I don’t quite know exactly where this is coming from, but there’s clearly a media effort underway to show that the conservative movement and the Republican Party are reining in “the extremists” in their ranks, presumably in order to look all ready to govern.
Today’s Politico features a long piece by Kennth Vogel detailing claims by various conservative and Tea Party spokesmen that the influence of “the fringe” has been grossly exaggerated by “the Left,” and that in fact unruly elements are being ignored or excluded by the Right’s grownups.
“Birthers,” Birchers and militia types, we are told, are being shown the door, and haven’t been that important to begin with, except in the propaganda of the Left.
The door-keepers in Vogel’s account, however, are not a group that would normally strike you as moderately-tempered unless the bar for political sanity is set very low. One is none other than Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation, who told Vogel that activists needed “to control the message and to prevent the tea party movement from being hijacked.” That’s interesting, since Phillips’ recent National Tea Party Convention featured a race-baiting keynote address by Tom Tancredo, another speech by “birther” advocate Joseph Farrah of WorldNetDaily, and a breakout panel headed by Christian Right extremist Roy Moore. Another is dirty-trickster and ACORN conspiracy theorist Andrew Breitbart, who is credited with disrepecting Farrah at Phillips’ event. Still another is Erick Erickson of RedState, that ferocious advocate of strife against “squishes” and moderates of every variety.
If these folk want to keep “the Left” from talking about crazy people on the Right, they might want to make their policing a bit more rigorous than the occasional tip from the coach to stay on the political sidelines. “The Left” did not invent the cosponsorship of the recent Conservative Political Action Conference by the John Birch Society and the militia-friendly Oathkeepers. But more to the point, it’s a disturbing sign in intself that people like Phillips, Breitbart and Erickson are being treated as some sort of “mainstream,” where it’s perfectly normal to call President Obama a socialist, treat Democrats as presumptive traitors, and advocate an array of radical economic and social policies. All the “self-policing of the Right” narrative really shows is how far and fast conservatives have recently moved to what used to be thought of as “the fringe.” It’s cold comfort to learn there is ample frontier territory on the Right that’s well beyond that.

The House Ethics Committee investigation of Rep. (and Ways & Means Committee chairman) Charlie Rangel has gotten a lot of attention recently. But there’s a new development on the House ethics front that merits a closer look than it will probably receive, at least nationally.
Georgia Rep. Nathan Deal resigned his seat today, supposedly so he could concentrate on his gubernatorial campaign. But as a conservative blogger in the Peach State immediately noted, this makes zero political sense except as a way to short-circuit an ethics investigation of a state contract held by Deal that was about to get underway:

Deal is giving up the turnout advantage for being the sitting Congressman while the vote for his replacement takes place. GA law calls for a special election to replace Deal, and assuming the special election clears the field for the general election, having an unopposed incumbent running in the 9th when the primary vote for Governor takes place is a major campaign disadvantage for Deal.
So why would Deal take the hit on turnout?
The House Ethics Committee came down hard on Charlie Rangel last week. The next case up was to look at Deal’s use of his Congressional staff to protect a no-bid State contract here in Georgia. The House ethics committee was due to release their findings in this case any day. Deal’s resignation probably makes this go away.
So, Deal can campaign full time after tomorrow. If he’s no longer a member of Congress, he can’t be on the list of CREW’s most unethical Congressmen anymore.

This is interesting in no small part because Georgia’s crowded Republican gubernatorial primary has become something of a quagmire of ethics issues. State insurance commissioner John Oxendine, who has been the front-runner in the polls for many months, is battling a variety of ethics charges relating to his fundraising efforts among the insurance companies he is responsible for regulating. And several other candidates are struggling to overcome the perception of a cover-up of a recent sex-with-a-utility-lobbyist scandal that ultimately forced state House Speaker Glenn Richardson from office.
It probably doesn’t help that Richardson was replaced in the legislature in a special election last week by another Christian Right activist who has admitted an affair with his mother-in-law during his first wife’s pregnancy.
The broader lesson is that Republicans are not exempt from the ongoing anti-government, anti-incumbent popular mood. While they certainly want to promote the idea that voters are only interested in punishing politicians who support economic stimulus funds or health care reform, there are other sins that do not bear exposure in the current climate. And wherever GOPers are entrenched in office, as they are in much of the Deep South, ethics problems are rarely too far beneath the surface.
UPDATE: Deal’s resignation, currently slated to take effect on March 8, could affect the outcome of the expected razor-thin vote on health care reform, due to occur early in April. If nothing else, Deal’s action should offset the decision last week by Democratic Rep. Neil Abercrombie’s to resign his House seat for a gubernatorial campaign in Hawaii.

In his ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ posted today at the Center for American Progress web pages, TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira shows clearly that President Obama was right in saying that the major elements of comprehensive health care reform legislation he is advocating are popular with the public and that the bills in Congress would fare better if the public actually knew what was in them. As Teixeira explains:

…It turns out the president’s claim is well founded. The latest evidence is in a recent Newsweek poll that first asked respondents whether they supported or opposed Obama’s health care reform plan, then gave them a list of key provisions in the plan, and then asked them again whether they supported Obama’s plan.
…Six of the eight provisions get majority support with the highest favorability for the health insurance exchanges (81 percent), requiring health insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions (76 percent), and requiring most businesses to offer health insurance to their employees (75 percent). But the poll also asked about two provisions the public did not like: taxing “Cadillac” health plans and fining individuals who refuse to get health insurance. So Newsweek cannot be accused of cherry picking the plan for only those provisions the public would likely favor.
Before respondents heard the list of provisions, they opposed Obama’s health care plan 49-40. After respondents heard the list they switched to 48-43 support. Obama was right: If the public knew what was actually in the comprehensive health care plans being proposed, they would feel more favorably about them.

And, interestingly, those who keep saying that the public wants to abandon health care reform and move on to other legislation are dead wrong, as Teixeira explains:

…In an early February ABC/Washington Post poll, the public said, by an overwhelming 63-34 margin, that lawmakers in Washington should keep trying to pass a comprehensive health care reform plan instead of giving up.

As Teixeira concludes, ” Amen to that.”

A new DCORPS study, “Turnout and the New American Majority” (PDF) sheds fresh light on the opportunity and challenge presented to progressives by three key groups of the ‘Rising American Electorate’ (RAE), unmarried women, people of color and youth. Subtitled “A Year-Long Project Tracking Voter Participation and Vote Preference Among the Rising American Electorate,” the study includes a survey commissioned by Women’s Voices. Women Vote, conducted between 1/7 and 1/12 designed to track engagement of RAE voters.
DCORPS notes that declining turnout among key segments of the U.S. electorate suggests “a looming problem heading into the 2010 elections” because “turnout collapsed” among RAE groups in the 2009 elections in NJ, VA and the 2010 MA special. In addition, “much of the polling in the summer and into the fall last year, as well as early polling in 2010, suggests a disproportionate problem among these specific voting blocs.”
RAE voters account for a majority of the voting-age population in the U.S. “Because they do not vote at the same levels as other voters, their voices are not always heard by policy-makers.” But the authors conclude that “popular assumptions about dismal turnout among these voters are wrong. It is not inevitable, and it is not tied primarily to the economy. It can change with the right programs and due attention.” Other key findings include:

· As others in the participation community have been warning, turnout among these groups is at risk; this comes after record turnout in the 2008 election.
· It is a mistake to assume that this is all about the economy and disappointment with the slow pace of recovery. Those in the Rising American Electorate least likely to vote are the most optimistic about economic turnaround. Moreover, regression analysis suggests little, if any, predictive value in economic perceptions on enthusiasm for voting.
· This is important because it suggests that turnout is not captive to economic performance. The programs that worked to increase turnout in 2008 and 2006 can still increase turnout among these voters in 2010.
· Democrats face another problem, too; declining levels of support, particularly among youth and unmarried women. The economy likely plays a more significant role in vote preference than in turnout.
· What is key for both parties is getting the economic narrative right. This means speaking to this issue in their terms and focusing on tangible relief efforts they can see and touch, like unemployment benefits and health care reform. But it also means speaking to their hope and desire for change, which has not died since the 2008 election cycle. If anything, these voters want more change, not less.

While the interests of the RAE groups clearly fit within the Democratic Party, the worst thing would be for Dems to assume they will show up in adequate numbers to prevent a rout in November. If we want to hold the House and Senate, motivating and turning out the RAE must be a top priority.