It’s, well, “Shotgun” Randy Kuhl. Here he was on Wednesday:
Area students got a taste of national government as U.S. Rep. John R. “Randy” Kuhl Jr. visited Cattaraugus County Wednesday.
The 29th Congressional District Republican spoke to class of Cattaraugus-Allegany County BOCES county government students who meet weekly at the Cattaraugus County Center. …
The congressman said he had an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association and owned nine shotguns. (Emphasis added.
A member of the New York State Legislature who is running for Congress pulled two shotguns on his wife at a dinner party in 1994 and threatened to shoot her, according to her divorce complaint. …
“In or about 1994, while the parties were hosting a dinner party at their home, the defendant (Kuhl) took out two shotguns and threatened to shoot plaintiff (Kuhl-Peterson),” the papers say.
Ms. Kuhl-Peterson filed for divorce in late 1998, charging that Mr. Kuhl had endangered her “mental and physical well-being and rendered it unsafe and improper for the parties to continue to reside together.” The divorce was completed in 2000 in an agreement that allowed Mr. Kuhl to keep the house and directed him to make two financial payments to his wife.
If you are known for making violent threats against women while brandishing not one but two shotguns, I’d think you’d want to shut up about how many of those things you own.
More bad news for GOP Rep. “Shotgun” Randy Kuhl: a third poll released this week is showing him trailing Democrat Eric Massa.
Research 2000 for Daily Kos (10/7-8, likely voters):
Eric Massa (D): 49
Randy Kuhl (R-inc): 42
(MoE: ±5%)
Boom! Just in case you need to play catch-up, on Monday, we saw other early October polls from SurveyUSA and the Benenson Strategy Group, both showing Massa ahead by 7 and 5 points, respectively.
Economic woes have hit New York’s 29th District especially hard in recent years, and those hard times seem to be enough to overcome the district’s decidedly Republican tilt (Bush won here by 56-42 in 2004). Just check out the Presidential numbers: Obama has a 48-45 lead over McCain in this Appalachian district. Don’t believe it? SurveyUSA had almost the exact same result on Monday night, with Obama edging McCain by 49-47 here.
Things are looking dicey for Shotgun Randy. Just check out his favorable rating: 33-44. Brutal. Massa, on the other hand, is sitting at 45-27.
Over the past couple of days, SSP has shifted its ratings of six competitive races. Here’s a roundup of what we did:
FL-21 (L. Diaz Balart): Lean Republican to Tossup
“Clash of the Titans”.
Those are the words that have been invariably used to describe this hotly-anticipated match-up between GOP Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez. The mud is beginning to fly fast and furiously, which is to be expected from these two highly-seasoned pols with a long history of personal animus and tension.
Yes, Martinez has baggage from legal troubles in the ’90s, but he’s also a larger than life figure in his hometown of Hialeah, and has an intensely loyal following in that GOP stronghold — as evidenced by many recent endorsements from prominent local Republicans.
The publicly-released polling of this race has been very close: Diaz-Balart led by four points in a June Bendixen poll, and SUSA actually found Martinez leading by two in August. A recent Carlos McDonald poll gives Diaz-Balart a five-point edge, but that’s too close for an incumbent’s comfort. This one is shaping up to be close.
IL-10 (Kirk): Lean Republican to Tossup
Of all the races that have been in SSP’s “Lean Republican” column since March, this one’s addition to the Tossup pile always seemed like an inevitable outcome — it was just a matter of timing.
Two recently-released polls — one from the DCCC and the other from R2K/DailyKos — give GOP Rep. Mark Kirk a slight edge here, but both polls have the incumbent dangerously below 50%, leaving him vulnerable to a late Seals surge in a D+3 district that is set to deliver a big margin for Barack Obama in November. On top of it all, a new SurveyUSA poll is showing Seals leading by 52-44. While it’s possible that that result is overstating things a bit, if there’s one thing we’ve learned in the past few years, it’s that Republicans are getting increasingly poorer at holding Dem-tilting districts. After all, let’s not forget that Seals, a very talented candidate, outperformed his final internal poll during his 2006 race against Kirk by a full 15 points.
While Kirk has a wrongly-perceived “moderate” profile working in his favor, Seals is deftly using Kirk’s past criticism of Obama to his advantage. This race is a tossup.
NJ-03 (Open): Lean Democratic to Tossup
While Democrat John Adler has been a fundraising machine in his race for the open seat of retiring GOP Rep. Jim Saxton, he has yet to show much in the way of polling strength so far. In the internals of Republican Chris Myers and recently-released Zogby and Monmouth polls, Myers has led Adler by close margins. You can say what you like about those pollsters, but the fact that we haven’t seen any Democratic polls of this race seems a bit telling.
While this is a D+3 open seat (albeit one that voted for Bush in 2004), it hasn’t elected a Democrat to the House in over 100 years. While Jersey Democrats seem to have a habit of being underestimated in the polls, and it still would be surprising if Myers was the ultimate victor in November, it’s hard to give Adler a clear edge here for now.
NV-02 (Heller): Likely Republican to Lean Republican
After Dean Heller beat Democrat Jill Derby in the open seat race for this R+8 district in 2006, many figured a rematch would be fruitless for Democrats here. However, several factors are making this contest interesting, the most glaring being the dramatic change in the district’s voter pool.
By the end of 2006, registered Republicans outnumbered Democrats by 171,874 to 124,008 in this district. (Bear in mind that Derby lost here by under 13,000 votes that year.) The most recent figures listed with the Nevada SoS are significantly different; since 2006, Republicans have added under 4000 new voters to the rolls here, while Democrats have picked up nearly 26,000. That’s a potentially big group of voters who simply were not in play for Derby two years ago.
A recent Research 2000 poll from August gave Heller a mere 47-42 lead over Derby, and private numbers haven’t been especially strong for Heller, either. While Heller retains a clear edge, an upset feels a bit more than just distantly possible in this district.
NY-29 (Kuhl): Lean Republican to Tossup
GOP Rep. “Shotgun” Randy Kuhl faced a close race from Democrat Eric Massa here in 2006, ultimately winning by only 6,000 votes despite heavy assistance from the NRCC and no DCCC response.
Since then, Kuhl hasn’t exactly been showing much fire in the belly. He was dogged by retirement rumors earlier this year, and has consistently posted sluggish fundraising numbers, being outraised by Massa since the start of the cycle. And don’t forget his response to debate requests from community leaders and local media outfits last month:
“At this point we haven’t agreed to any. We’ve taken the position that I’ve been real busy.”
While this is an R+5 Appalachian-flavored district, it’s facing tough economic times and that should make for a volatile race for Kuhl. Two recent polls, one by the Benenson Strategy Group for the DCCC and another by SurveyUSA, have given Massa the lead here. This looks set to be the most challenging race of Kuhl’s career.
OH-01 (Chabot): Lean Republican to Tossup
GOP Rep. Steve Chabot has been a perennial target for Democrats in this Cincinnati-based district, but this year’s conditions appear to be the most treacherous.
A recent SurveyUSA poll gave Chabot a two-point lead over his Democratic opponent, state Rep. Steve Driehaus. Moreover, Chabot is particularly at-risk by Barack Obama’s strong push in this 28% African-American district. That same SurveyUSA poll gave Obama a 52-43 lead, a considerable improvement over John Kerry’s 49-51 loss here in 2004.
The big Democratic push at the top of the ticket by Obama seems set to give Chabot his biggest test in years.
SurveyUSA just released a batch of polls undertaken on behalf of Roll Call which tested seven rematches from 2006. Three of them covered races which feature Democratic challengers who came heartbreaking close to victory last time. The news looks very, very good all around. (Full polling summary available as PDF. James’s roundup of the Dem incumbent polls is here.)
First up, IL-10 (10/04-05, likely voters, no trendlines):
Dan Seals (D): 52
Mark Kirk (R-inc): 44
Undecided: 4
(MoE: ±3.9%)
Bonus finding: Obama romps here, 62-36. Fuckin’ A.
Next, NC-08 (10/04-05, likely voters, no trendlines):
Larry Kissell (D): 49
Robin Hayes (R-inc): 41
Thomas Hill (L): 6
Undecided: 4
(MoE: ±4%)
Bonus finding: Obama 53, McCain 44. Remember, Bush won this district 54-45 in 2004.
And finally, NY-29 (10/04-05, likely voters, no trendlines):
Eric Massa (D): 51
Randy “Shotgun” Kuhl (R-inc): 44
Undecided: 5
(MoE: ±4.1%)
Bonus finding: Obama leads 49-47, and this ain’t exactly considered the heart of Obama country.
All in all, some awesome results for Team Blue. A bunch of Republican campaigns are going to have seriously miserable days tomorrow. And just think – Marky Mark “Capt.” Kirk was kvetching like little kid today about poll which showed him six points ahead. Can’t wait to see how he reacts to a survey which has him eight behind. Joy!
Amazingly, this is the first poll we’ve seen of this race all cycle, and it confirms that “Shotgun” Randy is in trouble. After a close race against Massa in 2006, it seems as if Kuhl’s heart just isn’t in the campaign this year. His fundraising has been sluggish, and he’s also shown very little interest in actually debating Massa, going so far as to say:
“At this point we haven’t agreed to any. We’ve taken the position that I’ve been real busy.”
While this is the most Republican district in New York (R+5), it’s an economically poor district that seems set to give Kuhl another volatile race this year. Watch out.
The Northeast (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island & Vermont) has been sharply trending towards the Democratic party for some years now. Increasingly at a State and Federal level Republicans are finding it harder to get elected in the Northeast, be they conservatives or moderates, particularly in statewide races. And this years election seems certain to thin out their ranks even further.
We now have 7/9 Governors, 14/18 Senators and 51/65 House Districts!
Below the line for a look at the 14 GOP held House Races in the Northeast in 2008.
Well now 14 members of that most endangered of species the Northeast House Republican. And can you believe 5 open races in more or less Democrat friendly districts – WOW!
It is appropriate that the first race we look at is one of the most competitive, CT-04, pitting Chris Shays against our guy Jim Himes. This one will be a barnburner which makes it curious that I can’t find any polling of the district. Located in the Southwest part of the state it overlaps the New York media market and many people who live in the 4th commute to NYC for work.
As the only GOP survivor in New England Shays seems to be popular but as the Iraq war becomes increasingly unpopular Shays’ fervent support for the war and the President himself makes this one race to watch. Both candidates are cashed up and either could win.
CT-04 is one of 8 districts carried by Kerry in 2004 occupied by a House Republican.
GOP incumbent Mike Castle is considered safe and I see no reason to not beileve that. Whilst Dem Karen Hartley-Nagle will run a solid campaign this district is unlikely to flip this time around. Of more interest to me is whether Castle will switch parties after the election or retire in 2010 (He had a stroke in 2006). Or if Lt Gov John Carney or Attorney General Beau Biden have a crack Castle may be vulnerable if he runs again in 2010.
DE-AL is another of the 8 districts that Kerry carried in 2004 occupied by a House Republican and in fact this is the district with the highest Kerry vote – 57% – occupied by a Republican.
LoBiondo doged a bullet when Democratic State Senator Jeff Van Drew opted not to run against him in this district that Bush won by less than 1% and that is occupied by 2 Democratic State Senators.
Our candidate David Kurkowski will have a real slog to get this race on the radar with the open races in the 3rd and 7th. Look for Van Drew to run and win in 2010.
The first of our open races this one sees Democratic State Senator John Adler running against Chris Myers. Bush won this district 51-49 and Adler has a massive COH advantage – 1.46M to 155K. Polling indicates a tight race but I expect Adler to win comfortably as he is well known through the district and genuinely popular.
This central Jersey district was won by Bush in 2004 56 to 44 but was won by Gore in 2000 50 to 46. With a plethora of other competitive races around this one has not been on the radar and probably won’t be. Josh Zeitz is to be applauded for having a go but 2008 probably won’t be his year. 2010 maybe?
A district that shouldn’t be on the radar is so largely because our guy Dennis Shulman is a blind rabbi who has been getting a lot of media attention. Won by Bush in 2004 57-43 this is one of two districts in New Jersey that are considered generically safe for Repubs. If Shulman can pull it off then expect a lot of house districts to be picked up by us on election day. Shulman is down 3 to 1 in COH which is ok but he really needs to step up the fundraising.
Another open race this one pits 2006 candidate Democrat Linda Stender against State Senator Leonard Lance. Michael Hsing, a conservative republican is also running as an independent which will take votes from Lance. Both camps have released polls that show their candidate is winning. Despite the fact that Bush won this district 53-47 in 2004 I expect Stender to win at her second time at bat as she only lost by about 1000 votes in 2006. Stender has a massive COH advantage – 1.2M-88K btw and that can only help!
This district that Bush won 58-42 in 2004 is the safest GOP in New Jersey and unlikely to flip. Our guy, 2006 candidate Tom Wyka, is putting in a valiant effort but will most likely fall short. This district is a rarity in the Northeast, a safe GOP district.
This Long Island based district is not on the radar for 2008. Democrat Graham Long hasn’t set the world on fire and won’t with all of the oxygen being sucked up by the 13th. This race may have been competitive if 2006 candidate Dave Mejias had run again be he is running for the State Senate instead 🙁 Look for Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi or Mejias to run in 2010. King has said that he will running in the gubernatorial race in 2010 so we should pick this one up then.
No race in the country has been more of a soap opera than NY-13. I will spare you the details and say simply this. Democratic candidate Michael McMahon will win and win big over a divided dispirited Republican party and their 3rd tier candidate. McMahon is even endorsed by GOP powerbroker Guy Molinari. And he lives on Staten Island a vital prerequisite in this district unlike his republican opponent. Chalk this one up as a win for team blue.
John McHugh is a safe bet for re-election here over a low profile candidate, Mile Oot. The attenton in upstate New York will all be focused on the 25th, 26th and 29th. Sheesh even the unions endorse McHugh who seems genuinely popular. He was rumoured to be retiring in 2008 and may do so in 2010. Either way expect a competitive race here in 2010 not 2008.
Democrat Dan Maffei never stopped running since 2006 and is considered very likely to win this open seat over Republican Dale Sweetland. He has about $1M COH and of course upstate New York is rapidly bluing. The one poll I have seen had Maffei only a point in front but that was back in April. I think that the NRCC has given up here and with good reason, Dan’s gonna win. NY-25 is one of 8 districts carried by Kerry in 2004 occupied by a House Republican.
There was a huge shock here when Democrat Kryzan won a bloody primary over DCCC preferred Jon Powers. Nonetheless Kryzan came out reasonably clean and may well pull it off in a district where Bush won 55-43 in 2004. Kryzan needs to step up her fundraising a lot but again the DCCC has weighed with advertising expenditure. When we see some polling we will get a better sense of how this one is playing but this district is still very much in play as Gopper Chris Lee hasn’t exactly set the world on fire. Watch this space.
Democratic 2006 candidate Eric Massa is back for a rematch in this upstate district that is the most GOP friendly district in New York. Bush won 56-42 in 2004. Don’t discount Massa though as incumbent Randy “shotgun” Kuhl is certainly vulnerable (and repellant). Haven’t seen any public polling here but the candidates are basically at parity in terms of COH and the DCCC is stumping up for advertising big time. Expect a close race.
So whilst the Northeast won’t provide much excitement at the Presidential level this year the House races (and Senate BTW) will be all the fun of the fair. I think that we will probably win between 4 and 7 of these races further decimating an already shredded GOP. The Northeast is well on the way to becoming a one party region and this year will see further shifts in that direction.
Earlier this week, the DCCC announced that it was hitting back against a recent Freedom’s Crotch radio ad buy against Democrats in ten districts with ads of their own. The DCCC has just filed their independent expenditure reports for the buys, which we’ve rounded up below:
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.
In the past 3 months, Democrats have increased their House majority as they picked up a remarkable 3 seats in a series of special elections organized in Illinois’s 14th district, Louisiana’s 6th district, Mississippi’s 1st district. What is particularly remarkable is that all three of these districts leaned heavily Republican; in 2004, George Bush had won them respectively with 55%, 59% and 62%. Each defeat increased the chaos of the Republican caucus as the NRCC started to settle in panic mode. After the loss of MS-01 on May 13th, Tom Cole, the chairman of the NRCC, issued a remarkable statement calling on Republican incumbents to brace for the worse and find individual ways to deal with the onslaught.
And Republicans have reason to fear a second November debacle. First, Republicans are now three more seats away from the majority and it is hard to find a GOP operative willing to suggest their party has any hope of reducing that margin in November. Second, the party continues to be at a significant financial disadvantage while the DCCC has a huge pile of cash that it will use in dozens of districts in the coming months, testing any Republican seat that shows any sign of being vulnerable. While the GOP was able to respond in the special elections, they will not have the money to do the same in the fall and will be forced to make some painful choices.
Third, the success of Travis Childers in MS-01 differed from those of Don Cazayoux and Bill Foster in that his opponent was not tragically flawed; in other words, the GOP had no easy excuse to explain the loss of that seat and has to face the terrifying prospect that all of its open seats are vulnerable, no matter how competitive they have appeared in previous cycles. A number of districts that opened up in the past few months and which Republicans believed would be safe bets for re-election are now finding themselves at the center of the storm, districts like NM-02, MO-09, AL-02 and OH-07. Democrats know that they will likely not have such an opportunity to snatch away heavily Republican seats in years – perhaps even decades – and they will do everything they can to make the most of every opening they have this year.
The field has shifted towards the Democratic Party, as a stunning 53 of the 88 seats that are listed in these rankings are held by Republicans. The 25 seats Democrats are defending include the 3 districts that they have just acquired and that are likely to remain in their hands in November. New York in particular is looking to be emblematic of the national catastrophe Republicans fear. Once dominant in the Empire State, the GOP has only 6 districts left today. Next year, they might only have 2. NY-25, NY-26 and NY-29 were already on everyone’s list of vulnerable Republican seats at the time of my last rankings, though the GOP’s catastrophic recruitment process in the first two of these districts has increased their predicament. And in a sign that New York Republicans are doing everything they can to seal their own doom, Vito Fossella’s arrest and subsequent retirement and the farce Staten Island Republicans are currently playing has suddenly moved NY-13 from a barely vulnerable seat to one of the Republicans’ two most vulnerable districts nationally. And to make matters worse, Republican chances in districts Democrats picked up in 2006 are rapidly fading, despite GOP boasting that they would have no trouble recapturing NY-19 and NY-24 (though the first has been making some noise again over the past few weeks, see below).
I have written full descriptions of seats that have made news since mid-February. For detailed descriptions of the other races, check last month’s rankings. I indicated upgraded or downgraded next to the seats that saw their ratings change to indicate whether they became more vulnerable or less vulnerable for the incumbent party. Here is the quick run-down:
Less vulnerable: IL-11, IN-07, IN-07, PA-06, OH-15, OH-18
Outlook: Democrats pick-up 14-20 seats, with a possibility of higher gains. My current prediction is a net pick-up of 17.
Republican seats, Likely take-over (2)
NY-13 (open, upgraded): In no other seat did Republican chances collapse as much and as quickly as in this Staten Island seat, the last which the already dying New York GOP controls in New York City. All it took was for Rep. Vito Fossella to be arrested on DWI charges for Republicans to unravel. First, there were revelations that Fossella had an extramarital affair and that he had taken his mistress on taxpayer-funded congressional trips, forcing Fossella to announce his retirement. Second, the top Republicans in the district declined to run, leading the Staten Island party to endorse a weak and unknown candidate, Francis Powers, the island’s representative on the MTA board. Finally, Democrats convinced one of their strongest candidates, councilman Mike McMahon, to jump in the race. Despite some divisions and the candidacy of Brooklyn Democrat Steve Harrison, Democrats were already favored to pick-up this swing district when the race devolved even further into a farce as Francis M. Powers, the son of the Republican candidate, announced he would run as the Libertarian candidate with the explicit desire to get the Republican Party (and thus his father defeated).
NY-25 (Open, upgraded): Democrat Dan Maffei, who was came very close from unseating Walsh in 2006, never stopped running in this district that voted for both Al Gore and John Kerry. Given how toxic the environment is for Republicans in any open seat, the seat became instantly lean take-over as soon as Rep. Walsh announced his retirement back in January. And that was before the disastrous series of GOP recruitment failures, as the only Republican candidate who had stepped forward by mid-March suddenly dropped out, leaving the party with nowhere to turn. The county committees ended up settling on former Onondaga County Legislature Chairman Dale Sweetland. Given how many seats the NRCC has to defend in the next few months, it is unlikely they will put much effort into holding this seat.
Republican seats, Lean take-over (5)
AK-AL (Rep. Young, upgraded): Hit by a corruption investigation that is sinking many Alaska Republicans (including Senator Stevens), Rep. Young has a Democratic target for months now, even more so since highly-touted Democratic challenger Ethan Berkowitz jumped in the race in 2007. Since then, numerous polls have shown Young trailing, the latest being a mid-May Research 2000 survey with Berkowitz up by 10 percent. In fact, the Democrats’ nightmare is that Young lose the Republican primary and the GOP nominate someone with less ethical trouble. The state’s Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell (whose father Young defeated 28 years ago) is challenging him in the primary.
AZ-1 (Open)
IL-11 (Open, downgraded): Republican prospects in this district have been dismal since the GOP candidate Tim Balderman abruptly withdrew after the primary. The seat was already leaning Democratic with Balderman in the race: the DCCC had hit the jackpot by convincing state Senate President Debbie Halvorson to jump in while the NRCC had failed to recruit its top candidates. With Balderman’s exit, party leaders got the right to select a new nominee and they attempted to convince state Senators that had previously refused to run to do so. Yet, despite the prospect of becoming a candidate without having to go through a primary, none of them changed their mind. At the end of April, Republicans appointed Chicago businessman Martin Ozinga to fill Balderman’s spot on the ballot. They now have a candidate to hold the seat — something they did not have at the time of my previous rankings — which is enough to downgrade the seat form likely to lean take-over. But there is no question that Halvorson is heavily favored to pick-up this seat, particularly with Barack Obama topping the Democratic ticket.
NJ-03 (Open): Democratic state Senator Adler and Republican Mayor Chris Myers won their party’s nomination on June 3rd in a race with unbalanced recruitment. Adler is the Democrats’ dream candidate while Republicans did not get their first choice. In a district that is swing in a neutral year, an open race should be fatal for Republicans in a cycle that looks so toxic for them.
VA-11 (Open): As soon as Tom Davis announced his retirement, Democrats rejoiced at the opportunity of a sure pick-up in a region that is rapidly trending Democratic, Northern Virginia. But the party’s primary, opposing former Rep. Leslie Bynre to Gerald Connolly, the chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, has gone very negative, even splitting the state’s establishment, with Sen. Webb and Gov. Kaine supporting different candidates. This gives Republicans hope that they might beat the odds and hold on to this seat with businessman Keith Fimian. It is too early to downgrade this race to a toss-up, but Byrne and Connolly better find a way to finish their race in a less brutal manner.
Democratic seats, Lean take-over (2)
FL-16 (Rep. Mahoney): Tim Mahoney has had a target on his back ever since his narrower-than-expected victory in 2006 in the seat that had just been left vacant by Rep. Foley. The GOP primary is late so the race will not settle for a few more months, but the number of credible candidates running for this seat contrasts to the situation in many other districts and confirms that this is one of the Republicans’ top opportunities.
TX-22 (Rep. Lampson, upgraded): This is a rare seat in which the GOP caught a break over the past few months. The former seat of Tom DeLay was won by Nick Lampson in 2006 after an absurd campaign in which DeLay messed up his retirement, preventing the GOP from replacing him on the ballot. Republicans settled on a write-in campaign on behalf of Shelley Sekula Gibbs. This year, Sekula Gibbs was running to take on Lampson one more time, but many Republicans were worried that she had become too much of a liability after spending a controversial few months in Washington (she had won the special election to replace DeLay until January 07); they were concerned that nominating her could doom their chances in a district they have no doubt belongs to them. Yet, Sekula Gibbs was crushed in the runoff by Pete Olson despite coming in ahead in the first round of the primary. Olson can now set his sights on Lampson and Republican are upbeat about their chances in this race. However, Lampson can take comfort in Democratic victories in seats like MS-01, as the country’s mood might be anti-Republican enough to save him.
Republican seats, Toss-up (14)
CO-4 (Rep. Musgrave): Many feel that Democrats had their best shot here two years ago, when they fell just short of picking-up a second Colorado House seat. Musgrave has always significantly underperformed in this GOP-leaning district, and Democrats are fielding Betsy Markey, a former aide to Senator Salazar. A recent internal poll released by the Markey campaign shows Musgrave held under 50% and leading by 4%.
CT-4 (Rep. Shays)
IL-10 (Rep. Kirk): Rep. Kirk knows he has a target on his back since the early days of the 2008 cycle and he thus made sure to be the highest fundraising Republican congressman. Last month, challenger Dan Seals tried a stunt that had already been performed by many other Democratic campaigns across the country: he sold gas at the price at which it was sold when Kirk took office. But unlike similar events held elsewhere, Seals’ version somewhat backfired as many cars were turned away, the police intervened and Kirk asked for a vote-buying investigation to be launched. However, any Illinois Republican has a target on his back now that Obama is sure to top his party’s ticket and drive up Democratic turnout in his home-state.
KY-02 (Open)
MN-03 (Open): Rep. Ramstad’s retirement was an instant headache for Republicans in this swing district but at the time of my last ratings rumors were swirling that Ramstad would un-retire. That has not happened and both parties have now picked their nominee: Republicans picked state Rep. Paulsen. At the Democratic convention, early favorite state Senator Terri Bonoff surprisingly lost to Iraq War veteran Ashwin Madia. This race is still in its early stages and should thus be considered a toss-up but even a weak Democratic breeze would be enough to turn this seat blue.
NC-8 (Rep. Hayes)
NJ-07 (Open): Republicans nominated state Senator Lance Leonard to lead their party, defeating Kate Whitman, the former Governor’s daughter. The GOP’s obvious trouble in keeping any open seat — let alone one that is competitive on the presidential level — will make it hard for them to defeat Democrat Linda Stender who came close to unseating Rep. Ferguson in 2006.
NM-1 (Open): It would be a curious feat if Democrats pick-up NM-02 but not this district, as Heather Wilson’s seat has been one that Democrats have targeted for years. Wilson’s career ended on June 3rd with a defeat in her party’s Senate primary and she opened up her seat in the process. Her campaigning skills were the only reason Republicans were able to retain this Kerry-voting district but sheriff Darren White is one of the GOP’s main recruiting successes this cycle, as the NRCC is confident he will keep the race more competitive than other Republicans would have managed to. Democrats nominated Martin Heinrich, the early favorite and a former Albuquerque councilmember. Given the political environment, Democrats are favored in most open seats — let alone one that leans Democratic usually. Yet, this race should remain competitive and suspensful.
NY-26 (Open, upgraded): Rep. Tom Reynolds, the NRCC chairman in the 2006 cycle, unexpectedly retired since my last rankings, giving Democrats an opening in this traditionally Republican upstate New York. The GOP looks to have unified around businessman Christopher Lee but that was only after a disastrous recruitment effort in which the GOP’s top two choices declined to run for the seat — a problem that has haunted Republicans in this state more than in others. Thankfully for the GOP, the Democratic picture looks confused as 2006 nominee and unconventional (to put it politely) candidate Jack Davis wants the nomination and is looking to spend hundreds of thousands of his own money; actually, he is hoping to spend up to $3 million and to do that he has filed suit to overturn the millionaire amendment, which poses conditions on candidates’ self-funding… Meanwhile, most of the Democratic establishment is lined up behind Iraq war veteran Jon Powers. The New York primaries are very late, so if Davis decides to hit Powers it could give th GOP an unexpected boost in its effort to stay alive in New York State.
OH-01 (Rep. Chabot): State Rep. Driehaus is trying to unseat one of 2006’s unlikely survivors. Some Democrats point that OH-01 has an important black population and with predictions of an increased African-American turnout in November this is one race in which that could have an impact.
OH-15 (Open, downgraded): Mary Jo Kilroy unexpectedly lost her bid to unseat Rep. Pryce back in 2006 and when the Republican incumbent announced her retirement early in this cycle Kilroy was deemed the favorite. The fact that virtually every major Republican in the district passed on the race seemed to give Kilroy a pass in the general election but the NRCC managed to convince state Senator Steve Stivers to change his mind and jump in the race. The GOP is touting Stivers so highly that they at least look certain to devote some of their defensive resources to this race (the same cannot be said of every open seat the GOP will be defending) which warrants the downgrade to toss-up status. However, Kilroy remains a slight favorite. This is a district in which Bush and Kerry tied in 2004, and it will be difficult for the GOP to retain any such open seat. Furthermore, a poll conducted last month for the Kilroy campaign found her leading Stivers by 10%.
OH-16 (Open): On March 4th, Republicans selected state Sen. Kirk Schuring to be their nominee. Schuring will run against Democratic state Senator John Boccieri who has long been one of the DCCC’s most prized recruits.
WA-8 (Rep. Reichert): Challenger Darcy Burner lost by a thin margin in 2008 and is back for a rematch. The district leans Democratic, voted for Kerry and should go for Barack Obama in the fall which could help Burner. One of the biggest problems the Democrat faced two years ago was her political inexperience but now that she is running for the second time voters will feel more familiar with her, making it more difficult for the GOP to paint her as a risky vote.
WY-AL (Open, upgraded): One of the most Republican districts in the nation, WY-AL was downgraded to lean retention in my last rankings after Rep. Cubin announced she would not seek re-election. Given that most of the GOP’s past difficulties in holding this seat had come from her unpopularity, an open seat made it easier for Republicans to hold the seat. But Democratic special election successes this spring means that no open seat is safe from take-over as long as Democrats have a credible candidate, and Gary Trauner (their 2006 nominee) is very viable. A new Research 2000 survey shows him edging out GOP candidate Cynthia Lummis, confirming a January poll by Mason-Dixon.
Democratic seats, Toss-up (9)
CA-11 (Rep. McNerney): Republican state Rep. Dean Andal won his party’s nomination on June 3rd and he is being highly touted as a top recruit to take on Jerry McNerney, an incumbent Democrat in a district that leans Republican. Yet, the Democrats’ special election victories have made the 54% Bush got in this district look like an inconsequential GOP lean, though it is noteworthy that Andal won more votes than McNerney did on their respective primary ballots (both were running uncontested).
GA-8 (Rep. Marshall)
IL-08 (Rep. Bean)
IN-09 (Rep. Hill)
KS-02 (Rep. Boyda): The freshman’s incumbent main hope for re-election in this very Republican district is for the GOP primary between former Rep. Jim Ryun and state Treasurer Lynn Jenkins prevents the Kansas Republican Party — which has been divided for years between conservative and moderate wings — from uniting behind the nominee.
NH-01 (Rep. Shea-Porter): Shea-Porter is one of the rare freshman Democrats who is facing a rematch with the Republican representative she defeated in 2006. Jeb Bradley wants his job back — given that this was the upset of the 2006 cycle he probably never fully integrated his defeat — and the latest poll of the race suggests this will be a tough hold for Democrats if Bradley is the Republican nominee. Shea-Porter just joined the DCCC’s Frontline program, meant to help Democratic incumbents raise money and prepare for their re-election; she had refused to join it through 2007, so her change of mind says a lot about her vulnerabilities.
OR-05 (Open): The GOP endangered its chances in one of the only competitive Democratic open seats because of the incredible levels of nastiness their primary reached. State Rep. Kevin Mannix attacked his opponent businessman Mike Erickson for getting a woman pregnant and paying for her abortion, leading the National Right to Life is calling for him to drop out of the race. Incredibly, Erickson survived these allegations and became the GOP nominee by the thinnest of margins, most probably because of the strength of early voting and ballots sent in before the scandal was exposed. This is the kind of primary that leaves traces in a general election.
PA-4 (Rep. Altmire): Melissa Hart, the Republican congresswoman Altmire defeated in 2006, is back for a rematch and it ought to be a tough one as this is a district that leans Republican and in which a Democratic victory was something of a last-minute surprise. But in the intervening two years Democrats have consolidated their position in Pennsylvania and the thousands of new registrations in the first few months of 2008 have altered the playing field in their favor.
PA-10 (Rep. Carney): Republicans nominated businessman Chris Hackett in what is sure to be a tough race for Carney in a district Bush won with 60% in 2004. PA-10 is the kind of district, however, in which Cazayoux and Childers’s victories should reassure the incumbent Democrat the most.
Republican seats, Lean retention (18)
AL-02 (Open, upgraded): Rep. Everett announced he was not running months ago, so why is this the first time I am adding the district to my ratings? MS-01 showed that even staunchly Republican districts are offering openings for Democrats, and they will be sure to seize them — who knows when the climate will be this favorable for them again? AL-05 gave 67% of its vote to Bush in 2004, clearly a huge percentage (even in MS-01 Bush “only” got 62%). But Democrats do have a candidate they believe will make this close, Montgomery Mayor Bobby Bright… who Republicans also tried to recruit, underscoring just how conservative Democrats tend to be in this kind of district.
CA-04 (Open): A brutal and ideologically driven GOP primary was settled on June 3rd when Republicans chose to nominate the more-conservative candidate, Tom McClintock. His very high-profile in California circles will help him raise money and attract attention, though some suggest that he might be too identified with ideologically pure conservatism to win in the fall. The district is very Republican, and Democrat Charlie Brown’s best shot might have been to face the ethically challenged incumbent. But he could pull it off if he attracts moderate Republicans disappointed in McClintock.
FL-13 (Rep. Buchanan)
FL-21 (Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart)
FL-24 (Rep. Feeney): Democrats are continuing to play up Feeney’s connections with Jack Abramoff and to tout the candidacy of former state Rep. Suzanne Kosmas.
IL-06 (Rep. Roskam)
IL-18 (Open): Aaron Schock, a state Representative who is the 26 year-old Republican nominee for this open seat, has already created a PAC, signaling his confidence that he will be elected in November and minimizing the competitiveness of the race he is engaged in now. It is true that Democrats did not field the strongest of candidates, but IL-18 is less Republican than other open seats the Democrats picked-up over the past few months.
LA-04 (Open, upgraded): The situation is the same as AL-05’s. This is a reliably conservative district that gave George Bush 58% of its vote in 2004. But no open seat seems safe for Republicans this year, and 58% is less than what Bush got in LA-06, which switched over to the Democrats’ side earlier this month revealing how much seats like LA-04 are also endangered. There is a wealth of candidates from both parties, so it will take a while to figure out the general election dynamics.
MI-07 (Rep. Walberg): Democratic state Sen. Mark Schauer is outraising the freshman incumbent, a sure sign that the DCCC will pay attention to his campaign in the coming months.
MI-09 (Rep. Knollenberg)
MO-06 (Rep. Graves): This race has gotten heated early as Sam Graves is using challenger Kay Barnes’s fundraising events with Nancy Pelosi to hit her with twoads accusing her of having “San Fransisco values” along with footage of disco dancing and colorful images depicting gay marriages and the homosexual lifestyle. Beyond explicit gay-baiting, the aim of these ads is to alienate Barnes, the former Kansas City Mayor from the district’s non-urban voters. In response, the Democratic campaign is airing a brutal ad accusing Graves of neglecting the district’s true concern. Indeed, Graves’s tactics might not be adapted to a in a year in which the GOP brand is toxic and voters are giving signs of privileging non-value issues.
MO-09 (Open, upgraded): The NRCC was not too worried when Rep. Hulshof first announced he would retire from the House to seek the open gubernatorial seat as this is a Republican district in which Bush got 59% of the vote in 2004. But the Democrats’ special election victories this spring mean that open seats like MO-09 are very vulnerable to take-over and Democrats realize they cannot afford to pass this opportunity. Both parties have crowded primaries in this district, with a number of former and current state Representatives seeking their party’s nod. The state primary is not until August 5th, so it will take us a while to have a better sense of the campaign’s dynamics.
MN-06 (Rep. Bachmann)
NM-02 (Open, upgraded): Steve Pearce’s retirement was not supposed to create that much of a headache for Republicans, but times are tough for the GOP when it comes to open seats and this is the type of Republican-leaning district that Democrats are confident they can make more competitive. On June 3rd, Democrat Harry Teague won a tight primary to become his party’s nominee and he will face Republican Edward Tinsley.
NV-03 (Rep. Porter): There has been some unexpected movement in this race over the past few months, as Robert Daskas, the presumptive Democratic nominee who was highly touted by the DCCC, unexpectedly dropped out in late April. Democrats were able to recover, however, as they quickly moved to convince Dina Titus, the state Senate Minority Leader and the party’s 2006 gubernatorial nominee, to jump in the race, guaranteeing that this remains a competitive race.
NY-29 (Rep. Kuhl)
OH-2 (Rep. Schmidt): In this rematch of their 2006 contest, which Schmidt won by 1%, Democrat Victoria Wulsin is outraising the incumbent and has positioned herself for an upset. But Democrats have suffered two heartbreaks in this district whose GOP leanings (it gave 63% of its vote to Bush in 2004) still appear too difficult to overcome, despite Schmidt’s unpopularity. Democratic hopes in past cycles were fueled by Republican divisions, as some GOPers in the district were hoping for another Republican to represent them but that factor is fading away as cycles are passing.
VA-02 (Rep. Drake): Democrats are upbeat about the chances of Glenn Nye, but Thelma Drake might have survived the worst by narrowly prevailing in a hotly contested race in 2006. A recent poll has her leading by double-digit but under 50 percent — a little bit for both candidates to celebrate. Like OH-01 (see above), increased black turnout have have an impact in this race.
Democratic seats, Lean retention (13)
AZ-5 (Rep. Mitchell)
AZ-8 (Rep. Giffords)
CT-5 (Rep. Murphy)
GA-12 (Rep. Barrow)
IN-7 (Rep. Carson, downgraded): Andre Carson replaced his grandmother mid-March in a special election. Republicans believed they had a strong candidate, state Rep. Elrod, but Carson prevailed in this blue-leaning district by 11%. The special could have been tighter had Republicans had invested resources in helping Elrod but the NRCC did not have enough money to do that — a concrete example of the limitation the House GOP is facing because of their fundraising weakness.
NY-19 (Rep. Hall, upgraded): Republicans had made freshman Rep. John Hall one of their top targets until their much touted candidate dropped out of the race in mid-November. Followed 5 months of confusion in which the NRCC struggled to find a replacement. They had given up when George Oros, the leader of the Westchester County Legislature, announced he would take on Hall, drawing the immediate support of the GOP establishment. Republicans have such a late start by now that it will be hard for them to live up to their potential, but this is a rare seat in which their situation has improved over the past 4 months.
NY-20 (Rep. Gillbrand)
MN-1 (Rep. Walz)
WI-8 (Rep. Kagen)
Republican seats, potentially competitive (14)
CA-52 (open)
FL-8 (Rep. Keller)
FL-15 (open): I forgot to add this seat to my previous rating, though it ought to have been on my list ever since Rep. Weldon announced that he would retire and leave this Republican-leaning seat open. Bush won this district with 57% in 2004, making it winnable for the opposing party but this is a rare race in which Democrats have failed the recruitment game as their favorite candidate, Nancy Higgs, abruptly dropped out of the race in February while the GOP has united around state Sen. Bill Posey. Democrats will need a very strong wind to move numbers in this district.
FL-25 (Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart): This is the second of two Southern Florida districts which Democrats are trying to pick-up in a battle between Cuban-Americans, the other being FL-21. This Diaz-Balart is facing Joe Garcia, the former chairman of the Miami-Dade Democratic Party and the former director of the Cuban American National Foundation. This is a district that leans Republican and Cuban-Americans tend to vote for the GOP, so Garcia will need to convince them to have any shot at unseating the incumbent.
ID-01 (Rep. Sali, upgraded): This is one of the most conservative districts in the country, and Bill Sali did the most difficult in 2006 by capturing an open race when most of the state GOP was attacking him. Yet, Sali won a surprisingly tight primary on May 27th, as he was held to 60% by an underfunded challenger, suggesting that Republican divisions have not yet been resolved. Democratic challenger Walt Minnick has more cash-on-hand than Sali as of May. But Democrats are the underdog here even when everything aligns for them.
MD-01 (Open, upgraded): State Senator Andy Harris defeated Rep. Gilchrest in a primary on February 12th, making the seat nominally open. MD-01 has a clear Republican lean, so Harris starts out as the heavy favorite; but an open seat with a defeated incumbent can bring surprises, especially if Gilchrest supporters remain bitter.
NY-03 (Rep. King)
OH-07 (Open): George Bush won 57% here in 2004, which is less than his share of the vote in LA-06 and MS-01. An internal poll for the Democratic candidate finds Republican state Senator Auria leading by only 6%, though we have to wonder whether Democrats can win in such a district without their strongest candidate, as their first choice declined months ago explaining it was too Republican a seat.
OH-14 (Rep. LaTourette)
PA-03 (Rep. English): Surprised by English’s unexpectedly low 54% in 2006, Democrats are confident they can test the incumbent more actively this time. Kathy Dahlkemper won the Democratic nomination on April 22nd.
PA-06 (Rep. Gerlach, downgraded): A rare Democratic recruitment disappointment, PA-06 should have been at the top of the DCCC’s priority list. But after two very close contests in 2004 and 2006, Democrats have eased the pressure on Gerlach in a district narrowly carried by Kerry. The Democratic nominee will be retired businessman Bob Roggio, and while the national environment is anti-Republican enough that anything will happen, Gerlach demonstrated two years ago that he is a tough code to crack.
PA-15 (Rep. Dent)
PA-18 (Rep. Murphy)
WV-02 (Rep. Capito)
Democratic seats, potentially competitive (10)
CT-2 (Rep. Courtney)
IL-14 (Rep. Foster, changed parties): The former seat of Dennis Hastert fell into Democratic hands in March, in the first of the three shocking Democratic victories. IL-14 was also the least Republican of the three, but it still gave Bush more than 55% of the vote in 2004. The Republican candidate in the special election, Jim Oberweis, was a flawed candidate who had lost elections before and was denounced in state papers for his negative campaigning. The mere fact that he will represent the GOP again in November makes it improbable that Foster will be much threatened. Not to mention that the NRCC wasted enough money defending this seat in March that they will stay away from Oberweis in the fall.
IN-02 (Rep. Donnelly): The filing deadline passed in Indiana and Donnelly attracted minor opposition in a district the GOP had vowed to take back this year.
IN-08 (Rep. Ellsworth, downgraded): The situation is similar to IN-02. This is a Republican-enough seat that I gave the GOP the benefit of the doubt until now. They insisted that they would make this seat very competitive, but they are sending a former congressional aide, Greg Goode, against a Democrat who atomized his opponent, an incumbent, in 2006.
NH-02 (Rep. Hodes): The GOP is concentrating its resources on NH-01, where Rep. Shea-Porter is much more endangered than Hordes. And given that the Senate race will also require heavy GOP attention, there won’t be much left for them to go after Hordes. The same poll that showed Shea-Porter in danger also shows Hordes costing to re-election.
OH-18 (Rep. Space, downgraded): Given the district’s conservative nature, Zach Space was expected to receive one of the strongest challenges of any incumbent. But many Republicans declined to run and the party’s nomination was left in the hands of Fred Dailey, the state’s former agriculture director. Dailey’s fundraising has been anemic, especially compared to Space’s fast-paced campaign, and no one is really paying attention to this race anymore. This is a stunning turnaround considering the GOP’s determination 18 months ago.
There are few surprises here, but the committee’s stamp of approval given to replacement candidate Anne Barth, who is running against incumbent GOP Rep. Shelley Moore Capito in WV-02 seems indicative of the DCCC’s desire to bust open the 2008 playing field in a big way.
“Clash of the Titans”.
Of all the races that have been in SSP’s “Lean Republican” column since 
While Democrat John Adler has been a fundraising machine in his race for the open seat of retiring GOP Rep. Jim Saxton, he has yet to show much in the way of polling strength so far. In the 
After Dean Heller beat Democrat Jill Derby in the open seat race for this R+8 district in 2006, many figured a rematch would be fruitless for Democrats here. However, several factors are making this contest interesting, the most glaring being the dramatic change in the district’s voter pool.
GOP Rep. “
GOP Rep. Steve Chabot has been a perennial target for Democrats in this Cincinnati-based district, but this year’s conditions appear to be the most treacherous.