•
Washington Examiner
By: Michael Barone
Republican Honolulu Councilman Charles Djou has won the special election in the 1st congressional district of Hawaii, the birthplace and childhood home of Barack Obama, with 40% of the vote, to 31% for state Senator Colleen Hanabusa and 28% for former 2nd district Congressman Ed Case, both Democrats. The Djou percentage is different from that widely reported, because I don’t count blank votes and over votes in the total as the Hawaii authorities do. Under Hawaii law, there was no primary in this special election; candidates of all parties ran with the leading votegetter elected. This was obviouslty an advantage for Djou, the only well-known Republican in the race. Democrats were split between state Hanabusa, a pillar of the Democratic machine led most of the last 50 years by Senator Daniel Inouye, and Case, elected to Congress after the death of incumbent Patsy Mink in September 2002 and reelected n 2004. In 2006 Case ran against the then 86-year-old Senator Daniel Akaka in the Democratic primary, which was considered lese majeste by the machine (amazingly enough, Senators Inouye and Akaka were born within four days of each other in September 1924); Akaka won 55%-45%. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Obama White House reportedly favored Case over Hanabusa in this contest, presumably on the theory that his reputation as a reformer and moderate would make him a stronger candidate. But Inouye and company insisted on supporting Hanabusa and the DCCC pulled out of the race during the mail-in voting period, when a poll suggested that Djou was leading.
There’s an important backstory here: the efforts of an independent expenditure by a group called http://iwvoice.org/ Independent Women’s Voice. IWV commissioned a poll in the race in April, which showed Case leading and Djou within reach. In response IWV started running three ads prepared by the Brabender Cox firm, one charging that Case had voted 72 times for higher taxes, one charging that he had gotten an “F” rating from the National Taxpayers Union and one noting that he had hired a former consultant to former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (“Advisor B” on the FBI surveillance tapes). When these ads appeared, the Djou campaign stopped running negative spots and ran one showing Djou’s wife talking to camera instead. Subsequent polling for IWV showed Case’s negatives rising, and to the surprise of many he ended up running behind Hanabusa and far behind Djou.
This leaves Djou about as well positioned for the general election as a Republican could be. Yes, his 40% is well below the 50% needed to win a contest against the single nominee of the Democratic party. But it’s likely that Djou was the second choice of many who voted for Ed Case, which would position him well if Hanabusa is the Democratic nominee. And if Case is the Democratic nominee, his negatives are now much higher than they were at the beginning of the special election campaign.
It’s been noted by others that although Hawaii 1 voted for native son Barack Obama by a 70%-28% margin, it has not always been so heavily Democratic: it voted 53%-47% for John Kerry in 2004 and 55%-39% for Al Gore in 2000. In its 50 years as a state, Hawaii has shown two basic political characteristics: it tends to favor Democrats and it tends to favor incumbents. (Hawaii has only two congressional districts, with the 1st typically slightly more Republican than the 2nd, so statewide figures here are relevant). In the 13 presidential elections in which it has participated starting in 1960, it has voted an average of 54% Democratic and 42% Democratic. It voted heavily for incumbent Democratic Presidents Johnson (79%-21%) and Clinton (57%-32%) and was one of the six states voting for incumbent Democratic President Carter (45%-43%). It voted solidly for incumbent Republican Presidents Nixon (62%-38%) and Reagan (55%-44%) and cast pretty strong minority votes for incumbent Republican Presidents Ford (48%-51%) and George W. Bush (45%-54%). Only incumbent Republican George H. W. Bush was soundly defeated (37%-48%).
In addition, Hawaii has never voted against reelecting an incumbent member of Congress—a record shared, I believe, by no other state. Before last Saturday, 12 individuals had been elected to Congress from Hawaii, two Republicans and 10 Democrats. They are listed below, with their political fates; Hawaii elected only one member of the House in 1959 and 1960.
Hiram Fong (R), elected to the Senate in 1959, reelected in 1964 and 1970, retired 1976.
Oren Long (D), elected to the Senate in 1959, retired in 1962.
Daniel Inouye (D), elected to the House in 1959, reelected in 1960, elected to the Senate in 1962, reelected in 1968, 1974, 1980, 1986, 1992, 1998, 2004, still serving and running for reelection in 2010.
Spark Matsunaga (D), elected to the House in 1962, reelected in 1964, 1966, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1974, elected to the Senate in 1976, reelected in 1982, 1988, died in April 1990.
Tom Gill (D), elected to the House in 1962, ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in 1964.
Patsy Mink (D), elected to the House in 1964, reelected in 1966, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1974, ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in 1976, elected to the House in 1990, reelected in 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000 and, though she died in September 2002, in 2002.
Cecil Heftel (D), elected to the House 1976, reelected in 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984, resigned to run unsuccessfully for governor in 1986.
Daniel Akaka (D), elected to the House in 1976, reelected in 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, elected to the Senate in 1990, reelected in 1994, 2000, 2006, still serving.
Neil Abercrombie (D), elected to the House in September 1986 special election, defeated simultaneously for the Democratic nomination for the full term 1986, elected to the House in 1990, reelected in 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, resigned in February 2010 to run for governor. Abercrombie lost the September 1986 primary to Mufi Hannemann, now Mayor of Honolulu, by a 40%-39% margin, but he was not an incumbent then since the special election was held the same day as the primary; Hannemman lost the general election to Republican Pat Saiki by a 59%-37% margin.
Pat Saiki (R), elected to the House in 1986, reelected in 1988, ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in 1990.
Ed Case (D), elected to the House in special elections on November 30, 2002, and in January 2003, reelected in 2004, ran unsuccessfully for senator 2006.
Mazie Hirono (D), elected to the House in 2006, reelected in 2008, still serving.
The closest precedent to the situation in Hawaii 1 today was the 1986 race for the same seat, which featured both a special election and a divisive Democratic primary and resulted in a Republican victory in November. That divisiveness presumably contributed to the poor showing of Democratic nominee Mufi Hannemann in November. That looks like a good omen for Charles Djou.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Will-new-Republican-congressman-hold-Obamas-home-district-94777124.html#ixzz0oxJFvLB6
•
The Weekly Standard
By: William Kristol
Thank you, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter.Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter have come up with a parliamentary maneuver — “deem and pass” — reeking of evasiveness and trickery that Democratic members are going to have to embrace. But it gets better! The point of “deem and pass” is to allow representatives to vote directly only on the reconciliation “fixes” rather than on the Senate health care bill bill (which will be deemed to be passed if reconciliation passes). But the reconciliation “fixes” make the Senate bill even more politically unattractive.
Here’s what Democrats will be asked to vote for Sunday (thanks to Keith Hennessey for his useful list):
* Additional tax increases, on top of the ones in the Senate bill. The reconciliation bill raises the Medicare payroll tax by 0.9% to a combined employer-employee 3.8% for individuals with income over $200K and couples over $250K, and, beginning in 2013, creates a new 3.8% tax on some capital income from interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, and rents for those individuals and families.
* Even deeper cuts to Medicare Advantage, which will mean fewer and less attractive Medicare Advantage plans available to seniors.
* Increases in the employer penalties for not complying with the mandates, which will hit all businesses with more than 50 employees.
Now, Democratic leaders will tell members that there are some popular things in the new package — for example, the one-time $250 “rebate” in 2010 for seniors who reach the Medicare drug benefit coverage gap. But they’re likely wrong that even this will be popular. In an era of concern about the deficit, the giveaway will be ridiculed as an attempt at pure election-year vote-buying, and will backfire.
What’s more, the reconciliation bill the House will be voting on has several clear Byrd rule violations. Senate Republicans will be able to use the Byrd rule to strike these provisions from the bill. So if the Senate then passes a modified reconciliation bill, it will return it to the House, which will have to vote on a version of this bill AGAIN.
The Democrats would actually be better off — well, less worse off — simply voting to pass the Senate bill. But by embracing the Slaughter Rule and this package of reconciliation fixes, they’ve managed to make a bad political situation for themselves worse. Congratulations!
•
IWV President and CEO Heather Higgins on Fox News and Friends to discuss the latest Health Care poll commissioned by IWV
•
January 20, 2010
An Open Letter to the United States House of Representatives: Support the Health Care Transparency Resolution!
Dear Representative:
On behalf of an ideologically diverse coalition of millions of Americans, we write to strongly urge that you sign the discharge petition for H. Res. 847. Introduced by Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL), this petition would force a vote on a bipartisan “Sunshine Resolution” to call on Congress and the Obama Administration to conduct all negotiations surrounding landmark health care reform legislation “in full public view and not behind closed doors.”
The last few months of deliberation on health care have exposed myriad issues on which the left and right sides of our political spectrum are deeply divided. However, robust transparency in the drafting of legislation is one of the few matters that bind all of the signatories together. Simply stated, Americans of all political stripes are united in their demand for an end to the cloistered discussions that mar our legislative process.
Our health care system affects too many lives and too many dollars to allow legislation reforming it to be designed in secret. Should such a bill become law, it would alter the circumstances of tens of millions of families and businesses. Those Americans need full access to any meetings in which decisions will be made regarding final language and details about how each chamber will proceed to the legislation, whether between Members, their legislative staff, or outside interests.
Signing this discharge petition will not be an act of politics, but one of principle. It will demonstrate your belief in the values of transparency and openness in government that enjoy overwhelming support by the American people and have been touted by President Obama and Congressional leaders. Please sign the discharge petition for H. Res. 847 in order to provide the transparency that your constituents want and deserve.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
Duane Parde
President
National Taxpayers Union
Jim Martin
Chairman
60 Plus Association
Laurence Socci
Americans for Conservative Values
Bill Wilson
President
Americans for Limited Government
Tim Phillips
President
Americans for Prosperity
Tom Jenney
Arizona Director
Americans for Prosperity
Grover Norquist
President
Americans for Tax Reform
William Haygood Shaker
Volunteer President
American Council for Health Care Reform
Dick Patten
President
American Family Business Institute
Terry Francke
General Counsel
Californians Aware
John Tate
President
Campaign for Liberty
Sandra Fabry
Executive Director
Center for Fiscal Accountability
Jeffrey Mazzella
President
Center for Individual Freedom
Barbara Anderson
Executive Director
Citizens for Limited Taxation
Wendy Wright
President
Concerned Women for America
Rick Scott
Conservatives for Patients Rights
Brian McManus
Director of Federal Affairs
Council for Affordable Health Insurance
Thomas A. Schatz
President
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
Tom McClusky
Senior Vice President
Family Research Council Action
Matt Kibbe
President and CEO
FreedomWorks
John Tillman
CEO
Illinois Policy Institute
Michelle D. Bernard
President and CEO
Independent Women’s Voice
Donald P. Racheter, PhD
Director
Iowa Transparency Project
J.H. Snider, MBA, PhD
President
iSolon.org
Colin Hanna
President
Let Freedom Ring
Michael D. Ostrolenk
National Director
Liberty Coalition
Lew Uhler
President
National Tax Limitation Committee
Doug Kagan
Chairman
Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom
Danielle Brian
Executive Director
Project On Government Oversight
Paul Gessing
President
Rio Grande Foundation
John W. Whitehead
President
The Rutherford Institute
Robert S. Knego, MD
President
Sarasota County Medical Society
Ellen S. Miller
Executive Director
Sunlight Foundation
Dane von Breichenruchardt
President
U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation
Michael D. Ostrolenk
National Director
Liberty Coalition
Lew Uhler
President
National Tax Limitation Committee
Doug Kagan
Chairman
Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom
Danielle Brian
Executive Director
Project On Government Oversight
Paul Gessing
President
Rio Grande Foundation
John W. Whitehead
President
The Rutherford Institute
Robert S. Knego, MD
President
Sarasota County Medical Society
Ellen S. Miller
Executive Director
Sunlight Foundation
Dane von Breichenruchardt
President
U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation
•
Two factors will decide Massachusetts Senate race
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
January 18, 2010
Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, speaks at a rally in Worcester, Mass., Sunday, Jan. 17, 2010. Former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling applauds at left. Brown is running against Democrat Martha Coakley and Joseph Kennedy, a Libertarian who is running as an independent, in a special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat left empty by the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
After all the speeches, politicking, and attack ads, there are just two issues that will determine the winner of the Massachusetts Senate seat in Tuesday’s special election. The first is health care and the second is one-party government. And in Massachusetts, neither issue works exactly as outsiders might think — and right now both are working in favor of Republican Scott Brown.
On health care, Massachusetts is in a unique position. It already has near-universal coverage, enacted in 2006 by Republican governor Mitt Romney and the Democratic legislature, so a national measure designed to extend coverage to millions of currently-uncovered Americans means little to Bay State residents. But the Democrats’ national health care plan would force Massachusetts residents to pay higher taxes to expand coverage elsewhere in the country — with relatively little new benefits at home.
“In this state, we basically have universal health care,” says Joey Buceta, a Boston independent who attended a Scott Brown rally in the North End Friday. “Why should we pay more money for it? We already have it.”
It’s an opinion heard often in this race, and it unites conservative voters who don’t like the Democratic national health care plan because it is too intrusive, expensive and coercive with independent voters who don’t like the plan because it seems redundant for Massachusetts.
Scott Brown, the surging Republican candidate, has been hitting the issue hard in his campaign appearances. “We already have 98 percent of our people insured here in Massachusetts, so you have to be a little bit parochial here,” Brown said last week during a visit to a medical devices company in Chelmsford. “We’re going to be basically paying for our plan, and then we’re going to be subsidizing Nebraska and Louisiana&hellipboy, that’s a real bargain.”
On the second issue, one-party government, Massachusetts is also in an unusual position. Often called the bluest of blue states, it is certainly dominated by Democrats. But over the years Massachusetts voters have shown an inclination to elect a Republican to the occasional state office.
That balance has usually meant a GOP governor; four of the last five Massachusetts governors have been Republicans. At the same time, the rest of the state government, as well as the state’s delegations in the House and Senate, have been dominated by Democrats. But even with that lopsided situation, the presence of a GOP governor gave voters a certain sense of balance.
Now, even that is gone. Not only are all other significant state offices occupied by Democrats, the governorship is in the hands of the very Democratic, very liberal, and very unpopular Deval Patrick. There is not even a token of Republican leadership to be found. And for the independent voters who will play a critical role in Tuesday’s election, Massachusetts’ one-party rule mirrors the one-party rule in today’s Washington, where national Democrats are deciding important issues among themselves without even the pretense of including Republicans.
Tuesday’s special election presents the first opportunity for Massachusetts voters to remedy the situation. Massachusetts has not sent a Republican to the Senate in more than a generation, but voters might take this chance to restore some small measure of balance to a government that is perhaps too blue even for a very blue state.
“This country was built on debate,” says Diane Anderson, a Brown voter from Swampscott, Massachusetts. “And with the Democrats having 60 senators&hellipjust for that fact alone, if for no other reason, we should continue to have debate, and Brown will bring debate, being the 41st Republican.”
It’s a theme Brown has hit over and over. “This Senate seat does not belong to no one person and no one political party,” he said at a rally in Worcester Sunday. “It belongs to the people of Massachusetts.”
Finally, there is a growing sense that the Democratic party’s domination has led to widespread corruption. Three — yes, three — consecutives speakers of the Massachusetts state legislature, all Democrats, have been indicted. Other Democratic lawmakers are in trouble, as well. There has perhaps never been a better time for a Republican to argue that one-party rule has led to too much conformity and corruption.
Given the uniqueness of Massachusetts politics, voters’ feelings about the top two issues in this election — health care and one-party rule — seem unlikely to be affected much by outside appeals, whether they be from President Obama, former President Clinton, or former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, who campaigned for Brown on Friday. What do those outsiders have to add to the public’s understanding of how the issues play out in Massachusetts? State voters have their own distinctive perspective, and that is what will guide their decision on Tuesday.
•
![Lorraine_M._Schratz,_MD[1]](http://iwvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Lorraine_M._Schratz_MD1-244x350.jpg "Lorraine_M._Schratz,_MD[1]")
Listen to Dr. Lorraine M. Schratz on the future of your health care.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
•
Listen to what Dr. Rockett, a MA resident and surgeon, has to say about why this election is important to the future of your healthcare.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
•
Brown’s run may be model for GOP
Tapping discord on health bills
By Lisa Wangsness
Globe Staff / January 15, 2010
WASHINGTON – National GOP strategists say that the unexpected tightening in the Massachusetts Senate race has demonstrated the potency of the electorate’s antipathy for the Democratic health care legislation, and that Republican Scott Brown’s campaign could become a template for Republican challengers across the country in this year’s midterm elections.
“He’s making health care a front-and-center issue in the most liberal state in the country, and it’s working for him,’’ said Whit Ayres, who cofounded Resurgent Republic, a group of conservative pollsters and strategists formed to shape the national debate. “That’s the major message – that this bill is an albatross around the necks of the Democrats, and if it works this well in Massachusetts, just imagine how well it will work in less liberal states.’’
Brown has portrayed the Democratic health care bills as bloated, tax-stuffed mistakes that would do little to solve Massachusetts’ biggest health care challenge – controlling costs – while forcing its residents to sub sidize insurance for people in other states. He has called for Congress to “go back to the drawing board’’ and come up with a new plan. And he has capitalized on speculation about whether Democrats might try to delay his confirmation if he wins in order to ram the health bill through, stoking concerns about transparency and fairness raised by special deals Democratic leaders made last year to entice fence-sitters to vote for the bill.
“Threatening to ignore the results of a free election and steal this Senate vote from the people of Massachusetts takes their schemes to a whole new level,’’ the Brown campaign said in a recent statement, in a burst of rhetoric that has been typical of his camp. A spokesman for Brown declined to comment for this story.
Secretary of State William F. Galvin has said he will follow the law, which requires him to wait 10 days to certify the election to ensure the counting of absentee military ballots from military personnel stationed overseas.
GOP strategist Ed Rollins said that if Brown even comes close to defeating Democrat Martha Coakley, who just weeks ago was seen as a shoo-in, Brown’s campaign “could be viewed as a model’’ for GOP contenders nationwide, and strategists would scrutinize “what did he say, and how was he saying it.’’
Even some Republicans who had been predicting big gains in the 2010 elections can scarcely believe the seat that was once occupied by US Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a revered liberal who held it for 47 years and called universal health insurance “the cause of my life,’’ is suddenly vulnerable. This in a state whose landmark 2006 health care law became a model for the federal legislation under discussion, a law that remains popular today.
“I think Republican strategists are certainly taking note of that and saying, ‘We thought it would work in a lot of the country, but the fact it’s working in Massachusetts tells us that it will really work,’ ’’ said Rob Gray, a GOP strategist based in Boston. “The big thing is that the health care bill is a big empty vessel into which people can assign their pet peeves or anger . . . [about] how the federal government is being run and the state of the economy.’’
National polls have shown dismal support for the House and Senate health care bills, which Democratic leaders are racing to merge in talks this week. A CNN poll conducted Jan. 8-10 found 57 percent of respondents opposed to the proposals and 40 percent in favor.
Coakley has thrown her support behind the Democratic effort, arguing it would cover more than 30 million uninsured Americans, reduce the health costs burdening Massachusetts families and businesses, and absorb some of the costs of Massachusetts’ health care law that state taxpayers are currently covering.
Brown is tapping into a general dissatisfaction about the state of the country and what many view as the Democrats’ misplaced response to its problems, said Stuart Rothenberg, editor and publisher of the Rothenberg Political Report, a nonpartisan newsletter covering national politics and campaigns.
“I think the focus on health care has been so heavy for so long, and the public looks around at all these other problems and says, ‘Why the heck don’t you do something about jobs?’ ’’ he said. “It may not be Obama’s fault that the economy hasn’t rebounded, but politicians are held responsible for how people feel. I think you’ll see Republican candidates around the country just taking advantage of all this.’’
One lesson GOP challengers nationwide might take from the Brown campaign, analysts say, is to frame their complaints about the health care legislation in economic terms, rather than on health policy or ideological grounds. Brown has avoided the battle cries of last summer’s Tea Parties about a Canadian-style government takeover of health care or so-called death panels, which would probably not resonate as well in a traditionally liberal state like Massachusetts.
Instead, Brown has lumped the proposed tax increases in the health care bill together with Coakley’s support for other Democratic initiatives, such as allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire and the cap and trade bill, to assert Coakley supports $2 trillion in tax increases.
“The theme of taxes hurting middle-income people and the economic recovery is the big take,’’ said Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and political analysis at Harvard University. He added that Brown has the benefit of running just as Democratic leaders in Washington are hotly debating how to raise the money to pay for the health care bill. “He’s arguing that in this economic climate, you just can’t do that.’’
Brown has also localized the health care issue, arguing it will effectively force Massachusetts taxpayers to subsidize health care in other states. Brown has a unique advantage in that Massachusetts already has near-universal health insurance, so Coakley has little opportunity to base her appeals for the bill on helping the uninsured in her home state.
At the same time, Brown has played up the “special deals’’ that Senate leaders doled out to win votes, such as guaranteeing additional Medicaid money for the home states of Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, and Senator Mary Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana. “It is broken,’’ Brown said in his final debate with Coakley. “The backroom deals in Nebraska and Louisiana we know all about.’’
David Winston, a veteran national GOP consultant, noted that Brown has not campaigned against health reform per se – Brown says he supports making changes – but he would go about it differently. That’s smart, Winston said, because the public does believe the health care system needs to be changed.
It is also an argument that has been used before. In 1994, the insurance industry’s “Harry and Louise’’ ads that helped kill the Clinton health care bill ended with the couple lamenting, “There’s got to be a better way.’’
•
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
IWF President and CEO Michelle D. Bernard joined The Andy Caldwell Show to discuss IWF op-ed on Harry Reid.
•
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Nicole Kurokawa joined The Eddie Burke Show to discuss Harry Reid on Health Reform.
![Lorraine_M._Schratz,_MD[1]](http://iwvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Lorraine_M._Schratz_MD1.jpg "Lorraine_M._Schratz,_MD[1]")
