Month: August 2007

It seems that Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson are now both in trouble from both sides of the political spectrum. While the two toers-of-the-GOP-party-line generally don’t expect support from the progressive Dems, when the hawkish Republicans go after them… then they know they’re in trouble.

And this group is spending some serious cash on the two New Mexico Republicans.  According to a list e-mailed from Americans United for Change, reprinted at Daily Kos, the group is spending over $250,000 on these ads targeting Wilson and Domenici.  This is the fourth-most being spent in a single area, remarkable considering two of the other targets are in Philadelphia, PA and Washington DC — much more expensive media markets.  This group really is going after Domenici and Wilson.

I won’t get into the problems with the right-wing ad itself — I’ll let Americans United for Change do that, in a video you can see below the fold, but instead discuss its effects on Domenici and Wilson.

Crossposted at New Mexico FBIHOP.

The funny thing about the attack from a group of Bush supporters is it is based on, for Domenici and Wilson at least, what they have said in the press.  Not on what they have actually done, but what they’ve said.  They’ve talked about a new direction in Iraq, they’ve publicly tried to soften their position on Iraq… but then their actions, their votes, betray them.

Take a look at Domenici on “War and Peace”.  Every single time he has voted on a bill concerning the war in Iraq, he has gone with the hawkish “stay the course” message.  He even was among the majority who voted to protect the Halliburtons of the world by voting “NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan.”  In other words, Domenici was not only for no-bid contracts, he was also for not investigating the waste of money afterwards.  Not exactly fiscally conservative, is he?

It’s no surprise to anyone with any knowledge of Domenici’s past that he is so hawkish.  But it is a bit ironic that the right-wing group

(Cross-posted from MLN.)

It’s tough enough to have come back from your eighteenth trip from Iraq only to see the following caricature of yourself on the cover of a weekly local newspaper, with a subtitle asking out loud if you’ve “lost your mind” on the matter:

It’s tougher still to have to look inside the paper and read a quote like this from an Iraq war vet:

“He has more positions on Iraq than Mitt Romney has on abortion,” says Soltz, a veteran of the Iraq and Kosovo wars. “You never know where he sits on Iraq. He can tell you what he wants, but he is lined up with George Bush on this war.”

“He likes to brag about how many times he’s been to Iraq,” Soltz adds, “but he’s never served, and he doesn’t really know how the military works. Shays-all he talks about is tactics, but military people talk about diplomacy; I want to see a policy change, but that is not going to happen by adding more troops.”

But it must really suck to have to read your hometown paper report that the chairman of one of the House committees you sit on is investigating your campaign for possible coordinated impropriety with Karl Rove, while noting that you opposed an investigation into Rove’s political use of government resources even though you had an obvious conflict of interests as one of the officials implicated in the scheme:

A congressional panel is investigating whether the White House misused federal resources to help re-elect Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4, in 2006.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Ca., who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent letters Tuesday to the heads of 18 federal agencies seeking documents to determine if that is so….

Shays has been critical of the investigation, and voted April 25 against issuing subpoenas to the Republican National Committee seeking e-mails that White House officials wrote on RNC e-mail accounts about using federal resources to help Republican candidates.

At the April meeting, Shays complained that “I feel like we are straining out gnats and swallowing camels.”

There are “so many huge issues that we should be debating,” he added.

Worse, this is all taking place on the same day that you’re holding a press conference to try to placate the local press by promulgating your latest tortured rhetorical contortion on the war.

And there are still two days left…

While the Republican Party is currently home to some of the nuttiest policies of recent decades, it has also been home to some of the nuttiest people.  Cranks, loons, shifty-eyed ramblers, hard luck gamblers, and certifiable basketcases alike have all found a welcome home as elected officials in the GOP.

As an example, you may remember Rep. Fred Heineman (NC-04), a one-term wonder from 1995-97, who professed that his congressional salary of $180,000 made him “lower middle class”:

Heineman made news in 1996 with his assertion that his $180,000 income made him lower-middle class. “When I see a first-class individual who makes $80,000 a year, he’s lower middle class,” Heineman said. “When I see someone who is making anywhere from $300,000 to $750,000 a year, that’s middle class. When I see anyone above that, that’s upper middle class.”  (Raleigh News & Observer, 10/21/95)

Clearly a man with a firm grip on reality.

Of course, another favorite Republican nutjob is Rep. Barbara Cubin (WY-AL), whose record is one of utter batshittery and embarrassment, including one notable evening where she barked to a startled audience of GOP donors: “I know what Victoria’s Secret is. She’s a slut.”  And who could forget her penchant for sharing penis-shaped cookies with her colleagues in the Wyoming legislature, or her infamous threat to slap her wheelchair-bound independent opponent after a debate last fall.

Who are some of your favorite Republican nutters?  To be clear, I’m not asking for necessarily the most conservative, or the most mean-spirited policy-wise.  I’m talking about loony quotes and behavior that reflect a serious personality flaw or detachment from everyday reality.  Citations of direct quotes or descriptions of activities, with links if possible, are preferred.  Post ’em in the comments.

The dumber the better, people.

Hot on the heels of the back-to-back-to-back retirement announcements of Republican Reps. Hastert (IL-14), Pryce (OH-15), and Pickering (MS-03), the speculation has run rampant of a potential “flood” of Republican House retirements in the coming months.  As we noted last Friday, there have actually been fewer Republican retirement announcements this year than at this point in the ’05/’06 cycle.  However, the announcements of Pryce and Pickering–both relatively younger incumbents who could have potentially enjoyed long careers in the House–were legitimate bombshells within Washington.

David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report (sub. required) takes a look at the retirement picture, and finds that while the dam hasn’t broken for Republicans yet, things are still looking grim:

Still, if history is any guide, we should expect a significant number of Republican lawmakers to call it quits in 2008 and a considerably higher incumbent retention rate for Democrats. In the vast majority of cases over the past century, when a party has suffered a major (25+ House seat) loss in a midterm election, a higher percentage of the losing party’s members have opted to step down in the succeeding presidential year. This pattern confirms the obvious: that new-found minority status provides House members less incentive to stay put.

After the last party takeover of Congress in 1994, wave-riding Republicans saw 21 in their ranks make plans to step down, while the minority Democrats saw 28 in their ranks bid farewell. Ultimately, Republicans picked off 10 open Democratic seats in the 1996 House elections, while Democrats picked up just four open GOP seats. Although Democrats held a vast advantage in scoring incumbent defeats, Republican net gain of six open seats seriously impeded Democrats’ efforts to rebound into the majority that year.

Even though the cumulative total of open seats remains fairly low at this point, Republicans are concerned about last week’s developments for reasons much broader than the emergence of three new pieces of turf to defend.

For one thing, although the August recess is one of the more popular times for members of Congress to return home to districts and announce plans, it’s no coincidence that retirement announcements to date have disproportionately come in states with some of the earlier primary filing deadlines in the country (Illinois, home to Hastert and LaHood, has a first-in-the-nation filing deadline of November 5, 2007). And, while Hastert and LaHood’s departures were at least somewhat foreseen, Pryce and Pickering’s departures were bombshells. Republicans express nervousness that additional delegations could see multiple retirements as their filing deadlines draw nearer and that additional members of the conference could drop reelection plans without much warning.

It’s also difficult to diminish the fact that the Republicans who announced retirements in the past month have been some of the most widely admired and respected members of the GOP conference during their tenures in Congress. As the longest-serving Republican Speaker of the House, Hastert was the unity choice of Republicans for the top post following the Gingrich-Livingston post-impeachment debacle of 1998. And as Republican Conference Secretary, Vice Chair, and Chair, and a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership, Pryce was one of the most prominent behind-the-scenes leaders of moderate House Republicans throughout her congressional career. How many of their best friends and allies in the House will decide to follow their lead? Republican campaign chiefs will have to work hard to keep this number to a minimum.

One such delegation with multiple retirements could easily be Ohio, where the smart money says that Reps. Regula and Hobson will retire in 2008.  In our last edition of the House Open Seat Watch, we offered many more possibilities, but it is worth noting that Pryce and Pickering were not even a blip on our radar a few weeks ago.

Another factor that might be of relevance is the $15 million ad campaign paid by a White House front group, targeting mostly Republican incumbents in the House and Senate and admonishing them to stay the course in Iraq.  By placing its team members between a rock (public opinion) and a hard place (the iron boot of Republican loyalty), could Ari Fleischer and friends actually inspire more incumbents to say “screw this” and jump ship?  Just a thought.

Many will remember that there was a time when Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) looked vulnerable. His SUSA numbers were dipping, internal polling showed he was beatable, and a majoirty of Alabamians disapproved of his unwavering support for President Bush and the Iraq War. Not only was Sessions vulnerable, but there was also a viable challenger in Alabama Ag Commissioner Ron Sparks.

However we all know how the rest of this story goes. Sparks considered and declined a challenge to Sessions, explaining his decision as a logical one since he had been told that he could expect substantial primary opposition from State Senator Vivian Figures of Mobile. Sparks believed that it would be impossible for a Democrat to emerge from a divisive primary and then, bloodied and broke, have a decent shot at defeating Sessions.

Since Sparks' announcement in late June, Figures has been seen as dragging her heels in launching a campaign. Figures had planned a campaign announcement for July 14th, but that date came and past without any word from her. However, Figues has now made it official that she plans to challenge Sessions.  Considering that she's never held (nor run for) statewide office and is absolutely unknown outside of her district, Figures will have a tough time of it. Most likely, she'll be best remembered as a politician who let her own personal ambition get in the way of Democratic chances of picking up a US Senate seat in the Deep South.

According to the Douchebag of Liberty (sub. required), GOP sources in Illinois are leaking the word that former Speaker Dennis Hastert “plans to resign November 6 this year instead of finishing out his term,” triggering a special election.  The Prince of Darkness lays out the ramnifications of such a move:

1. Under Illinois statute, the governor, Rod Blagojevich (D), would get to pick the date of both of the special general election and the special primary election (with separate ballots for each party). The general election would have to be within 120 days of the vacancy (meaning by early March, if the November 6 resignation date holds). February 5 is the date for Illinois’s presidential and congressional primaries, and slating the special election — either the primaries or the general — on that date would save state money.
2. The effect of the placing either the special primary or the special general on the same day as the presidential primary is impossible to determine at this point. If one party is seeing a more competitive presidential primary by that date, it could benefit from boosted turnout. The presence of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on the primary ballot could help Democrats.
3. In any event, a special election would entail a much briefer campaign, which would favor the more well-funded candidates. That would be businessmen Jim Oberweis (R) and Bill Foster (D).
4. On net, Hastert’s early resignation, by stirring the pot, gives Democrats a slightly better chance in this Republican district.

Hastert has previously said that he’d serve out the rest of his term as long as he felt effective, but I would not be surprised in the least if he’s preparing his ‘chute for an emergency exit.

Each 2006 pickup had a distinctive reason, almost like a category in an award show; so let’s rate them that way.  The categories would be loss because of changing electorate (DeWine-OH), loss because of unpopular war despite personal popularity (Chafee-RI), Macaca moment (Allen-VA) corruption (Burns-MT), just plain unpopular (Santorum-PA), and battleground (McCaskill-MO).  Who will lose for these reasons this time around, and why?  Here are my ratings.

Unpopular: Sunnunu.  Especially if Shaheen jumps in, but either way the guy keeps running to the right in a suddenly left state.  He’s antagonistic, abrasive, and nothing like the traditional new England republican he needs to be if he wanted to have an ounce of a chance of winning.

Corruption: Ted Stevens.  We finally have a chance to take the nut down, between the FBI raids, and corruption charges he’s going to be this cycle’s Burns.  An incumbent who would have won easily without the corruption.  Burns may have faced a more difficult than normal challenge even without the Abramoff connections, he would have still had a safe win, maybe 55-45.  With Abramoff however, he’s out hunting buck, or screaming obscenities at his family, or whatever crazy old senators do when they lose.

Personal popularity:  this is a toughie.  Collins would seem like the obvious choice, seeing as how she’s quite popular (not Snowe popular) in a strong blue state.  Still, she seems more like a Macaca moment senator to me.  Gordon smith is moderately popular, but not chafee, nor is Oregon Rhode Island.  I’d have to stick with collins, but that’s just me. 

Changing electorate: Ohio was (is) in major political upheaval, as is Colorado.  As it’s an open seat, it becomes even more likely that the state that is becoming rapidly more blue will give us a win similar to brown’s over dewine.

Macaca: these are hard to gauge, because they’re unpredictable.  If anyone had asked last year who it would be, everyone would have said burns because of his history of making stupid remarks.  For the moment I’ll say Coleman, but it might go to Mitch down in Kentucky, or collins may win both categories. 

battleground: since Ohio and Missouri don’t have senate seats up this cycle, I’m going to say Oregon.  While it’s not a bellwether, it’s been a swing state for most of the last elections.

These are just my opinions, please tell me what you think.

(From the diaries – promoted by James L.)

Today, it is with great excitement that I am able to announce that Al Franken has been added to the Blue Majority Act Blue page that is collectively maintained by Dailykos, MyDD, Swing State Project and Open Left.

Last month, in a post on Open Left, I wondered if Al Franken was the best example of a progressive movement candidate we had seen to date, given that his campaign is overwhelmingly people powered (over 45,000 donors so far), he passed the “bar fight primary” with flying colors (more than willing to take the fight to Republicans), he comfortably and repeatedly self-identifies as a progressive, and that he came into politics as an outsider, specifically from progressive media. The response I received to that post was almost universally positive, and while I don’t know if he is the very best example, he clearly is an excellent case, and so I urge you to contribute to Al Franken on the Blue Majority Page. Let’s build the progressive movement together by supporting a first-rate movement candidate.

Today is a particularly appropriate time for us to make this endorsement because, as Jonathan Singer has noted, George Bush is in Minnesota raising money for endangered Republican incumbent Norm Coleman.  Tying himself further to George Bush will only push Coleman’s already low approval ratings in the state even lower, and make him more vulnerable than he already is. Progressives in the state are countering Bush’s visit through a variety of actions, including protests coordinated by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, and by the Franken campaign itself looking to counter Coleman’s big money fundraiser with small donor, people-powered energy:

Let’s be a part of this effort. With his connections to George Bush, there is an opportunity to knock Coleman all but out of the race in 2007, the way Rick Santorum was all but defeated by a progressive swarm against him in 2005.


As a final note, I want to mention that while Al Franken is involved in a competitive primary in Minneosta, this endorsement comes entirely because Al is so fantastic, not because his primary opponents are clearly defective in any way. Al is a Democrat who I believe will never let us down, and always make us proud. He comes from the progressive movement, and will take the fight to Republicans. He is exactly the sort of candidate many of us have looked for these past few, and we are happy to reward that with our support in and of itself, not just relative to other candidates in the campaign. It certainly is great to make an endorsement for someone, rather than against someone else.

• Contribute to Al Franken on Blue Majority
• Al Franken for Senate official page
• Minnesota Senate race tracker wiki

(Cross-posted at DailyKos)

Uh-oh.  MSNBC’s First Read

Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) was involved in an altercation last night at Dulles Airport. He was allegedly angered by the amount of time it was taking to get his luggage and tried to push his way through the United Airlines baggage claim office.

….

The individual allegedly attempted to enter an area authorized for airline employees only, pushed aside the employee’s outstretched arm and refused to leave the area when asked by an airline employee. When MWAA officers arrived a few minutes later, the man had left the office and was waiting in the area of a bag carousel. … The airline employee appeared before a Loudoun County Magistrate later that evening and a summons was obtained charging Robert Filner (DOB 09/04/1942) with assault and battery, a class 1 misdemeanor.

ABC has more on his temper in a past incident too.

Filner, an eight-term incumbent who chairs the Veterans Affairs Committee, has displayed flashes of temper in the past.

About a year ago, he hurled obscenities at two Veterans Affairs officials after a briefing about the burglary of a laptop with military personnel information. The VA officials termed the briefing a “publicity stunt,” which angered Filner.

Now, Filner’s office has issued a statement.

**** UPDATE **** NBC’s Ken Strickland has the response from Filner’s press office in a written statement: “Congressman Bob Filner is on his way to Iraq, visiting our troops, and will have a full statement when he returns. Suffice it to say now, that the story that has appeared in the press is factually incorrect – and the charges are ridiculous.”

I’m really hoping they clarify ASAP what is factually incorrect, because as it stands, the story does not look good.

This could potentially hurt the Democrats even more than you think.  Bob Filner has been a champion for progressive causes.  He’s about as good as you can get on the environment (92% LCV rating in 2006), and as the chairman on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, has held key hearings on PTSD and traumatic brain injuries from Iraq.

He also:

* is a co-sponsor of H.R. 333 to begin impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney.

* voted against the 2002 AUMF that let Bush invade Iraq.

* was one of the first co-sponsors of John Conyers’ H.R. 676 for universal health care.

And UTBriancl has praised Filner for helping brand the Democratic Party at a time when others seem embarrassed to mention that they belong to the party.

Bottom line, Filner is a guy I think the netroots would be proud to support.  If he’s forced out because of this, we lose a champion in the House.  And who would replace him?  Well, it seems there’s been a bitter rivalry between him and Juan Vargas, who keeps challenging Filner in the Democratic primary.  His main reasoning is that the Hispanic majority district should have a Hispanic representing them.  After what we went through with Laura Richardson saying similar things in CA-26, and similar things being said against Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) of Memphis, I don’t think there’s a place for that kind of talk.  I can already sense problems if Filner is replaced by Vargas.

I know, this may be very premature to talk about.  But you have to consider all the possibilities.  I hope he responds sooner than later to clear up what happened here.  Because right now, it doesn’t look good.

Oregon’s Speaker of the House, Democrat Jeff Merkley, is wasting no time in making a mark in his bid to topple faux-moderate Republican Sen. Gordon Smith next year.  From an e-mail release issued this morning:

My fellow Americans,

“I don’t recall.”  “I don’t remember.”  “I don’t know.”

Is it really possible that Alberto Gonzales is that checked out from the day-to-day operations in the Justice Department?  He may have been the President’s personal attorney back in Texas, but he’s the Attorney General now – and he’s failing the American people.

He’s become an embarrassment.  And worse, he’s become the single strongest example of political corruption and abuse of power in the Bush Administration.

Under Gonzalez’ embarrassing stewardship, they’ve fired U.S. Attorneys for political reasons.  He’s authorized illegal wiretaps of American citizens.  He even tried to strong-arm then-Attorney General John Ashcroft into authorizing the illegal wiretapping program while he lay gravely ill in a hospital bed.  And now he won’t tell Congress the whole truth about what’s happening on his watch.

It’s time for Alberto Gonzales to be fired.

If the President won’t fire him, then the Congress should impeach him.

As mcjoan pointed out today, no one in the Senate has been this bold in calling for the impeachment of Alberto Gonzalez.  This move by Merkley is not just crashing out of the gate–it’s screaming out of the gate.

If this is the kind of campaign that Merkley has in store for us–bold and aggressive–count me down as a fan.

On the tubes: Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate