Obama on Budget: Let’s Cut the Right Things

Add to Briefcase
April 6, 2011, 11:10 a.m.

Doña Ana Co. DA Susana Mar­tinez (R) “has erased a fun­drais­ing ad­vant­age” that LG Di­ane Den­ish (D) “en­joyed for much of the cam­paign.”

Want More On This Race? Check out the Hot­line Dash­board for a com­pre­hens­ive run­down of this race, in­clud­ing stor­ies, polls, ads, FEC num­bers, and more!

Mar­tinez “col­lec­ted” $1.4M since 9/7 and has $1.3M cash-on-hand as of 10/4 while Den­ish has $950K cash-on-hand.

The RGA was “the top donor to Mar­tinez” giv­ing $500K.

“Labor uni­ons were the largest con­tri­bu­tions to Den­ish.” AF­SCME and NM’s NEA “each con­trib­uted” $100K. The DGA gave $50K and “sep­ar­ately re­por­ted spend­ing” $385K “for TV ads in the past month” (Mas­sey, AP, 10/13).

Den­ish “has tried to make an is­sue of Mar­tinez re­ceiv­ing large dona­tions from Texas res­id­ents. … Sev­er­al Tex­ans donated” $10K a piece to Mar­tinez” (Ter­rell, Sante Fe New Mex­ic­an, 10/13).

It cer­tainly wasn’t just me; a lot of ana­lysts got some push-back for be­ing so defin­it­ively sure that the 2012 Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­en­tial nom­in­ee wouldn’t be former God­fath­er’s Pizza CEO Her­man Cain. As Cain surged in the polls, with many con­ser­vat­ives lov­ing both his mes­sage and de­liv­ery, many people wondered how we could be so dis­missive.

(RE­LATED: Cain Cam­paign Man­ager: ‘End of Story’)

Polit­ic­al ana­lys­is or pun­ditry (al­though I hate the term) has a rocky re­cord. We at The Cook Polit­ic­al Re­port are quite proud to be at the front of the pack — hav­ing pre­dicted both the Demo­crat­ic wave in 2006 and the GOP one in 2010. We also foresaw the 1994 wave, though we un­der­es­tim­ated how many seats Re­pub­lic­ans would ul­ti­mately cap­ture. But some­times we miss the mark. In the sum­mer of 2007, I was quite sure that Sen. John Mc­Cain‘s bid for the Re­pub­lic­an nom­in­a­tion was ef­fect­ively dead and aw­fully skep­tic­al that then-Sen. Barack Obama would beat then-Sen. Hil­lary Rod­ham Clin­ton for the Demo­crat­ic nod. Both as­sess­ments were ob­vi­ously wrong. But we — and here I would in­clude our biggest com­pet­it­ors (and good friends), Stu Rothen­berg and Nath­an Gonzales at The Rothen­berg Polit­ic­al Re­port — are ac­tu­ally pretty good at what we do, look­ing at things as clin­ic­ally and pro­fes­sion­ally as we pos­sibly can.

Com­ing on the heels of the short-lived surge to the top of the GOP polls of Min­nesota’s Rep. Michele Bach­mann and, more re­cently, Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s brief ten­ure as front-run­ner, Cain’s as­cend­ancy seemed par­tic­u­larly tenu­ous and even du­bi­ous. There is a long list of dark-horse can­did­ates who have won or come close to cap­tur­ing pres­id­en­tial nom­in­a­tions. And there was al­ways a nuc­le­us of real strategists, a cam­paign in­fra­struc­ture, and a strategy that had po­si­tioned the long-shot to take ad­vant­age of un­ex­pec­ted op­por­tun­it­ies.

Wheth­er you are talk­ing about George McGov­ern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1976, Howard Dean in 2004, or even the second com­ing of Mc­Cain in 2008, they had con­sid­er­ably more of a cam­paign ap­par­at­us than Cain. Their cam­paigns were of­ten un­ortho­dox, but their ac­tions were rarely ran­dom. They didn’t surge to the top based on seat-of-the-pants de­cisions.

In short, there was meth­od to their mad­ness. With Her­man Cain’s can­did­acy, there hasn’t been. There has been min­im­al fun­drais­ing. There has been truly bizarre schedul­ing that only seemed to make sense in the con­text of selling auto­graphed books at $100 apiece. (Why else would you go on a two-day bus trip of the length of Ten­ness­ee, which doesn’t vote un­til March 6)? My hunch is that Cain’s surge sur­prised no one more than Cain him­self.

But there was more. Sev­er­al weeks ago, word star­ted cir­cu­lat­ing that Cain’s busi­ness re­cord was not quite as im­press­ive as he claims, spe­cific­ally as it relates to his ten­ure as head of the Na­tion­al Res­taur­ant As­so­ci­ation. Some of his peers privately said that they were as­ton­ished at how he was be­ing por­trayed. They said that his less than three-year ten­ure (rather brief in the Wash­ing­ton trade-as­so­ci­ation world) was rocky and that the res­taur­ant folks couldn’t get rid of him soon enough — pos­sibly be­cause of sexu­al-har­ass­ment al­leg­a­tions. They said it took some time to get the as­so­ci­ation back on sound fin­an­cial foot­ing after he left. Some who worked with Cain said that he spent con­sid­er­able time run­ning around the coun­try giv­ing speeches and that he was a policy light­weight, both in­tern­ally and ex­tern­ally. But they hes­it­ated to be more spe­cif­ic.

Sunday’s re­port in Politico that fe­male sub­or­din­ates com­plained of in­ap­pro­pri­ate be­ha­vi­or by Cain said they had re­ceived five-fig­ure set­tle­ments to leave the res­taur­ant as­so­ci­ation and keep quiet. This was little more than the shoe that many had been wait­ing to drop. Cain denied the al­leg­a­tions. But if there is doc­u­ment­a­tion of any set­tle­ment, as there ap­pears to be, his deni­al will hardly suf­fice.

This will prob­ably be the be­gin­ning of the end for Cain’s surge, giv­ing Perry something of a second wind. Perry had the fund­ing, or­gan­iz­a­tion, and net­work to sur­vive his tough peri­od, al­though he re­mains dam­aged mer­chand­ise. It’s a de­cent bet that the GOP race will re­turn to how it was after Perry stumbled but be­fore Cain picked up steam. Perry has enough go­ing for him to be the con­ser­vat­ive al­tern­at­ive to front-run­ner Mitt Rom­ney. Wheth­er he can ac­tu­ally over­take the former Mas­sachu­setts gov­ernor is an­oth­er mat­ter, even though two-thirds of the GOP is more ideo­lo­gic­ally in tune with him than with the more “old es­tab­lish­ment,” less-con­ser­vat­ive Rom­ney.

Con­ven­tion­al wis­dom holds that can­did­ates be­ne­fit when they lock down the nom­in­a­tion early. But many be­lieve that Obama was a stronger gen­er­al-elec­tion can­did­ate after sur­viv­ing and hon­ing his skills in his knock­down, drag-out fight with Clin­ton. There is no ques­tion that Rom­ney now be­ne­fits from hav­ing run in 2008, get­ting in­to this race early, and test­ing his 2012 mes­sages be­fore the de­bates and wall-to-wall cov­er­age began. Perry would have sim­il­arly be­nefited from an earli­er en­trance, a shake­down cruise be­fore the TV lights went on.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.