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.

Oh, Just Shut Up

Gov. Patrick sticks his beak into the US Senate race.

Rudy Giuliani and Scott Brown arrived in the North End, and the crowd parted.

“Go, Scott, go!’’ they shouted. “Rudy! Rudy!’’

This pair of Republican stars – Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, and Brown, the suddenly ascendant GOP Senate hopeful – soaked up every last bit of the adulation.

“I’m used to being here with winning candidates,’’ Giuliani said, citing his visits to Boston for Republican governors such as Mitt Romney and William Weld. “I like campaigning here because, frankly, they feed me.’’

Giuliani is hoping to christen another victor this time, his presence yesterday underscoring the sudden national interest in Tuesday’s special US Senate election between Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley, the state’s attor ney general.

Several hours later, Coakley was surrounded by heavyweights from her party, with state and national Democrats seeking to rouse voters with red-meat attack lines portraying Brown as out of touch with Massachusetts and the future.

“You just have to decide whether you want us to be a tomorrow country or a yesterday country,’’ former president Bill Clinton told a packed banquet hall at the Fairmont Copley in downtown Boston, an event Coakley aides said drew 1,500 people. “You just have to decide if you want to pick the person who gets to shut America down.’’

Clinton, who is helping lead American relief efforts for Haiti, which has been ravaged by an earthquake, cast his dueling responsibilities yesterday as “two sides of the same coin’’ because they both illustrate the need for good governance.

Coakley, referencing a Brown TV ad showing him campaigning around the state in his GMC truck, drew a roar when she said, “Just because you’re driving around in a truck doesn’t mean you’re going in the right direction.’’

Coakley’s campaign rally, coming as polls indicate a tight race, drew an assortment of Democratic operatives, elected officials, and fans of the former president. The free event was held in the glitzy Grand Ballroom.

Senator John F. Kerry launched into an impassioned attack on Brown, calling him “silent Scott’’ for not raising his voice during President Bush’s administration, describing the 30-year National Guard member as “AWOL’’ when Bush proposed privatizing Social Security.

“For eight years, he was George Bush’s yes man, and now he wants to go to Washington and become [Senate Republican leader] Mitch McConnell’s no man,’’ Kerry said. “We’re not going to let it happen.’’

Democrats spoke in dire terms about the prospect of losing a Senate seat to a Massachusetts Republican for the first time since 1972, in a bid to galvanize the state’s Democratic Party establishment ahead of Tuesday’s vote.

“The voting here is going to determine the balance of power in America,’’ Kerry said

“We have a fight on our hands,’’ said Governor Deval Patrick. “We’re fighting . . . the same folks who made the mess we’re in.’’

Wrong, Governor. Scott Brown is fighting the folks who made the mess we’re in. And by God, he’s gonna win that fight this Tuesday.

UPDATE: More from the Boston Herald and Globe.

SECOND UPDATE: More from Politico.com, the Globe and the Herald.

Senatorial Privilege

Human Events on Governor Patrick’s next step.

As Edward Kennedy was mourned and laid to rest over the weekend, talk about what will happen to his open Senate seat grew louder.

On Friday, there were reports that the Massachusetts legislature would follow Kennedy’s final wish and change the five-year-old Senate succession law. Such a change would permit Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint an interim senator until the special election is held no earlier than 145 days after Kennedy’s death and no more than 160 days. (That means in January).

This would be the second Democratic opportunistic change to the law. The last time – when Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry might have vacated his seat for the presidency — the Democratic legislature took the power of gubernatorial appointment away from then-governor Mitt Romney.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) encouraged the Bay State lawmakers to give the governor power to appoint a senator. Reid seemed to be speaking for many national Democrats on Thursday when he voiced the feeling that as many Democratic votes as possible were needed in the Senate if Obama-backed health care reform comes to a vote before January.

On Thursday, there was speculation that if the rules change was passed, Gov. Patrick might appoint a “senior statesman” such as former governor and 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis to serve in the Senate until January. By Friday night, however, speculation on a stopgap senator seemed to move toward former Democratic National Chairman Paul Kirk, Jr. As Joe Kennedy noted in his remarks about his uncle, Kirk had been a close friend of Ted Kennedy since his first Senate race in 1962.

Few in Massachusetts would think the state legislature is not shameless enough to reverse itself in four years for blatantly political reasons. But sources in Boston said that there were a number of Democratic legislators — notably State Sen. Brian Joyce — having jitters about a reversal that is that self-serving. The Boston Herald’s columnist Howie Carr was his usual cynical self when he concluded: “Ultimately, there’s nothing in the bill [to permit a Senate appointment] for the Legislature, so we must assume it won’t be passed.”

UPDATE: More from the Boston Herald.

SECOND UPDATE: From WBUR, Michael Graham and Boston Globe.

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.