Tag: Senate

Doesn’t sound like a serious threat to McCain, but it should make the primary interesting if nothing else.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/…

Social conservatives tolerated John McCain as the party’s nominee, but never trusted him, and he now appears to be facing a serious primary from the right in Arizona next year.

Chris Simcox, the founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps and a prominent figure in the anti-immigration movement, will announcing tomorrow at an event on the Mexican border that he’s resigned from the group to run in the 2010 Senate primary.

From a forthcoming release:

“John McCain has failed miserably in his duty to secure this nation’s borders and protect the people of Arizona from the escalating violence and lawlessness,” Simcox said. “He has fought real efforts over the years at every turn, opting to hold our nation’s border security hostage to his amnesty schemes. Coupled with his votes for reckless bailout spending and big government solutions to our nation’s problems, John McCain is out of touch with everyday Arizonans. Enough is enough.”

McCain was forced to abandon his own immigration reform legislation during last year’s Republican Primary, a move that may have cost him substantial Hispanic support to which his record could have given him access.

So he’s basically getting it from both sides on this one.

Simcox, with a national base and a high profile on the right, is well positioned to give McCain a serious local headache. He’ll find some allies among the conservatives who recently took over the Arizona Republican Party from McCain’s allies, and he has a national fundraising base.

The Hill released an article today in which all 41 Senate Republicans were asked to evaluate the most bipartisan Democrats.

Here is the link: http://thehill.com/leading-the…

It was a really nice article and it showed that despite the big battles, most people are trying to reach out to the other side somehow, even in some small way.

Every Republican, even the most conservative ones, gave kind, thoughtful answers… except for one: Jim Bunning.

His answer was simply this:

No.

So I ask you all this question: Does Jim Bunning even care anymore about trying to get reelected?  

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C) really screwed up in some recent comments that he made. He is making himself more and more vulnerable with each passing day.

Here is what he told a group of NC business leaders earlier this week, as reported by The Hendersonville Times-News:

“On Friday night, I called my wife and I said, ‘Brooke, I am not coming home this weekend. I will call you on Monday. Tonight, I want you to go to the ATM machine, and I want you to draw out everything it will let you take. And I want you to tomorrow, and I want you to go Sunday.’ I was convinced on Friday night that if you put a plastic card in an ATM machine the last thing you were going to get was cash.” Burr added, “I think it is safe to say the economy has not rebounded. If anything, we have gone deeper into what economists call ‘recession.’ I would tell you it’s not a recession. I would define this as a depression.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.c…

Advocating runs on the banks is a really idiotic thing to do, and I am really looking forward to getting a new Senator in 2010. I really hope that Roy Cooper will run for Senate!

What do you all think of these comments and will this impact Sen. Burr’s future at all?

{Originally posted with poll at my blog Senate Guru.  Head over to vote in the poll.}

With conservative former Congressman Pat Toomey set to challenge incumbent Arlen Specter in the 2010 Republican Senate primary, I think it’s safe to assume that we’ll see a bloodbath in which Specter is labeled a convictionless flip-flopper and Toomey is dubbed an unelectable right-winger.  No doubt both Specter and Toomey will spend the bulk of their resources just to get through the primary, leaving the eventual Republican nominee politically battered and financially near-broke, having to re-build a bankroll from almost scratch.

Naturally, this raises the question: who do you want the Democratic nominee to be?  With the Republican nominee starting the general election in rough shape from a bloody primary, and with Pennsylvania Democrats continuing to grow their voter registration edge over Pennsylvania Republicans, Democrats are in the driver’s seat.  Without further ado, here is the cattle call of potential candidates, in alphabetical order:

District Attorney Lynne Abraham

During late-December of last year, both KYW Newsradio 1060 Philadelphia and CBS-3 Philadelphia reported that District Attorney Abraham was considering a bid.  As for bio, she was head of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority in the 1970’s and subsequently a judge on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.  She has been District Attorney of the City of Philadelphia since 1991 and has won four elections during her tenure – but she has already announced that she is not running for re-election to the post this year.  A knock on her as a candidate, though, is related to the strength of her resume: in 2010, she will turn 69-years-old.  I don’t imagine she’d plan on seeking several six-year terms to build her seniority.

State Representative Dwight Evans

The 54-year-old State Representative is a powerhouse in the state Legislature as the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, having served in the state House for nearly thirty years, but has also had his share of electoral losses.  He finished third in the 1986 Democratic primary for Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor, finished third in the 1994 Democratic gubernatorial primary, and had fifth-place showings in two crowded Philadelphia Mayoral runs in 1999 and 2007.  Still as the Democrats’ Appropriations chief for nearly twenty of his thirty years in the state House, he has wielded considerable power for a long time.  The Executive Director of the PA-Dems was talking Representative Evans up this past January as a possible 2010 Senate candidate.  Representative Evans has done a great deal to improve Philadelphians’ lives, but has had difficulty translating that success in bids for higher office.

Congressman Patrick Murphy

At only 35-years-old, Congressman Murphy, an Iraq War veteran now serving his second term in Congress, is considered a rising star in the Party.  Some of his pluses are quite obvious: his military experience brings unique perspective and his relative youth would allow him to build seniority over the years for Pennsylvania.  According to the National Journal’s 2008 Vote Ratings, Congressman Murphy was the 187th most liberal member and the 240th most conservative member – in other words, he was fairly centrist.  Given the political carnage that is expected at the end of Specter-Toomey: The Sequel, PA-Dems may want to elect someone more liberal than Congressman Murphy has been.  Also, while Congressman Murphy appears to be a more-than-decent fundraiser, as of the end of 2008, he had just under $150,000 on hand, with just over $100,000 in debt, which means he’s starting from nearly scratch on the money front.

Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz

Now serving in her third term, Congresswoman Schwartz is one of only two women in Pennsylvania’s Congressional delegation.  Her bio includes: executive director of the Elizabeth Blackwell Center, a Planned parenthood clinic in Philadelphia, ’75-’88; acting Deputy Commissioner of the Philadelphia Department of Human Services, ’88-’90; State Senator, ’91-’04; Congresswoman, ’05-present.  According to the National Journal’s 2008 Vote Ratings, Congresswoman Schwartz was the 112th most liberal member and the 316th most conservative member, i.e.she was a bit to Congressman Murphy’s political left.  Also, known for being a strong fundraiser, she closed out 2008 with just under $2 million on hand and no debt.  On Election Day 2010, Congresswoman Schwartz will be 62-years-old, suggesting perhaps only a tenure of two-terms tops if she ran.

Congressman Joe Sestak

The 57-year-old military veteran is in his second term in Congress.  After graduating from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1974, Congressman Sestak picked up an M.P.A. and a Ph.D. from Harvard before embarking on an impressive naval career.  According to the National Journal’s 2008 Vote Ratings, Congressman Sestak was the 150th most liberal member and the 277th most conservative member, putting him in between Congressman Murphy and Congresswoman Schwartz in the ranking.  Also a very solid fundraiser, Congressman Sestak ended 2008 with over $2.9 million on hand and no debt.  Back in December, Congressman Sestak’s office suggested that he wouldn’t be a candidate for Senate in 2010; however, with the new political dynamic of the combative Republican primary, perhaps Congressman Sestak might reconsider.

State Representative Josh Shapiro

Like Congressman Murphy, Representative Shapiro is only 35-years-old.  He is in his third term in the state Legislature, and was named Deputy Speaker of the House in his second term.  Prior to his time in the state Legislature, Representative Shapiro spent about eight years on Capitol Hill working for several elected officials, including service as Chief of Staff to Congressman Joe Hoeffel, Arlen Specter’s last Democratic opponent.  Representative Shapiro has met with the DSCC to discuss a possible bid; and, he has begun an aggressive outreach campaign to determine whether or not he’ll run.

State Board of Education Chairman Joe Torsella

The 45-year-old Torsella has worn many hats: state Board of Education Chairman, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, and Deputy Mayor for Policy and Planning for the City of Philadelphia under then-Mayor and now-Governor Ed Rendell.  He also ran for Congress in 2004 and narrowly lost the Democratic primary to now-Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz, who won her first term in that election cycle.  He is also the only announced candidate for Senate in 2010 on the Democratic side, though he has yet to launch a campaign website (that I can find, anyway) despite having announced two months ago.  It is rumored that Torsella enjoys the support of Governor Rendell’s political machine behind the scenes.  Through contacts from his numerous civic roles and possible assistance from the Rendell machine, Torsella was able to raise a respectable $600,000 in Q1 (having only started campaign fundraising in mid-February).  The amount is enough to demonstrate capable fundraising, but far from strong enough to scare off primary challengers, especially members of Congress with seven-figure campaign bankrolls.

State Auditor Jack Wagner

Auditor Wagner began serving as a statewide official in this capacity in 2005, succeeding Bob Casey Jr., who, of course, defeated Republican Rick Santorum for Senate in 2006.  Prior to his tenure as Auditor, Wagner spent a little over a decade in the Pennsylvania state Senate.  Auditor Wagner is also a Purple Heart recipient from his time with the Marine Corps in Vietnam.  Auditor Wagner is the only person on this list from western Pennsylvania, which could provide a geographic advantage.  On Election Day 2010, Auditor Wagner will be 62-years-old, like Congresswoman Schwartz, suggesting a limit to his possible tenure in the Senate.  Additionally, it’s been reported that Auditor Wagner has told friends that he will not run for the Senate seat.

Former State Treasurer Robin Wiessmann

Former Treasurer Wiessman had a largely financial services background before filling the remainder of Bob Casey’s Treasurer term after he ascended to the U.S. Senate.  She spent the 90’s as President of Artemis Capital Group and went on to serve as a Vice-president at Goldman Sachs.  She also put in a stint as Deputy Director of Finance for the City of Philadelphia.  If Wiessman was interested in a prolonged political career, one suspects that she would have run for Treasurer last year instead of ceding the office, though.  If she does decide to run, fundraising won’t be as difficult as it would be for other first-time candidates as her husband is reportedly a major Democratic fundraiser.

With Governor Ed Rendell serious about retiring from electoral politics and with current state Treasurer Rob McCord in only his fourth month in the role and having expressed no interest in a Senate bid thus far, this appears to be the pool from which a Democratic nominee will arise.  You’re encouraged to make your case for your candidate in the comments.  If there is someone you would like to see as the Democratic nominee in PA-Sen who hasn’t been listed, share your thoughts in the comments, as well.

Angry social conservatives are speculating that Senator Chuck Grassley could face a primary challenge in 2010. The religious right has been dissatisfied with Grassley for a long time (see here and here).

After the Iowa Supreme Court struck down the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, Grassley issued a statement saying he supported “traditional marriage” and had backed federal legislation and a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. But when hundreds of marriage equality opponents rallied at the state capitol last Thursday, and Republicans tried to bring a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the Iowa House floor, Grassley refused to say whether he supported their efforts to change Iowa’s constitution:

“You better ask me in a month, after I’ve had a chance to think,” Grassley, the state’s senior Republican official, said after a health care forum in Mason City.

Wingnut Bill Salier, who almost won the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in 2002, says conservatives are becoming “more and more incensed [the] more they start to pay attention to how far [Grassley] has drifted.”

Iowa GOP chairman Matt Strawn denies that party activists are unhappy with Grassley. I hope Salier is right and Grassley gets a primary challenge, for reasons I’ll explain after the jump.  

Before anyone gets too excited, I want to make clear that I don’t consider Grassley vulnerable. His approval rating is around 71 percent (if you believe Survey USA) or 66 percent (if you believe Selzer and Associates). Either way, he is outside the danger zone for an incumbent.

That doesn’t mean Democrats should leave Grassley unchallenged. Having a credible candidate at the top of the ballot in 2010 will increase the number of straight-ticket Democratic voters. So far Bob Krause is planning to jump in this race. More power to him or any other Democrat who is willing to make the case against Grassley. We should be realistic, though, and understand that unless something extraordinary happens, we are not going to defeat this five-term incumbent.

So why am I hoping a right-winger will take on Grassley in the Republican primary? Here’s what I think would happen.

1. A conservative taking potshots at Grassley would intensify the struggle between GOP moderates and “goofballs” just when Iowa Republicans are trying to present a united front against Democratic governance. GOP chairman Strawn claimed this weekend that Democratic tax reform proposals had unified his party, but if Grassley faces a challenger, expect social issues to dominate next spring’s media coverage of Republicans.

2. Although some delusional folks seem to think Grassley could lose a low-turnout primary, Grassley would crush any challenger from the right. That has the potential to demoralize religious GOP activists and their cheerleaders, such as the popular talk radio personality Steve Deace. (Deace already has plenty of grievances against Grassley.)

3. Every prominent Iowa Republican will have to take a position on the Senate primary, if there is one. I assume almost everyone will back Grassley, which would offend part of the GOP base. But if, say, Strawn or Congressman Steve King surprised me by staying neutral in the primary, that would demonstrate how much power extremists have within the Republican Party. Most people intuitively understand that you don’t try to replace a U.S. senator from your own party who has a lot of seniority.

A Senate primary could become a distracting sideshow for Republican gubernatorial candidates. It’s not clear yet how many Republicans will run against Governor Chet Culver, but almost all of the likely candidates would endorse Grassley over a right-winger. I would expect even Bob Vander Plaats to support Grassley, although he could surprise me. Vander Plaats believes Iowa Republican have been losing elections because they’ve become too moderate.

Watching the Republican establishment line up behind Grassley will remind social conservative activists that the party likes to use their support but doesn’t take their concerns seriously. These people will hold their noses and vote Republican next November, but they may not donate their time and money when Strawn and the gubernatorial nominee need their help to improve the GOP’s early voting operation.

My hunch is that no challenger to Grassley will emerge, because even the angriest conservatives must understand that they have little to gain from this course. Then again, we’re talking about people who believe the little-known, inexperienced Salier would have done better against Tom Harkin in 2002 than four-term Congressman Greg Ganske. Maybe some Republican is just crazy enough to run against Grassley next year.

{First, a cheap plug for my blog Senate Guru.}

In a story released today by The News & Observer, North Carolina’s Democratic state Attorney General Roy Cooper indicated that he may decide on whether or not to run for Senate in 2010 IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS!

Polls by Civitas and Public Policy Polling already show Attorney General Cooper beating Republican incumbent Richard Burr (who has recently gained notoriety by blocking Tammy Duckworth’s appointment to a Veterans Affairs post).

If you so see fit, PLEASE call Roy Cooper’s campaign office at 919-832-4312 (you’ll probably get voice mail) and leave a simple message encouraging Roy Cooper to run for Senate in 2010.  Explain that North Carolina and all of America would benefit by having his common sense voice replace Richard Burr’s obstructionist voice.

Every word of encouragement he receives makes him more likely to run — and, if he runs, we can replace Republican backbencher Richard Burr with a strong Democrat like Roy Cooper!

On the web: Draft Roy Cooper for U.S. Senate in 2010 Facebook Group

On the web: Draft Coop

Based on the very scientific standard of my subjective opinion.

1. Vermont – Leahy (D) & Sanders (I)

2. Rhode Island – Reed (D) & Whitehouse (D)

3. Minnesota – Klobuchar (D) & Franken (D)

4. Oregon – Wyden (D) & Merkley (D)

5. Massachusetts – Kennedy (D) & Kerry (D)

6. Virginia – Webb (D) & Warner (D)

7. Wisconsin – Kohl (D) & Feingold (D)

8. New York – Schumer (D) & Gillibrand (D)

9. Maryland – Mikulski (D) & Cardin (D)

10. North Dakota – Conrad (D) & Dorgan (D)

11. New Mexico – Bingaman (D) & T. Udall (D)

12. Colorado – M. Udall (D) & Bennet (D)

13. California – Boxer (D) & Feinstein (D)

14. N. Jersey – Lautenberg (D) & Menendez (D)

15. Hawaii – Inouye (D) & Akaka (D)

16. Washington – Murray (D) & Cantwell (D)

17. Iowa – Harkin (D) & Grassley (R)

18. Montana – Baucus (D) & Tester (D)

19. Delaware – Carper (D) & Kaufman (D)

20. Michigan – Levin (D) & Stabenow (D)

21. W. Virginia – Byrd (D) & Rockefeller (D)

22. Ohio – Brown (D) & Voinovich (R)

23. Missouri – McCaskill (D) & Bond (R)

24. Illinois – Durbin (D) & Burris (D)

25. Arkansas – Pryor (D) & Lincoln (D)

26. Alaska – Begich (D) & Murkowski (R)

27. New Hampshire – Shaheen (D) & Gregg (R)

28. Pennsylvania – Casey (D) & Specter (R)

29. South Dakota – Johnson (D) & Thune (R)

30. Connecticut – Dodd (D) & Lieberman (I)

31. Maine – Snow (R) & Collins (R)

32. Indiana – Bayh (D) & Lugar (R)

33. Nebraska – Ben Nelson (D) & Johanns (R)

34. Nevada – Reid (D) & Ensign (R)

35. North Carolina – Hagan (D) & Burr (R)

36. Florida – Bill Nelson (D) & Martinez (R)

37. Tennessee – Alexander (R) & Corker (R)

38. Louisiana – Landrieu (D) & Vitter (R)

39. South Carolina – Graham (R) & DeMint (R)

40. Mississippi – Cochran (R) & Wicker (R)

41. Idaho – Crapo (R) & Risch (R)

42. Georgia – Isakson (R) & Chambliss (R)

43. Arizona – McCain (R) & Kyl (R)

44. Texas – Hutchison (R) & Cornyn (R)

45. Wyoming – Enzi (R) & Barrasso (R)

46. Utah – Hatch (R) & Bennett (R)

47. Kansas – Roberts (R) & Brownback (R)

48. Alabama – Shelby (R) & Sessions (R)

49. Kentucky – McConnell (R) & Bunning (R)

50. Oklahoma – Coburn (R) & Inhofe (R)

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) is finally making national news after four years as a do-nothing GOP wallflower. But… it’s probably not the knid of publicity that will help him come 2010.

Yesterday, the House passed a bill that would give the FDA power to regulate tobacco products by a vote of 298-112. Next, the bill will head to the Senate, where one senator has threatened to filibuster it. That senator is… Richard Burr.

I can understand Burr’s opposition to the bill. North Carolina is the number one tobacco-producing state in the country, and the congressional district Burr represented from 1995 to 2005 includes Winston-Salem, the home of the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.

But Burr’s opposition to this bill has been reported in virtually every news story on this bill, including these stories from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Associated Press. This is bad politically for Burr for several reasons:

1. It will empower national Democrats to defeat him in 2010. Burr’s decision to filibuster this bill, which many Democrats and liberals support, turns him from just another Southern Republican into a specific opponent. He is making himself more vulnerable because he is giving Democrats a real reason to strongly dislike him besides the fact that he is a Republican. They will want him out because of this action.

2. It doesn’t really help him a lot back home. Although North Carolina has long been known for it’s tobacco (people used to joke that the state motto was “Tobacco is a vegetable”), the tobacco industry no longer commands the influence it once had. The NC House just approved a bill to ban smoking in most businesses and restaurants, and polling showed that roughly two-thirds of North Carolinians supported the ban. By being so vocal, Burr will alienate urban and surburban voters in RTP and Charlotte who want tobacco to be more regulated. Most tobacco farmers would probably have voted for him anyway, so he will potentially lose more votes than he will gain from this. This

3. It furthers his image as an obstructionist. The Senate GOP has fallen in love with the filibuster, and Burr has been no exception. He has very few accomplishments he can point to other than being an ultraconservative, partisan Republican who opposed the Democrats who have controlled Congress for most of his term. The one time he gets a lot of national exosure, it is for opposing rather than supporting something.

In my opinion, Burr is the most endangered Republican incumbent in 2010 other than Jim Bunning. And unlike in Kentucky, it is unlikely that the GOP leadership will try to get Burr to retire or defeat him in a primary.

So I think this race is being overlooked by many national pundits, and it will prove to be one of our best pickup opportunities next November.

{Originially posted at my blog Senate Guru.}

Roll Call has a new article online focusing on Republican attempts to win in 2010 the Senate seat held by Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln for the last ten years.  The content of the article is a clear statement on how Senate Republicans’ only weapon besides obstruction-by-filibuster is toothless bullying.

The article begins by telegraphing how Republicans will attack Senator Lincoln over the course of the 2010 cycle:

This cycle, the NRSC has stepped into the Arkansas race early, attempting to soften Lincoln’s poll numbers with attacks on her support for the stimulus legislation and for sending “mixed signals” when it comes to the Employee Free Choice Act, according to an NRSC press release. And when Lincoln announced late last month that Vice President Joseph Biden would join her at her 2010 campaign kickoff this weekend, the NRSC was quick to blast the two-term Senator for being out of touch with voters back home.

“Senator Lincoln’s support for runaway Washington spending and her refusal to take a position on ‘card check’ despite representing a right to work state, are among a few of the important issues we are bringing to the attention of her constituents,” NRSC spokesman Brian Walsh said on Monday.

Let’s take a look at the foolishness contained in this passage:

(Much more below the fold.)

1) The NRSC attacks Senator Lincoln as being “out of touch” with Arkansas voters because Vice President Joe Biden is attending her campaign kick-off.  So, um, how popular is the Obama-Biden administration right now?  I believe the levels are historically high (as are the folks at the NRSC, apparently).  Here is a link to the rather comical release.  Among the ‘reasons’ that the NRSC gives for why ‘palling around’ with Vice President Biden proves Senator Lincoln is “out of touch” with Arkansans is that McCain-Palin won Arkansas’ electoral votes in 2008.  I wonder if the NRSC staff will apply that same standard when they opine about the re-election bids of Iowa’s Chuck Grassley and Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter, as well as the campaigns of those who win the Republican nominations for Senate in Florida, New Hampshire, and Ohio.  Note to Senator Lincoln: Republicans will call you “out of touch” no matter what you do.  If you dive to the right in order to deflect their attacks, it won’t work because they’ll keep attacking no matter what.

2) The NRSC attacks Senator Lincoln’s support for what they call “runaway Washington spending.”  The NRSC’s ridiculous attack press release linked above does not reference a single vote of Senator Lincoln’s, only criticizing Vice President Biden’s record as a U.S. Senator.  However, the NRSC has already dispensed a stock attack against Senator Lincoln for her support of the economic stimulus bill earlier this year.  Note to Senator Lincoln: Republicans will claim you support “runaway Washington spending” no matter how you vote.  Even if you oppose every bill that includes a dime of spending, Republicans will attack you.  If you dive to the right in order to deflect their attacks, it won’t work because they’ll keep attacking no matter what.

3) The NRSC attacks Senator Lincoln on what they call “card check,” refering to the Employee Free Choice Act.  If Senator Lincoln strengthens American workers by supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, Republicans will attack her, sure.  Although, if Senator Lincoln caves to Republican bullying and votes against it, all that will do is drive a wedge between her and organized labor, a key source of support for Democrats.  However, caving to Republicans on this issue won’t bring an end to Republican attacks.  Note to Senator Lincoln: To put it simply, Republicans will attack you no matter how you vote.  The more you cave to their attacks, the more credence you give their attacks.  Work to gain the approval of Arkansas’ families and workers, not the NRSC.

After offering the silly stock Republican attacks against Senator Lincoln, the article goes into who the Republicans might recruit to oppose Senator Lincoln:

When it comes to taking on the Lincoln machine, the Republicans mentioned most often right now include state Sen. Gilbert Baker, who represents a Little Rock-based district, and Little Rock Attorney Tim Griffin, a former special assistant in the Bush White House who briefly served as U.S. attorney in Arkansas. …

Outside of Griffin and Baker, Republicans are also looking to Rogers Mayor Steve Womack and Little Rock banker French Hill – who served as a special assistant under Bush for economic policy – as possible 2010 Senate candidates.

Let’s take a look at what this list of potential recruits says about Republican prospects against Senator Lincoln:

1) Nowhere in the article is Republican Rep. John Boozman mentioned.  Rep. Boozman is the only Republican member of Arkansas’ Congressional delegation.  Given that every – I repeat: every – Constitutional officer in Arkansas is a Democrat, Rep. Boozman is basically the top elected official in Arkansas.  That the NRSC didn’t even see fit to make sure his name was included means he is out.

2) Similarly, the absence of any mention of former Gov. Mike Huckabee reiterates Gov. Huckabee’s insistence that a 2010 Senate run isn’t in his future.

Two of the four mentioned possible recruits are guaranteed to turn AR-Sen, in no small part, into a referendum on George W. Bush more than on President Obama or Senator Lincoln.

3) Tim Griffin is a Karl Rove protege who Cheney-Bush-Rove tried to install as a U.S. Attorney amid their notorious Attorney Purge.  Griffin is also a former RNC staffer credited with engaging in the racist voter-suppression tactic of “vote caging.”  Speaking of Griffin being a Rove protege, even Twitter betrays Griffin’s Rove-philia:

4) The other Bushie mentioned as a possible candidate is French Hill, whose name sounds a little – what’s the word? – French!  As the article notes, French Hill was a “special assistant under Bush for economic policy.”  Hmmm, someone refresh my memory.  How does the public regard George W. Bush’s economic record?  Really, I beg the AR-GOP to put French Hill forward as their Senate candidate.

5) The first non-Bushie possible recruit mentioned is state sen. Gilbert Baker.  Though not a member of George W. Bush’s administration, he has not managed to avoid scandal.  First, Baker went to bat “as a character witness for a campaign worker and Republican officeholder who’d repeatedly brutalized a woman and was subsequently convicted of kidnapping. Some supporter of women.”  Here’s the situation:

Recently, Baker sent out a press release claiming the issue of women’s rights is one he takes “seriously”. However, in 2005 Gilbert Baker asked the 1st Division Faulkner County Circuit Court for “leniency and mercy” for a campaign worker of Baker’s who repeatedly beat his female victim, held a knife to her throat, smothered her until she threw up, and  using a cigarette lighter burned her multiple times.

Baker testified repeatedly as a character witness to help the defendant, also an elected Republican constable. The defendant was accused of rape, and convicted of kidnapping and assault against a Faulkner County woman. According to Circuit Court documents, Baker testified twice for the man, after knowing the horrible facts of the case and even admitted the defendant had “done wrong.”

Baker acknowledged that this heinously degenerate person had “done wrong” and he still offered his testimony as a character witness multiple times (because this degenerate was a campaign worker?).  Pretty grotesque.  Another scandal, far less grotesque but nonetheless inappropriate, was also aired for public consumption.  Baker’s son allegedly received preferential treatment at the University of Central Arkansas (UCA) and Baker used public property belonging to UCA for a campaign fundraiser while Baker delivered over half a million dollars to in public money to UCA.  The credibility of the allegations (particularly as a possible quid pro quo) were furthered when it was revealed that UCA President Lu Hardin used money from his discretionary fund to buy gifts for Baker.  Will the AR-GOP and the NRSC turn to this person, who appears to abuse his political power and defends his campaign workers when they abuse women?

6) The last possible recruit is Rogers Mayor Steve Womack.  Rogers is a city of about 50,000 residents, putting in the bottom half of Arkansas’ top ten most populous cities, and Womack was first elected Rogers’ Mayor in November ’98.  By not being a Bushie or a character witness for someone who brutalized a woman, Womack should automatically become the most desirable of the four recruits to the NRSC.  I don’t know much about Womack aside from an episode of anti-immigrant fervor.  Womack wanted to task local law enforcement officers with enforcing federal immigration policy.  When the Mexican consulate in Arkansas wanted to discuss the issue with Womack, Womack gave the consulate the cold shoulder:

It was a bad week for …

ROGERS MAYOR STEVE WOMACK. He treated rudely a request by the Mexican consul in Little Rock to talk about Womack’s plan to use police officers to crack down on immigrants, pleading more important business at a golf tournament. Womack intends to send cops full bore after people without proper working papers, not, you may be sure, the people who hired them.

Womack could simply veil his anti-immigrant policy under the guise of populism.  Womack is, perhaps, the most unknown of the named possible recruits – and that might be his greatest strength as a Republican candidate in 2010.

After running through the underwhelming list of possible Republican Senate recruits, the Roll Call article ends with Republicans warning Senator Lincoln that, if she doesn’t vote the way they want her to, she’ll be in big, big trouble:

“Right now, we’re all watching her card check vote,” said Karen Ray, whose last day as Arkansas Republican Party executive director was Monday. “If she votes yes on it, the repercussions here will just be enormous.” …

Griffin said he too would be watching Lincoln’s votes carefully.

“There will be a number of other pieces of legislation where she will have to decide between being an Arkansas conservative or being a Washington liberal,” he said.

I have two responses to this closing section of the article:

1) “The repercussions here will just be enormous.”  Senator Lincoln, watch out!  If you don’t vote the way the National Republican Senatorial Committee wants, they will attack you.  However, if you vote the exact way they want you to every single time, they will… they will… they’ll still attack you!  These “enormous repercussions” that Republicans rattle on about are absolutely meaningless.  I truly hope that Senator Lincoln recognizes this and has the spine to stand up to idiotic Republican attacks.

2) For the AR-GOP, the only two types of people that exist are “Arkansas conservatives” and “Washington liberals.”  That’s why the AR-GOP is so successful.  Need I remind you that Arkansas’ Congressional delegation includes only one Republican and every single statewide Constitutional officer is a Democrat.  Further, the 35-member Arkansas state Senate consists of 27 Democrats and only 8 Republicans; and, the 100-member Arkansas state House of Representatives consists of 71 Democrats and only 28 Republicans (and 1 Green).  Aside from the Presidential election, these are partisan electoral leanings you’d more likely see in Rhode Island than in the South.  Yet Karl Rove protege Tim Griffin wants to turn the race into a political caricature about “Arkansas conservatives” vs. “Washington liberals.”  And Republicans expect Senator Lincoln to quake at their threats.  Once again, that’s why the AR-GOP is so successful.

I’ll close with a reiteration of sentiments given above.  Note to Senator Lincoln: Republicans will attack you as “out of touch” or as a supporter of “runaway Washington spending” no matter how you vote.  Even if you vote the way Republicans want you to every single time, Republicans will attack you.  The more you cave to their attacks, the more credence you give their attacks.  If you dive to the right in order to deflect their attacks, it won’t work because they’ll keep attacking no matter what.  The best way to keep your job for another six years is to do your job.  Look out for the best interests of Arkansas’ families and workers, and don’t give a second thought to the toothless, empty bullying of Republicans.

The Republican Party leadership seems determined to squeeze Bunning into retirement and are adopting a new strategy in pursuit of their goal by starving him of campign donations and assistance.  As noted in the Politico story:

That means little fundraising help from top Republicans in Washington, little to no engagement with the National Republican Senatorial Committee and a cold shoulder from Kentucky political strategists.

[skip]

Behind the scenes, Republicans in Washington and Kentucky are beginning to shut out Bunning, with no plans to give him the usual access to an extensive network of personnel, e-mail lists and contact information to reach out to potential supporters in his state.

http://www.politico.com/news/s…

The initial effort to persuade Bunning to retire failed miserably for Republicans.  Bunning even went so as to threaten to resign, allowing the Democratic governor to select a successor, and also threatened to sue the NRSC if they supported a challenger.  Needless to say, these actions did not endear Bunning to the Republican leadership, but they do seem to have succeeded in getting them to at least be more subtle in their efforts.

The article really shows how desparate McConnell and Cornyn are to force Bunning out.  Obviously, these guys interact with him every day.  So, the fact that they are so desparate to rid themselves of him suggests that Bunning is even more likely to implode while campaigning than even we might have believed.  If the GOP leadership is this desparate to get rid of Bunning, then we really need him to be the Republican nominee.  Besides donating to Bunning within the next few months, is there anything we can do to show Senator Bunning our “support”?