The Fix

At first glance, the special election to replace the late Rep. John Murtha (D) in Pennsylvania is a golden opportunity for House Republicans looking to build momentum heading into what is widely expected to be a very good midterm election for the party.

Murtha's 12th district, located in western Pennsylvania, was the only seat in the country that went for Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004 and switched to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008 -- this in spite of the fact that Kerry won the state by three points while Obama carried it by 10.

Add that demographic trend line to the fact that the national political environment is tilted away from Democrats -- as evidenced by Sen. Scott Brown's special election victory in Massachusetts last month -- and it would seem as though Republicans enter the race as clear favorites to score a takeover.

But, as (almost) always in politics, there's far more to the story.

Here are five reasons why the Murtha seat is something short of a sure thing pickup for House Republicans.

1. Primary politics: Gov. Ed Rendell (D) has yet to set the date for the special election but it is widely assumed that he will choose May 18 -- the day already reserved for primaries around the state. Democrats will have two extremely competitive statewide primaries for governor and Senate, contests sure to drive excitement (and turnout) among the party's base voters. Republicans, by contrast, seem set to nominate state Attorney General Tom Corbett and former Rep. Pat Toomey in the gubernatorial and Senate races, respectively, without much fanfare. Add to that likely turnout gap the fact that Pennsylvania holds closed party primaries -- meaning that crossover voting within the parties is impossible -- and it looks likely that whoever the Democratic nominee is will start the contest with an edge in the shape of the electorate.

2. The selection process: As the Cook Political Report's David Wasserman notes, the last special election in Pennsylvania -- Rep. Bill Shuster's 2001 victory in his father, Bud's, old 9th district -- saw the candidates picked by county conventions not a primary. That sort of selection process is similar to how state Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava was picked as the Republican nominee in the special election in New York's 23rd district last year, a decision of disastrous proportions for the GOP. With the most conservative wing of the Republican party already expressing their dissatisfaction with party leaders -- and many of them defecting to the nascent tea party movement -- the idea of a small group of people selecting the GOP nominee in PA-12 has the potential to provoke a redux of the New York brouhaha, fracturing the party and leading to a Democratic win.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin addresses the national tea party convention in Nashville. AP Photo/Ed Reinke

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has mastered the art of the political soundbite and has used it to devastating -- and some would say irresponsible -- effect since emerging on the political scene in the fall of 2008.

Witness her speech at the national tea party convention over the weekend in Nashville, Tennessee.

"America is ready for another revolution," Palin said.

"When you're 0 for 3, you had better stop lecturing and start listening," she scolded the Obama Administration.

"How's that hopey, changy stuff working out?" she asked supporters of the president.

"We win, they lose," Palin responded when asked about her approach to the war on terror.

Palin's way with a folksy zinger is nothing new; it can be traced directly back to her emergence on the national stage at the 2008 Republican National Convention.

From her infamous "the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom" line through "death panels" and right up to her speech last Saturday night, it's clear that whatever her other weaknesses in the political arena -- and they are considerable -- Palin understands how to deliver a soundbite.

Her critics roll their eyes at these lines, concluding -- rightly in many cases -- that simplifying incredibly complex issues down to a catch phrase is lowest common denominator politics that won't ultimately solve the major problems facing the country.

But, from a raw political perspective, Palin's soundbite strategy is extremely effective -- handing her supporters a single line (or two) around which to rally in opposition to the President's agenda.

Like it or not, the "death panels" idea she floated on Facebook wound up badly damaging the Obama Administration's push for health care reform -- helping to drive up doubts among seniors about what the plan would and wouldn't do. (Yes, we know that the death panel charge has been entirely debunked. But, is there any question that it slowed momentum for the bill in a significant way?)

1. House Republicans' threat to boycott President Obama's proposed health care meeting on Feb. 25 creates the political equivalent of a staring contest with each side waiting for the other to blink. "A refusal to show up to a discussion of health care would show that Republicans would rather play politics than solve problems," one senior Democratic party official told the Fix. "The question is whether the White House sincerely wants bipartisan reform," retorted a House Republican leadership aide. "We've asked for some gestures of good faith, because Republican leaders have zero interest in being used as props." Context matters when analyzing how we got to this standoff. The televised face-off between Obama and House Republican late last month was regarded as a wild success by the White House (Obama has taken questions at nearly every event since then) and something short of that by House Republicans who were stung by Obama's blunt criticism of their approach and ideas. Both sides see political gain in their current positions, further cementing their current standoff. The White House believes that a Republican no-show -- coupled with the ongoing filibuster threats in the Senate -- can be turned into a compelling narrative that the GOP is blocking change solely to score political points. Republicans, on the other hand, look at polling -- like the new Gallup survey that shows just 36 percent approve of how Obama is handling health care -- and are reassured that the American public doesn't want the current legislation and that their call to scrap it and begin again is the right path to take. Given that, it seems more likely that the two opposing camps retrench in their respective positions over the next few days rather than negotiate a peace.

2. In the wake of the first national tea party convention in Nashville, there remains considerable uncertainty about who is rightly considered part of the tea party movement and how influential (or not) the effort is. A new poll out of Iowa, conducted by J. Ann Selzer, provides some fascinating insight into the tea partiers in one of the most politically critical states in the country. Roughly one in three Iowans described themselves as supportive of the tea party movement while 45 percent said they did not support the movement. Of those calling themselves supporters of the tea party cause, nearly half (49 percent) described themselves as political independents while 34 percent said they were Republicans and 17 percent identified as Democrats. They were predominantly male (59 percent), have a college degree or higher (44 percent) and consider themselves "born again" (46 percent). "Neither party has a lock on these restless advocates of limited government and fiscal control, according to the poll," writes the Des Moines Register's chief political correspondent Tom Beaumont. "However, their conservative leanings appear to give Republicans a greater opportunity than Democrats to make gains at the dawn of a volatile election year." The numbers in the Selzer poll are particularly eye-opening given the strong Democratic shift that has taken place in the state over the last few elections -- culminating with President Obama's 10 point win in 2008. Heading into November, the Hawkeye State looks likely to play host to a number of competitive races; Republicans are targeting Gov. Chet Culver and Rep. Leonard Boswell for defeat and Democrats are hoping longshot Roxanne Conlin can make a run at Sen. Chuck Grassley (R).

3. Indiana Rep. Mike Pence threw his endorsement behind former Florida state House Speaker Marco Rubio's Senate bid Monday, becoming the latest national conservative to back Rubio in his primary race against Gov. Charlie Crist. "Marco Rubio's faith in free markets, limited government and traditional moral values make him the right choice for Republicans in this race," said Pence in a release announcing the endorsement. Pence joins the likes of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint and the Club for Growth in choosing Rubio over Crist. A source familiar with Pence's thinking said the Rubio endorsement is not part of any grand plan and that the Hoosier Republicans will spend most of his time working to elect Republicans in general elections rather than primaries. (The only other candidate in a contested primary that Pence has endorsed is former senator Dan Coats in his home state of Indiana.) Still, Pence's decision to wade into a primary that is widely being cast as a fight for the heart and soul of the Republican party is (yet more) evidence that he has an eye on a national platform in 2012. Pence has staked out turf as one of the rising stars among fiscal conservatives, territory that is somewhat bereft following the implosion of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford last year.

The death of longtime Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha (D) this afternoon will set off a special election in his very competitive western Pennsylvania 12th district.

According to state law, the governor has ten days once the vacancy is officially declared to decide on the date for the special election, which can come no sooner than 60 days following that proclamation.

That likely means the special election will be held on May 18, which is the date already set for federal primaries around the state. (Special elections costs the state huge sums of money and it's likely that Gov. Ed Rendell will choose to go with an already established election day to save some cash.)

Murtha's passing comes at a tenuous time for House Democrats as they seek to convince some of their older members to re-up for another term in the face of what looks to be a difficult national political environment for the party.

To date, 12 Democrats -- including long-serving Members like John Tanner and Bart Gordon (both of Tennessee) -- are calling it quits at the end of the year. Sixteen Republicans are retiring at the end of the 111th Congress although just four of them are leaving office entirely; the other dozen are running for higher offices like Senate or governor.

Murtha, 77, had held his seat with ease since 1974 even as it became increasingly more competitive between the two parties. The only semi-serious challenge to him in recent years came in a redistricting-forced primary race against then Rep. Frank Mascara in 2002, which Murtha won easily.

He had become a titan within the halls of Congress and a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.). The Post's Paul Kane, a veteran Congressional reporter and Pennsylvania native, called Murtha an "old bull" and "something of a legend" who "endeared himself to many of his colleagues through a series of earmarks inserted into defense appropriations bills. Kane added that Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) is likely to be the next chairman of the defense appropriations committee.

"With the passing of Congressman Jack Murtha, America has lost a patriotic veteran, Pennsylvanians have lost a tireless advocate, and we have lost a friend," said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.).

In the six days since former Indiana Sen. Dan Coats (R) made clear he was preparing to challenge Sen. Evan Bayh (D) in the fall, national Democrats have unleashed an all-out assault aimed at making Coats reconsider his candidacy.

First came a detailed dossier from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee running through the clients Coats represents as a federal lobbyist -- including PhRMA and Goldman Sachs.

Then the DSCC released a video from 2008 in which Coats tells a Republican audience he and his wife are planning to move to North Carolina -- not Indiana -- when he retires. (Coats currently lives in the D.C. area.)

And, finally, there was today's report that Coats had lobbied for a number of foreign governments including Yemen.

The goal of this onslaught is two-pronged.

First, Coats hasn't been involved in a competitive political campaign since the early 1990s -- a time when things like You Tube weren't even a glint in their creators' collective eyes. By hammering Coats before he even becomes a candidate, national Democrats want to make sure the former Senator understands what he is in for over the course of the next nine months (or so) and how much the media environment -- when it comes to politics -- has changed.

Second, assuming Coats is committed to run no matter what Democrats throw at him, the goal of the string of negative stories is to change the narrative from "Bayh draws a serious challenge in Coats" to "Coats, former lobbyist, returns home to Indiana to run".

Any time Andy Samberg does anything on "Saturday Night Live", we watch.

And, when he decides to impersonate White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, we can barely contain our glee.

Below is Samberg/Emanuel's "apology" for the impolitic remark he made about disabled people in a health care strategy session last summer.

WARNING: While there are no actual swear words used -- this being broadcast television and all -- you can read between the lines pretty easily. So, if that's the kind of thing that offends you, you might want to steer clear of the video.

The Senate -- and filibusters in particular -- are the focus of a new White House campaign.

Over the past week, President Obama and his senior aides have repeatedly cited Republicans' filibuster threats as the primary reason for the lack of progress on big ticket legislative items, an early sign that Democrats will seek to use this bit of legislative arcana against the GOP in the coming midterm election.

At a meeting -- televised, natch -- with Senate Democrats last week, Obama harped on the GOP's willingness to invoke the filibuster, noting that Democrats had taken more cloture votes to end debate and force votes in 2009 than they did in the 1950s and 1960s combined.

Added Obama:

"We've had scores of pieces of legislation in which there was a filibuster, cloture had to be invoked, and then ended up passing 90 to 10, or 80 to 15. And what that indicates is a degree to which we're just trying to gum up the works instead of getting business done."

Later in the week, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer penned a blog post on the evils of the filibuster, reciting -- almost word for word at times -- the argument Obama had made to his former colleagues.

"Historically, the filibuster has been used as a way to try and reach a bipartisan compromise, now it's just a tactic used to gum up the works," wrote Pfeiffer. "This has prevented an honest debate from taking place, which has made it impossible to find agreement on important legislation that would benefit working families in this country."

(Pfeiffer took to the blog again a day later with a post using the news that Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby (R) had placed a blanket hold on more than 70 Obama nominees in an attempt to wring some home-state concessions from the Administrationas part of the broader narrative that Republicans are using parliamentary procedures for the sole purpose of scoring political points.)

The filibuster itself, however, is not exactly a frontburner issue for most establishment Democrats. As the Post's Paul Kane notes in his story today on the filibuster -- its history and its future -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) has not even scheduled any debate time on the idea of changing the filibuster rules.

From a political perspective, a filibuster focus seems like a non-starter as well. Most Americans don't know -- and don't care -- about the many procedures that guide the Senate (or even how a bill becomes a law).

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted in late November 2009 explained that "the filibuster is a Senate procedure which has been used to prevent the Senate from passing controversial legislation or confirming controversial appointments by the President, even if a majority of senators support that action" and asked the sample whether they supported or opposed it. Fifty six percent of the sample favored the filibuster while 39 percent opposed it -- an increase in support from a May 2005 CNN survey where 52 percent favored the filibuster and 30 percent opposed it.

1. The big news out of President Obama's pre-Superbowl interview with CBS News's Katie Couric is that the White House will convene a health care meeting with congressional leaders of both parties on Feb. 25. One notable element of the half-day gathering is that it will be televised in its entirety -- much like the now-famous tété-a-tété between the president and House Republicans in the immediate aftermath of the president's state of the union address. "What the president will not do is let this moment slip away," said an administration official. "He hopes to have Republican support in doing so -- but he is going to move forward on health reform." Of course, Obama did not -- and has not -- laid out specific ways in which the impasse currently gripping the health care debate on the Hill can be broken. "The president has a decision to make: show some leadership and get health care done or allow it to slowly die," said one senior Democratic congressional aide. "Sending mixed messages and sticking to a vague outline doesn't get it done." Here are the other highlights from the Obama-Couric interview: 1) The president refused to castigate people like Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) for the special deals they negotiated for their states in the health care bill: "Each legislator, they think they're doing what's best for their state or for their district," he said. "And what we have to do is just make sure that it is a much more clear and transparent process." 2) On the economy: "We are seeing the corner turn on the economy growing again." 3) Obama seemed resigned to the fact that the planned trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed would not, in fact, take place in New York City: "If you've got a city that is saying no, and a police department that's saying no, and a mayor that's saying no, that makes it difficult," he acknowledged. 4) The president was on the winning side in last night's Superbowl, noting that he had a "soft spot in my heart for New Orleans." Who dat!

2. Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin was everywhere over the weekend -- keynoting the national tea party convention, stumping for Texas Gov. Rick Perry and sitting with Fox News Channel for an interview. And, everywhere she went, talk of whether Palin will run for president in 2012 followed her. At the tea party convention, the mention of "President Palin" during the question and answer portion of her speech set off a "Run Sarah Run" chant in the crowd. Asked directly about her 2012 intentions in the FNC interview, Palin said: "I would be willing to if I believe that it's right for the country. . . . Today I see many, many other men and women across our country who are in as strong or stronger position than I am to take on the White House." She added that it would be "absurd" to rule out a run. Palin's busy weekend will do little to quiet the buzz in conservative circles about her potential bid in 2012 although it remains to be seen whether the 2008 vice presidential candidate is genuinely interested in running for national office or simply using the publicity about such a bid to sell books and up her profile. As the Associated Press' Liz Sidoti writes: "Republican observers say she's seemingly done more lately to establish herself as a political celebrity focused on publicity rather than a political candidate focused on policy." ALSO CLICK: The debate over what was written on Palin's palm -- and why -- rages on.

3. Rumors are rampant that New York Gov. David Paterson may resign his office in advance of a supposed New York Times story detailing unsavory elements of his personal life that are "far worse than his acknowledged extramarital affair with a former state employee," according to the irreplaceable Liz Benjamin of the Daily News. Our sources insist that the Times story will not run tomorrow and that Paterson has no plans to resign tomorrow either. Paterson's office has denied the reports of his resignation as well. While the Paterson speculation is an entertaining parlor game, the simple fact is that he cannot get reelected this fall under any circumstances. State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is widely expected to make a run for the Democratic nomination and polls show him walloping the incumbent. If Paterson somehow made it to the general election -- and the only way that could happen is if Cuomo didn't run for some reason -- he would be a major underdog against likely Republican nominee Rick Lazio.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was in Nashville, Tennessee last night to address the first-ever national gathering of the tea party.

Her speech was heavy on folksy, applause lines -- "We win, they lose" was her answer on national security -- and light on specific policy proposals.

Wrote the Associated Press' Liz Sidoti:

"The speech also was rife with criticism for Obama and Democrats who control Congress, but delivered with a light touch. But, aside from broad conservative principles like lower taxes and a strong national defense, the speech was short on Palin's own policy ideas that typically indicate someone is seriously laying the groundwork to run for the White House."

Palin made little reference to her political future in the speech -- although a mention of "President Palin" brought chants of "Run Sarah run!" from the audience.

But, whether or not Palin runs for president in 2012, the night was almost certainly a success for her. "For Palin, the millions of tea party activists represent not only her political base but also her customer base," wrote the Post's Phil Rucker and Ann Gerhart. "They helped make her book a bestseller, put her speeches in high demand and tune in to her Fox News appearances."

Successfully bunkered in the Fix home for the coming snowpocalypse, we managed to carve out an hour in our busy schedule of stockpiling evaporated milk and other canned goods to field questions from loyal readers on the political hot topics of the day.

A few of our favorite questions and answers from the "Live Fix" are below. Miss the chat? You can check out the full transcript here and make sure to put a re-occurring event on your calendar from 11 am to noon every Friday!

Tea Party Convention: Please explain who are, or what is the 'Tea Party'?

Chris Cillizza: Good question -- I just did a segment that will run Monday on the "Newshour" -- WHAT WHAT!!! -- addressing this very subject.

The honest answer is no one knows exactly who the tea party movement includes or how big it actually is.

The broadest definition is a group of people opposed to what they believe to be the creep of socialism in the Obama Administration due to the takeover of the auto industry, the bank bailout etc.

But, there are LOTS of disparate groups -- some of which disagree with one another -- that are considered part of the movement.

I think this weekend's convention will tell us a lot about whether this is a flash in the pan and a legitimate political movement.

Senator Shelby: I see that Senator Shelby has a hold on every single Senate nomination, until he gets money for his state. This is ridiculous -- why do the Senate rules allow this?

Chris Cillizza: Of late, there has been lots of talk about changing the rules of the Senate -- particularly on the filibuster. President Obama has made a point to highlight the fact that Republicans had blocked more legislation in 2009 (and forced cloture votes) than in the 1950s and 1960s combined.

The issue with changing the rules is that both sides know how the political pendulum swings and worry that a rule change that benefits Democrats today could wind up hurting them if and when they lose the majority at some point in the future.

As a result, there is a a real reluctance to change anything....