Jeff Smith: Is Pelosi an Effective Foil for the GOP?

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.

The Edwards Affair — Our Readers Weigh In

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

The RP’s Weekly Web Gems: The Politics of the Media

French radio and television anchors are no longer allowed to say “Facebook and Twitter” on-air during their broadcasts. Is the United States next? Nah… [Time]

YouTube still rules the online video universe, but a startup company from Chicago is trying to carve a place for itself in social media. [NY Times]

A writer at Good Magazine responds to an age-old question in journalism: If a reporter sees someone in trouble, should they remain impartial or try to get involved? [Good Magazine]

Girl power! What Jill Abramson’s appointment as executive editor of the New York Times, the first female in the position, could mean for women in journalism: [Poynter]

CBS is taking its Weinergate coverage to the next level: tracking down the man who does the congressman’s laundry. [NY Magazine]

Artur Davis: Former Fed. Prosecutor Calls Edwards Prosecution “Misguided”

Let’s stipulate that John Edwards’ misdeeds are already legendary. Whatever your view of the linkage between sexual misconduct and public life, Edwards picked an usually sordid path to travel–the betrayal of a dying spouse, the failure to own up to a pregnancy, and a political cover-up that traded on the loyalty of people who believed in him deeply.

But sin is still not criminal, and I am in the camp that thinks the prosecution of Edwards last week is misguided.

These are the basic facts around the case: in 2007 and 2008, several major Edwards donors funneled just under a million dollars to Edwards for the purpose of paying off Realle Hunter, Edwards’ mistress, in the hope that she would remain silent about the affair. The Edwards campaign did not disclose the money in its quarterly FEC filings, and there has been much subsequent wrangling over whether they should have.

Whether the money should have been revealed turns largely on how it is classified: gifts need not be reported to the FEC, campaign contributions must be. If the funds had a political purpose like preserving Edwards’ candidacy from scandal, they are arguably campaign contributions. If they were political, they also might be what campaign law calls independent expenditures, and in that case, it would be a campaign finance law violation if Edwards “coordinated” the expenditures in any way.

The Edwards camp responds that the money, which came from two longtime friends of the former Senator, was a personal gift meant to help Edwards by shielding his wife and family from finding out about the affair. In its charging, the Department of Justice contends that the Edwards team is wrong and that its receipt of the money, which is way outside the legal limits for individual contributions, and its subsequent failure to disclose it, are criminal violations. Edwards alone has been charged.

Again, a concession is in order: a candidate’s receipt of sizable amounts of money from a few sources is not a good thing for those of us who worry about the sway big money donors have on politics. Moreover, the idea that money has either a “political” or a “personal” purpose is a rather obvious fiction: keeping an extramarital affair out of view helps save both a marriage and a political career.

But imagine a scenario that is slightly less salacious. Let’s say a major cable television network pays a potential presidential candidate a significant salary to host a program on public affairs, and regularly features that candidate as a commentator on its other programming. The candidate has no previous experience as a journalist and the show performs poorly enough in the ratings that the network derives little benefit. Is this generosity a campaign contribution, on the grounds that the free time and the salary boost the candidate’s presidential interests in obvious ways, and spares him the inconvenience of a day job? Or is it just an act of kindness meant to sustain a figure whose views are shared by the network’s management?

Read the rest of…
Artur Davis: Former Fed. Prosecutor Calls Edwards Prosecution “Misguided”

The RP: I Was Never a John Edwards Fan, But I’m Rooting for Him Now

John Edwards’ indictment last week is an issue that will occupy the blogosphere and the political chattering class for months.

And it’s one to which we will be devoting considerable attention here at The Recovering Politician

For the Edwards affair touches on a significant number of issues that are of primary concern and interest to our contributors and our readership:  the privacy rights of public figures; the criminalization of politics; the special responsibilities of our state and national leaders.

My take on the issue is fairly simple.  While I have never been much of a fan or supporter of Edwards, and while I find the cover-up scheme for which he was charged to be reckless, irresponsible, and farcical; I oppose his prosecution, and I am hoping that he will escape criminal punishment.

I published an essay on my views in today’s Huffington Post.  Here is an excerpt:

I really wanted to like John Edwards. I just couldn’t help myself.

From the time of his first presidential bid, Edwards’ focus on poverty reduction and his sublimely poetic identification of “two Americas” perfectly captured my own communitarian vision of politics and public service.

But I couldn’t support him. There was just something about him.

I wish I could say it was because I suspected the arrogance and recklessness that led him to risk the Democratic Party’s fortunes – indeed, the fate of the country — on an implausible scheme to cover-up the paternity of his child. But I wasn’t that insightful.

Only recently, upon reflecting on my own political career, did I understand what it was.

To read my complete essay, please click here.

And please stay tuned to The Recovering Politician for a wide variety of different opinions on the Edwards scandal.

Weinergate: Show’s Over People; Nothing to See Here

Maybe it is because I’m on a business trip in Washington DC today, but it seems that every third news story and every other conversation revolves around an entirely implausible “scandal” featuring the fully-clothed nether regions of a mostly unknown Congressman.

What’s the story here, people?

Unless you live without electricity or batteries, you are probably aware that Congressman Anthony Weiner’s Twitter account sent a possibly lewd picture to a college student over the weekend.  Weiner has both claimed his account was hacked, and that he cannot say with “certitude” that the picture is not of himself.

The key fact:  The college student does not feel victimized by Weiner.  Here is her statement. Indeed, her mother asserts that the young woman has been traumatized by the media coverage of this non-scandal.

It seems that the media has excused itself by focusing on the fact that Weiner may be lying. But he’s not accused of doing anything remotely illegal. Nor can anyone argue that Weiner has abused tax dollars or his position of power.  And as I’ve argued on behalf of Sarah Palin and Arnold Schwartzenegger, lying in such personal cases, simply with the very human motive of protecting one’s family from embarrassment, should neither be criminal nor a subject of constant media speculation.

RP Nation — If you think this is a legitimate story, please explain in the comments section below.

If not, take the Honorable Clancy Wiggum’s advice below, and move on, there’s nothing to see here:

Artur Davis on John Edwards

Our very own contributing RP Artur Davis offered his insights on the ongoing John Edwards scandal to Politico’s Ben Smith. In addition to being a member of the House Judiciary Committee while in Congress, Davis previously served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Alabama, with a nearly 100% conviction record.

Here’s what Davis had to say about the Edwards affair:

It’s a new low for Edwards stemming from his affair with a former campaign aid, and at least one knowledgeable observer thinks any charges brought may be off the mark. Artur Davis, a former federal prosecutor and four-term Alabama congressman, says that an Edwards indictment would be highly unusual by normal Justice Department standards.

“Campaign finance law gives candidates significant leeway on how to spend campaign dollars, as long as the money does not end up in their own pocket,” says Davis, a former member of the powerful House Judiciary Committee and now a partner in the white collar and government investigations practice at law firm SNR Denton in Washington.

“It is exceedingly rare for the government to bring criminal charges in connection with the misuse of campaign dollars; when it happens it usually involves some other crime like obstruction or making false statements to investigators. Those elements seem to be missing here,” Davis adds.

Click here to read the full article in Politico.

Jeff Smith: Is Bachmann a Threat to Palin?

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 RP’s Weekly Web Gems: The Politics of the Media

The next presidential election is still a year away, but things are already getting dirty on Twitter. [Time]

Did you miss last week’s final episode of Oprah? New York magazine gives us the highlights in three minutes. [NY Magazine]

Read the statement from Genette Cordova, the college student who was sent a lewd picture on Twitter by Congressman Anthony Weiner’s hacked account. [NY Daily News]

Check out this behind-the-scenes look at the NYPD Special Victims Division, the group responsible for catching Dominique Strauss-Kahn and other criminals. [Newsweek]

The winners of YouTube’s recent talent competition went through social media boot camp in New York City with Google. Here are the results. [NY Times]

The RP on No Labels Radio: Now Available Online

Yesterday, the RP, contributing RP Lisa Borders, and a group of other Democrats, Republicans and Independents from across the country, helped launch No Labels Radio.

No Labels is a new grassroots movement of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who are united in the belief that we do not have to give up our labels, merely put them aside to do what’s best for America.  No Labels Radio will offer a weekly dose of news and interviews with the policymakers who are working to find bipartisan answers to the otherwise intractable problems our country faces.

No Labels Radio is broadcast every Thursday at 2 PM EDT.

Yesterday’s broadcast is now online.  You can listen to it here:

The Recovering Politician Bookstore

     

The RP on The Daily Show