Month: July 2008

Democrat Walt Minnick is up on the airwaves in Idaho with his first two ads in his race against crumb-bum GOP Rep. Bill “Brain Fade” Sali:

The ads are airing in the Boise and Spokane/Coeur d’Alene media markets.

Public Policy Polling (7/23-27, likely voters, 6/26-29 in parens):

Bev Perdue (D): 46 (42)

Pat McCrory (R): 37 (41)

Michael Munger (L): 6 (5)

(MoE: ±3.4%)

Perdue may have gotten a bit of a boost after her primary opponent, state Treasurer Richard Moore, recently endorsed her. Pollster Tom Jensen has some more thoughts:

Pat McCrory has lost some of the luster off of his ‘change’ message in recent weeks with revelations of large amounts of out of state money being spent on his behalf and news of a letter sent to lobbyists to help in raising money for his campaign. He’ll need to turn it around quick to keep the race from getting away from him, particularly with Perdue’s large overall fundraising advantage.

This race has been very, very tight since the start of the year, so we’ll be keeping a close eye on Perdue to see if she can break away in more polls.

SSP currently rates this race as a Tossup.

The good news keeps rolling in today, and it looks like Linda Stender may be given a leg up by Republican Bridgewater Councilman Michael Hsing who has announced his intention to run as an independent in the NJ-07.

A one-time contender for the Republican nod for the seat, Bridgewater Township Councilman Michael Hsing, 53, now says he would be a better choice for voters than either state Sen. Leonard Lance, R-Clinton Township, or Assemblywoman Linda Stender, D-Fanwood, the two major-party nominees.

“As an independent, I shed the baggage on my back, I can do things without being pulled by the party,” Hsing said in an interview Friday, July 25. “That sets me apart from the two candidates. They will always have that baggage on their back.”

Democrat Linda Stender already has a lot of cash on hand and the Republicans cannot be happy.

Here in Kentucky, we are saddled with two of the worst of the lot in Republican “leadership”. While Mitch McConnell needs no introduction, a lot of national Democrats don’t know about my Congressman, Exxon Ed Whitfield, who is best known for protecting the profits of Big Oil. It seems these two got together this week to plot the demise of Democrat Heather Ryan.

In the latest episode of the “Bag Eddie” series, McConnell and Whitfield get together for drinks, and strategy:

As you can see, these two have it all figured out!!

If you missed the other installments of “Bag Eddie”, here they are:

It seems though, that Mitch and Eddie do disagree on something. After his election year Renaisance, Exxon Eddie has returned to his Dark Ages form, and voted against the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008:

http://www.congress.org/congre…

I guess his house in Florida must be paid for!! Unfortunately the only house he has in the district is his daddy’s house in Hopkinsville. I knew he was an underachiever in Congress, but a man his age that still lives with his dad?

We need your help and support in Kentucky’s First District to retire Congressman Whitfield to Florida where he lives. He has plenty of stock options to fall back on, as he has become a millionaire in his tenure representing this district. Help us defeat a sitting Republican Congressman and expand our Congressional majorities here:

Best wishes Democrats!!

In the wake of Ted Stevens’ indictment on seven felony counts today, SSP is moving its rating of this race from “Leans Republican” to a “Tossup“.

Of all the races on our Lean R list, Alaska (along with Mississippi) was always the most ripe for moving to tossup, and Stevens’ indictment was more than enough dynamite to erase many of the advantages of his 40 years of incumbency.

While it might be tempting to shift this race into the Democratic column, our move to tossup reflects the extremely unsettled nature of this race as things stand today. Stevens may or may not survive his primary; even if he does, he could legally be replaced. He could even choose to resign before then, although Uncle Ted does not seem to be the sort of fallen pol who’s willing to slink off quietly into the night.

And while it does certainly feel as though Mark Begich has just been given an important boost, we feel it’s important to have more information in front of us before we make any further changes.

UPDATE: AK Gov. Sarah Palin says she is not interested in replacing Stevens.

Could it really be? From PolitckerCO.com:

If U.S. Rep. Mark Udall (D-Eldorado Springs) is successful in his challenge of U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Loveland), Allard would be just the sixth incumbent U.S. Senator from Colorado to lose a re-election race.

Since direct elections began in Colorado in 1912, there are only five instances of incumbent U.S. Senators losing to challengers. The first time was in 1918 when Lawrence Phipps (R) unseated U.S. Sen. John Shafroth (D). More than four relatively uneventful decades passed until Peter Dominick (R) defeated John Carroll (D) in 1962. In 1972, Floyd Haskell (D) narrowly defeated Gordon Allott (R) only to be unseated six years later by William Armstrong (R). Most recently, then-U.S. Rep. Wayne Allard (R) defeated incumbent U.S. Sen. Tom Strickland (D) in 1996.

Did I miss a “fantasy league” tag on that post, or is “Wally Edge” living in some kind of parallel universe where Wayne Allard is running for a third term? I’ll admit that Bob Schaffer is a bit of a doofus as a candidate, but are we all trying to pretend that he doesn’t exist months before he loses to Mark Udall in November?

Also: In what plane of existence was Democrat Tom Strickland an incumbent US Senator in 1996?

Someone might want to check the coffee over at Politicker’s HQ…

UPDATE: The Politicker has caught the error, and completely re-wrote the post — wiping over their original entry and making no mention of their update. (Lame.)

Based on today’s news of Ted Steven’s indictment and the current GOP field. Congressional Quarterly has changed their rating of the race to “Lean Dem.”

The Democrats’ recruit to take on Stevens, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, found himself on even stronger footing July 29 when Stevens was indicted for allegedly concealing benefits he received from employees of Veco Corp., an Alaskan oil services company. Stevens, 84, who has served in office longer than any GOP senator in history, faced generally easy re-election contests throughout more than six terms in office, but his connection to the Veco Corp. scandal has left him with little hope of regaining his stature in the state prior to this year’s elections. The primary is August 26, and other Republican contenders include David Cuddy, a wealthy real estate developer who lost to Stevens in the 1996 GOP primary after spending more than $1 million in personal funds, and five lesser-known candidates including Republican minister Gerald L. Heikes.

I tend to agree. The GOP brand is now mud in Alaska. Gov. Palin has a 6 month child with Down’s syndrome and is not likely going to want to commute between Alaska and DC. Lt. Gov. has committed himself to the House race. And surprisingly the Republican bench in the state is very weak, as though they expected Stevens and Young to rule forever. Vic Vickers and Dave Cuddy each have a lot of money and could just as easily spend it against each other as spend it against Stevens. Would I prefer to run against Stevens? Yes. But regardless, Mark Begich now runs with a leg up in the race.

cross-posted in slightly different form at Bleeding Heartland

Congressman Tom Latham is a conservative Republican representing a swing (D+0) district. He has a lot more money in the bank than Democratic candidate Becky Greenwald, but Iowa political observers think this race could be very competitive.

Today Latham opened up his war chest to start running statewide radio ads touting his advocacy of more oil drilling in the U.S.

Follow me after the jump for more.

Iowa Politics has this press release from Latham’s campaign about

a statewide radio ad highlighting Latham’s work to lower gas and energy prices for Iowa families.

The sixty second ad reinforces Latham’s continued commitment to renewable energy but also discusses the need for Congress to work immediately to increase domestic energy supplies that America controls.

“$4.00 a gallon gas hurts Iowa families,” notes Latham in the ad. “And they’re frustrated with leaders in Congress for not doing more about it – and they have every right to be.”

“I have always been, and will continue to be, a strong supporter of alternative energy research and production, but we need to work for solutions that get Iowans from point A to point B without busting their family budget.”

Latham has been working in Congress on legislation aimed at increasing our domestic supply of affordable that will lower gas and energy prices through the increased use of our current resources, to include off-shore drilling and drilling in ANWR.

Latham recently told Iowa Independent that Republicans can ride high gas prices to victory this November. It’s not clear to me why this is a big selling point for the GOP–shouldn’t they have been doing something to reduce our dependence on foreign oil during the years Republicans controlled Congress as well as the presidency?

Anyway, some Republicans clearly believe that this issue will save them from an otherwise hostile political environment. Last week John McCain started running a television ad blaming Barack Obama for high gas prices because Obama opposes more offshore oil drilling.

The rapid response from Becky Greenwald’s campaign points out the various misleading aspects of Latham’s radio ad:

For Immediate Release                                                                      Contact: Erin Seidler

July 29, 2008                                                                                                         515-537-4465

Latham Runs Misleading Ad on Drilling To Divert From Votes Against Immediate Gas Price Relief

Waukee, IA – This week, Tom Latham’s campaign released a radio ad misleading voters about offshore drilling. Experts agree that offshore drilling will do nothing to lower gas prices for seven to ten years, and its clear that this ad is a diversion from Latham’s votes against opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and forcing oil companies to drill on existing leases. (McClatchy, 6/18/08)

“I’m running for Congress because of these sort of shenanigans. Latham is trying to get Iowans to think about leasing 2,000 more acres when 68 million acres already leased are open, untapped and will lower prices. Latham is trying to divert attention from his failure to support immediate relief through opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and forcing oil companies to drill on existing leases,” said Becky Greenwald, Candidate for Congress in Iowa’s 4th District. “Is it too much to ask for leaders to be honest with us?”



Unfortunately, Latham, like George Bush decided to play politics with gas prices. Last week, he voted against a bill that would release 70 million barrels of oil from the strategic oil reserve to bring relief from high gas prices. This bill would bring almost immediate relief to high gas prices. (H. Res. 6578)

And two weeks ago, Latham voted against a bill to force oil companies to drill on existing leases. There are 68 million acres of federal land already leased by oil companies. That is two times the size of the state of Iowa available for energy production that is now sitting idle. (H.R. 615)

Instead, Democrats in Congress and Becky Greenwald are fighting for a comprehensive energy policy that includes in the short term, opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and forcing oil companies to drill on almost 68 million acres of existing leases.

In the long term, Becky will fight to invest in a green energy industry here in Iowa by investing in ethanol, wind energy, biodiesel, and other homegrown, alternative forms of energy.

“I know that investing in renewable fuels will reduce our reliance on foreign oil and bring down gas prices and create thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs in rural America, including Iowa’s 4th District,” Greenwald continued. “It’s time for a solution, not diversion tactics.”

The bolded passages were bold in the original, by the way.

Latham’s advocacy of more oil drilling will do nothing to solve our energy problems. Even the president of the Teamsters Union, which has long supported increased oil drilling in the U.S., declared last week that

“We must find a long-term approach that breaks our dependence on foreign oil by investing in the development of alternate energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal power.”

Furthermore, public opinion on this matter may not be where Latham thinks it is. The polling firm Rasmussen says the public is divided on whether more drilling is the answer:

A new Rasmussen Reports national survey, taken last night (Monday), finds that 45% think placing more restrictions on energy speculators is more important , while 42% take the opposite view that allowing offshore oil drilling is more important.

A major partisan divide on the issue, like the split in Congress, is evident, however. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Republicans say lifting the ban is the highest priority, while 59% of Democrats – and 48% of unaffiliated voters — say controlling speculators is more important. Only 29% of unaffiliateds say lift the ban first.

Unaffiliated or “no-party” voters have a slim plurality among registered voters in Iowa’s fourth district, and there are about 8,000 more Democrats than Republicans in the district.

If Rasmussen’s findings are accurate, it seems that Latham is out of step with his district on this issue.

If you reject Latham’s misleading spin on energy policy, please donate to Greenwald’s campaign to help her respond on the air. She has a lot going for her in this race and a real chance to win if she raises enough money to get her message out. Remember, the fourth district has a partisan index of D+0.

Final note: Latham’s press release says the radio ad is running statewide. That’s a lot more expensive than just running the ad in fourth district markets.

Is he trying to raise his profile outside his district to pave the way for a gubernatorial bid in 2010? If he loses to Greenwald, he could start campaigning for governor immediately. But even if he wins re-election, serving in Congress isn’t much fun when you’re in the minority party.  

Ordinarily, we don’t talk about real estate too much at Swing State Project, but all of a sudden, people seem interested in the issue of officeholders not properly disclosing the true market value of your house on your federal disclosure forms.

So it’s worth noting that Joe Knollenberg, currently embroiled in a tough race to retain his House seat in MI-09, may be in a little trouble himself. Roll Call has the details in an article pithily titled “Knollenberg Lowballs D.C. House:”

On the most recent disclosure forms, Knollenberg reported the value of the property at $50,000 to $100,000, down from the $100,000 to $250,000 range he reported the year before, despite the fact that District of Columbia tax records indicate a current assessed value of $781,840.

Anybody who’s looked at Washington real estate lately knows that the idea of a $50,000 townhouse on Capitol Hill (four blocks from the Capitol) is pretty laughable.

It’s a little subtler than that: Congressional reporting rules don’t require you to give the value of a personal residence, or a mortgage against it… unless there is rental income involved. Knollenberg purchased the townhouse in 2001 (for $490,000), but didn’t start renting the basement apartment unit until 2003. At that point:

His disclosure form for that year reported a “lower level rental” valued from $100,000 to $250,000, generating $5,000 to $15,000 in rent. Knollenberg also reported a mortgage on the property of $100,000 to $250,000.

He reported the value of the basement unit alone, despite:

The instruction manual provided by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for filling out financial disclosure forms requires that when a property provides rental income, “the gross value of the entire property should be reported even if only part of the property (e.g. the basement of a residence) is used for rental purposes.”

However, something changed with his 2007 report, and there’s no explanation for it coming from the Knollenberg camp other than ‘clerical error:’

But on his 2007 disclosure form, filed in May, Knollenberg reported the value of the property at between $50,000 and $100,000, claimed income of $5,000-$15,000 on the rental and no longer listed the mortgage on the property at all. By comparison, one local developer said an indoor parking space in a Capitol Hill condo building would sell for about $40,000.

Bear in mind that no one is talking about criminal charges at this point, only violations of House ethics rules. But with the Stevens story bursting onto the scene, this little ‘clerical error’ can’t be helping Knollenberg, already facing a rocky re-election bid.