Tag: Senate

One of the most Republican areas of Oklahoma is the north Oklahoma City suburb of Edmond. State Senator Andrew Rice is making waves in a political climate where people, even Republicans, are wanting a change.

see below

The editorial gets the heart of what makes this race so intruiging:

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, a prominent Oklahoma City attorney, Hugh Rice, received a phone call from his oldest son, David Rice, who was an executive for a company in the World Trade Center in New York City. David advised his Dad that a plane had crashed into the side of the World Trade Center, but it was on the other side of the building from where his office was located, and he did not want his parents to be worried about him.

Shortly after the phone conversation was concluded another plane crashed into the other side of the World Trade Center and David Rice died when the building collapsed. The devastated Rice family came together in Oklahoma City to bury David and attempted to deal with the enormity of their loss.

David’s brother Andrew, an alumnus of Colby College in Maine and Harvard Divinity School, was at that time an independent film producer who recently had completed a film about the effects of AIDS in India. But as Andrew wrestled with his grief, he decided he would memorialize his brother by returning to Oklahoma and enter public life in an effort to improve the lives of the citizenry. In accordance with that goal, Andrew Rice was elected to the Oklahoma State Senate in 2006 from District 46, which is in the mid-city area of Oklahoma City. By all accounts, Rice has proven to be an effective legislator who is willing to work with all of his colleagues to get legislation he believed would benefit his constituents enacted into law.

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.edmondsun…

HELP US IN OKLAHOMA KEEP THE SUPPORT COMING FOR SEN. RICE, give what you can on ACTBLUE:
http://www.actblue.c…

And Rice’s campaign site is partially up, and they say it will be done soon
http://www.andrewforoklahoma.com

Charlie Cook has released his latest rankings for the 2008 Senate seats.

 Some things to note:

 -Cook believes that as many as seven Republican senators could retire this cycle and only one Democrat (Johnson). To put this in perspective, there were only four actual retirements in 2005-2006 with only one of them being a Republican, Dayton (D-MN), Sarbanes (D-MD), Jeffords (I-VT), and Frist (R-TN).

 -The only two Democrats who are not considered safe are Landrieu (leans Dem) and Johnson (Likely Dem) (possible retirement)

The hard numbers of the 2005-2006 cycle should have given the Republicans a built-in defense against the Dems taking the Senate (they had a 55-45 advantage at the time) but even then they couldn't prevent it. This time around there are a large number of Republican retirements, quite a few of them in states which are likely to be swing states in 2008 (Virginia and New Mexico come to mind). Even if no one else retires we're still in a very good position to build a filibuster-proof Senate majority by the end of the 2009-2010 cycle.

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

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

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

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

My fellow Americans,

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

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

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

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

It’s time for Alberto Gonzales to be fired.

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

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

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

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

[Crossposted @ DitchMitchKY.com]

When the Washington Times is running stories about Senator Mitch McConnell‘s extreme vulnerabilities in Kentucky, you know the buzz on him is not good inside the Beltway.

Take a look at the comments in this article by Larry Forgy, a Lexington lawyer and former Republican gubernatorial candidate who came within a hair of being elected governor in 1995.  He’s adopting a very Pat Buchanan-esque populist Republican message.  I think he’s taking the possibility of a run against McConnell very seriously.  What does he have to lose?  The McConnell branch of the Kentucky GOP already hates him, and the Fletcher and Nunn branches of the party would rally around him (and thus Forgy would have a ready and energized base).  He’d humiliate McConnell in the process by at least taking 30 percent of the votes (hell, you’d better believe I’d switch my registration to Republican to vote against McConnell in a primary), and in a perfect storm the little bugger might actually win that primary.

McConnell’s unspectacular performance under the national spotlight shone on him in his capacity as Senate Minority Leader has only brought Washington elites to question whether McConnell’s deficiencies aren’t also largely to blame for the severe problems now rocking the Kentucky GOP that he fathered.

McConnell’s sort of a Senate equivalent of Karl Rove: mostly blow and very little substance.  For the better part of a decade now, there’s been a cult around McConnell in Republican circles in Kentucky and Washington.  He’s revered for his supposed tactical mastery of procedure and narrative, ruthless partisanship, and money-grubbing ability.

Yet, once the Kentucky GOP that Mitch built became pretty much the only show in town, McConnell’s mean and massive machine started to sputter, fast and hard.  It all fell apart in scandal, amateurishness, and incompetence. 

McConnell quickly cast the blame on the nascent Fletcher wing of the party, but it was McConnell who handpicked his minions. 

I’ve said it many times before: even if Mitch McConnell somehow survives reelection in 2008, he will nevertheless inherit the legacy that he rightly deserves (and that’s not a good thing for McConnell).  History will record that he was feckless and ineffective as a leader, that he was instrumental in bringing the corrupting culture of money-grubbing and influence-mongering to our nation’s capital, and that he cultivated the hyper-partisan atmosphere there that has totally paralyzed our institutions of government at a time when the American people most need them to be providing answers and solutions.

McConnell’s base of support erodes

August 20, 2007

By Ralph Z. Hallow – Sen. Mitch McConnell’s close backing of President Bush on immigration and the Iraq war is costing him support among Kentucky Republicans, and, according to some party members, hurting his chances for re-election next year.

He even could face a primary challenge from former Republican gubernatorial candidate Larry Forgy, who contends that Mr. McConnell’s in-state problems are compounded by job losses to producers beyond America’s borders.

“The average Kentuckian feels we are giving away this country with both hands – jobs are going, essentially the primacy of the people who made this country great is going, and Mitch McConnell is lumped with the Washington types on this,” Mr. Forgy said.

“And the war in Iraq is less troublesome in Kentucky than in many other places, but it is not popular here, and Republican voters see Mitch’s views as too close to the president’s on the war,” said Mr. Forgy, a Lexington lawyer.

It’s a troublesome assessment for Mr. McConnell, who as minority leader has found himself having to defend unpopular Bush administration policies.

“The immigration issue is trouble for everyone in central Kentucky,” Republican state Sen. Tom Buford said. “The Iraq war is always difficult for all incumbents, even if they support pulling the troops out. It is a no-win situation when elections are at risk.”

Mr. McConnell registered a 48 percent approval rating last month in a SurveyUSA poll.

A county party chairman who supports Mr. McConnell but asked not to be identified said Mr. McConnell’s re-election next year is uncertain – despite the Capitol Hill clout he brings Kentucky – unless he shows the folks back home he understands their distrust of Washington on enforcing immigration laws.

The chairman said he has tried to tell Mr. McConnell that he needs to assure the party’s base that he opposes Mr. Bush’s immigration bill.

The Kentucky Republican Party, torn by the immigration issue, was further fractured when critics claimed Mr. McConnell had acted behind the scenes to back an ultimately unsuccessful primary challenge by former Rep. Anne Northup against Gov. Ernie Fletcher earlier this year. The Fletcher faction of the state Republican Party is backing the “draft Forgy” campaign.

Despite his role as Republican leader in the Senate, Mr. McConnell withdrew himself from much of the fight among fellow Republican senators over the Bush-backed immigration bill supported by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and Arizona’s Republican senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl, among others. Besides border-enforcement provisions, the bill provided a path to citizenship for illegal aliens and a new worker program for foreign workers.

Constituent pressure began to peel other Senate Republicans from their support of the bill, and Mr. McConnell wound up voting against it, though he voted for a similar bill last year.

“His vote against the bill at the end showed his thinking and that he knew the bill was not going to be good policy for Kentucky or the country,” said Fred Karem, a Lexington businessman who went to law school with Mr. McConnell.

Mr. Karem said it’s impossible for him to imagine Mr. McConnell facing re-election difficulty. “Shortly into his new term after he is re-elected next year, Mitch will be the longest-serving U.S. senator in Kentucky history. He has been the heart and soul and leader of the Republican Party in this state,” he said.

Republican leaders in the state agree that immigration is a big issue with the party’s core voters, but some say it won’t hurt Mr. McConnell.

“I don’t know anyone who is more in touch with his constituency than Mitch McConnell,” said Jack Richardson of Louisville, party chairman in Jefferson County, the state’s most populous county and home to Mr. McConnell.

Mr. McConnell recently acknowledged grass-roots discontent over immigration.

“During the immigration debate, and ever since, countless well-informed Americans spoke up about the need to enforce our borders and our laws,” he said. “Their voice was heard in the Capitol and the White House. The billions we’ve added to the homeland security funding bill for border security and interior enforcement, and the administration’s enhanced commitment to cracking down on illegal immigration are necessary steps toward securing our nation – and living up to the expectations of our constituents.”

Another McConnell supporter, Bourbon County Chairman Andre Regard, said, “I would be surprised if McConnell faces a challenge because of immigration. I think we should give everyone amnesty and start over.”

Other party leaders in the state privately made it clear that supporting Mr. McConnell is important because of the benefits he brings Kentucky through his seniority – he is completing his fourth term – and as the Republican leader in the Senate.

Ballard County party Chairman Charley Martin said: “I know immigration is a very emotional issue with Republicans, but it’s not the fundamental issue. The party wants to continue the conservative views of Senator McConnell – the views he stood for through the years.”

Since we're all having fun speculating potential successors for Hillary Clinton in the Senate should she win the Presidency, let's take a moment to look at Illinois, too.

Assuming Barack Obama crushes Tom Tancredo in the 2008 Presidential election, whom might Gov. Rod Blagojevich appoint to serve the final two years of Obama's Senate term?  Whom would you like Blago to appoint? 

The most common name that I've heard batted around for a hypothetical Senate promotion is Attorney General Lisa Madigan.  Other possibilities could include Comptroller Dan Hynes, who finished second to Obama in the 2004 Senate primary, or perhaps a Representative like Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Any other possibilities?  Tammy Duckworth?  Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn?  Blago himself?  (Shudder to think.)  Leave your thoughts in the comments.

Rep. Richard Baker, a Republican representing the Baton Rouge-based 6th District of Louisiana, has decided not to challenge Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu next year.  From PoliticsLA: 

Baker says he has been taking meetings with party leaders to discuss the idea, and has left the possibility open in press interviews. But now he reveals that he is happy in the House, where a Democratic majority has managed to put only small dent in his seniority – he originally took the lead on Louisiana's housing woes in the wake of Katrina and brokered a deal on a water-resources bill last month that had been stalled in Congress for seven years. “The Republicans, state and federal, see the Landrieu race as a competitive one and, at the moment, I'm not so sure there's a candidate out there,” Baker says. “But I can tell you it is nothing I intend to take on.

Not too surprising, given Baker's sluggish fundraising this year.  The full court press by national Republicans returns to “Democratic” State Treasurer John Kennedy, who, as you may recall, ran to succeed retiring Sen. John Breaux in 2004 and earned only 15% of the vote.  I hope he doesn't run, because you could just imagine all those gleeful Republican talking heads squealing in delight about how they managed to get someone named “John Kennedy” to abandon the Democratic Party.

UPDATE: John Kennedy also announced today that he will seek re-election for his State Treasurer post this fall.  However, I do not see how such a move could prevent him from starting up a Senate campaign after November, and I have not seen any statements ruling that possibility out as of yet.

Bear with me here.  Let's assume for a moment that Hillary is our 2008 Presidential nominee, and that she wins.  Fast forward to the election aftermath, where Gov. Eliot Spitzer has the task of appointing a replacement to fill Clinton's Senate vacancy.

Whom might Spitzer appoint?  And whom would you want Spitzer to appoint?

Spitzer surprised many observers when he tapped state Senator David Paterson for his running mate in 2006, and perhaps he could surprise again given the chance.  Despite being large in number, there is no one of tremendous stature in the state's Democratic congressional delegation who could be tapped (Charlie Rangel, at 77, is too old), but that's not to say that I think a promotion from the House to the Senate is unlikely.

If Spitzer wanted to get political rival and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo off his back, he could always appoint him, but that seems unlikely given their prickly relationship.

Perhaps even Paterson himself could be a possibility, but one would expect that Spitzer would come under pressure to balance the state's Senatorial delegation with an appointee from upstate rather than a second Senator with Brooklyn roots.

There has been little talk yet of this subject, possibly because Hillary must leap through two hoops (the primary and the general election) before such a scenario occurs.  But we here at Swing State like to explore the hypotheticals, so share your thoughts in the comments below.

(Discuss. – promoted by James L.)

Most of the news in the Swing State Project is based around specific races and candidates, but I'd like to get a more general look at the Congressional races. More to the point, I'm trying to look into your expectations, what are you expecting in the 2008 elections? And what would you consider to be a huge win or a huge loss?

So, here are my expectations:

Senate Races

Expecting: (Dems pick up 2-3 seats)

Reason: The environment in the senate already gives the Democrats a huge advantage (only defending 12 compared to the Republicans' 22), in addition the national mood favors the Democrats pretty well overall. The individual races give me a bit more pause, the Democrats have a good advantage in two senate races already (Colorado and New Hampshire) with strong prospects in at least three other states (Maine, Minnesota, and Oregon). Having said that, the Democrats are in trouble in Louisiana, and in a presidential year, I'm having a hard time seeing Mary Landrieu surviving the race in Louisiana if the governors race doesn't turn around. Additionally, the Democrats might have another competitive seat in South Dakota, depending on the condition of Tim Johnson and whether or not Rounds decides to challenge him. The two assumes the Democrats win in both Colorado and New Hampshire and picks up one of the three states with high prospects and Mary Landrieu loses her seat, the three assumes the previous conditions with Landrieu keeping her seat.

Big Win: Dems win 5+ seats

Reason: In addition to the seats mentioned on top, there is still the potential for more competitive seats coming from North Carolina, New Mexico, Virginia, Alaska, and Kentucky. My minimum of five seats assumes a clean sweep of all the competitive seats, assuming how some of these states go, it could end up being a landslide, picking up 6-8 seats in the senate. Keep in mind that I think winning 8 seats is only technically possible, and I'd probably have a heart attack from shock if that happened.

Big Defeat: Dems lose 0-2 seats

Reason: The flip side of the coin has to be the possibility of some Democratic seats being compeitive. I've already covered Louisiana and South Dakota, so I'll also bring into the equation the possibilties of competitive races in Iowa and Arkansas. Huckabee could still challenge Pryor and the possibility is still there that he could lose. The zero assumes either no incumbent party lost seats or the Dems either picked up New Hampshire or Colorado but lost Louisiana, the 2 assumes the Democrats don't win anything and lose in Louisiana and in either Arkansas or South Dakota. Again, keep in mind this is another of the shock scenarios, the chances of this happening are about the same as the chances of the Dems winning 8 or more seats.

I've got to get ready for work, so I'll post what I think for the House a little later. And if you disagree with me, please, I want to know what you think.

Update:

Alright, I’m going to give my outlook for the House, now keep in mind that I’ve actually been concentrating a bit harder on the Senate than the House, so I’m only going to give what I think the general mood is, you House watchers, if you think I’m wrong, please speak up and correct me:

House

Expecting: Dems break even or pick up 1-2 seats

Reason: Ok, the overall national mood still favors the Democrats, and while the Senate is definitely a huge opportunity for the Dems, the House is a very different story. With the purging of a lot of Republicans from blue districts in the Northeast (Connecticut, New Hampshire, and New York) and the fact it’s a presidential year, I don’t really see the Democrats making a repeat of 2006. The Democrats are going to have to defend a bunch of newly acquired seats such as TX-22 and FL-16. The Dems do have the ability to knock off a few more Republicans though, (NM-1 [Heather the Feather] and CT-4, for example). While the DCCC does have a money advantage over the NRCC, it’s not as dramatic as the one between the DSCC and the NRSC.

Big Win: Democrats pick up 6+ seats

Reason: Keeping in mind all everything I’ve mentioned before, the overall mood does favor the Democrats, and with more retirements likely to be on the way from Republicans, the Democrats have the potential to make a few more competitive races in swing districts. Additionally, if the Republicans pick someone like Rudy Giuliani, who would likely hurt conservative turnout in Republican districts, that might be enough to give the Democrats an edge in a few more areas.

Big Loss: Republicans pick up 4+ seats.

Reason: Look, I want it to be perfectly clear, the Republicans won’t pick up the House next year, they just don’t have the resources, will, or stability to do it. Having said that, there are definitely circumstances where the Republicans can pick up a few seats, as I mentioned before, TX-22 and FL-16 are probably going to be difficult to hold on to, not to mention KS-3 and NH-2 (was it 1 or 2 that was the suprise pick up in House?). Additionally, the congressional seat won by John Hall might be in trouble if Ari Fleschier decides to run against him. There are still other districts with really big problems like in Arizona, Georgia, and a few other House seats, but you should keep in mind this is the “nightmare” scenario, one to be prepared for, but not paranoid about either.

In the Senatorial elections of 1984, Senator Walter “Dee” Huddleston of Kentucky was the only incumbent Democrat to lose a Senate seat that year, despite the thrashing that Ronald Reagan delivered to Walter Mondale across the nation.  The upstart politician who upset Huddleston, Jefferson County Judge/Executive Mitch McConnell, employed a series of wildly successful TV ads featuring a group of bloodhounds trying to find the supposedly non-attendant incumbent Senator in Washington.

Kentucky Attorney General Greg Stumbo, himself waging an exploratory campaign against Senate Minority Leader McConnell this year, had the good sense to show up with a pair of bloodhounds at the annual Fancy Farm Picnic in the state this weekend.  “Hunting For A Real U.S. Senator”, indeed.  McConnell himself was at the can't-miss event, of course, supporting embattled and corrupt Republican Gov. Ernie Fletcher in his 2007 re-election campaign.  Just another reminder of the hopelessly out-of-touch Senatorial representation that Kentuckians continue to suffer with.

What goes around comes around?

UPDATE: DitchMitchKY’s Matt Gunterman gives his report from the event:

Third, and this was Shawn’s observation at Fancy Farm and I’m highlighting because I think it was a good one: anti-war Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul had an impressive organization at Fancy Farm. In fact, the campaign to “Support Our Troops / End the War” was extremely popular at the event. I was amazed to see 60 year old men and women asking 25 year old activists for every pro-end-of-war sticker and sign they could provide. It truly was an amazing sight. I’ve been at Fancy Farms since 1992, and I’ve never witnessed such a motivated and activist crowd. That’s one of the biggest stories to come out of Fancy Farm this year, quite frankly: even in rural Kentucky, the movement to end Bush’s endless and futile war is gaining in momentum. Senator Mitch McConnell was visibly shaken in his speech by the response.

(H/T: kilowat for the photo)