posted by Josh Goodman

No one knows what Sarah Palin will do next. But, we do know what Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, wants her to do. From ABC:

If Palin does show up in Virginia and New Jersey, the two states that hold gubernatorial elections this fall, it will be fascinating to watch. I'm sure she could raise a lot of money for the Republicans nominees, Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Chris Christie in New Jersey. She could also draw a big crowd to a campaign rally.

That said, I'm also sure that Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine, the Democratic candidates, would raise a ton of money from Democrats all over the country simply by saying, "Sarah Palin wants me to lose."

posted by Josh Goodman

Sarah Palin's resignation will give other youthful politicians a chance to shine in Alaska politics. People like, oh, Ted Stevens? From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

I doubt that Stevens, age 85, will run, though stranger things have happened (in fact, stranger things have happened in Alaska in the last week). What's clear is that soon-to-be governor Sean Parnell won't have an easy time winning a full term, as reflected by the long list of candidates -- both Democrats and Republicans -- considering the race.

posted by Alan Greenblatt

David Frum makes a point similar to what I wrote about on Saturday.

And yet – bitter irony – Palin’s self-immolation today may yet do the Republican party more harm than good. Had Palin sought and won the Republican nomination in 2012, she would almost certainly have proceeded to a Goldwater-style debacle – and dragged Republican senators, governors and representatives down with her. That would have been a miserable result. And yet it also would have been a clarifying one. Republicans would have got Palin and Palinism out of their systems in a sharp and painful lesson that would have opened the way to the kind of reconstruction that has occurred in, say, the United Kingdom.

Now the steady and diligent Mitt Romney now emerges as the far and away Republican front-runner. Romney used to be exactly the kind of presidential candidate the GOP needed: accomplished, intelligent, knowledgeable. But a Republican party that has not learned why Palin was a problem has pressed Romney into turning himself into a Palin replica. If Romney loses in 2012, the same pressures will be applied to his successor. Spared the misery of massive defeat, Republicans will also be denied the lessons of defeat – and the hope of a rapid recovery.

posted by Josh Goodman

In celebration of the United STATES of America, here's a thought about politics in all 50 states. For a blast from the past, check out last year's edition. Enjoy the holiday!

Alabama -- The 2010 landscape lost a great Southern name when Sue Bell Cobb, the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, announced she's not running for governor. Under Alabama law, she would have had to resign to run, which is probably why she opted to stay put -- much to the relief of Democrats, who value her as their lone representative on the court.

Alaska -- Alaska politics is frozen as everyone waits for Gov. Sarah Palin to decide whether she wants to seek reelection. But, the news that Ethan Berkowitz, one of the top Democratic politicos in the state, is plotting a gubernatorial run tells me that people in the know think Palin isn't running again.

Arizona -- Gov. Jan Brewer wants a sales tax increase and some polling shows that the public is on her side. Arizonans, strangely, are more willing to accept tax increases right now than Californians.

Arkansas -- Gov. Mike Beebe has had a charmed tenure as governor, mainly because he's so good at charming state legislators, but scandals coming out of the prisons system are giving him a few headaches.

California -- Since Antonio Villaraigosa stepped aside, isn't there room for someone else in the Democratic primary for governor? Currently, Jerry Brown is the favorite in both the primary and the general election, but he and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom seem beatable enough that a Democratic congressman, state official or random rich guy might think he or she has a chance.

Colorado -- Bill Ritter has sought a middle ground between business groups and labor unions throughout his tenure, but his mediocre approval ratings suggest that middle ground isn't always safe ground.

Connecticut -- I didn't know this until just the other day: Gov. Jodi Rell never graduated from college. That hasn't stopped her from being one of the nation's most popular governors.

Delaware -- Gov. Jack Markell has started something. Delaware legalized sports betting this year and now New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine is supporting a federal lawsuit to allow sports gambling in other states too.

Florida -- Expect an epic battle between developers and those who favor limited growth, as a controversial ballot measure that would allow local voters to weigh in on development plans just qualified for the 2010 ballot.

Georgia -- I'm eager to see whether former Gov. Roy Barnes, who raised $20 million for his 2002 campaign, still has his fundraising touch as he seeks his old job next year.

Hawaii -- Gov. Linda Lingle has thrived as a Republican in a very Democratic state, but it will be interesting to see how she comes out of a fight with public employee unions over furloughs.

Idaho -- A fight with the legislature over a gas tax increase has hurt Gov. Butch Otter's approval ratings and I'm somewhat skeptical he is going to seek reelection next year. If he does, he could be vulnerable -- especially to a challenge from fellow Republican.

Illinois -- Everyone is waiting for Attorney General Lisa Madigan to decide whether she's running for governor or senator. She may prefer to be governor, but unless Gov. Pat Quinn, a fellow Democrat, is badly hurt by his income tax proposal, she won't have an opening.

Indiana -- Gov. Mitch Daniels may be wondering if his life would be completely different with just three more Republicans in the Indiana House of Representatives. Democrats parlayed their 52-48 edge in the House into a confrontation with the governor over education spending, although Daniels managed to get most of what he wanted.

Iowa -- Gay marriage was authorized in Iowa via the courts, which, oddly, could make the subject a bigger campaign issue in legislative races in 2010 than in New Hampshire, Vermont or Maine (which used the legislative process). Conservatives in Iowa feel aggrieved and are likely to be motivated.

Kansas -- Kansans may not know who he is, but Mark Parkinson won't be a caretaker governor. His splashy compromise on new coal plants is proof of that.

Kentucky -- It seemed bizarre when Attorney General Greg Stumbo decided to run for state representative last year. When Stumbo immediately seized the House speakership from a fellow Democrat, it all made sense.

Louisiana -- The legislature keeps saying that it will stand up to Gov. Bobby Jindal and Jindal keeps getting his way. He's the master of the Louisiana political scene, even if he sounds like Kenneth the Page.

Maine -- Forget the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races, the 2009 vote to watch is the Maine ballot measure that would overturn the new gay marriage law -- "Prop 8.1" is what I call it.

Maryland -- Agree with him or not, Gov. Martin O'Malley sure seems sincere in his push (unsuccessful so far) to abolish the death penalty. He seems sincere because taking such a stand does more political harm than good, even in a progressive state like Maryland.

Massachusetts -- Charlie Baker, the head of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, may be the most promising potential Republican gubernatorial candidate in the state. Opposition researchers take note: He was a lively, interesting blog on health care.

Michigan -- Jennifer Granholm for the Supreme Court always seemed implausible to me -- not because of her lack of judicial experience, but because of her ugly approval ratings back home.

Minnesota -- Before people get too carried away with a Norm Coleman gubernatorial candidacy, don't forget that he is reportedly under FBI investigation.

Mississippi -- It's a strange question to ask because we've had so many Southern presidents, but I bet that as Gov. Haley Barbour dips his toes in the presidential waters pundits will wonder whether he is too Southern to appeal nationwide. Look him up on YouTube and decide for yourself.

Missouri -- This is a big deal in Missouri and I can't figure out why: After tons of debate and speculation, Gov. Jay Nixon just vetoed a bill to repeal the state's law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets.

Montana -- Gov. Brian Schweitzer flubbed by endorsing Terry McAuliffe in the Virginia Democratic primary for governor, but by default he is the more successful head of a national gubernatorial committee. His counterpart, of course, was Mark Sanford.

Nebraska -- Democrats had a nice win in the Omaha mayoral race earlier this year, but do they have any statewide candidates? Republicans hold every statewide office, except Ben Nelson's Senate seat.

Nevada -- The legislature raised taxes over the objections of Gov. Jim Gibbons, which may give the unpopular governor enough anti-tax mojo to survive a Republican primary next year.

New Hampshire -- Gov. John Lynch's decision on the gay marriage legislation -- supporting the bill, but only after more protections were added for religious groups -- was classic triangulation from the centrist politician.

New Jersey -- A reminder of why observers give Gov. Jon Corzine a chance despite lousy poll numbers: Chris Christie, his Republican opponent, has accepted matching funds that will limit him to "only" $11 million in spending.

New Mexico -- Reportedly, the investigation into Gov. Bill Richardson that kept him out of President Obama's cabinet has concluded, so hopefully we'll have some results soon.

New York -- Just how Democratic is New York? A recent poll had David Paterson, one of the nation's three least popular governors (Jim Gibbons and Mark Sanford are the other two), actually up a point on potential Republican candidate Rick Lazio.

North Carolina -- This isn't the start to her term that Gov. Bev Perdue, a Democrat, wanted. The state doesn't have a budget yet, even though both houses of the legislature are controlled by other Democrats.

North Dakota -- Republican governors in the Dakotas always talk about running for Senate, but they never do. Is John Hoeven really going to break the mold next year?

Ohio -- The open secretary of state's office will draw tons of money and attention in 2010, not only because it administers elections in this presidential swing state, but also because the secretary of state is a member of the board that conducts legislative redistricting.

Oklahoma -- The governor's race is interesting, but the downballot races will really tell us how Republican Oklahoma has turned. Oklahoma has 8 Democrats in statewide offices. How many will it have after 2010?

Oregon -- Forget state politics, I want to know whether Portland Mayor Sam Adams will be recalled. His sex scandal is juicier than Mark Sanford's.

Pennsylvania -- Ed Rendell generally has been a politically successful governor, but he sure hasn't had any luck getting the legislature to pass a budget on time. He's now 0 for 7 on budgets being signed before the start of the new fiscal year.

Rhode Island -- Providence Mayor David Cicilline was supposed to be a squeaky-clean rising star and future governor. Labor disputes and allegations of corruption have stalled his rise, at least for now.

South Carolina -- You'd think Mark Sanford's problems would be good news for Democratic gubernatorial candidates, but I don't quite see how the scandal helps their chances in an election that is more than a year away and which won't have Sanford on the ballot.

South Dakota -- If U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin is elected governor next year (she's not even running yet), look for the Democrat to instantly start landing on lists of future presidential or vice-presidential candidates.

Tennessee -- The Tennessee House has 50 Republicans and 49 Democrats, which will make next year's legislative elections fun. Don't forget that it was those 49 Democrats who conspired with one Republican to pick the House Speaker, which should make this quite a grudge match.

Texas -- Gov. Rick Perry's chances are improving in his Republican primary against Kay Bailey Hutchison, which means the Democrats' chances are improving too (Perry is the weaker general election candidate). That's why more Democrats, including State Sen. Kirk Watson, may be getting into the race.

Utah -- I've been dismissive of Democratic chances to win the Utah gubernatorial race in 2010, but if U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson does stand a chance, it may be because of an overly ambitious Republican gerrymander in 2001. Republicans tried to make his district impossibly Republican (it went from 458 square miles to 46,000 according to Politics in America), but he kept winning -- and, in the process, introduced himself to the conservative voters he will need to win statewide.

Vermont -- Most Democrats in the Vermont legislature who voted for gay marriage won't be punished by voters. But what about the handful of Republicans?

Virginia -- Other than Creigh Deeds and Bob McDonnell, the person who has the most at stake in this year's governor's race is probably the current governor. The election is a referendum on Tim Kaine's tenure as governor and his first test as DNC chairman.

Washington -- King County, Washington (home to Seattle) is conducting all vote-by-mail elections this year for the first time. In a jurisdiction where elections administration has been a trouble spot before (in the 2004 governor's race), we'll see if any problems emerge.

West Virginia -- Though everyone is reluctant to say it, Sen. Robert Byrd's poor health has put Gov. Joe Manchin in the spotlight, now that appointing U.S. senators is a very controversial subject.

Wisconsin -- We still don't know whether former Gov. Tommy Thompson is running for governor, but other top Republicans are already declaring their candidacies, which seems to suggest he's not in.

Wyoming -- Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat, has expressed skepticism over Congress' climate legislation. We'll see if he wades into a debate with President Obama, who he endorsed in the Democratic primaries last year. 

posted by Josh Goodman

As California drowns in a sea of red ink, its budget problems are serving as a political inkblot test.

Why does California have a $26 billion hole in its budget that has placed it on the brink of default? Why are its finances in such bad shape that it went begging to Congress and the Obama administration for loan guarantees, a manner of bailout, to save it? Democrats and Republicans have different explanations -- explanations that just happen to support their preexisting notions about the size of government.

California, you see, is either paralyzed by anti-tax ideologues or a cautionary tale as to what happens when tax-and-spend liberals run wild.

A California Republican is likely to start by pointing out that the state has unusually high income and sales tax rates. If government can't live within its means with those taxes, the argument goes, clearly the state has too much government.

The problem, Republicans say, is excessive public employee benefits that politically powerful unions have secured. California, for example, has the nation's highest teacher salaries and prison guards have enjoyed generous contracts.

Republicans also claim other excesses in spending and governmental regulation. Even as the state was suffering through fiscal problems last fall, voters approved $10 billion in bonds for high-speed rail. This was the latest in a long line of ballot measures that obliged the state to spend more.

And, many Republicans will say that illegal immigrants are contributing to the problem. California, according to a U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimate, has close to 3 million undocumented residents.

Democrats see something entirely different. To them, the original sin was California's Prop. 13 in 1978, the initiative that famously reduced and capped the state's property taxes. Prop. 13 didn't just limit a source of revenue. It also limited one of the most stable sources of revenue. The state, Democrats say, is reeling from boom and bust cycles that come from dependence on less stable income and sales taxes.

Democrats also note other structural factors. Budgets can't pass without a two-thirds vote in the legislature, which has meant that, despite Democratic dominance, anti-tax Republicans generally have been able to thwart new revenue sources.

California also has the three strikes rule, which means that convicts sometimes receive long, costly sentences for minor infractions. Finally, many Democrats will note that legalizing and taxing marijuana, something Republicans resist, could bring in as much as $1 billion a year for the state.

There elements of truth to both these arguments, but both sides, with their contradictory views, can't be entirely right. This picture, unlike a Rorschach Test inkblot, must be of something. You can judge for yourself which side is seeing things as they are.

However, neutral observers should be able to agree on one key point. The vastly different evaluations of the situation from Democrats and Republicans are themselves part of the problem. California has become a place where too many politicians fail to see shades of grey. Politicians of both major parties have struggled to compromise.

Last year, the state didn't pass a budget until months after the constitutional deadline, exacerbating the pain of the budget cuts. Some child care centers in the state closed, not because of budget cuts, but rather because there wasn't a budget at all.

This year, legislators came up with a budget in February, but this budget proved out of touch with reality. Now, the fiscal year has begun and the budget gap hasn't been closed. The delay has, for technical reasons, actually expanded the gap by another couple of billions of dollars.

Republicans refuse any tax increases and Democrats want large tax increases. California legislators have to make painful cuts and they're doing it painfully slowly, in large measure because both Democrats and Republicans are so wedded to their partisan views of the problem.

The good news is California's legislative redistricting will be in the hands of an independent commission for the first time in 2011, thanks to a voter initiative. That commission seems likely to produce more competitive districts, which could produce a legislature with fewer ideologues by 2013. That's assuming, of course, that California can make it to 2013.

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Todd Purdum has published a lengthy piece on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- "the sexiest and riskiest brand in the Republican Party" -- in Vanity Fair. The profile hits all the expected points -- the governor's apparent opportunism, Levi and Bristol, Wayne Andrew Ross, hesitant back-biting from former McCain campaign aides.

Update: Palin didn't talk to Purdum, but here's her interview with Runner's World.

The Vanity Fair piece has already triggered a food fight among prominent Republicans, including columnist Bill Kristol and former McCain adviser Steve Schmidt.

Palin watchers will want to read the whole thing but there are a couple of interesting nuggets to extract.

One is the extent to which Palin cared about how things would play back home in Alaska during last year's national campaign.

Another was the fairly consistent portrayal of someone who has a hard time maintaining close relationships with advisers -- not just during the presidential race, but throughout her political career in Alaska. The portrayal of her relying primarily if not exclusively on her husband Todd for advice is pretty convincing. "Testimony in the Troopergate investigation suggested that Todd was physically in the governor's office for about 50 percent of the time," Purdum writes.

There are also descriptions of Palin's detachment from various policy matters.

Representative Les Gara, an Anchorage Democrat who often worked with Palin, told me that he had at first thought that some of Green’s sharp criticism of Palin amounted to Republican infighting, or maybe just sour grapes that Wasilla had produced a new political figure whose star far outshone Green’s. But he came to realize, he said, that Green had a better handle on Palin than he did. “She didn’t work very hard. You would speak to her on particular issues, and it was like she didn’t know anything about them and she never seemed very engaged.” That said, “if your priorities happened to be her priorities, you could build a coalition.”

Purdum plays with he question of whether her missteps since November hurt her chances for the GOP nomination in 2012, or whether she'd be able to build on her core social conservative support. He also suggests she's having more trouble at home.

A year ago, 80 percent of Alaskans viewed Palin very favorably or somewhat favorably; by this spring, just 55 percent had a positive opinion. All this has given rise to speculation in Alaska that Palin may not run for re-election next year. She does not have to declare her candidacy until June 2010. Most politicians of both parties in Alaska with whom I spoke assume she could win, though not as persuasively as she did in 2006, which would hardly help her standing in a 2012 presidential campaign. Though Palin’s spokeswoman has said she does not intend to challenge Senator Lisa Murkowski, the former governor’s daughter, who is also up for re-election next year, Palin has changed her mind without warning in the past, and becoming a senator would keep her in the national spotlight. Surveying the landscape of political and policy troubles in Alaska, Gregg Erickson, an independent economic consultant in Juneau, concludes, “Everything she’s doing seems to be saying that there’ll be a problem in the future owing to her inattention, but she won’t be here to deal with it.”

posted by Josh Goodman

Mark Sanford should resign as governor of South Carolina in exchange for an appointment to be president of the New York Senate. That way, everything that is bizarre, surreal and dysfunctional in state government right now (well, everything other than the entire state of California) would be concentrated in one place. The New York Times has the latest news of the weird from Albany:

Shortly before noon on Tuesday, as Democrats prepared to convene what they expected to be another fruitless one-party session, they saw Frank Padavan, a Queens Republican, walk through the rear of the chamber.

Mr. Padavan would later say he had simply been taking a shortcut to the members’ lounge to grab a cup of coffee. But to the 31 Democrats in the chamber, that did not matter. Claiming that Mr. Padavan’s brief presence gave them the 32-member quorum required to gavel the Senate into session, Democrats began ramming through dozens of measures, including sales tax extensions and bond authorizations that were set to expire at midnight.

posted by Josh Goodman

In a special election, Democrat Wilber Jones easily won the Mississippi House of Representatives' District 82. The Meridian Star's twitter feed has the numbers:

100 percent of precincts reporting - Jones: 1568, Marcy: 816

And the percentages:

That's 65.74 % of the vote for Jones, 34.21 % for Marcy. This count includes all electronic votes but does not include absentee votes.

As I mentioned earlier, the dynamic here was an African-American Republican trying to pull an upset in a Democratic, majority-black district. But, as was true in 2006 for Ken Blackwell (Ohio governor), Lynn Swann (Pennsylvania governor) and Michael Steele (Maryland Senate), running a black candidate didn't win Republicans black votes in big numbers.

If Republicans are ever going to make gains with African-American voters, having African-American candidates is probably a necessary condition -- but clearly not a sufficient one.

posted by Josh Goodman

Democrats seem likely to hold a seat in the Mississippi House of Representatives in a special election today, but if the Republican does win, he'll be making history.

The seat is House District 82, where long-time legislator Charles Young, an African-American Democrat, died earlier this year.

There a couple reasons for Republicans to have a glimmer of optimism in this majority-minority seat. One is that Mississippi has a strange rule where special election ballots don't list the party affiliations of candidates, which may slightly reduce the Democrats' natural edge. The other is that the Republican candidate is an African-American, Bill Marcy. Marcy, interestingly, is a former Chicago cop, though his family has roots in Mississippi.

Brian Perry, a Republican operative, provided some context in the Madison County Journal:

In the first round of voting, in which all candidates appeared on one ballot, Democrat Wilbert Jones took 41% of the vote to Marcy's 33%. Despite Marcy's respectable showing, the results of the first round probably indicate that he won't win today. The other candidates who fell short were Democrats, meaning Jones simply needs to consolidate the support of Democratic voters to win.

Nonetheless, from what I can tell, Republicans have been eagerly touting Marcy's candidacy. The thinking, I'd guess, is that even if they lose the election, they might be able to score a small public relations victory for a party that black voters view with a great deal of skepticism.

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Possibly ending the longest-running recount battle in memory, the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in favor of Democrat Al Franken in what looks to be the last legal challenge brought by Republican Norm Coleman in their U.S. Senate dispute.

Here's the ruling.

Update: Coleman concedes.

Even though we've had oh so many months to get used to the idea, it's still going to be hard to wrap my head around "Senator Al Franken."

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Officers from the San Diego County sheriff's department busted up a Democratic congressional candidate's fundraiser Friday, in response to a noise complaint from a neighbor.

The San Diego Union Tribune story doesn't give much sense of the department's side of the story, but suggests heavily that excessive force may have been used. The department responded with eight patrol cars and a helicopter.

“He was pepper-spraying the faces of anyone who tried to talk to him,” Busby said. “People were stunned. It was something that none of us has experienced.”

In her statement, Barman said she asked the deputy why he needed her birth date, because he knew her name and where she lived.

“He told me I was under arrest, grabbed my right arm, twisted it behind me and threw me on the ground,” she said.

When Stratton asked the deputy to be careful because Barman had shoulder surgery recently, the deputy “knocked her to the ground,” Barman said.

Hat tip: TPM

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani says today maybe he will and maybe he won't run for governor next year.

“I don’t know if I’m at the point of seriously considering it,” he said. “It’s a little too early.”

Politico helpfully points out that early polling shows Giuliani crushing Gov. David Paterson but getting stomped by state AG Andrew Cuomo.

Giving an early indication of the kind of media reception he can expect, Katie Connolly uses her Newsweek blog post on this non-announcement to rehearse Giuliani's marital sins and disastrous presidential run before shruggingly writing that these will likely be a non-factor for New York voters.

posted by Josh Goodman

Soon, Rhode Island may be named Rhode Island. The Providence Journal explains:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Voters will consider in 2010 a proposal to drop "Providence Plantations," the controversial phrase conjuring up for many images of Rhode Island's role in the slave trade, from the state name.

The full Senate on Friday approved adding a referendum on the November 2010 ballot asking voters whether they are willing to change Rhode Island's formal name from "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" to simply "Rhode Island."

posted by Josh Goodman

The conventional wisdom is that South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer's chances of being elected governor in 2010 will increase if Bauer becomes governor in 2009. If Mark Sanford resigns, the power of incumbency will give Bauer the advantage in an election in which he is currently just one of four credible Republicans who are running.

In fact, the conventional wisdom is that this very dynamic makes it more likely that Sanford will stay in office. The benefit to Bauer would be so great that supporters of rival Republicans are reluctant to push for Sanford's removal.

In that context, Brad Warthen presents some unconventional wisdom:

Just for the sake of argument, count me among those who believe the opposite: That becoming governor now would put Andre under public scrutiny far more intense than he would experience as just one candidate among several for a few months next year.

You have to understand — the lieutenant governor of South Carolina is about as close to a non-entity as you get for a statewide elected official. That’s no reflection on Andre; it’s an observation about the job. It’s supposed to be part-time. Andre’s friends in the Senate gave him that Office on Aging gig just to make it look like he’s doing something.

Warthen makes an interesting argument. Still, if Bauer is going to wilt under scrutiny, his chances for a successful political career are pretty low, whether he becomes governor now or not. And the lieutenant governor himself clearly is falling on the side of the conventional wisdom, not Warthen.

From the New York Times:

Meanwhile, Mr. Bauer’s camp appears to have been orchestrating pressure for a resignation.

“André Bauer is my client; I’ve been working this since Monday,” wrote Chris LaCivita, a political consultant on Mr. Bauer’s team, in an e-mail message to another Republican political operative that was provided to The New York Times by an opponent of Mr. Bauer. “I need to get this guy (Sanford) out,” he wrote, referring to the governor.

(Hat tip: Palmetto Scoop)

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Chris Christie, the Republican nominee to take on New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine this fall, appeared before a congressional subcommittee yesterday to answer charges stemming from his handling of contracts as U.S. attorney.

The contracts are already a familiar part of New Jersey political debate. Since Christie's hopes rest largely on his record of putting away more than 100 corrupt politicians, questioning his own ethics will be central to Corzine's strategy.

The congressional questioning, then, ran not surprisingly strictly along partisan lines, with Democrats complaining and Republicans defending. After the hearing, Christie told reporters:

"It's a political circus, and it's unfortunate that they're using the money of the taxpayers of the United States to perform this kind of political circus, but out of respect for the Congress, I came down here and I testified, and I testified forthrightly," Christie said.

Christie granted a monitoring contract worth upwards of $50 million to John Ashcroft, the former U.S. attorney general. The New York Times:

He also found himself on the defensive over newly released e-mail messages indicating that he refused to intervene on behalf of a company that had objected to the high fees Mr. Ashcroft’s firm was charging, including $750,000 a month solely to pay Mr. Ashcroft and two other executives.

He defended his decision to give a monitor contract to a former federal prosecutor, David Kelley, who had decided two years earlier not to seek charges against Todd Christie, Mr. Christie’s brother, who had been accused of securities fraud.

“My brother committed no wrongdoing,” Mr. Christie said, pointing out that neither the Department of Justice nor the Securities and Exchange Commission decided to pursue a case against him.

posted by Josh Goodman

Quick quiz: Who is the governor of Kansas?

If you don't know, don't fret. Kansans don't know who Mark Parkinson is either, as the governor explained in a delightful blog post this week:

Last week, we decided to order pizza to Cedar Crest.  I called the pizza place and you know the drill.  They ask your name, address, phone number and then your order.  I gave them my name and then for address, I decided to give them the actual street address and not say “Governor’s Mansion.”  I just thought that sounded too pretentious. 

They look up the address in their computer and for some reason it doesn’t show up.  And then I tell them that it’s Cedar Crest, where the Governor lives.  The person paused and then asked if it was a prank.  And I told them no, it really was where the Governor lives and we just wanted pizza.  Then, he asked if I worked for the Governor and how could I prove that this wasn’t a prank.

That’s when I told him that I was the Governor!  I told him not to worry about it, lots of people didn’t know the Kansas Governor by name, and we got our pizza.

posted by Josh Goodman

Over at Governing's other blog (or is Ballot Box the other blog?), Alan Greenblatt lays out a thoughtful case for Mark Sanford remaining governor of South Carolina.

posted by Josh Goodman

One of the websites I've been checking regularly over the last 24-plus hours is fitsnews.com. The site was founded by Will Folks, a former Mark Sanford spokesman, and blends reporting, conservative commentary and irreverence.

Today, Folks has an interesting, lengthy post on his reactions to the scandal, including a call for the governor to resign:

By his own conduct, the governor has given his enemies just enough rope to hang him - which is why it’s time to cop a plea before the deafening drumbeat for a public, political execution begins.

No man is bigger than a movement, and as much as it pains me to say it the best thing Mark Sanford can do for the reform movement in South Carolina right now is to step down.

posted by Josh Goodman

I say this after every scandal, but, since it's still true, I'll say it again: Whether a politician survives or not has as much to do with his or her popularity prior to the incident as it does with the seriousness of the misconduct itself. For Mark Sanford, that's bad news.

For most of his term as governor, Sanford has been disliked by state legislators and other South Carolina political insiders. Despite that, and despite the state's unusually high unemployment rate (even before the current recession), Sanford generally stayed in the good graces of the state's conservative voters.

That appears to have changed this spring, however, as the economy suffered and Sanford made his stand against accepting the stimulus. Here's a Charlotte Observer article from April:

What this means is that there isn't a reservoir of good will for Sanford that will offer him protection now. It's been clear for a few years that the legislature would like to get rid of Sanford. If legislators find grounds for impeachment, they won't have to worry too much about the people of South Carolina not wanting to see the governor leave.

Update: You don't have to take my word for it that South Carolinians have soured on Sanford. We now have two instant polls showing that at least half of South Carolina adults want him to resign. SurveyUSA puts the number at 60%, while InsiderAdvantage puts it at 50%.

Those numbers should be viewed as a preliminary snapshot. Depending on the details that emerge in the days ahead, anger at Sanford could grow or it could recede. For now, though, the governor is in quite a weak spot.

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer helped push the "Where's Sanford" story along, letting it be known that he was indignant that he hadn't been informed that the governor had left the state and that he hadn't been put in charge.

Bauer wants to win the top job next year (or sooner) and clearly chafed at the fact that Sanford had all but endorsed a rival, state Rep. Nikki Haley, calling her a "terrific and inspiring choice."

Haley today removed that quote and Sanford's picture from her campaign Web site.

posted by Josh Goodman

Now you can write Mark Sanford's political obituary. Gosh, I wish he would have told me he was having an affair before I wrote 800 words saying how he might still have a chance at the Republican presidential nomination.

posted by Josh Goodman

I should note that this remains a fast-moving situation -- everything I wrote below is predicated on there not being additional damaging revelations about what Gov. Sanford has been doing the last few days.

I think that Sanford won't be hurt if the governor is able to provide verification that he was in Argentina on a standard vacation. If his staff simply was operating on out-of-date information when they said he was hiking in the United States, then most Republicans will conclude that the media was making an Appalachian mountain out of a molehill. It also would help if he can demonstrate that there was a way for his staff to contact him in the event of an emergency.

On the other hand, if it turns out that he wasn't in Argentina (which some are suggesting) or that he was engaged in some sort of nefarious activity, even conservatives who don't trust the media will have to take notice.

We'll know more after the governor's press conference this afternoon.

posted by Alan Greenblatt

SC Gov. Mark Sanford will hold a must-see news conference at 2 pm.

I've been trying to keep on top of the twists and turns this story has taken over at our other blog, 13th Floor.

posted by Josh Goodman

Leading Alabama Democrats are working feverishly to recruit a top-tier candidate to enter next year's governor's race. That wouldn't be especially noteworthy, except for one thing: The party already has two top candidates running.

The Associated Press has the details. Democrats have courted state Sen. Roger Bedford (who said no), Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb and Charles Price, a circuit court judge.

Bedford, Cobb and Price all might be good candidates, but on paper they don't appear any stronger than U.S. Rep. Artur Davis and State Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks. Sparks won reelection in 2006 with 59% of the vote, making him the top Democratic vote-getter that year. Davis is widely considered one of the smartest people in Alabama politics and he's clearly prepared diligently for this statewide run.

Maybe Democrats are looking for an alternative to Davis because they don't think an African-American can win statewide in Alabama. But, that wouldn't explain why they are recruiting Price, another African-American. Nor would that explain why they wouldn't simply support Sparks.

It's possible that party leaders are looking elsewhere because they know that both Davis and Sparks have deep, dark secrets that in time will render them fundamentally flawed candidates. But, it's also possible that party leaders are feeling intimidated because Davis and Sparks are strong candidates -- who aren't beholden to the party's leaders.

posted by Josh Goodman

For anyone who likes competitive elections, we have a promising development in Virginia. The Richmond Times-Dispatch explains:

Whenever I hear about uncontested elections, I can't help but think about Florida's 16th congressional district. In late September 2006, just weeks before Election Day, the Mark Foley scandal broke in Florida 16. Even though the seat hadn't been a great pickup opportunity for Democrats, they had a reasonably strong candidate in self-funder Tim Mahoney. Foley resigned and Mahoney beat the Republican replacement. The lesson: Sometimes 90% of winning an election is showing up.

Republicans targeted Mahoney last year and it was a good thing they did. Mahoney's extramarital affair (and accompanying hush-money scandal) became public in October, just weeks before the election. He, of course, lost badly. For the lesson, see above.

Having lots of challengers for legislative seats is good for democracy, but it's also good for the parties putting up the challengers. Politicians embarrass themselves frequently enough that contesting seats that look unwinnable makes for smart politics. Virginia's political parties seem to be realizing that.

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Jim DeMint, a Republican U.S. senator from South Carolina, held a news conference yesterday to endorse Marco Rubio, the former Florida House Speaker who is running against Gov. Charlie Crist in next year's Senate race.

Both Florida and national Republicans have lined up behind Crist, seeing him as the strongest candidate to hold the seat for the party. DeMint said that not only is Rubio more conservative, he believes Rubio can win.

posted by Josh Goodman

The Obama administration is skeptical of a California bailout, the Washington Post notes this morning in a front-page story:

The Obama administration has turned back pleas for emergency aid from one of the biggest remaining threats to the economy -- the state of California.

Top state officials have gone hat in hand to the administration, armed with dire warnings of a fast-approaching "fiscal meltdown" caused by a budget shortfall. Concern has grown inside the White House in recent weeks as California's fiscal condition has worsened, leading to high-level administration meetings. But federal officials are worried that a bailout of California would set off a cascade of demands from other states.

With an economy larger than Canada's or Brazil's, the state is too big to fail, California officials urge.

Why would the federal government be reluctant to bail out the Golden State, even as it has offered financial assistance to private companies?

I can think of several reasons. Here are three:

1) California is one of the nation's wealthiest states, with a median household income that is $9,000 more than the national average. Should poorer taxpayers in other states really be subsidizing more wealthy Californians?

2) It's only a moderate exagerration to say that, in the face of this crisis, California has tried nothing and nothing has worked. At the polls earlier this year, the state's voters rejected the extension of tax increases, rejected spending cuts and rejected the leasing of government assets. As a result of that vote, the state's income tax rates will drop at the end of 2010 and the state's sales tax rates will drop in 2011. Should poorer taxpayers in other states really be subsidizing more wealthy Californians while those Californians are enjoying tax cuts?

3) The practical effects of California being unable to pay its bills aren't clear. While California is sometimes described as being on the brink of bankruptcy, states aren't actually eligible for bankruptcy under U.S. law. California could default on its loans or it could approve large, painful cuts in government services. But, unlike a private company, there's no chance that a state government will have to liquidate. So, while California may be too big to fail, no one is talking about California failing in the same way that a business would.

Still, there's real concern that the budget cuts California is discussing could hinder the national economic recovery. If those concerns become great enough, the federal government may step in -- albeit with terms that would give other states pause before following California's lead.

The rationale that the federal government used for bailing out banks and automakers, after all, wasn't that those companies deserved the help. Rather, the American people didn't deserve to live with the consequences of those failures.

posted by Alan Greenblatt

NY Times:

ALBANY — A week after Republicans wrested power of the State Senate away from Democrats, their thin majority appeared to collapse.

Senator Hiram Monserrate, one of two Democrats who initially sided with Republicans to give them a 32-to-30 majority, has switched his allegiances again and plans to reaffirm himself as a member of the Democratic caucus, two people close to Mr. Monserrate said on Monday morning.

...

If each side has 31 members, that means neither the Democrats or Republicans would have the 32 votes necessary to change the Senate’s leadership structure. Ordinarily the lieutenant governor would cast a tie-breaking vote, but that position has been vacant since Gov. David A. Paterson replaced Eliot Spitzer as governor in March 2008.

Mr. Monserrate’s move, which was first reported by The Daily News, puts all the more focus on a court hearing Monday in Albany, where a State Supreme Court justice is scheduled to decide whether the Republican takeover was legal. If the court rules that the new coalition — headed by Mr. Espada and Dean G. Skelos, a Republican from Long Island — is illegitimate, it could ultimately restore Democrats to power.