By Jeff Smith, on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:00 PM ET  As part of his role as a member of Politico’s Arena, contributing RP Jeff Smith was asked whether or not Presidential contender Michele Bachmann could survive a series of gaffes over the past year, including stating that the Revolutionary War began in Concord, N.H. rather than Concord, Mass.
Here’s Jeff’s response:
I don’t think gaffes like this are a big problem for a candidate like Bachmann as she seeks the nomination.
The Republican Party has long appealed to the anti-intellectual strain of the electorate, starting with Nixon and his lambasting of academics (a concerted attempt to bring in the Wallace vote), continuing through Reagan and Bush 43, and culminating in Palin know-nothingism. If anything, these mistakes are often “owned” and used as a self-effacing badge of honor (see “misunderestimate,” “refudiate,” and “I can see Russia from my house”), against media and academic elites who actually care about electing leaders with a mastery of basic grammar and American history.
Of course, gaffes like this, and her out of the mainstream views, will ensure that she will never be president.
By Jeff Smith, on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 8:30 AM ET 
In his piece published yesterday in Politico’s Arena, Jeff Smith joins the RP in urging the President to endorse gay marriage now. Here is Jeff’s response to the Arena question: “Is Obama being pushed into gay marriage support?”
I don’t know what he’ll do. I do know that it’s better to lead than to follow. I also know that future public opinion on this issue is easier to predict than that on any other major policy issue.
That’s because of the stark generational split: polls consistently show overwhelming majorities of people under 40 supporting gay marriage, and overwhelming majorities of those over 65 opposing it – just as polls during the mid-1960s showed on interracial marriage (before the Supreme Court banned state anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia).
As generational replacement occurs, clear majorities of the electorate will support gay marriage, and it will require little courage to support it. Now is the time for the president to ensure that he is on the right side of history.
By Jeff Smith, on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 8:31 AM ET There are two things Huntsman probably needs in order to claim the nomination:
1) Perry or another formidable candidate from the party’s right wing to get in.
Romney has the money and national infrastructure to go the distance, and if there is only one candidate emerging from the right – Bachmann, Cain, Palin, whoever – that’s good for Romney, as it will frighten mainstream Republicans into coalescing around him. So, Huntsman needs at least two strong candidates from the party’s right wing, and Perry’s potential entrance can muddle things enough on the right that so that establishment types will be OK with two strong candidates from the “moderate” wing.
2) Since Romney also has personal money in addition to having spent five years criss-crossing the country meeting bundlers, Huntsman needs to figure out a way to tap his vast family fortune.
I’m not sure about this, but I saw an estimate of Huntsman’s personal fortune at $15M. That’s about enough for New Hampshire – not for the nomination. His father is apparently a billionaire, according to estimates, but he needs to figure out the logistics of making that money available for campaign use. Does that mean his father gifts him $100M and then pays gift taxes on it? Maybe. Does it mean his father does a giant IE? Who knows. The optics aren’t good with either option. I suspect they’ve thought through this, but the logistics of it, and the subsequent perception, could have outsized influence on the way his candidacy is perceived – especially in a post-Bunny-money era.
Cross posted, with permission of the author, from Politico’s Arena
By Jeff Smith, on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 2:15 PM ET  As Joe Biden famously said during the 2008 primaries, each sentence in Rudy’s stump speech consisted of a noun, a verb, and 9/11.
So if Republicans want to spend next fall talking about the shining moment of the Obama presidency (the successful Seal raid), Rudy would be the perfect nominee.
No, I don’t think he could win New Hampshire. But even if he did, remember that New Hampshire – won by Buchanan in ’96 and McCain in ’00 – has been far from dispositive. South Carolina has been the key to the nomination. And as ’02 SC Senate candidate Alex Sanders said when Rudy came down to stump for Lindsay Graham that year (paraphrasing here), “He’s for gay rights. He’s pro-abortion. He wants to ban handguns. He cheated on his wife, got kicked out of his house, and moved in with two gay guys and a Shih Tzu. Is that South Carolina values?”
 If Rudy runs and somehow makes it out of New Hampshire, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear Sanders’ observation invoked by Rudy’s primary opponents or their operatives.
All of that said, perhaps a candidacy could bump his speaking fees back up to where they were post-9/11.
Cross-posted, with permission of the author, from Politico’s Arena.
By Jeff Smith, on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 9:15 AM ET  No, Anthony Weiner’s resignation wasn’t inevitable.
A majority of general election voters polled in his district didn’t want him to resign, and so he probably could’ve survived the primary, unless further damaging revelations came to light.
Was it “fair” that party leaders pushed him to resign? Depends what the definition of “fair” is. First, Weiner’s trailblazing hurt him. Cheating? So passe. Cheating with best friend’s wife (as an evangelical Christian pol)? Cheating with hookers (as an evangelical Christian pol)? Foot tapping in airport restrooms? Dirty IMs with 16 year-old House pages? It all feels so ’00s.
But DM-ing crotch-shots! Now there’s something new! Appalling!
The fact is that Anthony Weiner wasn’t pushed out so much for the sexts. Barney Frank used a male prostitute who then ran an escort service out of Frank’s apartment. Frank survived because his colleagues respected his intellect, work ethic, and legislative prowess.
And of course, most Democrats staunchly defended President Clinton during impeachment because of his policy and political brilliance, the depth of his relationships, and consistently strong job approval ratings with the public.
Weiner, however, was the prototypical show horse — first in line and quick with a quip when there was a camera around, but essentially absent from the legislative process. Many of his colleagues found him insufferable. More than anything, I think that explains his lack of defenders in recent days — a lack of support that led to his resignation.
Crossposted from Politico’s Arena
By Jeff Smith, on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 2:15 PM ET  North Carolina isn’t a must-win for Obama; it was icing on the cake last time. But I do think he’ll win there. Like Colorado but unlike Ohio, North Carolina is a swing state that is moving steadily in Democrats’ direction because of long-term demographic trends, primarily the continued influx of tech workers and other highly educated voters into the Research Triangle.
The state’s growth is centered in the progressive middle third of the state, as opposed to the more conservative East and the Appalachian West, a region where Obama has struggled to connect.
The resilience of Obama’s numbers in North Carolina — contrasted with his relative weakness in some Rust Belt swing states — suggests that he will win there. But it’s a stretch to call it a must-win state, as there are many ways to get to 270 without it. Remember, Clinton got 379 Electoral College votes in ’96 and never even made an effort in North Carolina. Few states go from uncompetitive to must-win status for a party in the span of four elections.
Cross-posted from Politico’s “Arena”
By Jeff Smith, on Thu Jun 9, 2011 at 12:30 PM ET Contributing RP Jeff Smith answers the Politico Arena query as to whether House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi continues to be an effective foil for Republican candidates:
The trend’s spread to my neck of the woods, too: Missouri Republican Ed Martin kicked off his congressional campaign yesterday by tying prospective opponent Rep. Russ Carnahan to Pelosi as well (even though it was Steny Hoyer – not Pelosi – here campaigning for Carnahan the day before). This strategy appeared to be effective for Martin last cycle; he held Carnahan under 49 percent in a 59 percent Democratic Performance Index district.
Unfortunately, Pelosi’s numbers last fall were worse than Richard Nixon’s were during impeachment. Democrats can lament that and condemn Republicans for using sexist imagery and rhetoric to caricature her, but her cake is baked. (Wait, was that sexist?)
Since this appears to be a coordinated national message with money behind it, one can only assume that NRCC polling suggests that Pelosi remains a drag on Democratic congressional candidates in swing districts. It may not make sense given the House Dems’ relative impotence in the face of a Paul Ryan-driven agenda which is in itself quite unpopular, but I’m afraid these attacks still resonate.
By Jonathan Miller, on Thu Jun 9, 2011 at 8:30 AM ET This week, The Recovering Politician published three pieces in which contributing RPs Jeff Smith, Artur Davis, and I weighed in on the John Edwards investigation and trial. If you missed them, here they are:
Jonathan Miller: I Was Never a John Edwards Fan, But I’m Rooting for Him Now
Artur Davis: Former Federal Prosecutor Terms Edwards Investigation “Misguided”
Jeff Smith: Your Tax Dollars at Work, Prosecuting (and Potentially Incarcerating) John Edwards
These articles certainly touched a nerve. I received several dozen emails from our readers, each giving their own take on the controversy.
Below I run a sample of the readers’ letters. Since I did not ask explicitly for permission, I am not using the authors’ names. However, if I used your email, and you would like to be identified, please let me know.
And of course, as always, we encourage you to comment below.
Is what John Edwards's campaign did against the law? That's the
question, right? It's not about the character of John Edwards, or at
least shound't be. And as for the poor first-time candidate worried
about taking it on the chin because he copped a few free haircuts or
some used clothes, wouldn't he want to know one way or the other
whether it's okay before he takes a gift? The commentary I have seen,
like that cited on your blog, doesn't say one way or the other whether
what happened here is or isn't (or should or shouldn't be) against the
law, but rather (i) leave the poor guy alone and (ii) what's the big
deal? History is full of powerful people who left the stage in shame
and then still had to suffer being investigated, sued, and/or
prosecuted. It's a risk that goes with being a public person with
something to hide. In Edwards' case, these were large donations (not
free haircuts), and if whether they should have been disclosed because
they served a political purpose is an open question, then let's get
the answer. Doing so would hopefully shed some light on what is
obviously a murky area, and may help deter some future shenanigans.
Someone will always be ready to push the envelope. If the edge is not
well defined, or worse, the signal is sent that we won't pursue cases
of apparent wrongdoing that are near the edge, we open the door to
even worse behaviour in the future.
John Edwards’ approval ratings are between 2 % and 3%. I hope he will never be considered for public office again. I think he is lower than dirt for his arrogant, narcissistic, dishonest acts against his dead wife and his children. His character is too low for him to be considered for any responsible government job. If he has broken laws in his covering up his out-of-wedlock child and lover, I would not shed a tear if he went to jail or was forced to do public service for indigent wives whose husbands have left them for the healthy, years younger model. I sent money to this man’s campaign, and it was NOT sent to support a mistress and baby outside of marriage! Poverty for John Edwards seems to me the best punishment.
Numerically, the Republicans seem to be cranking out more reprobates, liars, adulterers, thieves, and liars, but Democrats had better police their own if they want to count themselves as those taking the “high ground.”
Read the rest of…
The Edwards Affair — Our Readers Weigh In
By Jeff Smith, on Tue Jun 7, 2011 at 12:30 PM ET
If John Edwards goes to prison, then many other politicians should join him, according to the Department of Justice’s logic.
I have a friend, for instance, who during his first campaign unintentionally did almost exactly what Edwards did. After my friend’s first campaign event, the host pulled him aside and said, “Great job! But, can I be candid with you?”
“Sure.” Sure, he said, wondering if his rhetoric had been too strong for some in the room.
“OK. Please don’t be angry,” she said. “But people think you look like a kid, not somebody who could be in Congress. Your suit’s too big. Your shirt is threadbare, your slacks look like rags, and your shoes are scuffed. Basically, you like a boy in your dad’s hand-me-downs. Oh, and you really need a haircut. Your hair looks like a hornet’s nest. You‘ve gotta go see my girl Melissa, she can help you.”
My friend went to Melissa for the duration of the campaign, and her handiwork was by all accounts a huge improvement. Melissa refused to charge him, no matter how vehemently he tried to pay her.
A few weeks later my friend ran into his high school tennis coach, who also commented on his suit. “You can’t go around looking like that,” said the coach, and gave my friend several stylish suits and blazers that he hadn’t worn in years, with instructions on where to get them altered.
Little did my friend know that he had his own Bunny Mellon and Fred Baron, on a slightly smaller scale. And like John Edwards, he neglected to report these gifts on his FEC filings. (FEC rules state that any gift to a federal candidate that is meant to influence an election and which has not been given routinely prior to the benefactor’s candidacy must be reported.)
But if Lanny Breuer, the Assistant AG who is prosecuting John Edwards, has anything to say about it, there will be a precedent set for candidates, even those like my friend – neophytes who know precious little about the intricacies of federal campaign finance law. Any failure to report such gifts would merit a felony charge and, potentially, prison time.
***
Let’s lay out a few pertinent facts about the Edwards case.
A centenarian billionaire gave almost a million bucks to help him hide his pregnant mistress while he ran for president. Edwards failed to inform his campaign treasurer about these gifts.
Who was hurt here – other than Elizabeth Edwards?
We can agree that John Edwards make a mistake by succumbing to the “charms” of a bleach-blonde New Age party-girl who approached him (“You’re so hot”) at a NYC hotel bar one evening. And he compounded this initial mistake with many more along the way. By carrying on an affair as his wife’s cancer progressed, he was appallingly self-indulgent and callous. By running for president while concealing it, he became one of the highest-stakes gamblers in history, literally risking the nation’s well-being on a Houdini-like escape from this tangled web.
But that doesn’t mean the government should have spent two years and millions of dollars to prosecute him.
The crux of the case is that Edwards failed to report the “gifts” as campaign contributions. However, no Bunny-money ever touched any of John Edwards’s campaign or personal accounts. Prosecutors don’t even allege that it did. And apparently Ms. Mellon even paid gift taxes on the money. So should Edwards really be prosecuted and potentially incarcerated for misleading his campaign staff about the fact that a billionaire kept his mistress living in style?
Is there anyone in the country who doesn’t think John Edwards is a world-class heel? Probably not.
Would you like to help pay the millions of dollars for his prosecution and possible incarceration? I didn’t think so.
***
As regular readers know, I lied to federal agents about my knowledge of a postcard that was mailed out by an independent group during my 2004 congressional campaign. With my knowledge, one of my aides had given publicly available information about my opponent’s legislative attendance record to the independent operator, a fact that my aides and I hid from investigators. The wire worn by one of my best friends for two months in 2009 revealed my awareness of the plan to send the mailer, along with the fact that I frequently use four-letter words.
Read the rest of…
Jeff Smith: Your Tax Dollars at Work, Prosecuting (& Potentially Incarcerating) John Edwards
By Jeff Smith, on Tue May 31, 2011 at 12:00 PM ET As Sarah Palin takes significant steps to potentially enter the Republican primary for President in 2012, Politico’s Arena asked Jeff Smith whether Michelle Bachmann poses a real threat to Palin’s chances to capture the nomination.
Here’s Jeff’s reply:
Both parties have a primary within a primary in presidential elections. Democrats have a shot-and-a-beer versus wine-and-cheese primary, with the long-term trend favoring the wine-and-cheese candidate (Clinton and Gore representing the former type, Kerry and Obama the latter). Republican primaries have a similar structure, the culture warriors vs. the blue-blood establishment. Bachmann and Palin represent the former while Romney and Huntsman are pure blue-bloods.
To become the nominee, 1) you need to be the leading candidate in your mini-primary and 2) you want fewer people in your mini-primary than the other mini-primary.
Read the rest of his answer here.
|
The Award-Winning Documentary about Jeff’s Early Career (2006):
The Recent New Republic Article About Jeff (2011):
|
|
|
As part of his role as a member of Politico’s Arena, contributing RP Jeff Smith was asked whether or not Presidential contender Michele Bachmann could survive a series of gaffes over the past year, including stating that the Revolutionary War began in Concord, N.H. rather than Concord, Mass.
Follow Jeff Smith: