Pearce better get out of the way, because the Udall Express is barreling down Route 66 at a blazing speed. No wonder the NRSC isn’t wasting a dime here.
Bonus finding: In the Presidential race, Obama enjoys a 53-42 lead over McCain. It looks like Sarah Palin doesn’t play well in New Mexico, as only 38% of voters say her selection makes them more likely to vote for McCain, while 46% say the opposite. This state is looking good.
SurveyUSA (9/14-16, likely voters, 5/30-6/1 in parens):
Tom Udall (D): 56 (60)
Steve Pearce (R): 41 (35)
We’ll post the full crosstabs when SUSA releases them, but this is looking good. Udall leads Pearce by a whopping 20 points among women voters, and has a 2-to-1 lead among independents. The findings closely mirror a DSCC internal poll released today showing Udall leading by 16 points. (Update: Crosstabs are available here.)
Even more good news for Democrats: Obama leads McCain in New Mexico by 52-44 according to the same round of polling.
Meanwhile, NRSC Chair John Ensign says that Republicans could stay at 49 seats after November, which, under any plausible scenario, would have to include a Steve Pearce victory.
Republicans are coming home for Steve Pearce — that much is clear from the crosstabs. Pearce now enjoys 86% support from Republicans, up significantly from 77% in July. This isn’t that surprising — with groups like the Club For Growth beaning Udall, the GOP was bound to rally the base.
We still feel very confident about this race, and SSP rates it as Likely Democratic. With no help from the NRSC, Pearce has extremely slim odds barring a major stumble by Tom Udall.
Bonus finding: John McCain is nosing Obama by 49-47 in the same poll.
Rasmussen (8/20, likely voters incl. leaners, 7/24 in parens):
Tom Udall (D): 52 (61)
Steve Pearce (R): 44 (35)
(MoE: ±4.0%)
Big surge for Steve Pearce. But how does one spell “outlier”? This race has never been in single digits — with the exception of a lone Rasmussen poll from February. It looks like the “Rasmussen non-bounce” may have struck again.
Has anything changed since July to make this an 8-point race? Pearce has taken to the airwaves in recent weeks, slamming Udall on the energy issue, and the Club For Growth nutters have joined in on the fun. That might be enough to bring Tomnotmark down from the 65% range, but you still have to figure that Udall is in commanding control of this race.
So with about three months to go, with Ted Stevens’ indictment dominating the Senate news, it’s time for another look at all the 2008 Senate races. There are 35 seats up for election because of a scenario in Wyoming and Mississippi where both seats are up, due to the passing of Craig Thomas and the resignation of Trent Lott, respectively. Now obviously, quite a few of the races are considered “safe” for the incumbent. So what are the competitive races?
I’ll rank these in terms of tiers. The top tier will be the races where the party holding the seat has a real shot of switching (but I ain’t guaranteeing anything). The second tier are races that could become top tier races, but are not at this point. Tier III are ones where a major event would need to happen for the seat to come into play. And the safe seats? Well, Mike Gravel has a better shot at winning the presidency than those incumbents have of losing their races.
This is meant to be a primer for both newcomers and political junkies alike, so some of the information may seem repetitive for you junkies out there. Also see my previous May diary to see what things have changed since my last update.
(Just so you know, I don’t do predictions. Every time I do, horrible things happen. So I won’t even make an actual prediction on the Virginia Senate race, because doing so would effectively jinx Mark Warner.)
FYI, whenever I refer to fundraising numbers in the races, I’m using the latest numbers we know of, from the end of June 2008. “Q2” refers to the period of April to June 2008, the most recent quarter that we have the fundraising numbers for. Major hat tip to Senate Guru for putting all the numbers in an easy to read table format.
Tier I
1. Virginia: Incredibly popular former Governor Mark Warner (D) is running for this seat that opened up when John Warner (R), no relation, announced his retirement. Warner left the governorship with a whopping 80% approval rating. That’s freaking unheard of. He’ll face another former Governor, Jim Gilmore (R), who some of you may remember tried running for President last year. Gilmore was known as the governor who helped drive the state into near-bankruptcy with his car tax cut, and Warner as the one who fixed the problem when he took over for Gilmore. Not a single poll shows Gilmore getting even 40%. Warner’s sitting on 20+ point leads. And oh yeah, Warner also pulled in almost $3 million in Q2, while Gilmore raised less than $500K. To top it off, Gilmore’s been burning through the little cash he got, and ended up with less than $117K left at the end of Q2, which was almost $5 million less than what Warner was sitting on. This is about as lopsided as you’re gonna get, but still, no official predictions from me.
2. New Mexico: Rep. Tom Udall (D) announced for this seat shortly after Pete Domenici (R) announced his retirement. Yes, he is part of the famed Udall political family; his father Stewart served as Interior Secretary under JFK, and his uncle Mo was an Arizona Congressman for 30 years who ran for President in 1976. Stewart Udall was largely responsible for just about all the environmental laws that were passed in the 1960s. Rep. Steve Pearce (R) won a bitter GOP primary over Heather Wilson, ending her career in Congress. So the entire New Mexico U.S. House delegation was running for this Senate seat! The polling just keeps getting better and better for Udall, as he’s hit the 60% mark in several polls now. I wrote back in May that I expected to see a sort of “unity bounce” once the GOP primary was decided. Instead, the opposite happened, and Udall’s numbers went up even more. Combine this with Udall having over 5 times as much cash on hand as Pearce, and Udall would be number 1 on the list if it weren’t for Mark Warner.
3. New Hampshire: John Sununu (R) is about to become 2008’s version of Rick Santorum. Democrats could run a ham sandwich against him, and it would be a competitive race. But why settle for a ham sandwich when you can run the former governor? Jeanne Shaheen (D), who Sununu beat in 2002 along with some illegal phone-jamming on Election Day for which several GOP operatives went to prison, has led Sununu in every single poll taken in 2008. The latest Rasmussen poll has her leading 50%-45%. A general rule of thumb: any incumbent polling under 50% in an election poll is in trouble. Add to that, the fact New Hampshire strongly went blue in 2006 all over the place, kicking out both Republican Congressmen and flipping over 80 seats in the state House, giving Democrats control of both state legislature for the first time since 1910, and Sununu has to be considered the most endangered incumbent. The only thing keeping this race from being tied at number 2 is that while Shaheen outraised Sununu in the first two quarters this year, Sununu still has almost $3 million more cash on hand than Shaheen has. That money will probably make this race closer, but given how much New Hampshire has changed, I’m not sure how much that money advantage is really going to help Sununu.
4. Alaska: 84-year-old Ted Stevens (R) is seeking a sixth term, but earlier this week, he was indicted on 7 felony counts for not disclosing the gifts (over $250,000 worth) he got from oil company Veco Corp. This started when the FBI raided his home last June. Several Veco executives have already pled guilty to bribing Ted’s son Ben, who was the former Alaska state senate president, with former Veco CEO Bill Allen having admitted some bribe money also went towards Ted Stevens. Democrats got their top choice when Anchorage mayor Mark Begich entered the race. His father Nick Begich was a former Congressman, who was killed in a plane crash along with House Majority Leader Hale Boggs (D-LA) in 1972. Even before the indictment, several polls had already shown Begich leading Stevens. In the wake of the indictments, Rasmussen now has Begich leading Stevens 50%-37%. Jury selection will begin on September 24, and Stevens wants the trial to take place before the election. What remains to be seen is if he’ll survive the August 26th primary, and even if he does, if the Alaska GOP would try to replace him with someone else. But Rasmussen also showed that among some of the other GOP challengers, Begich leads them by even bigger margins, so it’s unclear if that will help the GOP out. On the fundraising side, Begich pulled in over $1 million in Q2, over a quarter million more than Stevens brought in, though Stevens still has twice as much cash on hand as Begich, though that may not help him now.
5. Colorado: Wayne Allard (R) kept his pledge of only serving two terms, and is retiring from the Senate. Rep. Mark Udall (D) is Mo Udall’s son, and Tom Udall’s cousin. He’ll face off against former Congressman Bob Schaffer (R). Colorado has been trending bluer recently, picking up a Senate seat in 2004 (Ken Salazar), and a congressional district and the governor’s office in 2006. Schaffer had previously lost the GOP primary for that Senate seat back in 2004 to Pete Coors. At the end of Q2, Udall was sitting on an almost $4 million warchest, with Schaffer over $1 million behind. Schaffer also has close ties to Jack Abramoff and human rights abuses on the Marianas Islands, and was helping out Aspect Energy push an oil deal that would hurt U.S.-Iraq policy. Recently, though, some right-wing front groups have been running TV and radio ads filled with falsehoods attacking Udall. That may explain why Rasmussen shows the race getting narrower, though Udall still leads. The other polls still show Udall with some kind of lead (other than Quinnipiac, though its crosstabs make it look like they undersampled Democrats), and not a single poll has come out with Schaffer holding any kind of lead. Update: 9News in Colorado went through one of those attack ads and found every single statement the ad made was misleading, false, or conflating opinion with fact.
6. Oregon: Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley (D) won a close primary over lawyer/activist Steve Novick to take on Gordon Smith (R). The two quickly joined forces in a unity event to take on Smith. Smith seems worried, as his recent commercials have him embracing Barack Obama and John Kerry and fighting Bush! Merkley raised over half a million more than Smith did in Q2, but much of that was spent on the primary, and now Smith has almost $4 million more in his campaign war chest at the end of Q2. The DSCC has stepped in with an $850,000 cable TV ad buy starting in September to help out Merkley. Also, the latest Rasmussen poll now shows Merkley with a lead for the first time ever in any poll, at 43%-41%. In an interesting twist, Smith is actually a cousin of the two Udalls running for Senate.
7. Mississippi-B: Roger Wicker (R), appointed by governor Haley Barbour (R) on New Year’s Eve after Trent Lott (R) resigned to become a lobbyist, won’t have all the incumbency power Lott had accumulated over the years. Wicker was the Congressman from MS-01, so he’s won elected office previously. But that seat then went blue when Travis Childers (D) won it in May. So things are changing even in Mississippi. That has to be a shot in a arm for former Governor Ronnie Musgrove (D). However, Wicker showed himself to be a prolific fundraiser, bringing in over $2.5 million in Q1. But in Q2, the two were almost even in fundraising, each raising a little over $800K. The latest polls still show this to be a tight race, with Wicker slightly up. It may all come down to the African-American turnout in this state. The 2004 exit polls showed they made up 34% of the electorate. The Rasmussen poll showing Wicker up by 6 seems to also have a 34% black breakdown in their sample. So if black turnout increases, that should benefit Musgrove. And because this is technically a special election (to fill out the remainder of Lott’s term), there will be no party identification on the ballot in November. That can actually work to our benefit in a state like Mississippi. As a result, Wicker went up with a TV ad back in May introducing himself to voters.
8. Minnesota: Norm Coleman (R) won this seat in 2002 only after Paul Wellstone (D) died just a few weeks before the election. Comedian Al Franken got the DFL (basically the Democratic Party for Minnesota) nod. The polls had been steadily favoring Franken, until late April when a story came out that Franken owed $70,000 in back taxes to 17 different states. Now, it turns out that as a traveling comedian, having visited lots of states, he was supposed to pay taxes to those individual states, but paid them instead all to the states he had homes in. Then the GOP hammered Franken for a Playboy article he wrote over a decade ago, calling it “juicy porn“. As for the fallout, there are very conflicting stories. SurveyUSA has Coleman up by double-digits, while Rasmussen has Franken up by 3. However, the SurveyUSA poll shows Coleman’s best support comes from young people, which doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. Combined with their presidential poll, which shows Obama TIED with McCain among young voters, and something doesn’t quite make sense in their numbers. The Senate poll also shows the electorate will be made up of 32% Republicans, only 33% Democrats, and 21% Independents. It strangely leaves out 14% of the population. So take that poll with a huge grain of salt. Plus, Franken did outraise Coleman for three straight quarters until Q2, when they both raised over $2.3 million, with Coleman getting $50,000 more, though Coleman ended Q2 with $3 million more in his coffers.
9. North Carolina: After Kay Hagan easily won her primary in May, the polls showed a primary bump, with some polls even putting her ahead of incumbent Elizabeth Dole (R). That led Dole to fire her campaign manager. Then her campaign asked the DSCC and NRSC not to spend money on the race. Um, isn’t that’s the whole point of those campaign committees? However, since the primary bump, Dole’s lead has gone back to about 10 points. But something to note about those polls, they all seem to underestimate the black turnout. In 2004, blacks made up 26% of the electorate, while these polls have a sample that’s 22% or less black. Conventional wisdom says black turnout will be significantly higher than in 2004, so keep that in mind. Hagan’s been keeping pace in fundraising, pulling in 91% as much as Dole did in Q2, though Hagan still trails by a little over a 2:1 margin in cash on hand. Interesting fact, Hagan is the niece of the late Lawton Chiles, the longtime Senator and Governor of Florida, who came from behind to win re-election to the governorship in 1994 by defeating Jeb Bush.
10. Maine: Rep. Tom Allen (D) is running to challenge Susan Collins (R). But even though Maine is a blue state, he has an uphill climb. Collins has worked hard to craft her moderate credentials. The most recent Rasmussen poll has some good news for Allen, with him only trailing Collins 49%-42%. Allen’s fundraising was pretty strong in Q2, with both him and Collins netting a little over $1 million each, though he trails in cash on hand by $2 million. The DSCC has now reserved $5 million for ad buys in the state. And it will be needed, as the Maine newspapers suck at telling the truth about Collins. I mean, really suck. When they consistently let Maine GOP officials shill for Collins in letters to the editor without letting the readers know that fact, you know something’s up.
11. Louisiana:Mary Landrieu (D) is the most endangered Democratic incumbent in 2008. But how endangered that really is remains to be seen. She was still able to win in 2002, a decidedly strong year for the GOP. Karl Rove was able to woo state treasurer John Neely Kennedy (no relation to the Kennedy family in Massachusetts) to switch parties to run for re-election to State Treasurer as a Republican last August, and after winning, he announced he would challenge Landrieu for her Senate seat. (Party switching actually seems rather common in Louisiana.) As for how endangered Landrieu really is, well, there’s lots of conflicting data. On the one hand, hundreds of thousands of residents from New Orleans and the surrounding areas never came back to the state after Hurricane Katrina, making the state more red than it used to be. Bobby Jindal (R) didn’t even need a runoff to win the governor’s race last year, getting over 50% of the vote on the first ballot and performing stronger than expected. On the other hand, Mary’s brother Mitch won the Lt. Governorship by an even bigger margin. And the win by Don Cazayoux (D) in LA-06, a Republican district, may bode well for Landrieu. Kennedy did outraise Landrieu in Q1, but she outraised him in Q2, and has almost $3 million more in cash on hand than he does. All the non-Zogby polls show Landrieu ahead; the question is by how much. A boost came to the Landrieu campaign when the Huffington Post obtained an NRSC memo from 2004 that attacked Kennedy when he ran for the Senate that year… as a Democrat. After ripping him for being so wrong for Louisiana, they’re suddenly going to say he’s the right person for the job?
12. Texas: Democrats got the challenger they wanted to face John Cornyn (R). State rep. and Texas National Guard Lt. Col. Rick Noriega (D) served in Afghanistan after 9/11, and was chosen to coordinate relief efforts in Houston after Hurricane Katrina. The biggest news this summer so far is probably the Big Bad John ad Cornyn’s people released, which drew mockery and laughter from just about everywhere. Then the Texas Medical Association rescinded their endorsement of Cornyn after he and other GOP Senators blocked the Medicare bill that would have prevented 10% cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, and the American Medical Association said they were going to run ads against Senators like Cornyn who voted against it. But no polls have been taken of this race since June, when Rasmussen showed Noriega down by 13, though Cornyn was under the 50% mark. However, the fundraising numbers are troubling, with Cornyn having outraised Noriega by more than a 4-to-1 margin in Q1. Noriega did better in Q2, raising almost $1 million, but Cornyn finished Q2 with over 10 times as much cash on hand. And in a huge state like Texas, money will most definitely matter. Unless some polls come out showing this is a closer race, this will remain in Tier II. Update: And right after writing this, Rasmussen shows Noriega down by 10 points, with Cornyn under the 50% mark. So I’ve moved it back to Tier I status.
13. Kentucky: Even though Mitch McConnell (R) became the Senate Minority Leader, he is a top target of the Democrats. And with former Governor Ernie Fletcher (R) losing his re-election bid to Steve Beshear (D) 59%-41% last November, that made Kentucky Democrats even more confident. But then Kentucky Attorney General Greg Stumbo and State Auditor Crit Luallen both declined to run, and netroots favorite Lt. Col. Andrew Horne, a Marine who has served in both the Persian Gulf War and the Iraq War, dropped his bid. Wealthy businessman Bruce Lunsford hasn’t exactly been a netroots favorite in the past, having ticked off a lot of Democrats in the past by endorsing Fletcher over Ben Chandler (D) for Governor back in 2003 after he lost the primary to Chandler. But it looks like Kentucky Democrats quickly unified behind Lunsford and are all pledging to do their part to defeat McConnell. McConnell has a HUGE warchest of over $9 million, but Lunsford can afford to self-fund. And this quote from Lunsford after winning the primary is nice to read. “[McConnell is] going to spend millions of dollars trying to destroy my reputation. But I don’t care how many names he’s going to call me, because in January he’s going to call me ‘Senator.'” Well played, sir. Things like that will help assuage the netroots. Two recent polls show Lunsford behind by about 10 points. Lunsford actually brought in more money in Q2, largely due to loaning himself $2.5 million to keep pace, but McConnell still has almost 7 times as much cash on hand. But by keeping pace, if Lunsford can force McConnell (and his campaign coffers) to stay in Kentucky instead of going to help other Senators, that will only serve to benefit the other Democrats running for Senate.
Tier II
I decided, for the sake of my own sanity, not to try to rank the Tier II and III races. These are given in alphabetical order, by state.
Idaho: With Larry Craig (R) retiring after his airport bathroom… ah… incident, it’s looking like a rematch between Lt. Governor Jim Risch (R) and former Congressman Larry LaRocco (D), who lost the 2006 Lt. Gov. race to Risch by a sizable 58%-39% margin. While LaRocco finished 2007 with more cash on hand than Risch, he was absolutely blitzkrieged in Q1, with Risch raising over 4 ½ times as much money as LaRocco raised, and again outraised in Q2, leaving Risch with over 4 times as much cash on hand as LaRocco. A recent Research 2000 poll showed LaRocco down by 10 points, 42%-32%. The wild card in this race may be independent rancher Rex Rammell, who despises Risch, and may be able to pull away some of Risch’s support. Rammell actually outraised LaRocco, and has a little more cash on hand, and will spend that money attacking Risch. There are also two other right-wing candidates on the ballot that will split the conservative vote even more.
Kansas: Pat Roberts (R), known for covering up issues related to intelligence and domestic spying for Bush, looked to be coasting to an easy re-election until former Congressman Jim Slatteryentered the racein mid-March. Given that late start, he still managed to raise over $250,000 in just the first two weeks, and brought in a decent haul in Q2 also. Rasmussen had given encouraging news in June, showing Slattery within single digits, but in July, their poll showed Slattery down by 27 points. There are signs, however, that Roberts is nervous, as his people lashed out, attacking Slattery for criticizing the Iraq War, considering he voted for going to war with Iraq. Except… the war he voted for was the FIRST Gulf War in 1991. So… voting for that war makes you unable to criticize this war? Um, OK, that’s some great Republican logic for you. And then, they attacked Slattery for missing a lot of votes in his last year in Congress. Why only that year? Because that was the year Slattery was back in Kansas running for Governor.
Oklahoma: James Inhofe (R) looks pretty safe, though interestingly enough, Inhofe has never gotten to 50% approval in the history of SurveyUSA’s polling. State senator and netroots favorite Andrew Rice (D), who lost his brother in the 9/11 attacks, is now the formal Democratic nominee, having won his primary last week by a 20-point margin. Rice and Inhofe could not be farther apart when it comes to energy and environmental issues. Rice pulled in decent fundraising numbers in Q2, but still trails Inhofe by over $1.7 million. A Research 2000 poll from June showed Rice down by 22 points. Those two factors would normally make this a Tier III race, but then came the news that veteran political operatives Geri Prado and Phil Singer have joined Rice’s staff. Those two both worked on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and for the DSCC.
Tier III
Alabama: The Democrats’ top hope in Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks announced he was not running, leaving little-known state senator Vivian Figures (D) as the only challenger to incumbent Jeff Sessions (R). But, Jeff Sessions does play a role in the Don Siegelman case. And it seems Sessions was desperate enough to try and kill the 60 Minutes piece about Siegelman before it aired. So if Sessions gets ensnared in this scandal, his seat may not be so safe. And the prospect of that, which grows dimmer by the day, is the only thing keeping this from going into the “safe” category.
Georgia: A crowded field of relatively unknown Democratic challengers to Saxby Chambliss (R) didn’t seem to go anywhere, until former state representative Jim Martin entered the race in March. Martin was the 2006 Democratic Lt. Gov. nominee, so he’s run a statewide race before. And in just 12 days, Martin raised $346,675, which dropped a lot of jaws. Martin would first have to get by DeKalb County CEO Vernon Jones, who is black and is depending on African-American turnout to win the primary runoff on August 5th. Except… Jones voted for Bush… twice, still doesn’t know what to think about Iraq, and likes calling Democrats “losers”. Way to, um, not endear yourself to the netroots. The 3rd and 4th place finishers in the primary have already endorsed Martin in the runoff. Remember, Chambliss ousted triple amputee Max Cleland (D) in 2002 by running a despicable ad blending the images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein into Cleland’s face. If Martin bests Jones in the primary next Tuesday, I’ll move this up to Tier II, as polling shows Martin would at least be competitive, though he’d still be seriously behind in funds.
Nebraska: With Chuck Hagel (R) retiring, former governor Mike Johanns (R) quit his job as Bush’s Agriculture Secretary to run for this seat. The netroots were thrilled when rancher and history professor Scott Kleeb (D) threw his hat in the ring. While Kleeb lost the NE-03 House race in 2006, that district is the most Republican in Nebraska, and Kleeb got a higher-than-expected 45% of the vote. That’s had a lot of people thinking he would actually win in the other two districts, and thus a statewide race. Of course, that doesn’t take into account how he’d be running against the former governor of the state. Kleeb easily won his primary against Republican-turned-Democrat Tony Raimondo, but the polls show Kleeb still has quite a ways to go. The last two Rasmussen polls show Kleeb down by over 25 points to Johanns. The one bright spot was that Kleeb outraised Johanns in Q2, though he still trails in cash on hand by almost $800K.
New Jersey:Frank Lautenberg (D) is running again, but as he is already 84 years old, his age is always going to be a concern. His poll numbers also don’t look that good, but no New Jersey politician’s numbers ever look really good. He easily beat back a primary challenge from Rep. Rob Andrews. On the GOP side, it’s been a wild roller coaster ride as multiple candidates have been declaring, and then dropping out of the race, before they finally settled on former Congressman Dick Zimmer. Blue Jersey has a wild recap of it all.
South Dakota:Tim Johnson (D) is fully back at work after suffering a brain hemorrhage in December 2006. His illness had made Republicans hesitant to challenge or attack him. And the polling shows Johnson may be the most popular Senator in the country, to boot.
Tennessee: Former Tennessee Democratic Party chair Bob Tuke entered the race in late February. It remains to be seen if Tuke can make this a real race against Lamar Alexander (R), who was also a two-term governor of Tennessee and the Secretary of Education under George H.W. Bush. Tuke has a little over a quarter million on hand, while Alexander has over three million.
Democratic safe seats
Arkansas (Mark Pryor)
Delaware (Joe Biden)
Illinois (Dick Durbin)
Iowa (Tom Harkin)
Massachusetts (John Kerry)
Michigan (Carl Levin)
Montana (Max Baucus)
Rhode Island (Jack Reed)
West Virginia (Jay Rockefeller)
Republican safe seats
Mississippi (Thad Cochran)
South Carolina (Lindsey Graham)*
Wyoming (Michael Enzi)
Wyoming (John Barrasso)
*South Carolina is now a safe seat, as Lindsey Graham easily won his primary in June, and Michael Cone ended up barely losing the Democratic primary by 0.6% to Bob Conley, a Republican-turned-Democrat who voted for Ron Paul in the South Carolina primary.
So there you have it, my personal rankings for the 2008 Senate races, as they stand at the beginning of August. Things can still change, people who only pay attention after Labor Day may shake things up, and we won’t know exactly what the national mood will be 3 months from now. Still, given that, these are my picks, and I’m sticking with them… until my next update, at least.
Feel free to rip me apart in the comments, telling me I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about, how could I possibly put a certain race in Tier II or III when it’s so obviously a top tier race, why I’m being too optimistic in some seat, etc. Have at it. 🙂
Rasmussen (7/24, likely voters) (6/18 in parentheses):
Tom Udall (D): 59 (58)
Steve Pearce (R): 34 (30)
(MoE: ±4%)
I’m guessing Tom Udall and Mark Warner are now in a bit of friendly competition to see who can beat their sad-sack opponents by a bigger margin, because Udall just keeps upping his percentage. Pearce did regain some ground this month, although his numbers aren’t as high as the 37 he posted in May or the 40 he posted in April.
Check out the favorables, too: Udall is at 66% very or somewhat favorable, 28% very or somewhat unfavorable. Pearce is at 46% very or somewhat favorable, 48% very or somewhat unfavorable. I don’t think any amount of advertising is going to move those numbers enough to make a difference (not that the NRSC is going to be able to make the effort).
The Tom Udall fundraising machine is still running strong, with no signs of stopping — if anything, the fundraising efforts are gaining steam.
Democratic candidate Tom Udall has raised over $2.1 million in the second quarter for his Senate run according to a press release from his campaign.
In the second quarter, which ended at the end of the day on June 30, Udall raised more than he had in any other quarter so far.
“We are so grateful to Tom’s strong, statewide base of committed supporters for making this our best fundraising quarter so far,” said Udall campaign manager Amanda Cooper in a press release. “Because of their generous support our campaign is able to knock on thousands of doors, have a strong statewide presence, and dominate the airwaves with hard-hitting TV ads.”
Udall’s most recent ad is “Tragedy” which speaks about his work on DWI laws. The ad also invokes the infamous Gordon House crash where House killed four people while driving drunk nearly 20 years ago.
Since the May 14 pre-primary reporting deadline, Udall raised nearly $1.5 million. He had raised a little less than $640,000 between April 1 and May 14.
The campaign was not able to give firm numbers on how much they had spent in the quarter but will be able to do so when they file. The filing deadline for all U.S. House and Senate races is July 15.
Udall’s previous quarterly high in fundraising was $1.3 million in the first quarter of this year. In both the fourth quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008, Udall outraised both of his Republican opponents, Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce. Steve Pearce won a close primary election over Wilson, while Udall was unopposed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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!
“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.”
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.
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.”
“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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Damn, son. When Tom Udall wins this thing, he’ll essentially be taking out three Republicans: Pearce, Wilson, and Domenici. They should call him: Tom Udall, Republican slayer.