Tag: Dan Maffei

AK-Sen: Right now, write-ins account for 41% of the vote in Alaska, while Joe Miller has 34% and Scott McAdams 24%. State election officials have bumped up the start of the write-in count to Nov. 10th (from Nov. 18th). Murkowski is one of 160 declared write-in candidates, but obviously quite a few write-ins ballots would have to be spoiled, or for other candidates, for her to lose.

WA-Sen: Patty Murray’s lead widened to 1.6% as votes were counted in the populous Democratic stronghold of King County. The trends look poor for Dino Rossi, who took 40% here in 2004 (when he almost tied Christine Gregoire in the gubernatorial race), but is now at 37% this year.

CT-Gov: Yikes – the AP withdrew its call for Dem Dan Malloy. This one could get seriously topsy-turvy. Whatever the hell is going on here might also impact Jim Himes (vs. Dan Debicella) in CT-04. Not good.

MN-Gov: With 100% of precincts reporting, Dem Mark Dayton holds an 8,854-vote lead over Republican Tom Emmer, within the half-percent margin which would prompt an automatic recount. No recount can start until after Nov. 23rd, when the vote is certified. Note that Norm Coleman’s election-day lead was just 725 votes in 2008. So even though GOP lawyers are already laying in a supply of amphetamines, it’s possible the Republicans will abandon what looks like a futile effort.

IL-Gov: Man, did anyone dig a mangier rabbit out of a shabbier hat than Pat Quinn? After a day of counting more votes in Cook County (Chicago), Quinn’s lead has expanded to 19,000 votes, and Republicans are getting ready to throw in the towel on behalf of Bill Brady. Pretty amazing, for a guy who seemed DOA just a couple of months ago.

OR-Gov: As we noted yesterday, various media sources have called the race for Dem John Kitzhaber over Chris Dudley.

AZ-07: As we noted yesterday, Dem Rep. Raul Grijalva has declared victory over Ruth McClung, with a 3% lead. A Grijalva spokesman said that the remaining ballots are in Pima County, which favors Dems.

AZ-08: Dem Rep. Gabby Giffords leads by 2,349 votes over Jesse Kelly, but again, Pima – they have some 47,000 votes still outstanding. Pima was one of only four counties to go for Kerry – and for Obama, too.

CA-11: With an unclear number of votes left to be counted, Dem Rep. Jerry McNerney has inched into a 121-vote lead over David Harmer. It’ll take four weeks for the vote to get certified, at which point the loser can seek a recount (at his own expense).

CA-20: Dem Rep. Jim Costa trails Andy Vidak by almost 2,000 votes, but there may be something like 30,000 uncounted ballots from Fresno County, which Costa won on e-night by a 2-to-1 margin. So maybe we’ll get lucky here.

IL-08: With 100% of the vote in, Dem Rep. Melissa Bean is trailing in a shocker to Jim Walsh by 553 votes. She isn’t conceding yet, though.

KY-06: With 100% of votes counted, Dem Rep. Ben Chandler has a 619 vote lead over Andy Barr. Barr has until next Tuesday to request a “recanvass,” which would be completed by Nov. 12th. Barr could then ask for a formal recount, but he’d have to foot the bill.

NY-25: Really barfy: As we noted yesterday, Republican Ann Marie Buerkle has moved into the lead, after late results from Wayne County came in. She’s now up by 659 votes. Some 8,300 absentee ballots have been returned so far (out of 11,600 requested), though more are trickling in. Maffei would have to pull in something like 54% or so out of the absentees to pull this one out.

TX-27: It’s looking pretty bad for Dem Rep. Solomon Oritz, who trails Blake Farenthold by 799 votes with 100% in. Farenthold has declared victory, but Ortiz claims his legal team is conducting a review and that he may seek a recount – which he would have to pay for (unless it changes the final results). And check out how far the apple has fallen from the tree:

Farenthold is grandson of Frances “Sissy” Farenthold, a Democrat who served two terms in the state House and ran unsuccessfully for governor in 1972. That same year, she finished second in balloting to become George McGovern’s vice presidential candidate at the Democratic convention.

VA-11: With 100% of precincts reporting, Dem Rep. Gerry Connolly leads Keith Fimian 111,621 to 110,696. The vote will get certified on Nov. 22nd, at which time Fimian can seek a recount if the margin remains less than half a percent (recounts are not automatic).

WA-02, WA-09: As we noted yesterday, a number of media outlets have called the 9th CD race for Dem Rep. Adam Smith over Dick Muri. Meanwhile, Rick Larsen has taken his first lead over John Koster, albeit a narrow one (30% of votes remain to be counted).

What better way to celebrate SSP’s seventh birthday than to give you another firehose blast of polls?

AL-02: Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (D) for the DCCC (10/9-12, likely voters, 9/26-28 in parens):

Bobby Bright (D-inc): 51 (52)

Martha Roby (R): 39 (43)

(MoE: ±4.9%)

AR-01: Anzalone Liszt for the DCCC (10/11-13, likely voters, 9/13-16 in parens):

Chad Causey (D): 44 (46)

Rick Crawford (R): 42 (44)

(MoE: ±4.9%)

AR-01: Talk Business Research and Hendrix College (PDF) (10/14, likely voters, 8/17 in parens):

Chad Causey (D): 34 (32)

Rick Crawford (R): 42 (48)

Ken Adler (G): 4 (4)

Undecided: 20 (20)

(MoE: ±4.7%)

AR-02: Talk Business Research and Hendrix College (PDF) (10/14, likely voters, 8/17 in parens):

Joyce Elliott (D): 38 (35)

Tim Griffin (R): 50 (52)

Lance Levi (I): 3 (3)

Lewis Kennedy (G): 3 (1)

Undecided: 7 (9)

(MoE: ±4.6%)

AR-03: Talk Business Research and Hendrix College (PDF) (10/14, likely voters, 8/25 in parens):

David Whitaker (D): 21 (31)

Steve Womack (R): 59 (55)

Undecided: 20 (14)

(MoE: ±4.2%)

AR-04: Talk Business Research and Hendrix College (PDF) (10/14, likely voters, 8/25-26 in parens):

Mike Ross (D-inc): 52 (49)

Beth Anne Rankin (R): 34 (31)

Joshua Drake (G): 3 (4)

Undecided: 11 (16)

(MoE: ±4.2%)

CA-47: Public Opinion Strategies (R) for Van Tran (10/13-14, likely voters, no trendlines):

Loretta Sanchez (D-inc): 39

Van Tran (R): 39

Ceci Iglesias (I): 5

Undecided: 17

(MoE: ±5.7%)

FL-Sen: Suffolk (10/14-17, likely voters, no trendlines):

Kendrick Meek (D): 22

Marco Rubio (R): 39

Charlie Crist (I): 31

Undecided: 6

(MoE: ±4.4%)

FL-Gov: Suffolk (10/14-17, likely voters, no trendlines):

Alex Sink (D): 45

Rick Scott (R): 38

Undecided: 13

(MoE: ±4.4%)

Misc.: In the AG race, Pam Bondi (R) leads Dan Gelber (D), 38-30. Also, a poll by Voter Survey Service (aka Susquehanna) for the right-wing Sunshine State News site has Adam Putnam (R) leading Scott Maddox (D) in the Ag Comm’r race, 40-35. Tea Party candidate Ira Chester takes 14%.

MA-Gov: Public Opinion Strategies (R) for Charlie Baker (10/11-13, likely voters, no trendlines):

Deval Patrick (D-inc): 35

Charlie Baker (R): 42

Tim Cahill (I): 10

(MoE: ±3.5%)

MA-10: MassINC Polling Group for WGBH (10/13-15, likely voters incl. leaners, no trendlines):

William Keating (D): 46

Jeffrey Perry (R): 43

Other: 5

Undecided: 4

(MoE: ±4.9%)

MI-Gov: Foster McCollum White and Baydoun Consulting (D) (PDF) (10/7, likely voters, no trendlines):

Virg Bernero (D): 37

Rick Snyder: 50

Undecided: 13

(MoE: ±2.1%)

MO-Sen: Public Policy Polling (D) (PDF) for Robin Carnahan (10/17-18, likely voters, 8/14-15 in parens):

Robin Carnahan (D): 41 (38)

Roy Blunt (R): 46 (45)

Jerry Beck (C): 3 (5)

Jonathan Dine (L): 3 (3)

Undecided: 7 (9)

(MoE: ±3.9%)

NM-Gov: SurveyUSA for KOB-TV (10/12-14, likely voters, 5/23-25 in parens)

Diane Denish (D): 42 (43)

Susana Martinez (R): 54 (49)

Undecided: 4 (8)

(MoE: ±3.9%)

Note: Among the 13% of respondents who say they have already voted, Martinez has a 60-36 lead.

NY-25: Siena (10/10-12, likely voters, no trendlines):

Dan Maffei (D-inc): 51

Ann Marie Buerkle (R): 39

Undecided: 10

(MoE: ±3.9%)

Note: Maggie Haberman tweets that Karl Rove’s American Crossroads plans to get involved here.

NY-Gov: New York Times (PDF) (10/10-15, likely voters, no trendlines):

Andrew Cuomo (D): 59

Carl Paladino (R): 24

Undecided: 12

(MoE: ±3%)

OR-04: Grove Insight (D) for Peter DeFazio (10/11-12, likely voters, no trendlines):

Peter DeFazio (D-inc): 53

Art Robinson (R): 39

(MoE: ±4.9%)

OR-05: Moore Information (R) for Scott Bruun (10/13-14, likely voters, no trendlines):

Kurt Schrader (D-inc): 40

Scott Bruun: 44

(MoE: ±5.7%)

PA-15: Muhlenberg (PDF) (10/5-13, likely voters, 9/11-16 in parens):

John Callahan (D): 32 (38)

Charlie Dent (R-inc): 49 (49)

Jake Towne (I): 5 (3)

Undecided: 13 (10)

(MoE: ±5%)

UT-Gov: Dan Jones & Associates for the Deseret News/KSL-TV (10/11-14, “active voters,” 10/7-13 in parens):

Peter Corroon (D): 33 (31)

Gary Herbert (R-inc): 58 (52)

Undecided: 6 (13)

(MoE: ±4%)

Note: The Deseret News says that Dan Jones has also done polling for Herbert. Should we be regarding them as an (R) pollster?

UT-Gov: UtahPolicy.com/Western Wats (9/30-10/3, likely voters, no trendlines):

Peter Corroon (D): 27

Gary Herbert (R-inc): 58

Undecided: 12

(MoE: ±4%)

Note: Dan Jones also has UT-Sen numbers. UtahPolicy.com also has UT-Sen, UT-01, and UT-03 numbers.

VA-05: Roanoke College (10/5-14, likely voters, no trendlines):

Tom Perriello (D-inc): 40

Rob Hurt (R): 46

Jeffrey Clark (I): 1

Undecided: 13

(MoE: ±4.1%)

WI-Gov: St. Norbert College (PDF) for Wisconsin Public Radio (10/12-15, likely voters, 3/23-31 in parens):

Tom Barrett (D): 41 (28)

Scott Walker (R): 50 (44)

Undecided: 6 (17)

(MoE: ±5%)

Margins & Errors: The Fix publishes an alleged WA-Sen poll without either field dates or sample size… Bill Kristol (yeah, that Bill Kristol) claims he has his hands on an OH-10 poll – he has the n, but won’t say the pollster’s name, who paid for the poll, or when it was taken… Pollster.com has a PDF from ccAdvertising with numbers for WV-Sen, WV-01, and WV-03 – but not only does ccA report to hundredths of a percent, they get taken to the woodshed by Mark Blumenthal for refusing to divulge the poll’s sponsor

• CO-Sen: This probably doesn’t count as an October Surprise since it made a big media impression five years ago, but it’s suddenly popped back into view, and making things dicier for Ken Buck, already on the wrong end of a sizable gender gap in the polls. Buck refused to prosecute a rape case as Weld Co. DA five years ago (despite the police having recommended charges), and the alleged victim is now back in the news. She has a taped recording of their meeting (transcript available at the link) in which he seems to blame the victim and suggest that the case wouldn’t pass muster with a jury.

• FL-Sen: Mason-Dixon (10/4-6, likely voters, 9/20-22 in parens):

Kendrick Meek (D): 21 (23)

Marco Rubio (R): 42 (40)

Charlie Crist (I): 27 (28)

(MoE: ±4%)

With Marco Rubio way ahead, it looks like a Kendrick Meek dropout (rumored on Friday) and a cobbling-together of some sort of Meek/Crist hybrid cyborg would be the only way for the non-Rubio forces to get an advantage in this race. However, Meek’s definitely not acting like a man who’s dropping out, if getting the president of the United States to cut a radio ad for you is any indication.

• WV-Sen: Remember that “hicky” ad that the NRSC ran, and then promptly got apologetic over, once the casting call instructions got leaked? (I know, that was last week, a lifetime ago in politics…) Now it sounds like it just kept running anyway, through last Friday for several days after the story broke, despite promises to take it down.

• NM-Gov: Yep, this is definitely the most over-polled, or at least over-internal-poll-leaked, race around. Today it’s Diane Denish’s turn to retaliate, and she’s out with another poll from one of her apparently two pollsters, Third Eye Strategies, with a 46-46 tie (a little stale, taken 9/21-23). I think we get the general idea, already: Denish sees a tie, Susana Martinez sees a high-single-digits lead for herself, public pollsters see something in between. (UPDATE: That’s odd… we reported this poll several weeks ago. Not sure why it’s back in the news today.)

• CA-47: This is the kind of unity that Loretta Sanchez (last seen alienating her district’s small but politically active Vietnamese community with an ill-advised remark) probably doesn’t like to see: apparently there was a major rift with the Vietnamese Republican community that just got sealed up, as long-time Van Tran rival Janet Nguyen (an Orange County councilor) gave a late-game endorsement to Tran.

• CT-02, CT-03: Merriman River Group hits the quinella in Connecticut, with polls of the two House races in the Nutmeg State that aren’t interesting. In the 2nd, despite getting some touting when she got in the race, GOPer Janet Peckinpaugh is making little impression against Joe Courtney, trailing 55-41. And in the 3rd, Rosa DeLauro is the state’s safest Dem, leading Jerry Labriola 58-37.

• FL-22: Endorsements from primary challengers, especially at this stage in the game, are interesting only when they go to the guy from the other party. But that’s what’s happening in the 22nd, where the guy who lost to Allen West, David Brady, gave his backing to Democratic incumbent Ron Klein today. (So too did several minor-league local elected GOPers, including Palm Beach mayor Jack McDonald.) Says Brady, apparently from the sane wing of the GOP (to the extent that the Palm Beach Post endorsed him in the primary): “I ran against Allen West. I debated him and I can tell you: Allen West is too extreme for this community.”

• MS-04: Dueling polls in the 4th, where everything still averages out to a Democratic lean but unfortunately this is looking like one more real race. GOP state Rep. Steven Palazzo offered a poll a few weeks ago saying incumbent Gene Taylor led by only 4, and now Taylor says, no, he’s leading by 8 (without giving us any other useful information, like the toplines, let alone the pollster or dates). Hmmm, that’s only a difference of four points, so why show your hand, especially in such haphazard fashion? Somehow I don’t think Taylor would be a very good poker player.

• NY-22, NY-25: Bill Clinton showing up in upstate New York to stump on behalf of Dan Maffei, that’s not a surprise, as this race seems to be competitive. But also Maurice Hinchey in the 22nd? We haven’t gotten any smoke signals out of that district before, but that’s an indication that something may bubbling under here. (It’s a D+6 district, and Hinchey barely won in ’94.)

• OH-01: One more unfortunate though unsurprising triage decision to report: Steve Driehaus seems to have run out of time at the DCCC, who are canceling their remaining ad buy in the Cincinnati market for the next two weeks. The deadline for reservations cancellations is coming up soon, so we’ll soon know who else gets the shortest straw drawn for them.

• PA-10: After seeing a incumbent Chris Carney up by single digits in a recent public poll from Lycoming, GOP challenger Tom Marino rummaged around in his poll drawer and pulled out one from the Tarrance Group giving him a 47-42 lead on Carney. (No word from the Fix on the dates, though.)

• TN-04: One last GOP internal to throw into the mix: a POS survey (from 9/27-28) on behalf of Scott DesJarlais shows him tied with Dem incumbent Lincoln Davis, 42-42. We haven’t seen any public polling of this race (and may not, as the NRCC doesn’t seem to be pushing this one hard, maybe on the off chance that it’s the kind of district that’ll flip in a wave regardless of what they do), but Davis claimed an 11-point lead in a late August internal.

• House: If you’re thinking that it seems like there are a lot more races in the “Tossup” and “Lean” categories this year, you’re not alone. Nate Silver quantifies various ways in which there are way more competitive races this year than in other recent cycles, including number of races where there are polls within single-digits, where there are polls period, and where there are major financial contributions.

• Redistricting: This is an interesting, if counterintuitive, piece from HuffPo on redistricting, which proposes that we’ll be in better shape in 2010 redistricting than 2000 redistricting because (based on projected gubernatorial and state legislative outcomes) we’ll have more control over the process in more important states: oddly he leaves out California, but also including Florida, Illinois, Michigan, and Virginia (all states where there was a GOP trifecta last time), and Minnesota and New York (where we might get the trifecta this time)… while the states where the GOP will improve its position aren’t as large (Alabama, Indiana, Tennessee… with Georgia the most significant one). The article also gets into the nitty-gritty of where the population growth within the fast-growing states has occurred (i.e. among minorities).

• Polltopia: You might have noticed that Political Wire briefly had some Senate polls up today from somebody I’ve never heard of before, called “TCJ Research.” Those polls mysteriously vanished after Nate Silver, vanquisher of bogus pollsters, showed up on the scene with a simple tweet:

A WordPress blog getting ~500 hits a day on posts like “October Giveaway: 32 Gigabyte Apple iPad!” suddenly commissions 5 polls? Not likely.

• SSP TV:

• IL-Sen: Two different ads from the DSCC attacking Mark Kirk, hitting him for his House voting record and also revisiting Kirk’s misrememberment of his military record

• NC-Sen: Elaine Marshall’s finally out with a TV spot, going after Richard Burr for helping to break the economy

• WV-Sen: While John Raese nods to the ‘hick’ ad semi-apologetically before changing the subject back to Washington Dems, Joe Manchin seems to be trying to out-hick the hick ad by touting his pro-gun and anti-environment credentials in one fell swoop by (I kid you not) shooting a copy of the cap-and-trade bill

• IL-Gov: The most famous Illinoisian, Barack Obama, cuts a radio spot on behalf of Pat Quinn

• RI-Gov: The DGA pounds Lincoln Chafee one more time from the right, accusing him of being a tax-hiking hippy

• FL-22: Ron Klein moves past the boring fixation on Allen West’s tax liens and onto the really juicy stuff about 2nd Amendment remedies

• MN-06: Taryl Clark hits Michele Bachmann on Social Security

• PA-03: Kathy Dahlkemper touts her pro-life credentials in her new ad, explaining her siding with the Stupak bloc on health care reform

• VA-02: The DCCC’s IE unit points the “hypocrite” arrow at Scott Rigell, for making hundreds of thousands of dollars off “Cash for Clunkers”

• WI-08: Ditto the DCCC ad in the 8th, where they hit Reid Ribble for making hundreds of thousands of dollars for his roofing business off stimulus projects

• Rasmussen:

• CT-Gov: Dan Malloy (D) 49%, Tom Foley (R) 44%

• FL-Gov: Alex Sink (D) 47%, Rick Scott (R) 50%

• FL-Sen: Kendrick Meek (D) 19%, Marco Rubio (R) 50%, Charlie Crist (I) 25%

• GA-Gov: Roy Barnes (D) 41%, Nathan Deal (R) 50%

• GA-Sen: Michael Thurmond (D) 38%, Johnny Isakson (R-inc) 53%

• MN-Gov: Mark Dayton (D) 40%, Tom Emmer (R) 38%, Tom Horner (I) 15%

• NE-Gov: Mike Meister (D) 24%, Dave Heineman (R-inc) 66%

• NH-Sen: Paul Hodes (D) 44%, Kelly Ayotte (R) 51%

• NM-Gov: Diane Denish (D) 43%, Susana Martinez (R) 52%

• NV-Gov: Rory Reid (D) 40%, Brian Sandoval (R) 53%

• OR-Gov: John Kitzhaber (D) 48%, Chris Dudley (R) 46%

• SD-Gov: Scott Heidepriem (D) 33%, Dennis Daugaard (R) 57%

• TX-Gov: Bill White (D) 42%, Rick Perry (R-inc) 53%

• WA-Sen: Patty Murray (D-inc) 46%, Dino Rossi (R) 49%

• Angus-Reid: Some of you might have gotten excited about the California numbers offered up today by Angus-Reid (a well-established Canadian pollster, but apparently making their first foray into the States). Well, don’t, because they’re using an RV model, and more importantly, it’s an Internet sample. (Now presumably there’s some scientific selection behind it, not just a “click here!” banner ad, but we’re highly skeptical nonetheless, especially since that seemed to produce notably pro-Dem results in California.)

• CA-Gov: Jerry Brown (D) 53%, Meg Whitman (R) 41%

• CA-Sen: Barbara Boxer (D-inc) 55%, Carly Fiorina (R) 39%

• OH-Gov: Ted Strickland (D-inc) 46%, John Kasich (R) 48%

• OH-Sen: Lee Fisher (D) 42%, Rob Portman (R) 53%

• AK-Sen: It seems like Lisa Murkowski’s meetings with the Libertarian Party didn’t lead to anything conclusive (while David Haase sounded amenable, the state party sounds opposed), as the signals she’s putting out now seem to point more toward a write-in campaign, if anything. According to Roll Call, she’s “strongly considering it” and will have an announcement as early as tomorrow. In case you’re wondering about TX-22-style hilarity ensuing, the Alaska Division of Elections confirms that a voter can spell her name incorrectly and still have the vote count, which makes the prospect of a write-in campaign for Linda Mukrosky somewhat more doable.

• CO-Sen: Ken Buck may have dirty boots, but he’s been busy scrubbing his website sparkly clean. The Michael Bennet camp has been observing lots of minor changes to Buck’s website to make it more mainstream-y, with softer-sounding rewrites on his issues page on Afghanistan, stem cell research, and immigration.

• DE-Sen: In another sign that the GOP primary between Mike Castle and Christine O’Donnell isn’t dialing down, both Castle and the Tea Party Express (on behalf of O’Donnell) are both extending their previous ad buys, starting today and running through next Tuesday’s election. Again, kudos to Hotline’s Jeremy Jacobs, who knows not only the Size Of The Buy but the complete breakdown (Castle, for instance, spent $75K in the Salisbury broadcast market, $27K on statewide cable, and $43K on radio, while the TPX spent $32K on cable only). He also susses out that at the current trajectory, the TPX will reach only slightly past the halfway point on its promise to spend $250K on O’Donnell, unless they want to blow a lot of money at the last minute in the pricey Philadelphia market. Meanwhile, TPM checks out how TPX’s ongoing moneybomb for O’Donnell has been going, who has raised $89K since TPX got involved. Despite O’Donnell’s frequent attacks on Castle’s use of out-of-state money to power his campaign, they highlighted their $250+ donors, and a grand total of one (of 56) was a Delawarean.

• FL-Sen, FL-25: Biden alert! With Kendrick Meek having raised some bucks at a New York appearance with Bill Clinton last night, now he turns his attention to an upcoming fundraiser with the VPOTUS. (Expect to see the usual GOP carping about “Big Hollywood,” seeing as how the fundraiser is in Hollywood. Hollywood, Florida, that is.) 25th District candidate Joe Garcia will also be a beneficiary.

• PA-Sen: The Philadelphia Inquirer has a rundown of Pat Toomey’s past history of earmarks, in of course blatant contradiction with the pledges of austerity that define his current campaign… yet another Republican example of government largesse for me, but not for thee. In his first term in PA-15, Toomey won $9 million in earmarks, including $3 million for one company (Air Products & Chemicals) that then became his single biggest campaign contributor.

• CA-Gov: Steve Poizner seems to have finally gotten the message, if a few months on the late (and tepid) side. The Republican primary loser gave his endorsement to Meg Whitman yesterday… via press release.

• MI-Gov: Local pollster Mitchell Research is out with what appears to be their first poll of the general election in the Michigan gubernatorial race; like most pollsters, they find Republican Rick Snyder with a solid lead. He’s ahead of Democrat Virg Bernero 53-26.

• OH-Gov: Bill Clinton will be in Ohio on behalf of (Hillary endorser) Ted Strickland on the 14th, also the day of his first debate with John Kasich. Clinton will stump for Strickland in both Cleveland and Columbus.

• NC-08: With the DCCC having rolled out a GQR internal poll yesterday giving Larry Kissell a decent lead (48-36) in the 8th (on top of Kissell releasing his own internal in late August with a 49-32 lead), GOP rival Harold Johnson offered up his own poll today to show he’s still in this thing. His poll from POS finds Kissell still leading, but by a more surmountable margin: 39-34.

• NV-03: Politico has details on EMILY’s List weighing into the 3rd, with a two-week TV ad blitz going after Joe Heck on women’s health issues (like his vote against mandated insurance coverage for the HPV vaccine). While the article doesn’t have a link to the ad, let alone the Size Of The Buy, it does have a very interesting look at the advanced micro-targeting they’re using, focusing on very specific TV shows as well as Hulu and Facebook users.

• OH-16: Someone get Jim Renacci a high school history textbook, stat! When asked at the candidates’ first debate what he’d like to do about civil rights, the Republican challenger to John Boccieri retreated to Rand Paul-style teabagger boilerplate, saying “We need to get our federal government out of the way,” and that it was better dealt with as “local issues.” Yeah, because local and state governments in the 50s and 60s were the paragons of tolerance and virtue during the civil rights movement, and that federal government just came in and screwed everything up…

• DGA: If you’ve been wondering what they’re up to at the DGA, they’re out with a strategy memo that outlines the next few months. Wisely, they’re most concerned with the states with the greatest population and hence greatest redistricting impact, meaning that the smaller states with Dem-held open seats (Kansas, Wyoming, etc.) have already probably been on the losing end of their triage decisions.

• TX-St. House: We at SSP have been remiss in focusing on state legislatures in the last few months (for the same reason everyone else has — it’s hard to get good intelligence on them, and there’s too dang much to focus on just at the national level alone), but Burnt Orange Report has done a bang-up job profiling the race for the Texas state House, one of the few legislatures where the Dems are on the offensive and have a slim but legitimate shot at a flip. They’ve written up summaries of the 21 hottest races, all helpfully collected in one place at the link.

• SSP TV:

• IL-Sen: Alexi Giannoulias ad rolling out his biggest gun: backing from Barack Obama

• PA-Sen: Not one but two ads from Pat Toomey ads with pretzel logic about how his time on Wall Street tells him that one shouldn’t bail out Wall Street

• WI-Sen: Ron Johnson ad hits Russ Feingold again for being a career politician

• TX-Gov: Bill White talks about border security

• VT-Gov: Dem group Green Mountain Future hits Brian Dubie on support for keeping local nuclear plant open

• FL-24: First Suzanne Kosmas ad hits Sandy Adams on teh crazy, especially the 17th Amendment

• GA-08: Jim Marshall ad tries to outflank Austin Scott on the right on the immigration issue

• MI-01: DCCC’s 2nd IE ad goes after Dan Benishek on Social Security

• NY-25: Dan Maffei’s first ad is anti-Ann Marie Buerkle, using Sarah Palin endorsement against her

• PA-06: Manan Trivedi’s second ad this week focuses on his time as a military doctor

• Rasmussen:

• AZ-Gov: Terry Goddard (D) 38%, Jan Brewer (R-inc) 60%

• CA-Gov: Jerry Brown (D) 42%, Meg Whitman (R) 46%

• CA-Sen: Barbara Boxer (D-inc) 42%, Carly Fiorina (R) 47%

• KY-Sen: Jack Conway (D) 38%, Rand Paul (R) 51%

• CO-Sen: Now it’s Michael Bennet’s turn to dip into his personal funds to pay for the closing days of the Democratic Senate primary. After Andrew Romanoff posted a lead in the most recent poll of the primary (and sold his house to finance his last push), now Bennet’s fronting himself $300K. Here’s some good news, though, if Romanoff does succeed in pulling off the upset: he’s reversed course on his previous refusals of DSCC help (seemingly aware of the difficulty of winning without it, with him having burned through all his money on the primary). Meanwhile, on the GOP side of the fence, John McCain is providing some good news! for Jane Norton. He’ll be stumping on her behalf soon, and also sent around a fundraising e-mail, asking for another $200K for Norton and attacking Ken Buck’s past prosecutorial misconduct. (Buck responded by saying that McCain and “his lobbyist friends” were “greasing the power brokers” for Norton. “Greasing the power brokers?” I’m not even sure what that means, and I don’t know if I want to.)

• PA-Sen: Diarist cilerder86 does some digging into Joe Sestak’s Act Blue contributions, and finds that his fundraising isn’t letting up at all. In fact, based on Act Blue data (which seems to have a stable relationship with his overall fundraising), he extrapolates Sestak having raised at least $1.1 million in July, and on track to raise at least $3 million this quarter.

• CO-Gov: It looks like John Hickenlooper had the right idea emptying his coffers to reserve cheap ad space and hope they’d get refilled quickly, because they did. Of course, it helps that he got a big assist from Scott McInnis’s well-timed implosion. Hickenlooper’s pre-primary report had $203K raised in the last two weeks of July, compared with $41K for McInnis and $20K for fellow GOPer Dan Maes.

• GA-Gov: With Barack Obama speaking in Atlanta, Dem nominee Roy Barnes managed to be found in a totally different part of the state, meeting in rural Monroe County with 28 county sheriffs who are supporting his candidacy at a previously-scheduled engagement. Barnes said, “I’d rather be with these folks, if you want to know the truth. I’m not running for governor of Washington D.C. I’m running for governor of Georgia.”

• HI-Gov: Mufi Hannemann is the money leader in the Hawaii governor’s race. He raised $822K in the first half of the year, and is sitting on $2 million CoH. Democratic primary rival Neil Abercrombie raised $712K in that period, but spent considerably, leaving him with only $469K CoH. Republican Duke Aiona raised $374K in the first half, and has $719K CoH.

• MI-Gov: There’s word of one more poll out in Michigan of the Dem gubernatorial primary. Details are, well, sketchy; all I can tell you is that it’s from a firm I’ve never heard of, Foster McCollum White & Associates, and I have no idea whether it’s a public poll or an internal from Virg Bernero or an ally. At any rate, it’s more evidence for a late Bernero surge, giving him a 50-22 lead over Andy Dillon.

• MA-10: With most of the attention having fallen on the flawed Republican candidates in this open seat race, it’s easy to forget there’s still a competitive Democratic primary between two well-established fixtures here too. State Sen. Robert O’Leary has the lead in his own internal poll, conducted by Gerstein-Agne. He leads Norfolk Co. DA William Keating 44-38, with a 57-38 lead among voters who know both candidates.

• NY-25: Dueling internals got rolled out in the 25th, which is pretty low on people’s priority lists in New York, but still needs to be watched carefully, given the climate of the day. Republican challenger Ann Marie Buerkle (one of the more obscure Mama Grizzlies) offered a poll from McLaughlin & Associates giving Democratic incumbent Dan Maffei a 46-37 lead (and closer numbers among those who’ve heard of both). Maffei responded with a Kiley & Co. poll giving him a 54-35 lead instead.

• Rasmussen:

• AZ-Sen: Rodney Glassman (D) 34%, John McCain (R-inc) 53%

• AZ-Sen: Rodney Glassman (D) 43%, J.D. Hayworth (R) 38%

• CO-Gov: John Hickenlooper (D) 43%, Scott McInnis (R) 25%, Tom Tancredo (I) 24%

• CO-Gov: John Hickenlooper (D) 42%, Dan Maes (R) 27%, Tom Tancredo (I) 24%

• NY-Sen-B: Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc) 50%, Joe DioGuardi (R) 33%

• NY-Sen-B: Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc) 48%, Bruce Blakeman (R) 34%

• NY-Sen-B: Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc) 51%, David Malpass (R) 31%

• SC-Sen: Alvin Greene (D) 20%, Jim DeMint (R-inc) 62%

• IA-Sen/Gov: The newest Des Moines Register poll by Selzer & Co. has some appalling numbers for Democrats. In the Senate race, Chuck Grassley leads Democratic challenger Roxanne Conlin 57-30. And in the gubernatorial race, incumbent Dem Chet Culver trails Republican ex-Gov. Terry Branstad by almost as wide a margin, 57-33 (with Culver also trailing conservative GOPer Bob vander Plaats 45-37, although Culver beats several other GOP minor-leaguers). A 24-point beatdown is hard to believe given Culver’s poor-but-not-abysmal 40/49 approval rating, and this is way out of line with R2K‘s polling last month, but this being Iowa, I’d be hesitant to bet against Selzer. (Discussion already well underway in desmoinesdem’s two diaries.)

• IL-Sen: Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who was considered a likely candidate in this race for a long time but eventually backed down, endorsed state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias in the Democratic primary. Giannoulias now has the endorsement of five of Illinois’s twelve House Dems. Also today, Patrick Hughes, the conservative alternative to establishment GOP pick Rep. Mark Kirk, is in DC looking for support from conservative movement poohbahs. The DSCC has a well-worth-seeing video out detailing Kirk’s transparent shift to the right (especially his pleas for help from Sarah Palin) as he seeks to fight off primary challenges.

• MA-Sen: The voter registration deadline to be able to participate in the primary special election to replace Ted Kennedy is this Wednesday. The primary itself is Dec. 8.

• NY-Sen-B, NY-Gov (pdf): Siena’s monthly look at the Empire State shows a little improvement for Kirsten Gillibrand, who now narrowly leads ex-Gov. George Pataki, 45-44. She loses 49-43 to Rudy Giuliani; weirdly, while the rumor mill has until very recently had Pataki likelier to make the Senate race than Giuliani, Pataki now seems much likelier to run for President, while Liz Benjamin is now wondering if Giuliani‘s recent bout of national security saber-rattling shows he’s more likely to run for Senate than Governor.

Meanwhile, Siena has yet another installment in the ongoing David Paterson implosion. Paterson’s approval is down to 21/79, 69% would prefer to elect someone else, and he now loses the Democratic primary to Andrew Cuomo by a 59-point margin (75-16) while, in a first, also losing the general to Rick Lazio (42-39) as well as, natch, Giuliani (56-33). Cuomo defeats Giuliani 53-41 and Lazio 67-22. Latest Cuomo rumors involve him trying to assemble a whole slate to run with, and central to that is recruiting outgoing NYC comptroller William Thompson to run for state comptroller. Having the African-American Thompson on a ‘ticket’ with him would take some of the awkwardness out of Cuomo elbowing aside an African-American governor to avoid a replay of the 2002 gubernatorial primary. Cuomo also wants a female AG (possibly Nassau Co. DA Kathleen Rice) and an upstate LG to balance everything out. Still, that would set up a hot Democratic primary between Thompson and incumbent comptroller Thomas DiNapoli; there’s some tension between Cuomo and DiNapoli, though, so that’s another instance of two birds, one stone. Finally, in case there were any doubts, Hillary Clinton confirmed that she has no intention of getting in the gubernatorial race.

• SC-Sen: Lindsey Graham, although not up until 2014, could be going the way of Olympia Snowe. There are leaks of private polls showing that more Republicans oppose Graham than support him, and that his support among independents is dwindling too. I guess that’s what happens when you vote the party line only 93% of the time.

• TX-Sen: Little-noticed in the announcement on Friday that Kay Bailey Hutchison was going to delay her resignation until after the gubernatorial primary election in March means that, unless she does it immediately afterwards, the special election won’t be held until November 2010. Conventional wisdom is that this is good for the GOP, as the seat will be easier to hold as part of a larger election instead of on its own. (Of course, that assumes KBH resigns at all assuming she loses the gubernatorial primary, which somehow I doubt.) The Austin American-Statesman also has a good rundown on what the delay means to all of the potential players in the special election.

• ME-Gov: The Maine governor’s race may well wind up as crowded as the one in Minnesota: we’re up to 21 candidates, although most of them are minor. One more medium-to-big name is getting in today on the Dem side, though: John Richardson, the former House speaker and current commissioner of the state Dept. of Economic and Community Development. Current Conservation Commissioner Patrick McGowan is also looking likely to get in the Dem field.

• WY-Gov: Former US Attorney Matt Mead has formed an exploratory committee to run for the Republican nomination in next year’s gubernatorial race in Wyoming. He joins state House speaker Colin Simpson and ex-state Rep. Ron Micheli in the hunt. Mead, you may recall, was one of the finalists to be picked to replace Craig Thomas in the Senate, but that post went to John Barrasso.

• IL-11: This isn’t the way to get your campaign off on the right foot: Adam Kinzinger, who has the insider backing for the GOP nomination in the 11th, stormed out prior to a debate held by Concerned Taxpayers United against his primary competition when one of them, David McAloon, had a staffer with a video camera present. The base in the district is already suspicious of Kinzinger, and ticking them off this way can’t help.

• NY-25: One race in a swing district that hasn’t been on anyone’s radar is NY-25, held by freshman Dem Dan Maffei. He’s drawn two potential challengers, wealthy ex-turkey farmer Mark Bitz and former Syracuse Common Councilor Ann Marie Buerkle. Bitz hasn’t held office before, but says he’s prepared to loan himself a “substantial amount” of money. He’ll need it, as Maffei has been one of the freshman class’s top fundraisers.

• TN-01: Fans of wingnut-on-wingnt action may be disappointed to hear that it sounds unlikely for ex-Rep. David Davis to take on slightly-more-mainstream Rep. Phil Roe (who knocked out Davis in a 2008 primary) next year. Although he’s been staying visible at local tea parties, Davis is focusing on paying down campaign debt from last time.

• UT-02: It doesn’t sound like Rep. Jim Matheson is going to face a primary over his health care vote after all; state Sen. Scott McCoy said he didn’t intend to go after Matheson, citing the difficulty of a run given the overall composition of the GOP-leaning district.

• Biden Alert: Joe Biden is in the midst of a western swing, doing a Sunday fundraiser for Rep. Dina Titus. Today he’s holding events for Ann Kirkpatrick, Harry Mitchell, Martin Heinrich, and Harry Teague, bringing the total to 26 for vulnerable House Dems he’s campaigned for. Biden will also be in Connecticut next month for a Chris Dodd fundraiser.

• NRCC: To avoid a repeat of NY-23, the NRCC has basically turned the vetting process over to Grover Norquist and friends. Norquist said that at a recent meeting between the NRCC and conservative movementarians, 40 recruits were discussed and they apparently all met the litmus test (although Norquist grudgingly admitted that some of the northeasterners were “as good as it gets”).

• WATN?: Ex-Rep. Bill Jefferson’s going to the big house. On Friday, he was sentenced to 13 years in prison after his August conviction for money laundering and wire fraud; this is the longest sentence ever handed out to a former Congressman.

• Maps: As if electoral junkies didn’t have enough online tools to geek out over, now there’s this: super-helpful step-by-step instructions on how to generate a county-by-county map of the country on, well, whatever topic you want, using only free tools instead of expensive GIS software.

• Site News: We were so busy following the off-year elections that we didn’t notice it at the time, but last month, the Swing State Project welcomed its seven millionth visitor. (Number six million came this past March.) Thanks, everyone! (D)

• FL-Sen: As the angling for a one-and-a-half-year fill-in for Mel Martinez’s Senate seat continues, there’s already been one prominent “no thanks,” from Jeb Bush (not that anyone would expect Charlie Crist to pick him, as there’s been a lot of Crist/Bush friction and Crist wouldn’t want to risk having a placeholder overshadow him). Meanwhile, a likelier pick, 70-year-old former Republican Rep. Clay Shaw (a Gold Coast moderate who served in the House from 1980 to his 2006 defeat) shot his hand up and said “pick me pick me!”

• IL-Sen: Chicago Urban League president (and former Rod Blagojevich spokeperson) Cheryle Jackson made her entry into the Democratic senatorial primary field official yesterday. However, the Illinois SEIU chapter, one of the state’s major unions, came out with an Alexi Giannoulias endorsement today, which, given their resources, moves him closer to having a lock on the nod. I’m wondering if they’re announcing in response to Jackson… or to Roland Burris, who keeps popping his head back up.

• KS-Sen: Not much change in the GOP Senate primary in Kansas since we last looked. SurveyUSA finds that Rep. Jerry Moran has a 38-32 lead over Rep. Todd Tiahrt, propelled along by a 78-13 edge in the state’s western portion. Moran led by 2 in June and 4 in April.

• NY-Sen-B, NY-16: It didn’t register much, at a time when all speculation focused on Rep. Carolyn Maloney, but several months ago Rep. Jose Serrano said he would consider a primary run against Kirsten Gillibrand. Yesterday he made clear that he wouldn’t get in the race (although he still didn’t sound very enthused about Gillibrand), which means that none of her former House colleagues are left planning a primary challenge.

• MN-Gov: Add one more second-tier Republican to the huge pile of prospects for the open Minnesota governor’s race: state Senator Mike Jungbauer, a religious rightist from exurban Anoka County, formally kicked off his campaign. He does already have one important endorsement in his corner; he was “called by God” to run.

• NJ-Gov: Today’s Quinnipiac poll has a slightly better showing for Jon Corzine, in line with last week’s R2K poll, though it’s far from time to start talking “comeback.” He cuts the lead to 9 points, 51-42, in a two-way poll of likely voters, down from 53-41 in July. More importantly, Corzine trails Chris Christie 46-40 in a three-way that includes independent Chris Daggett (who’s up to 7%). Campaign Diaries observes that the centrist Daggett (a former EPA regional administrator) is probably absorbing a lot of protest votes, keeping Democrats and moderate indies who hate Corzine from going over to Christie. If Corzine wins, he’ll owe Daggett a big ol’ “thank you.”

• NY-Gov The NYT reports on growing discomfort by various downballot electeds on the prospect of having David Paterson at the top of the ticket. Both Reps. Michael McMahon and Dan Maffei worry about the effect of Paterson’s low approvals spilling over into their own races. Not to worry: although it’s buried deep in the story, the Times says that powerful local Dems are pushing Paterson to stand down and make way for Andrew Cuomo — and that local bigwigs have been tugging at White House sleeves, hoping they’ll find a nice appointed position for Paterson soon.

• CA-10: The John Garamendi camp released an internal poll from Tulchin Research giving Garamendi a sizable edge in the upcoming special election: Garamendi is at 31, Mark DeSaulnier is at 21, Joan Buchanan is at 17, Anthony Woods is at 9, and Republican David Harmer is at 5. There’s a wrinkle with this poll, though (one that didn’t elude the DeSaulnier campaign): it’s a poll only of Democratic and decline-to-state voters, but the primary election is an all-party primary with one pool of votes (although under California law, the top Democrat and Republican will advance, not simply the top 2). In response to our inquiry, the Tulchin crew said that polling Republicans as well just wasn’t cost-effective, especially since there are six Republicans running and therefore there isn’t likely to be much party-line crossing.

In other CA-10 news, Garamendi got another bit of good news: he got the endorsement of both Bill Clinton and Al Gore (he was a deputy Secretary of Interior for part of the Clinton administration). However, a SurveyUSA that only tested favorables for the CA-10 candidates didn’t have good news for much of anyone: Garamendi is at 30/34, DeSaulnier is at 22/23, and Buchanan is at 16/25. Only up-and-comer Woods is in positive (if generally unknown) territory, at 14/13.

• CT-04: With presumptive GOP nominee state Senate minority leader John McKinney staying out, not one but two other GOPers got in the race against Democratic freshman Rep. Jim Himes. One was the party’s likely #2 choice, state Senator Dan Debicella; the other is Rob Merkle, a political novice but the wealthy owner of a financial services recruitment firm.

• PA-06: Maybe journalist Doug Pike won’t have the Dem primary to himself after all, now that Rep. Jim Gerlach is committed to the gubernatorial race. Bob Roggio, the little-known businessman who almost beat Gerlach in 2008, said he hasn’t “ruled it out.” Also, while there doesn’t seem to be anything tangible, there are indications that state Sen. Andy Dinniman, the Dems’ highest-profile elected official in the pivotal Chester County portion of the district, is “increasingly rumored to be seriously considering” the race.

In the last couple days, there have been several posts across the blogosphere citing what various candidates running for Congress have said on FISA and retroactive immunity for the telecoms.  But so far, it’s been all over the map.  I’ll try to corral all their statements into this diary, so you can see who the “good guys” are.

First, let’s start off with the current House and Senate members who voted against this bill.  They do deserve credit, as it’s their jobs on the line.

Follow me below the fold to see the dozens of Democratic challengers who are standing up for the Constitution, and are against this FISA bill and retroactive immunity.

Now, not all of these statements were made this past week.  Some came from 2007, and others came around February when this issue was last up in the air.  But hey, they’re on record.  So here goes, alphabetically by district.  If you know of a candidate who HAS spoken out against retroactive immunity and the FISA bill, please let me know in the comments, and please include the link where we can read their statement, and I’ll update the diary accordingly.

House candidates

AZ-01: Howard Shanker

It was Ben Franklin who said that “any man who is willing to sacrifice essential liberties for the sake of security deserves, neither.” We seem to have a country full of people who are willing to sacrifice essential liberties for the sake of an empty promise of security. As a free country, founded on concepts like justice and liberty, the de-evolution of our free society should not be tolerated by any people of conscience.

CA-04: Charlie Brown (seriously, read his entire diary, it’s excellent)

I flew missions that monitored electronic communications around the world-often with Soviet MIGs flying off my wing and hoping I’d make a wrong turn.  Our standing order was “if you even suspect you are collecting data on an American citizen, you are to cease immediately, flag the tape, and bring it to a supervisor.”  We knew failure to comply would yield serious consequences-the kind that can end your career, or worse, land you in jail.

In short, professional, accurate intelligence collection guidelines were used to protect America “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” without also undermining the very freedoms we were protecting.

….

But this debate isn’t just about security; it’s about accountability. As an officer who was both involved in these programs and held personally accountable for my actions in the name of defending America, I have a problem with giving a few well-connected, well-healed companies who knowingly usurp the law a free pass.

….

And when I see companies acting “in the interest of national security” held to a lower standard of accountability than the dedicated professionals charged with our nation’s defense, silence is not an option.

And to those few companies seeking immunity for breaking the law despite the best of intentions—might I offer a few comforting words on behalf of all who serve, and all who have borne the responsibilities of safeguarding our great nation…freedom isn’t free.

CA-26: Russ Warner

Going back to FISA, we need to protect our Constitutional rights while keeping the American people safe. These are not mutually exclusive.

Russ Warner: FISA expansion of power so Bush can spy on Americans without warrants (with acquiescence of Congress): Yay or nay?

Nay.

CA-44: Bill Hedrick

Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.  So do members of the Executive and Judiciary Branches. Unlike the Bush Administration, however, I will do all in my power to uphold and defend the Constitution, particularly regarding the protections and inalienable rights of all humanity it guarantees to the American people.

We live in an unsafe world. We need to ensure we take all necessary and legal steps to safeguard our country and its citizens. Our Constitution provides for checks and balances against government intrusiveness infringing upon fundamental rights of speech, religion, privacy, unlawful search and seizure, etc. It is ironic that the most efficient way to ensure perfect safety is by discarding these fundamental rights. In fact, some of the most repressive governments today (North Korea, anyone?) rule over some of the safest countries – at least when it comes to walking the streets at night.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has ignored the Constitutions checks and balances. Instead it has created its own Rule of Law. The Bush Administration has suspended habeas corpus, sanctioned torture and illegal spying on Americans and created an extralegal detention center in Guantanamo. This arrogance continues even though the American people and many of our leading jurists and representatives have stated they want our Constitution followed in the manner envisioned by our Founding Fathers and confirmed by all subsequent administrations except the current one.

In the past the United States has ensured that those persons on its soil or under its jurisdiction or power are treated with the same dignity and respect as American citizens. This is based on that marvelous statement in the Declaration of Independence, [w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights.  These inalienable rights are not limited to one gender, one party or one nationality. While we cannot always influence other governments to respect these rights we can guarantee them whenever they involve those on our soil or under our jurisdiction or power.

Therefore, it is ironic that the Bush Administration, which denounces the human rights record of the Cuban government, echoes that record by claiming the Guantanamo detainees are not subject to American due process in legal proceedings precisely because they are housed in Cuba even though they are under American jurisdiction and power. How long will it be before the current infringement of inalienable rights on our own soil, which now consists of illegal spying on Americans, escalates to suspension of Habeas Corpus or even torture against Americans?

No one not the President, not the Vice President, not members of the Cabinet is above the law, nor should any governmental branch be allowed to discard Constitutional guarantees. When I become your congressional representative I will do more than merely recite my constitutional oath of office as a rite of passage. I will act upon that oath and support and defend the Constitution. I will act to restore the constitutional balance between inalienable rights and safety. As Americans we will be free . . . we will be safe . . . and we will not participate in violations of those inalienable rights guaranteed to all by our Constitution.

CA-46: Debbie Cook

Our nation was founded on a system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, the checks and balances in the Constitution and the freedoms Americans hold dear have been slowly eroding. Finally, last week the Supreme Court drew a line in the sand and restored habeas corpus, one of the Constitution’s most basic and essential protections against government abuse.

Some in Congress wish to eliminate another essential freedom by allowing the government to spy on its citizens without a warrant and giving lawbreakers who do so immunity from prosecution. Our founding fathers would be outraged at the bargaining away of the Bill of Rights.

You don’t fight terrorism abroad by taking away at our freedoms at home.

CA-48: Steve Young

We now know George Bush’s wiretapping program is not a narrow examination of calls made to and from suspected terrorist suspects —  unless you believe that you and I are terrorists.  I am worried and angry that the National Security Agency (NSA) has secretly purchased from the three largest telecommunications companies in the country, telephone records on tens of millions of Americans.   On December 17, 2005, President Bush said he authorized the program, “to intercept the international communication of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.  Then on January 23, 2006, after concerns were expressed that the NSA tapped into telecommunications arteries, Gen. Michael Hayden, then NSA chief, now CIA nominee, asserted his organization engages in surveillance if there is a “reasonable” basis for eavesdropping.

George Bush asks us to believe the NSA is not listening to phone conversations.  Does that comfort you?  Anyone with experience in data management knows the government now has the information necessary to cross-reference phone numbers, with available databases that link names and numbers to compile a substantial dossier on every American.  Evidently, Bush now sees the enemy, and it is us.

I will insist on national security — we all must — but we must also insist that America is a land of laws.  No one is above the law.  If the law is a circumstantial inconvenience for President Bush, the law will soon be irrelevant to the ordinary American.   Bush repeatedly asserts that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — which established a special court to confidentially review and authorize sensitive surveillance requests — does not apply to his surveillance program, so George Bush bypasses the court.

When you elect me to Congress, I will sponsor and pass legislation to remove any doubt that warrantless spying on ordinary Americans is illegal.  We must do what is right, let the consequences follow.

CA-50: Nick Leibham

What’s much MUCH more disconcerting to me is the entire FISA bill…As somebody who has been a prosecutor and dealt with the 4th Amendment, I can tell you that this happened to have been the one amendment in the Bill of Rights that all the Founding Fathers could agree upon; that in order for the government intrusion there had to be probable cause signed off on by an independent magistrate that says you may have committed a crime. I find the entire FISA process to be constitutionally dubious. That doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be made constitutionally valid but I think that anytime you have wiretaps involved…that deals with an American citizen, you’ve gotta have a court sign off on it.  The only question in my mind is whether or not that has to be done prior to there warrant being executed or whether or not there is some grace period.  There is no doubt in my mind that the executive branch itself cannot act as both overseer and executioner (of warrants or wiretaps). That, I think, is constitutionally impermissible; I think it’s a violation of the judiciary’s proper role of interpreting laws.

As a former prosecutor [and] law clerk in the US Attorney’s office in the Major Frauds and Economic Crimes section…I’ve never heard of anybody being given immunity when you don’t know what they’ve done. It’s not how the immunity process works.  You don’t say to somebody ‘Whatever you’ve done, don’t worry about it.’…It’s unthinkable to me as a lawyer and as somebody who will have…sworn to uphold the Constitution that I could ever support that.

CA-52: Mike Lumpkin

FISA should never have been expanded. The government’s ability to spy was extensive enough already. The government is failing us in so many ways right now, this can just be added to the list. I want a safe, secure country. I have lived my life trying to secure exactly that. Frankly, the reason I joined the service was to defend my country’s beautiful liberties and secure them for future generations of Americans. Some attribute the following quote to Benjamin Franklin “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” No one can express the ideology of our democracy better than one of the founders.

As far as telecommunications immunity, my understanding is that legal culpability is determined in context. It is quite a thing to have the power of the executive branch of the government pointed in your direction making demands. Lack of courage to say “no” under such circumstances is no surprise. I think courts are well equipped to unravel this type of legal factual minutia and get to a just result. Immunity from the law is something to be dolled out sparingly.

CO-02: Joan Fitz-Gerald, Jared Polis, & Will Shafroth (primary is in August)

Said land conservation activist Shafroth: “While this current bill takes some small steps to weaken the authority of the president to unilaterally spy on Americans, it does not go far enough in protecting our civil liberties.”

Internet entrepreneur Polis said that “phone companies should not be given a pass and should be held accountable for their involvement in unwarranted wiretapping.”

And former state Senate President Fitz-Gerald criticized the bill’s “de facto immunity for telecommunications companies that broke the law.”

“The government has no right to listen and wiretap any phone without judicial oversight,” she said.

….

Fitz-Gerald said the House version of the legislation amending FISA was better than an earlier U.S. Senate version, but “it still was not acceptable and I would have rejected the House measure.”

Shafroth said he would have voted against the bill because “many of the protections in the bill are superficial and there are too many avenues left to the president to unconstitutionally spy on American citizens.”

Polis said the nation must restore people’s trust in their government, but “rushing FISA reform through Congress is not the answer.”

More Polis:

It is disappointing that some of our Democratic leaders are rushing FISA reform through Congress. I strongly oppose telecom immunity that paves the ground for the further erosion of our privacy and civil liberties.

Our Democratic leaders in Washington should stand firm against allowing Republicans and the Bush Administration to violate the civil liberties of our citizens any more than they already have; phone companies should not be given a pass and should be held fully accountable for their involvement in unwarranted wiretapping.

Rather than providing cover for the Bush administration, our leaders should show backbone and not allow FISA reform to be rushed through Congress.

The fear mongering tactics of President Bush and his cronies on Capitol Hill are tired; the American public now understands that we can have security at home while also protecting the civil liberties of our law abiding citizens.

CO-04: Betsy Markey

I had left a message there asking her position on this FISA bill. She personally took the time to call me back and told me she is against this thing and would have voted Nay!

CT-04: Jim Himes

“In Congress, I will always stand up for the fundamental American belief that no man, and no corporation, is above the law. As always, this is a matter for the courts to decide– not for Congress, and absolutely not for the same Bush Administration who may have violated the law in the first place. It is great to see so many American citizens of all backgrounds coming together to stand up for the rule of law and in opposition to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who may have illegally spied on American citizens at the Bush Administration’s request. I am disappointed that Chris Shays and so many others continue to stand with President Bush by refusing to stand up for this most fundamental of American principles.”

FL-08: Alan Grayson

What, exactly, is the Right Wing’s problem with the Fourth Amendment? Why do they constantly seek ways to evade and subvert the Fourth Amendment? It seems to have worked pretty well, for over 200 years. And over 99% of the time, the federal judges give all POTUS the warrants he wants.

What it really comes down to is that they want a dictatorship. It’s issues like this one, where the Right has to choose between conservatism and fascism, when you see their true colors.

FL-24: Clint Curtis (h/t discocarp)

As the “New York Times” said in its June 18 editorial: “The bill is not a compromise. The final details are being worked out, but all indications are that many of its provisions are both unnecessary and a threat to the Bill of Rights. The White House and the Congressional Republicans who support the bill have two real aims. They want to undermine the power of the courts to review the legality of domestic spying programs. And they want to give a legal shield to the telecommunications companies that broke the law by helping Mr. Bush carry out his warrantless wiretapping operation.”

….

The problem is special interest money, Curtis said, coupled with a business-as-usual attitude in Washington.

“This is the root cause of the Democrats’ inability to stand up to the Republicans. They are all eating from the same trough,” Curtis said. “This is why we need leadership that will stay true to our values rather than cater to special interest contributors.”

FL-25: Joe Garcia

“The laws that were created under FISA were sufficient to meet our country?s national security needs. What the Bush administration has done, again, is present Americans with a false choice between national security and civil liberties, while this bill increases neither. I oppose any broad retroactive immunity provided to companies who may have broken the law. The legal purpose of immunity is to use the protection granted by such immunity as an inducement to divulge information about what occurred. Immunity in this case would do the opposite: it would shut down any investigation into what actually occurred.”

GA-08: Robert Nowak (primary challenger to Jim Marshall)

The latest demand from President Bush, that the US Congress shield telecommunication providers from liability for breaking federal law, is a real step backwards in the important mission of authorizing an effective intelligence surveillance program.  Congress not give blanket immunity for any unlawful acts, it should renew its call for increased oversight of the telecom providers that may or may not have broken federal surveillance laws.

Further, the US Congress must not budge in insisting that any surveillance program with the capability of eavesdropping on US citizens be subject to court oversight.

The Congress should insist on codifying in the statute a court order requirement for any surveillance done on American citizens.

This last August, Representative Marshall voted for a temporary bill  that allowed for expanded wiretapping and surveillance on Americans without a court order.  Allowing that regime to continue is unacceptable.

GA-12: Regina Thomas (primary challenger to John Barrow)

After reading the FISA bill — Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — I thought “This can not be good for Americans. That the Bush Administration wants unlimited powers for spying on not only terrorists, but on any American citizen. This is against and violates the Constitutional Fourth Amendment [right of] privacy. This also allows warrant-less monitoring of any form of communication in the United States.” I was disappointed and dismayed with my Congressman John Barrow supporting this Bush Republican initiative against Americans. Too often Congressman Barrow from the 12th district in Georgia has voted with Bush and the Republicans on key issues.

IA-05: Rob Hubler (h/t desmoinesdem)

The Congress is considering a bill that guarantees retroactive immunity for telecom companies who participated in the President’s illegal wiretap program, and that fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home.  This measure would require the courts to grant immunity to big telecom companies for their past illegal eavesdropping on American citizens, and authorize future surveillance on citizens without adequate checks and balances to protect their rights.

This is wrong.  No one should get a free pass for breaking the law.  Iowans and all Americans have a right to live their lives without government intrusion on their privacy.

If elected, I would vigorously oppose this measure.  I believe that the constitutional rights of everyday Americans are at issue here, and full accountability is needed.  No President should ever have unchecked power.  Americans in the U. S. with no connection to suspected terrorists should never have their privacy abridged by an overzealous, unchecked executive branch.  As Americans, we can protect ourselves without destroying our Constitutional rights.  We need to focus on the very real threats we face, and not waste our resources on spying on loyal Americans.

IL-10: Dan Seals

Today, Rep. Mark Kirk once again showed how out-of-step he is with Illinois’ 10th district, by siding with the Bush administration to protect telecommunications companies who participated in illegal spying on American citizens. Kirk has received over $80,000 in contributions from the telecom companies he has continually voted to protect.

Coming in the wake of his vote against outlawing waterboarding, Kirk has shown that he is more interested in following the Bush administration than upholding our international agreements, like the Geneva Convention, and protecting our constitutional rights.

Congressional Candidate Dan Seals (IL-10) released the following statement today:

“While I was pleased to see the House Democrats stand their ground against granting amnesty to the telecommunications companies who broke the law, I was disappointed to see Mark Kirk side once again with the Bush administration and his campaign contributors over the 4th amendment.

“The U.S. Constitution is not a discretionary document. It’s time we elect leaders with the courage and independence to stand up for our most sacred rights. When I go to Congress, I will stand up for our Constitution and ensure that no one is above the law.”

IN-06: Barry Welsh

I like Brad Ellsworth, and yes he is that good looking in person, I like Baron Hill, and always have, I like Joe Donnelly and have since the first time I met him, and the same for Senator Bayh, but I really, really, really, have a fondness for this piece of paper called the United States Constitution.

I would not have voted as they did on FISA, but I am more liberal than they are and we all know that, you know that, I know that, and they know that.  Some in Indiana are afraid of being called a Liberal and the word comes from Liberty, so I think we should embrace it.

….

Brad, Baron and Beyond, (Sorry, I couldn’t resist, it’s the blogger in me)  voted the way they did because of National Security, and I do not hate them for voting what they believe, because I believe in National Security too, but I also understand the potential for expansion of the FISA bill, and the potential danger.  I love this country but since 2000, have feared this government and do not agree with granting this administration any additional power.  It is my hope that in 6 months this will not be re-newed, it is my fear that it will.

KY-01: Heather Ryan

There are several reasons why I feel this bill is unnecessary. First, I think that we have lost focus on the fact that a competent Administration could have actually gone a long way in preventing this tragedy. The Bush Administration was warned in advance of 9-11 and did nothing at the time to prevent it. I believe if the Bush Administration would have acted on the intelligence provided them, then the 9-11 tragedy could have been avoided through the laws that existed at the time.

I also believe this law is an extension of the Bush Administration’s attempts to politicize the Justice Department. Prosecuting entities are provided by the Constitution with checks and balances on which to operate. They already have very broad powers and if they found a credible threat would have no problem getting a warrant in a timely fashion.

Finally, I believe that FISA and this compromise are an abomination to the Constitution because it seeks to circumvent the checks and balances provided all of us by that sacred document. I strongly oppose giving the Telecom Corporations immunity when they knew they were breaking the law, when the Bush Administration asked them to break the law.

I saw where my opponent in this race, “Exxon Ed” Whitfield voted for this Legislation. I think it is pretty ironic when the very Republicans who lecture us regarding limiting the roll of the Federal Government propose, and push through, the House of Representatives a bill that vastly broadens the powers of the Federal Government. This is one issue on which Progressives, Moderates and Conservatives should all be able to agree. There are certain things on which none of us should ever compromise, and the Constitution is one thing on which I will never compromise as Representative of Kentucky’s First District.

MI-07: Mark Schauer (with video!)

Personally I’m tired of Tim Walberg and George W. Bush using fear about our national security to score cheap political points. Congress has passed legislation to ensure that tools are in place to protect our country’s safety, but Walberg and Bush seem more interested in protecting big corporations that have helped them listen to our phone calls, read our emails, violate our privacy, then they are about protecting law-abiding citizens. I believe our Constitution, and our rights, including our right to privacy, are worth fighting for. If our government or big corporations break the rules, they should be held accountable.

MI-09: Gary Peters

I would have voted no. Let me start out by saying that, I am absolutely committed to keeping America safe, taking on the terrorists, and defending our national security. I was a Lt. Commander in the Navy Reserve, and I spent time over in the Persian Gulf. I understand what kind of pressure our people are under to get good intelligence. Good intelligence is absolutely critical to the safety of our soldiers and to protecting our country. We can’t function without it.

We definitely need to update FISA to give our intelligence agencies the tools they need, while also absolutely guaranteeing that Americans’ rights are protected.

There are important updates that we need to make to FISA, but I can’t support the retroactive immunity – and I sincerely hope that those provisions get stripped out in the Senate.

MN-03: Ashwin Madia

I am troubled by the House passage of HR 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. There is much we can do to prevent terrorism, but such measures do not require the sacrifice of fundamental constitutional freedoms which our country was founded upon. This legislation demonstrates the need for leaders in Congress who have experience in the military and in Iraq, and who value the rule of law as we fight the War on Terror.

NC-08: Larry Kissell

The Fourth Amendment doesn’t exclude lobbyists. The “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” means George Bush and the other Washington politicians can’t grant immunity to law breakers no matter how much they give to campaigns.

NJ-05: Dennis Shulman

It is unfortunate that it appears that the telecom industry has managed to falsely conflate its quest for retroactive immunity for lawbreaking with the issue of national security. The Founding Fathers understood that our safety as a nation depended on our being a nation of laws. Retroactive immunity undermines the rule of law, and therefore undermines our principles and security as a nation.

NJ-07: Linda Stender

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) issued a release today taunting Linda Stender, candidate for New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District, on the issue of Congress’ re-authorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

….

Stender hit back this afternoon.

“It’s clear from this nonsensical attack that the national Republicans know they’re in jeopardy of losing this seat,” said Stender campaign spokesman Joshua Henne. “Linda Stender believes we can defend both our nation’s security, and the Constitution. The Bush Republicans sadly still haven’t learned its possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.”

NM-01: Martin Heinrich (with campaign commercial!)

In America, no one is above the law. We shouldn’t compromise the integrity of our justice system to protect George Bush’s friends and allies in the telecommunications industry. Anyone who illegally spies on American citizens should be brought to justice.

NY-13: Steve Harrison (h/t akokon)

This Friday, legislation was passed that will take away constitutionally guaranteed rights. The FISA bill strips Americans of these rights and protects telecommunications companies from being held accountable by the people.

I am standing up against my own party because I believe we can have sound legislation that defends our country and, at the same time, protects our Constitution. If we are to hold our government accountable, retroactive immunity is the wrong path to go down.

It’s time to support Democrats with democratic values and principles, Democrats who will work on behalf of the American people and protect their rights. When I’m elected to Congress, I will be that Democrat.

NY-21: Darius Shahinfar (who’s still in a contested primary)

Today, Darius Shahinfar, candidate for the 21st Congressional District, called the compromise reached on amendment of the Federal Information Surveillance Act (FISA) a compromise of Constitutional principles.

“The critical problem of this compromise is that it contains a free pass for the Bush Administration’s and telecommunication companies’ past actions. The Administration’s use of warrantless wiretaps cannot be reviewed, and the process to review the telecommunications companies’ participation in the wiretapping program leads inevitably to immunity for those companies” Shahinfar said.

Darius’ remarks come at a time when the controversial piece of legislation would allow immunity to phone companies who currently face lawsuits for violating the constitutional rights of their members, according to plaintiff claims.

“By passing this piece of legislation, we are telling our government and our citizens that as long as the President tells you to do so, breaking the law is legal. No one, not even the President, is above our laws, especially when it comes to the issue of protecting our Constitutional rights.”

When asked further of his views about FISA, Shahinfar continued, “FISA was created 30 years ago, is applicable with today’s advanced technology and has been a vital tool in collecting intelligence for our nations’ security.It had not been an issue, until this administration decided to use it improperly and against its intended purpose. This will not make Americans any safer from threats at home or abroad; rather it will put us at the mercy of secret agreements between corporations and our government.”

NY-25: Dan Maffei

If the Bush Administration had read the constitution the first time, we wouldn’t find ourselves having this debate.  Granting amnesty to these companies would set a precedent that would allow others to arbitrarily ignore the constitution.  No one should be above the law in America.

NY-26: Jon Powers

Growing up in Western New York, one of the first lessons I was taught was that each of us has to take responsibility for our actions. As a social studies teacher, I came to understand this principle in the broader context of our democracy. We are, first and foremost, a nation of laws. Each of us should be treated equally under the law, and no one should be given special treatment. The founding fathers designed the courts as the proper place to weigh one’s actions under the law, not the White House. I trust that the courts, which have ensured the rights and liberty of all Americans for over 200 years, are more than able to continue providing the wisdom and protections that keep us free.

NY-29: Eric Massa (you should really read the entire diary and Massa’s analysis)

At the heart of the debate is the truncation of the Fourth Amendment, which outlines the right of the people to be secure in their persons and belongings.  That right, which many would consider a bedrock of basic liberties in the Nation, is altered to allow the Federal Government to conduct searches and seizures of personal property without a warrant from a court of law.

….

But the bigger problem here is the immunity that would be given if it is found that the government and cooperating officials acted without due justification.  Under current law, those involved can be held accountable and the individual on whom the actions were perpetrated can seek redress before the government.  This right to seek redress is another fundamental individual liberty that the Revolutionary War was fought to gain for all Americans.  This current bill takes away the right of citizens to seek redress.

OH-02: Vic Wulsin

The Bush Administration has run roughshod over the Constitution and now they expect the American people to pay for it by granting retroactive immunity to big corporations that illegally violated their customers’ privacy. Congress cannot not let itself be bullied into giving away the civil liberties that belong to every American, and I promise that as a congresswoman I will never put the interests of corporations before the rights of the people.

OH-07: Sharen Neuhardt (h/t DarenB)

I am opposed to affording any immunity to the telecommunications companies who may have broken the law by their participation in handing over information or granting wire-taping access to the Bush Administration without first properly receiving permission through FISA Court.

I am hoping that before the current legislation makes its way to the President’s desk, members of the U.S. Senate will see that the protection of civil rights should precede any special treatment for any special interest.  When the Patriot Act was first debated and wrongly passed, the telecommunications lobbying arm kept quiet and now they want to ensure that justice is silenced forever.

As the daughter of a cop, I have great respect for our Constitution and the pursuit of the truth.  Any immunity that is granted before giving the American people the opportunity to even uncover a violation is a violation unto itself.

PA-15: Sam Bennett

The Constitution also places no one above, below or immune from the law. The House Judiciary Committee was absolutely correct today to reject President Bush’s demand for blind and blanket immunity for large telecom companies who aided illegal spying.  It should be noted that not all such companies heeded the call for unchecked Presidential power, and those who resisted should be commended.  For the others, blind immunity for crimes, especially when not even yet fully documented, is an alien and disturbing idea to Americans.

“Finally, to those who imply that by opposing warrantless, illegal spying in America, Democrats somehow are aiding our enemies: I urge you to take an evening off, turn off that distracting talk radio and Fox News, and spend a quiet evening reading the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.  You may learn something new, and wonderful.

TX-10: Larry Joe Doherty

This out of control president has systematically shredded the Constitutional protections of every American, trashing the patriotism of anyone who is willing to stand up to him. To think that the U.S. Congress should come along behind George Bush rubber-stamping the suspension of the Bill of Rights is offensive to me. Congress is sworn to protect the Constitution, and gagging the courts from upholding the Rule of Law is the wrong way to protect this country from its enemies.

VA-04: Andrea Miller

Has anyone in Washington these days ever heard of (let alone read) the U.S. Constitution– remember that document? We were guaranteed certain rights. It seems many Republican members of Congress lay awake at night, thinking what rights can we take away from our fellow Americans today.

Specifically my opponent J. Randy Forbes, VA (R) wanted to add language that would have ensured that nothing in the bill would be construed to prohibit surveillance of, or grant any rights to, a state sponsor of terrorism or agents of state sponsors of terrorism. In addition, the language would have permitted the intelligence community to conduct surveillance of any person concerning an imminent attack on the United States, any U.S. person, including members of the Armed Forces, or an ally of the United States, Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, members of the al-Queda Iranian Revolutionary Guard, or any terrorist or terrorist organization. This language failed to garner enough votes to be included in H.R. 3773.

The right-wing is operating in force in Congress and the typical corporate Republicrats are once again falling in line. We have a Democratic majority in the House and yet they seem to be as confused by the meaning of the Constitution as the Republicans. Apparently, since impeachment is off the table, so is the U.S. Constitution. When I look at this new bill I can’t help wondering if this is the new Democratic thinking, “If we make all illegal actions legal, then the President and Vice President have done nothing wrong. Ergo there is no need to consider impeachment because no laws were broken.”

VA-05: Tom Perriello

“This “compromise” will not make Americans safer,” said Perriello, a national security consultant with experience in Afghanistan, Darfur and West Africa. “If Congress and the President were serious about national security they would have spent their time and energy giving our brave intelligence officers the resources they need, not the American freedoms that our armed forces defend. Our constitutional principles are never up for negotiation.”

VA-10: Judy Feder

No one in this country should be above the law and saying Alberto Gonzales told me it was okay is hardly an excuse. I oppose retroactive immunity for the telecoms who engaged in illegal surveillance. Unfortunately, Frank Wolf has again sided with the President on this issue voting in favor of immunity for those who circumvented the FISA courts and our legal process.

WA-08: Darcy Burner (with video!)

Honestly, I don’t understand why at this point any member of Congress would think it was a good idea to give George Bush the power to grant immunity to anyone he wants around warrantless wiretapping – and to cover all tracks in the process. George Bush has proven, over and over again, that he cannot be trusted to uphold either the letter or the spirit of the laws that protect the people of the United States from the abuse of our government.

….

All I can say is that I’m sorry Congress failed on this one – and that I will honor the pledge I hope to take to uphold the Constitution.

WY-AL: Gary Trauner (also see here for some excellent choice quotes Gary dug up from our own Founding Fathers)

Wow.  I am deeply saddened today by the news that the US House has voted to pass a bill amending the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which strikes at the very core of American democracy – our Constitutional Bill of Rights and the rule of law.  It enables our federal government to intercept, without probable cause, all international communications of American citizens, and it provides retroactive immunity for companies that may have broken the law (if they did nothing wrong, why would they need immunity?).

….

Wow!  Is that what it’s come to?  Our federal government says you must do something, even if it is against the law, and we “need” to do it?  Well, I don’t care whether it’s the Republican Leadership in Washington DC or the Democrats in the House, I’ll proudly tell them – and you – where I stand on warrantless wiretapping, the rule of law and protecting our national security:

I want to ensure that my children, and all of our children, are safe from terrorist attacks by beefing up our intelligence capabilities, protecting vulnerable targets, proactively taking out terrorists such as Al-Qaeda in their hideouts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and around the world, and working to remove safe havens for terrorists by winning the battle of ideas, not simply the battle for Tikrit.

I believe in the Constitution and rule of law, the two things that define our great American experiment. We must not gut our freedoms in order to save our freedoms.  If we do that, those who use terror as a tactic will achieve their goal – after all, what would we be fighting to protect?.

We can protect our nation without sacrificing everything our founding fathers and millions of veterans fought for; the FISA law, already updated in 2001 after 9/11 and recently patched to fix some omissions due to changing technology, works.

I would rather bring Osama Bin Laden to justice than help large corporations avoid justice.

If we value our Constitutional rights such as the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, we better think twice about ignoring other Constitutional rights, such as the 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant and probable cause.  Because once we cherry pick the Constitution, someone will eventually come after the rights we hold most dear.

….

Finally, the truth is that Congress last year passed a temporary extension of the Protect America Act that was vetoed by the President and voted against by the Republican leadership and certain Democrats. They said they would not accept a bill that does not include giving a free pass to companies that might have broken the law!  Incredible.  It deserve saying one more time – these so-called leaders are telling us the Protect America Act was so important, without it America is not protected from terrorists; however, they were willing to block this incredibly important Act, and leave America unprotected, unless large corporations were let off the hook for knowingly breaking the law.  Because unlike you and me, who in the event of potential wrongdoing only get off the hook by presenting our case in a court of law, they think large corporations should be held to a different standard – no accountability.

Senate candidates

AK-Sen: Mark Begich

The Alaskan Constitution protects the right of privacy. The 4th Amendment demands a warrant be issued for any search. And FISA says that domestic electronic surveillance must be approved by a special court. None of these facts should be forgotten on behalf of telecommunications companies that now face legal consequences for the role they played in the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. I am strongly opposed to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.

ID-Sen: Larry LaRocco

The Church Committee’s investigations resulted in the creation of a permanent Senate Committee on Intelligence, and the passage of substantial legislation, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978.

Church’s work is now being shredded by the Bush Administration.

FISA established a legal framework for electronic eavesdropping at home, including a special FISA court. It was originally passed to allow the government to collect intelligence involving communications with “agents of foreign powers.”

The Bush Administration exploited this narrow exception in the passage of the Patriot Act that allows use of FISA to obtain personal records from many sources including libraries and internet service providers, even when they have no connection to terrorism.

Even worse, the Bush Administration now uses FISA to get around the constitutional requirement of seeking a warrant before it eavesdrops on communications by the NSA.

….

When I am elected to the Senate, I will demand an end to the abuse of FISA and a return to the checks and balances espoused by Frank Church and the Church Committee.

As a former Congressman, Frank Church staff member, and U.S. Army intelligence office, I will help lead the way back from the civil liberty abuses of this administration.

KY-Sen: Bruce Lunsford

The secret warrantless wiretapping program was flat out wrong.  The Bush administration went too far when it may not have even been necessary.  Almost 99 percent of wiretapping applications were approved when they were submitted to judges.  We must do all we can to ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the necessary tools to protect our homeland but individual privacy and civil liberties must be protected because those are the freedoms we fight for.  That is America.  And I think we should be focused finding terrorists and not protecting corporate CEOs.  I’m sure there was pressure from the Bush administration and that isn’t an enviable position to be in for a company but what is wrong is wrong and there must be accountability.  When mistakes were made in my companies, I took responsibility, took action and solved the problems.

I was encouraged by news a few months ago that both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives passed new FISA bills with added privacy protections.  Now Mitch McConnell and his Republican leadership in Washington need to work with Senate and House Democrats to finalize legislation that protects the safety, and freedoms, of all Americans.  I hear this issue will be brought up again in the Senate sometime during the summer.

ME-Sen: Tom Allen (who just voted against it in the House)

As I have stated before, neither the government nor large telecommunications corporations are above the law; everyone must be held accountable. This ‘compromise’ fails to hold either the Bush administration or the telecommunications companies to the same standards that apply to other Americans.

NM-Sen: Tom Udall

The FISA bill we considered today would compromise the constitutionally guaranteed rights that make America a beacon of hope around the world.

Today’s vote was not easy. I stood up to leaders of my own party and voted against this bill, because I took an oath to defend Americans and our Constitution, and it was the right thing to do.

That duty is most important when it is most difficult. We can protect our nation while upholding our values, but unfortunately, this bill falls short.

OK-Sen: Andrew Rice

Having lost my brother in the World Trade Center on 9/11, I am very sensitive to the importance of the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to effectively monitor foreign terrorist targets. However, our country must preserve our constitutional principles and such monitoring must be accomplished without compromising the civil liberties of American citizens. I am hopeful that Congress is on the verge of finally properly scrutinizing the Bush Administration’s warrantless surveillance programs, and can create reasonable legislation that provides our government the tools it needs to monitor legitimate international threats, while at the same time not compromising the personal liberties of law-abiding Americans. Members of congress must ensure that any surveillance of U.S Citizens be granted with the proper warrant. If they fail to accomplish this, then we will have lost something very sacred about America and what our system of values is supposed to provide for all Americans.

The provision for corporate immunity for the telecom companies who may have violated federal law is unacceptable and unfortunately another example of the Bush administration wanting the legislative branch to craft legislation that protects the executive branch from its own incompetance.

OR-Sen: Jeff Merkley

The bill will force federal district courts to immediately dismiss any cases against telecommunications companies that participated in illegal surveillance. This is unacceptable.  The Constitution of the United States was violated.  Over several years telecommunications companies turned over the records of millions of innocent Americans to the federal government without proper oversight and without a warrant.

The Bush Administration disregarded the Fourth Amendment when it authorized this surveillance and now Congress may provide the Administration and these companies a free pass.  This is a mistake.  The Senate is set to vote on the FISA bill this week.  For the sake of our constitution and the foundation of our democracy, I urge all Senators to unite in opposition to this bill.

If I’m elected to the Senate, I will not hesitate to fight to protect our civil liberties and the laws this nation was founded upon.

I have spoken out against immunity for telecommunications companies throughout this campaign. Last February, I urged my supporters to sign a petition to pressure my opponent, Republican Senator Gordon Smith, to vote against the FISA bill that granted retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.

Unfortunately, Gordon Smith voted in favor of granting retroactive immunity.  I expect him to do the same when the Senate votes on this issue in the coming days.  For years, the Bush Administration has been undermining the balance of powers. Checks and balances must be restored and a vote against the immunity bill would be a critical starting point.

TX-Sen: Rick Noriega (with video!)

On Christmas morning 2004, outside of Kabul,  Afghanistan, my buddies and I drove to our base camp to use the computers. We wanted to be with our kids when they woke up that Christmas. To get there  we drove through a near ambush–anytime we drove on the Jalalabad Road, it was risky, and we had an incident on our way.

That Christmas morning, I suspect the government listened to our conversations. They occurred between two countries; Afghanistan and the US. They probably didn’t realize the difference in tone in my voice as I spoke to my wife and children that morning as my heart raced still from our encounter on the road. My wife did.  

I fought to defend our country and our constitution in Afghanistan. I fought for the right to privacy for every Texan. Mr. Cornyn must now stand up for the privacy of every Texan and American too. We as a nation cannot grant anyone sweeping amnesty if they violated the law.

Americans understand the need for safety and the need for intelligence gathering. What they will not accept is an abuse of power, of crossing the line on American’s privacy.

I would join Sen. Dodd in opposition to any retroactive provisions that allow a “get out of jail card” for violating the Constitution. If Mr. Cornyn had ever had the opportunity to have his Christmas conversation listened to by the government, on a day that he feared for his life in a convoy on Jalalabad Road, he would do the same.

Then there’s those whose names have been bandied about the blogosphere that we’d like to think they’d be opposed to Bush taking away the Fourth Amendment, but where I cannot find a single statement from them about this specific issue.  Much help would be appreciated in figuring out exactly where they stand on FISA.

House

AZ-03: Bob Lord (nobody asked him in his diary two days ago?)

FL-18: Annette Taddeo

FL-21: Raul Martinez

FL-24: Suzanne Kosmas

IL-11: Debbie Halvorson

MD-01: Frank Kratovil

MN-02: Steve Sarvi

NE-02: Jim Esch

NM-02: Harry Teague

NM-03: Ben Ray Lujan (who even diaried here last week, but nobody asked him about FISA!)

NV-02: Jill Derby

NV-03: Dina Titus

OH-15: Mary Jo Kilroy

OH-16: John Boccieri

TX-07: Michael Skelly

WV-02: Anne Barth

Senate

KS-Sen: Jim Slattery

MN-Sen: Al Franken (though he did write a satire piece about wiretapping)

MS-Sen: Ronnie Musgrove

NE-Sen: Scott Kleeb

And then there’s even some Democratic challengers who have come out in FAVOR of this FISA bill.

NJ-03: John Adler

For his part, Adler released a statement today, underscoring his own support for reupping FISA “so that our intelligence community has the tools needed to keep America safe in a dangerous world. We must also protect the freedoms for which our troops have made so many courageous sacrifices.”

NC-Sen: Kay Hagan

She was asked if she would have voted for, or against, the FISA bill this week which would have granted retroactive immunity to Telcos for felony violations of the current FISA law.

Ms. Hagan explained that she was against Telcos spying on Americans, but that she would have voted FOR the bill, and granted them immunity, but that future law breaking would not be tolerated.

And of course, Mark Udall running for the Senate in Colorado voted for this bill last week.  And perception on the blogs seems to be that Mark Warner and Jeanne Shaheen would’ve supported this bill had they been in the Senate, so I’m not exactly holding my breath to hear statements from them against telecom immunity.

Now, some of the candidates above still have a contested primary to go, like in CO-02, where all three of them came out against it, even as the person they’re trying to replace, Mark Udall, voted for it.  There’s other districts, like in AZ-01 and NY-21, where only that candidate has released a statement on FISA, and others haven’t seemed to.  (I’m looking at you, Ann Kirkpatrick.)  If you guys can find statements by them, please let me know in the comments.

Ever since Republican Congressman Jim Walsh announced his retirement, the GOP has had a difficult time finding a candidate to run for this district, leaving Democrat Dan Maffei unopposed.  Well, Maffei is still the clear favorite to win in November, but he is not officially unopposed anymore; David Gay, a former organizer for Ron Paul's presidential campaign, has stepped up to the plate.  I have a feeling that the GOP will have trouble getting behind him, though, since he doesn't exactly toe the party line when it comes to intervening in other people's– or other nations'– matters:  

As a true Conservative Republican voter, I will answer this call to action. I will defeat my opponent using no other guide for my campaign than the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. In Congress I will work relentlessly in defense of our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  I believe we should eliminate the income tax, stop taxing Social Security pensions, respect private property, secure our national borders, stop government spending with credit we can never afford to repay, and bring our troops home from all over the world immediately.  In Washington, I will fight to keep the government out of our wallets, our bedrooms, our telephone calls, and our daily lives. 

Somehow, I have a feeling that the only Republicans left in the northeast will be those with libertarian views such as those of David Gay.  And even then, the Democrats will handily win.  Here’s to the prospect of a completely blue northeast!  

(From the diaries – promoted by Trent Thompson)

It is with great pleasure that I am able to announce the next Blue Majority endorsed candidate: Dan Maffei, from New York’s 25th Congressional District.

I am particularly excited about this endorsement for several reasons. First, I am from the district, and ever since Jim Walsh originally won the seat by a few hundred votes back when I was a freshman in high school, I have been itching for someone to defeat him. Second, Dan Maffei epitomizes one of my longest-running arguments about the need to run in every district. In 2004, no Democrat ran against Walsh, but in 2006 Dan came within 1% of defeating him. Third, having met Dan Maffei, I can honestly say that there is no member of Congress, or candidate for Congress, with whom I was more personally impressed and within whom I felt more personally comfortable (there are two or three who I feel roughly the same about). When we talked for over two hours over coffee and pizza, it felt like every idea we exchanged about strategy, policy, and life really clicked (like me, he went to local public schools, and hasn’t exactly made a fortune working in progressive politics). Dan is a serious, brilliant progressive, who absolutely means more and better Democrats. Please, contribute to Dan today.


Here is a video Dan put together to introduce himself and the district to the readers of Dailykos, MyDD, Open Left and Swing State Project a few days ago:

Now, some of you might ask something to the effect of “wait-he is running against Jim Walsh, the Republican who just said he was now opposed to the Iraq War? Isn’t that the sort of Republican behavior we should be encouraging, rather than immediately punishing with a major counter-endorsement?” If you are asking this question, I am glad you did, because even though the Maffei endorsement was decided upon several days before Walsh’s announcement, since that time it has revealed the true danger Democrats face in offering up weak, meaningless, “compromise” bills on Iraq. The NY-25 is the first case study of how Democratic weakness in the House on Iraq can allow Republican to potentially blur the difference between the two parties on Iraq, and thus wipe out virtually our entire advantage heading into the 2008 elections.


Here is the situation. Over the past nine months, Jim Walsh has said he was in favor of withdrawal, and then voted a timeline that would actually mandate withdrawal. Even in discussions with local media yesterday, and in calls I made to his staff, he refused to come out in favor of a timetable. Walsh has said that he is in favor of oversight on Iraq, and then voted against oversight. He said he was opposed to the escalation, and then refused to vote against the escalation. In May, he said he was opposed to a blank check for Bush on Iraq, and then voted to give Bush a blank check on Iraq in the capitulation bill. Everything Walsh is saying now, he ha already said before. The key difference is not hat Walsh has changed his opinion, but that Democats in Congress are changing the legislation they are trying to pass through Congress.

Back in the spring, House Democrats forced votes on stiffer legislation that required real oversight and mandated withdrawal. It only received two votes form Republicans, because the many so-called moderate Republicans who are supposedly against Bush’s policy in Iraq are not willing to pass binding legislation opposing Bush’s policy in Iraq. They are, however, willing to pass meaningless legislation that suggests Bush should change course, but does not actually require him to do so. For example, Walsh is a co-sponsor of the Kirk-Lipinski bill that does not mandate any troop withdrawal whatsoever, but sets it as a “goal.” Compromise bills of this sort are in abundance nowadays, and I imagine Walsh will vote for all of them. However, if a bill comes up that actually mandates troops withdrawal, there is still no indication that he would vote for such a bill. Given everything he has said on the matter, I bet he won’t vote for mandated troop withdrawal.

This is the crux of the problem progressives face in the 2008 elections. Bad, Bush Dog Democrats are coming up with cover your ass legislation that won’t do anything to drawdown our military involvement in Iraq. Instead, the actual impact of these bills will be to allow Bush Dogs and endangered Republicans alike to appear as though they oppose Bush’s policies, and thus strengthen all of their hands for re-election. In short, weak Iraq legislation in Congress will help empower Bush Dogs, and help prevent progressives like Maffei from taking over Republican seats. This is the exact opposite of the more and better Democrats refrain that has been traveling around the blogosphere. Weak Iraq legislation will allow Republicans like Walsh to blur their differences on Iraq all over the country, and the result will be fewer, and worse Democrats.


In the first major case study of this kind for the 2008 elections, we can’t let this stand. Supporting Dan Maffei means opposing weak, toothless Iraq legislation in Congress. It means taking a stand against a self-defeating Democratic strategy that will not only do nothing to drawdown the Iraq war, but will also go a long way toward wiping out any chance of a second Democratic wave election. It means supporting more and better Democrats, instead of reverting to the pro-war, minority status Democratic Party of 2002-2003.


Contribute to Dan Maffei on Blue Majority. Fight Bush dogs and Republican blurring alike. This lean-Kerry district is going to be a very big race down the road, and a place where a true progressive like Maffei can hold a seat for a long time to come.