Morning Jolt - This Is Going to Be a Fun Republican Presidential Campaign

NRO Newsletters . . .

Morning Jolt

. . . with Jim Geraghty

June 1, 2012

In This Issue . . .

1. From Boston to California, This Is Going to Be a Fun Republican Presidential Campaign to Watch

2. The Silky Pony Rides Free

3. Here's What Happens When Government Stops Collecting Dues for Unions

4. Addendum

Happy Friday!

Here's your Morning Jolt.

Jim

1. From Boston to California, This Is Going to Be a Fun Presidential Campaign to Watch

Thursday was a big news day -- Obama's unveiling of the Bush portraits at the White House, the Edwards verdict, some depressing economic and jobs news . . . but the contrast between campaign events in Boston and California seemed to be a potential omen of the coming months. Our friend Byron York lays it out:

In the course of a couple of hours Thursday, the Romney campaign sent out unmistakable signals that it intends to fight the guerilla warfare of a presidential campaign with a new aggressiveness and combativeness.

The first signal came in Boston, where top Obama adviser David Axelrod organized an anti-Romney event on the steps of the Massachusetts state house. The event, which Team Obama wanted to keep under wraps until shortly before it happened, was to feature remarks from Axelrod and Democratic state officeholders who would attack Romney's record as governor from 2003 to 2007. But it didn't work out as planned.

First, word of the event leaked last night, and the Romney campaign quickly scheduled an event of its own at the state house about an hour before Axelrod's. Then, when Democrats began speaking, a crowd of about 100 Romney workers, supporters, and volunteers showed up to chant, shout, and heckle the speakers every step of the way. The protesters shouted "Solyndra!" and "Where are the jobs!"

. . . Shortly after the Boston event, Romney launched a sneak attack of his own, holding a news conference at the headquarters of Solyndra, the bankrupt solar energy company that received $535 million in loan guarantees from the Obama administration. According to reporters traveling with Romney, the campaign did not tell the press about the event until the bus was actually on its way to Solyndra.

"The reason for keeping it quiet is because we knew if word got out that Solyndra would do everything in their power and the Obama administration would do everything in their power to stop us from having this news conference," a Romney aide told reporters, according to an ABC News account. "But taxpayers made a substantial investment in Solyndra, there are serious questions about what happened at Solyndra, why that investment was selected, what happened to that money."

At the RightSphere, Tanner Brumbarger writes:

We all remember the Solyndra incident. The largest solar company in the nation that received $535 million from the Obama Administration and then went bankrupt, costing over 1000 people their jobs.

Why did this happen? None of your business. The government knows best. Let them run the economy.

Bottom line is this: Solyndra went bankrupt and laid off over 1,000 workers after receiving $535 million from taxpayers. It's just another example of the Obama Administration hand-picking winners and losers in today's economy. Loser's being anyone who the Government regulates and winners being anyone who raises money for the Obama campaign. But with a strategy like that? The taxpayers will always lose. Econ 101 simply does not allow such strategies to succeed.

While Liberals scream about 'Crony Capitalism,' they simply need to see what Mitt said about the issue:"So his view is what I call 'crony capitalism, give money to your friends that contributed to your campaign. That's crony capitalism."

Doug Powers chuckles, "Great location for a speech on the economy of the last few years. If the place is still for sale Romney should grab it for use as his west coast HQ. Somebody's probably getting Chu'd out for not having taken down that sign before today."

2. The Silky Pony Rides Free

No jail time for John Edwards. Smart folks such as Rich Lowry and Mark Steyn argued this never belonged in a courtroom, but I wonder if future slime-ball politicians needed the risk of a lengthy trial as a deterrent to trying Edwards move-funds-from-wealthy-donors-but-never-touch-the-money gambit.

"Why are people so passionate about this washed-up pol?" asks Howard Kurtz.

Sure, had he won a few thousand more votes in Iowa last time, he might have captured the Democratic nomination, and taken the party down with him. And had John Kerry won another state, Edwards would have been vice president of the United States. But that was a long time ago.

Clearly, the passion didn't involve the campaign finance charges against him, which I always thought were a legal stretch, even though they involved funneling that Bunny money to his mistress Rielle Hunter. I was not surprised that the jury let him walk, even though he faces a potential retrial on the five deadlocked counts.

And yes, it was creepy watching Edwards declare his love for "my precious Quinn"--the baby whose paternity he ludicrously kept denying even after he stopped lying about the National Enquirer story on the affair.

The answer is that many people are still angry about the way Edwards treated his late wife, Elizabeth, whose final years were made miserable by his recklessness. The Edwards saga, as played out in the heat of a presidential race with his White House videographer, is a morality play, and much of the country seems to want the closure of seeing him punished. The case amounted to a national cleansing.

I would suspect that two other factors are at play here: 1) A lot of folks in the mainstream media fell for Edwards' charms -- the guy never had much of a legislative record to speak of; his policy vision was reheated populism and class warfare -- and so they feel personally betrayed by him in a way they don't feel by, say, Mark Sanford. 2) He's no longer of use to the Left in any way, shape, or form. When Bill Clinton was in trouble for circumstances not terribly dissimilar from Edwards, lefties lined up and charged into the enemy lines to ensure that they wouldn't have an impeached president on their watch. They still needed Bill Clinton (even though I would argue Al Gore would have had an easier time in 2000 if he were running as an incumbent).

3. Here's What Happens When Government Stops Collecting Dues for Unions

Wow. Just . . . wow.

Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees-the state's second-largest public-sector union after the National Education Association, which represents teachers-fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed Afscme's figures. A spokesman for Afscme declined to comment.

Much of that decline came from Afscme Council 24, which represents Wisconsin state workers, whose membership plunged by two-thirds to 7,100 from 22,300 last year.

A provision of the Walker law that eliminated automatic dues collection hurt union membership. When a public-sector contract expires the state now stops collecting dues from the affected workers' paychecks unless they say they want the dues taken out, said Peter Davis, general counsel of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission.

In many cases, Afscme dropped members from its rolls after it failed to get them to affirm they want dues collected, said a labor official familiar with Afscme's figures. In a smaller number of cases, membership losses were due to worker layoffs.

Looks like a lot of public sector workers may like their unions . . . but not enough to keep paying the dues if they have the option. Like, two-thirds of them.

Apply this across the country . . . and you're talking about the evisceration of one of the Democratic party's most important political allies -- a game-changer in politics in so many states. Compulsory union-due collection was the glue that kept the whole operation together. Ed Schultz may be exaggerating when he says a Republican win means America will never elect a Democratic president again . . . but his vision might not be that wildly exaggerated.

Over at the lefty blog FireDogLake, David Dayen notes, "The state president of the American Federation of Teachers is quoted in the article saying that a failure in the recall spells doom for unions nationwide. There's a lot of truth to that. And that's why it was so important for the national funding to flow into Wisconsin to take a stand here. . ."

Rick Moran writes:

There is a lot at stake for organized labor in this recall vote. But perhaps not unexpectedly, the voting public has largely moved on from the collective bargaining controversy and now see jobs and jobs creation as the primary issue for the recall vote. A win will be interpreted by labor bosses as vindication rather than a general unhappiness with the Wisconsin economy. That only proves how truly out of touch they are with ordinary people who don't see the unions representing their interests anymore.

Over at the Free Beacon, C. J. Ciaramella notices:

National Democrats are distancing themselves from the Badger State as Wisconsin's recall election approaches.

Incumbent Republican governor Scott Walker has campaigned with such national GOP luminaries as Govs. Bobby Jindal (R., La.), Nikki Haley (R., S.C.), Chris Christie (R., N.J.), and Bob McDonnell (R., Va.). However, Democratic challenger Tom Barrett, the mayor of Milwaukee, has not been able to bring similar firepower to bear.

"I don't think national Democrats want to touch Wisconsin with a 10-foot pole," said Wisconsin GOP spokesman Ben Sparks in an interview with the Free Beacon.

Walker enjoys a seven-point lead over Barrett in the latest public polling. That is consistent with the last several months of polling, which has shown Walker holding a five-point lead. Walker's strength has been attributed to increasing support for Walker's policies and voter fatigue with recalls.

Barrett has struggled to attract high-profile national surrogates to campaign with him on the stump.

Well, at least Barrett has Bill Clinton coming to town. That has Allahpundit a little worried:

Clinton's a famously good campaigner and he and Hillary have always appealed to blue-collar Dems, so if there's anyone out there who can squeeze a little extra turnout out of Barrett's base, it's him. That's not really the part that worries me, though. What worries me is that he must be sufficiently convinced by Barrett's internal polls showing that this is a winnable race that he's willing to stake a little of his own political capital on it. In fact, maybe that's part of the logic of this -- if Clinton shows up with Barrett, it's a strong signal to depressed Wisconsin Dems that this thing might still be winnable after all. Doesn't even matter what he says. Just the fact that he's there is the message.

Of course, Bill Clinton has nothing else to do. Debbie Wasserman Schultz made her token appearance earlier this week, but Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Michelle Obama have all been able to claim their schedules didn't permit time for a visit. What is Bill Clinton doing these days that he doesn't have time to go to Wisconsin?

4. Addendum

My friend Cam Edwards on New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg's proposed ban on sweet drinks over 16 ounces: "He sounds like he's about three months away from reinstating droit du seigneur."