Olympia Snowe, Republican senator from Maine, decides not to seek re-election

By Richard K. Barry 

How interesting is it that one of the most moderate Republicans in the Senate, Olympia Snowe from Maine, is not seeking re-election? 

The Washington Post had this to say:

In announcing her plans, Snowe, 65, emphasized that she is in good health and was prepared for the campaign ahead. But she said she was swayed by the increasing polarization in Washington.

"Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term," Snowe said in a statement. "So at this stage of my tenure in public service, I have concluded that I am not prepared to commit myself to an additional six years in the Senate, which is what a fourth term would entail."

Snowe's retirement represents a major setback for the GOP's efforts to regain a majority in the Senate. As a moderate Republican, she may be the party's only hope to hold a seat in the strongly blue state.

According to the report, her announcement took the Republican leadership completely by surprise, noting that she had hired some heavyweight staff to help her in the campaign and that as late as Monday she had sent out an invitation for a fund-raiser.

Traditionally, Snowe has been one of the most moderate Republicans, though more and more, no doubt to fend off challenges from her right, she has been taking more conservative positions on a range issues. However, according to the just-released National Journal 2011 vote rankings, only her Republican Senate colleague, Susan Collins, also from Maine, voted with the Democrats more than Snowe.

In this strongly blue state, Snowe might have been the Republican's only chance to hold the seat, or as Nate Silver tweets, "We had estimated GOP's chances of holding Maine senate at 85% before. Maybe 20-30% now after Snowe retirement."

As important as that is, her decision not to run says volumes about how difficult it must be for moderate Republicans to maintain their sanity in the crazy world that is now the GOP. They are a dying breed, these moderates, and her decision reinforces the point that Washington is becoming more polarized by the day.

Perhaps she realized what she would have to become to secure her party's nomination, amidst claims from radical conservatives that she is a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Or maybe she decided that the Republican Party she once knew no longer exists, and it just wasn't any fun banging her head against the wall.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

The self-aggrandizing hypocrisy of Olympia Snowe

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

As you may have heard, Republican Senator Olympia Snowe is retiring.

Via twitter: 

Sen. Snowe: "frustrating... that atmosphere of polarization and 'my way or the highway' ideologies has become pervasive" in politics. 

-- Steve Brusk (@stevebruskCNN)

But what is the self-righteous, process-paralyzing, power-wielding, Republican-leaning "centrism" of Snowe, Collins, Nelson, Lieberman, Landrieu et al. if not a "my way or the highway" ideology and general approach to politics?

Besides, as Zandar reminds us:

Weep not for the Snowe Queen, because when it counted, she was a GOP whackaloon through and through.

Indeed she was (even if she's much more acceptable than the crazy Tea Party types currently in favor in her state). And now the good people of Maine can get back to their senses and send a Democrat to replace her in Washington. Preferably one who isn't of her ideological ilk.

White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley resigns, finding no deals to be made

By Richard K. Barry

With all eyes on today's Republican New Hampshire primary, it was almost possible to miss the news that William M. Daley, President Obama's Chief of Staff, will be stepping down after what most people are calling a frustrating year. He will be replaced by Jacob J. Lew, the budget director. 

The New York Times had this to say about Daley's departure:

Mr. Daley, an affable former banker who is the son and brother of legendary Chicago mayors, proved to be an awkward fit on the Obama team. Recruited largely for his deal-making skills and ties to the business world, he failed to help his boss strike a huge budget deal with Republicans in the House.

After that failed negotiation, which led to months of acrimony between the White House and Congress, some of Mr. Daley's duties were transferred to Pete Rouse, a low-profile former Congressional aide with closer ties to the president.

That Mr. Daley was frustrated by Washington was no secret. In October, he told a Chicago TV station that he planned to leave the White House in January 2013, at the end of Mr. Obama's first term. It was not clear what precipitated his decision to leave now.

Is the obvious comment that a man with "deal-making" skills was not the best fit for the current dynamic in Washington? Old-school politics, with good-faith bargaining, which involves getting some of what you want in return for giving up some things, is not where we are at the moment.

We know that the Republican agenda is to ensure that Obama fails. The way they see it, nothing is supposed to happen. In that context, a deal-maker like Daley really had nothing to do.

Now that the election is in sight, different skills are required. Best advice for Obama may be in the immortal words of the late owner of the Oakland Raiders, Al Davis, who famously said, "just win baby."

Just win, Mr. President, with majorities in the House and Senate, then jam it down their throats in a second term, if that's how they want to play. It's not my first choice, but it's all they're likely to understand.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Scott Brown: Massachusetts moderate

By Richard K. Barry

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama nominated former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Of course, a bunch of Republicans feigned outrage with Obama for sidestepping the Senate with this recess appointment, as if such manoeuvring hasn't been the approach taken by presidents of all parties over the years. But who needs facts when you are mostly all about being indignant?

The most interesting part of all this is that Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown decided to support Obama, much to the annoyance of his own party. As he said:

I support President Obama's appointment today of Richard Cordray to head the CFPB. I believe he is the right person to lead the agency and help protect consumers from fraud and scams. While I would have strongly preferred that it go through the normal confirmation process, unfortunately the system is completely broken. If we're going to make progress as a nation, both parties in Washington need to work together to end the procedural gridlock and hyper-partisanship.

Gee, I wonder if this had anything to do with the fact that the Democratic challenger for his Massachusetts Senate seat is Elizabeth Warren, the president's first choice to lead the agency?

That's what you get when you're a Republican trying to hold onto a Senate seat in a generally liberal state going into a presidential election cycle that will surely bring out a lot of Democrats on election day. You try to out-progressive your progressive opponent. 

Could Brown be one those "Massachusetts moderates" Newt Gingrich likes so much to talk about? Why, those people will say anything!

Everywhere else in the country, the GOP panders to the right. In Massachussets, it panders to the left. 

Give him credit, his campaign spokesman is spinning hard as he said this about Brown:

Scott Brown promised to be an independent voice when he ran in 2010, and he is keeping that promise. He looks at every issue on the merits and does what he thinks is best for Massachusetts and America regardless of partisan politics.

I'm just not sure this is the election for independent minded Republicans to be hawking their wares. More like, "be a true believer or be gone."

Like the old joke: "The only thing you get by standing in the middle of the road is run over." Truer words were never spoken for Republicans this time around. 

Bye, Scott.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Elizabeth Warren ahead in Mass. Senate race

By Richard K. Barry

Late last week, the Boston Herald reported on a new poll in Massachusetts showing Democrat Elizabeth Warren now ahead of Republican incumbent Scott Brown for the first time in their contest to grab a U.S. Senate seat in the 2012 election. 

In the University of UMass-Lowell/Boston Herald poll, Warren is ahead of Brown 49 to 42, "outside the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 5.3 percentage points":

The poll of 505 registered Massachusetts voters was conducted for UMass-Lowell by Princeton Survey Research from Dec. 1 - Dec. 6, and shows Warren with her largest lead yet in the campaign. A UMass-Lowell/Boston Herald poll taken in late September showed Brown ahead by a 41-38 percent margin, so the new poll represents a 10-point swing in Warren's favor in less than two months.

It's early days, but this is the first lead for Warren against Brown. The poll also indicates that the barrage of attack ads from both sides is having an impact, with the negatives for both candidates inching up.

[L]ess than half of Massachusetts voters -- 48 percent -- now say they have a favorable view of the Republican from Wrentham, down from 52 percent in the UMass-Lowell/Herald poll in late September. The percentage of voters who say they have an unfavorable view of Brown has increased from 29 to 35 percent, according to the poll. 

But Warren has also apparently suffered from a Karl Rove-led TV attack ad campaign, which focuses on her stated support for the Occupy Wall Street movement. Just 18 percent of voters had an unfavorable view of Warren in late September, and that number has now jumped nine points to 27 percent. Warren's favorable numbers have increased only slightly, from 30 to 34 percent.

However:

Warren right now appears to be winning the battle of campaign messages... Asked who would do a better job of looking out for middle class families, 43 percent of voters cite Warren and 33 percent identify Brown. Nearly half of Massachusetts voters also say Warren would do a better job of regulating Wall Street institutions.

Yes, it's early days, but one of the keys to the 2012 election, both for the White House and for Senate and House races, will be the extent to which the unfairness of the growing gap between rich and poor resonates with independent voters. If the right is successful in blaming Obama for the sluggish economy, that's trouble for him. But if enough people understand, despite some populist sleight of hand, that the GOP has always embraced its role as mouthpiece for Big Money, the Democrats benefit.

If the ballot question in 2012 is, Who will best stand for the middle class against Wall Street, Warren wins and so, maybe, does Obama. Because Elizabeth Warren has been such an effective voice as a critic of wealth and power in America, it will be interesting to see how this argument plays out not only in Massachusetts, but across the country. 

But as the impact of political ads from both side shows, it will be some time before we know how the American people are likely to see the election. Karl Rove would like to frame it as a campaign about stopping dirty hippies and other supposed slothful sorts from getting money for free. Democrats would like to frame it as about the grossly unfair distribution of power in the country and the impact it has on the ability of most hard working America to get a fair shake.

Massachusetts could well be a testing ground for the effectiveness of competing messages.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)