Twelve Republican Governorships Are Vulnerable in Midterms

Much has been said this year about the congressional elections and who will control the House and Senate next year. Gubernatorial elections have received scant attention, but the impact of 2018 on state governments will have lasting implications.

With a new census coming in 2020, governors and state legislators elected this year will control the redrawing of congressional districts that follows. Additionally, controlling the governor’s mansion may give provide an edge in the upcoming presidential election. Governors also typically have the power to appoint replacements when a senator resigns or dies. Losing a governorship would make it more risky for President Trump to appoint sitting senators. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who is 85, warned this week that if Democrat Fred Hubbell wins in November that his Senate seat might go to a Democrat.

One reason that the Democrats face such long odds against winning a Senate majority is the fact that they are defending far more seats than the Republicans. When it comes to governors, however, the situation is reversed. Thirty-five states are holding gubernatorial elections this year and 26 of them are being defended by Republicans. Three of these races, Illinois, Michigan, and New Mexico, are trending Democrat while nine states are considered tossups.

In contrast, only two of the nine Democrat governorships up for election, Connecticut and Oregon, are considered tossups. Alaska, where independent Bill Walker recently suspended his re-election campaign, appears to be the sole race in which a Republican pickup is likely.

Tossup races for open seats in Georgia and Florida have gotten the most attention, but sitting Republican governors in Wisconsin and Iowa are in trouble as well. Five other Republican open seats in Kansas, Maine, Nevada, Ohio and South Dakota are also considered tossups.

Much of the current Republican problem stems from the GOP’s success in the Obama years. Even though Obama was personally successful at winning elections, his coattails did not extend to other Democrats. The Democratic Party lost 23 governorships and control of more than 30 state legislatures during Obama’s tenure. Now, in a weak Republican year, those gains are at risk.

Here are the hot gubernatorial races to watch:

Alaska – Republican Mike Dunleavy is leading former Democrat Senator Mark Begich after the current governor, independent Bill Walker, withdrew from the race.

Connecticut – Incumbent Democrat Ned Lamont’s lead has been cut to single digits in this dark blue state.

Florida – Democrat Andrew Gillum holds a small but consistent lead over Republican Ron DeSantis in this closely watched race. A recent CNN poll had Gillum up by double-digits.

Georgia – In a scenario similar to Florida, Republican Brian Kemp holds a tiny lead in polling over Democrat Stacy Abrams. The race is statistically a dead heat.

Iowa – Democrat Fred Hubbell is leading Republican incumbent Kim Reynolds in a close race.

Kansas – There are no polls since early September, but Republican Kris Korbach was up by a single point in three of the last four polls.

Maine – Democrat Janet Mills led by eight points in the single recent poll.

Nevada – Republican Adam Laxalt and Democrat Steve Sisolak are locked in another dead heat race.

Ohio – Richard Cordray, the Democrat who formerly led the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, led Republican Mike DeWine by six points in the only poll from October.

Oregon – Democratic incumbent Kate Brown holds a single-digit lead over Republican Knute Buehler.

South Dakota – Republican Kristi Noem is favored over Democrat Billie Sutton, but there is no public polling in the race.

Wisconsin – Republican Gov. Scott Walker has been trailing Democrat Tony Evers in the polls but may be recovering. Walker led by a single point in the most recent poll.   

Originally published on The Resurgent

Blue Wave Threatens Scott Walker

Scott Walker, the two-term Republican governor of Wisconsin, has been concerned about a possible blue wave in the midterm elections for months. As far back as April, Gov. Walker warned supporters that Democratic enthusiasm would make his 2018 campaign for a third term “tougher than any one I have been involved with, including the recall.” Now, new polling indicates that Walker’s forecast was correct.

At a campaign event last Saturday, Walker told supporters that he believes that a new Marquette poll shows him trailing Democrat Tony Evers by five points is accurate, despite that fact that the same poll in September 2016 showed Senator Ron Johnson trailing by six points. Johnson ultimately won reelection by three points as Donald Trump pulled off a surprise win in the state by less than one point when polls showed Hillary Clinton ahead by eight points. In 2016, Wisconsin was the only state where polling was significantly off.

“I want to be very clear about why Ron won,” Walker told the audience, reported by Buzzfeed. “It was not because the poll was wrong. What changed was not the poll. We changed the poll. We changed the poll.”

For Walker, it isn’t just one poll that is problematic. Real Clear Politics shows Evers with an average lead of more than four points over the last four polls. The new Marquette poll shows Walker trailing by 44-49 percent. The previous Marquette poll, taken in August, showed the race in a 46-46 tie. Walker hasn’t led in a poll since June.

Part of Walker’s difficulty is the partisan association with President Trump. Trump’s slim margin on Election Day 2016 has evaporated as his approval sank to 42 percent in the state.

Walker does have a financial advantage. The governor had more than $4 million on hand at the beginning of September, more than twice as much as Evers. Walker also benefits from spending by outside groups including the Koch network, which has backed away from some Republicans. Nevertheless, Walker’s $8.5 million in spending so far this year has not translated into a lead in the polls.

Wisconsin has been the unlikely source of victories for the past decade. Gov. Walker won two terms plus a recall election after a contentious fight with state employee unions. Ron Johnson took a Democrat Senate seat from Russ Feingold in the 2010 Tea Party wave. Paul Ryan, a congressman from the state, rose to become Speaker of the House. The state helped Donald Trump eke out an Electoral College victory in 2016.

The question now is whether Walker, who has a 42 percent approval in the state, can turn the tide and stave off a strong Democrat challenger in a year when the Democrats seem to be getting all the breaks. The only certainty is that Gov. Walker is a tough and experienced campaigner who won’t go down without a fight.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Hillary Clinton promoted Donald Trump as way to damage GOP

Among the documents in the leaked John Podesta emails recently posted by Wikileaks was a strategy memo that suggested that the Clinton campaign may have colluded with the Democratic National Committee and the media to promote certain Republican primary candidates that the Democrats considered extreme. If genuine, the memo indicates that the Clinton campaign interfered with the Republican primary with the help of the media.

The memo was an attachment to an email with the Wikileaks ID number 1120. It was sent to numerous staff members on April 23, 2015 with the subject line “[AGENDA & MEMO] Friday Strategy at 8:00 AM ET.” The email was sent by “MASTOR,” probably a reference to Marissa Astor, who is listed as a surrogate on the Hillary for America organizational chart. The attachment file name is “150407 Strategy on GOP.”

The memo is addressed to “The Democratic National Committee” and is dated April 7, 2015. The introduction says that its purpose is to “outline the strategy and goals that a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field.” The introduction notes that, even though Hillary Clinton was not yet the Democratic nominee, “most of what is contained in this memo is work the DNC is already doing.”

The memo lays out three strategies to “make whomever the Republicans nominate unpalatable to the majority of the electorate.” First, the Clinton campaign planned to “force all [emphasis theirs] Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election.” Second, they wanted to “undermine any credibility/trust Republican presidential candidates have” among independent voters. Finally, they planned to “muddy the waters on any potential attack launched against HRC.”

In “operationalizing the strategy,” the memo described a plan to “use the [Republican] field to inflict damage on itself.” The Clinton campaign wanted to use “more extreme candidates” as “’Pied Piper’ candidates” who would seem to “represent the mainstream of the Republican Party.”

The memo identified three “Pied Piper” candidates by name. They were Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Ben Carson. At the time the memo was written, Donald Trump was still two months away from declaring his candidacy. It is not clear if the Clintons directly influenced Trump to enter the race.

“We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them [sic] seriously,” the memo says. This indicates coordination between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and members of the media.

The memo goes on to identify several “more established” candidates who needed special attention to
“undermine their credibility among our coalition (communities of color, millennials, women) and independent voters.” The candidates identified as bigger threats to the Clinton campaign were Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal and Chris Christie.

To “muddy the waters,” the memo suggested building a dossier on each Republican candidate in the areas of “transparency & disclosure, donors & associations, and management & business dealings.” In a statement that presaged this week’s attacks on Donald Trump, the memo says, “any information on scandals or ethical lapses on the GOP candidates would serve well. We won’t be picky.”

 While the email does not contain a “smoking gun” that indicates that Clinton enticed Donald Trump to enter the Republican primary, it is apparent that Trump was considered a weak and extreme candidate who could hurt the rest of the Republican field. The reference to the press may help explain the large amounts of friendly press coverage that Trump received during the primary. There is also no indication that the Clinton campaign thought that Donald Trump could actually win the Republican primary and become the party’s nominee.

In the end, Hillary Clinton’s plan to sabotage the Republican primary must have exceeded her wildest expectations.  One of her “Pied Pipers” actually won the nomination and became the Republican candidate for the presidency. Hillary was ready when he did.

Read the full story on The Resurgent

Trump and Cruz approval hits record low; both may be unelectable

As the two leading contenders for the Republican nomination continue to hammer each other in round after round of primaries, it seems likely that neither will achieve a knockout or win enough delegates to win a decision at the convention. At this point, the main accomplishment of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz seems to have been to bruise and bloody each other enough so that neither is likely to be able to beat the presumed Democrat champion, Hillary Clinton.

A recent Gallup poll comparing approval ratings for the remaining candidates found that the historically poor view of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz held by Americans reached a new low amid their insults and squabbling over everything from wives to who would deport more illegal immigrants. Trump and Cruz approval ratings are the lowest of all remaining candidates.

Donald Trump, the perennially unpopular candidate who has been continually reviled since his campaign’s inception last summer, continues to hold the most negative rating with a net approval rating of -35. For those of you in Rio Lindo, this means that people who disapprove of Trump outnumber those who approve of him by 35 points. According to Washington Post research, Trump has the most negative rating of any serious presidential candidate ever. The only candidate who has ever rated worse than Mr. Trump is David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader who ran for the Republican nomination in 1992.

Ted Cruz fares better in Gallup’s findings, but not by much. Cruz, who held a positive approval rating as recently as December has seen his rating plummet to near-Trumpian levels. Cruz’s -16 rating is actually one point higher than Donald Trump’s all-time high. Like Marco Rubio, whose campaign imploded when he adopted Trump’s tactics, Cruz is being tarnished by his tit for tat with The Donald.

Ironically, the third place finisher who is the odds on favorite to become the next president, Hillary Clinton, also has a negative rating. Nevertheless, the only candidate under investigation by the FBI (that we know of) and the only candidate who is likely to be indicted during the campaign, is still more popular than Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Her -11 rating is not her lowest and actually seems to be an improvement. Hillary’s approval rating has been remarkably consistent, even if slightly underwater, for the entire campaign.

The negative ratings of the two most likely Republican contenders may explain the increase in party identification among Democrats over the past few months. In the latest Gallup poll of party affiliation, Democrats led Republicans by six points. When leaners were taken into account, Democrats held an 8 point advantage. This margin is practically identical to the Democratic lead over Republicans as the 2012 elections approached.

Who fares best in the current public opinion? Ironically, it is John Kasich with a net favorable rating of 19 points who looks best to American voters. In a somewhat close second, Bernie Sanders finishes with a net positive rating of 10 percent.

Why are the also-rans finishing so much better than the frontrunners? In the case of Trump and Cruz, it might be that their attacks on each other have left the public with a sour taste its mouth. The anti-establishment and hardline immigration rhetoric of the pair might also simply not resonate with voters outside the Republican Party’s base.

Bernie Sanders’ popularity may be a rejection of Hillary Clinton among the Democratic Party base. Hillary is not generally well liked or trusted even among Democrats. Her FBI investigation and looming possible indictment have not gone unnoticed. Neither have the fundraising practices of the Clinton Foundation or Clinton connections to Wall Street. Sanders’ combination of democratic socialism and folksy populism is appealing for a party whose base has drifted farther and farther left during the eight years of the Obama Administration.

The widespread dissatisfaction with the leading candidates spells trouble for both parties. Ironically, for all their division Republicans may have an advantage here. If no Republican can win a majority and clinch the nomination, an open convention may present the party with a rare chance for a do-over. Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin recently told The Cap Times, “I think if it’s an open convention, it’s very likely it would be someone who’s not currently running. I mean, who knows?”

Due to the nature of the Democratic race, Democrats will have no such opportunity for a split decision. With only two candidates running for the Democratic nomination, there will be only one winner and one loser. For better or for worse, Democrats will be stuck with the choice of their primary voters and superdelegates.

For Republicans who support none of the above remaining candidates, there is hope that the convention delegates will find a better candidate. The job of a political party is to nominate a candidate who can win. That job may well end up in the hands of convention delegates.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line and Freedom Daily

Is Hillary electable?

Hillary Clinton has finally announced her candidacy for president. Her candidacy was begun with a tweet and a two-and-a-half minute You Tube video, of which only about 40 seconds is Hillary giving her announcement and rationale for seeking office.

In contrast to the Republican hopefuls, who kicked off their presidential campaigns to adoring crowds, Hillary’s campaign began with a soundbite on social media followed by a trip in her “Scooby” van to Iowa with no organized campaign stops along the way. Hillary’s presidential announcement was almost secretive in comparison to the Republicans, with no rallies, no crowds of supporters and no questions from the media.

Hillary’s trip to Iowa is more akin to a fugitive sneaking across the state line than a triumphant politician arriving to assume her mandate. When Clinton’s “Scooby” van stopped at an Ohio Chipotle restaurant, the presumptive Democratic nominee was incognito, hiding behind a large pair of sunglasses. She not only did no campaigning, but she was only recognized when the manager examined the store’s surveillance videos after being tipped by a New York Times reporter than Hillary had visited the restaurant. Neither employees nor other customers had recognized the former First Lady.

Dick Morris, a longtime confidante of the Clintons, explains that the subterfuge is part of Hillary’s nature. Unlike her extroverted, fun-loving husband, Hillary is “hidden, paranoid, secret, controlled, and scripted” according to Morris. Where Bill was a natural campaigner, Morris calls Hillary a “born bureaucrat” who sticks “to a script, blundering when she make the slightest departure.”

The current crop of scandals that are already dogging the Clinton campaign can only serve to heighten Hillary’s sense of secrecy and paranoia. She has hidden from the media for the past several months as the scandal of her personal email server and deleted emails developed. Questions about the legality of sending classified documents via unsecure personal email and an unsecure server mean that Hillary has to consider that any questions that she answers might come back to haunt her in a criminal proceeding.

Keeping Hillary away from the media and real voters also minimizes the chance of an embarrassing gaffe. Ms. Clinton is known for a number of misstatements, such as when she asked congressional Benghazi investigators, “What difference, at this point does it make?” or when she claimed that the Clintons were “dead broke” upon leaving the White House in 2001.

One embarrassing error has already occurred. Hillary’s long-awaited announcement also came with a serious typo according to Bloomberg. A press release heralding her announcement claimed that she had “fought children and families all her career,” omitting the word “for.” Although the wording was quickly corrected, it is shocking that such a high profile announcement on a multibillion dollar campaign could have seen the light of day.

Similarly, Hillary’s campaign logo, a blue “H” with a red arrow, quickly became the target of widespread ridicule. Many claimed it resembled a road sign that pointed toward a hospital or the FedEx logo. Julian Assange claimed that it was based on the WikiLeaks logo.

Hillary has long been assumed to be inevitable by many on both the left and right. Now with her lack of campaign skills, scandals, and a slipshod campaign becoming evident, the question is whether she is electable at all.

Hillary’s biggest advantage over any Republican is that she is well known. Many Republican candidates are new to the national stage and not familiar outside the GOP. According to Gallup, 90 percent of Americans are already familiar with Hillary. No Republican even comes close.

The downside for Hillary is that, while she is well known, she is also a polarizing figure. Even the Huffington Post puts her approval rating almost equal with her disapproval at 47 – 46 percent. Further, polls that use likely voters rather than adults give her a much high negative rating. Republican candidates are not as well known, but have much lower negatives.

While Hillary’s name recognition gave her an early lead in polling, there are signs that her lead may already be fading. Karl Rove pointed out in the Wall St. Journal that recent polling in 15 battleground states showed Ms. Clinton trailing a generic Republican. Recent polling available on Real Clear Politics also shows several races around the country where Republicans Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry hold slight leads over Ms. Clinton.

Nevertheless, Hillary’s failings may be more than offset by several factors. First, whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is will win at least 40-45 percent of the popular vote. The worst Democratic wipeout in recent history, Richard Nixon’s 1972 trouncing of George McGovern, still saw McGovern win 37 percent of the vote even as he lost 49 states. Ms. Clinton would undoubtedly do much better than McGovern. With normally reliable Democratic states such as those carried by John Kerry in 2004, any Democratic candidate can be expected to win at least 200 of the 270 electoral votes needed just by appearing on the ballot as a Democrat.

Second, Ms. Clinton now heads the Clinton money machine. Hillary is backed by many on Wall Street including friends at Goldman Sachs. The Clintons also have a well-established network of foreign contributors. Republican candidates will be struggling to establish support networks for the first time, which will put them at a disadvantage. Additionally, it seems unlikely that Hillary will face a serious primary threat, which will enable her to get a head start on general election campaigning and fundraising.

Finally, Hillary will benefit by default if the Republicans nominate someone who seems more extreme and unlikable than she is. Hillary’s negatives will only take Republicans so far. The Republican nominee must be able to close the deal with moderate and independent voters. This will require the ability to present a positive vision to voters and not simply focus on negatives like Ms. Clinton’s poor record or promising to repeal Obamacare. The Republican candidate must convince voters that he cares about them more than Ms. Clinton does.

Despite her problems, Ms. Clinton’s money and network alone make her a formidable candidate, but not an inevitable one. Conservatives would do well to remember that she has only run in three elections, twice for the Senate and once for president. Of these, only one, the 2008 Democratic primary, was a tough race. Hillary lost.

 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Scott Walker debuts in poll near Hillary Clinton

A new poll by Rasmussen found that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is near a statistical tie with presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The poll, released on March 3, found that Walker trails Mrs. Clinton by only five points in a head-to-head matchup. This was the first time that Rasmussen had asked about a Walker-Clinton matchup.

Rasmussen found that 46 percent of likely voters would vote for Mrs. Clinton while 41 percent preferred Gov. Walker. Six percent were undecided and eight percent preferred some other candidate. The margin of error in the poll was three percent.

At this point, Walker does better in a potential race against Mrs. Clinton than any other likely Republican. Other Republicans trail the former First Lady and Secretary of State by double-digit margins. Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, trails Mrs. Clinton 45-36 percent, little changed from a year ago. Retired neurosurgeon and first-time candidate for public office Ben Carson trails Clinton 47-36 percent.

The Real Clear Politics average of polls reports that other Republicans also trail Mrs. Clinton. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie fairs best with an average deficit of nine percent. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) trails by an average of 10 percent. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) trails by 11 points. Former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee trails Clinton by an average 13 points, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz is an average 14 points behind.

Walker’s debut at a near tie is nothing short of remarkable given his lack of name recognition and Hillary Clinton’s established presence as the candidate to beat. On Feb. 21, the Washington Post noted that Walker had the “lowest name recognition of any candidate tested.” In July 2014, Gallup found that 91 percent of adults were favorable with Clinton. Fifty-five percent viewed her favorably.

Walker has generated controversy in several areas in recent weeks. He drew fire from liberals for not distancing himself from Rudy Giuliani’s comment that President Obama did not love America. The comment was made at a private dinner for Walker. He was also criticized for his statement that “the most significant foreign policy decision in my lifetime” was “in August of 1981, when Ronald Reagan fired the air traffic controllers” (as quoted by Politico).

Gov. Walker, who left college to take a job, has also started a discussion about whether a president should have a college degree. According to a Public Policy poll, 62 percent think that a degree is important, but only 38 percent say that they are less likely to vote for a candidate without a degree.

Scott Walker’s strong debut against Hillary is encouraging for Republicans, but his challenge will be to adapt from state to national politics. His strong start will undoubtedly make Walker, already a prime target of Democrats for his controversial policies in Wisconsin, the subject of even harsher attacks. It may be difficult for Walker to sustain his lead for the next year until the primaries.

 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Can Scott Walker unite the GOP?

The factions of the GOP are split and the Wisconsin governor is one of few candidates that can bring them together.

Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin, has generated much buzz as a potential presidential candidate since he addressed the Freedom Summit in Des Moines, Iowa on January 24. Walker has jumped to the front of a crowded Republican field and may be uniquely qualified to unite the various factions of the Republican Party.

There are a number of factions within the GOP, the two most obvious being the establishment and the Tea Party. In addition to these groups, there are also religious conservatives, foreign policy conservatives, and libertarians. Most of the potential Republican nominees are championed by only one or two of these groups. For example, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush fall into the establishment category. Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Sarah Palin are prominent candidates from the Tea Party. Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have the support of the religious wing of the GOP. Rand Paul is the obvious libertarian choice and no strong foreign policy candidates have yet emerged. Scott Walker is one of few candidates with the potential to bridge the divides between these groups.

Establishment excitement

Establishment Republicans like Scott Walker for his effectiveness and his experience as the governor of Wisconsin. Many conservatives favor a governor with proven leadership abilities after two terms of the meanderings of a former community organizer who was never tasked with a management position until he won the White House. The proven ability to get things done and forge majorities is a big plus for the next Republican nominee.

Additionally, establishment Republicans appreciate the fact that Walker is the best vetted candidate in the country. Likewise, after successfully managing three hotly contested campaigns (two gubernatorial campaigns and recall attempt), the potential for unforced errors is less likely than with untested candidates. Both areas have plagued many Tea Party candidates in the past and caused Republicans to lose races that should have been easily winnable.

Terrific Tea Partier

From the Tea Party point of view, Scott Walker is a fighter. He faced down Wisconsin’s public employee unions and won. He also cut taxes and moved the state budget from a deficit to a surplus. According to National Review, 95 percent of the state’s employers think that Wisconsin is on the right track, reflecting Walker’s pro-business and limited government policies. Walker’s new budget proposal also bans the use of Common Core assessment tests in Wisconsin’s public schools.

Walker’s views largely match those of Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz, but, unlike Cruz, Walker has a record of accomplishment. Where Cruz has made a name for himself in making principled, but ultimately unsuccessful stands against Obamacare and the debt ceiling, Scott Walker can point to a record of accomplishments in Wisconsin.

Religious, but not radical

Walker can also appeal to both religious and secular Republicans. He grew up as the son of Baptist pastor, notes the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. As a boy in Iowa he even started a “Jesus USA” club to do good deeds. In March 2014, he attracted the ire of the Freedom from Religion Foundation when he posted Philippians 4:13 on his official state Facebook and Twitter feeds.

Walker is pro-life and a defender of traditional marriage as well. In an October 2014 letter described in the Journal-Sentinel, Walker described how he signed a bill requiring ultrasounds for women seeking abortions and hospital-admitting privileges for doctors at abortion clinics. Walker also cut off state funding for abortion providers. With respect to marriage, Walker supports traditional marriage, but a court decision establishing gay marriage in Wisconsin meant that the issue was not prominent in his reelection campaign. As the governor of a blue state, Walker is seen as more mainstream in his faith than Huckabee and Santorum by secular Republicans.

As governor, Walker also had support from libertarians. Walker’s limited government policies and challenges to public unions drew the endorsement of the national Libertarian Party in 2012. When foreign policy becomes an issue in a national campaign, support from libertarians might become more problematic, especially if the pacifist Rand Paul runs.

Aggressive on foreign policy

On foreign policy, Walker has begun to stake out a claim that is decidedly not pacifist. He recently told ABC News, “I think aggressively, we need to take the fight to ISIS and any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world, because it’s not a matter of when they attempt an attack on American soil, or not if I should say, it’s when, and we need leadership that says clearly, not only amongst the United States but amongst our allies, that we’re willing to take appropriate action.”

Walker went on to say, “We have to look at other surgical methods. And ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground if that’s what it takes.” He continued, “I don’t think that’s an immediate plan. [But] I wouldn’t rule anything out.”

Walker’s sharp comments come after months of executions by ISIS and the Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris. Polling shows that voters are sharply critical of President Obama’s tepid response to Islamic terror, but are not necessarily ready to commit U.S. ground forces to the fight in Syria.

Immigration impasse

On immigration reform, Walker opposes an amnesty, but does see the need for immigration reform and securing the border. He told ABC News, “We need to enforce the laws in the United States, and we need to find a way for people to have a legitimate legal immigration system in this country, and that does not mean amnesty.”

So far, Walker has been vague about his position on immigration, but at various times has voiced opposition to the idea of deporting all illegal aliens and support for a pathway to legalization. With some conservatives decrying any suggestion of reform as “amnesty,” the issue of immigration is likely to be the most difficult for Walker to negotiate in the Republican primaries.

Other possible uniters

Scott Walker is not the only candidate with the potential to unite the GOP. Several other candidates might possibly bring the establishment and Tea Party, the two largest factions, together, but each has their own weakness. Marco Rubio has broad support, but as a one-term senator has little leadership experience. Rick Perry is a successful governor of Texas, but is under indictment for abuse of official capacity and must overcome his poor performance from 2012. Bobby Jindal is the two-term governor of Louisiana, but faces questions of effectiveness and experience at the national level.

The down side

There are several potential problems that might affect a Walker campaign. A simmering investigation in Wisconsin has searched for illegal coordination between conservative groups and Walker’s gubernatorial campaign. A recent Washington Post column hinted at how Democrats might respond to a Walker candidacy. Points of attack include Walker’s cuts to the University of Wisconsin and the state’s Seniorcare prescription drug program. Walker’s response to a projected budget shortfall was a round of spending cuts. Additionally, Walker is one of the few politicians at the national level without a college degree.

Walker’s largest obstacle at this point is coming to terms with immigration reform. While a small, vocal minority in the GOP opposes any change to immigration laws, a large majority of Americans want the system fixed. According to a Beyond the Beltway poll from December, 48 percent, a plurality, favor “a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers if they undergo a background check, pay taxes, and learn English.” This is one area where Republicans are out of step with the rest of the country.

Veering right on immigration in the GOP primary may prove fatal in the general election. Some observers believe that Mitt Romney’s fate was sealed in 2012 by his comments in the primary about “self-deportation.” Romney ended up losing the Hispanic vote by 44 percent according to CNN, a worse performance than any Republican candidate since Bob Dole.

So early into the 2016 race, anything can happen. At this point, Walker is not even a declared candidate yet. Nevertheless, he is well positioned to bring Republicans together, an important first step taking back the White House.

 

Read the full article on Elections Examiner.com

Perry indictment is part of campaign of harassment against conservatives

The news of the indictment against Texas Governor Rick Perry on charges of abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public official surprised the country and shook up the early presidential race for 2016. Debate ranged from how the charges would affect Perry’s chances at winning the Republican nomination and the White House to whether Perry would be convicted. A surprising number of liberals and Democrats have broken ranks to defend what many call an unconstitutional attempt to criminalize politics as usual. This is not the first time in recent memory that prosecutors have pressed charges against Republicans on dubious grounds.

In Texas, the Travis County DA office has prosecuted other high profile Republicans. In 1993, Rosemary Lemberg’s predecessor, Ronnie Earle, indicted newly elected U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on charges of misusing her previous office of state treasurer according to National Review. Hutchison was originally elected in a special election and faced the prospect of running for reelection in 1994 with the indictment hanging over her head. She pressed for a quick resolution and, when the case went to trial, Earle told the court that he could not proceed without the admission of records seized from Hutchison’s office without a search warrant. The judge promptly ordered the jury to return a verdict of not guilty.

After the acquittal, Hutchison requested that the records be released, saying, “The case was not there. They turned around and ran because they knew the longer they went, the more embarrassing it was going to be. . . . They thought the lady would crack. Well, the lady wouldn’t crack.”

In 2010, it was Tom Delay’s turn to face the Travis County DA. Delay was convicted on money laundering charges stemming from accusations that he funneled corporate money to Republican candidates. Delay, a former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, was sentenced to three years in prison, but remained free on bail while he appealed. His conviction was overturned in 2013 by a three judge panel of a Texas appellate court. The decision said that evidence in the case was “legally insufficient” according to the Washington Post.

In 2008, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was indicted on felony charges of failing to properly report gifts less than four months before that year’s election. He was found guilty of making false statements on Oct. 27 and promptly lost his reelection fight to Mark Begich. A few months later in February 2009, an FBI agent became a whistleblower and revealed that prosecutors and FBI agents had withheld key evidence and witnesses that would have supported Stevens’ claims of innocence as well introducing evidence that they knew to be false. In April 2009, a federal judge vacated Stevens’ conviction. Politico reported in 2012 that a special investigator’s review of the case found that misconduct by the prosecutors and FBI had tainted the trial. Stevens died in a plane crash in 2010 and his Senate seat remains in Democratic hands.

Two other Republican governors, Chris Christie (N.J.) and Scott Walker (Wisc.), are also potentially under investigation according to Salon. In New Jersey, prosecutors are trying to tie Chris Christie to the “Bridge-gate” scandal as well as diversion of Port Authority money to New Jersey road and bridge projects and real estate deals by David Samson, Christie’s appointee to chair the Port Authority’s Board of Commissioners. According to Esquire, anonymous “sources with intimate knowledge” of U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman’s investigation say Christie’s Port Authority appointees and former chief counsel “face near-certain indictment and are being pressed to hand up Christie.”

Walker may come under investigation for illegally coordinating with outside groups in his 2012 fight against recall. Walker triumphed in the election, but, as described by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the Milwaukee County prosecutor, a Democrat, launched a John Doe probe, an investigation allowed under Wisconsin law that allows the government to “compel people to produce documents and give testimony, as well as bar them from talking publicly about the investigation.” A federal judge ordered an end to the probe in May 2014, according to MSNBC, noting that no laws had been broken. Under Wisconsin law, issue ads that do not endorse or attack a specific candidate are not considered expenditures for a campaign and are not subject to laws regarding coordination with the candidate. This issue was previously decided in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Barland.

Republicans do not have to be prominent elected officials to attract the attention of partisan prosecutors. Since 2013, a series of articles in the Wall St. Journal have detailed how prosecutors in Wisconsin have subpoenaed 29 conservative groups in the John Doe probe. In June 2014, the Journal noted that so far prosecutors have failed to show probable cause that any crime had been committed and pointed out that the coordination in Wisconsin strongly resembled the President Obama’s 2012 campaign. Nevertheless, recent reports by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Fox News indicate that personal information from members of conservative groups such as Wisconsin Club for Growth were released by a federal appeals court and posted online, allegedly by mistake.

The John Doe probe in Wisconsin is reminiscent of the IRS harassment of conservative groups that has been ongoing under the Obama Administration. Far from targeting high profile Republicans, the IRS focused its abuse on grassroots leaders of Tea Party groups. In one instance, cited by the Chicago Sun-Times, Catherine Engelbrecht, a small business owner involved with two nonprofit political groups beginning in 2010, was suddenly subjected to more than 15 federal audits and inquiries. In addition to the IRS, she was contacted by OSHA, the FBI, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, among others.

The IRS admitted to both the harassment of conservative groups and illegally leaking confidential tax information to liberal groups during the 2012 presidential election. In June 2014, the Daily Signal reported that the IRS had agreed to pay $50,000 to the National Organization for Marriage. The IRS had leaked the group’s donor list, including names and contact information to the gay activist group, the Human Rights Campaign, which then published the data. Even though leaking confidential tax information is a felony, no criminal charges have been filed against anyone at the IRS.

There are also indications that Lois Lerner, the official at the center of the IRS scandal, may have had a history of malicious prosecutions at the Federal Election Commission as well. The Illinois Review reported that Republican senate candidate Al Salvi was the subject of several FEC complaints regarding campaign finances in the last weeks of his 1996 campaign against Dick Durbin. The complaints were ultimately dismissed in 2000, but not before Salvi received a strange offer from an FEC official he identified as Lois Lerner. Salvi says that, in a conversation that included Mike Salvi, his brother and attorney, Lerner told him, “If you promise to never run for office again, we'll drop this case.” Salvi refused. Four years and $100,000 in legal fees later, the FEC case against Salvi was dismissed.

These high profile cases are likely not the only instances of malicious prosecution of conservatives. At the state and local level, it is easy for such cases to avoid national scrutiny. The Wisconsin John Doe probe has largely been ignored by the national media. (Those aware of similar cases can contact the author.) In many other instances, such as harassment of California supporters of Prop 8 and the demonization of the Koch brothers, there was no prosecution, but a blatant attempt to intimidate and silence conservatives.

It is increasingly evident that the harassment, intimidation and malicious prosecution of Republican officeholders and conservative activists, often in the name of campaign finance reform, are an integral part of the Democratic playbook. As long as such attempts at stifling free speech succeed with no consequences for the left, they are likely to continue.

 

Read the full article on Examiner

Walker’s Wisconsin win is another bad omen for Democrats

The victory of Scott Walker over recall forces in Wisconsin should serve as a warning to Democrats prior to the November elections. Despite a very high profile campaign by unions and Democrats to recall Gov. Walker, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, and four Republican senators, the recall efforts fell far short of their goal. The recall had its origin in the 2011 changes to Wisconsin law that eliminated collective bargaining for state employee unions. Republicans claimed that generous union contracts were breaking the state’s budget.

In the final result, Gov. Walker defeated the recall forces by almost seven percent of the vote according to Real Clear Politics. Lt. Gov. Kleefisch was also confirmed by voters. According to the Los Angeles Times, the sole bright spot for Democrats was the senate recall election in Racine County where Democrat John Lehman claimed victory over Republican Van Wanggard, the incumbent. At press time, Wanggard had not conceded and, with a difference of less than 1,000 votes, may challenge the results.

If the Racine results stand, it would give Democrats control of the Wisconsin state senate, but the effect would be minimal. The legislature is not scheduled to meet again until after the general election in November. Since Republicans controlled the redistricting process due their 2010 victories and created districts more favorable to the GOP, the Democratic majority might be very short lived.

The Democratic difficulty in Wisconsin is compounded by the improving state economy under Walker. According to an analysis by ABC News, the state ended 2011 with a greater number of employed workers than had started the year. The state’s unemployment rate is 6.7 percent, well below the national 8.2 percent rate. Wisconsin’s unemployment rate has declined one percent since Walker took office. The report also notes that Wisconsin’s average income rose faster than the national average in 2011, 4.8 to 4.3 percent.

Walker’s biggest economic achievement was to turn the state’s $143 million deficit into a $154 million budget surplus according to the La Crosse Tribune. ABC notes that Walker accomplished the feat without raising taxes, although it notes that Walker’s reforms require state workers to make larger contributions to their health insurance and retirement plans.

The failure of the recalls does not bode well for President Obama. The rejection of the union-backed Democratic candidates in the recall after record-setting spending by both sides cannot be construed as a good sign for the administration. Republicans from across the country, including the Georgia GOP, rallied to support Walker in what was seen as a bellwether race. Likewise, Democrats and union members poured money into the state to support the recall. In what is perhaps a sign that national Democrats sensed the inevitability of defeat, President Obama distanced himself from the effort as Election Day grew near.

According to 270towin.com, Wisconsin has not voted for a Republican president since 1984. Nevertheless, Real Clear Politics polls in Wisconsin show President Obama’s lead over Mitt Romney deteriorating. The current average of polls puts Obama ahead by less than five percent, near the margin of error for most polls.

The failing recall and alarming presidential trend led Obama campaign manager Jim Messina to move Wisconsin, a traditional blue state, into the tossup category for the general election. On the day before the recall, Messina released a video (posted on Politico) to supporters that attempts to reassure supporters in the face of Obama’s falling poll numbers.

The video points to the Messina’s belief that Romney trails Obama by 191-243 in electoral votes, but fails to note that many of the 104 undecided electoral votes are in states where public opinion is trending toward Romney. The Republicans made large gains in 2010 in Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Virginia, and, of course, Wisconsin, states now considered tossups in the presidential election. Republican victories in most of these states, particularly Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Virginia, would put Romney very close to the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. An additional victory in Wisconsin or another small state would make the difference.

The Wisconsin election is one more sign that this year is not favorable to President Obama and the Democrats. The trend toward Romney and the recognition that Wisconsin is now a tossup means that the Obama campaign will need to spend money, time and effort to defend a state that was previously considered safe for Democrats, taking away resources from other swing states.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/walker-win-wisconsin-is-bad-news-for-obama