It’s hard to know what to write exactly on a day when this is one of the most-read headlines around the world:

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich arrested.

Suffice it to say, I agree with US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s employment of the adjective “staggering,” and that I expect there’s going to be plenty of coverage of this story over the next few days and weeks.

One of the things that will undoubtedly be focused on in coverage that is forthcoming is the apparent relationship between Barack Obama and Gov. Blagojevich. Remember, Obama advised Blagojevich on his gubernatorial run, and he endorsed him for a second term in office… all of which is unlikely to escape the notice of inquiring minds.

Filed under: Contributors | Comments Off

This weekend saw two great results for Republicans in Louisiana: namely, the election of Joseph Cao and John Fleming, two strong conservatives who we’re confident will do a great job in the House of Representatives. Cao, who defeated incumbent Democratic congressman William Jefferson, is well known as a champion of ethics reform and increasing accountability with regard to the way taxpayer dollars are spent. Fleming is a Navy veteran and a doctor with valuable knowledge of the challenges facing America’s health care system, who is ready to get to work on free-market health care reform (among other things).

Congratulations to them both, and to the state of Louisiana, whose voters elected two fine public servants this weekend!

Filed under: Contributors | Comments Off

Earlier this week, we learned that President-elect Barack Obama was apparently looking to appoint Rep. Xavier Becerra as US Trade Representative. Initially, a lot of chatter about why that appointment might not be such a good idea focused on Becerra’s involvement in a 2001 clemency case involving cocaine dealer Carlos Vignali (chatter that continues).

But there’s another reason why Becerra stepping into this role can easily be dubbed bad news. Becerra is, in fact, a trade-skeptical protectionist.

To me, it seems odd that one would want someone who evidently doesn’t see the benefits of free and/or more trade (or simply doesn’t care for it, irrespective of those benefits) stepping into a role that, given our current understanding, seems designed to promote, not curtail, trade. Of course, it also seems odd that Barack Obama, the guy who was supposed to be so post-partisan would be pushing someone for such a key post whose views on the subject matter relevant to that post seem decidedly left-wing. I’m also minded to query the accuracy of assertions made by my centrist-Democratic friends, who for months have been pointing to Austan Goolsbee’s springtime assurances to our Northern neighbors re: trade as evidence that indeed Obama’s anti-trade rhetoric during the presidential campaign was, in Goolsbee’s own words, “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.” But most of all, I’m inclined to question the ability of our new President-elect to get our country’s economy back on track, given his apparent choice for this role.

The LA Times gets it about right in their editorial today:

… history shows that the last thing the country should do during an economic downturn is become more protectionist. A year after the market crash of 1929, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, raising U.S. tariffs dramatically in an attempt to protect jobs. It fueled a global meltdown that greatly worsened the Depression.

Quite so. Here’s hoping that Becerra says no to Obama’s offer, and Obama offers as his next choice someone who favors trade, rather than risky protectionism.

Filed under: Contributors | Comments Off

Chairman Duncan has an op-ed running in the Politico today, discussing the Georgia run-off, and lessons that can be taken away from it. I’d encourage you to read the whole thing, but would point you to this section of it in particular, in which the Chairman highlights some of the technology efforts the RNC has made that contributed to the Chambliss victory:

The RNC’s investment in technology over the past two years allowed our Republican team to maximize every volunteer’s time and every contributor’s donation on behalf of Chambliss, creating a get-out-the-vote effort that overwhelmed Democrats in the state. Through sophisticated online advertising techniques we reached hundreds of thousands of Republicans who requested absentee ballots, voted early, and found their polling station. Our investment in technology enabled our Victory program to significantly increase the Republican share of advance voters in the runoff election. We also provided volunteers the tools to make phone calls from home to likely supporters and/or send numerous e-mails to their neighbors engaging them in the reelection effort.

Technology was indeed key to that victory and will be a critical component of RNC efforts going forward– and many thanks to all of you who used phone-from-home and other tech tools to deliver a win in what many would call the first race of the 2010 cycle.

Filed under: Contributors | Comments Off

… to Sen. Saxby Chambliss on his victory today in the Georgia Senate runoff, and a great result heading into the 2010 election cycle!

Filed under: Contributors | Comments Off

As I write this, President-elect Barack Obama is on TV, announcing that he will nominate Sen. Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State– an attetion-grabbing choice, if one that is hardly surprising given recent news coverage of Obama’s likely cabinet appointments. He’s saying lots of nice things about her, too, which isn’t surprising in the circumstances, though those nice things still sound awfully unlike much of what he and his campaign were saying about her just a few, short months ago.

Remember, for as much as Obama is praising Clinton’s foreign policy chops today, just eight months ago, an Obama campaign memo was released which clearly stated Obama’s apparently then-held position that Clinton had no significant or relevant foreign policy experience. Here’s a taste of what it said:

There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

And Clinton was hardly any kinder in her assessment of the foreign policy credentials of the man whose foreign policy she will (barring something unforseen) soon be tasked with executing:

There’s a big difference between delivering a speech at an anti-war rally as a state senator, and picking up that phone at the White House at 3 a.m. in the morning to deal with an international crisis

(And who could forget her zinger line implying that Obama’s sole foreign policy experience was “a speech he gave in 2002?”)

Clinton and Obama have of course also parted ways on foreign policy matters ranging from whether or not to support US action against Iraq back in 2002 (she voted for the Iraq War Resolution, he indicated he would have opposed it), whether or not to hold direct, presidential-level talks with hostile foreign leaders without preconditions and within the first year of a new presidential term, whether or not the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps should be designated as a terrorist organization, and US policy towards Pakistan, where Clinton described Obama’s position as “not particularly wise.”

Ladies and gentlemen, your “team of rivals”…

Filed under: Contributors | Comments Off

Tomorrow, the run-off between Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Democratic challenger Jim Martin will take place in Georgia, and political leaders from both parties have been weighing in, including… our “post-partisan” President-elect, Barack Obama!

OK, I’m feigning shock that Obama “took time off from transition work to record a radio ad and robocalls” for Martin. I’m also not really surprised to hear that Martin’s get-out-the-vote effort is being described by his campaign as having been “supplied by Mr. Obama’s ground team from the presidential race in Georgia and surrounding states” (though aides to the post-partisan President-elect “insist the former campaign workers… are acting independently”). Nonetheless, the point still stands that Obama likes to underline post-partisanship, bringing people together, there being no red America and no blue America, just America and so on.

Of course, if Mr. Obama’s current line is that there is, in fact, a red Georgia and a blue Georgia, I’d have to agree. Of course, I say this as someone who works at the RNC and who is explicitly partisan… and who did not just finish up running for president using the same themes that Obama did.

Filed under: Contributors | Comments Off