Tom Foley, 84, former House speaker

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON Tall and courtly, Tom Foley served 30 years in the House when partisan confrontation was less rancorous than today and Democrats had dominated for decades. He crowned his long political career by becoming speaker, only to be toppled when Republicans seized control of Congress in 1994, turned out by angry voters with little taste for incumbents.

Foley, the first speaker to be booted from office by his constituents since the Civil War, died Friday at the age of 84 of complications from a stroke, according to his wife, Heather.

She said he had suffered a stroke last December and was hospitalized in May with pneumonia. He returned home after a week and had been on hospice care there ever since, she said.

Foley "was very much a believer that the perfect should not get in the way of the achievable," Heather Foley wrote in a 10-page obituary of her husband. She said he believed that "half of something was better than none."

"There was always another day and another Congress to move forward and get the other half done," she wrote.

"America has lost a legend of the United States Congress," President Barack Obama said in a statement Friday, adding, "Tom's straightforward approach helped him find common ground with members of both parties."

Foley, who grew up in a politically active family in Spokane, Wash., represented that agriculture-heavy area for 15 terms in the House, including more than five years in the speaker's chair.

In that job, he was third in line of succession to the presidency and was the first speaker from west of the Rocky Mountains.

As speaker, he was an active negotiator in the 1990 budget talks that led to President George H.W. Bush breaking his pledge to never agree to raise taxes, an episode that played a role in Bush's 1992 defeat. Even so, Bush released a statement Friday lauding Foley.

"Tom never got personal or burned bridges," said Bush. "We didn't agree on every issue, but on key issues we managed to put the good of the country ahead of politics."

Also in 1990, Foley let the House vote on a resolution authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait, despite "strong personal reservations and the strenuous objections of a good many" House Democrats, Bob Michel, an Illinois Republican who was House minority leader at the time, recalled Friday.

"But he granted our request for a vote because it was the right thing to do. He was that kind of leader," Michel said in a statement.

Foley was also at the helm when, in 1992, revelations that many lawmakers had been allowed to overdraw their checking accounts at the House bank provoked a wave of anger against incumbents. In 1993, he helped shepherd President Bill Clinton's budget through the House.

He never served a day as a member of the House's minority party. The Republican capture of the chamber in 1994 gave them control for the first time in 40 years and Foley, it turned out, was their prize victim.

He was replaced as speaker by his nemesis, Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., leader of a group of rebellious younger Republicans who rejected the less-combative tactics of established GOP leaders like Michel.

Foley was defeated in 1994 by 4,000 votes by Spokane attorney George Nethercutt, a Republican who supported term limits, which the speaker fought. Also hurting Foley was his ability to bring home federal benefits, which Nethercutt used by accusing him of pork-barrel politics.

Foley later served as U.S. ambassador to Japan for four years in the Clinton administration.

On Friday, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, called Foley "forthright and warmhearted" in a written statement.

"Tom Foley endeared himself not only to the wheat farmers back home but also colleagues on both sides of the aisle," Boehner said. "That had a lot to do with his solid sense of fairness, which remains a model for any speaker or representative."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called Foley "a quintessential champion of the common good" who "inspired a sense of purpose and civility that reflects the best of our democracy."

She added, "Speaker Foley's unrivaled ability to build consensus and find common ground earned him genuine respect on both sides of the aisle."

In a 2004 Associated Press interview, Foley spoke about how voters did not appreciate the value of service as party leader and said rural voters were turning against Democrats.

"We need to examine how we are responding to this division ? particularly the sense in some rural areas that the Democratic Party is not a party that respects faith or family or has respect for values," he said. "I think that's wrong, but it's a dangerous perception if it develops as it has."

Foley loved the classics and art, hobnobbing with presidents, and his steady rise to power in Congress and diplomacy. He had a fine stereo system in his Capitol office.

He also loved riding horseback in parades and getting his boots dirty in the rolling hills of the Palouse country that his pioneer forebears helped settle.

Foley studied at the feet of the state's two legendary senators, Henry M. Jackson and Warren G. Magnuson. "Scoop" Jackson was his mentor and urged his former aide to run for the House in 1964, a landslide year for Democrats.

Foley worked with leadership to get plum committee assignments. Retirement, new seniority rules, election losses and leadership battles lifted Foley into the Agriculture Committee chairmanship by age 44. He eventually left that post, which he later called his favorite leadership position, to become Democratic whip, the caucus' third-ranking post.

Similar good fortune elevated him to majority leader, and the downfall of Jim Wright of Texas lifted him to the speaker's chair, where he served from June 1989 until January 1995.

"I wish I could say it was merit and hard work, but I think so much of what happens in a political career is the result of circumstances that are favorable and opportunities that come about," Foley told the AP in 2003.

He said his proudest achievements were farm bills, hunger programs, civil liberties, environmental legislation and civil-rights bills. Helping individual constituents also was satisfying, he said. Even though his views were often considerably to the left of his mostly Republican constituents, he said he tried to stay in touch.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., tweeted Friday, "Tom Foley was a tireless, dedicated public servant for WA & the nation. I wouldn't be where I am today w/o his support. He'll be missed."

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., the No. 4 House GOP leader who holds Foley's old eastern Washington seat, called him "an honorable leader and colleague" who was "highly regarded and respected by Democrats and Republicans."

After leaving Congress, he joined a blue chip law firm in Washington, D.C., and served on corporate boards. Foley and his wife, Heather, his unpaid political adviser and staff aide, had built their dream home in the capital in 1992.

In 1997, he took one of the most prestigious assignments in diplomacy, ambassador to Japan. A longtime Japan scholar, Foley had been a frequent visitor to that nation, in part to promote the farm products his district produces.

His father, Ralph, was a judge for decades and a school classmate of Bing Crosby's. His mother, Helen, was a teacher.

Foley attended Gonzaga Preparatory School and Gonzaga University in Spokane. He graduated from the University of Washington Law School and worked as a prosecutor and assistant state attorney general and as counsel for Jackson's Senate Interior Committe.

Then came the long House career.

Cornell Clayton, director of the Foley Institute for Public Policy at Washington State University, said that growing up during the Depression and World War II made Foley part of a generation that worked in a more bipartisan manner.

"They saw us all on the same team," Clayton said.

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

House Republicans, Obama seek end to budget stalemate

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON Negotiations to end the government shutdown and avert default continued Friday as Senate Republicans huddled with President Barack Obama privately to discuss a pathway out of the impasse.

POLL: MOST FAULT REPUBLICANS FOR SHUTDOWN

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed more people blaming Republicans than President Barack Obama for the shutdown, 53percent to 31percent. Just 24percent viewed the Republican Party positively, compared with 39 percent with positive views of the Democratic Party.

"The question is: Can you get something in the next 72 hours? The president seems committed to being engaged in it, and he hadn't been up to this point, so I'm optimistic," said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., after the meeting.

House and Senate Republicans appear to be pursuing different negotiations with the White House, and it is unclear whether either proposal can win over Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who is leading congressional Democrats in the negotiations.

Democrats have resisted GOP efforts, led by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to engage in budget talks until the government is reopened and the debt ceiling is increased before the Oct.17 deadline.

Day 11

The shutdown, in its 11th day Friday, began when Republicans demanded a delay or defunding of the Affordable Care Act in exchange for their votes to keep the government running.

The funding discussion has now snowballed to include a plan to increase the U.S. borrowing limit so the nation can continue to pay its bills on time. Republicans have since moved on from focusing solely on the health care law to seeking broader concessions on fiscal issues.

Congress will continue to work through the weekend. House Republicans will huddle Saturday morning and the Senate is scheduled to vote on a key procedural hurdle to move ahead with a 15-month increase in the debt ceiling with no conditions attached.

House Republicans have offered a short-term path to resolve the shutdown and avert default in order to reach a broader budget deal, while Senate Republicans appear to be mulling longer-term solutions in order to reach an agreement.

Stopgap measure

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is working with senators in both parties on a budget framework that includes a six-month stopgap funding bill and suspends the debt ceiling through January. The extensions would give Congress breathing room to reach a broader budget agreement.

"I believe that still gives us plenty of leverage to work out a long-term fiscal plan, but it removes the threat of an immediate default," Collins said Friday.

Multiple Senate Republicans said the conversation with the president did not include the competing House proposal that would increase the debt ceiling for six weeks.

Republicans have also proposed a short-term stopgap spending bill to reopen the government after Obama rejected their proposal for only a debt ceiling increase.

Senate Republicans seem eager to resolve the impasse. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., cited a "devastating" NBC/WSJ polled released Thursday that showed the Republican Party's favorability at an all-time low. "I know that they're reading the polls," McCain said of House Republicans.

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Tom Foley, 84, former House speaker

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON Tall and courtly, Tom Foley served 30 years in the House when partisan confrontation was less rancorous than today and Democrats had dominated for decades. He crowned his long political career by becoming speaker, only to be toppled when Republicans seized control of Congress in 1994, turned out by angry voters with little taste for incumbents.

Foley, the first speaker to be booted from office by his constituents since the Civil War, died Friday at the age of 84 of complications from a stroke, according to his wife, Heather.

She said he had suffered a stroke last December and was hospitalized in May with pneumonia. He returned home after a week and had been on hospice care there ever since, she said.

Foley "was very much a believer that the perfect should not get in the way of the achievable," Heather Foley wrote in a 10-page obituary of her husband. She said he believed that "half of something was better than none."

"There was always another day and another Congress to move forward and get the other half done," she wrote.

"America has lost a legend of the United States Congress," President Barack Obama said in a statement Friday, adding, "Tom's straightforward approach helped him find common ground with members of both parties."

Foley, who grew up in a politically active family in Spokane, Wash., represented that agriculture-heavy area for 15 terms in the House, including more than five years in the speaker's chair.

In that job, he was third in line of succession to the presidency and was the first speaker from west of the Rocky Mountains.

As speaker, he was an active negotiator in the 1990 budget talks that led to President George H.W. Bush breaking his pledge to never agree to raise taxes, an episode that played a role in Bush's 1992 defeat. Even so, Bush released a statement Friday lauding Foley.

"Tom never got personal or burned bridges," said Bush. "We didn't agree on every issue, but on key issues we managed to put the good of the country ahead of politics."

Also in 1990, Foley let the House vote on a resolution authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait, despite "strong personal reservations and the strenuous objections of a good many" House Democrats, Bob Michel, an Illinois Republican who was House minority leader at the time, recalled Friday.

"But he granted our request for a vote because it was the right thing to do. He was that kind of leader," Michel said in a statement.

Foley was also at the helm when, in 1992, revelations that many lawmakers had been allowed to overdraw their checking accounts at the House bank provoked a wave of anger against incumbents. In 1993, he helped shepherd President Bill Clinton's budget through the House.

He never served a day as a member of the House's minority party. The Republican capture of the chamber in 1994 gave them control for the first time in 40 years and Foley, it turned out, was their prize victim.

He was replaced as speaker by his nemesis, Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., leader of a group of rebellious younger Republicans who rejected the less-combative tactics of established GOP leaders like Michel.

Foley was defeated in 1994 by 4,000 votes by Spokane attorney George Nethercutt, a Republican who supported term limits, which the speaker fought. Also hurting Foley was his ability to bring home federal benefits, which Nethercutt used by accusing him of pork-barrel politics.

Foley later served as U.S. ambassador to Japan for four years in the Clinton administration.

On Friday, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, called Foley "forthright and warmhearted" in a written statement.

"Tom Foley endeared himself not only to the wheat farmers back home but also colleagues on both sides of the aisle," Boehner said. "That had a lot to do with his solid sense of fairness, which remains a model for any speaker or representative."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called Foley "a quintessential champion of the common good" who "inspired a sense of purpose and civility that reflects the best of our democracy."

She added, "Speaker Foley's unrivaled ability to build consensus and find common ground earned him genuine respect on both sides of the aisle."

In a 2004 Associated Press interview, Foley spoke about how voters did not appreciate the value of service as party leader and said rural voters were turning against Democrats.

"We need to examine how we are responding to this division ? particularly the sense in some rural areas that the Democratic Party is not a party that respects faith or family or has respect for values," he said. "I think that's wrong, but it's a dangerous perception if it develops as it has."

Foley loved the classics and art, hobnobbing with presidents, and his steady rise to power in Congress and diplomacy. He had a fine stereo system in his Capitol office.

He also loved riding horseback in parades and getting his boots dirty in the rolling hills of the Palouse country that his pioneer forebears helped settle.

Foley studied at the feet of the state's two legendary senators, Henry M. Jackson and Warren G. Magnuson. "Scoop" Jackson was his mentor and urged his former aide to run for the House in 1964, a landslide year for Democrats.

Foley worked with leadership to get plum committee assignments. Retirement, new seniority rules, election losses and leadership battles lifted Foley into the Agriculture Committee chairmanship by age 44. He eventually left that post, which he later called his favorite leadership position, to become Democratic whip, the caucus' third-ranking post.

Similar good fortune elevated him to majority leader, and the downfall of Jim Wright of Texas lifted him to the speaker's chair, where he served from June 1989 until January 1995.

"I wish I could say it was merit and hard work, but I think so much of what happens in a political career is the result of circumstances that are favorable and opportunities that come about," Foley told the AP in 2003.

He said his proudest achievements were farm bills, hunger programs, civil liberties, environmental legislation and civil-rights bills. Helping individual constituents also was satisfying, he said. Even though his views were often considerably to the left of his mostly Republican constituents, he said he tried to stay in touch.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., tweeted Friday, "Tom Foley was a tireless, dedicated public servant for WA & the nation. I wouldn't be where I am today w/o his support. He'll be missed."

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., the No. 4 House GOP leader who holds Foley's old eastern Washington seat, called him "an honorable leader and colleague" who was "highly regarded and respected by Democrats and Republicans."

After leaving Congress, he joined a blue chip law firm in Washington, D.C., and served on corporate boards. Foley and his wife, Heather, his unpaid political adviser and staff aide, had built their dream home in the capital in 1992.

In 1997, he took one of the most prestigious assignments in diplomacy, ambassador to Japan. A longtime Japan scholar, Foley had been a frequent visitor to that nation, in part to promote the farm products his district produces.

His father, Ralph, was a judge for decades and a school classmate of Bing Crosby's. His mother, Helen, was a teacher.

Foley attended Gonzaga Preparatory School and Gonzaga University in Spokane. He graduated from the University of Washington Law School and worked as a prosecutor and assistant state attorney general and as counsel for Jackson's Senate Interior Committe.

Then came the long House career.

Cornell Clayton, director of the Foley Institute for Public Policy at Washington State University, said that growing up during the Depression and World War II made Foley part of a generation that worked in a more bipartisan manner.

"They saw us all on the same team," Clayton said.

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Small Shift in Numbers Gives House Democrats a Fresh Shot at Relevance

Joe Straus became the speaker of the Texas House in 2009, when Democrats and Republicans had nearly even numbers in that body.

Every deal had to be brokered. Party lines were soft.

Republicans clobbered the Democrats in the 2010 elections and ran over them in Mr. Straus’s second term as speaker. They had a supermajority, and they acted like it.

As a bloc of votes, the Democrats were broken. Demoralized, they never coalesced behind any particular leader. They had a caucus head in Representative Jessica Farrar of Houston. And they had a brawler, Representative Trey Martinez Fischer of San Antonio. But the Democrats did not show up as a unified force in 2011.

Now they get to choose between cooperation and resistance, and you can find Texas Democrats in both camps. The trick for their leaders is to figure out where they want to go. In Mr. Straus, they have a speaker who is probably less of what they fear from the right than any of his would-be replacements might be.

If Republicans who don’t like Mr. Straus are right, he is more moderate than the rest of the party. And if that’s the case, how could the Democrats do better? On the other hand, they are Democrats: any Republican successes weigh against them, and some would prefer to oppose Straus and Company no matter what.

Some important things have changed since the last time around.

The 2010 election left Republicans with the idea that they didn’t need to compromise on anything, what with a supermajority and the national mood coming out of those midterm elections. Moderate Republicans mostly stuck with their party even when they didn’t like what was being served, because the alternative was a potentially risky primary in 2012 with a more conservative Republican at home.

Two years ago, the governor was putting together his bona fides for what turned out to be a presidential run. Remember that list of “emergency issues” at the beginning of the session two years ago? Sanctuary cities, photo identification for voters, state-mandated pre-abortion sonograms and eminent domain protection were all tailored to please Republican primary voters.

The formula is different this time. Republicans don’t have a supermajority in either chamber of the Legislature, and the governor hasn’t declared anything worthy of emergency status that must be handled in the first two months of the session.

The Democrats are also in a better place. They have recovered from the spurning of 2010. Their overall numbers still stink, but not as much as before. Republicans suffered some lumps in the presidential race. The party’s urgent designs on Hispanic voters — spurred by the presidential results — has made some Republican lawmakers more interested in dealing with Hispanic lawmakers of either party.

Instead of Republicans pillaging and looting in 2011 in a Texas House that had previously been evenly balanced, this session finds Democrats seeking a way back into power and Republicans trying to woo Latinos and also needing alliances with Democrats on some votes.

The early days of a legislative session are marked with warm and optimistic feelings, so it’s hard to tell how the relationships will go. But even if the parties hated each other, they would have to work together on some things.

It’s a Republican room — 95 members versus 55 — but some things require 100 votes or more. The Republicans can’t get there alone, but members from both parties wonder whether anyone can pull together a regular Democratic voting bloc.

The Democrats started the session by electing Representative Yvonne Davis of Dallas to lead the caucus. She is not known as a great orator. You are unlikely to see her very often on television — she doesn’t particularly like having her picture taken. But she is one of the best in the House at working members and votes on the floor, putting deals together, and she can raise money for the caucus.

And Mr. Martinez Fischer, who heads the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, which includes 37 of the 55 Democratic members, is still around.

Last week, he was part of a bipartisan group working to restore some of the education cuts made last session. Ms. Davis was working the floor on a linked appropriations bill.

Mr. Straus and the others are in there, too, wondering if it will be different this year. Will anyone follow the leaders?

View the original article here

Independents' vote crucial for Parker, Sinema in House battle

A tree-lined Phoenix street near the Arizona Biltmore offered a glimpse on a recent afternoon into the unpredictability of the 9th District congressional race.

Residents of three nearby houses were registered as Democrat, independent and Republican. Their varied affiliations reflect the nearly even split between the major parties in the district, as well as the prevalence of voters with "no party preference."

Republican Vernon Parker and Democrat Kyrsten Sinema will have to court the independent crowd more than candidates in any other U.S. House race in the state.

In Arizona, only the 9th District is dominated by independents, who outnumber Republicans by 15,000 and Democrats by 21,000. By definition, these so-called swing voters are not easy to pin down.

Arizona has two other competitive districts -- northern Arizona's 1st District and southern Arizona's 2nd District -- but neither has as many independent voters.

"I don't like to classify myself with one or another. It's like belonging to one religion," said 58-year-old interior designer Karen Rapp, the independent living on the Phoenix street. She said she often votes Democratic for state offices and Republican for federal offices because she likes the idea of parties splitting power and thinks their platforms work better in those positions.

This time around, though, she plans to deviate and vote for Sinema because a neighbor -- the nearby registered Democrat -- works for the former state lawmaker's campaign and has sung her praises.

To attract more independent voters like Rapp, Parker and Sinema are touting their crossover appeal and accusing each other of being "extreme."

The candidates tell stories of overcoming childhood poverty through education and hard work. They argue that their ideas about taxes and the economy will help middle-class families. And on some issues, such as immigration, they advocate positions closer to the middle than some in their parties.

For instance, Sinema voted in the Legislature for sending National Guard troops to the border and stiffening penalties for owners of drophouses. In Congress, she wants to require banks to freeze suspected drug-cartel accounts.

Parker, on the other hand, recently told The Arizona Republic he would support some version of the Dream Act or Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's alternative to provide a path to legal status for young immigrants brought to the United States illegally by their parents, though he did not specify what changes he would make to those plans.

Wes Gullett, a political strategist at the nonpartisan consulting firm FirstStrategic Communications and Public Affairs and a former Republican candidate for Phoenix mayor, said 9th District voters are among the most politically engaged in the state. Much of the district is expected to vote this fall.

An Arizona Republic analysis of voting data shows primary turnout, though small overall, was highest among independents in north and central Phoenix, suggesting the battle between Parker and Sinema may be fiercest there. The district also covers parts of Paradise Valley, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa, Chandler and Ahwatukee Foothills.

Gullett, who is not supporting either candidate, said north-central Phoenix neighborhoods like Arcadia and areas near Piestewa Peak are always highly contested in city, legislative and congressional races. Voters in those areas pay attention, he said.

"There's lots of opportunity there for both campaigns to do well," Gullett said. "It all comes back to those swing voters and figuring out who those swing voters are."

Campaign battlegrounds

The Republic's analysis of 9th District primary data shows:

Independent turnout was small, offering only limited clues to the general election. A variety of factors, including the challenge of requesting a primary ballot, deter independents from voting in the primary. But campaigns use the information as one indicator of where to spend resources for the general election, when many more independents and party voters will cast ballots.

North-central Phoenix, followed by parts of Tempe, Mesa and Ahwatukee, drew the strongest independent turnout during the primary. Those areas are likely to draw high participation in the general election and could become campaign battlegrounds.

Independents voted like their neighbors. In precincts where registered Republicans cast more primary votes, independents also swung Republican. The same was true for precincts that leaned Democratic. Parker and Sinema will likely garner the most support from independents in areas where their party bases are enthusiastic.

Though independent registration continues to grow in Arizona, independents who vote in primaries remain rare, as is the case with all voters. Only 8.8 percent of ballots cast in the 9th District primary came from independents, according to data provided to The Republic from the Maricopa County Elections Department through the state Democratic Party.

One reason independents turn out in low numbers is the extra step to receive early primary ballots, said Paul Johnson, a former Phoenix Democratic mayor. While party voters on the permanent early-voting list automatically receive primary ballots, independents must tell the county Elections Department which party ballot they want.

That keeps many independents from voting, said Johnson.

He is advocating for passage of Proposition 121, which would eliminate the party-ballot system and allow voters, regardless of party, to vote for any candidate during the primary. Independents then would receive early ballots as party voters do. Opponents say in practice the system is unlikely to boost independent turnout.

Rapp, the independent Phoenix voter, didn't vote in the primary because she didn't receive an early ballot.

"It wasn't convenient," Rapp said.

Other independents may sit out primaries because they don't feel strongly enough to vote or don't think it's right to participate in a partisan primary, said Michael O'Neil, president of Tempe polling firm O'Neil Associates Inc.

Since many more independents are expected to vote on Nov. 6, the primary patterns provide some insight but aren't enough to predict the general-election outcome, O'Neil said.

"It might be suggestive, but it's not necessarily predictive," he said.

Still, independents are key to the race, he said, because party registrations are so close. If party voters turn out in equal numbers, swing voters could determine whether Parker or Sinema win.

The closest correlation between the primary and the general is turnout, said Jim Haynes, president of the Phoenix-based polling company Behavior Research Center. Areas that drew heavy participation from independent voters in the primary are likely to stay that way in the general.

Precincts with the highest independent turnout were in north-central Phoenix, where both Parker and Sinema drew strong support from party voters because of their long ties there. Parker served near the area as Paradise Valley mayor and councilman. Sinema was a state legislator and social worker in the area. Both resigned this year to focus on their campaigns.

The north Phoenix Madison Heights precinct, which abuts Paradise Valley, had the highest independent participation, 15 percent. Precincts with independent turnout higher than 9 percent also occurred in west Mesa, south Tempe and Ahwatukee Foothills.

Residents in those neighborhoods typically have higher incomes, higher education and deeper roots in the community, Gullett said. Those factors are often linked to turnout.

One anomaly may be in the Tempe precincts around Arizona State University, according to Gullett, where primary participation was tiny. Those areas could become more active in the fall when students are settled in school, he said.

Many unknowns

Though it's harder to predict how independents will vote in the general election, Republic maps of primary returns show independents largely followed the party leanings in their neighborhoods.

Independents went red in Republican-leaning northeast Phoenix, west Mesa and west Chandler, while independents went blue in Democratic-leaning central Phoenix, Tempe and downtown Chandler.

Campaigns will use that information, coupled with voter profiles compiled by the state parties and past elections results, to determine voters and neighborhoods to target with direct mail, phone calls and door-knocking.

Haynes said he wasn't surprised to see independents leaning in the same direction as their party-registered neighbors. Some independents may be disaffected party members who still vote with the party they dropped.

But much remains unknown about many independents, he said, such as whether they are former Democrats, former Republicans or independents from the start. If he were a part of a campaign, Haynes said, his biggest effort would be to "find out who these people are and how to reach them."

Much work ahead

Though the Parker and Sinema campaigns see value in understanding the primary voting patterns, they promise to go after both independents and party voters and to compete across the district.

The candidates' work is cut out for them.

Jeanette Irwin was watering her garden while she talked politics. The 68-year-old retired teacher and registered Republican said she's open to voting for either candidate, though she likes what she's heard about Parker.

"I'm still deciding," Irwin said. "We have many times voted Democratic if the candidates are better. … I wouldn't vote party totally. I financially support the Republican Party, but hey, if somebody else is better ?"

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Independents' vote crucial for Parker, Sinema in House battle

A tree-lined Phoenix street near the Arizona Biltmore offered a glimpse on a recent afternoon into the unpredictability of the 9th District congressional race.

Residents of three nearby houses were registered as Democrat, independent and Republican. Their varied affiliations reflect the nearly even split between the major parties in the district, as well as the prevalence of voters with "no party preference."

Republican Vernon Parker and Democrat Kyrsten Sinema will have to court the independent crowd more than candidates in any other U.S. House race in the state.

In Arizona, only the 9th District is dominated by independents, who outnumber Republicans by 15,000 and Democrats by 21,000. By definition, these so-called swing voters are not easy to pin down.

Arizona has two other competitive districts -- northern Arizona's 1st District and southern Arizona's 2nd District -- but neither has as many independent voters.

"I don't like to classify myself with one or another. It's like belonging to one religion," said 58-year-old interior designer Karen Rapp, the independent living on the Phoenix street. She said she often votes Democratic for state offices and Republican for federal offices because she likes the idea of parties splitting power and thinks their platforms work better in those positions.

This time around, though, she plans to deviate and vote for Sinema because a neighbor -- the nearby registered Democrat -- works for the former state lawmaker's campaign and has sung her praises.

To attract more independent voters like Rapp, Parker and Sinema are touting their crossover appeal and accusing each other of being "extreme."

The candidates tell stories of overcoming childhood poverty through education and hard work. They argue that their ideas about taxes and the economy will help middle-class families. And on some issues, such as immigration, they advocate positions closer to the middle than some in their parties.

For instance, Sinema voted in the Legislature for sending National Guard troops to the border and stiffening penalties for owners of drophouses. In Congress, she wants to require banks to freeze suspected drug-cartel accounts.

Parker, on the other hand, recently told The Arizona Republic he would support some version of the Dream Act or Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's alternative to provide a path to legal status for young immigrants brought to the United States illegally by their parents, though he did not specify what changes he would make to those plans.

Wes Gullett, a political strategist at the nonpartisan consulting firm FirstStrategic Communications and Public Affairs and a former Republican candidate for Phoenix mayor, said 9th District voters are among the most politically engaged in the state. Much of the district is expected to vote this fall.

An Arizona Republic analysis of voting data shows primary turnout, though small overall, was highest among independents in north and central Phoenix, suggesting the battle between Parker and Sinema may be fiercest there. The district also covers parts of Paradise Valley, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa, Chandler and Ahwatukee Foothills.

Gullett, who is not supporting either candidate, said north-central Phoenix neighborhoods like Arcadia and areas near Piestewa Peak are always highly contested in city, legislative and congressional races. Voters in those areas pay attention, he said.

"There's lots of opportunity there for both campaigns to do well," Gullett said. "It all comes back to those swing voters and figuring out who those swing voters are."

Campaign battlegrounds

The Republic's analysis of 9th District primary data shows:

Independent turnout was small, offering only limited clues to the general election. A variety of factors, including the challenge of requesting a primary ballot, deter independents from voting in the primary. But campaigns use the information as one indicator of where to spend resources for the general election, when many more independents and party voters will cast ballots.

North-central Phoenix, followed by parts of Tempe, Mesa and Ahwatukee, drew the strongest independent turnout during the primary. Those areas are likely to draw high participation in the general election and could become campaign battlegrounds.

Independents voted like their neighbors. In precincts where registered Republicans cast more primary votes, independents also swung Republican. The same was true for precincts that leaned Democratic. Parker and Sinema will likely garner the most support from independents in areas where their party bases are enthusiastic.

Though independent registration continues to grow in Arizona, independents who vote in primaries remain rare, as is the case with all voters. Only 8.8 percent of ballots cast in the 9th District primary came from independents, according to data provided to The Republic from the Maricopa County Elections Department through the state Democratic Party.

One reason independents turn out in low numbers is the extra step to receive early primary ballots, said Paul Johnson, a former Phoenix Democratic mayor. While party voters on the permanent early-voting list automatically receive primary ballots, independents must tell the county Elections Department which party ballot they want.

That keeps many independents from voting, said Johnson.

He is advocating for passage of Proposition 121, which would eliminate the party-ballot system and allow voters, regardless of party, to vote for any candidate during the primary. Independents then would receive early ballots as party voters do. Opponents say in practice the system is unlikely to boost independent turnout.

Rapp, the independent Phoenix voter, didn't vote in the primary because she didn't receive an early ballot.

"It wasn't convenient," Rapp said.

Other independents may sit out primaries because they don't feel strongly enough to vote or don't think it's right to participate in a partisan primary, said Michael O'Neil, president of Tempe polling firm O'Neil Associates Inc.

Since many more independents are expected to vote on Nov. 6, the primary patterns provide some insight but aren't enough to predict the general-election outcome, O'Neil said.

"It might be suggestive, but it's not necessarily predictive," he said.

Still, independents are key to the race, he said, because party registrations are so close. If party voters turn out in equal numbers, swing voters could determine whether Parker or Sinema win.

The closest correlation between the primary and the general is turnout, said Jim Haynes, president of the Phoenix-based polling company Behavior Research Center. Areas that drew heavy participation from independent voters in the primary are likely to stay that way in the general.

Precincts with the highest independent turnout were in north-central Phoenix, where both Parker and Sinema drew strong support from party voters because of their long ties there. Parker served near the area as Paradise Valley mayor and councilman. Sinema was a state legislator and social worker in the area. Both resigned this year to focus on their campaigns.

The north Phoenix Madison Heights precinct, which abuts Paradise Valley, had the highest independent participation, 15 percent. Precincts with independent turnout higher than 9 percent also occurred in west Mesa, south Tempe and Ahwatukee Foothills.

Residents in those neighborhoods typically have higher incomes, higher education and deeper roots in the community, Gullett said. Those factors are often linked to turnout.

One anomaly may be in the Tempe precincts around Arizona State University, according to Gullett, where primary participation was tiny. Those areas could become more active in the fall when students are settled in school, he said.

Many unknowns

Though it's harder to predict how independents will vote in the general election, Republic maps of primary returns show independents largely followed the party leanings in their neighborhoods.

Independents went red in Republican-leaning northeast Phoenix, west Mesa and west Chandler, while independents went blue in Democratic-leaning central Phoenix, Tempe and downtown Chandler.

Campaigns will use that information, coupled with voter profiles compiled by the state parties and past elections results, to determine voters and neighborhoods to target with direct mail, phone calls and door-knocking.

Haynes said he wasn't surprised to see independents leaning in the same direction as their party-registered neighbors. Some independents may be disaffected party members who still vote with the party they dropped.

But much remains unknown about many independents, he said, such as whether they are former Democrats, former Republicans or independents from the start. If he were a part of a campaign, Haynes said, his biggest effort would be to "find out who these people are and how to reach them."

Much work ahead

Though the Parker and Sinema campaigns see value in understanding the primary voting patterns, they promise to go after both independents and party voters and to compete across the district.

The candidates' work is cut out for them.

Jeanette Irwin was watering her garden while she talked politics. The 68-year-old retired teacher and registered Republican said she's open to voting for either candidate, though she likes what she's heard about Parker.

"I'm still deciding," Irwin said. "We have many times voted Democratic if the candidates are better. … I wouldn't vote party totally. I financially support the Republican Party, but hey, if somebody else is better ?"

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

House Reprimands Richardson

After hearing Representative Laura Richardson speak in her own defense, the House of Representatives on Thursday briskly approved a report by its Ethics Committee to reprimand her for compelling her Congressional staff to do campaign work. The resolution, which imposes a fine of $10,000 and which she had agreed to accept, passed on a voice vote.

In remarks that reflected a detailed statement that she had submitted earlier to the committee, Ms. Richardson, a California Democrat in an uphill fight to retain a seat in the House, said that she had never told staff members that they would have to work for her campaign office or lose their government jobs.

But leaders of the committee said they had already taken her version of events into account. Their scathing report, adopted unanimously by the bipartisan committee and released on Wednesday, roundly rejected her assertions.

The committee chairman, Representative Jo Bonner of Alabama, noted that members of her staff had continued for the past two years to complain to the committee about their treatment. One, he said, was a war veteran who said it would be better to deploy to Afghanistan than to work for a corrupt legislative office.

View the original article here

South Carolina House Panel to Hear Ethics Complaints Against Governor

Thursday, she faces a State House ethics hearing over whether she blurred the lines between her work as a legislator and her work as a hospital fund-raiser and a business development consultant with an engineering firm.

From the Republican governor’s perspective, the hearing is just more of the same: attacks by Democrats and the Republican Party old guard who resent her Tea Party-style efforts to change government and the fact that she is a woman and a minority in a state that has had relatively few of either in positions of power.

For those who pushed for the hearing — most notably John Rainey, one of the most powerful Republican fund-raisers in South Carolina — it is a step in a long-fought battle to prove that the governor has been less than transparent and improperly mixed her governing duties and her business enterprises.

For many voters in South Carolina, however, the hearing is not much more than another twist in the state’s bare-knuckled brand of politics based on personal grudges and its history of conflict between governors and legislators.

“Unfortunately, it is being perceived as politics as usual,” said Robert W. Oldendick, a professor at the University of South Carolina who is director of the Institute for Public Service and Policy Research. “Unless there’s a smoking gun that hasn’t been revealed, a week from now we’ll say there was a little damage done to the governor.”

The Republican-heavy House Ethics Committee will not call Ms. Haley to testify during the two days it examines the issues, but her lawyer will present her case.

On the committee’s witness list are business executives and lobbyists for companies including the Lexington Medical Center and BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina, as well as governmental affairs experts.

They are expected to describe Ms. Haley’s role in two business deals when she was a state representative from Lexington County from 2005 until she became governor.

South Carolina lawmakers serve part-time, and most hold other jobs. One of Ms. Haley’s was to raise money for the medical center’s foundation, at a salary of $110,000 a year. The hospital wanted to open a new heart center and needed governmental approval as part of the process.

Ms. Haley maintains that her legislative efforts to support the heart center were because the hospital, which was in her district, was part of her constituency. Her other efforts to raise money for the foundation did not fall under lobbying rules, her lawyer, Butch Bowers, said.

The other issue centers on part-time consulting Ms. Haley did for Wilbur Smith Associates, an engineering firm in Columbia that paid her a total of $42,000 to help develop business. The firm had worked on a project to create a state farmers’ market.

Ms. Haley would not discuss the hearing directly, but Mr. Bowers and members of her staff have characterized it as a political witch hunt led by a man angry that Ms. Haley did not try to curry his favor to win the governorship.

In her recent memoir, Ms. Haley describes seeking Mr. Rainey’s support when she was planning her campaign. He asked to see her tax records to make sure, she said he told her, that she did not have any connections to terrorists in her background — a comment he said in later interviews that he did not recall, but dismissed as most likely a joke.

Ms. Haley, who is of Indian descent, went on to win without the support of Mr. Rainey, long an important figure in helping to bankroll political candidates in South Carolina.

“This a complaint brought by an old Republican crank who called her a terrorist and the chairman of the Democratic State Party, so it’s pretty clear,” said Tim Pearson, her chief of staff.

That Democratic chairman is Richard A. Harpootlian. He said Ms. Haley was using that explanation to present herself as the victim of political scoundrels who do not want things to change.

The political alliance might seem unlikely, but Mr. Harpootlian said he and Mr. Rainey were united in trying to hold accountable a governor they see as secretive and ethically compromised.

“Both of us have a sense that justice, no matter what the political affiliation, should prevail,” he said. “What’s clear is this governor has avoided answering the questions and has deflected every allegation as politics.”

The men filed a lawsuit last year over the same assertions. In March, a Circuit Court judge dismissed it, saying the court was not the proper venue to examine legislative ethical issues.

If the committee decides the governor did violate ethics, it could issue a reprimand or refer the case to the attorney general for criminal investigation. Most likely, Mr. Oldendick said, the hearing will only underscore what is becoming obvious to many in the state.

“For as good of a job as she did campaigning and getting elected,” he said, “her inability to relate to members of her own party in the General Assembly has been frankly surprising.”

Robbie Brown contributed reporting.

View the original article here

Column: Enthusiasm of black vote key to White House

NEW ORLEANS – Valerie Jarrett knew she was walking a tightrope when she met here with a small group of black columnists.

AP

Jarrett: Senior adviser to Obama.

AP

Jarrett: Senior adviser to Obama.

DeWayne Wickham USATODAY columnist

A senior adviser to the president, she was in the Big Easy to wave the Obama administration's flag at the annual gathering of the National Association of Black Journalists. The convention is a way station for presidents, Oval Office seekers and their surrogates. At the group's awards dinner Saturday night, Jarrett touted her boss' accomplishments and decried Republican obstructionism that has kept Obama from getting more done.

Earlier that day, in a meeting with members of the Trotter Group, an organization of black columnists, she was peppered with a broad range of questions about the president's handling of issues from the environment to foreign trade. But the question she had to know was coming — the one that put her on the tightrope — was about race.

Facing the question

The race question first started dogging Obama in 2008, when he went from an also-ran to a serious presidential contender. Back then, while some blacks asked whether Obama, raised by his white mother and grandparents, was black enough, some whites questioned whether his connection to the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright made him too black.

More than three years after becoming this nation's first black president, race still haunts his presidency. Outraged by his presence in the White House, a surprising number of white public figures have treated him with great disrespect. Republican radio host Barbara Espinosa recently called him a "monkey"; conservative commentator Pat Buchanan referred to him as a "boy," a term widely used during the Jim Crow era to emasculate black men.

So, it's not surprising that Jarrett winced a bit when the race question came up. Asked whether Obama could turn around his declining support among white voters, she said: "He views everybody as getable. He's going to work hard to persuade everybody that where he's trying to move the nation is the right direction."

Needs broad coalition

Obama's best path to re-election is to recreate the broad coalition of voters that swept him to victory in 2008. But this time, that might not be good enough without a significant increase in black voter turnout in the swing states of Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

To do this, Obama supporters need to unabashedly trumpet what the president has done for blacks — such as increased funding for education, universal health care, and a sharp reduction in the sentencing disparity for possession of crack cocaine instead of powder, all things that Jarrett said have disproportionately benefited them. And to drive black voters to turn out in record numbers on Election Day, the president's supporters must work blacks into a frenzy by harping on the disrespect and racist comments that have been heaped upon Obama by right-wingers.

Understandably, Jarrett doesn't want to stir the racial cauldron. But if Obama is going to get the black turnout he needs, somebody's got to constantly remind them of the race-baiting language supporters of Republican Mitt Romney are using to mine votes for him.

The truth is that for Obama, some voters are not "getable." The presence of a black president in the White House is an immutable offense to a hard core of Obama's opponents. To overcome this racism hurdle, the president's re-election campaign must find a way to get blacks — the Democratic Party's most loyal constituency — to the polls in droves on Election Day.

DeWayne Wickham writes on Tuesdays for USA TODAY.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

Vel�zquez and Dilan Clash in Debate Among Four Seeking House Seat

Ms. Velázquez and Mr. Dilan took part in a forum on NY1’s “Inside City Hall,” along with the two other candidates in the June 26 Democratic primary for New York’s redrawn Seventh Congressional District, which includes parts of Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan.

Dan O’Connor, an economist who is making his first bid for public office, criticized Ms. Velázquez for voting for the bank bailout and against auditing the Federal Reserve, noting that much of her campaign war chest came from the banking industry.

“At the end of the day, whoever writes the checks in Washington writes the policies,” said Mr. O’Connor, who called the role of money in politics a more pressing issue than the economy.

Ms. Velázquez responded that a watchdog group had said she was among the members of Congress least influenced by money.

The fourth candidate, George Martinez, a hip-hop artist and Occupy Wall Street activist, called his rivals “model politicians of a broken system.” He said Ms. Velázquez had been timid about pushing for progressive policies and asked Mr. Dilan about donations he has received from real estate developers.

“I’ve always voted the conscience of my district,” Mr. Dilan responded. Ms. Velázquez said she had secured federal money for public housing and small-business loans.

Ms. Velázquez was asked by the moderator to describe an instance in which she “broke with a political establishment.”

Ms. Velázquez, who was endorsed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on Friday, replied: “I’ve been independent, I’ve been progressive, and basically, I have no relationship with the party boss from Brooklyn.”

Mr. Dilan has denied Ms. Velázquez’s accusations that he is challenging her at the behest of Assemblyman Vito J. Lopez, the head of the Brooklyn Democratic Party.

Mr. Dilan accused Ms. Velázquez of being virtually “appointed” by party bosses when she was first elected 20 years ago.

View the original article here

State Senator Adriano Espaillat Runs for the House on Pride and Energy

Tired?

“Nah, I’m feeling good,” he said. “I just had a Power Bar.”

Mr. Espaillat, a Democratic state senator from Washington Heights, was on the last leg of a day that began inside an uptown subway station, asking commuters escaping the rain for their votes. He snatched a quick breakfast (a bagel with cream cheese and lox), shot downtown for a meeting, rode up to Albany while making campaign calls, and met lobbyists and legislators at the Capitol before returning to New York City to speak to constituents and check in at his office.

It is this combustible pace that Mr. Espaillat, 57, has been trying to sell as his greatest advantage over the four-decade incumbent, Representative Charles B. Rangel, in next week’s Democratic primary for Congress.

While Mr. Rangel, 82, has been arriving at campaign stops with the help of a walker and maintaining a relatively relaxed schedule, Mr. Espaillat has been feverishly bouncing around the Upper Manhattan and Bronx district, articulating a vision that focuses heavily on immigration reform, job creation, affordable housing and access to higher education.

“I’m going to bring a fresh new view and voice to the 13th Congressional District that I think is entirely needed,” Mr. Espaillat said. “New ideas, new energy.”

Mr. Espaillat, who is seeking to become the first Dominican-born congressman and expresses unabashed ethnic pride, is widely seen as Mr. Rangel’s most serious challenger since he won office in 1970 because the district is, for the first time, a majority Hispanic.

Until recently, Mr. Espaillat had avoided sharply criticizing Mr. Rangel in public. But during a televised debate with Mr. Rangel and the three other candidates last week, Mr. Espaillat took aim at the ethics charges that led to Mr. Rangel’s censure two years ago.

“As a result of that, we lost 60 Democratic seats in the Congress, and the Tea Party radicals invaded Congress and are pushing back on Obama,” Mr. Espaillat said. “So he became the poster child for dysfunction in Washington.”

Mr. Espaillat’s critics have accused him of overzealous campaign tactics. Moises Perez, Mr. Rangel’s campaign manager, said supporters of Mr. Espaillat had branded Mr. Perez and other Dominicans supporting Mr. Rangel as traitors. “That’s a very heavy-handed style of campaigning that turns people off,” Mr. Perez said.

And last month, Mr. Espaillat said he would not refuse the support of an anti-incumbent “super PAC” that is mostly funded by businessmen who back conservative causes. Asked to explain his position last week, Mr. Espaillat offered a different stance: he said he was “rejecting any super PACs from getting involved in this campaign.”

With a public-service career that started as a community organizer and crime victims’ rights advocate in Washington Heights, Mr. Espaillat has long held high political ambitions. He often invokes personal experiences when advocating for a cause or bill, supporters say.

“When he locks into an issue, he locks into an issue and he doesn’t let go until he gets resolution,” said Senator José Peralta, a Democrat of Queens.

Assemblyman Phil Ramos, a Democrat from Long Island, said that Mr. Espaillat taught him the art of compromise.

“He said that, as an elected official, if we can win 80 percent of what we want, then next year we live to fight for only 20 percent,” Mr. Ramos recalled. But if you “go for 100 percent, the end result could be that our community ends up with nothing.”

Mr. Espaillat says he is a descendant of one of the Dominican Republic’s most notable political figures — Ulises Francisco Espaillat, who held the presidency for about five months in 1876.

The family moved to Washington Heights in 1964, when Mr. Espaillat was 9, and one of the first things he did on American soil was to touch the snow on the airport tarmac. His father purchased a gas station in East New York, Brooklyn, where Mr. Espaillat helped out.

Mr. Espaillat was introduced to politics through a summer youth program run by a Baptist preacher. After graduating from Queens College, he worked in criminal justice, first for the city and then as a liaison between his community and the police.

“I remember Adriano walking up on the corner and talking to gang members and telling them to stop doing what they were doing,” said Roberto Lizardo, who worked closely in community activism with Mr. Espaillat.

Mr. Espaillat lost two races for City Council; the second, in 1991, was won by Guillermo Linares, who became New York’s first Dominican-born elected official. In 1996, he won election to the Assembly, and became the first Dominican to hold office in Albany; he was elected to the State Senate in 2010.

Mr. Espaillat, who dances bachata and merengue, decorated his Albany office with paintings from the Dominican Republic, including one of a twin-steeple church in Santiago and another of a broad-shouldered marchanta balancing a basket of flowers on her head. Two glittery, horned Carnival masks that Mr. Espaillat made hang from a wood-paneled wall.

He has been “very aggressive about Dominican pride, very aggressive about furthering the Dominican people, very aggressive about putting a focus on making sure that Dominicans get their fair share,” said Assemblyman Daniel J. O’Donnell, who has endorsed Mr. Rangel.

He also became a die-hard Yankees fan; so much so that years later, as a lawmaker, he put on a Yankees hat and professed his love for the team while he and other legislators were presenting a Mets player with an award.

Gregarious and blunt, Mr. Espaillat balances his days of nonstop politicking with levity.“How come you’re looking sad today?” Mr. Espaillat sang at a tollbooth agent (he refuses to get an EZ Pass).

There were also quiet moments, like when Mr. Espaillat made the sign of the cross when he got behind the wheel, or when he mumbled a song coming from the radio: “In the midnight hour, she cries more, more, more.”

View the original article here

Re-Election Tricky for House Republican Freshmen

“I’ve got butterflies,” Mr. Schilling, Republican of Illinois, said as he walked into a news conference about a bridge that has needed renovation for years, one that Democrats have accused him of abandoning by backing a Republican ban on setting aside federal money for such home-state projects.

“If Durbin is here,” he said, referring to Senator Richard J. Durbin, the state’s senior senator, “I’ll give it right back.”

He looked around and saw that Mr. Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate and a man unafraid of a partisan confrontation, was absent. “Whew,” he said. “Makes things smoother.”

During his 2010 campaign, Mr. Schilling, a pizza parlor owner and political novice, labored to persuade people that a Republican deserved a chance in a seat that Democrats had held for almost three decades. Now, like scores of other Republican freshmen across the country who triumphed that year in a Republican wave, he must prove he should be permitted to stay.

For Mr. Schilling and roughly two dozen other Tea Party-backed Republican freshmen who now find themselves in districts where there are more registered Democrats than Republicans, a re-election campaign is a remarkably tricky task.

They are the subject of constant attack ads, assailing them for votes on a budget that would change the Medicare system, accusing them of trying to curtail protections for women and criticizing their support for earmark bans that could impede local projects. But they are also scrutinized by conservative activists who were crucial to their election and want to make sure they do not stray too far from Tea Party orthodoxy in pursuit of a second term.

Republican freshmen like Chip Cravaack of Minnesota, Robert Dold of Illinois and Ann Marie Buerkle of New York are among those eager to prove that they are more than flukes who rode in on a wave only to paddle back out to the sea of one-termers.

It is one thing to run as an outsider taking aim at Washington dysfunction; when you are the incumbent, with Congressional license plates and a voting record for all to see, it is a whole new ballgame.

“Here’s the problem,” Mr. Schilling said. Colleagues in highly Republican districts “put up bills that make them look tough back home,” he said, “and that makes for tough votes.”

He recalled another freshman lawmaker, from a safe district in Indiana, who criticized him for “voting like a Democrat.” “I said, ‘I’ve got to vote my district, thank you very much!’ ” said Mr. Schilling, who punctuates most of his sentences with a blinding smile, a hearty laugh and “Oh, my goodness!”

Nice try, local Democrats say. “He is out of step with the district,” said Steve Brown, a spokesman for the Democratic Party of Illinois. “I don’t know what he puts forth to voters that would make them retain him.” Mr. Brown said Mr. Schilling’s challenger, Cheri Bustos, a onetime alderwoman from East Moline and former baby sitter to Mr. Durbin’s children, would return the district to the Democrats.

In recent months, in part to curry favor with crucial independent voters who wish for more comity in Congress, some freshmen in closely contested districts have worked to be more bipartisan. They have spoken out against their party’s bill for long-term transportation funding and voted for measures that they had originally campaigned against.

“When it came to the debt ceiling vote, I once said, ‘Oh, I’d never do one of those,’ ” Mr. Schilling said. “But when you came down to the reality of what would happen if we didn’t, and I talked to local businesses about that,” the need to vote yes became clear, he said.

At a series of public stops on Monday, he bragged repeatedly about his work with Representative Dave Loebsack, Democrat of Iowa, to pester Illinois for money to fix the aforementioned bridge, which links their states and districts.

But Mr. Schilling and other Republicans, perhaps believing that their message will be embraced by swing voters worried about the budget deficit, still dish out plenty of tough talk against Democratic lawmakers and President Obama.

“They are very anti-capitalist,” Mr. Schilling told a dozen female Republican volunteers, who call themselves the Old Glories because all are over 70, during a recess trip home. Responding to one woman who asked whether he thought Mr. Obama had campaigned in 2008 with a strategy “to make America fail,” Mr. Schilling said of the slow economic recovery, “A lot of people think this is being done on purpose.”

View the original article here

‘Super PAC’ Backs Adriano Espaillat in House Race Against Charles Rangel

The group, called the Campaign for Primary Accountability, has received most of its financing from a few businessmen with histories of donating to Republican causes, but it describes itself as nonpartisan and says its mission is to defeat longtime Congressional incumbents on the right and the left.

The group’s spokesman, Curtis Ellis, said its aim was to counterbalance the advantages enjoyed by incumbents, which, he said, made them less answerable to their constituents.

“We call ourselves ‘the equalizer,’ ” Mr. Ellis said.

The group got involved in Mr. Rangel’s race because it believed that he was vulnerable and that Mr. Espaillat was “a real challenger,” Mr. Ellis said.

“If you look at the support that Mr. Espaillat has been able to attract — that, combined with our own survey research — is what tells us that there is an opening here,” he said.

Mr. Ellis did not specify how much the group planned to spend in the race, but he said it generally spent “in the six-figure range” in House races. He said the money would most likely be spent on direct mail, online advertising, voter outreach and targeted ethnic media buys.

“Congressman Rangel, for all he has done, has become the model of what happens when incumbents get too comfortable with the special interests that operate in Washington,” Mr. Ellis said.

The PAC’s decision to assist Mr. Espaillat was first reported by the State of Politics blog.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Rangel’s campaign, Ronnie Sykes, said in a statement: “You can learn a lot about an elected official by who their enemies are. These conservatives know that the congressman is one of the most effective legislators in Congress and is a progressive champion.”

Mr. Espaillat is the most prominent of several Democratic candidates hoping to defeat Mr. Rangel in a primary on June 26. Mr. Rangel, 81, has long been one of the most powerful black politicians in the country, but several factors — including an ethics scandal, a redrawn district that is now majority Latino and back problems that hospitalized him this year — have made the race appear competitive.

Mr. Rangel returned to Washington on Monday for the first time in several months. He sat in the front row of the House as fellow Democrats greeted him with hugs and handshakes, and colleagues held a reception in his honor on Monday evening.

Earlier in the day, President Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney, appeared to hesitate when asked if the president was going to support Mr. Rangel’s re-election.

“I’ll have to get back to you on that,” Mr. Carney said.

In a radio interview on Tuesday, Mr. Espaillat was asked by Fredric U. Dicker, the state editor of The New York Post, about the changing demographics in the district and whether his campaign would emphasize ethnic themes.

“It’s really a response to the needs of the constituents across the district — not just the Latinos, but, you know, African-Americans, you know, Asians, whites,” Mr. Espaillat responded, adding that everyone “really wants a change.”

“When Charlie Rangel got elected back in 1970, the year before, man walked on the moon,” Mr. Espaillat, 57, said. “The Mets won a championship, the first championship; Joe Namath was throwing touchdown passes for the Jets; and Nixon was president. So that was a long time ago, and that district has really evolved into a new district, a very diverse district.”

View the original article here

North Carolina a Front in Democrats’ Battle for House

“Those are decisions they had to make on a personal level,” said Mr. Kissell, whose district outside Charlotte has gone from being mildly Republican in his first election in 2008 to 12 percentage points in favor of the opposition party now. “I really view this as being a job of serving the public. It’s not a campaign for me; it’s just doing our job. And if we do a good job, the results will go our way.”

Republicans have a different view. They see North Carolina as the state that stands between Democrats and their dreams of retaking the House.

Congressional redistricting, a decennial process that generally allows the party in legislative power in each state to draw new lines, has not created many opportunities for new seats for Republicans, as the party’s leaders once expected. But it has forced multiple House Democrats, viewing their odds in new districts as slim, into retirement. Many of those districts are now either in play or solidly Republican, making the climb for Democrats all that more onerous.

On paper, Democrats need a net gain of 25 seats to take back House control. In reality, the number is closer to 30 or even 35, since the party is likely not only to lose the seats of retiring Democrats in North Carolina, but also to face tougher odds in Arkansas, California, Oklahoma, Indiana, Illinois and perhaps in Arizona, in the district once served by former Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

Over all, 15 Democrats have announced their retirements from the House, compared with 10 Republicans. Seven Democrats and eight Republicans have also opted to run for other offices. Among the lot, Republicans leave far more safe seats behind than their Democratic counterparts.

Of the seats where members are not seeking re-election, just two — one in Illinois and the other in California — have the potential to flip from Republican to Democrat, said David Wasserman, House editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, while at least six seats held by Democrats are at risk of falling to Republicans, thanks to new lines. Among those are the North Carolina seats being vacated by Representatives Heath Shuler and Brad Miller.

“Democrats are at a disadvantage because of these retirements,” Mr. Wasserman said. “Those retirements have hamstrung their requirements of picking up the 25 seats they need.”

Between the retirements and new office seekers, members who have already been picked off in primary battles and the addition of new Congressional seats in some states via redistricting, 56 House seats are now left without incumbents, the highest number since 1992, Mr. Wasserman said. This has led both parties to study maps obsessively, looking for new places to eke out victory. Both will find them, but Democrats will find fewer on balance.

“Democrats are feeling the Tar Heel blues in North Carolina and across the country, with Democrats choosing to retire rather than be saddled with the albatross of a failed Obama economic agenda,” said Andrea Bozek, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “These retirements serve as a cautionary sign of the troubles House Democrats face with Barack Obama on the ballot in November.”

The retirements of Mr. Shuler and Mr. Miller, both veteran lawmakers who won in tricky political terrain, have been a blow to Democrats here in North Carolina, and Mr. Kissell and Representative Mike McIntyre have been pressed into districts with steep Republican advantages.

All the Democrats running for re-election here know they are laboring in a state that Republicans feel is their Illinois — the one state where Democrats had a firm hand on redistricting and used it to cause Republicans potential harm — and often hear discomforting words like “bloodbath” describing their prospects here.

But the party is not going down without a fight. Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Kissell are both well known in their districts, even the newer parts, in a state where voters are sometimes known to vote Republican for president and Democratic for the House. Mr. Obama’s re-election efforts will be in full force here — the Democratic National Convention will be in Charlotte — and all Democrats will benefit from his team’s get-out-the-vote efforts among base voters in a state he carried in 2008.

“I am a firm believer and still have confidence in North Carolina voters,” said Hayden Rogers, the longtime chief of staff to Mr. Shuler who, after failing to persuade his boss to run again, decided to go for the seat himself. “I think they are looking for candidates who are rational, and they are less inclined to vote by political affiliation.”

Finally, Democrats here are used to running uphill.

“I am not going to sugarcoat it,” said Representative Steve Israel of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “It is always hard to lose a valued colleague, but we’re not going to concede North Carolina. Our incumbents survived the toughest climate in recent political history: 2010. They know how to win independents, they know how to win Republicans, they are battle tested, they are field ready, they did it before and they’ll do it again.”

Richard Hudson, a former Congressional staff member, smells opportunity. He is running among a handful of others in the Republican primary in the Eighth District, where Republicans hope to pick off Mr. Kissell. “Part of the challenge is name identification,” Mr. Hudson conceded. “My name ID is 10 percent. Larry Kissell’s is 70 percent.”

But, Mr. Hudson said, under redistricting, Mr. Kissell “does not match the district.” For instance, Mr. Hudson said, while Mr. Kissell voted against the health care law, he did not vote for repeal.

As he walks around the district, Mr. Hudson applies the rules he has learned on the trail. Do not step on lawns; use the walkway. Never sneak up on someone mowing the grass. Do not be too pushy.

“I’m aware of your face!” exclaimed one resident of Concord as he slipped into her yard. Mr. Hudson seemed pleased.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: April 19, 2012

An earlier version of this article misspelled the surname of Representative Heath Shuler on second reference.

View the original article here

Final Approval by House Sends Jobs Bill to President for Signature

The 380-to-41 House vote added a final exclamation point for the JOBS Act, which passed the House overwhelmingly early this month and easily passed the Senate last Thursday. Because the Senate amended the House version to add some investor protections, the House had to take it back up for a vote before sending it to the White House.

“The bipartisan JOBS Act represents an increasingly rare legislative victory in Washington where both sides seized the opportunity to work together, improved the bill and passed it with strong bipartisan support,” said Representative Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, the House majority leader and the primary architect of the package.

The JOBS Act started as a cluster of minor bills that had bipartisan support and little opposition. Many of them originated at the White House out of the recommendations of Mr. Obama’s jobs council, a group of business and labor leaders whose final report made few waves.

But with the economy still looming large in the 2012 campaign, Republicans and Democrats — Mr. Obama among them — found it advantageous to pump up those modest measures into legislation promoted as a significant effort to hasten the recovery of the labor market.

“As the clock moves relentlessly toward November, people are going to have to show results,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon and a supporter of the measure.

The JOBS Act would designate a new category of “emerging growth” companies that could conduct initial public offerings of stock while being exempt from certain financial disclosure and governance requirements for up to five years. It would also provide a new form of financing to small companies. Through crowd-funding, or the sale of small amounts of stock to many individuals, companies could solicit equity investments through the Internet or elsewhere, raising up to $1 million annually without being required to register the shares for public trading with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Supporters see it as a breakthrough for entrepreneurs who hope to build an enterprise around sometimes offbeat ideas without having to sell them to larger companies.

But a few detractors worry that the measure will bring back the “boiler rooms” of the 1990s Internet stock bubble, where hucksters peddle stock tips to unwitting amateur investors. Pension funds, the lobby for older Americans AARP and the chairwoman of the securities commission had opposed aspects of the bill.

Amy Borrus, a spokeswoman for the Council of Institutional Investors, an investor watchdog group, said small companies — the focus of the new bill’s relaxed regulations — are particularly prone to fraud and accounting scandals. Senators did add some investor protections, but not enough, she said.

“We may rue the day this bill passed,” Ms. Borrus said Tuesday.

Under the JOBS bill, companies with up to $1 billion in annual revenue would be free to ignore — for their first five years as a public company — regulations that were put in place after the end of the dot-com bubble and the collapse of Enron.

Among them are requirements to hire an independent outside auditor to attest to a company’s internal financial controls and restrictions on how financial analysts interact with investment bankers in promoting a company’s stock.

The bill also allows some companies to advertise for investors in almost any medium, a provision that skeptical regulators contend will mainly benefit the sale of worthless securities by brokerage firms.

Senate Democrats did add some investor protections that were ratified Tuesday by the House. Senators added a provision to ensure that any company using crowd-funding methods must still file some basic information with the securities commission, including the names of directors, officers and holders of more than 20 percent of the company’s shares, plus a description of the business and its financial condition.

Companies seeking to raise $100,000 or less must also provide tax returns and a financial statement certified by a company principal; those raising up to $500,000 must provide financial statements that are reviewed by an independent public accountant.

The Senate also inserted requirements that intermediaries seeking to help companies raise money through crowd-funding must register with the commission, make sure investors are advised of the risks they are taking, and take measures to prevent fraud.

View the original article here

In House Races, Redistricting a Hurdle for New York Democrats

The Democratic Party suddenly faces the prospect of having to play defense in pockets around the state this fall, as Congressional districts once considered safe for the party have become more vulnerable, partly as a result of new Congressional maps put in place by a federal court.

For months, national Democrats had been counting on gains in New York to help the party pick up a few of the 25 additional seats it needs to reclaim the House. The situation developing in New York could undermine that strategy. But top Democrats insist that their incumbents are in strong positions and that the party will pick up seats, particularly since President Obama is at the top of the ticket and remains popular throughout the state.

House Republicans face their own challenges in the state, as top Democrats in Washington point out. Several Republican incumbents — most of them freshmen who took office in 2010 with the Tea Party support — must defend their seats against potentially strong Democratic challengers.

The Democrats

Representative Kathy Hochul, District 27

A first-term Democrat, Ms. Hochul is considered among the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents in New York. She achieved national prominence last year when she won a special election in a conservative district in the Buffalo area by turning the race into a referendum on a Republican proposal in Washington to overhaul Medicare.

The new Congressional map has made her district even more Republican, making her re-election prospects more difficult. Two Republicans are seeking the nomination to run against her: Chris Collins, the former Erie County executive; and David Bellavia, a veteran of the Iraq war and a Tea Party activist.

Representative Louise Slaughter, District 25

After serving nearly 25 years in Congress, Ms. Slaughter may be facing the most difficult challenge of her career. As a result of the new Congressional map, her district was consolidated into Monroe County, becoming slightly more Republican but still predominantly Democratic.

Now, Maggie A. Brooks, the popular Republican county executive in Monroe, has entered the race to unseat Ms. Slaughter, buoyed by the fact that her political base is in the heart of the congresswoman’s new district.

Representative Bill Owens, District 21

Mr. Owens, who represents this conservative district in northernmost upstate New York, initially won his seat in a 2009 special election and was re-elected the next year. In both instances, Mr. Owens won with less than 50 percent of the vote. And in both instances, his candidacy was helped by a third-party Conservative candidate who undercut the Republicans.

But that is unlikely to happen this year because Republicans and Conservatives appear to be coalescing behind Matthew A. Doheny, the Republican candidate who lost to Mr. Owens in 2010. Another Republican, Kellie Greene, is also seeking to run against Mr. Owens.

Representative Timothy H. Bishop, District 1

On Long Island, Mr. Bishop, a five-term Democrat, is girding for a rematch with Randy Altschuler, a successful Republican businessman who nearly defeated the congressman in 2010. Mr. Altschuler is an aggressive campaigner, having spent $2.9 million of his own money in 2010.

Mr. Altschuler got a lift recently when he received the endorsement of the Independence Party. That could make a difference, Republicans say, given that Mr. Altschuler lost to Mr. Bishop by a slim margin in the moderate district, which stretches across the eastern half of Long Island.

The Republicans

Representative Ann Marie Buerkle, District 24

Ms. Buerkle, a Republican, who won her seat in the Syracuse area in a big upset in 2010, is hoping to prove that her election was no fluke. But Republicans and Democrats alike say Ms. Buerkle, a Tea Party favorite, faces an uphill battle in the new district, which analysts say leans Democratic.

Ms. Buerkle is going up against the man she defeated in 2010, Dan Maffei, an aggressive campaigner who has already amassed about as much money as she has.

Representative Chris Gibson, District 19

The new Congressional map severely undercut Mr. Gibson, a first-term Republican who won in 2010. Mr. Gibson’s district went from being a Republican-leaning district to a swing district that Democrats believe they have a strong shot at picking up.

Mr. Gibson is facing a challenge by a political newcomer, Julian Schriebman, a former chairman of the Ulster County Democratic Party who is running on his experience as a federal prosecutor who tried terrorists.

Representative Nan Hayworth, District 18

In 2010, Ms. Hayworth, a first-term Republican from the suburbs north of New York City, won her seat with strong Tea Party support against a Democratic incumbent who fellow Democrats say underestimated her. But Democrats and independent analysts say she is vulnerable this year.

No fewer than four Democrats have lined up to run against her, including Sean Patrick Maloney, an aide to former Gov. Eliot Spitzer; Tom Wilson, the mayor of Tuxedo Park; Rich Becker, a town councilman in Cortlandt; and Matt Alexander, the mayor of Wappingers Falls.

Representative Michael G. Grimm, District 11

Mr. Grimm, a Republican who captured his seat in 2010 with strong support from the Tea Party, has found himself enmeshed in a controversy that Democrats say makes him vulnerable.

Mr. Grimm, who represents a district that includes Staten Island and part of western Brooklyn, has been facing intense scrutiny after The New York Times reported in January that his lead fund-raiser in the 2010 campaign was under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Some donors said Mr. Grimm and the fund-raiser indicated that they would accept illegal donations. Republicans have stood behind Mr. Grimm, who has denied any wrongdoing.

Democrats, in the meantime, are getting behind Mark Murphy, the son of a former congressman, after failing to recruit Michael E. McMahon, the candidate who lost to Mr. Grimm in 2010.

View the original article here

Hoyer predicts Democrats win back House if economic upswing continues - CNN

20 hours ago CNN Senior Congressional Producer Deirdre Walsh Washington (CNN) – The No. 2 House Democrat predicted Thursday that, if the economy continues to improve, Democrats will win control of the House of Representatives in November.

"I think our chances are reasonably good that we can take back the House, and if the economy continues to perform as it's been performing, I think we will take back the House," House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, told reporters in his Capitol Hill office.

– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker
– Follow Deirdre Walsh on Twitter: @deirdrewalshcnn

The Maryland Democrat argued that out of the 76 Congressional districts that House Democrats are focused on this November, "no less than 50 of these districts are really solid opportunities for us."

Democrats need to pick up 25 House seats to regain the majority in the House.

Hoyer cited a divided Republican Party - both in Congress and in the GOP 2012 presidential nominating process - as factors that position Democrats well in the fall election.

More than any other issue Hoyer said the economy will be what voters focus on in November, "If it's better we'll do better, if its worse it will affect us."

But the top-level House Democrat said his party learned a lesson from the last election when voters were unhappy they didn't focus enough on the issue and tossed them out of the majority. This time around he believes Democrats will be helped by the president being at the top of the ticket and traveling the country talking about his efforts to boost the recovery.

While Hoyer acknowledged that the backlash to the health care debate was a liability for Democrats in 2010, he argued that it will actually help the party this fall as seniors see lower drug prices, and younger Americans who aren't employed become eligible for health care coverage.

In addition, Hoyer said the tea party won't play the same role it did in the last election, when it helped elect GOP candidates. He cited his own race two years ago when he faced a tea party-backed candidate, who drew sizeable support because of his (Hoyer's) support of the health care bill. But after a couple of years of GOP control of the House that has seen fights over spending and few legislative accomplishments, the Democratic leader believes those activists may be less energized.

"The tea party is probably saying 'geez this isn't working,'" Hoyer said of Republican control in the House.

As the battle among Republicans for the presidential nomination continues to play out, the House Democratic Whip said the attacks on former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will help Democrats.

"Where Romney I think has been wounded over the last six months I think Obama has been strengthened over the last six months," Hoyer noted.

The latest news from CNN's political team with campaign coverage 24-7.  For complete political coverage, bookmark PoliticalTicker.blogs.cnn.com as well as CNNPolitics.com.

View the original article here

Study shows health care bill may have cost Democrats the House - Washington Post

???initialComments:true! pubdate:03/09/2012 11:15 EST! commentPeriod:14! commentEndDate:3/23/12 12:15 EDT! currentDate:3/8/12 7:0 EST! allowComments:true! displayComments:true!Posted by Aaron Blake at 11:15 AM ET, 03/09/2012

A top Democrat acknowledged Thursday that President Obama’s health care bill hurt his party in 2010. And a new study suggests it cost the Democrats something pretty specific: their House majority.

“It was clearly a liability in the last election in terms of the public’s fear,” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Thursday during a briefing with reporters.

The study, by five professors from institutions across the country, looks at the health care bill alongside other contentious votes in the 111th Congress and determines that, more so than the stimulus or the cap-and-trade energy bill, it cost Democrats seats. In fact, they lost almost exactly the number of seats that decided the majority.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) after the House vote on the payroll tax cut extension in December. (REUTERS/Yuri Gripas)

The study ran 10,000 simulations of a scenario in which all vulnerable Democrats voted against the health care bill and found that the rejections would have saved Democrats an average of 25 seats, which would have made the House parties close to a tie. (Republicans won 63 seats overall, but the study suggests around 25 of them would have been salvaged.)

In 62 percent of the simulations, Democrats were able to keep the House.

The study uses district-level data to show that the vote created “ideological distance” between the Democratic members of Congress and the median voters in their districts, compared with similar districts where the Democratic incumbent voted against the bill.

“Democratic incumbents who supported health care reform were seen as more liberal on average by their constituents than those who did not,” the study says.

The study comes at an important time for the health care bill — just as it’s threatening to become a major issue again in the 2012 election.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to take up a challenge to the individual mandate portion of the bill later this month when it holds oral arguments. Republicans are licking their chops, hoping to rekindle the kind of enthusiasm they reaped from attacking the bill two years ago, just as enthusiasm seems to be on the decline in the GOP.

Democrats, meanwhile, are planning to celebrate the two-year anniversary of the bill’s passage later this month as part of an ongoing effort to make sure the bill isn’t a political liability going forward.

Hoyer said that whatever harm the bill might have caused his party electorally two years ago, the effects are more mitigated now.

“I think some of the fears they had have not been realized,” Hoyer said. ”Therefore, I think you’ve dissipated the opposition. Republicans are going to use it, but I don’t think it’s as fertile soil as they had two years ago.”

The health care bill, in many ways, is a kind of sleeping giant. But it’s about to be awakened, and how the parties navigate the issue in the coming weeks and months will go a long way toward determining how the 2012 election pans out.

Associated Press 

Felicia Sonmez 

Rosalind S. Helderman 

Glenn Kessler 

Nia-malika Henderson 

T.w. Farnam 

Chris Cillizza; Aaron Blake 

Rachel Weiner 

::unspecified:: 

Lisa Rein 

Al Kamen 

Jason Horowitz 

Rachel Weiner 

Karen Tumulty 

Glenn Kessler 

Aaron Blake 

Aaron Blake 

Sari Horwitz 

View the original article here