Schwarzenegger and McCain, political twins.
John McCain has the Terminator in his corner. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed McCain for president this week, saying the Arizona senator "has shown over and over again he is reaching across the aisle to get things done."
Interestingly, the Governor’s endorsement could have greater influence with voters outside of California whose opinions are unsullied by news coverage of his problems with other Republicans back home.
Yet the greatest value may have nothing to do with voters casting their ballot based on Governor Schwarzenegger’s recommendation. Instead it may stem from the Oscar-worthy coverage the endorsement has generated. And when you’re running against a well funded opponent like former Governor Mitt Romney, that of kind nationwide free publicity is worth millions.
Studies have tried to debunk the value of celebrity endorsements, as if a nation deliriously hooked on entertainment could never be duped by Hollywood. But seeing as we've now elevated our presidential hopefuls to celebrity status -- people turn out for an Obama rally like Jersey girls to a Bruce Springsteen concert -- it seems only fair to weigh their chances based in part on the company they keep.
Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., won't be asking for voters' support in November.
A steady stream of House Republicans are opting to "spend more time with family" rather than face the prospect of remaining in the minority for another two, four or who-knows-how-many years. Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia is the latest to announce his retirement.
Does the exodus of Republican lawmakers strengthen the desire for political change that presidential candidates talk about so much? Was the Republican majority a fluke? Are Democrats just better at winning elections?
In a political climate in which it is still painful to admit being a member of the GOP, virtually no seat is safe.
Historically, when a party’s incumbents start retiring en masse, it’s indicative of a party in serious trouble.
His children will still get a nice inheritance.
Running for president doesn't come cheap, but usually candidates are spending other people's money. Not Mitt Romney: New campaign finance reports show that he has spent $35 million of his $250 million fortune on the campaign -- but still appears to be losing the momentum battle to John McCain.
Can the presidency be bought?
Late last night, Mitt Romney's campaign released its fourth-quarter funding figures, and as everyone expected, Romney significantly self-funded. He raised $9 million, which stacks up well against the other Republicans, but added twice as much into the kitty from his own pocket.
This release occasioned an e-mail missive from Team McCain calling this "alarming", and that he was "wasting his fortune". Perhaps, but it is his fortune to waste -- and given his track record, he's probably not going to have much problem recovering it if he returns to the private sector now or a few years in the future. Whether a run for the Presidency is a "waste" really is Romney's call, and no one else's. After all, it's his money.
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee stands out from other candidates for the Republican presidential nomination for reasons apart from his Christian social conservatism. How many reasons? Somewhere between 190 million and 250 million. That is the dollar amount by which his personal wealth is estimated to trail that of Mitt Romney.
The key to wealth and politics, however, may be less about presidential hopefuls' actual worth and more about whom their wealth enables them to reach out to for campaign funds.
"All of these candidates, because they are in this bubble running for president, are detached to some extent from the lives of Americans," Massie Ritsch said. "But those who are personally wealthy, it's reasonable to wonder if they are even more removed."
And Hillary makes four?
The dynasty question isn't new this election season, but Hillary Clinton addressed it candidly on Thursday night.
"It did take a Clinton to clean (up) after the first Bush, and I think it might take a second one to clean up after the second Bush," she said to applause at a televised debate with Democratic rival Barack Obama.
The Bush and Clinton dynasties wouldn't be the first, second or even third in U.S. presidential history, of course. But the prospect of 24 years of the Bush and Clinton families occupying the Oval Office does give pause. Are dynasties good for America?
The political strategy is clear enough. Mrs. Clinton wants to roll to her party's nomination on a tide of "inevitability" while disguising her real agenda as much as possible. But Democratic voters ought to consider whether they want to put all their hopes for retaking the White House on Mrs. Clinton's ability to obfuscate like her husband without his preternatural talent for it. Aside from lacking her husband's political gifts, Hillary's challenge is that we've all seen this movie before.
We remember John Quincy Adams as intelligent and diligent, but his presidency is diminished by the hint of dynastic succession and is seen as emblematic of a parochial time when America was ruled by an incestuous elite. Some day, I suspect we may detect the same narrowness in the rise of the Bush Dynasty and, if there is one, in the Clinton Dynasty.
We added the 22nd Amendment, limiting presidents to two terms, on the rationale that levers of power should turn over to keep our democracy healthy. Many Democrats today would consider Bill Clinton intrinsically the best person to serve as president for the next eight years. And yet, even if there weren’t a 22nd Amendment, we would shy away from that; we prefer the risk of an unproven president to the risk of stasis and aristocracy.
