Campaign analyst Charlie Cook says so far, it's still unlikely that we'll see a Republican sweep in 2010:

To put it another way, as things stand now, Republicans could win every competitive House race and still come up one seat short. That won't be the case, however, if there is further erosion in the ranks of the solid and likely Democratic seats. Although Democrats can take some solace from the fact that no party has ever lost every single competitive House race, none of the four lawmakers who have recently added their names to the retirement list -- Brian Baird of Washington, Bart Gordon of Tennessee, Dennis Moore of Kansas, and John Tanner of Tennessee -- was considered particularly vulnerable a year ago.

For Republicans to take control of the House, more Democrats in swing districts would have to retire. There will be more, but how many?

If 10 or 12 more seats rated as solid or likely Democratic shift to the "lean Democratic" or "toss-up" columns, the fight for control will become much more serious. Washington is awash in rumors of other veteran Democrats contemplating voluntary exits. Some serve in safely Democratic districts, but others represent places not unlike the districts of Baird, Gordon, Moore, and Tanner. Also helping the GOP is its best House recruiting in a long time. A crop of strong candidates will help Republicans win more than their share of contests if the political environment remains what it is today.

Winds that began shifting against Democrats around the end of June, during the House cap-and-trade vote and the beginning of the health care debate, are now transforming their party's potential problems into real ones. That change is causing predictable talk of a 1994-style Republican landslide strong enough to flip the Senate. That talk, though, is just so much hot air.

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Senate's 2010 lineup of contests couldn't take such talk seriously. For Republicans to seize the Senate, they would have to hold all six of their open seats, which is quite plausible. All 12 of the GOP incumbents up for re-election would also have to win, which is quite likely. The Republicans would then have to pick up the Delaware and Illinois open seats that Democrats now hold -- a feat that is not difficult to imagine.

However -- and this is where the going would get rough for the Republicans -- they would need to defeat Michael Bennet in Colorado, Barbara Boxer in California, Christopher Dodd in Connecticut, Kirsten Gillibrand in New York, Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, Harry Reid in Nevada, and Arlen Specter (or Joe Sestak if he wins the primary) in Pennsylvania, plus Republican Gov. John Hoeven of North Dakota would have to run and beat Byron Dorgan.

No party in history has ever run the table that completely. And even then, the GOP would come up one seat short.

The fragility of the Democrats' Senate majority is visible, though, if you look toward 2012, when 23 Democratic seats will be on the line compared with just nine Republican ones, and ahead to 2014, when 20 Democratic seats but only 13 Republican ones will be up for grabs.

Just as much has changed in the past year, much could change in the next. What the past tells us is that it takes a truly major event -- such as the 9/11 attacks of 2001 or the 1998 impeachment of President Clinton -- to improve the fortunes of the president's party going into a midterm election. Only one thing seems certain: 2010 won't be dull.

On Friday I aired a fear of mine that the Democrats would turn health care reform into an abortion style issue for the Democrats.

For years political insiders have said how abortion was a necessary evil for the Republicans, and overturning Roe v. Wade would actually cost them in the long run. The conventional thinking is that opposition to Roe is a vote getter for Republicans and once you take that away you end up with less turnout at the polls.

To keep the dream alive Republicans have always taken minor steps to help keep the dream of a Roe v. Wade-less America alive. Things like the partial birth abortion ban and reporting requirements, but they have stopped short of really pushing a full out ban on abortion.

Now it appears that health care is poised to become the same sort of issue for Democrats. While the current health care bill does a lot to expand coverage and reign in some costs, it stops short of something progressives have fought for for years – a federal plan designed to give care, not profits. That leaves Democrats with the core belief in health care reform as a key campaign issue in coming years, while still touting the success of the new legislation

Continue reading »

Oh, of course they're opposing it! But let's remember these are the most conservative, corporate trade groups in health care. And really, the more they oppose the buy-in, the more likely it is that it's a good idea:

Groups representing doctors and hospitals are coming out against the inclusion of a Medicare "buy-in" in the Senate health bill, The Washington Post reports. The groups joined Republicans in arguing "that a plan by liberal Democrats to allow uninsured individuals as young as 55 to buy into Medicare would be financially untenable and would jeopardize access to health-care services for millions of Americans."

The organizations, including the American Hospital Association, the Federation of American Hospitals and the American Medical Association, said the proposal would hurt their members because Medicare pays providers at a lower rate than private insurers. "Hospital representatives said the idea also would violate a deal they reached with the White House this year to give up $155 billion in Medicare payments over the next decade. The concession helped to lower the cost of a health-care package that promised hospitals a pool of at least 30 million newly insured customers" (Murray and Montgomery, 12/10).

Personally, I think they should be grateful to have jobs when 20% of the country is out of work. But some people just have no discretion.

USA Today: "Though the idea gained traction on Capitol Hill — and got a boost from President Obama — the outcry from the medical groups underscored the difficulty lawmakers are facing as they look for compromises that can win broad support for the Senate's bill, which would cost $848 billion in the first 10 years. 'Bringing more people into a system that doesn't work very well is not a good answer,' said Jeffrey Korsmo, executive director of the Mayo Clinic Health Policy Center. 'The current Medicare program is not sustainable'" (Fritze, 12/10).

No, it isn't. But as soon as we stop the massive fraud and abuses in Medicare Part D (you know, the private-sector plan?), it'll be much better.

The New York Times: "The American Hospital Association issued an action alert on Tuesday urging its members to oppose the plan and to call their senators’ offices. ... The Federation of American Hospitals also issued a bulletin ... 'Any Medicare Buy-In would invariably lead to crowd out of the private health insurance market, placing more people into Medicare,' the group said. 'It is critical that you contact your Democratic Senators today!'" (Pear and Herszenhorn, 12/9).

So they admit they like it when fewer people can actually afford health care.

The Wall Street Journal: "The insurance industry's trade association, America's Health Insurance Plans, opposed the measure to fix companies' medical-loss ratios at 90%. Medical-loss ratios are closely watched measures of how many premium dollars companies spend on patient care versus administrative costs and profits." Insurers say it would be very difficult to reach and could hurt their abilities to "weed out fraud and run other programs designed to cut costs and improve wellness."

No, it's much better to have insurance companies knocking a half-million people at a shot off their rolls to keep the MLR low enough to pump up the stock. Okay, we've established what you are, we're only negotiating price.

Drug companies as well could see less money for medicines under the Medicare plan than what private insurers give them, the Journal reports (Johnson and Rockoff, 12/10).

Oh, boo hoo. See above comment about being grateful to have jobs.

Let's not give the Mormon church all the credit - the U.S. Catholic churches are doing their part to make sure gay citizens remain second class. From the National Catholic Reporter:

Gathering money from 50 U.S. dioceses, the Portland, Maine, diocese contributed more than $550,000 to the campaign to rejected Maine's law extending civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples, according to financial records filed with the state agency that tracks political contributions.

In the Nov. 3 referendum, Maine voters rejected 53 to 47 percent the same-sex marriage law.

Supporters and opponents of the law spent more than $7 million, according to the Portland Press Herald.

During the summer, Bishop Richard J. Malone of Portland sent an appeal to other Catholic bishops seeking contributions to defeat the law that the state legislature passed and the governor signed in May.

According to financial records filed with Maine's campaign finance watchdog, the Portland diocese donated nearly $286,000 to Stand For Marriage Maine, which was seeking to repeal the same-sex law. Malone had ordered a second collection be taken up at Masses one September weekend which netted $86,000.

After Portland, Maine, the largest diocesan contributors were the Philadelphia archdiocese and Phoenix diocese, each giving $50,000. The sees of Newark, N.J., St. Louis, Mo., and Youngstown, Ohio, each contributed $10,000. The Diocesan Assistance Fund of Providence, R.I., gave $10,000.00.

Lots more on the list, go see if your local diocese contributed. Imagine, the same church whose local dioceses are filing for bankruptcy to avoid paying off victims of pedophile priests have so much money to spare for this. I think the Catholic church would benefit from a little prayerful introspection on this.

If nothing else, you'd think they'd see they're causing the faithful to doubt their leadership. The only Catholics I know (and I know quite a few) who think the church should be taking sides in this are very old and very conservative - in other words, not typical Catholics.

The title alone might make you think this is some feel-good fairy tale. Well the feel-good part is right, but the fairy-tale part isn’t.

Southwestern Ohio has become something of a Mecca for Tea Parties. On Labor Day weekend of this year a Tea Party was held at Voice of America Park in West Chester, Ohio in which an estimated 18,000 tea baggers showed up. In the lead up to last week’s NY-23 race, John Boehner even brought up this event while talking to John King, which was held within walking distance of his home.

So knowing this, you would expect that any tea party-style candidate would be a shoo-in for local office in this area, wouldn’t you? Well, don’t be so sure:

The reign of the anti-school tax activists on area school boards was a short one

[SNIP]

Fairfield School Board incumbent Arnie Engel, who tried four times to get elected to Fairfield Schools governing board before finally winning in fall 2005, this time finished a distant fourth in the race for three open seats.

In Warren County's Mason School Board race, self-proclaimed "Christian conservative" incumbent Jennifer Miller ended up fifth out of eight candidates vying for three seats.

In the Monroe school board race, fiscal conservative Mike Irwin lost his re-election bid, finishing dead last among five candidates.

All three of the school districts mentioned above surround the district where the big Labor Day Tea Party was held, and they are all represented by John Boehner and Jean Schmidt. They are also parts of the reddest corner of Ohio.

So while Republicans are celebrating their wins in New Jersey and Virginia last week, we need to remember that all politics are local. And you can’t get much more local than a race for school board. Results like these show that when push comes to shove, people really aren’t ready to give the conservatives any more chances.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1514)

PLAYS: (2312)

Via Raw Story, Rachel Maddow points out that in a move to make himself the Republican presidential candidate in 2012, the so-called "sane, centrist, future of the Republican Party" Tim "Fear the Mullet" Pawlenty is putting together the usual assortment of Republican scum to run his political PAC:

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has signaled with the creation of his Freedom First PAC that he has his eye on the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, however, believes that far from making him a credible candidate, the list of Pawlenty's consultants and strategists represents "a who's who of some of the worst Republican scandals of the past decade."

Maddow pointed in particular to Pawlenty senior advisor Terry Nelson, a former deputy chief of staff at the Republican National Committee "known for being the guy in charge when the infamous New England phone-jamming
case went down."

That dirty tricks maneuver sabotaged the Democrats' get-out-the-vote operation during the 2002 New Hampshire election and helped elect Republican John Sununu to the Senate. Nelson was the direct supervisor of RNC regional director James Tobin, who was convicted for his role in the case.

Maddow went on to describe how Nelson then left the RNC to beoame a media consultant, hired an advisor to the Swiftboat Veterans, and was behind the notorious race-baiting "Harold, call me" ad that helped defeat the 2006 senatorial campaign of Democrat Harold Ford but was condemned even by many Republicans.
Story continues below...

Pawlenty has also hired former White House political director Sara Taylor, who became notorious in 2007 for her role in the US Attorney scandal and her inability to recall anything of significance when called to testify before Congress.

I was reading this story about Obama trying to get the progressives into line behind his healthcare surrender compromise, and I was intrigued by the language. What does "moderate" mean, class?

WASHINGTON (CNN) – As Obama prepares to go before Congress and lay out more details about his stance on health reform, he held a conference call Friday with some of the most liberal members of the House, who say they won't vote for a bill without a government-run insurance option.

Two congresswomen on the call, which took place Friday afternoon, tell CNN that the president probed them about how entrenched they are, even asking them to define what they mean when they call for a "robust" public option.

"I think he would like to convince us that there is something sort of that could lead to a public option that would satisfy us, and guess what? It doesn't," Rep. Lynne Woolsey, D-California, told CNN in a telephone interview after the conference call.

Woolsey, the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, insisted that the president did not explicitly warn them that he may have to give up a so-called public option in order to pass a bill through the more moderate Senate, but it seemed he was laying the groundwork.

There's that Overton window again! If the Senate is "moderate" (i.e. too flipping wingnut crazy to even consider the truly moderate compromise of a public option), that must mean the actual moderates in the progressive caucus are literally INSANE!

"He has to decide where that line has to be drawn and he knows we have to decide where the line can be drawn," said Woolsey.

The conference call included leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

Another Democratic source familiar with the call said the president did made clear it will be hard to pass a public option out of Congress because of deep opposition from moderates, and talked about what's most important to him — market reforms that force more competition, lower costs for health care, and expanded coverage for the uninsured.

But both Woolsey and Rep Barbara Lee, D-California, the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, told CNN that they told the president point blank that they do not believe a health care proposal without a government-run option is real reform.

"All of our caucuses are very unified about a robust public option, and that is essential in healthcare reform efforts," Lee told CNN in a separate phone interview after the conference call.

Here's the White House thinking, as leaked by another one of those very busy White House sources *cough* Rahm Emanuel *cough*:

A Democratic source close to the process told CNN Friday that the White House was very conscious of the potential congressional fallout: "How do you [get the deal passed] without a revolt in the House? It can be done, but very delicately."

The bottom line, said the source, is that the president would have to "move to the center" on the issue eventually, "and it's not a bad thing to have liberals screaming at him." That development will help sell the deal to Americans and "convince them it's a good, moderate deal, if liberals are mad."

No, Rahm, we won't be screaming. In fact, we'll be very, very quiet. Screw us on healthcare reform, and all you'll hear is the Zen sound of a few million activists sitting on their hands for the next four years.

No more checks, no more phone banking, no more letters or calls of support. You're on your own now, pal. Go ask your new "moderate" friends for help.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America has a new ad campaign aimed at moving Sen. Chuck Grassley off the dime and get him to support healthcare reform. If you can, donate here:

Meet Kevin from Iowa. Kevin voted for Reagan...and Nixon...and George W. Bush...and Republican Senator Chuck Grassley. Kevin supports the public health insurance option. And in our new TV ad -- called "Main Street Bipartisanship" -- Kevin calls out Chuck Grassley for being out-of-touch with voters back home. It's powerful.

Real health care reform is in danger right now because some Democratic senators like Montana's Max Baucus crave "bipartisanship." But in DC, "bipartisanship" doesn't mean policies that Republican and Democratic voters back home support. It means "whatever watered-down reform insurance companies will let Republican senators vote for."

Chuck Grassley, the main Senate Republican negotiator, has taken over $2.9 million from health and insurance interests that oppose reform. He's also said he won't support a public option because it would beat private insurance in the marketplace! So why are some Democrats still negotiating with Grassley and letting him water down reform -- instead of going on offense? One word: "bipartisanship."

We're redefining "bipartisanship" to mean what mainstream voters want. Thanks for being a bold progressive.

-- Stephanie Taylor, PCCC co-founder

P.S. According to a national Quinnipiac poll in August, 40% of Republicans and 64% of independents support the public option. In Iowa, the latest Des Moines Register poll showed 36% of Republicans and 56% of independents. For context, 36% of Senate Republicans would be 14 votes -- huge "bipartisanship."

Now let's start working on getting him to support gay marriage. Still, I'm certainly happy to see someone standing up for women's rights, and I'm a big believer in rewarding good behavior. If you like Democrats who stand up for our values, you can show Creigh Deeds some love here.

Surrounded by female activists and lawmakers, Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate R. Creigh Deeds on Monday launched an assault on his opponent's record of working to restrict abortions, calling it evidence that the Republican has the wrong priorities for the state.

The Women for Deeds event, at the Northern Virginia Community College campus in Annandale, was the first of three this week at which Deeds will highlight Republican Robert F. McDonnell's history on the issue. McDonnell introduced numerous bills on abortion during his 14 years as a delegate from Virginia Beach.

Deeds's message could energize a Democratic base that has been showing signs of sluggishness since last year's overwhelming victory in the presidential election. It could also chip away at McDonnell's campaign promises that he would focus on education, jobs and transportation if elected governor.

"It's easy in an election year to talk a good game about the governor you're going to be, and it's easy to talk about jobs and bipartisanship, but I think it's my obligation to draw distinctions where they exist," Deeds said.

[...]"Despite Creigh Deeds's ongoing attempts to divide Virginians, Bob McDonnell will continue to talk about bringing Virginians together to create jobs and opportunity," McDonnell spokesman Tucker Martin said.

Deeds said he had spent his 18 years as a state delegate and senator from rural Bath County working to improve education and promote economic development while McDonnell, who opposes abortion in all instances except when the life of the mother is in danger, had spent his time in public life "single-mindedly advancing his anti-choice agenda."

Jon Stewart ripped into the insane, Ron Paul, teabaggers disrupting the health care town halls.

You know that old joke about the definition of mixed emotions: your mother-in-law driving your brand new Benz over a cliff? That's how I feel about the GOP targeting Harry Reid. Can't we find a real Democrat to challenge him in the primary?

And besides, why don't we have a Majority Leader from a safe state who won't be bending over backwards to keep the GOP happy?

Nevada Republicans have been unsuccessful in finding a top-tier candidate, but the head of the GOP's Senate campaign arm promised Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would face a strong challenge in 2010.

National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman John Cornyn (Texas) admitted Wednesday that time to find a candidate to take on Reid is not unlimited, but he said the chance to take out the Senate majority leader would open Republican wallets around the nation.

"With the right candidate against Harry Reid, money will not be a problem. And not just in Nevada, among contributors there, but I mean nationally," Cornyn told reporters.

"I think we have time, it's not open-ended, to find the right candidate," Cornyn said. "Because of the overall political environment, I don't think there's that kind of urgency that we might otherwise feel to get a candidate early.

"We don't yet have the field completed. My hope is here over the next few weeks that will change," Cornyn said.

But Republicans have seen several prominent potential candidates fall by the wayside in their hunt for the right candidate. Ex-Rep. Jon Porter (R), long seen as a strong challenger, lost his reelection bid in 2008 and has since signed on with a Washington lobbying firm. Former state Sen. Bob Beers (R), another possible contender, suffered the same fate last year.

Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki (R) is already in the race, but he was indicted for misappropriation of funds during his tenure as state treasurer. Though Krolicki maintains his innocence and has pleaded not guilty, he is no longer a candidate national Republicans speak of.

Obama will appear on the teevee tonight, further ramping up his push for healthcare reform. In the meantime, the Blue Dogs are sharpening their teeth in hopes of further weakening the bill. I'm trying to remember if they ever expressed similar concerns over funding Mr. Bush's little Middle East adventure, but I seem to be drawing a blank. Hmm.

(CNN) -- As President Obama prepares to address the nation in a primetime news conference, some sources say Democratic grumbling about his plan for health care is growing louder.

One Democratic senator told CNN that some congressional Democrats are "baffled," and another senior Democratic source told CNN that those members are frustrated that that they're not getting more specific direction from him on health care.

"We appreciate the rhetoric and his willingness to ratchet up the pressure but what most Democrats on the Hill are looking for is for the president to weigh in and make decisions on outstanding issues," the senior Democratic congressional source said.

"Instead of sending out his people and saying the president isn't ruling anything out, members would like a little bit of clarity on what he would support -- especially on how to pay for his health reform bill," the source added.

Yeah, I talked to one of the reform staffers last night, who told me the real battle now is over how to pay for it. My source tells me a lot of these "reasonable" proposals being floated in this phase have the potential to inflict long-term damage on the bill, that the work being done on the bill is so arcane and complicated that showboating congressmen don't have a clue - and don't bother to inform themselves.

The Democratic leadership had hoped the work going on behind closed doors for months could bear fruit in time for the president's news conference Wednesday night.

But multiple Democratic sources told CNN that's looking very unlikely, and one senior Democratic source said some Democratic leaders are frustrated that Senate negotiators have, "repeatedly missed deadlines."

The fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition of Democrats said Tuesday night that they reached one breakthrough on controlling the cost of health care at a meeting with Obama, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman and other House Democrats.

Blue Dog Rep. Mike Ross, D-Arkansas, told reporters after the meeting that the group came to a "verbal agreement," to add a "some type of hybrid of an independent Medicare advisory council " that would set reimbursement rates for health care providers to the House Democrats' bill. He referred to the agreement as a "breakthrough."

But Ross cautioned it was only one of 10 items that the Blue Dogs wanted changed.

I read this really interesting piece on Blue Dogs by David Sirota that pretty much sums up the problem:

Continue reading »

Gordon Brown and his Labour Party are getting crushed in the latest elections in the UK.

Labour suffered humiliation in the local elections tonight after the party lost its four remaining county councils to the Tories. Nottinghamshire was the last to fall as the Conservatives took control gaining nine seats while Labour – which had held the council since 1981 – lost 22.

Earlier Derbyshire fell after 28 years of rule, while Labour was also beaten by the Conservatives in Lancashire and Staffordshire. Overall, Labour appeared to be heading for total losses of around 300 seats while the Conservatives picked up more than 200.
--

Mr Brown said yesterday's elections had been "a painful defeat for Labour".

He told reporters in Downing Street: "I am here to be totally candid, to accept my responsibilities and to set out what I intend to do.
"The elections yesterday were a painful defeat for Labour. Too many good people doing so much good for their communities and their constituencies have lost through no fault of their own."

And Brown is looking at being ousted from power too:

Hours before the crucial Euro results were due to be announced, the prime minister's hopes of survival suffered a further setback when the former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer became the most senior figure yet to call for a leadership contest. The peer – once Tony Blair's flatmate – warned that potential candidates were waiting in the wings, ready to mount a challenge, if Brown was not prepared to stand down as prime minister.

Meanwhile, Tessa Jowell became the first member of the cabinet to speculate openly that Brown could be prepared to step aside if he believed he had become an "obstacle" to Labour winning the next general election.

DownwithTyranny:

If Labor comes in third-- or even fourth-- in the EU Assembly elections, Prime Minister Gordon Brown could be facing more than a headache. There has been talk about an attempt by backbenchers to oust him as party leader. Monday Brown will be meeting with Labor parliamentarians who see the election results as a Sword of Damocles hanging over all their heads.

As Howie states, the ruling parties are all getting killed throughout the EU elections.

It hasn't helped that Silvio Berlusconi is embroiled in a sex scandal with girls young enough to be his grand daughters. (He's 72 and his latest mistress and pimp is 18-- and he used a government plane to ferry her and his friends to his villa in Sardinia.) Yesterday the biggest newspaper in Spain published pictures of Berlusconi cavorting around naked with the topless girls and he called in "an invasion of privacy" and is now suing the paper.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1202)

PLAYS: (2467)

A lot of speculation has been going on in the blogosphere about the commitment Pawlenty has in listening to the Minnesota Supreme Court since he announced that he wouldn't seek a third term in office. Many feel he'll just ignore the ruling of the court and let it drag on for years to placate the right wing base. Andrea Mitchell just about finished up an interview with Gov. Tim Pawlenty when she asked him if he would be signing the certificate which would in all likelihood make Al Franken the next Senator after the Minn. Supreme Court ruling is handed down. He said he would abide by the court's decision and take swift action and sign the certificate.

Mitchell: I know you've said you'll abide by the Supreme Court decision on the Franken Coleman race, do you expect that that will by all accounts lead to Al Franken being the next Senator from Minnesota? Isn't it time to get this resolved?

Pawlenty: Yea, we're anxious to get it resolved but I can't sign the certificate until the State court process is complete, we don't know who the winner is, but as soon as that process is complete and they give direction as to signing the certificate, I'm going to sign it, there's not going to be any undue delay or tactics like that so we'll follow the direction of the court.

We can only hope he's telling the truth and will sign the certificate even if Coleman takes it Federal. The Supreme court will be handing down their decision very soon.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty held a press conference this afternoon to tell the media that he's not planning on running for a third term for governor.

A source close to Republican Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty confirms to First Read that Pawlenty will announce today that he will not be running for a third term in 2010.

This announcement, of course, will raise speculation about whether Pawlenty plans to spend the next three years preparing for a presidential bid in 2012.[..]

Pawlenty gave a firebrand speech at the Republican Governor’s Association meeting in Miami, a week after the party’s sound November election losses. He gave some tough medicine to the party, saying, “It needs to get younger, more diverse and build a broader coalition,” we wrote at the time. "If we're going to successfully travel the road, as a Republican,” he said at the time, “we need to see clearly, and be honest about where we've been and where we're headed. … If we're going to be the majority, we're going to have to see we need to grow the party. We cannot compete in the Northeast, the West; we're losing seats in the Great Lakes region. We have a large deficit with women, Hispanics, African Americans -- people with modest financial circumstances. That is not a formula for a majority." In the halls at the meeting, Pawlenty was lukewarm toward another potential 2012 GOP candidate, Sarah Palin. In fact, during his speech “he delivered a line that might sound like an opening 2012 shot at Palin,” we wrote then.

"'Drill baby, drill' by itself is not an energy policy," he said. "It's not enough. We're going to need wind and solar and bio mass."

Pawlenty neglects to mention that even if he did dare try for a third term, he'd be unlikely to win re-election. Just a few days ago he acknowledged to local press that winning a third term would be an uphill battle, even though last year he has said he'd make his decision in early '09. His continued support of Coleman hasn't helped him at all in his state. The Minnesota DFLs tell Pawlenty "Don't let the door hit you..."

Continue reading »