Author: TheUnknown285

Here are some handy links for those of you following the still undecided races for Congress and the Electoral College.

[UPDATE1: Added CA-04]

[UPDATE2: Added CA-44 and AK-AL.  Added current margins]

AK-Sen [Mark Begich (D) vs. Ted Stevens (R)]:

Margin: Stevens +3,257 11/7 3:41 PM EDT

http://www.elections.alaska.go…

[Charlie Brown (D) vs. Tom McClintock (R)]:

Margin: McClintock +709 11/7 3:27 PM EDT

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns…

CA-44 [Bill Hedrick (D) vs. Ken Calvert (R)]:

Margin: Calvert +5,264 11/7 3:28 PM EDT

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns…

GA-Sen [Jim Martin (D) vs. Saxby Chambliss (R)]:

Margin: Chambliss .2% below 50% 11/7 3:33 PM EDT

http://sos.georgia.gov/electio…

MD-01 [Frank Kratovil (D) vs. Andy Harris (R)]:

Margin: Kratovil +2,003 11/7 3:25 PM EDT

http://www.elections.state.md….

MN-Sen [Al Franken (D) vs. Norm Coleman (R)]:

Margin: Coleman +239 11/7 3:24 PM EDT

http://electionresults.sos.sta…

MO-Pres:

Margin: McCAin +5,859 11/7 3:39 PM EDT

http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrmaps/…

NE-02-Pres:

Margin: McCain +569 11/7 3:26 PM EDT

http://www.sos.ne.gov/elec/200…

OH-15: [Mary Jo Kilroy (D) vs. Steve Stivers (R)]:

Margin: Stivers +146 11/7 3:21 PM EDT

http://vote.sos.state.oh.us/pl…

VA-05 [Tom Periello (D) vs. Virgil Goode (R)]:

Margin: Periello +745 11/7 3:18 PM EDT

https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virg…

WA-08 [Darcy Burner (D) vs. Dave Reichart (R)]:

Margin: Reichard +5,332 11/7 3:22 PM EDT

http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/W…

Larry Sabato, professor of Political Science at the University of Virginia and director of the Center for Politics has updated his U.S. House predictions.  

Overall, it is very good news for as.  More over the flip.

Here are today’s changes:

AL-02 OPEN Leans R to Toss-up

AZ-03 Shadegg Likely R to Leans R

CA-04 OPEN Likely R to Toss-up

CA-50 Bilbray Likely R to Leans R

CT-04 Shays Leans R to Leans D

FL-08 Keller Toss-up to Leans D

FL-16 Mahoney Leans R to Likely R

FL-24 Feeney Toss-up to Leans D

FL-25 M. Diaz-Balart Leans R to Toss-up

ID-01 Sali Likely R to Leans R

IL-10 Kirk Leans R to Toss-up

IN-03 Souder Safe R to Leans R

KS-02 Boyda Leans D to Toss-up

KY-02 OPEN Leans R to Toss-up

LA-06 Cazayoux Toss-up to Leans D

MD-01 OPEN Leans R to Toss-up

MI-07 Walberg Toss-up to Leans D

MI-09 Knollenberg Leans R to Toss-up

MN-03 OPEN Toss-up to Leans D

MN-06 Bachmann Safe R to Toss-up

MO-06 Graves Likely R to Leans R

NE-02 Terry Likely R to Leans R

NJ-05 Garrett Likely R to Leans R

NM-01 OPEN Toss-up to Leans D

NM-02 OPEN Toss-up to Leans D

NY-26 OPEN Leans R to Toss-up

NC-08 Hayes Toss-up to Leans D

OH-16 OPEN Toss-up to Leans D

PA-03 English Leans R to Toss-up

SC-01 Brown Safe R to Likely R

TX-07 Culberson Likely R to Leans R

WV-02 Capito Likely R to Leans R

WY-AL OPEN Leans R to Toss-up

Things are looking for good for us.  With today’s changes, Sabato is now predicting us to pick off 17 Republican seats.  And that doesn’t include toss ups and upsets from the “likely Republican” and “leans Republican” columns.  Nine Republican seats have moved to “leans Democratic” today alone.

Another eleven Republican seats have been moved to tossup status.  In all, 30 Republican seats were moved in our direction.  Addtionally, Don Cazayoux’s race has been upgraded to “leans Democratic.”

The only sour notes for us is that Tim Mahoney’s race was further downgraded to “likely Republican” and Nancy Boyda is now a tossup.

Today, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Allen Buckley, the Libertarian candidate for the Senate from Georgia, is going up on the air on cable in Metro Atlanta and Columbus.  This is good news.  The analysis for a Survey USA poll states that Buckley hurts Chambliss more.

The first ad is over the flip.

Allen Buckley Commercial #1 from Allen Buckley on Vimeo.

And while we’re here, give Jim Martin some love: a Act Blue.

From the about section of the ActBlue page I’ve created:

Despite the self-important screechings of the traditional media, the hurt feelings and ruffled feathers of the primary season are not insurmoutable. Hillary and Bill Clinton have worked to unite the Democratic Party with their rousing convention speeches and gracious support of Obama during the delegate voting process. Now it’s time to reward Hillary for being a team player by helping pay off her campaign debt.

And while we’re at it, lets give Barack Obama, who was equally gracious in victory, the funds he needs to expand the map, create coattails for down-ballot races, and end the conservative governing that thinks that all social issues are due to gays, Atheists, Hollywood, and working women, that the way to solve all economic ills are tax cuts for the super rich, and that war will solve all of America’s international problems.

We’ve noted with glee that Obama is advertising in states like Alaska and Georgia and opening campaign offices in states like Indiana.  And this strategy of expanding the map and out-organizing McCain will yield results in down ballot-races as well.  An Obama get out the vote operation in Georgia helps Senate candidate Jim Martin.  Organizing in Alaska helps make the words “Senator Begich” or “Representative Berkowitz” possible.  

Let this unified party money bomb:

http://www.actblue.com/page/un…

Two weeks ago, I posted a diary on DailyKos, MyDD, Open Left, and the Swing State Project announcing the creation of the ActBlue page Protecting Our Asses.  The goals of this page are as follows:

1. To reinforce vulnerable and potentially vulnerable incumbent members of Congress with cash.

2. To reward good, progressive behavior from these incumbents.

3. To diminish or replace the need for these incumbents to seek fundraising dollars from less progressive sources such as corporate PACs and “moderate”/conservative groups.

4. To send the message that the Netroots will have your back if you have ours.

This page grows out of a couple of observations I’ve made.  The first is that the Netroots seems almost exclusively oppositional in its campaign focus.  The candidates supported the most tend to be either general election challengers to Republicans or primary challengers to disappointing Democrats.  Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with supporting Darcy Burner or Larry Kissell or Ned Lamont.  However, I would like to see Democrats retain seats as well.  A multi-term progressive is more able to act than a freshman progressive.  This is where goal number one comes in.

The second observation is that many candidates previous supported by the Netroots have been at various times disappointing.  Perhaps this is because such candidates feel they need to drift toward the center to be re-elected.  Maybe they feel that they can take the Netroots for granted.  Maybe even they feel abandoned by the Netroots and cast their lots with the DLC, etc.  This is where the other three goals come into play.

However, some incumbents stay true to their progressive ideals, despite district dynamics and potentially tough races.  Their courage and resolve should not cost them their jobs.  Such a thing would send a devasting message: Progressivism still equals defeat.

The first candidate added to Protecting Our Asses was Carol Shea-Porter.  Today, I’m announcing the addition of Steve Kagen.  Kagen is a freshman Democrat representing the Eight District of Wisconsin.  Kagen won by two points in 2006.  His race is currently rated as “Leans Democrat” by CQ, Cook, Sabato, and Rothenberg.  The PVI for this district is a troubling R+4.  So, there is a possibility that Kagen, should he be re-elected this year, will continue to face spirited challenges in the near future.

Despite his competitive race and Republican-leaning district, Kagen is a progressive, loyal Democrat.  Kagen enjoys a 93.27 rating from Progressive Punch, which includes perfect scores on the environment, housing, government checks on corporate power, and labor rights, plus either A’s or high B’s on aid to the less privileged, education and the arts, fair taxation, healthcare, human rights and civil liberties, war and peace, and equal justice.  Kagen has voted the right way on FISA, Iraq, the surge, S-CHIP, the minimum wage, and prescription drug price negotiations, just to name a few.

Please reward Steven Kagen (and Carol-Shea Porter) for their progressive stances.  We need to keep them in Congress.

http://www.actblue.com/page/pr…

I’m very disenchanted right now.  Somehow, we’re still in Iraq, don’t have universal healthcare, don’t have stem cell funding.  We’re seeing pushes for offshore drilling.  And this week, our party assumed the position when it comes to FISA.

What was even more infuriating is to see candidates that many candidates heavily supported the grassroots and the Netroots (both in the more limited sense that includes the page DailyKos, Swing State Project, etc collaborate on. and the broader sense to include all of the liberal websites such as Democracy for America and MoveON).  It’s both heartbreaking and infuriating to see people like Patrick Murphy, Kirsten Gillibrand, Nancy Boyda, Jim Webb, and Jerry McNerney, people we thought would be the vanguard of the coming progressive era, vote they way they do, with the likes of Murphy and Gillibrand joining the Blue Dogs!

I learned about reductionism in research methods.  This is the flawed logic of looking for THE cause of something instead of looking for all causes.  So, maybe we were had.  Maybe (probably?) the Netroots endorsement lists and frontpage diaries need to be more selective.  Maybe (hopefully) these are all still pretty progressive people who are just getting bad advice from their advisors and fellow Democratic caucusmembers.

But I think another cause is worth noting.  Because many are freshman, many won narrowly, and many represent competitive districts, many of these people are in close races.  That goes for the likes of Boyda, McNerney (although that one is looking better), Altmire, etc.  And considering that money, unfortunately, plays a big role in elections, these vulnerable incumbents need money to remain competitive and be re-elected.

This is where, I think the Netroots fail. I do not see one incumbent on the Orange to Blue list.  There wasn’t a single one on the Netroots List from the last election.  Democracy for America lacks incumbent members of Congress on their page.

I know many say that our incumbents are doing brisk fundraising.  Yes, but at what cost?  Let’s look at Patrick Murphy.  I see $11,750 from Comcast Corp and $10,000 from Credit Union National Assn, for example.  

So, I’m starting a fundraising page called “Protecting Our Asses.”  This page is designed to provide positive reinforcement for current, vulnerable Democratic legislators.  You vote the right way, you get support.  You throw you lot with the Blue Dogs are the corporatists, then let them bail you out.  

This will hopefully send a message that the Netroots will have watch your back if your watch ours, provide positive reinforcement for good behavior, give much need campaign funds to good but vulnerable Democrats, and dilute or possibly even replace contributions from less than progressive sources.

The first addition to the list is Carol Shea-Porter.  Shea-Porter won in what is, in my opinion, the second-most surprising, positive (because there are some negative surprises, ie. Christine Jennings) race in the country, second only to Nancy Boyda’s defeat of Jim Ryun.  Despite representing a light red district and facing a spirited challenge, Shea-Porter has been a progressive through and through.  Shea-Porter had a 98% Party Unity Score in 2007. She has a a 95.7% Progressive Punch score, making her the 29th most progressive member.  She gets A’s (above 90) in all but two categories and B’s in all.  She has perfect scores on the environment, corporate subsidies, government checks on corporate power, and labor rights.

Carol Shea-Porter voted the right way on stem cell research, Iraq funding, the Iraq escalation, timelines for Iraq, the minimum wage, prescription drug prices, and FISA.  Let’s reward her for taking the high road.

http://www.actblue.com/page/pr…

Yesterday, I posted a diary asking help in formulating a response to an editorial printed in my local newspaper that slanders those who oppose Bush’s escalation.

I have written a draft of a response (quoted over the flip).  There were many things I wanted to talk about such as the fact the all three Iraq war veterans in Congress voted for the resolution, how the Iraq War took time, effort, troops, materiale, and attention away from the hunt for Osama, and so on.  However, I decided to keep in short (158 words) and focus only on the question of supporting the troops, hoping it will increase the chances of getting printed.

This letter is in response to Monday’s editorial by Cal Thomas, an article full of untruths, faulty logic, and distortion.  What I really want to address is Thomas’ main argument that those who oppose Bush’s plan to escalate the Iraq War by sending 20,000 more troops into Iraq do not support the troops.  In fact, quite the opposite is true.  The greatest test of one’s support for the troops is not how fervently one waves the flag or how quickly one gets behind whatever plan the President has, it’s making sure that troops are asked to risk and give their lives only when absolutely necessary and only when some good will come of it. 

So, those of us who oppose escalation support our troops by demanding that they not be sent into the crossfire of a civil war, knowing that past troop increases have not helped and that the President has no clear definition of what constitutes victory.

I have noticed recently that my local newspaper, The Daily Tribune-News (Cartersville, Georgia) runs only editorials from right-wing talking heads like Mike Reagan, a former chair of the county Republican Party, and the like.  A couple years ago, there was balance.  The chair of the county Democratic Party, Howard Dean, and a local Democratic activist all had columns at one time.  Now, that’s changed.

But I digress.  The object of this diary is not to complain about the right-wing slant of my local paper.  It’s to ask help in formulating a response to one column published recently.

More over the flip.

In this column (linked and quoted), one wingnut spouts out the typical Democrats undermine troop morale bullshit:

http://www.daily-tri…

Before political correctness, a person who gave someone a gift and later took it back was called an “Indian giver.”

This is what a majority in the House did last week when they “gave” their support to American forces fighting to stabilize Iraq and defeat our enemy and then promptly took it back. How else should one interpret this “nonbinding” resolution when part one said, “Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq,” but part two negates part one: “Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on Jan. 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.”

This is like sending your love a valentine last week and this week sending a note withdrawing the sentiment.

Last Saturday, Republicans managed to block a similar effort in the Senate, but by only four votes. Senate Democrats — and a few like-minded Republicans — vowed to try again.

Once, most members of Congress supported the president’s prosecution of the war. That was when his approval numbers were sky-high. Now that those numbers have fallen, so has congressional support. Most Democrats claim, falsely, that the November election was a referendum on the war. If the president’s policy succeeds, though, two things will happen. First, some members who opposed him will claim they were behind the troop surge all along. Second, most Democrats will assert that success is actually failure because they can’t afford politically to admit they were wrong.

Do the troops feel supported by this House resolution? There are no opinion polls of military and civilian workers in Iraq, but two comments have come to my attention. One is a letter to the editor of The Washington Times from John McFarlane, a military trainer for Northrop-Grumman Technical Services in Elizabethtown, Ky. McFarlane writes that he has just returned from Iraq “after coming out of retirement to go there … I can tell you that the greatest fear of the young service members over there is that the American public will fail to pursue total victory and will leave early, thereby wasting their battle buddies’ life and blood. They feel pain every time somebody pays lip service to his or her conscience with the line: ‘I support the troops, but not the policy.’ (They) know they are the policy and that you should feel shame if you as an American would commit them to anything less than total victory.”

The second letter is from Army Sgt. Daniel Dobson, about whom I wrote in a column last week. Sgt. Dobson says he was in the chow hall in Mosul, watching CNN on the day of the House vote. He writes in an e-mail, “…it made me furious to see congressmen unashamedly proclaim their cowardice, but the reaction of the soldiers tore my heart in two. The faces were that of men that looked as if they were just told there is no United States to go home to. The fury gives way to depression: the thought alone that our elected representatives do not represent us anymore is more than depressing. We see cowardice, sickening spineless cowardice and it makes soldiers sick.”

So much for the assertion by some members of Congress that the House resolution, with the promise of more and binding ones to come, will have no affect on troop morale. How many other soldiers feel this way? How many others might be affected by these “no-confidence” votes? Of equal importance, how emboldened does the enemy feel as he sees the prophecy of Osama bin Laden coming true, that America doesn’t have the stomach or staying power for a long war and will eventually give up if enough death and injury is inflicted upon American troops?

If Congress wants to end this war, it should immediately vote to cutoff funds and receive whatever benefits, or consequences, that result. But too many who lack the spine to win also lack the spine to accept accountability for defeat. The only victory they appear committed to is the next election.

Some points I would like to make:
1. Thomas leaves out that all three Iraq war veterans in Congress are Democrats and all three voted for the resolution.

2. Voting for this resolution does support the troops by saying they should not be thrown into the middle of a civil war.  What is so hard to comprehend about that?

3. He leaves out the fact that most Americans oppose the escalation.

4. His saying the election was not a referendum on the war is bullshit and the exit polls say so.

5. Keeping point four in mind, is he saying that most Americans don’t support the troops and are enabling the terroists.

Please chime in with points, information (citations especially), ways to word things, etc.

The Hill published an article highlighting some of the fundraising efforts of freshmen Democrats in the House.  Apparently, many are doing quite well.  David Loebsack (IA-02) has raised about $71,000.  Kirsten Gillebrand (NY-20) has raised $65,000 in PAC money alone.  Earl Perlmutter (CO-07) has raised $79,000.  Charlie Wilson (OH-06) has raised $34,000.  Paul Hodes has raised $35,000.  Jason Altmire (PA-04) and Patrick Murphy (PA-08) have both raised $50,000 in PAC money alone.  Zack Space (OH-18) and Steven Kagen (WI-08) have both raised $35,000 in PAC money.

As far as simple financial numbers go, this is good news.  All of these candidates are vulnerable to some degree.  So, if all of these House members are already off to good starts, they may be able to force out potentially strong challenges early on.

But the article also has some worrying relevations.  For one thing, Nancy Boyda (KS-02) has raised only $13,000.  Considering the presidential vote in her district (Bush won it by 20 points), Boyda is probably one of our top five most vulnerable Democrats.  Plus, she will not have Sebelius’ coattails helping her and will instead have to contend with the Republican tide at the top of the ticket from the eventual Republican nominee and Senator Pat Roberts. Finally, she will possibly face a rematch against Jim Ryun. More over the flip…

However, the thing that is more disappointing to me than Boyda’s numbers (it’s early, give her some time) is where the other candidates are getting there money.  First, relying heavily on PAC money does not give the best image.  But beyond that, it’s a question of which PACs they’re getting donations from.

Both Gillebrand and Perlmutter have taken money from Altria, which represents the makers of Marlboro cigarettes. Loebsack and Perlmutter have received contributions from the American Bankers Association PAC while Perlmutter also has donations from Comcast and JP Morgan and Loebsack has donations from the American Association of Realtors.

It’s unsettling to see any elected officials taking money from cigarette makers.  It’s worse to see Democrats, liberal Democrats at that, doing that.  And while Comcast, et al. aren’t the scourge of Satan, I also don’t like the image of elected Democrats at their beg and call.

http://www.thehill.c…

My suggestion for anyone else who feels the way I do, is to donate through the Netroots and other liberal PACs like MoveOn and Democracy for America.  The more candidates and elected officials can get from the Netroots, the less they have to rely on PACs whose goals are sometimes/often/always contrary to the goals of progressives/working people/middle class/etc.

One should also note that Netroots heroes Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01), John Yarmuth (KY-03), Joe Sestak (PA-07), John Hall (NY-19), and Tim Walz (MN-01) are not mentioned in the article.  We need to act now to keep these people a)in Congress by making sure they have adequate resources to be re-elected and b)from becoming corrupted by negative interests.

I am compiling a list of bills introduced in the 110th Congress dealing with ending, lessening, or keeping at the status quo, American involvement in Iraq. 

H.Con.Res.23: Offered by Dennis Kucinich
Expresses the sense of the Congress that troops not be escalated (note the use of the word “escalated”) in Iraq.  I may be wrong, but this appears to be a non-binding resolution.  Judging from the compartively high number of cosponsors and the fact that Lynch is a cosponsor, it appears this may become a “consensus” piece of legislation, basically hot air but no substance.  It has 21 cosponsors as of 12:28 PM EST on January 11: 

Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] | Rep Carson, Julia [IN-7] | Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] | Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]| Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] | Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] | Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] | Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] | Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] | Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] | Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] | Rep Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [GA-4] | Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] | Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] | Rep Lynch, Stephen F. [MA-9] | Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] | Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] | Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] | Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] | Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] | Rep Wu, David [OR-1]

H.R.353: Offered by Edward Markey
This one prohibits the use of funds for any escalation. Text of it is currently unavailable.  It has nine cosponsors as of 12:36 PM EDT:

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] | Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] | Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] | Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] | Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] | Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] | Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] | Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] | Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5]

S.233: Offered by Edward Kennedy
Appears to be very similar to the Markey bill (it’s probable, considering the sponsors are from the same state, that they are intended to be companion bills).  It prohibits funds for any escalation.  Text is currently not available.  It has six cosponsors as of 12:45 PM EST:

Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] | Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] | Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] | Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] | Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] | Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT]

S.121: Offered by Russell Feingold
Calls for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.  Text is currently not available.  There is one cosponsor as of 12:50 PM EST:

Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA]

Some things jump out.  First, there appears to be no consensus on what to do.  We have three strategies in four bills.  One states disapproval of the escalation, another bars funding, and a fourth says leave.  The first seems to tantamount to huffing and puffing.  The second sounds better but is also a major political liability.  I could just see the ads saying that Democrats want to leave our troops in the cold.  The third is the best strategy, in my opinion, but there are only two Senators currently supporting it.

Second, it appears that most of our prospective presidential candidates are willing to go out on a limb.  Only Kerry is willing to do something.  Obama, Clinton, Dodd, and Biden are conspicuously silent. 

Third, this seems to be a Democratic effort.  Even though some Republicans, for example, Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, have come out against the war, they are absent.  It would appear that many in the Republican Party are a) out of touch with reality and the American and still supporting the war or b) are only publicly condemning the war to save their own asses but not won’t do anything about it.

Fourth, it seems many of the “centrists” are spinless and out of touch as ever.