Author: DavidNYC

To paraphrase Mary McCarthy, every word Michele Bachmann utters is moronic, including “and” and “the.” Delightfully, Dump Bachmann caught her doing an interview on wingnut radio the other day, and Steve Benen has excerpted the best goodies:

• ACORN is “under federal indictment for voter fraud,” but the stimulus bill nevertheless gives ACORN “$5 billion.” (In reality, ACORN is not under federal indictment and isn’t mentioned in the stimulus bill at all.)

• Many members of Congress have “a real aversion to capitalism.”

• the stimulus bill includes a measure to create a “rationing board” for health care, and after the bill becomes law, “your doctor will no longer be able to make your healthcare decisions with you.”

• The recovery package is part of a Democratic conspiracy to “direct” funding away from Republican districts, so Democratic districts can “suck up” all federal funds. Bachmann doesn’t think this will work because, as she put it, “We’re running out of rich people in this country.”

• The “Community-Organizer-in-Chief” is also orchestrating a conspiracy involving the Census Bureau, which the president will use to redraw congressional lines to keep Democrats in power for up to “40 years.” When the host said he was confused, noting that congressional district lines are drawn at the state level, Bachmann said Obama’s non-existent plan is an “anti-constitutional move.”

God I love Michele Bachmann. The only thing that would have made this interview more perfect would have been some hot anti-light rail fulmination. But I’m sure she’ll get right on that next weekend.

Needless to say, this would be a major game-changer:

It now appears that Freudenthal may well seek a third term in 2010 — thanks to a series of legal and political maneuvers that began more than two decades ago.

After Democratic Gov. Ed Herschler served three consecutive terms into the mid-1980s, the state legislature passed a bill limiting Wyoming’s chief executives to two terms. Then, in 1992, voters passed a ballot initiative that brought term limits to the state legislature in the finest “If it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander” tradition.

Fast-forward 12 years to a lawsuit brought by two term-limited legislators — a Democrat and a Republican — challenging the constitutionality of such limits. The state Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the term limits could not be imposed by ballot initiative, ruling that an amendment to the state constitution would be required.

While that decision did not apply to Wyoming’s five statewide offices — including governor — there is a strong sense that if Freudenthal challenged the constitutionality of his own term limits, it would be a slam-dunk victory for the incumbent.

Freudenthal seems an unlikely sort to pursue this kind of challenge – but he’s leaving the door wide open:

Asked about the possibility that Freudenthal would seek a third term, his spokeswoman Cara Eastwood said only: “When the governor has something to announce, he will announce it.”

Putting aside my own feelings about term limits & voter referenda, this would be great news for Democrats, of course. And here in NYC, it doesn’t appear that Bloombo is paying a price for extending his own term limits (despite far worse optics and behavior), so I suspect Freudenthal could pull it off.

Smells like… victory.

A potentially interesting development:

Having wrapped up his career as an ambassador under President Bush, Fort Worth’s Tom Schieffer is back home and pondering a run for governor – as a Democrat.

“I’ve thought about it for a while,” Schieffer told the Star-Telegram. “I have not made a decision.”

Although Schieffer served in a Republican administration under Bush – with whom he worked as general manager of the Texas Rangers – he says there should be no confusion about his political affiliation. “I am a Democrat,” said Schieffer, who voted for Barack Obama in the primary and general elections.

The right Democrat just might find an opening left by the inevitable all-out slugfest grudge match between Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison that will soon be in full bloom. Is Schieffer (brother of CBS broadcaster Bob) that guy? Perhaps.

(h/t)

Everyone thinks they’re Christopher Columbus nowadays:

It’s official: Meg Whitman, the former chief executive of eBay, is planning to run for governor of California.

She announced on Monday that she had formed an exploratory committee, the first step in seeking the Republican nomination for governor in the 2010 race. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger faces term limits and cannot run for re-election, leaving the field wide open for one of the nation’s most powerful governorships.

She’s lining up some heavy hitters in her corner, too:

She also announced that former California Gov. Pete Wilson would serve as the chairman of the campaign while Reps. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.) will serve as co-chairs.

On the staff side, Whitman has attracted high level talent — reflective of the national profile of California races not to mention Whitman’s significant personal wealth — that borrows from a number of the GOP presidential campaigns of 2008 including those of Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Question #1 is whether she can escape a GOP primary with conservative jillionaire state Insurance Comm’r Steve Poizner. Whitman, of course, is worth a fortune, too. Should be a good fight.

Hardly a day – hardly a post – goes by here at the Swing State Project without a reference to the Cook Political Report’s Partisan Vote Index, or PVI for short. In the wake of the 2008 elections, SSP’s pres-by-CD project has spurred a lot of discussion about how the PVI is calculated and why it’s calculated the way it is.

Quite a few people people had a hard time believing my explanation of the math behind the PVI. But you don’t have to take my word for it – this is how the Almanac of American Politics explains things:

Cook Partisan Voting Index. Refers to the Partisan Voting Index (PVI) as used by Charlie Cook, Washington’s foremost political handicapper. The PVI is designed to provide a quick overall assessment of generic partisan strength. For this volume, the PVI includes an average of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections in the district as the partisan indicator. The PVI value is calculated by a comparison of the district average for the party nominee, compared to the 2004 national value for the party nominee. The calculations are based upon the two-party vote. The national values for 2004 are George W. Bush 51.2% and John Kerry 48.8%. The PVI value indicates a district with a partisan base above the national value for that party’s 2004 presidential nominee. Thus a district with an R+15 is a district that voted 15 percentage points (as an average of its 2000 and 2004 presidential vote) higher for Bush than the national value of 51.2%. Similarly, a district with a D+15 is a district that voted 15 percentage points (as an average of its 2000 and 2004 presidential vote) higher for Kerry than the national value of 48.8%. An X +00 indicates an evenly balanced district. (Emphasis added.)

The boldface sentences confirm my understanding of how PVI works. But why should it be calculated this way? I agree with the majority sentiment that it seems to make more sense to compare 2000 district performance with 2000 nationwide performance, not 2004 nationwide performance. This isn’t as big of a deal with the two Bush elections because they were both so close, but comparing Kerry’s 2004 district numbers with Obama’s nationwide numbers produces some pretty serious gaps. I’d be curious to know what sort of justifications or rationales anyone can come up with for the status quo.

In the meantime, some have suggested computing an “SVI” – a “Swing State Project Voting Index,” comparing 2004 to 2004 and 2008 to 2008. In fact, CalifornianInTexas has already gone ahead and started calculating these numbers. For the most part, these will be more favorable to Dems, as the big Kerry minus Obama splits are removed from the equation.

So, I’m asking the community: Should we use the “SVI”? Should it be in addition to the PVI? Are there any pitfalls if we do so? Any reasons not to? Let’s hear your thoughts!

A great day for the Ohio Retread Watch:

Mike DeWine, the former Republican senator from Ohio, said that he will be running for statewide office in 2010.

“I intend to run next year, and there are a lot of different possibilities,” DeWine said. “I have not ruled anything out.”

DeWine would not dismiss running against Rob Portman in the Republican Senate primary, though the two are on good terms from serving in Congress together.

“Rob and I are friends, and we’ve talked over the last few months about a lot of things,” DeWine said. “I’ve got to go through my own assessment.”

DeWine also is considering a campaign for governor against Democrat Ted Strickland — or for the state’s attorney general position.

As we saw earlier today, ex-Rep. Steve Chabot also wants his old seat back. DeWine, it seems, is less choosy, and with good reason – his gubernatorial numbers are not inspiring. But no matter what he decides, I welcome another run from him!

Like Punxsutawney Phil yesterday, Katrina Swett emerges:

With U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H., ready to announce his candidacy for Judd Gregg’s U.S. Senate seat within a week, veteran Democratic activist Katrina Swett will become a candidate for his 2nd District U.S. House seat, Democratic sources say.

Swett briefly ran for senate last cycle, but dropped out when Jeanne Shaheen got into the race. Afterwards, as Dean says, she made nary a peep for the whole campaign. And as far as I can tell, she didn’t make any donations to Paul Hodes, who currently holds the seat she now seeks. Mind you, at no point was Swett hurting for cash. She raised $1.5 million before bailing in 2007 and still has $900K in the kitty.

I have several other problems with a Swett candidacy, among them the fact that she’s wobbly on reproductive choice. Worse still, she was a national co-chair of Joe Lieberman’s campaign for president in 2004, and she supported him to the end against Ned Lamont in 2006. But I’ll let her own words do the talking:

Swett believes Lieberman lost because of three perceived Democratic “sins”: the sin of supporting the Iraq war and being tough on defense, the sin of being bipartisan and the sin of displaying religious faith. Swett said those traits might make Lieberman undesirable to many Democrats but they could be key for Democrats in winning future national elections.

“Round two in Connecticut is going to be a battle between two Democrats: Joe Lieberman, a centrist Democrat, and Ned Lamont, a pretty-far-left-of-center Democrat,” said Swett. “I’m convinced that Joe Lieberman is the better leader… and I’m also convinced that he’s the better positioned politically for the future of the party that I love.”

That’s not the sort of person I’d like to see fill a blue-leaning open seat. Hopefully some other challengers, undeterred by Swett’s warchest, will emerge. Some possible names include: Jay Buckey, an astronaut and professor of medicine at Dartmouth who also briefly sought the senate nomination in 2007; state Sen. Molly Kelly; Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg; and retired Adm. John Hutson, dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center (who shot down speculation that he might run for this seat two years ago). I’m sure we’ll see how the field shakes out soon enough.

Sorry, open seat fans:

U.S. Rep. Jo Bonner, R-Mobile, told the Press-Register today that he will not run for governor of Alabama in 2010, ending months of speculation over whether he would join a crowded field of candidates seeking to replace term-limited Gov. Bob Riley.

“After a lot of serious thought and consideration, as well as many heartfelt prayers, Janee and I have concluded that now is simply not the right time to launch a statewide campaign,” Bonner said.

Bonner nabbed a spot on the Appropriations Committee last year, which makes life in the minority a bit more palatable. And a few weeks ago, he earned some upgrades on his other assignments. In any event, this move scratches a name off of our open seat watch, but both the GOP and Dem gubernatorial fields are still up in the air.

P’co:

Sen. Judd Gregg will be nominated as the new Commerce secretary Tuesday morning, giving President Obama a fresh independent voice in his Cabinet but at a huge cost to Republicans and the larger Senate.

The run-up to the nomination has focused on backroom deals, from New Hampshire’s statehouse to Washington, to preserve the balance of power in Congress. And Tuesday’s White House announcement is expected to be accompanied by one by New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch that will ensure that Gregg’s seat won’t switch to the Democrats before the 2010 elections.

Brian Beutler nails it:

Surely Gregg’s desire to replace himself with somebody who will often oppose his new boss’s agenda is evidence of his deep commitment to the administration, the cabinet, and the agency he appears poised to head.

Can’t wait to see whom Lynch appoints… sheesh.

(Hat-tip: dday)

UPDATE: No, says CNN, we aren’t getting some moderate old-timer:

But state political sources from both parties said Monday that Lynch will name Gregg’s former chief of staff, Bonnie Newman, to replace him.

Newman, most recently the interim president of the University of New Hampshire, also worked in the White House during the first Bush administration and was an assistant commerce secretary during the Reagan administration.

A Democratic president is appointing an arch-conservative senator to his cabinet, and a Democratic governor is going to appoint a replacement senator cut from the exact same cloth. Are we living in bizarro-world? I won’t believe this Newman will serve as a caretaker until the filing deadline passes. (H/t: DTM,B!)