Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Tuesday Independent Expenditure Round-Up
Posted by James L.Highlights from Tuesday night's independent expenditures:
• KS-02: The DCCC is expanding yesterday's play in this district by $313,000 for both positive and negative TV ads boosting the campaign of Democratic challenger Nancy Boyda. That brings the total spent in this district by the DCCC to over $650k. The NRCC's response today? A minor $27k media buy. Watch what they'll do tomorrow, though.
• NY-25: Boom! The DCCC has just placed a $334k media buy in this district, with both positive ads for Dan Maffei and negative ads against incumbent Jim Walsh.
• IN-03: As promised yesterday, the NRCC has dropped another $75k in TV ads into this deep-red district to fend off Ft. Wayne city councilman and self-funder Tom Hayhurst from upsetting Republican Mark Souder. In total, the NRCC has spent just shy of $200k defending this seat. Definitely one of the most eyebrow-raising expenditures of the cycle.
• NC-08: Moveon.org has entered the fray on behalf of grassroots-powered Democrat Larry Kissell with a $128k media buy against Republican incumbent Robin Hayes. If there's one thing that Larry has lacked so far, it's the money to go toe-to-toe in an air war with self-funding gazillionaire Hayes. Definitely a well-placed hit by Moveon.
• OH-02: Emily's List is doing the heavy lifting here, with $52k worth of direct mail and radio ads both for Victoria Wulsin and against Jean Schmidt. This is on top of $31k spent yesterday on direct mail.
• Union activity: the AFSCME is up with new ads against Don Sherwood in PA-10 ($50k), NRCC chair Tom Reynolds in NY-26 ($40k), and Michelle Bachmann (R) in MN-06 ($50k). The SEIU has put $45k into CO-04 for radio ads in support of Angie Paccione, $76k into MN-01 for direct mail in support of Tim Walz, $68k for radio spots in support of Patty Wetterling, and $67k into NV-02 for radio spots in support of Jill Derby.
• And, of course, as David mentioned below, the DCCC has dropped a massive $1.12 million bomb on Charlie Bass in NH-02. Daaaayum, that's gonna hurt, Charlie.
Posted at 11:49 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
The Ridiculous Kerry Flap
Posted by James L.So John Kerry stuck his foot in his mouth yesterday, botching a joke intended as an insult against the President. And now the GOP, desperate with the clock ticking down and trailing a few dozen points on the scoreboard, is despicably frothing at the mouth, accusing Kerry of slandering America's troops. They know better--they know that Kerry botched a joke, so they're doing all they can to keep the attention on him, rather than Bush's botching of an entire war.
If the GOP wants to play that game, fine. Remember this nugget, from an August 2004 Bush speech?
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
Everyone had a big laugh over Bush's verbal gaffe two years ago. Did you see John Kerry and the Democratic Party issuing press releases calling on Bush to cease his treasonous war against the citizens of the United States of America? No, because to do so would be completely ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as the sanctimonious, dishonest drivel that Tony Snow and George Bush are trying to feed into the media narrative tonight.
No one took Bush's verbal stumble seriously in August 2004. And by the same measure, no one should hold Kerry's stumble to a higher standard.
Posted at 06:18 PM in 2006 Elections, Media | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Friday, October 27, 2006
Final Netroots Push: The $100,000 Challenge
Posted by DavidNYCLATE UPDATE: Well, as I'm sure you've seen, we've blown way past $100,000 raised today. In fact, we've hauled in $275,000! We're also incredibly close to $1.5 million raised on the page, total. Who will help put us over the top?
Today, Friday, is the last best day to donate to your favorite candidates. Here's why: Over the weekend, campaigns will make their final choices about where to spend money - ad buys, mailers, get-out-the-vote efforts, etc. After that point, almost all major spending decisions will be complete. That makes it hard to effectively spend money received during the last week of the campaign. Final-week contributions are appreciated, sure, but cash received by today is a lot more valuable.
That's why Swing State, Daily Kos and MyDD are doing one final fundraising push for the netroots page. The goal is as simple as can be: We want to raise $100,000 for the entire page today. And this time, we're gonna ask everyone to dig as deep as possible. At earlier points in the cycle, campaigns can use small-dollar donations to help build their lists so that they can seek more donations in the future. Right now, though, what Democrats across the country need is just cold cash. After today, you should volunteer your time. But today is the day to part with your hard-earned bucks.
All week long, we've been flogging incumbent Democrats, begging them to give as part the Use It Or Lose It campaign. But we have to put our money where our mouths are, too. And that's exactly what I'm going to do.
I just gave $500 to the Paul Hodes campaign. My student loans ran out in May, and while I've recently started work, I haven't been paid yet. I've been living off a combination of credit cards and wedding gifts for months now. But I can't afford not to give - who among us can? You don't need me to tell you that what's at stake right now is just so unbelievably important.
But there are more concrete, immediate reasons: The NRCC just announced that it would drop $366,000 worth of negative ads into this race. To put that into perspective, this is roughly a third of what Paul Hodes has raised throughout the campaign, all getting dumped into the district overnight. My $500 is a proverbial drop in the bucket compared to that, but if enough of us declare "Fuck it! We've had enough! We're going to give whatever we can!" then we'll be able to fight back. I know it.
And it's not just Hodes under assault. For all the GOP's alleged money woes, they've always outraised us and always will. Democrats all across the country are now on the receiving end of the Republican Party's malignant Wurlitzer, and it won't let up until the polls close. Every member of our party needs our help. Whether you give to the netroots candidates or someone else today, just please give.
Are you with me? Can we raise $100,000 today? Yeah? Well, then, let's do this thing!!!
UPDATE (James L.): Whoa, it looks like $100,000 in one day is not much of a challenge for the netroots community. You guys have raised over $210,000 so far, and the day's not nearly done yet. Markos is right: let's blow the roof off of Actblue. Let's bring our total haul to $1.5 million. It's only a matter of raising $100k more tonight. I know our community can do this. Let's send our netroots candidates off into their final week in style--with enough resources to compete.
And if you've already donated, please take the next logical step: help get out the vote! Do More Than Vote is a great resource full of links to many different ways you can help from all corners of the country. You can also host or attend a pre-Halloween phone party coordinated by Moveon.org, or sign up for Moveon's Call for Change program targeting Democratic-leaning voters. Remember: this is going to be a base turnout election. There's no need to waste time trying to convince reluctant fence-sitters to switch to the Democratic column--all we have to do is light a fire under the asses of Democrats and Democratic-leaners who haven't given the election much thought this year. Moveon.org is making it easy to help, from anywhere in the country. Like David says, let's do this thing.
Posted at 04:45 PM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising, Netroots | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
The Great Swing State Project Predictions Contest is Now Closed!
Posted by DavidNYC(That's it, folks! The contest officially closed at 3am Pacific today. You're welcome to still contribute predictions, but you'll be playing for pride, not prizes!)
(Bumped! If you have any last-minute revisions to your entries, you've got a few more hours to post them!)
Go here and offer your predictions in the Great Swing State Project Pedictions Contest! Polls close at 3am Eastern, midnight Pacific Tuesday night. And we promise prizes to the winners! I think we'll be doling out some SSP t-shirts and beer steins. So get predictin'!
(Note: You can't post comments on this thread. You have to go to the earlier post. And only post your predictions on that thread - no e-mails, please.)
Posted at 10:00 PM in 2006 Elections | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, October 23, 2006
Action Alert: Use It or Lose It
Posted by DavidNYCJust go here and do what Chris Bowers says: Call these ultra-safe Democrats and (politely) ask them to give 30% of their cash-on-hand to competitive races or party committees. Thanks to a campaign finance loophole, these guys are are the best-situated to drive large sums where they are needed most in the final two weeks of the election season.
I think the best talking point you can use is that any Dems who really give a lot now will be remembered glowingly by the grassroots in the future. Call `em now.
Posted at 10:35 PM in 2006 Elections, Democrats, Fundraising | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
The Great Swing State Project Prediction Contest
Posted by James L.(Bumped!)
In honor of Swing State Project's third birthday, David and I have come up with a fun party game that we can all get involved in: an electoral prediction contest! We've handpicked twelve hot House and Senate races from all over the country (and one Gubernatorial race as the tiebreaker) for you to mull over and submit your predictions. The rules are simple: Only one entry per person will be accepted (so if you post multiple revisions, we're only going to look at your last post), submitted as a comment on this thread (NO e-mails). Submissions will be accepted until midnight Pacific on Tuesday, October 24. There will be prizes involved (nothing fancy, though, except maybe a nice looking SSP t-shirt...).
Scores will be based on the lowest aggregate margin of error. For example, if you predicted the MT-Sen race as Burns 55, Tester 45 (R+10) and the result on November 7 was Tester 55, Burns 45 (D+10), your margin of error would be 20 points, as 20 represents the gap between D+10 and R+10. If, on the other hand, you predicted Tester 60, Burns 40 (D+20), your margin of error would be 10 points. Clear as mud? To reiterate, the key here is to see how close the gap between Democratic and Republican candidates in your predictions is to the gap between Democratic and Republican candidates on election day. Several of these races have fringe indie candidacies, but there's no need to make predictions for third party candidates (except for Lieberman), as we're measuring the gap between the Democrats and Republicans, not how close your numbers are to the actual percentages.
Well, that was a mouthful. Let's get on with it! Here are the 12+1 races that David and I have selected. Put the valuable knowledge that you have gained from your daily readership of Swing State Project to the test! (Haha.)
MT-Sen: Tester (D) v. Burns (R)
CT-Sen: Lamont (D) v. Lieberman (CfL)
TN-Sen (OPEN): Ford (D) v. Corker (R)
PA-06: Murphy (D) v. Gerlach (R)
FL-22: Klein (D) v. Shaw (R)
NM-01: Madrid (D) v. Wilson (R)
NH-02: Hodes (D) v. Bass (R)
ID-01 (OPEN): Grant (D) v. Sali (R)
MN-01: Walz (D) v. Gutknecht (R)
OH-12: Shamansky (D) v. Tiberi (R)
CA-04: Brown (D) v. Doolittle (R)
NE-03 (OPEN): Kleeb (D) v. Smith (R)And the tiebreaker:
TX-Gov: Perry (R) v. Bell (D) v. Kinky (I) v. Strayhorn (I)
TX-Gov is a special case, so we're not going to measure the R/D gap, but rather how close your predictions are to the actual election day vote distribution.
Submit your predictions soon! You have until 12pm Pacific on the night of Tuesday, October 24 to submit your predictions. If you are interested in claiming a prize, please include your e-mail address with your submission. If you don't want to do that, check again once the contest is over (i.e., after November 7th), when we will post a list of winners. I'm really looking forward to seeing all of your predictions.
Posted at 10:30 PM in 2006 Elections | Comments (80) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
Posted by DavidNYCEd Fitzgerald, that's who. In 2004, Ed (over at his blog Unfutz) did heroic work tracking all the presidential election prognosticators - and there were quite a few. His meta-predictions were invaluable, so I'm glad to see he's back in the game with congressional races this year. Take a look at this gorgeous chart:
For a fuller explanation - as well as some interesting graphs of historical projection data - check out Ed's first post in this series.
In the same vein, Superribbie has a new roundup of professional House race analysts' ratings here.
Posted at 02:59 PM in 2006 Elections | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Son of 3Q Fundraising Reports Open Thread
Posted by DavidNYCCome on, feel the noise:
| District | Candidate | Party | 3Q Raised | CoH |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA-50 | Brian Bilbray | R | 350 | 195 |
| GA-08 | Mac Collins | R | 295 | 502 |
| GA-12 | Max Burns | R | 632 | 604 |
| IA-02 | Jim Leach | R | 71 | 177 |
| IL-11 | John Pavich | D | 58 | 13 |
| IN-09 | Mike Sodrel | R | 431 | 1,100 |
| KY-03 | Anne Northup | R | 564 | 1,500 |
| NM-01 | Heather Wilson | R | 1,000 | 1,400 |
| NV-03 | Jon Porter | R | 412 | 189 |
| NY-26 | Tom Reynolds | R | 658 | 1,900 |
| OH-06 | Charlie Wilson | D | 368 | 462 |
| OH-12 | Bob Shamansky | D | 105 | 602 |
| PA-04 | Melissa Hart | R | 475 | 1,100 |
| PA-08 | Mike Fitzpatrick | R | 385 | 446 |
| TX-14 | Ron Paul | R | 332 | 365 |
| VT-AL | Martha Rainville | R | 289 | 239 |
| VT-AL | Peter Welch | D | 436 | 522 |
| WI-08 | Steve Kagen | D | 150 | 146 |
All numbers are in thousands. If the "3Q Raised" number is in boldface, it means I combined a pre-primary report with the actual 3Q report to give a full picture of the quarter. Also, these numbers do not include loans made by the candidate. A couple of guys have lent their campaigns a lot of money - especially Steve Kagen and Bob Shamansky.
If you have any more numbers, please post them in comments (with links if you've got `em). Earlier numbers are available here and here.
Posted at 12:56 PM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
3Q Fundraising Reports Open Thread
Posted by James L.Picking up where we left off, this weekend is the deadline for campaigns to file their finance reports for the third quarter of 2006, ending on September 30.
I've rounded up a few noteworthy tallies, but feel free to post any other numbers you see floating around.
Eric Massa (D, NY-29): $296k raised from 8/24 through 9/30, $162k raised from 7/01 through 8/23; $334k cash-on-hand ($900k total raised)Mike Weaver (D, KY-02): $222k raised, $270k CoH ($390k total raised)
Larry Grant (D, ID-01): $184k raised, $73k CoH ($345k total raised)
Tessa Hafen (D, NV-03): $307k raised from 7/27 through 9/30, $46k raised from 7/01 through 7/26; $456k CoH ($1.11m total raised)
Angie Paccione (D, CO-04): $567k raised; $309k CoH ($1.33m total raised)
Mary Jo Kilroy (D, OH-15): $1.008m raised; $793k CoH ($2.055 total raised)
Deborah Pryce (R, OH-15): $1.4m raised; $2m CoHOH-Sen: Sherrod Brown (D): $2.9m raised ($1.2m CoH); Mike DeWine (R): $2.7m raised ($4.5m CoH)
Very good fundraising by Massa, who has pulled in over $450k in the third quarter. Similarly, good fundraising numbers by the likes of Angie Paccione and Tessa Hafen lead to a solid impression of the Democrats' 2nd tier challengers this year. At the same time, though, Mike Weaver has the support of the DCCC's Red to Blue program, but you wouldn't know it by his fundraising.
Posted at 01:51 AM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Many Voter Registration Deadlines Looming
Posted by DavidNYCMatt Stoller notes that voter registration deadlines in many states are very, very soon. If you haven't yet registered to vote, please do so! And if you aren't sure of your registration status (you've moved in recent years, etc.), please call your local board of elections to check. If you are already registered, then your mission should be to register at least one other person in time for election day. With web-based tools, it's easier than ever:
Pro-Net Neutrality Voter Registration Tool
The first link takes you to a site which will tally up how many people register with the goal of supporting net neutrality. If for whatever reason that doesn't interest you (or your friends or relatives you're trying to sign up), follow the second link.
Posted at 11:03 PM in 2006 Elections, Activism | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
3Q Fundraising Reports Start to Trickle In
Posted by James L.Up until 9/29, money was the often the best indicator of a candidate's chances of success. That's still the case today, but the macro factors introduced by the scandal surrounding the House Republican Leadership cover-up of Mark Foley's appetite for young congressional pages may mitigate the Republicans' sizable cash-on-hand lead in many hot House races this year--quite possibly Senate races as well. Look at it this way: it doesn't help them anywhere. There are no heroes in the House Republican caucus on this issue.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not predicting that Democrats will win 100 seats in some kind of tsunami. But Republicans will get less mileage out of their warchests this year with Mark Foley and Dennis Hastert gobbling up headlines, while Democratic messages on values and security will carry more weight.
That said, third quarter fundraising reports are starting to trickle in. If you know of any fundraising figures for any campaign, please share the numbers in the comments. I'll update this thread accordingly. Here's what I've seen so far:
Jim Webb (D): $3.5m raised ($2.7m cash-on-hand; $4.6m total)
That's a pretty good increase, but he'll need even more to swamp out Allen in an expensive state like Virginia.
Joe Sestak (D): $1.14m raised ($1.53 CoH; $2.27m total)
Curt Weldon (R-Inc.): $0.91m raised ($1.12 CoH)
Simply stunning.
UPDATE (David): Some numbers from a couple of Republicans:
John Kline (R, MN-02): $173K raised, $775K CoH
Shelley Capito (R, WV-02): $800K raised, $1.04M CoH
Kline's opponent is FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley, who had just $100K on hand as of August 23rd. A recent SUSA poll here was not a cause for optimism, showing Kline with a 55-35 lead.
Meanwhile, Mike Callaghan is running against Capito. I really like Mike, but this has been a tough uphill battle all the way. WV-02 is not a wealthy district, and raising money here without national help is hard. Capito, meanwhile, has gotten a whopping 44% of her donations from PACs - Callaghan's taken just 2% of his total from that source.
One possible ray of light here is that Capito is on the board which oversees congressional pages, whose GOP overseer (Rep. John Shimkus) utterly failed to do his job. Callaghan has called on Capito to resign from the page board, but Capito has predictably pled ignorance. it remains to be seen what the fallout is from this entire sordid episode.
Posted at 10:00 PM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Ratings Changes from Cook
Posted by DavidNYCSome changes from Charlie Cook & Co.:
As the election draws closer, it is clear that the season is over for some challengers, including some who have run solid efforts. This would be the case for Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley (D) in the AL-Gov race, and for Republicans Pete Ricketts in NE-Sen and Richard Tarrant in VT-Sen.
I'm a bit disappointed about AL-Gov. A couple of very early polls showed that Baxley was surprisingly competitive. But incumbent Bob Riley developed something of a Giuliani-style halo after Katrina. (Because she is a Democrat, fellow Gulf Coast governor Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana was an easy target for the Bush administration and consequently the media, so her fortunes went south while Riley's shot skyward.) At best, though, this was always a chance to sneak in and steal a seat, so I can't say I'm really broken-hearted.
Meanwhile, while I was never worried about VT-Sen at all, several commenters here said they were concerned about NE-Sen due to Ricketts' huge personal wealth. (He's the son of the founder of Ameritrade.) But, according to Jennifer Duffy, Ricketts hasn't gained any traction despite being what she calls a "strong first-time candidate." And while there hasn't been a single public poll of this race since May, she also notes that we'd have seen an internal GOP poll if they had any good news to report.
I'll be glad if we can totally take this race off our radars. I know that there are several Nebraskans who read the site (or at least have in the past). I'd love to hear some more thoughts from locals.
Posted at 09:38 PM in 2006 Elections | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Gov. Schweitzer's Actblue Page
Posted by James L.Here's something that caught my eye on Actblue.com: Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana has his own fundraising page featuring all of the netroots candidates. I'm not sure how long this page has been up, but in any case, that's a pretty slick move!
Posted at 04:10 PM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Creepy Old Men Defending Creepy Old Men
Posted by James L.
One of the worst aspects of the media swarm on the House Republican cover-up of Rep. Mark Foley's predatory relationship with young congressional pages for the GOP this fall has got to be the face of Dennis Hastert.
Parents are grasping to rationalize how the House Republican leadership, who knew of Foley's creepy come-ons to underage pages for at least a year before ABC news busted the story wide open, could let Foley off with only a "warning" rather than a serious investigation. When they turn on their TVs, when the open their daily newspapers, Hastert's face is all over the coverage of this scandal. There's got to be something unsettling for parents to see old men like Hastert spin and lie as they stubbornly refuse to accept responsibility for their failure to protect children working in Congress. And with Hastert refusing to step down as Speaker, he will remain in the media's crosshairs as more sickening details surrounding Foley's conduct are revealed and the House Republican Leadership's failures to protect children are questioned even harder. The GOP has no one at the top with a motherly image to do damage control: Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds, Shimkus... all negligent old men defending their irresponsible attitude towards child sex predators on Capitol Hill. And yes, when Dennis Hastert slams the abused former pages for speaking up on Foley, saying that they're threatening the Republicans' capacity to keep America safe from terrorism, you're goddamned right that I'm calling him a creep, too.
Posted at 06:09 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Illinois | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
The Republican Playbook on Foley: "Let's Find One Lie and Stick to It"
Posted by James L.Hotline On Call had a couple of very good pieces on the Democratic and Republican political playbooks in the wake of the House Republican Sexual Predator Scandal (and yes, when House Republican leaders are involved in turning a blind eye to keeping a child sex predator in charge of the Congressional Caucus on Missing & Exploited Children, you're damn right I'm calling this an institutional Republican scandal). One thing that really stuck out from the Hotline's Republican playbook is this action item:
Fourth, they'll try to tamp down on internal disagreements about the timeline. This will be hard.
Translation: We better find one lie and stick to it. But isn't it telling, when caught off guard by the initial media scrums last Friday, that Alexander fingered Reynolds, then Boehner fingered Hastert (and then promptly recanted), followed by Reynolds throwing the blame, again, to Hastert? It's classic game theory: if you don't give the criminals a chance to get their "story" straight with each other, they'll throw around all kinds of bombshells when backed into a corner, isolated. Whichever lies the House Republican Leadership concocts to minimize the damage to their careers as politicians, they'll have to deal with the fact that their original media statements were very, very incongruent. They worked all weekend to iron out the edges, but that boulder is already rolling off the cliff. Good luck surviving November, fellas.
Posted at 12:26 AM in 2006 Elections, Scandals | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Friday, September 29, 2006
Netroots End-of-Quarter Fundraising Push Day 5
Posted by DavidNYCThe end of the quarter is not officially until tomorrow, Saturday. But as of this writing, we are so close to our goal I can taste it: 9,868 donors on the netroots page. I'm heartened to see that our fundraising pace has picked up each day. I'm betting we can blast through our goal (10,000 total donors) by the end of the day, and that Trauner, Grant and Walz will all clear a thousand contributions as well.
Today, though, we'd like to specially focus on a guy right at the middle of the list: Larry Kissell, running for Congress in North Carolina's 8th Congressional District. This race might well be unique this year: It's the only seat I know of which the DCCC decided to contest, then dropped (after another candidate quit the race), then picked up again. Indeed, around ten days ago, Kissell was added to the DCCC's "Emerging Races" list. What transpired to make this happen?
From my far-off vantage point, I see two major things as being as responsible. First, Kissell had a huge and energetic grassroots (and netroots) base that always believed in him, even when this race looked as uphill as can be. Indeed, this continual show of strength was the principal reason Kissell was added to the netroots page. And when the DCCC ran a contest to see who could sign up the greatest number of volunteers in just a brief period of time, the Kissell team raked in an astounding 900 new names. That earned the campaign a major fundraising e-mail from the D-Trip, which you may have even received today.
The other thing I've seen is a very creative and aggressive underdog attitude. Kissell & Co. didn't wait around for big money to fund a paid media campaign. Rather, they sought other ways to break through to voters. This was best exemplified by my favorite single political stunt of the year: Cheap gas. For two hours one day this summer, the Kissell campaign sponsored an event where gas was just $1.22 at a local filling station - the price when the incumbent, Robin Hayes, took office. It was a brilliant move that garnered tons of free media and community goodwill. It even inspired copycat moves by other Democrats. (You know what they say about imitation & flattery.)
And in terms of what we've been trying to accomplish with the netroots page, Larry Kissell is almost a picture-perfect example. All along we've looked to add races which were not getting tons of attention, which you might describe as "second tier." Our fervent hope was that by giving these campaigns a boost, we might help propel them on to the big players' short lists. We're certainly not claiming credit for putting Kissell on the DCCC's radar, but we'd like to think the blogosphere's support played a role in doing so.
So if you want to help out the quintessential grassroots campaign, please give to Larry Kissell. Right now he's at about 1,350 total donations. Surely we can get him to at least 1,400 by the end of the push, if not more. Of course, it goes without saying that all the netroots candidates are extremely worthy, and, if you can, the time to give is now.
As always, please tell us whom you've been giving to in the comments below. Thanks!
P.S. I'd also like to make a quick mention of another effort that's also using ActBlue. The Secretary of State Project is supporting Democratic candidates for Secretary of State in key swing states around the nation. Though these state-level campaigns tend to get over-looked, they shouldn't be: As you may know, SoSes are responsible for overseeing elections. After the debacles we experienced with Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell, it's extremely important than we support good, honest candidates for these positions. The SoS project has helpfully assembled a list of candidates who need our help. Go check it out.
Posted at 02:02 PM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising, Netroots | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, September 28, 2006
NY-26: NRCC Chairman tied with Jack Davis (D)
Posted by RBHSurveyUSA released a new poll showing the following results.
Jack Davis (D): 43
Tom Reynolds (R-Inc): 45
Christine Murphy (G): 8
Undecided: 4
MoE: ±4.5%
But, there's a few catches that make this look even better.
1) The Green Party candidate got booted off the ballot during the polling period. She got 8% of Democrats and 20% of Independents. And those votes are more likely to go to Davis than to Reynolds.
2) Reynolds leads with Republicans by a 62/31 margin. In races where your side is outnumbered, it's pretty helpful to get some people from the other side cross over and vote for your guy, especially if you can get 1/3rd of them to cross over.
3) SurveyUSA had a huge Republican sample. In a district where 41% of voters are registered Republicans, their sample was 51% Republican.Needless to say, when it comes to this poll, I would imagine that at worst, it's a tie, and at best, we're on our way to an upset.
So, some of you might be asking "Who the hell is Jack Davis?"
Jack Davis is a business owner who is staunchly opposed to free trade treaties. He ran against Reynolds in 2004, mostly self-financing his campaign, and recieving 44% of the vote.
Davis' website outlines 12 short policy statements which are the basic foundation for his campaign. As well, there's Speeches.
Back in 2004, Davis spent over $1M of his own money. In 2006, he has mentioned spending as much as $2M of his own money. Of course, Reynolds just says that he's trying to buy the seat. Which I would imagine doesn't quite work as well when it comes to someone who is 73 years old. He's spending what it'll take to win, because people like Tom Reynolds upped the ante in campaign spending. Jack Davis probably isn't going to make any fundraising lists, but he is putting this race on the map.
And I can't see any problem in making the Republican House campaign committee chairman concentrate on winning his seat. After all, he'll be spending money in his district, instead of sending it off to help other incumbents.
Posted at 07:22 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, New York, Polls | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Netroots End-of-Quarter Fundraising Push Day 4
Posted by DavidNYCYee haw! We're almost at 9,500 total donors on the netroots page. Just 500 more donors to go to hit our goal of 10,000 donors. We're also getting very close to 1,000 contributions for Trauner (815), Grant (815) and Walz (760). Jim Webb, by the way, went over 3,000 donations and Joe Sestak is within shooting distance of 2,000. We have two-and-a-half days left: Surely out there in the blogosphere there are more than enough people who can help put us over the top by Saturday night.
And you know things are really heating up in the political world - there have been multiple newsworthy items on the netroots candidates every day this week. Below, James has a roundup of three polls (MN-01, NH-02 and WA-08), all of which are good news. The latest Quinnipiac poll still has Ned Lamont trailing, but the trendlines are favorable, which I think is what really matters. A SUSA poll on VA-Sen also shows a tight race - and a big shift toward Webb after Felix Allen's racist past was corroborated by more people.
As always, if you have anything to share - new stories on any of the candidates, who you've been donating to, etc. - please share in the comments.
Posted at 02:46 PM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising, Netroots | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Netroots End-of-Quarter Fundraising Push Day 3
Posted by DavidNYCIt goes without saying that I am incredibly pleased to see that Dan Seals has pushed past the 1,000 contributions mark on the netroots page. Now we just have to get Trauner, Grant and Walz to 1K. We need only around 900 total contributions to hit that goal. That's just 300 people giving to each of these three candidates. Meanwhile, Ned Lamont just went over 4,000 and Jim Webb is closing in on 3,000.
In terms of our overall goal, we're now fewer than 800 donors away from 10,000 total. With only four days left in the quarter (three-and-a-half, really), that means we still need over 200 new donors a day. Given the combined readership of MyDD, Swing State and DailyKos, we should be able to do that without breaking a sweat.
And some great stuff on the netroots candidates today, including CO-05 (Jay Fawcett) and ID-01 (Larry Grant).
As always, please tell us about any contributions you make in the comments. Thanks!
Posted at 02:35 PM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising, Netroots | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Netroots End-of-Quarter Fundraising Push Day 2
Posted by DavidNYCSo, by now you probably already know the goal: 10,000 total contributors by the end of the quarter (ie, Saturday night) on the netroots page. Yesterday we had about 120 new donors, which is good, but is below what we need in order to hit the 10K mark. Fortunately, we've picked up the pace today, with about 100 new donors so far, so I'm confident we'll get there.
In the meantime, we have an intermediate goal: We want to see every candidate on the list get to 1,000 individual contributions. John Courage just passed that mark today, and Dan Seals is less than 50 away. So that leaves Larry Grant, Gary Trauner and Tim Walz, who combined need around 1,200 contributions to make it to the 1K plateau. (Remember, contributions are different from donors. If you donate to five candidates at once, that counts as one donor and five donations.)
To whet your appetite, Markos has some good posts today on several of the netroots candidates: Tim Walz's new bio ad, Jim Webb's new Iraq ad, and the formation of a "Republicans for Trauner" group out in WY. If you have anything more to share on these or any of the other netroots candidates, please let us know.
And as always, please tell us who you've been giving to in the comments.
P.S. ActBlue is expecting a major traffic spike this week. If you run into any problems, please e-mail info@actblue.com with your last name, ZIP code, and card type (Visa/MC/Amex/Discover) so that they can diagnose your issue.
Posted at 01:55 PM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising, Netroots | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Ballot Measure Roundup
Posted by DavidNYCAccording to the Initiative & Referendum Institute (PDF), there are 194 propositions on ballots in 32 states this year, up from 162 in 2004. Though the topic hasn't received nearly as much attention this year, anti-gay marriage measures are up for a vote in eight states in November (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia,
and Wisconsin - Alabama approved a gay marriage ban in June). On the flipside, there's a Colorado referendum on a measure which would create "domestic partnerships" for same-sex couples, which I&R says would accord the same rights as marriage.
The other major issue this year is eminent domain. The right sure picked an attractive test case with Kelo, and probably won more in losing that case, given the purported outrage it sparked. While I know many liberals were sympathetic to the plaintiffs in Kelo, the evisceration of eminent domain is really just one step in the radical rightist plan to undermine all government powers. I don't really mean to get into a debate on eminent domain here - just to point out that thirteen states are now trying to restrict the use of eminent domain.
Anyhow, check out the I&R report if you're interested in more details - it's both clear and comprehensive, listing every single measure in every state.
Posted at 01:49 AM in 2006 Elections | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, September 25, 2006
Netroots End-of-Quarter Fundraising Push
Posted by DavidNYCI know it was just last month that we had a big fundraising drive, and I hate to have to start begging for contributions so soon after. But this Saturday, September 30th, is the final day of the fundraising quarter for all federal campaigns. And, most importantly, it's the last benchmark reporting period for this entire election cycle. Yes, of course campaigns will still raise money after 9/30. But this is their last chance to issue a public report and show good numbers for the quarter. It goes without saying that it's our job to help every Democratic campaign as best we can.
And in August, we did a ferociously good job of it over at the MyDD/DailyKos/SSP Netroots page. We raked in over 7,700 contributions totalling more than $167,000 in just a week. In fact, we wound up exceeding our own expectations so dramatically that we outstripped our goals multiple times. That push was one time where I didn't mind moving the goalposts!
This time, though, the goal is really, really simple. Go over to the Netroots page and scroll down a bit. Look for the blue line that reads "Total." Right now, under the "Donors" column, it reads 8,713. That's the total number of individuals who have given via this page, since its inception. The total number of contributions is much higher (24,630 to active candidates as of this writing), because many people give to multiple candidates. (The average is a little over three per donor.)
So what we want to do is hit an even 10,000 donors by midnight on Saturday. I know we can make this goal. Whether you give $10 or $1000, to one candidate or to ten, you'll get counted. And every dollar really does matter. That's not empty talk. The money donated via ActBlue is the "cheapest" cash a campaign can find. Apart from credit card processing fees (which are minimal), there are no expenses associated with raising this money - no postage to pay, no caterers to hire, no time spent on the phone by the candidate.
As always, there are tons of great Democrats out there who need our help. If you want to support the Netroots list, that's fantastic. And if you prefer to give your hard-earned cash to other Dems, terrific. If you are able to give, what matters most is that you do give, and give now. When the big boys - the party committees (like the DCCC), labor unions, 527s, interest groups - decide where to make a final push in October, they are going to look at the end-of-quarter fundraising reports. If you want your favorite candidates to rocket to the top of those short lists, it's crucial that they show good fundraising numbers.
The ten thousand donor mark is in reach. Let's make it happen!
P.S. Please tell us which campaigns you've given to in the comments below.
Posted at 02:59 PM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising, Netroots | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Ickes Launches New 527
Posted by James L.I had ridiculously inflated hopes in the fall of 2004, despite all the empirical data telling me otherwise, that Kerry was going to pull ahead because of the overwhelming stack of cash that Democratic-allied 527s like America Coming Together and the Media Fund were spending on GOTV and anti-Republican advertising. It's tough to objectively measure how great of an impact groups like ACT or Moveon.org's Voter Fund had on the election, and given that the tidal wave of cash spent by these 527s failed to deliver much in the way of tangible victories, one could understand why these same big money donors have decided to abstain from funding such initiatives for the 2006 elections... that is, until now.
In a New York Times article published today, Harold Ickes, a close ally of the Clintons and a key organizer behind past 527s like ACT and the Media Fund, is currently gathering donations for a new 527 focused on helping Democrats in key congressional races this fall, called the September Fund. From the NYT:
Sensing both political danger and opportunity, a top Democratic operative and a group of major party donors have banded together to deliver a barrage of late advertising and on-the-ground action to secure Democratic victories in November.The operative, Harold M. Ickes, a top aide to former President Bill Clinton and informal adviser to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and a group of allies are soliciting money for a new organization called the September Fund.
They hope to raise and spend as much as $25 million to influence not only crucial Congressional races but also other campaigns and ballot initiatives at the federal and state level.
Here are a few of the names on Ickes' Rolodex:
Mr. Ickes has already contacted George Soros, the billionaire financier who gave Democratic committees more than $25 million in 2004. Among others on the fund’s list of potential donors are Steve Bing, a Hollywood producer; Linda Pritzker, a member of the family that owns Hyatt hotels; Herb and Marion Sandler, owners of a California savings and loan; and Ted Waitt, founder of the computer company Gateway. All gave multimillion-dollar gifts to the funds Mr. Ickes directed in 2004.
Now, there are probably a lot of legitimate criticisms to be made of the 527 effort on behalf of Kerry. I've certainly heard my share of horror stories about Moveon.org's GOTV and canvassing operations, for instance. But the wind wasn't blowing at our backs in 2004, and 2006 has entirely different dynamics at play, which might make the efforts of 527s more worthwhile. At the very least, it sure doesn't hurt. My only beef is: what the heck took Ickes so long? I know he's a pro, but can we expect a 4th quarter 527 operation like the September Fund to be as effective as one that was in place longer than two and a half months before the election? The Times attempts to explain:
America Coming Together and the Media Fund evaporated after the 2004 election, with many of their donors dispirited and apparently unwilling to participate in this year’s election. But Mr. Ickes, an aide said, became alarmed in late August about what he saw as a growing Republican financial advantage and feared a late salvo of negative advertising that could overwhelm Democrats in close races.In a memorandum to potential donors, Mr. Ickes and the other organizers of the fund warned that while Democrats appeared united in their political goals, Republicans had $80 million more than Democrats to spend on fall races.
I don't mean to look a gift horse in the mouth--and I do sincerely appreciate the efforts of Ickes to level the playing field this fall--but I'm wondering if we've lost some precious time here, especially on the GOTV side of the operation. Still, if Ickes can get big donors on his side (which he says he's already done to some extent) this is one other key factor to keep our eyes on as we enter the fall season.
(Hat tip to the American Prospect's Midterm Madness)
Posted at 05:06 PM in 2006 Elections | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
9/12 Primary Results Open Thread
Posted by James L.(Bumped.)
Regrettably, I have a night class tonight, so I won't be able to liveblog the large number of exciting primary races that are up for grabs tonight, including: RI-Sen, MD-Sen, MD-04, AZ-08, NY-11, NY-19, and others. For a pre-primary round-up of all the races to watch, check my earlier post here.
So here's what I want to see happen while I'm out: I want you to give me your predictions on all the tight races (RI-Sen, MD-04, AZ-08 for both Republicans and Democrats, NY-11, WI-08, et cetera). Be sure to include your percentage margins as well. Let's see how savvy you really are...
As the evening wears on, feel free to post links to results pages and any updates as they happen in the comments section of this thread. And I'm sure that sites like Hotline On Call and MyDD will be liveblogging into the wee hours of the morning.
Posted at 07:11 PM in 2006 Elections | Comments (39) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Saturday, September 09, 2006
9/12 Primary Races Round-Up
Posted by James L.So it's primary day this Tuesday, with elections being held in AZ, DC, DE, MD, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, and WI. Here's a round-up of everything you should be keeping your eye on.
• AZ-08 (Open, Kolbe): Boy, do I ever feel good about the Democratic chances in this district. Jim Kolbe, the district's Republican incumbent, is retiring. Kolbe, one of those elusive gay Republicans, cultivated a moderate reputation (whatever that means in the Republican Party these days), but received a slight scare in 2004 when conservative firebrand Randy Graf ran on a hard-right platform and scored 43% of the vote in the Republican primary of that year. That's a pretty impressive showing, given the traditional resource gap between a no-name challenger and an entrenched incumbent (admittedly, Graf's a state legislator, so he did start off with base of support). Now, Graf, an anti-immigration advocate, is leading the charge to clinch the Republican nomination for this open seat, and the most recent polling puts him ahead of primary opponent Steve Huffman (33-25, with 14% dispersed among three other minor candidates, and 29% undecided). However, Graf's in-your-face conservatism isn't exactly the best fit for a district that only tilts ever so slightly to the Republicans (Cook rates it as R+1.4), and the NRCC is in panic mode, spending $100k in a last-ditch effort to drag Huffman across the finish line. Clearly, we should be rooting for Graf in the primary if the NRCC is willing to spend coin to stop him. That said, even if Huffman is the winner, Hotline On Call notes that Huffman has plenty of weaknesses of his own:
But there are signs that Huffman is running a lackluster campaign. Despite a big fundraising advantage and Kolbe's endorsement, he remains down in polls. His treasurer was snooping around his challenger's ex-wife's home, prompting the Tucson Weekly to revoke their endorsement of him. And unlike ex-state Sen. Gabrielle Giffords (D) and Graf, he kept his seat in the legislature during the campaign - allowing the DCCC to hammer him for missing recent votes on border security.
Yikes. Things are looking pretty stressful for the Republicans if Huffman is the best they can come up with in this district. I can already see the negative ads in my head regarding his treasurer's bizarre antics.
The Democratic primary, on the other hand, is pitting two candidates who would either be strong or reasonably strong performers in the general election: ex-State Sen. Gabrielle Giffords and local TV anchor Patty Weiss. Giffords, though, leads Weiss 46-29 in the latest polling, and looks like the likely winner on Tuesday. Giffords is also the only Democrat in the current field who leads Huffman in a hypothetical general election match-up, by 42-39. Additionally, recent generic polling suggests that the district is leaning towards pulling the lever for the Democratic candidate this cycle, by a 50-46 margin. Between the nasty Republican primary pitting the NRCC against the local conservative base, a strong Democratic candidate, and an electorate that's beginning to tilt Democratic in the most recent polls, I'm expecting good things from AZ-08 in November.
• MD-Sen (Open, Sarbanes): A whopper. A late August poll put Rep. Ben Cardin ahead of former NCAAP head Kweisi Mfume by a 43-30 margin in the Democratic primary to succeed retiring Sen. Paul Sarbanes, although other polls have shown a tighter contest over the past several months. However, the demographics of Maryland's Democratic electorate would seem to hold more favorables for Mfume than Cardin, at least on the surface. Still, Cardin has outraised Mfume by a wide margin, and has been putting up a far greater amount of resources on air time in this stretch run than Mfume can afford to spend. I'd be surprised if Mfume pulled off this upset.
• MD-04 (Incumbent, Wynn): 2006 has seen a series of surprising primary elections where incumbents have been knocked off their perch--Lieberman, Joe Schwarz in Michigan, and Cynthia McKinney in Georgia. Can Donna Edwards make it four by knocking off entrenched Democratic incumbent Al Wynn? Edwards has made a strong case against Wynn, who has supported the Bush administration on several crucial votes, including the Bankruptcy Bill and the Iraq War. Lemme just chime in and say this: no Democrat has any business voting for the ass-backwards Bankruptcy Bill, but this especially applies to any Democrat who represents a district that delivered 70% of its vote to John Kerry in 2004, like Wynn's. The Club For Growth, even if their choice in candidates is often extremely questionable, has the right philosophy: use primary races in districts with deep partisan favorability to their cause, and push ideological purity there. An Al Wynn-style voting record may be a lot easier to stomach for, say, a Democrat representing a white-majority district in the South, but Maryland's fourth can do a lot better than Al Wynn. Edwards has been picking up momentum in recent weeks, with the impressive achievement of securing the Washington Post's endorsement. If she can't do it this time, Edwards will be well-placed to make an earlier, more well-funded challenge to Wynn in 2008.
• MN-05 (Open, Sabo): I gotta say, I know next to nothing about this hotly-contested open D seat race in the Twin Cities region of Minnesota. The field is huge, but the big spenders and movers have been Keith Ellison, Mike Erlandson, and Ember Reichgott Junge. I would invite our resident MN commentators to give us the lowdown in the comments.
• NH-01 (Incumbent, Bradley): This race isn't quite as sexy as NH-02, but there's still a glimmer of hope here. Cook rates this district as a highly competitive R+0.1, and Bush only edged Kerry by 2% here in 2004. One of the Democratic challengers, NH House Minority Leader Jim Craig, is credible, and holds at least some name recognition in the district. But first he'll have to get through a primary with Carol Shea-Porter, who has her share of supporters as well.
• NY-11 (Open, Owens): The most recent polling I've seen in this open seat shows a dead heat between the four would-be Democratic successors to retiring incumbent Major Owens in this central Brooklyn district (and my home away from home): NYC Councilmembers Yvette Clark, David Yassky, State Sen. Carl Andrews, and Owens' son, Chris Owens. Yassky's had the best fundraising, but also the most controversy, with the other candidates criticizing Yassky for running in an African-American majority district. Looks like this one will go down to the wire.
• NY-19 (Incumbent, Kelly): The Democratic field to take on incumbent Republican congresswoman Sue Kelly has been annoyingly huge, but it's been whittled down to four: ex-Republican attorney Judy Aydelott, school principal Ben Schuldiner, political hack Darren Rigger, and Orleans guitarist John Hall. Aydelott had the very early mo' in this district, but Hall's fundraising has really picked up steam, and the endorsements (including one from the NY Democratic Party) followed suit. Cook rates this district R+1.5, but the locals are hoping for some serious coattails from the Spitzer-Clinton bulldozer at the top of the ticket this year, as well as changing demographics as a result of NYC residents moving into the district for more affordable housing.
• RI-Sen (Incumbent, Chafee): The big one! Depending on whether you choose to believe Rhode Island College or the National Republican Senatorial Committee, this primary race is either firmly in conservative challenger Steve Laffey's hands, or will be held safely by incumbent Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee--both organizations put out wildly conflicting polls. The NRSC has made it clear that they're reading to cede the Rhode Island Senate seat to the Democrats if Laffey wins on Tuesday, so... well, you know who to root for.
• RI-02 (Incumbent, Langevin): I don't have much to say about this one, but Jennifer Lawless has been running a primary challenge against Rep. Jim Langevin from the left. Langevin, in my estimation, is a pretty decent Rep, aside from his pro-life/anti-choice record. Lawless has gone so far as to say that Langevin Equals Lieberman, but given Langevin's opposition to the Iraq War, I don't think that passes the sniff test. So whatever.
• WI-08 (Open, Green): No question about it: this is a Republican district. Bush scored nearly 55% of the vote against Kerry's 44% in 2004, yet Democrats are smelling an opportunity this year. Indeed, the most recent RT Strategies/Constituent Dynamics poll has the generic Democrat edging the generic Republican by 48-44 in this open seat race. The DCCC has gone up on the air to soften up likely Republican nominee John Gard's numbers, while the NRCC has done the same against physician Steve Kagen, the big spender in the Democratic primary race (he's put up over $1m of his own funds into this race, the last time I checked). Kagen's primary opponents, former Brown County Executive and De Pere mayor Nancy Nusbaum and business consultant Jamie Wall, have also raised impressive amounts for a crowded field, but Kagen's deep pockets has put the local Republicans on edge. If the NRCC is committing resources to defend this seat, the 2006 field is favorable indeed for Democrats.
Posted at 09:02 PM in 2006 Elections, Arizona, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Wisconsin | Comments (18) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Open Thread: What's Your Favorite Ad This Year?
Posted by James L.I may as well fess up: I'm an ad junkie. Few things excite me more in this post-Labor Day period than watching campaigns unveil their new ads. To be sure, there's a lot of crap out there, but as the Connecticut Senate primary showed, the 30 second TV spot still has the power to turn a seemingly futile race on its head.
Today saw the release of two powerful ads. First was this gripping Ned Lamont ad--his first new ad on the air since his primary win:
The other was this remarkable web ad for Kirsten Gillibrand's campaign in NY-20 against thuggish Republican incumbent John Sweeney. Sweeney's campaign has produced some truly vile campaign ads targeting Gillibrand and her family, lobbing just about every epithet at her from "war profiteer" to "America hater" (the latter is not his exact phrasing, but that's the gist of it). Gillibrand's team have responded with this web ad featuring Academy Award nominee David Straithairn (a NY-20 resident and a concerned citizen himself), who here is reprising his role as Edward R. Murrow from Goodnight & Goodluck, this time targeting Sweeney instead of McCarthy. (MyDD has more here.) Another gripping and surprising ad that should garner Gillibrand some positive buzz.
Some of my other favorite ads this year have been for Jon Tester (Creating a Buzz), Dan Maffei (Not Listening), and, while he may not be my favorite candidate of the cycle, pretty much everything put out by Harold Ford, Jr. has been very sharp.
How about you? Have you seen any good ads that have slipped past the national blog radar? What's your favorite ad this year? Please post a link to your favorite ad in the comments. YouTube links are preferred for the fast loading times and ease of use for everybody. If your favorite ad is not on YouTube, and you have the means to do so, please be proactive and upload it to YouTube for the campaign's benefit. If any campaign has not thrown up their TV or web-only video on YouTube, they're clearly behind the curve in terms of message distribution in the internet age.
Update: I'm liking Sherrod Brown's new ad on trade, too.
Posted at 04:54 PM in 2006 Elections, Media | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Florida Primaries Open Thread
Posted by DavidNYCSeveral contested primaries are afoot tonight in Florida, on both sides of the aisle. We've got Gov for both parties, plus a number of House contests. Even poor Kathy Harris might actually win an election this year, if she managed to beat the no-names running against her tonight.
Full results are available here. Got any races in the Sunshine State that you're following?
Posted at 09:43 PM in 2006 Elections, Florida | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Netroots August Fundraising Push Round-up Charts
Posted by James L.
No hyperbole here: I was quite astounded by the total amount raised by the readers of DailyKos, MyDD, and Swing State Project over the past week. I want to thank you for your patience as SSP was pretty much dominated by this drive over the past 8 days. Thanks for sticking in there, and thanks for donating to the netroots candidates. From 12:00am EDT on Monday, August 21 to 12:00am EDT on Tuesday, August 29, we raised a jaw-dropping $167,137 for 17 strong Democratic challengers nationwide (plus about $4k for BlogPAC) from 7734 contributions. Your generosity yesterday simply amazed me, with nearly $70k coming in on Tuesday alone. Believe me, you've given a good boost to these candidates, especially those in low-dollar districts like ID-01's Larry Grant and Wyoming's Gary Trauner. Excellent stuff.
As promised, below are the fundraising round-up charts for yesterday and the week for each candidate. Even more impressive is the fact that an additional $8,000 trickled in since 12am EDT last night--a figure not reflected in the following totals. Very cool.
| Candidate | District | Starting Donations | 8/29 Donations | New Donations in Last 24hrs. | New Donations From 8/21 to 8/29 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ned Lamont | CT-Sen | 3064 | 3,553 | 189 | 489 |
| Jon Tester | MT-Sen | 2056 | 2,646 | 230 | 590 |
| Jim Webb | VA-Sen | 1270 | 2,060 | 310 | 790 |
| Eric Massa | NY-29 | 905 | 1,283 | 136 | 378 |
| Joe Sestak | PA-07 | 876 | 1,350 | 197 | 474 |
| Patrick Murphy | PA-08 | 687 | 1,094 | 167 | 407 |
| Jerry McNerney | CA-11 | 681 | 1,177 | 216 | 496 |
| Darcy Burner | WA-08 | 679 | 1,194 | 226 | 515 |
| Linda Stender | NJ-07 | 508 | 902 | 165 | 394 |
| Paul Hodes | NH-02 | 465 | 899 | 174 | 434 |
| Larry Kissell | NC-08 | 427 | 891 | 199 | 464 |
| John Courage | TX-21 | 415 | 823 | 173 | 408 |
| Dan Seals | IL-10 | 375 | 756 | 162 | 381 |
| Jay Fawcett | CO-05 | 375 | 850 | 227 | 475 |
| Tim Walz | MN-01 | 0 | 354 | 200 | 354 |
| Larry Grant | ID-01 | 0 | 344 | 264 | 344 |
| Gary Trauner | WY-AL | 0 | 341 | 341 | 341 |
| Total | 12,783 | 20,517 | 3,576 | 7,734 |
Continue reading below the fold for hard dollar figures. Thanks again for an amazing week!
| Candidate | District | Raised at Start | 8/29 Raised | Raised in Last 24hrs. | Raised From 8/21 to 8/29 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ned Lamont | CT-Sen | $110,042.51 | $121,067.07 | $3,751.97 | $11,024.56 |
| Jon Tester | MT-Sen | $59,730.84 | $74,307.98 | $5,386.94 | $14,577.14 |
| Jim Webb | VA-Sen | $40,452.38 | $63,042.61 | $6,952.53 | $22,590.23 |
| Eric Massa | NY-29 | $21,042.29 | $28,830.34 | $2,471.94 | $7,788.05 |
| Joe Sestak | PA-07 | $26,574.49 | $38,535.92 | $3,412.43 | $11,961.43 |
| Patrick Murphy | PA-08 | $13,895.16 | $22,072.64 | $3,218.95 | $8,177.48 |
| Jerry McNerney | CA-11 | $17,873.76 | $29,671.25 | $4,613.51 | $11,797.49 |
| Darcy Burner | WA-08 | $13,209.06 | $24,165.95 | $3,585.78 | $10,956.89 |
| Linda Stender | NJ-07 | $8,877.30 | $15,964.54 | $2,831.38 | $7,087.24 |
| Paul Hodes | NH-02 | $8,817.34 | $17,335.22 | $3,025.76 | $8,517.88 |
| Larry Kissell | NC-08 | $6,855.92 | $14,716.64 | $2,795.87 | $7,860.72 |
| John Courage | TX-21 | $6,868.53 | $13,968.26 | $2,625.78 | $7,099.73 |
| Dan Seals | IL-10 | $6,314.74 | $13,863.27 | $3,124.95 | $7,548.53 |
| Jay Fawcett | CO-05 | $5,856.33 | $14,136.34 | $3,379.95 | $8,280.01 |
| Tim Walz | MN-01 | $0.00 | $8,033.32 | $3,610.38 | $8,033.32 |
| Larry Grant | ID-01 | $0.00 | $6,764.77 | $4,396.12 | $6,764.77 |
| Gary Trauner | WY-AL | $0.00 | $7,072.16 | $7,072.16 | $7,072.16 |
| Total | $346,410.65 | $513,548.28 | $66,256.40 | $167,137.63 |
Posted at 01:49 PM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising, Netroots | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Final Netroots Push Post!
Posted by DavidNYCI don't have much more to say at this point except: WOW. We started today with 4,158 total donations. I was honestly kinda worried that we'd fall short of 5,000, our stated goal. After all, we've been doing this fundraising drive for a week, it's almost Labor Day, etc. etc.
Well, we completely obliterated it. As of this writing, we have a whopping 5,753 total contributions. Chris Bowers wants us to shoot for 6,000 by the end of the day - and you know what? He's not crazy. Not at all. It's totally doable.
Can we get Grant & Trauner to 200? Seals to 700? Kissell to 800? If we can get to 6,000 overall, we can definitely clear all those benchmarks. And I promise, promise, promise that this will be the last time we up our goal. When we hit 6,000, we can definitely declare victory, pat ourselves on the back, and enjoy what we've done here
And then, tomorrow, though this push will be over, we get right back to work supporting all of our great Democratic candidates across the nation!
Posted at 06:40 PM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising, Netroots | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Netroots Push Final Day Afternoon Update
Posted by DavidNYCAt midnight last night, we had amassed 4,158 donations since the start of our push. As of this writing, we've chalked up another 356 gifts and are now at 4,514 donations total. We are definitely shooting the moon today - our goal, as you know, is to hit 5,000 donations by midnight.
Here are a few milestones we should pass today in reaching that goal: Larry Grant just cruised by 100 donations, so that means Gary Trauner should pass that mark soon, too. Meanwhile, Patrick Murphy, Jerry McNerny and Darcy Burner are within shouting distance of 1,000 contributions apiece. And certainly everyone above and below should keep moving upward.
As you saw from James' post below, we've already cruised past $100,000 total raised since Monday the 21st. So this 5,000 donation goal is our last. I know we can make it. Let's do this thing!
P.S. As always, please tell us who you've contributed to in the comments. And a special request: If you're volunteering for any campaigns, tell us about that, too!
Posted at 03:24 PM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising, Netroots | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Final Bleepin' Netroots August Fundraising Push Update!
Posted by James L.
This is it! I swear! The stretch run! By midnight tonight, we will finally be done nagging you to donate to the netroots-endorsed candidates (well, at least until the end of the cycle). I really appreciate your patience over the last week, and if you've given, we all thank you very much for your efforts to break the corrosive Republican grip on Congress this November. But we're not done yet! We have one final goal to reach: 5000 new donations by the end of the day. As you can see from the chart below, we've amassed over 4100 new donations over the past week. We'd like to make one last, all-out, balls-to-the-wall push today to bring that number up to 5000. We can do it, but that means that for everyone who's been sitting on their hands and can afford to contribute, now's the time to step up.
And we've already made major progress this week--raising in an astounding $100,000 in the dead of August. Believe me, you guys have turned heads by allowing key netroots candidates additional resources to compete this November. Please keep our momentum going and help us reach 5000 donations by the end of the day. Whether it's $5 to one candidate, or $100 to each candidate, your donation makes a difference.
I'm also really excited to share that our next (last?) netroots candidate has been added to the list today. If you've got Western pride, like me, you'll love this addition. Keep your eyes peeled for a DailyKos introduction soon.
| Candidate | District | Starting Donations | 8/28 Donors | New Donations in Last 24hrs. | New Donations Since Launch |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ned Lamont | CT-Sen | 3064 | 3,364 | 18 | 300 |
| Jon Tester | MT-Sen | 2056 | 2,416 | 28 | 360 |
| Jim Webb | VA-Sen | 1270 | 1,750 | 36 | 480 |
| Eric Massa | NY-29 | 905 | 1,147 | 11 | 242 |
| Joe Sestak | PA-07 | 876 | 1,153 | 23 | 277 |
| Patrick Murphy | PA-08 | 687 | 927 | 18 | 240 |
| Jerry McNerney | CA-11 | 681 | 961 | 21 | 280 |
| Darcy Burner | WA-08 | 679 | 968 | 20 | 289 |
| Linda Stender | NJ-07 | 508 | 737 | 19 | 229 |
| Paul Hodes | NH-02 | 465 | 725 | 24 | 260 |
| Larry Kissell | NC-08 | 427 | 692 | 26 | 265 |
| John Courage | TX-21 | 415 | 650 | 19 | 235 |
| Dan Seals | IL-10 | 375 | 594 | 15 | 219 |
| Jay Fawcett | CO-05 | 375 | 623 | 20 | 248 |
| Tim Walz | MN-01 | 0 | 154 | 20 | 154 |
| Larry Grant | ID-01 | 0 | 80 | 80 | 80 |
| Total | 12,783 | 16,941 | 398 | 4,158 |
Keep up the great work, people. As always, continue reading below the fold for the hard dollar numbers (which are really impressive).
| Candidate | District | Raised at Start | 8/28 Raised | Raised in Last 24hrs. | Raised Since Launch |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ned Lamont | CT-Sen | $110,042.51 | $117,315.10 | $471.59 | $7,272.59 |
| Jon Tester | MT-Sen | $59,730.84 | $68,921.04 | $762.60 | $9,190.20 |
| Jim Webb | VA-Sen | $40,452.38 | $56,090.08 | $1,553.63 | $15,637.70 |
| Eric Massa | NY-29 | $21,042.29 | $26,358.40 | $260.57 | $5,316.11 |
| Joe Sestak | PA-07 | $26,574.49 | $35,123.49 | $845.61 | $8,549.00 |
| Patrick Murphy | PA-08 | $13,895.16 | $18,853.69 | $366.59 | $4,958.53 |
| Jerry McNerney | CA-11 | $17,873.76 | $25,057.74 | $660.63 | $7,183.98 |
| Darcy Burner | WA-08 | $13,209.06 | $20,580.17 | $325.62 | $7,371.11 |
| Linda Stender | NJ-07 | $8,877.30 | $13,133.16 | $388.61 | $4,255.86 |
| Paul Hodes | NH-02 | $8,817.34 | $14,309.46 | $552.62 | $5,492.12 |
| Larry Kissell | NC-08 | $6,855.92 | $11,920.77 | $433.99 | $5,064.85 |
| John Courage | TX-21 | $6,868.53 | $11,342.48 | $318.62 | $4,473.95 |
| Dan Seals | IL-10 | $6,314.74 | $10,738.32 | $410.59 | $4,423.58 |
| Jay Fawcett | CO-05 | $5,856.33 | $10,756.39 | $352.62 | $4,900.06 |
| Tim Walz | MN-01 | $0.00 | $4,422.94 | $361.60 | $4,422.94 |
| Larry Grant | ID-01 | $0.00 | $2,368.65 | $2,368.65 | $2,368.65 |
| Total | $346,410.65 | $447,291.88 | $10,434.14 | $100,881.23 |
Posted at 01:17 AM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising, Netroots | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, August 28, 2006
Netroots August Fundraising Push Update #6 (The Weekender)
Posted by James L.
Boy, do I ever feel as giddy as a schoolboy today. If you want to know why, just read mcjoan's diary over on DailyKos highlighting the next Netroots candidate, Larry Grant of Idaho! Idaho! How crazy is that?! You may remember a post I wrote way back in May entitled ID-01: Wingnut of the Year where I made the case that the Republican nominee for this open seat, Club for Growth nutcase Bill Sali, is, perhaps, a bit TOO out there for the good people of bright red--no, no, make that crimson red Idaho. Seriously, how often do you see quotes like this--from top state Republican leaders?
The Speaker, Bruce Newcomb, told The Idaho Statesman, “That idiot is just an absolute idiot. He doesn’t have one ounce of empathy in his whole fricking body. And you can put that in the paper.”
So, needless to say, I'm pretty psyched that this race has entered our radar screens. I'll stop now, because I'm sure I'll write up another pro-Grant post later in the day. But in the meantime, please give Larry Grant a very warm welcome to the netroots Actblue page. Can we get 50 donors for Larry today? That would be phenomenal.
Before I forget, as promised, here's the weekend roundup chart detailing all the movement on the netroots candidates Actblue page. Thanks to your generous contributions, we amassed 460 donations and $10,000 over the past two days for strong progressives nationwide. You're making a real impact, so I would encourage anyone who has been sitting on their hands to open up your wallets if you can afford to. Whatever you can give, $5, $10, $50, or more, will really be appreciated by the campaigns involved (especially in a low-dollar district like Idaho, hint, hint).
| Candidate | District | Starting Donations | 8/27 Donors | New Donations in Last 48hrs. | New Donations Since Launch |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ned Lamont | CT-Sen | 3064 | 3,346 | 29 | 282 |
| Jon Tester | MT-Sen | 2056 | 2,388 | 32 | 332 |
| Jim Webb | VA-Sen | 1270 | 1,714 | 44 | 444 |
| Eric Massa | NY-29 | 905 | 1,136 | 18 | 231 |
| Joe Sestak | PA-07 | 876 | 1,130 | 30 | 254 |
| Patrick Murphy | PA-08 | 687 | 909 | 28 | 222 |
| Jerry McNerney | CA-11 | 681 | 940 | 39 | 259 |
| Darcy Burner | WA-08 | 679 | 948 | 31 | 269 |
| Linda Stender | NJ-07 | 508 | 718 | 27 | 210 |
| Paul Hodes | NH-02 | 465 | 701 | 23 | 236 |
| Larry Kissell | NC-08 | 427 | 666 | 38 | 239 |
| John Courage | TX-21 | 415 | 631 | 23 | 216 |
| Dan Seals | IL-10 | 375 | 579 | 23 | 204 |
| Jay Fawcett | CO-05 | 375 | 603 | 26 | 228 |
| Tim Walz | MN-01 | 0 | 134 | 49 | 134 |
| Total | 12,783 | 16,543 | 460 | 3,760 |
Thanks again to SSP reader KCinDC for helping out with last night's data grab. You rock!
| Candidate | District | Raised at Start | 8/27 Raised | Raised in Last 48hrs. | Raised Since Launch |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ned Lamont | CT-Sen | $110,042.51 | $116,843.51 | $569.78 | $6,801.00 |
| Jon Tester | MT-Sen | $59,730.84 | $68,158.44 | $720.02 | $8,427.60 |
| Jim Webb | VA-Sen | $40,452.38 | $54,536.45 | $1,173.87 | $14,084.07 |
| Eric Massa | NY-29 | $21,042.29 | $26,097.83 | $190.02 | $5,055.54 |
| Joe Sestak | PA-07 | $26,574.49 | $34,277.88 | $995.03 | $7,703.39 |
| Patrick Murphy | PA-08 | $13,895.16 | $18,487.10 | $540.04 | $4,591.94 |
| Jerry McNerney | CA-11 | $17,873.76 | $24,397.11 | $851.04 | $6,523.35 |
| Darcy Burner | WA-08 | $13,209.06 | $20,254.55 | $630.02 | $7,045.49 |
| Linda Stender | NJ-07 | $8,877.30 | $12,744.55 | $505.02 | $3,867.25 |
| Paul Hodes | NH-02 | $8,817.34 | $13,756.84 | $525.03 | $4,939.50 |
| Larry Kissell | NC-08 | $6,855.92 | $11,486.78 | $1,065.05 | $4,630.86 |
| John Courage | TX-21 | $6,868.53 | $11,023.86 | $365.04 | $4,155.33 |
| Dan Seals | IL-10 | $6,314.74 | $10,327.73 | $372.03 | $4,012.99 |
| Jay Fawcett | CO-05 | $5,856.33 | $10,403.77 | $450.04 | $4,547.44 |
| Tim Walz | MN-01 | $0.00 | $4,061.34 | $1,225.09 | $4,061.34 |
| Total | $346,410.65 | $436,857.74 | $10,177.12 | $90,447.09 |
Posted at 11:30 AM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising, Netroots | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Netroots August Fundraising Push Update #5
Posted by James L.
Yesterday was another great day for the Netroots candidates during our August fundraising push. Our newest addition to the page, MN-01's Tim Walz, got off to a great start with 75 donations in his first full day on the page. As I'm writing this, Tim is only two donations shy of joining the 100 club. Can we push him over the edge this afternoon?
In even better news, Netroots all-star Larry Kissell received a major boost when the DCCC's vice-chair, Rep. Artur Davis, moved to support his campaign. This is exactly what we wanted to happen with our fundraising push: give candidates an extra boost so that groups like the DCCC, labor, and PACs would take notice. Of course, Kissell will still need all the extra help that we can give him, so please consider his campaign when you decide which Netroots candidates to support in the next several days.
Yesterday was another good day for the Netroots candidates, with the readers of DailyKos, MyDD, and SSP bringing in over 350 new donations and $10,000 for strong progressive Democrats across the country. Like I said yesterday, the campaigns involved are noticing your support and are extremely grateful for it. Here's the latest chart detailing the action over the first five days of our push. All in all, we've raised over $80,000 from 3,300 donations over the past few days. Wow!
| Candidate | District | 8/20 Donors | 8/25 Donors | New Donors in Past 24hrs. | New Donors Since 8/20 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ned Lamont | CT-Sen | 3064 | 3,317 | 25 | 253 |
| Jon Tester | MT-Sen | 2056 | 2,356 | 30 | 300 |
| Jim Webb | VA-Sen | 1270 | 1,670 | 39 | 400 |
| Eric Massa | NY-29 | 905 | 1,118 | 17 | 213 |
| Joe Sestak | PA-07 | 876 | 1,100 | 26 | 224 |
| Patrick Murphy | PA-08 | 687 | 881 | 16 | 194 |
| Jerry McNerney | CA-11 | 681 | 901 | 21 | 220 |
| Darcy Burner | WA-08 | 679 | 917 | 16 | 238 |
| Linda Stender | NJ-07 | 508 | 691 | 16 | 183 |
| Paul Hodes | NH-02 | 465 | 678 | 13 | 213 |
| Larry Kissell | NC-08 | 427 | 628 | 16 | 201 |
| John Courage | TX-21 | 415 | 608 | 15 | 193 |
| Dan Seals | IL-10 | 375 | 556 | 15 | 181 |
| Jay Fawcett | CO-05 | 375 | 577 | 17 | 202 |
| Tim Walz | MN-01 | 10 | 75 | 85 | |
| Total | 12,783 | 16,083 | 357 | 3,300 |
Before I forget, I'd like to once again say thanks to Swing State Project readers KCinDC and Predictor for helping me with today's chart. I really appreciate your help, guys! Continue reading below the fold for a detailed breakdown of the amount raised for each candidate. And, if you have the means to do so, please help us keep our momentum going.
| Candidate | District | 8/20 Raised | 8/25 Raised | Raised in Past 24hrs. | Raised Since 8/20 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ned Lamont | CT-Sen | $110,042.51 | $116,273.73 | $477.53 | $6,231.22 |
| Jon Tester | MT-Sen | $59,730.84 | $67,438.42 | $692.52 | $7,707.58 |
| Jim Webb | VA-Sen | $40,452.38 | $53,362.58 | $982.53 | $12,910.20 |
| Eric Massa | NY-29 | $21,042.29 | $25,907.81 | $293.95 | $4,865.52 |
| Joe Sestak | PA-07 | $26,574.49 | $33,282.85 | $2,257.51 | $6,708.36 |
| Patrick Murphy | PA-08 | $13,895.16 | $17,947.06 | $302.51 | $4,051.90 |
| Jerry McNerney | CA-11 | $17,873.76 | $23,546.07 | $737.52 | $5,672.31 |
| Darcy Burner | WA-08 | $13,209.06 | $19,624.53 | $197.52 | $6,415.47 |
| Linda Stender | NJ-07 | $8,877.30 | $12,239.53 | $242.52 | $3,362.23 |
| Paul Hodes | NH-02 | $8,817.34 | $13,231.81 | $112.52 | $4,414.47 |
| Larry Kissell | NC-08 | $6,855.92 | $10,421.73 | $187.52 | $3,565.81 |
| John Courage | TX-21 | $6,868.53 | $10,658.82 | $327.52 | $3,790.29 |
| Dan Seals | IL-10 | $6,314.74 | $9,955.70 | $327.51 | $3,640.96 |
| Jay Fawcett | CO-05 | $5,856.33 | $9,953.73 | $397.51 | $4,097.40 |
| Tim Walz | MN-01 | $2,836.25 | $2,543.11 | $2,836.25 | |
| Total | $346,410.65 | $426,680.62 | $10,079.80 | $80,269.97 |
Posted at 04:19 PM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising, Netroots | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Friday, August 25, 2006
Netroots August Fundraising Push Update #4
Posted by James L.
Well, so we had an "off" day yesterday for the Netroots August Fundraising Push. But if you think about it, it wasn't "off" by any means. We had set a goal of 100 new donors for House challengers, and 250 for Senate challengers over a seven day period. And, with the exception of one candidate (Ned Lamont), we've already smashed apart those fundraising goals--in just four days. Moreover, as you can see from the chart below (which captures the numbers at midnight EDT every night), many of the House challengers are threatening to break through the new goal of 200 donations, and we haven't got too far to go to get Ned Lamont and Jon Tester to 300 donations this week (Jim Webb has been the undisputed netroots fundraising heavyweight this week).
All in all, from the great readers of MyDD, DailyKos, and Swing State, we've brought in over $70,000 for Netroots-endorsed candidates in the past four days. That's some pretty impressive action! And believe me, the campaigns involved have noticed, and are very grateful for the support in this traditionally sleepy time of the summer. Also, I have no doubt that when the newest Netroots candidate is introduced on DailyKos soon, we'll see some renewed buzz on the page.
| Candidate | District | 8/20 Donors | 8/24 Donors | New Donors in Past 24hrs. | New Donors Since 8/20 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ned Lamont | CT-Sen | 3064 | 3292 | 38 | 228 |
| Jon Tester | MT-Sen | 2056 | 2326 | 41 | 270 |
| Jim Webb | VA-Sen | 1270 | 1631 | 57 | 361 |
| Eric Massa | NY-29 | 905 | 1101 | 21 | 196 |
| Joe Sestak | PA-07 | 876 | 1074 | 24 | 198 |
| Patrick Murphy | PA-08 | 687 | 865 | 20 | 178 |
| Jerry McNerney | CA-11 | 681 | 880 | 31 | 199 |
| Darcy Burner | WA-08 | 679 | 901 | 34 | 222 |
| Linda Stender | NJ-07 | 508 | 675 | 17 | 167 |
| Paul Hodes | NH-02 | 465 | 665 | 22 | 200 |
| Larry Kissell | NC-08 | 427 | 612 | 36 | 185 |
| John Courage | TX-21 | 415 | 593 | 27 | 178 |
| Dan Seals | IL-10 | 375 | 541 | 22 | 166 |
| Jay Fawcett | CO-05 | 375 | 560 | 34 | 185 |
| Tim Walz | MN-01 | 10 | 10 | 10 | |
| Total | 12,783 | 15,726 | 434 | 2,943 |
We had a bit of a break yesterday, but let's see if we can ramp it up over the next few days. If you haven't done so, and you have the means to contribute, please consider supporting one of the netroots candidates today. If all this number crunching isn't your thing, David and I have been running a few blurbs about some of the candidates to give you a better sense of some of the races. So far, we've done Larry Kissell, Joe Sestak, and Jerry McNerney. Hopefully we'll write up a few more as time permits.
As always, read below the fold to see the hard dollar figures that we've raised over the past few days.
| Candidate | District | 8/20 Raised | 8/24 Raised | Raised in Past 24hrs. | Raised Since 8/20 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ned Lamont | CT-Sen | $110,042.51 | $115,796.20 | $943.16 | $5,753.69 |
| Jon Tester | MT-Sen | $59,730.84 | $66,745.90 | $1,003.13 | $7,015.06 |
| Jim Webb | VA-Sen | $40,452.38 | $52,380.05 | $2,068.21 | $11,927.67 |
| Eric Massa | NY-29 | $21,042.29 | $25,613.86 | $553.15 | $4,571.57 |
| Joe Sestak | PA-07 | $26,574.49 | $31,025.34 | $408.17 | $4,450.85 |
| Patrick Murphy | PA-08 | $13,895.16 | $17,644.55 | $368.13 | $3,749.39 |
| Jerry McNerney | CA-11 | $17,873.76 | $22,808.55 | $538.20 | $4,934.79 |
| Darcy Burner | WA-08 | $13,209.06 | $19,427.01 | $743.18 | $6,217.95 |
| Linda Stender | NJ-07 | $8,877.30 | $11,997.01 | $233.15 | $3,119.71 |
| Paul Hodes | NH-02 | $8,817.34 | $13,119.29 | $338.16 | $4,301.95 |
| Larry Kissell | NC-08 | $6,855.92 | $10,234.21 | $623.15 | $3,378.29 |
| John Courage | TX-21 | $6,868.53 | $10,331.30 | $493.17 | $3,462.77 |
| Dan Seals | IL-10 | $6,314.74 | $9,628.19 | $328.11 | $3,313.45 |
| Jay Fawcett | CO-05 | $5,856.33 | $9,556.22 | $743.17 | $3,699.89 |
| Tim Walz | MN-01 | $293.14 | $293.14 | $293.14 | |
| Total | $346,410.65 | $416,600.82 | $9,677.38 | $70,190.17 |
Posted at 10:59 AM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising, Netroots | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Netroots August Fundraising Push Update #3
Posted by James L.
Day 3 of our week-long August Netroots fundraising push has come and gone, and I'm already running out of synonyms for "wow." In 72 hours, we have smashed apart our original fundraising goal of 100 donations for each of our Netroots-endorsed House challengers by a margin of 50% or more. Our Senate endorsements have done extremely well, too. Jim Webb has already amassed over 300 new donations, and Jon Tester and Ned Lamont are on the precipice of meeting our goal of raising 250 new donations for Senate challengers this week on the combined MyDD/DailyKos/Swing State Project Actblue page. And, best of all, the momentum has not stalled--we've brought in 889 new donations yesterday, and pushed the total donations on the Netroots page over $500,000. That means we've raised over $60,000 in 72 hours for strong progressive candidates all across the country. Below is the latest chart detailing the action:
| Candidate | District | 8/20 Donors | 8/23 Donors | New Donors in Past 24hrs. | New Donors Since 8/20 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ned Lamont | CT-Sen | 3064 | 3254 | 67 | 190 |
| Jon Tester | MT-Sen | 2056 | 2285 | 80 | 229 |
| Jim Webb | VA-Sen | 1270 | 1574 | 100 | 304 |
| Eric Massa | NY-29 | 905 | 1080 | 73 | 175 |
| Joe Sestak | PA-07 | 876 | 1050 | 61 | 174 |
| Patrick Murphy | PA-08 | 687 | 845 | 51 | 158 |
| Jerry McNerney | CA-11 | 681 | 849 | 57 | 168 |
| Darcy Burner | WA-08 | 679 | 867 | 71 | 188 |
| Linda Stender | NJ-07 | 508 | 658 | 49 | 150 |
| Paul Hodes | NH-02 | 465 | 643 | 61 | 178 |
| Larry Kissell | NC-08 | 427 | 576 | 53 | 149 |
| John Courage | TX-21 | 415 | 566 | 55 | 151 |
| Dan Seals | IL-10 | 375 | 519 | 55 | 144 |
| Jay Fawcett | CO-05 | 375 | 526 | 56 | 151 |
| Total | 12,783 | 15,292 | 889 | 2,509 |
If anyone's keeping score, that means that the readers of DailyKos, Swing State, and MyDD, in just 72 hours, have raised about 33% more than the conservative blogosphere's Rightroots project has for the entire cycle. Way to go, team! If you haven't had the chance to join in on our August fundraising push, and have the means, please do so here. Keep the momentum going!
Click "Continue Reading" for another chart detailing the actual hard dollars raised over the first 72 hours of the push.
| Candidate | District | 8/20 Raised | 8/23 Raised | Raised in Past 24hrs. | Raised Since 8/20 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ned Lamont | CT-Sen | $110,042.51 | $114,853.04 | $1,447.15 | $4,810.53 |
| Jon Tester | MT-Sen | $59,730.84 | $65,742.77 | $1,896.18 | $6,011.93 |
| Jim Webb | VA-Sen | $40,452.38 | $50,311.84 | $2,728.29 | $9,859.46 |
| Eric Massa | NY-29 | $21,042.29 | $25,060.71 | $1,763.20 | $4,018.42 |
| Joe Sestak | PA-07 | $26,574.49 | $30,617.17 | $1,078.21 | $4,042.68 |
| Patrick Murphy | PA-08 | $13,895.16 | $17,276.42 | $1,025.08 | $3,381.26 |
| Jerry McNerney | CA-11 | $17,873.76 | $22,270.35 | $1,287.15 | $4,396.59 |
| Darcy Burner | WA-08 | $13,209.06 | $18,683.83 | $2,031.27 | $5,474.77 |
| Linda Stender | NJ-07 | $8,877.30 | $11,763.86 | $808.15 | $2,886.56 |
| Paul Hodes | NH-02 | $8,817.34 | $12,781.13 | $1,175.28 | $3,963.79 |
| Larry Kissell | NC-08 | $6,855.92 | $9,611.06 | $852.19 | $2,755.14 |
| John Courage | TX-21 | $6,868.53 | $9,838.13 | $878.18 | $2,969.60 |
| Dan Seals | IL-10 | $6,314.74 | $9,300.08 | $1,017.16 | $2,985.34 |
| Jay Fawcett | CO-05 | $5,856.33 | $8,813.05 | $933.20 | $2,956.72 |
| Total | $346,410.65 | $406,923.44 | $18,920.69 | $60,512.79 |
Posted at 11:11 AM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising, Netroots | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Netroots August Fundraising Push Update #2
Posted by James L.
The Netroots August fundraising push continues to amaze. As you know, our goal is to amass 100 new contributions for each House candidate and 250 for each Senate candidate on the combined MyDD/DailyKos/Swing State Project Actblue page. After a few minutes of crunching the numbers, it amazes me to say that we've smashed the fundraising goals for 7 of the 11 House challengers, and are well on our way towards meeting our Senate goals as well--and all this after only 48 hours into our week-long fundraising push. You guys, from all across the netroots, have really delivered for the netroots-endorsed candidates at a traditionally tough time for fundraising (the dead of August). Below is a chart breaking down the action over the past 48 hours--I've removed, of course, the static totals for past candidates (Ciro Rodriguez and Francine Busby) as well as for BlogPAC, which is not the focus of this fundraising push.
| Candidate | District | 8/20 Donors | 8/22 Donors | New Donors in Past 24hrs. | New Donors Since 8/20 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ned Lamont | CT-Sen | 3064 | 3,187 | 62 | 123 |
| Jon Tester | MT-Sen | 2056 | 2,205 | 73 | 149 |
| Jim Webb | VA-Sen | 1270 | 1,474 | 86 | 204 |
| Eric Massa | NY-29 | 905 | 1,007 | 50 | 102 |
| Joe Sestak | PA-07 | 876 | 989 | 53 | 113 |
| Patrick Murphy | PA-08 | 687 | 794 | 48 | 107 |
| Jerry McNerney | CA-11 | 681 | 792 | 53 | 111 |
| Darcy Burner | WA-08 | 679 | 796 | 59 | 117 |
| Linda Stender | NJ-07 | 508 | 609 | 45 | 101 |
| Paul Hodes | NH-02 | 465 | 582 | 64 | 117 |
| Larry Kissell | NC-08 | 427 | 523 | 46 | 96 |
| John Courage | TX-21 | 415 | 511 | 42 | 96 |
| Dan Seals | IL-10 | 375 | 464 | 43 | 89 |
| Jay Fawcett | CO-05 | 375 | 470 | 45 | 95 |
| Total | 12,783 | 13,634 | 769 | 1,620 |
This is fantastic momentum, and if you haven't had the chance yet to make a contribution, and you have the means, please consider doing so. This is especially vital for three House challengers (Darcy Burner, Eric Massa, and Paul Hodes) who have to submit early fundraising reports for the period ending at midnight tonight. For more numbers, click on "Extended Entry" and see exactly how much each Netroots candidate has raised over the first 48 hours of this push.
| Candidate | District | 8/20 Raised | 8/22 Raised | Raised in Past 24hrs. | Raised Since 8/20 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ned Lamont | CT-Sen | $110,042.51 | $113,405.89 | $1,496.12 | $3,363.38 |
| Jon Tester | MT-Sen | $59,730.84 | $63,846.59 | $1,584.47 | $4,115.75 |
| Jim Webb | VA-Sen | $40,452.38 | $47,583.55 | $2,100.98 | $7,131.17 |
| Eric Massa | NY-29 | $21,042.29 | $23,297.51 | $1,163.96 | $2,255.22 |
| Joe Sestak | PA-07 | $26,574.49 | $29,538.96 | $1,028.06 | $2,964.47 |
| Patrick Murphy | PA-08 | $13,895.16 | $16,251.34 | $1,034.92 | $2,356.18 |
| Jerry McNerney | CA-11 | $17,873.76 | $20,983.20 | $1,373.06 | $3,109.44 |
| Darcy Burner | WA-08 | $13,209.06 | $16,652.56 | $1,727.09 | $3,443.50 |
| Linda Stender | NJ-07 | $8,877.30 | $10,955.71 | $892.04 | $2,078.41 |
| Paul Hodes | NH-02 | $8,817.34 | $11,605.85 | $1,647.10 | $2,788.51 |
| Larry Kissell | NC-08 | $6,855.92 | $8,758.87 | $841.54 | $1,902.95 |
| John Courage | TX-21 | $6,868.53 | $8,959.95 | $840.03 | $2,091.42 |
| Dan Seals | IL-10 | $6,314.74 | $8,282.92 | $946.92 | $1,968.18 |
| Jay Fawcett | CO-05 | $5,856.33 | $7,879.85 | $922.10 | $2,023.52 |
| Total | $346,410.65 | $388,002.75 | $17,598.39 | $41,592.10 |
Posted at 11:41 AM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising, Netroots | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Internal Polling This Year
Posted by DavidNYCJosh Marshall writes a little bit here about internal polls. On one point I'm not so sure I agree:
The problem with them is that a partisan poll only gets released when it's good for the candidate who sponsors it.So, hypothetically, a candidate could commission three polls, get a range of results and only release the one which shows him doing the best, a reading that's likely an outlier and thus misleading.
While this is indeed hypothetically possible, I tend to doubt that this takes place all that often. Commissioning a poll is not a cheap exercise - it's a five-figure affair no matter what. (Unless you use a robo-polling outfit, but I really don't think many campaigns bother with that.) So unless your campaign is especially flush, and a bit silly, I think the most likely reaction to a bad internal poll is to just shut up about it.
Where I certainly do agree with Josh is that the typical response to Joe Democrat releasing an internal poll is for Jim Republican to fire back with one of his own. But the GOP has been almost whisper-quiet on this front. Exactly how silent? Amy Walter tells us (sub. req.):
Publicly released polls taken in individual districts also tell a pretty ugly story for the incumbent party in Congress. Since the beginning of this year, we have seen 38 polls released by Democrats, or Democratic-related groups, while we have seen just five public polls released by Republicans or Republican-related groups. And, when you look at the individual polls, it is easy to understand why Democrats are much more willing to disclose their numbers.Democrats have released polling taken in 27 districts held by a Republican. Of those, 22 incumbents were under 50 percent of the vote against their Democratic opponent and 10 incumbents were either behind or within the margin of error. Republicans have only released three polls in Republican held seats - two of which showed the Republican under 50 percent (one was Rep. Bob Ney who announced this week that he was not running for re-election).
Walter's article was dated Aug. 9th. I know of at least three other favorable Dem polls taken since that time - Hodes', of course, Mike Arcuri in NY-24, and Larry Kissell in NC-08. There may well be more out there. And in any event, like Josh says, these three new polls - like most of the thirty-eight taken before them - have been accompanied by just one distinct sound: cricket, cricket.
Posted at 12:53 AM in 2006 Elections, Polls | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Netroots August Fundraising Push Update #1
Posted by James L.All I have to say is: wow. Earlier today, Swing State Project, MyDD, and Dailykos kicked off a week-long campaign to promote the combined Netroots Actblue page. Using 12:00AM EDT, August 21 as our benchmark, the goal was to "see each House candidate on the list get 100 new contributions over the next week, and each Senate candidate 250." I've been tracking the numbers as they've come in over the first 24 hours of the promotion, and based on this, we are well on our way to meeting and exceeding these goals.
Below is a chart detailing the movement in terms of each candidate's total number of donors over the day:
| Candidate | District | 8/20 Donors | 8/21 Donors | New Donors |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ned Lamont | CT-Sen | 3064 | 3125 | 61 |
| Jon Tester | MT-Sen | 2056 | 2132 | 76 |
| Jim Webb | VA-Sen | 1270 | 1388 | 118 |
| Eric Massa | NY-29 | 905 | 957 | 52 |
| Joe Sestak | PA-07 | 876 | 936 | 60 |
| Patrick Murphy | PA-08 | 687 | 746 | 59 |
| Jerry McNerney | CA-11 | 681 | 739 | 58 |
| Darcy Burner | WA-08 | 679 | 737 | 58 |
| Linda Stender | NJ-07 | 508 | 564 | 56 |
| Paul Hodes | NH-02 | 465 | 518 | 53 |
| Larry Kissell | NC-08 | 427 | 477 | 50 |
| John Courage | TX-21 | 415 | 469 | 54 |
| Dan Seals | IL-10 | 375 | 421 | 46 |
| Jay Fawcett | CO-05 | 375 | 425 | 50 |
As you can see, almost every House challenger received at least 50 new contributions over the first 24 hours alone. You guys are kicking some serious ass. In terms of hard dollars, below is a chart detailing the overall movement of the day for each candidate. In total, the Netroots page raised nearly $25,000 today for great progressive candidates across the country.
| Candidate | District | 8/20 Raised | 8/21 Raised | New Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ned Lamont | CT-Sen | $110,042.51 | $111,909.77 | $1,867.26 |
| Jon Tester | MT-Sen | $59,730.84 | $62,262.12 | $2,531.28 |
| Jim Webb | VA-Sen | $40,452.38 | $45,482.57 | $5,030.19 |
| Eric Massa | NY-29 | $21,042.29 | $22,133.55 | $1,091.26 |
| Joe Sestak | PA-07 | $26,574.49 | $28,510.90 | $1,936.41 |
| Patrick Murphy | PA-08 | $13,895.16 | $15,216.42 | $1,321.26 |
| Jerry McNerney | CA-11 | $17,873.76 | $19,610.14 | $1,736.38 |
| Darcy Burner | WA-08 | $13,209.06 | $14,925.47 | $1,716.41 |
| Linda Stender | NJ-07 | $8,877.30 | $10,063.67 | $1,186.37 |
| Paul Hodes | NH-02 | $8,817.34 | $9,958.75 | $1,141.41 |
| Larry Kissell | NC-08 | $6,855.92 | $7,917.33 | $1,061.41 |
| John Courage | TX-21 | $6,868.53 | $8,119.92 | $1,251.39 |
| Dan Seals | IL-10 | $6,314.74 | $7,336.00 | $1,021.26 |
| Jay Fawcett | CO-05 | $5,856.33 | $6,957.75 | $1,101.42 |
| $440,278.92 | $464,879.98 | $24,601.06 |
I will continue to track the page's progress throughout the week. I expect that we'll see some more serious action in the days ahead as we continue to promote the page, its candidates, and the soon-to-be-announced final endorsements.
Posted at 10:00 AM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising, Netroots | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, August 21, 2006
Help Support the Netroots Candidates
Posted by DavidNYCAlright, folks: It's time to fork over some hard-earned cash to help our never-ending quest to elect more Democrats. This week, DailyKos, MyDD and Swing State Project, as promised, will be pushing all the candidates on our combined Netroots ActBlue page:
Darcy Burner (WA-08) - 679
John Courage (TX-21) - 415
Jay Fawcett (CO-05) - 375
Paul Hodes (NH-02) - 465
Larry Kissell (NC-08) - 427
Ned Lamont (CT-Sen) - 3,064
Eric Massa (NY-29) - 905
Jerry McNerney (CA-11) - 681
Patrick Murphy (PA-08) - 687
Dan Seals (IL-10) - 375
Joseph Sestak (PA-07) - 876
Linda Stender (NJ-07) - 508
Jon Tester (MT-Sen) - 2,056
James Webb (VA-Sen) - 1,270
If you've been following the progress of the netroots page, you've gotten to know each of these candidates over the last few months, some of them quite well. But if you are new to this project, or if some of the names on this list are unfamiliar to you, I strongly encourage you to check out the ActBlue page. Each candidate's listing includes a number of local blogs devoted to covering that particular race. Those sites will give you some of the best perspectives possible on each race.
But more importantly, it really is time to throw down. We picked each of these races in large part because, at least at the time they were added, they were all non-top-tier races. In other words, we - the netroots community - identified races where netroots dollars could go the furthest. When you give to any of these candidates, you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that, collectively, our money is not a mere drop in the bucket, but is actually making a difference.
In that vein, we'd like to announce our goals for this fundraising push: We'd like to see each House candidate on the list get 100 new contributions over the next week, and each Senate candidate 250. The numbers following each candidate's name above indicate the total number of donations made as of midnight Eastern time last night, so that's what we're using as our benchmark. We'll be posting progress updates daily - though of course, you can always check out the ActBlue page yourself.
Because most donations to this page are small-dollar gifts, the number of contributors is almost more important than the amount we give. When a big-time donor maxes out, he's given all he can give. But a smart campaign, with the right kind of outreach, can turn a one-time $25 donation into several repeat donations, and may even turn that donor into a volunteer as well.
So no matter what, any amount you can give is fantastic. Whether you can give $100 to ten candidates, or $10 to one candidate, you will be counted in this fundraising drive - and, I assure you, every campaign will be grateful whatever the size of your donation. This is really our chance to stand up, at a time (the dead of summer) when little fundraising activity is taking place, and show these campaigns that we've got their backs.
I also want to add that campaigns in several states have to file special "pre-primary" reports with the FEC soon. (Full list here, fourth para.) Three netroots candidates are affected by this: Paul Hodes in NH and Eric Massa in NY close their fundraising books this Wednesday (the 23rd), while Darcy Burner in WA does so next Wednesday (the 30th). So if you're looking to help someone finish out a reporting period strong, these three candidates are excellent choices. But of course, we want people to give to all the netroots candidates.
And lastly, if your favorite candidates are not on this list, we strongly encourage you to give to whomever you like. We're fast approaching Labor Day, after which most establishment players will make final decisions on where to place their last-minute support. So now is the time to help all Democrats, so that they can enter the proverbial crunch-time strong.
P.S. We'll be making announcements about the new netroots candidates within the next few days, so stay tuned! And feel free to use this thread to talk about all of your favorite candidates.
UPDATE: A brand-new SUSA poll shows Jim Webb trailing George "Macaca" Allen by just three points, 48-45! This represents an amazing 16-point jump for Webb since the end of June. We can definitely say we got in on the ground floor of this race. Go help Jim Webb out and put him over the top!
Posted at 02:22 PM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising, Netroots | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Reminder: Netroots Fundraising Push Begins Tomorrow!
Posted by DavidNYCTomorrow - Monday, August 21st - we begin a weeklong fundraising push for all the candidates on the Daily Kos/MyDD/Swing State Project netroots page. We'll also soon be announcing the final additions to the list. As always, if your favorite candidates aren't on the list, we strongly encourage you to donate to any and all Democrats you do like. And remember, campaigns in AZ, DE, MD, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT & WI all close their books on Wednesday the 23rd, so this is a crucial time to help candidates show good fundraising numbers for their FEC reports.
If you're wondering what this is all about, check here and here. And if you haven't yet nominated your preferred candidates, this is your final chance to do so. (One request: Please submit nominations via comments, not via e-mail. Thanks!)
Posted at 12:24 PM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising, Netroots | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, August 14, 2006
Netroots Candidates: Call for Nominations
Posted by DavidNYCThis week, we're opening up the MyDD/DailyKos/Swing State Project Netroots Candidates list for what will probably be this year's final round of nominations. You can find a complete run-down on both the selection process and the candidate criteria we use in this earlier post. If you aren't yet familiar with the Netroots ActBlue page, I'd summarize it like this: It's a list of strong - but not quite top-tier - candidates who either already have broad support in the netroots or who ought to have such support. Our goal, in other words, is to identify campaigns where our ability to impact the race will be greatest. We don't want to pile on after the big boys - we want to get the ball rolling so that the big boys will come in and pile on after us.
We'll be announcing the new selections (probably two to three names) next week. That announcement will also kick off a mid-summer fundraising push for the entire roster of candidates. Conventional wisdom says that summertime is one of the worst times of year to raise money. We want to see if we can push back a bit against that CW and rake in some bucks when most other people probably aren't even trying.
It's also important to note that candidates in several states with late primaries have to file "pre-primary" reports with the FEC soon: FL on 8/16; AZ, DE, MD, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT & WI on 8/23; MA & WA on 8/30; and HI on 9/3. So if you want to see your favorite federal candidates put out a good fundraising report, now is the time to give - especially for Florida campaigns, which close the books in just two days.
One final note: As always, we want to stress that the Netroots page is just one ActBlue page created by three like-minded blogs. The beauty of the Internets is that you can start your own blog, your own ActBlue page, or both, in under five minutes, all for free. If our selection process or actual picks don't suit you, or even if you just feel like starting your own fundraising page, we wholeheartedly encourage you to do so. In fact, ActBlue is offering a special promotion this month:
[W]e'll be sending copies of An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's phenomenal new book (and companion to his phenomenal movie) to everyone who raises a total of $600 from at least 6 donors by September 6th!
So, without further ado, please fire away in the comments with your nominations. And if you can offer some reasons why you think your favorite candidate(s) should be included, that's even better.
Posted at 01:00 PM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising, Netroots | Comments (104) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Friday, August 11, 2006
MO-Sen: 15/100
Posted by RBHIn the state of Missouri in the 2004 Presidential elections, 14 counties (and St. Louis City) cast 68% of the votes, and the 100 smaller counties cast 32% of the votes. In the top 15 counties, John Kerry led 51-48. In the lower 100 counties, George W. Bush blew Kerry out of the water by a 64-35 margin.
Here's a map of the "top 15" counties (all in yellow):
There's probably not a lot of explanation needed here. The highlighted county in the Southwest is where Joplin is located. That's close to Greene County (Springfield). The five highlighted counties in the west is the KC area with Buchanan County (St. Joseph) on top of that. The two highlighted counties in the middle are Boone (Columbia) and Cole (Jefferson City). The highlighted counties in the east is the St. Louis area (but you knew that, I'd hope). The highlighted county in the southeast is Cape Giraudeau County, birthplace of Rush Limbaugh.
Now, why I decide to mention 15/100? Because Claire McCaskill's campaign is working to improve her standing in counties similar to the ones indicated on the map in sky blue.
In the 2004 Gubernatorial election, we find a big split in the results in the 15 larger counties and the other 100 counties.
Top 15: 53/46 McCaskill, Lower 100: 61/38 Blunt. Overall, Blunt won by almost 81K votes (a 51/48 margin).
In the Lt. Governor's race between Bekki Cook and Peter Kinder, the split was narrower.
Top 15: 52/45 Cook, Lower 100: 56/41 Kinder. The overall result there: Kinder wins by almost 14K votes (a very narrow 49-48 margin)
And in the Secretary of State's race between Robin Carnahan and Catherine Hanaway
Top 15: 55/43 Carnahan, Lower 100: 54/43 Hanaway. Overall, Carnahan won by a 51/46 margin.
So, it's nowhere close to fishing in a dry pond. There's enough people in the small towns of Missouri who are willing to vote for Democrats to win elections. Although it takes a lot of good fortune for Democrats to break 60% in state election. Jay Nixon beats unknown opponents with around 60%. Claire McCaskill beat an unknown Republican with 59.95%.
I'll say this in the best way possible, if you held an election between a mannequin running as a Republican and a Democrat, in some parts of Missouri, a majority of people would vote for the mannequin.
Here's a map to demonstrate that theory (McCaskill v. Hanson, 2002):
From 1900 to 2004, 5 Missouri counties never gave a majority or plurality to a Democrat. Those 5 (for reference) are Douglas, Gasconade, Putnam, Stone, and Taney. Four of those counties went to Hanson in that election. Granted, by pretty small margins.
I was inspired to write a bit about the Senate election and targeting rural areas from an e-mail sent by the Talent campaign. Here's the relevant paragraph, with my own notes on it.
We're encouraged by the fact that Claire McCaskill's rural makeover tour clearly isn't fooling Missourians.
Well, when your party is having a lot of bad days, sometimes it doesn't take much to encourage you.
In fact, McCaskill barely managed to get 80 percent of the vote versus a virtually unknown opponent.
In the 2002 Democratic primary, Jean Carnahan got 83% against an unknown opponent. In the 2000 Democratic primary, Mel Carnahan got 78% against an unknown opponent. In Missouri Democratic primaries, it seems to be an unofficial tradition for Missouri Democratic voters to cast votes for obscure people.
Her results were particularly poor in rural Missouri: in 19 counties her unknown opponent garnered 30 percent of the Democrat vote or better.
I'll note that in the Democratic primaries in those 19 counties, 30K votes we cast.
Also, in 13 of those counties, that unknown Democrat recieved more votes than Jim Talent recieved in his primary. That's not a sign of any special doom for Talent, considering the number of local elections in those counties, but it's not exactly the best line of derision. The Republican primary wasn't a ghost town, Talent got more votes than McCaskill, and both primaries had over 300K votes (with the Democratic primary having around 20K more votes).
If I wanted, I could probably go into more depth about how local primaries are held in a lot of those counties (such as the ones in dark blue on the second map) and how that caused 80% of voters to pick the Democratic primary.
In these areas and others, Republicans and Democrats alike have recognized that Claire McCaskill doesn't believe in the common sense, conservative values of the heartland.
Conservative Values? So how come Jim Talent's record veered to the middle in time for the election year? and how come Jim Talent's running from his party? From what I can tell, Talent will use the twelve letter C word, but not the ten letter R word. After all, he doesn't want to remind people of Bush and Matt Blunt.
When it comes to a rural strategy in Missouri. It's worth it. Considering the typical closeness of Missouri elections, it's smart to make sure that you don't get walloped in large parts of the states. It's also smart because the "other 100 counties" are not hostile to Democrats. They don't vote for Democrats these days, but that's not a permanent thing. It takes the right approach and enough timing to defy and destroy the Republican-created images of Democratic candidates. Sure, Democrats may not win in those counties, but it'll make it easier for them to win in the entire state.
Posted at 02:26 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Missouri | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
My Tuesday Primary Review
Posted by RBHClearly we know about the biggest news of the night. Despite all the advantages of incumbency, Joe Lieberman was unable to win the primary tonight. Lawmakers who had either supported Lieberman or had stayed neutral are also turning their support to Ned Lamont. Including Evan Bayh and Hillary, and more people will likely speak up soon.
When it comes to the effects of a Lieberman candidacy in November. I still think that people overrate his chances in November. Money just doesn't come out of nowhere. And Lieberman will need money in order to help himself out in November. While Ned Lamont would need some help to get himself on solid ground, he'll also get a lot of things which he did not have for today.
Joe Lieberman's main source of new money will likely come from people who are donors to Republican candidates. The Republicans will be the ones supporting Lieberman, and money that could have went to Shays, Johnson, or Simmons, will be going to Lieberman. That's only a subtle favor, not any sort of big victory for the Democratic candidates running in those districts.
But I'd rather armwrestle Hulk Hogan than get into a money war with the Republicans. There's legitimate reason for concern when it comes to the Democratic challengers in all the purple districts.
I would certainly hope that Joe Lieberman rethinks his plan to run as an Independent, but I'm not expecting a change in his plans for September and October. I would also hope that those people who gave money to Joe Lieberman and who disapprove of his independent candidacy would ask for a refund or return of their contribution.
As for the other races, here are the highlights:
Colorado: Jeff Crank and Doug Lamborn are the frontrunners in CO-05. The winner faces Jay Fawcett. Ed Perlmutter defeats Peggy Lamm in CO-07.
Georgia: Hank Johnson defeats Cynthia McKinney in GA-04. Expect Cynthia to release the official list of people "to blame for Johnson winning" soon, odds are that "Republicans" will top that list. Ha Ha.
Michigan: Joe Schwarz loses to Tim Walberg. Mike Bouchard looks like the winner in the Republican Senate primary. Knollenberg wins 69-31.
Missouri: Lots of Democrats voted, Lots of Republicans voted, but there weren't a lot of close federal races. Over 80% of precincts are in. Akin rolls over Parker (87-13). No word on who'll face Akin, but the frontrunners are Charles Karam and George Weber. Alan Conner, who spent $246K to try and win the MO-04 nomination, lost by 22 points to Jim Noland, who hasn't filed with the FEC, and who has lost three straight elections to Ike Skelton. Noland's wife suing Conner was probably not helpful to Conner's campaign. This should tell you that there's some things that money can't buy. Sara Jo Shettles and Duane Burghard were both uncontested in their primaries to face Sam Graves and Kenny Hulshof. They also outpolled their opponents. Although in the case of MO-09, that's not exactly a feat of strength, but it's a pretty good sign. And yes, I just gave the longest writeup to my own state. I have the keyboard here, after all.
Any night where three incumbents go down is a night of pretty big activity. It should be a sign that being an incumbent in November is not going to be a pleasant thing.
That's my analysis of the night's events. I'm sure that one of the regulars (who isn't on vacation) will have something to say as well.
Posted at 01:43 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, Missouri | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Tuesday Primary Open Thread
Posted by DavidNYCPlease feel free to use this thread for any and all discussions pertaining to tonight's primaries in CT, CO, GA, MI & MO :
• If you have predictions, make `em.• If you know of any good sites for tracking election results, tell us.
• If you've been reading any good local blogs covering these races, share `em with us.
• And if there are any overlooked races you've got on your mind, let us know.
RBH has an excellent run-down on the major races here. You can find poll closing times here.
UPDATE: Going by the Courant's numbers, my back-of-the-envelope says that Joe would need 79% of the remainder in order to win. I just don't see how that's possible. I think we just pulled out a serious nailbiter - and helped write an amazing bit of history.
Posted at 05:00 PM in 2006 Elections | Comments (23) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, August 07, 2006
CO, CT, GA, MI, MO: Tuesday Primary Election Preview
Posted by RBHHere's the rundown of the elections which will likely produce news tomorrow.
Starting off first in Colorado where the biggest races are the Republican Primary in the 5th District and the Democratic Primary in the 7th District.
In the 5th district race, the winning Republican will likely face Jay Fawcett (who is the frontrunner in his primary). From a short combing though Google News, we find that Doug Lamborn has the Club for Growth supporters with him, Hefley supporters are apparently supporting Crank. Basically the entire primary could end with the winner recieving a very low percentage of the vote, under 40%, maybe under 35%. But right now, the winner is anybody's guess. I should note that Anderson (who is running as pro-choice, which means "pro-choice compared to other Republicans), Bremer (Paul Bremer's brother), and Rayburn (retired Air Force General) are all wildcards and they could get a surprising number of votes.
In the 7th district, the favorite to face Rick O'Donnell appears to be Ed Perlmutter. Ed has had a pretty solid lead in SurveyUSA polls over Peggy Lamm. But then again in an election like this, surprises will occur.
Moving on to Connecticut.
The big race is between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont. It appears to be a pretty big deal. Basically the results could go either way, although Lamont is going into the election with a 6 point lead in the latest Quinnipac poll. I'm pretty sure that this race will be the top attraction, and also the one race which does not require a long explanation.
In Georgia, the big election is between Cynthia McKinney and Hank Johnson in the 4th district. McKinney had a plurality last time, but for this election, it could go either way.
In Michigan, the biggest race will be in MI-07 between Congressman Joe Schwarz and Tim Walberg. Schwarz is under fire from the right in this campaign and could be on the way out of Congress. The likely Democratic nominee is Sharon Renier. In other races, I'm expecting Keith Mike Bouchard to win the Republican Senate primary and I wouldn't be stunned if Patricia Godchaux got around 1/3rd of the vote in her primary against Congressman Joe Knollenberg.
In Missouri, no major races will occur in the primaries. The closest primary race will probably be in MO-02 between Akin and Sherman Parker, and that's probably not due to be close at all. Claire McCaskill and Jim Talent are expected to cruise over their unknown opponents.
So, on this election day, there's one more question: What Races Are You Interested In?
Posted at 11:48 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, Colorado, Connecticut, Democrats, Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Netroots, Republicans | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
LA: Filing To Commence This Week
Posted by RBHI counted the number of contested seats and the current numbers are 419 Democrats and 384 Republicans (for 428 seats, excluding Louisiana's seats). Other counts may differ slightly. But here's the info on Louisiana's filing, which will occur this week.
Qualifying Dates and InformationQualifying for Congressional Primary Election scheduled November 7, 2006:
U.S. Representatives, Districts 1-7Candidates for the above-captioned offices will qualify with the Secretary of State beginning on:
August 9, 2006 from 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM
August 10, 2006 from 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM
August 11, 2006 from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM
Barring any sudden change in state policy, the requirements in Louisiana are either $600, and $300 to the party, or 1,000 signatures
When it comes to races, Louisiana isn't expected to have any pickup opportunities. But, since this is Louisiana, sudden changes in fate may occur. William Jefferson may recieve some serious competition from within the Democratic party. Barring any changes in status, Democratic challengers in Louisiana include Stacey Tallitsch in LA-01, Artis Cash in LA-04, and Mike Stagg in LA-07. Alexander (LA-05) and Baker (LA-06) did recieve competition in 2004, but they're not likely to recieve serious competition.
When it comes to a full slate, it's surprisingly likely. In the other 10 Southern states, Democrats filed in 118 of 124 districts with full slates in 5 of those states. In 2004, Democrats had candidates in 101 of those 124 districts.
Expect an overview for the primaries tomorrow sometime either tonight, or tomorrow. It'll be big, and not just because of the Lieberman race.
Posted at 03:59 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Louisiana | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Friday, August 04, 2006
TX-23: Looking More Blue Today
Posted by RBHThe results from the newest Texas Redistricting have come in, and Burnt Orange Report is there!
The re-re-redistricting affected the following districts: TX-15 (Hinojosa), TX-21 (Smith), TX-23 (Bonilla), TX-25 (Doggett), and TX-28 (Cuellar).
Hinojosa's new district is much more compact than the current district. Smith's district appears to be redder than before which will make things harder for John Courage. Doggett actually got a pretty good setup. He now has his part of Travis county, plus more of Travis County, and some assorted counties to the east. Cuellar's district adds all of Webb county, and subtracts Bexar county.
Early reports suggest that Bonilla is in a competitive district again. Of course, with an open primary just 3 months away, Bonilla has a pretty good advantage. No word on if there'll be any sort of stampede of candidates for Bonilla's district, or if Rick Bolanos will get an uncontested shot at Bonilla.
Election implications: Lightning might strike and somebody big might step in to face Bonilla, although I doubt it. Running for Congress now in Texas probably carries the same shot of victory as running a marathon on the fly. I do expect Cuellar and Doggett to get actual Republican opponents, but nothing serious.
Posted at 07:10 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Texas | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, July 24, 2006
Sleepers
Posted by James L.I've been meaning to write this post for several weeks, but I've hesitated. After all, the subject in and of itself--races that may not show up as even blips on the national radar screen ending up being wildly competitive--invites a great deal of subjective analysis at this point in the cycle. However, there are a number of metrics to work with to separate the wheat from the chaff (the longshots from the longershots): cash-on-hand, past electoral weaknesses of the incumbent, party registration trends, etc.
We've already seen the biggest sleeper race in years erupt this summer in Connecticut. Who realistically thought that someone like Ned Lamont, a political novice, could come out of nowhere and force the Lieberman campaign into a state of near-meltdown? Well, some people thought it was plausible, but probably not to this extent. Still, the vulnerabilities were always there. Joe's presidential bid in 2003-2004 clearly showed his complete incompetence at appealing to the Democratic base, and it translated into a significant level of disapproval for Lieberman among Connecticut liberals. That chink in Lieberman's political foundation was ripped wide open by an aggressive Lamont campaign, resulting in a campaign that has rocked the DC political establishment at its foundations.
So are we going to see any other races that sneak up out of nowhere and capture our attention, like Brian Schweitzer's remarkably close bid for Senate against Conrad Burns in 2000, or the almost total self-destruction of Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) against Dan Mongiardo in the 2004 election? I was originally going to title this post: "Nebraska and Westward:'06 House Sleeper Races", but in the meantime, Markos already diaried the campaigns I wanted to profile: Maxine Moul and Scott Kleeb in Nebraska and Gary Trauner in Wyoming.
Since Markos went over the main points, I won't go into detail, but Kleeb (a hunky rancher/scholar type) and Moul (a former Lt.-Gov. and state economic development officer) seem like unusually good fits for their districts and the NE Democratic Party has more organizational strength in it than in years past. I'm looking forward to seeing what they can do with their races. Cubin has high unfavorables (49-47 favorable-unfavorable), and is infamous for being dead weight in Wyoming's congressional delegation. Actually, "dead weight", might be too kind for her. Some of her career "highlights" include distributing penis-shaped cookies to her male colleagues in the Wyoming State Senate, and implying that all African-Americans are drug addicts. She only leads 47%-43% against Trauner in a head-to-head according to the latest (and only, to my knowledge) public poll available on this race (May, Rasmussen). WY-AL rarely comes up when the national prognosticators discuss the "magic 15" seats that the Democrats could win in order to take back the House, but there's little reason not to believe that this race is going to turn hot. Just look a few posts down to DavidNYC's latest discussion on some of the most well-financed challengers, and you'll see that Trauner is already beating Cubin in available campaign cash. Cubin is known to regularly under-perform the Republican ticket in Wyoming. If there's going to be a "wave" this year, l wouldn't be surprised to see Babs gasping for air.
What other races might we see jump into the headlights this November? CQ Politics has an excellent piece up on well-funded longshots. Money can't buy you an election if you don't have any other favorables in your corner, but every sleeper needs to have the resources and infrastructure in place to make a good race out of it. It's worth noting that 7 of the 9 candidates that CQ profiles are Democrats, including netroots candidate Dan Seals (IL-1), Judy Feder (VA-10), Ellen Simon (AZ-01), Moul (NE-01), John Pavich (IL-11), Kleeb (NE-03), and Trauner (WY-AL). If the Democrats experience a major wind at their backs this fall, solid 2nd tier challengers like these are the ones who may turn into sleeper suprises.
(I also say that my sentimental fave, Mean Jean Schmidt may be in for a bit of a bumpy ride if Vic Wulsin can get more funding. The Cook Political report recently added OH-02 to their list of competitive races (pdf) under the "likely Republican" heading, which seems about right, but it's still nice to see.)
Posted at 04:30 PM in 2006 Elections | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Son of 2Q Fundraising Reports Open Thread
Posted by James L.(Bbbbumped x2! Updated info at bottom.)
Part one of our second quarter campaign fundraising tally was just getting a bit too sprawling, so we'll pick up the slack over here.
AZ-01 (warning: PDF press release):
Ellen Simon (D): $500k raised ($200k of which was injected by herself)
(This is way out of left field. After letting this seat slip out of their fingers in 2004, and watching the most promising candidate for this race, Jack Jackson, Jr., drop out due to funding concerns, most AZ-01 Democrats assumed that this seat would be contested by some grade D candidate with pocket change for campaign funds. So who the heck is Simon and where is she getting all this money? Well, while it may be noticeably absent from her campaign website, she's a former head of the ACLU, so I'm sure she has the necessary connections. However, can you imagine the type of slime that Renzi is going to throw at her given her ACLU history? Not that she'll deserve it, but it won't take much effort for the smear machine to kick into gear here.)
As always, updates will be posted as I get 'em, or as you give 'em to me. What numbers have you seen lately?
Florida update (from the Palm Beach Post):
FL-Sen:
Bill Nelson (D): $2.3m raised ($12m cash-on-hand)
(That's $15m total that Nelson has raised so far. Lock this one up in the D column. Katherine Harris hasn't released her numbers yet.)FL-22:
Ron Klein (D): $800k raised
(Great numbers for Klein, but watch out for Rep. Shaw's numbers--the NRCC claims he raised more than $800k just in one night's fundraising with President Bush. It's quite clear that while Bush may have a fairly high level of toxicity to the general public, the big money donor base is more than willing to show their gratitude.)
PA, NJ, and NY Update:
NJ-SEN:
Bob Menendez (D): $2.587m raised ($7.39m cash-on-hand)
Tom Kean, Jr. (R): $1.1 million raised ($2.25m cash-on-hand)
(Shitty numbers for the Keanster, so expect the NRSC to waste a fair bit of coin on this one.)PA-08:
Patrick Murphy (D): $452k raised ($494k cash-on-hand; $0.96m total raised)
Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Inc.): $300k raised ($1.1m cash-on-hand, $1.95m total raised)
(Ginny! only raised $600k total in her 2004 run; Patrick Murphy keeps on showing us why he's an exponentially superior candidate.)NY-24 (open seat):
Mike Arcuri (D): $470k raised ($350k cash-on-hand)
Raymond Meier (R): $496k raised ($434k cash-on-hand)
In other news, Joe Sestak (also a Netroots candidate) is going to be added to the DCCC's Red-to-Blue program.
Texas Update (from the Houston Chronicle):
TX-22:
Nick Lampson (D): $600k raised ($2m cash-on-hand, $2.9m total raised)
(You think DeLay will have anything left after his legal fees eat up his war chest?)
CT & FL Update:
CT-04:
Diane Farrell (D): $788k raised ($1.4m cash-on-hand; $1.9m total raised)
(Wowza. That's a blockbuster amount--Farrell has already well surpassed the $1.55m she raised in her 2004 challenge against Shays. She pulled 48% of the vote last time to Shays' 52%. Farrell, Lois Murphy, and Ron Klein are in a class of their own for their stellar fundraising abilities among House challengers this cycle.)FL-09:
Phyllis Busansky (D): $335k raised
Gus Bilirakis (R): $265k raised
(I'm not sure what the cash-on-hand numbers look like for this open seat, but Phyllis has raised $725k this cycle--that's the power of Red to Blue at work, folks.)
Posted at 06:40 PM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising | Comments (14) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Primary Elections Open Thread
Posted by DavidNYCObviously, VA-Sen (Webb vs. Miller) is the big show tonight. What other races look interesting?
UPDATE (James L.): For Virginia results, keep your eyes peeled on this page. We'll post other sources to keep track of the results as we find them.
Posted at 12:09 PM in 2006 Elections, Open Threads | Comments (15) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Voting for Mark Warner's Map Changers
Posted by DavidNYCYet another vote-for-'em-and-we'll-support-'em dealie, this time courtesy of Mark Warner's PAC. (You may have already noticed it thanks to the ad in the left-hand column.) The candidate list is much longer than DFA's - too long to reproduce here - so you'll have to go to Forward Together's website to check it out. It's also quite a bit different - it has Sen, House and Gov candidates, and also lists several incumbents. Plus, the voting is in several rounds, with two different regional categories (East and West).
There are also some candidates on the list who truly don't need our help, such as Bennie Thompson (MS-02), whose district is D+10 and handily survived a primary challenge the other night or Bill Nelson (FL-Sen), about whom little need be said at this point. Anyhow, you guys are smart and have a good sense of who could best make use of Mark Warner's assistance. (The final-round winner gets a Warner-hosted fundraiser.) As for me, I voted for Paul Hodes again in the Eastern group and Jon Tester in the West. Go vote.
Posted at 11:04 PM in 2006 Elections | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
California Results Open Thread
Posted by RBHCA-GOV: 4.3% 13% 35.2% of precincts reporting
Phil Angelides (D):217,622 (48.7%) 353,474 (47.2%)523,260 (47.5%)
Steve Westly (D):191,764 (43%) 327,723 (43.8%)479,833 (43.6%)
CA-50 (To fill the unexpired term): 11% 35.2% reporting
Francine Busby (D):17,329 (43%)27,383 (44.4%)
Brian Bilbray (R):20,448 (50%)30,683 (49.8%)
All of the U.S. Congress Primaries in California
CA-50 (GOP Primary for the November election): 11.4% 35.6% of precincts reporting
Brian Bilbray (R):11,071 (52.9%)16,712 (54.6%)
Eric Roach (R):3,347 (16%)4,486 (14.6%)
CA-04, 11.5% 38.4% 75.3% of Precincts reporting:
John Doolittle (R):14,054 (63.2%) 25,323 (63.7%)44,244 (65.9%)
John Holmes (R):8,186 (37.1%) 14,442 (36.3%)22,981 (34.1%)
Charles Brown (D):5,346 (46.3%) 10,534 (47.1%)18,466 (46.3%)
Lisa Rea (D):3,641 (31.6%) 7,103 (31.7%)13,127 (32.9%)
Michael Hamersley (D):3,563 (22.1%) 4,773 (21.2%)8,334 (20.8%)
CA-06: 22% 42% of precincts reporting:
Lynn Woolsey (D):31,997 (65.5%) 38,656 (65.7%)45,339 (65.5%)
Joe Nation (D):16,913 (34.5%) 20,244 (34.3%)23,895 (34.5%)
CA-11: 0.8% 11.7% of precincts reporting:
Jerry McNerney (D):4143 (56.5%)9415 (52.6%)
Steve Filson (D):2044 (27.9%)5210 (29%)
Richard Pombo (R):5269 (55.4%)14,779 (61.9%)
Pete McCloskey (R):3584 (37.6%)7616 (31.9%)
CA-24: 10.5% 44.6% of precincts reporting:
Elton Gallegly (R):5,609 (81.3%)17,463 (80.8%)
Michael Tenenbaum (R):1,292 (18.7%)4,160 (19.2%)
Mark this one down for Gallegly in a landslide. Democratic nominee Jill Martinez has 10,703 votes so far running unopposed.
CA-36: 0% 36.3% of precincts reporting:
Jane Harman (D):5,981 (69.5%)13,621 (65%)
Marcy Winograd (D):2,629 (30.5%)7,353 (35%)
CA-51: 8.1% of precincts reporting:
Bob Filner (D): 4,336 (53.9%)
Juan Vargas (D): 3,329 (41.4%)
Posted at 12:04 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - State, California | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Races to Watch
Posted by DavidNYCThere are about a bazillion tonight. James covered a bunch of them here and here. Here's what looks like a final list of federal and gubernatorial races of note, listed alphabetically.
AL-Gov (Dem & GOP)CA-Gov (Dem)
CA-04 (GOP)
CA-06 (Dem)
CA-11 (Dem & GOP)
CA-24 (GOP)
CA-36 (Dem)
CA-42 (Dem write-in effort)
CA-50 (special general & GOP primary)
CA-51 (Dem)IA-Gov (Dem)
IA-01 (Dem & GOP)MS-02 (Dem)
MT-Sen (Dem & GOP)
NJ-13 (Dem)
SD-Gov (Dem)
I know CA-24 is an oddball pick to be on this list, but I group it with CA-04 and CA-11 as a potential "canary in the coalmine" race, much as PA-10 was for Don Sherwood. Anyhow, any other races worth keeping an eye on?
Posted at 07:36 PM in 2006 Elections | Comments (8) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
Election Night Open Thread
Posted by DavidNYCPoll closing times (all times Eastern):
8pm:
Alabama
Mississippi
New Jersey9pm:
New Mexico
South Dakota10pm:
Iowa
Montana11pm:
California
James & RBH will be keeping tabs on the key races tonight. For results, check out the sites listed in the comments to this post. For in-depth coverage, also be sure to check out the usual suspects, including CQ Politics, Left in the West, Hotline On Call, MyDD, BlueJersey and Political Wire.
Some other blogs: Political Forecast (IA); North Central States Observer (IA & SD); Live From Silver City (NM); Trail Mix (Christine Pelosi liveblogging from Busby HQ). And some media sites: Newslink (TV stations by state); Newspapers.com (newspapers by state).
Posted at 07:11 PM in 2006 Elections | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, June 05, 2006
Where to Follow the Results?
Posted by DavidNYCThere are elections in eight states tomorrow:
Alabama - Primary
California - Primary / Special Election CD 50
Iowa - Primary
Mississippi - Primary
Montana - Primary
New Jersey - Primary / Special Primary CD 13
New Mexico - Primary
South Dakota - Primary
Local watchers and knowledgeable gurus: Can you recommend good sites to track the results? A lot of Secretary of State websites just aren't up to snuff - most are usually slower than the media, and in one recent case (WV), the folks manning the site appeared to just go home in the middle of the night, leaving the outcome of the WV-02 primary uncertain. (Fortunately, the tradmed picked up the slack.)
Anyhow, please let us know in comments where we can find good live results for all of tomorrow's elections. Thanks!
Posted at 11:45 PM in 2006 Elections | Comments (14) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
KY, OR, PA Primary Results Open Thread
Posted by DavidNYCKentucky, Oregon and Pennsylvania all have primary elections today. The main events:
PA-08: Patricky Murphy vs. Andy Warren. I'm rooting strongly for Murphy.KY-03: Andrew Horne vs. John Yarmuth. Horne, like Murphy, is also a Fighting Dem, but I don't really have a dog in this fight.
OR-Gov: Incumbent Ted Kulongoski faces a surprisingly strong primary challenge. This race hasn't been especially prominent on my radar, though from what I've read, it looks like Kulongoski will have a fight on his hands in November even if he prevails tonight.
Posted at 09:37 PM in 2006 Elections, Kentucky, Oregon, Pennsylvania | Comments (19) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Ohio Primary Results Wrap-Up
Posted by DavidNYCOhio seemed to have the most interesting batch of primaries yesterday. Some results in key races:
• OH-02 (Incumbent, Schmidt): Wow did Jean Schmidt ever eke out a narrow win - just 48-42 over Bob McEwen. I wonder if he's cursing the two also-ran candidates, considering that Schmidt didn't even crack 50%. In a way, this may be the best possible outcome for us. Though OH-02 is hardly a competitive seat, we still face the most pathetic possible candidate (Schmidt) who's been embarrassingly weakened in her primary. Our candidate will be Victoria Wulsin.
• OH-04 (Open, Oxley): Not a race really on anyone's radar, as it's R+13.6. But this is an open seat. Republican Jim Jordan won a multi-way primary with 51% of the vote. Our man is Richard Siferd, who was unopposed. And speaking of this seat, the Dem who challenged Oxley last time, up-and-comer Ben Konop, decided to run for Lucas County Commissioner (apparently a pretty powerful post). I had hoped that Ben would run for OH-04 again, but I'm glad to see he won his primary last night (and quite convicingly, too).
• OH-06 (Open, Strickland): Charlie Wilson pulled it off. Thank the maker! He did a pretty nice job, too, winning with 66% of the vote. Chris Bowers makes the argument that the write-in debacle actually strengthened Wilson's campaign by forcing him to work hard early. I buy it. I'm also pleased to see that the GOP establishment pick, Chuck Blasdel, failed to crack 50% in winning his primary.
• OH-12 (Incumbent, Tiberi): Again, not a race many people are watching. But Bob Shamansky, a one-term former Congressman from way back in the day, won the right to be the Dem nominee. However, in theory, this district ought to be competitive, because it's a mere R+0.7.
• OH-13 (Open, Brown): Betty Sutton wins, and all I can say is, I'm really glad Capri Cafaro lost. Maybe she can start sharing her fortune with candidates who can, you know, win. Meanwhile, GOP golden boy Craig Foltin won with 37%.
• OH-16 (Incumbent, Regula): Wow, I didn't even know Ralph "Malph" Regula was on the receiving end of a serious primary challenge - he eked out a 58-42 win. That's pretty shabby for a zillion-year incumbent, and it lends further credence to the notion that we can definitely pick up this seat - if not now, then when Regula retires at the end of the next term. (Recall this poll.) Pastor Tom Shaw won the Dem nod in a very narrow race (51-49), though I can't say I'm enthused about the fact that his website is still "under construction."
• OH-18 (Incumbent, Ney): Big upset. Netroots-backed Zack Space beats Fighting Dem Joe Sulzer quite handily, 39-24. What's more, Sulzer actually finished in third place, behind a candidate I'd never even heard of, Jennifer Stewart. On the GOP side, Bob Ney won 68-32. Most observers expect him to pull a DeLay and drop out post-primary so that the GOP elders can annoint his replacement.
• OH-Gov (Open, Taft): Ken Blackwell beat Jim Petro, 56-44 for the Republican nod. I seriously hope Ted Strickland whoops his ass.
• OH-Sen (Incumbent, DeWine): Not much to report here, except for the fact that Mike DeWine won his primary with a smaller percentage than Sherrod Brown did, 72 vs. 78. DeWine edged Brown in total votes, though, 544K to 538K.
Any additional thoughts on Ohio?
Posted at 10:39 AM in 2006 Elections, Ohio | Comments (5) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
IN, NC & OH Primary Results Open Thread
Posted by DavidNYCWhich races are you tracking?
IN results
UPDATE: Tim Tagaris has a full run-down on the big races in OH over at MyDD.
Posted at 09:22 PM in 2006 Elections | Comments (15) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
N.O.-Mayor: Forman Endorses Landrieu
Posted by DavidNYCAs expected, Ron Forman, who finished in third place in Saturday's election for New Orleans mayor, endorsed Mitch Landrieu, who came in second. (There's a run-off between the top two finishers in May.) Forman pulled in 17% and Landrieu 29%, so just simple addition would appear to put Landrieu in the driver's seat, seeing as incumbent Ray Nagin took only 38% in the first round. Obviously, things are never quite that simple, and I don't have an insight as to how the remaining 16% of the vote will get split up. Any thoughts?
Posted at 10:11 AM in 2006 Elections, Louisiana | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Friday, April 14, 2006
Quarterly Fundraising Reports Open Thread
Posted by DavidNYCBecause the quarterly deadline (the 15th) falls on a Saturday, campaigns actually have to get their reports in to the FEC today. That means that many campaigns (mostly those which feel they've done well) will be releasing their numbers to the public today. For the rest, we'll have to wait until the FEC cranks out the official tallies next week. What numbers have you seen so far, both for House and Senate candidates? Please post `em in comments, with links where available. Here are a few I've seen:
CT-05: Chris Murphy
1Q Raised: $335,000
Cash-on-Hand: $650,000
(Incumbent Nancy Johnson raised $449K and has $2.47M cash-on-hand, which is a ton.)NY-20: Kirsten Gillibrand
1Q Raised: $345,000
(Incumbent John Sweeney raised $368,000.)TN-Sen: Harold Ford
1Q Raised: $1.5M
Cash-on-Hand: $2.2M
(Opponent Bob Corker raised $770K but has $4.4M cash-on-hand. There are two other GOPers running as well.)CT-04: Diane Farrell
1Q Raised: $515K (wow!)
Cash-on-hand: $832K
(Incumbent Chris Shays raised $372K, the second quarter in a row he's raised less than Farrell. He has $1.1M cash-on-hand.)
I'll add more to the list as we come across them.
UPDATE: I'm most interested in R-incumbent or R-open seats, and at-risk D seats. Some more:
AZ-08: Patty Weiss
1Q Raised: $183K
(This is a very crowded primary for Jim Kolbe's open seat.)IL-08: Melissa Bean
1Q Raised: $536K
Cash-on-hand: $1.75M (that's a lot)
(Opponent David McSweeney, a wealthy self-funder, only has $147K cash-on-hand and owes vendors $400K from his primary race.)SD-AL: Stephanie Herseth
1Q Raised: $128K
Cash-on-hand: $631K
(Opponent Bruce Whalen will not file an FEC report this quarter. That means he hasn't even raised or spent $5,000! Thought you might like that one.)
Today's House Race Hotline was an invaluable resource for compiling this update.
Posted at 02:27 PM in 2006 Elections, Fundraising | Comments (20) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, April 03, 2006
The First Quarter's Not Over Yet in IN, NC & OH
Posted by DavidNYCOrdinarily, the FEC's first quarterly deadline is March 31st. This means that your quarterly report is due April 15th. However, the deadline is extended in three states which have primaries soon, on May 2nd: Indiana, North Carolina and Ohio. Campaigns in those states have to submit special "pre-primary" reports on April 20th. If the first quarter deadline weren't extended, you'd have to submit back-to-back reports on the 15th and 20th - wouldn't make much sense. So the FEC allows you to consolidate both filings, which means you get to report donations received through April 12th.
This means that if you want to help boost the quarterly numbers for any campaigns in these three states, you still have some time. I can think of a number of competitive federal races: IN-02, IN-08, and IN-09; NC-11; OH-06, OH-13, OH-15, OH-18, and OH-Sen. I'm sure folks here might even suggest another race or two. And, as always, ActBlue is probably the easiest way to contribute.
Posted at 01:51 PM in 2006 Elections | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Illinois Results
Posted by DavidNYCSo Duckworth ekes out a narrow win, 44-40 (give or take). Bowers says he heard over and over that Duckworth would win in a landslide, and takes the small margin as a sign that the establishment powers are in weak shape. I consider any "blowout" talk to have been mostly bluster - was any of it even on the record? - and I always expected this one to be relatively close.
I wonder, though, if Cegelis supporters are unhappy with Lindy Scott right now. As another "outsider" candidate, I have to believe he took more votes away from Cegelis than from Duckworth. That's just Monday morning quarterbacking, though. The real issue is will Cegelis supporters show up for Duckworth - and what will Duckworth do to make that happen?
In any event, Topinka (unfortunately) pulled out a narrow win of her own over uber-right-winger Jim Oberweis, 38-32. Blago will have a serious fight on his hands this fall, no doubt about it. And in IL-08, David McSweeney (one of the rich self-funders) won with 43 percent of the vote. Bean, fortunately, has raised a lot of money herself, and I think she'll be able to hold off her challenger quite ably.
One other piece of related news: Fighting Dem John Laesch also won his primary against Ruben Zamora in IL-14. Laesch now gets to take on Speaker of the House (remember him?) Denny Hastert.
Posted at 12:02 PM in 2006 Elections, Illinois | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Illinois Primaries are Today
Posted by DavidNYCThe key races:
• IL-06: Cegelis v. Duckworth. Do I even need to say anything about this? I'm just glad that this race will finally be over. There is no primary on the GOP side - the candidate will be state Sen. Peter Roskam.• IL-08: Freshman Melissa Bean's seat. Six Republicans are fighting to unseat her, including a couple who have spent millions of their own money. Bean may be somewhat vulnerable, but personally, I think there are several other Democrats who are in much more precarious shape than she is.
• IL-Gov: If you want to talk about endangered incumbents, here's one for ya: Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, also known as "Blago". Blago himself has a primary opponent, but I think the real danger comes from the GOP side. Treas. Judy Baar Topinka has successfully cast herself as a moderate and has also raised a lot of money. If Republican voters in Illinois have any sense, they'll nominate her. It's kind of amazing to me that just two years after the IL GOP sank to tapping out-of-state joker Alan Keyes to run for Senate, any Democrat could be vulnerable in Illinois, but there it is.
Anyone care to make predictions on the outcome of IL-06? List the winner, plus the percentages. (Don't forget there's a third candidate in the race, a college prof. named Lindy Scott.)
Posted at 09:38 AM in 2006 Elections, Illinois | Comments (38) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, March 20, 2006
Poll Roundup
Posted by DavidNYC• OH-06: Hadn't seen this before. A January internal poll from the Wilson campaign put him up 42-24 over Chuck Blasdel. Of course, this survey was taken before the filing debacle. Things may have changed quite a bit since then. (Thanks to reader Sam for alterting me to the poll.)
• WA-Sen: The latest Rasmussen has Cantwell leading McGavick 49-36. McGavick has scored 36 or 37% over the five polls Rasmussen has conducted since early November. Meanwhile, Cantwell has dropped from 52 to 49 in that timeframe - but even Rasmussen says this may just be "noise". Regardless, McGavick is just not gaining much traction here.
• NJ-Sen: Menendez has a 40-36 lead over Kean according to Quinnipiac, up from 38-36 in January. Bush's approval is 31-65, his lowest ever in NJ. I just don't see how Kean can pull this one out with an albatross like that around his neck.
• MT-Sen: Rasmussen also has a new poll on this race. Both Tester and Morrison beat Burns (46-43 and 48-43 respectively). Rasmussen also looked at what would happen if Burns dropped out and Denny Rehberg or Marc Racicot replaced him. Those numbers look very bad for us: Rehberg beats Tester by 56-37 and Morrison by 53-41, while Racicot beats Tester by 57-34 and Morrison by 56-36. Ouch. Schweitzer, meanwhile, clocks in with a 73-24 approval rating.
Posted at 02:22 PM in 2006 Elections, Polls | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Third TX Primary Results Open Thread
Posted by DavidNYCNote: All times are local (Central) time.
[10:50 p.m.] Webb County's early voting results just came in (ie, not ballots cast today). They put Cuelllar into the lead for the first time tonight, 16,705 to 15,408.
[11:19 p.m.] (Tracy) We are still waiting here at the office for final totals.
[11:32 p.m.] An earlier comment of mine got over-written in the shuffle. I think it'll be a while before we get any more results in. But at this point, unfortunately, I don't see how Ciro can pull this one out. The bottom line is that, as I've often said, it's just damn hard to beat an incumbent.
[12:05 a.m.] (Tracy)
From Ciro to the netroots:
"As far as I am concerned we are in a run-off. We will be picking up our signs from the polls and re-using them in thirty days. Until we know exactly what happened today in Webb County, this race is not over."I wouldn't be here if I hadn't gotten the support of the online community. It's been overwhelming to see how people can make a difference, and make things happen by coming together, even if it an hour of blockwalking, a few phone calls or $20 and $40 dollars at a time. We must have the final word in who our leadership will be, not the special interests, and we must keep up this fight. I want to think the thousands who have given their time and resources to push this campaign forward.
"Thank you from the bottom of my heart for each and every kind word, dollar bill and one cent."
[12:09 p.m.] Very gracious words from Ciro. It's actually an hour later where I am on the East Coast right now, so I'm going to turn in. You're in Tracy's good hands for the rest of the night. (Thanks, Tracy!)
[12:30 a.m.]: In 2004 Webb results didn't come in until the next day. I am headed out of the office now and will check in later.
Posted at 11:58 PM in 2006 Elections, Texas | Comments (19) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Second TX Primary Results Open Thread
Posted by DavidNYCNote: All times are local (Central) time.
[10:03 p.m.] Up to 159 precincts now, but the results are not much changed. Unfortunately, Webb is still at zero, and many of the precincts which haven't come in yet are from pro-Cuellar areas.
I should add that a couple of members of the Band of Brothers are facing primaries tonight: Duane Shaw in TX-01 and Ted Ankrum in TX-10.
[10:10 p.m.] An aside: The Swing State Project just clocked in its 2,000,000th visitor ever a few minutes ago. We reached 1 million only six months ago (and it took us nearly two years to reach that mark). Thanks, well, a million!
[10:16 p.m.] Does this even make any sense? From the Laredo Morning Times:
Because of a technical difficulty, results from the Democratic and Republican primaries have been delayed.The machine built to read the personal electronic ballots was incorrectly programmed, and as a result the votes must be extracted from flash cards attached to each machine.
I don't understand that second paragraph at all. The first half of the sentence refers to one machine, singular. The second half refers to multiple machines. What on earth is going on here?
[10:20 p.m.] Congrats to the SSP on the success - it's fantastic to be a part of that.
I know everyone is playing the waiting game, refreshing those pages like crazy. I am juggling these updates with requests from old media with requests from other candidates, who are running in local elections who have decided to spend their evening here with Ciro awaiting their own results. Also noteworthy are the dozens of union members who have been working these streets everyday to try and get the Bexar County vote out.
Ciro is getting ready to go live on the 10:30 news here in town. More from here when it happens.
Posted at 11:04 PM in 2006 Elections, Texas | Comments (16) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
New TX Primary Results Thread
Posted by DavidNYCNote: All times are local (Central) time.
[9:02 p.m.] The Dallas Morning News is declaring Chris Bell the victor in TX-Gov. At the moment, Tom DeLay has 64% of the vote in TX-22, while Van Taylor has 55% in TX-17.
[9:05 p.m.] DMN also seems to have faster results than the TX SoS. Here's the situation in TX-28:
Rodriguez: 7,754 (64.72%)
Cuellar: 3,351 (27.97%)
Morales: 875 (7.30%)Precincts Reporting: 95
Total Precincts: 276
[9:16 p.m.]
Rodriguez: 7,928 (64.24%)
Cuellar: 3,509 (28.43%)
Morales: 904 (7.33%)Precincts Reporting: 112
Total Precincts: 276
[9:23 p.m.] Well, well, well. Looks like DMN got a bit ahead of itself. They are now claiming they have results from just 66 precincts (not 112, as stated earlier). Meanwhile, the SoS site is at 98 precincts.
[9:32 p.m.] (Tracy) Ciro just walked in to a load round of applause. The crowd is chanting his name as we continue to wait for the rest of the returns. There are loads of cameras and it is standing room only in what is a very large headquarters. SOS is reporting 35.14% in - still no word from Webb County.
[9:34 p.m.] Okay, this is getting a bit nutty. This SoS page (for TX-28 only) reports 128 precincts. However, this page (which lists all Dem races) says 143 precincts have come in. Which to believe? The latter page lists the current totals as follows:
Rodriguez: 11,269 (56.40%)
Cuellar: 7,304 (36.55%)
Morales: 1,408 (7.05%)
[9:40 p.m.] (Tracy) News out of Webb County continues to be confusing. There doesn't seem to be any word on when results will be coming through as technical difficulties persist.
[9:43 p.m.] The individual race page caught up and both now report 143 precincts. But man, that string of zeros after Webb County's name looks awfully, awfully... out of place. I'm reminded of the OH-02 special election, when Jean Schmidt's home region reported last, too. Remember this?
Schmidt led by less than 1 percent with 88 percent of the precincts in. But she must have felt secure in knowing that the only uncounted precincts were in Clermont County, her home.
Uh huh.
[9:43 p.m.] (Tracy) The Rodriguez campaign has a team headed down to Webb County including campaign counsel and representatives. While this is happening Ciro is addressing the hundreds of supporters who have gathered at our headquarters on the South Side of San Antonio. A supporter just called in as well and asked if the banks in Laredo were closed.
Posted at 10:02 PM in 2006 Elections, Texas | Comments (15) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Texas Primaries Open Thread
Posted by DavidNYCThe truth, in signage:
Apparently, thanks to the Steelworkers, over a hundred of these signs have sprung up throughout the district overnight.
There are actually several important primaries taking place in Texas today, not just TX-28. In TX-22, we get to see how much damage gets done to Tom DeLay in his primary. In TX-17, there's also a GOP primary to take on Democrat Chet Edwards. The lone Republican Iraq veteran running for office, Van Taylor, is a candidate in that race. There are also Democratic primaries for TX-Sen and TX-Gov (in the latter race, I'm a fan of Chris Bell).
Anyhow, you can get complete results here. Live results for TX-28 specifically are here. Go Ciro!
P.S. Polls close at 7pm CST (8pm Eastern).
Posted at 03:13 PM in 2006 Elections, Texas | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
NM Races Are Set
Posted by DavidNYCNew Mexico's filing deadline was yesterday. I've written in the past about NM-01, where we have a top-tier matchup. We also have a candidate running against the Republican in NM-02, but this is a very GOP-leaning district (Bush 58-41 over Kerry). Rep. Tom Udall (NM's sole Democratic House member, in the 3rd CD) faces a challenge, but he's safe.
Similarly, Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman and Dem Gov. Bill Richardson will also be challenged but are both in very good shape. CQ has a good roundup on the entire NM scene.
Posted at 07:16 PM in 2006 Elections, New Mexico | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Complete 50-State Filing Deadline List
Posted by DavidNYCCourtesy of The Hotline, every state's filing deadline, primary date, and, where applicable, runoff date is included in a table below the fold. Four states have February deadlines:
New Mexico - 2/14Ohio - 2/16
Indiana - 2/17
North Carolina - 2/28
The following month is much busier - twelve states have deadlines in March. Keep track of House race filings here and here. Again, the complete list is below the fold.
| State | Deadline | Primary | Runoff |
|---|---|---|---|
| IL | 12/19/05 | 3/21 | |
| TX | 1/2 | 3/7 | 4/11 |
| WV | 1/28 | 5/9 | |
| KY | 1/31 | 5/16 | |
| NM | 2/14 | 6/6 | |
| OH | 2/16 | 5/2 | |
| IN | 2/17 | 5/2 | |
| NC | 2/28 | 5/2 | 5/30 |
| MS | 3/1 | 6/6 | 6/27 |
| NE | 3/1 | 5/9 | |
| OR | 3/7 | 5/16 | |
| PA | 3/7 | 5/16 | |
| CA | 3/10 | 6/6 | |
| ME | 3/15 | 6/13 | |
| ID | 3/17 | 5/23 | |
| IA | 3/17 | 6/6 | |
| UT | 3/17 | 6/27 | |
| MT | 3/23 | 6/6 | |
| MO | 3/28 | 8/8 | |
| SC | 3/30 | 6/13 | 6/27 |
| AR | 4/4 | 5/23 | 6/13 |
| SD | 4/6 | 6/6 | 6/14 |
| TN | 4/6 | 8/3 | |
| AL | 4/8 | 6/6 | 6/27 |
| NJ | 4/10 | 6/6 | |
| ND | 4/17 | 6/13 | |
| VA | 4/19 | 6/13 | |
| GA | 4/28 | 7/18 | 8/8 |
| FL | 5/12 | 9/5 | |
| MI | 5/16 | 8/8 | |
| NV | 5/19 | 8/15 | |
| CT | 5/23 | 8/8 | |
| CO | 5/25 | 8/8 | |
| AK | 6/1 | 8/22 | |
| WY | 6/2 | 8/22 | |
| MA | 6/6 | 9/19 | |
| OK | 6/7 | 7/7 | 8/24 |
| KS | 6/12 | 8/1 | |
| AZ | 6/14 | 9/12 | |
| NH | 6/16 | 9/12 | |
| RI | 6/28 | 9/12 | |
| MD | 7/3 | 9/12 | |
| DC | 7/5 | 9/12 | |
| WI | 7/11 | 9/12 | |
| NY | 7/13 | 9/12 | |
| VT | 7/17 | 9/12 | |
| MN | 7/18 | 9/12 | |
| HI | 7/25 | 9/23 | |
| DE | 7/28 | 9/9 | |
| WA | 7/28 | 9/12 | |
| LA | 8/11 | 11/7 | 12/9 |
Posted at 11:52 AM in 2006 Elections | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Sunday, November 06, 2005
New Zogby/WSJ 50 State Polls Up
Posted by Tim TagarisHere's the link. I'll keep it link only w/out commentary at this point simply because I don't want to spoil it with so much going on. Every single 2006 statewide race for Governor and Senate included in the fun. As David noted earlier, take the results with a grain of salt as the Internet polling methodology is pretty questionable at this point still. What numbers piqued your interest? Enjoy!
Posted at 08:59 PM in 2006 Elections | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Saturday, November 05, 2005
NJ-Gov: Forrester looks out for New Jersey -- Miss New Jersey
Posted by Bob BrighamDrudge is trying to cover up this:
The tipping point came after the New York Daily News published a gossip column yesterday implying that Forrester, who has been married for 30 years, had an extramarital affair with a former campaign staffer who is also a former Miss New Jersey.
Working for New Jersey and sleeping with Miss New Jersey are two different perspectives on the job.
Posted at 05:33 PM in 2006 Elections, New Jersey | TrackBack (0) | 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
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
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
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
Thursday, October 20, 2005
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
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
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
Friday, October 07, 2005
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
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
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
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
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
Monday, October 03, 2005
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
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
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
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
TX-22: Tom DeLay Indicted
Posted by Bob Brigham
From CNN:
BREAKING NEWS
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay indicted on one count of criminal conspiracy by Texas grand jury, according to Travis County clerk's office.
Tom DeLay is the poster boy for the Republican Culture of Corruption.
UPDATE (Tim): The media has already started consistently placing the word "Democrat" before the name of prosecutor Ronnie Earle in an attempt to perpetuate the Republican meme that the indictment is a "partisan witch hunt." It would be helpful for media-types to consider this nugget from the Houston Chronicle:
During his long tenure, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has prosecuted many more Democratic officials than Republicans. The record does not support allegations that Earle is prone to partisan witch hunts.
UPDATE (Bob): Via Atrios we learn the time DeLay is looking at:
The charge, a state jail felony punishable by up to two years incarceration, stems from his role with his political committee, Texans for a Republican Majority, a now-defunct organization that already had been indicted on charges of illegally using corporate money during the 2002 legislative elections.
Posted at 12:48 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Culture of Corruption, Republicans, Scandals, Texas | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Friday, September 23, 2005
Scandal: Karl Rove and Jack Abramoff
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom the Washington Post:
Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff bragged two years ago that he was in contact with White House political aide Karl Rove on behalf of a large, Bermuda-based corporation that wanted to avoid incurring some taxes and continue receiving federal contracts, according to a written statement by President Bush's nominee to be deputy attorney general.Timothy E. Flanigan, general counsel for conglomerate Tyco International Ltd., said in a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that Abramoff's lobbying firm initially boasted that Abramoff could help Tyco fend off a special liability tax because he "had good relationships with members of Congress," including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).
Abramoff later said "he had contact with Mr. Karl Rove" about the issue, according to the statement by Flanigan, who oversaw Tyco's dealings with Abramoff and his firm and received reports from Abramoff about progress in the lobbying campaign. Flanigan's statement is the latest indication that Abramoff promoted himself as having ready access to senior officials in the Bush administration.
WTF? In 2006, the Republicans will fear two words: competence & corruption. The worst case scenario is when the Democrat is authentic.
Democrats are lucky that George Bush is too stubborn to fire Karl Rove. He's corrupt! Corrupt hack running an incompetent Republican Administration.
Rove played fast and loose for too long. Now he's been linked to Jack Abramoff. Not only did he compromise National Security for political paybacks, but he is also corrupt. A five-year-old could write this storyline -- even the Establishment Democrats might figure it out.
Bonus points for a very specific, "no recollection" of the scandal:
A White House spokeswoman, Erin Healy, said Rove "has no recollection" of being contacted by Abramoff about Tyco's concerns.
Talking Points Memo has had the best info on the next part:
Rove's personal assistant at the time, Susan Ralston, formerly worked as Abramoff's secretary.
TYCO, in addition to being an awful company, helped fund an "army of lobbyists" to prop-up the GOP:
Tyco was among a raft of companies, including Ingersoll-Rand and Noble Corp., that hired an army of lobbyists to stall the legislation and ultimately kill most of it. House Republican leaders argued that corporate flight was merely a symptom of a much broader problem with the U.S. tax code that should be treated in a larger tax reform package.Abramoff remains the focus of a lengthy investigation by a task force led by prosecutors at the Justice Department and including investigators at the Internal Revenue Service, the Interior Department and General Services Administration. The probe was initially focused on whether he bilked Native American tribes that paid him tens of millions of dollars in lobbying and other fees, but has since widened to include other matters.
And, of course, our favorite lobbyist firm, makes the story...
The ties between Tyco and Greenberg Traurig have already been investigated by a special counsel appointed by Greenberg to examine Abramoff's activities at the firm. According to knowledgeable sources and Flanigan's written statement, Greenberg has promised to repay three-quarters of a $2 million fee that Tyco paid, at Abramoff's direction, to a firm called Grassroots Interactive.The fee was supposed to finance a letter-writing campaign by Tyco suppliers against the offshore tax bill, but Greenberg concluded that $1.5 million of it was "diverted to entities controlled by Mr. Abramoff" and misspent, according to Flanigan's statement.
Andrew Blum, a spokesman for Abramoff's law firm, declined to comment, as did Jill Perry, a spokeswoman for Greenberg Traurig.
"No recollection" and denials. This scandal is only going to get bigger. You can't trust Republicans with money. . .
Hat-tip to TPM for the heads-up - Thanks!
Posted at 12:04 AM in 2006 Elections, Culture of Corruption, Plamegate, Texas | Comments (1) | Technorati
Thursday, September 15, 2005
2006: GOP Fears Accountability for Lake George
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom Americablog:
54 US Senators today KILLED legislation establishing an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate what went so horribly wrong with Hurricane Katrina.
76% of Americans want an independent bipartisan commission, like the one that investigated the 9/11 attacks, to investigate what went wrong. In fact, according to the same poll, Americans of all stripes, Republicans and Democrats, are united behind their support for such a commission (64% of all Republicans and 83% of all Democrats want a commission) even though they were aware that the Republicans in Congress are doing their own biased and partisan investigation (see below).
So why did every Republican US Senator (save the Senator from Louisiana, who simply didn't vote) vote AGAINST forming this independent, bipartisan commission to investigate what went so horribly wrong, and to find out how we avoid an even larger catastrophe the next time Osama attacks a major American city with a chemical, biological or nuclear bomb?
It's time to find out.
Call all the Republican Senators, fill their office voice mails with messages. Ask them why they voted against forming an impartial, independent commission to find out the truth about what went wrong with Hurricane Katrina? (Or in the case of the Louisiana Republican Senator, ask him why he didn't vote.) Ask them why they would rather have America unprepared for a future chemical, biological or nuclear attack from Al Qaeda? If we don't know why we were unprepared today, we will surely be unprepared tomorrow.
Every senator on this list will face a tough re-election campaign due to this scandal. This is disgusting. This is a cover-up.
Call them
Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN) Class II
302 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4944
Web Form: www.alexander.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.HomeAllard, Wayne- (R - CO) Class II
521 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5941
Web Form: www.allard.senate.gov/contactmeAllen, George- (R - VA) Class I
204 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4024
Web Form: www.allen.senate.gov/index.cfm?c=emailBennett, Robert- (R - UT) Class III
431 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5444
Web Form: www.bennett.senate.gov/contact/emailmain.htmlBond, Christopher- (R - MO) Class III
274 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5721
Web Form: www.bond.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfmBrownback, Sam- (R - KS) Class III
303 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6521
Web Form: www.brownback.senate.gov/CMEmailMe.cfmBunning, Jim- (R - KY) Class III
316 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4343
Web Form: www.bunning.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.EmailBurns, Conrad- (R - MT) Class I
187 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2644
Web Form: www.burns.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.ContactBurr, Richard- (R - NC) Class III
217 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3154
Web Form: www.burr.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.HomeChafee, Lincoln- (R - RI) Class I
141A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2921
Web Form: www.chafee.senate.gov/webform.htmChambliss, Saxby- (R - GA) Class II
416 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3521
Web Form: cwww.hambliss.senate.gov/Contact/default.cfm?pagemode=1Coburn, Tom- (R - OK) Class III
172 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5754
Web Form: www.coburn.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.HomeCochran, Thad- (R - MS) Class II
113 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5054
Web Form: www.cochran.senate.gov/contact.htmColeman, Norm- (R - MN) Class II
320 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5641
Web Form: www.coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactFormCollins, Susan- (R - ME) Class II
461 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2523
Web Form: www.collins.senate.gov/low/contactemail.htmCornyn, John- (R - TX) Class II
517 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2934
Web Form: www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact/index.htmlCraig, Larry- (R - ID) Class II
520 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2752
Web Form: www.craig.senate.gov/email/Crapo, Michael- (R - ID) Class III
239 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6142
Web Form: www.crapo.senate.gov/contact/email.cfmDeMint, Jim- (R - SC) Class III
340 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6121
Web Form: www.demint.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.HomeDeWine, Mike- (R - OH) Class I
140 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2315
Web Form: www.dewine.senate.govDole, Elizabeth- (R - NC) Class II
555 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6342
Web Form: www.dole.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.ContactFormDomenici, Pete- (R - NM) Class II
328 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6621
Web Form: www.domenici.senate.gov/contact/contactform.cfmEnsign, John- (R - NV) Class I
356 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6244
Web Form: www.ensign.senate.gov/forms/email_form.cfmEnzi, Michael- (R - WY) Class II
379A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3424
Web Form: www.enzi.senate.gov/email.htmFrist, Bill- (R - TN) Class I
509 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3344
Web Form: www.frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorFrist.ContactFormGraham, Lindsey- (R - SC) Class II
290 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5972
Web Form: www.lgraham.senate.gov/index.cfm?mode=contactGrassley, Chuck- (R - IA) Class III
135 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3744
Web Form: www.grassley.senate.gov/webform.htmGregg, Judd- (R - NH) Class III
393 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3324
Web Form: www.gregg.senate.gov/sitepages/contact.cfmHagel, Chuck- (R - NE) Class II
248 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4224
Web Form: www.hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.ContactHatch, Orrin- (R - UT) Class I
104 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5251
Web Form: www.hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Offices.ContactHutchison, Kay- (R - TX) Class I
284 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5922
Web Form: www.hutchison.senate.gov/e-mail.htmInhofe, James- (R - OK) Class II
453 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4721
Web Form: www.inhofe.senate.gov/contactus.htmIsakson, Johnny- (R - GA) Class III
120 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3643
Web Form: www.isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfmKyl, Jon- (R - AZ) Class I
730 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4521
Web Form: www.kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfmLott, Trent- (R - MS) Class I
487 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6253
E-mail: www.senatorlott@lott.senate.govLugar, Richard- (R - IN) Class I
306 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4814
E-mail: www.senator_lugar@lugar.senate.govMartinez, Mel- (R - FL) Class III
317 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3041
Web Form: www.martinez.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.ContactFormMcCain, John- (R - AZ) Class III
241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2235
Web Form: www.mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Contact.HomeMcConnell, Mitch- (R - KY) Class II
361-A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2541
Web Form: www.mcconnell.senate.gov/contact_form.cfmMurkowski, Lisa- (R - AK) Class III
709 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6665
Web Form: www.murkowski.senate.gov/contact.cfmRoberts, Pat- (R - KS) Class II
109 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4774
Web Form: www.roberts.senate.gov/e-mail_pat.htmlSantorum, Rick- (R - PA) Class I
511 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6324
Web Form: www.santorum.senate.gov/contactform.cfmSessions, Jeff- (R - AL) Class II
335 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4124
Web Form: www.sessions.senate.gov/email/contact.cfmShelby, Richard- (R - AL) Class III
110 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5744
E-mail: www.senator@shelby.senate.govSmith, Gordon- (R - OR) Class II
404 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3753
Web Form: www.gsmith.senate.gov/webform.htmSnowe, Olympia- (R - ME) Class I
154 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5344
E-mail: www.olympia@snowe.senate.govSpecter, Arlen- (R - PA) Class III
711 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4254
Web Form: www.specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInfo.HomeStevens, Ted- (R - AK) Class II
522 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3004
Web Form: www.stevens.senate.gov/contact_form.cfmSununu, John- (R - NH) Class II
111 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2841
Web Form: www.sununu.senate.gov/webform.htmlTalent, James- (R - MO) Class I
493 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6154
Web Form: www.talent.senate.gov/Contact/default.cfm?pagemode=1Thomas, Craig- (R - WY) Class I
307 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6441
Web Form: www.thomas.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.HomeThune, John- (R - SD) Class III
383 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2321
Web Form: www.thune.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.HomeVitter, David- (R - LA) Class III
516 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4623
Web Form: www.vitter.senate.gov/contact.cfmVoinovich, George- (R - OH) Class III
524 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3353
Web Form: www.voinovich.senate.gov/contact/index.htmWarner, John- (R - VA) Class II
225 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2023
Web Form: www.warner.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm
Posted at 10:04 AM in 2006 Elections, Culture of Corruption, Louisiana, Mississippi, Republicans, Scandals, Texas | Technorati
Saturday, September 03, 2005
Katrina: Live from Houston, TX
Posted by Bob BrighamI'm at the Houston airport, waiting for a flight into Birmingham, then driving south.
During Paul Hackett's campaign, I think we proved that being on the ground is a great fulcrum. "Showing up maximizes" the leverage and we need it now, more than ever. Bush failed America, so now the burden falls to each American to help do what needs to be done.
My specialty is using the internet, which is a perfect vehicle. From ABC News:
"When I put the listing on the Web site in the evening, I had five or six families respond by the morning," van Gelderen said while he was sending out e-mails to his friends challenging them to help. Van Gelderen had his entire staff mobilizing relief efforts, rather than focusing on business. "The private sector has to start doing just as much as the government."Van Gelderen listed his available housing through Moveon.org, a liberal-leaning non-profit political organization.
MoveOn launched its hurricane housing site on Thursday afternoon, and within 25 hours received offers for 45,000 beds — 11,500 within driving distance of New Orleans, according to MoveOn president Eli Pariser.
"Basically we were just racking our brains trying to figure out how we could help our members provide some help for victims," said Pariser. "We have a direct line to 3 million people and there might be a lot who might be able to open up their homes."
At Swing State Project, I will continue to examine the electoral implications of the second disaster: the response. When Bush's poll numbers dropped below 40%, I didn't think they could go lower. I mean, he would always hold the Republicans, wouldn't he?
Apparently not...
The right wing realizes Bush's decision to continue his vacation kick-started a chain of events that will haunt the Republican Party for a long time. Geographically, Bush's incompetence has put the entire south in play. As the harvest forces tough conversations about transportation, the Midwest will also come into play. Not only is the Republican congress corrupt, but voting Republican gives another vote to the incompetent Republican Administration.
Bush fucked up. And even rabid right-wingers know it. The Washington Times knows it; Fox News knows it. Hell, even the Bull Moose is talking about impeachment. These organizations have propped Bush up for years and now they are cutting him loose, realizing that it is impossible to defend Bush's response – it is a credibility killer.
The hurricane was a disaster, but Bush's vacation-based reaction has been the real catastrophe.
So I'm going in. We're bringing in a SUV full of supplies, I also have my laptop and video camera.
Please sign up for Hurricane Housing.
Additionally requests will be coming.
Posted at 03:26 PM in 2006 Elections, Activism, Culture of Corruption, Republicans, Scandals, Site News, Texas | Comments (2) | Technorati
Monday, August 29, 2005
OH-Gov: New Poll on Governor Bob Taft
Posted by Bob BrighamA new poll on embattled Ohio Governor Bob Taft suggests he is a few pitchforks and torches shy of getting run out of town. From the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
Forty-six percent of Ohio voters surveyed say the governor should quit, while 44 percent say he should not. Ten percent of voters say they are undecided.Taft was convicted on Aug. 18 of four misdemeanor crimes for failing to report $3,500 worth of gifts and golf outings from business and political leaders. [...]
"I feel he should resign," said survey participant and Republican Jan Moorehead of Cable, a rural town in the largely Republican Champaign County. "It wasn't so much the oversight that he has not reported stuff, but quite honestly, I think he is spending too much time with lobbyists. I think 52 golf outings with lobbyists and others -- that's a lot of golf."
You know you're in trouble when even Republicans think you're spending too much time playing golf. The midterm election will be a great time be running as a Reform Democrat in Ohio.
Posted at 09:21 AM in 2006 Elections, Culture of Corruption, Ohio, Polls | Technorati
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Katrina Proves Bush Failed New Orleans
Posted by Bob BrighamUPDATE (Bob) Here is the full recap
So far today, I've looked at Global Warming and Katrina and the crisis resulting from Lousiana's National Guard being in Iraq instead of defending their state.
Will Bush stay on vacation? At this point, it doesn't really matter. Because Bush has been asleep at the wheel for four years. From the Houston Chronicle in 2001:
New Orleans is sinking.And its main buffer from a hurricane, the protective Mississippi River delta, is quickly eroding away, leaving the historic city perilously close to disaster.
So vulnerable, in fact, that earlier this year the Federal Emergency Management Agency ranked the potential damage to New Orleans as among the three likeliest, most castastrophic disasters facing this country.
The other two? A massive earthquake in San Francisco, and, almost prophetically, a terrorist attack on New York City.
The New Orleans hurricane scenario may be the deadliest of all.
FEMA said this was the "three likeliest, most castastrophic disasters". Bush's response? Cut preparedness:
(UPDATE -- Tim:) I wanted to take a moment to spell it out for the visiting freepi fawning over the head start the Superdome is giving you supporters of minority internment. Of course we don't believe Bush caused the hurricane, although I think many of us wish he would have asked Pat Robertson to pray for a re-direction.
And most of you failed to read the article Bob linked, no surprise there. But inbetween vacations, the preznit got massive tax-cuts passed at the expense of important projects. Among them, preparedness for natural disasters--some of which happen to be in New Orleans.
In general, funding for construction has been on a downward trend for the past several years, said Marcia Demma, chief of the New Orleans Corps' programs management branch.In 2001, the New Orleans district spent $147 million on construction projects. When fiscal year 2005 wraps up Sept. 30, the Corps expects to have spent $82 million, a 44.2 percent reduction from 2001 expenditures. [...]
Unfunded projects include widening drainage canals, flood- proofing bridges and building pumping stations in Orleans and Jefferson parishes. The Corps also wants to build levees in unprotected areas on the West Bank.
Irresponsible distribution of resources has, yet again, put American lives in peril. If the freepi were able to see past 9/11 and recognize the difference between real life, health, and safety risks (ie. environment & port protection among others) and not get distracted by contrived security risks (ie. Iraq), things might not look so grim tonight.
In fiscal year 2006, the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is bracing for a record $71.2 million reduction in federal funding.It would be the largest single-year funding loss ever for the New Orleans district, Corps officials said.
I've been here over 30 years and I've never seen this level of reduction, said Al Naomi, project manager for the New Orleans district. I think part of the problem is it's not so much the reduction, it's the drastic reduction in one fiscal year. It's the immediacy of the reduction that I think is the hardest thing to adapt to.
There is an economic ripple effect, too. The cuts mean major hurricane and flood protection projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now.
Remember, this was a top-three "likeliest catastrophic disasters" and Bush shelved the study of how to protect against Category 5 hurricanes like Katrina? For most of Bush's time as President, FEMA has been saying this could be the deadliest scenario facing America. And Bush cut the preparedness funding, sent our strategic reserve National Guard troops to fight an unnecessary war and then went on vacation. Not only is Bush the worst President ever, but he is also a total asshole for fucking over New Orleans.
Hat tip to Ms Librarian and commentors.
UPDATE: (Bob) Here is some more...
BUSH LEFT GULF COAST VULNERABLE TO DISASTER
Katrina could be the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States. But it was not a surprise. Experts have been warning for years of the potential catastrophic devastation that a category 4 or 5 hurricane could have on the Gulf Coast. And in Louisiana, local officials have fought for federal funding to implement hurricane defense plans that could have avoided the widespread flooding of New Orleans. But under the Bush Administration, funding for those projects has been continuously slashed, leaving the Gulf Coast unprepared for such a disaster.
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS FUNDING CUT BY BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Federal Government Has Neglected Disaster Preparedness, Left Enormous Vulnerabilities. Disaster and emergency experts have warned for years that governments, especially the federal government, have put so much stress on disaster response that they have neglected policies to minimize a disaster's impact in advance. Robert Hartwig, chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute, said “It's going to be very evident that there were an enormous number of vulnerabilities that weren't addressed. There's going to be a lot of finger-pointing.” [Newhouse News Service, 8/31/05]
Disaster Mitigation Programs Slashed Since 2001. Since 2001, key federal disaster mitigation programs, developed over many years, have been slashed and tossed aside. FEMA’s Project Impact, a model mitigation program created by the Clinton administration, has been canceled outright. Federal funding of post-disaster mitigation efforts designed to protect people and property from the next disaster has been cut in half, and now communities across the country must compete for pre-disaster mitigation dollars. [Baltimore City Paper, 9/29/04]
In 2003 White House Slashed Mitigation Programs In Half. In 2003, Congress approved a White House proposal to cut FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) in half. Previously, the federal government was committed to invest 15 percent of the recovery costs of a given disaster in mitigating future problems. Under the Bush formula, the feds now cough up only 7.5 percent. Such post-disaster mitigation efforts, specialists say, are a crucial way of minimizing future losses. [Gambit Weekly, 9/28/04]
Bush Continuing To Propose Cuts To Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers will be cut in 2006. Bush’s 2005 budget proposal called for a 13 percent reduction in the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget, down to $4 billion from $4.6 billion in fiscal 2004. [Associated Press, 2/6/05; Congressional Quarterly Online, 2/3/04]
Under Bush, FEMA Reverted To Pre-Clinton Status As One Of The Worst Agencies. Former President Clinton appointed James L. Witt to take over FEMA after its poor response to Hurricane Andrew. Witt adopted recommendations and FEMA was described as an agency reborn: “transformed itself from what many considered to be the worst federal agency to among the best.” But FEMA under the Bush administration has destroyed carefully constructed efforts. After the 9/11 attacks the agency’s inspector general in 2003 criticized portions of FEMA’s response, citing “difficulties in delivering timely and effective” mortgage and rental assistance to those in need. [USA Today, 6/1/2005]
STATES FORCED TO CARRY MORE OF THE BURDEN
States Expected To Shoulder More Of The Burden In Emergency Management With Fewer Funds. “The federal focus on terrorism preparedness has left states with an increased responsibility to provide support for natural disasters and emergencies,” noted a report released by the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) this summer. “State budget shortfalls have given emergency management programs less to work with, at a time when more is expected of them. In fiscal year 2004, the average budget for a state emergency management agency was $40.8 million, a 23 percent reduction from fiscal year 2003.” [Gambit Weekly, 9/28/04]
Bush Tried to Cut Federal Percentage of Large-Scale Natural Disaster Preparedness. The administration made a failed attempt to cut the federal percentage of large-scale natural disaster preparedness expenditures. Since the 1990s, the federal government has paid 75 percent of such costs, with states and municipalities funding the other 25 percent. The White House's attempt to reduce the federal contribution to 50 percent was defeated in Congress. [Gambit Weekly, 9/28/04]
BUSH CRIPPLED HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS IN LOUISIANA
Bush Opposed Necessary Funding For Hurricane Preparedness In Louisiana. The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be opposed by the White House. Ultimately a deal was struck to steer $540 million to the state over four years. The total coast of coastal repair work is estimated to be $14 billion. In its budget, the Bush administration also had proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need. [Newhouse News Service, 8/31/05]
Republican Budget Cut New Orleans’ Army Corps Of Engineers Funding By A Record $71.2 Million. In fiscal year 2006, the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is bracing for a record $71.2 million reduction in federal funding. It would be the largest single-year funding loss ever for the New Orleans district, Corps officials said. “I've been here over 30 years and I've never seen this level of reduction,” said Al Naomi, project manager for the New Orleans district. The cuts mean major hurricane and flood protection projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Money is so tight the New Orleans district instituted a hiring freeze. The freeze is the first of its kind in about 10 years, said Marcia Demma, chief of the Corps' Programs Management Branch. [New Orleans City Business, 6/6/05]
Landrieu Called Bush’s Funding Priorities Shortsided. Landrieu said the Bush Administration is not making Corps of Engineers funding a priority. “I think it's extremely shortsighted,” Landrieu said. “When the Corps of Engineers' budget is cut, Louisiana bleeds. These projects are literally life-and-death projects to the people of south Louisiana and they are (of) vital economic interest to the entire nation.” [New Orleans City Business, 6/6/05]
Emergency Preparedness Director Furious With Project Cuts. A study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now. Terry Tullier, the New Orleans emergency preparedness director, said he was furious but not surprised to hear that study had been cut from the Bush budget. “I’m all for the war effort, but every time I think about the $87 billion being spent on rebuilding Iraq, I ask: What about us?” he said. “Somehow we need to make a stronger case that this is not Des Moines, Iowa, that we are so critical that if it hits the fan in New Orleans, everything this side of the Rockies will feel the economic shock waves.” [Times-Picayune, 9/22/04; New Orleans City Business, 6/6/05]
Flood Protection Projects Put On Hold Because Of Republican’s 2006 Budget. One of the hardest-hit areas of the New Orleans district's budget is the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project. SELA's budget is being drained from $36.5 million awarded in 2005 to $10.4 million suggested for 2006 by the House of Representatives and the president. The Army Corps of Engineers in New Orleans has identified $35 million in projects to build and improve levees, floodwalls and pumping stations in St. Bernard, Orleans, Jefferson and St. Charles parishes. Those projects in a line item where funding is scheduled to be cut from $5.7 million this year to $2.9 million in 2006. “We don't have the money to put the work in the field, and that's the problem,” Naomi said. [New Orleans City Business, 6/6/05]
Senator Landrieu Urged Action After SELA Budget Slashed. Louisiana’s congressional delegation assured local officials they would seek significant increases for SELA. “We could have lost 100,000 lives had Hurricane Ivan hit the mouth of the (Mississippi) River before it turned,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., alluding to last year’s storm that largely spared Louisiana but devastated parts of Alabama and Florida. “God has been good, but one of these days a hurricane is going to come and, if we don’t get projects . . . finished, we’re sitting ducks,” she said. [Times-Picayune, 3/11/05]
NATIONAL GUARD AND COAST GUARD UNDERFUNDED AND OVERSTRETCHED
LOUISIANA GUARD WARNED OF EQUIPMENT SHORTAGES BEFORE KATRINA
Louisiana National Guard Said Before Katrina That It Needed Equipment Back From Iraq If It Is To Respond To A Natural Disaster. “The National Guard needs that equipment back home to support the homeland security mission,” said Lt. Colonel Pete Schneider with the LA National Guard. “You've got combatant commanders over there who need it they say they need it, they don't want to lose what they h ave, and we certainly understand that it's a matter of us educating that combatant commander, we need it back here as well,” Col. Schneider said. [ABC 26 WGNO, 8/1/05]
NATIONAL GUARD STRETCHED THIN, UNABLE TO FULFILL DUTIES AT HOME
Iraq Has Left National Guard Units At Home Short Of Equipment. Already suffering from manpower shortages, the National Guard’s overstretched forces are being confronted with another problem: not enough equipment to supply Guard troops at home. “To fully equip troops in Iraq, the Pentagon has stripped local Guard units of about 24,000 pieces of equipment. That has left Guard units at home, already seriously short of gear.” [Detroit Free Press, 6/13/05]
Gen. McCaffrey Said We Could Permanently Damage The Guard And Reserve. Gen. McCaffrey warned against overstretching Guard and Reserve. “[W]e're going to damage fatally the National Guard if we try and continue using Reserve components at this rate. Forty percent of that force in Iraq right now is Reserve component. We have shot the bull. We've got to back off and build an Army and Marine Corps capable of sustaining these operations.” [Meet the Press, 8/28/05]
Governors Say Long Deployments Leaving Their States Vulnerable. “[S]tate officials think continued deployments will have an effect on people who sign up for or remain in the Minnesota National Guard. At a National Governor's Association meeting…some governors criticized the burden of repeated deployment, saying that the troops' absence leaves their states unprotected against things like natural disasters. Officials in Idaho and Montana have said they are unprepared if forest fires hit their states this summer.” [AP, 8/10/05]
COAST GUARD’S RESPONSIBILITIES INCREASING WITHOUT ADEQUATE FUNDS
Coast Guard Gave Congress List of $919 Million in Unfunded Priorities. The Coast Guard has given Congress a $919 million wish list of programs and hardware not funded in the Bush Administration's fiscal 2006 budget request. For the first time, the Coast Guard has sent Congressional representatives an unfunded priorities list - a tally of needed items not included in the fiscal 2006 request. The list includes an additional $637 million for the service's Deepwater recapitalization program; $11.6 million for helicopter repairs; $4 million to increase aviation maritime patrol hours, and $59 million to renovate shore stations. [Journal of Commerce Online, 5/11/05]
Coast Guard Faced With Helicopter Problems. The head of the US Coast Guard told Congress his equipment is failing at unacceptable rates. Despite increases in spending on maintenance, the agency's older large craft -- called cutters -- experience equipment failures capable of ruining a mission almost 50 percent of the time, according to Coast Guard officials. Further, the agency's HH-65 helicopters suffered a rate of 329 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours in 2004, way over the Federal Aviation Administration's acceptable standard of 1 mishap per 100,000 hours. [UPI, 6/10/05; USA Today, 7/6/05]
Commandant Says Coast Guard Short On Resources. Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thomas H. Collins said, “Do we have more business than we have resources? Yes.” The Coast Guard has put the cost of implementing safety regulations laid out by Congress at $7.3 billion over the next ten years. The Bush administration only asked for $46 million for aid to the ports in the 2005 budget. [Budget of the United States, www.omb.gov; House Approps Cmte Transcript, 3/31/04; Washington Post, 4/2/03; Boston Globe, 6/30/04]
Posted at 06:27 PM in 2006 Elections, Culture of Corruption, Economy, General, Louisiana, Republicans, Scandals | Comments (57) | Technorati
Thursday, August 25, 2005
We All Have a Stake in Midterm Elections
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom the DCCC's Stakeholder:
This post is actually the kick-off for a string of guest posts from regional bloggers on opportunities in their geographical areas of expertise.
The guest poster who kicked things of was Stirling Newberry. Stirling seems to write everywhere, but he is the type of guy you must read whenever you come across him. While Stirling is a tough act to follow, I look forward to reading the other authors who contribute in this series.
While The Stakeholder can't afford to give Jesse Lee a staff member in every state, there are strong bloggers in every state willing to step up and do whatever Lee needs. This is a scalable model. Props to the Stakeholder, now go read Mr. Newberry.
Posted at 06:55 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Netroots | Comments (1) | Technorati
Monday, August 22, 2005
2006: Throw the Bums Out
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom the Washington Post:
Democrats say a long-standing rift in the party over the Iraq war has grown increasingly raw in recent days, as stay-the-course elected leaders who voted for the war three years ago confront rising impatience from activists and strategists who want to challenge President Bush aggressively to withdraw troops.Amid rising casualties and falling public support for the war, Democrats of all stripes have grown more vocal this summer in criticizing Bush's handling of the war. A growing chorus of Democrats, however, has said this criticism should be harnessed to a consistent message and alternative policy -- something most Democratic lawmakers have refused to offer.
A couple of paragraphs later...
Although Bush's approval ratings have sunk, the Democrats have gained no ground at his expense. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll in June, just 42 percent of Americans approved of congressional Democrats, a figure even lower than Bush's.
Everyone seems to agree that Americans are disgusted by DC. The problem for the Democratic Losers who are scared of contrast with Bush is that their cowardice means that they could go down too.
There is already a good deal of talk about primary campaigns and many congressional Democrats should be worried about losing in the general election too (even with a huge disgust at the GOP). Congressional Democrats have fucked up and sided with the Republicans too many times.
It is time for some clear contrast and that should begin with the Iraq war. We can't keep pretending there isn't a war going on. All of the consultants telling Democrats to support Bush in Iraq should be publically fired for gross political malpractice.
It is not too late for contrast, but it the congressional "leaders" who haven't been leading need to start following the American people and and realize that Bush lost the war.
If not, then I say primary their asses. I say torpedo their presidential bids. I say fuck them.
These cowards are dragging down the Democratic brand. We need an exit strategy. People are dying, this is no time for wimpy positions.
Posted at 11:16 AM in 2006 Elections, Democrats | Comments (2) | Technorati
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Democrats 2006: SSP in the News
Posted by Bob BrighamThe Swing State Project in the Philadelphia Inquirer:
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.
Bill Burton, the campaign committee's spokesman, was asked about this the other day. He said that although the war will be important in the 2006 elections, he didn't foresee "one set of talking points" for everybody, because while "inflammatory language" against the war might work in one district, it might be preferable somewhere else to talk about "waging the best possible fight that we can for our troops and our soldiers and our interests."
A Democratic strategist working with 2006 Senate candidates argued privately that an openly antiwar stance is too risky: "The theme should be, 'We're in Iraq, so we gotta win.' Let's not refight the origins of the war, who was right or wrong. That discussion has run its course. Let's talk about how we can strengthen the troops, accelerate the Iraqi training, and let's keep hitting Bush when he's not being straight with the people."
Ed Kilgore, policy maven at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (which recently accused war critics of "anti-American bias"), urged caution: "At this sensitive moment in Iraq, there's no position unifying Democrats about what to do next. We need to give it a little bit more time. Troop withdrawal doesn't represent the full range of our party. It doesn't make any political sense."
The headline was, A split over war, the wimp thing, and how to win. I was shocked -- SHOCKED -- to see Kilgore's name under a headline with the word 'wimp'. While the DCCC has no clue and Kilgore waits, our soldiers and marines and airmen and seamen are dying.
Listening to these DC Losers is what got us in this mess in the first place. In 2002, they said to hide from the war and Democrats lost. In 2004, they told us to hide from the war and Democrats lost. In 2006, tell them to STFU. They were wrong then, they are wrong now and even the press realizes they are wimps. Enough talk about talking tougher. It is time to act tough and lead!
But prominent liberal activists such as David Sirota aren't going to knock it off. Sirota looks at the latest Gallup poll and finds that 33 percent of Americans now favor full withdrawal from Iraq - which beats partial withdrawal (23 percent), status quo (28 percent), and sending more troops (13 percent). And he notes that a majority now believes the war has made Americans less safe at home."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."
I don't know if the DC losers are illiterate or blind, but they can't seem to read the writing on the fucking wall.
Posted at 12:46 PM in 2006 Elections, Democrats, Netroots, Site News | Technorati
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Today's New York Times
Posted by Bob BrighamHeadline: Roadside Blast Kills Four U.S. Soldiers
Headline: Bombings Kill 43 at Key Terminal for Buses in Iraq:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 17 - Three car bombs exploded Wednesday in quick succession in and around a crowded bus station in Baghdad, killing at least 43 people, injuring 88 and paralyzing one of Iraq's most important transportation networks.
Headline: Turning Out to Support a Mother's Protest:
CRAWFORD, Tex., Aug. 17 - Supporters of Cindy Sheehan held more than 1,500 candlelight vigils across the country on Wednesday night in solidarity with this mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, who has set up a protest encampment down the road from President Bush's ranch here.
Headline: Bad Iraq News Worries Some in G.O.P. on '06
WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 - A stream of bad news out of Iraq, echoed at home by polls that show growing impatience with the war and rising disapproval of President Bush's Iraq policies, is stirring political concern in Republican circles, party officials said Wednesday.Some said that the perception that the war was faltering was providing a rallying point for dispirited Democrats and could pose problems for Republicans in the Congressional elections next year.
Republicans said a convergence of events - including the protests inspired by the mother of a slain American soldier outside Mr. Bush's ranch in Texas, the missed deadline to draft an Iraqi Constitution and the spike in casualties among reservists - was creating what they said could be a significant and lasting shift in public attitude against the war.
The Republicans described that shift as particularly worrisome, occurring 14 months before the midterm elections. As further evidence, they pointed to a special election in Ohio two weeks ago, where a Democratic marine veteran from Iraq who criticized the invasion decision came close to winning in a district that should have easily produced a Republican victory.
Time to fight in every precinct in every district in every state -- every day.
Posted at 04:06 PM in 2006 Elections, International | Comments (1) | Technorati
Democrats: Time to Fight
Posted by Bob BrighamChris Bowers has a great map of the new SUSA 50 state numbers. Bowers seems to think it is time to fight:
There isn't a single corner of this nation where Democrats are not more in line with Independents than Republicans. That's a fact. That's fifty-state potential. That's a tidal wave.
But we can't win if we don't have a candidate on the ballot. The DC crowd needs to realize this year could be tidal, but only if Democrats are ready to fight with leadership. Sirota says:
Finally, one of the top 2008 Democratic presidential contenders has the guts to take a major stand on the Iraq War. According to the Associated Press, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) is announcing his support for the United States to set a firm timetable for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Though that is a position that polls show a majority of Americans support, high profile Democrats have been unwilling to come out and make that stand. In fact, just a few weeks ago, the Democratic campaign committee in Washington is actually trying to pretend the Iraq War doesn't exist. [...]Democrats would be wise to follow Feingold's lead, instead of either parroting right-wing lies themselves like Sen. Evan Bayh (D), or cowering in a corner on Iraq because they believe any support for withdrawal will mean they will look weak on national security. That just isn't the case. Polls show Americans believe the Iraq War has made this country less safe. That means trying to end the war and get out of the situation as Feingold is calling for is a credible pro-national security position in the eyes of the public.
Big bold move by Feingold. Speaking of big bold moves, Moveon really stepped up last night.
On Wednesday, August 17, tens of thousands of supporters gathered at 1,625 vigils to acknowledge the sacrifices made by Cindy Sheehan, her son, Casey and the more than 1,800 brave American men and women who have given their lives in Iraq—and their moms and families.
I don't know what the DCCC was doing last night, but I was at my neighborhood's Moveon vigil. Some Democrats get it, not suprising where you find them. From Montana's Bozeman Daily Chronicle:
Dozens of people gathered in front of the Gallatin County Courthouse Wednesday to silently protest the war in Iraq during a candlelight vigil co-sponsored by the Gallatin County Democrats. [...]Local Democrats sponsored the vigil along with Moveon.org, a liberal organization that opposed Bush's re-election. But the party invited anyone to participate, regardless their political affiliation. [...]
The vigil was mostly a silent affair with protesters holding lighted candles during a moment of silence that stretched several minutes. The names of soldiers who died in Iraq were projected onto a white screen set up below the giant yellow ribbon that has become a permanent display at the courthouse.Tracy Velázquez, vice-chair of the Montana Democratic Party, provided protesters stickers with the names of fallen troops. When asked, she said she wasn't worried the vigil would be used by the party's opponents to portray it as against the soldiers.
Some Democrats aren't scared. Progress is coming from the ground up, people are tired of relying upon DC. Distributed models allow scale that is just beginning. The Gallatin Democrats' website is updated every morning. We need to fight, in every precinct in every district in every state. Tidal.
Posted at 11:40 AM in 2006 Elections, 2008 President - Democrats, Activism, Democrats, Montana | Comments (5) | Technorati
Friday, August 12, 2005
Rock On 2006
Posted by Bob BrighamI normally leave music to our buddies at MFA, but I've been thinking a lot about music. One of the highlights of election night was learning that Paul Hackett burned a CD with the soundtrack for his concession speech.
The Rolling Stones sing that the neocons are full of shit. And now Green Day steps up and the DCCC should pay attention.
I admit I didn't click through when I saw it on Eschaton, but when it ended up on Crooks & Liars I had no choice but to watch.
This is a story that needs to be told. Green Day told it with both music and video, at the record store and on Crooks and Liars. That is how you do it.
In the 2006 mid-terms, we are going to see communication localization collide with the online video revolution in every district. Which is good, because we need to have a discussion at every dinner table. Did you see the look on the face of the young woman in the video? I want that same response from all young women if they find out their guy is even thinking about voting Republican.
Young people traditionally lower our share of the vote in midterm elections. This means we have a lot of room for improvement in 2006. We were Democrats' best demographic in 2004, but young people don't just live in swing districts. And last year we went to the polls because we needed to vote against Bush.
Young people need a reason to vote for Democrats this time. I think everyone would agree that Green Day is doing a better job than the DCCC when comes to message distribution. Democrats need to follow this trend and learn from our past mistakes. Think how many people didn't go to class after Kent State but voted for Reagan a decade later. Think how many more voted to re-elect Reagan.
The rule of three says that if you can get somebody to vote with you for 3 elections in a row, then you have them for life. So let's give every young person the ability to vote for a Democratic congressional nominee in 2006. This is how we lock in the youth vote in the districts the DCCC focuses upon, by making it about something bigger than any individual race.
We need to be thinking about congressional races on a cultural level.
Wake Me Up When September Ends
Posted at 10:14 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Democrats, Netroots | Technorati
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Charlie Cook Waits by his TV for The Revolution
Posted by Bob BrighamCharlie Cook looks at the OH-02 discussion at the (subscription only) National Journal. Mr. Cook ignores both the force of scale and the reality of post-broadcast politics.
Democrats would be wise to keep their own counsel in examining the implications because Cook's way we will lose one Tivo set at a time.
Democrats need to stop judging success on Election Day. We need to start judging success each and every day. This simple mindset change is critical in a post-broadcast environment. Out west, one question you hear in HQ is, "We winning?" Democrats need some West Coast Offense because the right investments now can catapult a tidal cycle. We need to stop The Fear from influencing decision making and start focusing on winning every single day in every district in every state. If we can make this simple mindset change before it is forced upon us, then we will win more elections. Stop compromising, play hard and start winning.
We need scalable message and finance structures. This will be the end of War Chest campaigning. If you have a scalable model, money sitting in the bank is money wasted. Cash flow campaigning, investment in the model. The force of scale will actually grow the TV budget and it will be up earlier.
Voters have free evening cell phone minutes, email, IM. Geographical barriers have been circumvented by technology. I don't want people to vote Democratic because of a 30 second ad, I want them to because somebody they respect talked with them. If we don't talk to everyone, how can we be sure we are connecting?
Here's what Cook says:
It's one thing for liberals and Democrats to tout a '50-state strategy' and aim to field candidates in every Republican-held district, but to expend limited resources on long-shot candidates only means that more-competitive candidates get less. Resources are finite and choices have to be made.
Cook's entire premise is based on outdated fundraising systems. Candidate call time is a not a scalable model. When the DCCC tells new candidates to go raise $100K if they want to talk, they are breeding fundraisers, not political leaders. We need candidates who are willing to get out of the call room and move every day with bold action and straight talk. We need candidates will who let their story be told and are focused on winning every day.
If you are the Democratic nominee for the United States Congress, you deserve to have a campaign. It isn't about buying TV in every race, it is about leaving no district behind. If you are the Democratic nominee, I think you should have a Campaign Manager. If you are the Democratic nominee, I think you need a Finance Director who can build a scalable fundraising movement. If you are the Democratic nominee, I think you need a Communications Director who can earn media and use technology to force message everywhere. If you are the Democratic nominee, I think you need a Field Director skilled in micro-targeting. If you are the Democratic Nominee, I think you need a Scheduler who will aggressively manage the most valuable resource in the campaign. Straight talk, bold action, fight every day and leave no district behind.
Cook goes on:
While many liberal bloggers have been critical of this DCCC regime as well as the House Committee under previous chairmen, the reality is that, had the DCCC gone on the air with advertising a week or two earlier, the NRCC would have double or tripled that spending and more importantly, kicked the Schmidt campaign into gear. Democrats' only hope was to come onto the radar screen late, and hope to sneak by. A full frontal attack would not have done nearly as well. Plus, Democrats, and Hackett, have certainly gotten themselves a great deal of positive press attention given that they came up short.
Again, Cook assumes that it is all about the 30 second ad, Cook assumes that is the only arrow in the DCCC's quiver. If we focus on winning every day, then we will never have to worry about coming in late. If we stop worrying about the 30 second ad, we can build scalable models that will result in more ads. If we build a nationwide, post-broadcast congressional communications network, then we can do more than talk at people on TV, we could connect.
We are going to need to do this sooner or later, I would prefer sooner.
Posted at 11:46 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Democrats, Netroots | Comments (3) | Technorati
Monday, August 08, 2005
MT-Sen: Big News from Big Sky Country
Posted by Bob BrighamGet your tickets now, Montana is hosting the #1 U.S. Senate race in the nation. As regular Swing State Project readers know, I'm a Montanan (I happen to live else-where, but that doesn't really matter). I have very strong feelings on Conrad Burns.
His re-election is the #1 race right now. A couple of major developments:
1. Tester's Catapult As the internet favorite, Jon Tester had a first round draft pick he used on Matt Singer. Old timers remember Singer at Not Geniuses during the last cycle. After the election, he started Left in the West and he also writes for Campus Progress when he's not filling in for Sirota. Matt Singer can pay his own way and he is amazing at rapid response. Tester's campaign now has a real-time political capability. Add to that a notice from Kos:
Heads up -- while there's a contested primary for this Senate race on the Democratic side, the Montana progressive blogosphere has lined up behind Jon Tester. I've already spoken well of Tester, currently the president of the Montana Senate and a working organic farmer, and will start laying out the case for helping his candidacy in the week's ahead.
2. Party Passion The Montana Democratic Party is fired up. Democrats nationwide use the term, "Montana Miracle" to describe last year's sweep of both chambers and the Governor's mansion. In a ground came spread out over almost 150,000 square miles, passion is worth a couple of points. The MDP has just launched the air war and is ready to keep the streak alive.
3. Party Politics The final update is that I just bought a Pearl Jam ticket. As always, if you can't make it in person, Swing State Project will try to keep you in the loop.
Posted at 12:01 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Montana, Netroots | Technorati
Thursday, August 04, 2005
DCCC: The Irrelevance of Rahm Emanuel
Posted by Bob BrighamSince I've been getting some ink today, I thought I would expand upon the soundbites so people know where I'm coming from when I say that the DCCC is currently irrelevant.
In this morning's Washington Post, Dan Balz and Thomas B. Edsall quote me as saying:
[Hackett's] words against Bush and the war produced strong grass-roots support, and yesterday liberal bloggers said they helped raise $500,000 for Hackett, the bulk of his $750,000 campaign funds."We raised a ton of money for Hackett," said Bob Brigham of the Swing State Project site ( http://www.swingstateproject.com ), who served as "coordinator of the liberal blogosphere" for the Hackett campaign.
Brigham criticized the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for not giving Hackett early financial support. "They came in late, and it makes them look irrelevant in everyone's eyes," he said.
DCCC Executive Director John Lapp issued a statement defending the committee. Saying the DCCC would like to fund every House race, he said: "Resources are not infinite. That is why MyDD, the Daily Kos, and the larger blogosphere are so important. You are critical in the effort to expand the playing field well above and beyond the 30 or 40 districts typically in play."
First of all, I was misquoted and I'd like a correction. What I actually said was, "we raised a fuckton of money for Hackett" -- and we did (I'll be checking to see if this is corrected). Second, Tim Tagaris was the first on the ground and did as much if not more than me. Third, MyDD and the Daily Kos and the larger blogosphere are so important because we get post-broadcast politics – which the DCCC certainly does not.
Next up, The New Republic where Michael Crowley says:
This sort of thing made Hackett a rock star in the world of liberal blogs--a figure who combined the defiant rhetoric of Howard Dean with the military credentials of Max Cleland. Schmidt's campaign sniffed at Hackett's Web following. ("The second congressional district doesn't fully involve themselves in the blogosphere," a spokeswoman told me at Schmidt headquarters, as Rush Limbaugh trashed Hackett on a radio playing in the background.) But one need only look at the astounding numbers. Whereas the dccc spent $200,000 on ads for Hackett, the campaign raised more than twice that much from online contributions. Most of that was thanks to the intense advocacy of a handful of liberal bloggers, several of whom traveled to southern Ohio from around the country and became a sort of informal arm of the campaign.On Election Day, the bloggers' "war room" consisted of a dark corner of the Goldminers Inn, a dank dive bar in Batavia, Ohio, where four twentysomethings quaffed cans of Miller Lite and ruminated about their growing role in Democratic politics. The leader of the group was Bob Brigham, who blogs for a site called Swing State Project. After raising a six-figure sum for Hackett, Brigham had flown in from San Fancisco and "embedded" himself in the campaign, riding in Hackett's small convoy from event to event in baggy blue jeans and faded red canvas sneakers. "We're three times as relevant as the dccc. And you can quote that!" he told me between sips of beer. "It's a sea change in Democratic politics. I see Al From and I see a hearse. This is the future. We're way ahead of the curve." Brigham proceeded to tell a strange tale, wherein Donnie Fowler, a onetime candidate for chairman of the Democratic National Committee, allegedly threw a punch at him. Did it land? "Hell, no! I'm virtual!" The spirit of the Dean campaign was alive and well.
Again, Tim and I are a team. Crowley conludes:
At his after-party on Tuesday night, Hackett's supporters were already looking ahead to next year, when Schmidt's new seat will be up again, and chanting, "'06! '06!" Hackett sounded open to it. And, if he runs, he may prevail. But that doesn't mean the Democrats will.
Spot on. I never thought I'd say this, but I agree 100% with The New Republic on this one. Because the spirit of the Dean campaign is not alive and well in the DCCC. Last year the DCCC did the Ohio second congressional district their way, the Democratic nominee had $16,000 for the entire race, so the incumbent was able to spend all year traveling the country and raising money for embattled Republicans. This year, we did OH-02 the Howard Dean 50 State Strategy way of fighting in every precinct, in every district, in every state -- every single day. It forced a lot of Republican money from Washington to be wasted and we did 40 percentage points better.
Democrats need to stop judging success on Election Day. We need to start evaluating ourselves every day. Did we win today? Thats what needs to be asked in every race, every day. If we can make this simple mindset change, we'll win more races in the long run and stop compromising.
Yesterday, DCCC Chair Rahm Emanuel said:
Every Republican in Congress should consider himself put on notice."
That is total bullshit and the vast majority of Republicans in Congress know that the DCCC is going to give them the same treatment in 2006 that they gave OH-02 in 2004.
Why? Because the DCCC acts cowardly by targeting and it is clear they still don't get it. Look at the discussion on MyDD yesterday. DCCC Executive Director John Lapp uses the word "competitive" in reference to districts twice. If Emanuel were serious about gaining relevance, he'd dedicate a staffer to walking around the DCCC and slapping backside the head anyone who uses that term.
Right now, Emanuel is trying to use the same playbook, just do it better. Emanuel's DCCC is trying to be the fastest pony express rider, but the post-broadcast train is leaving the station and the DCCC will be left in the dust if Emanuel doesn't get on board.
It isn't tough, blogfather Jerome Armstrong lays out how to do it here and here. If Emanuel wants to be relevant, he can join the netroots in fighting everywhere, everyday. If not, who cares, we'll do it ourselves.
UPDATE: (Bob) Tom Edsall checked his notes and said I didn't use the word fuckton. He does this sort of thing all day everyday, so I'll trust his notes. But if I didn't use it, I should have.
Posted at 01:18 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Activism, Democrats, General, Netroots, Site News | Comments (8) | Technorati
Friday, July 15, 2005
OH-Gov: GOP Looks to Fox for Good News
Posted by Tim TagarisSince Republicans have three tainted candidates running for Governor in Ohio, all vulnerable to the "pay-to-play" tactics that gave life to the "coingate" scandal, it shouldn't surprise anyone they are tuning into Fox News looking for a bit of good news lately. Many hope they have found it, and are urging anchor John Kasich to run for Governor.
Former Congressman John R. Kasich is being urged by some influential Republicans to run as a reform candidate for governor next year because he is untainted by Statehouse scandals. [...]The article shows the extreme panic that has set in at Republican HQ in Colubmus. The Dispatch reports that Kasich has told he will only run if the GOP promises to end its penchant for pay-to-play politics, and that he would have no problem running against Ken Blackwell whose fiscal proposals he views as "irresponsible."The source put the chances of a Kasich bid at "25 to 30 percent," adding that Kasich would have to give up lucrative private-sector jobs to run for the $131,000-a-year post.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Ohio Republican Party by their next best hope. Democrats have two solid candidates currently running for the post, Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman and Congressman Ted Strickland. Although, that number may dwindle down to one in the coming weeks.
Posted at 09:28 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - State, Ohio | Comments (1) | Technorati
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Republicans for Treason: Doing Our Oppo For Us
Posted by Tim TagarisThe Republican National Committee handed us a gift today in the form of a press release that details quotes from a list of Republicans supporting Karl Rove. It's a ready made oppo research piece presented to us by the opposition. We will gladly hang these quotes around the necks of the following Republicans up for re-election in 2006.
Rick Santorum (R-VA/PA):
"I Don’t See Any Evidence Out There That He Violated The Law."Deborah Pryce (OH-15):
"I Think What The Democrats Are Doing With Karl Rove Is Just Another Politically Motivated Part Of Their Agenda."Tom DeLay (TX-22):
"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."
Thank you. Much more fun on the actual release. I will keep this one handy.
Posted at 12:38 PM in 2006 Elections, Plamegate | Comments (2) | Technorati
Thursday, July 07, 2005
RI-Sen: Looks Like We Got a Race
Posted by Tim TagarisDemocratic candidate for U.S. Senate, Sheldon Whitehouse, absolutely crushed incumbent Lincoln Chafee in second quarter fundraising, by almost a margin of 2 to 1. I hate that strength of a candidacy is measured by dollars raised, but that's just the way it is right now, and Whitehouse's $775,000 raised in three months vs. Chafee's $400,000 sends a strong message. The other Democratic candidate, Matt Brown, did not report his figures, forcing us to wait until the 15th to find out how successful he was. In the first quarter, Brown raised about $500,000.
This comes on the heels of recent polling that shows the race tightening.
Chafee: 41%
Whitehouse: 36%
Chafee: 44%
Brown: 29%
Personally, I tend to support Matt Brown (I have an affinity for the non-establishment Dems). But either way, this another great opportunity for another U.S. Senate pickup. Day by day, I grow more and more optimistic about our chances of taking a significant chunk out of the Republican majority.
Posted at 12:47 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Rhode Island | Technorati
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Fundraising Deadline
Posted by Tim TagarisAs many of you know, and Bob indicated below, today is an important fundraising deadline for a number of candidates, and I couldn't ask Swing State Project readers to make a contribution without making one of my own. While I have worked on, and helped, a few campaigns in the past two years, today I made my first (modest) campaign contribution(s) ever.
I gave to Jon Tester, Christine Cegelis, and Chuck Pennacchio. And as a reminder, Jon Tester is the first endorsed candidate of Swing State Project. For what it's worth, these are three candidates I believe in.
Posted at 11:41 AM in 2006 Elections | Comments (1) | Technorati
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Dean: Our Values are More Consistent with Montana Values
Posted by Bob BrighamBig weekend for discussions about Democrats' western strategy. From the A.P.:
The Rocky Mountain West, long a Republican stronghold, is fertile ground for Democrats hoping to take back Congress and the White House in coming years, Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean told supporters here Saturday.Democrats have more in common with Westerners than the GOP, the former Vermont governor said.
They appreciate the free-spirited, independent thinking that dominate states like Montana, and understand the wish for a balanced budget and a strong military, as well as treating soldiers well when they get home, something Dean said the Bush administration has neglected.
"I think we're going to have a very appealing message in the Rocky Mountain West," he said. "We want to be everywhere. We don't think just because George Bush won this state by a lot of votes means that Montana is going to be Republican state forever.
"I think our values are more consistent with Montana values than Republican values are."
A true national party needs a winning strategy everywhere. Expanding infrastructure often yields only modest returns if you are scoring by wins and loses. But we need to get away from milestone evaluations. By moving away from wins and loses, Democrats can focus on a winning strategy every day.
Dean, speaking to about 100 people at a meeting of the DNC's Western States Caucus, continued his call for unity and consistency among Democrats, calling on local and state leaders to rally voters on key issues and no longer allow Republicans to "define our party.""The Democratic party for too long has been a group of constituencies instead of a party. ... We're going to define our party. I'm not going to let them do it anymore," he said.
Dean's comments drew heavy applause from Democratic leaders representing more than a dozen Western states, as well as several key Montana officials. The audience included state Superintendent of Public Education Linda McCulloch, a handful of state lawmakers, and Senate President Jon Tester, a leading Democratic candidate to unseat U.S. Senate Conrad Burns, R-Mont.
None of us know whether Montana will be a swing state in the 2008 presidential race. But it will be a swing state in the 2006 battle for the senate.
Montana is one of the most cost-effective states when it comes to outside political investment. That is why everyone in D.C. is planning to get involved -- it is cheap, Democrats have the momentum, Jon Tester is a dream candidate, and we need to do better out west.
The 2006 backlash narrative is brewing and it could be a very powerful force during the mid-terms. I'm glad to see the DNC realizing the importance of a western strategy (Governor Dean will be back in Montana on July 16 for the State Party convention in Great Falls).
Win the west. Contribute to Jon Tester:
Posted at 12:47 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, DNC Chair, Democrats, Montana | Technorati
Friday, June 03, 2005
Bush Backs Down
Posted by Bob BrighamEven the Washington Times reports:
A conservative Catholic magazine and think tank that advertised a "White House briefing" in exchange for a hefty contribution was forced to cancel the event yesterday after the White House suddenly backed out of the deal.
Hmmmmm. Pay to play?
Four months after he took the oath of office in 2001, President George W. Bush was the attraction, and the White House the venue, for a fundraiser organized by the alleged perpetrator of the largest billing fraud in the history of corporate lobbying. In May 2001, Jack Abramoff's lobbying client book was worth $4.1 million in annual billing for the Greenberg Traurig law firm. He was a friend of Bush advisor Karl Rove. He was a Bush "Pioneer," delivering at least $100,000 in bundled contributions to the 2000 campaign. He had just concluded his work on the Bush Transition Team as an advisor to the Department of the Interior. He had sent his personal assistant Susan Ralston to the White House to work as Rove's personal assistant. He was a close friend, advisor, and high-dollar fundraiser for the most powerful man in Congress, Tom DeLay. Abramoff was so closely tied to the Bush Administration that he could, and did, charge two of his clients $25,000 for a White House lunch date and a meeting with the President. From the same two clients he took to the White House in May 2001, Abramoff also obtained $2.5 million in contributions for a non-profit foundation he and his wife operated.
Game. Set. Match. Busted.
Posted at 12:45 AM in 2006 Elections | Technorati
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
The Swing State Project's Official Candidate List
Posted by Bob BrighamSwing State Project writes on the most important races in the country. Following all of the races lets SSP identify the best candidates in races where your support can make a crucial difference.
Our first candidate is Jon Tester, who is running for Senate in Montana. This is THE BEST pick-up opportunity for Democrats—anywhere in the country.
Last year, the revitalized Montana Democrats sweep the Governor’s mansion and both chambers of the legislature. This year, they are going to send their best and brightest to Washington.
Since this is Montana, your contribution practically doubles in value as soon as it crosses the stateline.
Montana -- the Last Best Place -- has this year’s best Senate candidate. Join us in supporting Jon Tester, he’ll make us proud.
The U.S. Senate needs Jon Tester, send him $25 dollars today to help get his campaign up and running. When you send an email to your friends asking them to join you in helping to win this race, include a link to:
http://www.actblue.com/list/ssp
UPDATE (David): I'm incredibly excited that we've launched our new candidate list. Longtime readers will remember the tremendous success we had in supporting Ginny Schrader, who ran for Congress in Pennsylvania's 8th congressional district. We wound up raising nearly $7,000 for her, far exceeding our initial goal of $1,000. Based on our past success, I know we can do a bang-up job for Tester. Let's get to it!
Posted at 10:45 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Montana, Netroots, Site News | Technorati
Monday, May 23, 2005
Reid Claims Victory!
Posted by Bob BrighamReid's Statement:
There is good news for every American in this agreement. The so-called "nuclear option" is off the table. This is a significant victory for our country, for democracy, and for all Americans. Checks and balances in our government have been preserved.The integrity of future Supreme Courts has been protected from the undue influences of a vocal, radical faction of the right that is completely out of step with mainstream America. That was the intent of the Republican "nuclear option" from the beginning. Tonight, the Senate has worked its will on behalf of reason, responsibility and the greater good.
We have sent President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the radical arm of the Republican base an undeniable message: Abuse of power will not be tolerated, and attempts to trample the Constitution and grab absolute control are over. We are a separate and equal branch of government. That is our founding fathers¹ vision, and one we hold dear.
I offered Senator Frist several options similar to this compromise, and while he was not able to agree, I am pleased that some responsible Republicans and my colleagues were able to put aside there differences and work from the center. I do not support several of the judges that have been agreed to because their views and records display judicial activism that jeopardize individual rights and freedoms. But other troublesome nominees have been turned down. And, most importantly, the U.S. Senate retains the checks and balances to ensure all voices are heard in our democracy and the Supreme Court make-up cannot be decided by a simple majority.
I am grateful to my colleagues who brokered this deal. Now, we can move beyond this time-consuming process that has deteriorated the comity of this great institution. I am hopeful that we can quickly turn to work on the people's business. We need to ensure our troops have the resources they need to fight in Iraq and that Americans are free from terrorism. We need to protect retiree's pensions and long-term security. We need to expand health care opportunities for all families. We need to address rising gasoline prices and energy independence. And we need to restore fiscal responsibility and rebuild our economy so that it lifts all American workers. That is our reform agenda, the people's reform agenda. Together, we can get the job done.
Good news for America, even Senate Republicans admitted the GOP leadership under Frist and DeLay is nuts. With Senate Republicans leading the charge, the 2006 backlash begins today!
UPDATE (Bob): HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Posted at 08:31 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, Nuclear Option | Technorati
Voter Backlash Against GOP Abuse of Power
Posted by Bob BrighamYet another new poll and yet further evidence that voters are pissed off at the Republican abuse of power. This is going to have serious ramifications in 2006.
Posted at 05:37 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Nuclear Option, Republicans | Technorati
Sending Rule Breakers Back to the Senate
Posted by Bob BrighamAs everyone knows, the only way the GOP can end the filibuster without the 67 votes needed to change senate rules, is to break the rules. Will voters re-elect Senators who break the rules? Will voters re-elect Senators who are going nuclear against the institution of the senate? I'm sure it is on the minds of:
• Senator George Allen (R-VA)*
• Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT)*
• Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)*
• Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH)
• Senator John Ensign (R-NV)*
• Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)*
• Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)*
• Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ)*
• Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)*
• Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)*
• Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)*
• Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
• Senator Jim Talent (R-MO)*
• Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY)*
* Social Security: on record voting in favor of "deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt."
Posted at 10:33 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Nuclear Option, Republicans | Technorati
Friday, May 20, 2005
PA-Sen: Update on Santorum Scandal
Posted by Bob BrighamTwo major updates on the Santorum Scandal.
Chuck Pennacchio, Democrat challenging Santorum in 2006, has posted a startling video on his blog of Santorum using a Nazi slander against the New York Times.
The Anti-Defamation League is outraged
Dear Senator Santorum:We write to object in the strongest terms to your reference to Adolf Hitler in the context of a political debate on judicial nominations on the floor of the Senate today.
Whatever your views on the Senate rules relating to the use of the filibuster and judicial nominations, it is utterly inappropriate and insensitive to suggest that Democratic Party tactics in any way resemble actions taken by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. Suggesting some kind of "equivalence" between these tactics and statements and actions of Adolf Hitler demonstrates a profound lack of understanding as to who Hitler was and what he and his regime represented.
We urge you to repudiate your remarks and apologize to the American people for distorting an important issue with such an inappropriate comparison to Hitler and the Holocaust.
Ricky Santorum should step down from his leadership position to avoid being censured by the full Senate.
Posted at 04:50 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Netroots, Nuclear Option, Pennsylvania, Scandals | Comments (1) | Technorati
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
2006 Elections: Over Reach = Backlash
Posted by Bob BrighamThe Dude: Walter, what is the point? Look, we all know who is at fault here, what the fuck are you talking about?
Walter Sobchak: Huh? No, what the fuck are you... I'm not... We're talking about unchecked aggression here, dude.
I couldn't help but think of this when I saw the latest poll numbers:
Voters dissatisfied with Bush, Congress
NBC/WSJ poll reveals 'angry electorate'WASHINGTON - As the Senate marches closer toward a nuclear showdown over President Bush’s judicial nominees, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that the American public is dissatisfied — with Congress and its priorities, with Bush’s plan to overhaul Social Security and with the nation’s economy and general direction. Moreover, a majority believes that the Senate should make its own decision about the president’s judicial nominees, rather than just generally confirming them. [...]
Perhaps the most revealing finding in the poll is the attitude toward Congress. Just 33 percent of the respondents approve of Congress’ job. That’s down 6 points since a poll in April and 8 points since January.
“The public is exceptionally displeased with the Congress,” Hart said. “It is [its] lowest set of numbers since May of 1994,” the year when congressional Republicans defeated their Democratic counterparts in the midterm elections to take control of both the House and Senate. According to this poll, by 47 percent to 40 percent the public says it would prefer Democrats controlling Congress after the 2006 elections.
This isn't Abu Ghraib, this is our government. There are rules.
Posted at 07:38 PM in 2006 Elections, Nuclear Option | Technorati
Filibuster and Nuclear Option Coverage
Posted by Bob BrighamSwing State Project will have round-the-clock coverage of the filibuster festivities (this post will remain at the top of the page). You can watch on CSPAN2.
Update 1 - Wednesday 9:50 A.M. (Tim): It's on. Bill Frist has brought the nomination of Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown to the floor and the debate about the filibuster is on. No turning back now.
Update 2 - Wednesday 10:33 A.M. (Bob): Joining the battle...after five days on the road I'm back in The City, sitting at the best coffee shop and watching C-SPAN 2 online.
Update 3 - Wednesday 10:48 A.M. (Bob & Tim: I am including contact links): From an email, Manny Miranda is targeting, "GOP Leaders, and to McCain, Snowe (email below), Collins, Hagel, Sununu, Chafee, and Red State Democrats Byrd, Conrad, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, and Bingaman (email below)."
Comma separated email addresses (looking for rest to make it easy): olympia@snowe.senate.gov, senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov
Update 4 - Wednesday 12:08 P.M. (Bob): Memo to Senator Ken Salazar. You can't win if negotiate with terrorists.
Update 5 - Wednesday 12:52 P.M. (Bob): Since the last update, I've been on conference calls with Reid and Schumer. Democrats are as coordinated as I've ever seen.
Posted at 01:04 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Nuclear Option | Technorati
Political Respect - Nuclear Option
Posted by Bob BrighamRespect is something the polls need to do a better job of trying to understand. While polls try to follow by examining sentiment by testing approval, they need to also look at respect because we know that people will vote against interests, against their beliefs.
I don't care where people stand on the issue of the nuclear option, it is just that I'm far more interested in the degree voters respect the role a politician is playing in the filibuster theatre.
I thought this deserved some disussion after reading this in the Las Vegas Journal Review:
Reid's performance gets thumbs up from mostWASHINGTON -- Days before an anticipated Senate filibuster showdown, a slight majority of Nevadans disapprove of Sen. Harry Reid blocking some of President Bush's judicial picks, according to a new poll.
But despite splitting from him on federal judges, a majority of Nevadans believe Reid, D-Nev., is doing a good job representing them in the Senate, the poll showed.
For many voters, respect is a primia facia hurdle, only after that will they listen to the issues. So the question for the nuclear war is will voters respect the Republicans after this power grab:
Despite his leading role in partisan fighting over judges and Social Security reform, Reid drew some support from Nevada Republicans, with 29 percent of GOP respondents rating him "good" or "excellent."
Time for bold action. Time to earn some respect. The Democrat comeback begins today.
Posted at 10:03 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Democrats, Nevada, Nuclear Option | Comments (1) | Technorati
Monday, May 02, 2005
Jack Abromoff and the Mob?
Posted by Bob BrighamAbramoff is best known as a target of a federal investigation in Washington into the tens of millions in fees he and a partner collected from casino-owning Indian tribes. But the wreckage from his brief and tumultuous time as owner of the gambling fleet threatens to overtake his Washington legal troubles.
Well, it isn't like we're talking about Mob-style hits or anything.
What's that? Oh whoops, I guess that is what we're talking about...
It was a gangland-style hit straight out of "Goodfellas."A man in a BMW was driving down a quiet side street after an evening meeting at his Fort Lauderdale office when a car slowed to a stop in front of him. A second car boxed the BMW in from behind, then a dark Mustang appeared from the opposite direction. The Mustang's driver pulled alongside and pumped three hollow-point bullets into the BMW driver's chest.
The dead man was Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, a volatile 51-year-old self-made millionaire, a Greek immigrant who had started as a dishwasher in Canada and ended up in Florida, where he built an empire of restaurants, hotels and cruise ships used for offshore casino gambling. Boulis's slaying, still unsolved four years later, reverberated all the way to Washington. Months earlier he had sold his fleet of casino ships to a partnership that included Republican superlobbyist Jack Abramoff. [...]
Not long after Abramoff and his partners bought SunCruz Casinos in September 2000, the venture ran aground after a fistfight between two of the owners, allegations of mob influence, dueling lawsuits and, finally, Boulis's death on Feb. 6, 2001. Now, Abramoff is the target of a federal investigation into whether the casino ship deal involved bank fraud. According to court records, the SunCruz purchase hinged on a fake wire transfer for $23 million intended to persuade lenders to provide financing to Abramoff's group.
Although the outlines of the tale have become part of South Florida lore, what has not been disclosed are the full details of the alleged fraud at the heart of the transaction and the extent of Abramoff's role -- including his use of contacts with Republican Reps. Tom DeLay (Tex.) and Robert W. Ney (Ohio) and members of their staffs as he worked to land the deal.
OK, we know Abramoff is most likely heading jail. At this point the only question is which members of the Republican caucus will be joining him.
Posted at 05:26 AM in 2006 Elections | Technorati
Monday, April 25, 2005
MT-Sen: Conrad Burns and Jack Abramoff Staff Scandal
Posted by Bob BrighamWhat is the one thing that makes a worse scandal than an Jack Abramoff golf trip? A hunting trip.
Shawn Vasell has made Swing State Project before. He is one of the major links between Jack Abramoff and Montana Senator Conrad Burns, having worked for Abramoff directly before and after working for Burns (he was State Director).
Vasell was already a key figure in multiple investigations and now he is at the center of a scandal that will enrage Montanans in a way that the corruption scandal never could.
Even before this latest scandal, Sen. Conrad Burns was in trouble. The Abramoff corruption scandal was hurting his campaign, he was sinking in the polls, and the press had tired of his B.S. responses to the corruption investigations. And now this...
The Thanksgiving Deer Scandal
New West Network Managing Editor Courtney Lowery has THE SCOOP:
Washington lobbyist Shawn Vasell, a former aide to Montana Sen. Conrad Burns, has already attracted some unwanted media attention in our nation's capital as a key link between Burns and controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Now we've come across an interesting little story on the Web (with photos) about Mr. Vasell and his Thanksgiving deer that if true, is not likely to endear him even to loyal Republicans.Vasell, who Burns’ spokesman J.P. Donovan said worked as the office’s state director for about a year before stepping down in December of 2002 to go back to Abramoff's firm, was named and pictured on a Web site about hunting and fishing written by one J.R. Reger. Reger, in what can only be read as a fit of macho hubris, details the rockin' good time that he, Mike Reger and Vasell apparently had on a spur-of-the-moment, day-after-Thanksiving hunting outing. Only problem is, the story depicts the boys in apparent violation of at least four Montana hunting laws.
FOUR VIOLATIONS? Like Conrad Burns; like Jack Abramoff; Shawn Vasell appears to have a total disregard for the law.
In particular, Vasell allegedly shot a deer from the window of a pickup truck, a clear no-no. And, a quick phone call to the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks licensing department tells us that state records (which search back to 2002) show there have been no hunting licenses issued to a Shawn Vasell in the state of Montana. So if that's his deer he's posing with in the photos ...
It gets better...
So what is the response?
Reger, reached on Saturday via phone, would not comment on the story or confirm or deny its accuracy, but told New West he would have time to talk about it later. Alas, he has not returned repeated phone calls since then and - surprise - his site had been taken down by Sunday morning. We figured this might happen, so we made sure we recovered it through Google's cache of pages, which is where you can read it here.
Why would anyone so brazenly brag about breaking the law?
The story certainly doesn't read like something that was made up, though it's a bit of a mystery as to why Reger would be so eager to brag publicly about things like his hunting buddy shooting a deer on someone else's land after dark. There is one clue though. Elsewhere on his site, Reger writes: "Every Monday morning I look forward to reading the paper. Moreover, I look forward to reading about one of my delinquent friends or acquaintances getting into trouble with the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department. For the fine amount paid, and trust me on this one, the amount of good press you get from doing something wrong is totally worth it. I highly recommend poaching a little or doing something minor to get your name in the paper at least once a year."
Montana blogger Matt Singer points out:
This trip was illegal. If Reger reported the details accurately, multiple laws were broken. Shawn Vasell has not had a hunting permit in Montana (at least not since 2001). He apparently shot the deer from inside a car (illegal). Later, he helped one of the Regers move a deer that had been shot on a neighbor's property without permission after dark following drinking (illegal). This isn't just illegal. It violates many of the unwritten rules of landowner/hunter relations.
Violating the unwritten rules of the west will result in the worst punishment. Singer also focuses on a fact all of you Jack Abramoff scandal watchers will appreciate:
One of the most interesting points is buried in the story. Shawn Vasell's official website lists one of his accomplishments as having "obtained federal [Indian school construction] monies for participating clients." This is exactly the question at issue in the original Washington Post article that brought this former Conrad Burns staffer's name to our attention. Burns was accused of giving money to Abramoff clients because of special connections. Now, one of Abramoff's former coworkers is claiming that their firm was responsible for lining up Indian school construction monies for their clients. Hmmm....
Conrad Burns lied when he said he would only serve two terms (he is running for his fourth). He didn't want to lose touch with Montana, but he did. Burns has been spending time with some very crooked people back in Washington, DC. But that isn't as bad as bringing those crooked people back to Montana to break Montana's laws and the rules of the west.
In Montana, you don't violate your neighbor's property and start shooting. Especially after dark.
You never shoot from a vehicle. There is an exception to this rule if you have a permit saying you are disabled, but otherwise you never, ever, shoot from a vehicle.
If someone is shooting -- after dark -- on another person's property, you call the sheriff. You don't help them drag their poached deer to the truck in a conspiracy to move the game across the property line before it is gutted and tagged.
In Montana, you respect guns, you respect property lines, you respect hunting safety, you respect the law, and you respect the game. Nothing is worse than an east-coaster disrespecting law, custom, and common sense...with a gun in his cityfolk hand. Actually, there is one thing worse, when that person was State Director for a Montana politician.
Here is the contact info for the eight offices that Shawn Vasell managed as Burn's State Director:
Senator Conrad Burns - Billings Office
222 N.32nd St., Suite 400
Billings, MT 59101
Tel: 406-252-0550
Fax: 406-252-7768Senator Conrad Burns - Bozeman Office
211 Haggerty Lane, Suite A & B
Bozeman, MT 59715
Tel: 406-586-4450
Fax: 406-586-7647Senator Conrad Burns - Butte Office
125 W. Granite St., Suite 200
Butte, MT 59701
Tel: 406-723-3277
Fax: 406-782-4717Senator Conrad Burns - Glendive Office
324 West Towne
Glendive, MT 59330
Tel: 406-365-2391
Fax: 406-365-8836Senator Conrad Burns - Great Falls Office
321 First Ave. North
Great Falls, MT 59401
Tel: 406-452-9585
Fax: 406-452-9586
TDD: 406-761-6885Senator Conrad Burns - Helena Office
208 N. Montana Ave., Suite 202A
Helena, MT 59601
Tel: 406-449-5401
Fax: 406-449-5462Senator Conrad Burns - Kalispell Office
1845 Highway 93 South, Suite 210
Kalispell, MT 59901
Tel: 406-257-3360
Fax: 406-257-3974Senator Conrad Burns - Missoula Office
116 West Front Street
Missoula, MT 59802
Tel: 406-728-3003
Fax: 406-728-2193
Posted at 11:15 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Montana, Republicans | Comments (2) | Technorati
TX-22: Morrison Drops Out. . . In a Kos Diary
Posted by Tim TagarisA statement from Richard Morrison, in a DailyKos diary:
It is with great sadness that I must withdraw my name from the race for District 22. [...]The announcement comes just four days after he asked the Netroots for their support, on another Kos diary. The request was made after attempts by the DCCC move Morisson aside for a different candidate to take on Tom DeLay in 2006. What is interesting to me is that, as of right now, there is no mention of him dropping out on his campaign website.I am not giving up my fight. I will continue to stay active and work hard for democrats. I ask that you do the same. Tom DeLay is bad for democracy and bad for America. If I can be so bold, I demand that each one of you will commit to work as hard for Congressman Lampson or Councilman Quan as you did for me. Democracy will suffer if you slack off even one bit.
Color me a skeptic, but what do you think brought on Morisson's sudden change of heart?
Posted at 04:16 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Netroots, Texas | Comments (5) | Technorati
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Whole Lot Going On
Posted by DavidNYCDue to our downtime this morning, we've been getting scooped on a whole bunch of important stories regarding the 2006 midterm elections. So, better late than never, we'll give you the executive summary:
• Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords, independent, will be retiring. I'm sorry to see him go - he's a latter-day hero for standing up to the GOP. Interestingly, another independent, Rep. Bernie Sanders, might replace him. Hopefully the Dems won't be dumb enough to run against Sanders and split the vote to the GOP's benefit. (David Sirota has a lot more on Sanders.)• Despite a poll which showed a Republican challenger "just" ten points back, it seems like the GOP might give Robert Byrd a free pass in 2006. The story comes from Bob "No Facts" Novak, so the usual salty caveats apply.
• A new Q-Poll on the PA senate race shows Casey widening his hypothetical lead over Santorum, from 46-41 to 49-35. That seems like too huge a jump to me, making me wonder if there isn't some extraneous noise. Then again, the GOP's taken quite a beating the past couple of months. Unfortunately, this poll does not include Chuck Pennacchio - grrr. I sent an e-mail to Quinnipiac asking them why, but haven't heard back yet.
Posted at 02:51 PM in 2006 Elections | Technorati
Monday, April 18, 2005
PA-Sen: Choosing on Choice?
Posted by Bob BrighamAs Lakoff says, when you negate a frame you invoke the frame. In Pennsylvania's 2006 Senate race, we are seeing this proven. In the past two days, the Philadelphia Inquirer has devoted a large number of column inches towards examining the subject that the DC insiders said wouldn't be an issue: Choice.
Yesterday, Karen Heller had a column titled, No primary for you. The sub-head read, "With Senate candidates like these, one thing's certain: Women lose."
If Casey defeats Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania will have the dubious distinction of fielding one of the Senate's most moderate Republicans and one of its most conservative Democrats, so conservative the Republicans will wonder why he isn't theirs.Casey was chosen for several reasons: name, name, name, and that his politics are virtually indistinguishable from those of Santorum, to say nothing of his looks, age and family life.
Like his father - did we mention that his father was the late governor Robert Casey? - the state treasurer is staunchly anti-abortion. He's also staunchly against gun control.
Choice as an issue will not matter in the Pennsylvania race. There is no choice.
Well, actually there is. Which Carrie Budoff and Thomas Fitzgerald report on today:
But as a 2006 U.S. Senate candidate, recruited by national Democrats for one of its highest-profile races, Casey will be forced to address abortion as he seeks the nomination from a party in which he holds the minority view. [...]Top Democratic leaders see Casey as their best chance against Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, who worked for eight years to help pass the 2003 ban on late-term abortions. To win the nomination, Casey must first get by Chuck Pennacchio, a University of the Arts professor who supports abortion rights.
So will choice become an issue in the primary?
"A lot of women will make sure that not a nickel of their money goes to Casey," said Kim Gandy, head of the National Organization for Women, which has gathered 13,000 signatures on a Web protest petition.
There is even talk of wealthy donors boycotting the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in retaliation. You can see the passion in the Karen Heller piece:
Casey is not an appealing choice to progressive women. Specifically, he makes this progressive woman ill.Santorum and Casey are like the old Patty Duke Show, they walk alike and talk alike and, gee, if you can tell them apart, please, let me know. [...]
Both parties should be open to more voices. I just don't want Bob Casey's voice representing mine.
Casey's Web site offers no positions yet, though he's uttered plenty of hollow platitudes about "supporting working families." Aren't we all for working families?
He supports various welfare entitlements which, a cynic might point out, poor women are going to need, especially if access to choice keeps diminishing.
Like all voters, Philadelphians ought to be selfish. Women voters ought to be selfish. I don't see either candidate representing my interests, or those of a lot of other women.
I've asked social and political activists why, more than a year before the election, this huge state can't produce better candidates instead of Brylcreemed clones. One organizer said to me, "I tend to support causes that have a realistic chance of getting accomplished."
There has to be more choice than none.
As regular readers know, Swing State Project's Tim Tagaris directs communication for pro-Choice Democrat Chuck Pennacchio. He offers his take on MyDD and Daily Kos.
I have two concerns at this point.
My first concern is that by negating Choice as an issue, it has become the defining story of the campaign. By agreeing with Santorum, not only are we turning off our base, but we also threaten to invoke right-wing frames by signaling to voters that the right has the good ideas. As the storyboard of the 2006 campaign unfolds as a backlash against the theocrats assault upon personal rights, my worry is that Democrats may be unable to take advantage of the national debate in this key race.
My greater concern is that some DC consultants want to move Democrats away from individual rights at a time that we should be highlighting our defense of civil liberties. Pennsylvania will be the most nationalized race in 2006, my choice is for a candidate who is on message with the rest of the Party.
There are ways that anti-choice candidates can approach the issue without harming the Party. But this isn't it:
Like his father, Casey Jr. said he believes the government's right to protect the vulnerable includes the unborn. He bases his conviction on biology, he said, not his Catholic theology."There's a life there," he said.
Casey said he will not make it a defining issue.
Regardless of what the Casey campaign is planning, with a stance like that I don't see how abortion can be anything other than the defining issue.
Posted at 01:18 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Democrats, Pennsylvania | Technorati
Saturday, April 16, 2005
2006: DeLay's Republican Theocracy a Campaign Issue
Posted by Bob Brigham"This is going to be an issue in 2006, and it's going to be an issue in 2008," Dean told about 200 people at a gay rights group's breakfast in West Hollywood, "because we're going to have an ad with a picture of Tom DeLay saying, 'Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?' "Dean, a practicing physician until he became governor of Vermont in 1991, added: "The issue is: Are we going to live in a theocracy where the highest powers tell us what to do? Or are we going to be allowed to consult our own high powers when we make very difficult decisions?"
My guess is that Art Directors at Democratic political consulting firms having already begun beefing up the stock image libraries with pictures of Tom DeLay.
Posted at 01:53 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate | Technorati
Friday, April 15, 2005
2006 Senate Races: GOP Losing on "Nuclear Option"
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom The Hill:
GOP fears it's losing Frist v. Reid Senate Republican leaders were due to meet last night amid rising concern that they are being beaten on the “nuclear option” by Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) public-relations war room.The GOP’s talks follow a meeting last week in which aides warned Bob Stevenson, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s (R-Tenn.) communications director, that something needs to be done to win back lost ground, a participant said.
“I think there’s a realization that this particular [Democratic] effort has to be countered and they’re in full-scale attack mode,” a GOP aide said, adding, “I think that people know that we’ve got a serious problem here."
Reid's War Room is working...
The team is headed by Jim Manley, whom Reid hired in December from the office of Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). Stephanie Cutter, who was campaign spokeswoman for Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) presidential campaign, joined Reid’s team last week to coordinate outside liberal groups and Senate Democratic policy and communications staff in the fight over the nuclear option. Reid’s war room currently employs eight staff members and is part of a nearly 20-person communications team.
Now it is one thing for Democrats to have a War Room to preserve the Constitution and the filibuster, but it is a far different thing if the GOP sets up a War Room to push their agenda of absolute power:
He did not say whether Republicans would establish their own such team, noting that “having a war room inside the Capitol is unprecedented.” Nevertheless, he indicated that more aides would be drafted to the fight over the nuclear option.
For people keeping score, Democrats are winning and this is going to be a huge issue in the 2006 Midterm Elections:
Another GOP aide said: “There’s a general sense in the rank and file that we are a little in the hole and that Democrats have been more aggressive on messaging, that we’ve kind of gone dark. Democrats have gotten a head start and defined the issue ahead of us.”At a closed-door luncheon Tuesday, members of the Democratic caucus were presented a stack of more than 260 press editorials from 41 states and the District of Columbia arguing against changing Senate rules to prohibit judicial filibusters. That’s quite a change from a year and a half ago, when many editorial boards criticized Democrats for blocking confirmation votes on President Bush’s judicial nominees. [...]
“They turned it around,” the aide said, and “one can suggest that it’s because of our lack of organized countermessaging.”
A few GOP senators said that when they returned to their states they heard more talk from their constituents about the nuclear option than Social Security.
Posted at 11:23 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Nuclear Option | Technorati
Thursday, April 14, 2005
2006 Senate Elections: GOP Hates America
Posted by Bob BrighamSenate Majority Leader Bill Frist is all but certain to press for a rule change that would ban filibusters of judicial nominations in the next few weeks, despite misgivings by some of his fellow Republicans and a possible Democratic backlash that could paralyze the chamber, close associates said yesterday.The strategy carries significant risks for the Tennessee Republican, who is weighing a 2008 presidential bid. It could embroil the Senate in a bitter stalemate that would complicate passage of President Bush's agenda and raise questions about Frist's leadership capabilities. Should he fail to make the move or to get the necessary votes, however, Frist risks the ire of key conservative groups that will play big roles in the 2008 GOP primaries.
If Frist does this he shuts down the Senate. And if the GOP shuts down the Senate, then the following Senators are not going to look forward to the voters' check on absolute power during the 2006 elections:
- Senator George Allen (R-VA)*
- Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT)*
- Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)*
- Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH)
- Senator John Ensign (R-NV)*
- Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)*
- Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)*
- Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ)*
- Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)*
- Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)*
- Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)*
- Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
- Senator Jim Talent (R-MO)*
- Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY)*
* Social Security: on record voting in favor of "deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt."
In addition, such a move would allow the following Democrats a hero vote to bolster their 2006 re-elections:
- Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
- Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
- Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV)
- Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
- Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE)
- Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
- Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND)
- Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
- Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN)
- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
- Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
- Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI)
- Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)
- Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE)
- Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)
- Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Posted at 11:21 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Nuclear Option | Technorati
Jack in the House
Posted by Bob BrighamVia AmericaBlog, here is the information on www.JackintheHouse.org:
JackintheHouse.org explores the world of GOP superlobbyist Jack Abramoff who spent years trading money for influence in the halls of Congress. The site provides a road map to Jack Abramoff’s unscrupulous back-door deals with ethically-challenged Members of Congress and provides a means for visitors to urge the Chairman of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to take action against those who have worked for Jack’s interest, rather than the public interest.JackintheHouse.org is a project of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
You can use Jack in the House to find information on:
Ed Buckham
Conrad Burns
Tom Delay
John Doolittle
J.D. Hayworth
Susan Hirschmann
Bob Ney
Grover Norquist
Richard Pombo
Ralph Reed
Michael Scanlon
David Vitter
Neil Volz
and of course...
Posted at 02:44 PM in 2006 Elections | Technorati
TX-22: Quote of the Year
Posted by Bob Brigham"Somebody ought to look at the organizations and ask the New York Times, The Washington Post, the L.A. Times, Time, Newsweek, AP, why they're spending all these resources they are. ... Are they collaborating with all these organizations that are funded by George Soros?"-Tom DeLay
Washington Times
In Tom DeLay's world, the problem isn't the corruption, the problem is people are talking about the corruption.
Posted at 10:41 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Texas | Technorati
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Political Blog Consultants
Posted by Bob BrighamMy recent post on Matt Stoller got me thinking about the unfortunate situation of a lack of experienced political blog consultants. While there are many people who can help a campaign set up a blog, there really aren't that many who can help a candidate get other blogs involved. Tim calls this "thinking outside the website" and this holds more potential than any other tactic.
But who are campaigns going to hire to make this happen? Corzine snatched up Matt Stoller, Sherrod Brown grabbed Tim Tagaris, Reid landed Ari Rabin-Havt, Markos isn't consulting any longer and I'm not taking any additional clients. Of course, Jerome Armstrong is available, but not everyone is going to be able to hire the Blogfather himself.
If you are interested in online communications and you are looking to hop on a campaign, send me a resume: bob.brigham -at- swingstateproject.com. With 33 Senate races, 435 House campaigns, hundreds of important state races there will be lots of opportunities.
Posted at 02:33 PM in 2005 Elections, 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, 2006 Elections - State, Netroots | Comments (1) | Technorati
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
CT-5: Nancy Johnson Watch
Posted by Bob BrighamOn Sunday, April 10, Connecticut Congressman Chris Shays called on Delay to step down as Majority Leader, and Republican Senator Rick Santorum harshly criticized Delay for his history of ethical lapses. So, where has our Congresswoman, Nancy Johnson, been? Totally silent.
The site has a counter that currently stands at 1 days, 15 hours, 53 minutes, and 32 seconds. Spread the word, this is great!
Posted at 06:49 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Connecticut | Comments (2) | Technorati
2006 House: Is Delay Ethically Fit? Ask Your Representative
Posted by Bob BrighamCampaign for America’s Future has a great new action to hold Republican's accountable for supporting DeLay's corruption. From an email:
Our plan is to have constituents call their member of Congress and get them on the record answering the question, “Does my Representative believe that Tom DeLay is ethically fit to serve as House majority leader?” We request that callers enter their information on our website so that we can keep track of who stands with DeLay, who stands with democracy and who ducks the question. Once we gather, analyze and double check the data, we’re going to release it to the public and to the press.
Take a moment and help CFA Open Source the research.
Posted at 06:27 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Activism, Netroots | Technorati
CA-26: David Dreier Stonewalls
Posted by Bob BrighamRaw Story has the scoop:
Ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) penned another letter to Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (D-CA) asking for ethics hearings Monday, RAW STORY has learned. Dreier has previously demurred to hold hearings.Chairman Dreier responded last week in a letter to Rep. Slaughter stating, "As we move forward with the Committee's agenda in the 109th Congress, I will keep your request in mind."
As Rules chairman, Dreier sits in a powerful position relative to ethics charges that have swirled around House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX). Dreier gave $5,000 to DeLay's legal defense fund, one of the larger donors that includes much of the Republican House caucus.
He'll keep ethics "in mind"? Slaughter penned the appropriate response...
"I am disappointed, however, that you provided no timeframe as to when a hearing on this important matter will be scheduled," Slaughter said in a statement provided to RAW STORY. "It is imperative that the Committee hold hearings on this as soon as possible. I would suggest that we do so within in the next few weeks."Dreier could not be reached for comment.
Just because Dreier is from a district traditionally considered safe doesn't mean that he'll escape the wrath of his constituents for his role in facilitating Tom DeLay's corruption. Dreier is both preventing justice and contributing to the perpetrator. Voters tend to notice things like this.
UPDATE: Rep. Slaughter has Daily Kos diary with more.
Posted at 01:09 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, California | Technorati
TX-22: Barney Frank Afraid of Tom DeLay...Leaving
Posted by Bob BrighamDemocrats think they can make DeLay an issue that costs Republicans seats in next year's elections. "Democrats have gone from being frustrated that people weren't paying enough attention to DeLay to being afraid he's going to be thrown out too soon," says Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.
DeLay will be throw out, either by the Republicans or by the voters -- or he'll be dragged out in handcuffs. No matter what happens, Democrats have captured the ethics high-ground and GOP corruption will be a major issue in 2006. As Kos notes:
Republicans can expect attack ads featuring DeLay whether they speak out against DeLay or not. The Hammer is endemic of what the modern Republican Party has become -- a cesspool of corruption. It is, indeed, everything they ran against in 1994.
Posted at 12:57 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, Republicans, Texas | Technorati
CT-02: Finally a Social Security Forum
Posted by Bob BrighamWASHINGTON -- There's finally going to be a Social Security public forum in Rep. Rob Simmons' congressional district - but the featured congressman isn't Simmons. It's Democratic Rep. John Larson.Crossing that line is especially sensitive, because Simmons, R-2nd District, is already a popular punching bag for national Democrats hoping to pick up congressional seats in 2006.
And Democrats believe an important way to gain voters is by tying Republicans to President Bush's teetering campaign to allow future retirees to have personal Social Security accounts.
Simmons is in serious trouble. Props to the College Democrats for staging this:
The controversy involves the Connecticut College Democrats' April 16 event in New London. The group is inviting the public to a "forum on Social Security with Congressman John Larson and Second District Congressional Candidate Joe Courtney."
Posted at 10:16 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Connecticut | Technorati
Monday, April 11, 2005
Zell Lieberman
Posted by Bob BrighamVia Eschaton, here is the transcript:
BARBARA COMSTOCK, FMR. JUSTICE DEPT. SPOKESWOMAN: Paul, as Bob pointed out, Tom DeLay is one of the most effective leaders, which is why the Democrats have tried to make this a campaign issue. Now as you know from your friend Senator Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, oftentimes people break in the party.
Of course, Crooks and Liars has the video.
Quite a day for the junior senator from Connecticut.
Posted at 11:13 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Connecticut | Comments (1) | Technorati
Conrad Burns scandal is a huge story
Posted by Bob BrighamThe corruption saga surrounding Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) is a national an international story:
Members of the Senate are also feeling pressure over their ties to Abramoff.Last month, Democratic leaders in Montana demanded that Senator Conrad Burns, Republican of Montana, who is considered vulnerable in his re-election bid next year, return $137,000 in donations from Abramoff and his tribal clients.
Ouch. Across the pond they are talking about the vulnerability of Montana's junior senator.
Posted at 07:43 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Montana | Comments (5) | Technorati
Tom DeLay Scandal: Reps. Blunt, Nussle, and Gerlach hit with ads
Posted by Bob BrighamPublic Campaign, a nonpartisan money and politics watchdog group, will launch television advertisements in three congressional districts tomorrow to build pressure on Republican members of Congress to demand Majority Leader Tom DeLay's resignation. The ads will run in:-- The 7th Congressional District of Missouri, currently represented by Majority Whip Roy Blunt
-- The 6th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, currently represented by Rep. Jim Gerlach
-- The 1st Congressional District of Iowa, currently represented by Rep. Jim Nussle
"With Rep. Chris Shays' courageous statement yesterday calling on Tom DeLay to step down, we are turning up the heat on Republican members to join him," said David Donnelly, National Campaigns director of Public Campaign. "DeLay's big money scandals and cash-and-carry politics should be repudiated by elected officials everywhere."
Posted at 06:25 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Iowa, Missouri, Pennsylvania | Comments (1) | Technorati
Senator Conrad Burns caught in a lie
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom Matt Singer:
Conrad Burns today is saying that the Abramoff-connected trip taken by two of his staffers “shouldn’t have happened, but it did.” He also says, “A lot of things happened that I didn’t know about.” [...]But even stranger is that Burns says “his office is unaware of anyone giving clearance” while only two weeks ago he referred to his office checking Senate rules. Did people in his office approve the trip or not. Were they aware of what gifts their staffers were taking or not? Who is running the show at Camp Burns?
You can find out more about Senator Burns involvement in multiple corruption investigations. Burns re-elect number has fallen below 40 and getting caugh lying isn't going to help things.
Posted at 05:24 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Montana | Technorati
Joe Lieberman is a disgrace
Posted by Bob BrighamWhile Reuters headlines, "Democrats Seek to Block Bolton as UN Ambassador" we have quite a different message coming from Senator Joe Lieberman.
Lieberman is being used alongside Oliver North to bash Democrats for blocking Bolton.
Over at DailyKos there is a comment that deserves to be printed out, framed, and mailed to Senator Lieberman. From IGrantius:
You know, here's the thing I think Joe never quite understood:When you're just some senator or congressman, or governor or mayor, you're always free to criticize the party over anything. We need disparate voices, challenging voices, we're a big tent, all that.
BUT. The moment that you accept a presidential or vice presidential nomination, you also agree to represent the entire party, and the unspoken agreement is, you will do it for the rest of your life. It is no small thing for 40 some million Democrats to invest their hopes in you. In exchange for that support, we ask only one thing. Win or lose, you will spend the rest of your life staunchly defending the party, laboring to get Democrats elected wherever you can. You can leave the moralizing, the deal breaking, and what have you to the next generation of young Turks. You have just graduated to Senior Statesman.
That's why Democrats love Teddy Kennedy. It's how Bentsen wound up in the Clinton administration. It's how Dole survived Ford. None of those men ever shat on their friends. They danced with the girl who brung them.
Not Joe. Somehow he thinks that he can return to his cozy position as the Grand Poohbah of Centrist Scolding.
It doesn't work like that. We get one chance every four years to nominate two people. If you accept our invitation, you owe us your blood sweat and tears. Now and forever. If you can't life up to that, fuck you. You're gone.
I'll second that "fuck you" and add a friendly reminder to Stop Bolton.
Posted at 03:19 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Connecticut, Democrats, International | Technorati
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Shays: Buzzoff Bugman
Posted by Bob BrighamAP:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Rep. Christopher Shays said Sunday that fellow Republican Rep. Tom DeLay should step down as House majority leader because his continuing ethics problems are hurting the GOP."Tom's conduct is hurting the Republican Party, is hurting this Republican majority and it is hurting any Republican who is up for re-election," Shays told The Associated Press on Sunday.
Shays is right, of course. Hopefully, DeLay won't listen because if DeLay were to step down it would rob Democrats across the country of a great campaign issue. Thanks to DeLay getting caught, the entire country is learning of the vast corruption that controls the Republican Party. It isn't just the corruption of one man, it is the web of corruption.
Posted at 06:15 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, Connecticut, Republicans, Texas | Technorati
TX-22: Tom DeLay Corruption News
Posted by Bob BrighamThree big stories for those following the corruption scandal that has engulfed the GOP:
• Jack Abramoff is indicating he'll cut a deal with prosecutors and says, "Those S.O.B.s. DeLay knew everything. He knew all the details."• Congressman Chris Shays bucks DeLay, calls him, "an absolute embarrassment to me and to the Republican Party."
• A Washington Post story on DeLay's offensive notes, "DeLay is continuing his high-decibel comments -- including his warning last week about "a judiciary run amok" -- on the theory that he is going to remain himself and not bend to the opposition, friends say."
Remember, Clinton suffered the worst damage not from Republican attacks, but when Lieberman joined the Republican chorus attacking Clinton. Now that Chris Shays is playing the same roll the momentum will increase faster than any other milestone short of the indictments.
The Abramoff story is also key. In addition to saying he had the goods on DeLay, he also said, "There are e-mails and records that will implicate others." Which could be devasting to Republicans in the 2006 mid-term election. When Senator Conrad Burns was implicated in an Abramoff scandal his re-elect number dropped to 36 and the White House had to dispatch Karl Rove to Montana to clean things up. Can the GOP afford to have any others implicated?
The DeLay offensive that the GOP is plotting will probably be remembered as the best thing to ever happen to the Democratic Party in a long time. The GOP seems to be going out of their way to tie Republicans to a corrupt lawmaker who is so unpopular he'll lose his re-election if he isn't locked up first.
DeLay's days our numbered, but thanks to the wingnuts, this will drag out far longer than it should.
The 2006 backlash is coming.
Posted at 01:01 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, Connecticut, Montana, Republicans, Texas | Technorati
Saturday, April 09, 2005
TX-22: Tom DeLay Corruption: Drop the Hammer
Posted by Bob BrighamI have taken a previous look at Drop the Hammer, but I wanted to come back to the subject to focus on a couple of key points in the effort to expose Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay as corrupt.
First of all, I think www.DropTheHammer.org deserves some serious credit. The Drop the Hammer effort deserves an 11 on a ten point scale when it comes to online activism. The American Progress Action Fund has given clear notice that companies willing to facilitate corruption will face accountability.
But what I really like about the Drop the Hammer effort is the flow-chart of the corruption. If you care at all about America's democracy, you should check out the DeLay corruption page on Drop the Hammer.
Posted at 09:01 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Activism, Netroots, Republicans, Texas | Technorati
Republican absolute power
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom the AP:
WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said Saturday that the fight over President Bush's judicial nominees is really a battle between Democrats who believe in checks and balances and Republicans who want everything their way. [...]"When it comes down to it, stripping away these important checks and balances is about the arrogance of those in power who want to rewrite the rules so that they can get their way," Reid, D-Nev., said in his party's weekly radio address.
The Republican plan has been dubbed the "nuclear option" because some say it would blow up Senate relations.
If the GOP goes forward with their plan for absolute power, it will shut down the Senate:
Reid has threatened to retaliate by slowing down or stopping Senate business through procedural maneuvers.While the fight is technically over the internal rules of the Senate, Reid said it is still important. "This isn't about some arcane procedures of the Senate. It is about protecting liberty and our limited government," he said.
Without the judicial filibuster, "the U.S. Senate becomes merely a rubber stamp for the president," Reid said. "It would mean that one political party — be it Republicans today or Democrats tomorrow — gets to have all the say over our nation's highest courts."
Reid also targeted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in his remarks. While not identifying him by name, Reid said there was a "Republican leader threatening judges who protect our rights and corrupting our government by running roughshod over the ethics committee to protect himself."
Listening to Tom DeLay or the Constitution...Democrats are 100% right. There are no two sides to this story.
Posted at 06:54 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Nuclear Option, Republicans | Technorati
Friday, April 08, 2005
Everyone hates Republicans
Posted by Bob BrighamAP:
When Bush's face appeared on giant screen TVs showing the ceremony, many in the crowds outside St. Peter's Square booed and whistled.
President Bush's standing with the public is slumping just three months into his final term, but Americans have an even lower regard for the job being done by Congress. Bush's job approval is at 44 percent, with 54 percent disapproving. Only 37 percent have a favorable opinion of the work being done by the Republican-controlled Congress, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.Bush's job approval was at 49 percent in January, while Congress was at 41 percent. [...]
The number supporting Bush's handling of some domestic issues dipped between March and April, to 42 percent for the economy and 38 percent for issues like education and health care, according to the poll conducted for The Associated Press by Ipsos-Public Affairs.
Support for the president's approach to his top domestic priority, Social Security, remained at 36 percent, while 58 percent oppose it.
But Democrats say they intend to use the renewed focus on energy issues to revive their case that Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, both of whom worked in the oil business, are more interested in helping oil companies than in helping consumers. And several recent polls suggest that the spike in oil prices and the resulting rise in gasoline prices have undermined Mr. Bush's political standing."When gas prices go up to the level they're at now, they are in some ways the economic equivalent of the color-coded terrorism alerts," said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster. "They work their way through into public opinion very quickly in terms of affecting people's opinions about the direction of the nation and raising the stakes on pocketbook issues generally."
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey published Thursday showed a drop in approval of Mr. Bush's handling of the economy to 41 percent from 46 percent two months ago. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll released this week found an even sharper drop, to 41 percent from 48 percent five weeks earlier.
The 2006 backlash is materializing.
Posted at 05:51 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, Nuclear Option, Republicans | Comments (1) | Technorati
Dianne Feinstein's damage worse than Lou Sheldon or Traditional Values Coalition
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom the A.P.
Organizers of the gay pride parade held in the city every June announced Thursday that Feinstein was the winner of this year's "Pink Brick" award, a dubious honor bestowed on the public figure the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Committee decides has done the most to damage the gay rights cause. President Bush and talk show host Laura Schlessinger were the previous winners.Joey Cain, president of the committee said Feinstein was nominated for the prize for telling reporters the morning after Bush's re-election that progress on the gay marriage front "has been too much, too fast, too soon." [...]
Feinstein's competition for the prize, which is the gay community's answer to Hollywood's "Golden Raspberry" awards honoring the worst in film, was the Rev. Lou Sheldon, a vocal opponent of gay rights, and the Traditional Values Coalition, the Orange County-based organization Sheldon leads.
Feinstein was out of line with her comments against San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. Remember, Newsom has been vindicated for his civil rights stance. Feinstein's DLC-style attack on Newsom was more about him going too far too fast. She's jealous that Newsom has been a better Mayor than she was. While Feinstein faced a recall, Newsom is more popular than chocolate. Feinstein was wrong, Newsom was right, and now Feinstein is getting what she deserves.
Posted at 04:47 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, California | Comments (1) | Technorati
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Tom DeLay and Brian Darling
Posted by Bob BrighamLast night, MyDD's Jerome Armstrong exposed the link between former consigliere to Senator Mel Martinez, Brian Darling and Republican Majority Leader Tom Delay.
Now the Campaign for America's Future is demanding an explanation:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: THURSDAY, APR 7, 2005CAMPAIGN FOR AMERICA’S FUTURE DEMANDS EXPLANATION OF TOM DELAY’S DARLING RELATIONSHIP
Majority Leader Connected to GOP Schiavo Strategy Memo Author
WASHINGTON – The Campaign for America’s Future today challenged House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, to explain his relationship to corporate lobbyist Brian H. Darling. Darling is the author of the Republican strategy memo that said the personal tragedy of Terri Schiavo presents a “great political issue” for Republicans.
Rep. DeLay last month told the conservative Family Research Council that "God brought to us" the Terri Schiavo tragedy and linked it to a strategy to defend the conservative movement.
Darling worked for the Alexander Strategy Group, a Washington-based corporate lobbying firm heavily connected to Rep. DeLay. Darling’s clients included Universal Bearing, Inc., a company owned by the Hanwha Group, which has direct ties to the foreign agent that paid for Rep. DeLay's improper trip to Korea. The Korea-U.S. Exchange Council was created to promote Hanwha Group Chairman Seung Youn Kim, according to the New York Times.
The Alexander Strategy Group was formed by Rep. DeLay’s former Chief of Staff Ed Buckham, who also introduced Rep. DeLay to corporate lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Former DeLay aide Jim Ellis, who was indicted for money laundering, was a consultant to ASG. Former DeLay staffer Tony Rudy, former DeLay PAC director Karl Gallant, and Rep. DeLay’s spouse, Christine DeLay, all worked for ASG.
The Campaign for America’s Future last week launched a television and newspaper ad campaign to hold Rep. DeLay accountable, highlighting the controversy surrounding the House Majority Leader who is increasingly seen as a liability to his party.
The DeLay corruption appears to have infested the entire Republican Party. Every day we learn more and every day more Republicans are joining Senator Rick Santorum in being publically linked to DeLay. And things are just warming up...
Posted at 05:42 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, Florida, Texas | Technorati
TX-22: Tom DeLay vulnerable; Democrats gearing up
Posted by Bob BrighamRepublican Congressman Tom DeLay (R-TX) has been getting plenty of ink on the likelyhood of Majority Leader losing his seat in congress.
Now the Associated Press is bringing the story to every small-town paper in the country:
HOUSTON - Democrats, who often ignored Rep. Tom DeLay's Republican-leaning district, see a political opening in 2006 now that the House Majority leader faces ethics questions and dismay over his intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.
The AP story mentions the latest polling (see more here):
This week, a Houston Chronicle poll in the district found that 49 percent said they would vote for someone else. That number has sparked the most interest in a Democratic primary in the district in years."Now that DeLay is being pushed ever closer to the political brink, everyone is realizing that any of these challengers on his worst day might be better than DeLay on his best day," said longtime Democratic strategist Kelly Fero.
The AP also lists possible contenders:
Among the potential Democratic challengers:_Richard Morrison, a lawyer from Sugar Land, Texas, captured 41 percent of the vote with only $630,000 against DeLay's $2.9 million in last November's election. Morrison is favored by local Democratic activists who believe he deserves their loyalty for his strong showing.
_Houston City Councilman Gordon Quan, a Chinese-American immigration lawyer, could capitalize on the district's growing Asian and South Asian population.
_Former Rep. Nick Lampson, whose district was redrawn to favor the GOP and covered areas that DeLay now represents, including the NASA area and Galveston. Lampson said he has been approached by several people but hasn't decided whether to run.
A nascent effort to draft former Rep. Chris Bell (news, bio, voting record) fizzled when Bell responded to e-mailers that he preferred to focus on his gubernatorial ambitions.
The good news for Democrats is that it is looking like we'll have a contested primary. That would allow more exposure early and help Democrats in the nationalization of running against Tom DeLay. The story of local campaigning will speed the increase in DeLay's name recognition nationwide and give Democratic challengers across the country the perfect villan.
I was delighted when I read the following:
Morrison, who initially offered to step aside out of party loyalty if Quan wanted to run, said he has changed his mind."I'm not going to be scared to spill Democratic blood," Morrison said. "I'm a victim of my own success. Last time, the wisdom was, don't do it, he (DeLay) will stomp you into the ground. ... And now it's a race."
Indeed.
Posted at 03:32 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Activism, Texas | Technorati
Brian Darling is only the fall guy
Posted by Bob BrighamYes, Republican's wrote the Schiavo memo. Yes, the write wing bloggers (Powerline) have egg dripping off their long noses. Or was that egg on their keyboards. Yes, liberals won. Yes, the wingers wanted to make a big deal out of the memo and we should oblige.
But the one thing that is missing from the conversation is the fact that Senator Mel Martinez has a history of forcing staffers to take the fall for his decisions.
In fact, when Mel Martinez won, his blaming of staff was a major concern for the editorial board of the St. Petersburg Times (Nov. 4, 2004):
When challenged, Martinez was too eager to assign blame to his staff or to groups he said he couldn't control. As a senator, he will need an office and a staff that speaks with the measured and centrist tone he says will be his own. He can't pretend to be above it all if the people he employs are not.
In Florida it is even a running joke:
From Jim Defede, Miami Herald October 3, 2004 (B1):
In the hotly contested race for U.S. Senate, candidate Mel Martinez has stayed on the offensive, first against fellow Republican Bill McCollum and now against Democratic nominee Betty Castor. Since we expect more of the same in the final weeks leading to the Nov. 2 showdown, the following is how I imagine next week's strategy session will go between Martinez and his campaign staff.Martinez:Good afternoon everyone. Where are we?
Staffer No. 1:Well, the polls are still very close. It's a dead heat between you and Betty Castor.
Martinez:OK, any ideas?
Staffer No. 2:We could try debating her on the issues.
Martinez: Issues! Are you crazy? No, what we need to do is slime her just like we did Bill McCollum in the primary.
Staffer No. 1:Are you sure you want to go negative, sir?
Martinez: Oh, I'm not going to go negative. You guys are. This week, Danny and Tom will issue statements suggesting the reason Castor supports stem cell research is because she has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's and that she is mentally incompetent to be a senator.
Staffer No. 2:Is that true, sir? Does she have Alzheimer's?
Martinez:Of course not. But once you guys say it, some nitwit's going to believe it. And if the media goes nuts and blasts us for being insensitive, I'll step in, act disgusted by your assertions and repudiate you as a couple of ''young turks.'' But even after I distance myself from your remarks, some people will still believe Castor is sick. This is going to be great.
Staffer No. 1:I'm sorry, sir. There is only one problem. You can't call Danny and Tom ''young turks'' because you already called Pete and Bobby ''young turks'' after you had them accuse McCollum of being in bed with the ''radical homosexual lobby.''
Martinez:Darn it! [Pause in conversation. Martinez can be heard talking to himself.] Think, Mel, think. I got it! We'll call them overzealous.
Staffer No. 1:Nope. We used that one for the guys at the ad agency that produced the commercial labeling McCollum ''antifamily.''
Martinez: OK, how about rogue staffers? You guys wouldn't mind being rogue staffers would you?
Staffer No. 1:No, sorry sir, you called Carlos and Hector rogue staffers after they issued that news release you wrote for the Spanish-language radio stations calling the federal agents who seized Elián González ''armed thugs.''
Martinez: Well-intentioned but misguided?
Staffer No. 2:That's what you said about Sandy and Diane after they said Castor was an accomplished thespian in college.
Martinez:Renegade? I don't remember condemning anyone on my staff for being a renegade.
Staffer No. 1:Well, we were saving renegade for the commercials suggesting Castor may have been a founding member of al Qaeda.
Martinez:[Sounding annoyed.] Look people, I can't do this on my own. I need your help. I realize none of you like being repudiated. Do you think I like repudiating you? I don't. But I made it very clear from the beginning that this campaign was going to be based on one simple theme: plausible deniability. I can't get elected if people are going to hold me accountable for the mean and nasty things we're doing. My only hope is to blame each and every one of you.
Staffer No. 2:You're right, sir. And, I think I speak for everyone in this room when I say we are all honored to be the kindling in the bonfire of your vanity.
Martinez:OK, I have no idea what you just said. Sounds like homosexualist talk to me, but nevertheless if it was an apology, I accept it. Now let's get back to the hard work of this campaign. Remember, the mud isn't going to sling itself people. In the meantime, get me a thesaurus because for the next 30 days I'm going to repudiate each and every one of you like my life depended on it.
Martinez was given this warning before he was even sworn in as a Senator. He's in the big leagues now and he was given proper public notice that his old tricks would no longer be tolerated. Brian Darling isn't the one should be taking the fall.
Posted at 02:46 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, Florida, General | Technorati
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
TX-22: Drop the Hammer
Posted by Bob BrighamRepublican Majority Leader Tom DeLay is one day closer to a perp walk. Today, both the New York Times and Washington Post broke new ground in the Republican corruption scandal.
And now there is a new website:
www.DropTheHammer.org
The website is targeting the corporation funding the corruption Majority Leader:
Tell Corporate America to Drop the Hammer House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is widely regarded as the most powerful member of Congress. DeLay's abuse of this power has encircled him in a web of scandal. He has already been admonished three times by the bipartisan House Ethics Committee and a political action committee he set up in Texas is currently the subject of a grand jury investigation.A network of large corporate backers have come, cash-in-hand, to DeLay's defense. American Airlines, Bacardi USA, Nissan USA, RJ Reynolds, and Verizon have all contributed thousands to Tom DeLay's Legal Defense Fund.
Send a message to these corporations and tell them to stop enabling Tom DeLay's unethical behavior. Let these corporations know that unless they stop supporting Tom DeLay, you'll stop supporting them.
The website has an easy-to-use form to send the following letter:
Dear [Company]:I am writing concerning [Company's] contribution of $[XXXX] to Tom DeLay's Legal Expense Trust.
The bi-paritsan House Ethics Committee has rebuked Tom DeLay three times. DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee is the subject of a grand jury investigation for money laundering and illegal campaign contributions. Three of DeLay's closest associates have already been indicted.
Everyday the accounts of Tom DeLay's corruption get worse and worse. Prominent conservative voices, such as the Wall Street Journal editorial page, are saying that Tom DeLay has gone too far.
As a consumer, it's unacceptable to me for your company to support Tom DeLay's unethical behavior. It is time to restore ethics in Washington. It is time to demand more of our politicians.
You can restore my confidence in your company by:
(1) providing an explanation of why your company contributed to Tom DeLay's Legal Expense Trust;
(2) pledging that you won't donate any more money to Tom DeLay's Legal Expense Trust; and
(3) formally requesting that Tom DeLay's Legal Expense Trust return the money you have already contributed
I look forward to a response from you on this important matter.
Thank you.
I used their form to voice my displeasure. You should too.
Posted at 03:20 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Activism, Texas | Comments (1) | Technorati
2006 Minnesota Senate: Amy Klobuchar
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom a press release:
Amy Klobuchar, who has yet to formally announce her candidacy for U.S. Senate, has raised $580,000 in the month and a half since Sen. Mark Dayton announced he would not seek re-election, her campaign committee reported today."I'm very pleased and humbled by both the financial and volunteer support that our campaign has received over the past few weeks," Amy Klobuchar said. "This support will allow me to stand up for the people of Minnesota and champion ideas that will make a difference in their lives."
A substantial number of Klobuchar's contributions were received through her website, amyklobuchar.com, and many of them were raised personally by Klobuchar who called people from her kitchen table.
Posted at 01:53 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Minnesota | Technorati
2006 Senate Primary: Lieberman is in trouble
Posted by Bob BrighamVia Kos...
Quinnipiac Univ. 3/29-4/4. MoE 2.5% (No trend lines.)
Lieberman approval ratings
All GOP Dem
Approve 67 72 66
Disapprove 22 18 23
Lieberman deserves reelection?
All GOP Dem
Yes 66 73 65
No 25 22 25
Senator Lieberman is more popular with Republicans and more loathed by Democrats?
Posted at 01:30 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Connecticut | Comments (2) | Technorati
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Primary campaign against Lieberman heats up
Posted by Bob BrighamNOTE: Swing State Project is closely following the 2006 Senate Primary in Connecticut. You can read more about the strategy and check out the maps.
In an extraordinary encounter last week with members of the Democratic State Central Committee, the senator was forced to defend his hawkish record by Myrna Watanabe, Harwinton's town chairwoman.Watanabe, a professional science writer who took notes on the exchange, told Lieberman that while she appreciated his "very good" voting record, she wanted to know how she could present him for re-election in her town when "our people are pretty pacifistic" and were opposed the war in Iraq "from the beginning," when "our people don't support Rice," and when "they are most unhappy with Gonzales."
She said Lieberman responded that he does what he believes is right, that he didn't want the war to be used as a litmus test, and finally that he didn't have to come to Harwinton. [...]
Watanabe said she was unsatisfied when Lieberman concluded that they had had a "difference of opinion." She subsequently wrote him saying it was more like a "gaping chasm between you and the state party's rank-and-file."
"Your 70 percent approval rating will do you no good in getting the party's nomination if our Democratic town committees refuse to support you," she warned.
Lieberman's voting record:
In the last three months, Lieberman has sided with the president's stated position on five votes and disagreed on just one, according to VoteTracker, a nonpartisan subscription service that follows every vote cast in both houses of Congress. [...]The president doesn't take a position on every bill before the Senate, but the Republican majority certainly does. So far in the 109th Congress, Lieberman has agreed with the opposition on 17 votes and disagreed on 63.
His stands with the Republicans included his vote against California Sen. Barbara Boxer's objection to certifying the results of the 2004 presidential election, which failed 74-1, as well as his vote to invoke cloture in the debate over the bankruptcy bill, which passed 69-31.
Lieberman's votes with the Republican majority included his votes on the Rice, Gonzales, and Chertoff nominations, the class action bill, and the genetic information bill.
But it is his words that embarrass Democrats:
Lieberman's toughest critics, however, say he has become not so much embarrassed as traitorous at a critical time when Republicans -- and very partisan Republicans at that -- control both the White House and the Congress.Many point to the much-publicized kiss Bush planted on Lieberman's cheek on the night of his state of the union address in January as the most poignant symbol of the senator's fealty to the president.
[...]John M. Orman, a Fairfield University political science professor who recently announced his intention to mount a Democratic primary campaign, says he's also disgusted with Lieberman's support of Bush's claim that Social Security is in "crisis" and with the senator's support for the invasion of Iraq.
Citing a statewide poll from last year that showed slightly more Republicans supported Lieberman than Democrats, Orman branded him a "Republicrat" who might as well switch parties.
"He calls it being a New Democrat or a DLC Democrat," the professor said, referring to the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, which Lieberman helped to create.
"But in a Democratic primary, that's what the Democrats' rank-and-file will have to decide. Are we a party of accommodation or of opposition? I believe we must be a party of opposition."
"Lieberman, for example, was just on national television with Chris Shays," Orman added, referring to the Republican congressman from Connecticut's 5th District. "Shays was arguing that the Congress had gone too far in the Schiavo case, and Joe Lieberman was there talking almost like Tom DeLay."
It isn't just words that have create the "gaping chasm" between Lieberman and Democrats, it is also the blood on Lieberman's hands:
It may be Lieberman's early and continued support for the invasion of Iraq, however, that has drawn the most wrath from Connecticut Democrats, including some party leaders.The lead Democratic co-sponsor of the Gulf War resolution in 1991, Lieberman joined Republican John McCain in 1998 to introduce the Iraq Liberation Act, which made the "liberation" of that country U.S. policy. He later became the lead sponsor of a 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to use force, if necessary, to disarm Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Lieberman's corporate donors may be able to buy him the seat for another six years, but the boos he will hear whenever he takes the stage he's earned on his own.
Posted at 07:37 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Connecticut | Technorati
Monday, April 04, 2005
Online Campaigning
Posted by Bob BrighamSwing State Project covers more than what is going on in the states, we also try to following the evolving role of the internet in political campaigns. The 2006 cycle will take online campaigning to a level few can imagine now. These drastic changes in the fundamentals of campaigning will create winners and losers.
When Tagaris and I aren't posting here, we are both busy consulting candidates and causes in the best practices to catapult movements online. Here are some things we've been writing about lately.
My ATM Pin Number or On-Line Fundraising
There are many good reasons why this has become a cult classic. Read this one first.
Here are some more classic posts by Tim:
The Small Blog as the Small Donor of 2006/2008
No Filter: The Net as a Tool for Upstart Campaigns
I've been laying off the campaign guides for a few months, but you might enjoy a three-piece series I did for the New Democrat Network:
The 2024 Presidential Campaign
Also, you might be interested in:
Simon Rosenberg's DNC Blog Plan
We'll be doing more of these posts, use the comments to suggest any subject areas.
Posted at 05:21 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, 2006 Elections - State, Activism, Netroots, Site News | Technorati
Montana Senator Conrad Burns "beatable"
Posted by Bob BrighamEmmett O'Connell has a look at the Montana's 2006 senate race at Western Democrat:
The 2006 Senate races will be a big time in the West. Its an opportunity to show that the Democratic Party is the real deal in the West, with most of the western states having contested Senate races. If you were to choose on Western Republican to go after, it would be Senator Burns of Montana.Montana is the romantic heart of the Western Democrat movement, with our sweep last year. Only Colorado came close to matching the enthusiasm in Montana, and they have an open race for Governor to hang their hat on in 2006.
Burns is looking everyday like a more vulnerable candidate. If Bush’s Social Security fiasco can be hung around his neck or he can become the Judy Martz of 2006 (a Montana Republican known far and wide as being corrupt), and if his lackluster re-elect numbers stay low, I think he’s beatable.
O'Connell goes on to throw a nod towards Dan Kemmis. While I love Kemmis, I think he would either have to move or turn in his law license to have a chance. There is just too much history in Montana, Democrats nominating a Missoula lawyer is running joke. The frames invoked are simply too powerful for even Kemmis to overcome.
That said, it will be very interesting to see how the primary plays out.
Posted at 04:54 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Montana | Technorati
North Dakota farmer's appreciate Democrats
Posted by Bob BrighamThis is certainly good news for Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND):
MEDINA, N.D. -- It's tough to make a living as a farmer in North Dakota these days, Owen Olson says. [...]"If it wasn't for the federal government here," said Olson, 39, "nobody would be farming."
No one is talking about eliminating federal subsidies, just reducing them. But in North Dakota, where more than three in four farmers receive payments -- the highest percentage of any state -- the proposals working their way through the hearing rooms on Capitol Hill are big news.
Bush proposed cuts of $5.7 billion from agricultural programs over the next 10 years as part of a deficit reduction package. The House Budget Committee set the figure at $5.3 billion, while its Senate counterpart said $2.8 billion should be trimmed.
The GOP quest against the family farm on behalf of multi-national agribusiness will be a major issue in the 2006 election. An entire demographic -- rural voters -- is coming into play and ready to swing.
Posted at 04:41 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Economy, North Dakota | Comments (2) | Technorati
2006 Primary: Should Matt Brown drop out?
Posted by Bob BrighamNBC 10 in Providence is running a poll:
This week the jockeying is in full swing for the Democrats trying to unseat Sen. Lincoln Chafee.We have two congressmen -- U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy and U.S. Rep. Jim Langevin declining to give up their seats.
And both of them urging the only declared candidate, Sec. of State Matt Brown to leave the race.
Former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse seems to be the most likely nominee to face Chafee but Brown appears ready to force a primary.
Rappers, put on your political consulting hats, and tell me.
Should Matt Brown drop out of the race for Senate?
Currently, 66% are saying No.
Last week, I looked at the 2006 Democratic Party Primary for U.S. Senate and voiced my dismay at this quote:
But state Democratic Party Chairman William Lynch said: "It's never a good thing to have primaries."
In an effort to wipe the egg off his face, Lynch showed up at a Brown fundraiser and his quotes suggest he is quite shellshocked:
State Democratic Party Chairman William Lynch said his presence at the Hi-Hat didn't necessarily mean he would support Brown over former state Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse, who is expected to announce today his candidacy against Brown in the Democratic primary."The party may or may not endorse someone in a primary," Lynch said. "There have been times when the party has, and there have been times when the party hasn't."
Posted at 01:53 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Rhode Island | Technorati
TX-22 New Tom DeLay poll shows drastic shift
Posted by Bob BrighamHouse Majority Leader Tom DeLay's footing among his constituents has slipped drastically during the past year and a majority of his district disapproves of how he handled the Terri Schiavo case, according to a Houston Chronicle poll.Nearly 40 percent of the 501 voters questioned Wednesday through Friday said their opinion of the powerful Sugar Land Republican is less favorable than last year, compared with 11 percent who said their view of him has improved.
But check this out, the Majority Leader's re-elect number is below 40.
Yet 45 percent said they would vote for someone other than DeLay if a congressional election in the 22nd District were at hand; 38 percent said they would stick with him."There seems to be no question that there has been an erosion in support for the congressman," said John Zogby, whose polling company, Zogby International, performed the survey. "He is posting numbers that one would have to consider in the dangerous territory for an incumbent. And he isn't just an incumbent, he is a longtime incumbent."
Tom Delay has a 38% re-elect number!
Schiavo backfires on Congressman Tom Delay:
On the Schiavo issue, DeLay consistently has stated that his constituents backed his decision to lead Congress into the dispute over whether to continue nourishment to the severely brain-damaged Florida woman."Everywhere I went (in the district) people were ... very supportive of the efforts to try and save her," DeLay said Wednesday at Sugar Land Regional Airport.
But nearly 69 percent of people in the poll, including substantial majorities of Democrats and Republicans, said they opposed the government's intervention in the longstanding family battle.
Respondents in the Chronicle survey also were critical of DeLay's individual role. Nearly 58 percent disapproved of his decision to get Congress involved. [...]
DeLay argued that his morals guided him in the case of Schiavo, who died Thursday. But nearly half of those polled said he intervened in the case for political gain.
Posted at 12:31 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Texas | Technorati
Sunday, April 03, 2005
2006 Primary: Joe Lieberman credibility bankrupt?
Posted by Bob BrighamI actually did vote for it before I voted against it:
The greatest hypocrisy on this bill may come from the Democrats, who often speak as if they are the party of working people. Some Democratic senators spoke against the bill and then voted for it. One of them, Senator Joe Lieberman, spoke for it and against it, voted for cloture (cutting off debate and moving the bill toward passage) and then voted against the bill.
Posted at 06:28 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Connecticut, Economy | Technorati
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Choice in Pennsylvania: Abortion and 2006 Democratic Primary for U.S. Senate
Posted by Bob BrighamAssociated Press: Abortion stance could haunt Casey in Senate bid
But like Santorum, Klink, and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who helped talk Casey into running, Casey opposes abortion rights. And that could give moderate Republicans in the important Philadelphia suburban swing region one less reason to cross party lines as they did in large numbers to help elect Rendell in 2002.Casey is unlikely to avoid the abortion question even in the Democratic primary.
Despite Rendell's attempts to clean house, at least one candidate who favors abortion rights has vowed to compete against Casey in the primary — Charles F. "Chuck" Pennacchio, 45, a history professor at The University of the Arts in Philadelphia. A longtime Democratic organizer, Pennacchio has not run for office before but said his campaign has raised about $25,000 so far.
While Pennacchio's campaign is more about using the power of the Internet and low-key "meet-ups" with the candidate to promote grass roots activism within the party, a spokesman said Pennacchio definitely will raise the subject of abortion in the primary campaign.
"It's an issue that voters in the Democratic primary are concerned about," said the spokesman, Tim Tagaris, citing Senate Democrats' efforts to block judicial nominees who oppose abortion.
Yes, that is Swing State Project contributor Tim Tagaris getting the nationwide ink. Earlier this week, Tagaris was referred to as a blogging guru in the Pennsylvania press.
The AP article gives the history:
Ron Klink's experience is Bob Casey's bad dream.Klink, a onetime TV news anchorman in Pittsburgh and a longtime congressman, lost the 2000 U.S. Senate race against Republican incumbent Rick Santorum after a campaign that failed for various reasons to gain traction. [...]
In the general election campaign, Klink said, national party leaders' promises of financial and field support failed to materialize. [...]
Klink said he was proud to be a "Casey Democrat" — a reference to Casey's father, the late governor, whose strong views made him a national hero to the anti-abortion movement. He bitterly recalled being portrayed as "Santorum Light" during the 2000 primary because of his abortion stance and blamed his defeat partly on Democrats who refused to vote for him for that reason.
By a 2:1 margin, Pennsylvania Democrats prefer a pro-choice candidate. The worry about moderate Republicans and Independents not supporting Casey is born not just from history, but also from the fact that 40% of Republicans and 54% of Independents also prefer pro-choice candidates. This is something people notice.
If Tagaris says it is going to be an issue, then it is going to be an issue. The national attention to the issue signals that it will be heard and the polling suggests it may play a major role. No wonder, "haunt" was the word used in the headline.
Posted at 08:10 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Pennsylvania | Comments (6) | Technorati
U.S. Senate "Nuclear Option" and 2006 midterm elections
Posted by Bob BrighamOver at DailyKos, Kargo X has kickstarted a conversation on the coming "Nuclear Option" -- the Republican scheme to end the filibuster and gain absolute power.
If the GOP pushes forward with this power grab, it will force a major backlash against Republicans in the 2006 midterm elections. During the Schiavo usurpation, Bush dropped 10 pts in the time it took for Santorum to permanently tie himself to the issue.
If the GOP continues their quest for absolute power, the backlash will be severe. Already, Democrats have 12 Republican Senators (facing re-election in 2006) on record with their Social Security vote.
It has become conventional wisdom that Americans oppose the GOP plan to privatize Social Security. If the GOP moves for absolute control of the Senate while Bush forces privatization then the storyline gets a villian in a potent way. Add Tom DeLay as the public face of Republicans in Congress, a splintering of the conservative coalition, and a united Democratic Party. Together, this could result in a major restructuring of party perception in a nationalized 2006 midterm election cycle.
Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) wants to be President so he needs to protect his record. In addition, the following Republican Senators need to worry about running for re-election in 2006:
- Senator George Allen (R-VA)*
- Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT)*
- Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)*
- Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH)
- Senator John Ensign (R-NV)*
- Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)*
- Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)*
- Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ)*
- Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)*
- Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)*
- Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)*
- Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
- Senator Jim Talent (R-MO)*
- Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY)*
* Social Security: on record voting in favor of "deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt."
In addition, such a move would allow the following Democrats a hero vote to bolster their 2006 re-elections:
- Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
- Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
- Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV)
- Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
- Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE)
- Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
- Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND)
- Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
- Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN)
- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
- Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
- Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI)
- Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)
- Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE)
- Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)
- Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Posted at 06:36 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Arizona, Indiana, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Nuclear Option, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming | Technorati
Friday, April 01, 2005
Rhode Island 2006 Democratic Party Primary for U.S. Senate
Posted by Bob BrighamPROVIDENCE -- Rhode Island's former attorney general and U.S. Attorney Sheldon Whitehouse advised close family and friends earlier this week that he has decided to run for the U.S. Senate seat held by Republican Lincoln D. Chafee.Barring the unexpected, Whitehouse's long-anticipated entry into the closely watched Senate race guarantees the spectacle of a two-man fight for the Democratic nomination to take on Chafee in November 2006.
A formal announcement by the 49-year-old Whitehouse is expected Monday, but he signaled his decision in a series of e-mails in which he foresaw that U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy would pull himself out of the running before the week was out.
Facing a potentially costly primary contest against Secretary of State Matthew Brown, the only announced Democratic candidate for Chafee's Senate seat so far, Whitehouse also took the occasion to state the obvious: "I will have to become a fundraising demon in the new quarter, which will bring you expensive requests for contributions, contacts and so forth."
This sounds a lot like Pennsylvania, almost sounds like a pattern...
Party Bosses back a candidate who lost a Primary campaign for his state's top job:
In 1998, [Whitehouse] beat out two Democratic competitors to become the state's attorney general, but did not survive a three-way primary when he ran for governor four years later. He trailed former state Sen. Myrth York by 926 votes, with then-Rep. Antonio Pires placing a distant third.
Candidate hires top-dollar consultants:
Whitehouse advised these supporters on Tuesday he had already opened a campaign account and hired well-known Washington political consultant Mike Donilon. [...]When asked whether the Washington-based Donilon, a top adviser to Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential campaign who also worked on the Rhode Island campaigns of U.S. Sen. Jack Reed and Providence Mayor David N. Cicilline, was already on the Whitehouse campaign payroll, Preston said: "Mike would be part of any Whitehouse campaign team."
(Preston said the Rhode Island race would be one of two high-profile races for Donilon, who has also signed on to work for the reelection of one of the national GOP's top Democratic targets in '06, freshman Florida Sen. Bill Nelson.)
Campaign uses other elected officials to strong-arm and force out any other Democrats (so candidate doesn't lose like he he did in gubernatorial primary):
Without formally announcing, Whitehouse already has the backing of many in the state's political elite, including Kennedy and Langevin, who have both publicly urged the 35-year-old Brown, who is midway through his first term in office, to get out of the race. [...]Brown campaign spokesman Matt Burgess said the secretary of state has no intention of leaving the race, and "looks forward to a thorough and thoughtful discussion of how to best solve the problems people in Rhode Island are facing everyday."
Burgess also sought to minimize the significance of Whitehouse's high-wattage political backing, saying: "This race is going to be decided by people in Rhode Island -- not a handful of political insiders and politicians. It just doesn't work that way anymore."
The State Democratic Party comes out against democracy:
But state Democratic Party Chairman William Lynch said: "It's never a good thing to have primaries."
Never. As is in democratic primaries are not ever good; on no occasion; at no time; under no circumstances. Letting the People participate in democracy is never a good thing.
Posted at 05:18 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island | Comments (4) | Technorati
TX-22: Delay violates 18 U.S.C. §115 (a)(1)(B)
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom Raw Story:
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has issued a strongly-worded letter to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) over his recent remarks threatening those involved with the Schiavo case, which Lautenberg takes to mean federal judges, RAW STORY has learned.
Full text:
April 1, 2005Tom DeLay
Majority Leader
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515Dear Majority Leader DeLay,
I was stunned to read the threatening comments you made yesterday against Federal judges and our nation’s courts of law in general. In reference to certain Federal judges, you stated: “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior.”
As you are surely aware, the family of Federal Judge Joan H. Lefkow of Illinois was recently murdered in their home. And at the state level, Judge Rowland W. Barnes and others in his courtroom were gunned down in Georgia.
Our nation’s judges must be concerned for their safety and security when they are asked to make difficult decisions every day. That’s why comments like those you made are not only irresponsible, but downright dangerous. To make matters worse, is it appropriate to make threats directed at specific Federal and state judges?
You should be aware that your comments yesterday may violate a Federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. §115 (a)(1)(B). That law states:
“Whoever threatens to assault…. or murder, a United States judge… with intent to retaliate against such… judge…. on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished [by up to six years in prison]”
Threats against specific Federal judges are not only a serious crime, but also beneath a Member of Congress. In my view, the true measure of democracy is how it dispenses justice. Your attempt to intimidate judges in America not only threatens our courts, but our fundamental democracy as well.
Federal judges, as well as state and local judges in our nation, are honorable public servants who make difficult decisions every day. You owe them – and all Americans – an apology for your reckless statements.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Lautenberg
Posted at 03:03 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Texas | Technorati
Montana Senate 2006: Third Degree Burns
Posted by Bob BrighamVia Left in the West, I've learned that some Montanans want to give Montana Senator Conrad Burns the dreaded Third Degree. In fact, they have a Federal Political Action Committee and a website:
www.ThirdDegreePAC.org
This PAC was founded to make a "big impact" by running "negative attacks" as part of a strategy that plans, "to run early and repeated negative ads" in an attempt to "raise those negatives so high that they can not be overcome" as part of a "truly grassroots effort, fueld by constituent anger."
Conrad Burns has consistently voted against the interests of the people of Montana and the United States since he's been in office. In 2000 he won re-election by a mere 3% - fewer than 15,000 votes.The 2004 election proved the power of negative campaigning. The persistent raising of doubt, early in the cycle, creates an enormous obstacle for a candidate. True or false -- and we have the advantage of truth-- negative attacks make a big impact.
To that end we've founded the Third Degree Political Action Committee. The Third Degree PAC is dedicated to shining the light of truth on the actions of Montana Federal candidates and politicians. With an eye towards the future, Conrad Burns is only the first target. The plan is to raise money with which to run early and repeated negative ads - probably on radio at first - against Burns. Raise those negatives so high that they can not be overcome.
This is a truly grassroots effort, fueled by constituent anger. We need more volunteers, for research, web and ad design, strategy, and more.
You heard them, they need:
- Volunteers
- Reseach
- Web Design
- Ad Design
- Strategy
- "more"
Visit the forums.
Posted at 12:14 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Montana, Netroots | Technorati
Thursday, March 31, 2005
2006 Senate Races to watch
Posted by Bob BrighamLarry J. Sabato, Director, U.Va. Center for Politics, has identified (in alphabetical order) the following 14 Senate races to watch in 2006 ("moderately to very vulnerable"):
FL-Bill Nelson (D) MD-Open (D)MI-Debbie Stabenow (D)
MN-Open (D)
MT-Conrad Burns (R)
ND-Kent Conrad (D)--only if GOP Governor
John Hoeven runsNE-Ben Nelson (D)
NJ-Open (D)--only if Senator Jon Corzine is
elected governor in 2005PA-Rick Santorum (R)
RI-Lincoln Chafee (R)
TN-Open (R)
TX-Open (R)--only if Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison runs for governor in 2006
VA-George Allen (R)--only if Governor Mark Warner (D) decides to run
WA-Maria Cantwell (D)
Sabato brings up some key points in his analysis of the 2006 battle for control of the US Senate:
On the surface, this appears to be an impressive total: 14 of 33, with another three potential retirees (mentioned in last week's email: Dianne Feinstein, Trent Lott, and Craig Thomas), which could bring the competitive total to 17 of 33--more than half! But let's look again. All three possible, additional retirees come from states that strongly favor the current party to retain control of the seat (CA, MS, WY). New Jersey would likely elect another Democrat to replace Corzine, and Texas would probably choose another Republican to succeed Hutchison. The incumbent senators, endangered though they are in FL, MI, MT, NE, PA, and RI, are all still favored to win. (We'd bet that a couple of them will be defeated in the end, but it is too soon to know which ones.) Tennessee may well elect another Republican to succeed Bill Frist, and Maryland will likely pick another Democrat to replace Sarbanes. Governor Mark Warner is actually unlikely to challenge Senator George Allen in Virginia. And Governor John Hoeven, the only real GOP hope, has not committed to challenging Senator Kent Conrad in North Dakota.So what is left? The Senate seat in Minnesota may be the most likely to switch parties (from D to R), though we have a long way to go before reaching any definitive conclusion. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) is also vulnerable, not least because of GOP anger over a "stolen" Governor's election in 2004; however, Washington leans Democratic and the Republicans have not yet lined up an impressive candidate to carry the banner against Cantwell. Finally, there will be a few other incumbent defeats from our list (and maybe off it) that cannot be clearly projected two years out.
Does that add up to a change in party control in the U.S. Senate? It's very early, but so far the Sixth Year Itch is purely theoretical in Senate races. The Republicans could drop a couple of seats, or they could even add a couple of seats, but search as one might, it is tough to find the five net seats--six with Vice President Cheney's vote--that would need to go Democratic for the GOP to lose the Senate.
Sabato also notes that this is his, "snapshot at the starting gate" and there is great potential for major shifts that are difficult to identify this early in the cycle.
I recommend bookmarking Sabato's Crystal Ball.
Posted at 03:14 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate | Technorati
IL-6 Christine Cegelis Open Seat Bid in 05/06
Posted by Tim TagarisNeighboring my sometimes residence of Palatine, Illinois (just outside of Chicago), there is a race brewing in the 6th Congressional District of Illinois. In 2004, with the support of grassroots organizations in Nortern Illinois, like Democracy for America, Christine Cegelis challenged congressional dinosaur Henry Hyde for his seat in the House of Representatives.
When the smoke cleared, Christine fared so much better than anyone would have even imagined in 2004, earned 44.2% of the vote, and turned the heads of insiders and outsiders across the country. She is back at it and already campaigning for 2006.
She should be the Democratic nominee. The votes that she gained were votes earned. They were earned because of her committment to grassroots, and even netroots (to some extent) outreach. The only question is, who will be the Republican nominee, and when will the election take place?
Henry Hyde is going to retire. Either that or he is going to appointed as the Ambassador to the Holy See. Whenever the race is, what is clear is that Christine will be battling for an open seat, probably against Republican Peter Roskum. As such, her campaign is already in full-swing and she is reaching out to the netroots in a meaningful way. She has already posted a few times on DailyKos, and today has a new entry up on Mydd.
If you get a chance, and want to learn more about the 6th CD in Illinois, take a look at her recent post.
Much more on Christine at SSP over the next year and a half. The race is certain to be one targeted by the DCCC. If you are from Illinois, consider volunteering to help, they already have meaningful opportunities for involvement available.
Posted at 03:08 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Illinois, Open Seats | Technorati
Senator Rich Santorum is a liar
Posted by Bob BrighamDemocratic National Chairman Howard Dean ripped into U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum at a party fund-raiser in Old City last night.Dean, a former Vermont governor and former Democratic presidential candidate, called Santorum, a Republican who is up for reelection in Pennsylvania in 2006, a "liar" and "right-winger" who actually lives in Virginia.
"He doesn't tell the truth," Dean told a gathering of about 150 at Bluezette on Market Street.
Dean said Santorum had voted to kill Amtrak, an important service in Pennsylvania, and had then turned around and written a piece for The Inquirer saying he supported Amtrak.
He said that Santorum should return the more than $100,000 that Santorum's declared home school district, the Penn Hills School District in Allegheny County, paid over the last few years to educate his children at the Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School.
While attending the school online, Santorum's children actually lived at his house in the Virginia suburbs of Washington. The charter school and the Penn Hills district are in a dispute over payments for Santorum's children. Santorum has maintained that he has followed the law.
Dean joked that Santorum should "stay in Virginia," although he added that the senator was "too much of a right-winger for Virginia. How about Venezuela?"
In Pennyslvania's 2006 U.S. Senate race, Rick Santorum is being challenged by Chuck Pennacchio and Bob Casey, Jr.
Posted at 02:57 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Pennsylvania | Technorati
Karl Rove worried about Burns scandal
Posted by Bob BrighamMontana Senator Conrad Burns' re-election campaign is in such dire straights that Karl Rove is travelling all the way to Helana, Montana in a desperate attempt to bail Burns out:
While President Bush's visit kicked off discussion of Social Security privitization and reforms, Rove's appearance could bolster Sen. Burns' re-election run, according to Craig Wilson, MSU-Billings political science professor and pollster. A big-time event could help Burns shake any negative publicity surrounding what some have said are improper financial ties with a lobbying firm and a Michigan tribe, Wilson said.
For the record, Burns' problem is not "improper financial ties," but rather the fact that Burns and many of his staff are key figures in multiple corruption investigations.
But my favorite line came from the local GOP Central Committee Chairman Bill Snoddy:
Snoddy said he thinks local activists are being rewarded for all of their hard work during the 2004 campaign."Folks worked really hard to make a difference," Snoddy said.
Rewarded? The GOP was spanked in Montana last year. The GOP lost the Governor's mansion, the State House, the State Senate -- the Democrats had a full sweep.
Rove isn't there to reward the GOP for screwing up, he's there because all signs are indicating that it will be another bumper cycle for the Montana Democratic Party.
Senator Conrad Burns is a few depositions away from a perp walk and Congressman Dennis Rehberg (MT-AL) has been playing out of his league for so long that the odds may be catching up with him.
Posted at 02:26 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Montana | Technorati
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
2006 Rhode Island Senate: Kennedy out
Posted by Bob BrighamAP:
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., on Wednesday ruled out a run for the Senate in 2006, saying he could better serve his constituents by staying in the House and serving on the Appropriations Committee. [...]Bill Lynch, the state's Democratic Party chairman, said he thought it was the right decision because the state could suffer if it no longer had a representative on the Appropriations Committee. But he said he thought Kennedy would have easily beat Chafee.
"I have mixed feelings about it," he said. "What is clear is that there's consensus in the Rhode Island community that Sen. Chafee is very vulnerable. That much doesn't seem to be in dispute."
Another Democrat who has been mulling a run is Sheldon Whitehouse, the former state Attorney General.
Whitehouse said Wednesday that he wait until next week to make any announcements about his plans.
"I thank U.S. Rep. Kennedy for his kind words of encouragement today regarding my candidacy," Whitehouse said. "For personal reasons, I will defer making any public announcements regarding the 2006 campaign until Monday morning."
Lynch said he spoke with Whitehouse earlier this week and his sense is that Whitehouse will run.
The only declared candidate for the race is Secretary of State Matt Brown, who Langevin last week said didn't have enough experience to work in the Senate. Lynch said he didn't share that view.
From what I'm hearing, Matt Brown is the frontrunner.
Posted at 09:14 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Rhode Island | Technorati
IA-1: 2006 Open Seat
Posted by Bob BrighamWith Congressman Nussle running for Iowa Governor, the first congressional district will be an Open Seat that Democrats can win. If they don't screw it up. Blogfather Jerome Armstrong has the details.
Posted at 09:10 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Iowa, Open Seats | Technorati
2006 Montana Senate: Conrad Burns flip-flops
Posted by Bob BrighamMontana's Junior Senator, Conrad Burns, is flip-flopping in a desperate bid to shore up sinking support.
BURNS TAKES CREDIT FOR GRANT FOR LAID-OFF WORKERS:
Kalispell Daily Interlake:
"This money will go to help Montanans transition from one line of work to another," Burns said. "These folks have been put into a difficult place and this award is a much welcome example of a good program going to good people. It's a good first step, and I'll continue doing everything I can to make sure small mills like Owens and Hurst don't ever face this kind of struggle again."
BUT BURNS HAS WORKED TO GUT PROGRAMS THAT HELP LAID-OFF WORKERS:
Conrad Burns Twice Opposed $678 Million for Job Training Programs.
Burns twice voted against investing $678 million in the Workforce Investment Act which provides funds for job training programs. [HJR2, 1/23/03, #24; S Con Res 23, 3/25/03, #102]
Conrad Burns Twice Opposed Extending Unemployment Benefits.
Twice in 2004, Conrad Burns voted against providing an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits for people who have exhausted their state jobless benefits. [S 1805, 2/26/04, #18; S 1637, 5/11/04, #88]
Conrad Burns Twice Voted Against Overtime Pay for up to 8 Million Workers.
Burns twice against overtime pay for up to 8 million workers. In September 2003, Burns voted to implement regulations that would take away overtime pay eligibility for American workers. Again, in May 2004, Burns voted against a proposal to block the Labor Department from implementing new rules to overhaul eligibility standards for overtime pay. [HR 2660, 9/10/03, #334; S. 1637, 5/4/04, #79]
Conrad Burns Voted Against Increasing Unemployment Insurance Funding.
Burns voted against increasing spending on unemployment insurance by $16.3 billion in 2003 and 2004, offset by a reduction in tax cuts. The amendment would double the program's length the 26 weeks and expand it to include part-time and low-wage workers. [S. Amdt 315, 3/25/03, #85]
Conrad Burns extremely vulnerable and is a key figure in a major corruption scandal. This flip-flop is a sign of desperation. Even without an announced opponent, this seat is looking like it belongs in the Toss-Up column.
Posted at 08:36 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Montana | Technorati
2006 Pennsylvania Senate Primary: Internet-fueled challenge
Posted by Bob BrighamThis morning's Philadelphia Inquirer:
If Chuck Pennacchio's candidacy was judged by conventional campaign standards, he would stand little chance in the 2006 U.S. Senate race.The Democratic establishment bypassed the Philadelphia professor earlier this month to line up behind state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr. Pennacchio has never run for statewide office. And he has pledged to reject money from special interests in favor of small individual donations.
All of that could have buried Pennacchio from the start just a few years ago, but not necessarily these days when Web logs, or blogs, can lift an obscure candidate into the realm of contender.
Pennacchio and his small, Web-savvy staff have been leaving footprints across dozens of blogs during the last month, hoping their Internet presence - combined with traditional campaigning - builds a loyal grassroots following to rival Casey's stranglehold on the establishment.
"Wherever you look - we'll be there. Like a bad pop-up ad for the University of Phoenix," Pennacchio's 28-year-old blogging guru, Tim Tagaris, wrote on one Web site, referencing that school's Internet saturation.
Blogging guru, eh?
Pennacchio's Internet approach is a smart way to jump-start an outsider's campaign, such as Howard Dean did in the 2004 presidential race, said Daniel M. Shea, director of Allegheny College's Center for Political Participation.
The ol' Howard Dean comparision, I hope Tim is prepared to deal with front-runner's syndrome...
Pennacchio, who hopes to raise $3 million for the primary, has asked his supporters to start their own blogs. He spent $5,000 on his first ad buy. But that kind of money wouldn't buy a few seconds on TV or radio, so he blanketed 18 national and local blogs. Pennacchio held his first conference call in late February. But instead of gathering print and broadcast media, he discussed his campaign with 10 Pennsylvania and New Jersey bloggers, including a 16-year-old."They are opinion leaders and they need to be respected," Pennacchio said.
How else would SheaBrianna Christilaw, 24, a Pittsburgh student and author of the blog Urban Democracy, have gotten involved in his campaign this early? She's organizing a Friday reception during his first swing through Western Pennsylvania.
Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg, a writer for Young Philly Politics, said Pennacchio appeared to be benefiting not so much from anti-Casey sentiment - "I think a lot of people were very happy with him running" - but anger stemming from efforts by Democratic leaders to clear the primary field.
"It is this presumption from the state party that they know best," Urevick-Ackelsberg, 23, said. "People want to feel more like they can have a say."
Pennacchio has "a lot of potential," Urevick-Ackelsberg said, but a far way to go.
"It would be the upset of all upsets."
More from the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean, scheduled to appear tonight at a Center City fund-raiser, said the party would do "anything we can" to defeat Republican Sen. Rick Santorum next year.The expected clash between Santorum and the consensus Democratic candidate, State Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., already is intensifying. Dean's GOP counterpart, Ken Mehlman, last week said reelecting Santorum was his party's top priority. [...]
Casey faces an Internet-fueled challenge for the nomination from Chuck Pennacchio, a University of the Arts professor.
"realm of contender"
"Web-savvy"
"loyal grassroots following"
"Internet saturation"
"smart way to jump-start an outsider's campaign"
"blanketed 18 national and local blogs"
"the upset of all upsets"
"Internet-fueled challenge"
It looks like Tim has been busy when he isn't blogging for Swing State Project.
Posted at 07:25 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Netroots, Pennsylvania | Technorati
CT-2: Rob Simmons challenged to refuse DeLay Money
Posted by Bob BrighamCampaign for America's Future:
The Public Campaign Action Fund begins a $25,000 buy of television ads also calling on Rep. DeLay to resign this week in three districts represented by Republican members Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., Republican National Committee Chair Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., and House Ethics Committee Chair Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash.The Campaign for America’s Future spot is available for viewing at www.ourfuture.org. Text of the ad follows:
“Without DeLay” TV :30Female narrator:
He has scoffed at the law.
Male narrator:
Tom Delay. A pattern of abusing authority.
Female narrator:
Repeatedly the House Ethics Committee has found Tom Delay guilty of serious rules violations.
Male narrator:
Tom DeLay is a national embarrassment. He should resign his leadership position, if not his office.
Female narrator:
It’s time for Republicans to stand up and demand Delay’s resignation
Male narrator:
Congressman Simmons. Refuse the tens of thousands of dollars Tom DeLay’s PAC just raised for you, and clean up Congress without DeLay.
Posted at 07:17 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Activism, Connecticut, New York, Washington | Technorati
TX-22 Tom Delay corruption ads launch
Posted by Bob BrighamCampaign for America's Future:
NEW TV ADS HIGHLIGHT TOM DELAY’S CORRUPTIONCampaign for America’s Future Fights Most Corrupt Congress’ Abuse of Power
WASHINGTON – The Campaign for America’s Future unveiled a new television ad today that urges Congress to “wash its hands” of Rep. Tom DeLay, highlighting the controversy surrounding the House majority leader, who is increasingly seen as a liability to his party.
The Campaign for America’s Future spot begins airing Thursday throughout Rep. Delay’s Texas district and on major news stations in Washington. The initial $75,000 buy runs for a full week.
Text of the ad:
“Washing Hands” TV :30Narrator:
Tom DeLay. He’d like to wash his hands of corruption.
He'd like you to forget he's been accused of accepting a gift worth thousands from a foreign agent.
He'd like you to forget that two of his close associates have been indicted for money laundering.
Tom DeLay can’t wash his hands of corruption by involving Congress in one family’s personal tragedy.
[Onscreen: www.ourfuture.org, paid for by the Campaign for America’s Future.]
But Congress can certainly wash its hands of Tom DeLay.
The Public Campaign Action Fund ads are available for viewing at www.pcactionfund.org/resign.
Posted at 07:10 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Activism, Texas | Technorati
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
2006 Senate: Conrad Burns' scandal hurts re-election
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom the Bozeman Daily Chronicle:
State Democrats are demanding Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., return $137,000 in campaign contributions connected to a lobbyist now under investigation for allegedly buying favors from lawmakers.The charge came the same day that a Washington D.C. newspaper reported that Burns had hired a GOP lawyer to mount a legal defense to clear his name. [...]
Burns has received $137,000 in campaign contributions from Abramoff and his tribal clients, the Post reported. Also under scrutiny is a 2001 trip to the Super Bowl for two Burns staffers that may have been paid for by Abramoff.
$137,000 and Super Bowl Tickets? Yes, Conrad Burns is a key figure in multiple corruption investigations. Remember, Conrad Burns almost lost in 2000 and is rumored to be retiring to work as a lobbyist (for Abramoff????????).
The Washington Post reported in early March that Burns had diverted a $3 million grant meant for impoverished Indian schools to the Saginaw Chippewas in Michigan, one of the richest tribes in the nation.The tribe was a client of GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is under investigation by the FBI and Congress for allegedly buying legislative favors with campaign contributions and bribing Congressional aides.
Senator Burns needs to give back the dirty money.
Montana Democratic Party Executive Director Brad Martin said Monday Burns' acknowledgement of Abramoff's actions should be justification enough to return the money."That alone should give him pause about whether that money should spend another minute in his bank account," he said.
But that money is no longer around to give back, Burns' spokesman J.P. Donovan said.
"It's all spent," he said.
Whoops, Burns spend the dirty money. Too bad, because now Burns needs a ton of money to pay big-shot lawyers for his legal defense:
Also on Monday, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported that Burns had hired GOP lawyer Cleta Mitchell to oversee his legal defense as questions were raised about his connections to Abramoff.Donovan said Mitchell was brought in as an outside observer to deal with some of the ethics allegations made against him. She is not part of any legal defense, he insisted.
Martin was a bit more skeptical.
"You don't hire someone like Cleta Mitchell if you got a press problem," he said.
Posted at 02:49 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Montana | Technorati
Monday, March 28, 2005
2006 Rhode Island Senate Democratic Primary
Posted by Bob BrighamBut I do get a kick out of his calling on Secretary of State Matt Brown to drop out of the race for the Democratic Senate nod and pave the way for an unimpeded bid by Rep. Patrick Kennedy, or, more likely, former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse. Who is Langevin -- or anyone else -- to suggest Brown needs permission to run? [...]Whitehouse has mulled so many offices this time around -- governor, lieutenant governor, and Senate -- that Chafee says it reminds him of the kids' game, Pin the Tail on the Donkey. Chafee wonders, "Where's he going to end up?"
It seems much more credible to think that Whitehouse, not Kennedy, will enter the Senate fray. Kennedy, whose father, Ted, is the famous Massachusetts senator, for years has episodically eyed a Senate bid and passed up the chances. As recently as December, he ruled out running in 2006 and urged Langevin on. Kennedy said it was more important that he stay in the House, where his service on the Appropriations Committee enables him to funnel big bucks to Rhode Island.
Though colorful, wealthy, and impassioned, Kennedy also has had a lot of personal scrapes that well-financed detractors -- you know, Swift-boat veteran types -- could rehash and turn into a campaign nightmare.
Still, with Langevin out, Sean Richardson, Kennedy's top aide, says the congressman is now taking a "serious" new look at a Senate run. My instinct: If Kennedy really wanted to be in the Senate, where he'd be in the direct shadow of his dad, he'd already be running.
Posted at 02:07 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Rhode Island | Technorati
2006 Maryland Senate Democratic Primary
Posted by Bob BrighamBarely two weeks after Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D) announced he would retire at the end of his term, the field for Maryland's 2006 U.S. Senate race has begun to take shape -- with three prominent Democrats and a leading Republican seriously considering bids.Former Democratic congressman and NAACP leader Kweisi Mfume waited just three days before printing up campaign signs and entering the race. Democratic Party officials said last week that they believe Reps. Benjamin L. Cardin and Chris Van Hollen will run as well.
Kweisi Mfume
Although Mfume was first into the race, he said in an interview Saturday that he recognizes he will face a fierce battle for the nomination. To prepare, he said, he spent the first full week forming a campaign apparatus, including reaching decisions about strategists and fundraisers that "will include names that are familiar to everyone.""Paul [Sarbanes] caught everyone off guard," Mfume said. "We had to drop everything we were doing and get started. But right now I'm very energized. I haven't felt like this since 1979," the year he first ran for Baltimore City Council.
Congressman Benjamin Cardin
Cardin, a former speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates, is in his 10th term representing Maryland's 3rd Congressional District, which includes parts of Anne Arundel, Baltimore and Howard counties. He said repeatedly during an interview last week that he "will not run away from a tough battle."His effort to drive home that point was intended to challenge perceptions that he is unwilling to take risks with his career. Last week, Maryland GOP Chairman John Kane called him "Congressman Cold Feet" because twice in the past 20 years -- in 1985 and 1997 -- Cardin expressed interest in runs for governor but backed out.
"There was no way I could win those races," Cardin said during the interview in Annapolis, which he gave after conducting a town hall-style meeting for two dozen constituents on the subject of Social Security reform. "At the time, my supporters told me not to get in. And if I had gotten in, I would have lost."
That is not what his supporters are telling him this time, Cardin said. "It's only been nine days, but in those nine days it's been very encouraging. I'm feeling very confident that my record will appeal to the voters of this state. I'm convinced of that."
Chris Van Hollen
Van Hollen, a former state senator from Kensington in his second term representing Maryland's 8th Congressional District, attended a labor rally in Baltimore County last week and announced that he had brought in veteran Democratic operative Michael Morrill to "play an active role as the exploratory team communicates with Democrats around the state." Morrill was communications director for former governor Parris N. Glendening (D).Van Hollen sent a letter to supporters Tuesday, asking for financial help and seeking "input and support as I seriously and actively explore this possibility."
And others?
Though it's too soon to tell exactly how the field will look -- several other Democratic potential candidates, including Reps. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger and Elijah E. Cummings, are pondering their options -- veteran Maryland political observers said last week that the contest will test several long-standing political assumptions about race and geography.[...]Sen. E.J. Pipkin (R-Queen Anne's), who ran unsuccessfully against U.S. Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D) last year, said he has not decided whether to try for the seat. But he thought his chances would be greatly improved from his last attempt.
"An open seat creates a whole different dynamic," he said.
The dynamics:
For Mfume to win a three-way Democratic primary, he will have to find backing beyond the black communities in Baltimore and Prince George's County, said Timothy Maloney, a former state delegate who practices law in Prince George's. For Cardin to succeed, he will need to strike a chord with voters in the Washington suburbs who have had little exposure to him over the years. And for Van Hollen to prevail, he will have to disabuse Baltimore voters of the notion that Montgomery County breeds politicians who are wealthy and aloof.Two decades ago, Del. William A. Bronrott (D-Montgomery) helped organize then-Rep. Michael Barnes's attempt to mount a bid for the U.S. Senate after Barnes served in the 8th District House seat Van Hollen occupies. Bronrott said he believes the perception of Montgomery "as a gold-plated place" helped seal Barnes's defeat.
This should be quite a primary. Good.
Posted at 01:49 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - State, Maryland | Comments (1) | Technorati
2006 Connecticut Primary: Lieberman unacceptability
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom The Washington Times:
"His message is basically 'Republican good, Democrat bad,'" says Keith Crane, a member of the , Branford, Conn., town Democratic Committee. So lately Crane has taken on another role: He is one of the founders of Dump Joe, a group dedicated to finding and supporting a candidate willing to challenge Lieberman in next year's primary election. "Opposition to Lieberman is driven by the sense that at a time when Democrats are seeking to achieve unity, and liberals are seeking to construct a new infrastructure comparable to the one the conservative movement has built over the past 30 years, Lieberman is uninterested in acting as a team player. Postings on the Dump Joe e-mail list cite his willingness to disparage fellow Democrats on Fox News, often alongside his 'good friend' Sean Hannity, as evidence of his unacceptability."
Kissing Bush on the floor of Congress, good friends with Sean Hannity? Brings to mind the old saying: The friend of my enemy is my enemy.
Posted at 01:42 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Connecticut, Netroots | Technorati
Schumer takes heat for anti-Choice candidate
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom the New York Post:
In Pennsylvania, for example, where Democrats believe they have a decent chance of toppling anti-abortion conservative Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, Schumer had a hand in luring State Treasurer Bob Casey, an anti-abortion Democrat, into the race.Clearing the primary field for Casey required elbowing out of the way a pro-choice Democratic woman who wanted to take on Santorum — and the hard-ball move has left some hard feelings.[...]
Women's-advocacy groups are steaming that Schumer, who himself strongly supports abortion rights, is working behind the scenes to recruit pro-life candidates.
National Abortion Rights Action League president Kate Michelman called Schumer's actions "disturbing," while Emily's List spokeswoman Ramona Oliver said she was stunned by what the New York Democrat is doing.
Posted at 01:35 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Pennsylvania | Technorati
Rhode Island 2006 Senate: Reproductive Rights
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom Brian Faler in the Washington Post:
Abortion rights advocates were sighing with relief this week, after Rep. James R. Langevin (D-R.I.) announced that he will not challenge Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.) , a supporter of abortion rights, in the 2006 elections.Langevin, who was considered his party's preferred candidate -- but who opposes abortion rights -- said he will forgo the race to hold on to his current job. "I have come to the conclusion that rather than starting over in the Senate, I can be most effective for Rhode Island by building seniority in the House," he told the Associated Press.
Posted at 11:57 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Rhode Island | Comments (1) | Technorati
Saturday, March 26, 2005
2006 Pennsylvania Senate "virtual" campaign
Posted by Bob BrighamBob Novak seems to think Tim doesn't exist:
Dole's Democratic counterpart, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, has guaranteed a virtually uncontested primary in Pennsylvania for the strongest Democratic candidate, State Treasurer Bob Casey Jr., against Senate Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum.
Virtually, it appears the 2006 Pennsylvania Democratic Primary is very contested.
Posted at 09:47 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Netroots, Pennsylvania | Comments (7) | Technorati
2006 Rhode Island Senate Campaign
Posted by Bob BrighamAP:
Rep. Patrick Kennedy is considering a run against Sen. Lincoln Chafee for the only congressional seat held by a Republican in heavily Democratic Rhode Island. The mere prospect of such a matchup next year has set tongues in motion."It would be a great race. The two are very evenly matched," said Brown University professor Darrell West, who has written a biography of Kennedy, 37. "Chafee is a sitting senator and people like him, but he has an 'R' next to his name in a 'D' state."
Kennedy, a six-term Democrat, initially ruled out running against Chafee, leaving the door open for his House colleague, Rep. James Langevin. But Langevin opted out earlier this week, and now Kennedy is taking a second look.
A Kennedy-Chafee race could thrust Rhode Island into the national political spotlight.
Posted at 09:43 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Rhode Island | Technorati
TX-22 Tom DeLay flops; GOP stomps
Posted by Bob Brigham"Mrs. Schiavo's life is not slipping away, it is being violently wrenched from her body in an act of medical terrorism."
~
"Right now, murder is being committed against a defenceless American citizen. Mrs Schiavo's life is being violently wrenched from her body in an act of medical terrorism. What is happening to her is not compassion, it is homicide."
First, DeLay's ethical problems put him in the hospital and now it appears the guilt has caused DeLay to lose his mind. This is about the Ethics Investigations, of course:
One senior GOP lawmaker involved in the negotiations, who did not want to speak for the record, said that DeLay, who is fighting ethics charges on several fronts, faced considerable pressure from Christian conservative groups to respond to pleas by the parents of the brain-damaged woman to intervene before her husband, Michael Schiavo, removed the feeding tube that kept her alive. The lawmaker said that DeLay "wanted to follow through" but added that many House Republicans were dubious and suspected that the leader's ethics problems were a motivating factor.Republican concerns grew, the senior House GOP lawmaker said, as a succession of federal judges, some of them conservative appointees, rejected Congress's entreaty. "A lot of members are saying, 'Why did you put us through this?' " said the lawmaker, who agreed to recount the events on the condition that he not be named.
Republicans are pissed. DeLay is burning Political Capital:
Just about the time when you think you've heard enough, the politicians enter the fray, particularly one headline-sniffer of note, Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who is burning up all of his political capital on this issue and encouraging fellow compassionate conservatives to use this case to build a moral foundation for the next elections. I want no part of the karma that will come back to haunt him for trying to cash in politically on somebody else's misery.
Grover Norquist is pissed...
"Advocates of using federal power to keep this woman alive need to seriously study the polling data that's come out on this," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, who has been talking to both social and economic conservatives about the fallout. "I think that a lot of conservative leaders assumed there was broader support for saying that they wanted to have the federal government save this woman's life."
On Meet the Press, the discussion is on Stephen Moore being pissed off...
Mr. Harwood: Well, as polarized as our politics are, Republicans feel that now they're in control of the Congress, they can also be in control to a greater extent of the ethics process and they're not likely to enable Democrats to do things that are going to erode their popularity.Ms. Ifill: Now, here's a weak point in that argument which is there are Republicans--the "NewsHour" this week that Stephen Moore was there who's Club for Growth, Free Enterprise Foundation.
Mr. Russert: Free Enterprise Foundation.
Ms. Ifill: He is one of Tom DeLay's staunchest supporters. He thinks Tom DeLay, the moon rises and sets on him, but even he said, "I'm a little concerned about this ethics question. I think we should be addressing that." He doesn't think that smells particularly right. That's where the cracks begin in the GOP armor where they disagree about how you handle these questions.
Even worse, in DeLay's TX-22, local Republican Officials are pissed off.
The worst case scenario for the GOP is for people to realize that Delay is crooked, nuts, and running the show. That is why the economic conservatives are scared to death when they see AP stories like this:
DeLay, 57, was first elected to Congress in 1984, representing Houston suburbs, and has risen to become one of the most influential conservatives on Capitol Hill.He fights government regulation at every turn, a position hardened during the years before he came to Washington when he ran a pest control business and railed at "Gestapo" environmental regulators. He's also a leader among religious conservatives, pushing for a more God-centered nation.
Ahead of the 2000 presidential race, he outlined a vision where "we march forward with a biblical worldview, a worldview that says God is our Creator, that man is a sinner, and that we will save this country by changing the hearts and minds of Americans."
"We have the House and the Senate. All we need is the presidency!"
Despite a growing ethics cloud over the past six months, he remains enormously influential.[...]
Republicans tried and failed to change House rules so DeLay could remain majority leader in case he is indicted. They then replaced the panel's GOP chairman, who presided over the rebukes, along with two GOP members who supported them.
"I don't see this as a witch hunt," said Kathleen Clark, a government ethics expert at Washington University in St. Louis. "I see it as a question of whether anyone can do anything to hold someone that powerful accountable."
Posted at 01:21 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Texas | Technorati
Friday, March 25, 2005
2006 Republican Senator Re-Election Campaigns
Posted by Bob BrighamSome things to keep in mind...
Republicans Say NO to Protecting Social Security Benefits: Allen, Burns, Chafee, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Talent and Thomas voted against a Resolution rejecting any Social Security plan that "requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt." [CQ, Vote #49, 3/15/05]Republicans Say NO to First Responders: Allen, Burns, DeWine, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent and Thomas voted against $1.6 billion for first responder programs. [CQ, Vote 50, 3/15/05]
Republicans Say NO to Veterans Health Care: Allen, Burns, DeWine, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent and Thomas Voted against $2.8 billion for veterans health care and $2.8 billion for deficit reduction. [CQ, Vote #55, 3/16/05]
Republicans Say NO to Keeping Medicaid Viable: Allen, Burns, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Talent and Thomas Voted Against Restoring $14 billion to Medicaid and Establishing a Bipartisan Medicaid Commission. [CQ, Vote #58, 3/17/05]
Republicans Say NO to America's Homeland Security: Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Kyl, Lott, Santorum and Thomas voted against $855 million for Homeland Security Grants: first responder programs, port security grants and border patrol agents. [CQ, Vote #64, 3/17/05]
Republicans Say NO to America's Communities: Allen, Burns, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent and Thomas voted against restoring $1.9 billion in cuts to the Community Development Block Grant Program. [CQ, Vote #65, 3/17/05]
Republicans Say NO to Vocational Training: Allen, Burns, DeWine, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent and Thomas voted against $7.46 billion for the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act and deficit reduction. [CQ, Vote #61, 3/17/05]
Republicans Say NO to Fiscal Sanity: Allen, Burns, DeWine, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Talent and Thomas Voted against restoring pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules. [CQ, Vote #53, 3/16/05]
Republicans Say NO to Protecting ANWR: Allen, Burns, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Talent and Thomas voted against protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska from oil drilling. [CQ, Vote #52, 3/16/05]
Republicans Say NO to Keeping Amtrak Operating: Allen, Burns, DeWine, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Talent and Thomas voted against restoring $1.04 billion for Amtrak. [CQ, Vote #51, 3/16/05]
Republicans Say NO to America's Schools: Allen, Burns, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent and Thomas voted against $4.75 billion for education and $4.75 billion for deficit reduction. [CQ, Vote #45, 3/14/05]
Republicans Say NO to College Students. Allen, Burns, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Talent and Thomas voted against restoring $5.4 billion to education program cuts and increasing the maximum Pell Grant award to $4,500. [CQ, Vote #68, 3/17/05]
Republicans Say NO to Farmers. Allen, Burns, Chafee, DeWine, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent and Thomas voted against restoring $2.8 billion to agriculture programs. [CQ, Vote #69, 3/17/05]
Republicans Say NO to COPS. Allen, Burns, Chafee, DeWine, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent and Thomas voted against increasing funding for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) by $1 billion and use $1 billion to reduce the deficit. [CQ, Vote #70, 3/17/05]
Republicans Say NO to America's Highways. Allen, Burns, Chafee, DeWine, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent and Thomas voted against increasing the budget authority for surface transportation projects. [CQ, Vote #71, 3/17/05]
Republicans Say NO to Teen Pregnancy Prevention. Allen, Burns, DeWine, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Talent and Thomas voted against a resolution supporting $1 billion for family planning programs, such as teen pregnancy prevention. [CQ, Vote #75, 3/17/05]
Republicans Say NO to Disclaimers on Fake News. Allen, Burns, Chafee, DeWine, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent and Thomas voted against refusing to establish any appropriations bill that allows funds to be provided for "prepackaged news stories" that do not have a disclaimer stating "Paid for by the United States Government" running throughout the presentation. [CQ, Vote #77, 3/17/05]
Republicans Say NO to Special Education. Allen, Burns, DeWine, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent and Thomas voted against a reserve fund that would provide $71.3 billion for special education programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. [CQ, Vote #79, 3/17/05]
Republicans Say NO to Advanced Technology. Allen, Burns, Chafee, DeWine, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchison, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent and Thomas voted against making every effort to provide funding for the Advanced Technology Program. [CQ, Vote #80, 3/17/05]
Posted at 10:32 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate | Comments (1) | Technorati
TX-22 Tom Delay in local press
Posted by Bob BrighamLast fall, Fort Bend GOP officer Bev Carter was censured for calling Tom Delay a "scoundrel" and endorsing his opponent:
Tom has openly declared himself sent by God to "stand up for a biblical world view in everything I do and everywhere I am." For him, politics is a "battle of souls." He says that he seeks a "God-centered" nation that, among other things, would curb contraception, discriminate against homosexuals, outlaw abortion, end the separation of church and state, and post the Ten Commandments in every school (even though Tom has violated more than a few of the Ten himself).He states that "our nation will only be healed through a rebirth of religious conviction and moral certitude." The thing that concerns me is that this biblical world view sounds suspiciously like the "end times" prophets and I don't really like someone who wants to see the end of the world be the same someone with the power to affect the end of the world.
Bev Carter is the owner/publisher of the Fort Bend Star and it appears has more to say:
I don't want to be a one trick pony by constantly castigating only Tom DeLay, although he makes it a tempting and easy target. But I did want to take this space to point out that many local Republicans believe that we should support him, warts and all and are willing to toss me out if I don't! I believe that we should hold public officials to a higher standard. And I also believe that Fort Bend County is such a wonderful place that we need and deserve only the very best to represent us.
Carter has been vindicated, this time many more will join her...
Let's see. Since the Fort Bend Republican Party censured me for supporting Tom DeLay's opponent, we have discovered this about Tom DeLay:Two of DeLay's close friends, former spokesman Michael Scanlon and long-time advisor Jack Abramoff, are being investigated for the millions of dollars they defrauded from several Indian tribes and how some of that money may have illegally helped DeLay's political operations Delay and his wife and several aides took a $70,000 trip to England paid for by questionable means. DeLay is being looked at because of a trip to S. Korea which was allegedly paid for by the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council, a registered foreign agent DeLay took a 2000 junket to Scotland's St. Andrews golf course which appears to have been financed by the Indian tribes. This is a violation of the House ethics rules. Shortly after the three reprimands DeLay received last year, the chairman of the House Ethics Committee that issued the reprimands and himself a Republican, was removed from the committee along with two other Republicans. They were removed by House Speaker and DeLay toady Dennis Hastert. Two of the new Republicans who were appointed in their place are reportedly DeLay backers and have contributed huge amounts to his legal defense fund.
Posted at 01:29 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Texas | Technorati
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Conrad Burns key figure in multiple investigations
Posted by Bob BrighamAnytime Senator Conrad Burns votes for Native Americans, you know something must be crooked. So crooked that there are now three different investigations (FBI, Justice Department, and the Interior Department inspector general).
A $3 million grant from a federal program intended for impoverished Indian tribal schools went to one of the richest tribes in the country under pressure from Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), who oversees the budget of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.The tribe that last year received the money for a new school, the Saginaw Chippewas of Michigan, was at the time a client of Jack Abramoff, a prominent Republican lobbyist whose practices are the subject of multiple federal investigations. Abramoff, his associates and his wealthy tribal clients have been an important source of Burns's campaign funds, providing 42 percent of the contributions to his "soft-money" political action committee from 2000 to 2002, according to federal election records.
Burns pressed for the appropriation over the objections of Interior officials, who said that the grant was not intended for such a purpose.
It gets better...
The FBI, the Justice Department's public integrity section and the Interior Department inspector general are investigating Abramoff's lobbying practices, focusing on tribal clients that paid him and a public relations associate $82 million between 2001 and 2003. Among the areas investigators are examining, former Abramoff associates and tribal representatives said, are whether legislative favors were granted in Congress in exchange for tribal campaign contributions, and whether Abramoff opened doors on Capitol Hill by wooing congressional aides with the promise of jobs, as well as tickets to sporting events, trips, meals and other gifts.Abramoff's lobbying team had strong connections with Burns's staff. Among their ranks was an appropriations aide who shuttled back and forth between jobs on Burns's staff and Abramoff's shop. Another Burns appropriations staffer and Burns's chief of staff were treated to a trip to the 2001 Super Bowl in Florida on a corporate jet leased by Abramoff's team.
As chairman of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee, Burns controls funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and is in a key position for tribes seeking special projects. His political action and campaign committees have received $137,000 from Abramoff lobbyists and their tribal clients since 2000; Dorgan has received $45,000 from them.
Ryan Thomas is at the heart of the scandal.
Ryan Thomas, a Burns staffer on the appropriations subcommittee, took the lead in tangling with Interior officials over the funding, former department officials said. He did not respond to requests for comment yesterday.Thomas had close ties to some members of Abramoff's lobbying team, former Abramoff associates said. He and Will M. Brooke, Burns's chief of staff, traveled to the 2001 Super Bowl on the Abramoff corporate jet, along with several staffers from the office of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).
Ouch, connections to Abramoff and Delay??? Will Brooke is also facing the heat:
Brooke left Burns's staff and went to work for Abramoff's group at the end of 2003, two months after the adoption of an Interior Appropriations conference report that included other provisions benefiting Abramoff clients, among them the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe of Massachusetts. That language urged the Bureau of Indian Affairs to move on the tribe's long-standing request for recognition, a first step toward gaining the right to open a casino.
And Shawn Vasell also makes the story on the scandal:
Shawn Vasell, another member of Abramoff's lobbying team, served as client manager on the Mississippi Choctaw account, and shuttled between jobs in Burns's Montana office and Abramoff's shop. Vasell was registered as a lobbyist for the Choctaw and Coushatta tribes in 2001, joined Burns's staff in 2002, then rejoined Abramoff's team as a lobbyist for the tribes in 2003.
Posted at 02:36 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Montana | Technorati
TX-22 Tom Delay 2006 Re-Election
Posted by Bob BrighamConventional wisdom says Congressman Tom Delay will be doing a perp-walk instead of running for re-election.
Today, Common Cause pulled together an overview detailing many of the unethical actions of the Majority Leader.
Tom DeLay's Transgressions: A Pattern of MisbehaviorAnd here are the QandA:
Unprecedented four admonishments by unanimous votes of the bipartisan House Ethics Committee
- K Street Project (1999) - Admonished for threatening Electronic Industries Alliance for not hiring a Republican as its president. The Ethics Committee itself initiated this investigation.
Source: "Ethics Panel Chastises DeLay For Threatening Trade Group," The Washington Post, May 14, 1999- Westar Energy (2004) - Admonished for creating at least the "appearance" that Westar Energy executives were provided special access at a West Virginia golf retreat as result of $25,000 in corporate contributions to Texans for a Republican Majority, a political group affiliated with DeLay. At the time of the retreat, the House was about to consider an energy bill that Westar hoped to influence. A complaint filed by former Rep. Chris Bell (D-TX) initiated this investigation. Link
Source: Memorandum to Members of the House Ethics Committee- Texas Redistricting (2004) - Admonished for using government resources for a political undertaking. Delay's staff contacted the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) during the 2003 Texas redistricting battle to obtain information from FAA databases on the whereabouts of Democratic Members of the Texas House who had fled Austin in a plane for the purpose of denying the House a quorum. A complaint filed by Bell initiated this investigation. Link
Source: Memorandum to Members of the House Ethics Committee- Medicare Bill (2004) - Admonished for offering to endorse Rep. Nick Smith's (R-MI) son, who would be running for Congress, on the House floor in exchange for Rep. Smith's vote in favor of the Medicare/prescription drug bill. The Ethics Committee itself initiated this investigation. Link
Source: Investigation of Certain Allegations Related to Voting on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003Pending case
- Illegal Campaign Contributions (2005) - The House Ethics Committee last year was asked to investigate Rep. DeLay for allegedly using his political action committee, Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), to launder corporate money to Texas state campaigns in 2002, a violation of state law. The committee decided not to take action on the complaint until after Travis County (Austin), Texas District Aattorney Ronnie Earle completes his investigation of TRMPAC activities and until indictments against DeLay associates in Texas are disposed of. Link
Source: Memorandum to Members of the House Ethics Committee
Questionable Conduct (not considered by House Ethics Committee)
- Celebrations for Children (CFC) - This charity, which counted DeLay political operatives among its officers, planned to sell tee times to Long Island golf courses, as well as VIP tickets to Broadway plays, yacht cruises and other events that offered access to DeLay during the 2004 Republican convention in New York. The plan was an attempt to misuse the charity's IRS tax-exempt status to circumvent the ban on raising soft money. After the charity's plan drew unfavorable attention from the House Ethics Committee, the charity backed away from its convention plans.
Source: "Charity Tied to DeLay Is Questioned; Group Asks Lawmakers To Demand Ethics Probe," Washington Post, March 24, 2004- Cruise Ship in N.Y.C. - DeLay proposed anchoring the 2,224-passenger Norwegian Dawn cruise ship in the Hudson to accommodate Republicans during the Republican National Convention as an exclusive hotel for lawmakers, lobbyists and special guests. This plan was criticized for providing an environment of special access for large contributors to elected officials. The idea was scrapped after unfavorable publicity.
Source: "They'll Take Manhattan: Republicans Drop Ship Idea," The New York Times, December 3, 2003- Legal Defense Fund Contributions - After Public Citizen complained about possible ethics violations, DeLay was forced to return contributions to his legal defense fund from registered lobbyists because House ethics rules explicitly prohibit such contributions. Link
Source: "Gifts Broke Rules, DeLay Trustee Says," The New York Times, December 8, 2004The Latest Ethics Allegations Against Tom DeLay
- Accepting illegal gifts of foreign travel, lodging and an exclusive golf outing from lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Although DeLay listed the nonprofit National Center for Public Policy Research as the sponsor of a $70,000 trip, Abramoff reportedly had actually solicited checks from two of his clients, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and eLottery Inc., to pay for the trip through the nonprofit group. Two months after the trip, DeLay helped kill legislation opposed by the tribe and the company.
Source: "Probe of Abramoff and Nonprofits' Money Opens; Senate Finance Committee Seeks Records on Trips by Reps. DeLay and Ney, Donations to Indian Tribes," The Washington Post, March 17, 2005- Taking trip to South Korea with other House Members and staff funded by Korea-U.S. Exchange Council, a business-financed group created with the help of a lobbying firm headed by DeLay's former chief of staff. The Council is a registered foreign agent, and House rules state: "a Member, officer or employee may not accept travel expenses from a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal."
Source: "S. Korean Group Sponsored DeLay Trip; Visits May Have Broken House Rules," The Washington Post, March 10, 2005Protecting Delay: Changing Ethics Rules
- Changed House ethics rules to let a complaint die if the ethics committee cannot decide whether it should be investigated within 45 days.
Source: "After Retreat, G.O.P. Changes House Ethics Rule," The New York Times, January 5, 2005- Changed House ethics rules to allow either party to block an ethics investigation by voting along party lines, thus denying a majority vote to allow it to proceed.
Source: "After Retreat, G.O.P. Changes House Ethics Rule," The New York Times, January 5, 2005- Changed House ethics rules to allow several members involved in a single ethics investigation to hire the same attorney. House rules prohibited this in order to ensure one attorney could not gain access to too much information and prevent coordination of testimony.
- The House Republican conference changed its internal rules, rescinding a provision that required a member to step down from a leadership post if indicted. This rule change was later rescinded after adverse publicity. Link
Source: "GOP Pushes Rule Change To Protect DeLay's Post," The Washington Post, November 17, 2004- Unsuccessful attempts were made to change House ethics rules to eliminate the broad rule that Members should conduct themselves in a manner that "reflects creditably" on the House. This had been the basis for sanctions by the ethics committee and the House. Link
Source: "House to Consider Relaxing Its Rules; GOP Leaders Seek Ethics Changes," The Washington Post, December 31, 2004Protecting Delay: Ethics Committee Purge
- Speaker Dennis Hastert removed Rep. Joel Hefley (D-CO) as chairman of the Ethics Committee that oversaw three admonishments of DeLay in 2004. Prior to his removal, Hefley said of Republican colleagues he would not name: "They said I was hurting my career here. The implication is that some form of retribution would be taken." Hefley also told a newspaper after the third DeLay admonishment: "I've been attacked; I've been threatened." Link
Sources: "Ethics Panel's Chair Is the Toughest Seat in the House," The Washington Post, January 7, 2005; "Hefley: `I was threatened'," The Hill, October 13, 2004- Replaced the two members of the Ethics Committee, Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-MO) and Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH), who both admonished DeLay and voted against the Republican Conference rule changes to protect DeLay, with two Republican loyalists, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Tom Cole (R-OK). Smith and Cole contributed $10,000 and $5,000, respectively, to DeLay's legal defense fund. Smith also co-hosted a fundraiser with DeLay for Texans' for a Republican Majority, which is now the subject of a grand jury instigation. Link
Source: "Ethics Purge," The Washington Post, February 5, 2005- Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA), who replaced Hefley as Ethics Committee chairman, fired several longtime committee staffers, including John Vargo, the staff director and chief counsel, and Paul Lewis, a counsel. Hastings' office defended his decision to replace Vargo and Lewis as standard practice for a new chairman, although both Vargo and Lewis had been working on the committee since before Hefley was its chairman. Link
Source: "Critics Slam Hastings' Dismissal of Ethics Staff," Roll Call, February 17, 2005Protecting Delay: Intimidate Accusers
- After being scolded twice by the Ethics Committee in one week, DeLay responded through his lawyer with a letter to the chairman of the House Rules Committee alleging Rep. Bell's complaint was filed in order to "raise funds for non-member groups," specifically Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). The letter stated "Bell and CREW lodged libelous and specious allegations against Majority Leader DeLay ... apparently with blatant disregard to the veracity of their statements." In response, Ethics Committee Chairman Helfey said: "If DeLay and his lawyer feel he was treated unfairly, they can come back and we can open it all back up again." Link
Source: "DeLay attacks accuser after ethics panel rebuke," The Washington Times, October 9, 2004- Even though the Ethics Committee admonished DeLay for two of the allegations raised in a complaint filed by Rep. Chris Bell (R-TX) (and is withholding a ruling on a third allegation pending the outcome of prosecutions in Texas), the Ethics Committee in November 2004 warned Bell against using "excessive or inflammatory language or exaggerated charges" and threatened disciplinary action against Members who filed complaints the committee considered excessive or inflammatory. This action serves to discourage the already rare Member-filed complaint to the ethics committee. Link
Source: "Foe of DeLay Rebuked By House Ethics Panel," The New York Times, November 20, 2004- Retaliation against Ronnie Earle, the Texas district attorney who is investigating possible violations by DeLay. Specifically, legislation introduced in the GOP-dominated Texas legislature to halt Earle's high-profile grand jury probe. The legislation would have taken authority over campaign finance violations from the district attorney and given it to a special office in the Texas Ethics Commission that would have the power to stop district attorneys from prosecuting election code violations. Link
Source: "Texas Ethics Bill Could Allow Appointees to Bar Prosecutions," The Washington Post, February 20, 2005Fixing the Problem?
- Mollohan Resolution: Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV), the ranking member of the House Ethics Committee, introduced a resolution (H Res. 131) March 1, 2005 that would undo the controversial changes made to the House ethics rules at the beginning of the 109th Congress. The resolution would repeal the new rule allowing either party to block an investigation by voting along party lines; repeal the new rule allowing a case to die if the committee takes no action within 45 days; repeal the new "collusion" rule, allowing one lawyer to represent more than on individual involved in an ethics case. The resolution has 206 co-sponsors, including Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) and former Ethics Committee Chairman Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO). It has been referred to the House Rules Committee and a subcommittee, ironically, also chaired by the new ethics committee chairman, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA), who can block the resolution from moving. Mollohan has threatened a discharge petition if the resolution is not brought to the House floor. Link
Source: "Mollohan Offers Resolution To Reverse Ethics Changes," National Journal's CongressDaily, March 02, 2005- Committee Organization Stalls: Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV), ranking member of the Ethics Committee and his Democratic colleagues on the panel refused to allow the committee to operate under the new rules adopted at the beginning of the session. They blocked the committee from organizing or operating in the new Congress until the new rules changes are repealed. Link
Source: "Ethics Panel Faces Organizational Fight," Roll Call, March 10, 2005- Pelosi "Privileged" Resolution: Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the House minority leader, introduced a "privileged" resolution (H. Res. 153) March 15, 2005, that would have established a bipartisan task force to recommend changes to House ethics rules. The House voted to table (kill) the motion, 223-194, along party lines, except that Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO) voted against tabling. (To read the resolution and House debate on it, click here. For a breakdown of how House members voted, click here.)
Source: "Hefley joins Dems on ethics," The Hill, March 16, 2005- <font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #c1ccd9" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000" size="3">Slaughter Request of the House Rules Committee: In a March 17, 2005 letter, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), ranking member of the House Rules Committee, asked Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-CA) to hold hearings on the House ethics process and move the Mollohan resolution. (link to Slaughter news release)
- Hastings Requests More Funding for Ethics Committee Despite Staff Cuts: Ethics Committee chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) asked the House Administration Committee for an additional $1.7 million in its fiscal 2006 budget, 55 percent more than the $3.1 million it received this year. Hastings claims the additional money would be used to add staff to increase the committee's "investigative capability" and improve ethics education for Members and staff. Ironically, this request comes a month after Hastings dismissed John Vargo, a member of the ethics committee staff since 1996, and Paul Lewis, a former Justice Department lawyer who joined the committee staff in 1997. Currently, the Ethics Committee can not conduct any business until the face-off over accepting the controversial new ethics rules forced through the Houseis resolved.
Source: "Hastings Seeks $1.7M Increase For Revamped Ethics Panel," National Journal's CongressDaily, March 17, 2005
Q&A on DeLay
What's the problem?
The problem is a pattern of abuse and intimidation by Tom DeLay and Republican leaders, who have conspired to protect DeLay and in the process eliminated - at least for now ethics enforcement in the House.
As you know, the majority leader has been admonished for his unethical conduct four times since 1999. The latest admonishments for DeLay last fall were too much for House leaders, who felt like the ethics process had gotten out of their control. So they privately wrote some ethics rules changes that virtually guarantee no new ethics investigations will begin. Then they fired the chairman of the Ethics Committee, Joel Hefley, and two other members and replaced them with members widely viewed to be party loyalists, including two who gave money to DeLay's legal defense fund.
Then the Democrats on the Ethics Committee refused to accept the ethics rules changes, thereby preventing the committee from organizing and allowing it to conduct business.
So you essentially have a defunct Ethics Committee, while at the same time, numerous allegations have piled up in recent weeks about Tom DeLay - and other members of Congress - taking expensive trips that were illegally paid for by lobbyists and foreign agents.
Tom DeLay and his supporters say this is nothing more than a partisan witch hunt. Is that true?
That's laughable. Tom DeLay has four times been admonished by the unanimous vote of a bipartisan Ethics Committee in a Republican-dominated House. The only partisan witch hunt underway is being carried out by the Republicans, who have trashed the ethics process to protect Delay and have retaliated against their own colleagues for admonishing Delay. Joel Hefley, the former chairman of the Ethics Committee, and two other members of the ethics committee - along with two senior staff -- were thrown off the committee for doing their jobs.
What happened to the Ethics Committee from last year that admonished Tom DeLay?
Three of the five Republicans on that panel were fired. Joel Hefley, the chairman, was replaced by Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA), who is widely viewed as a party loyalist. In addition, Reps. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Tom Cole (R-OK) were added to the panel. Smith donated $10,000 to DeLay's legal defense fund and Cole donated $5,000.
Why should Tom DeLay and others caught up in the junket scandal get in trouble when they claim they didn't realize who was paying for the trips?
Members of Congress have an obligation and responsibility to find out who is paying for the trip before they travel.
What about Tom DeLay and his travel problems? Don't all members of Congress take those expensive trips, Democrats and Republicans?
Yes, and that's just another reason we need a strong bipartisan Ethics Committee with the will and power to conduct thorough investigations and answer tough questions. If you don't have that, when these questions are left to float around in the press and on the internet, how can the public have confidence in its elected officials and government?
If Congress is to command the respect, trust and confidence of the people, the members who serve in it, especially the leaders, must operate and must be perceived as operating according to high standards of fair and ethical conduct.
What is the Mollohan resolution?
Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV), the ranking member of the House Ethics Committee, introduced a bill (H Res 131) March 1 that would undo the changes made to the House ethics rules at the beginning of the 109th Congress. The resolution has 206 co-sponsors, including Republican Reps. Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Joel Hefley (R-CO), the former ethics committee chairman. It has been referred to the House Rules Committee.
What is the Pelosi resolution?
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the House minority leader, introduced a resolution (H Res 153) March 15 that would have established a bipartisan task force to recommend changes to House ethics rules. The House instead voted to table the motion, 223-194. (To read the resolution and House debate on it, click here. For a breakdown of how House members voted, click herePosted at 02:08 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Texas | Technorati
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Casey/Santorum: Dead Heat
Posted by Tim TagarisA new poll released by Patriot News/WGAL-TV in Pennsylvania shows Bobby Casey Jr.'s lead over arch-Republican Rick Santorum is down to one percent. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first (or second?) public poll since the "official announcement" of Casey Jr.
March 22, 2005 (MoE +/- 4.2%)
Bobby Casey Jr. - 44%
Rick Santorum - 43%February 16, 2005 (MoE +/- 2.8%)
Bobby Casey Jr. - 46%
Rick Santorum - 41%These two results come after a DSCC poll released around January 13, 2005 that showed Casey with a 52% to 38% lead over Santorum.
Disclaimer: I am working Democratic candidate Chuck Pennacchio's online outreach
Posted at 09:52 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Pennsylvania | Technorati
Monday, March 21, 2005
Montana Senate 2006: Conrad Burns to retire?
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom Kos:
State Democrats made huge gains in 2004, and are eagerly looking forward to taking on Republican Conrad Burns. Burns won narrowly in 2000, 51-47 against the then-unknown Schweitzer (now governor). Attorney General Mike McGrath and Senate majority leader John Tester are possible opponents. Rumors out of MT say that Burns may opt to cash in on K Street, rather than face a tough (and possibly losing) race.Last week Burns chose to toe the party line instead of playing safe for re-election when Burns voted for deep benefit cuts and a massive increase in debt. In Montana, the, "intensity of feeling about private accounts was much greater on the oppose side than it was on the favor side."
Moreover, look at how Montanans feel:
Deep Benefit Cuts
Support/Oppose: 15%/75%Massive Increase in Debt
Support/Oppose: 18%/73%If Burns was planning on running for re-election, then positioning himself against 3 out of 4 Montanas (on the biggest issue of the day) would have been political suicide. Burns is voting like a future lobbyist, not as a vulnerable candidate.
If the seat opens up, then the odds flip:
Rumors abound that Burns will cash in to K Street rather than face another tough battle, in a state that is increasingly hostile to Republicans. Hard to believe, but Montana Democrats took control of the governorship and both houses of the legislature in a 2004 election-night massacre.Montana Democrats feel confident that either Senate Majority Leader Jon Tester or AG Mike MaGrath could put a serious dent in Burns' mojo. I've got this race as "lean GOP" so long as Burns is in the race. If Burns retires, then an open seat race leans Democratic.
Posted at 03:36 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Montana | Comments (1) | Technorati
GOP Overextended
Posted by Bob BrighamNew polling numbers on the Schiavo case have been released by ABC News. Here are some highlights:- 70% of Americans say it is inappropriate for Congress to involve itself in the Schiavo case.
- 67% of Americans “think the elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved.” (Just 19% believe the elected officials are acting out of concern for her or their principles.)
- 58% of Republicans, 61% of independents and 63% of Democrats oppose federal government intervention in the case.
- 50% of evangelicals oppose federal government intervention in the case, just 44% approve of the intervention.
- 63% of Catholics and a plurality of evangelicals believe Schiavo’s feeding tube should be removed.
Posted at 03:05 PM in 2005 Elections, 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, 2006 Elections - State, 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Republicans | Comments (1) | Technorati
Sunday, March 20, 2005
No Shame. Period.
Posted by Tim TagarisBy no means am I a political veteran. I have worked three campaigns in my life, and understand that I am very far from "having seen it all." At the same time, I am a realist and a political cynic; rarely do I do a double-take in astonishment. But if what the Seattle Times, ABC News, and Washington Post reported today is true, I think we might currently be witnessing the most spectacular display of shamelessness and some other adjective that my 753 page thesaurus in front of me cannot even capture:
The one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators by party leaders, called the debate over Schiavo legislation "a great political issue" that would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters. The memo singled out Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who is up for re-election next year."This is an important moral issue, and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," said the memo, reported by ABC News and later given to The Washington Post. "This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a co-sponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."
Then there is Drudge, ripping a page right out of the National Enquirer, Sun, or Washington Times (pick your favorite tabloid rag):
DRUDGE RADIO to present audio of Terri Schiavo responding to her father on Friday, immediately following the removal of her feeding tube.... Check local listings...There is no shortage of irony in this story. The biggest chunk to strike me is the fact that Medicaid is footing most of the bill to keep Terry Schiavo alive.
Posted at 10:41 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Florida | Technorati
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Two Generic Congressional Poll Give Dems Slight Edge
Posted by DavidNYCLast month, two new generic Congressional ballot polls came out, the first I've seen in 2005.
The first one was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a Democratic firm, and Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican outfit, for NPR. (So do the fears of bias cancel each other out?) Feb. 15th - 17th, likely voters, no trendlines:
Democrats: 42
Republicans: 36
Unsure: 22
(MoE: ±3.5%)The other poll was also conducted by GQR (but just GQR) for Democracy Corps, itself a Democratic organization. GQR must really have had a good Chinese Wall going - this poll was conducted at almost exactly the same time, and yet came up with different results. Feb. 13th - 17th, likely voters, mid-Jan. trendlines in parens:
Democrats: 46 (48)
Republicans: 44 (43)
Unsure: 10 (8)
(MoE: ±3.1%)I wonder why the Dems didn't perform as well in this poll as in the other one, and why they've slipped in a month when the GOP hasn't exactly been doing well.
All polls available at Polling Report.
Posted at 07:39 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House | Technorati
Reid and Lieberman
Posted by Bob BrighamTuesday, Democrat Leader Harry Reid threatened to shut down the Senate if the Republicans went Nuclear, invoking a MAD paradigm of interaction.
But MAD only works if everyone is on the same page. Imagine the response if a general, in the heat of the Cold War, had said that he wouldn't respond in-kind to a nuclear attack.
If your friends aren't with you when the other side goes Nuclear, then they are probably your enemies.
MSNBC sets the stage:
'Cataclysmic event' “If Republicans want to go down this road, they are going to be beginning a huge, partisan, cataclysmic event, the implications of which are so profound that none of us really know the answer to it,” said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., one of the Democrats arrayed behind Reid on the Capitol steps.The next subhead:
Key Democrats: Nelson, Lieberman Conspicuous by their absence from Reid’s Capitol steps event were two Democrats: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who has voted against all but one of the Democratic filibusters since 2003, and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Both men are up for re-election next year, and Nelson is running in a state Bush won with 66 percent of the vote.Damn straight Lieberman's absence was conspicuous.
Harry Reid responds in Raw Story:
Sen. Reid took pains to detail why he feels blogs–and Internet news sites in general–are paramount. Reid says he believes much of the American agenda today is dictated by wealth and power, and that blogs offer “regular, ordinary people” a place to have a voice.“What has happened in recent years… [is] the concentration of media power, so one station, one owner can own 1,200 radio stations,” Reid said. “What this means is that wealth and power control most everything in this country. But one thing they do not control–wealth and power does not control the Internet.”
“I think the blogs are a tremendously important way for the American public to find out what’s really going on,” the senator continued. “That’s why I go out of my way to communicate any way that I can on the Internet.”
Of late, Reid and other Democrats have taken heat from progressive bloggers on the issue of party unity. The Democrats in the Senate split nearly evenly on the recent bankruptcy bill, and some Democrats have been tagged as waffling in their opposition to the president’s Social Security plan.
Reid dismissed the critique, saying it was “not valid.”
“That’s really not valid,” he told RAW STORY. “We have people who have different views on what should happen once privatization is dropped. But that’s good and healthy; there’s nothing wrong with that.”
“We have had unity on Social Security,” he added. “Total unity. Everyone agrees that privatization would destroy Social Security and we have also total cooperation and unity in the fact that if he’s willing to back off that–privatization–we’re willing to work on Social Security’s out year problems.”
Total unity on Social Security is a good start.
Posted at 11:50 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, 2008 President - Democrats, Activism, Connecticut | Comments (1) | Technorati
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Lieberman Primary challenger?
Posted by Bob BrighamDr. JOHN ORMAN has announced the formation of an exploratory committee. It looks like it is getting interesting in Connecticut 2006 Senate Primary.
Full release below the fold, from a Kos diary
PRESS RELEASE March 16, 2005Citizen activist and political analyst, Dr. JOHN ORMAN, Politics Professor at Fairfield
University, announced today his intention to create an advisory committee to evaluate
his candidacy to challenge Joe Lieberman for the Democratic nomination for U.S.
Senate in the 2006 primary. Orman said, "There is a great national debate going on
for the heart and soul of the Democratic party. Let the battle begin here and now in
Connecticut."
Orman said, " What sealed my discontent with Lieberman was the famous kiss
that President Bush planted on him after this year's State of the Union Address."
"Our party's Senator is no longer a Democrat. He has joined the Republicrat Party.
After 17 years as a safe seat Senator, Joe has lost touch with his party and with his state."
Orman declared," Just as Lieberman indicated in 1988 that Lowell Weicker was a
sleeping bear in the woods who was an arrogant incumbent, Lieberman has crossed
over into that same forest. Joe is a minority member of the national minority party who
has a worse attending record in the Senate than Lowell Weicker ever did."
Orman noted, "Lieberman was wrong on his support of Bush's claim that the Social
Security System is in crisis. He was wrong to support Bush's war on terror diversion
into Iraq. He was wrong to support Attorney General Gonzalez for confirmation.
Lieberman should just join the Republican Party."
Orman observed, "Lieberman has ignored his Connecticut Democratic base of seniors,
working women and men, students, teachers, liberal Democrats, progressives and others.
Regardless of whether I decide to run for the U.S. Senate nomination against Joe
Lieberman, the Senator has been put on notice that he will be challenged."
Orman was the Democratic candidate for U.S. House of Representatives in 1984
in the 4th Congressional District who ran against Stewart McKinney. In 2000
Orman was the Connecticut citizen who stepped forward to challenge Joe Lieberman
for running for two different national offices at the same time. When Orman started to
file official complaints in September ,2000 he made it a national issue. By October 2000
the issue had become a state issue and the Quinnipiac Poll reported that 45% agreed
with Lieberman and 46% disagreed with him running for two offices at the same time.
Orman is the author of five books including PRESIDENTIAL SECRECY AND
DECEPTION; COMPARING PRESIDENTIAL BEHAVIOR; PRESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTABILITY; THE POLITICS OF ROCK MUSIC; and his most recent book
CELEBRITY POLITICS (co-author Darrell West). Orman has appeared on CNN, Fox,
ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, BBC and other networks talking about politics in America.
He is frequently quoted on American politics in national newspapers and publications.
Posted at 11:47 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Connecticut | Technorati
Vote on Social Security
Posted by Bob BrighamYesterday, the Senate gave the following statement an up or down vote:
"It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt."Here are the 12 Senators (standing for re-election in 2006) who voted for deep social security cuts and massive debt:
Allen, George VA
Burns, Conrad MT
Chafee, Lincoln RI
Ensign, John NV
Hatch, Orrin UT
Hutchison, Kay Bailey TX
Kyl, Jon AZ
Lott, Trent MS
Lugar, Richard IN
Santorum, Rick PA
Talent, Jim MO
Thomas, Craig WYHere is the link to the vote.
Posted at 09:24 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Arizona, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming | Technorati
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Maryland Senate Primary
Posted by Bob BrighamThe AP's Gretchen Parker gives us the following names:
Maryland's U.S. Senate race still is 20 months away. But the race is on. On Monday, three days after Sen. Paul Sarbanes announced he won't seek a sixth term, former NAACP president Kweisi Mfume launched a bid to take over the seat.[...]Two Democratic contenders for governor — Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley and Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan — have said they're concentrating on the governor's race.
But two of Maryland's Democratic U.S. congressmen, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger and Chris Van Hollen, spoke up after Mfume's announcement Monday to say they are forming exploratory panels. Reps. Elijah Cummings and Ben Cardin have not publicly ruled out making bids.
Posted at 03:46 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Maryland | Technorati
VA-07: Eric Cantor in Serious Trouble
Posted by Bob BrighamRaw Story has the exclusive. If you're wondering how our candidate did against Cantor last year, sorry, but we didn't have a candidate.
Posted at 11:55 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Virginia | Technorati
IL-06 Hyde retiring, Cegelis leading Open Seat
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom the Chicago Sun-Times:
In a few weeks, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), the chairman of the House International Relations Committee who as Judiciary Committee chief wielded the gavel during President Clinton's impeachment, will announce that he will not seek another term.The public position of Hyde, 80, an icon of the conservative movement, is that he will make up his mind for sure in April. But I am told he has decided to retire and is unlikely to reverse course.
Cegelis has kept her organization running and is even posting on dailykos as she ramps up her efforts:
As seasoned political advisor told me, if I wanted to win in 2006 I needed to start in November of 2004. I took that advice to heart and kept as much of my organization in place as possible to gear up for what is now will most likely be an open seat in 2006. I have been running with a really strong sense of urgency though since there are strong rumors that Henry Hyde will be given an ambassadorship to the Vatican in 2005, kicking off a special election. I do not know if it really will happen, but I would be foolish not to be ready if it did. So in the next few months we will be running this campaign as if the election is going to happen this summer. If it does not then we will be just that much stronger in 2006. There are many who believe that the Sixth District is the best target in Illinois in 2006 for a Democratic seat.Posted at 11:37 AM in 2005 Elections, 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Illinois | Comments (1) | Technorati
Lieberman's potential 2006 primary
Posted by Bob BrighamIn my last post on a potential Lieberman primary, I used a series of maps to illustrate the problem Lieberman would have due to the unique situation of his state being situated in the middle of a high density bastion of Democratic support. The argument that I laid out was for the potential of an invasion of out-of-town Democrats focused on enforcing Party discipline.
In response, it was noted how Howard Dean’s invasion during the Iowa Caucuses backfired.
I agree with the analysis that the Iowa voters were turned off by out-of-state activists telling them who to vote for. This was heightened by the vast cultural divide between the Dean supporters and Iowa Democrats.
However, this will not apply to a potential primary campaign for three main reasons.
The blogosphere learns very quickly and having identified this, the blogosphere will adapt. Any such primary campaign will focus on organizing Connecticut residents who support a united Party to convince their neighbors to join them in support.
The second major reason why this won’t be relevant is because the cultural divide between Connecticut and the surrounding area is minimal. Many Connecticut voters work in New York and New Yorkers campaigning will not intrinsically offend their cultural sensibilities.
Finally, the lesson of the Dean campaign is that people don’t want outsiders telling them who to vote for. The inverse of this statement has yet to be tested. At this point, any primary campaign would not be a positive movement for a candidate, but a negative statement. Extensive evidence proves that voters respond as intended to negative attacks and a campaign that focuses negatively will not face the same hurdles.
When these factors are considered, it is easy to conclude that out-of-state volunteers could effectively contribute to a potential primary campaign against Lieberman. By focusing out-of-state volunteers on communicating and organizing supporters, their efforts could help build the type of infrastructure necessary for a true grassroots campaign. When interacting with undecided and Lieberman voters, having their efforts focused on a purely negative message would allow their argument to gain traction regardless of their home address.
These are only some initial points and strong on-the-ground leadership and direction will surely refine such tactics.
But it is true that if there is a challenge, people will come. By realizing how such efforts have been counter-productive in the past, organizers could construct a campaign that will minimize liabilities while maximizing effectiveness.
Such a campaign could be an exciting test case for post-modern primary involvement.
Posted at 11:02 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Connecticut, Netroots | Technorati
Friday, March 11, 2005
Santorum Funeral
Posted by Bob BrighamLast time Senator Rick Santorum was seriosly slapped around, it was due to two bloggers. Chris Bowers and Tim Tagaris went to a Townhall meeting the Senator was throwing.
Tim captured the legendary video footage of the College Republicans chanting, "Hey-hey, Ho-ho, Social Security has got to go.
Once inside, Bowers got Santorum to admit that he couldn't name a single Democrat willing to privatize.
Now, the two are at the Funeral March for Social Security.
Bowers told me that there are well over 200 people marching and that the sound is echoing off the buildings...creating a roar.
Tim has a camera again and told me, "People do real stupid things when you turn the camera on." He claims to have, "great video" of the protest.
UPDATE: There is a great deal of press...at least eight cameras. Bowers says they are loud enough to be heard inside.
more to come...
Posted at 05:32 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Netroots, Pennsylvania | Technorati
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Richard Morrison for TX22
Posted by Bob BrighamI had just published a post on Texas 22 when I saw this on Kos:
Netroots Make it Happen by Richard Morrison for CongressPosted at 07:43 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Texas | Technorati
Texas 22
Posted by Bob BrighamCould TX22 come into play?
Last week, the Washington Post ran a story that noted:
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), struggling to protect his Washington power base as legal and ethical issues fester, also has to watch his back on the home front.Though the change has received little notice, DeLay's strength in his suburban Houston congressional district of strip malls and housing developments has eroded considerably -- forcing him to renew his focus on protecting his seat.
DeLay garnered 55 percent of the vote in the November election against a relatively unknown Democrat, an unusually modest showing for a veteran House member who is one of the most powerful politicians in Washington. Some Republican officials and DeLay supporters worry that with President Bush absent from the top of the ticket next year, liberal interest groups might target the conservative majority leader and spend millions of dollars on campaign ads to try to defeat him.
Yesterday, the New York Times exposed:
Documents subpoenaed from an indicted fund-raiser for Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, suggest that Mr. DeLay was more actively involved than previously known in gathering corporate donations for a political committee that is the focus of a grand-jury investigation in Texas, his home state.The documents, which were entered into evidence last week in a related civil trial in Austin, the state capital, suggest that Mr. DeLay personally forwarded at least one large corporate check to the committee, Texans for a Republican Majority, and that he was in direct contact with lobbyists for some of the nation's largest companies on the committee's behalf.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post spent yesterday alerting readers:
A delegation of Republican House members including Majority Leader Tom DeLay accepted an expense-paid trip to South Korea in 2001 from a registered foreign agent despite House rules that bar the acceptance of travel expenses from foreign agents, according to government documents and travel reports filed by the House members.[...]It spent at least $106,921 to finance the three-day trip in 2001 from Washington to Seoul by the Republicans, which DeLay (Tex.) and accompanying staff assistants described at the time as having an "educational" purpose.
Today, he was treated at Bethesda National Naval Medical Center for heart problems.
What does the DCCC say about targeting DeLay?
But when asked if House majority leader Tom DeLay (R) of Texas is on his list of vulnerable incumbents he wants to go after, the feisty Emanuel reemerged: "If I told you, I would have to kill you!" he said, smiling broadly. "There are no districts that are absolutely off the table."Indeed, ever since DeLay emerged as the enforcer to low-key House Speaker Dennis Hastert (another Illinoisian), the Democrats have been itching to oust DeLay from his perch — much the way the Republicans ousted the sitting Speaker, Tom Foley, from his congressional seat in the sea-change election of 1994. A look at DeLay's performance last November — winning reelection with just 55% of the vote — combined with recent rebukes over ethics and continuing investigations reveals the potential for vulnerability.
For what it is worth, the his last filing only showed $68,278 cash-on-hand. And the local paper is headlining his denial.
If God doesn't strike him down and he stays out of jail, he will still be vulnerable. I say we continue to hit him with everything we've got. At the very least, we can pin him down in Texas.
Posted at 07:05 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Texas | Comments (1) | Technorati
Potential Lieberman Primary
Posted by Bob BrighamSome people need to realize that it isn't the blogosphere that would organize a potential primary campaign, the blogosphere would just nationalize the effort.
It is Connecticut Democrats, on the ground in Connecticut, having the discussion:
Connecticut Democrats dissatisfied with U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman want to mount a primary election challenge to the three-term incumbent in 2006 and say they are debating the merits of as many as six alternative candidates. Tom Swan, executive director of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group and a party insider involved in the insurgency, declined this week to name any of the potential challengers. "There's a great deal of displeasure with Joe and some of his recent actions," Swan said, referring to the senator's stance on proposed changes to the Social Security system and his support for the confirmations of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. "But it would be premature at this point to discuss specifics."For those unfamiliar with Citizens Action, they spend most of their time walking door-to-door, but take breaks for in-your-face media events.
Nevertheless, Swan and Nathan Karnes, a member of a Democratic ward committee in New Haven and a leader of a "DumpJoe" message group at Yahoo.com, said those under consideration include current and past state officials and at least two "high-profile" figures from the entertainment industry who live in the state and are politically active.They said the latter do not include actor and philanthropist Paul Newman, a Westport resident who had been rumored to be considering a race against Lieberman that party leaders have since discounted.
How do you nationalize a primary?
The insurgents' comments came as a Web site created by a former Connecticut resident now living in southern California began collecting cash pledges from those who would help fund a primary bid against Lieberman.Under the rubric "timetogojoe," the site brands the senator as "a Democrat in name only" and seeks to raise as much as $1 million for "any real Democrat" who might oppose him.
The tone of web campaigns?
"Had enough of Joe Lieberman playing both sides of the aisle?" the site's home page asks. "Let's give the Left-Hating, War-Hawking, Bush-Kissing, Neo-Con, Torture Apologist the primary he deserves."In one of the most recent postings, a participant calling himself "joesnotmyhometownboy" attacks Lieberman for his position on the board of directors of The Nixon Center, a division of the Richard Nixon Library and Birthplace Foundation. The Washington-based think tank is headed by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
It isn't about being a leftwing Democrat, it is about being a proud Democrat:
"We're saying, "Hey, what do you guys think about this guy?'" Karnes said. "We don't have to accept him at the Democratic nominee in '06 without a challenge, and I think the reception has been very good."The listserve's participants have bristled at characterizations of Lieberman's Democratic opponents as "liberal," and Karnes said it is not necessarily true that he and his colleagues all hail from their party's left wing.
He noted that his parents and their friends, who he said were by no means liberals, shared the sentiment prevailing on the listserve.
"It's really Joe Lieberman that's moved away from the Democratic Party," he said. "And it's not just the social issues where he had moved away."
In news probably unrelated to Lieberman looking at a tough primary, CREW exposes he has taken $16,000 from smut peddlers. Atrios posted the story and gave a good laugh to 50,000 netroots activists...
Posted at 05:47 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Connecticut, Netroots | Technorati
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Colorado 2006 gubernatorial, 2008 senate races
Posted by Bob BrighamUdall is running for US Senate:
Saying he wants to work on federal rather than state issues, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall surprised fellow Democrats on Thursday by deciding not to run for governor in 2006 but to vie for the U.S. Senate in 2008 instead."Frankly, I am reluctant to set out on a different path," said the fourth-term Eldorado Springs congressman who was the favorite in the small camp of Democrats publicly eyeing gubernatorial runs.
Udall's announcement emboldens former Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter and venture capitalist Rutt Bridges, both of whom have expressed interest in the job but lack Udall's name recognition and party ties.[...]
Udall's decision also clears the field for other potential Democratic contenders. Some in the party have urged state Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald to run for governor. And many Democratic brass are leaning heavily on Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper to consider the seat.
This is one of my favorite states and critical to the future of the Democratic Party. I'll be watching the 2006 primary closely, you should too.
Posted at 04:42 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, 2006 Elections - State, Colorado | Comments (3) | Technorati
Lieberman, DLC, Bloggers and the 2006 Primary
Posted by Bob BrighamAs of late, there has been a great deal of discussion concerning a potential primary challenge to Senator Joe Lieberman. As is to be expected, the DLC is flacking for Lieberman, here's what our friend at Bull Moose says:
While the Moose is clearly partial to the blogosphere, as of yet, he has not seen evidence it carries much political clout outside of raising money.First of all, I'm glad we can all agree that any primary would be very well financed. Furthermore, it bears notice that bloggers don't pay consultants on percentage, and absent such conflicts of interest the bulk would not be wasted on TV (Lieberman would not have such an advantage and considering the expense of the media markets involved, this is very relevant).
Democratic Primary voters love an underdog (cue: Eye of the Tiger), so any such investment in media would gain immediate traction. The numbers I spend all day looking at on Social Security suggest that any such campaign would have even more support among seniors than among young anti-war activists.
So, bloggers would have the money to run plenty of mail, robo-calls, radio, etc. And the money to build the organization.
The organization is where things get interesting. Because the unique geographical location of the district in relationship to a fuckton of people.
In fact, if you look nationwide at population density outside, but nearby a state, Connecticut would be the poster child for volunteer mobilization in a nationalized primary. Here's a density map based on population density that I pulled together from National Atlas
Keep reading for all the maps.
Clearly Connecticut brings this potential dynamic into play more than any other state in the union. Not only would comparisions to non-internet driven campaigns be irrelevant, but so would comparisions with past primary campaigns in other regions.
In fact, when we zoom in, it becomes even clearer that there are a helluva lot of people nearby.
The problem is that this map uses the same color (dark blue) to show density of 250-66,395. Which is a fairly wide range, so let's look at the extreme population density with another map where each point of light represents 7,500 people. When you look at the area around his district it is lit up like it could be seen from space.
The biggest problem for Lieberman in any potential primary campaign is that a great deal of these people are Democrats. Playing around with Professor Robert Vanderbei's maps shows that not only are there a great deal of people, but that the people who live near Connecticut compromise a bastion of Democratic voters. The following map is a sliding partisan scale (blue to red) with the vertical axis representing population density.
The blue skyscrapers just outside of Connecticut represent the northeastern base of the Democratic Party. Many of these voters are activists and if organized (hmmm, such as online) could be mobilized to form an organization unlike any army ever raised for a primary campaign.
The important thing to note is that these volunteers would have more than idealogy on their side, they would actually have science. Yes, scientists study how Lieberman hurts the Democratic Party in the minds of swing voters. Cognative Scientist Professor George Lakoff concludes:
There is a myth that voters are lined up in a left-to-right line, and that to gain the support of swing voters, you must move to the center. When progressives move to the right, they lose in two ways, setting up a self-defeating double-whammy:1) Moving to the right alienates your progressive base.
2) It actually helps conservatives because it activates their model in swing voters.
Notice that conservatives do not gain more voters by moving to the Left. What they do is stick to their strict ideology to activate their model in swing voters by being clear and consistent in policies and messages framed in terms of conservative values.
A potential primary be instantly nationalized, would have a pile of money that would fundamentally be spent more effectively, access to a greater pool of out-of-district activists than any race in the country, and the volunteers would know that they are scientifically doing the best thing for the Democratic Party.
Oh yeah, it it would start online so it would be extra nasty...
Posted at 12:35 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Connecticut, Netroots | Technorati
Friday, March 04, 2005
What a day...
Posted by Tim TagarisWhen we started the day, Barbara Hafer was in the PA Senate race to stay, Bob Casey Jr. was unsure, no word from Joe Hoeffel, and Chuck Pennacchio wasn't going anywhere.
Well, at around noon, the stuff really hit the fan. Casey is now in, Hafer is now out, still no word from Hoeffel, and Pennacchio remains steady.
Read more at PoliticsPA.
Apparently the back-room efforts have paid dividends for the Casey Jr. campaign. I suppose its only a matter of time before Hafer is offered the Lt. Governor position for her party loyalty.
Posted at 01:10 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Pennsylvania | Comments (4) | Technorati
Thursday, February 24, 2005
They write themselves (OH-14)
Posted by Tim TagarisRep. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) married his longtime sweetheart, Jennifer Laptook, at the Willard Hotel on Saturday. [...]LaTourette, 50, has been married once before. Laptook, 33, is a vice president of top D.C. lobbying firm Van Scoyoc Associates.
Talk about literally being in bed with a Washington Lobbyist (hat-tip you know who). Will the President let him into the White House, or is that innapropriate?
And forget the whole "family values" nonsense for cheating on his wife--this is a man who told her he wanted a divorce OVER THE PHONE!
I hope someone is able to mount a credible challenge against this clown in 2006. Capri Cafaro had the money in 2004, but it is evident that personal baggage weighed her down. There is no reason any NE Ohio CD should be red; that goes for the 14th (LaTourette) and the 16th (Regula, probably after he retires). Period.
Posted at 08:18 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Ohio | Comments (1) | Technorati
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Rick Santorum Video From Yesterday
Posted by Tim TagarisHere is the video I shot from the town hall meeting yesterday featuring Rick Santorum. Disclaimer, I work for the candidate whose site it is posted on.
That out of the way, there are two clips:
1.) Drexel College Republicans chanting "Hey hey, ho ho, social secrurity has got to go," as Santorum enetered the building.
2.) Chris Bowers calling out Santorum on an earlier statement by the Senator that Democratic colleagues of his supported privatization. Nice try Rick.
Tim
Posted at 12:18 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, General, Netroots, Pennsylvania | Technorati
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Report From Santorum Soc. Sec. Event in Philly
Posted by Tim Tagaris(video coming tomorrow of said events)
The first stop on Rick Santorum's re-election campaign this morning was Philadelphia, Pennsylvania--Drexel University. First of all, let me tell that I got lost on the way (not being from PA), and drove around for around 45 minutes more than I had to.
It was worth it...
I got there at around 9 A.M. in time to witness the pre-protest taking place outside of the ballroom the event was to take place in. At first it was a bunch of Drexel College Democrats standing outside, getting organized and passing out pamphlets. Then the College Republicans started strolling down the pavement.
You can see them coming from a mile away, or smell them coming, or sense them coming, whatever... It's funny, cause they feel like they have to put on a show; it's not even about supporting Santorum, it almost seemed like it was more about getting people to look at them. Example: One kid who deemed it necessary to put his Bush/Cheney t-shirt on in long exaggerated movements as he began approaching the crowd. It's a little thing, but it was obvious.
Anyway, the cameras were rolling and the literature was flying. One man stood out in the middle of the road with a giant sign that said, "TAX THE RICH" Back and forth, chanting, hooting and hollering like it was a college basketball game.
But the real show happened inside...
So, I am walking up the steps a few minutes before 10 A.M. to head inside and get a good seat. I was supposed to meet Chris Bowers from MyDD, but at this point I gave up hope. As I am walking up, the level of noise grew and people swarmed around me.
Well, not me, Santorum was walking up the steps right beside me. Yes, I was about 2 feet away. Soon the press swarmed and I just put my cigarette out, and moved aside from the spectacle. I walked inside the lobby and here he came again, as if he was following me. He motioned to one of the security folks that he had to use the rest room; it was only because I was restrained by a smarter man than I that I didn't follow him in with the video camera.
So, I headed inside and the show started. About 3 minutes into the event, Chris Bowers called and had no idea where to find the place. I got up and met him outside and we came back in. It gave me another chance to get a few puffs in.
Oh, I forgot to note that some shmuck from the SSA used some analogy about an aircraft carrier, let's call it, "The FDR," he said. And the ship's Admiral got an order to turn starboard. The admiral got pissed and the punchline was something about the orders coming from a lighthouse. Stupid, I know. But the "FDR" crack kind of pissed a few people off.
Where was I? Yes, Bowers and I get back inside.
Right away, Santorum asks, "and do you know what happens in four years?" Immediately, someone responded, "Bush is out of office." The smirk on the face Richy Rick (R-VA) was priceless. I only wish I got that part on tape. Sorry. The place clapped, it was great.
About two minutes later, a young man stood up and started calling Rick Santorum out and talking about Pinochet, Chile, George Schultz and the Govenator. Once again, Rick had quite a smirk on his face. The man was escorted out of the room while screaming something about "death squads."
Yes, he was a LaRouchie.
No more than 2 minutes later, the guy RIGHT INFRONT OF ME stood up. Same thing, Pinochet, Chile, and death squads. This guy kept on going--then he got roughed up. I have the entire exchange on tape, and as I said above, I will post a link to it tomorrow.
The entertainment value was high, but as someone next to me noted, "Every Democrat is hanging their head right now." He was right, it did not reflect well on us.
So, the rest of the event was pretty, ummm, uneventful. With the exception of the last minute. That was when Chris Bowers got to ask a question. Earlier in the forum, Slick Rick (R-VA) said something to the effect of conversations with Democratic Senators that supported atleast partial privatization. Chris called him on it and asked him to name names.
Rick could not.
In fact, he said that there were not any Democratic Senators who supported the Bush-Santorum corporatization scheme, but there was "one member in the House, I think."
Umm, yea. Nice try Rick--Great question Chris.
After that, I had my first Philly Cheese Steak Sandwich, in Philly, and went home.
Tim
Posted at 09:02 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, General, Netroots, Pennsylvania | Comments (1) | Technorati
Call Joe Lieberman Day
Posted by Tim TagarisI was at one of those Rick Santorum town hall meetings earlier today. It was quite interesting. I'll write on it tonight. In the meantime:
Stolen wholesale from MyDD.
Starting today at noon, make sure you drop Shaky Joe a line, letting him know you oppose all bill's to phase out social security, whether the bill is Bush's or Lindsey Grahams. Also let him know you don't appreciate his weak rhetoric in the issue...all that does is help Republican.
Here's the contact info:
706 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-4041 Voice
(202) 224-9750 FaxOne Constitution Plaza
7th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
(860) 549-8463 Voice
(800) 225-5605 In CT
(860) 549-8478 Fax
(860) 522-8443 TDDHe's out of Washington today, so a call to his Connecticut offices might be in order. Especially if you are a Connecticutie.
For information why, read this.
Posted at 02:32 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism | Technorati
Monday, February 21, 2005
Bob Casey Jr. to decide this week...
Posted by Tim TagarisIt looks like Bob Casey Jr. will make an announcment this week on whether or not he intends to enter the Democratic primary field for the 2006 US Senate race in Pennsylvania.
Speaking of Casey, he's expected by week's end to make a decision whether or not he'll run against Santorum next year.A recent Quinnipiac poll showed Casey with a 46-41 lead as a hypothetical candidate against Rick Santorum--those numbers are down from a DSCC poll that showed the former Governor's son with a 52-38 over the darling incumbent of the Republican right-wing.
I also happen to know that Zogby is conducting a poll on the race that features Casey Jr., Joe Hoeffel, and Barbara Hafer as potential Democratic candidates.
Posted at 03:15 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Pennsylvania | Technorati
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Rick Santorum is already campaigning...
Posted by Tim TagarisI hesitate to write about the PA Senate race, but we do focus on the 2005/2006 "swing races" and defeating Rick Santorum is going to be priority number one, period. That fact doesn't change whoever the nominee is.
I received an email the other day noting that Santorum is barnstorming across the state on a "town hall" speaking tour. He is attempting to accomplish two goals: 1.) Campaigning to dismantle social security. 2.) Running for re-election in 2006. His staff is also sending out emails to supporters, asking them to not only attend his events, but "bracket" them with letters to the editor, radio talk show calls, and building their AMWAY volunteer scam.
You can find the list of events in the extended entry and information on how to counter their "bracketing" efforts with one of our own.
The point is this. How long does the Democratic Party and DSCC think we can wait to start a full-scale campaign against Rick Santorum? Shouldn't we be building organization on the ground right now!? Democrats in PA have lost THIRTEEN straight full-term US Senate elections, and this attitude is in large part why it happens. I don't care who the nominee is, but in an era where Republicans run perpetual campaigns, we have to get out of the mindset that we can run for 12 of 24 months and expect to win on election day. It obviously isn't working.
Where is the leadership in PA organizing against Rick Santorum's "town halls?" The short answer is, they aren't. We are letting him run amuck across the state starting his re-election bid, unmolested. We wouldn't stand for this in 2006, so why 2005? So it's up to the grassroots, yet again.
If you can make it to one of them, great. If you are from PA and can write a letter to the editor, even better. I will be at Drexel University on February 22nd if you care to join me--let me know. Good chance I will be at the one in Easton PA (Bucks County) on the 25th as well.
To "bracket" Santorums appearances with letters to the editor, here is a great resource. It gives you all the tools you need to write a letter, and quickly send it to as many outlets as you want within your selected zip code.
Monday, February 21st
Location: Allegheny County
Duquesne University
Student Union - Duquesne Room
600 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA
Time: 10:00am - 11:15amLocation: Cambria County
University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown
Heritage Hall Living Learning Center
450 Schoolhouse Road
Johnstown, PA
Time: 3:00pm - 4:30pmTuesday, February 22nd
Location: Philadelphia County
Drexel University, Behrakis Grand Hall
Creese Student Center
3210 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA
Time: 10:00am - 11:30amLocation: Delaware County
Widener University
University Center - Webb Room
One University Place
14th Street, between Walnut and Melrose
Chester, PA
Time: 2:00pm - 3:30pmWednesday, February 23rd
Location: Erie County
National City Bank
Community Room
801 State Street
Erie, PA
Time: 9:30am - 10:45amLPenn State University
HUB - Robeson Center
Room 117
State College, PA
Time: 2:00pm - 3:30pmThursday, February 24th
Location: Dauphin County
Messiah Village Senior Center Chapel
100 Mount Allen Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA
Time: 9:30am - 11:00amLocation: Lackawanna County
University of Scranton
Gunster Student Center - Eagen Auditorium
Scranton, PA
Time: 4:00pm - 5:15pm
Friday, February 25th
Location: Northampton County
Lafayette College
Colton Chapel
Easton, PA
Time: 10:30am - 11:30amLocation: Bucks County
Ann's Choice
10000 Ann's Choice
Warminster, PA
Time: 1:30pm - 3:00pmPosted at 03:30 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Pennsylvania | Technorati
Friday, February 18, 2005
Full Senate Rundown
Posted by DavidNYCMarkos has a rundown on every potentially interesting Senate race for 2006.
Posted at 09:12 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate | Technorati
Lieberman Primary Challenge?
Posted by Tim TagarisBelieve me, I would love to see it. I am a strong believer that fighting inside primaries is the best way for us to change the face of our party. We do it in presidential races, why not the Senate? Is that body not important enough?
Personally, I believe the fact we don't routinely have contested Democratic primaries on the Senate level is the fault of our national party (more on this later). This is especially true in open seats and ones with a Republican incumbent. However, some Democrats need to be put on notice as well. Unfortunately, this is why it would be so tough to take out Joementum in a contested primary (MoE +/- 3.3%)
Among Democrats:
Approve: 72%
Disapprove: 19%
DK: 9%His numbers drop only slightly when you expand beyond Democrats only and into Republicans and Independents.
Posted at 09:40 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Connecticut | Technorati
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
PA Senate 2006
Posted by Tim TagarisDisclaimer: I am working for another candidate in the PA Senate race, helping to get his online program off-the-ground.
Bob Casey Jr.'s hypothetical margin over Rick Santorum is slipping. Two weeks ago the DSCC released a poll that set the netroots ablaze; Pennsylvania's Auditor General Bob Casey led Rick Santorum 52-38 in a "what-if" battle of the titans. Today, that margin has tightened some. MoE +/- 2.8%
Casey: 46%
Santorum: 41%Other candidates don't fare nearly as well as Casey.
Rick Santorum: 47%
Barbara Hafer: 39%Rick Santorum: 50%
Joe Hoeffel: 34%Because of my work situation, I don't want to talk to much about the race specifically--not on SSP. It's just out of respect for you and David for letting me write here.
And no, my candidate is none of these 3; we have an even longer way to go.
Posted at 09:28 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Pennsylvania | Comments (2) | Technorati
Friday, February 11, 2005
Harkin to abandon the Senate?
Posted by Tim TagarisIowa: With Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack stepping down, the rumor mill has begun to churn for the 2006 open election. Congressman Jim Nussle (R-IA) has already declared that he is going to chase the seat. Now, rumors of a potential heavyweight showdown between Nussle and Tom Harkin have begun to surface.
Harkin, a Democrat in his fourth term, was asked Thursday in a conference call with Iowa reporters about rumors he may make a bid for the chief executive post back home in Iowa.The governor's seat will be open in 2006, when Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack has said he will step down after two terms. Several Democrats are considering runs, but the only announced Democratic candidate is state Rep. Ed Fallon of Des Moines.
"I don't know - that just went all over the darn place and I don't know what's all behind that," Harkin said of the rumors.
In fairness, the tone and tenor of the article kind of leads you to the conclusion that Harkin will stick around in the Senate, and thank God for that. I suppose that is easy for me to say, being from Chicago and living in Pennsylvania. The piece concludes:
Harkin does appear to be ready to tackle a fifth Senate term in 2008. "I love my job," he told reporters.Posted at 09:46 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, 2006 Elections - State, Iowa | Technorati
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota: Republicans
Posted by Tim TagarisMight as well cover the spectrum today.
Congressman Mark Kennedy is expected to make an announcement tomorrow regarding his intention to run as the Republican nominee to replace Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN).
Former U.S. Sen Rod Grams who lost to Dayton in 2000 has already declared he will attempt to reclaim the seat he once held. Other possible Republicans include Congressman Gil Gutknecht and Mary Kiffmeyer, Minnesota Secretary of State.
If Kennedy runs, that means Gutknecht will not, as he indicated when he originally expressed his interest in the seat:
Gutknecht, who represents Rochester, said he didn't envision a primary battle with Kennedy. Instead, switching on a "Godfather" voice, Gutknecht said he hoped it would be settled "by a meeting of all the families" - state party leaders and Minnesota Republicans in Congress.If nothing else, Dayton dropping out has made the senate race in Minnesota a lot more interesting.
Posted at 07:44 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Minnesota | Technorati
Franken will not run for Senate
Posted by Tim TagarisAl Franken kept his listeners on edge until minutes before the conclusion of his show, when he finally said:
"Anyway, I'm not running for Senate in 2006. Minnesotans are very serious about their politics; it would be silly for me to run, I don't live there."Before the official decision, he played around with the audience for hours, hanging on until the last moment to release his decision. In the segement prior to the final commercial break, the radio host claimed that he "didn't know" whether or not he was going to run, and would get the advice of Norm Ornstein during the break and then make his decision on the other side.
When they came back Al talked about his career as an author and talk show host and acknolwedged that he has always thought about "being involved in politics in a different way." Then he talked about the proud progressive history in Minnesota, from Hubert Humphrey to Paul Wellstone. He honored those two by saying anything that he has accomplished in politics is in no small part because of them.
He then talked about believing in honoring his committments. That included his two-year contract with Air America Radio. That was the first solid clue his answer to the question tossed around all day would be, "no."
Right before making his decision not to run official, Franken and Ornstein discussed the need for people like Franken in radio to "push back" against a Right Wing Noise Machine. They mentioned Britt Hume, Bill Bennett, and Rush Limbaugh who they "debunk" on a daily basis because, "it is fun, and it is easy."
He concluded by saying that if he did decide to take on Norm Coleman in 2008, he would move the show to Minnesota and live inside the state while running.
Then he promoted tomorrow's show, and signed off.
Posted at 02:59 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Minnesota | Comments (3) | Technorati
Alan Page: Minnesota Senate 2006
Posted by Tim TagarisWhen David suggests a candidate, I am inclined to learn more about him--such is the case with Alan Page. The more and more I learn about potential candidates to square off against Mark Kennedy, the more and more I think Dayton dropping out was a blessing in disguise.
So far we have a full slate of interesting candidates: Air America radio show host Al Franken, Minnesota Public Radio host and author Garrison Keillor, Minneapolis lawyer Mike Ciresi, and State Senator Steve Kelley. Ciresi and Kelley were both vanquished by Dayton in the 2000 primary. The St. Paul Pioneer Press has a full report on a large handful of potential successors.
But as I read about Alan Page, I really began to appreciate the man and his accomplishments. Page is the state's first African-American Supreme Court Justice. Others might know him as a Hall of Fame football player, part of the vaunted "Purple People Eaters."
Much of Page's activism has centered around providing educational opportunities for underprivileged children. His outreach includes establishing foundations to provide tuition for down-trodden students and co-sponsorship of a national essay writing contest to promote literacy.
In 2004, Page won re-election to the State Supreme Court in overwhelming fashion:
Alan Page 72%
Tim Tingelstad 28%For more information:
Page Education Foundation Scholarship
Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Profile Page
Posted at 11:34 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Minnesota | Comments (2) | Technorati
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Al Franken to Run in Minnesota? Tune in Tomorrow...
Posted by Tim TagarisWe learned earlier today that incumbent Democrat Mark Dayton (MN) will not seek re-election to the United States Senate in 2006. In the past few hours, a number of names have been tossed around. Bob mentioned public radio host and author Garrison Keillor as one possibility.
Toss another radio personality into the mix. Air America Radio's Al Franken is set to make an announcement on his radio show tomorrow.
Possible candidates range from Minneapolis lawyer Mike Ciresi, who ran against Dayton in the 2000 primary, to radio show host Al Franken, who told The Associated Press he would make an announcement on his show Thursday.For the Republicans, Congressman Mark Kennedy (Rep. MN-6) still appears to be the frontrunner. Even still, our friends at Dayton v. Kennedy now need to get a new blog--which is funny to me.
UPDATE (by David): Looks like Franken is indeed in.
Posted at 06:46 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Minnesota | Comments (4) | Technorati
Dayton calls no joy
Posted by Bob BrighamSenator Dayton, thanks for your service, we'll miss you.
Garrison Keillor, where do I send a check?
Posted at 02:41 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Minnesota | Technorati
Clinton leads Pataki & Giuliani
Posted by Tim TagarisTwo days ago, David pointed to the Siena College poll that has Elliot Spitzer crusing Pataki in a race for NY Gov.
Falcon4e pointed out in the comments that Pataki's best bet might be to square off against Hillary for the US Senate seat. That might be the case, but if the race were held today, he would get beaten even more soundly in that contest. It is also interesting to note that Clinton would not only demolish Pataki, but leads Giuliani as well.
Quinnipiac Poll released today (registered voters, early December in parens for first poll):
Clinton: 61 (58)
Pataki: 30 (36)
Undecided: 5 (4)
(MoE: ±2.8%)Clinton: 50
Giuliani: 44
Undecided: 5
(MoE: ±2.8%)Many more particulars on the Quinnipiac press release.
Posted at 11:40 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, 2006 Elections - State, New York | Technorati
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Hastert to Retire? IL-14 in 2006
Posted by Tim TagarisTalk about burrying the lede. I knew Dennis Hastert's career was coming to a close, but I had no idea 2006 was going to be the end.
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) has circulated a document to his K Street donors that ranks the “efficiency” of the top 10 House leadership PACs, breaking down how much each of them contributed to candidates as a percentage of total expenditures.The rankings are prompting operatives on K Street to believe Boehner will need to be taken seriously in a leadership reshuffle after the expected retirement of Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) at the end of the 109th Congress.
So would we be able to mount a challenge on IL-14 in 2006? Probably not. It is a pretty rural area, with the exception of Aurora, that stretches from the suburbs of Chicago out west through farm country towards Iowa. In 2000, President Bush carried Illinois' 14th CD 54% to 42% over Al Gore. Dennis Hastert was initially elected in 1986 with 52% of the vote and hasn't faced a serious challenge since then. In 2004, Hastert handled Democrat Ruben Zamora 69% to 31%.
Interestingly enough, there is a growing hispanic demographic in the district that now accounts for 20% of the population. Still, the top two priorities in Illinois for 2006 should be:
1.) Taking out Henry Hyde (R) (or his replacement) in IL-6 with Christine Cegelis (D)
2.) Defending the seat of Melissa Bean (D) who upset 36 year incumbent Phil Crane (R) in IL-8.
Posted at 10:42 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Illinois | Comments (1) | Technorati
Friday, February 04, 2005
Taking it to Bush in Omaha
Posted by Tim TagarisPresident Bush arrived in Nebraska this morning to campaign for the corporatization of social security. The University of Nebraska (Omaha) College Democrats met the president, 300 strong, to protest.
You can find the entry on their blog. The group also has photos from the protest that you can take a look at here. We certainly need more of this type of on-the-ground reporting through the blogosphere. I am thankful they took the time to detail, online, the days events through photos.
It is worth noting that 4 of the five states on the president's current trip have contested US Senate elections in 2006. Three of those states, Nebraska, Montana, and Florida have Democratic senators and are all "red states."
In Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson has dodged two bullets in the early stages of the campaign. First, Governor Mike Johanns was named Secretary of Agriculture in the president's administration. Then Nebraska football coach and beloved congressman, Tom Osborne, decided he would stay put in the House, for the time being.
Nelson eeked out a victory in 2000--51% to 49% over Republican Don Stenberg.
Posted at 08:02 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Florida, Montana, Nebraska | Technorati
Friday, January 28, 2005
Online Triumphalism
Posted by Tim TagarisSorry I missed this on Wednesday.
"Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Winston will hold a session Saturday afternoon to discuss the growing influence of web logs. Representatives are scheduled to break camp on Saturday, while the program for Senators continues through Sunday."Where will our Daschle v. Thune blogs be in 2006? There is already a Dayton v. Kennedy blog that courts a modest daily audience. As with everything else organizational -- start early.
As a party, we should be creating a world wide network of bloggers spreading our message to each corner of the blogosphere. In the long run, I think we will find that the communicative and organizational properties of the blogosphere far outsrtip the fundraising use. As communication shifts from off-line to on, we would be well served to have that organizational web firmly rooted in the emerging technology.
Let's be honest. Today, most candidates and organizations look at the netroots and think, cha-ching! I can understand that. We fundraise because we need money, primarily, to get on television and radio. But once again, the world's a changing; a new dominant medium for communication is forging its way to the front of the line. We can save a ton of money in the long-term by tapping into the potential that lies within the world wide web, but extends beyond fundraising. It would probably be the best long-term investment we could make.
It is impossible to imagine what the political landscape would be today if the Democratic Party had a strong hand in shaping the the way political discourse is conducted on radio, network television, and cable. I would imagine, however, that we would like what we were seeing. With the emergence of the Net, we have that opportunity. Just because the Internet is decentralized doesn't mean we shouldn't be working to get our troops moving in the same direction, in concert.
But if, as a party, we aren't helping to create that network -- then as individuals, we must.
To comment, create a TypeKey account. Might as well do it now before someone scoops up your favorite user name.
Posted at 01:25 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Netroots | Comments (3) | Technorati
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Reid's War Room and bloggers
Posted by Bob BrighamThe Boston Globe has an article on the Senate Democrats new agenda and War Room where it is noted, "The center has an aide dedicated to getting information to Democratic-leaning bloggers and yesterday launched a website, democrats.gov, to better communicate the positions of Senate Democrats."
Positive reinforcement time: Thank you Senator Reid for your leadership in waging online politics, I appreciate your dedication to winning the information war. Please note the five posts yesterday. I look forward to furthering this partnership.
Posted at 12:26 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Netroots | Comments (6) | Technorati
Monday, January 24, 2005
Democrats have a Positive Message
Posted by Bob BrighamSen. Reid's War Room kicked into high gear today as the Senate Democrats rolled out an ambitious positive agenda for America. We now have an agenda, we now have a Promise.
Senator Reid's leadership in taking our message online is very much appreciated, so I've posted the Senate Democrats' promise to America:
PUTTING AMERICA’S SECURITY FIRST
EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY TO ALL AMERICANS
MEETING OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE FUTURE AND THE PASTUPDATE: From MyDD, go show your support by co-sponsoring our agenda. I've categorized these posts under "2006 Midterm Elections" because the Senate Democrats have told us what they're going to be talking about for two years, presented us with in-depth information, and told us what we can do. I co-sponsored:
Senate Democrats open the 109th Congress steadfastly committed to keeping the promise of America, the promise that all Americans who work hard can build a stronger and brighter future for their families. By embracing and affirming our core values of security, opportunity and responsibility, Democrats are united to help America fulfill this promise.We need to show them our support. Cosponsor the Democratic Agenda by visiting:
Posted at 12:33 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism | Technorati
Putting America's Security First
Posted by Bob BrighamSenate Democrats open the 109th Congress steadfastly committed to keeping the promise of America, the promise that all Americans who work hard can build a stronger and brighter future for their families. It is the promise of security, that the American way of life and our freedom will be protected by using all the tools to take the fight to the terrorists and standing with those who have served.
PUTTING AMERICA’S SECURITY FIRST:
S.11: Standing With Our Troops. Democrats believe that putting America’s security first means standing up for our troops and their families. Democrats will work to increase our military end strength by up to 40,000 by 2007. We will create a Guard and Reserve Bill of Rights to protect and promote the interests of our dedicated citizen soldiers. Democrats will also fight for the families of those who serve our country. This includes providing income security and immediate access to affordable health care.
1S.11: STANDING WITH OUR TROOPSDemocrats understand that putting America’s security first means providing our troops, both the active duty and reserve components, and their families with the resources they need to protect our freedom. S. 11 recognizes the sacrifices our troops make on our behalf by providing them the personnel, equipment, compensation, and benefits they need to them accomplish their mission.
Increase Army and Marine Endstrength By Up To 40,000 By 2007. All Americans have seen and heard of our overburdened and overstretched military. S. 11 recognizes that need and adds up to 30,000 Army personnel and up to 10,000 Marines over 2 years to provide for our security.
Recognize the Sacrifice and Valor of Our Troops. Reports show that the DoD may be dramatically underreporting U.S. casualties in Iraq. S.11 requires the DoD to prepare a monthly report on casualties and establishes an advisory panel on medals and decorations to ensure that deserving servicemembers are honored.
A National Guard and Reserve Bill Of Rights:
Straight Answers About Deployment/Service Obligations. S. 11 requires the Defense Department to report on the lessons learned in connection with deployment, extension of duty, and troop rotations. It also requests that the Defense Department keep its commitment to limit the length of service for our citizen soldiers. Best Equipment. In response to the widely publicized shortages of body armor, up-armored Humvees, and other vital equipment and gear, S. 11 would: establish an Office of Mobilization Planning and Preparedness within the National Security Council to plan and prepare for mobilization of private sector and other non-military entities during a national security emergency; require a report from the DoD on Armed Services needs with regard to reconstituting equipment stocks to recover from damage and destruction accumulated during recent combat operations; and authorize $8.5 billion to the Army and $2.1 billion to the Marines for reconstitution needs.
Better Representation Within Defense Department. In order to ensure that the reserve component’s increased role is reflected in the Pentagon’s leadership, S. 11 would elevate the Assistant Secretary for Reserve Affairs to Deputy Undersecretary.
Timely Compensation. GAO reports in November 2003 and August 2004 found that as many as 95 percent of reservists have experienced pay problems while deployed to Iraq, and that these problems have had a significantly adverse effect on these troops and their families. S. 11 would create a position in DoD to implement the recommendations of the GAO to fix the reservist pay system. Fulfill Our Commitments To Military Families. Democrats also recognize the tremendous sacrifices made by family members of military personnel when their loved ones depart for duty. They must face the difficult task of continuing to support their families and households. S. 11 would ensure both financial and physical health for servicemembers and their families.
Provide Pay Security To Federal And Civilian Workers Called To Active Duty. S. 11 provides pay security to military families by offering a tax credit designed to entice employers of reservists to make up the difference between their activated military pay and their civilian income; requires the federal government to make up the difference between reservists’ activated military pay and their civilian income; allows reservists to make certain tax-free withdrawals from IRA accounts; and makes allowances for wage payments made in income tax calculations and retirement plan management.
Provide Access To Health Care For All Reservists And Their Families By 2006. A 2000 DoD survey found that 20 percent of reservists, including 40 percent of junior enlisted personnel, had no health care coverage while demobilized. In 2004, Congress passed legislation authorizing reservists to obtain access to the military’s TRICARE health care program for 1 year for each 90-day period of active service. While an important step forward, this provision only provides health care after a deployment is complete, and fails to provide the complete health care coverage necessary to ensure that reservists are medically ready to answer a call to duty. S. 11 provides access to permanent TRICARE coverage.
Increase Death And Survivor Benefit. Death and survivor benefits provide the government an opportunity to help military families at their hour of greatest need. S. 11 increases the death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000. It also lifts a prohibition against receiving both the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and Dependent and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits, and extends the thirty year limitation on paying SBP premiums to retirees who signed up for SBP between 1972 and 1978 (currently, those who joined after 1978 can stop paying premiums after 30 years). Fulfill Our Commitments To Our Taxpayers. While we all support the brave Americans risking their lives in our nation’s defense, Democrats believe Iraq is the world’s problem and others should do their fair share. Unfortunately, U.S. taxpayers have paid over 80 percent of reconstruction costs and over 90 percent of military costs in Iraq. S. 11 requires the President to report to Congress on U.S., Iraqi, and foreign contributions to Iraq’s reconstruction before any new U.S. reconstruction funds are appropriated. Furthermore, the President is required to certify to Congress that he has been unable to generate additional support from Iraqi oil revenues or other nations before any new U.S. reconstruction funds can be allocated.
S. 12: Targeting the Terrorists More Effectively. Keeping America secure means stepping up the fight against the radical Islamic fundamentalism. Democrats will work to increase our Special Operations forces by 2,000 to attack the terrorists where they are and to protect our freedoms here at home. We will further enhance our efforts against enemies by targeting the institutions that spawn new terrorists. Democrats are also united to ensure that the world’s most dangerous weapons stay out of the hands of terrorists. We will expand the pace and scope of programs to eliminate and safeguard nuclear materials, enhance efforts to keep these and other deadly materials out of the hands of terrorists, and assist state and local governments in equipping and training those responsible for dealing with the effects of terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction.
S. 12: TARGETTING THE TERRORISTS MORE EFFECTIVELYDemocrats are determined to wage the most effective war on terror. S. 12 lays out a comprehensive U.S. strategy to fight and win the war on international terrorism. In contrast to the Bush Administration’s piecemeal approach, S. 12 establishes four interlocking pillars necessary to wage an effective war on terrorism: (1) taking the fight to the terrorists, (2) drying up the breeding grounds that produce terrorism, (3) enhancing the U.S. government’s accountability and effectiveness to deal with this issue, and (4) reducing the possibility terrorists could acquire and use nuclear materials as a weapon, the greatest single threat to U.S. national security.
Take the Fight to the Terrorists. S. 12 contains three basic provisions that will allow the U.S. to take the fight to the terrorists in a more effective manner. First, S. 12 increases the U.S. Special Forces capability by 2,000 personnel over the next several years, greatly enhancing this nation’s ability to track down and eliminate international terrorists in all corners of the globe. S. 12 also increases foreign language experts in the U.S. government, thereby ensuring that our troops and security personnel receive timely translations of critical conversations between terrorist organizations. S.12 also strengthens measures to combat terrorist financing, a critical aspect of the war on terror.
Dry up the Breeding Grounds that Produce Terrorism. A long term complement to the offensive measures, S. 12 contains four key long-term initiatives that are designed to dry up the breeding grounds of terrorism. S. 12 authorizes additional funding for basic education programs to help nations provide a clear alternative to the madrassas preaching radical Islam; support to non-governmental organizations working to enhance democracy and development in the Muslim world; new public diplomacy programs to enhancing America’s image abroad, and a long term strategy to deal with key states; including Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.
Increase the U.S. Government’s Accountability and Effectiveness to Counter the Terrorist Threat. The U.S. government lacks the basic tools to determine if our efforts to combat terrorism are actually working. This fact was compounded by the errors in the State Department’s annual report on global terrorism. S. 12 deals with these problems by establishing an independent institution with the sole purpose of assessing the effectiveness of U.S. polices and programs on the war on terror; creates tough criminal penalties for anyone caught defrauding or profiteering from U.S. foreign assistance programs; and creates an independent commission to hold accountable all of those responsible for the Abu Ghraib scandal.
Prevent Nuclear Terrorism. Nuclear terrorism is the single greatest threat to U.S. national security. S. 12 expands the pace and scope of programs to eliminate and safeguard nuclear materials by authorizing a global cleanout of radioactive materials; constructs permanent security arrangements for radioactive materials; expands the Cooperative Threat Reduction program beyond the Former Soviet Union; and dramatically increases resources for a range of under-funded, yet vital, State and Defense Department programs. The bill also includes a number of measures to increase border and port security and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack. It adds 1,500 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and Customs and Border Protection agents over 5 years; authorizes $3 billion over 4 years to ensure that MTSA standards are met and funds other port security measures; and creates or restores a number of programs designed to ensure that this nation’s state and local first responders have the training and equipment they need to deal with this threat.
S. 13: Fulfilling Our Duty to America’s Veterans. A key component of keeping America secure is protecting the rights of our veterans. Since the time of Lincoln, Americans have made and kept a sacred commitment to those who served this nation in the defense of freedom. As a new generation of veterans return from Iraq and Afghanistan, Democrats are united to fulfill that promise. We will ensure that all veterans get the health care they deserve while also expanding the availability and accessibility of mental health care. We will ensure that no veteran is forced to choose between a retirement and disability check. We will also make the same commitment to the soldiers of today that was made to past veterans with a 21st Century GI Bill.
1S. 13: KEEPING OUR PROMISE TO AMERICA’S VETERANSSince the time of Lincoln, Americans have made and kept a commitment to those who served in the defense of freedom. As a new generation of veterans returns from Iraq and Afghanistan , Democrats are united to keep that promise. We will ensure that all veterans get access to the health care and services they need.
Ensure All Veterans Get the Health Care They Deserve By 2006. The May 2003 report of The President’s Task Force To Improve Health Care Delivery For Our Nation's Veterans found a serious imbalance between demand and available funding at the VA that delays care and threatens its quality. Under the current funding process, the VA has experienced billion-dollar shortfalls every year for the past several years. At a time when the number of veterans needing services is increasing daily, S. 13 ensures that America keeps its promises to our veterans and they get the health care they deserve.Expand Mental Health Care to All VA Hospitals By 2006. The New England Journal of Medicine has reported that as many as 1 in 6 soldiers returning from Iraq may suffer Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Yet only 86 of 163 VA Medical Centers currently have PTSD clinical teams. S. 13 would place a PTSD clinical team at every VA Medical Center, and would improve outreach to at-risk veterans.
Make Prescription Drugs Readily Available to Veterans. Under current regulations, a veteran receiving a prescription from a private doctor must complete a physical with a VA physician before the VA will honor that prescription. This red-tape costs the VA an estimated $1 billion or more each year. S. 13 will overturn this regulation, providing veterans with quick and easy access to prescription drugs.
Ensure No Veteran Is Forced to Choose Between Disability Compensation and Retirement Pay By 2006. In 2003, Congress enacted a law phasing in full concurrent receipt of disability compensation and retirement pension over 10 years for all disabled military retirees with 50 percent or higher disability ratings. While such legislation constitutes an important step forward, over 400,000 veterans are still prohibited from receiving the compensation they have earned with their service and sacrifice. S. 13 will revoke the “disabled veterans tax” and make certain that no veteran will have to choose between a disability check and a retirement check.
Create A Seamless Transition From the Military to the VA. Many veterans have encountered obstacles to getting the services they deserve when they leave active duty status. While the Defense and Veterans’ Departments have been trying to iron out the kinks preventing a “seamless transition” from military life to the VA system, the agencies have yet to complete any of the seven recommendations for this necessity offered by the President’s Task Force. S. 13 would enact each of these seven recommendations, including requiring pre-separation medical examinations and disability benefits counseling, removing information-sharing barriers, and requiring greater cooperation between VA and DoD in tracking disabilities resulting from occupational exposure to hazardous materials.
Enact A New G.I. Bill For the 21st Century. Education assistance provided under the G.I. Bill and its successors has been one of the most successful federal government programs in history. S. 13 revitalizes the G.I. bill for the 21st Century by excluding G.I. benefits from financial aid eligibility computations, thereby allowing veterans to obtain greater financial aid, and offers Montgomery G.I. bill benefits to more veterans by creating a new enrollment window for Veterans Education Assistance Program participants.
Posted at 11:40 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism | Technorati
Expanding Opportunity to All Americans
Posted by Bob BrighamSenate Democrats open the 109th Congress steadfastly committed to keeping the promise of America, the promise that all Americans who work hard can build a stronger and brighter future for their families. It is the promise of opportunity so that every American can get the education they need to compete in the 21st century; live in an economy with well paying jobs and high quality health care; and participate in our democracy.
EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY TO ALL AMERICANS:
S. 14: Expanding Economic Opportunity. Democrats understand that the most effective means of increasing opportunity for our families is a high quality, good paying job. Democrats will fight to restore overtime protection to 6 million workers and increase the minimum wage for 7.4 million workers. We must do more to create good jobs today and in the future and the Democratic bill does so by eliminating tax incentives for companies that take jobs overseas, creating new jobs through an expansion of infrastructure programs to repair America’s backbone, and encouraging innovation in the American economy. We are also determined to pursue a trade policy that protects American workers and addresses our record trade deficit. Democrats will work to strengthen enforcement of our trade agreements while assisting those workers who have been unduly burdened by unfair trading practices of other nations.
S. 14 EXPANDING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITYDemocrats understand that the most effective means of increasing opportunity for our families is a high quality, good paying job. We are committed to expanding economic opportunity to all Americans and investing in America to create the new jobs of the future.
Ensure Fair Wages for America’s Workers. This Administration has denied the availability of overtime wages to some of the workers who need it most. This bill restores that availability to 6 million workers. The existing minimum wage is no longer a livable wage. S. 14 would increase the Federal minimum wage over the next two years. Finally, the bill supports relief for multi-employer pension plans, which are used predominantly by small businesses to provide pension benefits to an estimated 9.7 million American workers.
End Tax Break for Companies Exporting Jobs. The tax code allows companies that earn income in foreign countries to defer paying tax on these profits until they are brought back to the United States. This quirk in the tax code provides a tax incentive for companies to move U.S. production facilities abroad, even if the eventual market for their products remains in the United States. Democrats will eliminate this loophole by requiring companies to pay tax immediately on the profits they earn abroad, but only with respect to products that are imported back into the United States. Companies that locate production facilities abroad for the purpose of serving those foreign markets would not be affected by this change.
A Marshall Plan to Improve Traditional and High-Tech Infrastructure. Across America thousands of infrastructure projects - from our smallest rural communities to our biggest cities - await the capital to move forward. Investing in our nation’s roadways and waterways would improve our quality of life and protect public health and safety. Equally important, it would create a huge boost for our economy - creating 47,000 well paying American jobs for each billion dollars in investment. America continues to fall behind our competitors in access to broadband internet service. Most of the communities lacking service are in rural and economically-distressed areas of the country. S. 14 expands broadband availability to these areas by allowing broadband service providers to immediately deduct one-half of the cost of their investment in equipment to provide current generation broadband access to rural and underserved areas.
Strengthen and Restore American Innovative Strength through Commitment to Research, Science and Technology. Research and development results in higher quality jobs, better and safer products and higher productivity among American businesses. U.S. economic strength is dependent on its leadership in science and technology, and the U.S. is losing ground to foreign competitors. The U.S. needs to re-commit itself to the value of public investment in research and development, which is being outpaced by investment in the private sector. This bill makes permanent a tax credit for entities that increase their research activities and makes a credit available to consortia of entities that research collaboratively. The bill also expresses support for legislation that will increase federally funded research at the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science at the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Science and Technology so we can better compete in the international economy, as well investment in math, science and technology programs at our secondary education institutions.
Enforce Our Trade Agreements and Maintaining Level Playing Field. Democrats are determined to pursue a trade policy that protects American workers and addresses our record trade deficit. This bill requires the Administration to identify the most important export markets that remain closed to U.S. products and provides the tools needed to open them. It also creates the office of Chief Enforcement Negotiator, whose sole responsibility will be to police our trading partners’ performance of their obligations. This bill will force China to stop manipulating its currency and force China to choose between revaluing its currency to its market value or facing a tariff on all Chinese imports to the United States equal to the unfair trade advantage China currently enjoys.
Retrain Workers Displaced by Trade. Trade Adjustment Assistance has helped thousands of manufacturing workers get retraining, keep their health insurance, and make a new start. This bill will expand TAA to cover service workers who lose their jobs to offshoring. This bill will help rebuild communities hurt by outsourcing by integrating political and economic organizations and coordinating Federal, State, and local resources to develop a new plan and a new future for the people who live in them. Unemployed workers learning new skills can not stick with their training if they do not have effective health coverage. This bill allows them to complete their training by offering an effective health benefit.
Define a Ceiling for the U.S. Trade Deficit and Foreign Debt. The United States is now the world’s largest debtor nation, and risks serious consequences if its trade deficits continue unabated. While Congress has set a ceiling on the national debt, it has set no limit on the U.S. foreign debt, nor on the annual trade deficits that feed it. S. 14 will change that. Whenever the overall foreign debt reaches 25 percent of our GDP, or when the annual trade deficit reaches five percent of GDP, the Administration would be required to convene an emergency interagency meeting, and provide Congress with a trade deficit reduction plan to lower debt levels below the statutory ceiling.
S. 15: Quality Education for All. Democrats are committed to providing a quality education to all Americans because we recognize that education has always been the cornerstone of equal opportunity. Democrats will keep our promise to our children by increasing support for pre-school education, fully funding No Child Left Behind and improving its implementation. We are committed to providing safe and reliable transportation for our rural school children and meeting the Federal commitment to children with disabilities. Democrats will also address the shortfall of math, science and special education teachers by creating tuition incentives for college students to major in those fields. We will help expand educational opportunities for college by providing relief from skyrocketing college tuition, increasing the size and access to Pell Grants and supporting proven programs that encourage more young people to attend and succeed in college.
S. 15: QUALITY EDUCATION FOR ALLDemocrats are committed to providing a quality education to all Americans because we recognize that education has always been the cornerstone of equal opportunity. Democrats will keep our promise to education at all levels, from pre-school to college. We are determined to expand access to a high quality education for all Americans.
Strengthen Head Start and Child Care Programs. Children that participate in Head Start and Early Head Start enter elementary school ready to learn. Democrats will acknowledge and support the Head Start program by allowing poor families up to 130% of the poverty line to participate; improving school readiness of Head Start children by strengthening activities to promote social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development; requiring teachers to have a college degree within the next 8 years and that within the next 3 years, all new teachers must have an AA or be enrolled in a program leading to an AA degree; requiring teachers to receive on-going literacy training; and targeting the use of quality funds to promote early childhood development in addition to safety.
Provide Safe, Reliable Transportation for Rural School Children. Many rural local educational agencies do not have safe and reliable buses and lack the resources to buy new buses or retrofit the ones they have. This leaves children no choice but to ride in outdated, unsafe buses. This bill creates a federal program for rural school districts to purchase new buses so that they can retire substandard buses. It establishes a 75% to 25% federal to local match, and authorizes $50 million for 2006 and such sums as may be necessary for 2007 through 2010.
Fulfill Our Obligation to Children With Disabilities. Improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of national policy. Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Reauthorization in the 108th Congress, which called for the federal government to honor its commitment to the States by providing 40% funding for the excess cost of special education. S. 15 calls for the federal government to fulfill its obligation to the states and approximately 6.5 million children by appropriating the funds authorized in the law by 2011.
Improve Elementary and Secondary Education. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) created unintended consequences for school districts nationwide. Due to the rigidity of the law’s requirements, many schools had difficulty implementing the mandate which was exacerbated by continual underfunding. S. 15 recognizes that NCLB can – and should – be improved. This bill makes improvements in the areas of supplemental services, highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals, and recalculation of annual yearly progress (AYP). Democrats will provide the additional resources that will help our schools work with the nearly 4.1 million students, or 8.5 percent of our nation’s public school students, who are English language learners. The bill also provides full funding of Title I resources for local school districts that help disadvantaged students succeed academically. The bill also includes a Sense of the Senate Resolution to fully fund Title I: $22.75 billion in FY06 and $25 billion in FY07.
Address the Need for Math, Science and Special Education Teachers. Democrats recognize that math, science and special education teachers are becoming scarce. This bill creates a tuition-free program for future teachers in these fields. Democrats will make public college effectively tuition free for future math, science, and special education teachers.
Provide a Roadmap for First Generation and Low-Income College Students. Democrats will continue to support the opportunity of a college education. The bill provides additional funding to TRIO, a program that helps low-income, first-generation college student attend and complete college, and GEARUP, a program created to help lower-income students consider and prepare early for college. These are two of the most important and successful support systems for aspiring students and the budget should not be balanced on their backs. This legislation authorizes funding for TRIO at $1 billion and GEARUP at $400 million.
Provide College Tuition Relief for Students and Their Families. The Department of Education changed the eligibility determination for Pell Grants via tax tables in the dead of night. The new formula will purge about 90,000 students from the rolls. This bill provides a hold harmless component on the Administration’s change to the tax table determination and restores the formula for Pell Grants, saving 1.3 million students from receiving decreased funding. Democrats will also increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,100 starting in FY2006. Democrats are also committed to helping students succeed and graduate. The legislation authorizes $500 million to create a Summer Pell Demonstration Program to facilitate the ability of low-income students to complete their degree within 150% of the expected time.
Making College Affordable for All Students. Democrats are determined to expand the opportunity of college and will do so by increasing access to HOPE and Lifetime Learning tax credits. The bill makes these two credits refundable. We will also triple the maximum college tuition deduction to $12,000 and make the deduction permanent. Democrats also understand the difficult burden that college loan payments place on recent graduates and their families. Democrats will create a tax credit for student loan interest expenses. The credit is targeted to low and middle-income families and increases the current tax benefit for the average family from $375 to $1,500.
S. 16: Making Health Care More Affordable. Spiraling health care costs are putting the opportunity of America at risk, making it harder for families to buy health insurance and placing a difficult burden on small businesses and manufacturers. Democrats will address these concerns by making prescription drugs more affordable through the legalization of prescription drug reimportation and more safe by ensuring drugs are monitored after they are approved for use. Democrats will ensure that all children and pregnant women will have health care and protect Medicaid. We will reduce the growing cost of health care to small businesses by offering tax credits while also modernizing health care to cut costs for patients and businesses.
S. 16: MAKING HEALTH CARE MORE AFFORDABLESpiraling health care costs not only make it harder for families to buy health insurance and seniors to afford their prescriptions but these soaring costs weaken our economy by burdening small businesses and making American manufacturers less competitive. Democrats are committed to addressing the rising cost of health care with commonsense measures that will provide relief to businesses and families.
Make Prescription Drugs More Affordable. S.16 makes prescription drugs more affordable by legalizing the safe importation of FDA-approved prescription drug from other industrialized countries where they are more affordable. The bill also addresses the safety of prescription drugs and provides for better monitoring of drugs after they are approved for use.
Make Health Care Affordable For Children and Pregnant Women. This legislation would provide coverage to all children and would increase coverage for pregnant women. It also affirms Democrats’ commitment to protect the Medicaid program that provides coverage to more than 40 million Americans.
Provide Small Businesses Relief. S. 16 will provide small businesses relief by offering tax credits to help small employers provide coverage for their employees. The bill would create 25 pilot programs to build on the innovation of several programs across the country that help small employers cover their employees.
Modernize Health Care. This legislation would cut costs and improve care by increasing the use of information technology and assuring patients have electronic medical records. This bill would help in reducing medical errors which contribute to 98,000 deaths each year.
S. 17: Democracy Begins at Home. Equal opportunity in this country is based upon equal representation and fair voting. Democrats are determined to reforming the voting system in this country to create Federal standards for our elections. The bill adds verification, accountability and accuracy to the system. It increases access to the polls with Election Day registration, shorter lines and early voting. The bill also aims to modernize our election equipment and increase impartiality and provides the resources to our states to implement the bill.
S. 17: DEMOCRACY BEGINS AT HOMEDemocrats are united in our effort to making voting reform a reality for all Americans. It is time for the opportunity of a fair and transparent voting system to be available to every voter. The Help America Vote Act made important steps forward and now it is time to continue to make reforms that will ensure each voter gets the opportunity to vote and all votes are counted.
Voter Verified Ballots. All voters must be able to ensure that their vote is accurately recorded. The bill requires that all voting systems used in Federal elections provide a voter verified ballot that is fully accessible to the disabled and ensures privacy and independence.
Election Day Registration. The bill requires each state to adopt Election Day registration procedures for Federal elections.
Uniform and Nondiscriminatory Standards 1for Counting Provisional Ballots. The bill requires that states count any otherwise eligible provisional ballot if cast anywhere in the state.
Shorter Lines at the Polls. Numerous and often widespread reports of long lines at the polls hinder the voting process. The bill requires states to meet Election Assistance Commission (EAC) mandatory standards that establish a minimum number of voting systems and poll workers which must provide geographic distribution.
Create a National Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot. The bill creates a National Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot (NFWAB) for Federal office that every and any eligible voter is entitled to cast from anywhere inside or outside the United States and requires the NFWAB be counted without regard to which polling place, precinct, local unit of government, state, or country the NFWAB is cast in.
Accurate and Transparent Voting Rolls. The bill requires states to provide public notice of all proposed purged names from voting rolls 60 days in advance of a Federal election. It also prohibits states from purging names of voters from the list without specific notice provided in accordance with National Voting Rights Act (NVRA).
Establish Early Voting. The bill requires states to establish early voting periods for a minimum of fifteen calendar days prior to a Federal election, with uniform mandatory Saturday hours, and a minimum of four hours per day, including Saturdays.
Investigate a Federal Election Day Holiday. The bill requires the Election Assistance Commission to study and make recommendations for a national voting holiday within six months of enactment of this Act.
Upgrade Voting Machines and Improve Ballot Designs. The bill requires punch card voting systems to provide in-person notice of over-votes and prohibits central count optical scan systems from meeting the voter verification requirements through an education system to ensure all votes are counted.
Create Uniform and Inclusive Voter Registration Standards. This bill 1establishes the right of a citizen to use the Federal voter registration form under NVRA to register to vote in Federal elections and directs the EAC to issue a revised form that requires a mandatory affidavit/signature attesting to both citizenship and age.
Establish Fair and Uniform Voter ID Rules. This bill expands the means for establishing voter identification to allow a voter to execute a written affidavit attesting to their identification.
Impartial Election Administrators. The bill requires notice provisions, public statements, and other transparency/accountability measures with regard to election administrators, changes in state election laws prior to Federal election,; modifications to polling places, and denial of requests by international and other non-partisan observers for access polling places.
Increase Funding to States. The bill provides additional appropriations to states for the requirement grant payments to meet the new requirements included in this bill.
Posted at 11:33 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism | Comments (1) | Technorati
Meeting Our Responsibility to the Future and the Past
Posted by Bob BrighamSenate Democrats open the 109th Congress steadfastly committed to keeping the promise of America, the promise that all Americans who work hard can build a stronger and brighter future for their families. Keeping the promise of America means meeting our responsibilities both to future and past generations by providing our seniors what they have spent a lifetime work for; acting responsibly with taxpayer’s dollars and with our children’s future by restoring fiscal discipline; and enabling women to take responsibility for their health.
MEETING OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE FUTURE AND THE PAST:
S. 18: Meeting Our Responsibility to Medicare Beneficiaries. Democrats will take the special interests out of the Medicare law by repealing the provision that prevents Medicare from negotiating better prices for seniors and eliminating the slush fund for HMOs. We will also improve the prescription drug benefit by phasing out the current doughnut hole where seniors pay a premium but get no benefit. We will buy down the Part B premium so premium increases are not too steep. We will address incentives that encourage employers to drop retiree benefits and we will ensure that no seniors are forced into HMOs while helping seniors in their transition to the new benefit.The Medicare Prescription Drug Bill created a number of problems for our seniors. The Republicans used every chance they could get to help their special interest HMO and drug company friends. Democrats believe that seniors and people with disabilities should come first and this bill takes the first steps to improving the Medicare program to reflect those priorities. The Meeting Our Responsibility to Medicare Beneficiaries Act will lower the cost of prescription drugs and Medicare premiums, eliminate the HMO slush fund and protect the interests of our seniors.Lower Drug Prices for Seniors. Democrats want to lower drug prices by eliminating the prohibition on allowing Medicare to use the power of its 41 million beneficiaries to negotiate lower drug prices. Medicare negotiation would mean lower drug prices, just like it does for the VA and other bulk purchasers.
Lower Part B Premiums For Seniors By Eliminating the HMO Slush Fund. The bill eliminates the $10 billion HMO slush fund Republicans put in the Medicare law. In addition, it stops the Bush Administration from assuring that HMOs are paid more than traditional Medicare by redistributing overpayments back to private plans. The bill requires HHS to adjust the payments in a way that saves that money for Medicare beneficiaries and uses the savings to reduce Medicare Part B premiums for seniors who are coping with the largest premium increase in history this year.
Protect Seniors From Gaps In Coverage. The drug benefit contains a huge gap in coverage during which seniors continue to pay premiums but get no drug coverage at all. This coverage gap only gets bigger over time – from $2,850 in 2006 to $5,066 in 2013. This bill would phase out the gap in coverage.
Protect Retirees From Losing Drug Coverage. The Republican drug bill will cause 3.8 million retirees to lose the good drug coverage they already have. This bill requires HHS to develop incentives for employers to maintain coverage and ensures that current incentives function properly.
Ensure Seniors Are Not Forced Into HMOs. In some communities, the Medicare drug bill could force seniors into HMOs because there may not be enough competing plans. This bill ensures that a1 guaranteed Medicare fallback is triggered whenever there are not two stand-alone drug plans available in an area so that seniors are not forced to join HMOs.
Eliminate Late Penalties. The new law creates considerable confusion and new sets of choices for seniors. Seniors will be forced to sign up for a plan without fully understanding what benefits are offered, whether the drugs they take are on the plan’s preferred list, or how much they will actually pay. This bill waives the late enrollment penalty for the first two years to give seniors time to understand the benefit and decide if they want to join, without subjecting them to a 12 percent per year late enrollment penalty. This provision makes the legislation truly voluntary.
Protect 6 Million Low-Income Beneficiaries During The Transition. The new law prohibits states from getting federal Medicaid matching funds for covering drugs for beneficiaries who are eligible for the new drug benefit from day one. This bill allows Medicaid to continue to cover drugs during the transition, protecting 6 million of our most vulnerable beneficiaries from falling through the cracks and having no coverage for the drugs they need.
S. 19: Fiscal Responsibility for a Sound Future. Democrats know that fiscal mismanagement today only leads to greater problems for our children. It is our responsibility to address the fiscal irresponsibility of the current Administration by imposing discipline today and Democrats are united to strengthen budgeting rules that require the government to live within its means.
1S. 19: FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR A SOUND FUTUREThe Fiscal Responsibility for a Sound Future Act helps to restore budget discipline and fiscal responsibility to our nation’s finances. Democrats know that fiscal mismanagement today only leads to greater problems for our children. It is our responsibility to address the fiscal irresponsibility of the current Administration by imposing discipline today. Democrats are united to strengthen budgeting rules that require the government to live within its means. This legislation would return us to a path of budget discipline.
Spend Within Our Means. This legislation would restore the Senate pay-as-you-go rule to require that mandatory spending and tax legislation be fully paid for, or be subject to a 60-vote point of order. Pay-go is one of the crucial budget enforcement tools that allowed the federal government to move from deficit to surplus in the 1990's. The Senate pay-go rule has been weakened in recent years, in order to allow for passage of large tax cuts. Since then, deficits and debt have skyrocketed. The Fiscal Responsibility For A Sound Future Act of 2005 would end the current practice of exempting all mandatory spending and tax cuts assumed in the budget resolution from the pay-as-you-go rule, and extend the Senate pay-go rule (currently set to expire in 2008) through fiscal year 2015.
Reinstate Mandatory Spending Cuts to Balance the Budget. The bill would also reinstate sequestration (across-the-board spending cuts) to enforce pay-go and discretionary spending limits. Legislation that exceeds fiscal year 2005 discretionary spending caps, as well as mandatory spending and tax legislation that would increase the deficit, would trigger sequesters. The bill also expresses the sense of the Senate that statutory discretionary spending limits should be enacted for 2006 to prevent passing more debt to our children.
Limit the Use of Reconciliation to Deficit Reduction Legislation. The bill prevents procedural gimmicks from being used to increase the deficit. The bill allows the Senate’s fast-track “reconciliation” procedures, which cut off debate after only 20 hours, to be used only for deficit reduction. Legislation that would increase the deficit could still be considered in the Senate, but could not be expedited. This would restore reconciliation to its original purpose of deficit reduction, and ensure that any legislation increasing deficits is subject to full scrutiny, debate, and consideration in the Senate. In addition, the legislation would prohibit the fast-tracking of Congressional budget resolutions that contain a reconciliation instruction that would worsen the deficit.
S. 20: Putting Prevention First. Democrats are committed to reducing unintended pregnancies by increasing access to family planning services and improving contraceptive coverage. We will increase funding for family planning and empower states to enable more women to take responsibility for their health. We will also improve contraceptive coverage by assuring equity in prescription drug insurance.
S. 20: PUTTING PREVENTION FIRSTThe United States has the highest rate of unintended pregnancies among all industrialized nations. Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and nearly half of those end in abortion. By increasing access to family planning services, our bill will improve women’s health, reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy and reduce the number of abortions – all while saving scarce public health dollars. The Democratic bill will increase access to family planning services, reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions. It will also provide relief to Medicaid by decreasing the financial burden of pregnancy-related and newborn care. Specifically, our bill will:
Increase Access to Family Planning Services. This bill increases funding for the national family planning program (Title X) and will allow states to expand Medicaid family planning services to women with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level.
End Insurance Discrimination Against Women. The legislation ensures equity and fairness in contraception coverage by ensuring that private health plans offer the same level of coverage for contraception as they do for other prescription drugs and services.
Provide Compassionate Assistance for Rape Victims. Women who suffer sexual assault should not have to face the additional trauma of an unwanted pregnancy. Our bill ensures that women who survive sexual assault receive factually accurate information about emergency contraception (EC) and access to EC upon request.
Improve Awareness about Emergency Contraception. Approved by the FDA as a safe and effective means of contraception, EC could substantially reduce the staggering number of unintended pregnancies. Our bill provides $10 million to implement important public education initiatives about EC and its benefits and uses to women and medical providers.
Reduce Teen Pregnancy. The bill would provide $20 million in annual funding for competitive grants to public and private entities to establish or expand teen pregnancy prevention programs.
Truth in Contraception. Government-funded abstinence-only programs are precluded from discussing contraception except to talk about failure rates. A recently study found these programs distort public health data and misrepresent the effectiveness of contraception. Our bill ensures that information provided about the use of contraception as part of any federally funded program is medically accurate and includes information about the health benefits and failure rates of contraception.
Posted at 11:28 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism | Technorati
Democrats Promise
Posted by Bob BrighamThey are for Crisis, we are for Security. They are for Fear, we are for Hope. They are for Greed, we are for Opportunity. They are for Profit, we are for Duty. They are for Excuses, we are for Responsibility. They are for Fraud, we are for Democracy.
They might have Power, but we now have a Promise...
THE AMERICAN PROMISE
A Future of Security, Opportunity and ResponsibilityThe Democratic Agenda for the 109th Congress
Senate Democrats open the 109th Congress steadfastly committed to keeping the promise of America, the promise that all Americans who work hard can build a stronger and brighter future for their families. By embracing and affirming our core values of security, opportunity and responsibility, Democrats are united to help America fulfill this promise.It is the promise of security, that the American way of life and our freedom will be protected by using all the tools to take the fight to the terrorists and standing with those who have served. It is the promise of opportunity so that every American can get the education they need to compete in the 21st century; live in an economy with well paying jobs and high quality health care; and participate in our democracy. Keeping the promise of America also means meeting our responsibilities both to future and past generations by providing our seniors what they have spent a lifetime work for; acting responsibly with taxpayer’s dollars and with our children’s future by restoring fiscal discipline; and enabling women to take responsibility for their health. It is these values that will continue to guide the Democratic agenda as this Congress moves forward.
THE AMERICAN PROMISE: A Future of Security, Opportunity and Responsibility
PUTTING AMERICA’S SECURITY FIRST:
S.11: Standing With Our Troops. Democrats believe that putting America’s security first means standing up for our troops and their families. Democrats will work to increase our military end strength by up to 40,000 by 2007. We will create a Guard and Reserve Bill of Rights to protect and promote the interests of our dedicated citizen soldiers. Democrats will also fight for the families of those who serve our country. This includes providing income security and immediate access to affordable health care.
S. 12: Targeting the Terrorists More Effectively. Keeping America secure means stepping up the fight against the radical Islamic fundamentalism. Democrats will work to increase our Special Operations forces by 2,000 to attack the terrorists where they are and to protect our freedoms here at home. We will further enhance our efforts against enemies by targeting the institutions that spawn new terrorists. Democrats are also united to ensure that the world’s most dangerous weapons stay out of the hands of terrorists. We will expand the pace and scope of programs to eliminate and safeguard nuclear materials, enhance efforts to keep these and other deadly materials out of the hands of terrorists, and assist state and local governments in equipping and training those responsible for dealing with the effects of terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction.
S. 13: Fulfilling Our Duty to America’s Veterans. A key component of keeping America secure is protecting the rights of our veterans. Since the time of Lincoln, Americans have made and kept a sacred commitment to those who served this nation in the defense of freedom. As a new generation of veterans return from Iraq and Afghanistan, Democrats are united to fulfill that promise. We will ensure that all veterans get the health care they deserve while also expanding the availability and accessibility of mental health care. We will ensure that no veteran is forced to choose between a retirement and disability check. We will also make the same commitment to the soldiers of today that was made to past veterans with a 21st Century GI Bill.
EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY TO ALL AMERICANS:
S. 14: Expanding Economic Opportunity. Democrats understand that the most effective means of increasing opportunity for our families is a high quality, good paying job. Democrats will fight to restore overtime protection to 6 million workers and increase the minimum wage for 7.4 million workers. We must do more to create good jobs today and in the future and the Democratic bill does so by eliminating tax incentives for companies that take jobs overseas, creating new jobs through an expansion of infrastructure programs to repair America’s backbone, and encouraging innovation in the American economy. We are also determined to pursue a trade policy that protects American workers and addresses our record trade deficit. Democrats will work to strengthen enforcement of our trade agreements while assisting those workers who have been unduly burdened by unfair trading practices of other nations.
S. 15: Quality Education for All. Democrats are committed to providing a quality education to all Americans because we recognize that education has always been the cornerstone of equal opportunity. Democrats will keep our promise to our children by increasing support for pre-school education, fully funding No Child Left Behind and improving its implementation. We are committed to providing safe and reliable transportation for our rural school children and meeting the Federal commitment to children with disabilities. Democrats will also address the shortfall of math, science and special education teachers by creating tuition incentives for college students to major in those fields. We will help expand educational opportunities for college by providing relief from skyrocketing college tuition, increasing the size and access to Pell Grants and supporting proven programs that encourage more young people to attend and succeed in college.
S. 16: Making Health Care More Affordable. Spiraling health care costs are putting the opportunity of America at risk, making it harder for families to buy health insurance and placing a difficult burden on small businesses and manufacturers. Democrats will address these concerns by making prescription drugs more affordable through the legalization of prescription drug reimportation and more safe by ensuring drugs are monitored after they are approved for use. Democrats will ensure that all children and pregnant women will have health care and protect Medicaid. We will reduce the growing cost of health care to small businesses by offering tax credits while also modernizing health care to cut costs for patients and businesses.
S. 17: Democracy Begins at Home. Equal opportunity in this country is based upon equal representation and fair voting. Democrats are determined to reforming the voting system in this country to create Federal standards for our elections. The bill adds verification, accountability and accuracy to the system. It increases access to the polls with Election Day registration, shorter lines and early voting. The bill also aims to modernize our election equipment and increase impartiality and provides the resources to our states to implement the bill.
MEETING OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE FUTURE AND THE PAST:
S. 18: Meeting Our Responsibility to Medicare Beneficiaries. Democrats will take the special interests out of the Medicare law by repealing the provision that prevents Medicare from negotiating better prices for seniors and eliminating the slush fund for HMOs. We will also improve the prescription drug benefit by phasing out the current doughnut hole where seniors pay a premium but get no benefit. We will buy down the Part B premium so premium increases are not too steep. We will address incentives that encourage employers to drop retiree benefits and we will ensure that no seniors are forced into HMOs while helping seniors in their transition to the new benefit.
S. 19: Fiscal Responsibility for a Sound Future. Democrats know that fiscal mismanagement today only leads to greater problems for our children. It is our responsibility to address the fiscal irresponsibility of the current Administration by imposing discipline today and Democrats are united to strengthen budgeting rules that require the government to live within its means.
S. 20: Putting Prevention First. Democrats are committed to reducing unintended pregnancies by increasing access to family planning services and improving contraceptive coverage. We will increase funding for family planning and empower states to enable more women to take responsibility for their health. We will also improve contraceptive coverage by assuring equity in prescription drug insurance.
Posted at 09:40 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism | Comments (2) | Technorati
Friday, January 21, 2005
The Small Blog as the Small Donor of 2006/2008
Posted by Tim TagarisYou couldn't escape it. During the 2004 election cycle, Internet fundraising was all the rage. From Howard Dean's $40 million, DailyKos and ActBlue, to Terry McAuliffe receiving credit, some of it undeserved, for leveraging the small donor to pull even with GOP fundraising efforts.
That's great - for whatever the real reasons - the Democratic Party did a terrific job of using the Internet to raise money in small amounts as a counter to a traditional GOP advantage. But guess what? The Republican (Noise) Machine will learn, and we had best get ahead of the curve.
If the small donor was the phenomenon of the 2004 election cycle, the small blogger might very well be the next great hope for the Democrats.
The online financial contributions had implications for finance (and comm.) staffs working campaigns across the country. Leveraging the small blogger is predominantly a technological offshoot for traditional field programs (and comm). And as many of us know, the field organization is where is gets done in a grassroots effort. They are the group that will put in hours of tedious study to pull every last vote out of each precinct in a candidate's universe.
Much like everything else in the field plan, organizing the small blogger is laborious and requires a commitment often unmatched by other parts of traditional campaigns. The good news is, so much of netroots outreach crosses formerly compartmentalized groups within a campaign structure; so you can share the burden. What fun!
Let's begin.
If you listen to the pundits, why was the GOP finally able to effectively counter the Democrat's field operation? I have heard it a million times, you probably have as well, it was "the neighbor to neighbor strategy." Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove crafted a plan that had people convincing others in their communities to vote for President Bush. By most accounts, it worked terrifically.
We can accomplish the same thing using our netroots. The beautiful thing about this plan is that we have all the resources necessary to accomplish it without some sort of direction from the powers-that-be. But let's take it back into the campaign setting, because that is the reason I started writing this. Rest assured however, the blogosphere has every resource it needs to make this happen without direction.
Think about the characteristics of the small blog. Many of us run our own. You know the blog your friends, co-workers, and maybe your parents read? The same one you link to in your Kos diaries to boost your visibility? Yes, that one.
It's the blog that generally gets the same 15 people, most within same community you are targeting, reading it a few times a week/month. Maybe you see where I am heading now?
I propose that we take that personal neighbor to neighbor strategy and lead it in a technological direction.
Let's assume you are working on a campaign that has a very clear message. You are part of a functional effort that sends out consistent press releases, talking points, and uses the Internet to foster participation within your congressional district, legislative district, or even statewide.
Step 1: Start collecting each and every single blog that exists within the universe your campaign is operating in. Find them out, email them directly, then introduce yourself and your campaign.
Step 2: Give your supporters the tools to create their own blogs. And do it your website. Heck, it takes 3 minutes to start a blog - walk them through it on your homepage or get involved page. Get a volunteer in the office whose task it is to take people through it step by step over the phone if necessary.
Step 3: If a blog, even a small blog, asks for an interview, grant it! If it gets to be too much, then schedule a weekly/bi-weekly half hour conference call with all the bloggers who want to participate.
Step 4: Back to the press releases and talking points. Send them to bloggers. Send them in the same mass email that you are sending out to the traditional media outlets. Give them the same opportunity to ask questions of the campaign.
Step 5: Invite bloggers to attend your events, just like the press. Make your press conferences and events wi-fi when possible.
Step 6: Nurture the relationship. Rinse and repeat. Bloggers love the inside scoop before the newspapers can get it in print the next day or the news broadcasts it a few hours later
And this plan holds for medium sized blogs as well. The ones that candidates and their staffs would have never dared to enter before because there weren't enough ATM cards found on a consistent basis.
There are some great medium sized blogs out there on both sides of the aisle. There are quite a few of those smaller blogs that have HUGE POTENTIAL in the state I am working now; they include: Young Philly Politics and Philly Future. Pittsburgh Webloggers is also a great source.
The way that traditional communication directors compile lists of newspapers, reporters, journalists, and their contact information - that is the way they need to start with bloggers, especially the small bloggers within their universe.
Finally, cross your fingers and hope they remember you when they go big! Until then, just be content as you work with them to spread your information to their families, co-workers and friends in the district which you are running.
Posted at 02:18 PM in 2005 Elections, 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, 2006 Elections - State, 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, 2008 President - Republicans, Activism, General, Netroots | Comments (1) | Technorati
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Better get a new URL
Posted by Tim TagarisMinnesota Senate 2006
Republicans have afixed a target on the back of US Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN). Dayton is a target in large part because he spent almost all of his personal wealth getting elected for the first time in 2000 and cannot afford to fund his own race again.
Until today, every indication was Congressman Mark Kennedy would do the honors.
Rep. Gil Gutknecht said Thursday he is considering running for U.S. Senate next year, putting his name on a list of potential Republican candidates that already includes fellow Minnesota Rep. Mark Kennedy. [...]Gutknecht, who represents Rochester, said he didn't envision a primary battle with Kennedy. Instead, switching on a "Godfather" voice, Gutknecht said he hoped it would be settled "by a meeting of all the families" - state party leaders and Minnesota Republicans in Congress.
In any case, our friends over at Dayton v. Kennedy better consider getting a new URL. I just checked, it's available -- but I don't know how user friendly daytonvGutknecht.com is.
Didn't we just have this discussion?
Posted at 10:46 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Minnesota | Comments (1) | Technorati
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Post Modern Political Warfare: Part II
Posted by Tim TagarisIt looks like one reader has taken, and ran with, the idea I discussed in this post about waging politics on-line. The idea was to purchase potential URLs for 2006 GOP candidates, before they do.
SSP reader Max Palmer sent me this email earlier today:
Inspired by your post "Post-Modern Political Warfare", I registered several domain names tonight of Republic senators up for relections:It's a new ballgame folks. Those who used to marvel at the perfect placement for a yard sign, should now consider perfect Internet positioning in post-modern political campaigns.snowe06.com, talent06.com, kyl06.com, chafee06.com, lott06.com, ensign06.com, hutchison06.com, allen06.com - I also registered nelson06.com, b/c I am worried about both races and did not want anyone opposing them to get it. [...]
I consider the $90 I spent registering these sites to be a part of my donations to the democratic party and its candidates.
Imagine if Katherine Harris had to give out the URL, "katherineharrisforussenateinflorida.biz" on every piece of literature, in every speech, and in commercials. The fundraising, organization, and information loss would be staggering.
If nothing else, the people at Free Republic were pissed at my original post.
You can check out what domain names are taken and available here.
Disclaimer(s): You should not purcahse these URLs and attempt to sell them for profit later. If you buy a GOP URL, link it to the Dem candidate's site, or put your own blog on it and comment on the race.
If you buy a Democrat's URL, offer it up to the campaign as an in-kind contribution.
Posted at 04:07 PM in 2005 Elections, 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, 2006 Elections - State, Activism, Netroots | Comments (2) | Technorati
Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District
Posted by Tim TagarisGreat piece by Steven Porter's 2004 campaign manager, Pete Zeigler, on the 3rd CD of Pennsylvania. Porter (D) challenged incumbent Phil English (R) and received 40% of the vote despite getting outspent 5-1. Pete gave me permission to link the piece on SSP as well -- TimOver the past two months, there has been much debate over how many House races the Dems should target, what criteria to use, how much support unwinnable races should get, etc. I want to give an example of where and why our current targeting is severely flawed, and why we must look more broadly at the races we give our support to.
I'm going to discuss the 3rd CD of Pennsylvania. It covers Northwestern PA; all of Erie County, and parts of six other counties. It extends from the New York border and Lake Erie to the northern suburbs of Pittsburgh. It has a slight Democratic registration edge, Dem performance of approx 48%, and a combination of urban, suburban and rural voters. The major cities in the district have been hit very hard by free trade; Erie has seen thousands of jobs outsourced, the Shenango Valley's steel industry has been hard hit, Butler has lost multiple large employers, and Meadville, once the nation's tool-and-die capital, has seen the industry suffer greatly at the hands of cheaper foreign competition.
The current incumbent is Phil English (R). Despite this economic hardship in his district, and his full-throated support of free trade, he hasn't faced a party-supported challenge since 1996. The reasons for this defy logic.
English was initially elected in 1994 with less than fifty percent of the vote, against a strong challenge by Bill Leavens. In a normal year, English would have been defeated; however, 1994 was anything but normal. The DCCC immediately placed English on the top of its target list. The GOP immediately gave him a seat on Ways and Means to protect him.
In 1996, Erie lawyer Ron DiNicola steeped up to face him. This race saw outside money from a large number of interest groups pour into the Erie market; the WSJ even covered the race as an example of the "soft money" problems prevalent at the time. On election night, DiNicola was thought to be the winner, until late returns from GOP-dominated Butler County gave an approx. 2,500 vote victory to English.
So far so good. We have an incumbent on the run with every sign of vulnerability. So of course, in 1998, the Democratic Party, both locally and nationally, basically decides to sit the race out. A Mercer County school administrator, Larry Klemens, won the nomination, and received absolutely no party support. In their defense, he was a weak candidate, but if I were the DCCC, there is no way I'd have permitted there to be a weak candidate in the race, without a miracle upset in the primary. Klemens raised $30,000 (not a typo), and lost 63 to 37. All of a sudden, a seat that should be competitive looks less so.
Now of course, our party has a very short memory. In one cycle, the race went from top priority to unwinnable in the perception of DC. In 2000, we ran a former Republican doctor who got beat 61-39. Redistricting helped English slightly, but not enough to eliminate the Dem registration edge. So in 2002, the Dems don't even run a candidate. the Green candidate against him gets 22% of the vote, a number deflated by the massive undercount in Erie and Sharon, caused by people pulling the Dem party lever (yes, we still have the party option for voting in PA). In 2004, a good man, Steven Porter, made the race. Despite getting outspent 6 to 1, having zero name ID prior to the campaign, no national support, and being subject to a ridiculously vicious negative campaign (he was falsely accused of supporting forced sterilization and banning hunting, among other lies), he managed 40% of the vote against English.
Now, is Phil English some ridiculously popular figure? By no means. He is the exact opposite of telegenic, not very personable, and stories of him mistreating constituents abound. He is an able fundraiser, but he is not a candidate who generates a groundswell of support from the GOP base, a la Santorum on their side. He tries to portray himself as a moderate, in a part of PA where the GOP base is Red-State conservative. He is not loved, not even really liked by most of the GOP infrastructure in the district. He should be the definition of a weak incumbent.
If the DCCC does not engineer a strong challenge here in 2006, especially as he made a 6-term pledge (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 3-30-95), there are serious issues in their targeting criteria. But I am not advocating for just this race. There are probably a number of CDs nationwide where, if we took a look at the factors, much more attention is deserved, and the DCCC has to take a run at them. As English's example shows, taking one cycle off is too many.
The DCCC has to be able to find a minimum of 60 open-seat/weak incumbent districts every cycle and put forward a good faith effort towards:
1. Candidate recruitment
2. organizational support
3. dollars.When the DCCC fails, they fail us. We should take action and make our voices heard to make sure it does not continue.
Also, if you got this far, I'm interested to hear about other districts, kinda off the radar screen, where new emphasis is warranted.
Posted at 12:31 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Pennsylvania | Comments (2) | Technorati
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
There Is No Crisis
Posted by Tim TagarisA revolutionary website that gives the netroots the tools necessary to protect the integrity of social security. Click on the picture below and link it on your own sites.
The blogosphere has officially jumped into the mix.
[P.S. The "There Is No Crisis" blog is operated by none other than the SSP's own Bob Brigham. - David]
Posted at 10:30 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Netroots | Comments (1) | Technorati
Take it Back: MO-3
Posted by Tim Tagaris1995 House break-down "The Republican Revolution": 235 (R) to 198 (D)
2005 House break-down entering the 109th Congress: 232 (R) to 201 (D)
Missouri's 3rd CD: As most of you don't know, I am a strong advocate of getting involved in Democratic primary elections as the principal means of shaping the face of our party. Much of that has to do with Jeff Smith, a little known House candidate who lost by 1733 votes against party establishment favorite, Russ Carnahan in an open-seat race.
Carnahan eventually eeked out what should have been a blow-out victory in November. Now the sharks are circling.
[N]ew U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis - already is making some Democrats nervous. Dick Gephardt generally won re-election easily during his 28 years representing the 3rd District, but Russ Carnahan barely won the right to succeed him. [...]Veteran Republican consultant John Hancock said, "The 3rd District is definitely in the equation for targeting in 2006." The GOP believes that the right candidate could oust Russ Carnahan.
So, it is with great pleasure that I found the name of Jeff Smith begin to resurface this morning.
The summer's Democratic runner-up, Jeff Smith, is now a visiting political science instructor at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. Smith plans to return to Missouri and says he hasn't decided whether he'll make another bid for any political office.
You'll have to forgive me. Not only am I a big fan of Jeff Smith, but I see his race and situation as a microcosm for the current state of the Democratic Party. As long as the party continues to back status quo candidates, whether for president, congress, or DNC Chair - we will continue to lose elections. Getting involved in primaries will also also help us field candidates in general elections that are more in-line with our ideological beliefs.
I am through waiting for a group of consistent losers to pick which candidates I should support in the months before November. (More numbers below the jump)
109th Congress (2005):
Republicans 232
Democrats 201108th Congress (2003):
Republicans 229
Democrats 204107th Congress (2001):
Republicans 221
Democrats 211
106th Congress (1999):Republicans 222
Democrats 211105th Congress (1997):
Republicans 225
Democrats 205104th Congress (1995):
Republicans 235
Democrats 198Posted at 11:01 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Missouri | Comments (1) | Technorati
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Post-Modern Political Warfare
Posted by Tim TagarisInternet gamesmanship in the run-up to the race for Governor of Massachusettes in 2006:
Massachusetts Republicans have launched a pre-emptive strike against Democratic Attorney General Tom Reilly by snapping up online Internet addresses that would have been obvious picks for him if he decides to run for governor in 2006.Reilly has not yet said whether he will challenge Republican Gov. Mitt Romney in 2006. But if Reilly does run, it will be hard for him to use the Web sites reillyforgovernor.com, tomreillyforgovernor.com, reillyforgovernor2006.com and reillyforgovernor06.com.
A smart move is a smart move, regardless of what party is behind the tactic. Get ready to see increased political warfare on-line during the 2006 election cycle. Since most web campaigns begin with a simple URL, I can't think of a better place to start.
So, if you have a credit card handy and $7 you are willing to invest...
santorum06.com is available.
santorum06.org is available.
santorumforsenate.com is available.
santorumforsenate.org is available.
santorumforsenate2006.com is available.
santorumforsenate2006.org is available.Doesn't have to be Santorum; choose your race and knock yourself out. http://www.networksolutions.com can tell you if there are domains available.
If you buy any, for any Republican candidate, please email me to let me know.
Posted at 10:10 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, 2006 Elections - State, Activism, Netroots | Comments (6) | Technorati
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Knuckle Up: It's gonna be on in OH-16
Posted by Tim TagarisWhen Congressman Ralph Regula was passed over for Chairman of House Appropriations Committee, many believed he might not even stick around to finish his 17th term. That speculation was put to rest by Regula in the Akron Beacon Journal yesterday.
However, chances are the people of Ohio's 16th District will be selecting a new Congressman when 2006 rolls around. Passed over for his career capstone, Regula will probably hang it up and advocate for the Republican of choice during the next election cycle.
Stark County, the largest in the 16th district, comprises 55% of the total vote in the CD. It also went for John Kerry in the presidential race. Due to redistricting Medina County is also part of the 16th district now; Before the gerrymander, Medina consistently elected Democrat Sherrod Brown to the House of Representatives. The other two counties are solid Republican, Ashland and Wayne. Looking at the total picture, this race will be a toss-up in every sense the word.
From what I witnessed during the 2004 election cycle, the field is going to be a crowded one as well. Get to know these names; you will be seeing them highlighted as a top tier race during the 2006 campaign season.
The Democrats have a few options. First, Stark County Democratic Party Chairman Johnnie Maier seems to be the favorite to emerge from the primary if he runs. He has had designs on the seat for some time now, patiently waiting until Regula retired.
As the party chair, his name recognition in Stark County will start out high, and his tenure in Ohio' State House should bolster his credibility and ability to fundraise.
That being said, there are quite a few people, Democrats, who would like to take Maier out in the primary. During the 2004 presidential race with a spotlight on Stark County, Maier managed to piss off almost every outside organization that came in to help the Kerry campaign. His selective support of Democratic candidates running for local office lost him future support as well.
Then there is option number 2. I know these people personally, so let me start by saying this is purely speculative...
Recently elected to a first term in the Ohio State House of Representatives, William J. Healy II would be a formidable challenge for a Democratic field and whatever Republican emerges from the other side's contest.
Healy has great name recognition in Stark County and his father was a well respected local politician. In 2004, Healy trounced his opponent Mandwell Patterson in the State House race, earning around 70% of the total vote. Healy has a great team around him as well, if and when his aspirations for the future manifest themselves.
Then there is Jeff Seemann. Seemann was the candidate who squared off against Regula in 2004. Even though he only garnered 34% of the vote at the end of the day, his campaigns use of the Internet received world-wide acclaim from L.A. to Australia.
Seemann will have to nurture the grassroots support he cultivated during his quixotic 2004 campaign if he is to be taken seriously in attempt to represent the party in 2006.
With a field of prominent Democrats beginning to jockey for position, the road ahead might be a long one for Seemann who has already declared his intention of running for the U.S. House again. In the post, Seemann recognizes the field will be a crowded one. The only way Seemann gets out of the primary is if he has the full support of an Internet community that carried his campaign as far as it went in 2004.
For the Republicans, three names appear on most people's short list.
State Senator Kurt Schuring: Schuring was chairman of the Bush/Cheney campaign in 2004. He is a well respected State Senator by people on both sides of the aisle. There was a point in time where some Democrats believed he was going to switch to the "blue team," but that hasn't happened yet. At the end of the day, some pretty nasty, and still private, opposition research will doom this candidate's bid.
Stark County Commissioner Richard Regula: Richard is the son of current Congressman Ralph Regula. His last name recognition would allow him to mount a serious bid. After all, it carried him into the Commissioner post.
Regula would seem to be the anointed favorite by the Republican Party faithful. It is that belief that led many to conclude Schuring was going to switch parties and run as a Democrat for the seat in 2006.
Scott Oelslager, Ohio State House of Representatives: Oelslager is a pretty moderate Republican as well. In 2004, he broke with his party to quash major "tort reform" legislation. He is another well-liked Republican that will fare well in a labor heavy, yet socially conservative part of the Buckeye State.
At the end of the day, I would have to say this seat is lean Republican, assuming Regula does retire. The reason it wouldn't lean into the Democratic column is Chairman Johnnie Maier's fault. In 2004, Democrats had a good opportunity to condition 16th district voters to vote against Ralph Regula; Lord knows there were enough reasons to do so.
Jeff Seemann generated the seed capital necessary to make the race a competitive one, but the local party dropped the ball. They failed to support the campaign in any substantive way, and Regula was elected in an overwhelming fashion once again.
If Johnnie Maier would have the foresight to get involved with the campaign, he would have not only been earning votes for Seemann in 2004, but conditioning voters for himself, in 2006.
Posted at 09:52 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Ohio | Comments (5) | Technorati
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Rep. Rahm Emanuel to lead DCCC
Posted by Bob BrighamIllinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a former political operative for President Clinton, was named head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on Sunday, replacing the late Rep. Robert Matsui.Emanuel, a former senior staffer for the House Democrats' fund-raising and recruiting organization, will lead the Democratic effort to regain control of the House in 2006.
You can find out more about the DCCC, read the Stakeholder (DCCC blog) and here is the link to the new DCCC Social Security site.
The Stakeholder has Pelosi's statement:
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi today named Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois to lead the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee."House Democrats are focused and determined to win a majority in the House in 2006, and Rahm Emanuel will be an outstanding leader in this effort," Pelosi said. "Rahm knows this country, its people and its politics from the neighborhoods up, which has been a key to his success and will be a key to ours in 2006. Rahm is a master strategist with the expertise and passion to build on the foundation that our dear friend Bob Matsui built during the last two years."
In the 1980s, Emanuel held senior staff positions at the DCCC, and helped produce significant victories. He played a major role in the election of Bill Clinton as his Director of Finance in the 1992 Presidential campaign. Emanuel served as a top White House advisor to President Clinton from 1993 to 1998, first as Assistant to the President for Political Affairs and then as Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy. As a Member of Congress, he has distinguished himself with thoughtful ideas and strategic insights.
"Rahm brings something more than a long resume," Pelosi said. "He brings the passion of an immigrant's son, and the street-smarts of his hometown of Chicago. His uncle has spent decades as a police sergeant in the same northwest side district Rahm now represents in Congress. His father was a pediatrician and treated thousands of children in the community."
Emanuel said: "I thank Leader Pelosi and my Democratic colleagues for their confidence in me, and I appreciate the opportunity to lead the DCCC. This is about winning elections by setting the right priorities for our nation and its future. I look forward to a battle of ideas with the Republicans that will engage and motivate voters across this great country."
Emanuel, who was re-elected in November to his second term as Representative of Illinois' 5th District with 78 percent of the vote, was recently appointed to the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Emanuel was chosen by his Democratic freshmen class as Democratic Whip for their class. In the 2004 election cycle, he served as a Vice Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and as a member of the Executive Committee of the New Democratic Coalition.
Emanuel is the perfect choice to lead the DCCC.
Posted at 03:44 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Activism, General | Comments (2) | Technorati
Jim Nussle surfaces for Governor, IA-01 Open Seat
Posted by Bob BrighamThe Des Moines Register:
U.S. Rep. Jim Nussle became the first Iowa Republican to take formal steps toward running for governor next year, filing documents Thursday announcing his intent to seek the 2006 Republican nomination. [...] At the end of 2004, Nussle had a combined total of roughly $450,000 in his congressional campaign fund and an account connected to a political action committee he formed in part to curry favor with legislative Republicans.Ryan said Nussle had transferred none of that money to his gubernatorial campaign, although Iowa and federal law allows such transfers.
As Laddy on MyDD points out:
This will likely to mean he'll vacate his seat in what should be friendly Democratic turf. The seat has potential to be a pickup, as Gore won the district 52-45, and Kerry won 53-46.
The Gazette reports, "Nussle said he benefited from the many visits by President George Bush...Nussle has collected more than $1.6 million for his campaign. Gluba has collected $368,000."
An incumbent needed multiple visits from the President and a 4:1 financial advantage to hold on to this Democratic seat. The battle for IA-01 could be very interesting.
Posted at 03:12 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - State, Iowa | Comments (3) | Technorati
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Statement from Senator Barbara Boxer
Posted by Bob Brigham
AP:
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., signed a challenge mounted by House Democrats to Ohio's 20 electoral votes, which put Bush over the top.Asked about her historic vote to stand up for the people, the Office of US Senator Barbara Boxer may have released the following statement:
"I exercise my right to express when I feel it's time. I say to fight, you take it as I'mma whip someone's ass.""Come along follow me as I lead through the darkness, as I provide just enough spark that we need to proceed. Carry on, give me hope, give me strength -- come with me and I won't steer you wrong."
"Put your faith and your trust as I guide us through the fog to the light at the end of the tunnel."
"Now this is our final hour, let me be the voice in your strength and your choice. Let me simplify the rhyme just to amplify the noise. Try to amplify the times it, and multiply by six. Teen million people are equal at this high pitch."
"If we don't serve our own country, we're patronizing a hero. Look in his eyes its all lies."
Posted at 11:32 AM in 2006 Elections, 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, Activism, California, Ohio | Technorati
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Lewis (R-CA) Named to Head House Appropriations Committee
Posted by Tim TagarisDetails to follow as they become available. I just got off the phone with Congressman Regula's (R-OH) D.C. Office; the decision came down one hour ago (approx. 12:30 EsT).
Jerry Lewis (R-CA) was selected as to chair the powerful appropriations post. For more information on why this is a big decision, check this post.
Tim
Posted at 01:29 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, General, Ohio | Comments (1) | Technorati
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Big Announcement Tomorrow
Posted by Tim TagarisSometimes you don't know just how low House Republicans will go because it gets no play in the mainstream media. One of those examples is being played out under-the-radar with the Republican Party's decision on who will be the next Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
The three candidates are Representatives Ralph Regula (R-OH), Jerry Lewis (R-OH), and Hal Rogers (R-KY). The decision is enormous because he who holds the chair, holds the power to determine where money is earmarked in those committee appropriations bills and obnoxious $388 billion dollar ones of the omnibus variety. All three made their pitches to party faithful this week, but the race for Appropriations Chairman in the 109th Congress might have been decided in the 108th.
You see, Republican leadership wants a Chairman who will use the power of the purse strings to strong-arm opponents into voting for legislation they would otherwise oppose.
Ralph Regula gave Republican leadership everything it wanted to see from a potential chair; he implemented the threat and made it a political reality in his own subcommittee (Labor/HHS/Education). The depravity of this tactic knew no limits in 2003/2004, nor do I expect it will from 2005 to 2007.
Some remember the battle over the new overtime regulations that would take away time-and-a-half from up to 6 million workers. Well, the last battle for that was fought in the House Appropriations Committee. Democrats attempted to remove funding to implement the plan. Ralph Regula decided to take away earmarked money from Congressfolk that voted against the passage of that Appropriations Bill.
This included Congresswoman Shelly Berkley, whose district lost money for a neo-natal care unit in Nevada. Her response:
“What kind of people would take their anger out on babies struggling to survive,” asked Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (D-Nevada).Good question. Just another reason that the entire country should stand against this sort of practice, regardless of whether or not Regula is selected for the post.
More outrage from Democrats on the practice:
David Obey (D-Wisconsin), member of the subcommittee said, “Members are being told if you stand up for what you see as the public interest, then the penalty is that your constituents will be screwed.”Democratic Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the tactics, “criminal.” Representative Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said of the strong-arm effort, “It’s an inappropriate use of power.”So, tomorrow is a big day -- and most don't even know it. The message to Democrats is loud and clear. Oppose us and be afraid, be very afraid.
Posted at 08:58 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, General | Comments (1) | Technorati
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
2006 Candidates Begin to Unfold
Posted by Tim TagarisBusy Day:
Arkansas: Governor 2006
Asa Hutchinson (Republican) is considering an Arkansas Gubernatorial bid in 2006 against an undetermined Democrat. Current Governor Mike Huckabee is not eligible for re-election. General Wes Clark has been mentioned as a potential candidate for the Democrats.Former Arkansas Congressman Asa Hutchinson says he is looking at any number of options for the future now that he has been passed over for the top spot at the Department of Homeland Security. Hutchinson, and undersecretary in the department, says he may run for Arkansas governor in 2006.
Hutchinson resigned from the U.S. House in 2001 to take a post with the D.E.A. He is also well-known for his role as House Trial Manager during the Clinton Impeachment.
Nebraska: U.S. Senate 2006
Republican Congressman Tom Osborne will announce his decision on whether or not to attempt a run for Senate in Nebraska next month. The current seat is held by Democrat Ben Nelson, who will run for re-election. Many believe that Nelson caught a break when Bush appointed Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns to serve as Secretary of Agriculture in the ever changing Bush cabinet. Osborne is probably the next best shot for Republicans to take the seat in 2006. The former Nebraska football coach is a heavyweight in the heavily red state.Florida: Governor 2006
2004 U.S. Senate candidate Betty Castor (Dem.), fresh off a Senate loss the Mel Martinez (Rep.) in Florida, is acting like a person considering a run for Governor of Florida in 2006. Jeb Bush is term limited out and there is already a list of 10 candidates who have expressed interest in taking his place. Castor would seem to have the highest profile of the lot.
As for Jeb. Will it be a Senate bid in 2006, or a run for White House in 2008?
Posted at 04:55 PM in 2006 Elections | Comments (2) | Technorati
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
2006 Senate & House Races Open Thread
Posted by Tim TagarisGet ready to talk about 2006 Senate and House races as challengers indicate their intentions of running. If there are any states/races you want to focus on above a cursory review, indicate it here.
Tim
Posted at 12:30 AM in 2006 Elections | Comments (21) | Technorati
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Congress: We're Watching Too
Posted by Tim TagarisPart of a constantly updated thread that will, at the very least, remain linked on the main page at all times for reference and update (Can we do that in a prominent position, David?)
11/23/04 - Washington Post - GOP Sneaks Provision in Spending Bill That Would Allow Committee Chairs to Examine Tax Returns of All Americans/Corporations:
"The provision, added to the spending package of more than 3,000 pages last Thursday, would give staffers of the House and Senate Appropriations committees similar powers to enter IRS facilities and examine tax returns"11/21/04 - Chicago Tribue - Intelligence Reform Bill Derails in House:
"The House did not bring the measure to a vote Saturday as Congress was trying wrap up its remaining business."
11/17/04 - New York Times - House Republicans Change Rules: DeLay Can Maintain Top Spot, Even if Indicted.
"House Republicans today approved a change in party rules to prevent their majority leader, Tom DeLay, from having to step down from his leadership position should he be indicted in an investigation in Texas."Posted at 09:33 AM in 2006 Elections | Comments (7) | Technorati
2006 Elections Archive:
