Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Morning Fix: Calling California Conservatives



State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman and former Rep. Tom Campbell are running for governor in California. AP and Getty photos

The race for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in 2010 -- one of the highest profile GOP contests in the country -- is devoid of one major thing: a conservative candidate.

All three candidates -- former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former representative Tom Campbell -- lay claim to a conservative approach to governance but none are the sort of candidate that excites the base voters who turn out in midterm election primaries.

Whitman talks almost exclusively about her record as a successful businesswoman and on Wednesday her campaign touted an endorsement from former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani who is not exactly a beloved figure among conservatives. Poizner, too, focuses on his successful business background and, like Whitman, supports abortion rights. And, Campbell, who held the 15th district from 1995 until 2000, developed a reputation as a thoughtful moderate during the time he spent in Congress.

"The most interesting thing about the campaign had been the absence of a traditional social conservative in the primary," said Dan Schnur, a Republican consultant based in California. "The common assumption has been that no top-tier conservative would be willing to go up against the financial resources that Poizner and Whitman bring to the race."

The massive personal wealth of Whitman and, to a lesser extent, Poizner is daunting. Whitman, by some accounts will spend as much as $100 million to win the Republican nomination -- a sum that would shatter all past personal spending records in the state.

And yet, while huge outlays of cash is critical for a candidate to be successful in a general election in California -- the state's size and the number of media markets make running statewide prohibitively expensive -- the financial dynamics of a Republican primary in the Golden State are far different.

The state's Republican party has contracted considerably over the past decade; as of February, there were just over five million registered Republicans, meaning that roughly three in ten Californians who are eligible to vote identify as GOPers.

That shrinkage means that the Republican primary electorate is more controlled by dyed-in-the-wool social and fiscal conservatives who are looking for a candidate to stay true to the principles they continue to stick by despite the party's decline and fall in the state.

And, the -- relatively -- small universe of likely voters in a Republican primary means that scads of television ads and millions of dollars may not have the impact they might in a general election.

A look at the history of Republican primary votes in California shows the power conservatives had -- and continue to have -- on the identity of their party's nominees. In 1992, conservative commentator Bruce Herschensohn bested Tom Campbell -- yes, the same Tom Campbell -- in a primary for Senate. A decade later, businessman Bill Simon ousted former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan in a stunning upset for the gubernatorial nomination in a contest that was cast as a choice between a conservative and a moderate.

Despite what looks like a wide open lane in which to run, there doesn't appear to be an obvious candidate willing or able to run. The most commonly mentioned names -- Reps. Dan Lungren and Tom McClintock -- seem uninterested in the prospect.

That reality leaves Whitman, Poizner and Campbell to fight it out for social conservative votes with a fiscally conservative message, according to California Republican consultant Tim Clark

"The first candidate in the current field to 'prove' they are the true tax-fighter will wrap up the primary," said Clark. "These candidates are going to fight it out over authenticity on taxes and spending."

Thursday's Fix Picks:

1. CBO Scores! (The health care bill, that is.)
2. Chris Christie and the politics of weight.
3. Embattled Gov. David Paterson defends embattled Rep. Charlie Rangel
4. President Obama to raise cash for NY-23 nominee.
5. Levi Johnston: Nude.

Branstad's In: In a recruiting coup for national Republicans, former four-term Iowa governor Terry Branstad (R) has formed an exploratory committee to look at a race against Gov. Chet Culver (D) in 2010. Branstad, who served as governor of the Hawkeye State from 1982 to 1998(!), is currently the president of Des Moines University. A recent poll conducted for the Des Moines Register showed that 48 percent of Iowans wanted to see Branstad run again and roughly six in ten still had a favorable impression of the former governor. If, as expected, Branstad runs, he would be the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, although 2006 lieutenant governor candidate Bob Vander Plaats and former state House speaker Chris Rants -- among others -- are in the field. Culver's approval ratings have taken a dip of late but Iowa proved itself to be an emerging Democratic-leaning state in the 2008 election. The Iowa Democratic party released a Web video on Wednesday casting Branstad as a figure of the past not the future.

Coakley's Wide Lead: Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) released polling Wednesday that shows her with a wide lead in the Dec. 8 special election primary fight. Coakley took 47 percent to 12 percent for Rep. Michael Capuano, four percent for businessman Steve Pagliuca and one percent for City Year co-founder Alan Khazei, according to pollster Celinda Lake. Coakley has a six-to-one favorable/unfavorable ratio with 66 percent of voters in the poll saying they viewed the attorney general in a favorable light. The poll affirms Coakley's status as the clear frontrunner in the Dec. 8 special election primary. State Sen. Scott Brown is the odds-on favorite for the Republican nod. The general special election is set for Jan. 19.

Click It!: Given state Sen. Creigh Deeds's (D-Va.) last name, this was probably inevitable.

Penry's Cash Haul: Josh Penry, the upstart state senator who is seeking the Republican nomination to challenge Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D) in 2010, raised $416,000 in his first quarter of active fundraising, his campaign announced late Wednesday. "Josh doesn't need to raise more than the entrenched political veterans he's up against," said campaign manager Mike Britt. "But we need to be competitive, and competitive we are." By comparison, Ritter collected $452,000 over the past three months while former representative Scott McInnis (R) has yet to report his fundraising. Colorado is regarded by Republicans as a ripe pickup opportunity as Ritter has run into problems on his ideological right and left.

Say What?: "This is one of the most important governorships in the nation." -- Vice President Joe Biden on, wait for it, New Jersey.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 8, 2009; 5:45 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Fix Poll: The Most Underrated Senator?
Next: The Most Important Number in Politics Today

Comments

The drowning man clutches at whatever feeble straws float his way.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 8, 2009 8:23 PM | Report abuse

More than 50,000 people across the nation donated to Joe Wilson, with an average contribution of $53.49 (imagine how much more Sarah Palin could raise -- her book is still #1 at Amazon.com -- this could be Reagan vs. Carter all over again : )

Wilson, in a statement his campaign will release later today, called the haul "a humbling honor" and added:

"At town hall meetings in the 2nd District of South Carolina and across America, people are not merely asking questions, they are demanding answers. They believe, as I do, that progress in America begins where the status quo ends — Washington's way is not always the RIGHT way.

Americans understand that these are times of great consequence. The change we were promised is not the change that has been delivered. We have a choice: we can sit back and watch, or we can stand up and act. One by one, Americans have chosen to stand up, I intend to stand proudly with them and the constituents of the 2nd District of South Carolina."

Posted by: JakeD | October 8, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Since Rubio was brought up earlier (in order to keep his $1 million raised in THREE MONTHS in perspective), Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) raised $2.7 million just in the few weeks since he called out pResident Obama as a liar.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1009/Joe_Wilsons_tally_since_You_Lie_rises_to_27_million.html

Posted by: JakeD | October 8, 2009 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Meg Whitman backed Barbara Boxer in 2004. This definitely will not go over well with California conservatives.

Posted by: lml7120 | October 8, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Cali Conservative (oxymoron?).

Cali Conservative = Midwestern Moderate

Posted by: newbeeboy | October 8, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

When Schwarzenegger took a stab at governing from the far right he got a new one ripped, a succession of stinging defeats. But unlike the national GOP he took a lesson from it, reformed, and even apologized to the voters. Amazingly, the apology was accepted and he went on to become a popular centrist Republican, almost -- hope you're sitting down -- a *moderate*.

Wonder how many most national losses it'll take for the GOP to learn the same lesson?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 8, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

For those who are interested in the ACTUAL THREAD TOPIC now and latest polling on possible match-ups between Whitman/Poizner/Campbell vs. Newsom/Brown:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_election,_2010#General_election

Posted by: JakeD | October 8, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Nice to know there's one state in the union where religious bigots can't get real consideration.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 8, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: shrink2 | October 8, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Chris ~ it's disingenuous of Republicans to go all "gung ho" on increasing troop strength instead of bringing them home. The Afghan/Iraq war has already cost a trillion dollars to US taxpayers. If Republicans are so against a healthcare bill because of its cost, why don't they want to stop spending money on a fruitless war? When I hear Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC talk to Republicans, she asks about both, but she never connects the dots. CONNECT THEM, CHRIS~!

Posted by: sherrycn | October 8, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

The science question is whether being fat is more akin to smoking, drinking and drugging, in which case it is a disease, or, being out of control of your "demons" or whatever: not ok, not a good thing. If this is the way it is, then this is not about appearance discrimination.

Or is being fat more akin to skin color, the language dialect/accent you grew up with or something else that is a normal variant, to be cheerfully accommodated by the Diversity celebrating world view?

Either way, joking ugly, that he used being fat to get out of paying traffic fines, this should provoke a backlash. I hope it does.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 8, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Very funny.

Seriously, though, if someone has read Morris's latest book, let me know what you think before I order it. I didn't know that he was helping out Christy Mihos against Deval Patrick this time around.

Posted by: JakeD | October 8, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

BTW: has anyone read the latest book by Dick Morris?

Posted by: JakeD


no, I bought several hundred copies but just use them to impress my coworkers by leaving them around my workspace.

I still have thousands of copies of Beck and Levin that are currently used as door props.

Posted by: snowbama | October 8, 2009 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Now that that whole unpleasant WAR thing is all wrapped up:

Pres. Barack Obama will take to the court in a basketball game with a handful of cabinet members and lawmakers tomorrow.

Scheduled to take place tomorrow evening at the White House basketball court, the game wil feature 9 Democratic lawmakers, 2 Republicans, and four cabinet secretaries.


Here's the full list of participants:

Secretary of Housing & Urban Development Shaun Donovan
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar
Representative Mike Arcuri (D-NY)
Representative John Boccieri (D-OH)
Representative Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Representative Baron Hill (D-IN)
Representative Jay Inslee (D-WA)
Representative Frank Kratovil (D-MD)
Representative Rick Larsen (D-WA)
Representative Patrick Murphy (D-PA)
Representative John Shimkus (R-IL)
Representative Heath Shuler (D-NC)

Let's see, three hour meeting with generals. three hour basketball game. works out. 20 minutes with general, 2 days on failed Olympic bid. time for a big speech looks like.

Posted by: snowbama | October 8, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

"Going Rogue" still holding strong as the #1 Best Seller at Amazon.com right now.

If Palin used this book to lay out her conservative vision for the future, taking our country back from the libs, she could easily win here in California!

BTW: has anyone read the latest book by Dick Morris?

Posted by: JakeD | October 8, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Thanks!

Posted by: JakeD | October 8, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

To JakeD:

You're quite right. I rarely say 'never', and I should have tempered that, but for the foreseeable demographically-ordained future, it would be a major fluke, as would Sarah Palin's being elected President--but I'm not saying 'never'! ;-)

Posted by: sverigegrabb | October 8, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

In other news:

Coakly is formidable, but despite the polls, Capuano shouldn't be counted out just yet.

Christie and weight:
As I mentioned to you yesterday, whilst it's despicable to go after ANY candidate based on physical appearance (even the SNL Paterson parody is in questionable taste), but in this PC-obsessed society, targetting fat people is one of the few forms of discrimination left which won't provoke a major negative backlash. Even gays have more lip-service protection than fatties. Why not focus on his questionable ethics and possible mob/ Rove-protégé ties instead?

Levi & nudity:
He's just Bristol Palin's ex-lover and father of her out-of-wedlock child. Who cares? We've all seen willies before. This is unworthy of even a passing mention on The Fix, Chris.

Posted by: sverigegrabb | October 8, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

Neither Rubio nor Crist are among the thread topics. How about you go pollute the other threads and leave this one for those of us who want to actually discuss why California conservatives are not running for Governor here?

Posted by: JakeD | October 8, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Back on TOPIC:

Reps. Dan Lungren and Tom McClintock are uninterested because they've been there, done that (I actually volunteered on Lungren's campaign in 1998, where Dan only got 38.4% of the vote, compared to 57.9% for Grey Davis). What we need here in California now are two -- or more -- liberal candidates splitting that vote so that a solid pro-life conservative third-party candidate can win. Public opinion against abortion has never been better in 30 years. This is the time!

I'm not joking about Palin bailin' on the GOP for an INDEPENDENT bid ; )

P.S. to sverigegrabb -- never say "never".

Posted by: JakeD | October 8, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

A true Conservative, like Dan Lundgren (who has already tried unsuccessfully for the top CA spot before) will NEVER get elected in CA. Take note Brian Billbray. Just as a true conservative will never get elected for Gov. in NY. It's the fate of the Coasts to be more liberal (note lc 'L') in the current climate.

Posted by: sverigegrabb | October 8, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

ooh, this must hurt:

Marc Rubio, the man who hopes to deny Gov. Charlie Crist the Republican Senate nomination in Florida next year, is blasting his party's leadership in Washington for "shrill" rhetoric that he blames on "laziness."

"In essence, that shrillness is a product of laziness," he said. "It's a lot harder to defeat people intellectually than it is to smear them."

Posted by: drindl | October 8, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

For anyone except "koolkat_1960":

The federal budget deficit tripled to a record $1.4 trillion for the 2009 fiscal year that ended last week, congressional analysts said today. The increasing alarm over this debt has brought together a diverse coalition of conservatives, libertarians and independents.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6559c650-b36e-11de-ae8d-00144feab49a.html

Posted by: JakeD | October 8, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.” Franken responded, “This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This amendment would defund any contractor that refuses to give a victim of rape their day in court.”

In the end, Franken won the debate. His amendment passed by a 68-30 vote, earning the support of 10 Republican senators including that of newly-minted Florida Sen. George LeMieux. “He did what a senator should do, which was he was working it,” LeMieux said in praise of Franken. “He was working for his amendment.”

Appearing with Franken after the vote, an elated Jones expressed her deep appreciation. “It means the world to me,” she said of the amendment’s passage. “It means that every tear shed to go public and repeat my story over and over again to make a difference for other women was worth it.”

Posted by: drindl | October 8, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully, the GOP nominate one of these three pro-abortion yahoos -- and if the Dems go with Gavin "gay marriage" Newsom there won't be any choice left for conservatives -- maybe we can convince the Palin family to move to San Diego for more than just a month ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 8, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

The victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court [and] Congress plainly has the constitutional power to make that happen."

Posted by: drindl


I am pretty sure the clinton administration blocked this law the last time around.
and now on to Letterman.

Posted by: snowbama | October 8, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Prior thread:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/most-important-number/the-most-important-number-in-p-45.html

As I said, earlier, the American INDEPENDENT Party has seen the largest gains of any political party here in California ("Decline to State" has jumped way up too), Instead of this turning to voter apathy again, I think now if the time for a third party to strike.

Posted by: JakeD | October 8, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

For those of you too young to know who George Wallace was, he was much more than just a segregationist -- and I disagreed with him on that issue at the time -- Wallace actually became a born-again Christian in the late 1970s and apologized to civil rights leaders for his earlier segregationist views. In 1979, Wallace himself said of his stand in the schoolhouse door: "I was wrong. Those days are over and they ought to be over." His term as Governor (1983–1987) saw a record number of African-American appointments to government positions.

George Washington owned slaves too.

What is more important is how far we've come since then -- BOTH major parties are on the decline, as seen in yesterday's "Most Important Number in Politics" thread -- some third party needs to take advantage of this growing distrust in government. We need another Mr. Smith going to Washington.

Posted by: JakeD | October 8, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

good for franken:

"In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Franken said:

The constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law … And today, defense contractors are using fine print in their contracts do deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. … The victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court [and] Congress plainly has the constitutional power to make that happen."

Posted by: drindl | October 8, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

It's what always happens to unmoderated politicasl blogs with some traffic, koolkat.

There are just too many rightwing nuts on the dole and in asylums who have access to computers.

Posted by: drindl | October 8, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

snowbama:

It seems as if "koolkat_1960" is vying for the title right now (hopefully, they finally ALL leave for the liberal circle-jerk in the woods, I mean "discussion group of former posters").

Posted by: JakeD | October 8, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

since this blog is being destroyed by two posters

indeed:

drivl and CF8

Posted by: snowbama | October 8, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Thanks drindl -- I've seen this happen before. cnn.com years ago actually had politics chat rooms that were great..until the wingnuts ruined them.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 8, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

This is joke's party:

The American Independent Party is a political party that was a vehicle for the 1968 presidential campaign of Governor of Alabama George C. Wallace, considered a leading advocate of racial segregation

Posted by: drindl | October 8, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse

koolkat, since this blog is being destroyed by two posters, you might want to consider a discussion group of former posters here, who left to escape the sewage. i'll ask them if you can join if you're interested.

Posted by: drindl | October 8, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

drindl: Don't you love this guy? The "nominally GOP controlled" Senate was nothing but a rubber stamp for the all-powerful Dem-controlled House. LOL The guy is the gift that keeps on giving.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 8, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Anyone other than koolkat_1960:

Here in the United States, the House of Representatives is responisble for introducing bills related to the federal budget -- again, if you don't understand this, I suggest you start with Schoolhouse Rock! -- although the Senate was in nominal control of the GOP for a few years, they went along with whatever Reagan and Tip O'Neill worked out re: tax increases.

Posted by: JakeD | October 8, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic Party is not doing so hot here in California either. The American INDEPENDENT Party is actually the fastest growing party out here right now:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/15day-stwdsp-09/ror-050409.htm

Posted by: JakeD | October 8, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

If you scratch below the surface -- not too hard since there isn't much there -- you find a different human being, one entirely at variance with what you find in the media or his autobiographies. It is a man driven not to overcoming obstacles but stuck on them, still living in his past. The case of Barack Obama is one of a deep, deep inferiority complex from his childhood and he just seems unable to rise from it.


Looking at BHO from another angle shows the real man. He was conceived out of wedlock while his mother was in college. His childhood consisted of a father who abandoned him as an infant -- unwanted -- and he was raised by another man in another country through many of his formative childhood years. He didn't look like his Indonesian adopted father or his white mother in an Asian culture. As he grows up, he is introduced to marijuana and cocaine. The people he hangs around with are avowed communists and radicals --strange, hateful people and the ideologues on whom Barack Obama cuts his philosophical teeth.


Just out of college, he writes his first autobiography that is filled with errors at best, lies at worst. He wants the world to see him differently than what he really is. There is no attachment in his life, and just like Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon before him, the crowd takes the place of a physically or emotionally absent father.


Obama is different, though. The hate is still brewing inside him. His only foundation consists of communists who turn his inferiority into narcissism, a common result of an inferiority complex. He wants to change America and reflect his image.
Nobody thought in years past a man such as Barack Obama, almost completely inexperienced and un-vetted, would ever occupy the White House. Surely, the head of the Executive Branch would never abuse the office as he has. It is all about Barack Obama and his fellow-travelling media.


You were lied to and straight-faced from the beginning. He was supposed to be the One, but what you got was politics as usual, this time with no inhibitions toward power, a shrewd and crooked power grab. American wanted to believe in a dream of racial reconciliation, so they believed the media-generated images and blocked out warnings from conservatives about Obama's troubling and troubled past.


No wonder BHO apologizes for America. He is out for revenge, thanks to an inculcation of other self-loathers that surrounded him since he was a boy. This is a deeply wounded man who will stop at nothing to seek vengeance on a way of life here in America.


It's time to admit it: you were played for a fool. Surprise, surprise, America, you are waking up to find you've been punk'd.

Posted by: snowbama | October 8, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

drindl: What did I predict? The guy has the intellect of a hungry dog. (credit to Pavlov)

As usual, he is off on his facts too. The "Dem Congress" he tries to blame the tax hikes on? The Senate was controlled by the GOP for the first six years of Reagan's tenure as president. Joked lies again.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 8, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

you're right koolkat, they have their mythology enshrined and historical revision down pat-- i should know better.

this is funny...

"The state's Republican party has contracted considerably over the past decade; as of February, there were just over five million registered Republicans, meaning that roughly three in ten Californians who are eligible to vote identify as GOPers.

That shrinkage means that the Republican primary electorate is more controlled by dyed-in-the-wool social and fiscal conservatives who are looking for a candidate to stay true to the principles they continue to stick by despite the party's decline and fall in the state."

The R party has shrunk in california because it keeps getting further right, so Chris suggests they try to run something further right than a moderate repub, who has at least a slim chance of winning there. Good recipe for losing.

Posted by: drindl | October 8, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960:

Citing the size of the federal budget and deficit is a "nonsensical response" to you?

Posted by: JakeD | October 8, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I see. President Reagan indeed SIGNED into law a few tax increases but only after the first HUGE tax cut that he got passed -- signing bills into law is not the same thing as "vote" though, at least according to Schoolhouse Rock! -- by the end of his Presidency, roughly half of the 1981 tax cut had been recovered via tax increases pushed through by a Dem Congress. The U.S. Treasury more than made up the remainder with an improving economy, which was Reagan's entire point.

Keep in mind that Reagan had to also spend a lot to defeat the Soviet Union. So, he focused on the priority of reducing high personal income taxes to include the marginal tax rate, the rate you pay on the last dollar you earn. Some of these taxes he eventually signed back into law were more about horsetrading for votes than a real commitment to pragmatism. Reagan also worked with Sen Bradley in 1986 to close the many loopholes in the tax code, most abused by businesses. In the end, however, the total tax burden went down.

Brad DeLong only includes a small bit of detail in that Forbes piece. That said, though, what Reagan could do was set some priorities for himself and live with not getting it all. The results speak for themself, and will provide a useful analogy to the 1980 election when Sarah Palin takes on Barack Obama.

Higher taxes will indeed destroy the economy if Obama has any plans to repay the trillions of dollars we are throwing around. The faulty stimulus bill was 25% the size of the federal budget, throw in TARP and you get another 25% to be followed by $634 Billion for Obamacare and you have another 18%. This is far more than Reagan and Bush did put together!

Adding these staggering numbers to the debt doesn’t worry any of you besides shrink2?

Posted by: JakeD | October 8, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

drindl -- your first post gave joked an opening for one of his idiotic forays into semantics.

You have corrected yourself perfectly. Reagan signed into law some of the biggest tax increases this country has ever seen.

These are what are known as facts but I'm sure Joked will have some sort of nonsensical response. Just remember, DON'T FEED THE TROLL!!

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 8, 2009 11:58 AM | Report abuse

you worship a myth, joko...

"Reagan signed into law major tax increases every year of his presidency after the first. By the end of his presidency, he took back half of the 1981 tax cut in the form of higher taxes. And it should also be noted that when confronted with a crisis in Social Security in 1983, Reagan endorsed a rescue plan drafted by Alan Greenspan that consisted almost entirely of higher taxes."

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

Posted by: drindl | October 8, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse

drindl:

Ronald Wilson Reagan NEVER voted for tax increases during his Presidency -- he was in the EXECUTIVE branch of the federal government -- maybe you meant VETO or were thinking of his son?

Posted by: JakeD | October 8, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

koolkat -- goldwater and reagan would be considered liberals today. reagan voted for tax increases 11 times during his presidency.

Posted by: drindl | October 8, 2009 11:20 AM | Report abuse

California provides a template to understand the Republican Party's problem nationally. Any "conservative" nominee from today's party will have a standing on social issues that will be anathema to urban/suburban women and to Hispanics, Asians etc. In California, that's a huge percentage of the electorate.

Posted by: jhpurdy | October 8, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

gem803 explains how you get Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor. He had the name recognition to make it through the primary even though he seems to be a moderate republican. He had no credentials or pre-existing election machine to get him there. Now, the super-wealthy business people (Bloomberg, Corzine, Whitman) see there are other ways to get elected rather than working your way up.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | October 8, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

I am a Californian and a registered Democrat,yet, I don't support many of the issues proposed by the Democratic Party in this state. I guess that makes me fiscally conservative. The writer should consider that there are those who are more liberal on some social issues, but don't like the reckless spending done by a Democratic legislatures. Many Democrats cross over to elect a more conservative candidate. This state is in financial trouble because of outrageous spending. I saw that when I worked in the school district.

Posted by: gem803 | October 8, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

I am a Californian and a registered Democrat,yet, I don't support many of the issues proposed by the Democratic Party in this state. I guess that makes me fiscally conservative. The writer should consider that there are those who are more liberal on some social issues, but don't like the reckless spending done by a Democratic legislature. Many Democrats cross over to elect a more conservative candidate. This state is in financial trouble because of outrageous spending. I saw that when I worked in the school district.

Posted by: gem803 | October 8, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

I am a Californian and a registered Democrat,yet, I don't support many of the issues proposed by the Democratic Party in this state. I guess that makes me fiscally conservative. The writer should consider that there are those who are more liberal on some social issues, but don't like the reckless spending done by a Democratic legislature. Many Democrats cross over to elect a more conservative candidate. This state is in financial trouble because of outrageous spending. I saw that when I worked in the school district.

Posted by: gem803 | October 8, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Maybe Cali is the crucible, the political melt from which the new Republican will emerge. Reagan was a retrograde example. Ahnold perhaps an inflection point. At the end of yesterday's Bloomberg Foil string, I was blabbing about this. My bet is Bloomberg as the next winning R Presidential candidate, but maybe s/he will come from California.

When even Gerson and Gingrich are warning the Republicans against immigrant baiting, you know something has to change. But will the bigots let a socially pragmatic fiscal conservatives get elected? No, probably not.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 8, 2009 9:56 AM | Report abuse

margaret -- notice how often GOP candidates these days mention Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike or other great Repubs of the past? Virtually never except when trying to defend their miserable rabble against charges of racism.

Never mind liberal Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller. Those people have been written out of the GOP history books altogether.

The great moderate Republicans of the past would be deried as RINOs by the mental midgets dominating the GOP now.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 8, 2009 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Koolkat -- indeed, the threads from this week have frequently had long pauses or stopped all together when a couple of posters decide they are host and put up endless strings of discredited gossip, pathetic bragging/lying, smug slurs and off-topic nonsense.

I had a poster tell me that when he realizes he is paying more attention to the poster than he does to the topic he bails out. This is a lesson for all of us.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | October 8, 2009 9:26 AM | Report abuse

"Ritter has run into problems on his ideological right and left."

Stalin called this problem,
"left-right-deviationism"
and he figured out how to handle it,
cheaply.

Sorry, but when Mm. Devine brought up LP Beria yesterday as a reason to oppose health reform, I've had the Cheka in mind for the first time in a long time.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 8, 2009 9:23 AM | Report abuse

The amazing thing in Iowa is that for 16 years Barnstad was peaches and cream with the Republican party. He was going to be Governor for life. But now, just 10 years later, he's just a RINO and he won't please the base.

The youtube videos Terry and Chet are cute -- but they clearly come from a Republican base that sees Barnstad as a better Democrat than a Republican. There's the gratitude of your party. Tom Ridge got it, Mike Castle will get it.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | October 8, 2009 9:19 AM | Report abuse

"No, I think it's because NJ is stereotypically such a punchline of a state."

Which is funny in and of itself, since NJ is one of the most affluent states in the US. So I'm sure the jokes really don't hurt too much.

Whereas joking about the GOP base states seems sort of cruel since most of those states are pathetic, third-world cesspools of undereducated, in-bred, toothless "Deliverance" extras.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 8, 2009 9:19 AM | Report abuse

"It is funny because it is perfectly obvious.

It does not need to be said + it is Joe Biden saying the thing that does not need to be said = funny.

Posted by: shrink2"

No, I think it's because NJ is stereotypically such a punchline of a state.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2009 9:12 AM | Report abuse

I see the resident rightwinguts got an early start today. Looking forward to hours of thread-killing garbage.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 8, 2009 9:08 AM | Report abuse

I take it the WH is surrendering in VA. What does it say that a purple state is full of remorse?

Barrys bus has so many corpses underneath.

Posted by: snowbama | October 8, 2009 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Don't see why Biden saying the NJ governorship is key warrants the "wait for it." What am I missing here?

It is funny because it is perfectly obvious.

It does not need to be said + it is Joe Biden saying the thing that does not need to be said = funny.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 8, 2009 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Don't see why Biden saying the NJ governorship is key warrants the "wait for it." What am I missing here?

***

ATTENTION A.G. HOLDER/POTUS/VPOTUS:

Where is the DOJ Civil Rights Division investigation into the covert use (read: TORTURE) of silent, harmful microwave and laser directed energy weapons systems on unjustly targeted Americans and their families by a Bush-legacy federal-local "multi-agency coordinated action program" that continues to commit civil and human rights violations under Team Obama...

...including government-enabled, warrantless GPS-activated, covert "community stalking" harassment, surreptitious home entries, and terrorism?

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 8, 2009 8:28 AM | Report abuse

The Baucus bill won't change any of the basic structures in the existing health care business model. It just pumps more money into them. Nothing to prevent 15% or more annual premium increases; the projected savings from Medicare by establishing another oversight committee are a laugher.

Paying for it all?

If the money does not get borrowed, then it comes from something else we could have spent it on. Much more of America's dwindling wealth generating capacity is heading for health care. This bill only serves to say how that is going to happen.

Next question, is it better than no bill at all? Could be, it will be a close call in the end. Very disturbing how many people are still left uninsured, it will still make lots of sense for people to go uncovered, the penalty is meaningless and if your credit is already in the toilet, may as well just keep using firefighters (911 calls for "I've fallen and I can't get up.") and ERs, you just don't pay...kind of like the way things work now.


Posted by: shrink2 | October 8, 2009 8:26 AM | Report abuse

How many soldiers die while mr mushy owimp dithers, the report from his hand picked general laNguishing on his desk for weeks.

After running for two years and vacationing for the last year, Barry is surprised that it is up to him to decide. No czars, no press, no panels, no UN. What's a spineless poltroon to do?

Posted by: snowbama | October 8, 2009 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Another trillion bucks to accomplish very little

funny bookkeeping. Lies about costs. Leaves out 25 million.

Typical liberal "solution".

Posted by: snowbama | October 8, 2009 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Based on his remarks about the campaign for Governor, Chris does not understand politics in California. He appeared surprised that all three GOP candidates for Governor are pro-choice but the fact is that only pro-choice Republicans get elected statewide, especially for Governor. What Republican Governors has California had recently? Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pete Wilson, both pro-choice. In California, nominating someone who is not pro-choice just concedes the election to a Democrat.

Posted by: RonPosts | October 8, 2009 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Wow, "Three Stooges" who want to go to Sacramento. Only in "Caulifornia".

Posted by: NotBubba | October 8, 2009 7:29 AM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, here in liberal California, an actual conservative cannot be elected anymore -- Statewide, the GOP are impotent which is why the State is almost bankrupt -- maybe it will take actually running out of "other people's money" before the populace realize that socialism is not the answer. We'll just have to wait and see if that lesson can be learned before it's too late.

Posted by: JakeD | October 8, 2009 6:55 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company