clever by half?"

Yes. It seems too easy a fix for such a big problem. AND IT IS.

But with 90 days left in a campaign, it is all about political optics.

The Medicare Trust Fund is, to put it politely, a challenged fiscal entity. The President has already said that, it is old news.

So both sides stipulate, as they say in court, that a growing fiscal problem exists.

That's the easy part of the debate.

How to fix it is the hard part.

If the Medicare debate is over Ryan Medicare. 1.0, is a slam dunk for the Democrats. And to the extent this is a predictor of how the campaign will go, Obama is a sure winner.

BUT: If the Medicare debate is over the Ryan-Wyden Medicare 2.0 bipartisan plan, then, as they say on Kentucky Derby day, you may have a real horse race.

Wyden has a lot of credibility on senior health issues, we are talking about a very respected guy in his state with huge street cred. This is a senior Democrat on key committees who has put his reputation on the line here.

When he signed onto the Ryan-Wyden Medicare 2.0, the former leader of the Gray Panthers in his state knew he was risking the ire of his party in seeming to take Ryan off a big political hook.

But he surely never figured it would wind-up as a possible key fork in the road in the Presidential campaign.

FOR if Romney can use Ryan-Wyden Medicare 2.0 to bridge the gap on fiscal issues/health care and establish Paul Ryan as a credible conservative thinker with ideas to the independent swing voter, then this is a potential game changer.

So: What is Senator Ron Wyden going to do?

I think that is self-evident: If he were to switch now and back away from his deal with Ryan, his reputation would be ruined. What's the up side?

So if the Ryan-Wyden Medicare 2.0 gets a basic "That might work, at least the Republicans are willing to try and reach across the aisle for a bipartisan solution" from the swing voters, it would force Democrats to go back to the drawing board on campaign strategy.

Sure, the plan can be attacked. But the public will want to know: What is your plan to fix what you have admitted is a big looming fiscal problem? At that point, it would be a debate on Romney's best turf or at least potentially so.

Romney may have picked Ryan as a ticket mate. But he is running with Senator Wyden right now.  

by Paul Goldman

In one of the most baffling moves by any presidential candidate in recent Virginia history, Mitt Romney a bit earlier today basically endorsed Lt. Governor Bill Bolling over AG Ken Cuccinelli in their hotly contested, increasingly bitter 2013 Republican party contest for governor. Precisely how this helps Romney to pick sides in  this fight is not immediately clear, nor is it likely to become any more so with passage of time.

Last I checked, Mr. Romney trailed in Virginia. Thus, he needs a united GOP to have any real chance of winning. The battle between Bolling and Cuccinelli is far more than a personal one. Each represent a different wing of the GOP, making the 2013 GUV fight a battle for control of the state GOP.

By and large, the key activists backing Cuccinelli did not support Romney for the GOP presidential nomination. They don't much like Romney and wouldn't do much to help him, except for their antipathy towards President Obama. On the Bolling side of the party, the key activists were Romney backers in the primary. So they naturally want him to win.

If the adage "all politics is local" is true, then the worst thing for Cuccinelli - in terms of ambitions to be Governor in 2013 - is a Romney win, since we can presume a Romney Administration would have Bob McDonnell in a cabinet post. This, in turn, would mean McDonnell had to resign from the governorship, and thus Bolling would succeed him as a matter of constitutional law.

Cuccinelli could still decide to challenge Governor Bolling for the 2013 party nomination. But the historical record from around the country says such a challenge to an incumbent governor, even if successful, only results in the winner losing the general election.

Thus Cuccinelli, from a personal point of view, is making a sacrifice to help Romney win. Why, then, kick him in the shins?

There is no possible good reason.
Now, if Cuccinelli is smart, he will make a joke of the Romney endorsement of Bolling. This will make the whole situation work to his advantage if done right. Moreover, this will allow Cuccinelli to do nothing for Romney this election cycle.

Virginia is a key state for Romney. He needs "all hands on deck" to win.  He needs Bolling and Cuccinelli working side by side. He needs Cuccinelli backers to be 100% Romneyites. Romney's blunder today makes that a lot harder, if not corrected ASAP. The GOP presumptive nominee will have to "walk back" the comment somehow. But even then, it was a clear "Freudian slip" as they say.

The Truth: A winner presidential candidate would never have made such a blunder. The polls are right: Romney is losing right now.  He is "off his feed" as they say. Bolling has no real supporters; Cuccinelli has a lot, and they're EXACTLY the activists who Romney needs to win Virginia in November.

Cuccinelli now knows the truth about his relationship with Romney. It isn't even September and yet Romney is using up his "Get Out Of Blunderville" cards. I say one more mistake like this one and we put a fork in Romney, he's done in Virginia - and nationally, as he can't win the White House without Virginia.

by Paul Goldman

When Professor Rozell and I wrote the first piece in the nation predicting - 100% - that Romney would choose a Catholic running mate despite it never happening before in the modern age of the Republican Party - we had no doubts about being proved right. Why?

Because in the final analysis, Romney, like McCain is playing to win. Romney is not a cause-oriented guy, someone who would rather be right than be President. And like John McCain, he got to this point in August of the election cycle facing a similar conundrum. Let's explain.

By his own admission, Romney is a spreadsheet kind of guy. If you run the numbers, from any angle, it comes out the same: to the extent there is a swing vote in this election, it is white Catholic working class heterosexual women without a four-year college degree and who are not particularly partisan in terms of being Democrats or Republicans. I know these kinds of demographic parameters bother non-statisticians. But in political strategy, you learn to accept it as a way to move the pieces on the chess board. You look for ways to reach groups of people; it is mass retailing, not door to door.

There is no GOP female who would be seen as qualified to the President in this group. So this meant Romney would have to run with a man. Team Romney understood this dynamic early.

I believe Governor McDonnell of Virginia was at the top of the list prior to his huge blunder during the 2012 General Assembly Session on the so-called "transvaginal" issue. It cost him any hope of being chosen as the VEEP this year. Assuming Romney loses, that is a lucky break for McDonnell, who would then be untarnished for 2016 or for a run against Senator Warner in 2014.

McDonnell also shouldn't feel too bad about his blunder from another point of view; namely, that Romney reached August realizing he faced the McCain Conundrum. That is to say: Romney, like McCain, realized his Plan A strategy would not let him win this year.

Like McCain, Mr. Romney has learned how difficult it is to beat Barack Obama nationwide. The President is a tough political target -- he is really, really good.  
Romney figured he could as the "Obama Economy bad, Businessman Romney economy good" candidate, riding high unemployment, falling real income and depressing thoughts of the future all the way to the Oval Office. Moreover, he thought he could do it without having a New Deal, A New Frontier, Reaganomics, Middle Class Tax cuts, that is to say a simple program to explain to people in a word of two or three used by FDR, JFK, Ronnie and Bill. Instead Romney had a 59 point plan, the type of A+ term paper for his old Harvard MBA days.

Long story short: Romney realized sometime in July that his Plan A was not going to work for several reasons. One, he had been sucked into a negative ad battle hurting his image. Two, the people's view of the economy is set by events, not TV ads. And three: among the target women's group, he isn't someone they related too, nor his wife. That's reality. Meaning: Romney knew by August 1 he need to go to Plan B.

A look at the polls points to one issue for Republicans above all others: I will call it the fiscal issue. The target voters tend to believe that on the fiscal issue, the President and Democrats are not as good as Republicans. They tend to see a guy like Romney - a businessman - as being more of a deficit, debt, anti-spending hawk, someone who is more likely than a Democrat to stop the wasteful spending, the handouts, etc. Even if it's not accurate, in politics perceptions matter.

Thus Romney figured: Whatever I am going to get on the economy I will get. Since it will not be enough, he figured the smart business move - in terms of investment of time and resources - would be on the fiscal issues. He also knew the Wall Street Journal and other key players on the conservative side wanted him to make a big play on the fiscal issue. They want to move the President to the middle.

Why? They know the odds favor the President being re-elected. They also know at some point, tax rates are going back to the Clinton era. There is no way they can avoid this and they know it. SO: The question then is how best to make the President pay something for getting his higher tax rates on individuals. The only trade-off acceptable would be a reduction in business taxes/regulations and also some slowing of what they would call "entitlement state spending." They need Romney to raise these issues big-time in 2012. It turns out that Romney also believes he has to go this way more than originally planned.

Both Romney and the major conservative thinkers realize discussing these issues in a presidential campaign from the standpoint of promising less, as opposed to more, has proven very risky in the past.  But as I say, Romney realizes he needs a Plan B. He knows the fiscal issue will bring him a lot of support from key thinkers, he knows the fiscal issue will block Sarah Palin and other less credible types from attacking him (they don't really want him to win, they want an open GOP seat in 2016), and he knows there is an inherent credibility in calls for better fiscal management form Uncle Sugar.

Governor Christie, Governor McDonnell, and other key Catholic players don't really have a lot of resume chops in this area. They are better as the "outsider ticket" mate. But this is not what Romney decided he needed on August 1: rather, he needed someone who could help make the case on the fiscal issue.

His search came down to one guy: Congressman Paul Ryan. But like Palin, it comes with a catch: there is a real potential downside. For Palin, it was a total lack of substance. For Ryan, it is the opposite problem: too much substance.

Moreover, Mr. Ryan has fallen in love with all the flattery sent his way.  That is to say: Mr. Ryan is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, or his fans make him out to be. He is good with numbers, a clever talker, and someone who does enjoy dealing with substance and the process of reaching conclusions.  Nothing wrong with any of that.

But in the end, process doesn't matter as much as  the final product. In that regard, the Congressman has embraced all of the ideas that voters dislike about the GOP Congress. All of them. They don't work.

Right now, most people don't have a clue as to any of this. This will change.

Romney Is Now Where McCain Was 4 years ago: He is scrambling to put together Plan B. My gut feel: When you are scrambling to put together Plan B at this stage of a presidential campaign, this is not a good sign.

Yet I believe Democrats are way too giddy about the Ryan pick. There is an opening for him and Romney to make their fiscal case given the current public mood. But at the same time, the economy trumps everything.

So in the end, Romney's plan B still has to be seen as dealing with Job # 1. So he can't escape the economy. Nor the Electoral College math. If Ryan can help in Wisconsin, then that is important since the Badger State in my view could be one of the keys to victory come November.

But right now, given the politics, the Ryan choice is more about Plan A not working and the campaign scrambling to go Plan B. Whatever his potential pluses, the downsides associated with rising to become a top leader in the GOP House majority strike me as a huge burden for Romney to overcome even under the best of circumstances.  

by Paul Goldman

The new Romney welfare ad is worth some discussion for this reason:  Why does Mitt Romney seemingly want to pick a fight with former President Bill Clinton?

Indeed, this Romney ad starts out praising Clinton, a Democratic former president who is backing Barack Obama, indeed will nominate him for a second term at the Democratic Convention. Romney knows Clinton will attack this welfare ad, and he knows Clinton's criticism will get huge attention.

So again: Why does Romney want to seemingly pick a fight with Clinton, who is far more popular? That's what folks should be noodling over, not so much the ad's substance. What's Romney's strategy as regards Bill Clinton and why?

In that regard, the Romney ad may not be primarily a welfare spot.  Instead, it may be Romney trying to develop a pitch for bipartisanship. How so?

To win the presidency, Romney needs to score a lot higher among independent voters. The myth that he can somehow win over a big number of working class Democrats is just that, a myth. One that might have been true in 1980 but not now. Why? Because, by and large, the Reagan Democrats of 1980 have since become Republicans or Independents.

Moreover, remember that Clinton never got more than 49.9% of the vote. His favorable rating is a lot higher now, but he lost a lot of folks to Perot. Obama got 52.9%. Thus, the issue is not about Clinton voters, but rather, whether Obama will lose millions of those who voted for him in 2008. These folks were not Democrats, however.

The point being: they liked Clinton, still like him, but never voted for him. He has no magic wand in that regard. What we do know about them is this: They aren't big Republican voters either. Bush barely got a majority of the popular once, and less than 48% the last time.

Truth is: Those working class "whites" being targeted are not Democrats, they are not Republicans. They don't much like either party. And I bet they are among the most mad at what they see as the gridlock in DC. They don't like big business or Wall Street, and this is hurting Romney big time with them.

My hunch: Clinton has said he wants to keep taxes the same for 2013. I think some of the top people in the Romney camp think they see away to position their guy as someone who can change the tone in the Washington and work with Democrats to solve the nation's fiscal problems. This is the generic parameter to what these voters want to hear this year.

As a practical matter, no Republican will be seen wanting to work with the President. They know this is a sure way to become persona non grata in the GOP. But there are Democrats who will publicly agree to work with Romney, as that is good politics in their districts.

Romney wants to be seen as working for a Clinton thing: that is good bipartisan politics, as his camp sees it. The welfare issue helps the GOP, not Democrats this year. This logic suggests Romney needed to be more nuanced in the welfare ad, so  the failure to do so was a political mistake.

But on the issue of wanting to confront Clinton, that was intentional, and thus it has to be part of some strategy, not a one-off mistake.

Remember: McCain also thought his best path to winning was the bipartisan route. What we forget was that Obama stole it from him, and had a better case to make in that regard. If Romney can sell himself as a problem solver willing to work with anyone - remember, the Massachusetts legislature was overwhelmingly Democratic when he was governor - it has some potential to get votes in the independent middle.

Notice how Newt Gingrich, who took credit for welfare reform during the GOP primaries, has been quiet on the issue so far. That has to be due to the Romney camp asking him. At some point, they will want to roll Newt out on the matter. But his image is so bad, I can't see it helping.

Net, net: Let's see if Mitt is trying to develop a bipartisan piece of the Romney puzzle. It is win-win if he can do it credibly. But I, for one, don't believe he can pull it off.  We shall see.  

by Paul Goldman

David Plouffe, the very talented top White House advisor who took over for David Axelrod, is the middle man in a developing story. According to the Washington Post, a "subsidiary of MTN Group, a South Africa-based telecommunications company, paid Plouffe for two speeches he made in Nigeria in December 2010." That was roughly a month or so prior to Plouffe's joining the White House as the top campaign guy, with an office right by the Oval Office.

Unfortunately, MTN Group is now under scrutiny for its connections to the government of Iran - some claim they are in bed with the Revolutionary Guards - and there is also an alleged Syrian connection. Some claim Mr. Plouffe should have known about this back then.

Let's be clear: this is the kind of political issue in the middle of August that may have no substance whatsoever, but that can take on a life of its own. In cases like this, often it is not about the facts, just the optics. That's life at the top of the political game. So far, it is mostly smoke, not much (if any) fire in the news reports.

But that's now; who knows what happens in the next 24 hours? After all, this is the age of the out-of-control forest fire in politics, where everyone seems to be like a new recruit for the Mafia, out to make their "bones." Shoot first, ask questions later - if ever. It is all about body count. Both sides have accepted the rules.  

So there is a reasonable chance this thing will go viral. It seems a win-win for the conservative side of the blogosphere. Why not go for the KO on Plouffe, they are surely thinking?
Of course, we all know why Mr. Plouffe got paid what he did (obviously, the organizers of the event wanted to have President Obama's 2008 campaign manager on the program). We also know that Plouffe did absolutely nothing wrong in terms of our laws. Plouffe was a private citizen who had the ear of the President on political matters, or so the organizers thought.

Now, we all know that when someone pays $40,000 to attend a presidential fundraiser, it isn't the food that makes the meal. Of course, the "friends" of Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc. all did it too, so there is no place to be self-righteous here. Mr. Plouffe did nothing wrong, or unusual, nor is there any claim that he tried to use his influence to help those paying his fee directly or indirectly.

But like I say: the basic facts are basically irrelevant compared to the optics. Namely, Democrats have been demanding that Mr. Romney release his taxes and other information about his business life, so there is now a good chance Mr. Plouffe's life in the last few years is also about to go under the political MRI machine.

BUT THAT ISN'T THE BIG RISK.

If I were David, this would be my worry: there is a reasonable chance the mainstream media, under attack from conservatives for an anti-Romney, pro-Obama bias, might decide to refute those allegations by using Mr. Plouffe as proof they kick Democrats hard too.

Why? Journalists do not like to have their fairness questioned. They are seething at the anti-Romney bias claim.

But at the same time, they know there is no way to disprove a negative in politics except, perhaps, to make an example of some high profile Democrat aligned with the President.

It is a cruel business, trying to show you are not "biased" in today's political world. The media derides this, but they also play the game at times for their own good. My gut: 20% chance the media caves into GOP demands for David's head. Decent odds, but not great.

The next 72 hours should tell the tale. Those 20% odds can change up or down at any moment for no good reason, indeed usually for all the bad ones. The pro-Romney side will push this one to the max. Let's see if they get any traction. Not likely, but it's the dog days of August, so strange things can happen.  

by Paul Goldman

Like actor Kevin Costner in the movie "Field of Dreams", Richmond Mayor Dwight Jones let leak the other day that he is at least considering his own version of a "Field of Dreams", a privately built and run Baseball Stadium in Shockoe Bottom. "Build it and they will come" suggests the Mayor: and he may be right. True, this is warmed over stuff, rejected correctly time and time again. It doesn't add up.

Moreover, like the movie, these fields of dreams are in "Dillon Rule" states, the doctrine developed by Iowa Judge John Dillon in the 1800's.

But that's where the analogy stops: right at the feet of Judge Dillon and his rule, which says localities like Richmond only have the powers granted them by state government.

The "Dillon Rule" didn't matter in the movie because the "Field of Dreams" was on private farm land in Iowa, not subject to the Judge's legal opinions. But it matters here in the City of Richmond. Why?  
The basic boundaries of what we call the City of Richmond are a creation of the General Assembly of Virginia, to be found in the Acts of Assembly for 1926  amended between then and 1969. According to Mr. Dillon, the General Assembly gave the Mayor and City Council only such powers as are specifically granted. Mitt Romney says corporations like the city of Richmond are "people too." But that's wrong in terms of their rights; unlike people, city governments don't have any "inalienable rights" as defined by Mr. Jefferson.

Richmond's Mayor and City Council have only the rights given to them by the General Assembly. Or put another way: unless the General Assembly gave the Mayor/City Council the right to authorize a private baseball stadium in Shockoe Bottom, they can't do it, at least not legally.

"The law is an ass" declared Shaky the Bard, and Shakespeare had a point, although "kill the lawyers" seems a little extreme. Still, whether a ass or an ace, the law has to be obeyed.

There is no such right to authorize such a private stadium specifically given to localities in state law. A private group can get a contract to manage such a facility, perhaps even build it. But not own it, certainly not get huge amounts of public money directly or indirectly.

Important to remember here: The right of the RMA to build, own and operate The Diamond is granted by a specific state statute. The same for the rights in that regard for VCU University in terms of the Siegel Center and Sports Backer's Stadium.  Those entities are likewise created by the General Assembly.

But there is no such specific state law as regards the right of Richmond to do the same. Thus, if such power does exist, it has to be found in the City Charter, rewritten in 1948 and amended in 2004 to provide for an Elected Mayor, along with recent amendments redefining certain rights and responsibilities of the Mayor and City Council.

The Charter has two basically pertinent parts as pertains to a baseball stadium.

The first part gives the city all the  powers granted by the General Assembly: like duh!!! This part also gives city government the power to provide for the general welfare, public health and safety and the like. But it is not nearly so broad as it seems, or otherwise, what would be the point of the Dillon Rule which is the law in Virginia?

When looking to define the parameters of this general grant of power, it is common to look to any specific description which might apply in the City Charter (which is an act of the General Assembly).

In this second pertinent part, the language addressing the baseball stadium issue essentially tracks the state law discussed above. It lists things the locality can do but it pointedly does not mention allowing a privately funded group to build, own and operate their stadium within the city limits.

Thus, the question must be asked again: In a Dillon Rule state like Virginia, what does all this legal mumbo jumbo mean?

I presume the tens of millions of dollars to build the stadium and provide all the road/utility/land/government benefits required will come mostly from the proceeds of bond sales one way or another. These means these IOU's will be bought by private investors, who will want a legal opinion to settle their unease at such legal loopholes.

Moreover, with the city claiming it lacks the funds to properly modernize school facilities, it seems likely that our elected officials will want to make sure they aren't making a big blunder either.

A new law passed by the General Assembly could of course resolve all such issues. But for the city to back such legislation, it would admit lacking the power. And what happens if the General Assembly rejects the new law?

The Virginia Supreme Court has often been a stickler on Dillon Rule cases. Should city leaders have the authority to authorize such a stadium?

No, we don't need to be babysat by the General Assembly. But the law is what it is. And in that regard, it might - not necessarily for the right reason admittedly - protect citizens from having tens of millions of dollars wasted on a project that short changes Richmond's future.  

by Paul Goldman

The continuing RINO hunt by the self-described anti-incumbent "real conservatives" in the Virginia GOP is the developing big story in 2012 Virginia politics.

Early in the 2012 cycle, the challenges being made to those derided as RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) seemed nothing more than classic internal party politics, the new challenging the old, a pattern dating from the Middle Kingdom of Egypt.

Sometimes these battles can lead to serious political bloodletting. But at some point, as the general election approaches, the twos sides, for the good of the party, their nominees, and their desire for unity next year, normally agree to a temporary truce so all can put their shoulders to the wheel for -- in this case, for the Romney/Allen ticket.Indeed, Republican unity seemed doubly important this year, given that Bob McDonnell remained Romney's VP list.  

Except: As we know now, it is already August, and the RINO hunt by the "true conservatives" continues, played out once again at today's Republican state party meeting in contests for toothless, honorific party posts, with US vs THEM challenges.

This kind of internal party feud - easily postponed until after November - is all DOWNSIDE for any Republican running this year. Believe it or not, one of the RINOs being targeted for defeat is actually the campaign manager to George Allen! Brilliant.
 

If these two sides were truly united this year behind the GOP ticket, such infighting would not be permitted at this stage in the 2012 cycle. But they aren't united; thus, today's pointless war over honorific titles.

I have to ask: Who is advising Ken Cuccinelli to go along with this? And no, his campaign guru's statement that the AG is officially "neutral" doesn't fool anyone who didn't just get off the boat from a far-off-land and is hoping to learn his or her first word of English. That's a silly response to a silly, pointless, self-defeating "purge."

Yes, I get that many of the "real conservatives" never liked Romney. I get that they secretly feel their cause would be better advanced by losing in November, giving them the opportunity to fight Obama for the next four years, as opposed to having to pretend to support President Romney's policies.

The Reaganites sat on their hands of Jerry Ford in 1976, and after watching Ford lose that year, got Reagan elected over incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter four years later.

Moreover, history says that the sixth year of a Presidential term is a good one for the "out party" in the mid-term elections. And "real conservatives" are doing great winning GOP primaries against incumbent Senators or party establishment candidates.

SO: I get all this and realize these folks don't like Romney, didn't want Allen, and could care less about McDonnell since the Governor is backing Bolling.

BUT WHY MAKE IT SO DAMN OBVIOUS?

Sure, I suppose they could be praised for not being hypocrites; that is to say, they're being honest by refusing to even PRETEND to want to help these RINOs get elected.

But Reagan raised taxes, expanded social programs, exploded the federal debt, appointed Sandra Day O'Connor (the swing vote on Roe v Wade) to the Supreme Court, signed a mass amnesty of "illegal immigrants," negotiated with the "Evil Empire," etc. The point being, no purist is ever going to be even close to being satisfied.

Let me say this: What is happening in the Virginia GOP right is the best possible news for the President, Tim Kaine, and Terry MAC, far more important than the polls and whatever.

The Virginia GOP is cracking at the edges, and once that sets in, they won't have real unity this year and this will cost them whatever chance they might have had for Romney and Allen.

In turn, those two guys have powerful supporters who will, over time, blame the Cuccinelli/Tea Party/Ron Paul combo for playing "rule or ruin" politics. This will drive a lot of them to abandon Cuccinelli in 2013, and likely his whole ticket, should he win the GOP nod for governor as expected.

Net, net: what Virginia's Republican RINO-hunters are doing right now is about the dumbest thing you can do in politics. Given that the odds favor Romney losing anyway, McDonnell not being chosen as Romney's running mate, and Allen facing at best a 50-50 chance of winning, these RINO hunters could have their cake and eat it too -- being seen as fully helping but knowing there is a good chance the guys they don't want to win will lose anyway. But noooo.

Let's be candid: The RINO hunters are so much out for blood that they just can't help themselves. Indeed, they appear to actively WANT to be seen with Romney's and Allen's and McDonnell's blood on their hands, politically speaking.

Normally, Ken Cuccinelli is too smart a politician not to know how to accommodate different factions. He could stop this blood-letting with just one tweet, or at least postpone the fight for a few months  On a risk vs reward basis, his stance seems baffling from all angles. He gains nothing by trying to purge now, so it is lose-lose for him in 2013. Why's he doing it then?

And it hurts Democrats next year in the Governor's race. This all-whites-are-bigots kind of thing from Lucas and Marsh on TV has got to come to an end in Virginia politics.

by Paul Goldman

Senator Lucas and Senator Marsh say they are speaking honestly and want an honest discussion of race and politics in Virginia. Okay, let's give them what they want. I have known them both for a long time. They need to stop the "all white people" are bigots kind of thing. Those of us who actually know how to win statewide elections know that what they said on TV the other day hurts, not helps, the President and Tim Kaine this year. And frankly, Louise and Henry know it too.

Let's review how they first got to the Senate. In practical terms, it was due to the work of myself and others to help Doug Wilder get elected Governor in 1989. Why? Because in practical terms, neither would have been elected to the Senate that year but for Doug being the Governator.

1990 was a redistricting year. The Democrats in control of the Senate passed a redistricting plan that would have made it very hard for either Lucas or Marsh to win the "open" seats available to them.

Wilder asked me what I thought about the Democratic plan that passed the Senate. I said it violated the Voting Rights Act. There was no way he could sign it. He knew that already of course.

Wilder asked how many African-American districts the federal law required, the one the Democrats in the Senate and the General Assembly wanted to violate. I said five, although the ACLU and others disagreed.

Wilder had already been thinking the same number but he was under a lot of pressure from a lot of Democrats not to go for five. The reason: Given the politics of the state, drawing those districts would mean a good number of new GOP senators would be elected in newly drawn GOP districts. And a few incumbent Democrats might lose also. That was the reality.  

A lot of Democrats where thus furious at me - since I was Democratic party chair - for agreeing with the Governor. But it was a matter of principle with me, I didn't have anything to gain. In fact, they would later try to punish me for backing Wilder's plan because it cost Democrats seats.

But principle matters.

Wilder told me to draw five districts, but to make sure Marsh and Benny Lambert, who had been elected to Wilder's seat in Richmond when Doug became Lieutenant Governor, were not placed in the same Senate district! As Party Chair, I was the first to buy some new software to help map districts. I remember Senators coming to the party offices to draw the seats, even the one that cost then Democratic Senator Jack Kennedy his seat because Senate Dems didn't want him back!!

I objected, but they didn't care.

So we drafted a seat for Henry and the one in Portsmouth that Mrs. Lucas has held now for a generation. So, I know them for a long time and respect them.

BUT THE FACT IS: It is easy for them to do what they did on TV yesterday: Mrs. Lucas flat out saying whites that vote for Romney are racist and don't want African Americans in high political office, and Mr. Marsh saying he fully agrees with Mrs. Lucas.

Why? It plays well in their constituency. As they say, all politics is local.  

So let's cut to the chase: Without the support of whites - in 1985, I was the only white person willing to be Wilder's campaign manager - Doug couldn't have gotten elected. Same for 1989, just look at the voting statistics. Were there whites who voted against Wilder on the basis of race? Of course. There were also whites who voted against Kennedy on religion. But that doesn't mean every white person who voted against Doug or JFK was a bigot.

Fact: There are any number of African Americans who will always vote for an African American in a race against a white candidate, that is well known among those in politics. Does that make them all anti-white bigots? Of course not.

THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT LUCAS AND MARSH'S COMMENTS: Given their political constituency, it is easy for them to attack all whites as bigots, it will not hurt them in their own constituency. Moreover, they know it will sound good to their constituents who are strong Obama supporters.

BUT: They also know it will hurt other Democrats. That's right, it HURTS the President, it hurts Tim Kaine,  who have to run in different constituencies to get elected to the presidency, the Senate, statewide next year for Governor.

THAT'S RIGHT: It is a cynical, selfish, and self-serving game Senators Lucas and Marsh are playing. Big time!

Yes, there is, unfortunately, a racial, religious aspect to politics. But in terms of Senator Lucas winning her seat initially, and the same for Senator Marsh, they have benefited from the Voting Rights Act, which is what got them elected originally. They benefited from Doug Wilder's election, even though Marsh especially tried to stop Doug from winning in 1985.

YOU WANT THE TRUTH SENATORS LUCAS AND MARSH: The truth is that making these kinds of blanket statements sound good to your constituents, but they HURT THE PRESIDENT, TIM KAINE and other Democrats. And you know it.

For those of us with a real record of knowing how to win statewide races know you aren't helping. "White people" are not bigots. Bigots come in all colors, all genders, all sizes. The President and Doug Wilder won Virginia.

This kind of "all whites are bigots" kind of thing from Lucas and Marsh on TV has got to come to an end in Virginia politics

by Paul Goldman

"Call me Ishmael" - one of the most famous sentences in literature starts Herman Melville's "Moby Dick." I confess to starting the book several times and giving up rather quickly, defying anyone to tell me with a straight face they had actually read the thing cover to cover, and could understand it on a level higher than "guy obsessed with chasing a big frigging fish obsessively chases big frigging fish: and fish wins huge." [Lowell's note to Paul: whales are not fish, and I read the book cover to cover, but this paragraph and the next are funny regardless. :)]

Ken Cuccinelli went to UVA so maybe he took that class with Professor Whatshername and wanted to impress her by reading the whole friggin' thing. But call me a huge skeptic of the whole literary scene when it comes to Moby Dick: unless you are  fascinated by the whaling industry of the 1830s-40s, or your aunt left you $100 million provided you read every page in the book, there is no way you start the book - and finish it - unless sex, drugs, money or rock and role are involved somehow.

Enter now Captain Ahab, played by Ken Cuccinelli, who is chasing a white whale nicknamed "Obamacare." This new revised version of Moby Dick starts with these lines: "Call me Guvnah".

From the moment Mr. Cuccinelli took the oath of office as Virginia AG in January 2010, it was clear he saw his pursuit of "Obamacare" as his ticket to becoming Governor in 2013. Since then, he has pursued his particular White Whale with Ahab-like tenacity.

It was brilliant politics for him in the beginning, as I wrote when others were scratching their heads at the tactic, or calling him a showboat for taking the lead in the anti-Obamacare chorus as a rookie AG.  But those writers missed something crucial: Mr. Cuccinelli had brilliantly figured out a way to capture the hearts and minds of the base of his party from the post of AG; something very, very hard to do historically in Virginia or any state, especially when you have a sitting Governor in your own party who is popular.

It was a terrific strategy, daring really; the least experienced AG in the country outsmarting all the old whalers, and become the go-to AG on the anti-Obama news network, aka "Fox News."

"Have Brief, Will Travel" became Cuccinelli's trademark: whenever there was a conservative legal opinion needed from a conservative AG, the Fox folks and others on the right would put Ken on the TV.

In Virginia, by the end of 2010 Ken had easily become the most popular Republican among the conservative base, surpassing a popular conservative Governor. A superb strategy. Just brilliant. Except...

...then came the long leadup to the 5-4 opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts in the "Obamacare" case, upholding the law as constitutional. During this period, Mr. Cuccinelli continued to seize every opportunity to throw his harpoon at the President's health care law. But Cuccinelli had started to become like Captain Ahab, unable to understand that times were changing, that the single-minded drive of one era might not translate as well into another era. The 2010 election marked the end to one chapter in the saga of Obamacare.  The 2011-2012 period leading up to Roberts' decision marked another.

Cuccinelli as Captain Ahab still had cache and still kept his name ID solid with conservatives. But other AGs now had the lead in the courtroom, and ultimately the Supremes would have the last legal word.

In the end, Kenny came within one vote of looking like a legal genius, able to see the unconstitutionality of "Obamacare" before anyone else. But Roberts' vote - some claim he originally was going Cuccinelli's way but switched - robbed the Virginia AG of a legal victory probably of sufficient magnitude to have made him Governor easily in 2013.

The problem is that close only counts in horseshoes - or on your first date I suppose, for those of us who don't mind being politically incorrect - not when it comes to chasing a White Whale, actual or metaphorical like "Obamacare."

Captain Ahab came close, but this only increased his obsession according to folklore. Like I say, I never got to that part of the book, although the movie with Gregory Peck was super.

Now comes July of 2012. We read in the paper today that Mr. Cuccinelli is taking the lead in Virginia with a new White Whale hunting strategy. Mr. Cuccinelli reportedly now believes he has a new way to kill the White Whale legally, at least in Virginia, no matter what the conservative Chief Justice of the US says.

Here is how today's Richmond Times Dispatch explains Captain Cuccinelli latest pursuit of Moby Dick, aka Obamacare, believing he has a way for Virginia to allow businesses in the state to refuse to be part of Obamacare without suffering any penalty.

Virginia and other states can shield businesses from hefty fines for not providing adequate health insurance for employees, he [Captain Ahab aka Cuccinelli] contends, simply by refusing to set up their own state-based insurance exchanges.

Cuccinelli bases that legal theory on a quirk in the law, one variously attributed to sloppy drafting, political miscalculation or both: It includes a provision to impose those fines under state-based exchanges, but not under a federal one.

"In the law, it says those penalties don't apply if the federal government sets up the exchange," he told a tea party gathering in Henrico County last week. "Whoops!"

....For Affordable Care Act foes who first tried to kill the law in the courts and now aim to do so by electing Republican Mitt Romney president, the do-nothing approach is a long-range Plan C.

"This could bring down the entire law," said Michael F. Cannon, the Cato Institute's director of health policy studies who crafted the argument and urged Cuccinelli, a longtime friend, to pick up on it. "If Virginia just sits on its hands and does not implement 'Obamacare,' then state officials will protect Virginia employers from a $2,000-per-worker tax.[for not participating in Obamacare]"

..."It's not a legal threat. I don't think it's going anywhere in court," said Timothy S. Jost, a health care law expert at the Washington and Lee University School of Law."

In sum: Cuccinelli wants Virginia Republicans to violate one of their basic principles and opt to let Uncle Sam dictate to Virginians through a federal insurance exchange, as opposed to the Virginia saying they can do it better than the feds and build a state insurance exchange.

To be sure, the issue is more complicated. But in politics, if you can reduce something to a sound bite or slogan, that usually wins the debate. As the RTD article explains, Captain Cuccinelli's position - pro-DC, anti-Virginia - "puts Cuccinelli at odds with most of the state's Republican leaders, including Gov. Bob McDonnell, who fiercely oppose the law but also say that if an exchange is needed, the state doesn't want one dictated by Washington." As Sen. John Watkins (R-Powhatan) puts it, "I am shocked that somebody like Ken Cuccinelli would be advocating that the state go under a federal system...Virginia can do a better job of it than the federal government can...Give me a break."

In the article, Captain Cuccinelli concedes that his pro-DC, anti-VA approach runs counter to his conservative image. And again, let's be clear: the issue is far more complicated than a sound bite.

But I am not writing about that aspect right now. Rather, my point is this: the need, some might say obsession, with the White Whale, by AG Cuccinelli knows no bounds. Cuccinelli continues to chase it across the vast ocean of politics, heedless of the costs. He wants Obamacare dead, and he sees everything through that lens, no matter what.

Historically, voters want a governor not driven by blind ideology, but one who possesses a practical governing skill, a governor who understands that the title comes from the need to actually govern, not spend one's time chasing White Whales.

In Cuccinelli's case, chasing Moby Dick, aka "Obamacare," day after day (when most people want to move on) is a losing political stance both now and every day from here on in for logical reasons. Either Mitt Romney will win or lose the election. In the highly unlikely event that Mitt wins, then it will be President Romney's job to "repeal Obamacare" as he has promised. There will be no need for Captain Ahab at that point.

If Romney loses, then the public will consider the Obamacare fight over and done with on that level. Like it or not, they will expect their leaders to stop playing Captain Ahab and start governing in a practical and efficient manner to make the law work for Virginians as best as possible.

"Call me Guvnah!" may be what Mr. Cuccinelli wants. But if all the people can see is another Captain Ahab chasing obsessively, tediously, after his own particular White Whale obsession, then, in the end, Cuccinelli's dream is not going to fare much better than Captain Ahab's.  

by Paul Goldman

As we predicted, the issue of Medicaid expansion would be seen by Republicans as a potentially big one for them in the 2013 Virginia governor's race.

Brian Moran, Chairman of the Virginia Democratic Party, opened the door to it by not thinking through the politics, putting statewide Democrats in a potentially bad political box on the issue. Without thinking, Brian Moran just came out and attacked Governor McDonnell for not quickly agreeing, without any analysis, to the Medicaid expansion which was upheld as part of the Supreme Court decision declaring the President's health insurance reform law constitutional.

If Brian had read the case carefully, he would have realized the decision created a new dynamic in the Medicaid program, which is currently a federal/state partnership. Before Chief Justice Roberts' opinion, a state had little choice but to accept the federal mandate no matter the cost to the state budget.

But Justice Roberts, with the liberal Supreme Court Justices going along, decided the federal government had gone too far in terms of using its massive "coercive" power to force states to accept this latest expansion of Medicaid.  In the end, the liberals joined Roberts in agreeing to do away with the federal government's ability to coerce the states by withholding federal money if governors - McDonnell, in this case - refused to accept the Medicaid expansion.

Brian Moran failed to learn anything from his failed run for governor, demanding that McDonnell accept whatever Washington wanted. That's BAD POLITICS for anyone running for governor, at least historically in Virginia.
Moreover, given the current economic/fiscal situation for middle class families in Virginia - who Democrats are supposed to fight for - along with lingering doubts about the President's health care reform among swing voters in next year's governor's election, the Medicaid expansion issue creates a situation requiring real political skill -- not just a liberal or conservative knee-jerk reaction.

There are three general interests to balance here. First, there a lot of our fellow citizens whose quality of life, if not life itself, depend upon their being able to have access to quality medical care. Call this the Health Interest.

Secondly, there is the question of what this Medicaid expansion will cost and where Virginia will get the money. In that regard, there is the short-term outlook, with Uncle Sam promising to pay almost all the cost; and the longer-term outlook, which would find Virginia having to shoulder a larger and larger share of the burden, estimated to be in the billions of dollars. Call this the Fiscal Interest.

And third: What are the true facts about the level of need and the actual cost to the state of Virginia in terms of whether we do X or Y. The Governing Interest.

Brian decided to copy Mr. Cuccinelli only from the opposite point of view. Thus, Brian argued Virginia should do it without having all the facts, and Mr. Cuccinelli argued the state shouldn't do it, also without having all the facts. To me, and to most Virginians, that approach to governing is the problem, not the solution.

But at least the AG is entitled to run his campaign however he wants. Brian Moran is NOT entitled to box in the 2013 Democratic candidate for governor.

All that being said, we now know why Cuccinelli is pushing Terry to take a position on the issue. Namely, the AG correctly figures there will be immense pressure from Brian Moran et al for Terry to take the Washington line on this. But is that good politics, much less good policy, for next year?

Let's cut to the chase; Balancing the Health Interest, the Fiscal Interest, and the Governing Interest on this issue is not possible with a knee-jerk analysis. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered; this is not a simple Yes or No.

The Medicaid program itself is complicated in that every state gets to define the parameters. The Clinton and Obama Administrations never have questioned that, nor could they.

To be elected governor of Virginia, a candidate has to be seen as fiscally responsible. A Virginia governor needs to fiscally responsible. In addition, a governor has to show he can balance the Health and Fiscal Interests with governing skill.

For all those reasons, I don't see any political advantage in Terry taking a knee-jerk position on this issue. Quite the contrary: I advised Chuck Robb, Doug Wilder and Mark Warner that there is nothing wrong with a candidate wanting more answers to tough questions. Indeed, how can Cuccinelli complain if Terry agrees with a conservative Republican governor that he needs more answers and analysis before deciding what is best for Virginia and her citizens?

Virginia elections are not won on the fringes. An incumbent presidential administration has a set of federal interests to protect, but there are other legitimate interests at the state level which only a governor can protect. There is big role for both.

Governor McDonnell is being paid to do the job: so let's see what he advises and the reasoning thereof when he feels he has all the facts. We Democrats will hopefully have the facts needed, or we can seek more information. Nothing wrong with being thorough. At which point, we will almost surely have a far better solution for Virginia.

by Paul Goldman

Ben Tribbett, one of the state's top bloggers, got me thinking yesterday. He is known as the guy behind the highly rated political blog Not Larry Sabato. But Ben deserves to be even better known as one of the state's best gurus on election statistics down to the precinct level.

Ben has done a lot of mentally  "running the numbers" on the potential impact of former Congressman Virgil Goode's run for President as the nominee for the Constitution Party here in Virginia.

Ben is likely - and hopefully soon - to do a blog post an Obama-Romney-Goode race here in the Commonwealth. The media is currently assuming that Goode is not going to be a factor in who wins the White House. They have been assuming the president will win Virginia handily as the polls had been indicating, or that Goode's support in any poll will disappear in November.

But yesterday, a two-way poll in Virginia between President Obama and former Governor Romney showed a dead heat. The national polls are showing a dead heat, with some pundits suggesting Virginia could be the deciding state in the Electoral College.

So again, I am writing in part to encourage Ben  - I know he is busy - to lay out the numbers so we all can improve our knowledge here.

We all know what Ralph Nader did in Florida to cost Al Gore the Presidency. We all know what followed in terms of the George W. Bush years. Presidential elections matter. A lot.

A few weeks ago, I was interviewed by a national reporter about Goode's candidacy for President. I said the polls were wrong in saying he would be a big factor in Southwest, where his positions on immigration policy appealed to the most conservative, Republican elements of the area. My view was this: those voters really didn't know Goode and in the end, most would vote for Romney as the viable anti-Obama candidate.

But as to Virginia, I said this: Goode is known in certain parts of the state, and has always shown support there with high name ID in surrounding areas.
So I figured there was a good chance Goode could get some of those folks if they remained skeptical about Romney especially if the GOP nominee was seen as shifting to a more moderate position on immigration. But I couldn't quantify even a range of potential hard core support. Ben has given it a lot more thought and mathematical analysis.

Again, there is no way to ever know and polls tend to be very unreliable in that they generally way overstate the final vote of a guy like Goode. So one has to avoid getting stuck on a specific number.

BUT there is one thing for certain: Almost all of those who ultimately wind-up voting for Virgil Goode in Virginia would NOT have voted for President Obama.

Therefore, if you assume a close Electoral College race for President, one potential political strategy makes a huge amount of campaign sense for Democrats and those Republicans who don't want to see Romney elected President:

Give money, get money, to the Virginia campaign of Virgil Goode.

Indeed, under the new campaign rules, a group of Dems/Anti-Romney Republicans can masquerade as a pro-Goode SUPER PAC, and secretly fund the whole effort.

As Ben can  show, there is an existing pool of potential 2012 voters in Virginia who Goode has a chance of wooing over to his side....with a sufficient amount of money and campaign luck.

It doesn't take a math genius to know that 50-50 Obama vs Romney race in VA could easily come out 49.5 for Obama, 48.5 for Romney and 2.0 for Goode.

Moreover, to the extent the Romney campaign comes to believe it might lose VA, then it has to make some very hard and potentially wrong strategy decisions on how to make up the 13 electoral votes.

MEANING: The viability of the Goode campaign in VA - forget the rest of the country - needs to get some more attention by the national press, indeed the VA press.

Virgil is no more qualified to be President than Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain. But in Virginia, the former populist Democrat turned Independent turned conservative Republican turned anti-immigrant Constitutional Party presidential nominee could be the nut in the coconut for the White House come November.

So, I ask you: Given the current polls, the current logic and the current realities, what is more likely to change the outcome of the presidential election? 1) Another $5 million spent on TV ADS focused on Obama or Romney in one way or another; or 2) using that same $5 million to promote Virgil Goode as a protest vote on immigration policy (or whatever), helping persuade voters they can have the biggest impact by using their vote to send both parties a message?

If you will not believe your own common sense, then Ben's numbers will make you see that Virgil Goode, with that kind of chump changed in terms of what is being spent, has as yet an unappreciated ability - with enough money - to get enough votes in Virginia to likely guarantee a win for President Obama in the Old Dominion. And that, in turn, could easily be the key to winning President Obama a second term in the White House.

As a pure matter of risk vs reward, the "risk" of losing votes because you didn't spend that $5 million on either a pro-Obama or anti-Romney ad is far, far less than the potential "reward" of spending that money on pro-Goode ads, thus generating votes for the former Congressman's presidential bid, in turn taking them from Romney, in turn helping Obama win Virginia.

I bet that right now, there are some very smart people sitting around gaming out a strategy of how to make sure Goode gets the benefit of this kind of money, if not more.

In 2000, it was Florida: In 1916, it was California. In 1888, it was New York. In 1884, it was New York again. In 1876, it was Florida. In 1800, it was Delaware. In 2012, it could be Virginia. Which means it could be Virginia's Virgil Goode who determines the 2012 presidential election outcome, one way or the other.

by Paul Goldman

What has come over Governor McDonnell in recent months? He started out trying to develop an image as a bipartisan problem solver, and it was working according to the public opinion polls. At the start of this year, his polling numbers were among the best of any governor in the nation; he was head of the Republican Governors Association; experts in Washington had him high on the list of potential GOP Vice Presidential candidates; and Democratic Senator Mark Warner had reason to worry about his re-election against a popular GOP governor leaving office at the start of the 2014 cycle.

As the saying goes, life was good for Bob McDonnell. His guy Romney began gaining strength in the GOP presidential primaries. A Southern governor like Bob, with a Notre Dame background (a big plus in key Midwestern states), a photogenic female family (the key swing voting group), and a good, solid governing image, was a safe choice for the cautious Romney.

Then something happened. I don't know what it was. But today is yet another example. Unless Professor Sabato tells me differently, today is the first time I can recall that Virginia's two U.S. Senators and the Congressman from their own party refused to attend a meeting with a Virginia governor on the grounds that said governor was using the meeting as a backdrop for a political event.

This is extraordinary. Now, if Democrats Connolly, Moran and Scott had been the only ones refusing to attend, the public might write it off as politics,  as they are very partisan Democrats in this very partisan election year.

But it wasn't just those three: Senator Warner and Senator Webb also refused to attend on the grounds that McDonnell was breaking with precedent of decades standing, keeping such kind of politics away from the delegation meetings.

Webb and Warner are right: this isn't the way we do it in Virginia.
Whatever McDonnell and the state's GOP leaders may think of Senator Warner's votes in the Congress, the fact is Mr. Warner remains the most credible politician in the state, in large measure due to his being seen as the least partisan of the state's leaders.

Republicans may think this is a false image: but the public judges otherwise.

This image makes Senator Warner's refusal to attend the delegation meeting today all that more newsworthy, and all that more important for the politics of the state.

Bottom line: For some reason, Governor McDonnell, perhaps pulled by his growing involvement in national GOP politics this year, has decided to jettison his winning image for one which the polls suggest is far less appealing to the voters of Virginia.

Or to put it another way: Governor McDonnell can not win a fight with Senator Warner on this issue. No way.

Why is McDonnell becoming so partisan in recent months, going along with a social issues agenda in the GA session just as he was poised to win big national points by going for a pro-jobs image? This is very puzzling, since I spent several months putting him together with Warner and the others on a very positive and highly praised pro-jobs, pro-education policy. That is a winning combo.

But the Governor's full-out defense of Romney, and now his playing a partisan GOP governor on budget stuff in DC, is a losing combo for him in Virginia.  Perhaps the latest polls are wrong and McDonnell's image has not weakened considerably with voters in Virginia. But if the polls are right, then we know why: McDonnell is seen as spending too much time on national GOP issues and not enough time on bipartisan, Virginia-first issues.

So the Governor and Congressman Cantor can risk angering, in a political sense, Senator Warner if they so choose. But if Warner decides to hit back, it will hurt them politically. A pro-Romney, anti-Warner posture is the wrong play right now.

That's why today's decision by Warner and his Virginia Democratic allies on Capitol Hill is very noteworthy.