Romney Threatened While Leaving Vancouver

Governor Mitt Romney had to deal with a bit of an incident while returning from Vancouver.

Republican politician Mitt Romney was physically threatened by a violent passenger on an Air Canada flight leaving Vancouver this morning.

Mr. Romney, who has been in Vancouver since Friday for the Olympic Winter Games, did not respond to the attack. Instead, he allowed the airline crew to deal with the incident, according to his spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom.

Mr. Romney, 62, and his wife, Ann, were sitting in Row 15 of the economy section of the Embrarer 190 airplane, waiting for the plane to take off when the incident happened.

The man sitting in front of Mr. Romney’s wife dropped his seat back and when Mr. Romney asked him to move it upright for takeoff, the man became “physically violent.” Another report said that the man tried to strike Mr. Romney.

“Gov. Romney did not retaliate,” said Mr. Fehrnstrom.

Mr. Romney was not injured. The pilot returned to the gate and the passenger and his bags were removed by the RCMP.

Anyone notice that Mitt Romney was flying coach?

Who’s the “Party of the Rich” Now?

The special election for U.S. Senate last week revealed some intriguing demographic trends in Massachusetts that present a unique opportunity for the state Republican Party.

Take a look at this map showing margins of victory by town in last week’s election. Notably, Scott Brown generally performed better in exurban towns and less affluent suburbs such as North Andover, Canton, and Reading than in the wealthiest suburbs west of Boston such as Wellesley, Belmont, and Needham. Brown’s margins in many largely middle-class towns were greater than Mitt Romney’s in 2002, which is the last year there was a truly competitive statewide race in Massachusetts. However, Romney performed better than Brown in the upscale western suburbs. What explains this apparent paradox?

These results reflect a larger shift in the demographic makeup of both major political parties, which has been taking place across the country in recent years, culminating in 2008. The Obama coalition that year was formed of three basic demographic elements. The first element was made up of those with the least money in the country; Obama beat out McCain by 48 points among those earning less than $15,000 a year. The second element was made up of many of the wealthiest Americans.

The first element’s support for Obama is not entirely surprising. However, the Democrats’ gains among affluent Americans are somewhat of a surprise, especially given that Republicans have long held a lock on the wealthy vote. For example, as recently as 2004, President Bush won those Americans earning more than $100,000 a year by 17 points, and won those earning more than $200,000 a year by 28 points. In 2008, Obama beat out McCain by 6 points among those earning more than $100,000 a year, a 23 point turnaround in just four years. And Obama tied for the votes of those earning more than $200,000 a year, a 28 point gain from the previous presidential election.

The third element of the Obama coalition was made up of a large number of Americans in between the income extremes, many of whom likely believed he would fulfill his campaign promise to unite Americans by launching a pragmatic, “postpartisan” political era. Indeed, while Bush tied for the votes of those Americans earning in between $30,000-$50,000 a year in 2004, Obama won this group by 12 points in 2008. And while in 2004 Bush won those earning in between $50,000-$75,000 a year by 13 points, Obama tied for the votes of this group four years later. These middle-class voters make up much of the population of the swing districts/states that were crucial to Obama’s victory in 2008, mostly in the middle of the country or in non-coastal sections of coastal states. And they are the same voters who have abandoned Obama in droves over the last year as his campaign promises of bipartisanship have been revealed to be mostly hollow.

One explanation for the migration of wealthy Americans to the Democrats in recent years has its roots in the boom of the technology and financial sectors between 1995-2008, which resulted in the rapid acquisition of great wealth among many Americans. This argument holds that such quick accumulation of wealth has weakened the connection for many affluent Americans between wealth and the policies that encourage success (i.e. low tax rates), which held more salience in the years when wealth was acquired as a result of many years of hard work. Among the new elite, social issues and environmental causes apparently trump economic self-interest. This is especially true among the very wealthy. For them, the impact of the recession has been minimal and the tax consequences of grandiose policy schemes are of little concern.

I would argue that the change is also generational. Newly wealthy members of the younger generations who have never known the days of tax rates as high as 90% in the early 1960s may not be aware of the possible long-term consequences of supporting Democrats. I imagine some of these wealthy Americans may begin to shift their party allegiances as those consequences (i.e. tax increases) become more clear in the coming years.

One definitive consequence of this demographic shift is the change in the power base of the Democratic Party. While still powerful, blue collar constituencies such as unions, already weakened because of declining membership, have lost ground to special interest groups funded by wealthy donors like George Soros, such as Moveon.org. And increasing numbers of Democratic candidates come from the ranks of the very wealthy, with the likes of Jon Corzine, Ned Lamont, and Maria Cantwell, among others, spending millions to fund their own campaigns.

These trends are also evident in Massachusetts, which last week’s election showed is not as ideologically homogenous as some pundits would lead us to believe. Indeed, the state Democratic Party here mirrors the national party in that it is an awkward coalition of conservative and liberal factions. In recent years, the wealthy liberal faction has taken over the leadership of the state Democratic party in Massachusetts, as evidenced by the nomination of Deval Patrick and the ascension of his top supporters into state party leadership. However, these changes have not taken place without some public dissatisfaction from conservative Democrats.

In a wise move, Scott Brown took advantage of this intraparty split by making a specific (and successful) appeal to conservative Democrats tired of the obvious elitism of their party leaders. In doing so, he laid out a political blueprint that may serve other Bay State Republicans well this fall.

Indeed, the intraparty split among Democrats is an important development that could be crucial towards making some serious Republican gains in November. It certainly should be eagerly exploited by state Republican leaders, who should take advantage of this dynamic by recruiting candidates from among the ranks of the middle-class “Brown Majority,” especially conservative Democrats and independents. These candidates could, like Scott Brown, begin to represent a new perception of the Republican brand in this state, and attract conservative Democrats as well as large numbers of middle-class independents who are fed up with the arrogance of state and national Democrats. Let’s hope our state Republican leaders take advantage of this unique opportunity. Their decision to do so could be crucial towards exponentially increasing Republican power from the local level on up this fall.

Deval Would Okay Law Change For Teddy’s Successor

So, back in 2004, Kennedy urges the state legislature to change a law giving the power to the governor to appoint a successor for a Senate vacancy, in order to prevent then-governor Mitt Romney from picking a replacement for Senator John Kerry, had he won the 2004 presidential election. Last week Kennedy urged Deval Patrick and the legislature to change back the very same law.

And Deval is all for it.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick said Wednesday he would support changing state law to allow him to appoint an interim successor to Sen. Edward Kennedy’s seat while a special election is held.

Unlike most states, a successor to a vacant U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts is chosen by special election, not appointed by the governor.

In a recent letter to lawmakers, Kennedy, who died Tuesday night, said the law should be changed to allow the governor to appoint someone to serve in the Senate during the course of the election—provided that person pledge not to run for the seat.

In radio interviews Wednesday morning, Patrick called the idea “entirely reasonable” and told WBUR-FM that he would sign the bill if it reached his desk.

“Massachusetts needs two voices” in the Senate, Patrick said.

If having two voices was a big deal, Kennedy could have resigned months ago. So, to hell with Kennedy’s request… If you don’t like the law how it is now, you shouldn’t have demanded it changed.

The law, as it stands now, is Kennedy’s last legacy. Deal with it.

Oh, and Democrats should realize how tasteless it is to wrap Kennedy’s name around an unpopular and bad health care bill they are trying and failing to pass.

Ted Kennedy Wants Law He Wanted Changed To Be Changed Back

Ted Kennedy is asking Deval Patrick and the legislature to bend over backwards for him in a way he never did for Mary Jo Kopechne.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, in a poignant acknowledgment of his mortality at a critical time in the national health care debate, has privately asked the governor and legislative leaders to change the succession law to guarantee that Massachusetts will not lack a Senate vote when his seat becomes vacant.

In a personal, sometimes wistful letter sent Tuesday to Governor Deval L. Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray, and House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, Kennedy asks that Patrick be given authority to appoint someone to the seat temporarily before voters choose a new senator in a special election.

Here’s a way we can quickly replace Kennedy… he should resign now.

Of course, the irony of this is that the governor used to have the power to appoint a replacement… until the Democrats in the legislature) voted to change the law in 2004 to prevent then-Governor Mitt Romney from appointing a replacement for John Kerry if he had won the presidency.

Oh yeah, and Kennedy himself urged them to change the law.

The Senate also voted that the governor could not make an interim appointment. Mr. Kerry, if elected president, would hold his Senate seat until his inauguration in January, and then, under the Senate bill, his seat would be vacant for up to three months until the special election.

”That’s not an election — that’s a sweetheart deal,” Mr. Romney protested at a news conference on Wednesday. He said he would veto the bill if, as expected, it passes in the House next week, but legislators are likely to overturn any veto. ”You’re creating a special deal for a friend,” he said, adding, ”It’s robbing the citizens of the right to a free election.’

[...]

There is also the irony that Senator Kennedy, who urged state legislators to approve the special election bill, was himself once an indirect beneficiary of the state’s appointment system.

So, this brings up an interesting point… should the saw be changed back? I was against changing the law in 2004 because of the politics behind the move. So, while I do think the governor ought to have such power to appoint a temporary successor, I think by changing the law back in these circumstances will permanently establish the precedent that law can be changed endlessly to suit the political whims of the moment.

Now, with political winds favoring Republicans, and a heated battle looming in Congress over ObamaCare, Kennedy wants the law he wanted changed in 2004 to be changed back. Screw Kennedy and his demands. Laws aren’t meant to be changed back and forth according to political circumstance.

So, yeah. Ted Kennedy’s request can be thrown off the bridge for all I care.

Romney Critical of Obama’s Defense Cuts

More criticism of the Obama Administration from our former governor…

Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says the Obama adminstration’s push for new social spending could hurt defense programs and endanger America’s national security.

Romney, speaking to the conservative Heritage Foundation today, called Obama’s proposal to cut missile defense programs a “grave miscalculation” in light of North Korea’s provocations. The former Massachusetts governor is seen as a likely contender for the GOP’s presidential nomination.

The speech was seen as a bid to enhance his foreign policy credentials among conservative Republicans.