Monday, October 31, 2005
Weekly Open Thread: What Races Are You Interested In?
Posted by Bob BrighamIt's that time of week. What's going on in the races you are following?
Posted at 12:00 AM in Open Threads | Comments (23) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Sunday, October 30, 2005
OH-15: DCCC Lands Big Time Dem. Challenger
Posted by Tim TagarisPoint person for the corporatization of Social Security in the House, Republican Deborah Pryce, will face her toughest re-election campaign ever in 2006. I don't know how the DCCC did it, and they deserve a lot of credit I am sure, but Franklin County Commissioner (home of Columbus, the state capitol), Mary Joe Kilroy (no site yet) has decided to run for the seat. This isn't the freshest of news, but here's a bit of information about the district and the candidate.
Kilroy had long been rumored to be considering a run for Secretary of State in Ohio. However, Democrats already have a tremendous candidate whose campaign is running full steam ahead, Jennifer Brunner. Apparently Kilroy was convinced to abandon a bid for SoS and focus on heading to Washington as a member of Congress. The most interesting tidbit of information about Kilroy for many blog readers might be her early endorsement of Howard Dean. To the best of my knowledge, Kilroy was the first elected official in Ohio to throw her considerable political weight behind the good doctor and could be seen on the stump and at rallies for Governor Dean as early as the summer of 2003. Incidentally, the Dean for Ohio Communications Director, Dr. Stephanie Studabaker has declared her intention to run for congress in OH-3.
OH-15 was literally 50/50 between Bush and Kerry in 2004. The fifteenth district is largely urban, 91% according to The Almanac of American Politics and contains the vast majority of the state capitol, Columbus. The district also includes portions all of Madison and Union counties. Along with the support Kilroy should receive from the national party and Democracy for America, there is a terrific grassroots organization inside the district that will help tremendously on-the-ground in 2006: Upper Arlington Proressive Action.
It is also important to note that OH-15 already has one Democrat in the race, Mark Losey, who has made a commitment to reach out to both the national and Ohio blogging community. And not that it's all about money, but Losey's last quarterly report showed $2,914 cash on hand. However, he is building a solid grassroots community on-the-ground. What happens to his candidacy remains to be seen.
Posted at 04:41 PM in Ohio | Comments (14) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
VA-Gov: Big Mo' for Kaine in WaPo Poll
Posted by DavidNYCI always like to wake up to news like this on a Sunday morning (or afternoon, as the case may be). The Washington Post has a new poll out on the VA Gov race, and it's good news for Tim Kaine (likely voters, early Sept. in parens):
Kaine: 47 (44)
Kilgore: 44 (51)
Potts: 4 (4)
Undecided: 5 (2)
(MoE: ±3%)
Now, on one hand, it's been a long time since the WaPo has polled this race (why so lazy, guys?). But on the other hand, this poll has a big sample size and in fact has an MoE a full point lower than the last poll. And I don't think it's an outlier, either, because the race has undoubtedly tightened a lot and a bunch of recent polls have been giving Kaine small leads of late.
The bottom line is that the WaPo shows Kilgore nose-diving a full 10 points in some six weeks. The Kilgore campaign surely must be suffering from some agita right now. A couple points, though. First is that the WaPo claims that Kilgore's obscene death penalty ads backfired on him - 65% of those surveyed said they thought the ads were unfair. However, it's impossible to know how much of an effect those ads had, because the WaPo didn't ask a simple question: "Did these ads makes you more or less likely to vote for Jerry Kilgore." I'd like to believe the ad campaign backfired, but then again, there are people who, when polled, say that litterbugs should get the death penalty. How you feel about something isn't as important as how important that thing is to you.
The other observation (not mine) is more unsettling. Unnamed Dems in VA (grr, could you really not go on record about this?) are saying that Kaine has to be up at least 5 in the polls by election day in order to win. They point out that Mark Warner was up by 10 points in many polls right before he was elected in 2001, but only won by 5. I decided to check this claim out, and it's only sorta true. Here are all the independent polls I could find in the last month of the race:
| 11/1 | Times-Dispatch | +13 |
| 10/30 | Mason-Dixon | +6 |
| 10/30 | Roanoke | +9 |
| 10/25 | WaPo | +10 |
| 10/17 | Mason-Dixon | +3 |
I pulled this data together from the subscriber's section of Polling Report and the National Journal, so it should be pretty comprehensive. Anyhow, there are two conclusions you can draw from this. One is that Mark Warner was hitting above his weight and somehow crashed down from 5 to 8 points by election day. The other is that Mason-Dixon was a lot more accurate than the other pollsters.
Hard to know which view is right. In 1997, Republican Jim Gilmore beat Democrat Don Beyer by a hefty 13 points. Mason-Dixon's last poll that year showed Gilmore with a nine-point lead, so they were about 50% off the final tally. However, they did seem to sense a huge late Gilmore surge - their prior poll had him at +7, and the poll before that (taken at the beginning of October) showed the race tied. All of M-D's earlier polls also showed a one-or-two point gap. (This info is all taken from the National Journal.)
On the flip-side, two of the pollsters who got the 2001 race so wrong were much more accurate in 1997. Roanoke had Gilmore at +12, as did the Times-Dispatch. The WaPo only had Gilmore at +7, which makes you wonder: If they were so off for two VA Gov races in a row, maybe we shouldn't be paying them too much attention this time around, either. (The key difference this year is that there are no outliers at all.)
So where does this leave us? We can say that Mason-Dixon was pretty much spot-on in 2001 and got things sorta-right in 1997. We can say that the Times-Dispatch and Roanoke College were good in 1997 but had an off-year in 2001. And the Wapo - well, we've already complained about them. So whom to believe?
If you were paying attention to M-D last time around, then this CW that Kaine needs a five-point buffer is bunk. M-D showed Warner up 6, he won by 5 - pretty good. But if you think M-D just got lucky, and you think Warner truly did collapse from his Roanoke/Times-Dispatch/WaPo highs, then here's one very, very salient factor for you:
Bush currently has a 41-56 approval rating in Virginia. I don't have state approval ratings for George Bush in 2001, but his nationwide approval had hit 90% right after 9/11. If any voters were going into their polling places undecided that year, Bush's utterly untarnished halo would probably have been the deciding factor.
This year, of course, no dice. Bush may have dragged Warner down 5 points last time, but there's no way he's doing the same to Kaine this time. If anything, he'll drag Kilgore down a bit. So I'm cautiously optimistic.
(Thanks to reader UVA08.)
Posted at 02:37 PM in 2005 Elections, Virginia | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
NJ-Gov: Can You Say "Outlier"?
Posted by DavidNYCYep, I thought you could. A few weeks ago, a bunch of people started getting worried that Doug Forrester was surging - that the race for the NJ governor's mansion was really getting tight. This belief was based on exactly two polls out of many. Quinnipiac showed a four-point spread - but came back down to earth with a seven-pointer recently. The most "alarming," though, was Marist, which showed (depending upon which group of voters you looked at) things as close as one point. Another week, another poll, and boy have things changed (likely voters, early Oct. in parens):
Corzine: 50 (44)
Forrester: 40 (43)
Other: 1 (<1)
Undecided: 9 (13)
(MoE: ±5%)
There. Feel better now? Marist now joins every other independent pollster in showing a 7+ point lead for Corzine. (And four recent surveysm including this one, show 9 or 10 point leads.) Now we can all sleep better.
(Thanks to Taegan Goddard.)
Posted at 02:25 AM in 2005 Elections, New Jersey | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Saturday, October 29, 2005
MT-Sen: Conrad Burns Declares Bush's Record 'Isn't That Bad'
Posted by Bob BrighamThe Montana Senate race is going to be a great race for the netroots to follow. Conrad Burns has the most exposure of any senator in the Jack Abramoff scandals. Montana is a red state with a vulnerable three-term incumbent. Even Karl Rove is worried about this race amidst all of his other problems.
That, and we have an inspiring challenger in Jon Tester (who is on the Swing State Project Actblue page).
Today, the Montana press headlined, Burns facing tough re-election bid which included the type of quote you don't expect from a GOP Senator:
"The president is having his problems but that could straighten out," Burns said, adding that Bush's record "isn't that bad."
Not that bad, eh? Remember, this is a state where Bush enjoys an approval rating 11% pts. better than the national average -- yet a three term incumbent who has already raised 80% of what he need in 2000 is still running scared from Bush. And Burns sounds worried, here is the story's lede:
In the staid halls of the U.S. Senate, Montana Republican Conrad Burns is known for his booming voice and his cheery, back-slapping confidence. But when it comes to talking about his upcoming bid for re-election, his demeanor turns more serious.
Burns' is up to his cowboy hat in Jack Abramoff's scandals, so he should be worried about coming off as cocky because of how much money he has in the bank:
Democrats plan to make up for their financial disadvantage by leveling ethics charges at Burns. Strategists have already signaled that they plan to exploit Burns' ties to GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who has been indicted on fraud charges.The Montana Democratic Party aired a television ad in August that criticized Burns for what it said was his vote to give one of the nation's wealthiest American Indian tribes $3 million from a federal program intended for cash-strapped tribal schools.
Abramoff was a lobbyist for the Michigan tribe, and also donated to Burns' political action committee along with some of his associates. Abramoff is now under a wide-ranging investigation, accused of bilking his Indian clients.
The Democratic ad said the financial arrangements add up to an "improper relationship" between Burns, chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that wrote the bill, and Abramoff.
Sketchy. Here's another great quote from Burns, not as good as his defense of Bush, but still desperate:
"I'm here and they're not," he said, sitting in his Senate office. "I've got the seniority and they don't. And I'm in the majority and they're not."
My response: Not for long, give Tester time, not for long.
Speaking of which, it is Tester Time.
Posted at 12:38 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Culture of Corruption, Montana, Scandals | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Reform Ohio Now: By the Numbers
Posted by Tim TagarisGood guys: Reform Ohio Now
Bad Guys: Ohio First
Number of Issues: 4
Numbers on the ballot: Issues 2-5
Average contribution amount to Ohio First: $12,941
Average contribution to Reform Ohio Now: $545
Total contributions to Reform Ohio Now: ~3,300
Total contributors to Ohio First: 170
Amount of $ Contributed by George Soros: $0
Amount of times Republicans have linked George Soros to RON: Countless
Issue that addresses campaign finance: State Issue #3
Issue that addresses redistricting: State Issue #4
% of Ohioans that favor State Issue #4: 43.5%
Number of conties in OH-18: 16
Number of counties in OH-5: 16
Number of times Franklin County is cut: 3
% of the vote received by George Bush in 2004: 51%
% of the vote received by John Kerry in 2004: 49%
Closest Congressional Election in 2004: 18% victory for Michael Oxley
Congressional delegation Breakdown: 12 Republicans - 6 Democrats (66% Republican)
Number of provisional ballots cast in 2004: ~250,000
Issue that addresses "no fault" absentee balloting: State Issue #2
Number of criminal misdeamenors Gov. Taft was convicted of: Four
Jack Abramoff's best friend in Congress Represents: OH-18
Election Day: November 8
Year: 2005
Days from Now: 10
Posted at 01:44 AM in Reform Ohio Now | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
Friday, October 28, 2005
Official Statements on the Indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby
Posted by Bob BrighamThe old thread was getting crowded, here is an updated, alphebetical list of official statements on the indictment of Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the Vice President Scooter Libby.
Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ) Statement on the Indictment of I. Lewis LibbyToday's indictment of Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, demonstrates yet another significant failure for this Administration in their attempt to earn the respect and trust of the American people. Mr. Libby was one of the senior most aides to this Administration and these charges, as well as the continuing investigation into other members of this Administration provide more questions then they do answers.
This President has repeatedly asked Americans to trust him. Trust him that he has a plan to repair our Nation's economy. Trust him that we are doing the things needed to be done in Iraq to protect our soldiers and win the peace. Trust him that help is on the way to victims in the Gulf. Trust him that his appointees will prove to be both ethical and effective in performing the duties of their post.
The time for political maneuvering and spin is over. The Administration owes the citizens of this Nation a clear and thorough explanation of its answer to the charges against it.
PA-10 Candidate Chris Carney (D)
CHRIS CARNEY: INDICTMENT SHOWS NATIONAL SECURITY COMPROMISEDDimock, Pa.-Chris Carney, Democratic candidate for U.S. Congress, has released the following statement after the announcement of the indictment of Vice-President Cheney's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby.
"While we cannot presume guilt at this point, today’s indictment seems to begin another gloomy chapter in an already sad story. We must let the justice system do its work. But, anyone in our government that endangered the life of an American covert agent for any reason--political or otherwise--is a coward and without honor."
"As the former Director of Intelligence Support for the War on Terrorism, I can testify that the leak of a covert operative's identity does grave damage to our overall national security and to our efforts in the war on terror."
"We all know the name of Valerie Plame now and we all know her work. Her cover has been revealed, her work endangered, and her contacts put at risk. Possibly worse, anyone that considers working for America in a covert capacity must consider that they may not be protected."
"Perhaps more than in any other American conflict, the war on terror relies upon covert agents and human intelligence assets. To risk compromising these scarce assets is to risk another 9/11—or worse."
"We need new leadership in Washington--new leadership that understands that national security is not a political game, new leadership that will always put the security of the American people first."
"Mr. Libby has informed me that he is resigning to fight the charges brought against him. I have accepted his decision with deep regret.""Scooter Libby is one of the most capable and talented individuals I have ever known. He has given many years of his life to public service and has served our nation tirelessly and with great distinction."
"The prosecutor has performed his job in pursuing this case vigorously and fairly. However, the charges really beg the larger question - what did the president and vice president know about these and related matters, and when did they know it?"
Democracy for America:
Stop the SpinThe culture of corruption in Washington is toxic. Already, the White House has started its spin machine, throwing out bogus talking points about "an overzealous prosecutor1" and "the criminalization of politics2." You know what? We need to quit playing that game.
On Wednesday, November 2, join DNC Chair Howard Dean and DFA Chair Jim Dean on a conference call to discuss how to change the culture of corruption in Washington. Sign up on DFA-Link for a conference call event in your area:
http://www.dfalink.com/november2
It grows clearer by the day that the President's advisors were willing to do anything to quiet opposition to the war -- even if it meant breaking laws designed to protect our national security. And it leaves us questioning: what other deceptions and mistruths did they tell to lead us into war? If we want the truth, we need to demand answers.
Join the conference call with Governor Dean and Jim Dean next week. If you can't find an event in your area, invite some friends over and join the conference call from home:
It's time for the truth. It's time to take our country back: neighbor to neighbor, friend to friend, from the ground up.
RSVP for the conference call with DNC Chair Howard Dean and DFA Chair Jim Dean today:
Sincerely,
Tom Hughes
Democracy for America
1: Republicans Testing Ways to Blunt Leak Charges
2: Bill Frist's Interview With Sean and Alan
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald today indicted Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements and one count of obstruction of justice. Libby was known to have been part of a group of White House officials that included Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and Press Secretary Scott McClellan who were charged with selling the Bush Administration's rationale for the Iraq war to the American people.Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean today issued the following statement:
"This is a sad day for America.
"Beyond the evidence that the White House manipulated the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq, a group of senior White House officials not only orchestrated efforts to smear a critic of the war, but worked to cover up this smear campaign. In so doing, they ignored the rule of law, endangering our national security and the brave men and women who dedicate their lives to protecting our nation's security. I. Lewis Libby was a part of this internal White House group.
"This is not only an abuse of power, it is an un-American abuse of the public trust. As Americans, we must hold ourselves and our leaders to a higher standard. We cannot fear dissent. We cannot fear the truth. And we cannot tolerate those who do.
"More importantly, we can't ignore the glaring questions this case has raised about the rationale the Bush Administration used to send us to war in Iraq, a war that continues. American soldiers are still in harms way. Over 2,000 brave Americans have lost their lives, thousands of American soldiers have been wounded, and thousands of American families have made the ultimate sacrifice. Still, the President has no plan and no exit strategy. And still he hasn't answered the question, what are we doing in Iraq and when can our troops come home?
"President Bush faces a serious test of leadership; will he keep his pledge to hold his Administration to high ethical standards and give the American people what they deserve, and will he answer to the American people for these serious missteps?"
Diana DeGette
Democratic Chief Deputy Whip Diana DeGette (CO-01) released the following statement regarding the five-count indictment against Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby:"Today, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was indicted by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald on charges of obstruction of justice, false statements and perjury. Allegations that a senior government official tried to subvert the criminal justice process by lying to a grand jury are very serious. This is made even more serious by the fact that the investigation is focused on whether classified national security information was compromised during a time of war. The outcome is now in the hands of our independent judicial system."
Chris Dodd:
Statement of Senator Chris Dodd on the Indictment of I. Lewis Libby“These are very serious charges that if found to be true, show an extreme arrogance on behalf of this White House. Leaking a CIA agent’s identity is extremely dangerous, reckless and wrong. But doing so for the larger purpose of discrediting someone who did not believe the Administration’s untruths about Iraq and misleading the country into war is reprehensible and damaging to our country’s interests. These events are clearly distracting this White House which is reeling from ineptitude and mismanagement on a variety of fronts – most importantly the war, but also our economy, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, spiraling gas prices. The list goes on and on. The American people demand better.”
Tom Harkin:
Statement of Senator Tom HarkinOctober 28, 2005
“Today, a top White House official was indicted for lying to cover his tracks in outing a CIA official. Sadly, this is not limited to this circumstance or this one individual. It sheds light on just how far this White House is willing to go to obstruct the truth and justify a war otherwise based on faulty intelligence, misrepresentation and distortion.
“When a President takes the American people to war, it is an act of utmost gravity and consequence. Two thousand Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis have perished because of President Bush’s decision.
“There are still questions about who in this Administration—all the way up to Vice President Cheney—sought retribution against those who questioned the war and the justification for it. It is time to come clean. It is time for President to show leadership and answer these very serious questions.”
Ted Kennedy:
”Today is an ominous day for the country, signifying a new low since Watergate in terms of openness and honesty in our government. This is far more than an indictment of an individual. In effect it’s an indictment of the vicious and devious tactics used by the Administration to justify a war we never should have fought. It’s an indictment of the lengths Administration officials were willing to go to cover up their failed intelligence, their distortion on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and their serious blunders on the war. It is an indictment of their vindictive efforts to discredit anyone who challenge their misrepresentations.
The American people know the high cost of this misguided war – 2,000 U.S. soldiers dead, more than 15,000 wounded, hundreds of billions of dollars spent with no end in sight, and a continuing shameful effort by the White House to silence those who try to tell the truth about the war. Dissent is the ultimate form of patriotism, and it’s time we return to having an honest discourse in this country about changing direction and paying attention to the needs of the American people.The President should take this opportunity to do everything he can to heal the country by not interfering with the prosecution of this case or the continuing investigation, and by cleaning house at the White House to immunize the country against any further corruption and dishonesty. As the President promised, anyone still in the White House who had anything to do with this scandalous plot or the cover-up should be dismissed immediately, whether or not they have been indicted. Something has to give — America can’t stand three more years of this failed Bush presidency. “
Robert Menendez
U.S. Representative Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, issued the following statement today on the indictment of White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby:"It is a sad day for America when one of the senior most officials in the White House is indicted on felony charges. I. Lewis Libby is one of the top advisors to the president, one of the chief architects of his foreign policy, and one of the masterminds behind the way the administration sold to the public the war in Iraq.
"Of all the things we have learned over the course of this investigation, two facts stand out: President Bush stood before Congress and spoke of attempts by Saddam Hussein to acquire uranium from Africa, a charge that the administration knew was not true. And Valerie Plame's name was released to the public because Joseph Wilson dared to point out that the claim was not true.
"As the investigation into this leak has unfolded, we have also learned that the White House engaged in a coordinated campaign of unprecedented intensity to discredit its critics. In the course of that campaign, they blew the cover of one CIA operative and thereby jeopardized the lives of other CIA agents.
"Last year, the president said he would fire anyone found leaking information in this case, and we now know the official who was indicted today was not the only one who leaked information. If the president hopes to undo the damage he has done to this country and restore what is left of his credibility, he needs to follow through on his pledge. He cannot hide behind legalistic denials, or pretend that the resignation of one official removes the stain that has been left on his White House.
"Today's indictments came because this administration misled the country over the most important issue any president faces, the decision on whether to take the country to war, and then tried to cover up that fact by silencing its critics and, it appears in at least one case, lying to a grand jury.
"The president now has a rare chance to come clean. I hope he takes it."
White House Indictment Was About Cover-Up Of Iraq LiesToday, Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff was indicted for obstructing an investigation into the White House cover-up of the lies that led our nation to war in Iraq.
The Bush administration outted CIA operative Valerie Plame as punishment for her husband's revelations about the Administration's Iraq lies. Today, a top White House official was indicted for obstructing the investigation into that cover-up. The White House will try to pretend that this is not a big deal. With a strong letter to the editor campaign, we can defeat the Republican spin machine and let the American people know the truth: that today's indictment was about the cover-up of Bush's Iraq lies and we demand that Bush clean house of all the liars.
U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ-8) expressed concern after learning that Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, threatened national security, obstructed justice, and perjured himself to a federal grand jury, in order to stifle opposition to the case President Bush made for going to war in Iraq."Five years ago, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney pledged to "restore honor and dignity to the White House," stated Pascrell, a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security. "It is clear today that this insincere pledge has been utterly decimated. Exposing national security information to reap political revenge, and then obstructing a federal investigation, is not "honorable or dignified" -- it is corrupt, shameful, immoral and a reason for national concern. With three years to go, this Administration has officially lost any remaining credibility.
At the heart of this issue is an Administration that will stop at nothing to hide the truth from the American people. The indictment reveals that a top official in the United States government placed politics over national security. The President invaded Iraq under false pretenses; today we have learned that Mr. Libby perjured himself to defend those false pretenses that enabled the President to invade Iraq. This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue, this Administration has dishonored all Americans.
President Bush is struggling with the economy at home and with war overseas. Now he will begin struggling to relieve himself of the burden he created within his own ranks."
“The criminal indictments of a top White House official mark a sad day for America and another chapter in the Republicans’ culture of corruption. At the heart of these indictments was the effort by the Bush Administration to discredit critics of its Iraq policy with reckless disregard for national security and the public trust.”
John Podesta:
Statement of John Podesta on the Fitzgerald IndictmentsIts time to get out the broom at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and clean house.
We now know that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald believes that crimes were committed in an effort to cover up the White House's involvement in the outing of an undercover CIA officer.
At its core, this case is about the Administration's manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq. Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald's continuing investigation may reveal more about the White House's efforts to cover up its missteps in the lead up to the war.
But we should not have to wait for Fitzgerald's findings for the President to take responsibility for what went on in his White House. We know Karl Rove was a source of the leak. We know Karl Rove lied to the President, the White House Press Secretary and the public. We also know that Vice President Cheney was Lewis Libby's source for the CIA officer's identity. He must come forward and explain his role.
There is no question this is a Presidency in crisis. Bush has a chance to salvage his credibility and last three years of his Presidency - but only if he stands by his word to fire anyone involved in the leak starting with the immediate resignation of Lewis Libby and Karl Rove.
In addition to Rove and Libby, we know that senior Presidential aides National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan were either complicit in the leak and the cover up, or grossly negligent in their duties. The Press Secretary's credibility is in tatters. It is clear he can no longer be an effective spokesperson for the President. Finally, as Chief of Staff, Andrew Card has presided over a White House staff that is guilty of a disservice to the President and the country. Each of these aides should resign.
----
National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley
Stephen Hadley knew for more than two years that Karl Rove was lying about his role in the leak. In July of 2003, Rove sent then-Deputy National Security Advisor Hadley an email relaying a conversation Rove had with a reporter about Ambassador Wilson.The CIA alerted Hadley three times between October 2002 to January 2003 that the uranium intelligence was unreliable. The State Department told Hadley and Rice in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's WMD capability that they found the uranium intelligence "highly dubious." Hadley d [approved?] the use of the erroneous claim in the State of the Union anyway.
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card
Andrew Card has presided over a White House staff that has actively misled the public on its role in the leak, and allowed the President to present faulty intelligence to the American people. Mr. Card has either been lied to about the White House staff's role in the leak or he has been complicit in it.White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan
The White House Press Secretary is not just the President's spokesperson; he or she speaks for the United States government. Beginning in the summer of 2003, Scott McClellan has made categorical statements denying any White House involvement in the CIA leak case. Whether McClellan was lying or was lied to by other staff, he no longer has the credibility to speak for the President or the United States government and should resign.
Harry Reid:
“These are very serious charges. They suggest that a senior White House aide put politics ahead of our national security and the rule of law.
“This case is bigger than the leak of highly classified information. It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president.
“It's now time for President Bush to lead and answer the very serious questions raised by this investigation. The American people have already paid too steep a price as a result of misconduct at the White House, and they deserve better.”
Tim Ryan:
Congressman Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) issued the following statement today following the indictment and resignation of Vice President Cheney's Chief Of Staff, I. Lewis Libby:"This is a very sad day for the United States of America. Today, the Chief of Staff of Vice President Cheney was indicted on five counts of making false statements, perjury and obstruction of justice during an investigation into the illegal outing of an undercover CIA agent. In the course of serving her country, that agent was compromised and placed at grave risk by her own government. The deliberate and reckless disclosure placed her life and the lives of her colleagues in significant danger, not to mention irrevocably harming their professional public service careers. And why? It was done merely because her husband had the courage to take a stand and challenge the lies the Bush Administration was telling the American public.
"The allegations contained in the indictments are not just unlawful -- they are an egregious violation of the public trust, and they devalue the presidency of the most powerful nation in the world."
Henry Waxman
Rep. Waxman Renews Call for Hearings on CIA Leak Case
Libby Indictment Underscores Need for Congressional InquiryOctober 28, 2005 -- Today, in light of the indictment of Lewis (Scooter) Libby by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, Rep. Waxman has renewed a request to Chairman Davis that the Government Reform Committee, the principal investigative committee in the House, hold hearings into the leak of the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. Rep. Waxman has previously requested such hearings on September 29, 2003, October 8, 2003, December 11, 2003, and July 11, 2005.
Today’s press conference by Special Counsel Fitzgerald makes clear that such hearings are necessary because the leak of Ms. Wilson’s identity raises broad questions of national interest which the Justice Department’s criminal investigation will not address. Mr. Fitzgerald today repeatedly underscored the narrow, legal focus of his investigation and the extensive limits placed on his ability to reveal what he learned by the rules of grand jury secrecy.
Rep. Waxman details the three areas that the Committee’s inquiry should address: (1) what caused this breach of national security and who should be held accountable; (2) why the White House failed to meet its obligations to investigate the leak; and (3) how the leak of Ms. Wilson’s identity relates to the broader issue of whether the President and his top advisors used misleading intelligence to initiate war in Iraq.
(To be read by his attorney Christopher Wolf at 3:00 p.m. - 10/28/05)
The five count indictment issued by the Grand Jury today is an important step in the criminal justice process that began more than two years ago. I commend Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald for his professionalism, for his diligence, and for his courage.
There will be many opportunities in the future to comment on the events that led to today's indictment. And, it appears that there will be further developments before the grand jury. Whatever the final outcome of the investigation and the prosecution, I continue to believe that revealing my wife Valerie's secret CIA identity was very wrong and harmful to our nation, and I feel that my family was attacked for my speaking the truth about the events that led our country to war. I look forward to exercising my rights as a citizen to speak about these matters in the future.
Today, however, is not the time to analyze or to debate. And it is certainly not a day to celebrate. Today is a sad day for America. When an indictment is delivered at the front door of the White House, the Office of the President is defiled. No citizen can take pleasure from that.
As this case proceeds, Valerie and I are confident that justice will be done. In the meantime, I have a request. While I may engage in public discourse, my wife and my family are private people. They did not choose to be brought into the public square, and they do not wish to be under the glare of camera. They are entitled to their privacy. This case is not about me or my family, no matter how others might try to make it so.
This case is about serious criminal charges that go to the heart of our democracy.
We, like all citizens, await the judgment of the jury in a court of law.
Posted at 05:46 PM in 2006 Elections, Culture of Corruption, Democrats, Republicans | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Randy Kelly Slammed in Latest Poll
Posted by Bob BrighamIn 2004, St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly made an ass out of himself when he endorsed George Bush. The voters seem to remember:
Former City Council Member Chris Coleman has amassed a commanding lead in the St. Paul mayor's race, opening a 61 percent to 28 percent advantage over incumbent Randy Kelly, according to a poll conducted this week for the Pioneer Press.The numbers represent an even bigger hurdle for Kelly than the results of the Sept. 13 primary election, when Coleman finished a surprisingly strong first with 50 percent of the vote, nearly twice the mayor's total.
The poll, conducted Tuesday and Wednesday by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research, consisted of telephone interviews of 400 registered St. Paul voters who say they plan to cast a ballot in the Nov. 8 general election. The survey has a margin of error of 5 percentage points.
Although respondents expressed general satisfaction with the way the city is being run, they clearly were swayed by Kelly's endorsement of Republican President Bush in August 2004. Nearly three in five — 57 percent — said it made them less likely to vote for Kelly. Only 10 percent said it would make them more likely to vote for the incumbent mayor.
Go help out Chris Coleman.
Posted at 04:45 PM in Minnesota | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
UPDATED: Statements on Assistant to the President and VP Chief of Staff Indicted
Posted by Bob BrighamThe Culture of Corruption meme just ratched up a notch. Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the Vice President Scooter Libby was indicted on five felony counts.
The fallout from this will effect every single race in 2006. Please use the comments to post statements by Democrats and Republicans so we can try to get a fuller picture of the dynamics at play in political races.
UPDATED Initial Statements:
Statement from Senator Harry Reid:
“These are very serious charges. They suggest that a senior White House aide put politics ahead of our national security and the rule of law.
“This case is bigger than the leak of highly classified information. It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president.
“It's now time for President Bush to lead and answer the very serious questions raised by this investigation. The American people have already paid too steep a price as a result of misconduct at the White House, and they deserve better.”
Statement from Senator Ted Kennedy:
”Today is an ominous day for the country, signifying a new low since Watergate in terms of openness and honesty in our government. This is far more than an indictment of an individual. In effect it’s an indictment of the vicious and devious tactics used by the Administration to justify a war we never should have fought. It’s an indictment of the lengths Administration officials were willing to go to cover up their failed intelligence, their distortion on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and their serious blunders on the war. It is an indictment of their vindictive efforts to discredit anyone who challenge their misrepresentations.
The American people know the high cost of this misguided war – 2,000 U.S. soldiers dead, more than 15,000 wounded, hundreds of billions of dollars spent with no end in sight, and a continuing shameful effort by the White House to silence those who try to tell the truth about the war. Dissent is the ultimate form of patriotism, and it’s time we return to having an honest discourse in this country about changing direction and paying attention to the needs of the American people.The President should take this opportunity to do everything he can to heal the country by not interfering with the prosecution of this case or the continuing investigation, and by cleaning house at the White House to immunize the country against any further corruption and dishonesty. As the President promised, anyone still in the White House who had anything to do with this scandalous plot or the cover-up should be dismissed immediately, whether or not they have been indicted. Something has to give — America can’t stand three more years of this failed Bush presidency. “
Democracy for America
Stop the SpinThe culture of corruption in Washington is toxic. Already, the White House has started its spin machine, throwing out bogus talking points about "an overzealous prosecutor1" and "the criminalization of politics2." You know what? We need to quit playing that game.
On Wednesday, November 2, join DNC Chair Howard Dean and DFA Chair Jim Dean on a conference call to discuss how to change the culture of corruption in Washington. Sign up on DFA-Link for a conference call event in your area:
http://www.dfalink.com/november2
It grows clearer by the day that the President's advisors were willing to do anything to quiet opposition to the war -- even if it meant breaking laws designed to protect our national security. And it leaves us questioning: what other deceptions and mistruths did they tell to lead us into war? If we want the truth, we need to demand answers.
Join the conference call with Governor Dean and Jim Dean next week. If you can't find an event in your area, invite some friends over and join the conference call from home:
It's time for the truth. It's time to take our country back: neighbor to neighbor, friend to friend, from the ground up.
RSVP for the conference call with DNC Chair Howard Dean and DFA Chair Jim Dean today:
Sincerely,
Tom Hughes
Democracy for America
1: Republicans Testing Ways to Blunt Leak Charges
2: Bill Frist's Interview With Sean and Alan
PA-10 Candidate Chris Carney (D)
CHRIS CARNEY: INDICTMENT SHOWS NATIONAL SECURITY COMPROMISEDDimock, Pa.-Chris Carney, Democratic candidate for U.S. Congress, has released the following statement after the announcement of the indictment of Vice-President Cheney's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby.
"While we cannot presume guilt at this point, today’s indictment seems to begin another gloomy chapter in an already sad story. We must let the justice system do its work. But, anyone in our government that endangered the life of an American covert agent for any reason--political or otherwise--is a coward and without honor."
"As the former Director of Intelligence Support for the War on Terrorism, I can testify that the leak of a covert operative's identity does grave damage to our overall national security and to our efforts in the war on terror."
"We all know the name of Valerie Plame now and we all know her work. Her cover has been revealed, her work endangered, and her contacts put at risk. Possibly worse, anyone that considers working for America in a covert capacity must consider that they may not be protected."
"Perhaps more than in any other American conflict, the war on terror relies upon covert agents and human intelligence assets. To risk compromising these scarce assets is to risk another 9/11—or worse."
"We need new leadership in Washington--new leadership that understands that national security is not a political game, new leadership that will always put the security of the American people first."
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi:
“The criminal indictments of a top White House official mark a sad day for America and another chapter in the Republicans’ culture of corruption. At the heart of these indictments was the effort by the Bush Administration to discredit critics of its Iraq policy with reckless disregard for national security and the public trust.”
Diana DeGette
Democratic Chief Deputy Whip Diana DeGette (CO-01) released the following statement regarding the five-count indictment against Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby:"Today, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was indicted by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald on charges of obstruction of justice, false statements and perjury. Allegations that a senior government official tried to subvert the criminal justice process by lying to a grand jury are very serious. This is made even more serious by the fact that the investigation is focused on whether classified national security information was compromised during a time of war. The outcome is now in the hands of our independent judicial system."
"The prosecutor has performed his job in pursuing this case vigorously and fairly. However, the charges really beg the larger question - what did the president and vice president know about these and related matters, and when did they know it?"
John Podesta:
Statement of John Podesta on the Fitzgerald IndictmentsIts time to get out the broom at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and clean house.
We now know that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald believes that crimes were committed in an effort to cover up the White House's involvement in the outing of an undercover CIA officer.
At its core, this case is about the Administration's manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq. Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald's continuing investigation may reveal more about the White House's efforts to cover up its missteps in the lead up to the war.
But we should not have to wait for Fitzgerald's findings for the President to take responsibility for what went on in his White House. We know Karl Rove was a source of the leak. We know Karl Rove lied to the President, the White House Press Secretary and the public. We also know that Vice President Cheney was Lewis Libby's source for the CIA officer's identity. He must come forward and explain his role.
There is no question this is a Presidency in crisis. Bush has a chance to salvage his credibility and last three years of his Presidency - but only if he stands by his word to fire anyone involved in the leak starting with the immediate resignation
of Lewis Libby and Karl Rove.In addition to Rove and Libby, we know that senior Presidential aides National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan were either complicit in the leak and the cover up, or grossly negligent in their duties. The Press Secretary's credibility is in tatters. It is clear he can no longer be an effective spokesperson for the President. Finally, as Chief of Staff, Andrew Card has presided over a White House staff that is guilty of a disservice to the President and the country. Each of these aides should resign.
----
National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley
Stephen Hadley knew for more than two years that Karl Rove was lying about his role in the leak. In July of 2003, Rove sent then-Deputy National Security Advisor Hadley an email relaying a conversation Rove had with a reporter about Ambassador Wilson.The CIA alerted Hadley three times between October 2002 to January 2003 that the uranium intelligence was unreliable. The State Department told Hadley and Rice in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's WMD capability that they found the uranium intelligence "highly dubious." Hadley d [approved?] the use of the erroneous claim in the State of the Union anyway.
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card
Andrew Card has presided over a White House staff that has actively misled the public on its role in the leak, and allowed the President to present faulty intelligence to the American people. Mr. Card has either been lied to about the White House staff's role in the leak or he has been complicit in it.White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan
The White House Press Secretary is not just the President's spokesperson; he or she speaks for the United States government. Beginning in the summer of 2003, Scott McClellan has made categorical statements denying any White House involvement in the CIA leak case. Whether McClellan was lying or was lied to by other staff, he no longer has the credibility to speak for the President or the United States government and should resign.
Robert Menendez
U.S. Representative Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, issued the following statement today on the indictment of White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby:"It is a sad day for America when one of the senior most officials in the White House is indicted on felony charges. I. Lewis Libby is one of the top advisors to the president, one of the chief architects of his foreign policy, and one of the masterminds behind the way the administration sold to the public the war in Iraq.
"Of all the things we have learned over the course of this investigation, two facts stand out: President Bush stood before Congress and spoke of attempts by Saddam Hussein to acquire uranium from Africa, a charge that the administration knew was not true. And Valerie Plame's name was released to the public because Joseph Wilson dared to point out that the claim was not true.
"As the investigation into this leak has unfolded, we have also learned that the White House engaged in a coordinated campaign of unprecedented intensity to discredit its critics. In the course of that campaign, they blew the cover of one CIA operative and thereby jeopardized the lives of other CIA agents.
"Last year, the president said he would fire anyone found leaking information in this case, and we now know the official who was indicted today was not the only one who leaked information. If the president hopes to undo the damage he has done to this country and restore what is left of his credibility, he needs to follow through on his pledge. He cannot hide behind legalistic denials, or pretend that the resignation of one official removes the stain that has been left on his White House.
"Today's indictments came because this administration misled the country over the most important issue any president faces, the decision on whether to take the country to war, and then tried to cover up that fact by silencing its critics and, it appears in at least one case, lying to a grand jury.
"The president now has a rare chance to come clean. I hope he takes it."
"Mr. Libby has informed me that he is resigning to fight the charges brought against him. I have accepted his decision with deep regret.""Scooter Libby is one of the most capable and talented individuals I have ever known. He has given many years of his life to public service and has served our nation tirelessly and with great distinction."
Bill Pascrell, Jr. via Blue Jersey::
U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ-8) expressed concern after learning that Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, threatened national security, obstructed justice, and perjured himself to a federal grand jury, in order to stifle opposition to the case President Bush made for going to war in Iraq."Five years ago, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney pledged to "restore honor and dignity to the White House," stated Pascrell, a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security. "It is clear today that this insincere pledge has been utterly decimated. Exposing national security information to reap political revenge, and then obstructing a federal investigation, is not "honorable or dignified" -- it is corrupt, shameful, immoral and a reason for national concern. With three years to go, this Administration has officially lost any remaining credibility.
At the heart of this issue is an Administration that will stop at nothing to hide the truth from the American people. The indictment reveals that a top official in the United States government placed politics over national security. The President invaded Iraq under false pretenses; today we have learned that Mr. Libby perjured himself to defend those false pretenses that enabled the President to invade Iraq. This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue, this Administration has dishonored all Americans.
President Bush is struggling with the economy at home and with war overseas. Now he will begin struggling to relieve himself of the burden he created within his own ranks."
(To be read by his attorney Christopher Wolf at 3:00 p.m. - 10/28/05)
The five count indictment issued by the Grand Jury today is an important step in the criminal justice process that began more than two years ago. I commend Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald for his professionalism, for his diligence, and for his courage.
There will be many opportunities in the future to comment on the events that led to today's indictment. And, it appears that there will be further developments before the grand jury. Whatever the final outcome of the investigation and the prosecution, I continue to believe that revealing my wife Valerie's secret CIA identity was very wrong and harmful to our nation, and I feel that my family was attacked for my speaking the truth about the events that led our country to war. I look forward to exercising my rights as a citizen to speak about these matters in the future.
Today, however, is not the time to analyze or to debate. And it is certainly not a day to celebrate. Today is a sad day for America. When an indictment is delivered at the front door of the White House, the Office of the President is defiled. No citizen can take pleasure from that.
As this case proceeds, Valerie and I are confident that justice will be done. In the meantime, I have a request. While I may engage in public discourse, my wife and my family are private people. They did not choose to be brought into the public square, and they do not wish to be under the glare of camera. They are entitled to their privacy. This case is not about me or my family, no matter how others might try to make it so.
This case is about serious criminal charges that go to the heart of our democracy.
We, like all citizens, await the judgment of the jury in a court of law.
THE WHITE HOUSE STRATEGY TO DEFEND THE CASE FOR WAR: IN THIS CASE, THE CRIME IS AS BAD AS THE COVERUPWhen President Bush came into office, he promised that his staff would "not just do what is legal, but what is right." But now, public confidence in the direction of our country is crumbling, and nine out of 10 Americans believe that the Bush Administration did something illegal or unethical in connection with the CIA leak scandal. After the indictment of Scooter Libby on two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements to the FBI, and one count of obstruction of justice, and with questions still lingering about Karl Rove's role, the White House can no longer deny its efforts to manipulate the intelligence to win support for the war in Iraq, orchestrating efforts to smear opponents of that war, and then conspiring to cover it up.
2002: POLITICIZING INTELLIGENCE IN THE RUN UP TO WAR
CARD CREATES WHITE HOUSE IRAQ GROUP (WHIG)
Card Formed White House Iraq Group To Formulate "Meticulously Planned" Strategy To Sell Iraq War to American People. "Systematic coordination began in August, when Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. formed the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, to set strategy for each stage of the confrontation with Baghdad. A senior official who participated in its work called it "an internal working group, like many formed for priority issues, to make sure each part of the White House was fulfilling its responsibilities." The group met weekly in the Situation Room. Among the regular participants were Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser; communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; and policy advisers led by Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, along with I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff." [Washington Post, 8/10/03; New York Times, 9/7/02]
Card Described Intricate Marketing Strategy to Sell The Iraq War. In September of 2002 White House Chief of Staff, Andy Card admitted the start of a "meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein" saying, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." [New York Times, 9/7/02] WHIG PUSHES NEW, SHARPER IRAQ RHETORIC
WHIG Pushed Iraq Nuclear Threat In Papers and Planned Speeches. Under a special "strategic communications" group associated with WHIG, White House staff planned speeches and wrote papers which emphasized Iraq's supposed nuclear threat. According to the Washington Post, "The escalation of nuclear rhetoric a year ago, including the introduction of the term 'mushroom cloud' into the debate, coincided with the formation of a White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, a task force assigned to 'educate the public' about the threat from Hussein, as a participant put it." [Washington Post, 8/10/03]
Cheney Trumpeted Iraq Nuclear Threat In August of 2002. "Cheney raised the alarm about Iraq's nuclear menace three times in August. He was far ahead of the president's public line. ... On Aug. 7, Cheney volunteered in a question-and-answer session at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, speaking of Hussein, that 'left to his own devices, it's the judgment of many of us that in the not-too-distant future, he will acquire nuclear weapons.' On Aug. 26, he described Hussein as a 'sworn enemy of our country' who constituted a 'mortal threat' to the United States. He foresaw a time in which Hussein could 'subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.' 'We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons,' he said. 'Among other sources, we've gotten this from firsthand testimony from defectors, including Saddam's own son-in-law.'" [Washington Post, 8/10/03]
Bush Cited Iraq's Nuclear Threat On At Least Three Separate Occasions. In the fall of 2002, while making the case for war, Bush began to highlight Iraq's supposed Iraq threat. On September 7, 2002 he cited a non-existent IAEA report that Iraq was "six months away from developing a nuclear weapon." On September 12, 2002, in front of the United Nations Bush said, "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." Finally, on October 7, 2002, Bush warned, "America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." [Bush Remarks, 9/12/02; Bush Remarks, 9/7/02; Washington Post, 8/10/03; Bush Remarks, 10/7/02 ]Rice Warned of Smoking Gun as Mushroom Cloud. "'The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.' national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said." [AP, 9/8/02]
OCTOBER 7TH: CONFLICT OVER NIGER REFERENCES IN STATE OF THE UNION
White House Dropped Niger Uranium Reference From Bush's Address To The Nation, After Tenet's Concern's. In October 2002, CIA Director George Tenet personally and repeatedly warned Stephen Hadley, a deputy of Condoleezza Rice, as well as other White House officials that references to Niger be dropped from Bush's October 7 speech to the nation. The Niger allegation was omitted from that speech. [Washington Post, 7/25/01; New York Times, 7/16/03; 7/13/03]
2003: INTERNAL WHITE HOUSE BATTLES INTENSIFY
JANUARY 28TH: LINE ON NIGER RETURNS TO THE STATE OF THE UNION
Bush Claimed That Iraq Was Seeking Uranium From Africa. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." [Bush, State of The Union, 1/28/03]
FEBRUARY 4TH: LIBBY TAKES INTELLIGENCE CRUSADE DIRECTLY TO POWELL
Libby Lobbied Powell To Add Intelligence Information He Favored To UN Speech, The Night Before The Address. Another official recalled that Libby was pushing so hard to include certain intelligence information in the speech that Libby lobbied Powell for last minute changes in a phone call to Powell's suite at the Waldorf Astoria hotel the night before the speech. Libby's suggestions were dismissed by Powell and his staff. [National Journal, 10/27/05]
FEBRUARY 5TH: WHIG PROVIDES POWELL WITH SCRIPT FOR UN
Whig Provided Powell With "Script" For Speech to United Nations on Iraq's WMD Threat. The final step was to get Powell to make the case to the United Nations. This was handled by the White House Iraq Group, which, Bamford says, provided Powell with a script for his speech, using information developed by Feith's group. Much of it was unsourced material fed to newspapers by the OSP. Realizing this, Powell's team turned to the now-discredited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. But some of Feith's handiwork ended up in Powell's mouth anyway. [UPI, 7/19/04]
MAY 29TH 2003: LIBBY BEGINS TO COLLECT INFORMATION ON WILSON
Libby Collected Information on Wilson. Beginning in late May of 2003, Libby allegedly began acquiring information about a 2002 trip to the African country of Niger by Joseph Wilson...to investigate allegations concerning efforts by the former government of Iraq to acquire uranium yellowcake..."[DOJ Press Release, 10/28/05]
JUNE 2003: WILSON EXPOSED THE TRUTHSUMMER, 2003: WHIG MEMBERS REUNITE TO DEFEND THE IRAQ WAR
Whig Members Reunite To Back Up Their Faulty Intelligence. During the summer of 2003, Hughes and Mary Matalin joined Dan Bartlett in formulating a strategy to pushback on general questions about the White House's credibility over its handling of the Iraq war. "The plan: Release all relevant information. Try to shift attention back to Bush's leadership in the war on terrorism. Diminish the significance of that single piece of iffy intelligence by making the case that Saddam was a threat for many other reasons. Put Republican lawmakers and other Bush allies on TV to defend him. Most important: Question the motives of Democrats who supported the war but now are criticizing the president." [New York Times, 10/21/02; USA Today, 7/24/03,]
MEMO TO UNDERCUT WILSON'S CRITICISM WAS PREPARED
June 2003: The State Department Compiled a Memo on Joe Wilson. On June 10, 2003 the State Department's Office of Intelligence and Research compiled a memo for Marc Grossman, then the Under Secretary of State for political affairs, on Joe Wilson's mission to Niger. The memo included the fact that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative working on WMD issues. At the time, Wilson was criticizing the administration's justification for the war, specifically discrediting the charge that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellow cake uranium. [Newsweek, 7/25/05; New York Times, 7/16/05]
State Department Memo Was Marked as Containing Sensitive Information. According to officials familiar with the case, the memo compiled by the State Department's Office of Intelligence and Research was marked as sensitive information. The section of the document pertaining to Plame's role in the trip to Niger was marked as especially sensitive. "[T]he paragraph in the memo discussing Ms. Wilson's involvement...is marked at the beginning with a letter designation in brackets to indicate the information shouldn't be shared...Such a designation would indicate to a reader that the information was sensitive." [Bloomberg, 7/18/05; Wall Street Journal, 7/19/05] June 9, 2003: Libby Received Classified Documents from CIA on Wilson's Trip. "On or about June 9th, 2003, a number of classified documents from the CIA were faxed to the Office of the Vice President to the personal attention of Libby and another person in the Vice President's office. The documents, which bore classification markings, discussed, among other things, Wilson and his trip to Niger, but did not mention Wilson by name. After receiving these documents, Libby and one or more other persons in the Vice President's office handwrote the names 'Wilson' and 'Joe Wilson' on the documents." [DOJ, 10/28/05]
June 12, 2003: Cheney Met With Libby About Plame. "Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA." [New York Times, 10/25/05]
THE LEAK
June 23, 2003: Libby Disparaged Selective Leaking, and Then Sprung a Leak of His Own. Libby met with Judith Miller of the New York Times. Libby was critical of the CIA and disparaged what he termed "selective leaking" by the CIA...Libby informed Miller Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA. [DOJ, 10/28/05]
JULY 2003: WILSON SPOKE OUT
First Week Of July 2003: Wilson Appeared On Meet The Press And Wrote An Op-Ed Critical of Administration's Iraq Uranium Claims. In July of 2003 Wilson went on the record with his concerns about the Administration's claims that Iraq had attempted to acquire Uranium from Niger. Wilson wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times on July 6 and then appeared on Meet the Press to voice his concerns. Up until that point Wilson had only been commenting on background. [Newsweek, 7/25/05]
DID YOU GET THE MEMO? THEY GOT THE MEMO...
July 6, 2003: Armitage Asked For State Department Memo To Be Forwarded To Powell After Wilson's Critical Op-Ed Appeared. When Mr. Wilson's Op-Ed article appeared on July 6, 2003, a Sunday, Richard L. Armitage, then Deputy Secretary of State, called Carl W. Ford Jr., the Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Research, at home, a former State Department official said. Mr. Armitage asked Mr. Ford to send a copy of the State Department memo to Mr. Powell, who was preparing to leave for Africa with Mr. Bush, the former official said. Mr. Ford sent it to the White House for transmission to Mr. Powell. [New York Times, 7/16/05]
July 7, 2003: Powell Circulated The Memo That Identified Plame To White House Officials on Air Force One. The Los Angeles Times reported that, "[Armitage] was forwarded a copy of a memo classified 'Secret' that included a description of Wilson's trip for the CIA, his findings, a brief description of the origin of the trip and a reference to 'Wilson's wife.'... July 7, this memo and the notes were removed from the safe and forwarded to Powell via a secure fax line to Air Force One. Powell was on the way to Africa with the president...Powell told prosecutors that he circulated the memo among those traveling with him in the front section of Air Force One." It was also reported Ari Fleischer and other high level officials were seen with the memo. According to individuals connected to the case, the Special Prosecutor, Peter Fitzgerald believed "that a printout of memo was in the front of Air Force One" during the trip, making it available to various members of the Bush staff. [Los Angeles Times, 8/25/05; Washington Post, 7/17/05; Bloomberg, 7/18/05]
Fleischer Claimed He Never Saw The Memo. "Among those asked if he had seen the memo was Ari Fleischer, then the White House press secretary, who was on Air Force One with Mr. Bush and Mr. Powell during the Africa trip. Mr. Fleischer told the grand jury that he never saw the document, a person familiar with the testimony said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the prosecutor's admonitions about not disclosing what is said to the grand jury." [New York Times, 7/22/05] ... AND USED IT TO MAKE THEIR CASE IN THE MEDIA
State Department Memo May Have Been Used to Brief Rice for Sunday Shows. "Meanwhile, in transatlantic secure phone calls, the message machinery focused on a crucial topic: who should carry the freight on the following Sunday's talk shows? The message: protect Cheney by explaining that he had had nothing to do with sending Wilson to Niger, and dismiss the yellowcake issue. ...Condi Rice, the ultimate good soldier... To allow her to prepare on the long flight home to D.C., White House officials assembled a briefing book, which they faxed to the Bush entourage in Africa...It contained classified information—perhaps including all or part of the memo from State. The entire binder was labeled TOP SECRET." [Newsweek, 7/25/05]
Administration Officials Pushed Information To Reporters That Was Contained in Memo. During the Bush Administration's trip to Africa, Fleischer and Dan Bartlett urged reporters to look into the origins of Wilson's trip. The fact that Plame had been involved in the initial meetings on Wilson's trip was contained in the State Department Memo and was in the section marked "sensitive." [Wall Street Journal, 7/19/05; Newsweek, 7/25/05]
THE LEAK: WHY WON'T JUDY WRITE?
July 8, 2003: Libby Met Again with Judy Miller. "When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson...Libby advised Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA". [DOJ, 10/28/05]
July 12, 2003: Libby Called Judy Miller. "In the late afternoon, Libby spoke by telephone with Miller and discussed Wilson's wife, and that she worked at the CIA." [DOJ, 10/28/05]
July 10, 2003: Libby Informed that Novak Will Write About Wilson's Wife. Libby spoke to a senior White House official (Offical A) who advised Libby a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson's trip. Libby was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife." [DOJ, 10/28/05]
Novak Attempted to Contact Fleischer While He was On Air Force One. According to sources close to the investigation, Air Force One call logs show that Bob Novak attempted to get in contact with White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer while he was on Air Force One during the White House's Trip to Africa. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald subpoenaed the phone and fax records of Air Force One. [LA Times, 7/18/05]
JULY 2003: THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN BEGINS
ROVE AND LIBBY WORKED TO OUT WILSON'S WIFE IN THE PRESS
July 2003: Rove Declared Wilson's Wife "Fair Game." Wilson said that Chris Matthews called him one week after Novak's column ran saying, "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove. He says your wife is fair game." [Face the Nation, 10/3/03; CNN, 7/14/05]
July 11, 2003: Rove Gave Matthew Cooper A "Big Warning" That Wilson's Assertions Might Not Be Accurate. Rove had a conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper on July 11, 2003. Cooper wrote an email about the conversation to his Time bureau chief, describing how Rove gave him a "big warning" that Wilson's assertions might not be entirely accurate and that it was not the director of the CIA or the vice president who sent Wilson on his trip. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Valerie Plame, who was then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counter proliferation division. [Washington Post, 7/11/05; Newsweek, 7/18/05]
THE LEAK: NOVAK COMES THROUGH
July 14, 2003: Novak Revealed The Classified Identity Of Wilson's Wife In His Column. Bob Novak named Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, in his syndicated column, revealing the classified identity of a CIA agent as sourced by two White House aides. [Chicago Sun-Times, 7/14/03]
Libby and Rove Were "Especially Intent" On Discrediting Wilson. "Prosecutors investigating whether administration officials illegally leaked the identity of Wilson's wife, a CIA officer who had worked undercover, have been told that Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove, and Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, were especially intent on undercutting Wilson's credibility, according to people familiar with the inquiry. Although lower-level White House staffers typically handle most contacts with the media, Rove and Libby began personally communicating with reporters about Wilson, prosecutors were told." [Los Angeles Times, 7/18/05]
WHIG "Determined to Fight". When the disclosure of Wilson's CIA mission to Niger put the White House on the defensive, one administration official said it reminded a tight-knit group of Bush neoconservatives of their longtime battles with the agency and underlined their determination to fight. Many of those officials also were members of the White House Iraq Group, established to coordinate and promote administration policy. It included the most influential players who would represent two elements of the current scandal: a hardball approach to political critics and long-standing disdain for CIA views on intelligence matters. [Los Angeles Times, 8/25/05]
Rove Takes the Lead. "There were grounds to challenge the former diplomat on the substance of his uranium findings...But it appears Rove was more focused on Wilson's background, politics and claims he ostensibly had made that his mission was initiated at the request of the vice president. Rove mentioned to reporters that Wilson's wife had suggested or arranged the trip. The idea apparently was to undermine its import by suggesting that the mission was really "a boondoggle set up by his wife," as an administration official described the trip to a reporter...This approach depended largely on a falsehood: that Wilson had claimed Cheney sent him to Niger. Wilson never made such a claim... In one White House conversation, investigators have learned, Rove was asked why he was focused so intently on discrediting the former diplomat. 'He's a Democrat,' Rove said, citing Wilson's campaign contributions." [Los Angeles Times, 8/25/05] SEPTEMBER 2003: A COVER-UP IS BORN
September 14, 2003: Cheney Said He Didn't Know Who Sent Wilson To Niger. Asked on Meet The Press about Joe Wilson's trip to Niger Cheney said: "I don't know Joe Wilson. I've never met Joe Wilson...And Joe Wilson--I don't know who sent Joe Wilson." [Meet The Press, 9/14/03]
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BEGAN INVESTIGATION
September 27, 2003: Justice Department Began Investigating The Leak. The Justice Department begins investigation into whether a law against disclosure of the identities of covert U.S. intelligence agents was violated when Plame was named in Novak's column and who was responsible. [CBSNews.com, 7/28/03; AP, 12/31/03]
WHITE HOUSE SAID THE LEAK WOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF, STOOD BEHIND ROVE
September 29, 2003: McClellan Said Leaker Would Be Fired. Scott McClellan said: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." [White House Press Briefing, 9/29/03]
September 30, 2003: Bush Said That If There Was A Leak In His Administration They Would Be "Taken Care Of." President Bush reiterated stern treatment for the culprit, saying, "if there was a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of...And so I welcome the investigation...I have told our administration people in my administration to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth." [White House, Bush Travel Pool, 9/30/03]
OCTOBER 2003: THE WHITE HOUSE RESPONDS, BUSH SPEAKS OUT
October, 2003: Bush "Furious" With Rove for His Role in the Leak. "An angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources told the Daily News. "He made his displeasure known to Karl," a presidential counselor told The News. "He made his life miserable about this."...Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak." [New York Daily News, 10/19/05]
October 30, 2003: Bush Said Appropriate Action Would Be Taken Against The Leaker. President Bush said: "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it. And we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing." [Remarks by the President, 10/30/03]
October 6, 2003: Bush Said The Leak Was A "Criminal Action." When asked about the severity of the CIA Leak President Bush said, "this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action." [Federal News Service, 10/6/03] MCCLELLAN JOINED IN THE MIS-DIRECTION GAME
October 10, 2003: McClellan Said He Spoke With Rove And Libby Personally, And That They Denied Being Involved. Press Secretary Scott McClellan said political advisor Karl Rove, Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Lewis Libby, and National Security Council member Elliott Abrams had each denied being the source of the leak. Said McClellan, "Those individuals — I talked — I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands." [WH Briefing, 10/10/03]
McClellan Said It Would Be Absurd To Suggest Anyone In The White House Would Punish Someone For Speaking Out With A Different View. "It is absurd to suggest that this White House would seek to punish someone for speaking out with a different view," McClellan said, adding: "It's perfectly acceptable when someone makes statements that aren't based on the facts to correct that information." [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/8/03] McClellan: Ridiculous To Think Rove Was To Blame for Leak. "'There's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement [in the CIA leak],' said White House spokesman Scott McClellan... McClellan dismissed the suggestion and said the White House would cooperate with a Justice Department probe. But he said it was 'ridiculous' to blame Rove." [Daily News, 10/30/03]
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HANDED OVER THE CASE TO A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
December 30, 2003: Special Prosecutor Appointed. Attorney General John Ashcroft and his office staff recused themselves from the Justice Department's criminal investigation into the leak of the name and identity of an undercover CIA officer. Deputy Attorney General James Comey announced at a news conference in Washington December 30 that he has named Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney for the northern district of Illinois, to lead the probe. [State Department Briefing, 9/30/03]
Fitzgerald Recruited To The Case Because Of His Lack Of Political Agenda. "Fitzgerald was recruited to the case in December 2003 by close friend James B. Comey, deputy attorney general to John D. Ashcroft. He was two years into a posting as Chicago's U.S. attorney, a job he won partly because he was a seasoned outsider with no evident political agenda, qualities that inspired Comey to appoint him to a case with powerful partisan overtones." [Washington Post, 10/24/05] 2004: INVESTIGATIONS FOCUSES ON THE WHITE HOUSE
WHIG Documents Subpoenaed In Leak Investigation. "Also sought in the wide-ranging document requests contained in three grand jury subpoenas to the Executive Office of President Bush are records created in July by the White House Iraq Group, a little-known internal task force established in August 2002 to create a strategy to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein." [The Times Union (Albany, NY), 5/5/04]
Scooter Libby and Karl Rove Testified in Front of Grand Jury. "Presidential adviser Karl Rove has...[made] another trip — his fourth — to the grand jury investigating who leaked the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald is also re-examining grand jury testimony by Mr. Libby." [New York Times, 10/7/05; Los Angeles Times, 10/7/05]
Mary Matalin Testified in Front of Grand Jury. Matalin appeared before the grand jury January 23, 2004 the day after the subpoenas were issued. [Newsday, 3/5/04]
Condoleeza Rice Questioned By Special Prosecutor. "Among those who are known to have been interviewed by the FBI or testified before the grand jury [include] Bush White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice." [Washington Post 11/26/04]
Andy Card, Stephen Hadley Questioned in Leak Case. White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card...[and] Deputy National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley...are believed to have been questioned in the leak case; papers and e-mails about the group were subpoenaed. [Los Angeles Times, 8/25/05]
Karen Hughes Questioned in Leak Case. Karen Hughes told the Senate Foreign Relations committee that she had been "questioned" by Fitzgerald about the Plame leak. [Los Angeles Times, 7/23/05]
Jim Wilkinson Questioned in Leak Case. Fitzgerald has questioned ... ex-White House aide Jim Wilkinson about the vice president's knowledge of the anti-Wilson campaign and his dealings on it with Libby, his chief of staff, the people said. [Bloomberg, 10/17/05]
John Hannah Testified in Leak Case. "Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald began an inquiry in December 2003 into whether the exposure of Plame's status was a violation of federal law. He has since discussed the matter with President Bush and Vice President Cheney and questioned more than two dozen other people [including] ... John Hannah, Cheney's deputy national security adviser." [Washington Post, 10/20/05]
Cheney and Libby Withheld Documents From Senate Investigation. "Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources. Among the White House materials withheld from the committee were Libby-authored passages in drafts of a speech that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered to the United Nations in February 2003 to argue the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq, according to congressional and administration sources. The withheld documents also included intelligence data that Cheney's office -- and Libby in particular -- pushed to be included in Powell's speech, the sources said." [National Journal, 10/27/05]
2005: THE WHITE HOUSE BACKS AWAY FROM ROVE AND LIBBY
ROVE WAS IDENTIFIED AS COOPER'S SOURCE
July 10, 2005: Rove Confirmed As Cooper's Source. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify. Cooper avoided jail time by agreeing to testify before the grand jury about conversations with his sources, while New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for refusing to discuss her confidential sources. [Washington Post, 7/11/05; Newsweek, 7/18/05]
WHITE HOUSE BACKED AWAY FROM ITS UNFAILING SUPPORT FOR ROVE AND CHANGES ITS REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRING ANYONE INVOLVED
July 11, 2005: White House Press Secretary Refused to Answer Questions About Press Leak. Scott McClellan refused to answer questions about the leak days after Rove was identified as a source in the CIA leak, saying: "The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I've previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it." [Transcript of White House Press Briefing, 7/11/05]
July 12, 2005: Bush Refused to Comment; McClellan Expressed President's "Confidence in Rove." Bush "ignored a question" about whether he would fire Rove now that it's known his adviser did talk to Cooper. But White House Press Secretary McClellan said later that "any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president." McClellan said that includes Rove." [AP, 7/13/05; Los Angeles Times, 7/14/05; Washington Times, 7/14/05]
July 18, 2005: Bush Changed His Standard; Said That A Crime Must Be Committed To Warrant Being Fired. "During his joint press conference with Indian Prime Minister Singh today, President Bush was asked again about Karl Rove, and whether he would still fire somebody found to be 'involved in the CIA leak case.' The President replied, '...I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts...I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts. And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.'" [White House Bulletin, 7/18/05]
Posted at 02:14 PM in 2006 Elections, Culture of Corruption, Republicans | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
MD-Sen: Michael Steele Blasted as Traitor
Posted by Bob BrighamI'm glad to see this battle playing out back in Maryland, instead of Virginia. Here's today's Baltimore Sun:
In an e-mail interview with The Sun, Gilliard said he considers Steele a traitor to his race because he initially dismissed news that his political partner, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., held a golfing fund-raiser this year at the Elkridge Club of Baltimore, which at the time had never admitted a black member in its 127-year history."Generally, it is an accurate depiction of Steele's groveling, lackey behavior," Gilliard said of the image. "It is 2005, and such an institution [as the Elkridge Club] should not exist, nor should a governor with as many black people as the state of Maryland attend a function at such a place.
"My point is that politicians like Michael Steele insult us, use us as whipping boys and then run to their white supporters to show how loyal they are. The suffering and problems of black Americans are beyond their concern," said Gilliard, who lives in New York City. "I find it wildly humorous that Lt. Gov. Steele calls me, a black man, racist, but then refuses to condemn the governor attending an event at an all-white country club."
The Maryland Senate race dynamics have changed radically following Katrina, especially considering Bush is polling at 2% with African Americans. The dynamic between identity politics and interest politics will be on center stage in Maryland. Steele may have found himself on the wrong side of a very powerful trend of blacks near universal agreement that Republicans don't care for black people.
You know, I've gotten far more support than comdemnation, and you know where a lot of that support came from? Black people. It's a wonderful feeling to have the community appreciate your words.
If Steve's sample is representative, then Gilliard may be writing what far more African Americans are thinking. In a post-Katrina world, does Mike Steele stand a chance?
Posted at 12:54 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Maryland, Scandals | Comments (6) | Technorati
Thursday, October 27, 2005
MT-Sen: So Much for Seniority
Posted by DavidNYCOne argument often made on behalf of incumbents is that their "seniority" is somehow important - that presumably, it allows them greater leverage to get legislation important to their constituents passed. (This is considered so important that federal courts even permit it as a justification in re-districting to protect incumbents.) I happen to think it's bullcrap as often as not - there are a lot of factors that go into whether certain legislation gets passed, and pure seniority is just one of them.
So why am I bringing this up? One issue of important to many Americans - and to a lot of Montanans in particular - is "coutry-of-origin labelling," aka "COOL." It's a simple (and inexpensive) idea which says that all farm products should carry information identifying where they are from. And this law was actually passed at the federal level in 2002. But its implementation has been delayed, thanks to Congressional Republicans.
And guess who's been whining about it loudest lately? Why, our dear friend Connie Burns - a Congressional Republican! Burnsie is in his third term - he oughta be way senior by now, right? Well, then, why the hell hasn't he convinced his colleagues to finally authorize COOL? How pathetic is that? But wait - it gets better (or worse, depending upon your perspective).
While Connie Burns has been proving his utter ineffectiveness on Capitol Hill, Jon Tester, as President of the MT State Senate and working with Gov. Brian Schweitzer, got a state-level COOL bill passed earlier this year - and was heartily thanked by Montana's cattlemen. I guess the farmer and the cow-man can be friends, after all!
Burnsie, you have a year to get this legislation fully enacted. All of Montana - and your friends throughout the country - are watching. Your failure thus far is proof that your claims to seniority are worthless. If you can't get this done by election day, it'll just be one more nail in your electoral coffin.
(Hat tip to a Tester campaign e-mail.)
Posted at 09:11 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Montana | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
AL-Gov: Seigelman Indicted - Again
Posted by DavidNYCFormer Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and HealthSouth Corp. founder Richard Scrushy were indicted by a federal grand jury in an alleged bribery and extortion scheme.The 30-count indictment, returned today in Montgomery, Alabama, accuses Scrushy, 53, of paying $500,000 in bribes. Paul Hamrick, a former chief of staff to the governor, and Gary Roberts, the ex-director of the Alabama Department of Transportation, were also charged in the case.
Siegelman, 59, a Democrat, was governor of Alabama from 1999 to 2003. The indictment alleges that Scrushy made two payments to Siegelman in exchange for appointing the business executive to an Alabama state board that approves hospital construction.
Fortunately, we still have a great - I'd say, much better - candidate for the Alabama gub race in Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley. Seigelman really, seriously ought to just step aside. Unfortunately, he's being really unreasonable.
P.S. Siegelman was indicted once before for a bid-rigging scheme, but the charges were dismissed as his case was proceeding to trial. This set of charges pertains to a different accusation entirely.
Posted at 04:15 PM in 2006 Elections - State, Alabama | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
VA-Gov: Tim Kaine Ad Controversy
Posted by Bob BrighamVirginia gubernatorial candidate Tim Kaine has found himself at the center of a scandal for bowing to right-wing racists and cancelling ads on an African American blog:
So now the Kaine campaign is in the silly position of responding to a racist while withdrawing support from an African-American. Which could have been avoided if they had talked before running scared. [...]But what really and truly bothers me is not the ad pull. You play football, you wake up sore. But the responsiveness to the opposition.
The Kaine campaign has never been responsible for the content on this site. They just buy space. They have probably disagreed with my stands. But they respond to people who will not vote for them, want them to lose and uses anything to pressure them.
And in the end, hurts them more than if they blew it off. The campaign didn't need me to go after them, but I am, because they are cowards. [...]
Cowardice should not be rewarded.
Tim Kaine is running a cowardly campaign, from the get-go he has been running scared, trying to offend as few people as possible.
But this scandal highlights a larger misconception about blogs, blogads, and netroots support.
It is important for people to realize that advertising on a blog doesn't mean the advertiser endorses the content of the site, all it means is that a decision has been made that the advertiser is interested in individuals who may read a particular blog.
Likewise, a blog running an ad doesn't mean that the blogger(s) endorse the product being advertised.
This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp.
For example, Tim Kaine is advertising on the Swing State Project right now, yet here I am calling him a coward. Earlier in the year, Tim Tagaris didn't hold back his thoughts on Bob Casey, Jr. when Casey advertised here. In fact, if memory serves me right, both Tim and I wrote some hard hitting posts while the ad was running.
Look at the other two ads running. One is for Steve Westly, who is running against Phil Angelides in California's Democratic gubernatorial primary. As the lone SSP writer who votes in California, I'll still be voting for Angelides and plan on devoting a good deal of posts next year to why Angelides inspires me with his campaign. As for the final ad, you all know it is a long story but we still approved the ad and it hasn't changed any of our thoughts on the issue.
When you see an ad in a newspaper, you don't assume that the editorial board supports the advertiser so don't make the same mistake with blogs. Likewise, you don't assume that advertisers support the view of the editorial page.
Politicians who think they can buy support by running ads are just as misguided as politicians who pull ads for what the blog posts.
UPDATE: (Bob) Now this is on the front page of Daily Kos. Kaine is going to lose a great deal of support and volunteers because of this fuckup. Even more, now he won't have blogosphere support for rapid response during the home stretch of the campaign. Tim Kaine's cowardice may have just cost him the election.
Posted at 01:56 PM in 2005 Elections, Netroots, Scandals, Virginia | Comments (10) | Technorati
New Reform Ohio Now Polling Numbers
Posted by Tim TagarisThere were some new numbers released today by the Ray C. Bliss Institute at Akron University. The Columbus Dispatch is set to release numbers next week as well (along with OH-Sen numbers).
Ray C. Bliss Institute (pdf). 1076 Ohio Residents. MoE +/- 3% - Likely Voters.State Issue One (Third Frontier)
Favor: 61.8%
Oppose: 38.2%State Issue Two (Absentee Balloting)
Favor: 63.8%
Oppose: 36.2%State Issue Three (Campaign Contributions)
Favor: 61.2%
Oppose: 38.8%State Issue Four (Nonpartisan Redistricting)
Favor: 43.5%
Oppose: 56.5%State Issue Five (Role of Secretary of State)
Favor: 42.5%
Oppose: 57.5%
The good news on State Issue Four specifically is that citizens who have "reported hearing or reading about the measure and have an opinion favor it by a 56-44 margin. When you consider that this survey was conducted over a one month time frame (ending on October 20), I think it actually bodes very well. The past week has seen newspaper after newpaper, telvision ads, and a massive ground campaign in Ohio to educate voters about the four RON amendments.
Posted at 01:54 PM in Reform Ohio Now | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
MT-Sen: John Morrison Condones Corruption
Posted by Bob BrighamA couple of weeks ago, the blogs were in an uproar about Montana Senator Max Baucus (D-MT?) feeding from the GOP Culture of Corruption by taking dirty money from the Leo Giacometto. Giacometto has a reputation as being the most crooked hack around and he's one of the key guys in the death of Republican Rep. Paul Sliter. Kos said:
Corruption is corruption, no matter where it takes place, no matter which party engages in it. [...]Keep that shit on their side of the aisle. It's hard to talk "culture of corruption" when our own side starts fraternizing with their sleaziest characters.
Considering the widespread condemnation of such a crooked act, you would think that Montana politicians wouldn't make the same mistake. But not DLC poster boy John Morrison. Instead of standing up for ethics, Morrison's response was to applaud the effort:
State Auditor John Morrison, who is running against state Senate President Jon Tester in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, said he thought it was “great that Max is doing a NASCAR event.’’“Every successful Democrat in Montana gets the support of some Republicans,’’ he said.
Should Morrison prevail in the primary, he will go head-to-head against Giacometto’s former boss Burns.
WTF? This isn't support from a Republican, this is taking dirty money from the most crooked Republican operative to ever set foot in the state of Montana.
Either Morrison has no fucking clue about Montana politics, or he decided to use the newspapers to put a giant FOR SALE sign up next to his name.
Morrison might be a pathetic candidate, but he's no idiot. John Morrison sent a clear signal to every single special interest that he is their guy. If he'll take money from the worst, he'll take it from them all. Meanwhile, Montanans will take it in another place.
John Morrison is a disgrace to the Democratic Party -- either that or he's a complete idiot.
Posted at 10:24 PM in Montana | Comments (14) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Republican Electoral Liability on Karl Rove
Posted by Bob BrighamOK, this is funny. In the last post, I pointed out how the Swing State Project would be focusing on the electoral fallout of the White House Indictments. As always, I made a point of mentioning that our readers are our eyes and ears to what is going on race-by-race. However, the Republican National Committee decided to pull all of this information together for us:
Republican Senators Defend Karl Rove:
NRSC Chairwoman Elizabeth Dole (R-NC): “The Partisan Attacks Against Karl Rove Are Out Of Control And Entirely Inappropriate. He Is A Distinguished Member Of The White House And He Is My Friend.” (National Republican Senatorial Committee, “Elizabeth Dole Statement On Karl Rove,” Press Release, 7/13/05)
- Dole: “It Is Incredibly Irresponsible For Individuals And Organizations To Make Accusations Based On Rumor And Innuendo. It Is Unfair To The Investigation And Even More Unfair To Karl Rove.” (National Republican Senatorial Committee, “Elizabeth Dole Statement On Karl Rove,” Press Release, 7/13/05)
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN): “My Democratic Friends Would Be Doing The Nation A Great Service If They Spent Half As Much Time Getting Legislation Passed That Will Benefit The Country As They Do In Attacking Karl Rove.” (Sen. Norm Coleman, Press Release, 7/13/05)
- Coleman: “We Have Enough To Do In The Senate In Minding Our Own Business Than To Be Sticking Our Noses Into Someone Else’s Business. Everyone Needs To Cool The Rhetoric, Focus On The Business Of The People, And Allow The Investigation To Run Its Course.” (Sen. Norm Coleman, Press Release, 7/13/05)
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA): “I Don’t See Any Evidence Out There That He Violated The Law.’’ (Richard Keil and Holly Rosenkrantz, “Rove’s Role In Spy Inquiry Reverberates Throughout Capital,” Bloomberg, 7/12/05)
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT): “In All Honesty, The Facts Thus Far – And The E-Mail Involved – Indicate To Me That There Is Not A Problem Here…” (Jim VandeHei, “GOP On Offense In Defense Of Rove,” The Washington Post, 7/13/05)
Hatch: “I Have Always Thought This Is A Tempest In A Teapot." (Jim VandeHei, “GOP On Offense In Defense Of Rove,” The Washington Post, 7/13/05)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): “If Anyone Thought The Anger And Political Sniping That Infested The Capital During The Campaign Would End After The Election, They Were Flat Wrong. Partisan Attacks In Lieu Of The Facts Have Replaced Ideas, Action And Cooperation.” (Sen. John Cornyn, “Attacks On Rove ‘More Anger And Political Sniping,’” Press Release, 7/13/05)
- Cornyn: “Sadly, These Attacks Are More Of The Same Kind Of Anger And Lashing Out That Has Become The Substitute For Bipartisan Action And Progress. While Republicans Focus On Accomplishing An Ambitious Agenda For The American People, Some Democrats And Their Allies In The Hyper-Partisan Interest Groups Continue On Their Path Of Smear And Distract.” (Sen. John Cornyn, “Attacks On Rove ‘More Anger And Political Sniping,’” Press Release, 7/13/05)
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): “I Support Karl Rove.” (Tom Raum, “Newsview: CIA Leak Probe Focuses On Rove,” The Associated Press, 7/13/05)
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL): “Karl Rove Is A Friend Who, By All Accounts, Is Fully Cooperating With The Investigation. He Has Been A Most Valuable Member Of President Bush’s Team And Has Always Conducted Himself According To High Standards. It’s Disappointing That Some Democrats Are Using An Ongoing Investigation To Try And Score Political Points. Instead Of Focusing On The People’s Business, Democrats Are Prejudging An Incomplete Investigation And Doing Nothing More Than Mounting Partisan Political Attacks.” (Sen. Jeff Sessions, “Statement Of U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions On Karl Rove,” 7/13/05)
Republican Congressmen Defend Karl Rove:
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO): “I Think We See Too Many Efforts Now Where People Quickly Rush To Judgment, Rush To Call For The Most Bizarre Solutions To Problems That Are Problems That Are Often Just Created In Their Own Minds.” (Rep. Roy Blunt, Floor Statement, U.S. House Of Representatives, 7/13/05)
Blunt: “Karl Rove Has Fully Cooperated In Any Investigation, And For More Than A Year Now Has Permitted Investigators To Talk To Him.” (Rep. Roy Blunt, Floor Statement, U.S. House Of Representatives, 7/13/05)
House Republican Conference Chair Deborah Pryce (R-OH):” I Think What The Democrats Are Doing With Karl Rove Is Just Another Politically Motivated Part Of Their Agenda.” (CNN’s “Wolf Blitzer Reports,” 7/13/05)
NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds (R-NY): “The Extreme Left Is Once Again Attempting To Define The Modern Democrat Party By Rabid Partisan Attacks, Character Assassination And Endless Negativity. And As Has Become Their Custom, The Rest Of The Democrat Party Is Standing By Silently.” (National Republican Congressional Committee, “NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds Statement On Karl Rove, Democrat Partisan Attacks,” Press Release, 7/13/05)
- Reynolds: “Democrats Are Bitter About Losing In 2004. And They Will Stop At Nothing To Accomplish Through Character Assassination What They Could Not Accomplish At The Ballot Box.” (National Republican Congressional Committee, “NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds Statement On Karl Rove, Democrat Partisan Attacks,” Press Release, 7/13/05)
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA): “Karl Rove Is Just The Latest In A Long Line Of Targets For The Democrats Vitriol And Political Games. The American People Want To Know How Congress Is Going To Keep The Economy Growing, Lower Energy Prices And Keep Them Secure At Home.” (Rep. Eric Cantor, “Cantor Statement on Democrat Attacks On Karl Rove,” Press Release, 7/13/05)
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA): “Karl Rove Who Did Not Even Know This Woman’s Name Did Not Have Any Information Of Her Acting In Any Covert Manner. It Is Just Silly.” (“Fox News’, “Fox News Live,” 7/13/05)
- Kingston: “The Democrats Are Absent On Issues Such As Social Security, They Are Ambivalent About Iraq To Begin With And They’re Throwing Up One More Smoke Screen Aimed At Karl Rove Who They’re Mad At.” (“Fox News’, “Fox News Live,” 7/13/05)
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX): “I Support Karl Rove …” (Tom Raum, “Newsview: CIA Leak Probe Focuses on Rove,” The Associated Press, 7/13/05)
DeLay: “This Is Typical Of The Democrats. They Smell Blood And They Act Like Sharks. Karl Rove Is A Good Man. He Was Doing His Job. He Was Trying To Talk A Reporter Out Of Filing A False Story Based Upon False Premise. I Don’t See That He Has Done Anything Wrong.” (Fox News’ “Studio B,” 7/13/05)
Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX): “The President And Karl Rove Are Doing Exactly What They Should. They Are Cooperating Fully With The Pending Investigation.” (Rep. Kay Granger, “Congresswoman Granger Calls Democrat Attacks On Rove Partisan Gamesmanship,” Press Release, 7/13/05)
- Granger: “He Knew Then That Much Of What Joe Wilson Was Saying Was Untrue. The Calls For Mr. Rove’s Resignation Are Simply Partisan Gamesmanship.” (Rep. Kay Granger, “Congresswoman Granger Calls Democrat Attacks On Rove Partisan Gamesmanship,” Press Release, 7/13/05)
Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY): “Republicans Should Stop Holding Back And Go On The Offense: Fire Enough Bullets The Other Way Until The Supreme Court Overtakes.” (Jim VandeHei, “GOP On Offense In Defense Of Rove,” The Washington Post, 7/13/05)
Thank you to the RNC for pulling all of the quotes together on which Republicans are defending the treasonous outing of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame.
Posted at 06:01 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, Culture of Corruption, Plamegate, Republicans, Scandals | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Indictments of White House Staff
Posted by Bob BrighamThe Swing State Project has devoted a good deal of time to the Karl Rove Scandal. As the indictments come down, we will be looking for information on how this is influencing specific races, please feel free to use the contact info to keep us in the loop.
This is a story that the netroots have been all over from day one and I'm sure there will be plenty of electoral fallout for SSP to cover.
Strategically, I prefer to devote my time blogging to issues at their beginning or end. I have said that I don't believe blogs are the best vehicle for sustained engagement. However, I am questioning that after viewing the coverage to date from Talk Left:
October 26, 2005 - Fitzgerald Meets With Judge, No Announcement Today
October 26, 2005 - Report: Indictments May be Announced Today
October 26, 2005 - Indictment Watch
October 26, 2005 - Hutchison's Spokesman Deflects Criticism With a Lie
October 26, 2005 - How Karl Rove Could Walk
October 25, 2005 - Reviewing Cheney
October 25, 2005 - Report: Fitzgerald Visited Rove's Lawyer Today
October 25, 2005 - Report: Fitz Talked to Wilsons' Neighbors Today
October 25, 2005 - Clemons: Other Shoe Drops Tomorrow
October 25, 2005 - The Crime in Outing a CIA Agent
October 24, 2005 - NYT: Tenet Told Cheney Who Told Libby
October 24, 2005 - Report: Wurmser Told Libby and Hadley
October 24, 2005 - Pre-Indictment Spin Planning
October 24, 2005 - The Cover Up Statutes
October 23, 2005 - Report: Novak Cooperated
October 23, 2005 - Fitzgerald to Decide and Tell Lawyers Monday
October 23, 2005 - Hannah's Lawyer Denies Target Status
October 22, 2005 - A Kinder, Gentler Libby
October 21, 2005 - Plame Grand Jury Met With Prosecutors Today
October 21, 2005 - Launchdate for Campaign to Discredit Wilson
October 21, 2005 - Pow-Wow at Camp David This Weekend
October 21, 2005 - Fitzgerald Launches Website
October 21, 2005 - Libby: As the Worms Turn
October 21, 2005 - PlameGate and Bush's Pardon Power
October 20, 2005 - Report: White House Charges Will Relate to Cover-up
October 20, 2005 - The Valerie Flame Name Game
October 20, 2005 - Miller Asked About June Meeting During First Grand Jury Visit
October 20, 2005 - Stalking Russert in PlameGate
October 20, 2005 - RoveGate Update
October 19, 2005 - Ex-Intel Officers: Miller a Charter Member of White House Iraq Group
October 19, 2005 - Report on Fitzgerald and A Final Report Is Misleading
October 19, 2005 - Is Rove Cooperating?
October 19, 2005 - Raw Story: Wurmser Cooperating
October 19, 2005 - PlameGate: Powell and Flesicher
October 19, 2005 - Myths About PlameGate
October 18, 2005 - Murray Waas: It's Libby vs. Miller Time
October 18, 2005 - Plame Grand Jury Still Meeting
October 18, 2005 - No Passes for Judy Miller
October 18, 2005 - The Latest Rumor: Cheney Might Resign
October 18, 2005 - Raw Story: John Hannah Is Cooperating
October 18, 2005 - Let's Make a Deal : The Legalese of PlameGate
October 17, 2005 - Report: White House Official May Have Flipped
October 17, 2005 - Fitzgerald Speaks: Decision to be Announced in D.C.
October 17, 2005 - Was the AP Snookered on WINPAC story?
October 17, 2005 - List of Reporter Contacts Subpoenaed by Fitzgerald
October 17, 2005 - Conyers and Skelton Demand Info on Miller's Security Clearance
October 17, 2005 - The Leaks Probe: Andrea Mitchell, Cheney and Ari
October 17, 2005 - On Cheney's Role in Leaks Probe
October 17, 2005 - Bennett's Role in Judith's Tell-All
October 17, 2005 - Bloomberg: Wilsons May Sue Bush, Cheney
October 16, 2005 - Judith Miller Talks on Belatedly Discovered Notes
October 16, 2005 - Federal Grand Jury Witnesses & Secrecy Laws
October 16, 2005 - Was Novak's Source in the CIA or White House?
October 16, 2005 - Time: Rove, Libby Will Resign if Indicted
October 16, 2005 - Miller's Lawyer Turns on Libby
October 15, 2005 - NY Times Uncorks on Judith Miller
October 14, 2005 - Rove Testifies for FourthTime
October 14, 2005 - Questions About Miller and The Times
October 13, 2005 - Cheney, The White House and Wilson: Part One
October 12, 2005 - Report: Fitzgerald Examining Cheney's Role
October 12, 2005 - Judith Miller Released From Contempt Order
October 12, 2005 - Miller's Source(s)
October 12, 2005 - Fitzgerald Widening His Probe
October 11, 2005 - Miller to Testify Again Before Grand Jury
October 11, 2005 - Bushies: Special Prosecutor "a Bully"
October 11, 2005 - New From Waas: Libby in Cross-Hairs Over Miller
October 9, 2005 - Judy Miller and Her June Notes
October 8, 2005 - Weekend RoveGate Reading
October 7, 2005 - Waas: Rove, Novak and Bush
October 7, 2005 - Judith Miller Finds Earlier Notes on Libby
October 6, 2005 - Karl Rove Will Testify Friday Morning
October 6, 2005 - More on Target Notices and Rove
October 6, 2005 - AP: Rove to Testify Again in Leaks Probe
October 6, 2005 - Target Letters: Terminology
October 5, 2005 - Rumor: 22 Plame Indictments Imminent
October 5, 2005 - Judith Miller Talks to Lou Dobbs
October 4, 2005 - Fitzgerald's Letter to Scooter Libby's Lawyer
October 2, 2005 - Newsweek: Libby Did Not Talk to Novak
October 2, 2005 - Stephanopoulos: Source Says Bush, Cheney Directly Involved
October 2, 2005 - Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement
October 1, 2005 - A Crucial Time Period in PlameGate
October 1, 2005 - Cheney, Libby and Miller Leads Where?
September 30, 2005 - Judith Miller Grand Jury Day
September 29, 2005 - Judith Miller Released, Will Testify Tomorrow
September 20, 2005 - PlameGate: Moving Towards John Bolton?
September 15, 2005 - Justice Department Balks at Turning Over Plame Records
September 14, 2005 - House Committees Reject Plame Resolution of Inquiry
September 9, 2005 - Is Judith Miller Getting Ready to Fold?
September 7, 2005 - RoveGate: What Statute Would Fitzgerald Use?
August 25, 2005 - New Plame Leak Analysis
August 20, 2005 - RoveGate Tidbit: Look for Fitzgerald to Go for the Top Dog
August 18, 2005 - RoveGate, Watergate and Lessons for the White House
August 18, 2005 - Miller, Sulzberger and Kovac
August 17, 2005 - Is Rove Facing an Obstruction of Justice Charge?
August 16, 2005 - New Murray Waas Exclusive: Dems to Demand Investigation of Ashcroft in Plame Leak
August 16, 2005 - Is a Criminal Contempt Charge Looming for Judith Miller?
August 15, 2005 - Report: Bolton Visits Judy Miller in Jail
August 15, 2005 - Ashcroft, Fitzgerald and Rove: New From Murray Waas
August 12, 2005 - Fitzgerald Gets New Boss in Leaks Probe
August 12, 2005 - A Who's Who in RoveGate
August 10, 2005 - Pincus on Plame: Who Really Sent Joseph Wilson to Niger?
August 8, 2005 - Judy, Jehl and the New York Times
August 8, 2005 - Dems Demand Libby Give Personalized Waiver to Judith Miller
August 7, 2005 - Newsweek: Fitzgerald Could Thwarted by Comey's Replacement
August 7, 2005 - Sunday RoveGate Roundup
August 7, 2005 - Judith Miller and Lewis Libby
August 4, 2005 - Waas and Wilson Discuss Fitzgerald
August 4, 2005 - Fitzgerald, Cooper, Sauber, Rove , Luskin and Ginsberg
August 3, 2005 - Beware Immunity for Rove and Company
August 2, 2005 - Rove Aides Queried About Matt Cooper Testimony
August 2, 2005 - Was Tenet a Source for Novak?
August 2, 2005 - RoveGate Debates
August 2, 2005 - Rove Pals Called to Grand Jury
August 2, 2005 - Novak and the Plame Name
August 1, 2005 - Novak Breaks His Silence
July 31, 2005 - Time: Rove May Have Learned of Plame From White House
July 29, 2005 - RoveGate: Where Does Condi Rice Fit In
July 29, 2005 - Back to Connecting Judith Miller Dots
July 29, 2005 - Fitzgerald Knew It Was Rove All Along
July 28, 2005 - NYT Late to the Pincus Party
July 27, 2005 - Was Judith Miller the Leaker or Leakee?
July 27, 2005 - Karen Hughes Declines to Answer Plame Questions At Confirmation Hearing
July 27, 2005 - Judith Miller's Husband Goes on Cruise
July 27, 2005 - Beware Congressional Immunity for Rove and Others
July 27, 2005 - House Judiciary Documents
July 27, 2005 - Who Was Novak's Second Source?
July 26, 2005 - Judiciary Dems Seek 12-Hour Gap Investigation
July 26, 2005 - Rove-Plame-Miller Primer
July 25, 2005 - Will Fitzgerald Extend the Grand Jury?
July 25, 2005 - Senators Call for Congressional Plame Investigation
July 24, 2005 - Alberto Gonzales Told Card Immediately About Preservation Order
July 23, 2005 - Who Was On Air Force One?
July 22, 2005 - Statements of Witnesses at CIA Leak Hearing
July 22, 2005 - Report: Bolton Was a Frequent Source for Judy Miller
July 22, 2005 - Testimony: Bush Jeopardizes National Security
July 22, 2005 - O'Donnell's Latest on Luskin
July 22, 2005 - Who is Leaking the Grand Jury Testimony
July 22, 2005 - Bloomberg's Latest: Back to Ari Fleischer
July 22, 2005 - Karl Rove's Newest Version: George Tenet
July 21, 2005 - Bloomberg Scoops New Rove Story
July 21, 2005 - Memo Marked Plame's Identity as Secret
July 20, 2005 - Sports Book Odds on Karl Rove's Departure : 1-6
July 20, 2005 - Hearing Set on Disclosure of Covert Officers' Identities
July 19, 2005 - New Damaging Information About Karl Rove
July 19, 2005 - Ex-CIA Agents Send Letter on Valerie Plame
July 18, 2005 - Judith Miller's Life Behind Bars
July 18, 2005 - News Report: Ari Saw the Memo on Air Force One
July 18, 2005 - Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a Crime'
July 18, 2005 - Open Thread on Judith Miller
July 17, 2005 - Question About Cheney and Wilson
July 17, 2005 - From the Vanity Fair Article on Joseph Wilson
July 17, 2005 - Is Rove Now Implicating Judith Miller?
July 17, 2005 - Cooper and Libby Old News: Miller and Libby is the Question
July 17, 2005 - Matthew Cooper: Rove Said, ' I' ve Already Said Too Much'
July 17, 2005 - Who Really Sent Wilson to Africa?
July 16, 2005 - Judith Miller: Why is She Protecting Lewis Libby
July 16, 2005 - Frank Rich: Rove Resignation Is a Certainty
July 16, 2005 - The Mechanics of the Rove-Cooper Waiver
July 16, 2005 - Criminal vs. Civil Contempt
July 16, 2005 - John Hannah and Lewis Libby: Still Key in Plame Probe
July 15, 2005 - Classified Memo Naming Wilson's Wife Was on Air Force One
July 15, 2005 - Rove Didn't Go to Africa, Not On Air Force One
July 15, 2005 - Rove E-Mailed Hadley About Conversation With Cooper
July 15, 2005 - Keeping an Eye on Fitzgerald's Big Picture
July 15, 2005 - Dean on Rove
July 15, 2005 - Fact Sheet on Karl Rove's Non-Disclosure Agreement
July 15, 2005 - Karl Rove's Latest Version: Reporters Told Me
July 14, 2005 - What Fitzgerald's Indictment Might Look Like
July 14, 2005 - Bloomberg: Joseph Wilson's Accusations Hold Up
July 14, 2005 - What Novak Said Then About Import of Disclosure
July 14, 2005 - Where Does Ari Fleischer Fit In?
July 13, 2005 - House Dems to Call for Karl Rove Inquiry Tomorrow
July 13, 2005 - Text of Karl Rove's Waiver to Cooper
July 13, 2005 - Cooper Testifies, Names Karl Rove as Source
July 13, 2005 - Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove
July 13, 2005 - Midnight Plame Gate Roundup
July 12, 2005 - Walter Pincus' Source: Was it Karl Rove?
July 12, 2005 - Murray Waas Exclusive: Novak Cooperated
July 12, 2005 - Luskin Speaks on Rove and Cooper
July 12, 2005 - Where Did Karl Rove Get the Information on Valerie Plame?
July 12, 2005 - White House Breaks Silence: Has Confidence In Rove
July 12, 2005 - Say Hello: Fire Him Now
July 12, 2005 - Update on Judith Miller: How Did They Know
July 12, 2005 - Judith Miller: How Did They Know?
July 12, 2005 - Will Karl Rove Resign?
July 12, 2005 - Watergate Deja Vu
July 11, 2005 - President Bush Called Leak 'A Criminal Action'
July 11, 2005 - Don't call Rove at the Congressional Hearings
July 11, 2005 - Calls for Rove's Resignation
July 11, 2005 - Ethics Group Asks Bush to Revoke Rove's Security Clearance
July 11, 2005 - Former President Bush's Comments on Leakers
July 11, 2005 - Cat and Mouse With McClellan
July 11, 2005 - The Name Game : Rove and Plame
July 11, 2005 - Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here
July 10, 2005 - Reactions to Newsweek's Latest on Karl Rove
July 10, 2005 - Robert Novak's Version Of the Plame Leak
July 10, 2005 - Newsweek to Name Rove as Cooper Source
July 9, 2005 - Lewis Libby and the Valerie Plame Investigation
July 7, 2005 - Rove-Plame Speculation Update
July 7, 2005 - O'Donnell Says 'Good Reason' Rove Might Be Indicted
July 7, 2005 - Wapo and NYT Differ on Karl Rove as Source
July 6, 2005 - White House Press Corps Blackout on Rove
July 6, 2005 - Judith Miller Placed in Alexandria Detention Center
July 6, 2005 - Who is Judith Miller Protecting?
July 6, 2005 - Judith Miller Jailed, Cooper Agrees to Testify
July 5, 2005 - Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know
July 5, 2005 - Joe Wilson on Leakers: Elliot Abrams, Libby & Rove
July 5, 2005 - Prosecutor Addresses Jail Requests for Judith Miller
July 5, 2005 - O'Donnell Has Questions Re: Rove
July 5, 2005 - Cooper and Miller: The Subpoenas
July 5, 2005 - Fitzgerald Plays Hardball in Leaks Probe
July 5, 2005 - When Can DOJ Subpoena Reporters?
July 4, 2005 - Valerie Plame Returns to Work at CIA
July 3, 2005 - O'Donnell Snaps Back at Rove's Lawyer
July 3, 2005 - Rove's Lawyer Denies Rove Leaked to Cooper
July 3, 2005 - The Bush Administration's War Against Open Government
July 3, 2005 - Time's Decision: The Rule of Law Trumps Confidentiality
July 2, 2005 - The Plame Leak InvestigationTime Line
July 2, 2005 - Rove Update
July 2, 2005 - Could the Perjury Investigation Evolve Into Obstruction of Justice?
July 2, 2005 - O'Donnell Says Rove as Leak Source is Confirmed
July 2, 2005 - What Does the Government Really Want from Miller and Cooper?
July 2, 2005 - Miller and Cooper Submit Jail Preferences
July 2, 2005 - Was Karl Rove The Leaker?
June 30, 2005 - Time Magazine to Turn Over Matthew Cooper's Notes
June 28, 2005 - Hearing Weds. for Reporters Miller and Cooper
June 27, 2005 - Why the Support for Only One Reporter?
June 27, 2005 - Reporters Lose in Leaks Case
May 26, 2005 - Judge Rules Against DeLay Pac Member
April 28, 2005 - Reporter Switches Lawyers in Plame Appeal
April 17, 2005 - Gonzales Speaks to Plame Investigation
April 7, 2005 - Valerie Plame Investigation May Be Over
February 16, 2005 - A Shield Law For Reporters
February 15, 2005 - Appeals Court Rules Against Reporters in Plame Case
December 31, 2004 - Valerie Plame Investigation Review
October 15, 2004 - Karl Rove Testifies Before Grand Jury Re: Plame
October 7, 2004 - NYT Reporter Judith Miller Ordered Jailed, Stayed
September 16, 2004 - Court Orders NYTimes Reporter to Testify in PlameGate
August 13, 2004 - NY Times Reporter Judith Miller Subpoenaed in Plame Investigation
August 9, 2004 - Reporter Held in Contempt in CIA-Plame Leak Probe
June 24, 2004 - Bush Interviewed in Plame Leak Probe
June 5, 2004 - Cheney Interviewed in Plame Investigation
June 4, 2004 - Cheney May Have Consulted Outside Counsel Over Plame Investigation
June 3, 2004 - Report: Bush Knew of Leak of Valerie Plame's Identity
June 3, 2004 - CIA Director George Tenet Resigns
June 2, 2004 - Bush Seeks Legal Advice over Plame Leak
May 22, 2004 - Reporters Subpoenaed in Plame Investigation
May 3, 2004 - Joseph Wilson Names Possible Plame Leakers
April 29, 2004 - Wilson's Book Points to Cheney
April 2, 2004 - Plame Leak Investigation Widened
March 9, 2004 - Details of Karl Rove's Plame Testimony Revealed
March 9, 2004 - Karl Rove Profile
March 5, 2004 - Subpoenas Issued in Plame Investigation
February 9, 2004 - Bush's Press Secretary Testfies in Leaks Probe
February 5, 2004 - Cheney Employees Implicated in Valerie Plame Scandal
January 22, 2004 - Grand Jury Begins Hearing Valerie Plame Case
January 6, 2004 - 'I Got a Witness': Plame Investigation
January 2, 2004 - Plame: It's Still Bush Investigating Bush
January 2, 2004 - Will Reporters Talk in the Plame Case?
January 1, 2004 - Plame Leak Not a Crime?
December 30, 2003 - Joseph Wilson Interview
December 30, 2003 - Ashcroft Recuses Himself from Valerie Plame Investigation
December 25, 2003 - Movement in the Valerie Plame Investigation
December 10, 2003 - Whatever Happened to the Valerie Plame Investigation?
October 27, 2003 - CIA Leak May Violate Patriot Act
October 23, 2003 - FBI Interviews Rove and McClellan in Leaks Probe
October 16, 2003 - Alterman on Abrams, Novak and Plame
October 16, 2003 - Ashcroft Takes Heat from Within in Leaks Probe
October 12, 2003 - Leaks Probe: FBI Focusing on Month Before the Leak
October 11, 2003 - White House E-Mails Mention Wilson and Plame
October 10, 2003 - More Agents Added to CIA Leaks Probe
October 9, 2003 - Executive Privilege in the CIA-Plame Affair
October 8, 2003 - Bush is Downplaying Leaks Investigation
October 7, 2003 - Bush Now Uncertain Leaker of CIA Information Will Be Found
October 7, 2003 - Bush Calls CIA Leak a 'Criminal Action'
October 4, 2003 - What the Wilson-Plame Affair Reveals About Bush
October 3, 2003 - David Corn Interview on 'Treason Gate'
October 1, 2003 - News Descriptions of Plame and Wilson
October 1, 2003 - What the Meaning of CIA Operative Is
September 30, 2003 - Can Novak Be Ordered to Divulge Source?
September 30, 2003 - Guardian's Borger Names Rove
September 30, 2003 - New: On the CIA's Request for Justice Department Investigation of Plame Leak
September 30, 2003 - Petition for Independent Investigation of Plame Leak
September 30, 2003 - Justice Opens Full-Blown Investigation in Valerie Plame Affair
September 30, 2003 - Robert Novak's Column on Valerie Plame
September 29, 2003 - White House: No Independent Counsel For CIA Leak
September 29, 2003 - CIA Leak Investigation: Who Goes Down First
September 29, 2003 - Reaction to Report of Justice Dept. Intelligence Probe
September 28, 2003 - Schumer's FBI Request for Investigation of Plame Leak
September 28, 2003 - White House Leaks in Plame Affair
September 27, 2003 - CIA Asks for Probe of Valerie Plame Leaks
July 25, 2003 - Valerie Plame Update
July 22, 2003 - Valerie Plame: Some Call it Treason
Posted at 05:42 PM in Culture of Corruption, Netroots, Plamegate, Republicans, Scandals | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
NJ-Gov: Doug Forrester Loses Election Over Stem Cells
Posted by Bob BrighamIn two weeks, the armchair quarterbacks are going to look back on the New Jersey Governor's race and I predict a good deal of the talk on why Doug Forrester lost will be focused on Jon Corzine's new Stem Cell ad. The ad features Karl Riccio bodyslamming Doug Forrester.
Scott Shields has a lot more on the ad and Forrester's chickenshit attack on the young man in the ad.
Posted at 04:32 PM in 2005 Elections, New Jersey, Scandals | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
MT-Sen: Burns is a Repeat Offender
Posted by DavidNYCAs the post below indicates, this isn't the first time Conrad Burns has seriously put his foot in his mouth, revealing the deeply offensive thoughts that lurk within his skull. The DSCC has done all the work of rounding up Burnsie's previous greatest hits:
Burns Refers To Arabs As “Ragheads.” During a 1999 speech to Montana constituents about U.S. dependence on foreign oil, Burns referred to Arabs as "ragheads." The term is a derisive reference to the gutra, the head cloth traditionally worn by Arab men. [Washington Post, 3/12/99]Woman Said Her Nose Ring Prompted “Tribal” Remark By Burns. In March 2000, Angela Warren of Billings said she was offended by a comment Burns made when he visited her office and noticed she wore a nose ring. "What is that thing in your nose? What tribe are you from?" she recalled Burns saying. "It's a nose ring, and I am obviously not from a tribe," Warren said she replied. [Associated Press, 3/2/00]
Burns: “Hell of a Challenge” to Live With Minorities. In 1994, a Washington Post editorial noted that Burns recounted an incident when a rancher asked him, “Conrad, how can you live back there [in Washington] with all those niggers?” Burns reportedly “told the rancher that it was ‘a hell of a challenge.’” The Post then noted that “After protests erupted in the state following publication of his remarks, the senator apologized.” [Washington Post, editorial “Conrad Burns Tells a Story,” 10/26/94]
Burns Said He Was Going To An Auction of Slaves After Voting On Civil Rights Bill. In 1991, Burns “startled lobbyists outside the Senate chamber” following passage of a civil rights bill by saying he was going to an auction of “slaves.” A Burns spokesman attempted to clarify the statement saying the senator was referring to a charity event known as a “slave auction.” [Associated Press, 11/13/91]
Burns Joins Santorum: Santorum Mocked Women Who Seek Careers. In his book, It Takes a Family, Santorum suggests that women seek careers are looking for a false sense of accomplishment. "The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.” [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 7/6/05]
Better start lining up that lobbying gig soon, Connie.
UPDATE: (Bob): In addition to Burns being a complete asshole, his remarks have real world consequences. After his "ragheads" comment, Pakistan cancelled a huge U.S. wheat shipment and placed an order with Australia instead. Montana farmers really appreciated Burns' blunder.
Posted at 03:33 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Montana | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
HI-Gov: Abercrombie (D) to Decide Soon
Posted by DavidNYCRep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) is close to deciding whether he'll run against incumbent Republican governor Linda Lingle. Through the rumor mill, though, I'm hearing he's gonna say no. His remarks strike me as leaning that way, too:
"I will make a decision shortly. This is not something that is going to hang on," Abercrombie said."(Gov.) Linda Lingle can and should be defeated for re-election. That is the fundamental premise, whether or not I do it," Abercrombie said.
"All I can say is I am very grateful for the kind and insightful and provocative thoughts that have come my way," Abercrombie said.
I hope Abercrombie does say yes, but I can understand if he declines - Lingle is pretty popular (61-32 a month ago) and probably won't go down easily, barring a Democratic tidal wave (which may yet happen).
Posted at 02:09 PM in 2006 Elections - State, Hawaii | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
MT-Sen: Connie Burns a Retrograde Sexist
Posted by DavidNYCMan, I am just having too much fun today - fun in the nerdy political junkie blogger sense. Conrad Burns (best known for being a cousin of klepto-plutocrat C. Montogomery Burns) has taken a page from the Rick Santorum playbook in his latest attempt at voter outreach. Just read and enjoy watching a sitting senator shoot himself in the foot so badly:
Sen. Conrad Burns' off-the-cuff remarks have gotten him in trouble in the past.He once called Arabs "rag heads," later apologizing for the comment. Another time, the Montana Republican commented on how challenging it is to live with so many blacks in Washington.
Now, two Northwest Airlines flight attendants say Burns offended them recently when he told one of the women she could stay at home and be a mother if she lost her job to outsourcing.
"He's still living in the '50s," said Karen McElvaney, who is raising two young children in Atlanta while working for Northwest. "If I could stay home, I certainly would love to stay with my kids."
Burns, who is up for re-election next year, said Tuesday morning he did not recall the conversation. He later said through a spokesman that he remembered speaking to the flight attendants but never told one she could stay home with her children.
McElvaney said she approached the lawmaker with her concerns about outsourcing during a Sept. 25 flight from Great Falls to Minneapolis. When McElvaney asked what she would do if she lost her job, Burns replied she could stay home and be a mother, she said.
McElvaney did not reply.
But Kari Johnke-Henzler, a flight attendant from Minneapolis, who listened to the exchange, said she told Burns what both she and McElvaney were thinking: "I am a mother. However, I need to support my family."
The two women, both longtime Northwest employees, said many families can no longer rely solely on a husband's income.
McElvaney repeated the story to another Northwest flight attendant, Jaime Drain, who has a penchant for writing letters to public officials.
"Before you sit in judgment and make such ignorant statements, you really should stop and remember that we don't all live in a Leave it to Beaver world," Drain wrote in a Sept. 28 letter to Burns. "Perhaps it's time for you, Senator Burns, to retire and stay home since it's obvious to me that you have absolutely no concept of what it's like to be a middle-class average working American living in the modern world."
Damn straight, Ms. Drain. Connie can go hang out with Wally, June and the Beave. The rest of us living in the real world can help boot him out of office.
Posted at 01:04 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Montana | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
AZ-Sen: It's Early Out There
Posted by DavidNYCOr at least, it better be. Incumbent GOP Senator Jon Kyl is whooping Democrat Jim Pederson in a year-out poll on the AZ senate race (registered voters, no trendlines):
Pederson: 28
Kyl: 50
Undecided: 22
(MoE: ±5%)
So, a few notes of warning here: The sample size was quite small (just 385), and the undecideds are pretty high. Most importantly, the poll failed to ask about name recognition, which strikes me as fairly sloppy - or at least, failing to do so leaves the top-line numbers without context. I'm not aware of any polls on Pederson's name rec, but I'm going to guess it's nowhere near Kyl's.
Once this campaign heats up - and heat up it will - I expect these numbers to tighten up considerably. Bush only gets a 45-51 job approval in this poll, and just 40-55 according to SUSA. Kyl won't be able to rest on his laurels. This is going to be a competitive race.
The same outfit (KAET/ASU) also polled the AZ gub race. Popular incumbent Dem Janet Napolitano handily beats two potential opponents by 30 to 40% margins, but I'd bet that name rec is also a fact here. However, her re-elect number ("Would you vote to give her another four years in office?") is at a hefty 60-23, so she should be safe. Now why couldn't these guys have asked the same question of Kyl? I think they need to drop the pointless bird flu questions and start rounding out their political questions properly.
Posted at 12:45 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Arizona | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
VA-Gov: Kilgore Runs Away From Bush
Posted by DavidNYCAh, this is fun:
Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry W. Kilgore has decided not to attend President Bush's appearance in Norfolk on Friday, saying it is not a campaign-related event and that he has other plans 11 days before the election....
The decision highlights some concerns among Virginia Republicans, who have watched nervously in recent weeks as Bush's popularity has waned and as scandals involving presidential aides and congressional leaders have dominated news coverage. Although it is unclear how the national political environment affects voters choosing who should lead their state, even small shifts are important in races that are as close as the Virginia contest.
That Diageo/Hotline poll (PDF) from ten days ago gave Bush just a 49-49 job approval rating in the state. And SUSA's poll from the same time was loads worse: 41-56. No matter whom you believe, Bush ain't popular in VA. Keep on runnin', Jerry.
Posted at 12:23 PM in 2005 Elections, Virginia | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Sad Day for the Blogosphere
Posted by Bob BrighamTim Russo has been on the warpath against Blogfather Jerome Armstrong in a nasty campaig that even made the papers. While the attacks are unnecessary and divorced from reality, they have had made it so that Jerome will not be blogging.
This is a sad day for the blogosphere. I consider myself one of the many people who have looked to Jerome as a friend and mentor.
For those who would see this as a cause for celebration, I would suggest that the Champagne remain corked. I keep thinking about one line, "If you strike me down I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."
Thank you Jerome for the inspiration, friendship, and all you have done for the blogosphere.
Posted at 11:44 AM in Netroots | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
NJ-Gov: Republicans Eating Republicans (A Continuing Series)
Posted by DavidNYCI have a feeling that stories of Republican civil war are going to become more and more common throughout the next year, especially with many GOPers already feeling the need to run away from Bush. My favorite example so far has been the pro-stem cell ballot measure in Missouri. It's already causing serious upheaval. A thousand miles away, Blue Jersey brings us another similar tale, now picked up by Newsday:
Forrester picked up an endorsement Tuesday from the Republican Majority for Choice, a Washington-based lobbying group that backs moderates.
Not so bad, right? I mean, at least maybe this means Forrester isn't a crazy misogynistic retrograde mouth-breather when it comes to matters of healthcare privacy. But of course, you're damned if you do when you're a GOPer:
Joseph Tomanelli, a conservative activist from Bergen County who heads the New Jersey Republican Assembly, has withdrawn his endorsement of GOP gubernatorial candidate Douglas Forrester, citing a TV commercial from former Governor Thomas Kean touting Forrester's moderate, pro-choice credentials and a letter from former Governor Christine Todd Whitman criticizing conservative extremism in the Republican Party.
I've long believed that predictions of a conservative crackup - of the "true" winger base deserting the Republican Party - are overblown and, even if they came to pass, the results would be largely inconsequential. Even today, despite a stream of failures and the stench of scandal, Bush still gets an 81% approval rating from members of his own party, which is pretty much in line with his ratings during the whole of his presidency. And in moderate New Jersey, I can't imagine the wingers add up to much.
But Doug Forrester is in dire straits, and he needs every vote he can get. The key to his victory is probably among independents, but I think any move he would have made among this group due to his abortion stance would have already taken place. I say this because former Gov. Tom Kean's ad touting Forrester's alleged pro-choice stance has been on the airwaves for a while now. Why some right-wing extremists are only now being driven away from Forrester - after this endorsement, rather than the Kean ads - is a bit of a mystery. But like I say, this doesn't help Dougy F.
UPDATE: Chris points to a new Rasmussen poll which pegs Bush's approval among Republicans at just 73%. Now that is really quite something, and definitely food for thought. Will be very interested to see if that trend holds for Rasmussen's next poll.
Posted at 12:16 AM in 2005 Elections, New Jersey | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Gag Reflex
Posted by Tim TagarisHere's the lit piece I was talking about earlier -- click on the image to enlarge. You can always combat this ridiculous attack by using it as that last piece of motivation you needed to get involved with Reform Ohio Now
Posted at 10:48 PM in Reform Ohio Now | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Reforming Ohio Now = Gay Marriage
Posted by Tim Tagaris"Ohio's family values are on the line," and as such, you must "Vote NO on Issues 2, 3, 4, and 5." "Special Interests are attacking our family values!" After all, ""These are the same people who took prayer out of our public schools, fought the defense of marriage act last year, and have attempted to legalize drugs." They are supporting these amendments because, "What radical anti-family activists could not accomplish at the polls, they are trying to accomplish through devious efforts." Ultimately, these devious efforts will, "dilute the power of pro-life supporters to elect pro-life candidates who share our values." We must "Protect our values -- Protect our vote."
That's the new ad campaign created by the opposition to Ohio State Issues 2, 3, 4, and 5 -- better known as the Reform Ohio Now Amendments. The quotes above are not my own, but actual words used on the most recent piece of literature distributed by supporters of the status quo.
For more information, including a picture of the literature piece: click here.
Posted at 05:05 PM in Reform Ohio Now | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
MT-AL: Erik Iverson Embarrasses Congressman Dennis Rehberg
Posted by Bob BrighamRepresentative Denny Rehberg, who represents Montana's lone congressional seat is having some serious staffing issues. In a move that is sure to further erode Congressman Rehberg's limited respect from both Republican and Democrats, Rehberg's Chief of Staff is getting a great deal of attention for overshadowing his boss. Now that this is becoming gossip across Montana, it will be interesting to see how long Rehberg waits before getting rid of Erik Iverson:
STEALING THE STAGE
Iverson, Rehberg’s protégé and top advisor, has been tromping around the state under the guise of representing his boss at official events. But to many observers, Iverson is positioning himself to run for high office, even the U.S. Congress.
And then there are Iverson’s countless on-record newspaper antics. In politics, there’s a code Iverson breaks often that says “thou shall not overshadow the boss.” He clearly doesn’t care. Beyond that, the art of subtlety is lost on Mr. Mini Me. [...]
At a Hi-Line event to promote Amtrak last spring, Iverson gave a speech that reportedly left the audience scratching their heads. “I couldn’t tell who the Congressman was,” one observer said. “His whole speech was me, me, me (Mini Me). He barely mentioned Rehberg.” Ouch.
And at the kick off ceremony for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial in Fort Benton, Iverson was “giving his own campaign speech, no two ways about it,” said another witness.
Congressional Rehberg is a remarkably unremarkable politician best know for living on his capitol hill office couch. The excesses of Erik Iverson provide further reinforcement of the fact his boss is an easily overshadowed lightweight.
Hat tip to Left in the West
Posted at 04:40 PM in Montana | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, October 24, 2005
Priorities in Ohio
Posted by Tim TagarisIn case anyone was wondering why Ohioans are forced to rely on the third-party organization Reform Ohio Now to bring about electoral change, State Senator Marc Dann tells us a bit about this week's agenda in Columbus:
Bills to do the following will not be moving this coming week:1. Toughening the Bribery Statute to stop public officials from trading public contracts for private benefits.
2. Placing a mortorium on Private Charter Schools.
3. Allowing the Attorney General to sue Mortgage Lenders.
4. Stopping the revolving door from high government positions to lobbying.
5. Reducing contribution limits for campaigns.
Bills that will be moving:
A bill to keep strippers six feet away from their customers
Posted at 12:01 PM in Reform Ohio Now | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Reform Ohio Now Tug of War Drawing to a Close
Posted by Tim TagarisIf all you did was read the blogs, you'd be shocked to know the biggest news in Ohio has nothing to do with Congressman Brown or Major Paul Hackett. In fact, you might not even know that the most important election of 2005 is only two weeks away, and it too is in Ohio. Two Tuesdays from tomorrow, Ohioans will vote on State Issues 2, 3, 4, and 5--better known as the Reform Ohio Now amendments.
There's good news, and bad news.
The bad news is, opponents of reform have the Mo'.
The good news is, that only applies to two of the four amendments.
The bad news is, it applies to the most important of the lot, State Issue Four (redistricting)
The good news is, there is still two weeks left.
Amazingly, quite a few editorial boards have come out in opposition to the amendments. Most of the pieces acknowledge that there is a serious problem in Ohio's electoral politics, but can't get behind them. The Cleveland Plain Dealer opposed 3 of the 4 on Sunday. The Dayton Daily News opposed one of them (and has yet to opine on the rest). And the Akron Beacon Journal came out in favor of the redistricting amendment today, but against State Issue Five, the one that redefines the role of Ohio's Secretary of State.
The big problem with the editorial acknowledgement of existing problems is that without passage, there will be no reform. The current crop of Columbus legislators and lobbyists have it entirely too good right now. They raise money hand-over-first from special interests and wealthy individuals and then go to bat for them on the floor. It took the governor getting convicted of a criminal misdemeanor for campaign finance related activities for people to open their eyes--but still, legislation pushed by Democratic State Representative Jamey Healy and State Senator Marc Dann run into brick walls in the Republican dominated legislature.
The biggest problem in Ohio is one of accountability, something that speaks directly to State Issue Four--the redistricting amendment. In the presidential election, Ohio is basically a 50/50 state. But when it comes to the federal house seats, its a 66/33 state in favor of Republicans. What's worse, not one single representative to congress (regardless of party) faced a competitive challenger in 2004. You can make an argument that Ben Konop put up a good fight, but he ultimately lost pretty big as well. As a commentor on Grow Ohio put it earlier today, "Curious, isn't it, how the very people who talk all the time about the invisible hand of the marketplace and the importance of competition in economic affairs don't seem to believe in competition when it comes to politics. When it comes to politics, Finan and Kevin DeWine and those guys apparently believe in monopolies, not competition." And he's right.
And finally, for those of you who are pure partisans, the passage of State Issue Four could mean up to 6 seats, but probably 2, 3, and maybe 4 for Ohio Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
If you are from Ohio, please get involved by contacting Reform Ohio Now to volunteer. Republicans have pledged to spend over $1 million in each of the final weeks before the elections, and their commercials are already blanketing the airwaves (I saw at least 7 this morning alone on TiVo'd shows). However, they have no ground game to speak of, and little organization at all. And while Reform Ohio Now is finally running television ads statewide as well, there is also a solid ground game afoot in the Buckeye State. Once again, it's going to come down to money vs. legwork, and it will be close. That's why we have to do everything we can in these final two weeks. I have heard the team is also crafting an online component for participation nationwide as well. If and when I hear more about that, you'll be the first to know. Hopefully it is organized and precise, giving many of you something to do other than making a monetary contribution.
Posted at 12:12 AM in Reform Ohio Now | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Weekly Open Thread: What Races Are You Interested In?
Posted by Bob BrighamLast week's response was great. So take a minute and tell us what is going on electorally in your neck of the woods. Which candidates are making moves? What do you think of the prospects? Any inspiration out there?
If you work on a campaign, take a moment and give us an update.
Which races are on your mind?
Posted at 12:56 PM in Open Threads | Comments (16) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Friday, October 21, 2005
TX-22: Tom DeLay Perp Walk
Posted by Bob BrighamMajikthise flew into Austin to blog the perp walk. She has photos and on-the-ground insight.
Posted at 11:14 AM in Texas | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, October 20, 2005
RON: Fighting Like Their Jobs Depend On It
Posted by Tim TagarisBecause for as many as six congressional Republicans in Ohio, they do. Three and a half weeks to go, and it's time to start the discussion about Reform Ohio Now in earnest. Before I get into today's update, if you are from Ohio, visit the website and volunteer. A bit of big news in the past few days when it comes to State Issue Four, the measure that would create nonpartisan redistricting in Ohio. From The National Journal (subs.)
GOPers "have begun trolling for several hundred thousands dollars" in soft money, "in hopes of defeating" an 11/05 redistricting initiative "that could imperil their political careers." The proposals would appoint an independent commission to redistrict, instead of the state legislature. Senior GOP aide: "I think most every member of the delegation has been involved." Supports and opponents of the proposal "are expect to spend several million dollars" on that and other ballot referendums.Some lawmakers have "already begun asking" D.C. corporate lobbyists for "as much as" $25K written out Ohio First, which is leading the "anti-reform effort." Rep. Kevin Dewine (R) leads Ohio First, and told the Akron Beacon Journal last week he expects his group to spend "at least a million (dollars) a week." Ohio First hired Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm to produce its ads (Pershing, Roll Call, 10/17).
Stevens, Reed, Curcio, and Potholm are better known to some as the creators of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads ran against John Kerry in 2004. You now know that for the GOP, desperate times call for desperate measures. So far RON has run three different ads, the first two running in targeted cities (Dayton/Toledo) and the third running statewide. This is the first television piece for opponents of reform in Ohio, and to be honest, it is entirely inaccurate and misleading, but a great commercial. You can watch it here. RON's third commercial can be seen here.
In other news, Ahnold came out and endorsed State Issue Four in Ohio, all the way from the Pepsi Co. Governor's mansion in California. Many of you might know that he has a similar redistricting measure up for vote in California's election later this year. And while you might think, "who the hell cares?" you would be wrong. Arnold is actually a champion in Ohio, and I suspect it has a lot to do with the national body building championships that were held in Columbus year after year when he was a competitor. George Bush brought him out here during the 2004 elections to stump for his presidential campaign. If nothing else, the endorsement received a ton of press today locally.
In a recent poll, of the four amendments, only the redisctricting measure trailed, while the other three held leads outside the margin of error. Daily Kos and Swing State Project contributor, Pounder, sent me an email asking me why we haven't seen any internal polling on the amendments, and the fact that it's been asbsent is causing him some consternation...I tend to agree; that's worries me as well. The absentee balloting and campaign contribution provisions are going to pass, and pass by ridiculously huge margins. The two that worry me most are the redistricting (probably the most important of the lot) and the Secretary of State amendments.
Posted at 11:30 PM in Reform Ohio Now | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
Posted by Bob BrighamThe Hotline has third quarter numbers:
The National Republican Campaign Committee maintained the bigger bank account this quarter, ending the fundraising period with $17.7 million. It raised $12.6 million.The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took in $9 million, spent some, and ended the quarter with $11.3 million on hand.
Also, Rolling Stone has a profile on Congressman Rahm Emanuel, David Sirota has a scathing rebuttal.
Posted at 08:04 PM in 2006 Elections | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
OH-Gov: Greatest Campaign Poster... Ever
Posted by Tim TagarisI just saw this poster created by the campaign of Ohio gubernatorial candidate Mayor Michael Coleman of Columbus. Click on it for a larger version.
Posted at 05:52 PM in Ohio | Comments (17) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
KY-Gov: More Indictments in Hiring Scandal
Posted by DavidNYCTexas isn't the only place where indictments are being handed up these days. Via BluegrassReport, a new development in the Kentucky state government hiring scandal:
A special grand jury investigating state hiring practices has indicted Kentucky Republican Party Treasurer Dave Disponett and party official J. Marshall Hughes on charges of criminal conspiracy and political discrimination.The charges are the first outside of state government in the investigation that has been going on for months. Disponett and Hughes are close supporters of Gov. Ernie Fletcher and there names have appeared frequently in e-mail exchanges about job candidates.
Mark of Bluegrass says that the only people close to this scandal who remain unindicted are Governor Fletcher himself, Chief of Staff Stan Cave, and former general counsel (and current KY Supreme Court justice) John Roach. I'm thinking it's only a matter of time.
Posted at 03:55 PM in 2006 Elections - State, Kentucky | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
MO-Ballot: Wingers Eating Wingers
Posted by DavidNYCA few days ago, we wrote about the pro-stem cell measure on the ballot in Missouri next year. Ultra-wingers want Republicans to oppose it, while big business is pushing hard for it. GOP politicians are trapped in the middle, and it's already causing rifts. Governor Matt Blunt is the first victim:
The Board of Directors of Missouri Right to Life announced today that Governor Matt Blunt can no longer be considered pro-life because of his support of an initiative petition that would establish in the Missouri Constitution the right to do cloning and embryonic stem cell research, and to use tax dollars to pay for these procedures.
Hopefully incumbent Sen. Jim Talent - up for re-election against a very strong opponent, State Auditor Claire McCaskill - will get tripped up in this whole mess, too.
(Via Jim Hacking.)
Posted at 03:19 PM in 2006 Elections - State, Missouri | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
PA-Sen: Santorum Forced to Fend for Himself
Posted by Tim TagarisTalk about being thrown to the wolves.
Capital Hill sources say his support from RNC heavies has also evaporated. The blow-dried bible-thumper, who launched his campaign with a giant war chest, is also being deserted by the party’s major moneymen, who are focusing their largesse on more competitive candidates.“This is how the Republicans operate,” sighs a veteran GOP campaign manager close to Santorum. “Even if you agree with their agenda, they’ll abandon you if you’re behind in the polls and move on to the next-most important race.” [...]
“It’s disgusting. Rick used to be Bush’s biggest booster on issues like stem-cell research, Social Security, and the Iraq war. Now the White House won’t even take his phone calls.”
This would be a miracle of miracles. What was once supposed to be the highest profile race of 2006 might be able to take place largely in the shadows. Democrats could not have asked for anything more than this, at all, period. First, we defeat Santorum, 'nuff said there. But as an added bonus, any confusion about a national message that might have taken place with the spotlight on Bob Casey is avoided. This news comes on the heels of a new Strategic Vision poll (Republican outfit) that shows Casey Jr. with a 16 point lead over the incumbent.
It's also important to note that the ultra-conservative base in Pennsylvania is not likely to rally to the side of the Senator. Amazingly, he is not even a hero to the extreme right in his home state--he's more of a villain. In 2004, that base rallied around current Club for Growth President Pat Toomey in his primary bid against Arlen Specter. Santorum endorsed Specter when the upstart group of supporters needed him to step up. Toomey lost, barely, and Santorum's own base for 2006 eroded. In fact, many in the conservative PA blogosphere would prefer to elect a "real Republican" to that seat...go figure.
Posted at 11:37 AM in Pennsylvania | Comments (9) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
TX-22: Texas Command to Arrest Tom DeLay
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom the Arrest Warrant:
THE STATE OF TEXAS
TO ANY SHERIFF OR PEACE OFFICER OF THE STATE OF TEXAS; GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO ARREST:THOMAS DALE DELAY
Greetings to Tom DeLay, enjoy your attempt at re-election.
Posted at 09:41 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Culture of Corruption, Scandals, Texas | Comments (3) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
TX-22: Warrant Issued for Tom Delay
Posted by Bob BrighamRepublican Congressman and de-throned Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay is facing a perp walk in Texas:
AUSTIN, Texas — A Texas court issued a warrant Wednesday for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to appear for booking, where he is likely to face the fingerprinting and photo mug shot he had hoped to avoid.Bail was initially set at $10,000 as a routine step before his first court appearance on conspiracy and money laundering charges. Travis County court officials said DeLay was ordered to appear at the Fort Bend County jail for booking.
The warrant was "a matter of routine and bond will be posted," DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin said.
The lawyer declined to say when DeLay would surrender to authorities but said the lawmaker would make his first court appearance Friday morning.
Tom "The Hammer" DeLay is facing life in prison for his role in the Republican Party culture of corruption.
The smart money is being contributed to Nick Lampson, who is on track to beat Representative DeLay is 2006.
Posted at 05:06 PM in Culture of Corruption, Republicans, Scandals, Texas | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Koufax Awards Pledge Drive
Posted by DavidNYCThe good folks at Wampum have brought us the fantastic Koufax Awards - recognizing the best of the lefty blogosphere - for the past three years. I've always thought the Faxies were terrific. Not only do they help showcase blogs which are new to many people (especially with awards like, "most deserving of wider recognition"), but they also reward the efforts of those who have made real contributions to this new medium. Plus, they're a lot of fun.
Unfortunately, it costs Wampum a lot of money (mostly in bandwidth costs, I'd presume) to host these awards. If you are feeling generous, please toss a little coin their way. It's well worth it. Alternately, Wampum also sells ads, though I don't think they use Blogads, so you'd have to contact them directly.
P.S. For those of you new to the Koufax Awards, the name is borrowed from Sandy Koufax, the greatest left-handed pitcher of all time. And you can find the list of past winners here: 2002, 2003 & 2004.
Posted at 02:18 PM in General | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
CA-Ballot: SUSA Poll is Bad News for Arnie Opponents
Posted by DavidNYCSurvey USA just released polls of the "first five" CA voter initiatives that are on the ballot this fall. These have all been pushed big-time by the Governator, and the results are not encouraging for his opponents (likely voters, early Oct. in parens):
Proposition 73 requires that physicians notify the parent of a pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion.
Yes: 60 (59)
No: 38 (39)
(MoE: ±4.0%)Proposition 74 extends the probationary period for new teachers from 2 years to 5 years, and makes it easier to dismiss teachers with unsatisfactory performance evaluations.
Yes: 53 (55)
No: 45 (44)
(MoE: ±4.0%)Proposition 75 prohibits public employee unions from using union dues for political purposes without the written consent of union members.
Yes: 56 (60)
No: 42 (37)
(MoE: ±4.0%)Proposition 76 limits growth in state spending so that it does not exceed recent growth in state revenues.
Yes: 58 (58)
No: 41 (36)
(MoE: ±4.1%)Proposition 77 changes the way California draws boundaries for Congressional and legislative districts. District boundaries would be drawn by a panel of retired judges and approved by voters in a statewide election.
Yes: 54 (59)
No: 41 (36)
(MoE: ±4.1%)
The balance on each question is the undecideds, which are very small across the board.
So, it looks like bad news, but SUSA offers some cautionary notes:
1) Support for all 5 measures is strongly tied to approval of Governor Schwarzenegger.2) Interest in ballot measures intensifies as the election approaches and ad dollars are spent to influence voters. These numbers can and should be expected to fluctuate, perhaps significantly.
3) SUSA asked summary questions; other organizations have read the entire text of the ballot measures. As SUSA says, "On 11/9/05, we will know which question wording produced a more accurate pre-election poll."
So basically, #1 says that if Arnie opponents and Dems show up in force, these measures will probably get defeated. The problem is that Arnie supporters and Republicans favor these measures by much greater margins than opponents disfavor them, so we'll need big turnout to counter that effect.
Point number 2 could go either way, but since at least some of these initiatives are backed by big corporate money, that could actually be dangerous for our side.
And number 3 is a bit surprising. SUSA actually provides links to polls by other outfits (Field here and here and the Public Policy Institute of California - all links PDFs), which I'm not sure I've ever really seen any pollster do. I respect that, though, because it means that SUSA is really interested in accuracy, not just promoting its own product.
Field shows mixed results, while PPIC shows voters opposed to most of the measures. It's hard to guess which methodology might be more accurate. Do voters tend to memorize rough descriptions of each ballot measure before going into the voting booth? (That would favor SUSA's approach.) Or do they actually stand there and read the descriptions before deciding? (Field/PPIC.) Hard to say, though I imagine there must be some comparison polling out there dealing with older ballot issues.
UPDATE: Julia in comments points out that there was indeed an ealier poll on these measures, so I've added in the trendlines. It doesn't look like there's been much movement in the past two weeks, except perhaps for a little bit in our favor on 75 and 77.
Posted at 01:36 PM in 2005 Elections, California, Redistricting, Special Elections | Comments (4) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
OH-Gov: Ted Strickland Claims Credit for Democratic Party Chaos
Posted by Bob BrighamDuring the Ohio Special Election, I had the opportunity to meet Congressman Ted Strickland and he seemed like a good guy. But like too many politicians who have been in DC for too long, all he cares about is which office he gets next. Now, Representative Strickland is claiming credit for forcing the flip-flop that has added chaos to the Ohio Democratic Party. Like a typical DC politician, Strictland announced he is to blame in a DC insider publication, The Hill. Note to Strickland: it isn't all about you.
As word of this travels through Ohio, I think we can expect a backlash against yet another DC politician who thinks he is the center of the universe.
Posted at 01:27 PM in 2006 Elections - State, Ohio | Comments (21) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Washington Democrats and Iraq
Posted by Bob BrighamDavid Sirota has been leading a charge against Washington DC Democrats who refuse to acknowledge Iraq as an issue. Now the Democrats' most credible and trustworthy voice on Iraq is stepping-up to lead the charge. From Blog for America:
Every day, more American soldiers are killed and wounded in Iraq. The violence and attacks on innocent Iraqi citizens continues to go unchecked. Billions of dollars have been spent, yet, we have no coherent exit plan.As a Marine, I witnessed first-hand the devastation and destruction of this war. The mistruths and deception of the Bush administration have created a quagmire. That's why I signed the pledge to only send responsible leaders to Washington. And I'm asking you to do the same.
I pledge to only support candidates who:1. Acknowledge that the U.S. was misled into the war in Iraq
2. Advocate for a responsible exit plan with a timeline
3. Support our troops both at home and abroad
It's time for leaders to step up to the plate and face the Iraq mess head-on because the situation only keeps getting worse. But, before we can fix it, Washington must first acknowledge the crisis we are in. You can help. Take a stand and sign the pledge to hold candidates accountable on the Iraq war.www.democracyforamerica.com/iraqpledge
I served my country on the front lines in Iraq and saw the consequences of failed leadership up close. We need new leadership in Washington that will face this crisis with courage.
Join me and tens of thousands of Americans by standing up and telling Washington to start planning our exit now. Sign the pledge today:
www.democracyforamerica.com/iraqpledge
Thank you,
Paul Hackett
P.S. When you view the pledge map, you can learn about other patriotic Americans who've signed the pledge in every corner of the country. Take a look, and then sign the pledge:
It will be interesting to watch the dots fill up on the pledge map. I'm guessing it won't take long for there to be even more dots than the overwhelming number of dots on the Hackett Donor Map.
Posted at 12:58 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Democrats, Netroots | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Fighting Democrats in 2006
Posted by Bob BrighamMarkos and Air America Radio are working to draw attention to the large number of Fighting Democrats running in 2006.
Majority Report producer Josh Orton has put together a Fighting Dems site which includes information about the featured candidates, links to archived segments, and a roster of upcoming features.
Check out the discussion on Fighting Democrats Bryan Lentz and David Ashe. Despite the attempts of many DC Democrats to avoid Iraq, the Fighting Democrat meme is a cover story in the 2006 narrative. It is inspiring to see these leaders step-up to serve again.
Posted at 09:04 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
VA-Gov: No Surprises in New Hotline Poll
Posted by DavidNYCHotline & Diageo have a new poll out on VA-Gov today, and it's pretty much as you'd expect (likely voters, no trendlines):
Kaine: 41
Kilgore: 40
Potts: 6
Undecided: 14
(MoE: ±4.7%)
Among RVs, Kaine leads 40-38. With "extremely" likely voters (a formulation I haven't seen before), Kilgore leads by 42-41.
Actually, I shouldn't speak so quickly - this poll is a bit different from others. The number of undecideds seems to be quite high. Even with the ELVs, that number is still 13% - and we're just three weeks away from election day. I don't necessarily disbelieve that figure. I think polling firms often push leaners or word questions so as to minimize "undecided" answers - it makes for "cleaner" data, but I think it comes at the expense of accuracy. Without an incumbent in this race, it's hard to say who might ultimately benefit from these undecideds, but with momentum clearly in Kaine's favor, things might tilt his way.
One detail I liked seeing: Kaine has much stronger partisan support than Kilgore. Kaine is at 86-5 among Dems, while Kilgore is just 70-13 among Republicans. Potts, incidentally, appears to be drawing almost equally from both major-party candidates - 4% of GOPers and 3% of Dems back him. But of course, it may come down to just that one percentage point.
P.S. I thought Diageo was a drinks company. What gives?
Posted at 08:56 PM in 2005 Elections, Virginia | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
How Good Are You?
Posted by DavidNYCFellow geography nerds (and that should cover roughly 100% of this site's readership): How good are you? I clicked away my results too quickly, but I think I was something like 96% with an average of 8 miles off in some 300-odd seconds. What'd you get?
Posted at 06:22 PM in General | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
ActBlue Poll Results
Posted by DavidNYCLast week, we wrote about ActBlue's poll to decide which states it should deploy in next. Ben Rahn of ActBlue explains the results - and the action plan:
Last week, Chris Bowers ran this poll to decide where ActBlue should go next, and the results are in! We're now focusing our fire on Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, and Montana. (We had originally planned on just going with four states, but with a statistical tie between Texas and Montana for the #4 spot we're including them both.)Check out the the full background, but in brief, when we've activated ActBlue in these states:
• Every Democratic candidate for every state legislative and executive office can immediately accept contributions online.
• Every supporter can immediately fundraise online for the Democratic candidates and party committees of their choice.There's just one catch: we need the resources to do it. The most challenging part of bringing this huge strategic advantage to Democrats at the state level is the legal side - the staff time and lawyers, Lawyers, LAWYERS, required to do this right are going to cost on average $10,000 per state, at least for the first set of states we take on.
So we're asking: can you help make it happen?
This isn't like supporting a single candidate: funds invested now will be returned many times over to candidates in crucial races across the country. So this is about leverage. This is about building a lasting piece of infrastructure for online politics, and bringing lasting strategic advantage to Democrats where it matters most.
Please support these states today.
Go help `em out if you can.
Posted at 04:53 PM in Activism | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
NY-Sen: Not Her Best Day
Posted by DavidNYC"I got to tell you, was it my best day? Absolutely not," she said before adding emphatically, "Am I better than that? Absolutely not."
A year out, and already getting tagged as gaffe-prone. So sad. Will her campaign start faring better? Absolutely not!
Posted at 04:32 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, New York | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
IL-06: A Perfect Opportunity to Get On the Same Page
Posted by Tim TagarisIt's not secret that there is a communication gap between segments of the netroots and the DCCC. While much of it stems from the 2004 election cycle, the flames were further fanned during the campaign for OH-2 earlier this year. A lot of people have their own personal pet beefs with the organization, and I have mine. I get very discouraged when out of the wildnerness comes a candidate in whom I can believe, and they receive little to no help from D.C. And while I completely understand there are only so many races they can get active in (50 I believe is the goal in 2006), I wonder why they can't meet us at least 1/50th of the way. So when I read this piece in the Chicago Sun-Times this morning, my heart sank.
Democratic congressional candidate Christine Cegelis delivered anemic third quarter fund-raising numbers, which means Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) will be shopping for another candidate to challenge her in the March primary. Cegelis is running for the west and northwest suburban seat being vacated by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) in territory heavily Republican but with Democratic potential for 2006. [...]Between January and Sept. 30, Cegelis -- currently the Democratic front-runner -- raised $159,885 and has $48,973 cash on hand, according to reports filed over the weekend. Cegelis campaign manager Pat Mogge said that Cegelis is doing better than Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.) did at a comparable point in what was seen then as her uphill long shot 2004 battle to beat former Rep. Phil Crane (R-Ill.).
DCCC spokesman Bill Burton, asked if the DCCC was satisfied with Cegelis' fund-raising, said, "the field is not set yet ... we have heard from some folks who are interested there.''
And this race is the perect example of the disconnect, at least in my eyes. Here you have a candidate who took 44% of the vote against a 34 year incumbent on almost organization and message alone. Christine was selected in the second round of the Dean Dozen, another substantial grassroots accomplishment. She was tremendously popular in the netroots, and just three weeks ago finished in 3rd place during the Democracy for America candidate vote.
When I read the Sun-Times piece, I get the feeling they either don't care, or just aren't paying attention, even though I know they do. This is obviously a candidate with wide grassroots appeal in the netroots, and most importantly inside her own district. I also think this is the perfect opportunity for the DCCC to give a little. They certainly should cease recruiting efforts inside the district. If a candidate emerges on their own, fine, but they shouldn't be complicit in that effort. I would also suggest that they take another step forward and back Christine Cegelis fully in a public show that they are willing to take a larger step towards working together with the grass/netroots.
Posted at 10:57 AM in Illinois | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
OH-16: Ralph Regula Running Again...Open Seat Soon?
Posted by Tim TagarisGiven that I currently live in the 16th District and my first congressional campaign work was for Jeff Seemann against Congressman Regula, I found this interesting.
Rep. Ralph Regula, one of the longest-serving and most powerful members of Congress, plans to seek an 18th term next year, he said Friday. “That’s my present plan,” Regula, R-Bethlehem Township, said after returning from Phoenix, where he collected a Policy Leader of the Year award from the National Association of State Boards of Education."You know, I have great health and I have a great position on appropriations and I can do a lot of good things, not only for the 16th District but for all of Ohio.”
Normally I can muster up a good deal of distate for an opponent (ie. Bob Casey Jr.), but I had a hard time doing so with Congressman Regula. I think he is genuinely a good man that made the mistake of drifting right during his quest to chair the appropriations committee (and recently on CAFTA). There was a lot of speculation that after he was passed over for the chair, despite seniority, he would throw in the towel. He was denied the capstone on a long career, and part of me expected it as well when I heard the news. But this will undoubtedly be his last race. Regula's son, Richard, is a county commissioner in the largest county within the 16th, Stark County.
The elder Regula would have probably called it quits had his son not had a re-election campaign this time around. If Richard ran for Congress and lost, he would be out of a job. By waiting two years Richard can keep his commissioner position if he loses an election for federal office. With Ralph Regula's overwhelming approval (they literally have buildings in his honor and the man is still alive), he would have to be considered a favorite. There is also speculation that he would run and abdicate his seat soon after the election, giving Richard an even better shot at the seat because of the protracted campaign and the Regula name ID that has to be in the upper 80s at least.
The DCCC says they are going to target this seat in 2006, which remains to be seen. I know there are a few good candidates in the district, including State Representative Jamey Healy. I am personally a big fan of Jamey, and hope that he does give it a go at some point. His father was a very popular Mayor of Canton, the largest city in the district and would have to be considered among the best potential candidates to claim this seat for the Dems. I'd be hard pressed to think the elder Regula could be beat, but junior is another story. The Republicans will probably have a bitter primary as well when the seat opens. Both State Senator Kurt Schuring (who will be term-limited out) and State Rep. Scott Oeslager are probably looking at the seat on the Republican side of the aisle.
Posted at 08:41 AM in Ohio | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Third-Quarter Senate Fundraising Numbers
Posted by DavidNYCMarkos has the fundraising numbers for over a dozen Senate races. Click here to see `em.
Posted at 12:00 AM in 2006 Elections - Senate | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, October 17, 2005
VA-Gov: SUSA Puts Kaine at +2
Posted by DavidNYCSUSA shows, like everyone else, a super-tight race in the Virginia gub race, which is just three weeks away (likely voters, mid-Sept. in parens):
Kaine: 47 (43)One set of trendlines doesn't tell the whole story, though. Jerome lists all five SUSA polls on the race here. Or look at it in table form:
Kilgore: 45 (46)
Potts: 4 (4)
Other: 2 (3)
Undecided: 2 (4)
(MoE: ±3.7%)
| Month | Lead |
|---|---|
| Mar. | Kilgore +10 |
| June | Kilgore +10 |
| Aug. | Kilgore +5 |
| Sept. | Kilgore +3 |
| Oct. | Kaine +2 |
That looks like some Bad News Bears for Kilgore right there. I hope this trend keeps up.
P.S. Check out this website to learn more about the real Jerry Kilgore. And here is Tim Kaine.
Posted at 07:38 PM in 2005 Elections, Virginia | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
AL-Gov: Riley (R) in the Lead
Posted by DavidNYCLast week, I wrote about the Republican primary in the Alabama governor's race. A new poll showed incumbent Republican Bob Riley taking a big lead over maniac ex-judge Roy Moore. Today, the same outfit - a combined venture of the University of South Alabama and the Mobile Register - releases polling on hypothetical general election matchups. And it doesn't look pretty for our side (registered voters, Feb. in parens):
Baxley: 33 (39)
Riley: 44 (35)
Undecided: 23 (26)Siegelman 31 (34)
Riley: 46 (43)
Undecided: 23 (23)Baxley: 44 (44)
Moore: 37 (38)
Undecided: 19 (18)Siegelman: 40 (34)
Moore: 40 (44)
Undecided: 20 (22)
(MoE: ±5%)
On the Dem side, it's Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley vs. form Gov. Don Siegelman. In the last poll on the Dem primary (all the way back in January), Baxley led Siegelman 45-31. The latter evidently remains unpopular - he was indicted last year for allegedly participating in a bid-rigging scheme (though the charges were dismissed by a judge just as the case went to trial). I would expect Baxley to win the primary.
The February head-to-head results between Baxley and Riley were heartening, but man, that's a big delta - Baxley goes from +4 to -11. Why might this have happened?
My thesis in my earlier post on this race was that if the conservative base were truly deserting Bush over the Miers nomination, Riley would suffer because disaffected wingnuts would flock to the ideologically "purer" Moore. The earlier primary poll showed that the opposite was happening, and Riley seems not to have suffered at all in this general election poll.
The main alternate explanation for Riley's resurgence against Moore was that Riley's approval went up in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, just as neighboring MS Governor Haley Barbour's did. (Poor Kathleen Blanco of LA seems to be the exception.) I hope this is the case, because impressions like that fade as people return to their lives and their everyday problems. (Bush saw a spike when Saddam was captured. That must seem like ages ago to him.)
We're a long way out, and I'm confident that Baxley, should she be our nominee, can run a strong race against Riley. I'd bet that the truth lies somewhere in between the February and October polls - in other words, the race will be very, very tight. And this is in Alabama, which just goes to show that you should never, ever write off entire segments of the country. Hell, even Bush only has a 51% approval rating here. A bit of a Dem tide in 2006 could definitely put this seat in our hands.
UPDATE: Reader John e-mails me with another poll on the primaries taken just days ago by SUSA. The Dem side shows Seigelman crushing Baxley, 54-24. That result is so wildly different from the January Register poll I mentioned above that I'm really not sure what to make of the situation, except to say that 10 months is a long time in politics. But if this poll is right, then my tentative prediction that Baxley would win the primary is probably shot.
The GOP side is even crazier. SUSA has Riley over Moore, 44-38. That's a hell of a lot closer than the 44-25 Riley lead that the Register claimed just a week ago. My head is spinning. Any thoughts?
Posted at 02:51 PM in 2006 Elections - State, Alabama | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
MO-Sen: Stem Cell Ballot Measure Emerging as Wedge Issue
Posted by DavidNYCAh, now this I like to see. In 2004, it appeared (though there wasn't conclusive evidence) that anti-gay marriage ballot measures in several states might have jacked up right-wing turnout. At the very least, they provided an added incentive for conservatives to go to the polls. Right after the election, Nick Confessore suggested that we need to promote parallel ballot initiatives that would help our side. Nick thought state support for stem cell research would be a good place to start, and I agreed.
At least one state has followed this advice. Back in the spring, Tim wrote about a pro-stem cell measure in Missouri. At the time, the shape of the Senate race in MO was still inchoate, but now the battle lines are drawn (incumbent Republican Jim Talent vs. Democrat Claire McCaskill). And the stem cell initiative is starting to cause serious problems for the GOP:
Stem cell research is once again driving a wedge within Missouri’s Republican Party, pitting business interests who bankroll its campaigns against the social conservatives who help pack the polls.Some fear that the dispute could spill over into some of the GOP’s key contests on the November 2006 ballot — especially the re-election bid of U.S. Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo.
The concern is that the Republican Party’s infighting could repel its voters or donors. "If you split our base, what does that do to you in a tough election year?" asked state Rep. Jim Lembke, R-south St. Louis County. "This could get messy."
This is even better than I might have imagined. I would have hoped that stem cell research would push more likely Dem voters to the polls, but if it has the added effect of potentially fracturing the GOP, that would be three birds with one stone (more Dems, fewer Republicans, and, if it passes, more support for stem cells).
Talent hasn't taken a position on any of this yet, but he is already feeling the pressure. He'll probably try to hem and haw, but no matter what he ultimately, there will be a lot of unhappy people. My feeling is that he'll ultimately cave and support the bill because much of the state GOP already does - this is one of those rare cases where big business is on the side of the good guys, and big business is pushing hard for this one to pass. If that causes the fundies to stay home on election day, then faaantastic.
Posted at 02:22 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Missouri | Comments (5) | TrackBack (2) | Technorati
VA-Gov: Despicable: Jerry Kilgore Trivializes the Holocaust
Posted by DavidNYCI am angry beyond words right now:
The Republican candidate for Virginia governor is drawing fire for campaign ads that suggest his Democratic opponent is so averse to the death penalty he would have spared Adolf Hitler from execution....
A commercial featuring death penalty proponent Stanley Rosenbluth has him looking into the camera and saying: "Tim Kaine says Adolf Hitler doesn't qualify for the death penalty. This was one of the worst mass murderers in modern times."
Tim wrote about this absolutely despicable ad last week, but I didn't realize Kilgore was such a wretched human being that he'd stoop to invoking Hitler in such a grotesque way.
The Holocaust is one of the most serious, tragic and defining events in living memory, if not the most. Using it for political gains is beyond unacceptable. This isn't some freshman philosophy class where TAs toss half-baked hypotheticals at their students. This is the public arena, and we are dealing with the most sensitive parts of history. Jerry Kilgore insults the memories of millions, living and dead, when he goes on the air with trash like this.
And he certainly knows better. I'd say he should act better, too, and withdraw this ad - but someone whose judgment is so impaired that they greenlighted this ad in the first place probably would never heed such advice.
Posted at 01:57 PM in 2005 Elections, Virginia | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
VA-Gov: Kilgore Still Pals with Rove Despite No-Show
Posted by DavidNYCKarl Rove was supposed to headline a fundraiser for Jerry Kilgore. Why Kilgore wanted Rove to show up in the first place is a bit mystifying: Even in Republican Virginia, Bush has a mere 40-58 approval rating. I dunno about you, but I usually don't want the top aides of guys who are 18 points in the hole anywhere near my campaigns.
So maybe Jerry Kilgore got wise, because Rove failed to show this weekend. Of course, Kilgore is claiming otherwise. He says that didn't know why Rove bailed, and he's also saying (perhaps with a metaphorical gun pointed at his head) that he wishes Rove could have been there:
Still, he said he would have had no qualms about sharing the spotlight with Rove or embracing close aides to President Bush....
Kilgore disputed the notion that the problems of the Bush administration could hurt his chances, citing Virginia's election four years ago.
Bush "has been a big help to me in this campaign," Kilgore said.
Keep on repeating that to yourself, Jerry.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Bushco demands loyalty tests - ie, you'll appear with our guys whether you like it or not. I think Kilgore escaped on a technicality - Rove probably is too embroiled with the ongoing Plame investigation to do campaign appearances. But given that Bush prizes loyalty above all other traits, I hardly think they'd permit disloyalty just because it might win the Republicans a few campaigns.
Posted at 01:41 PM in 2005 Elections, Virginia | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Weekly Open Thread: What Races Are You Interested In?
Posted by DavidNYCStarting today, we're going to be posting an open thread every Sunday with the specific purpose of learning more about the races our readers are interested in. So tell us, what races are you following? What looks intriguing? Which campaigns would you like to hear more about? We - Tim, Bob and myself - will aim to learn more about the most compelling races you post here and write about them as we are able to.
So which races are on your mind?
Posted at 01:34 PM in Open Threads | Comments (36) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Friday, October 14, 2005
MT-Sen: Tester Hauls in $324K
Posted by DavidNYCOur man Jon Tester just announced his third-quarter numbers via e-mail, and he did well, raking in $324,000. Some 2,580 people contributed to the campaign, including the awesome readers of this blog. (Jon even took the time to thank us with a phone call. Total class act, not that there was any doubt.) Three quarters of Tester's contributors are from Montana, which is nice to see.
I'm also hearing that Tester materially outperformed his main opponent for the Dem nomination, John Morrison. That would sure as hell be interesting. The National Journal's Chuck Todd took a few unfair shots at Jon Tester recently, based largely on the fact that Jon taught bass to Pearl Jam's Jeff Ament and the two are still friends. Todd thereby concluded that Morrison is the better candidate. Two days ago, Todd retreated somewhat, reducing his preference for Morrison to the following calculus (sub. only):
We're going to stick with our philosophy on Senate races and assume the guy with the most money is the best answer.
So if money - and not friendships with popular musicians - is what matters, and if Tester's better at raising more of it, is Chuck Todd gonna switch horses? I await his answer.
Posted at 08:22 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Montana | Comments (19) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
Denver is the Perfect Spot for the Dem Convention
Posted by DavidNYCThe other day, Bob wrote about the idea of a "Western Primary," to give this fast-growing region a bigger voice in choosing our party's presidential candidate. I think it's a great idea, and one way to capitalize on it would be to have our convention out west. Fortunately, some folks out in Colorado are trying to make this happen.
Denver came very close to hosting the convention in 2000 - hopefully it can be our site in 2008. If nothing else, I have to imagine the summer weather in Denver's mountain air is about a million times more pleasant than the sultry heat you'll find in the northeast.
Posted at 11:53 AM in 2008 Election - President, Colorado, Democrats | Comments (19) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
VT-AL: Doesn't Look Like Much of a Dem Primary Here
Posted by DavidNYCThe SSP Index (apologies to Harper's):
• Amount of money raised by VT Senate President Pro Tem Peter Welch since announcing his bid three months ago for Vermont's open Congressional seat: $270K
• Number of potential opponents to Welch who have already dropped out: 2 (former Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin and State Sen. Matt Dunne)
• Amount of money given by Dunne to Welch after the former quit the race: $2,000
• Likelihood of Zephyr Rain Teachout entering the primary, according to political science professors: Doubtful
And that's the way it is.
Posted at 11:24 AM in 2006 Elections - House, Vermont | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
SC-05: Republicans Afraid of Bush
Posted by DavidNYCI see that the GOP has found someone to take on Rep. John Spratt, a popular Democrat who represents South Carolina's 5th district. Actually, they already had someone - the winner, believe it or not, of the Showtime reality show "American Candidate." A bored press corps will probably get a few mild kicks out of following the Republican primary.
I'm not terribly worried about this seat, not least because Spratt won by a considerable 63-37 margin last time out. Yes, seats like that are loseable - but not often, and only when the political tides are really favoring your party. But of course, the opposite is the case, and what really jumped out at me in this article was the following bit:
With Bush's faltering popularity, Republicans might not be able to count on the president's coattails. That means some "Republicans know that they have to run from the president just to save their own seats," [Winthrop University political science professor Scott] Huffmon said. "They know that is not a good thing."
This Prof. Huffmon is, of course, just one expert, and heaven knows we drub the "experts" regularly here in blogland. So I'm not going to take what he says at face-value just because it happens to gibe with my hopes. But it does align with my reality-based expectations, and it's one of the most explicit times I've seen the cognoscenti state that GOP minions are really trying to distance themselves from Bush. It's definitely a phenomenon that bears watching.
Posted at 11:08 AM in 2006 Elections - House, South Carolina | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
CT-04: Dem Challenger Outraises GOP Incumbent
Posted by DavidNYCCongressman Chris Shays represents one of the most left-leaning districts currently represented by a Republican nationwide. In short, he has no business serving the people of Connecticut's 4th CD. And if he had any sense, he'd just retire right now, because he is almost certainly going to lose next year. In 2004, Diane Farrell nearly knocked him off, garnering 48% of the vote - and that was in a pretty favorable Republican year. (Al Gore won CT by almost 18 points - Kerry by just 10.) And Farrell, a politician from Westport, CT, is challenging Shays again.
2006 is going to be a hell of a lot worse for the GOP, and I think Chris Shays is going to be one of many who pays the ultimate political price. Dems, for instance, hold a 9-point lead in NBC's generic Congressional ballot poll - the largest lead that news organization has ever seen. But today brings more bad news for Shays:
Farrell 3Q Amount Raised: $303K
Shays 3Q Amount Raised: $207K
I don't have the cash-on-hand numbers, but the DCCC is making this race a "top priority," meaning Farrell certainly won't hurt for dough. The desperate NRCC will undoubtedly try to prop up their man, but if they had any sense, they'd just give up now and find a nice cushy sinecure for Shays. Surely someone has a consulting gig for this man?
Posted at 10:52 AM in 2006 Elections - House, Connecticut | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
WA-Sen: Cantwell (D) vs. McGavick (R)
Posted by DavidNYCFundraising numbers from the Pacific Northwest, featuring Democratic incumbent Maria Cantwell vs. Republican Mike McGavick:
Cantwell 3Q Amount Raised: $1.5M
McGavick 3Q Amount Raised: $710KCantwell Cash-on-Hand: $3.8M
McGavick Cash-on-Hand: D/K
The Cantwell campaign claims that she's raised more money than any other Dem Senate candidate except Hillary Clinton. A couple of other potential GOP candidates are in the mix, but they haven't kicked off their campaigns yet. If memory serves, both Cantwell and McGavick are independently wealthy, correct? This race could get very expensive - and very nasty - very fast.
I do think, though, that it's a good idea for candidates who could otherwise self-finance to get out there and raise money, especially from the grassroots, particularly considering how easy it is to do so online these days. Cantwell says that 22,000 Washingtonians have donated to her campaign this year. That's 22,000 people who now have a reason to remain invested in her campaign - and a not-inconsiderable fraction will wind up volunteering or helping to raise yet more money. It's a virtuous cycle, and it firms up your base.
Posted at 10:43 AM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Washington | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, October 13, 2005
NY-Sen: Can't Touch Hillary
Posted by DavidNYC Siena also polled the NY Senate race at the same time it was polling the Gov race. The results are equally strong in favor of Clinton, but I did notice something interesting. In the post just below, I observed a correlation between how "well" Spitzer's lame-ass opponents performed against him vs. how well-known they are. With Jeanine Pirro and Hillary Clinton, there appears to be no such correlation - and boy does that ever spell doom for Pirro's chances, if she ever had any in the first place. Check this out:
| Date | Pirro D/K | Clinton vs. Pirro |
|---|---|---|
| 10/05 | 51 | 59-31 |
| 8/05 | 55 | 55-34 |
| 7/05 | 61 | 57-31 |
| 6/05 | 65 | 59-29 |
| 5/05 | 68 | 57-29 |
The only distressing thing about this poll was that it showed Hillary losing to Rudy, 48-43, in NY state in a possible presidential matchup. I'm surprised to still see Giuliani that popular, four years after he left office. Maybe he won't be in another two or three. But if he were somehow to emerge as the GOP's nominee, I'm starting to think he'd be a lot more formidable that many people - including myself, in the past - have predicted.
Posted at 10:32 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, New York | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
NY-Gov: Spitzer Still Smoking All Comers
Posted by DavidNYCYesterday I mentioned that zillionaire and perennial losing independent gubernatorial candidate Tom Golisano had joined the GOP. Siena College now obliges us with a new poll showing just how strong Eliot Spitzer is in the state (registered voters, late Aug. in parens):
Spitzer: 56 (52)
Golisano: 26 (28)
Undecided: 18 (21)Spitzer: 62 (56)
Weld: 18 (19)
Undecided: 20 (26)Spitzer: 63
Faso: 19
Undecided: 19
(MoE: 4%)
Faso? Whodat? You know you're seriously nobody when I have to Google you to discover that you're merely a former freakin' Assemblyman. Alright, so he was minority leader, and alright, he came close to beating Alan Hevesi for the state Comptroller's job a few years ago - but you'll forgive me for erasing him from my memory, considering that 78% of my fellow New Yorkers (according to Siena) also don't know enough to form an opinion on the guy.
It does seem, though, that there's a pretty simple correlation going on between name recognition and support among potential Republican voters. Golisano gets a 52% D/K and 26% of the vote, while Weld and Faso are basically the same (75/18 and 78/19, respectively). Three point of name reco seems to be worth about one point at the polls. I don't know what the usual ratio, but that strikes me as pretty sad-sack.
Anyhow, like I said earlier, Golisano's got money to spend, and spend it he will. But he still won't beat Spitzer, and it's looking like he'll have a loser's primary with Faso and Weld to even get a chance against Eliot.
Posted at 10:14 PM in 2006 Elections - State, New York | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
VA-Gov: Close
Posted by DavidNYCRasmussen's latest in the VA gubernatorial race (likely voters, late Sept. in parens):
Kaine: 44 (45)
Kilgore: 46 (45)
Potts: 1 (5)
(MoE: ±4.5%)
I'm guessing the balance consists of undecideds. This is clearly going to come down to the wire. I'm hoping that anyone who walks into the voting booth on election day without their mind already made up thinks of Mark Warner and his 66% approval rating (sixth-best in the nation) before pulling the lever. That might be just enough to put Kaine over the top.
P.S. The Big Dog is coming to town to help Kaine raise some dough. I'm sure tickets cost $2,100 - anyone got a spare for me?
UPDATE: Heh. It's a state race, so tix are $5,000 a pop, as Fran reminds us in comments. Still lookin' for extras here. :)
Posted at 09:04 PM in 2005 Elections, Virginia | Comments (9) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
FL-Sen: Nelson (D) Crushes Harris (R)
Posted by DavidNYCOh man. The Florida GOP, already pissed at Katherine "Cruella" Harris for not dropping out in favor of a less-hated candidate, must be really steamed now:
Nelson 3Q Amount Raised: > $2M
Harris 3Q Amount Raised: < $1MNelson Cash-on-Hand: $6.5M
Harris Cash-on-Hand: D/K
Less than 1 mil for Harris? Yeesh. Jim Pederson raised about three quarters of a mil in about three weeks - in a much smaller state. Harris clocks in at under a mil in the two months since she first officially announced. It's also nice to see Bill Nelson with so much scrilla in the bank. Makes me breathe a bit easier about this race, that's for sure.
Posted at 08:30 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Florida | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
TX-10: Ted Ankrum Running Against Culture of Corruption
Posted by Bob BrighamIn 2004, Michael McCaul won the Texas 10th Congressional District, spending almost $3 million even though he was unopposed. As a freshman congressman in a corrupt Republican Party, his 2006 re-election campaign will be the time his is most vulnerable. This year, he isn't going to run unopposed. Democrat Ted Ankrum is challenging Congressman McCaul and has first hand knowledge of Tom DeLay's Culture of Corruption:
I have personal experience of Tom Delay's abuse of power. I was in charge of Environmental Compliance at NASA Hq. in Washington, DC in 1989, when I directed Johnson Space Center to use a type of equipment that would not damage the Earth's ozone layer in their project to replace the giant centralized air conditioning equipment, there. I promptly got a call from Tom Delay, who asked me to rescind that direction so that a business crony could bid on the contract with equipment that used a chemical banned by the Montreal Treaty to save the Earth's ozone layer. I refused. He called my then-boss, Dr. Howard Robbins, the Associate Administrator for Management, to overrule me. Howard said it was my call. For the next two weeks, I received nearly daily calls from a Delay staffer insisting that I change my mind, and my boss got calls from Tom Delay asking for my removal. It didn't stop until I asked the staffer if he wanted to read about it in the Washington Post. I succeeded in standing up to Tom Delay, then, because he wasn't the House Majority Leader. I wouldn't have stood a chance, last month. I'm running for many reasons, not the least of them being the culture of abuse of power among the current Congressional Leadership.
Could get interesting.
Posted at 04:45 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Culture of Corruption, Texas | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
OH-Gov: Montgomery Releases Poll Numbers
Posted by Tim TagarisIn a memo titled, "Montgomery Still the Only One Who Can Win the General," Betty Montgomery released her latest poll commissioned by The Tarrance Group. Notably absent are number for a potential primary, which she undoubtedly paid for as well. I think it's safe to assume that headline might have read, "Montgomery Getting Clocked Cleaned in Three-Way Primary." Anyway, here are the numbers (.pdf):
The Tarrance Group. MoE +/- 3.5%. 801 registered voters.
Ted Strickland (D): 43%
Ken Blackwell (R): 35%
Undecided: 22%
Michael Coleman (D): 44%
Ken Blackwell (R): 36%
Undecided: 20%
Ted Strickland (D): 39%
Betty Montgomery (R): 42%
Undecided: 19%
Michael Coleman (D): 37%
Betty Montgomery (R): 44%
Undecided: 19%
Ted Strickland (D): 41%
Jim Petro (R): 38%
Undecided: 22%
Michael Coleman (D): 39%
Jim Petro (R): 23%
Undecided: 39%
She paid for the poll, so take it with a grain of salt. With all the recent developments in Ohio, I'd expect a slew of polls to come out on all sorts of races in the very near future. Mayor Michael Coleman also put out some numbers recently, but they are in release form as opposed to the raw data supplied by Montgomery.
Posted at 03:38 AM in 2006 Elections - State, Ohio | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
OH-Sen: Bob McEwen to Challenge Mike DeWine in the Primary?
Posted by Bob BrighamThere has been previous mention of former Congressman Bob McEwen challenging Ohio Republican Senator Mike DeWine in the primary. As was pointed out in the comments, there is a new website coming soon: www.BobMcEwenForSenate.com:
Welcome to the home of Bob McEwen for US SenateThis web site is currently under construction. To stay up-to-the-minute on all the latest happenings, join the McEwen for Senate mailing list by emailing us at:
info@bobmcewenforsenate.com
Whoever bought the URL, did so today.
Posted at 08:35 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Ohio, Republicans | Comments (4) | TrackBack (3) | Technorati
CA-26: David Dreier, the GOP, and a Re-Election Challenge
Posted by Bob BrighamDuring the few brief hours David Dreier was Republican Majority Leader, there was speculation that Dreier was gay. Actually, for a long time it has been conventional wisdom among insiders that Dreier is in fact gay. Now, it is is coming out that Dreier is not Majority Leader because of this scandal.
California congressman David Dreier (R-CA) was passed over to replace House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in part because of questions about his sexuality, a congressman and several reporters told RAW STORY this week.Dreier was expected to replace DeLay after the tough-talking Texan was indicted for conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws. After being rebuffed, media reports indicated that conservatives were upset about the congressman’s “moderate positions.”
But several Washington reporters and an openly gay congressman say Dreier’s views were not the ultimate factor, asserting that speculation the Republican was gay played a major role in derailing his nomination.
This crazy episode made Dreier look pretty weak in his home district. And now that the cat is out of the bag, Dreier won't be able to count on the conservative base if he ends up in a tight race.
A dispatch from a Swing State Project source in southern California indicates that Congressman Dreier can look forward to a challenge in 2006. Not only a challenge, but a challenge by a Democrat with a story to tell and resources to invest...Dreier came so close, but the GOP homophobia caught up with him and now he might even lose his seat in congress. Here is some more background on CA-26
John Aravosis has more on GOP Closet Heterosexuals.
Posted at 04:37 PM in 2006 Elections - House, California, Republicans, Scandals | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
The Comments Are Fixed!
Posted by DavidNYCAh, at long last - the comment box is where it ought to be. No more scrolling way down the page to find it. Thanks so much to everyone who offered advice and helped out. If you notice any weirdness, let us know.
Also, I'll be signing off for the next day as it is Yom Kippur. To those of you observing the holiday, I wish you an easy fast.
Posted at 03:14 PM in Site News | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
OH-02: SSP in Mother Jones' Hackett Stories
Posted by Bob BrighamMother Jones posted their cover story on the OH-02 Special Election:
The Ohio Insurgency: The Democrat who Fought
Major Paul Hackett came home from Iraq to launch an assault on a GOP stronghold. Can Democrats follow his lead?
By David Goodman
They have now also posted a companion piece that provides a timeline of blog support for Paul Hackett:
The Digital Insurgency
How liberal bloggers and their readers fueled Paul Hackett's rise
By Jonathan Stein
On Election Night, I mentioned this was coming. Thoughts?
Posted at 02:13 PM in 2005 Elections, Netroots, Ohio, Site News, Special Elections | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
NY-Gov: Golisano Turning (R) - Will He Jump In?
Posted by DavidNYCTom Golisano, the businessman who helped found the state's Independence Party, ran for governor three times and spent tens of millions of dollars of his own money attacking George E. Pataki, became a Republican on Tuesday and announced that he was "seriously considering a bid for governor in my new party."
Golisano might make life difficult for Spitzer if only because he could spend jillions of his own money. (Work for a company? Get paid via an automatic check system? If it's not run by ADP, it's run by Paychex - which is Golisano's company and how he made his fortune.) However, Golisano would still have to fight a primary against Bill Weld. What a weird primary that would be.
I don't see Weld being remotely able to raise enough money to compete against Golisano, but as long as he stayed in the fight, it would be good for Spitzer. New York has a very late primary (September), so anything that keeps the GOP wrapped up until that point is probably a good thing.
Posted at 01:45 PM in 2006 Elections - State, New York | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
Seeking Help for Our Strange Comment Box Problem
Posted by DavidNYCAs you may have noticed, the SSP's comment box is often buried at the very bottom of the page - totally separate from the line asking you for your URL and if you want the site to remember you (ie, the normal place you'd want a comment box to appear). It's also the case with this post. Just sign in with TypeKey and scroll all the way down - you'll notice the problem immediately. And we've been totally confounded by it. Nothing in our templates or CSS file seems to bear any relation to this oddity. And it happens in both Firefox and IE (which is to say, we think it's a site problem, not a browser problem).
One thing that is clear is that the comment box winds up beneath the bottom of the main left-hand adstrip - or, more precisely, below the Site Meter chicklet which is beneath the adstrip. If you have any thoughts on why this might be happening, we'd be extremely grateful for any assistance you can provide. Either leave a comment here (if you can find the box, heh) or send us an e-mail using the links in the right-hand column. Thanks so much!
Posted at 01:15 PM in Site News | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
MT-Sen: Max Baucus Joins Culture of Corruption
Posted by Bob BrighamThe new Hotline On Call (subscription free) yesterday exposed Montana Senator Max Baucus (D?) for his ties to Leo Giacometto. For those unfamiliar with Montana politics, Giacometto has a reputation as being the most crooked hack around -- no matter where in the country he goes. We aren't just talking typical pay-to-play corruption, we're talking one of the key guys in the death of Republican Rep. Paul Sliter. Yet Democrat Max Baucus is now entangled in Giacometto's culture of corruption.
Montana blogger Matt Singer is widely respected because he talks truth to power and refuses to give free passes to Democrats when their actions deserve to be criticized. So go check out Left in the West, Singer justifiably takes his Senator to the woodshed.
UPDATE: (Bob) On the most popular Democratic blog (average of more than 750,000 readers a day), the word is:
Corruption is corruption, no matter where it takes place, no matter which party engages in it. [...]Keep that shit on their side of the aisle. It's hard to talk "culture of corruption" when our own side starts fraternizing with their sleaziest characters.
Posted at 01:08 PM in Culture of Corruption, Montana, Scandals | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
NYC-Mayor: Bad News for Ferrer
Posted by DavidNYCA new poll from Marist puts Freddy Ferrer (D) far behind Mike Bloomberg (registered voters, late Sept. in parens):
Ferrer: 33 (37)
Bloomberg: 56 (50)
Other: 2 (2)
Undecided: 9 (11)
(MoE: ±4%)
I'm using Marist's registered voter numbers because I don't trust their likely voter screen. Their much-discussed NJ gubernatorial poll put Corzine up just 1 point with likely voters (2 with leaners) - putting it, as I've observed below - well outside the range of just about every other poll. However, their RV numbers were much more in line, giving Corzine a seven-point lead.
But either way, these numbers don't give Freddy much succor. I don't see, though, why he'd go from -13 to -23 in just a couple of weeks. I suppose Bloomberg's saturation campaign might have something to do with it - but his massive media buys have been going on so extensively for so long, I'd be surprised if they could have any serious effect right now.
And Ferrer has pretty much avoided the mis-steps that plagued him early in the primary campaign. He's even come up with a couple of politically clever maneuvers, like dinging Mayor Mike about "Pay to Pray" (ie, requiring people to feed meters on Sundays, when many are in church). But Pay to Pray, cute as it is, is really just small potatoes. I don't know how Ferrer can gain momentum in the little time he has left, especially since he's hit fundraising difficulties.
It may well be that in politics, it ain't over till it's over, but it's looking like it'll take something near-miraculous for Ferrer to pull out a victory here. Then again, this is the city that produced the Mets, who managed to win the World Series in `69 despite finishing in 9th place the year before. So I'll still keep my fingers crossed.
Posted at 12:26 PM in 2005 Elections, New York | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
WV-02: Shelley Moore Capito: Swimmin' in It
Posted by DavidNYCAh, dear old Shelley Moore Capito. Smart enough to avoid being conned into a sucker's race against Sen. Robert Byrd, but more than dumb enough to accept piles and piles of DeLay Crooked Cash (TM) all these years. Check it:
A new study of campaign donations from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, shows that Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., is at the very top of the list.Americans for a Republican Majority [ARMPAC], DeLay’s national political action committee, has given $2,523,414 to Republican candidates and members of the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate since 1994, according to the study released on Tuesday.
Capito has received $48,500, more than any other candidate, according to the study. She began receiving ARMPAC donations when she first ran for Congress in 2000.
Mike Callaghan, you may wanna highlight this fact about your opponent. Maybe just a teensy bit?
The Campaign for America's Future has done the Lord's work in putting together this comprehensive list tracking all of DeLay's Crooked Cash. Some of our favorite Republicants are way high on the list, such as our buddy Mike Ferugson of NJ, Heather "Nipplewonder" Wilson of NM, Chris "Count" Chocola of IN, and our new favorite whipping boy, Mark Green of WI.
Oh, but go check out the whole list! Your favorite reactionary nutjob is almost certain to be on it!
Posted at 12:04 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Culture of Corruption, West Virginia | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
VA-Gov: Absolutely Despicable
Posted by Tim TagarisAbsolutely despicable.
That's the only way to describe the new attack ads Jerry Kilgore is running against Tim Kaine in Virginia. Set against a black back-drop, the father of a man whose son and daughter-in-law were murdered, speaks passionately about how Tim Kaine "voluntarily" defended the murderer. Forget the fact that Tim Kaine was court-appointed, forget about the fact that the two were apparently murdered in a drug deal gone bad, these type of ads represent the worst of our political process.
Unfortunately, I am not quite sure the Kaine campaign is up to the battle. The Kaine campaign released its response to the ad, and the piece is embarassing. You can watch it here. It almost made me throw up in my mouth.
Jerry Kilgore's campaign needs to be exposed for this, and I hope someone fights back. Whether it's the Kaine campaign, the press, or a handful of reasonable conservatives in Virginia. The Walshington Post called the ad a "smear." Well no kidding. But that editorial will ultimately ring hollow as Virginians listen to the echo of gun shots over the top of serene sounds and a somber story. I don't have to tell any of the progressive audience that reads this blog, but this is a pattern of behavior, the attacking of public servants, for their service, that must be retaliated against. And it's just another example of a poltical party that wants to govern, but has no respect at all for government. After watching Tim Kaine's rebutal, his discussion of Christian values moved me to pray tonight... pray that he scraps that terrible rebuttal ad and recognizes he can't win by bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Posted at 01:26 AM in 2005 Elections, Virginia | Comments (8) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
TX-08: Rep. Kevin Brady (R) Arrested for DWI
Posted by DavidNYCA Texas congressman and distinguished USD alum faces DWI charges. U.S. Representative Kevin Brady was born in Vermillion and received a degree from the University of South Dakota in 1990.Brady was back at USD as one of six former students receiving an Alumni Achievement Award. His homecoming visit ended in jail Friday night.
Highway patrol manpower was beefed up for homecoming, but Brady wasn't stopped at a checkpoint. He was arrested just before midnight during a regular traffic stop just 100 feet from his hotel.
"The type of violation that we stop for literally hundreds of times each year," says highway patrol Capt. Jeff Talbot. (Emphasis added.)
Hundreds of times a year, ay? Well, at least once every year or two a Republican Congressmen get nailed on the streets of South Dakota. Why, surely you didn't forget this guy, did you? Brady, fortunately, didn't kill anyone, like Bill Janklow did. And while I wish I could say that the two might be so lucky as to share a cell, Jankie has long since flown the coop. But perhaps they'll have the same parole officer.
Since you were wondering, TX-08 is bitterly conservative - Brady won by 40% his last time out. But don't be disappointed. Even if his district is out of reach, I'm sure he's one of those sinecured back-benchers who previously spent all his time raising money for his colleagues. Now, at least he'll be out of that racket, because who would want some schmuck with a DWI arrest shilling for them? Oh wait, this is the GOP we're talking about - so probably the lot of them.
(Via Josh Marshall.)
Posted at 11:59 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Culture of Corruption, Texas | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
CT-Gov: Blumenthal (D) Is Out
Posted by DavidNYCVia a DKos diary: Connecticut Attorney General Dick Blumenthal (D) is officially out of the governor's race. Probably a wise move, given that incumbent Republican Jodi Rell (aka the accidental governor) has some of the highest approval ratings in the nation. The Dem primary now falls to a couple of mayors: Dannel Malloy (Stamford) and John DeStefano (New Haven). I don't know anything about Malloy, but I do know that I was unimpressed with DeStefano during the years I lived in New Haven.
On a related note, I wonder if, in the case of gubernatorial resignations, it might not be "be careful what you wish for." The Republican governors of both Ohio and Kentucky are embroiled in ethics scandals and might resign before their terms are up. Would their successors (either in office, or as candidates) wind up getting a huge (and lasting) bounce like Rell, or would they wind up more like middle-of-the-pack Richard Codey, the man who replaced McGreevy in NJ? Hard to know.
Posted at 10:50 PM in 2006 Elections - State, Connecticut | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Help ActBlue Pick Its Next Four States
Posted by DavidNYCAs we've mentioned before, the indispensible ActBlue is moving into state races. ActBlue already covers all federal races, but that's comparatively easy - you're talking about one legal regime for all 535 House & Senate candidates. For the states, of course, you've got to deal with fifty different sets of campaign finance laws. It's a major hassle, and ActBlue expects, at least in the early going, that it will cost around $10,000 to set up each state.
What that means, though, is that every candidate for state office - Governor, Attorney General, state legislatures - will be able to raise money through ActBlue. One state has already been launched, Virginia, which holds all of its state races this year, so you can see why it was made a priority. ActBlue needs your help now to decide which four states it should expand into next.
To do that, they are conducting a poll, which you can find here.
IMPORTANT: Please do NOT simply vote for your home state! This is NOT a popularity contest. You should vote for the state or states where you think an improved fundraising infrastructure will make the most meaningful difference in the near term. Some possible factors to consider: Does the state have a legislative body or bodies which the Democrats have a reasonable shot at taking control of - or have a very tenuous hold on right now? And are there important, competitive statewide races - and not just Governor, but Attorney General (think Spitzer in NY) and, importantly, Secretary of State (think - ugh - Blackwell in Ohio)?
In New York, for example, Eliot Spitzer is going to win the governorship with or without an assist from ActBlue. But the Dems are very close to taking back the State Senate here, and candidates in close races could definitely benefit from the increased exposure (and, obviously, increased fundraising ability) that ActBlue would provide. So I think I might vote for NY. But if you've concluded your home state is hopeless, you can do a little research on other good states before casting your vote. Here's one site that can help you out a bit.
So go ahead, vote - and vote wisely. I'm told the balloting ends Friday, so we should know the results right then (though ActBlue may not consider them binding).
UPDATE: New York ain't even on the list. Oh well. Back to the drawing board!
Posted at 08:21 PM in Activism, Netroots | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Senate Fundraising Roundup
Posted by DavidNYCThe Hill has a piece rounding up a number of early 3Q fundraising figures. Unfortunately, few pairs of opponents seem to have released numbers. For instance, we know that Sheldon Whitehouse raised $600K and has $1.4M on hand (which seem pretty good), but since the incumbent Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) hasn't yet put out his figures, there's no basis for comparison.
As I mentioned earlier today, the deadline for filing is the 15th, but because that's a Saturday, campaigns are actually obligated to get their reports in by Friday. We'll know a lot more then.
Posted at 08:00 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
NJ-Gov: FDU Poll Puts Corzine up Eight
Posted by DavidNYCFarleigh Dickinson University offers a new poll in the New Jersey gubernatorial contest (likely voters, late Sept. in parens):
Corzine: 48 (48)
Forrester: 40 (38)
Other: 3 (4)
Undecided: 9 (10)
(MoE: ±4%)
Note: This poll includes "leaners." Without leaners, it's 44-38 Corzine.
There was much gnashing of teeth just yesterday when a new Marist poll showed Corzine up just 47-45. I don't think it's wishful thinking to call that poll an outlier, however - take a look at this comprehensive list of polls. All but one poll has shown Corzine with a lead of 7 to 10 points over the past few months, with one exception (a Quinnipiac poll from a few weeks ago that showed Corzine up 48-44).
I suppose it's possible that Marist and Quinnipiac are right and that FDU, the Star-Ledger, Rasmussen, and Monmouth University are all wrong. But Marist has only polled this race once, and two prior Q-Polls both showed 10-point leads for Corzine. The weight of the evidence, as they say, seems to be with the latter group rather than the former.
I don't doubt that things could tighten up, especially since NJ is one of only two statehouses in play this fall. And NJ's had its share of close, nasty races. But it is a solidly blue state, and Doug Forrester, with 96% name recognition at this point, would need basically all of the undecideds to go his way if this poll is accurate. He can hang his hat on Marist and Quinnipiac if he wants, but I still say he's got an uphill battle.
P.S. Bush's approval rating is at an astounding 33-66 in NJ. Corzine better not let Forrester - and the citizens of New Jersey - forget it.
The happy couple - Bush & Forrester
Posted at 04:58 PM in 2005 Elections, New Jersey | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
WI-Gov: Doyle (D) with a Hefty Lead
Posted by DavidNYCEarlier, we relayed some news from Josh Marshall about the stink of Abramoffian corruption bleeding into the campaign of Rep. Mark Green, candidate for Wisconsin governor. Today comes some good news for Jim Doyle, the Democratic incumbent. Take a look at this new poll from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (adults, no trendlines):
Doyle: 46
Green: 33
Undecided: 21
(MoE: ±5%)
This is a marked contrast to the Zogby Patented Happy Fun-Tymes Poll (TM), which had Green ahead 46-44. Whatever. (WPRI also shows Doyle swamping another GOP hopeful, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, 50-31.)
However, it's not all roses for Doyle. For one, Green appears to have low name recognition - though the internals maddeningly conflate "neutral opinion" with "don't know." I am sure Green's D/K is not 61% - I'd bet it's more like 30 to 40%. On the flipside, Doyle's favorables aren't very good - he's at 46-38, though apparently the 46% mark is the best of his career (PDF), according to the WPRI.
With 21% undecideds, and Green's name rec poised only to grow, I think there's a lot of room for this race to gyrate. I don't know how serious the Green-Walker primary battle is, but these sorts of things usually tend to give challengers more exposure. On the flipside, the primary in WI is very, very late - September of '06, so if it's a hard-fought battle, the eventual victor will have precious little time to change gears and wade into battle with Doyle.
The one odd thing about this poll is that it surveyed just adults - not registered (or likely) voters. I don't know what that tends to do with results, but I'd guess that people who are less politically inclined are probably more likely to support incumbents by default, simply by virtue of their greater name recognition. So it may mean that this poll tilts a little bit toward Doyle. Thoughts from those with insight on this detail would be greatly appreciated.
(Via jj32.)
Posted at 02:58 PM in 2006 Elections - State, Wisconsin | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
AZ-Sen: Pederson (D) Trails Kyl (R) in Fundraising - But Read On
Posted by DavidNYCJim Pederson is the Democrat taking on Republican incumbent (and bona fide mouth-breather) Jon Kyl in Arizona. Here's how the third quarter shaped up, and where things stand now:
Pederson 3Q Amount Raised: $723K
Kyl 3Q Amount Raised: $873KPederson Cash-on-Hand: D/K
Kyl Cash-on-Hand: $4.25M
Presumably we'll find out Pederson's cash-on-hand when he files on (or before) Friday. Anyhow, here's the salient takeway from this bit of news:
1) Pederson only kicked off his campaign after Labor Day, so he's got less than a month of fundraising under his belt - not too shabby. What's more, most people were focused on giving to Katrina relief efforts in the first part of September, so this total is particularly good.
2) Pederson, a real estate developer, is tremendously wealthy - but he hasn't given his campaign a dime yet. But not only does he have mad scrilla to fall back on, most of his donations this quarter were decidedly grassroots-level (79% were under $200). To me, that's a sign of a healthy campaign.
P.S. There haven't been any serious polls of this race yet. I'm making a decision right now that the Zogby Interactive crap is just that - crap. As someone else said, those polls should carry a disclaimer that reads: "For entertainment purposes only." Zogby's regular polls are still fine, as far as I'm concerned, but I'm just not going to report on their Internets stuff.
(Via Basie.)
Posted at 01:45 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Arizona | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
PA-Sen: Casey Outraises Santorum
Posted by DavidNYCIt's that time of year again - time for campaigns to release their quarterly fundraising numbers. The official FEC quarterly filing deadline is always on the 15th day of the month following the end of the quarter, meaning that the approaching due-date is 10/15. (Campaigns get a couple weeks extra to submit end-of-year reports - those are always due on Jan. 31.)
Anyhow, the numbers are out in the Pennsylvania senate race, and it looks like the third quarter was pretty good to Democrat Bob Casey, Jr.:
Casey 3Q Amount Raised: $2M+
Santorum 3Q Amount Raised: $1.7M+
However, the cash-on-hand disparity favors Santorum:
Casey Cash-on-Hand: $3M
Santorum Cash-on-Hand: $6.6M
As Adam Bonin points out, though, Santorum's latest poll numbers are atrocious. If things stay this way, Casey simply won't need as much money as Santorum in order to win. If anything, it is Santorum who is desperate right now. However, Little Ricky still has time to turn his image round, though his penchant for wingnuttish blunders (such as writing and publishing that misogynistic book of his) will make that difficult.
I'm also not sold on the Casey the Younger's political acumen (and I disagree strongly with many of his views on important issue), so it's possible that the race might turn if he starts making mistakes. But with the way things look right now, ya gotta believe that Sen. Man-on-Dog will soon be sent to the kennel.
Posted at 12:42 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Pennsylvania | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
WI-Gov: GOP Campaign Manager on Abramoff Gravy Train
Posted by DavidNYCGo read Josh Marshall for the complete take on this one. But here's the capsule summary:
Rep. Mark Green (R-WI, and not to be confused with the long-time New York politician of the same name) is running for governor in Wisconsin. It turns out that Green's campaign manager, one Mark Graul, has long been on Jack Abramoff's sleazy gravy train, repeatedly begging like a little kid for basketball tickets. (To see the Wizards? Man, this guy must have had no life.) To compound his sin, Graul has attempted a non-denial denial of his connections to Abramoff.
The upshot: The details of this relationship are publicly known because of Team Abramoff e-mails. If Eliot Spitzer has taught us anything, it's that e-mail will screw you every time. Good luck there, buddy.
So, two observations:
1) The obvious one: A schmendrick like Graul only gets luxury box tickets from a Republican bag man like Abramoff because he's perceived to have influence with his boss, Green. The odds that Green himself is not similarly tainted are, in my opinion, as low as Crazy Eddie's insane prices. Either way, incumbent Dem Governor Jim Doyle needs to make an issue out of this, big-time.
2) Speaking of which: The Republican culture of corruption is so deep, so wide, and so entrenched that almost every Democrat running for any office in any part of the country can and should - nay, must - push this issue and push it hard. People hate getting ripped off by the government, and that's exactly what the GOP's been up to for the past five years. We need to be totally unafraid in making this our national platform. If a few corrupt Democrats go down because of this, so be it - far, far more Republicans will pay the price.
Posted at 12:52 AM in 2006 Elections - State, Culture of Corruption, Wisconsin | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, October 10, 2005
2008: Western Primary
Posted by Bob BrighamSwing State Project has written before of the need to let western states be involved with Presidental politics. However, tomorrow's breaking announcement about a 2008 "Western States" presidential primary could change everyone's calculations.
There is a DNC Commission that wants to let two states front-load with Iowa and New Hampshire. But what if instead of two "states" -- it were two elections, including a Western States Primary.
In discussing the new plan to diffuse the early strength, Jerome Armstrong suggests:
So I'd bet that the states that will be added in between, and if I had to guess, I'd go with New Mexico and Nevada as being the two states leading for the southwestern slot, and South Carolina and Alabama for the southern slot.
Solid analysis, but what if the "southwestern spot" was actually one big Western Primary?
Something to think about considerring the following announcement (via email):
Governor Richardson, Utah Governor Huntsman to Make Announcement Concerning Western Primary TUESDAYSANTA FE – New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and Utah Governor Jon Huntsman will hold a press conference at 11:30 am, Tuesday, October 11th, in the Governor’s cabinet room to discuss bipartisan Western Governor’s support for creating a “Western States” Presidential Primary in 2008.
Governor Huntsman is leading a bipartisan delegation of Utah legislators and party leaders to Santa Fe. Accompanying Governor Huntsman are Utah Senate President John Valentine, Utah Senate Minority Leader Mike Dmitrich, Utah House Majority Leader Jeff Alexander, Utah House Minority Leader Ralph Becker, Utah Democratic Party Chair Wayne Holland, Utah Republican Party Chair Joe Cannon.
The Utah delegation will meet with their New Mexico counterparts to discuss the Western Primary and immigration issues.
The Utah delegation will depart Santa Fe in the afternoon.
These two events could come together in a way that would turn conventional wisdom about presidential primaries on it's head.
I'm a big fan of some the Western Strategy: straight talk, bold action, populist, and authentic. In short, four qualities we were missing in 2004.
Could a western primary help bridge this gap? What about the talk of a western 2008 Democratic National Convention? What about both?
Posted at 04:38 PM in 2008 Election - President, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Utah | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
AL-Gov: An Interesting Test-Case
Posted by DavidNYCIn the flap over the Miers nomination, lots of liberals have gleefully predicted that this is finally, truly the moment we've long been waiting for: The emergence of a real and unhealable rift between the Republican party's rank-and-file Christian conservative "base" and the money-grubbing, neo-conning leadership. I've always been skeptical about such predictions - they've been made non-stop since the end of the Cold War, without ever being - but I do agree that the level of anger and vitriol spewing forth from the alleged base seems unprecedented.
But Billmon sagely questions this hope with the following observation. It's hard to do Billmon justice by just quoting a line or two, so permit me to indulge in a long-ish excerpt:
[T]he anguished caterwauling in Right Blogostan (and in George Will's op-ed factory) doesn't seem to represent the mainstream of conservative opinion out in that bizarre constructed reality sometimes known as "meat space."...
It's a useful reminder that while we tend to think of the "base" as consisting of the partisan bootlickers in Washington and us blowhards here in Blogostan, there are many conservatives and liberals out there who don't listen to Rush Limbaugh or Air America, don't spend their spare time surfing the blogs, don't compulsively follow the latest political developments, and don't fly off the handle just because their favorite legal idol has been passed over for a Supreme Court nomination.
...
The kind of conservatives I'm talking about are probably anti-abortion, but have conflicting views on the specifics -- like whether or when or how much of Roe v Wade should be overturned. Discussions about whether abortions should be permitted in rape and incest case make them uncomfortable. Like Bush, they'd rather duck the hard questions. They're "culture of life" conservatives.
For the silent minority, judicial appointments simply may not have the overwhelming importance that they do for the true dittoheads and the Federalist Society groupies. Nor does the partisan ferocity that caused so many blog nuts to pop their gasket when they heard that Miers had given money to the hated 'rats. Some silent minority conservatives are Democrats, or used to be. Who knows? Some may have even given money to Al Gore, way back when he was the great white Southern Democratic hope.
So who's right? Billmon or the schismatics? It seems to me that the University of South Alabama & the Mobile Register have provided us with an interesting test-case in the form of a poll on the Alabama Republican gubernatorial primary (likely voters, January in parens):
Riley: 44 (35)
Moore: 25 (43)
Undecided: 31 (22)
MoE: ±5%
Bob Riley is the incumbent Governor of Alabama. Roy Moore, as you'll probably recall, is the crazy "Ten Commandments" judge who got booted off the AL high court for violating a court order requiring him to remove his religious monument from the state judicial building.
Both Moore and Riley have launched their campaigns in the past week. The showdown between the two men is a straight-up battle between Mainstream Republicanism and the forces of Outer Wingnuttia. If you're a conservative who is sick of the fact that, after 5 years of Republican domination of all branches of government, abortion is still legal, school prayer is still illegal, and gays can freely walk the streets, then Roy Moore is your man.
So what does all this have to do with Miers? The Register poll was conducted from October 3rd through October 6th. The timing, in other words, was perfect - Bush announced Miers' nomination on the 3rd, and right-wing anger was at its frothiest during those first few days.
But wow, check out those trendlines. In under a year, Moore went from +8 to -19 - an astounding 27-point delta. What makes this move all the more astounding is the poll was taken right when Moore should have most benefitted from the backlash against the Miers nomination - if the schismatics' theory is correct.
But, sadly, it looks like Billmon is right - the exact opposite seems to have happened. Roy Moore's doing disastrously right when he ought to have been doing his best. However, there is a fair amount of "noise" in this poll - that is, external factors affecting the outcome - which is why I call it only an "interesting" test-case, not a "great" one. (For instance, Riley's gotten positive coverage in the Katrina aftermath, while Moore's been mostly invisible.)
And even Moore hasn't exactly come out swinging against Miers (apologies for linking to World Nut Daily), so maybe embittered wingnuts will think he's sold them out, too. But if he chooses to make a big issue of it, I will be very curious to see if he gains any traction. And whether Moore does or doesn't will give us a window on to how deep this supposed split is.
Posted at 12:50 PM in Alabama | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Friday, October 07, 2005
VT-AL: Teachout for Congress
Posted by Tim TagarisCan't say that I am the biggest fan of the world, but it would certainly be interesting to see an established netroots practitioner in a top-flight race.
Former state Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin opted out of a race for the U.S. House on Wednesday, potentially eliminating a Democratic primary for the seat.Shumlin, a Putney Democrat, said he had explored entering the race to succeed Rep. Bernie Sanders, an independent who is leaving the House so he can run for the seat being vacated by retiring Sen. James Jeffords. [...]
There has been talk of others entering the race, including lawyer Zephyr Teachout, who gained political experience on former Gov. Howard Dean's presidential race.
There is already a Democratic candidate in the race, State Senator Peter Welch. The article really got me to thinking about how many bloggers out there would seriously consider running for something at the federal level. I can imagine that, for quite a few, there would be a great deal of support in terms of contributions and volunteers...not to mention all of the cool things we are capable of like media manipulation and open source oppo research. I hope it happens one day. I would love to work on a Chris Bowers for Congress campaign some day.
Posted at 09:45 PM in Vermont | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
VA-Gov: Jerry Kilgore a Porn Star?
Posted by Bob Brigham
Jerry Kilgore is running for Governor of Virginia, but looks a helluva lot like a former porn star. I'm not one who usually makes generalizations from a photo, but the Republican candidate really does look like a vintage porn star.
Anyway, I'm guessing the voters of Virginia are far more concerned about the issues then the fact the GOP nominee looks like an old-school porn star. I mean, voters decide on the issues, don't they?
If voters do decide on the issues, then Jerry Kilgore has a bigger problems then the fact he looks like a seventies porn star. Go watch the video the pic is taken from, it is Kilgore back when he ran the prisons. He is bragging about going an entire day without a prison break.
I'm not making this up, he actually brags about this. If you look at the hard numbers, prison escapes jumped 300% under Jerry Kilgore.
Now I'm not saying that somebody who looks like a third-rate porn star can't run a prison system. And I'm not saying that somebody who looks like a dirty porn star can't run an entire state. But Jerry Kilgore both looks like a pervert porn star and the way he ran the prison system suggests he would be an awful Governor.
Me, I hope the voters decide on the issues rather than the fact Jerry Kilgore sported a porn star mustache. Because somebody who is both incompetent and sets the bar that low has no business running Virginia.
Go check out the video at www.TheRealJerryKilgore.com.
Posted at 04:52 PM in 2005 Elections, Republicans, Scandals, Virginia | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
OH-Sen: Who is Sherrod Brown?
Posted by DavidNYCUPDATE: Maybe it is time for me to eat crow and deliver that apology. Check this out. An internal DSCC poll apparently gave Sherrod Brown 77% name recognition in July. As I say in comments, I'd be curious to know what Hackett's numbers were in that Zogby Interactive poll (even though I have publicly questioned those polls), since I don't know of any other poll which would offer a basis for comparison.
On the flipside, the Ohio poll here does show that 59% of people have heard of Brown, even if a large chunk don't know enough to form an opinion. In terms of pure name recognition, well, that's still quite a spread from 77%, but it's not monstrous. I still think I goofed pretty bad on this one, and I apologize to Sherrod Brown, and to the people who (rightly) took me to task for relying on old data. I know that the damage has been done, and I cannot put the cat back in the bag with a mere apology, but I do offer it sincerely.
[Original post begins here.]
If you were to ask that question to Ohioans, I'd wager that quite a few wouldn't really be able to answer. Why do I say this? Because the University of Cincinnati's Ohio Poll asked about it a few years ago (sorry, no link - from a subscription-only database):
Would you say that you have a favorable opinion of Sherrod Brown, an unfavorable opinion, that you know too little about him to say, or that you have not heard of him?Favorable: 21%
Unfavorable: 5%
Know too little: 32%
Not heard: 41%N=941 Ohio registered voters
This poll is from 2001, but remember, Sherrod Brown had held his current office for almost a decade by that point, and had also previously held statewide office for eight years. So even by that point, fully 40% of Ohioans had never heard of him, and another third didn't know enough about him to form an opinion. These might be good numbers for your typical Congressman, but they certainly aren't great, and in terms of state-wide recognition, they strike me as pretty low.
The reason I make this observation because some people who support Brown haved touted his name recognition as one of his strengths. But, in fact, Brown doesn't appear to be all that well-known.
I can anticipate some of the objections to this poll, the main one being that it's four years old. I used it because it was actually the most recent (in fact the only) one I could find. But I also don't think things have changed all that much in the interim. Yes, Brown has recently enhanced his profile with Grow Ohio; yes, he's probably gotten a bit more visibility of late because the Ohio senate race has gotten some coverage lately; and yes, I also don't doubt that he's done his best to promote himself these past few years.
And if someone unearths a more recent poll which contradicts this one, I will gladly eat crow and apologize to Sherrod Brown. I did not post this poll willy-nilly in an attempt to ding Brown - it was a considered decision, and as I say above, I don't believe that these numbers are likely to have shifted a great deal in the past four years.
In any event, it looks like Sherrod Brown is not a Hillary Clinton-type (or even Eliot Spitzer-type) candidate - that is, someone who starts off the race with very high name recognition. Not at all, in fact.
I know that Brown has other merits, and I know that name recognition is only one piece of the puzzle. A lot of people more knowledgeable than I have said that Brown has a tremendous organization in Ohio, and has connections throughout the political strata. I haven't yet seen proof of these claims, but I will also grant that this poll does nothing to undermine them, either. It is limited to one question and one question only - namely, how well-known is Sherrod Brown amongst the general public?
And until someone demonstrates otherwise, I'm going to conclude that the answer is "Not very." At the very least, I'd have a hard time believing that Brown has any advantage in this category over Paul Hackett. I am not saying Paul Hackett is more well-known (though he might be) - just that I doubt he is materially less well-known than Brown.
Again I say, this poll does not speak to any other issues. I stress this point because I don't want this post to be misunderstood. I am making a very narrow argument here: On name recognition alone, I don't think Brown supporters can make any kind of strong claims that their guy has the edge. But again, I welcome any refutation of this argument.
Now, if you've read this far, you've rightly concluded that I'm a Hackett supporter.
But I will say one thing to my fellow travelers: I think it's time we stop complaining about Sherry Brown's belated decision to run. As I've written elsewhere, I'm not happy about it, and I wish he had made a different choice. But this is the hand we've been dealt, and I don't think that whining about it (which is what it sounds like to most people) will help us win the primary. (Remember how most of us - myself included - sneered when Joe Lieberman sobbed about Al Gore's alleged disloyalty when the latter endorsed Howard Dean?)
Paul Hackett can definitely win this primary, and if he does, it's because he's the better candidate, ran a better race, fought a better fight, and had a better-mobilized corps of supporters. It's our job to deliver on that last point. Most of us have been through this drill before, and we know what we've got to do - whether it's to volunteer, make phone calls, help spread the word, donate money. But I can assure that what will not help Paul Hackett win is complaining. So I say we do our best to put that aside, roll up our sleeves and get to work. Let's keep it clean, and let's do this thing!
Posted at 03:17 PM in Ohio | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
OH-Sen: Democrats Need to Support Major Paul Hackett
Posted by Bob Brigham
The Democratic Party has a major problem on the issue of Iraq. The voters have decidedly turned against the war, but Democrats have been unable to capitalize upon the movement because Democrats have lacked a clear message and support for the war by Washington Establishment Democrats has created a situtation where Democrats don't have credibility on the issue.
It doesn't have to be that way. The Democratic Party has a unique opportunity in Ohio to finally have both credibility and a message on Iraq. Major Paul Hackett can single-handedly change the national dynamics around the war. But, instead of embracing this opportunity, Washington Insiders decided to frag Major Hackett. From the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
But before [Sherrod] Brown, 52, can talk about his own work on health care, trade, Social Security and the environment, he'll have to deal with a clumsy situation that his entrance created Thursday.Brown announced his intentions just three days after another Democrat, Paul Hackett of suburban Cincinnati, got into the Senate race. Hackett decided to run after Brown announced in August that he would stay in the U.S. House - a decision that, Brown said two weeks ago, he didn't regret.
The Hackett camp says it feels betrayed, since Brown, of Avon, assured Hackett face-to-face that he was not running.
"Sherrod Brown told the candidate three weeks ago that he was not entering the race, so the campaign was surprised at Sherrod's indecisiveness and change of heart," said Michael Brautigam, an adviser to Hackett. "Sherrod's entry into the race is not only dishonorable, it's disloyal to the Democratic Party and to democratic ideals."
While Congressman Sherrod Brown is attempting to clean up the mess from him breaking his word, Major Hackett is drilling with his Marines. The contrast between another untrustworthy Washington politician and a true leader couldn't be clearer.
Posted at 01:21 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Democrats, Ohio, Scandals | Comments (42) | TrackBack (2) | Technorati
MT-Sen: Conrad Burns Denies Being Corrupt
Posted by Bob BrighamMontana Senator Conrad Burns is a key figure in multiple investigations (FBI, Justice Department, and the Interior Department Inspector General), the scandals are hurting his re-election chances, and even Karl Rove is worried.
Burns first ran a campaign against Washington politicians, vowing to only serve to terms so he wouldn't become corrupted by Washington politics. But Burns loved Washington politics so he broke his word to the voters and ran for a third term. Now, even though his is up to his cowboy hat in corruption, he is running for his fourth term. And it is playing out in the Montana newspapers.
Today, Conrad Burns had an op-ed distancing himself from his close ties to indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and playing himself off as a victim. He even goes so far as to say:
They have declared me guilty of ethics violations. Absolutely not true. I am not under any investigation, nor have I been.
That is the type of spin you would expect from somebody who has been in DC for too long. As a Swing State Project reader notes in an email:
The Senate Ethics Committee was asked to investigate these claims by Montana Democratic Party Chairman Bob Ream. The Ethics Committee does not comment on ongoing investigation, therefore Sen. Burns cannot honestly say that he knows he is not under investigation. However, this is what we do know:
• The Senate Gifts Rule restricts gifts from lobbyists. Members, officers, and employees of the Senate may not accept “gifts of personal hospitality” from registered lobbyists. Jack Abramoff was a registered lobbyist. As a result, neither Sen. Burns nor any member of his staff was permitted to accept reimbursement for travel expenses from Mr. Abramoff. [Senate Ethics Manual, ch.2, p. 43]
• Members and staff of the Senate are only permitted to accept reimbursement for officially related travel. “Reimbursement for necessary expenses for events which are substantially recreational in nature, however, is not considered to be ‘in connection with the duties of a Member, officer or employee . . . and will not be allowed.’” As examples of travel that may not be accepted, the Senate Ethics Manual includes “charity golf, tennis, fishing, or ski tournaments.” It is extremely difficult to believe that a trip to the Super Bowl with a side trip to a gambling ship wouldn’t fall into the same category. [Rule 35, Senate Ethics Manual, p. 44.]
Burns can play himself off as the victim, but Montanans know Senator Burns is crooked. Montana voters are the victims, the taxpayers are the victim, good government is the victim. Burns is so out of touch, you would think he has been in DC for 17 years. Wait, he has. And during that time, he has become exactly what he campaigned against when he first ran in 1988.
Posted at 12:40 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Culture of Corruption, Montana, Republicans, Scandals | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
OH-Sen: Some Serious Voter Education Needed
Posted by Tim TagarisFor me, the past two months have been something special. The past two days...not so much.
Back in July, I was down in OH-2 for Paul Hackett before the busloads came. I take a tremendous amount of pride in whatever role I played in helping to build on the local narrative that spurred his national success. As a Marine myself, I have a respect for the man than most would struggle to comprehend. It's unfortunate that lost in the shuffle over the past two days has been any discussion of the tell-it-like-he-sees-it candidate that threw around the word "chickenhawk" like most politicians use the words "no litmus test." As an enormous community we ralled behind the man when backpedaling Republicans reverted to "swift-boating" Hackett. And instead of fighting for him with the same conviction the campaign represented in July/August, it breaks my heart that a fraction of the community I am proud to be a part of has turned to submarining a Congressman that has steadily been a champion for all of us in the House of Representatives.
Think about this for a second.
Congressman Sherrod Brown is the same man that literally led the fight against the Central American Free Trade Agreement in the House of Representatives just two months ago.
He is the same man that bussed seniors from Ohio to Canada so they could purchase affordable medicine.
He is the same man that voted against the authorization of force in 2002, long before it was cool to do so.
He is the same man that co-sponsored a bill that would require the Bush Administration to disclose information about the Downing Street Memo.
The same man that stood up for voter rights and protection in Ohio after the 2004 election.
He is the same man that will tell you exactly how the GOP twists the rules, and arms, consistently in the middle of a Friday night, when they want to pass nonsense legislation like CAFTA and the Medicare bill
The same man that has led against the pharmaceutical industry's efforts to restrict African countries' access to prescription drugs for HIV/AIDS.
And now some "progressives" want to attack him for what, changing his mind?
And while I can understand why there are a few people upset about the way this week went down, this isn't like changing your mind about whether or not to eat the last slice of pizza when you said your friend can have it. This is the U.S. Senate, and I think we call all agree that this country is in some serious need of real leadership out there. So talk about why the candidate you support is the best choice to get this country off the wrong track most Americans think we are heading in. If it's Hackett, great. It's Brown, terrific.
Me? I think we in Ohio have two of the best candidates in the country running for any office on the ticket. It's as if Rod Parsley & The Ohio Restoration Project have been praying for us, cause we are blessed.
(Disclaimer: These posts are my own personal thoughts and have nohting to do with the fact that I write for Congressman Brown over at Grow Ohio. If you think this anything to do with a paycheck, like some have accused Jerome of at MyDD, then I am hardly concerned with your perception anyway. Apologies to David, before tonight I had no intention of even writing about the race specifically at SSP)
Posted at 11:33 AM in Ohio | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, October 06, 2005
OH-Sen: The Story So Far
Posted by DavidNYCWay, way back at the start of the year, President Bush followed all second-term presidents in performing a time-honored rite: the cabinet reshuffle. We saw some dear old friends depart, like John Ashcroft and Colin Powell. We were introduced to some wonderful new faces, like Alberto Gonzalez. And some of our long-time buddies just couldn't bear to leave, like Condi Rice and Donald Rumsfeld.
Almost lost in this misty-eyed pastoral is the tremendously important post of US Trade Representative. Whoever holds this job is responsible for travelling around the world on the government's tab to convince foreign countries to buy our goods. What an awesome job. The lucky fellow who held this job in Bush's first term was one Robert Zoellick, who became a Deputy Secretary of State at the start of Bush's second term. Ah, Bob, we hardly knew ye.
To fill this crucial gap in our nation's governing apparatus, George Bush tapped Robert Portman to fill Zoellick's big shoes. Portman, you see, was a Congressman from southwest Ohio, roughly in the neighborhood of Cincinnati. His district - Ohio's second - was one of the most conservative in Ohio, if not the nation. It had reliably sent a Republican to Congress for decades, and Democrats hadn't poked their heads above a feeble 30% or so for a long, long time.
Smart play by Mr. Bush: Tap a solid insider for your cabinet, and ensure that you don't lose any ground in the House. And the plan worked, too - but you couldn't ask for a better illustration of "be careful what you wish for." So what happened along the way?
A certain blogger - me, as it happens - noticed the Portman nomination and espied the inevitable open seat and special election that would of necessity ensue. So I wrote about it over at the seminal Democratic blog DailyKos. I didn't view the race as winnable (not at the time, at least), but I did think it would give our side a great opportunity to do some political R&D - to experiment, be bold, hold nothing back. When you've got nothing to lose, you can be as aggressive as you want.
Meanwhile, things began to unfold on the ground in Ohio. The fateful primary election took place on June 14th. The Dems emerged with a man that almost no one had heard of - but he did have an interesting resume. Major Paul Hackett had just returned from serving a tour of duty with the Marines in Iraq - a war, believe it or not, he opposed. Who could speak with more authority - both intellectual and moral - on such an important subject, than someone with a background like that?
It turns out that Paul Hackett was also the sort of blunt, plain-spoken non-politician that so many Democrats had craved for so long. He was Howard Dean in fatigues. To many, Hackett's individual positions weren't nearly as important as his willingness to speak his mind. He definitely didn't vote for anything before he voted against it.
The blogosphere began to take serious interest in the race at this point - and a huge reason was Tim Tagaris, one of the editors of this humble magazine. Tim, on the ground with Grow Ohio, served as a crucial conduit between the online world and OH-02. Reports flowed in fast and furious from southwest Ohio. The Swing State Project (along with the OH-02 Blog) quickly became a hub for anyone who wanted to know more about the race or get involved.
As online activists started tuning in, volunteers began to flood the district as well. Hackett started getting real media coverage. He also had a lot of things going for him: Distrust and anger toward Republicans in the state of Ohio had been mounting since the Coingate revelations; Bush's popularity amongst Buckeyes had been steadily dropping; and he drew an opponent, Jean Schmidt, who was as corrupt (she took piles of cash from the now-indicted Tom DeLay) as she was feckless (she was reduced to defensively declaring she wouldn't be a "rubber stamp" during debates).
In the middle of the hubbub, Tim's fellow SSP editor, Bob Brigham, also decamped for the battleground of OH-02. Traffic exploded here as Bob and Tim tag-teamed the final days of the race. Back home, I kept the front page of DailyKos updated as often as I could. A certain energy crackled and infused everything about the whole campaign.
And people began to realize that this was no long just an opportunity to do some R&D - something much more was happening here. Hackett got scads of scrilla from online donations. The GOP got spooked and poured in big money of its own - in a district that Portman had won by 40 points the last time out. The establishment Dems took notice and fired back with a further cash infusion. The race was getting seriously, seriously hot.
It looked like Hackett could conceivably, possibly, just maybe win. No one knew for sure, of course - no one had done any independent, verifiable polling. But even if Hackett didn't win, lots of people - on the ground, in the professional commentariat, across the blogosphere - realized that a strong performance would send a message.
And boy did Paul Hackett send a message. Yeah, he lost - but by a margin much narrower than anyone would have dreamed. Republicans enjoyed scoffing about Hackett's loss, but there was jubilation on the Democratic side. Hackett lost by four points. The prior Dem who ran for this seat lost by ten times that margin. Anyone who refused to believe this showing didn't mean something truly had their head in the proverbial sand.
But the race did more than just send a message. A new star was born - and it wasn't Jean Schmidt. While she limped into her seat in Congress, Paul Hackett became a new Democratic Party star. His fearlessness and ability to connect with normal people (ie, everyone in America who doesn't suffer from D.C. Beltway Brain-rot) ensured that he wouldn't soon be forgotten. Just about everyone agreed he had a bright future in politics.
It turns out that his future was now. The Ohio GOP was reeling. Incumbent Republican Senator Mike DeWine, suffering atrocious approval ratings, was up for re-election in 2006. The Dems were looking for someone to take him on. A lot of people thought Paul Hackett would be the perfect guy to do that.
After some months of convincing, it appeared that Paul Hackett finally thought so as well, and rumors of his candidacy spread like wildfire across the Internet during the month of September. The way was clear for Hackett: Ohio Congressmen Tim Ryan and Sherrod Brown both indicated that they weren't going to run against DeWine.
As October rolled around (and the third quarter ended), an official announcement from Hackett was widely expected. (No candidate for office was going to announce right in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, in any event.) Yet a funny thing happened on the way to the election: Sherrod Brown, previously thought to be uninterested in the Senate race, started making noises that he would, in fact, throw his hat into the ring.
At that point, almost instantly, battle lines were drawn. Now, brother is pit against brother, more or less. Alright, so I'm making it sound like a melodramatic Civil War miniseries, only with fewer guns. But the dynamics are pretty fascinating.
Jerome Armstrong, the liberal blogfather and creator of the ur-blog MyDD, jumped on board Brown's ship. (Jerome is, in fact, working for Brown.) Jerome's greatest protege, Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos, has sided with Hackett.
And over here at the Swing State Project, the situation is no less jumbled. Tim, as I mentioned above, works for Grow Ohio, which means, like Jerome, he works for Sherrod Brown. Bob, on the other hand, has just started volunteering for Hackett and, as you can see from his posts here, supports him vociferously.
Today, however, Markos seems to weigh in on Brown's side, though the bulk of his readers support Hackett. Meanwhile, Tim (rightfully) wants to focus on RON, not an internecine battle. The Hotline's Blogometer has already noted a "split" in left-blogistan, but as all this indicates, the fault lines are far from clear. Indeed, Chris Bowers, the lead author at MyDD and Jerome's fellow blogger-in-arms, hasn't yet decided whom to support.
So where does this leave me? I count myself in the Hackett camp. But I definitely don't want to see a real blogspheric civil war emerge. We just don't need another huge round of infighting, like we saw during the Democratic Presidential primaries throughout all of 2003. The tide this year is turning strongly against the Republicans. Their corruption is catching up with them. Many will lose next year - both at the ballot box and in the courtroom. It's more important than ever that we stay united to capitalize on this perfect storm.
And the Swing State Project remains committed to bringing you the best coverage possible of the race - and that means reporting on the strengths and foibles of both the guys we support and the guys we don't.
I'll be honest: I wish Brown had chosen a different course of action. But since he's apparently committed at this point, all I'm hoping for is a good clean fight. So let's do this thing!
Posted at 08:30 PM in 2005 Elections, 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Democrats, Netroots, Ohio, Site News, Special Elections | Comments (33) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
OH-Sen: Sherrod Brown Almost Announces
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom the Toledo Blade:
The director of Mr. Brown’s campaign committee said last night that the congressman would offer “an announcement” in public today, but Mr. Brown did not make one. Instead, he phoned newspaper editors to discuss his plans.
The press has a word for this.
Posted at 08:17 PM in Ohio | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
MT-AL: Dennis Rehberg Keeping Tainted Money
Posted by Bob BrighamMontana's lone Congressman Denny Rehberg is taking heat in the local papers for refusing to give back corrupt money. Rep. Rehberg is so out of touch with Montana values he doesn't even seem to have a sense of shame about the devil's money he received for his role in the GOP Culture of Corruption. David Sirota says:
It isn't surprising that Rehberg refuses to give back the tainted money from his indicted leader. As Montana Democratic Party executive director Jim Farrell notes, "It's a lot of money, and it's a lot of money in Montana" - meaning Rehberg is going to do everything he can to hold onto it, no matter how dirty it is.But what is surprising is that Rehberg doesn't even see why he might CONSIDER giving it back in the first place. As Rehberg's chief of staff said, "There is absolutely no reason for him to return the money."
No reason? No reason? A Texas grand jury INDICTED DeLay for his use of PAC money - isn't that reason enough? The answer is yes, at least for some Republicans who have a sense of shame. As the Tribune notes, "at least two Republican House members — Reps. Jeb Bradley of New Hampshire and Heather Wilson of New Mexico — have decided to return campaign contributions received from DeLay's [PAC]." So has Republican Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-MO) - he gave DeLay's dirty money to charity.
Rehberg's refusal to objectively evaluate the world around him - and realize that pocketing money from someone under indictment is wrong - proves that the GOP is ever more out of touch with reality, only interested in protecting their own corrupt fiefdom in Washington. If other Republicans behave like this, we really could see a Democratic tidal wave in 2006.
Indeed. Take a minute to vote in the Great Falls Tribune poll on the matter.
Rehberg is being challenged by Monica Lindeen.
Use the comments to report other instances where crooked politicians are keep Tom DeLay's dirty money.
Posted at 03:11 PM in Montana | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Fired Up About Ohio?
Posted by Tim TagarisThen Reform It...Now.
While everyone sharpens their fonts with a laser-like focus on the U.S. Senate race, the biggest election of the year is taking place in Ohio, in one month. If you want to do something about Ohio in the coming weeks, I would suggest volunteering for and contributing to the group known as Reform Ohio Now. We have an opportunity to gain as many as six congressional districts, open access to vote by relaxing absentee ballot laws, decrease the influence of big money in elections, and take away the power from thugs like J. Kenneth Blackwell. But I fear with all the hand-wringing, we are going to miss that opportunity. What a shame that would be.
Look, I write for Sherrod Brown over at Grow Ohio. I was down in OH-2 helping to lead the charge online for Paul Hackett. For different reasons, I love both of them. I would just caution everyone on the vitriol, because what most of you don't know is that Sherrod Brown is one of the few real champions we have in the House of Representatives. He has been a leader on all things progressive since he stepped foot into the well of the Congress (for a crash course, click here).
So please, if you want to get fired up about something in Ohio, take the next month to and get involved with Reform Ohio Now; I promise you, if there is a primary, it will still be there.
Just last week, the Columbus Dispatch released some poll results on Issues 2-5, and with one exception, the numbers are heartening. Vote by mail and limiting the maximum campaign contribution from 10k to 2k are winning in landslides. The Sec. of State amendment is up slightly. However, the redistricting amendment (probably the most important) is down, 26% to 38% with with 36% undecided.
You want Bob Ney gone? Get Involved. Steve LaTourette? Get Involved. Steve Chabot? By all means, get involved. And for those of you who subscribe to the Howard Dean model, nonpartisan redistricting would not stop at the federal level either. Seats for the State House and State Senate both get redrawn as well.
Reform Ohio Now is on the air, right now, with two spots in a few cities across the state. Here are the two pieces:
An introduction to RON (.mpeg)
About the Group Opposing RON (.mpeg)
If you are from Ohio and want to volunteer, here are your local organizers. They have yard signs and a number of trainings and volunteer opportunities in the coming days and weeks ahead.
Please support Reform Ohio Now, and encourage everyone online not to let this opportunity pass. Either way, we are going to win in 2006, but 2005 is only a month away.
Posted at 01:32 PM in Ohio | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
MO-07: Roy Blunt Exposed as Central Figure in GOP Culture of Corruption
Posted by Bob BrighamIn 1998, the Democrat challenging Republican Congressman Roy Blunt in Missouri's 7th District didn't raise or spend a dime. In 2000 and 2002, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee didn't even field a candidate against Blunt, allowing Blunt to focus on his "Battleground 2002" project which moved $5.6 million to Republican House candidates. In 2004, Democrats at least bothered to field a candidate, but Blunt had a 15:1 cash advantage and wasn't pinned down, allowing him to raise money for other Republicans to the point where he is now Republican Leader in Congress.
But, the rising profile for Congressman Blunt is a double-edged sword, because he just got busted by the AP for his role in laundering money with Tom DeLay (who is currently facing life in prison for illegally laundering money):
Tom DeLay deliberately raised more money than he needed to throw parties at the 2000 presidential convention, then diverted some of the excess to longtime ally Roy Blunt through a series of donations that benefited both men's causes.When the financial carousel stopped, DeLay's private charity, the consulting firm that employed DeLay's wife and the Missouri campaign of Blunt's son all ended up with money, according to campaign documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist recently charged in an ongoing federal corruption and fraud investigation, and Jim Ellis, the DeLay fundraiser indicted with his boss last week in Texas, also came into the picture.
The complicated transactions are drawing scrutiny in legal and political circles after a grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of violating Texas law with a scheme to launder illegal corporate donations to state candidates.
Congressman Roy Blunt needs a strong Democratic challenger willing to expose Blunt's "Culture of Corruption" and pin him down in Missouri so he isn't raising money for candidates in targetted races.
Blunt's crooked transactions with DeLay deserve an investigation:
The government's former chief election enforcement lawyer said the Blunt and DeLay transactions are similar to the Texas case and raise questions that should be investigated regarding whether donors were deceived or the true destination of their money was concealed."These people clearly like using middlemen for their transactions," said Lawrence Noble. "It seems to be a pattern with DeLay funneling money to different groups, at least to obscure, if not cover, the original source," said Noble, who was the
Federal Election Commission's chief lawyer for 13 years, including in 2000 when the transactions occurred.None of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations DeLay collected for the 2000 convention were ever disclosed to federal regulators because the type of group DeLay used wasn't governed by federal law at the time.
Check out Blunt's spin and tell me he isn't vulnerable.
Blunt and DeLay planned all along to raise more money than was needed for the convention parties and then route some of that to other causes, such as supporting state candidates, said longtime Blunt aide Gregg Hartley."We put together a budget for what we thought we would raise and spend on the convention and whatever was left over we were going to use to support candidates," said Hartley, Blunt's former chief of staff who answered AP's questions on behalf of Blunt.
Hartley said he saw no similarity to the Texas case. The fact that DeLay's charity, Christine DeLay's consulting firm and Blunt's son were beneficiaries was a coincidence, Hartley said.
Whoops, the fact that money ended up going to Blunt and DeLay family members was an accident...
Much of the money — including one donation to Blunt from an Abramoff client accused of running a "sweatshop" garment factory in the Northern Mariana Islands — changed hands in the spring of 2000, a period of keen interest to federal prosecutors.During that same time, Abramoff arranged for DeLay to use a concert skybox for donors and to take a golfing trip to Scotland and England that was partly underwritten by some of the lobbyist's clients. Prosecutors are investigating whether the source of some of the money was disguised, and whether some of DeLay's expenses were originally put on the lobbyist's credit card in violation of House rules.
Both DeLay and Blunt and their aides also met with Abramoff's lobbying team several times in 2000 and 2001 on the Marianas issues, according to law firm billing records obtained by AP under an open records request. DeLay was instrumental in blocking legislation opposed by some of Abramoff's clients.
Noble said investigators should examine whether the pattern of disguising the original source of money might have been an effort to hide the leaders' simultaneous financial and legislative dealings with Abramoff and his clients.
"You see Abramoff involved and see the meetings that were held and one gets the sense Abramoff is helping this along in order to get access and push his clients' interest," he said. "And at the same time, you see Delay and Blunt trying to hide the root of their funding.
Blunt is just as crooked as DeLay:
Blunt and DeLay have long been political allies. The 2000 transactions occurred as
President Bush was marching toward his first election to the White House, DeLay was positioning himself to be House majority leader and Blunt was lining up to succeed DeLay as majority whip, the third-ranking position in the House.The entities Blunt and DeLay formed allowed them to collect donations of any size and any U.S. source with little chance of federal scrutiny.
DeLay's convention fundraising arm, part of his Americans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee (ARMPAC), collected large corporate donations to help wine and dine Republican VIPs during the presidential nominating convention in Philadelphia in late summer 2000. DeLay's group has declined to identify any of the donors.
Blunt's group, a nonfederal wing of his Rely on Your Beliefs Fund, eventually registered its activities in Missouri but paid a $3,000 fine for improperly concealing its fundraising in 1999 and spring 2000, according to Missouri Ethics Commission records.
Blunt claims he had no clue he was crooked:
Hartley said Blunt was unaware that Mrs. DeLay worked at the firm when he made the payments, and that she had nothing to do with Blunt's group. [...]Hartley said Blunt always liked to help the state party and the fact that his son got party help after his donation was a coincidence. "They are unrelated activities," he said.
When Congressman Roy Blunt runs for re-election, he needs to be met with a full court press. The voters deserve a choice.
Posted at 12:29 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Activism, Culture of Corruption, Missouri, Republicans, Scandals | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
PA-Sen: Landslide
Posted by Tim TagarisBob Casey Jr. has extended his lead from 11 to 18 in the most recent Quinnipiac poll.
From September 27 - October 3, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,530 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points.If the 2006 election for Senator were being held today, and the candidates were Bob Casey Jr. the Democrat, and Rick Santorum the Republican, for whom would you vote?
Bob Casey: 52% (50)
Rick Santorum: 34% (39)
Don't Know/Other: 14% (12)
If you look closer at the numbers, you'll find that Casey has a lead on Rick Santorum in each and every region of the state, with the exception of Central PA. Also, I think you'll find that this Casey bounce has a lot to do with disaffection with the current Republican Adminstration. Support for the occupation of Iraq in Pennsylvania is at a thirty-seven percent, to fifty-seven who disapprove. Bush's approval rating is at a lowly 37% to 61% who disapprove. For the first time, a plurality of Pennsylvania voters believe Rick Santorum DOES NOT deserve to be re-election, 41% to 42%, that's from a 45-38 spread last time Quinnipiac was in the field. Meanwhile, Casey's approval rating has barely budged:
Is your opinion of State Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. favorable, unfavorable, mixed, or haven't you heard enough about him?Approve: 38% (39)
Disapprove: 9% (9)
Mixed: 20% (17)
DK: 33% (36)
For the past few months, I have always thought Casey's numbers would go down; it was just a matter of time. But maybe this thing really will be a blowout that never materializes into a real race? We can only hope. To the extent we can keep his race out of the national spotlight (which a close race would be), we minimize further national confusion about what we stand for as a Democratic Party.
Posted at 10:54 AM in Pennsylvania | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
MI-09: A Challenger for Knollenberg
Posted by DavidNYCI clicked on over to Our Congress just now and saw a posting from a Dem challenger, Rhonda Ross, in Michigan's 9th CD. I have to admit, I have never even heard of Joe Knollenberg (the GOP incumbent), but one thing in the diary popped out at me:
Votes In MI-09:Kerry - 178,141
Bush - 184,858
That's pretty seriously close. Yeah, I know, jerks like Chris Shays can survive for years (but hopefully not much longer) even in districts which vote for Dems for president. So the presidential vote is not necessarily the ultimately predictor of the lay of the land.
Which is why I flipped over to Superribbie's comprehensive list of House races to target to get a better feel for things. Turns out, MI-09 was fairly high on the list, at 34. Obviously, Superribbie's methodology is not perfect (no one's ever is), but until someone comes up with something demonstrably better, that's what I'm going to go by for now. And it looks to me like Knollenberg is at least somewhat vulnerable.
So I'm glad to see we've got a challenger for this race. Obviously, this isn't an endorsement of Ross, and it's very possible that others are already in the running against Knollenberg, or are at least considering it. But it's good that at least one challenger (that I am presently aware of) is getting the jump on Knollenberg. If you want to make them sweat, you've got to start early, and Ross is definitely doing that by getting in the game more than a year in advance.
But at the very least, I can urge you to go take a look at her post on Our Congress and check out her website. While the latter could use a bit of work, I do like the fact that she has a link on the left side labeled simply, "I OBJECT." Reminds me a bit of of Emil Zola's everlasting "J'ACCUSE." There's a whole hell of a lot to object to these days, that's for sure.
UPDATE: This is why I love the comment boards. Apparently, there are two other candidates in MI-09. So it's only fair that I suggest you check them out, too: Steve Reifman, whose website is here, and John Ashcraft, whose website will apparently be here.
Posted at 01:59 AM in Michigan | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
OH-Sen: Sherrod Brown Runs Against Major Paul Hackett in Ohio Senate Primary
Posted by Bob BrighamUnfortunately, Congressman Sherrod Brown has decided to challenge Paul Hackett for the Democratic nomination in 2006. If Sherrod Brown wanted to run for Senate, the nomination was his. We urged him to run. But he chickened out. So Paul Hackett did what he has done time and time again: stepped up when duty called. Ted Strickland wouldn't run against Senate Mike DeWine, Sherrod Brown wouldn't run against DeWine, Tim Ryan wouldn't run against DeWine -- so Major Hackett offered to serve his country once more, this time in the U.S. Senate.
And now, on the eve of Hackett's kickoff, Sherrod Brown goes back on his word and says he is going to run against Hackett? A flip-flop? WTF?
Congressman Brown is going to waste a great deal of Democratic resources, but I can't comprehend the math necessary for Brown to win the primary. It looks like the Democratic Party is going to lose one of our best leaders in congress for no reason.
But it doesn't matter, Paul Hackett will be the Democratic Party nominee. After all of the scandals in Ohio, the last thing the voters want is another politician who can't be trusted.
The Top 10 Reasons Why Paul Hackett Will Be the Democratic Party Nominee
10. Sherrod Brown is already being mocked by the press for his waffle (or Decision Consistency Agility as you glass is half full types would say)
9. Paul Hackett's straight talk is loved by the press
8. Congressman Tim Ryan encouraged Hackett to run
7. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee urged Hackett to run
6. Hackett positioned himself behind the other Democrats, but has a nation-wide base
5. The Democratic Blogosphere delivered for Hackett -- even winning the Political Play of the Week
4. Hackett has a 70% pt. lead in the netroots
3. Unlike Brown, Hackett has great timing
2. Hackett can win in rural Ohio
1. In a nation at war, a Marine Major outranks a Washington Politician -- Congress needs an Iraq War Veteran
Sherrod Brown is a waffle, Mike DeWine is toast, and Major Hackett is hungry.
Posted at 08:15 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Democrats, Netroots, Ohio | Comments (12) | TrackBack (2) | Technorati
NV-Sen: Jack Carter to Unseat John Ensign
Posted by Bob BrighamFollowing this morning's news that Jack Carter is running for U.S. Senate against John Ensign, there has been a great deal of discussion online about how this is great news for Democrats. While some in the local press think Ensign won't lose in an upset, the news from local bloggers is far different. The Las Vegas Gleaner reports:
Who could possibly envision a scenario where Carter, who will have lived in Las Vegas for less than four years by election day, could unseat Ensign? Who would dare be so silly?The Gleaner!
First, the obvious: Iraq, gas prices, Brownie, DeLay, Abramoff, Savafian, Rove, Frist, Schaivo, Katrina and the growing perception that Republicans are the party of crony capitalism, corporate influence, corruption and incompetence. So that's a start.
And then there's Yucca Mountain. Yes, yes, all Nevada politicians are "against" Yucca Mountain, and Ensign is no exception. But as we've said (and documented) before, one of the keys to Ensign's 2000 campaign was his claim that, by virtue of being a Republican, he would be able to convince other Republican senators to support Nevada in the Yucca Mountain fight. He didn't deliver. He failed to convince a single additional Republican senator to oppose the nuke dump. Nevada voters, even relatively new ones like, well, Carter, already suffer from Yucca fatigue. But this isn't about Yucca, really. It's about Ensign's utter inability to do what he said he'd do.
The post goes on to look at the Nevada by the numbers, go read the whole thing.
Posted at 07:46 PM in Nevada | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
OH-Sen: Sherrod Brown Mocked by DC Press
Posted by Bob BrighamPolitical Junkies know that the (subscription only) Hotline is the inside-the-beltway bible. All of this talk about Congressman Sherrod Brown running against Republican Senator Mike DeWine started in the Hotline. And now it looks like Brown has confirmed his intentions, again to the Hotline. In today's Hotline Last Call, the insider publication gets the scoop, and dishes something back towards Brown with the following:
OH Rep. Sherrod Brown has told key Dems today that he plans to challenge Sen. Mike DeWine (R) (Last Call! sources)
If you click on the link, it goes to a picture of a waffle.
Posted at 04:53 PM in Ohio | Comments (5) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
VA-Sen: Ben Affleck Should Challenge George Allen
Posted by Bob BrighamAs blogosphere junkies know, Swing State Project has a very special relationship with MyDD. We're all friends and see eye-to-eye on most issues. But, I have to disagree with Chris Bowers when it comes to the 2006 Virginia Senate Race.
When rumors first surfaced that Ben Affleck was considering mounting a challenge to Republican Senator George Allen, Chris Bowers wrote:
Someone like Affleck would be a horrible, media sucking distraction from the 2006 campaign. This would be the equivalent media circus of the 2003 California recall election. It would destroy the generic advantage Democrats are poised to hold in 2006, and from which they will reap huge benefits if Bush's approval rating stays low.So, please God, no, don't let Affleck run.
While I appreciate where Bowers is coming from, I disagree and think Affleck should seriously consider running for a number of reasons...
First, the (subscription only) National Journal had a great column by Chuck Todd today, via Daily Kos:
Democrats could have nine or 10 races in their crosshairs instead of just seven (one over the bare minimum to win back control).The reality is that if one were to handicap the current Senate battle race-by-race, a 0-2 Democratic pickup would be very realistic. But as Charlie Cook has pointed out, Senate races never break evenly for both parties.
The key for the party that's got that little breeze at the end is putting enough races in play to win all those toss-ups. In a neutral climate, the 0-2 Democratic pickup prediction would make sense. But it's hard to foresee a neutral 2006 environment.
The makings for a Democratic advantage are brewing. There's no difference between netting three Senate seats and netting six or seven. Once the Democrats are in a position to net a third, it probably means all those slightly-leaning GOP seats are going their way and the gain will be closer to six than to two.
The amount Affleck makes on a single movie is enough for a serious ante and his name recognition, good looks, wife, future baby, and access to political support would instantly make the race competitive. According to Todd's analysis, this race could then easily become a pick-up, helping Democrats win the Senate and ending George Allen's 2008 presidential ambitions.
As for Bowers concerns that Affleck would hurt the Democratic message, I think the following indicates Affleck understands the dynamics, but wants to participate in democracy:
"I seem lately to bring to with me, whether I want to or not, a certain amount of media attention," the 31-year-old actor told reporters Tuesday before a Democratic National Committee fund-raiser at a bar outside Fenway."But I think you have to be smart and you have to be judicious and you have to be tasteful and you have to be respectful and you have to know your place," he added later. "I am not an elected official. I am not a political expert. I perceive my capacity here mostly in terms of being somebody who grew up here and wanting to be an ambassador for this city."
When a television reporter suggested that being good-looking, articulate and famous would make him a natural candidate for office, Affleck responded: "Uh, you know, that's a nice idea and I'm very flattered that you say it, but it's a tough fight, you know? I mean, if I think that the entertainment press is tough on me now, I can't imagine what it would be like to have a political agenda, as well."
It's not as if this talk comes out of nowhere. In an interview for the May 2001 issue of GQ magazine, Affleck said: "My fantasy is that someday I'm independently wealthy enough that I'm not beholden to anybody, so I can run for Congress on the grounds that everyday people - be they singers or poets or bankers or lawyers or teachers - should be in government."
While Affleck received a great ton of ink for his work to help John Kerry during last year's senate race, Affleck also stumped hard for Al Gore:
In the final hectic weeks of Campaign 2000, Affleck spent his time passionately campaigning for the Democratic ticket, supporting Al Gore, repeatedly delivering a get-out-the-vote plea: "It's very important to vote. The president will appoint three or four Supreme Court justices."During the final week of the race, Affleck stumped for Gore in California, Florida, and Pennsylvania. During a stop in Pittsburgh, the star--along with Helen Hunt, Martin Sheen, Rob Reiner and other actors--spent an hour at a phone bank calling registered Democrats. "People in my generation have a low voter turnout. One of the reasons that I'm here is to demonstrate that no matter who you are going to vote for... I think it's important to get involved and get out and vote," Affleck told reporters. "But I'm going to tell people to vote for Gore."
On October 28, 2000, Affleck flew with the First Lady (Hillary Clinton) to Ithaca, New York, where he introduced her at a Cornell University rally. Affleck told the college crowd that Clinton had been advocating for women and working families since "Rick Lazio was running around the frat house in his underwear." Lazio, then a Long Island congressman, was Clinton's Republican opponent.
On Monday, November 6, the final day of the campaign, Affleck was one of several A-list celebrities summoned to Miami Beach by Miramax Films boss Harvey Weinstein for a late-night Gore rally, just hours before polls opened nationwide. The Gore campaign's last event, a final effort to energize South Beach voters, didn't end until about 1 AM, but Affleck flew back to New York that morning and made a surprise live appearance on The Rosie O'Donnell Show. It was 10:15 when he made his final public pitch from a Rockefeller Center studio, noting that he was "a little bit tired...I've been out getting involved, doing stuff and trying to get people to vote. And that's why I came by here." Also, "Today is the get-out-the-vote day and...I think this is the time to get involved, especially the young folks who are here ... I'm about to go vote," Affleck then said, adding later, "I am personally gonna vote for Al Gore."
Affleck has some political experience, I healthy respect for democracy, strong Democratic beliefs, and the ability to instantly make the race competitive. While Virginia Governor Mark Warner was my first choice to challenge Senator Allen, I think it is important that we put the seat in play. If Ben Affleck is interested, I think he should file.
UPDATE: Bowers joins the bandwagon, meaning Affleck could have the makings of some blogosphere backing if he decides to run:
I now think Ben Affleck should run for Senate in Virginia. Here is why.The Jack Carter announcement today increased the number of competitive Democratic challenges to Republican-held Senate seats to eight (Arizona, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Tennessee). Over the past week, with Hoeven bowing out in North Dakota and Capito bowing out in West Virginia, the number of potentially competitive Republican challenges to Democratic-held Senate seats has been reduced to seven (Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey and Washington). Thus, for the first time, in the 2005-2006 cycle, Democrats have actually pulled ahead in the number of potentially competitive seats they are challenging in the Senate. [...]
Apart from a decided monetary advantage, one key for Republicans in 2002 and 2004 in the Senate was to create more competitive challenges to Democratic-held seats than Democrats created to Republican held seats. In the final weeks of the campaign, this stretched Democratic resources very thin, and allowed Republicans to pick up almost all of the close Senate races in both years. For example, ion 2004, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania never emerged as highly competitive Democratic challenges to Republican held seats, while Washington and Wisconsin become, if not truly competitive, a lot closer than most people expected. The DSCC was forced to help defend Murray and Feingold, while the NRSC wasn't forced to do much of anything to help Bond, Specter and Voinovich. Democrats managed to do this to Republicans in 2000 as well, when they scored a net gain of five seats.
This is a strategy that should have been obvious to me from day one, since it is exactly the sort of strategy I have been advocating in the House for quite some time. Challenge every seat, aim for the leadership, and reduce the number of minimal challenges as much as possible, thus draining Republican resources away from the swing seats during the campaign as much as possible. It makes sense for the Senate as well.
Thus, no matter how much of a media circus an Affleck candidacy might become, it seems to me that he would be an excellent bonus to Democratic chances in the Senate in 2006. He is already very well known, has good looks and good politics, is a strong speaker, and could easily self-finance his run against Allen, who pretty close the the under-50 incumbent tipping point. Thus, Affleck would instantly increase the number of competitive Democratic challenges to nine seats, further stretching the Democratic advantage in this area. If Lott retires, that could potentially make ten serious challenges to Republican-held seats. And who knows, maybe we will continue to experience good news in places like Maryland, Nebraska and New Jersey, pushing Democrats out to a huge edge in seats we are seriously challenging. [...]
Humble and tasteful, well-spoken and smart, liberal and instantly competitive--Affleck suddenly looks very good to me. With the way things are going, over the past three months 2006 has looked better than better for Democrats all the time. Let's keep that roll going. Run Ben, run.
MyDD also has a poll, go vote.
Posted at 03:11 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, 2008 President - Republicans, Democrats, Netroots, Virginia | Comments (4) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
MT-Sen: Reid Billboard in Helena
Posted by Bob BrighamThe Montana Senate racing is receiving a great deal of attention from Democratic Party leaders. Former Montana Democratic Party Chair Bob Ream endorsed Jon Tester, saying, "he is the only Democrat who can beat Conrad Burns."
As the Swing State Project reported last week, Senator Harry Reid's new PAC is also getting involved in Montana.
HELENA - New billboards went up in Helena, Phoenix and Albuquerque, N.M., touting a new Web site by U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid that he said will provide Americans with tools to fight for Democratic control of the Senate next year.The Nevada senator's campaign account paid for the three billboards to promote his Web site, www.giveemhellharry.com. The Helena billboard is on the corner of Montana Avenue and Poplar Street.
In a telephone conference, Reid called on Americans to join him to tell the nation's largest oil companies that gas prices are outrageous. Oil executives refused to testify before the Democratic Policy Committee last week on rising oil prices, he said.
The Democratic Western Strategy is coming together...
"I want to do whatever I can to reach out to people in rural America to let them know Democrats care about them," Reid said.The national Democratic Party has believed if the party can win the votes in the big cities around the country, it will win the presidency and control of Congress. Although that theory worked well for years, it no longer does, he said.
"We should own rural America," Reid said. "We're the ones who have saved the family farms. Republicans are doing everything they can to help the bankers."
Democrats pushed for the Medicare changes that saved rural hospitals and saved Social Security from "the Bush onslaught," the Senate Democratic leaders said.
Posted at 02:29 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Montana | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Hackett Effect: Six Veterans Running as Democrats
Posted by Bob BrighamWhile the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is hiding from the Iraq issue, individuals are stepping up to fill the DC Establishment leadership void. In fact, there are already 6 veterans ready to serve again -- in Congress:
While fighting in Iraq, a private asked then-Capt. Patrick Murphy why U.S. forces were in the Persian Gulf nation and was told it didn't matter; there was a job to do and just try to return home safely."That wasn't the time to question our government," Murphy recalled.
Now, however, Murphy and five other veterans of the war are asking questions about President Bush's policies in Iraq as part of their broader Democratic campaigns to win congressional seats in next year's elections.
Given their experience in Iraq, the six Democrats in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Maryland and Virginia say they are eminently qualified to pose the tough questions.
Unlike the DCCC, these six candidates are in line with the American people:
Their reservations mirror public opinion, with an increasing number of Americans expressing concern about the mission and favoring a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll indicated only 37 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Iraq, with 62 percent disapproving.
This summer, Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran, nearly defeated Republican Jean Schmidt in a special election in an Ohio district considered a GOP stronghold. Hackett focused on his wartime experience and his opposition to Bush's policies.
Unlike the DCCC, these six candidates are doing their duty:
"Some guys don't think it's time to question our government, but the fact is I love my country," said Murphy, 31, a lawyer who fought in the 82nd Airborne Division. "We need to have an exit strategy now."Murphy is challenging first-term Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, a Republican in the northern Philadelphia suburbs of the 8th District.
Another Iraq war veteran, Texas Republican Van Taylor, is also running for a House seat, but he backs President Bush.
It's too soon to measure the impact of the war on the 2006 elections, but the handful of veterans pursuing seats in the House of Representatives is an early indicator.
The press thinks this is a story, the veterans know first-hand how high the stakes are, and it is clear that individuals are stepping up to fill the leadership vacuum created by wimpy Washington Establishment Democrats.
Please use the comments to let us know what you know about this six Democrats.
Posted at 02:17 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Democrats, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
IL-06: Peter O'Malley, We Hardly Knew Ya
Posted by Tim TagarisI don't know if was the improved fundraising by Christine Cegelis, her massive grassroots organization, or if it was work/family demands, but another Democratic challenger in IL-6, Peter O'Malley, has bowed out of the race. From a message sent out by the DuPage County Democrats:
Fellow Democrats: I was notified today that Peter O'Malley is formally withdrawing as a candidate for IL 6th Congressional District race. I would like to thank Peter for his consideration of running as a candidate as well as for all of his hard work up to this time.Peter has cited that the demands of his present job as well as his young family as reasons for withdrawing and we can all certainly understand and applaud his reasons.
Let's all thank Peter for his interest and commitment for being a strong candidate as well as an excellent representative of the Democratic Party in DuPage County.
Time is running out here, and with Christine's impressive showing in the DFA-List polling over the past two weeks, I can't imagine the DCCC will attempt to step on the toes of the grassroots. For months they have flirted with the idea of bringing another Democrat into the race, one that can self-fund, but it appears we have our candidate now...time tested and grassroots approved; Christine Cegelis.
Posted at 02:15 PM in Illinois | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
NV-Sen: Jack Carter, Son of Jimmy, to Challenge Ensign
Posted by Bob BrighamAs regular readers know, Swing State Project has been disappointed in the lack of recruitment for a candidate to run against Senator John Ensign in Nevada. This senate race is primed for an upset, nowhere in the country is the backlash against the GOP over-reach more relevant. People move to Nevada to escape the heavy hand of government that has typified the Bush Administration.
Via MyDD, it is going to be a competive race:
Jack Carter, 58, has been quietly networking in recent weeks to weigh the possibility of a run for U.S. Senate against incumbent John Ensign. Carter recently sought the advice of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and former Sen. Richard Bryan.On Tuesday, Carter confirmed he's considering entering the race, and he sounds serious. An investment counselor, Carter and his wife, Elizabeth, moved to Las Vegas three years ago.
"I'm disgusted when I see where the country is going," he says. "That's what's motivated me to look into this race."
Carter seems to understand the dynamic of the over-reach and will be able to receive the national support necessary for an upset:
Jack Carter is a U.S. Navy veteran who has spent most of his life in politics but much of it offstage. He has maintained national Democratic Party contacts and has networked with local officials. He gave national stump speeches on behalf of his father, the Georgia governor who campaigned for nearly two years in a strategy that culminated in the upset in 1976 of President Ford.It would be easy to write off Carter before he's written himself in. Nevada has rarely been kind to candidates voters perceive as wealthy outsiders. Former casino executive Tom Gallagher, for instance, was a bright guy with an impeccable education who was battered when he challenged Jon Porter for his congressional seat. In keeping with tradition, Porter exploited Gallagher's lack of time in the state.
But neither Gallagher nor the rest offered Jack Carter's vast contacts and background in politics.
Asked to describe his political philosophy, he offers, "I think of myself as just being responsible, fiscally and socially. I want the government to stay out of people's pockets as much as it can and to stay out of their private lives."
In addition to nurturing the backlash against the over-reach, Carter is also positioning himself as a solution to Republican incompetence:
Carter said he decided to run in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. He said he was offended by the federal government's response to the disaster."I'm more concerned than ever with the way that the country is headed," Carter said.
In making his case, Carter appears to understand the quality of a good sound-bite:
He said he is a social liberal with conservative Southern roots and a business background that taught him "you pay for what you spend."
The latest polls show Ensign only having a 53% approval rating, which is probably falling with every Republican blunder. More importantly, Bush has a 56% DISapproval rating which will continue to drag down Ensign's support.
From day 1, this will be a competitive race.
Posted at 01:05 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Nevada | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
DCCC Incumbent Protection Message on Iraq
Posted by Bob BrighamTwo months ago today, David Sirota rightly blasted the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for a disconnect on Iraq:
On the issue of the Iraq War, the disconnect between the Washington, D.C. Democratic Party establishment and political reality in America is growing by the day. Case in point is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's attitude towards the tremendous special election run by Paul Hackett in the staunchly Republican Cincinnati suburbs.
Hackett, an Iraq War veteran, made headlines in the campaign for taking a strong position against the original decision to go to war in Iraq, even calling the President of the United States an SOB. And while it's true, Hackett didn't support full withdrawal from Iraq, few would deny that his position opposing the war was a key part of his campaign.
Ultimately, the anti-war position defined his candidacy, and was the clear reason he was able to do so well in such a Republican district. That should be no surprise: polls have been telling us for months that America agrees with Hackett in believing going to war in Iraq was a mistake. Meanwhile, Americans' view of President Bush's handling of Iraq is at its lowest level ever.
Incredibly, however, in a memo sent to all Democratic House Members about what Democrats should learn from the Hackett race, the DCCC makes not one mention of the Iraq War and its effect on the election. Not one. It is as if the party is going out of its way to deny the importance of Democrats taking a strong position against the war, or making the war a serious issue in their campaigns.
In the two months since the infamous DCCC Chair Rahm Emanuel sent this memo, more than 150 US troops have made the ultimate sacrifice and public opinion polls have moved another 5-10 points against Emanuel and Bush.
Any Democrat serious about challenging an incumbent Republican member of Congress is wise to make Iraq a defining issue in the race. Yet the DCCC has remained silent on Iraq because the message is quite different for incumbent Democrats who -- like Congressman Rahm Emanuel -- are on the wrong side of the issue. As long as the DCCC remains silent, it is clear that their message and priority is incumbent protection -- trying to minimize losses instead of winning seats.
Yesterday, Chris Bowers noted that Congressman Rahm Emanuel never mentioned "Iraq" when talking about the difference between Democrats and Republicans on Meet the Press:
This is despite the fact that recent polling has repeatedly shown that the number one difference between rank and file Democrats and rank and file Republicans is, in general, differing views on national security policy and the use of military force and, in particular, the decision to go to war in Iraq. This is despite the fact that back in May, during the first vote on withdrawal in the House, Republicans voted 98% against and over 60% of Democrats voted in favor. And that was in May.So, it would appear that the DCCC wants to sweep the number one issue that separates Democrats from Republicans under the rug. This issue also happens to be the number one issue in the country. And oh yeah--it is an issue on which the majority Democratic position has overwhelming national support, including a near majority among Republicans.
.
But hey, let's not run on said issue. In fact, let's not even mention it. Let's take it off the table, because that worked really well in 2002. Let's brag, like Schumer did in 2002, that Bush was winking at us during his speech when he was stating his case for war--a war which DSCC head Schumer voted for--rather than arguing that said speech and said war was based upon lies. Let's not talk about Iraq, because we are Democrats, and we don't want to win, and we don't want to address the important issues of the day, and we don't have the guts to stand up and support what the vast majority of our caucus, our rank-and-file, and our entire nation supports.
If Iraq isn't on the Democratic agenda in 2006, we will lose. A party will never sweep to power if it holds the same minority position on the most important issue of the day as the current governing party. I am starting to wonder if Democrats in D.C. have the ability to grasp this, or if they even care.
That last line brings up an important question and the answer is the difference between Rahm Emanuel's DCCC being incompetent or just lacking an interest in anything other than protecting incumbent Democrats. Because I would hate to think it is the former, I'm going to assume it is the latter. Regardless, I think it is clear that the DCCC is not focused on winning additional seats in 2006.
A few hours later, Bower's post was linked on the most popular Democratic blog where Kos said:
The DCCC's top dog, Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, is putting together a pretty solid foundation for a "Democratic agenda". Yet he continues to avoid Iraq like the plague, ignoring the most pressing and important issue of the day.A reminder to those blinder-wearing DC Dems -- support for the Iraq War is crashing.
Two months ago, Sirota smacked Emanuel upside the head and it played out in the papers:
"This sentiment gives Democrats an opening," he said recently. "We can now make the case that an exit strategy from Iraq will actually strengthen our national security. We have to stand up for our principles. There is strength in national-security prudence. There is weakness in national-security impulsiveness, as Bush has demonstrated. People will believe us. They have the evidence in front of their eyes every night on the evening news."Unfortunately, he argued, the top Democrats are boxed by their own past complicity: "They were proponents of this war... . They can't speak out now with any moral authority."
Some net-roots liberals are even demanding that the pro-war Democrats show some contrition. Bob Brigham, who runs Swingstateproject.com, said: "We as a party can't run from this issue any longer. Some people need to admit being wrong about the war. And we all need to show some political courage. That's what voters respect. If you have core convictions, and aggressively demonstrate that, voters will respect you, regardless of whether they agree with you on individual issues."
Brigham and Sirota, among others, cite the results of an Ohio congressional race on Aug. 2. In a die-hard Republican district where Democrats routinely lose by 40 points, Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq veteran who contended that Bush has been "incredibly stupid" on the war, lost by only two. Yet the Washington Democrats seemed not to notice; when the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee analyzed Hackett's strong showing in a memo, it never cited the war as a factor.
Congressman Emanuel needs to make a major adjustment in strategy. As long as the DCCC ignores Iraq, it is not an organization worth supporting unless your goal is to waste money on incompetence or fund an effort focused on Democrats minimizing losses.
Bloggers are calling bullshit on this strategy and something tells me we are close to another round of this playing out in the press. While I'm pulling together some choice quotes for reporters, I hope Congressman Emanuel begins dealing with a subject he has avoided for far too long.
The 2006 midterm elections could be tidal for Democrats, but we need some leadership on the most important issue of the day to pull it off. The current leadership vacuum will be filled, if not by the DCCC then from the ground up with a message they can't control.
While I would love to see 2006 be a Democratic year, the establishment Democrats lack of contrast with the Republicans means it could very well be a "throw the bums out" cycle. If Emanuel cares about keeping incumbent Democrats in congress, the quickest route is to join the American people on the most important issue and have some contrast with the GOP. This is also the quickest route to pick up seats, but I think we all realize that isn't the goal.
UPDATE: Sirota piles on.
UPDATE: Looking at the transcript, we see that Emanuel was asked about Iraq:
MR. RUSSERT: So, for example, should we withdraw troops from Iraq?REP. EMANUEL: Well, I--let me--let's take what the general just said. Let's deal with that.
The correct answer is, "damn straight" but since Emanuel wants to sit on the fence and not offer a yes or no answer, he gets questioned again.
MR. RUSSERT: But what are the Democratic ideas?REP. EMANUEL: I'm going to lay them out. I here to answer it. You know, what you guys have provided, Tom, is a set of old policies, even in this crisis we have with Katrina, that got us to this result, which is a failed set of policies, where, in fact, we've added up $3 trillion in the nation's debt, more people are losing health care, and poverty's going up. Democrats want to offer big ideas to change the direction of this country because we can do better.
On Iraq, we have a false choice between stay the course and get the same results and just pull up. I think Senator Levin laid out a very good agenda, which is we're going to have measurements. You can't say after two and a half years, like you asked the general before, two and a half years, nearly $400 billion, and we have one Iraqi battalion? We're going to set standards every way and measurements from the political process, economic process and also on the military and national security where Iraq has to stand up.
MR. RUSSERT: OK. So--so...
REP. EMANUEL: Let me go over--let's go...
MR. RUSSERT: No, no, wait. So if the Iraqis do not stand up, if there are not 10 battalions, 15 battalions in place, we withdraw?
REP. EMANUEL: See, Tim, that's the wrong question, in my view.
MR. RUSSERT: Well...
REP. EMANUEL: I'll tell you why, because when we...
MR. RUSSERT: But it's the question I asked.
REP. EMANUEL: But the Congress has an obligation to hold a standard. We have given the president a blank check. It's been a rubber-stamp Congress that sent troops in there without Kevlar vests, without Humvees. We have to have a standard in which Iraq and the administration measure up over the two years, and at that point we'll evaluate where we are.
There is an answer that fits nicely on a bumper sticker.
MR. RUSSERT: So was it a mistake for Democrats in the Senate and House to vote to authorize the war?REP. EMANUEL: Given the information that we were given them, they made their decision. What has been a mistake is to let this type of administration basically run a policy of incompetence when it comes to Iraq.
The problem is that Bush is able to continue his "policy of incompetence" because of weak Democratic leaders who were on the wrong side of the vote, have been hiding from the issue, and won't give a simple answer that voters can digest.
Why Democrats don't have a message on Iraq as part of what is the difference between Democrats and Republicans is a major, major problem. Emanuel needs to get his act together.
Posted at 11:25 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Culture of Corruption, Democrats, International, Ohio, Polls, Scandals | Comments (5) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
CA-48: Special Election Results
Posted by Tim TagarisAbsentee ballots counted and John Campbell (R) has cracked 50 percent. I don't know how that snapshot will differ from the ballots cast today, but I would guess that as things got more contentious down the stretch, that will negatively impact the leader's vote totals. Minuteman Glichrist barely cracked 6%. Steve Young is the closest Dem. in 3rd with 10.1%
Check the updates with the link above. It's been an hour and fifteen minutes since the last update, and I am not waiting any longer.
Posted at 11:09 PM in | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
OH-Sen: Harriet Miers, the Blogs, and Mike DeWine's Re-Election Campaign
Posted by Bob BrighamFollowing Paul Hackett's astonishing showing in the OH-02 Special Election, there was a great deal of ink used by pundits trying to understand how Hackett's blogosphere support allowed him to outspend Jean Schmidt in a congressional district Democrats had written off for the longest time.
In fact, Campaigns and Elections Magazine currently has a cover story: Blogging Down the Money Trail on the subject. The netroots scored CNN's Political Play of the Week. The press and establishment hacks on both sides of the aisle began paying attention to the potential of online small dollar donations being deployed to crucial districts. You would think more people would have been thinking this way after Howard Dean, but then again, most of the people now paying attention are the ones who said Dean was making a mistake by not accepting matching funds. Yet Dean raised more money with his distributed model, Hackett outspent Schmidt, and now a helluva lot of serious people are wondering how this will play out in 2006.
I think we can get an idea of this dynamic by looking a Senator Mike DeWine's re-election campaign in Ohio.
The Ohio Senate race is destined to be one of the most closely watched in the nation. Ohio is a crucial swing state, and Ohio Republicans are engulfed in major corruption scandals. As Democrats move to embrace the "Culture of Corruption" meme against Republicans, polls in Ohio will give us an early glimpse of how such a message could move voters.
Ohio is also home to very expensive media markets and the winning campaign will be the one most successful at capturing the attention of voters. As a tight swing state, the potential for a close race is very real and the impact of the blogs could be enormous.
Republican Blogs and Mike DeWine
Mike DeWine is in a tricky situation as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Kos says:
One last key point -- DeWine sits on the judicial committee, which will become a flash point as social conservatives gear up to oppose the Miers nomination to the Supreme Court. DeWine can't afford to lose the diehard social conservatives, already made difficult when he joined the Gang of 14 that prevented Frist from executing his "nuclear option" on judicial filibusters.
After the Gang of 14 move by Senator DeWine, conservative bloggers mounted a Not. One. Dime. boycott of the National Republican Senatorial Committee:
Not. One. Dime. The next time Ken Mehlman sends you a request for money, that's the message he needs to get back. We ponied up in 2004, and in 2002, and in 2000. The GOP not only has not delivered, its current leadership won't even try. Frist and Rick Santorum claim they don't have the votes. Balderdash -- they don't have the leadership to get the votes. I'm not going to fund or support people who won't try to win, especially when the issue is so important.Not. One. Dime. We're not in an election year, so this makes it easy for the Republicans to get this message to party leaders. No balls, no Blue Chips, boys. I don't mean just for the Senate, either. I mean for the entire Republican party. Feeding a fever may be good medicine, but feeding a failure only makes it last longer. Perhaps hunger will work where courage has so obviously failed.
Not. One. Dime. And when a vote does come, those Republicans who wind up supporting the minority's extortion over the majority in defiance of the Constitution will never see another dime from me -- but their opponents will, at every level of contest. Honestly, with Republicans like these in the Senate, we may as well have Democrats.
Now, convervative bloggers a livid over the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court. The GOP is fracturing and his now on the defense in 2006 and 2008. The Harriet Miers' paper trail is on the verge of making conservative heads explode.
The smart move for DeWine would be to use his position on the Judiciary Committee to blast Miers and then vote against her, saving his conservative credentials and patching up his strained relationship with the right-wing bloggers. But it doesn't look like that is his intention:
DeWine's ability to defend his seat against suddenly competitive Democrats might depend on his position on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which puts him at the center of the latest Supreme Court nomination process.DeWine and his 17 committee mates will hold confirmation hearings for White House counsel Harriet Miers, announced Monday by President Bush as his nominee to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. [...]
In an interview Monday after the nomination was announced, DeWine gave Miers a strong endorsement.
That is not what the conservative bloggers want to hear. Even worse, it looks like DeWine's situation will both hurt him with his base while not yielding any position with independents:
White isn't so sure that voters will focus on the nomination process because of the investment and ethics scandals involving Ohio's Republican-controlled state government."At this time, (the Supreme Court) is not driving the political arena here," White said, adding DeWine could have to deal with fallout from decisions Miers and recently confirmed Chief Justice John Roberts make.
To recap, DeWine is in a situation where the voters are focusing on the "Culture of Corruption" in the Ohio Republican Party and the conservative blogs have zero interest in helping him. This was the same position (now) Congresswoman Jean Schmidt found herself in when the conservative bloggers sat out this year's Special Election.
Democratic Blogs and the Ohio Senate Race
Even with a (slim) prospect of Congressman Sherrod Brown challenging Paul Hackett for the Democratic Party nomination, the Democratic blogs are remarkably focused upon the race.
Sure, there is some internal tension with the Blogfather pushing Sherrod Brown and Paul Hackett enjoying a 70 percentage point advantage in a new straw poll.
Yet either way, the Democratic Blogosphere is going to be pumped to support the Democratic nominee against Senator DeWine.
Since Hackett is the only announced candidate, let's see what he brings to the table.
The above is a map of Hackett contributors during the Special Election. Yes, that is a 50 state base that came together in two weeks. With Hackett running, we can expect a campaign of straight talk and bold action that cuts through the clutter and connects with voters of all political leanings.
When I was embedded with the Hackett campaign, I kept hearing, "I don't agree with you, but I appreciate where you're coming from." These were voters who disagreed with, but respected, Major Hackett. They voted for Hackett, because they knew he was something special.
Democratic activists also have a lot of respect for Congressman Sherrod Brown since he is the exact personification of a Representative who will makes the grassroots feel a sense of pride in supporting.
2006
So going into 2006, it appears that Senator Mike DeWine will be lacking the newest force in politics for his re-election campaign. At the same time, the Democratic blogosphere and netroots are united to throw DeWine out of office.
The only out for DeWine is to vote against his President and vote against Harriet Miers nomination for the Supreme Court. But DeWine is too chicken and that is part of the reason the conservative base won't raise a finger for his campaign.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are embracing cutting edge campaign tactics. Paul Hackett ran the most efficient blogosphere campaign ever and Rep. Brown started Grow Ohio. No matter what happens, it is looking like the netroots are going to kick Mike DeWine's ass out of the U.S. Senate.
Posted at 08:18 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Netroots, Ohio, Scandals, Supreme Court | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
MT-Sen: Bob Ream Endorses Jon Tester
Posted by Bob BrighamIn a major sign of momentum for Montana Senate President Jon Tester is the endorsement of former Professor, State Legislator, and Democratic Party Chair Bob Ream. In an email, Ream says:
Since my retirement after eight years as Chair of the Montana Democratic Party, I’ve managed to stay quite busy – doing “deferred maintenance” at home and taking a much-needed vacation with my family.Now it’s time for me to get back into politics and participate in a way that I haven’t been able to in years: by getting involved in a primary.
I spent 16 years in the Montana House and I am dedicated to helping Jon Tester win both the primary and the general election.
Jon Tester is my good friend and he is the only Democrat who can beat Conrad Burns. Tester is a farmer from north-central Montana who appeals to rural and urban Montana voters. Tester knows what it’s like to wake up at 4:30 a.m. and work out in the fields. The dirt on his cowboy boots is real. He’s a third-generation Montana farmer who will take Montanan’s needs and issues to Washington without the help of Jack Abramoff or other lobbyists. (emphasis Ream)
What does this mean for the Democratic Primary campaign where Tester is being challenged by the DLC's John Morrison?
First, it is important to note that Tester is solidifying his advantage with the Democratic establishment -- even while running a populist campaign. During Ream's time as Chair, he spent countless months on the road organizing Democrats across the state, which came together in last year's Montana Miracle sweep. Ream is respected and known in all 56 counties and his support is a major coup for the Tester campaign.
Next, it is important to note that Ream wrote and even bolded that Tester is, "the only Democrat who can beat Conrad Burns.". Ream believes in straight talk and it is refreshing to see him convey the fact that John Morrison can't win.
For Democrats nationwide, the Montana Senate Primary is critical.
Tester first lined up the support of Montana bloggers which allowed him to get national blog support. Likewise, I hope that Tester's support from Montana Democrats will allow him to get support from national Democrats.
Posted at 05:04 PM in Montana | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Harriet Miers Paper Trail
Posted by Bob Brigham
Conservative bloggers were outraged to learn of Harriet Miers Homosexual Agenda of support gays and lesbians. Conservatives lost it when they found out Miers had donated money to Al Gore's campaign. During the first 24 hours, the Harriet Miers paper trail was nothing but bad news for her nomination.
Now we have the photo trail, an event that the mainstream media won't touch. From Editor and Publisher:
On its front page Tuesday, The New York Times published a photo of new U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers going over a briefing paper with President George W. Bush at his Crawford ranch “in August 2001,” the caption reads.USA Today and the Boston Globe carried the photo labeled simply “2001,” but many other newspapers ran the picture in print or on the Web with a more precise date: Aug. 6, 2001.
Does that date sound familiar? Indeed, that was the date, a little over a month before 9/11, that President Bush was briefed on the now-famous “PDB” that declared that Osama Bin Laden was “determined” to attack the U.S. homeland, perhaps with hijacked planes. But does that mean that Miers had anything to do with that briefing?
As it turns out, yes, according to Tuesday's Los Angeles Times. An article by Richard A. Serrano and Scott Gold observes that early in the Bush presidency “Miers assumed such an insider role that in 2001 it was she who handed Bush the crucial 'presidential daily briefing' hinting at terrorist plots against America just a month before the Sept. 11 attacks.”
The significance?
The PDB was headed “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” and notes, among other things, FBI information indicating “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks.”
This is the probably with Bush promoting cronies -- they aren't fit for jobs they are giving. It appears Harriet Miers is earning the nickname, Brownie Miers
Posted at 03:14 PM in International, Scandals, Supreme Court | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
TX-22: Tom DeLay Facing Life in Prison
Posted by Bob BrighamThere is a major political battle brewing in the twenty-second congressional district of Texas where embattled Republican Majority Leader Congressman Tom DeLay is being challenged by former Congressman Nick Lampson.
Last spring, this race looked competitive because everyone knew Rep. Tom DeLay was crooked. Then this race catapulted because Tom DeLay was indicted for conspiracy to committ crookedness. Yesterday, DeLay was indicted again, this time for money laundering with a bonus charge of conspiring to launder money.
And now DeLay's trickster lawyers have him looking at life in prison:
A bit of a chess game is developing in Texas, as Ronnie Earle attempts to make Tom DeLay pay for his sins. First, we had an indictment on conspiracy, a charge which carries a penalty of six months to two years in jail. "Conspiracy!" Republican operatives mocked. "This is just a conspiracy against Tom DeLay." And really, people said, conspiracy is just what you charge when you've got nothing better.But then DeLay lawyer Dick Deguerin, who embarrassed Ronnie Earle in the Kay Bailey Hutchison case, files a motion to say the conspiracy statue didn't apply to campaign finance law in TX until September 2003, a year after DeLay dreamt up his little conspiracy.
Wham!! Just a few hours later, Earle (who seems to have snuck a new grand jury into his back pocket without Deguerin noticing) gets a jury to indict on money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Charges which carry sentences of up to life in prison for the money laundering charge, and twenty years for the conspiracy to commit money laundering.
So DeLay's lawyers had a client looking at 2 years and their expert legal maneuvering positioned their client to now be looking at life behind bars?
Back in Sugar Land, the Democratic candidate for congress is letting the courts and the national media give Congressman DeLay his due. Reports indicate Nick Lampson is keeping his focus on running hard for the Texans in the district, instead of just running against DeLay.
Here is Lampson's statement:
"We always knew ethics would be an issue for Tom DeLay, but I cannot make that the entire basis of my campaign. I now have to work even harder to get my agenda out to the voters of this district, and present a positive alternative to Congressman DeLay. I will campaign on a return to fiscal discipline, service to constituents and security for Southeast Texans. Ethics will inevitably be a part of this race, but it will be up to the judicial system to decide whether or not Tom DeLay is guilty."
Indeed, the judicial system will decide whether DeLay is guilty of corruption, but the voters are already making up their minds about whether Tom DeLay is crooked.
DeLay's re-election campaign will be one of the most expensive in the nation and is anchored in a high-dollar media market. But if Nick Lampson has enough money to get out his message, Tom DeLay's past will continue to fuel the ethical fires consuming the Republican Party.
Posted at 01:19 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Culture of Corruption, Republicans, Scandals, Texas | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
OH-Sen: Hackett Crushing Brown in Straw Poll
Posted by Bob BrighamThere has been a great deal of discussion about yesterday's surprise hint of a decision change by Representative Sherrod Brown. As has been widely noted, Congressman Brown had near universal support for a potential senate bid, but decided not to run so as to clear the way for another candidate. Enter Paul Hackett, who has been working behind the scenes to put the pieces in place for a statewide run against Senator Mike DeWine (for example, yesterday Hackett was meeting with Senator Harry Reid). But also yesterday, Congressman Sherrod Brown decided to have his flack call the Hotline and hint he might flip and run after all.
We now have a DailyKos Straw Poll on the matter. While not scientific, I think there is more than enough participation to suggest where netroots support will be if there is a primary campaign between Brown and Hackett.
UPDATED: With13281666 Total VotesCongressman Sherrod Brown -
14%13%
Major Paul Hackett -85%86%
A seventy point advantage?
And with all apologies to Brown, who is one of the greats in the House, but this isn't cool. He bows out, waits for Hackett to gear up, and then floats a trial balloon about getting back in? Brown must've known about Hackett's decision to run, hence this trial balloon is sabotage.I'm not even sure who is the best candidate, the bullshit "who's most electable" question. That Zogby poll earlier today had Hackett kicking DeWine's ass. I assume Brown would do roughly as well. But in a primary, Brown has the instiutional state party apparatus (no matter how pathetic Ohio Dems might be). Hackett is an outsider.
Me, give me an Iraq vet over a career politician, even one with Brown's excellent pedigree.
Indeed.
Posted at 11:39 AM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Democrats, Netroots, Ohio | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, October 03, 2005
Bush Chickens Out; Conservative Heads Explode
Posted by Bob BrighamThe consensus is established: Bush is a lame duck and the reaction to Harriet Miers is nothing but angst from the Republican base. Because President George Bush is a "Lame Duck" who fears the Democrats more than the loss of his base. Here is the raw political analysis...
The New York Times:
By instead settling on a loyalist with no experience as a judge and little substantive record on abortion, affirmative action, religion and other socially divisive issues, Mr. Bush shied away from a direct confrontation with liberals and in effect asked his base on the right to trust him on this one.The question is why.
On one level, his reasons for trying to sidestep a partisan showdown are obvious, and come down to his reluctance to invest his diminished supply of political capital in a battle over the court.
The White House is still struggling to recover from its faltering response to Hurricane Katrina. The Republican Party is busily trying to wave away a scent of second-term scandal. The relentlessly bloody insurgency in Iraq continues to weigh heavily on his presidency. And no president can retain his political authority for long if he loses his claim to the center.
"The swagger is gone from this White House," said Charles E. Cook Jr., editor of The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan newsletter, citing a litany of other difficulties afflicting the administration, including high gasoline prices and the failure of Mr. Bush's push to overhaul Social Security. "They know they have horrible problems and they came up with the least risky move they could make."
The Bush Administration and the Republican Party have been gripped by the Fear. They are playing defense. One might even say the GOP is behaving like the Democratic Party (ouch).
The Washington Post:
If President Bush's goal is to shift the Supreme Court in a more conservative direction, his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers yesterday signaled a desire to do so as quietly as possible. The nomination appeared designed primarily to avoid a major fight in the Senate and, said skeptics on the left and right, was made out of a position of political weakness, not strength.Bush's decision confounded both right and left, as perhaps the president's advisers had hoped. In nominating someone who caused dismay among conservative activists but who provoked little strong opposition among Democrats -- and words of praise from Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) -- the White House may have calculated that Bush can more easily afford some early heat from the right than a titanic struggle with Democrats that could tie up the Senate and leave him in an even weaker position three months from now.
Reaction to Harriet Miers from the Republican Party
The Republican Establishment is pissed, just ask Richard Viguerie:
“Congratulations are due to Ralph Neas, Nan Aron, and Chuck Schumer for going toe-to-toe with President Bush and forcing him to blink,” said conservative activist Richard A. Viguerie. “Liberals have successfully cowed President Bush by scaring him off from nominating a known conservative, strict constructionist to the Court, leaving conservatives fearful of which direction the Court will go.”“President Bush desperately needed to have an ideological fight with the Left to redefine himself and re-energize his political base, which is in shock and dismay over his big government policies,” Viguerie added.
“With their lack of strong, identifiable records, President Bush’s choices for Supreme Court nominees seem designed more to avoid a fight with the extreme Left than to appeal to his conservative base,” lamented Viguerie.
Many conservatives worry that without verifiable records, President Bush’s Supreme Court nominees will be more like the liberal Justice Souter than the conservative, strict constructionists Scalia and Thomas.
Remembering and still dismayed about how his father, President George H. W. Bush (the 41st), lied to conservatives and American voters by saying he was a conservative and expressly stating he would not raise taxes, conservatives fear President George W. Bush (the 43rd) has done the same by failing to nominate well-known conservative, strict constructionists to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“President Bush has presided over the largest growth in government since Lyndon Johnson, and now he appears willing to lose all credibility with conservative voters by failing to fulfill his campaign vow to nominate an openly Scalia- or Thomas-like justice,” Viguerie concluded.
Conservatives are also exceedingly disappointed in the Republican Leadership in Congress as well. Conservatives will now begin to seriously consider why they should continue to give their support –money, labor, and votes – to Republican politicians who take their conservative base for granted by continually lying to them.
The Emerging Republican Base is pissed, as the National Journal's Beltway Blogroll reports:
Then came Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court today. The current White House counsel has never served as a judge; she apparently has no substantial paper trail that would enable conservatives to vet her record; and perhaps worst of all, she contributed money to Bush's 2000 nemesis, Democrat Al Gore, when Gore sought the presidency in 1988.The rhetorical dam burst wide open after Bush announced her nomination, and the flood of criticism is thick with conservative voices.
Once again, Malkin is at the forefront. Numerous blogs are quoting her refrain: "What Julie Myers is to the Department of Homeland Security, Harriet Miers is to the Supreme Court." And Mike Krempasky of RedState said bluntly: "Mr. President, you've got some explaining to do. And please remember -- we've been defending you these five years because of this moment."
Right Thinking from the Left Coast eloquently connected the cronyism dots from Brown to Miers. "I'd like to take a moment to coin a new phrase: Brownie moment. A Brownie moment can be defined simply as the moment when a supporter of President Bush is smacked in the head by reality and loses any and all faith in the president from that moment forward. ... This was my Brownie moment," Lee wrote of the Miers nomination.
Bush made the type of cowardly move you would expect from a Lame Duck Chickenhawk. We'll see whether the GOP base sticks to their beliefs or is forced to stand by their failed President. Either way, the political entertainment value of Harriet Miers is significant.
UPDATE: USAToday:
WASHINGTON — President Bush's decision to nominate White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court shows that he isn't afraid to disappoint conservatives, prefers to promote trusted advisers and listens to his wife.
Not a good night to be a conservative.
Posted at 11:51 PM in Netroots, Republicans, Scandals | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
OH-Sen: Paul Hackett is Running for U.S. Senate
Posted by Bob BrighamVia a dailykos diary, we learn Paul Hackett is running:
WASHINGTON -- Paul Hackett, the Iraq War veteran from Cincinnati who was hailed by national Democrats for his narrow loss this summer in a heavily Republican House district, has quickly moved up in rank to challenge Mike DeWine for U.S. Senate in 2006."Paul Hackett is running for U.S. Senate," said spokesman David Woodruff, who served as Hackett's campaign manager in his special election campaign for the 2nd District House seat against Rep. Jean Schmidt.
"He is planning to announce his decision officially on Oct. 24," Woodruff said Monday, adding an event would be held that day in Cincinnati, from which Hackett would begin a statewide bus tour.
And he's already winning:
Hackett (D) 44
DeWine (R) 36
Senator Mike DeWine is doomed.
Posted at 09:08 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Democrats, General, Ohio | Comments (5) | TrackBack (2) | Technorati
Harriet Miers Homosexual Agenda and the Republican Party
Posted by Bob BrighamLast week, Gay Republican David Dreier was (briefly) annointed as Republican Majority Leader, until the radical right realized he was gay and flipped out. The fact Congressman David Dreier was even considered was perceived to be a major slap to the conservative base.
Harriet Miers does not have much of a paper trail, but there is clear records documenting her support for gay rights. And, gay adoption. Did Bush really ignore the entire Christian Right and nominate a lesbian and gay support for a lifetime gig on the Supreme Court? So far, this is the only paper trail available.
This has set up a scenario where the Republicans are heading into the 2006 election cycle, without the support of their base.
This began during the filibuster battle. The GOP blogs called it their Not. One. Dime. campaign:
Not. One. Dime. The next time Ken Mehlman sends you a request for money, that's the message he needs to get back. We ponied up in 2004, and in 2002, and in 2000. The GOP not only has not delivered, its current leadership won't even try. Frist and Rick Santorum claim they don't have the votes. Balderdash -- they don't have the leadership to get the votes. I'm not going to fund or support people who won't try to win, especially when the issue is so important.Not. One. Dime. We're not in an election year, so this makes it easy for the Republicans to get this message to party leaders. No balls, no Blue Chips, boys. I don't mean just for the Senate, either. I mean for the entire Republican party. Feeding a fever may be good medicine, but feeding a failure only makes it last longer. Perhaps hunger will work where courage has so obviously failed.
Not. One. Dime. And when a vote does come, those Republicans who wind up supporting the minority's extortion over the majority in defiance of the Constitution will never see another dime from me -- but their opponents will, at every level of contest. Honestly, with Republicans like these in the Senate, we may as well have Democrats.
Not. One. Dime. If Bill Frist can't lead the GOP, then let's get rid of him now and find someone with the stomach for it. As long as he dithers, he'll never see a dime out of me for any election. Kay Bailey Hutchinson would have more guts and could pull the troops in line better; maybe we should give her a try as Majority Leader for a while.
It's time to send a real message to the Republicans about their priorities and their lack of leadership. This fight has been brewing for months, and it should have already been resolved by now. If they can't hack it, then we will find -- and fund -- the leaders who can.
That was before today, now the Republican base is really pissed off (see here and here).
What's happening over in Right Blogostan right now is simply amazing. It's like the political equivalent of Yugoslavia -- and Tito just died.Suddenly all the repressed anger and resentment at Bush and Rove is boiling over. Hordes of wing nuts are almost literally howling (in ALL CAPS) about the metric tons of shit they've put up with -- the round-the-clock pork festivals, the federal entitlement for drug companies, the congressional leadership so corrupt it would make Boss Tweed blush, the bloody quagmire in Iraq, Mike Brown, the New Deal on the Mississippi, etc. etc. [...]
Meanwhile the hardcore Bush loyalists kinda have their backs pressed up against the wall, with big, round, white eyes -- like a bunch of guards in an asylum for the violently insane who've just realized the Thorazine shots aren't working any more.
I haven't seen anything like this -- a full-scale, knock-down, intra-party brawl that doesn't involve Democrats -- since Shrub's daddy decided he didn't want people to read his lips after all. And all because Harriet Miers gave a few bucks to Al Gore!
I'm sure there is much, much more to come.
Posted at 08:48 PM in 2006 Elections, Republicans, Scandals | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Happy New Year
Posted by DavidNYCI'll be taking off for the next couple of days to celebrate Rosh Hashanah. So to all of you who are joining me in celebrating this holiday, I wish you Shanah Tovah - Happy New Year. May you have a restful and peaceful holiday, and a good year.
(As always, Bob & Tim will have things covered.)
Posted at 07:48 PM in Site News | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
2006 Senate Outlook
Posted by DavidNYC[With AnthonySF's permission, I am reposting in full his excellent Senate outlook diary. Anthony blogs at RemoveRepublicans.com.]
Last week I posted a diary similar to this that got a lot of support but not a lot of recommends. I'm hoping this one will change that, and I'm thinking about making it a recurring series.
As many know, the current Senate makeup is 55-44-1 (or basically 55-45). As I see it, there are 11 seats that could potentially be in play; the rest are pretty much guarantees. Of those 11 only 4 are ours (WA, MD, NE, MN), and if I were a betting man (and I am), I would say only MN has a solid chance of flipping.
The GOP, on the other hand, must play strong defense on 7: PA, RI, MT, OH, TN, MO, and possibly AZ. In other words, it is entirely feasible for us to retake the Senate. At any rate, a decent pickup count seems likely.
A complete analysis follows (and the links take you to each Senator's page on my site with even more info). Please, if you are a constituent of one of these Senators and have more info on the races, post corrections and comments below. These are the Democratic seats we should hold without worry:
| Senator | State | Party | App/Dis | Top Candidate | Notes | |
| Hillary Clinton |  |
NY | Dem | 61%/35% | Jeanine Pirro, Westchester DA | This is Hillary's to lose. If she wins with ~65%, it's a sign she might be ready for the Presidency. If she stalls at 55%, New York will hafta do. |
| Dianne Feinstein |  |
CA | Dem | 54%/34% | None yet | Di-Fi in a cakewalk. Despite her moderate stances, she remains the most popular politician in the state. |
| Jim Jeffords |  |
VT | Ind | Open | Bernie Sanders, Congressman | The socialist Sanders will wipe the floor with prior challenger Greg Parke, Lt. Governor Brian Dubie, or whoever else they throw at him. |
| Ted Kennedy |  |
MA | Dem | 61%/33% | None yet | The GOP may not even field a challenger this time 'round. |
| Thomas Carper |  |
DE | Dem | 66%/22% | Colin Bonini, State Senator | Bonini is a sacrificial lamb in this Dem-leaning state that will surely retain the services of Carper. |
| Daniel Akaka |  |
HI | Dem | 56%/32% | None yet | Akaka is safe -- but angry that Frist keeps denying his Native Hawaiian recognition bill a floor vote. |
| Robert Byrd |  |
WV | Dem | 65%/29% | Hiram Lewis, Veteran | Shelley Capito, who would be the logical choice, has trailed Byrd significantly in every poll. She was the GOP's best bet and last hope. |
| Debbie Stabenow |  |
MI | Dem | 46%/38% | Keith Butler, Reverend | While Stabenow won't be voted Miss Popularity, the GOP again failed to recruit a decent candidate. They are stuck with a kooky clergyman. |
| Kent Conrad |  |
ND | Dem | 69%/25% | None yet | Karl Rove had been lobbying for Gov. Hoeven to enter the race, but he declined. Only with him in it would this've become a toss-up. |
| Bill Nelson |  |
FL | Dem | 48%/31% | Katherine Harris, Congresswoman | Harris will blaze through the primary and flare out in the general. |
| Herb Kohl |  |
WI | Dem | 55%/33% | Mark Neumann or Robert Lorge | Both are prior Congressmen; the former ran a losing campaign against Russ Feingold in 1998. |
| Jeff Bingaman |  |
NM | Dem | 59%/26% | David Pfeffer, Santa Fe City Council | Rep. Heather Wilson ("You KNEW you wanted to build a BUZZZZ") isn't running, leaving a little-known placeholder who was a Dem as recently as last year. |
| Joe Lieberman |  |
CT | Dem | 68%/24% | None yet | No primary challenge, no big GOP names yet, just a bitter cup-o-Joe. |
| Jon Corzine |  |
NJ | Dem | Open | Bob Menendez, Congressman | Long story: Corzine's running for Governor, will probably win, and thus will pick his successor, rumored to be Dem Rep. Bob Menendez. |
These are the Democratic seats I'd consider a weak hold:
| Senator | State | Party | App/Dis | Top Candidate | Notes | |
| Maria Cantwell |  |
WA | Dem | 47%/37% | Mike McGavick, Safeco CEO | Though this will likely stay in our column, Cantwell is only leading McGavick 49%-39% -- the closest race of all sitting Dems. |
| Ben Nelson |  |
NE | Dem | 63%/27% | Don Stenberg, prior challenger | All of the top Republicans are running for Governor, leaving loser Stenberg, Nebraska GOP head David Kramer, and Ameritrade COO Pete Ricketts to duke it out. |
| Paul Sarbanes |  |
MD | Dem | Open | Ben Cardin or Kweisi Mfume | Republican Lt. Governor Michael Steele will probably fall just short of either the NAACP's Mfume (with romantic issues) or Rep. Cardin (with blandness issues). |
These are the Republican seats they should hold without worry:
| Senator | State | Party | App/Dis | Top Candidate | Notes | |
| Olympia Snowe |  |
ME | GOP | 77%/18% | None yet | There were brief rumors that she'd retire, but nothing's official yet. I bet she stays around and coasts to an easy victory. |
| Craig Thomas |  |
WY | GOP | 60%/25% | None yet | We need to be more competitive in the cheap seats. |
| John Ensign |  |
NV | GOP | 53%/31% | None yet | Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman is reportedly eyeing the Governorship. The remaining bench is shallow and Harry Reid is handling Ensign with "kid gloves." |
| Orrin Hatch |  |
UT | GOP | 55%/33% | Pete Ashdown, web guru | Hatch is getting a primary challenge from State Legislator Steve Urquhart -- and Ashdown may do a little damage -- but Hatch is too popular. |
| Trent Lott |  |
MS | GOP | 60%/32% | Erik Fleming, State Rep. | Lott has hinted he may retire, but many doubt Fleming's ability to run a strong race. Dem Rep. Gene Taylor or Atty Gen Mike Moore might fare better. |
| Richard Lugar |  |
IN | GOP | 59%/27% | None yet | Democratic party man Tim Roemer bailed early, the only (slim) hope we had of taking out Lugar. |
| Kay Hutchison |  |
TX | GOP | 57%/29% | Barbara Ann Radnofsky, attorney | Our lawyer probably doesn't stand a chance against the Texas GOP machine. |
| George Allen |  |
VA | GOP | 52%/33% | None yet | Gov. Mark Warner is shamefully out, leaving former Dem Rep. L.F. Payne, former Navy Secretary James Webb, former Lt. Gov Don Beyer, and former famous actor Ben Affleck. |
These are the Republican seats I'd consider a weak hold:
| Senator | State | Party | App/Dis | Top Candidate | Notes | |
| Conrad Burns |  |
MT | GOP | 48%/42% | Jon Tester, State Senator | There are a few other Dem names in the mix, but Tester strikes me as the most genuine and competitive. I expect the polls to reflect this soon. |
| Jon Kyl |  |
AZ | GOP | 49%/33% | Jim Pederson, Dem Party Chair | While this seat will likely remain Republican, Pederson has a war chest and 2006 could be a Dem wave. Kyl is very blah. |
These are the seats of either party, open or incumbent, that I'd consider a toss-up:
| Senator | State | Party | App/Dis | Best Bet | Notes | |
| Mark Dayton |  |
MN | Dem | Open | Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin DA | Klobuchar is the favorite for the Dem nomination over children's advocate Patty Wetterling, and I bet she ekes out a slim win over GOP Rep. Mark Kennedy. |
| Lincoln Chafee |  |
RI | GOP | 55%/37% | Sheldon Whitehouse, former Atty Gen | Whitehouse leads Sec of State Matt Brown for the Dem nod, and although both trail Chafee in the polls (as does GOP primary challenger Steve Laffey), I bet this one flips our way. |
| Mike DeWine |  |
OH | GOP | 42%/43% | Paul Hackett, Iraq Vet | This is quite possibly our dream candidate in our dream situation, and I hope to do work on his campaign. |
| Bill Frist |  |
TN | GOP | Open | Harold Ford, Congressman | There's crowded primary fields on both sides of the aisle, but I bet all this Frist ethics stuff takes its toll. |
| Jim Talent |  |
MO | GOP | 48%/39% | Claire McCaskill, State Auditor | McCaskill narrowly lost a race for the Governor's chair, but her name recognition is high and could do serious damage to no-Talent. |
This is the seat I'd consider a genuine pickup:
| Senator | State | Party | App/Dis | Best Bet | Notes | |
| Rick Santorum |  |
PA | GOP | 42%/46% | Bob Casey, State Treasurer | The big enchilada -- and most divisive race among the netroots -- will land solidly in our favor if current polls hold. |
Posted at 07:14 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate | Comments (2) | TrackBack (2) | Technorati
TX-22: Tom DeLay Indicted Again
Posted by Tim TagarisThis time, for money laundering:
A Texas grand jury indicted Rep. Tom DeLay on a new charge of money laundering Monday, less than a week after another grand jury leveled a conspiracy charge that forced DeLay to temporarily step down as House majority leader.Both indictments accuse DeLay and two political associates of conspiring to get around a state ban on corporate campaign contributions by funneling the money through a political action
committee to the Republican National Committee in Washington.
I've been away for much of the day, so I haven't seen anything on the television, but the report is from the AP, fwiw. USA Today runs with the story as well.
UPDATE (Tim): Looks like it was an altogether different grand jury as well
Posted at 06:18 PM in Texas | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
2006: Zogby Back in the Game
Posted by DavidNYCLast year, Zogby did a bi-weekly "interactive" (ie, online) presidential poll in (almost) all the swing states. Their scope was bold, their execution, well... not terrific. The following table compares Zogby's last poll in the sixteen states with the actual results:
| State | Zogby | Actual |
|---|---|---|
| AR | 3.2B | 9.8B |
| FL | 1.0K | 5.0B |
| IA | 6.0K | 0.7B |
| MI | 7.0K | 3.4K |
| MN | 2.0K | 3.5K |
| MO | 4.2B | 7.2B |
| NH | 4.5K | 1.4K |
| NM | 0.0 | 0.8B |
| NV | 5.0B | 2.6B |
| OH | 4.0B | 2.1B |
| OR | 10.1K | 4.16K |
| PA | 5.0K | 2.5K |
| TN | 3.3B | 14.3B |
| WA | 11.2K | 7.2K |
| WV | 4.5B | 12.9B |
| WI | 7.0K | 0.4K |
The states are color-coded based on how they went (or how Zogby thought they'd go) - the K & B are added for those who have difficulty with colored charts.
At first glance, you might think, okay, Zogby only got two states wrong, Iowa and Florida. So did a lot of people, right? But look at those margins. It's pretty ugly.
In only three states did Zogby understate Kerry's strength - Minnesota, Nevada and Ohio. In fully thirteen others, Zogby underestimated Bush's margin, sometimes by laughably big margins. (Look at the huge spreads in Tennesse and West Virginia, for instance.) This Kerry favoritism was something I noticed before the election, but I never bothered doing a full post-mortem afterwards, so I didn't learn the extent of Zogby's failure until now.
How, then, are we to take Zogby's newest effort - monthly polls of 17 senate and 21 gubernatorial races, from now until election day? It's always fun to see this many races polled at once, but is the data any good at all? Will the trendlines even make any sense? I felt that the presidential polls were unusually volatile, so I was hesitant to trust even the trends.
There was also a suggestion last time out that Zogby's Internet polls were as open as your average podunk NewsChannel7 web poll. That was never fully confirmed, but nor did I ever see a good explanation refuting or nullifying that claim. I also haven't seen any polling post-mortems from Zogby himself - usually, firms analyze how they did after each election. I haven't been able to track down any such self-assessments from Zogby, but if you've come across any, please let us know in comments.
Now it's also possible I'm being overly harsh - it's not entirely fair to hammer Zogby for systematically underestimating Bush without knowing whether other pollsters did the same. Unfortunately, I don't think any outfit polled as many states all at once. (The only thing similar that I remember was a one-time 50-state poll by ARG, but that was a couple months before the election.) So anyhow, what do you think of the Zogby Interactive, its methodology, and its reliability?
I suppose I'll indulge in a brief examination of the substance of the polls, or at least, a few of them. On the senate side, there aren't too many surprises. The undeclared Paul Hackett has an eight-point lead over DeWine (R-OH); the semi-vulnerable Stabenow (D-MI) and Cantwell (D-WA) both have decent leads; NJ, worryingly, is, well - as the Magic 8-Ball would say, "Outlook Hazy - Try Again Later"; the bland Herb Kohl (D-WI) has but a one-point lead; and the possibly endangered-but-should-stomp-Katherine-Harris Bill Nelson is up only 4. Frustratingly, they're not polling two of our best pickup chances: Rhode Island and Montana, yet they are polling New York and Texas, which are nobody's idea of close races.
The gubernatorial side shows one major bright spot: Angelides whooping Ahnuld by 8 in Cali. The allegedly in-trouble Granholm (D-MI) has a 10-point lead; Spitzer (D-NY) has a margin that would make a third-world dictator blush (just kidding - it's only 33%); and in the 2005 races, Corzine (D-NJ) is comfortably ahead while Kaine (D-VA) is back just three.
Whew! Like I said, these mega polls can be fun for junkies like myself. But better pull out your Morton's - cuz as they say, when it rains, it pours.
Posted at 05:36 PM in 2006 Elections | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
2008: Harriet Miers, Republican Presidential Hopefulls, and Right-Wing Blogs
Posted by Bob BrighamDuring the John Roberts nomination process, a great deal of newspaper ink was devoted to which 2008 Democratic hopefuls would vote to confirm. This time, the story won't be about Senators Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, or Russ Feingold. The nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court means the question will be whether Senators Bill Frist, Trent Lott, George Allen, John McCain, Sam Brownback, or Chuck Hagel will seize the opportunity to distance themselves from an unpopular President while capturing turf with a conservative base that has reacted unfavorably to George Bush's pick.
In terms of field position, last week the Democrats were playing Red Zone defense and now the line of scrimmage is deep with GOP territory.
Of further interest, is what role will the blogs play in this process? As was noted earlier, the Republican base is disgusted and Republican opinion-makers can hardly stomach the idea of Harriet Miers sitting on the Supreme Court.
Reaction from Republican Blogs
Very consistent and "disappointed":
John Hawkins of RightWingNews goes further than me and calls Miers a "disaster"
Michelle Malkin is "utterly underwhelmed"
Powerline is also disappointed.
Confirm Them is underwhelmed.
John Podhoretz calls it dumb.
Mike Krepasky at Red State rightly says the President has some explaining to do.
Polipundit isn't exactly thrilled but is willing to give her a chance.
Andrew Sullivan is going the "Crony" route. But can we say he's wrong?
Mark Levin says that the President "flinched"
Betsy Newmark has a hard time putting an adjective on just how disappointed she is and says the President bowed to pressure.
Gerry Daly is in the "Anger" stage (#2 of the 5 stages)
Captain Ed is "mystified", and not in a good way.
Much more here. The Republican blogs will probably at least have veto power of the 2008 Republican Presidential Nominee and they seem pretty pissed off. Will Sen. John McCain cement his maverick status while covering his flank and vote "ney"? The analysis seems to suggest that this is opportunity could catapult a presidential bid for a candidate who cares more about conservative ideas than loyalty to President Bush.
Reaction from Democratic Blogs
Daily Kos (Kos):
More immediately, this is the sort of pick that can have real-world repercussions in 2006, with a demoralized Republican Right refusing to do the heavy lifting needed to stem big losses. That Bush went this route rather than throwing his base the red meat they craved is nothing less than a sign of weakness. For whatever reason, Rove and Co. decided they weren't in position to wage a filibuster fight with Democrats on a Supreme Court justice and instead sold out their base.We'll have several months to pick through Miers' record, as well as highlight her role in any number of Bush scandals (like Georgia10 notes).
But my early sense is that this is already a victory -- both politically and judicially -- for Democrats. In fact, it should be great fund watching conservatives go after Bush. He may actually break that 39-40 floor in the polls, given he's just pissed off the very people who have propped up his failed presideny.
Update: Yup, Democrats are fully aboard. Reid's statement on the flip. Cue in more anguished wails from our esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
Wingnuttia is rather angry at the choice. I don't think this is because they're really concerned that she's not conservative enough for their tastes, although that's part of it. They're angry because this was supposed to be their nomination. This is was their moment. They didn't just want a stealth victory, they wanted parades and fireworks. They wanted Bush to find the wingnuttiest wingnut on the planet, fully clothed and accessorized in all the latest wingnut fashions, not just to give them their desired Court rulings, but also to publicly validate their influence and power. They didn't just want substantive results, what they wanted even more were symbolic ones. They wanted Bush to extend a giant middle finger to everyone to the left of John Ashcroft. They wanted to watch Democrats howl and scream and then ultimately lose a nasty confirmation battle. They wanted this to be their "WE RUN THE COUNTRY AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT" moment.Whatever kind of judge she would be, she doesn't provide them with that.
More Blogosphere Reactions
Via Atrios, we learn there is even a new satirical blog on the subject: http://harrietmiers.blogspot.com/
The fracture is funny, from the Harriet Miers blog (sexism in the -- gasp -- GOP?):
I just sent this email to info@redstate.org (and yes, spammers are going to find that email address...)You never pulled any crap like this with John Roberts. This is because I'm a woman, isn't it? You're afraid of what I'll do.
Seriously, your "sources" are getting sick of your attacking me for no reason other than I support the President. I'm not the only person here who reads your stupid blog, do you know what I'm saying?
Harriet
And the same goes for Matt, and Bill, and Rush. I can't believe you turn your back on the President the moment he supports a WOMAN. Your going to regret this.
Okay, now I'm not going to talk about that anymore.
UPDATE: And "Big Mike" (HAH!), screw you, seriously.
This is funny.
Posted at 03:40 PM in 2008 President - Republicans | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Reform Ohio Now: Polls and Commercials
Posted by Tim TagarisThings are getting hot and heavy in Ohio with a month to go before voters decide between reform and the untenable status quo. Before I dive in, here's a reminder to visit Reform Ohio Now's website and volunteer, especially if you are in Ohio.
1.) The First Polling Numbers Released
The Columbus Dispatch conducted a poll last week, and the numbers were made public just yesterday:
Issue 2: Vote By Mail
For 68%
Against 28%
Undecided 7%
Issue 3: Reducing Campaign Contribution Limits
For 70%
Against 15%
Undecided 15%
Issue 4: Nonpartisan Redistricting
For 26%
Against 38%
Undecided 36%
Issue 5: Role of the Secretary of State in Ohio
For 42%
Against 37%
Undecided 20%
For a detailed explanation of what each amendment actually calls for, the Akron Beacon Journal does the job.
2.) Reform Ohio Now Hits The Airwaves
To open up the first commercial on Issues 2-5, paid for by Reform Ohio Now, click here. Now it's just a question of affording airtime for the spots already up and running in Toledo and Dayton. I can't find the article for some reason, but RON is doing a decent job at fundraising, eclipsing $2 million raised. Unfortunately, a campaign like this will take a substantial amount more to be successful with all four issues. Opponents of reform, the group known as Ohio First, seems to be having a more difficult time galvanizing support for the status quo. However, they don't have to disclose their contributions until a week before election, so we can't really be sure what they are up to finance-wise.
Posted at 03:22 PM in Reform Ohio Now | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
WV-Sen/02: Capito Out Against Byrd; Callaghan in Against Capito
Posted by DavidNYCThe West Virginia Metro News is reporting that Shelley Moore Capito will not be challenging incumbent Dem Robert Byrd in the WV senate race. Good news for Byrd. I get the sense that the remaining GOP bench in WV just isn't that strong - not that Capito herself is all that fantastic.
On the flip side, Democrat Mike Callaghan - about whom we wrote earlier - will run against Capito in WV's second district. I'm not sure if this piece of news has been reported elsewhere yet, but I have this on good authority from Drew, the author of the original extensive profile of the district and of Mike.
I'm looking forward to seeing this race heat up - the eastern tip of this district is just a couple of hours from where I live right now - and I wish Mike the best of luck!
Posted at 02:45 PM in West Virginia | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
OH-14: In Bed With A Lobbyist
Posted by Tim TagarisLiterally.
Two years back, Congressman Steve LaTourette informed his wife and mother of his children that he wanted a divorce...over the phone. He cited marital infidelity as the reason for the split. In fact, Congressman LaTourette was in bed with a Washington lobbyist, literally. Since then business has boomed for his new bride.
Success in marriage business has been good for Jennifer LaTourette, the lobbyist formerly known as Jennifer Laptook. She took U.S. Rep. Steve LaTourette's last name after marrying the Concord Township Republican, her former boss, in February. She also has increased her billings with at least two of her clients, new federal lobbying records show. [...][T]he Clinic recently got $7.1 million from Congress to build a parking garage, and the Port Authority got $6 million for a ferry terminal, it may have been money well spent. Her husband says his new wife doesn't lobby him or the House transportation committee, on which he serves. Mrs. LaTourette is mum on the matter, steadfastly refusing to call back reporters inquiring about her effectiveness in obtaining taxpayer dollars for clients.
Last week, LaTourette was the beneficiary of a fundraiser from US Trade Representative Rob Portman. Normally, this wouldn't be a big deal, but it probably came as a result of the congressman's flip-flop on CAFTA. After going on the record as a "No" vote for the trade bill that passed by a 217-215 vote in July, LaTourette switched sides in the waning moments, and the measure barely passed.
Just another log to toss on the fire in Ohio.
Posted at 02:30 PM in Ohio | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
TN-03: Zach Wamp's New Challenger is a Vietnam Vet
Posted by DavidNYCZach Wamp, a big-time Republican player in the House and currently Congressman for Tennessee's third district, has gotten himself a new challenger, Vietnam veteran Terry Stulce. I don't know much about Stulce beyond what's on his website, but I can tell you this:
• Wamp is gunning for the third-highest leadership position in the House, majority whip. E.J. Dionne thinks Wamp could actually reform the GOP's culture of corruption. I think this inside baseball will be lost on the average voter, and if we successfully (and rightly) highlight the entire Republican Pary's corruption, Wamp will only be inviting a more glaring spotlight if he moves up the ranks. Oh, and he's just as corrupt as the rest of them - see below.• Wamp, one of the 1994 Republican Revolutionaries, promised to serve only six terms - meaning his time would be up next fall. Of course, he's reneging on that promise. What, twelve years isn't enough?
• Wamp's a carpetbagger. Originally from Georgia, went to college in North Carolina - and then flunked out in 1980.
• While we're talking about college, check this: Zach Wamp lied under oath about whether he had graduated. The way I was raised, you just don't do that.
• Wamp was once convicted for check kiting. I kid you not. So we've moved from liar to criminal. (And he lied about this, too, on an official real estate application.)
• Wamp has admitted to what the media likes to call "a problem with cocaine" in his past. As I hardly need to remind anyone, poor black men go to jail for stuff like this. Well-off white guys like Wamp go to rehab.
I dug up the last set of items from Lexis - almost all mentions of Wamp's various lies and run-ins with the law dropped from conversation in the past decade. The last time these things got any serious airing was in 1994 - in other words, pretty much pre-web. Lexis is the ultimate bulwark against things disappearing down the memory hole, though. Wamp can't hide from his unsavory past.
One last thing, Kossack and Congressional expert Superribbie makes the following point:
Tennesee's 3d is the one GOP-held district in the state we have a shot at winning. It is a 41.3% Dem district (Gore got 42% and Kerry 38%), but with a history of supporting Dems. Wamp won 66-34 the last two times against a placeholder.
If Terry Stulce can capitalize on all of this, we could make life pretty miserable for Zach Wamp.
Posted at 01:55 PM in Tennessee | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
OH-Sen: Decision Consistency Agility
Posted by Bob BrighamIt is pretty common knowledge how the senate positioning unfolded in Ohio. Congressman Sherrod Brown had the pole position, but called no joy. Congressman Tim Ryan then pulled over and waived Hackett around. Now Hackett is putting the pieces in place -- as everyone knows -- to challenge embattled Republican Senator Mike DeWine in 2006.
I'm glad Hackett got a some family time. Major Hackett went from War straight into a sprint of a Special Election. Hackett campaigns hard, and he knows he's going to have to do it for a year.
And then? From today's (subscription only) Hotline:
Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-13) spokesperson Joanna Kuebler, on Brown's previous statement he would not run: "His statement has not changed at this time. However, Congressman Brown continues to be asked by state and national supporters to run for the United States Senate in Ohio. Personal and professional obligations have changed since his initial decision. He is consulting with supporters and his family about a possible run" (Hotline reporting, 10/3).
Made me think about the map of Hackett supporters.
Posted at 01:42 PM in Ohio | Comments (3) | TrackBack (2) | Technorati
Harriet Miers & 2006
Posted by Bob BrighamToday, Bush nominated Harriet Miers in a move that is fracturing the GOP. As Kos notes:
Mier's nomination was predicated by fear. Bush is afraid. That's why the right-wingers are pissed. Their fearless leader couldn't muster up the courage for a real fight against Senate Democrats.
Fear yes, but of the Senate Democrats or fear of more conspiracy charges? From Think Progress:
Near the end of a round table discussion on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos dropped this bomb:Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it’s a manageable one for the White House especially if we don’t know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.This would explain why Bush spent more than an hour answering questions from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. It would also fundamentally change the dynamics of the scandal.
Indeed, serious people are using the term "unindicted co-conspirator". While Harriet Meirs doesn't have much of a paper trail legally, she does has a strong background when it comes to Bush scandals:
But she does know better than just about anyone else where the bodies are buried (relax, it's a just a metaphor...we hope) in President Bush's National Guard scandal. In fact, Bush's Texas gubenatorial campaign in 1998 (when he was starting to eye the White House) actually paid Miers $19,000 to run an internal pre-emptive probe of the potential scandal. Not long after, a since-settled lawsuit alleged that the Texas Lottery Commission -- while chaired by Bush appointee Miers -- played a role in a multi-million dollar cover-up of the scandal.
How will this effect the 2006 midterm elections?
More immediately, this is the sort of pick that can have real-world repercussions in 2006, with a demoralized Republican Right refusing to do the heavy lifting needed to stem big losses. That Bush went this route rather than throwing his base the red meat they craved is nothing less than a sign of weakness. For whatever reason, Rove and Co. decided they weren't in position to wage a filibuster fight with Democrats on a Supreme Court justice and instead sold out their base.We'll have several months to pick through Miers' record, as well as highlight her role in any number of Bush scandals (like Georgia10 notes).
The GOP is totally on defense. Just look at the slate of GOP Senate challengers with a shot of being competitive. The only problem is that there is no list, the GOP senate plan is to minimize losses.
As for the House, Tom DeLay's indictment means that the gains could be tidal.
The GOP Culture of Corruption is catching up and the backlash is building for 2006 and 2008 campaigns.
Too many scandals. Too much corruption. And yet another crony appointed to a key post without any experience.
------
Wikipedia on Harriet Miers
Posted at 12:55 PM in 2006 Elections, Culture of Corruption, Republicans, Scandals, Supreme Court | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Harriet Miers Fractures GOP in Real-Time
Posted by Bob BrighamAn important function of the blogosphere is a peek into real-time politics. Bloggers show and create what is going on in politics right now. The announcement of Harriet Miers gives us a short window to peer into the GOP.
First, look at the National Review's David Frum. Last week, Frum blasted Harriet Meirs:
In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met.
Today, not only did he blast her again, but he then deleted the middle paragraph in the following:
Harriet Miers is a taut, nervous, anxious personality. It is impossible to me to imagine that she can endure the anger and abuse - or resist the blandishments - that transformed, say, Anthony Kennedy into the judge he is today.She rose to her present position by her absolute devotion to George Bush. I mentioned last week that she told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met. To flatter on such a scale a person must either be an unscrupulous dissembler, which Miers most certainly is not, or a natural follower. And natural followers do not belong on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Nor is it safe for the president's conservative supporters to defer to the president's judgment and say, "Well, he must know best." The record shows I fear that the president's judgment has always been at its worst on personnel matters.
Right now, the White House is spinning like a top in GOP circles. Ankle Biting Pundits is "highly disappointed" and points out, "politically it's not good because it just opens the President up to charges of "cronyism"" while offering the following roundup of conservative bloggers reaction to the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court:
John Hawkins of RightWingNews goes further than me and calls Miers a "disaster"
Michelle Malkin is "utterly underwhelmed"
Powerline is also disappointed.
Confirm Them is underwhelmed.
John Podhoretz calls it dumb.
Mike Krepasky at Red State rightly says the President has some explaining to do.
Polipundit isn't exactly thrilled but is willing to give her a chance.
Andrew Sullivan is going the "Crony" route. But can we say he's wrong?
Mark Levin says that the President "flinched"
Betsy Newmark has a hard time putting an adjective on just how disappointed she is and says the President bowed to pressure.
Gerry Daly is in the "Anger" stage (#2 of the 5 stages)
Captain Ed is "mystified", and not in a good way.
The timing couldn't be worse for the GOP as today's newsstands are graced with a new Newsweek cover-story titled, Troubled Waters: War, storms, leak probes—and a growing array of ethics clouds. Dark days for the Republican Party:
Bush and his fellow Republicans have little margin for error. Three forces—sky-high gasoline prices, the massive costs of rebuilding the Gulf Coast and ever-gloomier public assessments of the war in Iraq—have combined to weaken Bush's reputation as a strong leader, and leave him vulnerable to the kind of second-term fiascoes that tend to befall all presidents: think Ronald Reagan and Iran-contra, or Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Indeed, polltaker Frank Luntz, who helped develop the "Contract With America" message that swept Republicans to power in 1994, was on the Hill last week warning the party faithful that they could lose both the House and the Senate in next year's congressional elections.The Republicans' power outage is real—and the historical irony is as vast as Texas. Beginning in the 1950s, the Democratic Party of Texans Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn built a congressional machine of unrivaled power. But starting in the '80s, led by a firebrand named Newt Gingrich, Republicans led a revolt from below in the name of smaller government and an ethically cleansed Congress. In 1989 Newt & Co. forced out Democratic Speaker Jim Wright—a Texan, too, who resigned over charges that he profited improperly from book sales—and five years later the GOP took control of the House after a Biblical 40 years in the wilderness. But it took the Republicans only 10 years to become yet another ruling party beset by charges of profligate spending, bloated government and corruption—a party led by two Texans, Bush and DeLay, who don't particularly care whether they are beloved outside their inner circle. To paraphrase David Mamet, the Republicans became what they beheld.
And there is much to behold. Michael Brown, the hapless yet arrogant former head of FEMA, managed to anger even putative Republican allies in an appearance before a House committee.
Michael Brown is a name that should come up a great deal during the Miers' confirmation process. Harriet Miers is a Michael Brown quality pick. Even right-wing bloggers are using the word 'cronyism' and are worried because they know Bush can't afford this.
The storyline of Bush giving key jobs to completely unqualified political hacks is connecting with the American people. By picking people on the basis of loyalty, rather than effectiveness, Bush has set the stage for the Culture of Corruption that engulfs the entire Republican Party.
When these are the rules (or lack thereof), you have multi-million bagmen like Jack Abramoff. You have conspiring congressmen like Tom DeLay. You have national security traitors like Scooter Libby and Karl Rove.
Today's Republican Party puts allegiance to Party above duty to country. But individual Republicans are growing increasingly disgusted, because like so many members of the National Guard, they aren't getting what they signed up for.
The stakes are high, this is the swing vote, as evidenced by the following 5-4 decisions:
Sandra Day O'Connor has been the deciding fifth vote in many important Supreme Court decisions affecting civil rights, environmental protection, personal privacy, reproductive freedom and reproductive health, religious liberty, consumer protection and much more. If she is replaced by someone who doesn't share her fair and impartial perspective -- someone in the mold of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia -- the constitutional consequences will be devastating. These are among the key 5-4 decisions in danger of being overturned:Environmental protection
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004) said the Environmental Protection Agency could step in and take action to reduce air pollution under the Clean Air Act when a state conservation agency fails to act.
Reproductive rights and privacy
Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) overturned a state law that would have had the effect of banning abortion as early as the 12th week of pregnancy and that lacked any exception to protect a woman’s health.
Consumer protection and corporate power
Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran (2002) upheld state laws giving people the right to a second doctor's opinion if their HMOs tried to deny them treatment.
Civil rights: affirmative action and discrimination based on sex, race, and disability
Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. Of Educ. (2005) ruled that federal law protects against retaliation against someone for complaining about illegal sex discrimination in federally assisted education programs.
Tennessee v. Lane (2004) upheld the constitutionality of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and required that courtrooms be physically accessible to the disabled.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) affirmed the right of state colleges and universities to use affirmative action in their admissions policies to increase educational opportunities for minorities and promote racial diversity on campus.
Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ. (1999) ruled that it is a violation of federal law for school districts to be deliberately indifferent towards severe and pervasive student-on-student sexual harassment.
Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (2001) affirmed that civil rights laws apply to associations regulating interscholastic sports.
Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia (1996) said key anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act apply to political conventions that choose party candidates.
Hunt v. Cromartie (2001) affirmed the right of state legislators to take race into account to secure minority voting rights in redistricting.
Access to justice
Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) told the government it could not indefinitely detain an immigrant who was under final order of removal even if no other country would accept that person and that access to federal courts is available to combat improper, indefinite detention.
Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003) maintained a key source of funding for legal assistance for the poor.
Hibbs v. Winn (2004) subjected discriminatory and unconstitutional state tax laws to review by the federal judiciary.
Religious liberty and church-state separation
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) upheld the principle of government neutrality towards religion and ruled unconstitutional Ten Commandments displays in several courthouses
Lee v. Weisman (1992) continued the tradition of government neutrality toward religion, finding that government-sponsored prayer is unacceptable at graduations and other public school events.
Money, politics and government accountability
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) upheld most of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, including its ban on political parties’ use of unlimited soft money contributions.
Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) upheld laws that limit political party expenditures that are coordinated with a candidate and seek to evade campaign contribution limits.
UPDATE: From Atrios:
Wingnuttia is rather angry at the choice. I don't think this is because they're really concerned that she's not conservative enough for their tastes, although that's part of it. They're angry because this was supposed to be their nomination. This is was their moment. They didn't just want a stealth victory, they wanted parades and fireworks. They wanted Bush to find the wingnuttiest wingnut on the planet, fully clothed and accessorized in all the latest wingnut fashions, not just to give them their desired Court rulings, but also to publicly validate their influence and power. They didn't just want substantive results, what they wanted even more were symbolic ones. They wanted Bush to extend a giant middle finger to everyone to the left of John Ashcroft. They wanted to watch Democrats howl and scream and then ultimately lose a nasty confirmation battle. They wanted this to be their "WE RUN THE COUNTRY AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT" moment.Whatever kind of judge she would be, she doesn't provide them with that.
Indeed.
------
Wikipedia on Harriet Miers
Posted at 11:20 AM in 2006 Elections, Culture of Corruption, General, Netroots, Republicans, Scandals, Supreme Court | TrackBack (7) | Technorati
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Open Thread
Posted by Bob BrighamWhat races are you thinking of?
Posted at 02:19 PM in General | Comments (16) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
2008: HRC Missed Bridge to 21st Century
Posted by Bob Brigham
I've written about this before (here and here), but now that Matt Bai has a major story in the Sunday NYT Magazine, I think the issue of HRC's political positioning needs revisiting. The article is aptly titled, "Mrs. Triangulation"
You can hardly pry up a floorboard in the basement of Democratic politics without finding some sign of the Clinton operation churning underneath.The chief benefit of this network is that it spans the ideological divide in the party, from far left to far center. The problem is that labels like "left" and "center" seem to have lost much of their meaning in the party, and the divisions in Democratic politics no longer seem to run along traditional lines. Gone are the days when Hubert Humphrey waged war against Strom Thurmond on civil rights, when George McGovern's protesters clashed with Scoop Jackson's hard-liners. In the era after Bill Clinton, the vast majority of Democrats, whether they once considered themselves liberals or centrists, mouth allegiance to the same set of often tepid principles on issues like trade, terrorism and gun control - positions that they will often cite as evidence of hard-won unity but which in truth represent the absence of the real intellectual discussion that once defined (and sometimes doomed) the party. As a result, aside from a few subtle disputes - whether troops should be withdrawn from Iraq now, for instance, or next year - the philosophical differences between liberals and centrists have never been more obscure. Nothing better illustrated the passing of the party's long ideological debate better than the explosive presidential campaign of Howard Dean (now the party's chairman), whose record as a pro-gun, pro-Democratic Leadership Council governor did nothing to prevent him from seamlessly assuming the role of chief spokesman for those liberal voters who had always embodied the so-called Democratic left.
What Dean's candidacy brought into the open, however, was another kind of growing and powerful tension in Democratic politics that had little to do with ideology. Activists often describe this divide as being between "insiders" and "outsiders," but the best description I've heard came from Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic operative who runs the advocacy group N.D.N. (formerly New Democrat Network), which sprang from Clintonian centrism of the early 1990's. As Rosenberg explained it, the party is currently riven between its "governing class" and its "activist class." The former includes the establishment types who populate Washington - politicians, interest groups, consultants and policy makers. The second comprises "Net roots" Democrats on the local level; that is, grass-roots Democrats, many of whom were inspired by Dean and who connect to politics primarily online, through blogs or Web-based activist groups like MoveOn.org. The argument between the camps isn't about policy so much as about tactics, and a lot of Democrats in Washington don't even seem to know it's happening.
The activist class believes, essentially, that Democrats in Washington have damaged the party by trying to negotiate and compromise with Republicans - in short, by trying to govern. The "Net roots" believe that an effective minority party should disengage from the governing process and eschew new proposals or big ideas. Instead, the party should dedicate itself to winning local elections and killing each new Republican proposal that comes down the track. To the activist class, trying to cut deals with Republicans is tantamount to appeasement. In fact, Rosenberg, an emerging champion of the activist class, told me, pointing to my notebook: "You have to use the word 'appease.' You have to use it. Because this is like Neville Chamberlain."
This is an ominous development for Hillary Clinton, because the activists' attack on the party hierarchy is a direct and long-simmering reaction to the Clintonism of the 90's and the "third way" instinct of the D.L.C.
My thoughts after the jump.
This article seems to back up those of us who have questioned Hillary's political instincts. As far as internal Democratic Party politics go, it appears Hillary is trying to bridge old divides that no longer exist and in the way she is going about doing so, has put herself on what will inevitably be the losing side of the current debate going on in the Democratic Party.
I firmly believe the new divide is between the establishment and the base; the bosses and the netroots; the past and the future.
Under these conditions, is the following helpful?
The pollster Mark Penn and the ad-maker Mandy Grunwald, both of whom worked for Bill Clinton and are among Hillary's closest advisers, have longstanding ties to the centrist, pro-business Democratic Leadership Council, while two other Clinton confidants, the operatives Ann Lewis and Harold Ickes, remain close to women's groups and Big Labor, respectively. The trusted aides Howard Wolfson and Patti Solis Doyle have been associated with the Glover Park Group, one of the most influential consulting firms among Democratic interest groups.
Hillary's attempt to staff up to bridge the old divides only cement her position on the side of the tired old Democratic establishment that is currently in a tug-of-war with the base.
By failing to understand the current realities in the Democratic Party, Hillary has embraced a misdiagnosis that has compromised her political standing and exposed the out-of-touch advice that she is receiving. The fact that HRC appears unable to grasp the current dynamics within the Democratic Party actually lends credibility to the activists in the netroots and grassroots who think that many Washington DC Democrats have lost touch.
Additionally, Clinton's ties to Al From's DLC could tether her presidential ambitions:
"I think people are looking for leadership from Hillary Clinton, and she's not showing any leadership on anything," says Markos Moulitsas of Dailykos.com, one of the new movement's leading blogs. Even in Hollywood, where the Clintons have been royalty for more than a decade, patience for bipartisanship is running low. Last month in Beverly Hills, I talked about Clinton with Norman Lear, the television and film producer who founded the liberal organization People for the American Way. "I love her," he told me. "But as terrific as I think she is, my concern is that we need someone who will tell the truth as they see it all of the time. She, like all of them, is not somebody who does that."That Clinton doesn't fully understand the depth of this resentment seemed painfully apparent in July, when, at the D.L.C.'s annual gathering in Columbus, she accepted the assignment of fashioning a new agenda for the group and publicly called for a truce between factions on the left and center. Her aides thought she was actually delivering a mild rebuke to the D.L.C. for criticizing Dean and the bloggers; what they didn't understand was that her presence at the D.L.C. event itself was enough to infuriate the "Net roots," and the suggestion that the two sides should work together made it only worse. The response from the blogosphere was swift and bilious. "It's truly disappointing" that this is the garbage "Hillary has signed on to," Moulitsas wrote on Dailykos.com, provoking the blog's devotees to write hundreds of passionate and often profane diatribes in agreement. In a strikingly blunt appraisal, John Podesta told The Washington Post that Clinton had "walked into a cross-fire maybe she should have realized was out there." ("I didn't get any carnations for that one," Podesta told me later, laughing.)
In fact, Clinton's advisers disagreed about whether a bunch of 20-something bloggers really mattered. In a conversation last month, Mark Penn scoffed at my suggestion that there might be a strong backlash in the party against the ethos of Clintonism. "Strong backlash?" Penn said. "Former President Clinton is at a 70 percent approval rating, stronger than even during his presidency. More people would like to see him president than President Bush. In this environment, that is a notion I would have to laugh at." It's true that most Democratic voters are probably too busy working and raising kids to spend a lot of time debating political tactics online, and the importance of the "Net roots" can be overstated. And yet, the blogosphere is bound to be an important organizing force in 2008, and some other candidate will almost certainly rise to fill the space that Dean once occupied. If nothing else, this would make it harder for Hillary Clinton, the heir to her husband's legacy, to run the unity campaign her advisers envision.
After I spoke with Penn, I repeated his assessment of the backlash to Podesta, whose reach into all aspects of the progressive world - from bloggers to members of Congress - makes him as knowledgeable about the party's crosscurrents as anyone in Washington. "The D.L.C. incident is over, and it isn't particularly meaningful," Podesta told me. "But in the long run, if you believe what Mark believes, it will get you in trouble."
Clinton is chair of the DLC's "American Dream Initiative, which has already been marked DOA. If Clinton wanted her DLC membership to be good for more than negative articles in major newspapers, she would immediately call for Al From to be fired. But for that to happen, she would have to understand the where the Democratic Party is headed, which she doesn't. In part, because she hangs out in DC with the likes of Al From and the other dinosaurs who have failed to cross the bridge into the 21st century. In fact, every single move the DLC has made this millennium has been a disaster. Every single move.
The Clintons may have allowed us to go to where we are, but they didn't join us. And we aren't waiting for them to catch up, because we are too busy following their example and pushing on.
Posted at 02:01 PM in 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats, Netroots, Scandals | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Republican Culture of Corruption
Posted by Bob BrighamIf you would have asked me a month ago about the 2006 storyline, it would be GOP Culture of Corruption vs. Democratic Reform. That changed somewhat with Katrina, as the entire country realized that a vote for a Republican is a vote to prop up an incompetent President. But the Culture of Corruption is still a powerful meme, involving every Republican up to and including Dick Cheney.
The 2006 midterms a tee'd up for Democrats.
Posted at 02:42 PM in Culture of Corruption | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
MT-Sen: We Did It!
Posted by DavidNYCExtraordinary job everyone - we did it! We hit our goal of 70 donors to Jon Tester, for a total of $4202.73. That's 24 new donations since the time we started this push around ten days ago - far more than the ten new donors I had hoped we'd get.
And I've gotta admit, we didn't nag nearly as often as we could have. But for the next little while, anyhow, no more nags. Enjoy the achievement. I know the folks out in Montana are.
Posted at 01:02 AM in Montana | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati