Matt Lewis and the News

Political pundits have long considered California's junior Senator, Barbara Boxer, safe in her seat. One of the more reliably and dogmatically liberal members of Congress' upper chamber, she represents a dark blue state that President Obama won by more than 20 points last year.

All that being said, she may well face a tough re-election campaign next year. As I recently wrote, Boxer has been incapable, thus far, of garnering more than 50% support for her re-election in major polls. The two main figures vying for a chance to replace her, ex-Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, have been doing plenty to put a dent in Boxer's odds of winning a fourth term.

But ironically, they may not be the biggest threat to Boxer's chances in this race. It turns out that Boxer is pretty adept at raising Californians' eyebrows all on her own, and creating circumstances that must make them wonder why they elected her in the first place.

Yesterday, The Hill reported that Boxer does not consider the primary issue arising out of the climate-gate scandal to be the possible manipulation of data relating to global warming for the purposes of increasing alarm about it (or, depending on who you believe, the possible outright fabrication of a case for global warming).

Her primary concern rather is the origin of important information that was, admittedly, leaked.

Said Boxer, "You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate.'She further indicated that if her Environment and Public Works Committee were to hold hearings on the matter, "Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated." A spokeswoman for Carly Fiorina offered this thought on the matter last night: "Ironically, in 2008 she was very interested in leaked information about climate change when it helped support her own views and demanded at the time that all the facts become known -- without regard for the process by which they came out."

To many of Boxer's constituents, however, the issue will be one not just of hypocrisy, but also of her just not "getting it" and looking ready to cast blame on those "tattling" on the University of East Anglia researchers--presumably because what they leaked conflicts directly with liberal orthodoxy that underpins the cap-and-trade bill that she and John Kerry are currently struggling to move through the Senate (despite California's already high 12.5% unemployment).

Boxer's bad day didn't end there, though. Fox News also dinged her for suggesting, in her response to President Obama's speech on Tuesday night in which she outlined her opposition to sending more troops to Afghanistan, that there are only 100 terrorists in the country. According to Fox, "[intelligence] officials called any suggestion that the surge is meant to fight 100 terrorist operatives irresponsible."

Then, yesterday evening, Boxer took to the airwaves of Ed Schultz’s show to defend Democratic efforts on health care reform and wound up tripping over a key figure relating to the expansion of Medicaid. (Here is the relevant clip).

Here's the problem, as The American Spectator's Phil Klein pointed out: Separate to the bad optics of her looking off camera and coming off as thoroughly confused, "anybody with an inkling of understanding of the Senate bill knows that the entire bill only covers 31 million according to the Congressional Budget Office. The expansion of Medicaid and SCHIP accounts for 15 million of that." That certainly seems like the kind of thing that Boxer ought to know--not only is she a three-term Senator, but she's also a major Obamacare advocate.

In sum, it was a pretty bad day for Boxer. More of these could make the California Senate race one worth watching.

Permalink

Digg This |

Facebook |

Technorati

I've been given an inside peek into Palin's book. Here are some details passed along to me (obviously from a pro-Palin perspective) ...

Going Rogue: An American Life

Speculation from the Media:

Is Palin settling scores with the McCain campaign?

The book is the story of her life. It would be ridiculous to leave out the two months of the campaign -- the two months that brought her to national attention. She expresses her delight in meeting so many wonderful Americans and her deep gratitude to John McCain for the honor he gave her. She also expresses her frustrations with some of the activities inside the campaign. It is not "settling scores" but telling the truthful story from her point of view. The book speaks for itself, as Sarah Palin has always spoken for herself. I hope people will read the book, rather than press accounts about the book or comments by those who are mentioned in the book.

What will the book mean to her political future?

She wrote the book because many people because she wanted to tell her story. Many had a misconception of her in the campaign that was compounded by the media coverage. She is considering many things for the future. Right now, she's focused on talking about the book. Politically, she is focused on 2010.

Is she running for president based on the cities on the book tour?

The publishers send authors to the cities and regions where they will sell most books. This tour was organized by HarperCollins based on information from stores, from sales people and from Palin's team. It was primarily a commercial decision based on successful events which will sell books, not a political strategy.

Campaign wardrobe:

- SP never asked anyone to purchase any clothes; many of the items were never worn; in the end everything was returned.

- SP never went on any "big-time shopping trips." She was told the campaign hired stylists to do the shopping before the convention. In fact, one stylist has now set the record straight, admitting that she did the shopping and that I was opposed to the high-priced clothes.

- In fact, "the price tags knocked [her] eyes out." One blazer that cost more than a semester at the University of Alaska. They took SP's dad to Neiman Marcus to shop for $200 ties and $350 shoes. Whenever any one asked who was paying for it, they were told "it was taken care of."

- Everyone who knows SP knew this wasn't true -- she clips coupons; she shops at Costco; she buys in bulk.

- But SP was bothered that my family was made to look like a bunch of hillbillies who had come to the big city and started living large. It's just not who they are. And of course the other candidates and their spouses got off with a free pass.

(CLICK 'PERMALINK' FOR THE REST...)

Campaign infighting:

- As the campaign began losing, some staffers began looking for someone to blame, and SP was a convenient target. Those campaign people who worked closely with SP knew that the Sarah Palin that was being described in leaked stories to the press -- suffering from depression, not working hard -- was not the Sarah Palin they knew.

- These disgruntled staffers were building up a stock of half-truths and innuendoes concerning SP and each other so that they could lay the blame for a loss at someone else's feet. Politico even ran a story claiming that Steve Schmidt and his operatives had a plan to destroy SP's reputation in order to save their own.

* Schmidt has a different account, and in the book SP says that she wants to believe all of this was just the result of the pressure cooker of a national campaign, and not personal; she says that life is too short to hold a grudge.

Couric interview: What happened?

- Prep was minimal. SP was told it would be mellow, short and sweet -- balancing work and motherhood, etc.

- From book: "Out of the many, many hours of tape, I had bad moments just like anyone else. I choked on a couple of responses, and in the harried pace of the campaign, I mistakenly let myself become annoyed and frustrated with many of her repetitive questions."

- "Those few moments have come to define the interviews" since they were repeated and mocked so often. If all you know about SP comes from those interviews, then you don't know her.

- CBS edited hours and hours of tape to seek out the bad moments and cut out material that accurately conveyed SP's message. They wanted to frame "gotcha" moments instead of conveying SP's views accurately.

- SP was told there was only one segment scheduled; instead they went back for segment after segment, even when it was clear it wasn't going well. "You don't drown by falling in the water; you drown by staying there." An unproductive waste of time.

Why didn't SP just tell Katie Couric what she read?

- SP had just gotten off a rally. She was already annoyed from the prior day's interview and really didn’t want to do another one with her.

- When Couric asked that question, she interpreted it as her asking "Do you read?" SP writes that she thought, "What the heck kind of a question is that? Gimme a break. I'm the governor of our largest energy producing state. I've written editorials for major newspapers -- like the New York Times. You don't think I know how to read a paper?" She just wanted to pivot and move on; she says it felt insulting and condescending.

- In hindsight SP says she can see that she made a mistake in letting her frustration show; she says she blew it on that question because she got annoyed.

Was the media coverage of SP unfair?

* SP entered the national arena towards the end of a contentious high-stakes campaign and few people knew about her or her record.

* You either define yourself or you are defined. In the information vacuum after the announcement of SP's addition to the ticket, ridiculous and false information from untrustworthy sources was publicized and became established fact.

* SP was suddenly defined in a way that was almost completely foreign to who she is, and there never seemed to be time during the campaign to set the record straight.

* But when the media rings a bell, it's very difficult to un-ring it. This book is SP's attempt to tell Americans who she is.

o [If they ask how it will surprise some people]: SP is not a cartoon-character of a right-wing extremist. She-s an American woman who believes in things that most Americans believe in -- that government should be fiscally responsible and get out of the way of small businesses so that we can get real job growth; that our country has done much more good in this world than bad; that America should be strong in order to remain free and be a pillar of freedom for others.

* She's just setting the record straight; let others decide if it unfair or not.

Resignation/impact on SP's political future

* Here's what the politics of personal destruction looks like close up. In SP's case, it brought the business of governing Alaska to a grinding halt. SP could no longer do what she had been elected to do.

* Her administration couldn't make progress on her goals for Alaska because she had become a target. Millions of taxpayer dollars and countless hours of state time were being wasted on this political game, and her administration was forced to deal with politically motivated attacks rather than focusing on the people’s business. The sheer volume of paperwork and legally required responses literally made us unable to effectively run state government.

* Future career moves weren't a factor in the decision. She had to do what was best for the people who hired her -- the people of Alaska. Too often politicians only consider their next career move. They forget about doing what's best for the people they serve.

* SP's team had been targeted for attack because of who the team leader was, so she decided it was time to pass the ball. By stepping aside, she handed the reins to her lieutenant governor who shares the same vision and goals for Alaska. Sean Parnell has the same team and the same agenda, but is able to continue moving the ball forward because he is not the target of partisan obstructionists.

* SP also wanted to do something to ratchet down the awful attacks on her family. Imagine if your family were the subject of relentless attention from a hostile press. and family.

* SP had become a target simply because of her profile coming off the campaign. If she had become the issue, then she thought it was her duty to step aside to advance the state – regardless of the consequences to any future political career she might have.

Does the resignation mean SP is a quitter?

* Her agenda was never about her personally. It was about the goals of the administration. They never quit those goals. Those goals are now advancing under Sean Parnell.

* SP's administration actually achieved most of the goals she set for it in my first two years in office.

* How does it benefit Alaskans for them to have to pay SP's salary and endure the cost of more frivolous politically-motivated ethics complaints, which would surely be filed and just as surely be dismissed?

Many Republican strategists have claimed that SP's nomination as the GOP's presidential candidate would be "catastrophic" for the party, and in fact, one prominent Republican called her a "cancer" on the GOP.

* Such things were said about most of the people who have been elected to high office by some faction of their party years before an election -- Ronald Reagan comes to mind and to a lesser extent Barack Obama, who was called inexperienced and too young, etc.

- If these are the same strategists who have been leading the GOP recently, not sure we should put much stock in their opinion about the direction of the party or the country.

SP's support for the Conservative Party candidate in the New York 23rd race pitted her against the Republican establishment and moderate Republicans who claim that she want to "purge" the party of moderates. Is a "purge" is going on in the Republican Party? Is there room for moderates in the party?

* Everyone is welcome into a political party. The GOP hasn't closed its doors. But a political party has to stand for something, otherwise what's the point?

* The real question is what do Republicans stand for? We should stand for a belief in the power of the free market; the value of limited government; the importance of family and neighborhood; peace through strength; and support for our men and women in uniform.

* If a particular Republican politician doesn't reflect those beliefs, then someone should challenge that person. This isn't a purge; it's just electoral politics.

- At the end of the day, NY-23 was not really about conservatives vs. moderates. It was about the establishment vs. a grassroots movement.

Stimulus:

- SP didn't have a problem with sound, necessary projects to stimulate the economy that could be funded by our tax dollars; AK used infrastructure funds to tackle deferred road maintenance and build access for more resource development.

- And SP knew that legislators held the purse strings; she was also concerned about the threat of litigation.

- She opposed the bureaucratic mandates attached to the programmatic part of the package. She rejected short-term, debt-ridden funds that would grow state government and hand more state's rights to the federal government.

o For example: universal energy building codes that AK would have to accept if it took a $25 million earmark for energy conservation. AK is a practical, libertarian, geographically diverse state, and one-size-fits all codes just don't work.

What would SP have done in response to the economic crisis?

- If you want real job growth, cut capital gains taxes and slay the death tax. Cut payroll taxes to really help the poor and middle class get through this recession. Give people more control over the money they've earned.

- Let the free market correct itself rather than push through quick fixes.

Death panels:

* The phrase "Death panels" was intended to sound a warning about the rationing that would surely follow if big government tried to simultaneously increase health care coverage while also claiming to decrease costs -- all through a top-down program that creates yet another layer of bureaucracy.

* Government programs have unintended consequences, and rationing of health care will be the unintended consequence of a government-run health care system. The government will ultimately be making decisions about who will receive what medical care and who won't.

* SP's concern centered on unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters.

* The Senate Finance Committee felt the need to remove any language that could be interpreted as "Death Panels." The particular provision that raised eyebrows called for senior citizens to receive "End of Life Counseling" every five years or when their health status changes.

- Establishment voices dismissed the phrase, but "death panels" rang true for many Americans. In response, Americans made themselves heard, and it had a positive impact not only on the legislation itself but on the legislative process as a whole.

Why did SP run for governor against Frank Murkowski (p 108-109)?

- It was an "out of the box idea", and SP didn’t have the establishment's support, but she thought that Alaskans would take to her positions on ethics, energy, and government's appropriate role. They agreed that "the growth of government bureaucracy was out of control; the oil companies were sitting on their leases instead of drilling, thus withholding jobs and development opportunities from Alaskans, and people were sick of politics-as-usual." Real change.

- She had no backing from the state party, but found my underdog status and the outsider label "liberating."

- She shocked everyone by winning a 5-way primary. She did it by "taking on the entrenched interests and the political machine", with "no negativity and a highly energized grassroots campaign."

- She then went on to win the election -- another five-way race. It was "a humbling experience ... but I knew we could face the challenge."

What was her plan upon becoming governor (p 124)?

- To observe Ronald Reagan's principles: "pick your core agenda issues and focus on those; empower and motivate your departments and staff to implement your vision in other areas. Reagan concentrated on a few key issues and knocked them out of the park. That gave him the political capital to effect change in many other policy areas."

* SP's core issues as governor: resource development, fiscal restraint, and ethical government. Other issues: "education, services for special needs and elderly, job training, unemployment, social ills in rural Alaska."
Why is the pipeline such an important issue (p 125)?

- "Alaskans have been waiting more than 50 years to realize the benefits of the state's vast reserves of natural gas ... Our oil and gas supplies would be enough to provide ten years of total energy independence for the entire country." 35 trillion cubic ft of proven reserves; hundreds of trillions more; our oil and gas enough to provide ten years of total energy independence for the country.

- Construction of a gas pipeline authorized in 1979. But cheap gas from other countries has delayed it; big producers sat on their gas field leases, preferring to develop projects in other, less-regulated countries.

- SP's job was to look out for the interests of our shareholders, the people of Alaska. Goal was to open up the North Slope to long-term exploration and production; will create job and ensure a stable energy supply.

SP talks a lot about the gas pipeline, but isn't it true that it won’t be built for years, and is already running into trouble (p 157)?

- Passing AGIA was a giant step towards achieving the natural gas pipeline that has been talked about in Alaska for decades.

- Multi-billion dollar project; largest private-sector energy project in North American history.
- SP achieved it through free-market principles: asked companies to compete for the right to build it; no closed-door deals; the plan also called for "must-haves" -- timelines, access provisions -- to ensure Alaskans got a good deal.

- Took on Big Oil: now Alaskans would have control of decisions regarding the state’s resources, not the oil companies. Later: ACES; telling oil companies we would rebid their leases if they wouldn’t drill – and not blinking when they challenged us.

- Because of the nature of this kind of project, there’s still a long way to go until energy flows south...but after a thirty-year wait, SP took the idea of commercializing AK's natural gas resources a big step closer to fruition.

Why was SP able to succeed at getting the gasline done where so many others had failed?

- She put together the best gasline team ever assembled anywhere, and didn't micromanage them. She brought new players to the table, not just the Big Three.

- SP’s administration opened bidding to the private sector rather than just working with the Big Three. They promised to open the process up to the public rather than continuing with secret negotiations and corrupt legislative votes.

When SP became governor her first order of business was ethics reform. Why? (p 141)

- The FBI investigation into a powerful oil field services company's corrupt dealings with lawmakers came to a head at that time; its CEO pled guilty to multiple charges; former governor Murkowski's chief of staff pled guilty as well; all told, a dozen lawmakers, staffers, and executives were found guilty of multiple charges.

* The people of Alaska had put SP in office to clean this up, and that's what she set out to do.

How did SP earn her reputation as a budget-cutter (p 145)?

- Alaska had a $14 billion budget at the time. "Lessons learned on the micro level work still apply at the macro." SP approached the budget with 4 core principles: Live within your means; save for the future;; focus on core services (education, infrastructure, public safety); and expand resource development.

- She told her staff: "never forget you're spending other people's money."

* Even though Alaska was experiencing an oil boom when SP took office, her administration made sure to be conservative and accountable to future generations.

Was SP all about cutting services? Did her administration do anything positive? (p 151)

* Yes -- SP made many positive improvements to the lives of Alaskans. Her administration “forward funded” education; increased school services for special needs children; increased funding for public safety officers to handle alcohol abuse and domestic violence in rural villages; and increased infrastructure funding, all in line with her stated goals on which shewas elected.

What were SP's most important achievements during your time as governor (p 148 etc)?

- Ethics reform; AGIA; PSIO – protected environment from pipeline leaks; open and transparent budgeting process; municipal revenue sharing; putting the state’s checkbook online; ACES – incentives for new oil production plus protecting Alaskans’ share.

* Paid down debt; set aside billions in savings for leaner times.

What does SP mean by "Commonsense Conservatism"? (p 385)

- A respect for history and tradition, including traditional moral principles. That doesn’t mean a “holier than thou” approach, but it does mean a belief in a few timeless and unchanging truths. These truths inform my pragmatic approach to politics.

- That pragmatic approach means dealing with the world as it is, not as we want it to be. There are limits to what can be done in Washington to “fix” society’s problems. The law of unintended consequences applies to government action.

- It means a belief in the rights and the responsibilities and the inherent dignity of the individual.

- It means reducing the growth of the federal government and a belief that the government closest to the problem is the best able to handle it.

- It means defending these clear principles, not watering them down to get elected.

- It does not mean an indifference to others; far from it. The vulnerable among us deserve our protection.

What would SP do in response to the economic crisis? (p 391)

- If you want real job growth, cut capital gains taxes and slay the death tax. Cut payroll taxes to really help the poor and middle class get through this recession. Give people more control over the money they’ve earned.

- Let the free market correct itself rather than push through quick fixes.

Why is energy independence so important to SP? (p 392)

- It's much like the tech boom in that many don't see what’s coming. It's imperative that we pursue energy independence, and it has much to offer us.

- Energy touches every aspect of our lives; it’s driven our prosperity.

- SP supports the harnessing of alternative energy sources. Alaska has a 50% renewable goal.

- Building the energy infrastructure necessary to bring our energy supplies to market will mean real economic stimulus. Jobs and revenue. Will lower our trade deficit.

* And, of course, national security. Developing our own resources will ensure that we will never be at the mercy of madmen in possession of vast oil reserves.

How do we best secure peace? (p 393)

- Americans are war-weary, but we have a responsibility to complete our missions in these countries so that we can keep our homeland safe. We must remain the strongest nation in the world in order to remain free. Peace through strength.

- Others fighting for freedom must know that we are not indifferent to their struggles but will lend our considerable diplomatic power to their cause.

* We have no desire to be an empire. But we have a responsibility to show the world the meaning and rewards of freedom. The world will not be more peaceful if we retreat behind our borders. We don’t go looking for fights, but we’re ready to face them if necessary.

Permalink

Digg This |

Facebook |

Technorati