×
An interesting article in the Times today about the race to capture now-Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's house seat in upstate New York, a Republican-leaning district that Gillibrand, running as a conservative Democrat, managed to capture in 2004 and 2006. While Republican Assembly Leader James Tedisco seemed to be in a perfect position to sweep the district -- experience, good name recognition and the right letter after his name -- he's put himself in a bind by refusing to take a position on the economic stimulus bill.It's political malpractice: Tedisco and his advisers are hoping to fly under the radar and take the race based on special election low-turnout, but you can't ignore the biggest political issue of the day. His Democratic opponent, Scott Murphy, has the money to hit him for his waffling in the media and in public appearances while promoting the stimulus. The outcome of the special election at the end of March will be immediately seized by partisans of either side as a referendum on the stimulus, and pundits as a prognosticating data point to figure out how the president's legislative agenda is playing outside of the beltway. But if the beautifully stereotypical voter quoted towards the end of this piece is any kind of standard, it seems like Obama's gamble is paying off:
He said he doubted how much the stimulus package would really help the region, but he faulted Mr. Tedisco for “playing it safe.” After a moment, he added: “Somebody with that big of a clan [Murphy's local family] is going to be looking out for us and our problems more: If I vote, I vote for Murphy.”The Democrats are hoping that voters appreciate them for taking action to solve the problem. Opposition to that agenda has political consequences, some bad and some good, and the congressional Republicans are taking a bet that the gamble will eventually go their way. At this time, it doesn't look like opposition will pay off, but it's not 2010 yet. Tedisco is caught in the middle of these two incentives thanks to the special election. What doesn't make sense to me: Why doesn't he endorse the stimulus but offer his own substantial misgivings on the bill? Surely the Republican caucus would rather have another member than demand ideological purity (the lesson of the Democrats in '06 and '08) and could forgive him stepping outside the caucus before he gets there. But apparently the struggle for purity continues its self-destructive course.
-- Tim Fernholz
