In several Republican primaries, Tea Party-endorsed candidates enjoyed great success. Sharron Angle won the Nevada primary for US Senate by a landslide and started the general election campaign with a huge lead against incumbent Sen. Harry Reid.
In Florida's Senate contest, Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio forced Republican Gov. Charlie Crist to run as an independent. Polls showed that Crist would have lost the primary election to Rubio by a wide margin.
Finally, in Kentucky, Rand Paul defeated his Republican primary challenger by a comfortable margin. Paul emerged from the primary with a huge lead over his Jack Conway, his Democratic opponent.
These victories, combined with a simplistic media narrative that portrays the election results as a bad sign for incumbents, helped to fuel the belief that the Tea Party was a powerful new political force that would wield tremendous political power in November. Many commentators, however, are now rethinking that message.
Once conservative Tea Party candidates began running general election campaigns and receiving scrutiny from the national media, their leads, particularly in politically divided states, evaporated. Today, a Mason-Dixon poll shows that Harry Reid now leads Angle by 7 points. In Florida, most polls have shown Crist leading Rubio since he abandoned the Republican Party. In addition, the latest poll has Conway and Rand tied in Kentucky (which is more conservative than either Nevada or Florida).
It is too soon to call these elections. Nevertheless, the tightening of the races confirms earlier analysis which predicted that Tea Party candidates would encounter difficulty in politically divided states -- even if they trounced opponents in Republican primaries. While Tea Party candidates should have an easy time in reliably conservative states like Utah and South Carolina, how they will perform in other jurisdictions remains an open question.
Showing posts with label rand paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rand paul. Show all posts
Friday, July 16, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Rand Paul on the Americans With Disabilities Act Revisited
Last week, I broadly analyzed Rand Paul's take on civil rights -- including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the effort to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I am happy to see that other media are finally showing how flawed Paul's perspective is regarding areas of law outside of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Specifically, several commentators have analyzed Paul's take on the ADA. See, e.g., When Extremism and Ignorance Collide and Rand Paul's civil-rights defense distorts provisions of disabilities law - Yahoo! News.
Specifically, several commentators have analyzed Paul's take on the ADA. See, e.g., When Extremism and Ignorance Collide and Rand Paul's civil-rights defense distorts provisions of disabilities law - Yahoo! News.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Why Rand Paul's "Defense" Is Flawed
Faced with growing controversy over his position on civil rights, Paul Rand has stated that he would not seek to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rand created a stir when he stated that he believed that the federal government should not prohibit discrimination by private companies. By stating that he would not seek to repeal the legislation, Rand hopes to defend his reputation and his senate campaign.
Rand's defenders have added another dimension to his defense, which Rand touches upon subtly. Rand's defenders stress that he is not a "racist." Also, Rand, in his own defense, says that he opposes racial discrimination, which is another way of saying "I'm not a racist." Neither of these defenses helps Rand, however.
Most of Rand's critics never even said or implied that he would seek to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Honestly, I have not seen any argument that even implies he would seek to repeal the legislation. Also, during the scattered interviews during which Rand stated his opposition to regulation of private companies, the interviewers did not contend that he wanted to repeal the civil rights statute. Instead, they asked him whether he would have voted for the law. Rand's view of civil rights is troubling whether or not he has the courage to advocate repeal of the legislation.
Rand's position on civil rights is disturbing because it indicates that he probably would not prefer strong enforcement of civil rights laws against private companies and that he definitely would not favor extending these laws to other groups, such as gays and lesbians. Agreeing that the law should remain in place does not mean that he also wants the federal government to prosecute vigorously civil rights violations.
Paul's effort to say he is not a racist is also irrelevant. Regardless of Paul's personal views about persons of color, his ideas about the role of government in the creation of a just society are extreme and dangerous. Personally, I do not care whether Paul is a bigot or not. How he votes on important issues like civil rights matters much more.
Paul has given the country a look at his views on these important issues. Criticizing him is a highly appropriate response.
Rand's defenders have added another dimension to his defense, which Rand touches upon subtly. Rand's defenders stress that he is not a "racist." Also, Rand, in his own defense, says that he opposes racial discrimination, which is another way of saying "I'm not a racist." Neither of these defenses helps Rand, however.
Most of Rand's critics never even said or implied that he would seek to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Honestly, I have not seen any argument that even implies he would seek to repeal the legislation. Also, during the scattered interviews during which Rand stated his opposition to regulation of private companies, the interviewers did not contend that he wanted to repeal the civil rights statute. Instead, they asked him whether he would have voted for the law. Rand's view of civil rights is troubling whether or not he has the courage to advocate repeal of the legislation.
Rand's position on civil rights is disturbing because it indicates that he probably would not prefer strong enforcement of civil rights laws against private companies and that he definitely would not favor extending these laws to other groups, such as gays and lesbians. Agreeing that the law should remain in place does not mean that he also wants the federal government to prosecute vigorously civil rights violations.
Paul's effort to say he is not a racist is also irrelevant. Regardless of Paul's personal views about persons of color, his ideas about the role of government in the creation of a just society are extreme and dangerous. Personally, I do not care whether Paul is a bigot or not. How he votes on important issues like civil rights matters much more.
Paul has given the country a look at his views on these important issues. Criticizing him is a highly appropriate response.
Uh Oh: Rand Paul Cancels Scheduled Appearance on Meet The Press
Beset with scathing criticism of his position on civil rights, Rand Paul has canceled a scheduled appearance on Meet the Press. Paul generated a lot of controversy this week by repeatedly saying he opposes federal law that prohibits discrimination by private companies. Rand has condemned the media for the stir that his own controversial comments have caused.
Rand Paul on BP Oil Spill: "Sometimes Accidents Happen"
Rand Paul is working hard to convince the country that he is not ready for primetime (or daytime, for that matter). Yesterday, the media feasted on Paul's admission that he disagreed with laws prohibiting private companies from engaging in racial discrimination. Today, Paul is tackling environmental issues, and the results are equally troubling.
Think Progress reports that during an interview with Good Morning America, Paul said that Obama's criticism of BP for its handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill was "un-American." He also contended that "maybe sometimes accidents just happen." Scientists, however, have criticized BP for not misrepresenting the size of the spill, which seems worthy of presidential condemnation as well.
Paul also analogized the oil spill to a recent coal mine tragedy in his home state of Kentucky that killed two workers. Paul said described this as just another "accident." The Dotiki mine, however, received numerous citations for falling debris from the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Although experts say that repeated citations indicate a significant problem, the government failed to characterize the violations as dangerous. Toughness, however, seems highly appropriate when corporate behavior threatens lives and the environment.
Think Progress reports that during an interview with Good Morning America, Paul said that Obama's criticism of BP for its handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill was "un-American." He also contended that "maybe sometimes accidents just happen." Scientists, however, have criticized BP for not misrepresenting the size of the spill, which seems worthy of presidential condemnation as well.
Paul also analogized the oil spill to a recent coal mine tragedy in his home state of Kentucky that killed two workers. Paul said described this as just another "accident." The Dotiki mine, however, received numerous citations for falling debris from the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Although experts say that repeated citations indicate a significant problem, the government failed to characterize the violations as dangerous. Toughness, however, seems highly appropriate when corporate behavior threatens lives and the environment.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Rand Paul on Gay Rights and Persons With Disabilities
Perhaps race is the most explosive social issue. Rand Paul's admission that he disagrees with the application of antidiscrimination laws to private companies has set off a firestorm. After an onslaught of criticism, Rand has issued a statement saying that he would not seek to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Of course, this is somewhat of a strawman argument. During the numerous interviews that led to this controversy, Paul never said he wanted to repeal the legislation, nor did anyone ask him whether he wanted to do so.
I doubt that Paul's "retraction" will settle this issue. Even if it does, this should not preclude scrutiny of some of the other areas of discrimination that Paul addressed during those interviews.
Gay Rights
During an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, Paul said that Don't Ask, Don't Tell has "worked relatively well." DADT, however, has resulted in the discharge of thousands of qualified members of the armed forces.
Paul also described DADT as a "nonfraternization policy," which is patently false. Military rules certainly prohibit sexual relations among troops, but Don't Ask, Don't tell prevents any openly or known gay or lesbian person from serving in the military, regardless of whether the individual has violated nonfraternization rules. Paul seems to equate being gay with an individual having sex with his or her colleagues. This is a highly flawed position.
Americans With Disabilities Act
Paul appeared on NPR the day following his primary victory. During the interview, Paul reiterated his arguments regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He also discussed the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in places of public accommodation, employment and other settings.
With respect to the ADA, Paul said that:
Final Take
Although Paul has tried to run away from his comments about race, he has not even begun to address his troubling statements concerning gay rights and the ADA. The media should not let him off the hook regarding these important issues.
For more on this issue, see: Rand Paul and Civil Rights: MISERABLE and A Conservative Defense of Rand Paul: He Is Telling the Truth; He's Not a Racist.
I doubt that Paul's "retraction" will settle this issue. Even if it does, this should not preclude scrutiny of some of the other areas of discrimination that Paul addressed during those interviews.
Gay Rights
During an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, Paul said that Don't Ask, Don't Tell has "worked relatively well." DADT, however, has resulted in the discharge of thousands of qualified members of the armed forces.
Paul also described DADT as a "nonfraternization policy," which is patently false. Military rules certainly prohibit sexual relations among troops, but Don't Ask, Don't tell prevents any openly or known gay or lesbian person from serving in the military, regardless of whether the individual has violated nonfraternization rules. Paul seems to equate being gay with an individual having sex with his or her colleagues. This is a highly flawed position.
Americans With Disabilities Act
Paul appeared on NPR the day following his primary victory. During the interview, Paul reiterated his arguments regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He also discussed the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in places of public accommodation, employment and other settings.
With respect to the ADA, Paul said that:
I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions.Paul's portrayal of the ADA is terribly misleading. The statute does not even apply to the setting he describes, unless the building is a shopping center, airport or other transportation facility, or a medical office. As summarized by Department of Justice materials, ADA regulations include the following exemption regarding elevators in buildings:
This section does not require the installation of an elevator in a facility that is less than three stories or has less than 3000 square feet per story, except with respect to any facility that houses one or more of the following:In other words, Paul creates a frightening and misleading hypothetical in order to trash federal antidiscrimination law.
(i) A shopping center or shopping mall, or a professional office of a health care provider.
(ii) A terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation, or an airport passenger terminal (italics added). . . .
Final Take
Although Paul has tried to run away from his comments about race, he has not even begun to address his troubling statements concerning gay rights and the ADA. The media should not let him off the hook regarding these important issues.
For more on this issue, see: Rand Paul and Civil Rights: MISERABLE and A Conservative Defense of Rand Paul: He Is Telling the Truth; He's Not a Racist.
A Conservative Defense of Rand Paul: He Is Telling the Truth; He's Not a Racist.
Rand Paul is facing tough scrutiny over his views regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul has stated in several interviews that he opposes laws that prohibit discrimination by private entities. He would limit antidiscrimination laws to governmental or "publicly funded" entities.
These statements have generated a lot of criticism. One conservative writer, however, has attempted to defend Paul. Washington Post writer David Weigel, for example, praises Paul for his honesty:
Weigel also defends Paul against a strawman argument. He criticizes people who call Paul a "racist." Although it is likely that some people have called Paul a racist, Weigel does not cite to any of those arguments. More importantly, this is not a necessary element of a critique of Paul's position. Regardless of what Paul feels in his heart about race, his policy perspective on civil rights would have a disastrous effect. This is the most important issue from a policy perspective.
Finally, Weigel provides a link to a Rachel Maddow interview during which Paul discusses his views on civil rights (see below). Paul claims that only one of the ten substantive provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 regulates private behavior. That is absolutely false. One provision bans discrimination in privately owned places of public accommodation -- like hotels and restaurants. Another provision bans discrimination by employers (private or governmental). A third provision bans discrimination by entities that receive federal funding (whether they are governmental or private). It seems that Paul might agree with this provision.
Several of the other provisions create and strengthen enforcement mechanisms -- including those that respond to private discrimination. The remaining provisions address various forms of governmental discrimination. Although he attempts to reduce his opposition to one singular provision, Paul's argument would negate a significant portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That is disturbing regardless of his personal feelings about persons of color.
For more discussion of this issue, see: Rand Paul and Civil Rights: MISERABLE and Rand Paul on Gay Rights and Persons With Disabilities.
The Maddow interview is posted below. Paul performs miserably:
These statements have generated a lot of criticism. One conservative writer, however, has attempted to defend Paul. Washington Post writer David Weigel, for example, praises Paul for his honesty:
He told the truth about his stance on the Civil Rights Act. I've posted the video and transcript below the fold, because I find it fascinating to watch Paul stand by his philosophical and legal stance and refuse to dissemble in a way that would, you know, get people to stop accusing him of some archaic form of racism.What a ringing endorsement. I too have said that I believe Paul is probably speaking honestly. Nevertheless, I believe his views are "miserable" (for many reasons).
Weigel also defends Paul against a strawman argument. He criticizes people who call Paul a "racist." Although it is likely that some people have called Paul a racist, Weigel does not cite to any of those arguments. More importantly, this is not a necessary element of a critique of Paul's position. Regardless of what Paul feels in his heart about race, his policy perspective on civil rights would have a disastrous effect. This is the most important issue from a policy perspective.
Finally, Weigel provides a link to a Rachel Maddow interview during which Paul discusses his views on civil rights (see below). Paul claims that only one of the ten substantive provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 regulates private behavior. That is absolutely false. One provision bans discrimination in privately owned places of public accommodation -- like hotels and restaurants. Another provision bans discrimination by employers (private or governmental). A third provision bans discrimination by entities that receive federal funding (whether they are governmental or private). It seems that Paul might agree with this provision.
Several of the other provisions create and strengthen enforcement mechanisms -- including those that respond to private discrimination. The remaining provisions address various forms of governmental discrimination. Although he attempts to reduce his opposition to one singular provision, Paul's argument would negate a significant portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That is disturbing regardless of his personal feelings about persons of color.
For more discussion of this issue, see: Rand Paul and Civil Rights: MISERABLE and Rand Paul on Gay Rights and Persons With Disabilities.
The Maddow interview is posted below. Paul performs miserably:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Rand Paul and Civil Rights: MISERABLE
Hello, Tea Party. Welcome to the General Election
The media continue to repeat the flawed headline that a deep wave of resentment against incumbents exists. I have argued (as have others), that incumbents who are in jeopardy are vulnerable due to ideological reasons -- rather than mere incumbency. Likewise, many of the upstart candidates who have been successful represent an ideological alternative to the incumbent or opposing candidate. Rand Paul's success in Kentucky is a great example of this theory in action.
Paul won the Republican senate primary by catering to the political demands of the Tea Party movement. He captured the Tea Party and other conservative voters by embracing socially and fiscally conservative opinions. Although he portrayed himself as an "outsider," his main substantive message was conservatism.
Paul and Civil Rights
Now that primary has ended, Paul faces broader scrutiny. Some commentators have argued that Democrats actually prefer Paul as the Republican nominee because they believe his ideas will not appeal to a majority of Kentucky voters.
Several political commentators have started to examine some of Paul's policy positions (see here, here, here, here, and here). As the general campaign begins, Paul is particularly vulnerable on civil rights issues. His views on this subject could place him outside of the mainstream in Kentucky.
Gay Rights
During an April 2010 interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, Paul said that Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the military's anti-gay policy, "worked relatively well." Paul also repeatedly described DADT as a "nonfraternization policy," which is patently false. Paul likened DADT to other military policies, such as rules banning adultery or campaigning in uniform. Paul, however, said that he liked recent "modifications" to the enforcement of DADT, such as the decision not to pursue individuals who are outed by third parties.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
During the same April 2010 interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, an interviewer asked Paul whether he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In response, Paul said "I like the civil rights act" because it ended discrimination in "public domains." Paul, however, said that he does not agree with telling "private" businesses what they can or cannot do. Paul said that the government should only concern itself with discrimination in settings that are "publicly funded."
Paul's logic would wipe out a substantial portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The statute certainly addresses discrimination by publicly funded entities, but it also prohibits discrimination in private employment and privately owned places of public accommodation (e.g., hotels and restaurants).
One interviewer asked Paul a loaded question -- whether in his view, private businesses could deny service to Dr. Martin Luther King. Paul said that standing up for freedom means accepting people's "abhorrent" views and "behaviors" (translation: yes).
Paul also made the tired assertion (which began in slavery) that racial justice and individual liberty are opposing concepts. Congress, the Supreme Court, the President, and a majority of the American public generally reject this argument.
The Louisville Courier-Journal had harsh words for Paul. The newspaper published an editorial that refused to endorse either Paul or his Republican challenger Trey Grayson on the grounds that both candidates are too extreme. With respect to Paul and civil rights, the editors made the following observation:
Yesterday (the day after his primary victory), Paul spoke on NPR. During the interview, Paul said he opposed "institutional racism." Paul also said that he believes he would have marched with Dr. King, which led the interviewer to ask in disbelief: "You would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater?"
Paul also said that many problems with discrimination could be handled locally. Of course, local and federal laws prohibit discrimination. The most despicable aspect of this comment, however, is that it shows either deep ignorance or callousness regarding the historical context in which Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At that time, many local governments, particularly in the South, were not enforcing civil rights, and many of them were actively facilitating, mandating, and engaging in racial discrimination. Paul's "local" solution argument is extremely dangerous from an historical perspective.
Paul's local argument also contradicts his stance that discrimination is an individual right. "Infringing" this "right" does not become permissble when states do it rather than Congress.
Final Take
As November approaches, Paul will receive more scrutiny. His ability to handle topics beyond the rhetoric of fiscal conservatism will face additional testing. So far, Paul has performed miserably.
For more analysis of this issue, see: A Conservative Defense of Rand Paul: He Is Telling the Truth; He's Not a Racist and Rand Paul on Gay Rights and Persons With Disabilities.
UPDATE: For an interesting argument that explores in greater detail how Paul's position contradicts libertarianism, see: More on Rand Paul, Civil Rights and Balancing Choices over Liberty.
The media continue to repeat the flawed headline that a deep wave of resentment against incumbents exists. I have argued (as have others), that incumbents who are in jeopardy are vulnerable due to ideological reasons -- rather than mere incumbency. Likewise, many of the upstart candidates who have been successful represent an ideological alternative to the incumbent or opposing candidate. Rand Paul's success in Kentucky is a great example of this theory in action.
Paul won the Republican senate primary by catering to the political demands of the Tea Party movement. He captured the Tea Party and other conservative voters by embracing socially and fiscally conservative opinions. Although he portrayed himself as an "outsider," his main substantive message was conservatism.
Paul and Civil Rights
Now that primary has ended, Paul faces broader scrutiny. Some commentators have argued that Democrats actually prefer Paul as the Republican nominee because they believe his ideas will not appeal to a majority of Kentucky voters.
Several political commentators have started to examine some of Paul's policy positions (see here, here, here, here, and here). As the general campaign begins, Paul is particularly vulnerable on civil rights issues. His views on this subject could place him outside of the mainstream in Kentucky.
Gay Rights
During an April 2010 interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, Paul said that Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the military's anti-gay policy, "worked relatively well." Paul also repeatedly described DADT as a "nonfraternization policy," which is patently false. Paul likened DADT to other military policies, such as rules banning adultery or campaigning in uniform. Paul, however, said that he liked recent "modifications" to the enforcement of DADT, such as the decision not to pursue individuals who are outed by third parties.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
During the same April 2010 interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, an interviewer asked Paul whether he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In response, Paul said "I like the civil rights act" because it ended discrimination in "public domains." Paul, however, said that he does not agree with telling "private" businesses what they can or cannot do. Paul said that the government should only concern itself with discrimination in settings that are "publicly funded."
Paul's logic would wipe out a substantial portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The statute certainly addresses discrimination by publicly funded entities, but it also prohibits discrimination in private employment and privately owned places of public accommodation (e.g., hotels and restaurants).
One interviewer asked Paul a loaded question -- whether in his view, private businesses could deny service to Dr. Martin Luther King. Paul said that standing up for freedom means accepting people's "abhorrent" views and "behaviors" (translation: yes).
Paul also made the tired assertion (which began in slavery) that racial justice and individual liberty are opposing concepts. Congress, the Supreme Court, the President, and a majority of the American public generally reject this argument.
The Louisville Courier-Journal had harsh words for Paul. The newspaper published an editorial that refused to endorse either Paul or his Republican challenger Trey Grayson on the grounds that both candidates are too extreme. With respect to Paul and civil rights, the editors made the following observation:
The trouble with Dr. Paul is that despite his independent thinking, much of what he stands for is repulsive to people in the mainstream. For instance, he holds an unacceptable view of civil rights, saying that while the federal government can enforce integration of government jobs and facilities, private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people, or gays, or any other minority group. He quickly emphasizes that he personally would not agree with any form of discrimination, but he just doesn't think it should be legislated.NPR Interview: More Civil Wrongs
Yesterday (the day after his primary victory), Paul spoke on NPR. During the interview, Paul said he opposed "institutional racism." Paul also said that he believes he would have marched with Dr. King, which led the interviewer to ask in disbelief: "You would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater?"
Paul also said that many problems with discrimination could be handled locally. Of course, local and federal laws prohibit discrimination. The most despicable aspect of this comment, however, is that it shows either deep ignorance or callousness regarding the historical context in which Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At that time, many local governments, particularly in the South, were not enforcing civil rights, and many of them were actively facilitating, mandating, and engaging in racial discrimination. Paul's "local" solution argument is extremely dangerous from an historical perspective.
Paul's local argument also contradicts his stance that discrimination is an individual right. "Infringing" this "right" does not become permissble when states do it rather than Congress.
Final Take
As November approaches, Paul will receive more scrutiny. His ability to handle topics beyond the rhetoric of fiscal conservatism will face additional testing. So far, Paul has performed miserably.
For more analysis of this issue, see: A Conservative Defense of Rand Paul: He Is Telling the Truth; He's Not a Racist and Rand Paul on Gay Rights and Persons With Disabilities.
UPDATE: For an interesting argument that explores in greater detail how Paul's position contradicts libertarianism, see: More on Rand Paul, Civil Rights and Balancing Choices over Liberty.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Very Little Evidence of Voter Anger Towards Incumbents
Many news outlets contend that the results of Tuesday's elections indicate voter anger against incumbents (see, e.g., here, here, here and here). But it is not clear that this is true.
Because no exit poll data exist, no one can truly document that a substantial number of voters acted out of hostility towards incumbents -- or even towards perceived "Washington insiders." Furthermore, other factors, such as ideology, were clearly relevant in some of the contests. Moreover, despite the pervasive rhetoric regarding an anti-incumbent fervor, only one incumbent actually lost a reelection bid yesterday.
Pennsylvania
In Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak defeated veteran Senator Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary. Specter is the only actual incumbent politician who lost a re-election bid on Tuesday.
Specter's defeat, however, probably has a lot to do with him running for the first time as a Democratic candidate. In 2009, Specter switched to the Democratic Party after it became clear that he would probably lose the Republican primary -- due to his support for the stimulus package.
Although Sestak characterized Specter as a career politician, Specter's previous party affiliation and political record probably played a large role in his defeat. A political party's base typically has more power in primaries than in general election contests. Specter simply could not convince faithful Democrats to choose him over a lifetime Democrat. This does not mean that Specter's incumbent status was irrelevant to his defeat, but it probably means that the media commentators are overstating the significance of incumbency to his loss.
Pennsylvania also held a special election to fill the House seat of the late John Murtha. Democrats, the incumbent party, kept this seat. Mark Critz, a former aide to Murtha, defeated challenger Tim Burns.
Kentucky
In Kentucky, Rand Paul won the Republican senate primary, defeating Trey Grayson. Paul, the son of Texas representative Ron Paul, is a doctor, while Grayson is the Kentucky Secretary of State. Neither candidate was even an incumbent -- although Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell endorsed Grayson. This has led many commentators to describe Paul's victory as a defeat of the Washington establishment.
The Kentucky Republican contest, however, likely turned primarily on ideological grounds. The Tea Party movement, which has more pull among Republican primary voters than among the general electorate, endorsed Paul, who ran to the right of Grayson. Some Democrats even wanted Paul to win, believing that the majority of voters in the state will not endorse his political views in November.
On the Democratic side, Attorney General Jim Conway defeated Lt. Governor Daniel Mongiardo in a tight senate primary. This contest simply does not fit within the anti-incumbent narrative, and most media have not tried to describe the race in those terms.
Oregon
In Oregon, incumbent Representatives David Wu and Ron Wyden won their primary elections by wide margins. Incumbent House Democrat Kurt Schrader was unopposed. No incumbents lost in Oregon.
Arkansas
Arkansas provides the only other possible evidence of anti-incumbent fervor. Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln faces a run-off election against challenger Lt. Governor Bill Halter. Lincoln had support from former President Bill Clinton and President Obama. Lincoln, however, could not get a majority of the votes in the 3-way contest -- although currently she has won more votes than her challengers.
This race does not represent the defeat of an incumbent because Lincoln has not lost. Furthermore, the results have a lot to do with ideology and political organizing. Halter ran to the left of Lincoln, who became the target of liberal anger due to her centrist positions. Labor unions, in particular, fought hard to defeat Lincoln by pumping a substantial amount of money into the state. These factors undoubtedly influenced the results of the election.
On the Republican side, a 9-year House Republican defeated 7 challengers to take the Republican nomination. This race simply does not substantiate the popular anti-incumbent narrative, nor does it prove voter anger against establishment candidates. The "Washington insider" won.
Final Take
If very little evidence connects Tuesday's election results with anti-incumbent fervor, why are so many media outlets running with the idea? Well, this narrative probably sounds more exciting than the truth. It is also easier to explain -- even if it is unsupportable by facts. Many persons in the news media have proven their ability to trade truth for excitement in the past. There they go again.
Update: Other bloggers have expressed dissenting opinions on this subject. See: The Death Of Independence and Anti-Incumbency Not the Issue.
Because no exit poll data exist, no one can truly document that a substantial number of voters acted out of hostility towards incumbents -- or even towards perceived "Washington insiders." Furthermore, other factors, such as ideology, were clearly relevant in some of the contests. Moreover, despite the pervasive rhetoric regarding an anti-incumbent fervor, only one incumbent actually lost a reelection bid yesterday.
Pennsylvania
In Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak defeated veteran Senator Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary. Specter is the only actual incumbent politician who lost a re-election bid on Tuesday.
Specter's defeat, however, probably has a lot to do with him running for the first time as a Democratic candidate. In 2009, Specter switched to the Democratic Party after it became clear that he would probably lose the Republican primary -- due to his support for the stimulus package.
Although Sestak characterized Specter as a career politician, Specter's previous party affiliation and political record probably played a large role in his defeat. A political party's base typically has more power in primaries than in general election contests. Specter simply could not convince faithful Democrats to choose him over a lifetime Democrat. This does not mean that Specter's incumbent status was irrelevant to his defeat, but it probably means that the media commentators are overstating the significance of incumbency to his loss.
Pennsylvania also held a special election to fill the House seat of the late John Murtha. Democrats, the incumbent party, kept this seat. Mark Critz, a former aide to Murtha, defeated challenger Tim Burns.
Kentucky
In Kentucky, Rand Paul won the Republican senate primary, defeating Trey Grayson. Paul, the son of Texas representative Ron Paul, is a doctor, while Grayson is the Kentucky Secretary of State. Neither candidate was even an incumbent -- although Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell endorsed Grayson. This has led many commentators to describe Paul's victory as a defeat of the Washington establishment.
The Kentucky Republican contest, however, likely turned primarily on ideological grounds. The Tea Party movement, which has more pull among Republican primary voters than among the general electorate, endorsed Paul, who ran to the right of Grayson. Some Democrats even wanted Paul to win, believing that the majority of voters in the state will not endorse his political views in November.
On the Democratic side, Attorney General Jim Conway defeated Lt. Governor Daniel Mongiardo in a tight senate primary. This contest simply does not fit within the anti-incumbent narrative, and most media have not tried to describe the race in those terms.
Oregon
In Oregon, incumbent Representatives David Wu and Ron Wyden won their primary elections by wide margins. Incumbent House Democrat Kurt Schrader was unopposed. No incumbents lost in Oregon.
Arkansas
Arkansas provides the only other possible evidence of anti-incumbent fervor. Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln faces a run-off election against challenger Lt. Governor Bill Halter. Lincoln had support from former President Bill Clinton and President Obama. Lincoln, however, could not get a majority of the votes in the 3-way contest -- although currently she has won more votes than her challengers.
This race does not represent the defeat of an incumbent because Lincoln has not lost. Furthermore, the results have a lot to do with ideology and political organizing. Halter ran to the left of Lincoln, who became the target of liberal anger due to her centrist positions. Labor unions, in particular, fought hard to defeat Lincoln by pumping a substantial amount of money into the state. These factors undoubtedly influenced the results of the election.
On the Republican side, a 9-year House Republican defeated 7 challengers to take the Republican nomination. This race simply does not substantiate the popular anti-incumbent narrative, nor does it prove voter anger against establishment candidates. The "Washington insider" won.
Final Take
If very little evidence connects Tuesday's election results with anti-incumbent fervor, why are so many media outlets running with the idea? Well, this narrative probably sounds more exciting than the truth. It is also easier to explain -- even if it is unsupportable by facts. Many persons in the news media have proven their ability to trade truth for excitement in the past. There they go again.
Update: Other bloggers have expressed dissenting opinions on this subject. See: The Death Of Independence and Anti-Incumbency Not the Issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)