Chris Cillizza is the managing editor of PostPolitics and he writes "The Fix," a politics blog for The Washington Post. He also covers the White House for the newspaper and website. Chris has appeared as a guest on NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, Fox News Channel and CNN to talk politics. He lives in Virginia with his wife and son.
Every Friday, The Fix goes live, as Chris Cillizza discusses the latest news about Congress, the Obama administration, upcoming elections and all the latest political news.
Chris: Talk about blowing a huge opportunity! If the administration had just waited to get the whole story on Ms. Sherrod's speech, it would have had a club of righteousness with which to beat Breitbart and the rest of the rightwing noise machine every time another "scandal" was discovered (e.g., ACORN, the New Black Panthers, etc.) Instead, by being so craven and firing Sherrod immediately, they showed they are terrified of the noise machine. (I personally don't think Tom Vilsack pulled the trigger on this all by his lonesome.) Now, according to news stories, the White House is terribly upset with Sherrod for doing so many interviews. To which I, as a loyal liberal Democrat say, sorry guys, you got yourself into this mess. I don't blame Ms. Sherrod one minute for wanting to twist the knife a teeny bit.
I think the White House or, as the story goes, Tom Vilsack, was so eager to get in front of the story and kill it before it grew that they wound up operating on incomplete information and turning what could have been -- at most -- a minor blip into a gigantic news story.
I wrote about this earlier in the week but I really think Democrats may look at this week as a lost chance. In a week where financial regulatory reform passes and Democrats pass unemployment extensions, this should have been a winner.
Instead all anyone talked about was Shirley Sherrod and why the Administration has acted so hastily.
Did you just make that up about "The Kennedys of West Virginia"? For one, West Virginia has Rockefellers, which are a bit more upper crust then the Kennedys. Second, who ever heard of the Goodwins before? Honestly just wondering if you either made that up or one person coined that term this week.
This is a reference to a post I wrote yesterday looking for the first political family (or a family dynasty of some sort) in every state.
As for Carte Goodwin specifically, I simply referenced his family's long political lineage in the state to prove that there is a Goodwin family in each of the 50 states.
Why are the Kennedys still the standard for political families?
I seem to remember another politically affluent family, the Bushes. If we're talking about who has more political influence, the Bushes win. I know the Bushes' PR folks don't like that image despite its reality, but should we all try to update on the Kennedys to the Bushes?
I actually think the Bushes might be the first family of Connecticut. Prescott Bush and all that.
And, the Kennedys still have/had more people involved or potentially involved in elected office. Jack, Bobby, Ted, Patrick, Joe Jr., Mark Shriver, Caroline Kennedy etc etc etc
A TON of good governors questions...(and I am working on the Friday Governors Line as we speak) so let's bang them out.
On Arizona, you are right that Goddard, on paper, has a terrific resume. (AGs often run well when they seek the governor's office.)
But, and I wrote a post about this recently, the immigration debate in Arizona has fundamentally altered the calculus in the state.
Before Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed the nation's strictest immigration law this spring, she wasn't expected to even make it out of her own party's primary.
Once she signed it, however, she became a national conservative hero -- driving any serious primary opposition out of the race and strengthening her hand in the race against Goddard too.
The race isn't totally out of reach for Democrats but Brewer is far stronger than she was even a few months ago.
Tancredo, who spent some time in Congress and even ran for president, has threatened to run as an independent this fall if either Scott McInnis or Dan Maes, the party's two potential Republican nominees, winds up as the GOP standard-bearer this fall.
National Republicans are hoping that McInnis who has been badly wounded by a plagiarism scandal, can hang on to win the Aug. 10 primary against Maes and then can be convinced to leave the race. Such a scenario would allow the party establishment to put someone else -- perhaps state Sen. Josh Penry -- in as the nominee.
Would that keep Tancredo out? It's hard to say. He is ambitious and wants a platform to outline his hardline immigration views.
I think even if Penry wound up as the nominee, Tancredo could well find a reason to get into the race.
What's the view from Washington on our governor's race here in Colorado? I can't see Tom Tancredo helping anything for the Republicans, but maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. Does Hickenlooper have it in the bag?
Just to follow up...yes, Hickenlooper, who is the mayor of Denver, has to be considered a heavy favorite now despite the fact that Colorado has moved toward Republicans over the past 18 months.
McInnis, Maes and Tancredo look like the gang who can't shoot straight. And, no matter what happens in the primary -- and immediately afterward -- it's going to be ugly for the GOP. And it's going to play out very publicly.
Neither of which is good news for Colorado Republicans.
1. What happened to AZ-1? This district has such a solid history of Republican representation, but right now, Ann Kirkpatrick seems somewhat secure in her first bid for re-election. Is this a marginal race that might switch, are the projections a little misleading, or has Kirkpatrick won this district over?
2. What's you read on the race for Gov of New Mexico? Susana Martinez is a candidate who I'm suprised we haven't heard more about in the national media, she could potentially change the face of the GOP (along the same lines of Haley or Whitman).
I agree on Susan martinez. Having met her, she has impressive law and order credentials and as a Hispanic female Republican would do much to help Republicans change the "old white guy" stereotype of their party.
And, I think she has a decent shot of winning; she's running against Diane Denish, Gov. Bill Richardson's (D) lieutenant, which is not a great credential to have these days in New Mexico.
As for Arizona 1, I think it's less of a target than AZ-05 (Harry Mitchell) and AZ-08 (Gabrielle Giffords) but, as you rightly note, it is a swing district by the numbers and could fall if there is a large Republican wave this fall.
I just drive through a big chunk of Maryland yesterday -- was having dinner with Richard Ben Cramer, a personal hero and author of the best campaign book ever ("What it Takes") -- and saw many, many Ehrlich signs.
(And, yes, you rightly read the above as a transparent effort to tout the fact that I got to meet Richard Ben Cramer. I was like a kid on Christmas morning. So exciting.)
I think Ehrlich is the best possible candidate Republicans could nominate and he has the benefit in running in a year that should be pretty good for Republicans nationally -- unlike when he lost to O'Malley in 2006.
That said, Maryland is still a very Democratic state and O'Malley is quite savvy. I think it's uphill but far from impossible for Ehrlich.
Well, anyone can make a comeback (John Travolta, Marv Albert, Steve Howe of the Yankees, Elliot Spitzer) in America. Short memories/attention spans are one of our great collective gifts.
But, Culver is in very serious trouble. Republicans nominated their best candidate -- former Gov. Terry Branstad -- and polling suggests he has a comfortable double digit edge over Culver.
Culver hasn't done himself much good, running through staff like Mel Gibson runs through expletive laden rants.
Could Culver win? Sure. Will he? Probably not. He is, without question, the most vulnerable incumbent governor in the country running for re-election this fall.
Is there something very sick in the DC culture that the guy who defrauded America on both ACORN and Shirley Sherrod makes Politico's 50 list, but the King of Connecticut, the Godfather of Field Hockey, the Highest of Hoyas, the Homeless Man's Bill Simmons....well, the genial host of this chat is left off the list?
Maybe Simmons was afraid of competing against The Live Fix because he released his column hours earlier than he normally does. Was there some sort of secret plan hatched between the two of you when you spoke so those of who love both Friday features didn't have to be distracted by one or the other?
It's not semantics. Having been both fired and forced to resign (I had my issues as a 20-something), there's a difference. Basically resigning saves your employer a headache of going through firing process where they have to state exactly why you are being fired (which doesn't help you finding your next job) as opposed resigning where you don't have to give a reason if they agree to let you go on your contract. So resigning saves time and effort on your employer as well as you to save face when explaining why you aren't working anymore during your upcoming job interviews.
Chris,
As a native-Nutmegger (that's someone from Connecticut) I doth protest when you say the Bushes are our first family. Considering they all claim to be from everywhere but Connecticut (Texas, Florida, Maine), and excepting the obligatory 4 year stop in New Haven for college, they don't do anything in or for Connecticut. I therefore move for you to strike your previous statement and resubmit that the Bushes are the first family of Texas, which is a far more screwed up place then my home Constitution State.
I saw the documentary, "Lucky." Who do you think is the political version of the guy who SPOILER ALERT acted strangely, lost everything, and ended up living in a shack? I'm going with John Edwards who seemed to have everything going for him and, then, yeah...fathered an out-of-wedlock child while his wife battled cancer. I don't think can be topped, although Blago when he thought he'd be on a Presidential ticket is close.
Chris,
We all know there is going to be a Rod Blagojevich movie. So why not have as its star, none other than Steve Carell! He looks like Blago, he's plays buffoons very well, and he's got some free time coming now that he's leaving the office! Now, who should play Mrs. Blago? Roland Burris?
I know he is part of the administration, but wasn't Vilsack one of two or three republicans included in the Administration? When a Republican is invited to join the administration of the other party, do they resign their party affiliation? Are they kicked out?
I maintain that it would be absolutely awesome that after Linda mcMahon wins the Republican nomination for Senate, she calls a press conference and just as she starts talking she puts on a coat or cape or something with a huge "D" on it. Then Dick Blumethal appears and she endorses him.
It would be a double-cross right up there with Vince McMahon and Brett Hart or Hogan joining the NWO.
I can imagine Jim Ross doing the commentary right now. "I have never been so disgusted! Linda McMahon fooled us all. She said she was a Republican. We all believed her. And now this...this...spectacle."
Yes, i do spend time thinking about this stuff. Draw your own conclusions.
Politico sure does love its lists. I mean they do have a lot of "lists" stories. Almost as many as headlines about the GOP comeback. I figure the law of average is that eventually you'll end up on one of those Politico lists (heck, are you 100% you weren't already on one). Your former workmate seems pretty trilled by it.
I think it's very likely that if Crist winds up in the Senate -- still less thamn a 50-50 proposition -- it will because he co-opted Florida Democrats.
And, that will virtually ensure he caucuses with Democrats. I could be wrong but if you look at the positions he has staked out since switching to run as an independent in April, they have consistently favored the Democratioc viewpoint.
Thanks for checking out postpolitics.com. It's a really good page where you can find everything and anything you need to know about what's going on in politics.
Yes, the signs sprouted early for Bob, especially in certain areas of Baltimore County and, I imagine, on the Eastern Shore. But O'Malley has three big things going for him; namely, Baltimore CIty, Prince George's County and Montgomery County. If he piles up big enough margins in those three jurisdictions, what happens on the Eastern Shore and in western Maryland won't really matter.
Also, much will depend on the billing scandal that's hovering over the moving company owned by the husband of Ehrlich's running mate. He is facing federal fraud charges, which can be very, very serious to deal with.
I don't get why the United States bitches and moans about the FIFA World Cup while they went nuts over the Tour de France. You think not much happens in soccer, have you ever watched the Tour de France?
P.S. Happy Belated Birthday to Raj Goyle
Hi Chris! Two questions: I cannot understand why Kasich is struggling just for parity with Strickland in the governor's race, what's your take? I don't know if you like older rock, but I just finished listening to the Exile remix. Totally savage, a 70s word for awesome.
