R.I.P., Dale Bumpers

---

---

Dale Bumpers must be a patron saint for anyone who dreams of coming from nowhere and winning whatever the greatest prize in that person's chosen profession happens to be. Bumpers' profession — his calling, if you choose to call it that — was in politics.

He may not be the patron saint of all such people, though. Jimmy Carter, who overcame low name recognition to win the presidency, must hold that title for presidential aspirants. But for those with low name recognition who seek lesser offices, well, they couldn't do better than to have Bumpers on their side.

I spent most of the first 30 years of my life in Arkansas, and it often seemed as if Bumpers, who died Friday at the age of 90, had always been a part of the state's political scene, but the truth was that he spent the first 18 years of his career, after serving in World War II and then studying law at Northwestern, in virtual obscurity as a mostly unknown city attorney in the town where he was born — Charleston, a village in Northwest Arkansas.

He entered state politics in 1970 as a Democratic candidate for governor. The incumbent was a Republican so the Democratic primary was crowded. Bumpers was polling at 1% when he entered the race, but he elbowed his way into a runoff with former Gov. Orval Faubus and won it easily. Then, in the general election, he handily defeated the incumbent, Winthrop Rockefeller, in the process earning the reputation of political giant killer.

That wasn't the last giant he toppled, either. In 1974, after serving two two–year terms as governor, Bumpers challenged five–term Sen. Bill Fulbright in the primary and won by a 2–to–1 margin. He went on to serve four terms in the U.S. Senate.

His most memorable moment in the Senate most likely came a few weeks after his retirement from it in 1999, when he was asked to deliver a closing argument in Bill Clinton's Senate impeachment trial. "H.L. Mencken said one time, 'When you hear somebody say, 'This is not about the money,' it's about the money," Bumpers said. "And when you hear somebody say, 'This is not about sex,' it's about sex."

I always love it when someone works in a quote from Mencken.

Bumpers was frequently mentioned as a possible presidential candidate, and I always thought he would have been a good one. He did whatever he thought was right, not what he thought would win him votes. It's my understanding that, even after serving as governor and senator over a period of nearly 30 years, the accomplishment of which he was most proud was playing an important role in the integration of the school district in his hometown — the first in the old Confederacy.

He always had a sunny disposition, whether he actually believed what he said or not. The thing was that he could make others believe it.

I recall when I was on the faculty of the University of Oklahoma, and I attended a lecture being given by former Sen. George McGovern, the Democratic presidential nominee in 1972, the year Bumpers was re–elected governor in a landslide. After the lecture, I went up to McGovern to introduce myself and shake his hand. I told him I had seen him once, late in that '72 campaign when he made a brief stop at the Little Rock airport, and a crowd of both the curious and the committed gathered in a hangar to see him.

McGovern told me he remembered that stop because Bumpers had assured him he would carry Arkansas when the votes were counted about a week later. It didn't work out that way. Richard Nixon carried 69% of the vote, the first time in precisely one century that Arkansas voted for a Republican for president. It has now done so in all but three of the 10 presidential elections that have been held since — and native son Clinton was the Democrats' nominee in two of those elections.

But through that transition, Bumpers continued to win elections. When he was elected governor, observers speculated that he would be one of a new breed of Southern governors — a group that, at the time, included the likes of Jimmy Carter of Georgia. Carter, as I have pointed out, enjoyed his own meteoric rise when he came from nowhere in 1976 to win the presidency. Bumpers later said he had long believed that 1976 was his best opportunity to be elected president.

Bumpers was often mentioned as a possible presidential candidate, but the talk seemed to be loudest in 1980 and 1984. He declined to enter the race both times. I always thought he would have been successful because he had qualities that served Ronald Reagan so well — that sunny disposition I mentioned and remarkable oratorical skills. On a few occasions as a reporter, I covered Bumpers speaking at Labor Day Fish Fries and Chamber of Commerce luncheons in Arkansas, and I always marveled at his speaking style. It was so engaging, so folksy.

He had a real knack for connecting with people, regardless of their political philosophies. It is why in these last couple of days since his death, both Democrats and Republicans in Arkansas have been speaking highly of Bumpers and his ability to reach across the aisle.

Of course, the political landscape in Arkansas has changed considerably since Bumpers was governor. In those days, reaching across the aisle wasn't really the issue. Democrats held nearly every seat in the state legislature, but Bumpers still had to build a consensus on most issues. The legislature had conservative Democrats, liberal Democrats and moderate Democrats. It was the same challenge that Bumpers' Democratic successors, David Pryor (who followed Bumpers to the Senate four years later) and Bill Clinton, faced as governor.

All three understood that it is necessary for each side to give a little, to compromise if great things are to be accomplished. They may not be quite as great as each side envisioned, but they will be better than doing nothing.

Arkansas was fortunate to be governed by such men in times of tremendous change — and doing nothing was not an option.

The Arkansas Rockefeller

---

---

Tomorrow would have been Winthrop Rockefeller's 100th birthday.

It may seem inappropriate to refer to him — as my headline does — as "the Arkansas Rockefeller" — although that is the title of a book about Rockefeller that was written by a friend of mine, John Ward (the longtime editor of my hometown newspaper and my early mentor), more than 30 years ago.

Rockefeller was born in New York City, as were most of his siblings, but he put down roots in Arkansas.

Most people probably know the Rockefeller name. John D. Rockefeller Sr., Winthrop's grandfather, founded Standard Oil in 1870. Winthrop's father, John D. Rockefeller Jr., took over the family business and fortune and was well known for his philanthropic activities.

John D. Jr. had five sons, including Winthrop, and one daughter. They were high achievers. Winthrop's sister Abby remained mostly out of the public eye, but his brothers were captains of industry and financial and political leaders.

Compared to his sister and brothers, Winthrop may have been seen by many as the black sheep of the family. He attended Yale, but he didn't complete his degree work there. He was given the boot for misbehavior.

Winthrop was decorated for his service in World War II and achieved the rank of colonel, but perhaps he felt a need to make his mark someplace else, someplace far away from his family.

Arkansas may have met all of his requirements. No other Rockefeller (to my knowledge) ever had any influence on life in Arkansas — other than, perhaps, the original John D. and his petroleum business. Anyway, Winthrop moved there in 1953 and established a cattle operation on Petit Jean Mountain in the central part of the state.

He might have chosen to live out his life in relative obscurity (at least as much as anyone named Rockefeller could), but he decided to try to make his mark in Arkansas politics. He began somewhat tentatively, I guess, supporting Republican candidates against longtime incumbent Orval Faubus in 1960 and 1962 (when Arkansas still elected its governor every two years).

He made his first foray as a candidate in 1964 when he challenged Faubus. Rockefeller lost that race, but he had sown the seeds for growth in the Arkansas Republican Party, which was almost nonexistent before Rockefeller moved to the state. The growth of the party in Arkansas is as much his legacy as anyone else's.

And that strikes me as somewhat ironic because Rockefeller and modern Arkansas Republicans don't seem to have much in common. I have observed Arkansas politics from a distance for the last couple of decades, but it seems to me that Arkansas' 21st–century Republicans have far more in common with the state's Democrats of the mid–20th century than with Rockefeller.

Speaking of which ...

Several weeks ago, I came across an article about Rockefeller's first successful campaign for governor of Arkansas in 1966.

The article, written by John Kirk for Arkansas Times, brought back a lot of memories for me. I was a small child in those days, but the memory of those times is still quite vivid.

Kirk observed — and I think most Arkansans who remember those days would agree — that the 1966 election marked an important turning point for Arkansas — and, by extension, the United States and the world. Rockefeller never won an office with greater prestige than governor of Arkansas, but if he hadn't won that election, it might not have been possible, Kirk wrote, for a young man named Bill Clinton to be elected governor a decade later and go on to be elected president.

"Without Rockefeller's 1966 victory there may well have never been a Clinton presidency," wrote Kirk, chairman of the history department at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

"At the same time, paradoxically, Rockefeller's victory also paved the way for the emergence of a two–party system in Arkansas and laid the longer–term foundations for the Republican Party to become a force in state politics."

Of the latter, I can truthfully say that I had thought of that myself — that Arkansas became a much more competitive state politically after Rockefeller was elected governor.

That wasn't necessarily good news for the Democrats who had dominated state politics for so long — but it was good news for democrats (lower–case D) and the cause of democracy.

But, frankly, I had never thought of Rockefeller's victory making a Clinton presidency possible. The more I think about it, though, the more I am inclined to think that Kirk might be on to something there.

Rockefeller defeated a man named Justice Jim Johnson, who happened to live a mile or two down the road from my house. I went to school with his twin sons, played with them in the afternoons after school dismissed.

We spent nights at each others' houses. I attended their birthday parties, and they attended mine.

To me, Jim Johnson was a kind and fatherly neighbor, more of a father to me in many ways, really, than my own father. He was the father of my friends and classmates and a great influence on me in my formative years.

I was too young to understand that he was a segregationist, an ardent supporter of the likes of George Wallace, possibly the most notorious Southern politician of that time. He even managed Wallace's 1968 independent presidential campaign in Arkansas.

At the time that Rockefeller was elected, I was sorry that my friend had lost. But I was merely a child at the time, and, in hindsight, I'm inclined to believe it was a good thing that Rockefeller won — for many reasons, not the least of which was Rockefeller's general commitment to improving the quality of life for all Arkansans.

I guess the centennial of Rockefeller's birth is an occasion for a lot of reflecting on his influence in Arkansas. I haven't lived there in awhile, but I have noticed several retrospective articles online about his four years as Arkansas' governor, and it is gratifying to know that he is remembered.

My parents, as I have observed here before, were Democrats, and they were active members of a group called "Democrats for Rockefeller." My mother did a lot of door–to–door canvassing for Rockefeller in '66, even though his opponent was our neighbor.

Rumors circulated at the time that Rockefeller's campaign was bringing in Republican allies from other states to pose as Democrats in order to persuade Arkansas citizens to elect a Republican governor.

Such stories may seem ludicrous today — or, perhaps not, given the adversarial nature of modern American political campaigns — but they seemed plausible then, particularly in the South where it was common knowledge that "outside agitators" had been shipped in to the region to help enforce civil rights and voting rights reforms.

Consequently, many Arkansans were suspicious of anyone claiming to be a Democrat for Rockefeller. "Are you really a Democrat?" my mother was asked countless times, and she always responded the same way: "Yes, I am, and when the Democrats have a candidate I can support, I will vote for him."

Mom and Dad had to keep that promise in 1970, when the Democrats nominated a previously unknown centrist country lawyer named Dale Bumpers. I know it hurt them to vote against Rockefeller. They appreciated all the things he had done — or tried to do — for the state, but Bumpers was a candidate they felt they could support, and they had told many people that they would vote for a Democrat they found acceptable — and their word was their bond.

Bumpers defeated Rockefeller in the general election, and Rockefeller withdrew from the public spotlight. He died of cancer a couple of years later.

His achievements survive him.

Arkansas Times observed recently that, without Rockefeller's support, the Arkansas Arts Center in Little Rock, for which ground was broken 50 years ago last August, "might have taken a much longer time to become reality, if ever."

The article about the Arkansas Arts Center brought back memories of days I had forgotten.

Sometime in the mid–'70s, my mother enrolled my brother and me in summer art classes at the Arkansas Arts Center. We tried all kinds of media that summer. We did some drawing, some painting, some sculpting. The classes met daily during the week for about six weeks. At the end of that time, each student's best work was part of a display at the facility.

It was a fun class. It didn't spark anything like a career in art for my brother or me, but it did enhance our appreciation of art — and we both tend to be rather creative (we really take after our mother in that regard) so maybe we have applied things we learned in that class to our future endeavors.

And that is really what Rockefeller was hoping for, I think. As Leslie Newell Peacock points out in the Arkansas Times article, Rockefeller was approached by a local group from Little Rock to head the effort for the arts center. Rockefeller declined the offer but promised to help find a chairman for the fund–raising drive, insisting that such a facility needed to be "for the whole state of Arkansas."

Mission accomplished.

It really goes without saying that Winthrop Rockefeller left quite a mark on Arkansas — even though his time in office was brief (at least when compared to Faubus or Clinton).

But it's something that is worth remembering on what would have been his 100th birthday.

No Pardon for Billy the Kid

There's been a lot of speculation about what the future may hold for outgoing New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

And, in the buildup for today, Richardson's last day in office, there was another kind of speculation — would he issue a pardon to the infamous Billy the Kid?

No one knows what the future holds for Richardson. But today, he announced that the immediate future would not include a pardon for the 19th–century outlaw.

The whole thing stemmed from a promise that was allegedly made to the Kid but was never kept.

Next July, it will be 130 years since the Kid (aka William Bonney) was killed by Sheriff Pat Garrett. Prior to that, New Mexico's territorial governor reportedly offered him a pardon for killing a law enforcement officer in exchange for his testimony about killings he witnessed.

Richardson agreed that the territorial governor did, indeed, make a deal of some kind with Billy the Kid, but he said he "could not rewrite history." It was unclear, he said, why the territorial governor did not keep his promise, and because of that uncertainty, he could not issue a posthumous pardon.

Randi McGinn, the lawyer who defended the Kid, said the effort would go on and "perhaps a future New Mexico governor will grant justice for the Kid."

But it won't be Richardson, who claims to have read many books and seen many movies dealing with the subject.

The descendant of the territorial governor applauded the decision. Richardson "followed the correct, rational track in forgoing a pardon for a convicted murderer," he said.

And Robert Utley, the author of a book on the Kid, also supported Richardson's decision. "If Billy deserves a pardon," he said, "it will be granted by history, not the governor of New Mexico."

In nearly 130 years, history has not granted such a pardon.

Oklahoma's First Lady

I used to live in Oklahoma. It's an interesting place — not nearly as backward or one–dimensional as some folks seem to think but, at the same time, most assuredly right wing in some of its political views.

Oh, sure, Oklahoma may seem a little stagnant politically. It has voted Republican in presidential elections 14 of the last 15 times, and far too many Oklahomans seem to share the opinions of their senior senator, a political Neanderthal who was first elected to the Senate when I was living there — in a special election to choose the successor for David Boren, who had resigned to become president of the University of Oklahoma.

And women and minorities have not been too successful in statewide races.

It's possible, given the fact that so many Oklahomans are full– or part–blooded native Americans, that Oklahoma has elected someone with at least a partial native American ancestry as its governor or one of its senators.

But all of the people who have been governor or senator from Oklahoma have been indisputably male — and, although one black Oklahoma politician in recent memory (J.C. Watts) has risen to national prominence, most of the winners of statewide races in Oklahoma have been (apparently) Caucasian.

Well, Oklahoma voters are going to make history of a sort this November.

The state's lieutenant governor, Jari Askins, a Democrat, was nominated by her party this week to run for governor. She will be opposed by Rep. Mary Fallin, who was the first woman elected lieutenant governor.

Thus, the stage is set for Oklahoma to elect a woman governor for the first time in its nearly 103–year history.

A couple of weeks before Oklahoma Democrats and Republicans held their primaries, the Rothenberg Political Report was calling the race to replace term–limited Democratic Gov. Brad Henry "safe" for the Republican nominee.

An Oklahoma Poll released shortly before the primaries seemed to support that conclusion, with Fallin leading Askins by six percentage points — but that finding was much closer than the double–digit advantages previous polls this year have shown.

Of course, that Oklahoma Poll also showed Askins trailing her primary opponent by 16 percentage points. But she pulled off an upset, winning by less than 1,500 votes, for which she has given considerable credit to former Oklahoma Sooners and Dallas Cowboys coach Barry Switzer.

Switzer endorsed Askins last week — and, clearly, one should never underestimate the power of a Sooner coach to influence Oklahoma politics. Switzer, after all, endorsed Henry in 2002 — and helped propel him to the first of two gubernatorial victories.

I think Rothenberg probably is right. This is really looking like a Republican year nationally, and, in Oklahoma, that makes this election Fallin's to lose — but, with Switzer on her side, I wouldn't underestimate Askins in this campaign.

Sometimes, of course, elections are largely symbolic, demonstrating in a way that virtually nothing else can how we have either grown or regressed as a people.

I've always felt, for example, that the 1960 election was symbolic with a Catholic winning the presidency. In the historical context, the outcome was about America's willingness as a predominantly Protestant nation to trust a Catholic to be its leader. It was on a lesser level, really, that the battle between the nominees, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, was waged.

Forty–eight years later, with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton battling for the Democratic presidential nomination, it was unavoidable that their duel would be regarded in the history books as symbolic — and then, when Obama won the presidency, the entire election earned, at the very least, recognition for its symbolic value.

The stakes aren't nearly so high in Oklahoma this year, but, even though there has been no discernible "plot" to deny women positions of authority there, circumstances have conspired to prevent women from governing the state — even though women have served as lieutenant governor for the last 15 years and could have become governor at any time if the incumbent had died or resigned.

This is an opportunity for Oklahoma to tear down that wall.

In 2010, nearly one–fifth of the U.S. Senate seats are held by women. If the current Supreme Court nominee is approved, one–third of the members of the highest court in the land (memorably referred to as "the Brethren" in Bob Woodward's 1979 book on the Court) will be women.

And Clinton, who came up short in her quest for the nomination, has risen to unexpected heights as the nation's secretary of state.

Having a woman in high office is not a new thing for most Americans. And Oklahoma will belatedly join that club in November.

Welcome to the 21st century.

California Dreamin'

---

---

There are six months to go until the gubernatorial primaries are held in California, but a new poll from the Public Policy Institute of California indicates that Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay, leads in the race for the Republican nomination.

Not too early for a little California dreamin' on such a winter's day.

It isn't an insurmountable lead. Whitman got 32%, which is a 20–point lead over her closest rival, but the survey indicates that most Californians aren't paying much attention to the race right now. My guess is that, right now, it is a name recognition contest at the very least, a popularity contest at the most. Still, I'm sure that any candidate who wants to win an election in a place like California would rather be recognized by the voters at this stage than not.

Whitman, the presumptive heir to Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who (as I understand it) is barred by law from seeking another term, is the only Republican who runs neck and neck with former Gov. Jerry Brown, according to Rasmussen Reports.

Brown, by the way, was governor for two terms in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Because of the timing of his terms in office, the term limits that went into effect in 1990 do not apply to him.

Brown is an interesting fellow. He burst onto the national scene as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1976 after the primary campaign was under way, which meant he had missed the deadline in many states, but he managed to win a few primaries and made an initial splash with young voters as the boyfriend of singer Linda Ronstadt. While he was governor, Brown proposed buying a satellite that could be put into orbit to provide emergency communications capabilities for California — earning the nickname "Governor Moonbeam" from Chicago Sun–Times columnist Mike Royko.

But Brown is no flake. A lawyer with a degree from Yale Law School, Brown is currently California's attorney general. That satellite proposal of his may have been ridiculed by Royko in the 1970s, but the state ultimately followed his recommendation.

So the last laugh was his.

And he will be a tenacious foe when the voters are paying attention.

Texas Heat

It gets hot here in Texas in the summer.

I grew up in Arkansas, but my parents were born and raised in Texas so we always came here for holidays and summer vacations when I was growing up. And, for as long as I can remember, I've liked Phil Sheridan's observation — "If I owned hell and Texas, I would rent out Texas and live in hell."

The man clearly knew what he was talking about. (Of course, he also said, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." Not exactly politically correct, but you have to remember that he lived in the 19th century.)

Fast forward to the 21st century, where it is still hot in Texas.

We've been enjoying a bit of a break from the typically oppressive Texas temperatures in recent days, but the forecasts call for the return of daytime highs in triple digits in the next few days. And even the most optimistic of us has to concede that we aren't likely to see hot weather disappear until sometime in October — if then.

Once the hot weather goes away, it probably won't return until late April or May. But the political climate in Texas seems likely to get progressively warmer between now and March, which is when the Republicans will hold their gubernatorial primary.

I assume the Democrats will have a primary as well, but there are no big names in the Texas Democratic Party anymore. So all the attention will be on the GOP.

The Republican primary apparently will match incumbent Gov. Rick Perry, who succeeded George W. Bush when he left to take the oath of office as president in 2001, and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who recently announced her intention to leave the office she has held since 1993 in a few months so she can devote all her time and attention to the governor's race.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't expect a senator to relinquish his/her seat to run for another office unless it was up for election during the same election cycle. But Texas is so big that I guess Hutchison feels she has no choice. Maybe she has grown tired of Washington and wants to return to Texas, win or lose.

Leslie Eaton anticipates the "Texas–Size Brawl" in the Wall Street Journal, noting that the Hutchison–Perry contest is expected to "pit moderates against social conservatives."

If the heat in Texas is an appropriate analogy, I think the image of the rattlesnake, which is often the object of a "roundup" in rural Texas communities, could be fitting as well.

It should be interesting albeit bewildering.

The two Republicans have appeared to be allies in the past, but Eaton's article observes that they already are "sniping" at each other.

Hutchison didn't vote for the stimulus package back in February, but she has, nonetheless, criticized Perry for refusing the stimulus money that was intended to help Texas' unemployed, as Eaton points out. I criticized Perry for that myself.

And Perry has been making transparent bids for the support of conservatives. As Eaton writes, these conservatives "are most likely to vote in the primary," according to the director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas.

The general assumption is that the winner of the primary will be the next governor of the state. It's been relatively quiet up until now, but that should change.

Trying to Figure Out Palin's Motives

Today is Independence Day.

In some places, there may be writers who are reflecting on the 233rd anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, but it seems that nearly everyone is speculating instead about what Sarah Palin's announcement yesterday that she intends to resign as governor of Alaska really means.

I guess it is inevitable that some people see her decision as a precursor to a presidential campaign in 2012. The arguments, both pro and con, are compelling, but none are persuasive — yet.

• In Palin's home state, Erika Bolstad of the Anchorage Daily News writes that the announcement "did nothing to shake what GOP pollster Whit Ayers called the 'lightweight' monkey on her back."


• Be that as it may, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek writes that, in Palin's speech, he heard the opening shots being fired in the 2012 campaign for the presidency.


• Jay Newton–Small offers, in TIME, some reasons why he believes Palin made this move, but he acknowledges that "[i]f her goal is to position herself for higher office, the stagecraft and timing of her announcement left Republicans scratching their heads."


• Jim Geraghty of National Review didn't hear the opening shot of the race for the GOP nomination. Geraghty observes that he was skeptical about Palin seeking the presidency in 2012 before yesterday's announcement, and he is even more skeptical now.
  
  "[T]he moment she expresses an interest in a presidential bid," he writes, "every rival, Republican and Democrat, will uncork the ready–made zinger: 'If elected, would she serve the full four years, or quit sometime in the third year again?' "

That will certainly be an effective argument — assuming Palin does not, as I wrote yesterday, seek another office in Alaska in the interim. But if she does run for the House or the Senate, even if the campaign is unsuccessful, it will, at the very least, give her an opportunity to polish her response to that kind of criticism.

• And Geraghty is quick to point out that he doesn't think the door to the presidency is completely closed for Palin. He cites three examples from recent history.
  
  "People thought Richard Nixon was through after the 1960 election. When Ronald Reagan failed to dislodge President Ford in 1976, people thought he had blown his best chance at the presidency. People thought Bill Clinton destroyed his political future with an endlessly long–winded speech at the 1988 Democratic National Convention."
  
  It is worth noting that, in spite of those initial public verdicts, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton each went on to be elected president twice.


• Ed Morrissey writes, at Hot Air, that it was "easily the most bizarre resignation I've seen, and just about senseless."
  
  He adds that "[t]he lame–duck explanation was the most incoherent part of the entire statement." In fact, he contends that she "destroyed her own credibiity in a single day."


• Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times observes that, even for an "unconventional politician" in changing political times, it's a tough move to comprehend. Is it a timeout or a flameout?
  
  "On the other hand," he writes, "in this political age, 60 months ago who'd have predicted a little–known state senator out of the Chicago political machine with a proclivity to vote 'Present' would be a U.S. senator, let alone the White House occupant?"

But, if some observers are bewildered by Palin's decision, others are not.

• John Batchelor is certain, in The Daily Beast, that yesterday's announcement makes Palin the front–runner for the 2012 nomination.


• On the other hand, Jazz Shaw is absolutely convinced, at Pajamas Media, that Palin has committed "political suicide."


• Dan Balz of the Washington Post sees it as further evidence that "one of America's most unconventional politicians" is "following an unpredictable path to an uncertain future."

Well, truth be told, the future is uncertain for everyone. After all, a year ago on Independence Day, how many people outside of Alaska had ever heard of Sarah Palin? Today, the whole country knows who she is.

For that matter, things are changing rapidly in America, and the conventional wisdom is not proving to be as valid as it once was.

It was once thought that a college education was a ticket to a lifetime of security, but today you will find as many college graduates as high school dropouts seeking employment in low–paying jobs.

It was once thought that newspapers could survive any economic downturn, but today the news business is collapsing before our very eyes, and it is quite likely that, before the year is over, there will be major cities across America that have no newspaper at all.

So who knows what will happen? Who can say, with any certainty, that he or she knows what is going through Palin's mind or whether her strategy (if that is what it is) is correct?

Time will tell. A mere 24 hours after Palin's out–of–the–blue announcement is not enough time. Let's give it more time and see what happens.

Palin's Bombshell

As far as I can tell, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's announcement today that she will resign in three weeks and Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell will become governor at the Governor's Picnic in Fairbanks was a complete surprise. It certainly seems to have caught everyone off guard.

I have found no indication that there were even a few rumors swirling around before Palin made the announcement, but, as KTUU reports, there have been rumors recently that she would not seek re–election next year. I have seen no hints that anyone suspected she might be planning to step down, though. Must be a real jaw–dropper.

There will be plenty of speculation in the days to come.

Is she preparing for a White House run in 2012? I'm not sure. I know she's working on a book, and it's possible she plans to use it as the springboard for her campaign. She certainly wouldn't be the first to do that. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

Sure to fuel speculation that Palin is setting her sights on 2012 is a comment from a "Republican source" that is being reported by Mark Preston and Peter Hamby of CNN. The source told Preston and Hamby that he thinks Palin is "mapping out a path to 2012."

If she is thinking about seeking the presidential nomination, it would be a good idea to be raising some campaign funds. In the last few decades, the party that has not occupied the White House has been inclined to draw a crowded field of candidates. He (or she) who hesitates may well be lost.

What are her other options?

Well, part of the problem is that Alaska is so remote and the media outside the state give little attention to its elected officials, even the year after its governor ran for vice president.

A U.S. Senate seat is up in Alaska next year. The incumbent is Republican Lisa Murkowski, who was appointed in 2002 by her father to take the seat he vacated to become governor. She won a full term in 2004 with 58% of the vote, but she hasn't always been popular.

Could Palin be thinking about challenging a fellow Republican for that nomination? I don't think so. I've seen no indication that she is displeased with Murkowski's work as a senator — but I've heard nothing about Murkowski's plans.

And, of course, the House seat is up. The incumbent, Republican Don Young, has represented Alaska in the House for 36 years, but he faced a tough time in the 2008 election. Young recently turned 76 and may be thinking of retirement. If he does retire, Palin might be thinking of running for the vacant seat.

Or she may be thinking about pursuing a career outside politics.

What do you think she will do?

Random Thoughts

Today is one of those days when I have several things I'd like to write about, and they all kind of lead me in the same direction, but you have to follow a long and winding road to reach the common destination.

So I'll resort to a tactic often used by the late Blackie Sherrod in his sports columns for the Dallas Morning News and do some "scattershooting:"

• The Virginia governor's race: Rosalind Helderman reports, in the Washington Post, that Attorney General Bob McDonnell, the Republican candidate for governor, congratulated Democrat Creigh Deeds on his victory in yesterday's gubernatorial primary.
  
  That, of course, is the kind of thing that is expected in American politics. McDonnell beat Deeds in the race for attorney general four years ago, and, as I understand it, the campaign was vicious. It seems to be understood in Virginia that the two men don't like each other, and neither man made much of an effort to change that impression in 2005.
  
  "The campaigns will also almost certainly become personal," writes Helderman.
  
  Nevertheless, common courtesy dictates that you congratulate the winner of the opposing party's primary, and that is precisely what McDonnell did.
  
  And he also seemed intent on setting a different tenor for this campaign than we've been accustomed to from Republicans in the first half of 2009.
  
  The GOP has been dubbed "the party of no," but McDonnell apparently wants to change the language — and, with it, the drift of the debate — in the gubernatorial race.
  
  "This campaign is saying yes to new jobs for our citizens," McDonnell said. "Yes to offshore drilling and more energy. Yes to charter schools and performance pay and to real education reform, and yes to greater access and affordability at our colleges and universities to serve our young people better."
  
  Does that mean the "party of no" is now the "party of yes?"
  
  In a word ... no.


• Car loans: They say that the credit freeze is thawing, but if it is thawing in the realm of auto loans, it's doing so very slowly.
  
  Mina Kimes writes in Fortune.com that car dealers have managed to get more people into their showrooms with "rebates, discounts and other incentives," but it's still tough to get financing.
  
  In 2007–2008, Kimes reports, "loan approval rates for prime applicants, who have credit scores above 750, fell from 95% to 84%. ... Subprime applicants were far worse off — just 17% of them were approved last December, down from 66% in 2007."
  
  Kimes says there has been a "slight uptick" in loan approvals in 2009 "with 89% of prime applications and 20% of subprime borrowers receiving loans in May."
  
  But Greg McBride, a senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com, observes, "The days of showing up with nothing but a smile on your face are over. Today, stories are legion of people who have great credit and still can't get car loans."
  
  I worked for many years in the auto loan industry. I knew at the time that many loans were being approved that could not possibly be repaid. But I was merely a cog in the industry. I had no authority to approve or disapprove of loans. And I knew only too well that those who did have that authority were under intense pressure to approve damn near everything that crossed their desks.
  
  From that perspective, it's a good thing that lenders are being more responsible. But I fear the pendulum may have swung too far in the other direction.
  
  As long as lenders are saying no to loan applicants, there will continue to be problems in the auto industry.
  
  And with them, problems in the economy.
  
  Cash flow is the fuel of the economy. Few things generate cash flow like car payments.


• "Saved" jobs: Perhaps nothing has been subjected to as much spin in recent months — from both the right and the left — as the stimulus package and its impact on the economy.
  
  The monthly jobs reports continue to tell a tale of hundreds of thousands of jobs that are being lost each month, and that is something the right seizes upon. Then the left insists that things are getting better because we aren't losing as many jobs each month as we were, which — supposedly — is because of the stimulus package.
  
  But, as I mentioned in this blog last week, news that is less bad is not the same as news that is good. So Barack Obama feels compelled now to speak about the jobs that are being "saved" by the stimulus package. He claims that 150,000 jobs were "saved" in the first 100 days of his presidency.
  
  Thus, that which appeared on the surface to be less bad news is transformed into good news.
  
  I have to think about that one.
  
  See, that presents me with a similar problem. I mean, maybe there are some jobs that are being saved because of the stimulus package. But, if that is true, is that the same thing as creating jobs? I don't think so.
  
  If Person A's job doesn't disappear, Person A doesn't wind up being one of the millions of unemployed Americans, and that's good. But how does that help Person B, who has been out of work since last summer? Or the millions of others who have lost their jobs in the last year or so? How does that help Person C, who is about to lose his/her job through no fault of his/her own?
  
  As much as I hate to give Rush Limbaugh credit for anything, I have to admit he makes a good point when he says there is no reliable way to prove that jobs have been saved.
  
  It seems to me that, if you claim to have saved jobs and then the numbers show jobs have been lost during the time period in question, you can then claim that the number of jobs lost would have been greater if not for your efforts — without having to substantiate your claim.
  
  How can you establish which jobs definitely are going to be cut? There is no rhyme nor reason to it, as nearly as I can tell. And, once you have arrived at that number, how can you calculate the ones that were saved?
  
  How does one prove or disprove a negative?
  
  The entire concept of "saving" jobs is troublesome for me — and so is the notion being floated by the Obama administration about more than half a million summer jobs that will be created by ratcheted–up stimulus spending.
  
  I wasn't anywhere close to being the best student in my class in math so it's hard for me to get a handle on the logic supporting this claim.
  
  But the part that I can get a handle on raises some red flags in my head.
  
  I've heard nothing that suggests that these jobs will be anything more than temporary, make–work jobs. Maybe I've missed something. I admit, I'm hardly a mathematician so, if you can explain to me how it is possible to determine how many jobs have been saved in a given period of time, I'd appreciate it.
  
  Because it would be encouraging to be able to look at some daunting figures and spot the daylight at the end of the tunnel.
  
  And, while losing 350,000 jobs in May isn't as bad as the 520,000 lost jobs that were predicted, it's still hard to find the silver lining in that cloud.

Deeds Wins in Virginia

The Clinton connection has worked well in some states, but Virginia isn't one of them.

Last year, for example, Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in Virginia's presidential primary by 25 percentage points. And Bill Clinton did better in Virginia in 1992 and 1996 than most Democrats have done in the last 40 years — but he still lost the state both times.

Close does count for something in political races, whether good or bad, and, even though Terry McAuliffe, Mrs. Clinton's former campaign chairman, was leading his rivals in polls I saw last month, state Sen. Creigh Deeds has won the primary.

He will face state Attorney General Bob McDonnell, the Republican who beat him in 2005 by 360 votes.

Turnout, while still low, was higher than expected, reports the Charlottesville Daily Progress.

As I wrote last month, for more than 30 years, the party that lost the White House has won the Virginia governor's office the following year. If that trend continues in 2009, then that will mean good news for Republicans in general and McDonnell in particular.

A Lot of Alliteration

As someone who has worked more nights than I can count as a copy editor for a morning metropolitan newspaper, I have to express my admiration when an intriguing headline catches my attention.

I have just seen one such headline at the website for the Minneapolis Star–Tribune.

Let's back up just a little bit, shall we?

Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced today that he will not seek a third term as governor of Minnesota next year. Speculation has been that he is going to run for the Republican presidential nomination, but he sidestepped questions about that.

So Bob Von Sternberg wrote an article for the paper summarizing what "political observers" were saying — and I guess it came as no surprise that most people think he is, indeed, positioning himself for a run for the nomination.

But there was a lot of speculation last year that John McCain would choose Pawlenty to be his running mate. That, of course, did not happen. But it could have. As I recall, Pawlenty himself pulled the plug on the idea as the Republicans prepared to convene in Minnesota.

So, since he didn't gain the national attention he could have had last year, Pawlenty may not be planning a national campaign in 2012, especially if winning that nomination means taking on a popular incumbent. Although Obama's popularity undoubtedly will fluctuate in the next three years, there is no telling (in 2009) whether it will be on the upswing or the downswing in 2012.

There's no rush. Pawlenty's only 48. He'll be in his mid–50s when 2016 gets here.

He might be planning to challenge Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a first–termer who comes up for re–election in 2012.

Anyway, the headline on the article is "Pundits ponder Pawlenty's presidential prospects."

Not bad, huh?

The Republican Dilemma

Republicans in New Jersey are going to the polls today to choose their candidate for governor.

As they do so, political analyst Stuart Rothenberg has some thoughts to share with the Republican National Committee chairman in his latest column in Roll Call.

"[RNC] Chairman Michael Steele's comments last month to RNC state chairmen calling for the party to turn the corner 'on regret, recrimination, self–pity and self–doubt' and to declare 'an end to the era of Republicans looking backward' weren't ill–advised or inappropriate," he writes. "They were just irrelevant."

Rothenberg observes that high–profile Republicans, from former Vice President Dick Cheney to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, from radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, have been squabbling about what it means to be a Republican and "[t]hey are focused on what divides them from each other rather than on what unites them in their opposition to President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party."

Rothenberg is correct when he points out that this is nothing new. This is a familiar pattern for a political party that has been beaten decisively in two consecutive elections. He is also correct when he says that the bickering will continue until Republicans "find something better to do" — specifically, "focusing on a common adversary."

In New Jersey, the immediate common adversary for the winner of the GOP gubernatorial nomination and the state's Republicans is likely to be Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine. He is opposed in today's Democratic primary by three candidates, but none are given much of a chance of upsetting the incumbent.

Thus, Corzine is likely to be the Democrat on the ballot in November. But even if lightning should strike and someone else carries the party's banner in the November election, that person will be the Republicans' common adversary.

New Jersey and Virginia are the remaining battlegrounds for the Republicans in this first year of the Obama era. They already lost the first showdown — in New York, where a Democrat was elected to take the seat vacated by Hillary Clinton's replacement in the Senate.

Minnesota won't elect its governor until next year, but the Republican who has held that job for two four–year terms, Tim Pawlenty, apparently will not seek a third term next year.

Pawlenty has scheduled a press conference for 2 p.m. (Central) today, and he is expected to announce his plans at that time.

At one time, Pawlenty was believed to be a contender to be John McCain's running mate last year. Current speculation suggests that Pawlenty plans to focus on a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

In other political news from Minnesota, the never–ending Senate race between Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken is in the hands of the state's Supreme Court.

The court must rule on Coleman's appeal of the trial court's ruling that Franken was the winner.

The Virginia Governor's Race

Every four years — in odd–numbered years — the voters of Virginia select a new governor. Virginia holds its gubernatorial election the year after a presidential election, so 2009 is an election year in that state.

State law prohibits the incumbent from seeking re–election so Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine cannot seek another four–year term this year. Kaine, however, won't have to look for a job when he leaves office in January; he was chosen to be the new Democratic National Committee chairman earlier this year, a job to which he can devote his full attention starting in 2010.

In recent times, the Virginia governor's race has served as something of a political bellwether in reverse. By that, I mean that, whichever party has won the presidency, the other party has won the governor's office in Virginia the following year. In 2000 and 2004, of course, Republican George W. Bush was elected president; Democrats were elected governor in 2001 and 2005. In 1992 and 1996, Democrat Bill Clinton won the presidency; Republicans were elected governor in 1993 and 1997.

Likewise, during the 1980s, following the elections of Republican presidents — Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and George H.W. Bush in 1988 — Democrats were elected governor in 1981, 1985 and 1989. In fact, the Democrat who was elected in 1989, Douglas Wilder, was the first black elected governor in the United States.

And, in 1977, the year after Jimmy Carter was elected president, a Republican was elected governor.

That is when the current streak began.

In the elections following Republican Richard Nixon's victories in 1968 and 1972, Republicans were elected governor. Prior to that, Democrats were elected governor in the years following the elections of Democratic presidents in 1960 and 1964.

In fact, the Republican who was elected governor the year after Nixon's triumph in 1968, A. Linwood Holton Jr., was the first Republican elected governor in Virginia since Reconstruction. When busing was an issue in Holton's first year in office, he enrolled his children in the mostly black public schools in Richmond. Later, in 1978, Holton unsuccessfully sought the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate — the eventual nominee, John Warner, won the election and served five terms before retiring last year.

Holton, by the way, is still alive, in spite of undergoing surgery for bladder cancer in 2005. He's 85 years old, and he actively campaigned for Barack Obama last year.

Anyway, considering that the last eight governors of Virginia came from the party that did not win the White House the year before, logic would suggest that it is the Republicans' turn to win.

And recent polls seem to bear that out. The state's former attorney general, Bob McDonnell, has been leading his most likely Democratic opponent, former Democratic National Committee chairman and former chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign Terry McAuliffe.

Democratic polls indicate that McAuliffe is the favorite over his two rivals, Brian Moran (the younger brother of Rep. Jim Moran) and state Sen. Creigh Deeds. But, as Kyle Trygstad writes for RealClearPolitics, none of the Democrats has been eager to play up national connections in this campaign.

I find that particularly interesting, given Virginia's history. When I was in school, Virginia was known as the "Mother of Presidents" because eight presidents (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor and Woodrow Wilson) were born there, although three of those presidents did not live in Virginia during at least part of their adult years.

Three of those presidents served as governor of Virginia before moving to the White House. And, although it has been more than 180 years since a future president was elected governor of the state, Virginians have, from time to time, been mentioned as possible nominees for president or vice president.

Wilder briefly sought the presidential nomination in 1992. Kaine and another former governor, current Sen. Mark Warner, both were mentioned as possible running mates for Obama.

The most recent example of a Virginian who was, at one time, regarded a major contender was a man who has never campaigned officially in a presidential primary or caucus — at least, not yet — although he did make several trips to Iowa and New Hampshire in what were perceived to be warmups for the presidential contests in those states.

That man was Republican George Allen, who was elected governor in 1993. After leaving office in 1998, Allen went on to be elected to the Senate in 2000, defeating another ex–governor, Chuck Robb, the son–in–law of Lyndon Johnson who was seeking his third term.

Many people thought re–election would be merely a formality for Allen in 2006, and there was already plenty of talk about his chances of winning the 2008 Republican nomination.

But a funny thing happened along the way. In August 2006, during a campaign stop near the Virginia–Kentucky border, Allen spotted an Indian–American in the crowd who was recording Allen with his camcorder for Democratic candidate Jim Webb. Allen referred to the man as "macaca," which is a derogatory term for dark–skinned people that is common among French colonists in North Africa.

Allen's mother was raised in the French colonial community in Morocco, and many people speculated that Allen heard her use that word when he was growing up.

Anyway, the situation snowballed. Later in August, the Jewish periodical The Forward reported that Allen's mother probably was Jewish, an assertion that Allen vigorously denied, then recanted. Then, in September, three of Allen's former college football teammates claimed they heard him use the word "nigger" on several occasions.

Other former teammates stepped forward to say they had never heard Allen use that word, but, by that time, his verifiable past had come back to haunt him. Allen was shown to have had a long interest in the Confederate flag, reportedly wearing a Confederate flag lapel pin for his high school senior class photo and displaying the flag, in one form or another, from 1967 to 2000. He also used the Confederate flag in his first statewide TV commercial when running for governor in 1993.

While he was governor, Allen declared April "Confederate History and Heritage Month" in Virginia. And he opposed the establishment of Martin Luther King Day in the state.

In the end, Webb won a narrow victory over Allen, and any hopes he may have had for securing the GOP presidential nomination in 2008 disappeared. In February 2008, Tim Craig wrote a speculative piece in the Washington Post in which he wondered what might have happened if Allen had never said the word "macaca."

On seemingly inconsequential things elections can turn.

In 1967, George Romney (Mitt Romney's father) was widely considered a leading prospect for the presidency. Then, in an interview about his 1965 trip to Vietnam, he described his earlier views about the war as being the result of "brainwashing," which derailed his campaign and opened the door for former Vice President Richard Nixon.

In 1972, Democratic front–runner Ed Muskie gave an emotional response to an attack on his wife that was published in the Manchester Union–Leader in New Hampshire. Muskie responded outdoors, in the snow, and some people said he was moved to tears, although film of the episode was inconclusive. Snowflakes on his face may have been mistaken for tears.

Muskie's campaign collapsed, opening the door for insurgent George McGovern, although it is also possible that the famed "Canuck letter," which alleged that Muskie slurred the French–Canadians (a fairly substantial voting bloc in New Hampshire) but was actually one of the Nixon campaign's "dirty tricks," may have played a role.

Here in Texas, Ann Richards won a close race for governor in 1990. Earlier in the campaign, she was widely expected to lose to Republican businessman Clayton Williams, even though Williams made a number of unsavory remarks during the campaign, most notably comparing bad weather to rape. "If it's inevitable," he said, "just relax and enjoy it."

What was believed to turn the tide in Richards' favor, however, was a moment that was captured on film a few weeks before the election. In a public debate, Richards offered her hand to Williams, but he refused to shake it. His response was seen as uncouth, and Richards claimed a narrow victory.

Obama won Virginia by more than 6% of the vote, becoming the first Democrat in four decades to carry the state in a presidential election. Although his margin in the Electoral College would not have been significantly altered if he had not carried Virginia, one can only wonder, in hindsight, what effect Allen's presence on the Republican ticket might have had if a dark–skinned man with a camcorder had not been in one of his audiences in August 2006.

The Governor's Race in Texas

Today is Election Day in Dallas and North Texas. As I write this, voters in these parts are still going to the polls to cast their votes in local races and on various ballot initiatives. Some places — such as Arlington and Fort Worth — will be choosing mayors today. Dallas voters won't be choosing a mayor, although several city council positions will be decided.

Typically, local elections around here don't draw large turnouts. But my guess is that next spring's Republican gubernatorial primary will attract a high turnout, assuming that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison decides to run for governor. And most folks seem to expect that she will.

Earlier polls showed Hutchison holding a commanding lead over incumbent Gov. Rick Perry. I don't know if his highly publicized remarks had any effect on polls of Texas Republicans, but Rasmussen's latest survey suggests that Perry may have benefited from what I saw as a blatant appeal to his conservative base on that occasion.

Rasmussen says Perry is preferred by 42% of Republicans and Hutchison is the choice of 38%. I don't know what the margin of error is, but, clearly, neither candidate has 50% at this point, and a majority is needed to avoid a runoff. Seven percent of Republicans indicated they would prefer someone else, and 13% were undecided.

Obviously, it is early in the electoral process — too early to be saying, as Rasmussen does, that the candidates are "essentially tied," although it is probably hard to avoid reaching that conclusion based on the numbers from the latest poll.

The primary will be held in about 10 months — plenty of time for things to change. Stay tuned.

The Hoggs of Texas

Tuesday was the 158th anniversary of the birth of a man named James "Big Jim" Hogg.

If you have never lived in Texas, that name may not mean much to you. But Jim Hogg was governor of the state in the late 19th century.

Hogg was a populist who spoke on behalf of William Jennings Bryan in 1896 and 1900. He wasn't a wealthy man when he left office, but land and oil deals in his post-gubernatorial years permitted him to acquire a sizable fortune.

Hogg's distant cousin, Sid McMath, was governor of Arkansas from 1949–1953.

Hogg may be best remembered for naming his daughter Ima. It's an unusual name, which supposedly came from a poem written by his brother.

Hogg had four children. The other three were all boys.

Ima was the second oldest of the Hogg children. For as long as I can remember, there was a tall tale that Hogg had another daughter who was named "Ura," but that, apparently, is merely an urban legend.

After her father died in 1906, Ima Hogg became one of the most respected Texas women of the 20th century. She studied music in Vienna for two years, then established the Houston Symphony Orchestra upon returning to Texas. She was a philanthropist and art collector, who owned works by Picasso and Matisse. She made hundreds of contributions to Houston's Museum of Fine Arts.

Ima Hogg never married and died in 1975, having lived into her 90s.

Illinois House Votes to Impeach Blagojevich

I guess it's appropriate that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was impeached by the Illinois House today. The vote was nearly unanimous — 114-1.

Rep. Milt Patterson of Chicago was the only member of the House to vote against the resolution.

Today happens to be the 96th anniversary of the birth of Richard Nixon — who managed to avoid impeachment and conviction by resigning the presidency in 1974.

Blagojevich's trial will be one of the items of business the Illinois Senate will take up after it convenes next week. There are 59 members of the Illinois Senate. Forty are needed to convict the governor and remove him from office.

In spite of a lengthy history of corrupt politics, Illinois has never impeached a governor before.

Meanwhile, many Americans can't be blamed if they're more concerned about their own job prospects than Blagojevich's. The latest job report says 2.6 million jobs were lost in 2008, making it the worst year for jobs since the end of World War II.

The unemployment rate is 7.2%. That's the highest rate since January 1993, which is when George H.W. Bush was replaced as president by Bill Clinton.

Perhaps Blagojevich will join the ranks of the unemployed before long.

Is Blago Gonna Go?

Illinois officials, including the state's attorney general, are saying today that Gov. Rod Blagojevich is going to make an announcement on Monday, and some are speculating that he will step down — or at least "step aside."

That's how Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan put it on "Meet the Press."

"I don't know if that means he will resign or take another option that is provided under the Illinois constitution," she said, explaining that the governor could "voluntarily recognize that there is a serious impediment to his ability to carry out his duties, and therefore temporarily remove himself."

It doesn't seem to me that a "temporary" solution is what Illinois officials want — never mind what Blagojevich wants.

While they've been trying to sort out that mess in Illinois, apparently the writers at "Saturday Night Live" have already figured it out.

I must admit that I didn't watch the show last night. But it apparently opened with a scathingly funny parody of the Blagojeviches and a "Weekend Update" routine called "Really!" — in which Amy Poehler, in what was apparently her final show, and Seth Meyers took the governor to task on everything.

"You should resign," Meyers said. "Even Illinois politicians are saying you should resign, and when Illinois politicians think you're too corrupt, you're too corrupt."

As Phil Rosenthal observes in the Chicago Tribune, "Now we know how they feel in Wasilla, Alaska."

I guess the next step would be to empathize with Whittier, Calif.

Why Is McCain Favored in West Virginia?

One of the golden rules of American politics — before the year 2000 — used to be that non-incumbent Republican candidates for president didn’t win West Virginia.

A Republican candidate had to be an incumbent running for re-election (and on his way to a landslide victory) before he had a chance to win West Virginia.

Bob Dole couldn’t carry the state against President Clinton in 1996. George H.W. Bush failed to carry it twice. Ronald Reagan didn’t carry West Virginia in 1980, but he did carry it when he ran for re-election four years later.

Reagan’s experience with West Virginia was much like Richard Nixon’s. Nixon lost West Virginia to John F. Kennedy in 1960 and to Hubert Humphrey in 1968, but he won it in his re-election campaign in 1972.

And so it goes … all the way back to 1928, when non-incumbent Republican Herbert Hoover carried West Virginia against the first Catholic nominee for president, Al Smith.

West Virginia began as part of the state of Virginia, but the mountainous section of the state (which had few slaves) seceded during the Civil War. The state began its existence allied with the Republicans, like most of the Northern states in the Civil War and Reconstruction days (although there were probably as many West Virginians who fought and died for the Confederacy as the Union side).

And the shift to the Democrats seems to have been based more on economic factors than anything else — West Virginia began to support the Democratic tickets around the same time that labor unions were emerging in coal country and jobs became more scarce in the Great Depression.

In 1928, though, the national economy was humming along, and the unions hadn't yet made their presence known in West Virginia. And the religious suspicions of the Protestants may have played a key role in Smith's defeat in West Virginia. I know that general anti-Catholic sentiment hurt Smith elsewhere in the United States that year, but the apparently strong economy may have helped Hoover and the Republicans even more.

Certainly, the suspicions that West Virginia’s Protestant voters held about John F Kennedy in the state’s primary campaign 32 years later are the stuff of American political legend.

But, by 1960, enough Protestants in that state were persuaded to vote for the Catholic candidate that he was able to win the primary and secure the nomination, demonstrating his broad-based political appeal.

Ironically, as Theodore H. White observed in ”The Making of the President 1960,” Kennedy’s sole remaining active primary challenger, Hubert Humphrey, had effectively been eliminated by his recent finish in the Wisconsin primary.

”If, realizing this, Humphrey had withdrawn at that moment, Kennedy would have faced zero opposition in the West Virginia primary,” White wrote. ”[T]hus, any Kennedy victory there would have proved nothing and been meaningless.”

One can only wonder what would have happened to Kennedy’s presidential ambitions if deprived of Humphrey’s opposition in that primary. Certainly, history might have been changed if Kennedy had not been able to triumph over the ”religious question” in West Virginia.

Anyway, the stock market crashed in 1929, and for the next seven decades, non-incumbent Republicans never managed to win West Virginia.

But trends change. If George W. Bush had not carried West Virginia in 2000, the outcome in Florida would not have mattered.

Today, many political observers say they believe John McCain will become the second consecutive non-incumbent Republican nominee to carry the state.

In 2008, of course, religion is not the issue. In fact, today, West Virginia’s governor is Catholic — and he’s very popular.

The issue in 2008 is race. Nearly 95% of West Virginians are white.

But West Virginia's history should imply a supportive nature for Obama's candidacy.

Will Obama’s experience in West Virginia be like that other ground-breaking Democratic nominee, Al Smith, or will it be more like John F. Kennedy’s?

Glancing at the demographics, you’d think that Obama would be favored against John McCain in West Virginia. It’s a Democratic year, and 57% of West Virginia’s voters are registered Democrats.

But McCain appears to be popular in West Virginia, a state that has already voted heavily against Obama in its primary.

There are two major statewide races in West Virginia this year, and both offices are held by popular Democrats.

• Sen. Jay Rockefeller is running for his fifth term in office. Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics reports that the state’s largest newspaper, the Charleston Gazette, endorsed Rockefeller in April with an editorial that anticipated that the popular Rockefeller would triumph ”with such ease he needn't bother campaigning.”
  
  It’s easy to see why Rockefeller is expected to breeze to another term. He received 63% of the vote in what turned out to be a surprisingly Republican midterm election in 2002, and he captured 77% of the vote while Bill Clinton was being re-elected in 1996.
  
  Rockefeller won his first term in 1984, when he took 52% of the vote while Reagan’s bid for re-election was being endorsed by 55% of West Virginia’s voters. He was re-elected with 68% of the vote in 1990.
  
  Rockefeller is paired against the same Republican he defeated in 2002, former state Sen. Jay Wolfe.
  
  ”Rockefeller should easily hold the seat,” Sabato says. I don’t think anyone disputes that.


• For that matter, I don’t think anyone disputes that Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin will be re-elected relatively easily.
  
  Manchin probably came to national attention during the Sago mine disaster in early 2006. There was a mix-up in which Manchin was assumed to have confirmed false reports that most of the miners had survived when, in fact, only one survived.
  
  Manchin acknowledged what had happened and emerged from the disaster apparently more popular than ever — and he was already quite popular, having been elected governor in 2004 with more than 63% of the vote.
  
  ”Manchin is sitting in the catbird’s seat,” Sabato writes.
  
  As of June 16, Manchin had more than $2.5 million in his campaign warchest; his Republican opponent, former state Sen. Russ Weeks, had raised a mere $10,000.
  
  Sabato has labeled the re-election bids for both Rockefeller and Manchin as ”solid Democratic” victories on Election Day.


• West Virginia has only three House seats. Two are held by Democrats, and both of those incumbents seem to be in good shape.
  
  Sabato is keeping his eye on the 2nd district, which has been represented by Republican Shelley Moore Capito since 2000.
  
  Although Capito was able to take 57% of her district’s vote in the Democratic year of 2006, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has targeted her for defeat, and her opponent, Anne Barth, should benefit from the DCCC’s financial input.
  
  Even so, Capito’s district gave George W. Bush 57% of its vote in 2004 and 54% of its vote in 2000 — when West Virginia voted for a non-incumbent Republican candidate for president for the first time in more than 70 years.
  
  Sabato believes the district is ”likely” to remain in Republican hands.
  
  Capito will be counting on McCain to provide the kind of boost her campaign will need from the GOP's presidential nominee.

Forget the Money — Show Me the Votes

Missouri is the Show-Me State and, come November, both Barack Obama and John McCain will be hoping that the Show-Me State will show them some votes.

Because Missouri has a century's worth of being on the winning side in presidential elections in its political history.

Since 1904, Missouri has only been on the losing side once (1956 — when it chose challenger Adlai Stevenson over President Dwight Eisenhower).

A presidential nominee would be justified if he believed that winning Missouri would be a good omen.

Neither of the state's senators will be on the ballot this year, so the presidency is virtually the only race in which all the voters in Missouri can participate.

The state will be electing a new governor this year. The incumbent, Republican Matt Blunt, decided not to seek another term when his approval ratings began to mirror George W. Bush's.

Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics says the governor's race in Missouri is shaping up to be a "toss-up."

The Republicans will choose their nominee for governor on Aug. 5. Their options are 9th District Rep. Kenny Hulshof and State Treasurer Sarah Steelman. Apparently, Attorney General Jay Nixon is unopposed on the Democratic side.

Although the Republican governor is unpopular, Sabato says Missouri has been "trending much more Republican in general." And its representation in Congress remained the same (at 5-4 in favor of the Republicans) after the votes were counted in the Democratic year of 2006.

I wish I could say I have as much political knowledge as Michael Barone, the co-author of the biennially published Almanac of American Politics.

I've been reading the Almanac since Richard Nixon was president, and I've learned so much from it. But I don't know as much as Barone does about American voting trends. I really admire the depth of his knowledge.

But, I guess, if there's a place in this country in which I've never lived but I nevertheless feel I know something about, it would be the 9th District of Missouri.

One of my closest friends — in fact, we've called each other "best friend" for more than 30 years — lives in the 9th, which includes most of the northeastern quadrant of the state.

The district excludes the city of St. Louis and the county it occupies, but my friend's home county lies just within the 9th's borders west of St. Louis.

I've visited my friend on several occasions. I was saddened a few months ago to learn of the death of my friend's sister-in-law — a fine lady I'd known since I was 16 who lived in northeastern Missouri all her life.

And I've remained on friendly terms with my friend's ex-wife, who still lives in the area.

And I'm the godfather of their daughter, who also lives in the area.

I have another friend who lived in the 9th district for awhile. He was a Ph.D. student at the University of Missouri so he was in Columbia for a few years, and I had the pleasure of visiting him there.

When you're in Columbia, you're still in Missouri's 9th — just barely. But if you drive just a short distance to the south, you'll find yourself in the 4th. And if you drive a similarly short distance to the west, you'll be in the 6th.

Obviously, from Columbia, it's not exactly a trip to another planet to go to a different congressional district. But, in terms of the people who represent those three districts from Missouri, there can be a world of difference.

Two of the districts (the 6th and the 9th) are represented by Republicans. The 4th has been represented by the same Democrat (Ike Skelton) for more than 30 years.

The 76-year-old Skelton, who has compiled a mostly moderate voting record, seems to be in fine shape to hold the seat as long as he wants. And Sabato says the other two districts are likely to remain represented by Republicans when the new Congress assembles in January:

• In the 6th, incumbent Sam Graves is facing former Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes.
  
  To date, the campaign has been aggressive with a heavy barrage of advertisements. But, while "both sides feel this is a competitive race," according to Sabato the district is "likely Republican."
  
  And Graves' increasingly conservative voting record doesn't seem to hurt him with the voters of the 6th.


• It probably helps to have an incumbent in the race. In the 9th, as I said earlier, Hulshof, who has represented the district since 1996, decided to run for governor when Gov. Blunt chose not to seek another term.
  
  And that leaves an open seat in the 9th.
  
  "[T]his race is as crowded as Arrowhead Stadium on a November Sunday," Sabato writes, observing that five Republicans and four Democrats will be competing for the nominations next month.
  
  If the money that has been raised is any indication, the November race will be between two state representatives — Democrat Judy Baker and Republican Bob Onder.
  
  Even though the nominees are as yet unknown, Sabato says the district "leans Republican."
  
  That's not an unreasonable assertion. The district is 92% white, more than 50% rural, and it has re-elected Hulshof by comfortable margins. It also voted for Bush both times, giving him better than 55% of its vote.

Missouri is just about in the center of the country — in more ways than one.

It's a state that bears watching on Election Night.

The Outlook from Tobacco Road

North Carolina seems to be an example of the presidential voting trend in most of the South — although the vote hasn't been lopsided, as it has been in some states.

With the solitary exception of its support for Jimmy Carter in 1976, North Carolina has voted for the Republican presidential nominee in every election since 1968. But it's frequently been close in North Carolina — closer than it tends to be in the rest of the South.

There will be a lot of electoral activity in the state this year, with incumbents from both parties seeking re-election. The nature and the competitive level of each race will decide whether Barack Obama or John McCain will be the beneficiary of the activity.

• North Carolina has a couple of statewide races in 2008 — for governor and senator.
  
  The governor, Democrat Mike Easley, is forced by state law to step down after serving two terms. His approval ratings have remained high, and he might be able to win a third term if the law allowed him to seek one.
  
  Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, says the governor’s office is likely to remain in Democratic hands. The state’s Democratic lieutenant governor, Beverly Perdue, will be facing Pat McCrory, the Republican mayor of Charlotte, in the governor’s race in November.
  
  Easley was considered a possible candidate for Elizabeth Dole’s Senate seat this year, but he declined to make the race.
  
  As an experienced governor who will be leaving his office this year, he might be a good choice for running mate for Barack Obama. Easley is more conservative than many Democrats, which could serve to attract independents and Republicans.


• In the South, nearly every state (with the exception of Florida) will have a U.S. Senate seat on the ballot in November.
  
  In most states, the incumbent senators are running for re-election. As usual, some have no opponent — or merely token opposition.
  
  But some are facing competitive challenges for the seats they currently occupy — and some incumbents have chosen to retire, some for health reasons but some simply to avoid the very real possibility of being rejected by the voters.
  
  In North Carolina, Sen. Elizabeth Dole has been mentioned as a vulnerable incumbent, even though North Carolina has been a safe haven for most Republican candidates in recent years.
  
  State senator Kay Hagan won the Democratic nomination in May, and polls at the time showed her in a tight battle for Dole’s seat. One poll even showed her with a narrow lead right after the primaries.
  
  But by mid-June, Sabato was saying that ”[n]ow that the dust has settled and the initial over-excitement has ended, the actual landscape is a little more clear. What once seemed to be a dead heat is probably more like a 8-10% lead for Dole, perilous, but certainly no reason to begin writing her obituary just yet.”
  
  Nevertheless, Sabato says the race merely ”leans Republican” at this point — which appears (on the surface) to be less than a rousing endorsement for Dole’s chances of being re-elected to the seat that Jesse Helms held for three decades.
  
  The fact is, if Dole’s lead is 8-10%, as Sabato says, that puts her at the upper end in the typical range, historically, for Republican Senate candidates in North Carolina. Dole took a 9% triumph, 54% to 45%, when she was first elected to the Senate in 2002. Helms, in his final Senate race in 1996, received 53% of the vote.
  
  And Dole’s colleague in the Senate from North Carolina, Republican Richard Burr, received 52% of the vote when he won the seat that was vacated by Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards in 2004.
  
  Democrats tend to be competitive in North Carolina’s statewide races, but the voters usually support the Republicans — by relatively slim margins. And, even when Democrats win, as Edwards did in the 1998 Senate race and as Easley did in the governor’s races of 2000 and 2004, the margins have tended to be narrow.


• The state’s representation in the House reflects the division between the parties. Before the 2006 elections, Republicans held a 7-6 lead in the House delegation. After the 2006 elections, the Democrats held a 7-6 lead — thanks to Democrat Heath Shuler, the former football player who won the seat in the 11th district against incumbent Republican Charles Taylor.
  
  North Carolina’s 11th district is mountain country. It is nearly 90% white and 56% rural. It has tended to vote Republican in national campaigns — George W. Bush topped 55% of the vote in the district in both 2000 and 2004 — but Michael Barone, co-author of the Almanac of American Politics, has referred to an ”ornery” streak in the 11th district’s voters.
  
  When voters have a reputation for being "ornery," they're apt to do anything.
  
  Even so, Sabato is keeping his eye on only one congressional race in North Carolina this year — and it isn’t Shuler’s seat. So I have to assume that that means Shuler has been meeting the needs of his district.
  
  Sabato is watching the 8th district race, which was decided by less than 400 votes two years ago. The district is in the southwestern portion of the state, along the North Carolina-South Carolina boundary.
  
  It is currently represented by Republican Robin Hayes, who won the seat in 1998. Hayes is in a rematch with the Democrat he defeated last time, high school teacher Larry Kissell, and, as Sabato observes, voters in the 8th will have the opportunity to ”re-write the ending if they choose.”
  
  At this point, it’s anyone’s guess whether the 8th district will keep Hayes in office or switch to the Democrat. Nearly 27% of the district’s residents are black, and nearly 70% of the population is urban.
  
  Sabato calls it a toss-up right now.
  
  In national politics, the 8th district voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, both times with 54% of the vote.