He’s just visiting, after all. The lobbyists have paid for him to take lots of trips and play lots of golf.
Obama’s welcome to hold fundraisers for Baron, of course, so long as they’re far from southern Indiana.
But as for coming here to campaign? Not so much.
I guess we can’t look forward to Obama coming to Bloomington for some campaign rally later this year.
It’s just as well. There’s a lot to suggest (in recent elections in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia) that such campaign rallies don’t help the Democratic candidate any.
Moderate House Democrats facing potentially difficult re-elections this fall have a message for President Barack Obama: Don’t call us, we’ll call you.
Interviews with nearly a dozen congressional Democrats on the ballot this year reveal a decided lack of enthusiasm for having Obama come to their districts to campaign for them—the most basic gauge of a president’s popularity.
Some cite the president’s surely busy schedule. Others point to a practice of not bringing in national politicians to appear on their behalf. While these members aren’t necessarily attempting to distance themselves from the administration, there is nevertheless a noticeable reluctance to embrace him by a certain class of incumbent now that the president’s approval rating has fallen to a new low in the latest Gallup survey, 46 percent.
Asked directly whether he would invite the president, [North Dakota Congressman Earl] Pomeroy replied: “If the president of the United States wants to come to North Dakota, he’s always invited.”
Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.) offered the same generic, if unenthusiastic, welcome of Obama to southern Indiana.
“If he wants to come to my district, he’s welcome to come,” said Hill, who could face off against former GOP Rep. Mike Sodrel. “I don’t plan on asking him to come because I know he’s a busy guy.”
Hill did, though, point out that he had already had a fundraiser with Obama.
But when reminded it was in Indianapolis and not his district, he only said, “Uh huh.”
There’s an eager invitation if I’ve ever seen one.
RedState has the full quote:
“You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the bill…but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America,” she told the National Association of Counties annual legislative conference, which has drawn about 2,000 local officials to Washington. “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.”
Rational and thinking people would want to, you know, know what was in legislation before it got voted on.
From the Rochester Sentinel:
President Barack Obama wants Congress to vote yes or no on a comprehensive reform measure from the Senate. Donnelly likes a lot about the bill, but its language on abortion is a “fatal flaw.” For him, it is a deal breaker. “I would not vote for it,” he said. He figures there will be a vote within a month or so. The abortion language is unpopular with “a significant” number of congressmen. It has the potential to kill the bill, he said.
And then there’s this:
Donnelly says that health reform is needed, and needed soon. The cost of Medicare is an “unsustainable cost burden” that will “overwhelm” the budget if nothing is done, he said. But, he will not vote for the measure approved in the Senate because of that abortion language.
Medicare is going to go bankrupt, and Donnelly’s solution is to expand Federal health care entitlements to be even bigger?
The Indianapolis Star’s Matt Tully titled his Sunday column “Making Sense of Political News Commentary.” In his column, he asks several questions.
Two of them are particularly interesting.
Q: Will Burton survive his primary challenges?
A: The crowded field no doubt helps him. And his once-energized opponents have been quiet of late, with the exception of state Rep. Mike Murphy, a one-man public relations machine. But Burton’s fear of debating his opponents makes clear he sees a serious threat ahead.
Nobody at the Indianapolis Star ever misses a chance to dump on Dan Burton, even at the expense of basic common sense.
A crowded field helps Burton, it’s true.
And the field is so crowded that he doesn’t need to bother to debate any of them.
Dan Burton isn’t avoiding debates with his opponents because he’s afraid of them. He’s avoiding debating them because the challenge to him is so fractured and divided that it can hardly be taken seriously and he doesn’t need to worry about debating them.
When you’re behind, as Burton’s opponents are, you want to debate. When you’re ahead, you don’t need to.
That’s just the way it is. It’s Basic Politics 101. Maybe Matt Tully could see that if he wasn’t trying to spin every mention of Burton to as bad an angle for Burton as possible.
Read more
Harry Reid on job losses:
Then defending himself after his stupidity got noticed:
And while the majority leader said that February’s job losses were “undeniably devastating,” Reid argued that job losses were much less than they could have been had Democrats not acted with their stimulus measures over the past year.
But Reid also lashed out at Republicans who’ve opposed many of those policies, accusing them of rooting for the economy’s failure for their own political game.
“And I warn them, once again, that this country has no place and no patience for those who root for failure,” Reid said to the GOP.
“This country has no place and no patience for those who root for failure.”
I wonder what Harry Reid was doing when he said this:
“This war is lost.”
Despite some pontificating by 8th District Democratic Chairman (and likely challenge mastermind) Tony Long, Sue Ellspermann will still be on the ballot in the wake of a meeting of the Indiana Election Commission on Friday.
Long, by the way, did not recuse himself from the vote despite his apparent conflict of interest.
Earlier this week, Democrats challenged the candidacy of Republican state representative candidate Sue Ellspermann, who is looking to run against Russ Stillwell in House District #74.
The Evansville Courier & Press has the story (also covered on a blog here):
Sue Ellspermann’s bid for the Indiana House is in jeopardy after someone caught what the Southwestern Indiana Republican admits is an inaccuracy in the paperwork she filed to become a candidate.
An Indiana Election Commission hearing scheduled for Friday in Indianapolis could determine whether her name will be scratched from the ballot — a move that would effectively end her chances of defeating incumbent District 74 Rep. Russ Stilwell, D-Boonville.
In what Ellspermann called a mistake, she checked a box on her candidacy filings indicating she voted in the 2008 Republican primary.
That year, she said Monday, she was one of many Republicans who instead voted in the Democratic primary. Ellspermann said she did so to participate in the party’s still-competitive presidential contest.
“I typically vote Republican, and so when I filled out that form, I checked that box without giving it another thought,” she said.
Ellspermann, a precinct committeewoman with the backing of local and state Republicans, said she hopes the election commission will allow her to remain on the ballot.
“I’m hoping for some leniency there,” she said. “I don’t think there’s any question in anyone’s mind that I am a Republican candidate.”
The man who challenged Ellspermann’s candidacy is Charles R. Wyatt. Area Democratic officials said the challenge did not come at their behest. But Wyatt, a Boonville resident, has a history of giving to Democratic candidates.
Ellspermann is the founding director of the Center for Applied Research at the University of Southern Indiana.
Another Republican, Angela Sowers of Boonville, has filed to run in the party’s primary.
I call shenanigans.
And I don’t mean on Charles Wyatt, who happens to be a Democrat donor, though that’s plenty shady in and of itself:
(Read more after the leap)
As if the campaign hasn’t seen enough blasts from the past comes this from the Indy Star:
The most contentious part of the debate came when, in his closing remarks, Coats called out Hostettler for his answer on a previous question, in which he criticized former President George W.Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq.
Hostettler stressed the lack of intelligence to justify that weapons of mass destruction existed under Sadaam Hussein and reminded those in the room he voted against the Iraq war, but backed efforts in Afghanistan, because of the direct link to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
“I started as ambassador (to Germany) two days after 9/11 …
“John, you and I need to have a good debate about Iraq and about weapons of mass destruction, because I fundamentally disagree with you in terms of why we went in there,” Coats told Hostettler. “I started every day in Germany with collection of intelligence from the U.S., German, French, British and even countries that didn’t support us. The evidence that was before us.”
Hostettler countered that it wasn’t and cited Bush’s statement that if he could have one “do-over” of his presidency, it’s that he could have “changed the intelligence” he had about Iraq.
George W. Bush quit trying to make the case for the invasion of Iraq several years ago, so why is Dan Coats trying to make an issue out of it now?
Does he expect Hoosier primary voters to punish John Hostettler today for coming to a judgment that happened to be correct eight years ago (as much as it was unpopular at the time)?
And would not Coats looking to the past to criticize Hostettler for past votes open the door for Hostettler and the other candidates to criticize Coats for past votes he has made (some of which happen to be hugely unpopular with certain elements of the Republican primary electorate)?
Maybe Hostettler brought up Iraq and baited Coats; the article isn’t clear on that and I didn’t attend the debate to be able to say. But if Hostettler brought it up, he might as well have been playing Br’er Rabbit begging not to be thrown into the Briar Patch.
Poor Brad the Beautiful. Without a wave at his back and a weak opponent to let him slide, he’s in deep trouble indeed.
The Courier & Press:
As he begins the statewide roll-out of his Senate campaign, U.S. Rep. Brad Ellsworth is doubling down on Democratic efforts to lower health care costs while reducing the number of Americans who are uninsured.
“We can’t just sit back and stop. It’s not fair to the American people,” he said Monday after a stop at Thompson & Skinner, Inc., an Indianapolis plant that manufactures magnetic materials for military use.
But if they are to do that, national Republicans say negotiators should scrap bills that have passed the House and Senate and start over. Ellsworth, who voted for the health care reform bill that won passage in the House, said he wouldn’t go that far.
“There’s a lot of good ideas in those bills,” he said. “They’re not perfect, but to stop this piece of legislation dead and start over is not the answer.”
Republicans immediately criticized Ellsworth, saying Monday he “let his true liberal colors show” while going against Hoosiers’ wishes.
“I don’t think it’s coincidental that at the moment he most needs the help of liberal Washington Democrats, he’s more willing to sing from their song book while ignoring the broad opposition back home,” said Trevor Foughty, spokesman for the Indiana Republican Party.
That’s what Indiana needs, right? More votes for ObamaCare in the Senate.
Or within the margin of error and thus effectively tied.
From The Hill:
Former Sen. Dan Coats (R) is in a statistical tie with Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D) in a hypothetical match-up in this fall’s Indiana Senate race, according to a Daily Kos poll set to be released Monday.
Coats is considered the GOP establishment’s top choice to replace Sen. Evan Bayh (D) and Ellsworth emerged as the main Democratic contender after Rep. Baron Hill (D) said he will not seek the Democratic nod on Saturday.
The Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll was sent around Sunday by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). It showed Coats leading Ellsworth 37 percent to 36 percent with 27 percent undecided among all those surveyed, but the poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.
On the other hand, ex-Rep. John Hostettler (R), who is one of five GOPers seeking the nomination, leads Ellsworth 40 percent to 24 percent with 26 percent undecided.
The surveyed polled 600 likely voters in Indiana from Feb. 22-24. The party breakdown of the 600 likely voters is 41 percent Republican, 36 percent Democrat and 23 percent Independent.
Even though Hostettler looks more attractive than Coats in the poll, it was taken before Hill ruled himself out of the race and has a high-number of undecided voters, meaning that the results are still up in the air.
I look forward to seeing the internals of this poll when it comes out tomorrow.
My initial observation is that this poll fits into my evolving theory that Coats is weak against Ellsworth because of Coats’ moderate (some would say liberal) voting record on things like judges and gun control, and his (almost proudly-touted) Washington insider status.
Of course, at the same time, this result is at odds with a recent Rasmussen poll. It is, after all, a lefty poll. But then why would Hostettler lead? The internals should be interesting.
