A turncoat's baggage
Another incumbent politician bites the dust
A turncoat's baggage
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Once again, the voters have signaled that 2010 is likely to be a bad year for incumbents - especially for those who are perceived as turncoats.
Last night, in Alabama, congressman Parker Griffith got the Arlen Specter treatment. In other words, he was fired by an electorate that didn't buy his recent party switch and instead decided that he was just a rank opportunist trying to keep his job.
Griffith was actually Specter's mirror image; last December, he split from the Democrats and donned the GOP label, figuring that he had a better chance to win re-election as a Deep South Republican. He gave himself five months to convince Republican primary voters that he was one of them. But last night he managed to convince only 33 percent. The majority chose a county commissioner, Mo Brooks, who insisted that he was the true Republican in the race. Brooks fatally tagged Griffith as a "flip-flopper," and drew strong support from the tea-party crowd.
The broad parallels to the Specter saga are striking. Just as the Democratic establishment had rallied to Specter in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, the Republican establishment quickly embraced Griffith when he switched parties. House GOP leader John Boehner headlined a Griffith fundraiser, and various Boehner colleagues opened their checkbooks for Griffith, who vastly outspent Brooks and a third candidate. The party establishment assumed that Griffith would be welcomed, especially since previous Alabama Democrats had seamlessly switched to the GOP (for instance, Senator Richard Shelby) without suffering any local voter backlash.
Also last winter, GOP chairman Michael Steele hailed Griffith as a guy whose "principles and values" were "right for America" - which was actually quite hilarious, given the fact that, in the 2008 House campaign, the Republican establishment had assailed Griffith as soft on terrorists and therefore "wrong for Alabama," and in TV ads it had slimed his medical credentials (he's an oncologist) by claiming that he had been "under-dosing" his cancer patients.
Yet, all of a sudden, in the spring GOP primary, here was the GOP establishment touting Griffith as a certified Republican loyalist. The problem was, too many Alabama Republican voters still remembered how the GOP leaders had beaten up on Griffith a mere 19 months ago. So last night the voters dismissed the leaders' revisionism as a phony exercise - just as Pennsylvania's Democratic voters spurned their party establishment's strategic embrace of former foe Specter.
Clearly, the leaders of both parties are on notice: Voters this year have little tolerance for political insiders who appear to be practicing politics as usual. And party-switchers who seek only to maximize their re-election prospects are seen as the worst offenders.
-------
The sole proprietor of this blog is on the road for the month of June. Virtually all June posts will be briefer than the norm, except on those rare occasions when posts won't show up at all. Apologies in advance for this disturbance in the force. The standard verbosity will return on Monday, June 28.
Comments (55)
Taking it a step further, voters seem they are now demanding ethical, public service, with some underlying feeling that the candidate can competently manage public funds. Toomey will try to downplay his far right social issue leanings & show his financial competence while Sestak will try to portray himself as a military man who is independent from Washington while not mentioning how often he actually has voted with his Party.— yobill626
Let this be the end of party-switching while in office.— potus
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
- I'd actually like someone who worked on Wall St. and understands its complexities, unlike SENs Levin and McCaskell, e.g., who only know how to fulminate against something they don't wholly understand. The questioning of the CEO of Goldman Sachs showed their ignorance.— pj katauskas
- But you could vote for Sestak, who for years went along with Barney Fwanks and Chis Dodge's hands off approach to Fanny and Freddy? Talk about failures!! Simply amazing!— pj katauskas
- The question in all of this is the role of the tea party. They are pushing the Republican party to the extremes--we will learn in November if this works, or if their candidates do not fit the mainstream.— Nalaka
- The PA Senate race is the moderates nightmare, conservative Toomey vs. liberal Sestak...nary a moderate in sight, although they will both try to alter their positions to sound moderate. Sestak will also have the baggage of his healthcare and his cap & tax votes. How are they faring in the PA polls? As to yesterday, Polman left out, in his closing paragraph about S.I. Hayakawa and the "job" offer from Reagan and how it is just like the Sestak matter the end of the AP story, which stated.."In an interview earlier this week, Ed Rollins, who will become the president's chief political adviser in January, said Hayakawa would be offered an administration post if he decided not to seek re-election. No offer has been made directly to Hayakawa, Rollins said. Similarly, Hayakawa said in a statement, "I have not contacted the White House in regard to any administration or ambassadorial post, and they have not been in contact with me."" So Hayakawa was offered a post without being contacted by the Reagan, Rollins had not yet been a member of Reagan's White House, and Hayakawa also stated he had not been contacted. Yep, exactly like the Sestak matter, exactly the same, only different. Journalism honesty at its finest.— tom - wilmington, de
- If you won't vote for someone due to a party switch, aren't you proving you're beholden to a party anyway. I've read a little about this guy, so I'm not sure of the answer but the question should be what was wrong with Rep. Griffith's policies? If you are more worried about how someone's questioning looks, party switch looks, or whether a politician should speak the truth, you are not voting for government. That sounds more like a prom queen vote.— HandNik
- Nalaka has it right, but I dont think voters see fiscal sanity as extreme. They at least acknowledge we have to do something about our fiscal disaster while democrats, who are also turning to their left are trying to demonize those who at least say they want to fix things. Right now,I think Republicans are set up for a historic mid term this year.— tr88
- Comment removed.
- Handnik, good point. However, the losses are in the primary, where voting is closed to other than those registered as either Reps or Dems (no Independents). Specter probably lost because most of them voting in the primary probably never voted for him in the previous general elections, which may be the same for Griffith. Perhaps there is also distrust the if the person switched parties just to get re-elected, then what is to stop them from switiching back once they are re-elected.— tom - wilmington, de
- tom: all valid points. I think anymore that's why I'm for open primaries, allowing anyone to vote in a given party's primary. I'm even more in favor of "Nonpartisan blanket primaries". There are no more party primaries, the two top vote getters get to run in the general. If they end up from the same party, so be it. See washington initiative 872 for an example of one that passed.— still_independent
- I haven't seen any real evidence that people voted for Sestak because Spector switched parties or because he was an incumbent. I believed Democrats voted for Sestak becuase they didn't agree with Spector's positions over the years. As well as events like the Anita Hill debacle. People remember these things. Democrats certainly weren't "beholden to the party" when they voted for Sestak. Spector had the endorsements. But, yeah, it's about policy positions. But it's the whole body of work not just positions you took in the last couple months. Spector was a Republican. Sestak is a moderate.— MikeP
- Hey pj, please inform us. What percent of all mortgage foreclosures in the last 3 years were Fannie and Freddie mortgages? What percent of foreclosures for mortgages that were securitized were Fannie and Freddie mortgages?? Fannie and Freddie were such a small part of the problems that caused the economy to collapse that they aren't worth mentioning. The real problems were mostly related to unregulated deriviatives. Republicans are actively fighting deriviative regulations that would prevent a repeat.— MikeP
- I voted for Specter, numerous times in general elections. They call it ticket switching. Voted for Sestak because I saw polling that he'd do better against Toomey. Nothing to do with incumbancy for me. Specter always got a nice share of votes in heavily Democratic Philly in general elections. Based on his margin of loss, independents wouldn't have saved Specter, had they been permitted to vote.— Rabe56
MikeP do you think the people who borrowed money that they couldn't pay back had anything to do with it?- Mike, please inform us how many millions of dollars we are spending to keep Fannie and Freddie afloat, who together now own or guarantee 46% of residential mortgages. What do you think the "toxic/troubled" assets were that were bundled in those derivatives, AAA bonds?— pj katauskas
- I should have said "Billions" of dollars.— pj katauskas
- And Ds are fighting regulating or winding down Freddie and Fannie because "it's too complex" a problem. How lame is that!! They didn't think health care reform was too complex even though it affects 1/6th of our economy. You can't make this stuff up.— pj katauskas
- Complexity and size are two different issues. Health care reform would have been very simple if they replaced the insurance based system with a government run system - single payer. Insurance company based rationing and denial of service not to mention millions of uninsured would be replaced with systems similar to those that are working in other industrialized countries.— Rabe56
- Comment removed.
- bryane do you have anything to bring besides name calling?
- Mike P---don't try and talk sense to these people. For a couple of years, I have piped in on how Fannie and Freddie were not permitted to make the kind of non-conforming loans that were the bulk of the "wholesaled" loans that caused the collapse. Fannie and Freddie's downfall was investing in mortgage backed securities....along with virtually every bank and investment house holding our pensions. We all went along with the national Ponzi scheme led by Goldman Sachs, S&P/Moody's and AIG. Fannie and Freddie were victims in this, not participants, and while you can fault their management for investing poorly (along with a lot of other people), this crisis had nothing to do with Barney Frank and the Democrats. It's just infuriating reading the same old crappola lifted straight from Limbaugh and Beck, for whom the next truthful statement will be the first.— Palestra Jon
- Palestra, but in fact Freddie and Fannie DID make or guarantee non-conforming, under-collateralized or under-downpayed mortage loans ANYWAY! Sometimes more than half their inventory were made up of those. That's part of the problem.— pj katauskas
- still_independent, an open primary is also known as a general election. I don't like the manipulation and deal brokering, results of most primaries but if you open it up to everyone, you may as well do away with the whole thing. Everybody should just throw their hat in the ring once and let the electorate decide. If it's a tie of two or three- have a run-off.— JimR
- By October, you'll see Sestak's and Pelosi's picture together so often you'll think they're married. I commend Toomey for the non-negative ad. This election should be an easy choice because the candidates are so different.— Rabe56
- Mike P, Fannie and Freddie underwrite half of all mortgages in America and 3/4ths of all subprime. I did not see how many of the foreclosed mortgages were FannieFreddie, but I would be willing to bet it's most of them.— tr88
- Oh, and btw, Palestra, I don't watch Beck, Limbaugh or Fox.— pj katauskas
- Comment removed.
- You may say that pj, but that is whom you are echoing. And where are your statistics that 3/4 of subprime were Fannie and Freddie underwritten. That is just false. They could not, by law, make those loans. Subprime means jumbo, over 80% LTV, no-doc, interest only, non-amortizing, etc. It does not mean a $24,000 loan to Mrs. Jones in North Philly for her $30,000 house. The "subprime" loans overwhelmingly came out of the Sunbelt in overheated markets---Southern Cal, Arizona, Nevada, Florida. These were the wholesale lending regions---Countrywide, Greenpoint, Taylor Bean. These were not Fannie and Freddie loans.— Palestra Jon
- You may say that pj, but that is whom you are echoing. And where are your statistics that 3/4 of subprime were Fannie and Freddie underwritten. That is just false. They could not, by law, make those loans. Subprime means jumbo, over 80% LTV, no-doc, interest only, non-amortizing, etc. It does not mean a $24,000 loan to Mrs. Jones in North Philly for her $30,000 house. The "subprime" loans overwhelmingly came out of the Sunbelt in overheated markets---Southern Cal, Arizona, Nevada, Florida. These were the wholesale lending regions---Countrywide, Greenpoint, Taylor Bean. These were not Fannie and Freddie loans.— Palestra Jon
- "I think anymore that's why I'm for open primaries, allowing anyone to vote in a given party's primary." All that accomplishes is to drive people to the polls to vote for the opposing party's worst candidate, leaving us with a choice of dumb and dumber. No thanks, I watched that system for years when I lived in Virginia.— Fascinated
- Palestra Jon, I don't know what percentage of the subprime loans were held by the FMs, but your interpretation of their participation in that marketplace is clearly a figment of someone's imagination. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081802111.html— Fascinated
- Jon and Mike P - While there are may reason for the financial melt down a big part of it was federal policies (CRA) along with HUD mandating that 25% of Freddie and Fannie's subprime and adjustable-rate loans made to borrowers who bought houses with less than 10% down. They also purchased hundreds of billions of subprime securities for their own portfolios to make money and to help satisfy HUD affordable housing goals. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122298982558700341.html— Mike Welbourn
- More on Fannie and Freddie: http://huffpostfund.org/stories/2010/03/why-fannie-and-freddie-continue-cost-taxpayers-billions— PhillyTru
- Mike Welbourn : the article you linked to doesn't back up your statement " along with HUD mandating that 25% of Freddie and Fannie's subprime and adjustable-rate loans made to borrowers who bought houses with less than 10% down"... that aside, the whole tone of that article is "look how the government helped create the mess", why downplaying the actual borrowers and investors. The author raises some very valid points, but glosses over the fact that all of the big institutions that failed were not covered by the CRA. And statements like " Greedy investors obviously played a part, but investors have always been greedy, and some inevitably overreach and destroy themselves. Why did they take so many down with them this time?" kinda summarizes the author's entire bent.— still_independent
- still - My first 5 words should have been "while there are many reasons". Mostly I was trying to show Jon and Mike P that Freddie and Fannie were involved with the whole mess. While I do agree with you that the greedy borrowers and invester were also at fault. I think the government and the Federal Reserve helped to light the fire under them. What do you think would have happened if everybody who wanted to buy a house had to put 20% down and pay 1 or 2% more of an interest rate.— Mike Welbourn
- Rabe56, your socialized medicine is working so well that in Greece they were loaned money from the IMF under the condition they privatize their healthcare, and in case you misssed the headlines, Canada is revamping their entire system due to cost overruns being out of control. Even in Massachusetts cost are out of control and insurance companies now must write policies at a loss since their rate increases were denied. Most of the insurance companies in MA are non-profits, but many have left the individual market due to mounting losses and costs. Yep, great models for the US to follow.— tom - wilmington, de
- @bill.atkin Sestak does the hands while P Murphy (8th) does the rest. Pelosi enjoys both very well. (LOL) What losers all three are. They keep together and keep steal from us and the American way.— Fisher
- Mike Welbourn: the article seemed to be more blaming the goverment for enacting policies that helped to artifically drive up home prices (which I don't disagree with). What no one's been able to dig up, myself included, are what sort of mortgages have been defaulting. If we're talking subprimes where someone puts no money down on a $150,000 home, then yes, things like CRA can come into the mix. If, however, we're talking subprimes where someone put $20k down on a $500,000 home, then that whole argument gets thrown out the window.— still_independent
- Comment removed.
- tom/Phil/et. all: came across this article on factcheck regarding the Sestak matter. I, regrettably, hadn't actually read the statute (18 USC 600). Apparently, IF what was offered was an unpaid presidential advisory position, there is no way it was a crime (at least under this statute). The important part that seems to get left out of the discussion is the following (salient part in caps)"Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, PROVIDED FOR OR MADE POSSIBLE IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity ..." The presidential advisory roles are not created by any act of congress. ... http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/sunday-replay-6/— still_independent
- Perhaps some of you commenting on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should actually visit their website. For example, Freddie Mac states as its mission concerning Affordable Housing as "Created by Congress, Freddie Mac's job is to ensure a reliable supply of funds to mortgage lenders in support of homeownership and rental housing. We attract capital from around the world to finance housing in America, and we constantly innovate to deliver it as effectively as possible. As a result, mortgage rates are lower, 30-year fixed-rate financing is plentiful, and borrowers get loan approvals in minutes." One of their mortgage products is called "Home Possible 97", which requires a 3% down payment for a risk class of "Accept", and a 5% down payment for manually underwritten mortgages. They also still have on their website their goal to increase home ownership among the poor and minorities. Didn't Barney Frank say he was willing to "roll the dice" with Fannie and Freddie? Didn't Maxine Waters laud their role in increasing minority and poor home ownership under the "great leadership" of Franklin Raines, thanks to new mortgage underwriting guidelines and products? True, you do not get your mortgage from Fannie or Freddie. BUT, they guarantee the mortgage, or they purchase the mortgage. So a mortgage from BOA is written based on guidelines from F&F. Just as you purchase flood insurance from State Farm, but it is underwritten and paid by the National Flood Insurance Program. As to the 80% LTV rule, that was in the original charter, but it has long since been revised.— tom - wilmington, de
- still_independent, good point about Sestak. Lost in the whole matter is that the two advisory boards to which Sestak was reportedly offered an appointment would have required him to leave Congress, since the members must all be from "outside of government". The memo from the White House said the advisory board appointments would have allowed Sestak to remain in Congress. The "facts" of this entire situation are becoming much too obscure. If the Reps regain the House in November, expect to see Issa chairing a hearing on this entire matter, which would be even more interesting if Sestak beats Toomey in the general.— tom - wilmington, de
- Thanks, Welbourn and Fascinated, for the research. To say Fannie and Freddie had no part in the subprime crisis is like a Barney Fwank talking point, although I'm not even sure he's actually taken that untenable position.— pj katauskas
- Actually, pj, their research (to the extent it is anything but anecdotal) agrees with what I said except that apparently, fixed rate (not adjustable) loans are available from Fannie and Freddie below 10% down. Still, it was their INVESTMENT in mortgage backed securities permitted by Republican deregulation (and they actively opposed efforts to control the back end derivative market that caused the collapse---sold by guys like Toomey) that caused their demise. The default rates of the $500,000 mortgages in the Sunbelt are astronomically higher than the Fannie/Freddie loans. More importantly, the big mortgages on those properties never would have been made without international funds drawn in under the false belief that they had little or no risk since companies like S&P and Moodys rated them as Triple A and "rock solid" companies like AIG "guaranteed" the securities. This is the money (not federal money to Fannie and Freddie) that went on line looking for loans. It really is apples and oranges. The Fannie/Freddie collapse was not based on the loans they made---it was based on the fact that they invested in the same Ponzi scheme everyone else did. Spread the blame around for that, and there is plenty to go around, but stop repeating the canard that loans by Fannie and Freddie to the poor had anything to do with this. They didn't.— Palestra Jon
- tom: don't interpret any of that to mean that I am opposed to an investigation - I'm not. I am for one. But the investigation should focus on what job, if any, was offered. But based upon what all parties have said, I can't see how it's illegal.— still_independent
- Palestra, what you fail to not understand is that Fannie and Freddie set the guidelines under which those loans were enacted. Don't you recall when applying for a mortgage how it had to meet certain FHA requirements? Same with Fannie and Freddie. They set the guidelines, they set what Maxine Waters called "innovative products", like "desktop underwriting" and "100% financing". This was all done to increase minority and poor home ownership. Also, in case you missed it, the FHA is now able to guarantee mortgages I believe up to $750K, as are Fannie and Freddie also. Many of these mortgages also qualify as subprime since the borrowers took ARMS at 1 or 2% for 5 or 10 years and they are now adjusting upwards, which is causing defaults. BTW, those ARMS were another "innovative" product from F&F, as previously described by Maxine Waters.— tom - wilmington, de
- pj : "say Fannie and Freddie had no part in the subprime crisis ..." who said this? I could just as easily misstate your position as "Fannie and Freddie were the sole cause of the subprime crisis" and then demonstrate that it wasn't true. Fannie and Freddie played a role to be sure - but just how large a role is VERY debatable.— still_independent
- What is really funny about this is that back in December, 2005, McCain and Bush wanted to rein in Fannie and Freddie, but Democrats in the Senate promised to filibuster. In fact, in 2006 our current President was one of those who led the charge to filibuster any regulation of Fannie and Freddie. During the election, Obama and the Dems (as well as many on this site) chastised Republicans for not tightening regulation on the mortgage market as well as Fannie and Freddie. BUT, when Republicans tried to get F&F added to the Financial Reform bill that passed in the Senate, ALL BUT TWO DEMOCRATS voted AGAINST the amendment. So, Democrats chastise Republicans for not tightening regulation, then vote against adding F&F to the bill that could regulate them. Instead, Dodd said he would have a study done to see what effect regulation would have on F&F, saying they were extremely complex. What hypocrites.— tom - wilmington, de
- tom : did you actually read the ammendment? It doesn't reform Fannie or Freddie. It basically ends their charter and seperates them from the federal government. In the interim, it does force them to lower their mortgage portfolio by 10% a year (no clue how to do that), and repeals the affordable housing goals - which were sort of the point of their existence. Basically, the ammendment was to turn Fannie/Freddie into private entities. This may be an admirable goal, but let's not pretend that it's "reform" - it's demolition. Oh, and good luck w/ the housing market w/ no Fannie/Freddie there to back loans. Go ahead and lop another 10% or 20% off of the value of your home.— still_independent
- Tom, there is a basic fact that you and pj simply ignore. Mortgages held by Fannie and Freddie were NOT securitized, and thus, are not part of the securitized pools that were the problem leading to the economic collapse of 2008. So again, rather than throw out talking points, which might well have some merit were they not tied to unsupportable conclusions, what evidence do you have that Fannie and Freddie loans were any significant portion of the CMO's that almost brought down our economy? I thought so.— Palestra Jon
- Hey, Mike, I'm not interested in quibbling with you. If F & F played ANY role, don't you think Fwank and Dodge and other "reform-minded" Ds should include them in the financial reform package? Unless F & F's role was truly de minimis, which it wasn't, explain why they weren't included in these reforms that are supposed to make the financial markets safer. What's the rationale for leaving them out? Could it be politics, with F & F overwhelmingly favoring Ds with contributions? Nah,impossible.— pj katauskas
- Another reason why Republicans are never to be trusted to govern this country again: Bush says he’d waterboard KSM again: “Waterboarding Mohammed 183 times didn’t save any lives. In fact, Mohammed told U.S. military officials that he gave false information to the CIA after withstanding torture. Additionally, a former Special Operations interrogator who worked in Iraq has stated that waterboarding has actually cost American lives: “The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001.” Republicans are a disgrace to humanity. Also: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/16/nation/na-cia-detainee16— The Bishop
1
About this blog
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: