Glenn Greenwald laments the rise of “American royalty.”

They should convene a panel for the next Meet the Press with Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, and they should have Chris Wallace moderate it.  They can all bash affirmative action and talk about how vitally important it is that the U.S. remain a Great Meritocracy because it’s really unfair for anything other than merit to determine position and employment.  They can interview Lisa Murkowski, Evan Bayh, Jeb Bush, Bob Casey, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Dan Lipinksi, and Harold Ford, Jr. about personal responsibility and the virtues of self-sufficiency.  Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson and John Podhoretz can provide moving commentary on how America is so special because all that matters is merit, not who you know or where you come from.  There’s a virtually endless list of politically well-placed guests equally qualified to talk on such matters.

Some of the examples are more egregious than others.  Murkowski is the most outrageous; plucked out of nowhere to be appointed to fill her father’s vacant seat by her father. Arguably, at least, those elected to public office to follow in the footsteps of famous fathers have to stand the scrutiny, such as it is, of the voters.  And Chris Wallace at least legitimately worked in the news business for years before getting tabbed to host a show.  Jenna Bush and Megan McCain seem to be celebrities solely because of who their dads are.

Liz Cheney is an especially odd case.  She is genuinely well qualified to comment on a variety of issues owing to having served for years in very important public policy posts.  Alas, it’s doubtful whether she’d have been appointed to said posts were her last name Smith or Jones.

I’m also a bit dubious of the inclusion of Goldberg, Kristol, and Carlson on the list.    Carlson and Goldberg had ever-so-modestly famous parents who presumably helped them get a foot in the door.  But it’s doubtful that Carlson got on TV based on who his parents were. Nor is it obvious why being a literary agent is of great help in launching a son as a conservative pundit. Kristol’s father was a giant and certainly helped launch his son’s career but he’s not in the same category of Podhoretz, who essentially inherited his dad’s magazine.

The “trend toward dynasty politics” is getting out of hand, Charles Mahtesian argues in Politico.

[Obama's] secretary of state will be Hillary Clinton, the wife of the former president. The Senate seat she’ll vacate is being pursued by Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of a president and the niece of two senators. Joe Biden’s Senate seat may go to his son Beau. Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, Obama’s pick for interior secretary, could end up being replaced by his brother, Rep. John Salazar.

And Obama’s own seat could go to the son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. – less likely now in light of developments in the Rod Blagojevich scandal – or to the daughter of Illinois’ current House speaker.

The U.S. Senate could end up looking like an American version of the House of Lords – and Republicans have begun to take notice.

Jesse Taylor takes an odd path on this one, snarking, “The solution, obviously, is to appoint orphans to everything” and clarifying that “To be clear, the issue isn’t that nepotism and dynastic tendencies are actually good things.  It’s that any administration is going to choose people who have family members, many of whom will have political aspirations.”

Now, while I agree with Steve Benen that Mahtesian’s piece is a bit over-the-top, not least of which because it “relies on the mere possibility of Kennedy, Salazar, and Jackson appointments to bolster its argument, not to mention the notion that Beau Biden may or may not run in 2010.”   Still, it’s not unreasonable to wonder about the propriety of appointing family members to posts when there are usually more qualified people available.

And even Mathesian admits that this is hardly a new phenomenon:

There is a rich bipartisan history of dynasty in American politics that dates all the way back to the Founding Fathers; Obama-Biden actually represents the first winning ticket since 1976 without a son or a grandson of a U.S. senator on it.

In 2008, the storied Udall clan, sometimes referred to as the Western Kennedys, saw two members elected to the Senate— Mark from Colorado and Tom from New Mexico. In 2010, they could be joined in the Senate by Florida’s Jeb Bush, the son and brother of presidents and the grandson of a senator.

All told, it’s entirely possible that the Senate will be comprised of nearly a dozen congressional offspring by the end of Obama’s first term as president.

We should, however, separate two phenomena:  politicians with famous names getting elected partly on the basis of the advantages so conferred and relatives of politicians being appointed to vacant offices.   The latter strikes me as infinitely more troubling than the former.

In the first instance, it’s simply a fact that sons, daughters, and even wives of politicians have an unusual interest in politics and often develop political ambitions.  They shouldn’t be precluded from seeking political office any more than the sons of generals and admirals should be dissauded from following in their fathers’ footsteps.

It’s unfortunately true that they have unfair advantages.  Hillary Clinton would have had zero chance of getting elected to the Senate in 2000 — let alone been a plausible candidate for the presidency and now secretary of state — had she not been First Lady for eight years.  She simply lacked the resume typically needed to aspire to those jobs or the charisma that Obama used to compensate for his lack of same.   Even Clinton, though, didn’t win simply because she was “Mrs. Bill Clinton.”   Rather, being First Lady gave her extraordinary name recognition, a huge Rolodex and campaign infrastructure, and she’d demonstrated her talents in a giant international spotlight.

Certainly, George W. Bush and Jeb Bush benefited from being the sons of the first President Bush.   It’s possible that either of them would have been elected to governorships, anyway, owing to being independently wealthy and having built networks in their home states.  But, certainly, they benefitted from the Bush name and access.

Far more troubling are the <strike>Mary Bonos,</strike>* Lisa Murkowskis, Jean Carnahans, and (potentially) Caroline Kennedys.  These people catapulted over dozens (if not tens or hundreds of thousands) of more qualified people to get appointed to high office.  Their sole qualification for the job, really, was being related to politicians.

There’s not much that can be done about the first phenomenon, either. If the public wants to elect people with familiar names, it’s hard to come up with a compelling reason to preclude them from doing so. It would, however, be easy to preclude governors from appointing relatives of current or recent officeholders to key posts; better yet, we could take away the appointment power altogether for elective offices, requiring special elections be held.

____________
*Commenter RW Rogers correctly points out that House members are never appointed.  Bono won a special election for her late husband’s seat.  She was a 36-year-old neophyte when she took the seat but has, presumably, done an able job given that she has subsequently been reelected five times.

John Hawkins lists 24 candidates that John McCain might conceivably pick as his running mate with synopses as to the pros and cons of each. I’m rather sure the eventual choice is on that list, as there’s nobody that I’ve heard of who isn’t. Indeed, there are several people I haven’t heard of on it.

Frankly, the available choices are rather uninspiring. There are good reasons for bypassing each of McCain’s big name opponents (Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee) and there aren’t a lot of Republican governors who already come with name recognition.

James Carville predicted yesterday that Jeb Bush will get the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

At CNN’s America Votes 2008 Breakfast, the chief architect of Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential run predicted that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush will be the Republican nominee in 2008. Jeb is a younger brother of President Bush.

Carville bolstered his prediction, highlighting Jeb Bush’s career: He was a successful governor of a large state, he enjoys the support of social conservatives, he speaks Spanish, and “he’s somebody the party could rally around,” Carville said. “There is nobody in this field who can rally the Republican Party; he’s the only person in America that can do it,” he added.

Given that it was a breakfast meeting, one would presume Carville was sober when he made these comments. While I respect his skills as a political analyst, though, this strikes me as more than a little farfetched.

First, there’s the fact that Jeb Bush’s last name is “Bush.” His brother, the incumbent president, is incredibly unpopular, disliked by even a sizable portion of the Republican base. Second, he’s not only indicated that he’s not running but he has made no move to run and has no organization in the key early primary states. It’s almost certainly too late for him to get in at this point.

Carville’s right, though, that none of the current candidates yet excites the party. Then again, somebody will get the nomination and thereby become the alternative to, presumably, Hillary Clinton. That will be enough to rally the troops.

George Prescott Bush has joined the Navy Reserve at the age of 30.

George P. Bush, a nephew of President Bush who was a hit on the campaign trail, has been accepted in the Navy Reserve as an intelligence officer and has begun the process of being commissioned for eight years of service.

Bush, 30, said in a telephone interview from his office at a real estate development firm in Fort Worth, Texas, that he was moved to join the service in part when he attended the rainy commissioning in October of the aircraft carrier named for his grandfather — the USS George H.W. Bush. “My grandfather’s my hero, and what really sold me on the ultimate decision was having the chance to see the CVN-77 be commissioned under his name,” he said. “That was pretty moving, and I had a chance to meet some Navy admirals, as well. I had a chance to talk to them briefly about the opportunity, and I was won over.”

George Prescott Bush, the oldest son of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, said the death of Pat Tillman, the NFL player and Army Ranger who was killed in Afghanistan in 2004 in what was later determined to be a friendly-fire incident, “was a wake-up call for me.” He said he even “looked into active duty” and had somber conversations with his wife about the possibility.

Bush said he had not intended to announce his plans. “Honestly, I’m kind of a little disappointed that the word got out,” he said. “I was hoping to keep this as confidential as possible. I’m not doing it for political purposes or anything along those lines. I’m just doing it because I’ve been inspired by the friends of mine that have served, either through the JAG (military law) program or through the Reserves. I thought this was a small way that I could get involved.”

He sure took a lot of convincing, having been moved by the 2004 death of Pat Tillman, some JAG friends, his grandfather, and personal recruitment from several admirals.

While joining the Reserves is hardly the “get out of service free” card that it was in Vietnam–indeed, Reservists in some specialties are more likely to get deployed than many of their Active counterparts these days–the Navy Reserve isn’t at the top of the call-up list. My guess is that he’ll get to continue his business career largely unabated and use this “disappointing” news coverage to his advantage once he joins the real family business, politics.

UPDATE: Mark points out that at least one Navy Reserve intelligence officer has been killed in the line of duty in Iraq. Smash roomed with him at Annapolis.

I shouldn’t have been so glib. It’s true that there are riskier paths than the Navy Reserve but, certainly, civilian life is much safer. And not many 30-year-old rich guys from famous families are signing up.

The American Spectator’s Quin Hillyer thinks there’s a strong possibility that Jeb Bush, who has repeatedly said he isn’t running, could emerge as a “white knight” candidate and carry off the 2008 Republican nomination at the last minute. How so? Hillyer believes that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the front-loaded primary system could mean a messy, drawn out contest.

[I]n 2008, with a whopping 19 states, including mammoth California, moving their primaries, the Feb. 2 South Carolina match won’t seem so decisive because everybody will know that the big delegate haul will come just three days later. And because all of the major candidates will be fighting heavily across such a wide range of states, the odds are high that each major candidate will win at least several of those 19 states. If, say, John McCain wins California and Arizona, and maybe another, but Mitt Romney follows a New Hampshire win with Feb. 5 wins in Michigan, Utah, and Colorado, and another one or two, while Rudy Giuliani takes Florida, New Jersey, Illinois and Tennessee, and Mike Huckabee wins his home state of Arkansas and Sam Brownback carries home-state Kansas…well, then, who exactly is the front-runner?

RATHER THAN PROVIDING UNSTOPPABLE momentum to any one candidate, in other words, the widespread voting on Feb. 5 could serve to keep all three “major” candidates and even a couple of minor ones alive. Nobody could claim a mandate, the vitriol would continue to grow, and the dissatisfaction already being voiced by conservatives might take on pandemic proportions.

Given that what’s at stake in these primaries isn’t simply momentum but rather delegates–mostly awarded on a winner-take-all basis–this scenario strikes me as one that would winnow the field to McCain and Giuliani. Then again, the formula for allocating these delegates is complicated and putting numbers to Hillyer’s scenario is just too much work for a blog post, so let’s concede his point for the sake of argument.

The means by which Jeb (following Hillary Clinton’s lead in using the first name to avoid confusion with famous relatives) sweeps in and saves the day is rather far-fetched:

BUT WHY WOULD HE RUN when the name Bush is so unpopular these days?

Perhaps because a lot can change in a year. Ask George H. W. Bush, he of the 91 percent approval rating in 1991, about how fast political fortunes can change. What if, by late winter of next year, the vaunted troop surge in Iraq is seen to have been a major success? What if the continued over-reaching by Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha makes President George W. Bush look good by comparison, just as Bill Clinton looked good when compared with the caricature Newt Gingrich allowed to be drawn of himself?

Bill Clinton had the additional advantages of a booming economy and excellent oratorical skills. Somehow, I just can’t imagine GWB coming back to 60+ percent approval ratings in the next year.

Further, as I’ve noted repeatedly, Jeb has some serious immediate family baggage unrelated to his brother. Meanwhile, the other plausible “white knight,” Newt Gingrich, has even more problems.

Ultimately, the nomination will almost certainly go to someone in the arena by the time the primaries kick off. I do think it’s possible that someone not yet running could emerge, especially if they have major name recognition already, because there are good reasons not to vote for each of the existing candidates. But no one is going to come to the process in April or May 2008 and grab the nomination.

Indeed, there would be some serious legitimacy issues to someone who didn’t run in the primaries and yet managed to work a back room deal to get other candidates to pledge their delegates. It would amount to a return to the bad old days of smoke filled rooms.

There’s another reason not to subscribe to these “white knight” fantasies: The long, grueling campaign process tends to expose candidates for who they are. They ultimately tire, let down their guard, and let their true character show.

Abby Goodnough reports on the continuing speculation as to the political future of Jeb Bush.

When the same old irksome question popped up recently at one of his final public events here, Gov. Jeb Bush, addressing Spanish-speaking reporters, gave an atypically dramatic answer: “Yo no tengo futuro,” or “I have no future.”

His words set off round-the-world buzz, with The Daily Telegraph of London going so far as to call them “a recognition by the Bush family that their dynastic reign in American politics is drawing to a close.” But in fact, the question lives on. Mr. Bush’s spokeswoman said last week that he made the comment jokingly, and when asked about it later in an e-mail message, Mr. Bush himself replied, “I was misunderstood by a reporter.”

[...]

Despite the wishful prodding of admirers, Mr. Bush has adamantly ruled out a presidential campaign of his own next year, saying that he wants only to return to Miami with his wife, Columba, and their cat, Sugar. Yet rumors about his future have burst forth as regularly as exotic species in the Everglades — among them that he would be the next commissioner of the National Football League, run for Senate or become Senator John McCain’s running mate if Mr. McCain won the Republican nomination for president in 2008.

“The presidency is out of the question at this point because of Bush fatigue,” said Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford who wrote “The Bushes: A Dynasty” with his wife, Rochelle. “But the vice presidential slot is something that’s very much in play. He’s a successful governor of an important state, he helps shore up relations with the social conservatives and he has the Bush money machine.”

[...]

All indications notwithstanding, ardent admirers like Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, are not giving up on the prospect of Mr. Bush jumping into the presidential race next year, especially if Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York becomes the Democratic candidate. “He could step in later than anybody else,” Mr. Norquist said. “You can run for president with the last name of Bush, even though there is and will be Bush fatigue, in a year that you’re likely to be running against someone whose last name is Clinton.”

[...]

As for the continued speculation, he wrote: “I am flattered that all sorts of people are interested in what I am going to do and many have offered advice as well. That will all subside soon.”

[...]

Yet despite Mr. Bush’s abrasiveness and the plunging popularity of his brother the president, he has remained well liked — or at least respected — to the end, a feat in a state as ethnically and politically divided as Florida. A poll last month by Quinnipiac University found that 57 percent of Floridians feel he did a “good” or “great” job as governor, compared with only 10 percent who said he had done a “bad” job.

Jeb Bush has some baggage, including a wife and daughter who can’t seem to abide by the laws of the land, that would complicate a presidential run even aside from his brother’s low approval numbers and the natural hesitancy of the electorate to elect a third Bush president in sixteen years. I nonetheless expect him to make a serious run at the White House at some point. He’s still a young man–a few weeks shy of his 54th birthday–so 2012 or 2016 are definite options.

The methods used to execute condemned criminals in California and Florida are under scrutiny.

Gov. Jeb Bush suspended all executions in Florida after a medical examiner said Friday that prison officials botched the insertion of the needles when a convicted killer was put to death earlier this week.

Separately, a federal judge in California imposed a moratorium on executions in the nation’s most populous state, declaring that the state’s method of lethal injection runs the risk of violating the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled in San Jose that California’s “implementation of lethal injection is broken.” But he said: “It can be fixed.”

In Florida, medical examiner Dr. William Hamilton said Wednesday’s execution of Angel Nieves Diaz took 34 minutes — twice as long as usual — and required a rare second dose of lethal chemicals because the needles were inserted clear through his veins and into the flesh in his arms. The chemicals are supposed to go into the veins. Hamilton, who performed the autopsy, refused to say whether he thought Diaz died a painful death.

Orin Kerr’s summation of the California ruling is amusing:

According to Judge Fogel, the Constitution regulates the procedures used to carry out an execution via lethal injection, including such matters as the lighting, design, and crowdedness of the room in which the execution occurs; the recordkeeping procedures used during executions; the procedures for screening of members of the execution team; and the training and oversight of the team.

While it’s far from clear that an immediate and pain free death is constitutionally required for convicted murderers, it’s a worthy enough goal. Still, it is a bit surreal considering the horrific deaths these people put their victims through.

Although perhaps not as surreal as the LAT Web page containing their version of the story. The juxtaposition of half naked showgirls in two separate ads for “Dreamgirls” and another ad for an island vacation getaway and discussion of putting condemned men to death is rather creepy.

I think if the majority decision had simply said that it would have been less painful for Richard Paey.

Paey is wheel chair bound, suffers from multiple sclerosis and chronic back pain due to a botched surgery after a car accident. Paey is also the father of three children and had no prior criminal background. Yet amazingly the Florida District Court of Appeals upheld Paey’s conviction of 25 years in prison. Here are some fine points of irony to consider:

In prison– a place not exactly known for medical kindness– he has been given a morphine pump, which now daily gives him similar or higher doses of medication than he was convicted of possessing illegally.

And from the dissent:

I suggest that it is unusual, illogical, and unjust that Mr. Paey could conceivably go to prison for a longer stretch for peacefully but unlawfully purchasing 100 oxycodone pills from a pharmacist than had he robbed the pharmacist at knife point, stolen fifty oxycodone pills which he intended to sell to children waiting outside, and then stabbed the pharmacist…

Of course, there has been an appeal to the amazing hypocrite Jeb Bush, who has already stated he won’t grant clemency to Mr. Paey. Ironically, his daughter, Noelle Bush is a multiple drug offender. Noelle supposedly fraudulently obtained prescription drugs at a Walgreen’s, the very same crime that Paey is convicted of, yet where is Noelle Bush? Certainly not serving 25 years in prison. By comparison, Noelle Bush got off with a slap on the wrist. And what about that other stand up Florida resident Rush “Cabbage” Limbaugh? Another slap on the wrist for his fairly serious drug addiction. But Richard Paey? Toss him in jail for 25 years.

Incidentally, the police did a commando style raid on Paey’s home when they busted him.

My curiosity was piqued when I saw the headline “First President Bush Sobs While Talking of Son.” It turns out he was sobbing about his other son.

Former President George H.W. Bush came [to Tallahassee, Florida] Monday to talk about leadership and opened his remarks with advice on working with rivals, being patient and building personal relationships. He then broke down in tears mentioning his son, Gov. Jeb Bush, as an example of leadership and the way he handled losing the 1994 governor’s race to popular incumbent Democrat Lawton Chiles. He vaguely referred to dirty tricks in the campaign.

“He didn’t whine about it. He didn’t complain,” the former president said before choking up in front of lawmakers, Gov. Bush’s top administrators and state workers gathered in the House chamber for the last of the governor’s leadership forums.

As he tried to continue, he let out a sob and put a handkerchief to his face. When he spoke again, his words were broken up by pauses as he tried to regain composure.

[...]

“A true measure of a man is how you handle victory and how you handle defeat, so in ‘94 Floridians chose to rehire the governor. They took note of a his worthy opponent, who showed with not only words but with actions what decency he had,” Bush said before again sobbing.

[...]

“I’m the emotional one,” Bush said later. “I don’t enjoy breaking up, but when you talk about somebody you love, when you get older, you do it more.”

It does seem that way. Football fans will recall Dick Vermeil’s penchant for tearing up at the slightest provocation during his second go-round as an NFL head coach, certainly not something he would have done when he was working toward emotional burnout with the Eagles in the 1980s.

I’m not sure how much of it is hormonal, as testosterone levels tend to decline in a man’s senior years, and how much is simply being comfortable in one’s own skin and no longer worried about maintaining the mask of the masculine ideal. The latter explains a great deal of it, I think, because some of the most sentimental men I know are soldiers, who seem to hit this stage in their 40s rather than waiting until their 70s.

Certainly, Poppy Bush has earned the right. After years of having to ward off charges that he was a “wimp” (this despite being a WWII pilot and war hero, captain of a championship baseball team at Yale, and head of America’s intelligence apparatus) he’s finally free from that burden, able to jump from flying airplanes one minute and break down while talking about his kids and grandkids the next.

That Katherine Harris is on the odd side is hardly news. Still, according to reporting by WaPo’s Libby Copeland, Harris appears to be coming unglued.

Katherine Harris, who is trying to become a U.S. senator, says she is writing a tell-all about the many people who have wronged her. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to: the Republican leaders who didn’t want her to run, the press that has covered her troubled campaign, and the many staffers who have quit her employ, whom she accuses of colluding with her opponent.

She is vague about what, precisely, makes her a victim, but she says she has it all documented. “I’ve been writing it all year,” she says in that kittenish voice. She often smiles and cocks her head as if she’s letting you in on a secret. “It’s going to be a great book.”

If it is, it may be one of very few things that go well for the two-term Republican congresswoman. Once beloved by the Republican leadership for her role in overseeing the 2000 recount that delivered the presidency to George Bush, Harris was snubbed by those old friends before the primary. Republican chieftains, considering her too polarizing to win a statewide race, tried to recruit others, and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) said publicly that she could not win. Fundraising has been poor. She has come under scrutiny for her role in a bribery scandal. She has caught flak for a series of bizarre statements, including a comment in August: “If you’re not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin.”

The Democrat she is challenging, Sen. Bill Nelson, was once considered highly vulnerable. Nowadays, according to recent polls, Harris is down by 26 or 35 points, approaching political rigor mortis. “The only way Bill Nelson could lose this,” says Darryl Paulson, a political scientist (and Republican) at the University of South Florida, “is if he got himself in a drug-induced stupor and ran naked down the main street of his home town.”

“They can make the polls say whatever they want,” Harris says. She says pollsters sometimes call her house and then hang up ” ’cause we’re not answering them the way they like.”

Harris appears to be nuttier than the proverbial fruitcake. And then some. Or, as Steven Taylor puts it, “borderline unhinged.” Indeed, I’d say she crossed the border several miles back.

And Jeb Bush sure looks silly for saying she couldn’t win, doesn’t he?

This evening (for me, after midnight for the East Coasters) I saw a commercial on CNN for the Reform Party Candidate for Governor of Florida, Max Linn. Shades of Ross Perot, and Jesse Ventura. And considering that I’m over 2300 miles from Tallahassee FL, I must wonder if it is money well spent (1:30 AM Florida time). I don’t watch CNN all that often, so I have no idea how common these ads are. From the Max Linn website (similar to the commercial, couldn’t find on youtube.com yet, shame on them)

Just when you thought that we the Florida voters had no choice other than Tweedledees and Tweedledums (the current Republican and Democratic candidates) for the November 7th, 2006 Governors race the “Florida Citizens’ Third Party Dream Team” are starting their engines. With your support, we will bring your interests – not special interests – to Tallahassee for a change. Our Founding Fathers were unanimous on the importance of citizen legislators, not career politicians. For the first time Florida has a third choice other than the same old Republican and Democratic mainstream parties.
Join me and Florida’s “New Third Party” campaign dream team…

Dream team? Or hallucination? I expect they don’t have much of a chance, but I hope they stir things up some. Checking the polls I see a Sep 1 poll has the Rep candidate to replace Jeb Bush leading 56-34%. The various polls I’ve looked at have not considered the Reform Party Candidate. He apparently is putting $1M of his own money into this useless effort, but I wish him well as he stirs the pot.

UPDATE: Checking the list of Florida Governors I find the 1849-1853 Gov was a Whig, and (ugh) the 1917-21 Gov was a “Prohibitionist.” Nothing like a single topic politician. So not “for the first time.”

Joe Lieberman’s transformation into the quasi-Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate is nearly complete, now that he’s hired the top Republican polling firm.

Sen. Joe Lieberman continued retooling his campaign staff Friday, hiring a nationally known pollster and media consultant to assist in his independent re-election bid. Lieberman hired Democratic consultant Josh Isay, who has worked for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who lists popular Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell among his clients.

“They are not just among the best in their respective businesses, but they bring a deep knowledge of Connecticut from across the political spectrum, which will be essential to our effort to build a broad coalition of Democrats, Republicans, and independents,” Lieberman said in a release.

Those of you who have followed my full disclosure notices are aware that my wife is a VP at POS; those who haven’t are now.

The move is generating a little buzz. TNR’s Jason Zengerle links to POS’ very long political client list and observes, “You won’t find any Democrats.”

Hotline’s Chuck Todd adds,

The more curious hiring, of course, is Newhouse, a partner in one of the most prestigious Republican polling firms in the country, Public Opinion Strategies. On the merits, Newhouse is a great hire as he and his firm have one of the best reputations in the business, both with their clients and with the media, including us. But what makes the hiring curious is that Newhouse is a Republican and has a slew of clients who will likely raise the ire of Democrats, particularly activist Democrats.

This cycle, Newhouse’s most notable client is PA Sen. Rick Santorum. (Subscribers, click here of The Hotline’s consultant scorecard.) The Lieberman release, of course, makes no mention of Santorum, but does note Newhouse’s client relationship with the very popular GOP CT Gov. Jodi Rell. Newhouse is also the chief pollster for one of the Democrats’ top House targets, CT 02 GOP Rep. Rob Simmons.

In ‘04, the firm worked for the biggest Dem killer of the cycle, John Thune, who knocked off Tom Daschle. And in ‘02, the firm’s biggest name client? None other than a Bush, Jeb Bush, that is, in FL.

It’s a surprising move, to be sure. POS has a varied public policy clientele but, as far as I know, has been exclusively Republican in its political clients through its fifteen year history. Then again, President Bush and RNC Chair Ken Mellman have all but endorsed Lieberman’s candidacy. Presumably, they’ve made the calculation that they’re not going to lose clients over this one.

With this and Santorum, they’ve easily got the two most high profile races this season. It’ll make for an interesting three months.

UPDATE: Looking through my old posts to see what I’ve written about Lieberman in the past (160-odd posts mention him, probably putting him behind only 2004 nominee John Kerry among active Senators) I came across this from December 2003:

I feel sorry for Lieberman and think he’s probably the Democrat currently in the race who is both most suited to govern and who would be the most appealing in the general election.* But he sold his soul to be Al Gore’s running mate, sacrificing much of his main selling point–integrity–in doing so. And he got nothing in return. The Democrat faithful still don’t like him all that much and even Gore isn’t grateful. Indeed, for a man who got elected to the Senate in part because of the active endorsement of National Review and the support of conservatives tired of Lowell Wiecker, it is somewhat ironic that he’s come full circle: the only people who support him now are Republicans.

That seems more true now than then. For example, SSP’s James L. is positively apoplectic in a post entitled “CT-Sen: Lieberman Hires Democrat Slayer” (Note to self: See if Neil already has this t-shirt.):

The most troubling bit about the news may rest in the fact that Newhouse’s other Connecticut client is Rep. Rob Simmons, who is a top target of the DCCC and Joe Courtney. Lieberman is now essentially using Republican tools, Republican capital, and Republican consultants to mobilize the same Republican voters that Courtney and the other Democratic challengers need to de-energize in order to win. The pure gall of this move is disgusting, and it paints a sharp picture that Lieberman is for himself and himself only. He doesn’t care about electing three new Democrats to the House–he’s more than willing to toss them overboard if it means he can work the Republican field and win.

I wonder how Lieberman’s Senate Democratic colleagues feel now that they know that Lieberman is paying the same guy who ended the political careers of Tom Daschle and Max Cleland. I wonder if they feel as good about letting Lieberman keep his seniority and committee assignments.

Or, maybe the Democrats should have re-nominated the 2000 VP candidate who helped make Florida a toss-up and who votes with the caucus 90% of the time?

UPDATE: Some discussion over at Crosstabs, although nothing yet from POS’ Rob Autry. Former POS’er Bob Moran is laughing hysterically–or as much as one can in text form, anyway.

Washington Whispers reports that the First Couple have different favorites for 2008:

White House insiders say President Bush and first lady Laura Bush are engaged in a good-natured bid to push their faves for the 2008 presidential nomination. “There are two wild cards in the race,” says our tipster. “The first lady likes Condi” Rice, the secretary of state. “She has a great story to tell,” says the insider of Rice. But Bush likes his bro, Jeb Bush, the Florida governor. “He thinks Jeb’d be the best.” One problem: Neither wants the job.

Actually, that’s not true. Neither appears willing to endure the rigors of campaigning for the job, whether because they don’t think they could win or some other reason. I’m quite sure either would take the job if it were offered.

Nearly half of Americans would “definitely not vote for” Hillary Clinton , according to a new CNN poll.

With the presidential election more than two years away, a CNN poll released Monday suggests that nearly half of Americans would “definitely not vote for” Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Respondents were asked whether they would “definitely vote for,” “consider voting for,” or “definitely not vote for” three Democrats and three Republicans who might run for president in 2008.

Regarding potential Democratic candidates, 47 percent of respondents said they would “definitely not vote for” both Clinton, the junior senator from New York who is running for re-election this year, and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the party’s candidate in 2004. Forty-eight percent said the same of former Vice President Al Gore, who has repeatedly denied he intends to run again for president.

Among the Republicans, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani fared better than the Democrats, and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush fared worse. Only 30 percent said they would “definitely not vote for” Giuliani; 34 percent said that of McCain. As for Bush, brother of the current president, 63 percent said there was no way he would get their vote. The younger Bush has denied interest in running for president in 2008.

Among all choices, Clinton had the highest positive number; of those polled, 22 percent said they would “definitely vote for” her.
Giuliani was next with 19 percent, followed by Gore with 17 percent, Kerry with 14 percent, McCain with 12 percent and Bush at 9 percent.

Polls this early are rather silly, since only we junkies are paying much attention. Further, polls without a “likely voter” screen are almost completely worthless. Still, that doesn’t mean they’re not fun. They’re essentially in the same spirit as the preseason guides that come out before sports seasons, giving devoted fans something to talk about before the games start.

Joe Gandelman notes, “it isn’t just Hillary Clinton who’s getting the negatives. If you look at it, it seems to be people related to past candidates or people who’ve run on a national ticket before.”

John Podhoretz agrees “the data are meaningless” and goes so far as to say “poll is an absurdity.”

Ed Morrissey thinks “the poll is notable for who has apparently been left out: Mark Warner and Barack Obama for the Democrats (as well as John Edwards, who has slipped through all the cracks), and Mitt Romney, George Allen, and Condi Rice for the GOP.”

One of the Scared Monkeys is amused that Clinton’s 22% is lower than the worst approval rating George W. Bush has ever had.

Jazz Shaw thinks Giuliani’s strong showing bears watching. “[I]f the GOP puts up Rudy in ‘08 and he does carry the Empire State, the race is over and the Democrats take home another loss.”