The primary field really is bad–for Democrats. As the media and voters scrutinize the Republican contenders, it is easy to forget how weak and unpopular the incumbent is. Polls suggest a majority of Americans want to replace President Barack Obama in 2012, and Democrats are hitting the panic button–even as Obama enjoys a slight bounce in approval–because they realize he has failed.

In the end-of-the-year countdown spirit, here are the top ten Democrats who would be better presidential candidates than Barack Obama in 2012:

***

10. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr.

Losing his Senate race in 2006 seems to have freed the former Tennessee congressman to speak his mind. He has bucked liberal dogma on foreign policy and the Keystone XL pipeline, and offers independent, common sense ideas.

***

9. Sen. Joe Manchin

West Virginia’s junior senator can tout his experience as governor and his victory in a tough political climate. He appeals to independents with his opposition to climate change legislation, and his criticism of his own party’s stalling in the Senate.

(more…)

The liberal tax revolt, as the Wall Street Journal is calling it, is a very important topic — especially for investors and small-business entrepreneurs. And for new jobs.

The so-called revolt is comprised of three Democratic senators: Kent Conrad, Evan Bayh, and Ben Nelson. They want to extend all the Bush tax cuts. That includes taxes on the wealthy, or the top personal tax rate, the investment taxes on capital gains and dividends, and the estate tax.

So is this revolt a game-changer, or merely wishful thinking?

With a strong pushback against the revolt by President Obama, Treasury man Tim Geithner, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, right now it looks like wishful thinking. But with Democrats getting badly paddled in various polls, you never know.

When Tim Geithner told me in a CNBC interview a few weeks ago about his 20-20 rule for the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends, I blogged that this was a good thing — in particular the story for dividend taxes, which could go to 39.6 percent. But no increase at all on investment taxes would be even better.

(more…)

When politicians are free from the demands of reelection, they often find their true, inner voice. They often speak with an honesty that eludes them on the campaign trail. Retiring Senator Evan Bayh provides the latest example with this quote:

“If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months.”

Ouch

(more…)

The retirement of Evan Bayh is the latest heralding of difficult 2010 election year for the Democrats.  It is also a symptom of Obama’s mid 40s approval rating.  Smart Democrats know that the average midterm election year losses for the President’s party, when his approval rating is below 50%, is 41 seats in the House.  Three Presidents in the modern era suffered such a fate – Johnson, Ford and Bill Clinton.  Of those three, only Clinton went on to win a second term.  While it is likely Obama will suffer huge mid-term losses, it is more than unlikely that he will enjoy Clinton’s revival.

Clinton suffered the loss of 54 House seats in his first midterm election, despite a growing economy, because he broke his middle class tax cut promise – and the Republicans were smart enough to unanimously oppose that and run on the Contract With America.  Despite the loss of the House for the first time in 40 years, Clinton won reelection.

Clinton was able to win reelection in part because Bob Dole was not an effective candidate for the Republicans on the tax issue.  Clinton also famously triangulated in 1995 and 1996 with the help of longtime strategist Dick Morris.  Dropping ideology for practicality, in 1995 and 1996, Clinton pushed a national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy, issued an order clarifying the rights of religious expression in schools,  supported uniforms for public schools, banned human cloning, signed Megan’s law and welfare reform to name a few less than ideological triangulations.  Even before that, Clinton incurred the wrath of unions by pushing the ratification of NAFTA.

Of course, as the Governor of a swing state, Bill Clinton leaned an early lesson in pragmatism after he was defeated in his bid for a second term.  After apologizing for the policies that led to his reelection defeat, he regained the governorship and went on to enact mandatory competency testing for teachers and granted tax breaks to businesses – again with triangulating guru Dick Morris by his side.

(more…)

Can you hear us now?

Senator Evan Bayh’s decision not to seek re-election this November makes him just the latest among numerous Democrats who announced they are quitting. They have looked at the Obamacare debacle, the crippling debt, the millions of lost jobs, and the looming national security disaster heralded by the increase in jihad terror attacks on American soil, and they’re getting out. They know that Americans are waking up to how the big government policies of the Democrats are continuing to hurt our economy, and are ruinous for America.

Swindling Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) will not seek re-election; the drug-addled Congressman Patrick Kennedy will not be seeking re-election in Rhode Island; Arkansas Congressman Marion Berry and Senator Byron Dorgan are leaving. Then there’s Michigan Democratic Lt. Governor John Cherry’s decision to end his floundering bid for governor. Colorado Governor Bill Ritter is also retiring. Not to mention the stunning late December party switch by freshman Alabama Representative Parker Griffith — just to mention a few.

And in Bayh’s whiny withdrawal speech, he made sure to take parting shots at the Republicans under the guise of the well-worn canard of their “lack of bipartisanship.” As if the Democrats worked with Bush.

The Party of No? Hardly. It’s the Save-America party, it’s the Say No to Communism party. Bayh didn’t speak of the irreparable damage the Democrats are doing to this country. He whimpered that only the Republicans said no to a jobs bill (although the government doesn’t create jobs, the private sector does) and that the Republicans wouldn’t sign off on another bloated, useless, cost-prohibitive commission to investigate bloated, useless, cost-prohibitive government spending. Funny how even a Democrat who is thought of as honorable and measured showed no honor in his parting remarks. He went out like an ankle-biting Democrat, pathetic and small.

(more…)

Editors Note: This post is re-printed with permission from The Nation magazine, where it appears as the February 4, 2010 cover story. You can see a video interview with Professor Lessig about the piece here, or take action on issues raised in the piece by visiting FixCongressFirst.org.

We should remember what it felt like one year ago, as the ability to recall it emotionally will pass and it is an emotional memory as much as anything else. It was a moment rare in a democracy’s history. The feeling was palpable–to supporters and opponents alike–that something important had happened. America had elected, the young candidate promised, a transformational president. And wrapped in a campaign that had produced the biggest influx of new voters and small-dollar contributions in a generation, the claim seemed credible, almost intoxicating, and just in time.

Yet a year into the presidency of Barack Obama, it is already clear that this administration is an opportunity missed. Not because it is too conservative. Not because it is too liberal. But because it is too conventional. Obama has given up the rhetoric of his early campaign–a campaign that promised to “challenge the broken system in Washington” and to “fundamentally change the way Washington works.” Indeed, “fundamental change” is no longer even a hint.

Instead, we are now seeing the consequences of a decision made at the most vulnerable point of Obama’s campaign–just when it seemed that he might really have beaten the party’s presumed nominee. For at that moment, Obama handed the architecture of his new administration over to a team that thought what America needed most was another Bill Clinton. A team chosen by the brother of one of DC’s most powerful lobbyists, and a White House headed by the quintessential DC politician. A team that could envision nothing more than the ordinary politics of Washington–the kind of politics Obama had called “small.” A team whose imagination–politically–is tiny.

These tiny minds–brilliant though they may be in the conventional game of DC–have given up what distinguished Obama’s extraordinary campaign. Not the promise of healthcare reform or global warming legislation–Hillary Clinton had embraced both of those ideas, and every other substantive proposal that Obama advanced. Instead, the passion that Obama inspired grew from the recognition that something fundamental had gone wrong in the way our government functions, and his commitment to reform it.

(more…)

The Scott Brown triumph heralds an enormous opportunity for Republicans this fall.  As I posited in Part 2 of this series, The Top 4 Things Congressional Republicans Must Do in 2010, in order to make the most of the 2010 elections, Republicans must run on a defined Agenda for the Fall Elections.  That Agenda needs to be Clear, Practical and Limited.  Here is what I mean:

Clear.  In the wake of the Brown election, the Democrats most certainly will have a messy 2010.  The Pelosi wing of the Democrats, driven in part by Moveon.org, Emily’s List and others, will continue to push their views and legislation on issues like Health Care, Cap and Trade, Taxes, Afghanistan and more.  The Evan Bayh wing of the party, located in swing districts and states and fearful of the message of the Brown election – in order to survive – will have to push back on those Left Wing plans.  At worst, that inter-party warfare will be politically very ugly.   At best it will portray a Democrat Party with no clear vision for the future.  Similar to the fate that befell the warring and splintered Democrat Party in 1968, the Democrat infighting in 2010 will hamstring their election efforts.

That lack of clarity on the Democrats part must be contrasted by a clear governing vision on the part of Republicans.  The beauty of the Contract With America, beyond its content, was that it provided a concise and clear Agenda.  It told the voters exactly what Republicans intended to do if they won.  This Fall, Republicans, in a unified fashion, must do no less than that if they want to take back the House.

(more…)