E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe GOP establishment strikes back?... But in the long run, DeMint could make the conservative (and anti-establishment) movement even more powerful… Is the Senate losing its inside influence?... South Carolina, the place to be in 2014… The monthly job numbers: 146,000 jobs created in November, unemployment rate dips to 7.7%... The one-billion-dollar men: Both Team Obama and Team Romney raise more than $1 billion each… Another labor battle in the Midwest -- this time in Michigan… And welcome back, Alan Grayson.
*** The GOP establishment strikes back? An interesting thing has happened in the month since the Republican Party’s losses in the November election: The GOP establishment has struck back -- at least in the short term. Consider the evidence: In the race for GOP conference chair, the establishment-backed Cathy McMorris Rodgers defeated the more conservative Tom Price. John Boehner’s position as speaker seems stronger than it has before. More and more congressional Republicans are signaling that they’re open to raising taxes (as long as they get something in return). And then yesterday, Sen. Jim DeMint, one of the biggest thorns in the GOP establishment’s side, announced that he was leaving the Senate in January to lead the conservative Heritage Foundation. While the DeMint-founded PAC Senate Conservatives Fund backed some of the rising stars in the party (Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz), it also supported candidates that went on to lose potential lay-up contests (Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Christine O’Donnell, Richard Mourdock). It’s a question worth pondering: Would Mitch McConnell be the incoming majority leader if DeMint’s PAC and activism didn’t exist?
J. Scott Applewhite / AP
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, accompanied by the House GOP leadership, gestures as he speak to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2012, following a closed-door GOP strategy session. From left are, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy of Calif., Boehner, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Va.
*** But in the long run, DeMint could make the conservative movement more powerful : Yet the establishment GOP’s new mojo is only a short-term development for now. It’s very possible that, in the long run, DeMint could make the conservative -- and anti-establishment -- movement even stronger from the outside. If Dick Armey could organize conservative forces in 2009-2010, just think what someone like DeMint could do; he very well could turn Heritage into a Club for Growth on steroids. As a prominent conservative told one of us, DeMint could very well “become the CEO of the conservative movement” at Heritage. In fact, DeMint told Rush Limbaugh yesterday that he could have a greater impact on politics from outside the Senate than inside of it. “I believe that I can do more good for the conservative movement outside of the Senate in leveraging the assets of the Heritage Foundation to communicate a more positive, optimistic message to the American people.”
NBC's Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro discuss the comeback of the House Republican establishment and Sen. Jim DeMint's resignation to lead the Heritage Foundation.
*** The Senate and its influence: Chew on that quote above for a few minutes. What does it say about the institution of the Senate that a member has more potential power outside of it than inside it? Is it a recognition that if you’re not in leadership, you can’t be as influential as you want to be? That’s always been a reality of the House. But the Senate, too?
*** South Carolina -- the place to be in 2014: With DeMint’s exit, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) gets to appoint a successor through 2014. Some of the possibilities: U.S. Rep. Tim Scott (who is African American and is the favorite among many conservatives), U.S. Rep. Mick Mulvaney, former U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett (whom Haley defeated in the 2010 SC GOP GOV runoff), former state Attorney General Henry McMaster (who also competed in that crowded GOV field), state Rep. Nathan Ballentine (a close Haley ally), and the governor's deputy chief of staff Ted Pitts (a former legislator). Perhaps more importantly, South Carolina will have three marquee contests in 2014 -- two Senate seats and a governorship will all be up for grabs, and there are plenty of ambitious state Republicans who want these positions. But it’s also not out of the realm of possibility that a Democrat could emerge to be a player in one of these races, taking advantage of what could turn into some nasty and ugly GOP primaries. If you’re a young political reporter, move to Columbia. It could very well be the most fascinating place to be in 2013-2014. And don’t forget: As an early presidential primary state, 2016 will be impacted by what takes place in the state in 2014.
*** The monthly jobs numbers: 146,000 jobs created in November; unemployment rate drops to 7.7%: You know the presidential election is over when today’s monthly jobs report is far from your top political story of the day. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal calls today’s report the “Least important jobs report in 5 years.” One reason why is that the election is over. Another reason is the potential impact that Hurricane Sandy made. But given Sandy, the numbers are surprisingly strong. The AP: “The U.S. economy added a solid 146,000 jobs in November and the unemployment rate fell to 7.7 percent, the lowest since December 2008. The government said Superstorm Sandy had only a minimal effect on the figures.” Two economists indicated to one of us that Sandy was worth a loss of 80,000-100,000 jobs. So imagine what this report would be without Sandy?
*** The One-Billion-Dollar Men: Politico notes that, with the final numbers in, both Team Obama and Team Romney raised more than $1 billion. “Obama: $1.123 billion vs. Romney: $1.019 billion. That’s the final fundraising tally in the most expensive presidential election ever, according to reports filed Thursday with the Federal Election Commission by the rival campaigns and party committees.”
*** Another labor battle in the Midwest: And here’s the top political story outside of Washington, per the Detroit Free Press: “Michigan, considered the birthplace of the American organized labor movement, was on a fast track to becoming the nation's 24th right-to-work state late Thursday after the state House and Senate passed bills as part of a package to pass the law. Labor and Democrats were pushing back hard against the Workplace Fairness and Equity Act, but the efforts seemed futile as the controversial measures moved like greased lightning -- and without going through committees or public debate -- and could land on Gov. Rick Snyder's desk by next week. The debate raged across Michigan, and the country on Thursday, as to whether the legislation would do what proponents say, bring fairness to workers and spark economic growth; or do as opponents claim, lower wages and benefits and destroy the middle class.”
*** Welcome back, Alan Grayson: NBC’s Carrie Dann has profiled 10 new members to watch in the next Congress. Today’s profile: Alan Grayson (and he’s a familiar face). “He's ba-ack. Alan Grayson, the quotable liberal firebrand whose zippy insults served as cable catnip during his previous stint in Congress, will be back on the Hill again next year. After losing his 2010 re-election bid, Grayson moved to a new Orlando district and sailed to victory this year over Republican Todd Long. The man who disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner once labeled as ‘one fry short of a happy meal,’ has garnered frequent outrage for his rhetorical bombs. He was forced to apologize after referring to a banking lobbyist as a ‘K Street whore’; he said Florida Gov. Rick Scott would have ‘blood on his hands’ if he did not implement some parts of the health-care plan; and he accused Republicans of offering only the health-care proposal that sick people should ‘die quickly.’ He was roundly beaten by Republican Daniel Webster in 2010 but will return having won by a 25-point margin in a redrawn district. Cable news bookers, start your engines.”
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
Georgw W. and Daddy Bush transformed most of the military into a mercenary service rather than a patriotic veterans service.
Yes he did,
Can you imagine if the Republicans would have got the White House.
What destruction that would have been. This is unbelievable how they twist all their words around and lie.
He put all ofus vets in harms way
Hmm funny how the stronger the GOP appears to get the more often they defeat themselves and lose elections and political power, I wonder if the people writing this report actually understand what getting stronger means.
Non of the Romney clan ever served,not him his father grandfather,or non of his five donkey sons,,looooosers
The GOP loves war,except they never want their families to go,,losers
McConnell's performance on the Senate floor yesterday reminded me of something P. J. O'Rourke wrote some years ago:
"Republicans are firm believers that government doesn't work; then get elected and prove it."
The lies of the GOP,keep coming
The gop have become the true enemy with in.
Hmmm..
Interseting comment seeing that the last two presidents to have never worn any uniform are Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
I think this is going to change the dynamic of the office of the President in the future, as fewer and fewer of our elected officials have or will serve in the Armed Forces.
In the past Americans have looked toward the military leaders to become good presidents but the military is and the wars are not what they used to be and a good military leader does not always make a good civilian leader.
My point is that how can the military look to the President when the person holding the office has never served, or has run from service, or has displayed some sort of outright disdain for the military?
As fewer elected officials serve, it will make things different on this level.
Presidents who did not serve in the military (got this off the web so its not official info)
J. Adams
Jefferson
J.Q. Adams
VanBuren
Cleveland (hired a substitute to serve in the Civl War)
Fillmore
Taft
Wilson
Harding
Coolidge
Hoover
FDR
Clinton
Your list is pretty accurate, but Jefferson was credited as serving in the Virginia Militia, but had no combat experience.
Another note. FDR tried to join but could not due to the measles.
Cowards always vote Yes for Wars that will Profit Big Business.
Try calculating the cost per person for each American and innocent Iraqi that was killed in the war.
Try calculating the cost per person for each American japanese and german FDR put into American internment camps in WWII.
Your right. When war starts the government has a knee jerk reaction. Just like when Bush collected up thousands of Afghans unrelated to the Taliban or Al Quaeda and threw them in Guantaomo. Seems to always happens by both parties.
Ronald Regan was very successful in making the word "Liberal" a dirty word in the minds of conservatives. Conservatives lept at the opportunity to use name calling as their primary device to convince everyone that liberals are evil, etc. Using the word liberal has often replaced the use of "special interest groups"... because the GOP suddenly realized that they too consist of special interest groups.
It's convenient and useful to lump those with whom you disagree into one group. That way its easier to be vague and attack on any issue whether relevant or not. And, its also a useful tactic for smokescreening and trying to confuse... when someone wants to hide their inability to articulate or debate.
Its generally agreed that name calling is a display of frustration and ignorance when someone is unable to hold an intelligent conversation or debate the issues. Namecalling can also be attributed to ignorance, low I.Q., low self asteem, lack of self-confidence, low levels of testosterone, drunkedness, or smoking too much weed.
A common theory among intelligent human life is that name callers lack the balls to identify themselves and hide behind anonymous names, are often sullen and withdrwan from social life, are generally disliked among their peers, are not well educated, outcasts in their family, frequently suffer from uncontrolable brain-farts, and have a huge chip on their should. Name callers generally do not enjoy life as it is and their objective is to make everyone else's life around them as miserable as possible.
The rest of us will get on with life... with or without name callers. We accept them for who they are... arseholes. Name callers can frequently be found trolling blogs, posting in short unintelligible incomplete sentences, slamming others with words like "liberal", and quoting Fox News, The Republic, Rush, Glen, et.al.
Don't let name callers and the Grinch try to ruin your holiday season. We have four more years (and probably more) to get this country back on track.
This is my (our) country. Don't like it? You are free to leave...
Generally a good post but what about the people who want the nation to really live up to its potential for all the people? I can remember Reagan visiting an inner center area and making the comment that I can't do a damn thing for you unless I get elected. What a joke!!
Actually maniac, Reagan did not make the word "Liberal" a dirty word. Liberals have done that all by them selfs.
How about a nation that gives EVERY ONE the opportunity to live up to thier own "potential"? Equal opportunity does not mean equal results for all. That would be Marxism.
Kinda like the dems spending $15 Trillion on the "war on poverty" and poverty winning? Dems always promise if you elect them, they will help you get out of the inner city slums. But have more than 40 years, they are still in these slums.
People need to boycott these restaurant chains that are demoralizing their employees. They seem to think punishing their employees will get even for Obama winning the election.
Yeah libtard, boycott a business that is trying to stay in business under an anti-business president. Worked out so well with chick-fil-a, remember!
I don't need to boycott Dennys, Papa Johns, Olive Garden or Red Lobster because I don't go to those crappy restaurants anyways.
animal farm
Perhaps the rules in Obamacare shouldn't have created disincentives.
Generally, there is nothing in life that ends well that starts with; "you have to buy this or you will pay a tax/fine".
Mitch Mcconnell is a piece of work.
What a joke he looked like yesterday.
Casting has started for Idiocracy 2 but they're only choosing members from the GOP; go figure.
Let him try . . . the majority of Americans have heard their "message" and rejected it . . . good luck trying to sell all that lying, deceiving bullcrap to us again. In case DeMint is under any illusions, he needs to be reminded that he's on the losing end of the stick and his party (whatever they call themselves these days) is on the road to oblivion. And all the money in the world won't stop that from happening. Anti-Americans -- like DeMint -- should be put out to pasture.
His party is called the Tea Party and he is the chief teabagger.
No they did not. They have not heard the Conserivtive message. Not all repubs are conservitives and not all conseritives are repubs. We have Dem, Independent conservitives. We are and will purge people the speaker, macain, reid, piglosy and more from our political world for people that believe America is exceptional and beleive in our founding princples.
I don't see it. This move will just place DeMint into that circle of right-wing sideshows like Rush Limbaugh and Fox. They will play their game of scapegoating and division, but, they have been caught with their pants down and people are onto them in growing numbers. All of the money they spent in this last election could not prevent the electorate from rejecting their message.
Today's GOP is so tight-assed that even one of it's own who is often propped up as the party icon - Ronald Regan - could not possibly win the nomination today.
When the GOP cleans house these next four years, they need to remember that house cleaning is not finished until you take out the trash. DeMint just saved the party one trip to the dumpster.
Jeb is right, and he is right that back in the says of Reagan / Bush, there was more of a willingness to work across the aisle which is getting worse as the years continue.
Both parties need to understand that for the government to function more efficiently it cannot be one way or the other, and true compromise needs to be achieved.
What is wrong with looking at proposals from both sides, finding what they agree on, and then building from there. Reagan did it, GHW Bush did it, Clinton did it.... Did common sense leave Washington in the late 1990's?
Seems to. After the supreme court gave the presidency to Bush 43 and DeLay and Hastert used torched earth policies in Congress everything got ugly.
Just an FYI, the Supreme Court didnt give Bush the Presidency, they ruled that the state could not change the laws on how to conduct the recount AFTER the election was held (common sense if you ask me).
That would be like running a marathon, having someone win, and then after the race, the organizers coming out to rule that the person who finished in 4th is being declared the winner because ....... (fill in the reason).
No it would not be like that at all. Your in the 1% of the people who think Bush 43 should have won that election. Gore had more votes and more electoral votes. What is that about coming in 4th????
St regan raised taxes and lowered them when needed,that is all Obama is doing folks
In las Vegas the Va just built the most expensive hospital ever,all green high tech and they also built four new primary care clinics
Obama pushed for,increased funding after seeing the bush war victims coming back missing limbs
Looooosers
MRABILITY
Many of the "taxes" raised during Reagans years were "fees" (just a fancy word for taxes) as I believe there was only one payroll tax increase during his Presidency.
Other than that, I do agree that it is simlar, but what this administration still fails to see is that while the government does need additional revenue, it more importantly needs to get its spending under control.
As we move past the out dated GOP simple minded losers,next year will be great and every year after that will be better
Sorry GOP liers you,lost
Intellectual and fact filled post, substantiated by supporting facts. And we wonder why Washington operates in the way it does.
Both spending and revenues will be addressed,Entitlement reform as well.We need to do it in stages
You dont INCREASE spending when trying to reduce a budget deficit. That is the difference.
Obamas plan calls for the increase in taxes, with increased spending, and then cuts (later)
That means an increase in deficit spending now, with hopes of cutting it later.
Using that philosophy, I hope I win the lottery to make up for all the debt I am accumulating today.
GUN CONTROL -our forefathers believed that every man should be able to possess a gun. this was so the government, which had the same weapons, could not take over and set up a military state. So i believe that in today's world that every man should be able to possess a nuclear weapon so the government cannot take over and become a military state. we definitely need to bring our constitution up to date. you might say i am crazy but it follows the same logic. so call your congressman and senator and tell them to get on the ball.