Thursday, August 23, 2007
of course she's going to run
In case you haven't heard, a new poll released a few days ago showed that Janet Napolitano leads John McCain by 11 percentage points in a hypothetical matchup for his Senate seat in 2010.
I've been saying for the past year and a half that she's been preparing to run for that seat when she's term-limited out as Governor in 2010. She was a cautious moderate during her first term, never really going out on a limb for any major progressive causes. Indeed, thanks to a Neanderthal Legislature, all she had to do was veto the clearly batshit insane garbage that they sent her in order to build credibility and support among Arizona's voters.
Her caution made sense when she was preparing to run for re-election. But now that she's been re-elected by a pretty impressive margin and can't run for the same office again, one would think that she would temper some of her caution by throwing some red meat to her base that has been the core of her support through her terms as AG and Gov.
Not so much, apparently, as she signed a fairly draconian employer sanction bill and decided to accept more abstinence-only funding for another fiscal year instead of following the lead of other Governors around the country. There are plenty of other examples to be found, but her moderate-to-conservative policies in the first year of her second term are starting to turn off her core supporters.
Why would she be doing taking toward the right if she theoretically had the freedom to be true to her (presumed) progressive populist roots? Clearly, Governor is not the pinnacle of her political career.
A lobbyist friend of mine in Phoenix told me the buzz up there is that she's gunning for Attorney General in the next Presidential administration, which will almost certainly be headed by a Democrat. That may be her hope, but I think it's highly unlikely that she'd be selected for that role.
In Arizona's Constitutional offices, the Secretary of State is the equivalent of Lieutenant Governor. Our current SOS, Jan Brewer, is a Republican former state legislator. There is no way that a Democratic President would hand over the Governorship of a purple state to the GOP two years before the next Governor is scheduled to be elected, especially with a Republican-controlled legislature.
Her chances of landing the AG post might improve if Democrats could pick up at least one house of the legislature next year. It's possible, I suppose, but I'm not yet convinced it's likely. We need a Democratic Governor to be our firewall against the truly crazy, regressive, dangerous legislation that emanates from 'neath the copper dome.
This also calls to mind for me the reason I doubt she's a serious candidate for the VP slot on the Democratic ticket. I complained on this here blog a couple of times about her lack of campaigning for legislative candidates. It seemed that she had no interest in accruing or spending any political capital (I loathe that term, but it's apt here) from or for legislative candidates from her party.
If I was the chief executive of a state and the legislature was controlled by the fringe of the opposing party, I'd want to do everything in my power to help increase the number of my allies in the legislature so we could actually pass some positive legislation.
My theory is that the fringe legislature makes for a useful foil for the Governor as she positions herself for the Senate race against Grampa McCrazy. Why mess with a formula that yielded several successful statewide campaigns? The base be damned!
"Senator Napolitano" may very well be something we hear by December 2010, but at what cost to the Democratic brand in Arizona?
P.S. I believe that Arizona's resign-to-run law applies to Constitutional officers, which means she can't formally declare her intention to run for the U.S. Senate until the final year of her current term starts or she would have to resign. So expect to hear a lot of coy remarks about and deft dancing around those questions for the next three years.
I've been saying for the past year and a half that she's been preparing to run for that seat when she's term-limited out as Governor in 2010. She was a cautious moderate during her first term, never really going out on a limb for any major progressive causes. Indeed, thanks to a Neanderthal Legislature, all she had to do was veto the clearly batshit insane garbage that they sent her in order to build credibility and support among Arizona's voters.
Her caution made sense when she was preparing to run for re-election. But now that she's been re-elected by a pretty impressive margin and can't run for the same office again, one would think that she would temper some of her caution by throwing some red meat to her base that has been the core of her support through her terms as AG and Gov.
Not so much, apparently, as she signed a fairly draconian employer sanction bill and decided to accept more abstinence-only funding for another fiscal year instead of following the lead of other Governors around the country. There are plenty of other examples to be found, but her moderate-to-conservative policies in the first year of her second term are starting to turn off her core supporters.
Why would she be doing taking toward the right if she theoretically had the freedom to be true to her (presumed) progressive populist roots? Clearly, Governor is not the pinnacle of her political career.
A lobbyist friend of mine in Phoenix told me the buzz up there is that she's gunning for Attorney General in the next Presidential administration, which will almost certainly be headed by a Democrat. That may be her hope, but I think it's highly unlikely that she'd be selected for that role.
In Arizona's Constitutional offices, the Secretary of State is the equivalent of Lieutenant Governor. Our current SOS, Jan Brewer, is a Republican former state legislator. There is no way that a Democratic President would hand over the Governorship of a purple state to the GOP two years before the next Governor is scheduled to be elected, especially with a Republican-controlled legislature.
Her chances of landing the AG post might improve if Democrats could pick up at least one house of the legislature next year. It's possible, I suppose, but I'm not yet convinced it's likely. We need a Democratic Governor to be our firewall against the truly crazy, regressive, dangerous legislation that emanates from 'neath the copper dome.
This also calls to mind for me the reason I doubt she's a serious candidate for the VP slot on the Democratic ticket. I complained on this here blog a couple of times about her lack of campaigning for legislative candidates. It seemed that she had no interest in accruing or spending any political capital (I loathe that term, but it's apt here) from or for legislative candidates from her party.
If I was the chief executive of a state and the legislature was controlled by the fringe of the opposing party, I'd want to do everything in my power to help increase the number of my allies in the legislature so we could actually pass some positive legislation.
My theory is that the fringe legislature makes for a useful foil for the Governor as she positions herself for the Senate race against Grampa McCrazy. Why mess with a formula that yielded several successful statewide campaigns? The base be damned!
"Senator Napolitano" may very well be something we hear by December 2010, but at what cost to the Democratic brand in Arizona?
P.S. I believe that Arizona's resign-to-run law applies to Constitutional officers, which means she can't formally declare her intention to run for the U.S. Senate until the final year of her current term starts or she would have to resign. So expect to hear a lot of coy remarks about and deft dancing around those questions for the next three years.
Labels: AZ-Sen, Democratic brand, Janet Napolitano, John McCain, Pres-08
