Justin's Political Corner

This morning, the National Review broke the news that tea party Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is considering a presidential run, a scoop that should surprise no one who’s paid attention to his short Senate career. As Jonathan Bernstein explains, Cruz has spent his few months in the Senate alienating his colleagues by constantly trying to distinguish himself as the more-conservative-than-thou alternative to “establishment” Republicans. Such behavior makes no sense if Cruz is interested in building the coalitions necessary to legislate, but it makes perfect sense if he has his eyes set on winning a tea-soaked GOP primary in 2016.

 Here are five examples of such theories that Cruz actually believes in:

• George Soros leads a global conspiracy to abolish the game of golf. In a January 2012 article published on Cruz’s senate campaign website, the future senator argues that a twenty year-old non-binding United Nations resolution signed by 178 nations including the United States under President George H.W. Bush, is actually a nefarious plot to “abolish ‘unsustainable’ environments, including golf courses, grazing pastures, and paved roads.” Cruz attributes this plot to a common tea party boogieman — “[t]he originator of this grand scheme is George Soros, who candidly supports socialism and believes that global development must progress through eliminating national sovereignty and private property.”
• Communists infiltrated Harvard Law School. Almost three years ago, Cruz gave a speech to the tea party group Americans for Prosperity in which he claimed that revolutionary communists were a major presence on Harvard’s law faculty. According to Cruz, “There were fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we were there than Communists! There was one Republican. But there were twelve who would say they were Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government.” Cruz’s claims came as a big surprise to Harvard Law Professor Charles Fried, a Republican who served as President Reagan’s solicitor general, who says that “I would be surprised if there were any members of the faculty who ‘believed in the Communists overthrowing the U.S. government.’”
• Islamic law threatens the United States. Echoing a common fear among very conservative politicians that Sharia law is somehow creeping into American life, Cruz told a senate candidate’s forum last year that “Sharia law is an enormous problem” in the United States. In reality, there are barely any examples of Islamic or Sharia law even being mentioned in American legal proceedings, and when it is mentioned it is typically because a contract, will or other document drafted by a private citizen invokes Sharia law, not because the court wishes to replace American law with something else.
• Obama wants the immigration bill to fail so he can campaign on it in 2016. Cruz claims that “the reason that the White House is insisting on a path to citizenship” in the immigration bill making its way through Congress “is because the White House knows that insisting on that is very likely to scuttle the bill” giving Obama an issue to campaign on in 2014 and 2016. In reality, a path to citizenship was a key prong of the immigration bill President Bush supported in 2007. It’s also a major prong of the Gang of Eight bill — agang which includes Republican Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). So if the path to citizenship is actually an Obama plot to give himself a campaign issue, Obama has some unexpected co-conspirators in this scheme.
• George W. Bush led an assault on Texas’ “sovereignty.” Cruz’s first campaign ad touted his victory in a Supreme Court case permitting the state of Texas to execute a Mexican national, despite the fact that Texas violated America’s treaty obligations by not permitting this Mexican citizen “to request assistance from the consul of his own state.” President Bush objected to Texas’s effort to flout a treaty that even North Korea had honored when it detained two American journalists for five months in 2009. Cruz dismissed Bush’s objections as an intrusion on “the sovereignty of the States.”

If elected to the White House, Cruz is unlikely to step back from his penchant for Glenn Beck-style conspiracies.

h/t: Ian Millhiser at Think Progress Justice

By Christie’s deeds and his words, he is clearly committed to the death of the labor movement and every other sort of social progress.

Two years ago, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin introduced his falsely-named “budget repair bill.”  In doing so, he transformed himself from an obscure Midwestern Governor to the personification of a nationally-orchestrated, well-funded right-wing movement that was more – much more - than just an attempt to balance the budget on the backs of public service workers. His plan, concocted in quite public collaboration with the Koch brothers, was to gut public sector collective bargaining rights altogether.

The right had a new champion. Having weakened and nearly destroyed the private sector union movement in America over the last 30 years, it was time to hone in on a new target: public sector unions and, in fact, the very idea that a fair society requires a robust public sphere. (Hint: this is true for the non-wealthy, less so for people who can buy their way into private schools, private beaches, private jets and so on…).

As everyone knows, the people of Wisconsin fought back. Madison became our Tahrir Square. It was thrilling to watch, and the entire labor and progressive movement understood how important a battle it was. Tactics included civil disobedience on a scale rarely seen in the U.S. and an ambitious electoral recall of a handful of Republican State Senators and Walker himself. Several Senators lost their seats in the recall, but Walker won. Unfortunately, too many union members themselves voted for Walker, despite an enormous groundswell of progressive labor mobilization in the recall.  Walker’s re-election campaign in 2014 will be another “all or nothing” moment for labor and progressive forces as we learn whether Walker-Koch conservatism is here to stay.

Before we get to the 2014 re-match, however, there’s another Governor up for re-election in 2013 who is also in the public eye. I’m referring to the East Coast’s own version of Scott Walker. No one would confuse Chris Christie’s brash {pugilistic?} demeanor for that of a polite Midwesterner. But when it comes to strict adherence to right-wing ideology, Christie is every bit the match for Scott Walker — and in some cases, even worse. I’m from New Jersey, and it’s astonishing to me that someone this awful is the Governor of my home state. .

Before the dust had settled in Madison, Christie was pushing a similar package of collective bargaining “reforms” in New Jersey. Christie frequently made the comparison himself. During a series of press events in Wisconsin during the recall campaign, Christie rallied support for Walker by comparing and celebrating what he and Walker had done.The New Jersey Star Ledger reported it this way in May 2012:  

The Republican governor [Christie] drew no distinction between the pension and benefit reforms pushed through New Jersey’s Democrat-controlled Legislature and Walker’s near-elimination of collective bargaining rights for public-sector unions — actions that flooded the Madison statehouse with protesters and could make him Wisconsin’s first governor to be dumped during his term.

“You see what I’ve been able to do is give Scott and the people of Wisconsin a little preview of what good conservative governance can do for states,” Christie told several hundred people at a landscaping equipment maintenance shop near Milwaukee.

But Christie isn’t just hostile to working-class organizations. He has an all-encompassing right-wing philosophy that seeps into every aspect of his agenda. No matter the issue – minimum wage, marriage equality, climate change, directing public money to private corporations, lowering taxes on the rich – Chris Christie is a hard-right Republican. He may be a huge fan of Bruce Springsteen, but I can guarantee that Springsteen is not a fan of his.

So, as a public service for any progressive or labor-friendly voter who might have been disoriented by Christie’s post-Hurricane Sandy photo opportunities with President Obama, here’s a short dossier on why we should not be confused by this guy. Sadly, some New Jersey-based building trades locals have already endorsed Christie in his 2013 re-election bid. But hopefully everyone else will line up with his Democratic opponent, State Senator Barbara Buono. Christie is clearly the odds on favorite in the race– he’s got a ton of cash, his opponent is relatively unknown, and he taps into a deep well of suburban anger about stagnant wages and soaring property taxes. But he is in fact as bad as Scott Walker.  Period.

He’s firmly on the side of the 1%.

Last year, Governor Christie proposed a $1.2 billion tax cut, with the bulk of the cuts going to the top, even though the state faced enormous budget gaps. He has repeatedly vetoed Democratic legislative efforts to close those gaps by raising taxes on millionaires.  Romney would be proud, and surely, Christie’s wealthiest donors are too.

But here’s where it gets even more unbelievable.  Since taking office, Christie has awarded more than $2 billion in tax breaks to huge corporations like Prudential Insurance, Panasonic, and Goya Foods. They promise new jobs, but in fact just shuffle around existing ones. Prudential got a quarter billion just to move its headquarters a few blocks in Newark. Instead of investing precious tax dollars in actual job creation, New Jersey wastes it on hand-outs to well-connected corporations.

… and not the 99%

Meanwhile, he did raise taxes on one group: the working poor. Christie cut the Earned Income Tax Credit, a program with a long record of bipartisan support that puts more cash in the pockets of struggling families. And just for good measure, Christie also vetoed a modest $1.25/hr increase in the minimum wage.

Need to keep the beer cold?  As Jim Hightower would say, put it next to Chris Christie’s heart.

But isn’t he a social liberal?

People sometimes get the idea that Northeastern Republicans are “fiscal moderates and social liberals.” Not Christie.

On Marriage Equality: Christie is not only against same-sex marriage, he vetoed a bill that would have given equal rights to same sex couples.

On the DREAM Act: He killed it. This was a bill to allow the children of immigrants who graduated high school in New Jersey to attend state colleges at in-state tuition rates.  

On women’s health and abortion rights: He eliminated all funding for women’s health, cutting $7.4 million to Planned Parenthood and other clinics that offer contraception, cancer screenings and other essential services.

That’s not all.

Christie’s blind faith in trickle-down economics has left New Jersey with the seventh highest unemployment rate in the country (9.3%). Yet Christie single-handedly killed the biggest public infrastructure project in the country. The ARC tunnel would have connected New Jersey to New York and created 45,000 permanent jobs, but Christie blocked the project. He’s like one of those moronic Republican Governors who turned down high-speed rail money from the Federal Stimulus Act in Florida or, you guessed it, Wisconsin.

He’s also endangering New Jersey’s reputation as a state that cares about education. In his first year in office he cut $1.2 billion in state aid to public schools. The cuts were so deep that the state Supreme Court found they violated students’ rights. As a candidate, Chris Christie pledged to increase funding for higher education. But then he was elected. And he turned around and cut higher education funding 15%.  All the while, referring to the leaders of the state’s teachers’ union as a “group of political thugs” for opposing these policies.

But what about that great moment after Sandy? Doesn’t that mean anything?

No. Not really. Christie said he didn’t ‘give a damn’ whether global warming contributed to the storm. And while climate scientists agree that climate change will produce worse and worse storms, Christie pulled New Jersey out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The RGGI is a compact among the northeast states to limit carbon emissions, and is widely seen as a very smart policy. .

Christie is up for re-election this November. It will tough to defeat him, even as he richly deserves to go down. The media like him, and some Democrats in the State Legislature have on occasion made it too easy for him to look effective and far-sighted. If we tell the truth to ourselves, the truth is – right now, Christie is popular. The latest polling has him ahead of his likely Democratic opponent by 35 points. And he has a huge financial advantage.

Still more alarmingly, Christie has somehow secured support from some segments of organized labor, notably the laborers and plumbers unions. No doubt the leaders of these unions see themselves faced with a difficult choice. With Christie so far ahead in polls, it’s tempting to play the percentages and bet on the likely winner in the hopes of securing some small advantage for your members. Pragmatism has its place in politics. We get it.

But in this case, it’s deeply troubling.  

Sometimes, even when the odds are bad, you have to fight. The alternative is simply making an enemy stronger.

This isn’t the first time labor has made this mistake. There are many famous examples of letting short-term pragmatism blind you to a longer term reality. The Air Traffic Controllers backed Ronald Reagan for President in 1980, and he turned around and crushed them. Richard Nixon was backed by many construction unions in 1968 and 1972, and he then worked to undermine them. And of course in Wisconsin, the police and firefighters unions endorsed Walker in his first campaign, and have to know what a gigantic mistake that was.

Christie’s record speaks for itself, and his kind words for Scott Walker should erase any doubt: Christie is no moderate. His worldview should be an anathema to progressives everywhere.  He’s also dangerous, because he’s popular and is a strong contender for the Republican nomination in 2016. A landslide victory in 2013 will be a launching pad for his 2016 race—“I won a bi-partisan landslide in a blue northeastern state (one that Barack Obama won by 18 points and Bob Menendez won by 20 points), I tamed the unions, and I can make a conservative message work everywhere from New Jersey to New Mexico.”  Being able to point to labor support will only bolster his case.

h/t: AlterNet

AUSTIN, Texas—Big in all things, Texas leads the nation in failing to provide health insurance. About one in four Texans are uninsured, the highest percentage in any state. That’s some 6 million people, the total population of Missouri.

Yet Gov. Rick Perry, back from his stumbles in the 2012 GOP presidential race, has insisted that Texas will not accept the federal money provided by President Obama’s health care law to expand Medicaid coverage. As Republican governors from Arizona to New Jersey have joined the program, Perry has amplified his opposition. In a bristling speech to conservatives last week, he said governors who accepted the money had “folded in the face of federal bribery.”

In no state does the decision to expand present such profound political and policy issues as in Texas. Whatever Perry decides, many Texans will benefit from the subsidies in the 2010 law that help the uninsured in lower-to-middle-income families purchase private insurance on health care exchanges. Perry has also refused to establish such an exchange, but the law allows Washington to step in, and Texans who qualify will receive those dollars. Rice University demographers Steve Murdock and Michael Cline recently projected those exchanges will cover up to 1.7 million of the state’s uninsured.

The law’s other mechanism for increasing coverage is to broaden Medicaid eligibility for adults near poverty, but Washington can’t mandate this expansion if states refuse it. Murdock and Cline project that another 1.5 million to 2 million Texans would receive coverage if the state participated.

The state medical establishment, reluctant to cross the governor too publicly, has been restrained in pressing for expansion. But Republican state Rep. John Zerwas, a health care leader who represents a district outside Houston, says legislators are getting an earful at home from providers and local officials worried about the state rejecting the money.

Key state Senate Republicans, though, are striking a harder line. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Tommy Williams says he will support enlarging Medicaid only if Obama allows Texas to transform the way it delivers Medicaid, not only to the expansion population but also to the current recipients. “The existing program is not sustainable,” Williams says.

That’s a hardball position, but not necessarily disqualifying: The administration has reached an agreement in principle with Florida, for instance, to move more Medicaid recipients into private managed care. Many here, though, wonder if Perry would take any deal. The widespread belief is that he intends to seek the GOP presidential nomination again in 2016, and accepting more Medicaid money would smudge his image of Alamo-like resistance to Obama.

Rejecting the federal money might not pose an immediate political threat to Texas Republicans, whose coalition revolves around white voters responsive to small-government arguments. But renouncing the money represents an enormous gamble for Republicans with the growing Hispanic community, which is expected to approach one-third of the state’s eligible voters in 2016. Hispanics would benefit most from expansion because they constitute 60 percent of the state’s uninsured. A jaw-dropping 3.6 million Texas Hispanics lack insurance.

Texas Democrats are too weak to much affect the Medicaid debate. But if state Republicans reject federal money that could insure 1 million or more Hispanics, they could provide Democrats with an unprecedented opportunity to energize those voters—the key to the party’s long-term revival. With rejection, says Democratic state Rep. Rafael Anchia of Dallas, Republicans “would dig themselves into an even deeper hole with the Hispanic community.”

In 1994, California Republican Gov. Pete Wilson mobilized his base by promoting Proposition 187, a ballot initiative to deny services to illegal immigrants. He won reelection that year—and then lost the war as Hispanics stampeded from the GOP and helped turn the state lastingly Democratic. Texas Republicans wouldn’t be threatened as quickly, but they may someday judge their impending decision on expanding Medicaid as a similar turning point.

H/T: National Journal

Riding a wave of publicity following his epic filibuster of John Brennan, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) admitted in an interview published Thursday that he is considering a presidential bid in 2016.

“We’re looking at it very seriously,” Paul told Politico. “I think our party needs something new, fresh and different.”

h/t: TPM LiveWire

Last night on The O’Reilly Factor, previewing Sen. Marco Rubio’s response to President Obama’s State of the Union speech, Fox News political analyst Karl Rove labeled Rubio “the American experience” and declared him “probably one of the best communicators since Ronald Reagan.”

Over-the-top praise of Rubio on the network is nothing new. Rubio’s increasingly prominent role in the national political conversation is thanks, in part, to the help of Fox News, which has served as his primary cheerleader since his 2010 Senate campaign. 

In recent weeks, Rove in particular has showered praise on Rubio and his role in the debate over immigration reform. His comparison of Rubio to Reagan on The O’Reilly Factor wasn’t even the first time he had done so on Fox’s airwaves this month; he made similar comments during a February 4 appearance on Special Report. 

Rove isn’t alone in his adoration of the Florida senator. Fox personalities have fawned over Rubio on-air for years, boosted his 2010 Florida Senate run (including helping him fundraise on-air), hosted him for dozens of primetime appearances on the network, and repeatedly touted him as an ideal vice presidential pick for former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

When Marco Rubio declared his intention to run for the Florida Senate seat left open by Mel Martinez, he trailed Gov. Charlie Crist — then still a Republican — by a huge margin and seemed like a longshot candidate.

Less than a year and a half later, Rubio was elected comfortably. According to Rubio, his meteoric rise in the race is thanks in no small part to Fox News political analyst Karl Rove.

Appearing at a fundraising breakfast for Rove’s Crossroads political groups at the 2012 Republican National Convention, Rubio claimed it was “big news” when Rove personally donated money to his Senate campaign because it meant that ”someone of his stature would actually take a bet on someone who was such a long shot.”

Rove’s help for Rubio extended well beyond sending personal checks; the Crossroads groups poured nearly $3 million (by Rove’s accounting) into the race. During his fundraising pitch for Crossroads at the RNC, Rubio specifically praised the ads Rove’s groups ran in his favor, saying “you would turn on the TV and there were ads that created a clear distinction, and did so in ways that were meaningful.”

Rove wasn’t the only Fox personality that helped Rubio’s Senate run — the network practically went all-in for him.

During his Senate run, Rubio was also formally endorsed — in addition to being praised on-air — by several Fox personalities, including former contributors Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Rick Santorum. In addition to endorsing Rubio, Fox host Mike Huckabee gave material support to his campaign in the form of a $5,000 donation from his political group, Huck PAC.

h/t: MMFA

Hillary Clinton would be “the ideal Democratic presidential candidate in 2016,” sweeping her party’s primary and besting potential Republican candidates other than Chris Christie, according to the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling.

The secretary of state has a 54 percent favorable rating among registered voters in polling released Thursday, with 39 percent viewing her unfavorably. Among Democrats, those numbers were 79 percent favorable to 15 percent unfavorable.

She led a poll of possible Democratic primary candidates by an imposing margin, garnering a majority 57 percent support. Vice President Joe Biden came in at a distant second, with 16 percent, while seven other prospective candidates, including New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, all failed to break 5 percent.

Clinton also would lead three possible GOP candidates — former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) — by margins of 14 percentage points. A matchup against Clinton and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, whom she edged 44 percent to 42 percent, could be much closer.

The 2016 Republican primary may be a challenge for Christie, who tied for fourth among possible 2016 Republican nominees. Christie was more popular nationally with Democrats than with Republicans in the PPP survey.

Rubio was the most popular among Republicans, with 21 percent of GOP support, followed by Ryan at 16 percent, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 15 percent, and Christie and Bush at 14 percent each. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Texas Gov. Rick Perry all saw single-digit support.

With Clinton and Biden excluded from the Democratic field, 40 percent of primary voters were undecided. Cuomo and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts took the top places, with 19 percent and 16 percent respectively, with O’Malley, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia and former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer trailing.

h/t: Huffington Post

At a press conference on Tuesday organized by the anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) reaffirmed that his ultimate legislative objective is to restrict all women’s access to abortion services.

Members of Texas Right to Life are currentlypushing their state’s legislators to pass a “fetal pain” bill that would ban abortions after just 20 weeks — despite the fact that there’s no scientific evidence that fetuses can actually feel pain at that point. As the Huffington Post reports, Perry not only enthusiastically endorsed such a measure, but also confirmed his “goal” to continue passing restrictive legislation to limit women’s Constitutional right to choose:

To be clear, my goal, and the goal of many of those joining me here today, is to make abortion, at any stage, a thing of the past. While Roe v. Wade prevents us from taking that step, it does allow states to do some things to protect life if they can show there is a compelling state interest. I don’t think there is any issue that better fits the definition of ‘compelling state interest’ than preventing the suffering of our state’s unborn. […]

Again, the ideal world is a world without abortion. Until then, however, we will continue to pass laws to ensure abortions are as rare as possible under existing law.

Perry does not support legal abortion access for women who have become impregnated from rape or incest, a far-right position that cost several anti-choice candidates their seats in last month’s election.

Rick Perry, you can kiss my ass! You are the worst Governor that Texas has ever had (even worse than Dumbya, who became President).

h/t: Tara Culp-Ressler at Think Progress Health

Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator who ran for president this year, says he is considering a second campaign for the White House in 2016.

During a visit to Capitol Hill Monday, Santorum told The Weekly Standard magazine that he is “open” to running again.

“I’m open to it, yeah,” Santorum told reporter Michael Warren. “I think there’s a fight right now as to what the soul of the Republican Party’s going to be and the conservative movement, and we have something to say about that. I think from our battle, we’re not going to leave the field.”

h/t: Yahoo! News

Earlier this week, GQ magazine published an interview with Senator Marco Rubio, whom many consider a contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, in which Mr. Rubio was asked how old the earth is. After declaring “I’m not a scientist, man,” the senator went into desperate evasive action, ending with the declaration that “it’s one of the great mysteries.”

It’s funny stuff, and conservatives would like us to forget about it as soon as possible. Hey, they say, he was just pandering to likely voters in the 2016 Republican primaries — a claim that for some reason is supposed to comfort us.

But we shouldn’t let go that easily. Reading Mr. Rubio’s interview is like driving through a deeply eroded canyon; all at once, you can clearly see what lies below the superficial landscape. Like striated rock beds that speak of deep time, his inability to acknowledge scientific evidence speaks of the anti-rational mind-set that has taken over his political party.

By the way, that question didn’t come out of the blue. As speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Mr. Rubio provided powerful aid to creationists trying to water down science education. In one interview, he compared the teaching of evolution to Communist indoctrination tactics — although he graciously added that “I’m not equating the evolution people with Fidel Castro.” Gee, thanks.

The most obvious example other than evolution is man-made climate change. As the evidence for a warming planet becomes ever stronger — and ever scarier — the G.O.P. has buried deeper into denial, into assertions that the whole thing is a hoax concocted by a vast conspiracy of scientists. And this denial has been accompanied by frantic efforts to silence and punish anyone reporting the inconvenient facts.

But the same phenomenon is visible in many other fields. The most recent demonstration came in the matter of election polls. Coming into the recent election, state-level polling clearly pointed to an Obama victory — yet more or less the whole Republican Party refused to acknowledge this reality. Instead, pundits and politicians alike fiercely denied the numbers and personally attacked anyone pointing out the obvious; the demonizing of The Times’s Nate Silver, in particular, was remarkable to behold.

What accounts for this pattern of denial? Earlier this year, the science writer Chris Mooney published “The Republican Brain,” which was not, as you might think, a partisan screed. It was, instead, a survey of the now-extensive research linking political views to personality types. As Mr. Mooney showed, modern American conservatism is highly correlated with authoritarian inclinations — and authoritarians are strongly inclined to reject any evidence contradicting their prior beliefs. Today’s Republicans cocoon themselves in an alternate reality defined by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, and only on rare occasions — like on election night — encounter any hint that what they believe might not be true.

And, no, it’s not symmetric. Liberals, being human, often give in to wishful thinking — but not in the same systematic, all-encompassing way.

Coming back to the age of the earth: Does it matter? No, says Mr. Rubio, pronouncing it “a dispute amongst theologians” — what about the geologists? — that has “has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.” But he couldn’t be more wrong.

We are, after all, living in an era when science plays a crucial economic role. How are we going to search effectively for natural resources if schools trying to teach modern geology must give equal time to claims that the world is only 6.000 years old? How are we going to stay competitive in biotechnology if biology classes avoid any material that might offend creationists?

h/t: Paul Krugman at The New York Times

Is one of the quirkiest rituals of the Republican presidential election calendar heading for the grave?

It is, if Iowa’s Republican Gov. Terry Branstad has his say.

Eyeing the wreckage of the 2011 Ames Straw Poll, which Rep. Michele Bachmannwon only to fizzle as a candidate soon after, Mr. Branstad wants to do away with the whole thing.

“I think the straw poll has outlived its usefulness,” Mr. Branstad said of the 33-year-old GOP ritual. “It has been a great fundraiser for the party but I think its days are over.”

Going back to 1979, Republican presidential contenders have flocked to Ames, Iowa, in August to eat fried food, dance to country bands and wheedle votes from the party faithful in what amounts to an overblown party fund-raiser disguised as a trial run for the real Iowa caucuses early the next year.

Its track record as an anointer of GOP nominees falls far shy of impressive. Only two victors, Bob Dole in 1995 and George W. Bush in 1999, went on to win the Iowa caucus the next year and then the nomination in November. And only one, Mr. Bush, went on to become president.

Still, other top Iowa Republicans bristled at Mr. Branstad’s suggestion that the sun had set on Ames.

In an interview, Gov. Branstad pointed to Ms. Bachmann’s rapid rise and fall in 2011 as Exhibit A for why the straw poll no longer makes sense. The Bachmann campaign invested heavily in the one-day event, busing in thousands of supporters from around Iowa and hiring singers like Randy Travis to entertain them in a huge tent.

The Minnesota Republican beat libertarian Rep. Ron Paul of Texas by 150 votes, but never caught fire in Iowa. She came in a very distant sixth in the January Iowa caucuses, getting just 5% of the vote.

h/t: WSJ.com

If Republican challenger Mitt Romney doesn’t emerge triumphant on Election Day, the party will have a deep bench of contenders to draw from in 2016. Here is a list of the top 10 to watch.

1. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie

In 2008, Republicans begged Christie to make a run for the White House. In 2016, the combative governor may be better positioned to seek the presidency, and there are signs that Christie wants the job: He used his keynote speech at the Republican convention mainly to tout his own accomplishments. Republicans love to see Christie play the role of partisan warrior, but Christie also projects a real sincerity that voters on both sides of the aisle appreciate. Christie’s tough talk didn’t stop him from winning in a left-leaning state.  

2. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio

The Cuban-American senator is widely seen as a top pick for 2016, particularly as the GOP desperately needs to win over Hispanic voters as the electorate becomes more diverse. Rubio also has strong ties to the tea party, credentials that could help him in a Republican primary. In order to get the nomination, however, Rubio would need to prove that he’s a leader with substance commensurate to his celebrity. He’s also not the only Latino Republican with star power: New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez’s fiery speech at the convention blew Rubio’s remarks out of the water. 

3. Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell

The outgoing chairman of the Republican Governors Association has been both charming on the campaign trail and adept at pushing his agenda through a bipartisan Legislature. As the governor of a swing state, he’s well-positioned for a run at the White House once he’s term-limited out of office in 2013. An Army veteran, McDonnell also has military credentials that many other contenders lack. McDonnell has positioned himself as a problem-solver, not an ideologue, but his willingness to sign legislation regulating abortion hasn’t endeared him to those who are moderate on social issues.

4. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush

Former President George W. Bush’s little brother has been out of politics for a while—he currently works in the private sector and is an active proponent of education reform— but he’s indisputably an elder statesman in the Republican Party. With a strong record on education and immigration reform, Bush represents a moderate brand of conservatism that could appeal to swing voters and Hispanics. In a party increasingly motivated by tea party sentiments, however, Bush may be less natural a fit. He has even publicly criticized the direction the GOP is moving in.

5. Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan

If GOP nominee Mitt Romney loses in 2012, his vice presidential pick is well-positioned for a run at the White House in 2016. Ryan, the policy-focused chairman of the House Budget Committee, is widely viewed by Republicans as one of the party’s best spokesmen for its legislative agenda. His vice presidential nomination ensures that he’s nationally known. The biggest downside to a Ryan bid: As a member of the House who has spent his life in Washington, Ryan has little executive or business experience. So far, however, that hasn’t slowed his rise.

6. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul

Libertarian icon Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, may have run for the presidency for the last time, but he has an heir waiting in the wings: his son, Rand. The elder Paul’s cult following showed its strength during the 2012 Republican primaries, and his minimalist-government philosophy has made its mark on mainstream Republican thought. Rand, who endorsed Romney for president in 2012, is seen as less ideologically rigid than his father, an impression that hurts the younger Paul among die-hard Ron Paul supporters but helps him garner wider GOP support.   

7. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal

The young and wonky governor of Louisiana coasted to a second term last year, and 2016 might finally mark a good opportunity for Jindal to take a run at higher office. Jindal has been viewed as an up-and-coming star in the party since he won the governorship in 2007. He will serve as chairman of the Republican Governors Association next year. Jindal didn’t shy away from raising his national profile this cycle, stumping for Romney and heading to Iowa to back Texas Gov. Rick Perry in the Republican primary. Jindal returned to Iowa this fall, traveling the state with former Sen. Rick Santorum in a campaign to oust a state Supreme Court judge who has supported same-sex marriage.

8. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley

When Nikki Haley rode a wave of tea party support into the South Carolina governor’s mansion, she was hailed as the party’s newest breakout star. As a woman and an Indian-American, Haley represents two demographics—women and minorities—that Republicans struggled to win over in 2012. Haley’s governorship hasn’t been all smooth sailing, however; she has alienated both opponents and former supporters with her management style, The State has reported. Haley may be more well-regarded nationally than she is locally.

9. South Dakota Sen. John Thune

Rumored as a potential candidate in 2012, Thune chose instead to stay in the Senate and focus on ascending in the Republican leadership. The Senate Republican Conference chairman doesn’t have strong name recognition nationally, but he’s well-known in Washington as a legislator who has the fundraising and retail politicking skills—not to mention the good looks—of a presidential hopeful. Strong D.C. ties have their downsides; in Thune’s case, it could include his vote to bail out Wall Street in 2008.

10. Indiana Rep. Mike Pence

Pence, a six-term congressman, looks set to win the Indiana governorship on Tuesday. Some Republicans are already calling on him to consider a run for even higher office. Pence—who describes himself as “a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order”— is well-regarded in the tea party and is an able fundraiser.

h/t: Yahoo! News

JANESVILLE, Wis. — Professor Ryan? Lobbyist Ryan? Maybe back to plain-old Rep. Ryan or future President Ryan?

If Paul Ryan loses his bid to become vice president, he is still a man with options. The wonky chairman of the House Budget Committee is one of the Republicans’ best voices in explaining fiscal issues. Should Mitt Romney’s presidential bid fail, Ryan will be a much-sought-after figure in political and business circles.

Even in failure, the 42-year-old Wisconsin native’s best days might be ahead of him.

“I refer to Paul Ryan as the Paul Revere of the next generation,” said Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who was chairman of the House Budget Committee when Ryan was an aide there.

“I tell you, he’s just getting started,” Kasich said at a recent rally in Ohio. “He’s getting started in the process of helping America and building a much stronger America.”

That could be through public education or lobbying, back in his day job as a congressman or biding his time until a presidential run of his own. Unlike his Democratic counterpart, 69-year-old Joe Biden, Ryan is nowhere near retirement; a Biden loss would probably send him home to Delaware, although Biden joked this week about running for president in 2016.

Publicly, Ryan and his closest allies maintain that momentum is behind the Romney-Ryan ticket. They aren’t entertaining any talk about anything different from Ryan settling into the vice president’s residence in January. Ryan already has met once with Mike Leavitt, the former health and human services secretary who is building a government-in-waiting for Romney, Ryan advisers said.

But Ryan’s biggest boosters realize he probably can write his own ticket, win or lose on Nov. 6.

If Romney loses, Ryan will be seen as a leading White House contender in 2016. He will be a national party figure even without being a top member of the House leadership. That could breed resentment among current Republican leaders and perhaps splinter coalitions within the already fractured GOP alliances at the top of the House.

A return also would make Ryan a leading target for Democrats. For the next few years, Democrats would lay traps in legislation, forcing him to take sides on measures that could come back to haunt him during a presidential bid.

That is why some of Ryan’s biggest boosters are considering whether it wouldn’t be better for Ryan to resign from the House. He could write a book – “saving America” is a theme often bandied about – or teach at a university.

After all, on the campaign trail, Ryan is as much lecturer as campaigner. Aides routinely set up giant video screens so Ryan can use visual aids to walk audiences through the minutiae of budget politics. Graphs and charts are as common as yard signs and American flags at some events, with Ryan settling into his role as explainer in chief.

It’s no accident he embraces the “wonk” label aggressively. It could make him an attractive figure as a guest lecturer or visiting professor.

Or Ryan could set up an office at a Washington think tank and focus on issues that interest him. That would give him a platform to shape public policy without the frustrations of electoral politics.

Both options would give Ryan some space to contemplate serious issues. One of the chief reasons Romney put him on the ticket – and one of the reasons he accepted – was to have high-minded debates about Washington’s relationship with the public. That notion quickly melted into the partisan rancor of this campaign.

Ryan could cash in and become a lobbyist. His family is on solid financial footing, thanks in part to wife Janna Ryan’s family money. Last year, the couple reported adjusted gross income of more than $323,000. Yet Ryan himself has never been a major earner. He started out as a congressional aide and waited tables to pay the bills.

Ryan might just take up positions in corporate boardrooms, either as a consultant or director. The lucrative positions, though, could preclude a future White House run if not carefully chosen.

During the Republican presidential primary campaign, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich faced questions about his profitable network of consulting and media firms. One of his clients was mortgage giant Freddie Mac, which he blamed for the economic crisis of 2008.

If he wins re-election, Ryan could simply settle back into life in Congress.

Republican John McCain returned to the Senate after his failed 2000 and 2008 presidential bids. Democrat John Kerry did the same after his 2004 bid and Joe Lieberman, now an independent, after his 2000 vice presidential failure on the Democratic ticket. McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, returned to be governor of Alaska, until she abruptly resigned seven months later and turned to punditry.

Ryan has shown little interest in following Palin – or other ex-candidates – into media circles. He is more likely to protect his newfound popularity, his credibility and his brand.

If Romney loses, it would guarantee a wide-open field for Republicans and Democrats alike in 2016. Ryan’s allies aren’t ruling out a bid for the top spot for their friend.

h/t: Philip Elliot at Huffington Post