Friday, February 4, 2011


Mickey's moving to the Daily Caller.

I'm actually of two minds regarding his shift to a downmarket right-wing HuffPo... But whatever! Because now that Mickey is no longer paid by the same Harman/Brown squad that employs Mickey's arch-nemesis Howie Kurtz we can finally get his sure to be memorable take on this:

"Howard Kurtz Waits Over 40 Days To Issue World's Most Embarrassing Correction"

('scuse link fail, svp)

Monday, November 15, 2010

DeMint Wants Steele Out As RNC Chair

Appearing on Fox News Sunday today, an appallingly smug Sen. Jim DeMint was asked if he thinks a second term for RNC chair Michael Steele would be “good or bad for the party.” DeMint,   once again unwilling to admit his own role in limiting Republican Senate gains, answered:
“I want to look at the choices.  Frankly, I think where we lost a few senate seats, our ground game was not as strong as it could have been.  We were actually outmanned on the ground.  And going into 2012 we need a really strong leader for the Republican Party to match the get-out-the-vote we saw from the Obama machine last time.  And so I appreciate Michael Steele’s service, but I'm looking for some alternatives right now.”

This is just outrageous blame-shifting on DeMint’s part.  Steele oversaw the best Republican showing in more than 70 years, and while Steele’s portion of the credit for those wins is up for debate, he certainly didn’t go out of his way to endorse an unelectable half-wit in Delaware and blow an easy Senate race.  DeMint has shown exactly zero remorse on that score since election day.  His line is that Christine O’Donnell was torpedoed by intra-party criticism after her primary win, a claim equally as preposterous as the argument fed to, and parroted by, Sarah Palin on election night (Palin insists Mike Castle would also have lost to Chris Coons despite every pre-GOP primary poll showing Castle ahead of Coons by 20). 

In that Fox interview, DeMint, in the context of his proposed earmark ban, also went out of his way to dismiss reports of a feud between himself and Mitch McConnell -- “Mitch is a good friend.”  Has McConnell forgiven DeMint for Delaware?  Do they have a deal to forget about DeMint’s O’Donnell’s endorsement so long as DeMint pledges to use better judgment in the future?  Who knows.

But it’s clear that DeMint intends to help push Steele out the door after the Republicans’ triumph.  That’s going to look great.  Who will replace Steele?  DeMint’s fellow South Carolinian, Katon Dawson, who lost to Steele last time around, is interested in running again.  Remember him?  He belonged to a WHITES ONLY COUNTRY CLUB.  Replacing Steele with Dawson would sure work wonders for GOP outreach in the northeast.

Steele’s prominence showed independent voters that the GOP is more than the  Southern Strategy, and his “gaffes” drew attention to the fact that the party is led by someone other than a bloated good ‘ole boy with a comb-over.  On top of the positive optics, Robert Schlesinger, in US News, makes the case that Steele’s “Fire Pelosi” bus tour served to boost enthusiasm for GOP candidates across the country:

“Give credit where it’s due.  The RNC’s ‘Fire Pelosi’ campaign got underappreciated traction in the general election. …  When they hung a ‘Fire Pelosi’ sign outside the RNC, they got flak from some House GOPers -- too much invective, especially directed against a woman.  But when Steele unveiled his ‘Fire Pelosi’ bus tour at the RNC’s summer session, it got uproarious applause.  He covered 13,000 miles in the lower 48 states, rallying with some 230 candidates.  And it came in well under budget, I’m told.”

Steele might not have been the most eloquent spokesman for Republicans, and he might have  badly undersold the potential appeal of conservatism to African-Americans, but the GOP could do with a lot more of his type of good natured awkwardness, and a lot less of Jim DeMint spouting off on how unmarried women and gays are unfit to serve as primary school teachers.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Draft Harry Wilson For NYGOP Chair

A couple of thoughts on the future of the New York GOP:

In 2006, John Faso, of whom the worst that could be said was that he was boring, received a truly astounding 29.2% of the vote against Elliott Spitzer.

This year, Carl Paladino, of whom it can fairly be said that he is a politically-suicidal mouth-breathing troglodyte, got 34.1%.

While Paladino went down by 27.3%, GOP comptroller candidate Harry Wilson lost by about 2%.  And four or five Democratic incumbents from New York's Congressional delegation lost.

All of this should make NY Republicans a little bit optimistic about the party's long-term prospects, especially the massive number of ticket splitters who boosted Wilson.

On the other hand...

 State GOP chair Ed Cox, who did nothing to insulate Wilson or AG candidate Dan Donovan from the Paladino plague, and ought to have been chased out of Albany by now, is vowing to stay put and even resisting pressure to drop one of his top aides.

George Pataki, who endorsed Paladino after Paladino called him a "degenerate idiot,"  is mulling a presidential run in 2012 --  which causes one to wonder whether he is driven more by self delusion or the appeal of months of donor-funded meals and lodging.  In other words, is he more Mike Gravel or Al Sharpton?  Either way, Pataki has no place in the future of the state party.

If the NY GOP is to build on the encouraging results from last week, its new leaders will need to openly denounce Paladino, just about anyone who endorsed Paladino, Cox, Pataki and Joe Bruno.  Who will lead the way?  What are Harry Wilson's plans?  As a Goldman Sachs and Blackstone alum, he probably doesn't need to worry about his next paycheck -- so why not make a run for the NYGOP chairmanship?

Monday, November 8, 2010

DeMint: GOP Critics Of O’Donnell To Blame For Her Loss.

Deflecting his share of the blame for the GOP’s loss in Delaware, Sen. Jim DeMint is arguing that Christine O’Donnell could have been a contender if only establishment Republicans had dummied up about her history of crazy talk. Asked about his endorsement of O’Donnell, DeMint, appearing on “Meet The Press” Sunday, said, “The tea party are responsible for just about every Republican who was elected around the country. This time last year…we were concerned about holding our own. Many thought Republicans would fall below 38 in the Senate. So I supported all the Republican candidates, including Christine O'Donnell. Unfortunately, she was so maligned by Republicans, I don't think she ever had a chance. … We did see, in the wake of her primary win, a number of Republicans suggest she was not a viable candidate. That did make it difficult for her to start on the right foot.”

Palin And DeMint Critics Go Too Far; Bachus: “Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate” -- Really?

Critics of the Palin-DeMint juggernaut need to acknowledge some implausible or flatly inaccurate criticism of the dynamic duo.

The Shelby County Reporter reported over the weekend that last Thursday, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R AL), who is set to chair the House Financial Services Committee, told the South Shelby Chamber of Commerce, “Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate.”

As much as I enjoy holding Palin (and DeMint) accountable for the Delaware loss, this seems like quite a stretch. As Palin mouthpiece Ian Lazaran notes, Palin "did not endorse either Sharron Angle or Ken Buck in their respective primaries." Which is to say, you can argue that tea party GOP primary voters cost the GOP the Senate, but it doesn't really follow that Palin herself "cost us control of the Senate."  She did back Joe Miller over Lisa Murkowski in the GOP primary, but that seat remains Republican either way.

Which brings us to Mort Kondracke, who has already argued:

"The people who got slapped the hardest in this election — besides Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama — are Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin.  Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin are responsible for the fact that the Senate did not go Republican. They’re the ones who are responsible for Christine O’Donnell. They’re the ones who are responsible for Joe Miller in Alaska. They’re the ones who are responsible for Ken Buck in Colorado. They’re the ones who are responsible for Sharron Angle in Nevada.”
 Again, as we said about Bachus's characterization, this is not accurate.  The tea party is arguably "responsible" for Buck and Angle, but Palin and DeMint certainly are not.

Tonight on FNC's Special Report, Kondracke added, "Jim DeMint is a guy who runs candidates in primaries against sitting senators."  This is just flat out wrong.  As far as I can tell, DeMint backed Miller on Sept 8, well after the GOP primary.  Am I wrong?

This kind of sloppiness gives the forces of ideological purity opportunities they do not deserve.

There is one question they need to answer and so far have not:  why did you back Christine O'Donnell when every sober analysis of the race pointed to a clear Castle victory and a certain O'Donnell loss?  Making factually inaccurate or exaggerated claims about Palin and DeMint's endorsements allows them to claim the high ground and evade blame for giving away a US Senate seat.

 Bachus, Kondracke and the like don't want to be seen as anti-populists, so they target their criticism at the "face" of the tea party rather than the movement itself.  I understand the motivation, but the resulting overreach only serves to assist those they intend to marginalize.

Friday, November 5, 2010

Can Robert Gibbs' Role Possibly Expand Any More Than It Already Has?

I see that Robert Gibbs is "seeking to carve out a role beyond briefing reporters" in the expected reorganization of the White House. Hey Mickey readers know that Gibb's role already extends into war fighting, economic central planning and deep sea engineeringRobert Draper just told us so.

Apparently Gibbs has a "faction" -- a faction so powerful that its advice outweighed Secretary Gates'  after Rolling Stone published its infamous McChrystal profile.  Gates wanted just a "reprimand,"
but "Gibbs and others argued that McChrystal had undermined the commander in chief and therefore must go. Obama sided with Gibbs's faction." 
Gibbs also helped to get Obama's approval for the Chrysler bailout:
"I was in the Roosevelt Room when the final decisions were made on the two auto companies," Gibbs recalls. "And I remember Chrysler was the one we discussed last. I'd asked someone before the meeting to pull together stuff on where the Chrysler plants were. And I spoke up at the meeting toward the end and said, 'These communities where the plants are, they're already at 17 to 19 percent unemployment.'

And finally we have, in his own words, Gibbs describing how President Obama put him in charge of the Gulf spill containment effort.  Not just the mid-crisis PR campaign either:

An undersea robotic vehicle in the Gulf had dislodged the containment cap on the BP well. Until the lid was reattached eleven hours later, a new torrent of oil spilled into the sea. Gibbs went back into the Oval to give Obama the news.
The president stared at Gibbs, stunned. "Well, why did it do that?" he demanded.
"Sir, we're trying to find that out."
"Gibbs," Obama said, "your job the rest of the day is to make sure that one of those vehicles doesn't do that again."

Newsweek Buys Weak Palinite Claims

Currently the most popular item on Newsweek's site is a mostly unremarkable mainstream media version of what I had anticipated would be Sarah Palin's election night defense of her role in throwing away the Delaware Senate race.  I was wrong.  I failed to predict that Palin would make the astonishingly implausible argument that Mike Castle would have also lost to Coons.

Newsweek's Ben Adler sort of combines the two arguments:

But it's strange that people seem so ready to assume that the GOP would have unquestionably won all those races [DE, CO & NV] with any old mainstream Republican as the nominee. ...  That sort of counterfactual history is always just a guessing game" and "must be contrasted with the overall boost that Tea Party candidates tended to get."
No it doesn't.  I've heard the same argument, offered much more colorfully, from paleocon acquaintances since the election and even well before.  I still just don't get it.   There is absolutely no evidence that by nominating Mike Castle in Delaware, the GOP's tea party boost would have been weakened in other states.  None.  Same is true in Colorado and Nevada.  Even Jim DeMint's backers note that he didn't get into those races until after the GOP primaries were decided.  So long as the GOP nominated candidates to the left of Lowell Weicker , they could have counted on just the same amount of tea party enthusiasm nationally.  Am I wrong?  Am I missing something?

So, memo to interlocutors in the coming months:

The claim that the Delaware loss was a small price to pay for the historic gains made by the tea party in other races is a glaring non sequitur.  Do not let it pass from the mouths of Palinites without immediate challenge