According to Jonathan Martin, the indictment of Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) is good news for John McCain (R-AZ) because it will "at least subtly remind voters about the clashes between the two senators over the years" over pork.
« Rejecting Timetables | Main | Kerry Was Right »
All News Is Good News
29 Jul 2008 02:11 pm
Comments (33)
If McCain hadn't sold his soul to the worst elements of the GOP, this point might make sense. Of course, so long as the media treats him as a maverick, omitting any mention of his recent voting record or Bush III policy proposals, it might work out that way. Still, seems kinda unlikely.
well, let's hope every other porky GOP member of Congress gets indicted to ... McCain can swim in that kind of good news
Did Jonathan Martin overtly forget Stevens is a Republican?
Honestly, it is good news for McCain. How and whether to deal with the politicization of the DOJ under Bush is a potentially potent election issue that cuts against McCain, and this indictment limits the potency of the issue by reducing the appearance, if not the reality, of such politicization.
Joe Lieberman will have to step to the microphone and remind us all of Stevens' many years of loyal, patriotic service to Alaska and the nation.
Ironically, I think this is good news not for McCain but for the Republican party.
Stevens was too damaged by scandal to win in Alaska. Begich had been beating him in all polling lately and was likely to start pulling away as the Stevens corruption stories continued to mount.
Now though, the Republicans can dumb Stevens and try and get a Republican not tainted by scandal to run against Begich. Alaska is, after all, at the end of the day still a very red state.
Garuda beat me to the Keating reference, which is surprising as everyone seems to be assiduously avoided bringing that up lest it provide some historical insight on our current mortgage and banking troubles and the players involved.
Matt, you really need to start up an All News Is Good News Award, like what Sully does for his own Yglesias Award.
Er..."dump Stevens" not "dumb Stevens". Perhaps a bit of a Freudian slip there.
Jim Crozier writes: "Stevens was too damaged by scandal to win in Alaska. Begich had been beating him in all polling lately and was likely to start pulling away as the Stevens corruption stories continued to mount.
Now though, the Republicans can dumb Stevens and try and get a Republican not tainted by scandal to run against Begich. Alaska is, after all, at the end of the day still a very red state."
What exactly makes you think the Repiglicans can "dumb" Stevens? Or even dump him, which is what you probably meant to say.
He may surprise me and step down, but he's had this job for nearly his entire adult life and I don't think he'll give it up easily.
And just about every Repiglican in the country is tainted by scandal. Good luck with that.
Marc Ambinder has a take that I hadn't thought of yet.
"It will almost certainly demoralize Republicans in Alaska and excite Democrats. It means that the Obama campaign will put more resources into flipping the state. It means that any senator who got Vecco money -- Norm Coleman? -- will be called to account. "
Could this impact Senate races beyond the one in Alaska? It certainly can't hurt Obama in Alaska.
I would disagree. Most voters who know about "pork" have probably already made up their mind about who they are voting for. Especially if that is their pet cause, they were probably already McCainiacs.
For most voters, this will only worsen the Republican brand and thereby hurt McCain. I will be paying close attention to the Begich-Stevens poll numbers now that the ball has dropped on Stevens. I expect that Begich will wind handily.
I am not sure that they can dump Stevens ...from the Alaska Board of Elections candidate's handbook:
"All candidates must file for candidacy by June 2 for the 2008 elections. This date normally falls on June 1st of an election year. Since June 1st falls on a Sunday in 2008, the filing deadline for postmarking and receipt of the declaration is extended to June 2, 2008. AS 15.25.040(b)."
http://www.elections.alaska.gov/candidates.php
MoeLarry - Stevens has a primary challenger. See electoral-vote.com
Stevens could resign and Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, could presumably appoint Stevens' primary challenger (well I guess Stevens would drop out of the primary in this scenario) to serve in the meantime, to give him an ever-so-slight incumbency bump.
--------------
Someone mentioned how this helps Republicans by taking some of the steam out of the "politicization of the DoJ" arguments against the Bush administration. I think that's very smart - is it a coincidence that the ball dropped on Stevens TODAY, a day after the fiasco with Monica Goodling, law alumnus of Jesus University? Probably not, I'm guessing.
I am not sure that they can dump Stevens ...from the Alaska Board of Elections candidate's handbook:
"All candidates must file for candidacy by June 2 for the 2008 elections. This date normally falls on June 1st of an election year. Since June 1st falls on a Sunday in 2008, the filing deadline for postmarking and receipt of the declaration is extended to June 2, 2008. AS 15.25.040(b)."
http://www.elections.alaska.gov/candidates.php
I am not sure that they can dump Stevens ...from the Alaska Board of Elections candidate's handbook:
"All candidates must file for candidacy by June 2 for the 2008 elections. This date normally falls on June 1st of an election year. Since June 1st falls on a Sunday in 2008, the filing deadline for postmarking and receipt of the declaration is extended to June 2, 2008. AS 15.25.040(b)."
http://www.elections.alaska.gov/candidates.php
Ted Stevens being indicted is good news for everybody. Now, 99 to go!
soctty tells me: "MoeLarry - Stevens has a primary challenger. See electoral-vote.com
Stevens could resign and Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, could presumably appoint Stevens' primary challenger (well I guess Stevens would drop out of the primary in this scenario) to serve in the meantime, to give him an ever-so-slight incumbency bump."
Stevens will only resign if it's part of a deal with his case. He doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself and his family. And the electoral-vote-com lists the Democrat as his challenger - if it lists his Republican challengers (Kos says there are 2-3 very low profile ones) I missed it.
Palin has her own scandal to deal with.
Repiglicans are dropping like flies and I love it.
MoeLarryandJesus - It's further down in the write-up, not on the map. Here it is:
As if Sen. Ted. Stevens (R-AK) didn't have enough problems with a well-funded opponent (Anchorage mayor Mark Begich) and the IRS and FBI chasing him, he has a new problem: a rich primary opponent. Businessman Vic Vickers just bought $410,000 worth of TV and radio ads to skewer Stevens for corruption. While Vickers has no chance of defeating Stevens in the primary, $410,000 is a lot of money in the Alaska media markets and all that attacking will soften Stevens up for Begich in the general election. DSCC chairman Chuck Schumer should send Vickers a thank you note.
MoeLarry:
I did indeed mean "dump" rather than "dumb". You can see I corrected myself above.
I think he'll step down, and here's my reasoning.
1. Polling will shift showing him with virtually no shot at beating Begich.
2. Other Republicans will quietly approach him and ask him to and, if that doesn't work...
3. Bush will offer a pardon if he steps down immediately for the good of the party.
Think about it. What are his options at this point? Stay in a race that polling will rapidly tell him he has no shot at winning or bow out and be promised a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card from El Presidente'?
I am not sure that they can dump Stevens ...from the Alaska Board of Elections candidate's handbook:
"All candidates must file for candidacy by June 2 for the 2008 elections. This date normally falls on June 1st of an election year. Since June 1st falls on a Sunday in 2008, the filing deadline for postmarking and receipt of the declaration is extended to June 2, 2008. AS 15.25.040(b)."
http://www.elections.alaska.gov/candidates.php
MoeLarry:
I did indeed mean "dump" rather than "dumb". You can see I corrected myself above.
I think he'll step down, and here's my reasoning.
1. Polling will shift showing him with virtually no shot at beating Begich.
2. Other Republicans will quietly approach him and ask him to and, if that doesn't work...
3. Bush will offer a pardon if he steps down immediately for the good of the party.
Think about it. What are his options at this point? Stay in a race that polling will rapidly tell him he has no shot at winning or bow out and be promised a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card from El Presidente'?
Oh, and even thought Palin has a scandal of her own to deal with, I doubt that means that she is incapable of appointing a replacement Senator if Stevens were to step down.
But I do wonder if he would even bother. What would he salvage by doing that? Maybe save face for his party, but that's about it.
Will most people even know about that history?
It just looks like another dirty republican going down and taking the brand a little lower with him.
If Martin thinks more than 1% of the American voting public is aware that McCain and Stevens have clashed over pork, he's badly mistaken. I'm ridiculously over-informed politically and it didn't even occur to me until I read his column to think of Steven's indictment in that context.
For that minority of the population who even have any idea who Stevens is, they'll register the following facts, in order of likelyhood:
1) He's crazy old.
2) He thinks the internet is a series of tubes.
3) He's a Republican.
4) He pushed through funding for the "Bridge To Nowhere."
5) He's from Alaska.
This does nothing but further ding an already badly damaged Republican brand, if anything.
You've sort of misquoted Martin here. Either that or he's edited his post, which says:
"No word yet from McCain or the campaign, but I'd be shocked if they didn't at least subtly remind voters about the clashes between the two senators over the years."
According to Jonathan Martin, the indictment of Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) is good news for John McCain (R-AZ)
WTF?
Nowhere does Jonathan Martin say this.
Again, Matthew is simply making sh*t up.
Huh? I'm pretty well-informed, and I'm afraid that what I think is mostly to connect Stevens and McCain is 1) They're both Republicans. 2) They're both old.
If this guy thinks, after 7 years of McCain supporting Bush, we're going to associate him with "anti-pork", then he's giving us more credit for imagination than we have. The party of Halliburton is NOT likely to nominate someone truly against pork.
I think it's always good news for McCain not just because so much of the press is in the tank for him, but because as a man with a pathological need to be all things to all people all of the time, McCain has been on every conceivable side of every issue. That gives eager journalists plenty of opportunity to find an "on the other hand." "Sure, he's been a big war supporter from the beginning, but on the other hand, there was that one time he said something critical about the planning." Etc.
Stevens' indictment will also be good for McCain because it will help voters forget that the Republican Party is one vast extortion and money-laundering operation.
HooBoy, that McCain is one lucky dog!
Stevens' indictment will also be good for McCain because it will help voters forget that the Republican Party is one vast extortion and money-laundering operation.
HooBoy, that McCain is one lucky dog!
Too bad only Alaska voters get to vote for Stevens, because I'm sure Alaskans like their Federal pork just fine. Still, it's amazingly great to be rid of Alberto Gonzales, who would've fired the prosecutor by now. Even still, Gonzo's chief legacy is to leave me wondering what Stevens did to piss off George Bush.
Jonathan Martin falls into a common trap among wonks.
Being a wonk, he thinks that everyone else has wonkish interests. He's wrong. Most people won't be "subtly reminded" of anything since most people won't have any clue who he is, unless they're from Alaska.
They'll see the R next to Steven's name, they'll look at the R next to McCain's name, and that will be the scope from which they draw their conclusions.
Comments closed August 12, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Refresh my memory: did McCain accept gifts from Charles Keating?
Posted by Garuda | July 29, 2008 2:17 PM