Getty Images
Sen. Barney Frank?
Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:
* Former Rep. Barney Frank (D) told MSNBC this morning that he's asked Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) to appoint him to temporarily fill John Kerry's Senate vacancy until there's a special election. "It's only a three-month period," Frank said. "I wouldn't want to do anything more. I don't want to run again."
* Virginia Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (R) recently dropped out of the state's 2013 gubernatorial race, but has begun "polling voters and meeting with business leaders to gauge the viability of an independent bid for governor." The state's right-wing attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, will be the Republican nominee, and a Bolling candidacy would seriously undermine his support.
* Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) defeated Tom Foley (R) in 2010, and looking ahead, Foley is already gearing up for a rematch next year.
* Republican Party leaders are convinced their primary process has seriously hurt GOP candidates in 2010 and 2012, and are considering systemic reforms to "address the issue."
* Former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona (D) came up short in his Senate bid in Arizona this year, but he isn't quite done with electoral politics -- Carmona is now eyeing the 2014 gubernatorial race.
* By one new estimate, thanks to gerrymandering, House Democrats would need to win the popular vote in the 2014 midterms by over 7% if they intend to reclaim the majority.
* South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) has scheduled a special election to fill Sen. Tim Scott's (R) House seat, with a primary on March 19 and a general election on May 7.
* And scandal-plagued Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R) already has a primary opponent, 22 months before his re-election bid. Republican state Sen. Jim Tracy launched his congressional campaign on Wednesday.
Leave a Comment:
RM- let Barney pass you the torch. It would be glorious.
I agree, JohnMesserly.
It doesn't take more than a few hours to get a site set up with a donate button.
The harder part is someone close to her has to at least get her to agree to silently listen, and not violently denounce formation of an exploratory committee. It doesn't matter if she doesn't jump this time. Persuasion has to start somewhere.
John, I hear what you're saying and wholeheartedly agree that Ms. Maddow would make a wonderful senator. But think about what we would be losing.
I believe it was in John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty" that I read this. To paraphrase, he said there are three ways people can function in society--as the worker bees, the generals and the thinkers. The worker bees are the rank and file public, the generals are making the rules and directing them, and the thinkers are the conscience of society. He said that this last group is the most reviled and yet the most crucial to the continuation of the social order. Rachel Maddow is an excellent thinker, and what she does so well is help the rest of us look "behind the curtain" and not be fooled.
I couldn't disagree more. This presumes we have a greater lack of talking than doing. We have many excellent sources of political commentary. This particular individual has charisma and the ability to persuade. Leaders in public office must have all of Mills' attributes, and those people are rare.
I would have been happy if your argument had prevailed on the "Great Communicator" of the 80s to remain out of public office.
In our troubled times, it is imperative we have an equally transformational Progressive Great Communicator in high office.
And she is it.
And this morning's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel announced that Scott Walker has selected his campaign manager for his 2014 re-election run. Sigh!
suspiro
Nobody ever doubted that he would run. Whether he can WIN is another issue. Recall elections are tough to win, especially with someone in office for only a short time. General elections are something else. Polls showed that many people who didn't support the recall also didn't support Walker.
One thing is for sure. Wisconsin Democrats have to do a better job of selecting their candidate and organizing around him/her than they did in the recall election.
I have noticed that Walker is treading lightly so I assume he is trying to convince the left that he is working for them. He was very distructive to our state so I do not trust him any more.
Glad to see Barney Frank filling in for the interim. What a good-hearted and honest public servant. Too bad we can't clone him. . . .
A very passionate person. He would make a great Senator for his state.
Senator Barney Frank! I like the sound of that! (still want to send him more polygrip, tho!)
After reading about "Republican Party leaders are convinced their primary process has seriously hurt GOP candidates in 2010 and 2012, and are considering intervening in the process...
Yeah.
Having more dictatorial control over the state organizations… reducing the choice of candidates…allowing less discussion of issues…restricting democracy…exerting more big money central control…that's the answer. In other words, more communist party techniques will solve their democratic problem.
RE: Republican Party leaders are convinced their primary process has seriously hurt GOP candidates in 2010 and 2012, and are considering systemic reforms to "address the issue."
Oh lovely, the GOP isn't done rigging elections.
They have to find some way around those pesky voters.
TWO gay Senators?
You can almost hear the clutched pearls grinding together now, cancha?
Shame on you.
I am of the opinion that Chris Christie may be the wedge that finally either destroys the repub party as it exists today, or will put it back on the road to sanity. I'm not saying I'm a huge fan of his, because I'm not, but it is apparent that he is the most popular member of his party right now, but also would never make it very far through the repub primaries, which reward outright asshaterry. Repub primaries force out all but the farthest right candidates, or forces more moderate candidates to pretend they are far right. Recently, we saw that with Pawlenty, who, while he is a jerk, is certainly not in the bats*** crazy zone of folks like Bachmann or Santorum. He was a fool for thinking the far right repub base would give him a serious look. Same thing for Huntsman, who had the gall to actually sound reasonable and intelligent. Then there's Mittens, who started out as a moderate, but was forced to go farther and farther right as he battled folks like Gingrich and Santorum. No, I can't see Christie getting more than a couple of primaries into the season before he is wiped out by huge losses in places like South Carolina. At that point, what happens? Does he switch to the dems? It's his only viable chance in the current atmosphere. Of course, he and his supporters could go independent too. If so, a lot of his repub fans will follow him out of the party. I predict the run up to 2016 will be truly fascinating.
From your lips to God's ears (or whatever He/She/It has...)
Please proceed Lt. Gov! Anything to keep that troglodyte, Cuccinelli, from becoming our next governor. As bad as Transvagional Bob is about plundering women's rights, Cuccinelli would be burning women at the stake and selling tickets and popcorn...
Sorry to change the subject, but I'm hung up on how to keep 2014 from becoming another 2010.
We can't reverse-gerrymander the districts of concern; we can only GOTV in massive numbers. An article like this gives me the impression that it's doable, while Rachel's coverage seemed to indicate a harder problem.
Yes, on average, nationwide, in all congressional districts, a 7-ish% overvote by Blues might yield a nearly-split House. But there are several states where the discrepancy is far worse: Blues would have to outvote Cons in some individual districts by factors of 2 or more -- in other words, in some heavily Con districts, Dems would have to vote not a few percentage points more than Cons, but 2-3 times more than registered Cons. Do you get that? Not 7% better, but double or triple, increases of 100-200%.
(In other districts, like my MD-05, the discrepancy goes the other way. Sadly, I can't transfer my vote to TX to help a Dem there.)
All to say this: an average increase of ~7% in Dem votes over Cons nationwide won't do it. Each of the 435 Congressional districts is a unique case.
Steve -- am I seeing this incorrectly? The TP article didn't provide enough data to stop me quibbling.
First off, this 7% refers to what Democrats would have to have beaten Republicans by in order to take back the House in 2012.
Secondly, during the "wave" election of 2006, Democrats beat Republicans by 7.9%, so it can be done. Admittedly that wave included 'way too many "Blue Dogs", but there is nothing to prevent us from doing the same in 2014, just with a much, much smaller (non-existant?) batch o' BDs.
And it's not as if the Republicans in Congress, and elsewhere, aren't going to give us a reason to GOTV in 2014...
America needs you
Barney Frank now.
Barney could you please come home
Things are looking bad
I know you would be mad
To see your favorite men
Prevail upon the land you love.