Swing State Project

With the retirements of Reps. Hastert (IL-14), Pryce (OH-15), and Pickering (MS-03) last week, the Republican caucus has been bracing itself for more surprises.  Today brings another retirement: embattled Rep. Rick Renzi (AZ-01).  From Roll Call:

Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) said Thursday in a statement obtained by Roll Call that he will not seek re-election in 2008, ending months of speculation regarding the ethically clouded Congressman’s political future.

“I will not be seeking re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2008. I am honored and thankful to serve Arizona’s first district and appreciate all that we have accomplished together over the past 6 years.” […]

Renzi staved off a spirited challenge from his Democratic challenger last cycle, but saw his political fortunes plummet following an FBI raid of a business connected to his family as part of a federal probe into his dealings as a Congressman.

Renzi has not admitted to any wrongdoing, but it has become increasingly clear that the investigation would imperil any 2008 re-election bid, and possibly result in him facing multiple GOP primary challengers.

This one is not so surprising.  While Republicans will likely to view this as some necessary bloodletting, Arizona’s 1st will likely be a top tier race next year.  With a PVI of R+2.2, it’s had a Republican lean over the past two Presidential cycles, but not an insurmountable one.  The Democratic field includes State Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, Mary Kim Titla and attorney Howard Shanker.  It remains to be seen whether or not Arizona Republicans will field a Randy Graf-type here.  In any event, this race will be a barn-burner.

Two weeks ago, Michigan Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) expressed an interest in joining the field of candidates seeking the Democratic nomination against far-right incumbent Congressman Tim Walberg (R-Tipton). After two weeks of rumors and discussions of his possible candidacy comes this news out of Michigan’s 7th District, from the AP:

  LANSING, Mich. (AP) – State Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer said Thursday he will seek the Democratic nomination to challenge freshman Republican U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg in the 2008 election after declining earlier overtures to enter the race.

  “Tim Walberg is not doing the job,” Schauer told The Associated Press on Thursday. “He is serving a very narrow interest. He’s really been a servant of the Bush-Cheney administration and the extreme special interests in Washington.”

I heard the news early this afternoon. Around 2 PM I received a phone call, and 45 minutes later, Senator Schauer visited Walberg Watch, the blog I started to cover the race. He wanted to discuss his decision with me, my fellow bloggers, and the readers of the blog.

Read what Senator Schauer had to say and more in the extended entry…

I’ve been asked to cross-post this to a few different blogs. Here’s what Senator Schauer had to say:

Today I created a committee to become a candidate for the 7th Congressional district. I did so because Tim Walberg is the wrong person for this district, and he’s not working for us in Washington. And I did so because I believe that my passion for public service can make a real difference in Washington for the people and issues I care about.

As you’ve noted in thorough detail on this site, Walberg continually obeys the extreme Republican agenda in DC, instead of the practical views of the constituents who depend on him. He has voted against a minimum wage increase, but for privatizing social security. He opposed expanding health care to more than 4 million uninsured kids, and he refused to support recommendations from the 9/11 commission that would help keep us safe. He didn’t have a problem putting out a press release claiming credit for critical local funding, but couldn’t bring himself to actually vote for the bill.

The people of the 7th district deserve better.

I’ve always put my community first and done whatever it takes to make sure we get results for south central Michigan, so I won’t stand for anyone who abandons our district time and time again. I will continue serving as state Senate Democratic Leader and fight to the finish the effort to put Michigan on sound financial footing for the future. In fact, the encouragement I’ve received and support I’ve been offered from my constituents, friends and colleagues is what makes this effort possible. I also owe so much to my amazing wife, Christine, and my understanding family for being willing to accept the sacrifices that this kind of undertaking will require.

With that said, I believe I am the strongest candidate to take this seat back from Tim Walberg. No one will work harder than me, and no one will knock more doors than I will. When the national Republican machine kicks in to try to save this seat, I’ll take them on and win because I have a history of building the kind of broad, bipartisan coalitions necessary to win in tough Republican districts. My experience raising the level of funds a race like this demands will make sure we can stay competitive with the deep pockets of the Club for Growth and others.

There are honorable public servants and friends who have also expressed interest in this race. I have a great deal of respect for each one of them, and I’ll work hard to make sure we all come together to achieve our shared goal – replacing this incumbent. I have a proven track record of bringing people together, and that’s what I would do with Democrats, Independents, and Republicans in this district, because one thing the current Congressman doesn’t seem to understand is that this job means you represent everyone. You’re not there just for the folks who think exactly like you do, or the special interests that fund your campaign, or George W. Bush and his cronies in DC. The interests of the district, the state and the nation come first.

Thanks again for all that you do and all you’re going to do throughout this campaign. Your great research and the time you spend raising awareness of the importance of this race and the failures of the incumbent are not going unnoticed. I plan to be a regular visitor to this site and look forward to working together to return this seat to the people of the 7th district.

Here’s more from that AP article:

  Schauer filed paperwork to run in the 7th District, which includes parts of seven counties in south-central Michigan. It has been targeted by Democrats because Walberg, of Tipton, failed to capture 50 percent of the vote in last year’s election.

  Schauer, who had pledged to Senate Democrats to serve out his full four-year term as minority leader through 2010, said he will keep being the Democratic leader while running for Congress. He said he changed his mind about running after being approached by both rank-and-file constituents and party leaders.

  The push by others for him to join the race “almost became deafening,” Schauer said.

Three other Democrats have already either filed or announced their intention to challenge Tim Walberg– former state Senator Jim Berryman, attorney David Nacht, and 2004 and 2006 nominee Sharon Renier. Nacht out-raised Walberg in the second quarter, at $160,000, and Berryman made raised a respectable $55,000.

Schauer becomes the only candidate to announce that is from the western half of the district, which includes Battle Creek, the district’s largest city. Berryman and Walberg are from Lenawee County, Nacht is from Washtenaw County, at the edge of the district, and Renier is from Munith, just east of Jackson. At this point, it’s not clear what role geography might play in the primary or general election.

This was already a top-tier race before Senator Schauer’s announcement. Now, we have four announced candidates, all of whom have a great shot at winning next fall.

Huge news out of Michigan:

State Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer said Thursday he will seek the Democratic nomination to challenge freshman Republican U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg in the 2008 election after declining earlier overtures to enter the race.

“Tim Walberg is not doing the job,” Schauer told The Associated Press on Thursday. “He is serving a very narrow interest. He’s really been a servant of the Bush-Cheney administration and the extreme special interests in Washington.” […]

Schauer, who had pledged to Senate Democrats to serve out his full four-year term as minority leader through 2010, said he will keep being the Democratic leader while running for Congress. He said he changed his mind about running after being approached by both rank-and-file constituents and party leaders.

The push by others for him to join the race “almost became deafening,” Schauer said. […}

Schauer is seen as a strong candidate by Democrats because he is known as a vigorous campaigner and almost all of his state Senate seat is located within the 7th District – giving him a base of support.

Schauer is a big name in Michigan politics, and his state Senate seat is based in Battle Creek, the heart of the 7th district.  Walberg, as you may recall, rode a wave of hard-right support from the Club For Growth to defeat sitting congressman Joe Schwarz in the Republican primary in 2006.  With only token Democratic opposition, Walberg scored a win that November, but snagged just shy of 50% of the vote against Democrat Sharon Renier.

With Schauer, an aggressive campaigner, in the picture, Walberg won’t be nearly so lucky in 2008.  While he faces a primary with former state Senator Jim Berryman, lawyer David Nacht, and Renier, Schauer has to be considered the front-runner.

This race just skyrocketed up the list of potential House Democratic pick-ups in 2008.

You can read Schauer’s full press release over at Michigan Liberal.

UPDATE: In the diaries, Fitzy of  Walberg Watch, has much, much more.

It seems that Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson are now both in trouble from both sides of the political spectrum. While the two toers-of-the-GOP-party-line generally don’t expect support from the progressive Dems, when the hawkish Republicans go after them… then they know they’re in trouble.

And this group is spending some serious cash on the two New Mexico Republicans.  According to a list e-mailed from Americans United for Change, reprinted at Daily Kos, the group is spending over $250,000 on these ads targeting Wilson and Domenici.  This is the fourth-most being spent in a single area, remarkable considering two of the other targets are in Philadelphia, PA and Washington DC — much more expensive media markets.  This group really is going after Domenici and Wilson.

I won’t get into the problems with the right-wing ad itself — I’ll let Americans United for Change do that, in a video you can see below the fold, but instead discuss its effects on Domenici and Wilson.

Crossposted at New Mexico FBIHOP.

The funny thing about the attack from a group of Bush supporters is it is based on, for Domenici and Wilson at least, what they have said in the press.  Not on what they have actually done, but what they’ve said.  They’ve talked about a new direction in Iraq, they’ve publicly tried to soften their position on Iraq… but then their actions, their votes, betray them.

Take a look at Domenici on “War and Peace”.  Every single time he has voted on a bill concerning the war in Iraq, he has gone with the hawkish “stay the course” message.  He even was among the majority who voted to protect the Halliburtons of the world by voting “NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan.”  In other words, Domenici was not only for no-bid contracts, he was also for not investigating the waste of money afterwards.  Not exactly fiscally conservative, is he?

It’s no surprise to anyone with any knowledge of Domenici’s past that he is so hawkish.  But it is a bit ironic that the right-wing group

(Cross-posted from MLN.)

It’s tough enough to have come back from your eighteenth trip from Iraq only to see the following caricature of yourself on the cover of a weekly local newspaper, with a subtitle asking out loud if you’ve “lost your mind” on the matter:

It’s tougher still to have to look inside the paper and read a quote like this from an Iraq war vet:

“He has more positions on Iraq than Mitt Romney has on abortion,” says Soltz, a veteran of the Iraq and Kosovo wars. “You never know where he sits on Iraq. He can tell you what he wants, but he is lined up with George Bush on this war.”

“He likes to brag about how many times he’s been to Iraq,” Soltz adds, “but he’s never served, and he doesn’t really know how the military works. Shays-all he talks about is tactics, but military people talk about diplomacy; I want to see a policy change, but that is not going to happen by adding more troops.”

But it must really suck to have to read your hometown paper report that the chairman of one of the House committees you sit on is investigating your campaign for possible coordinated impropriety with Karl Rove, while noting that you opposed an investigation into Rove’s political use of government resources even though you had an obvious conflict of interests as one of the officials implicated in the scheme:

A congressional panel is investigating whether the White House misused federal resources to help re-elect Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4, in 2006.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Ca., who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent letters Tuesday to the heads of 18 federal agencies seeking documents to determine if that is so….

Shays has been critical of the investigation, and voted April 25 against issuing subpoenas to the Republican National Committee seeking e-mails that White House officials wrote on RNC e-mail accounts about using federal resources to help Republican candidates.

At the April meeting, Shays complained that “I feel like we are straining out gnats and swallowing camels.”

There are “so many huge issues that we should be debating,” he added.

Worse, this is all taking place on the same day that you’re holding a press conference to try to placate the local press by promulgating your latest tortured rhetorical contortion on the war.

And there are still two days left…

While the Republican Party is currently home to some of the nuttiest policies of recent decades, it has also been home to some of the nuttiest people.  Cranks, loons, shifty-eyed ramblers, hard luck gamblers, and certifiable basketcases alike have all found a welcome home as elected officials in the GOP.

As an example, you may remember Rep. Fred Heineman (NC-04), a one-term wonder from 1995-97, who professed that his congressional salary of $180,000 made him “lower middle class”:

Heineman made news in 1996 with his assertion that his $180,000 income made him lower-middle class. “When I see a first-class individual who makes $80,000 a year, he’s lower middle class,” Heineman said. “When I see someone who is making anywhere from $300,000 to $750,000 a year, that’s middle class. When I see anyone above that, that’s upper middle class.”  (Raleigh News & Observer, 10/21/95)

Clearly a man with a firm grip on reality.

Of course, another favorite Republican nutjob is Rep. Barbara Cubin (WY-AL), whose record is one of utter batshittery and embarrassment, including one notable evening where she barked to a startled audience of GOP donors: “I know what Victoria’s Secret is. She’s a slut.”  And who could forget her penchant for sharing penis-shaped cookies with her colleagues in the Wyoming legislature, or her infamous threat to slap her wheelchair-bound independent opponent after a debate last fall.

Who are some of your favorite Republican nutters?  To be clear, I’m not asking for necessarily the most conservative, or the most mean-spirited policy-wise.  I’m talking about loony quotes and behavior that reflect a serious personality flaw or detachment from everyday reality.  Citations of direct quotes or descriptions of activities, with links if possible, are preferred.  Post ’em in the comments.

The dumber the better, people.

Hot on the heels of the back-to-back-to-back retirement announcements of Republican Reps. Hastert (IL-14), Pryce (OH-15), and Pickering (MS-03), the speculation has run rampant of a potential “flood” of Republican House retirements in the coming months.  As we noted last Friday, there have actually been fewer Republican retirement announcements this year than at this point in the ’05/’06 cycle.  However, the announcements of Pryce and Pickering–both relatively younger incumbents who could have potentially enjoyed long careers in the House–were legitimate bombshells within Washington.

David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report (sub. required) takes a look at the retirement picture, and finds that while the dam hasn’t broken for Republicans yet, things are still looking grim:

Still, if history is any guide, we should expect a significant number of Republican lawmakers to call it quits in 2008 and a considerably higher incumbent retention rate for Democrats. In the vast majority of cases over the past century, when a party has suffered a major (25+ House seat) loss in a midterm election, a higher percentage of the losing party’s members have opted to step down in the succeeding presidential year. This pattern confirms the obvious: that new-found minority status provides House members less incentive to stay put.

After the last party takeover of Congress in 1994, wave-riding Republicans saw 21 in their ranks make plans to step down, while the minority Democrats saw 28 in their ranks bid farewell. Ultimately, Republicans picked off 10 open Democratic seats in the 1996 House elections, while Democrats picked up just four open GOP seats. Although Democrats held a vast advantage in scoring incumbent defeats, Republican net gain of six open seats seriously impeded Democrats’ efforts to rebound into the majority that year.

Even though the cumulative total of open seats remains fairly low at this point, Republicans are concerned about last week’s developments for reasons much broader than the emergence of three new pieces of turf to defend.

For one thing, although the August recess is one of the more popular times for members of Congress to return home to districts and announce plans, it’s no coincidence that retirement announcements to date have disproportionately come in states with some of the earlier primary filing deadlines in the country (Illinois, home to Hastert and LaHood, has a first-in-the-nation filing deadline of November 5, 2007). And, while Hastert and LaHood’s departures were at least somewhat foreseen, Pryce and Pickering’s departures were bombshells. Republicans express nervousness that additional delegations could see multiple retirements as their filing deadlines draw nearer and that additional members of the conference could drop reelection plans without much warning.

It’s also difficult to diminish the fact that the Republicans who announced retirements in the past month have been some of the most widely admired and respected members of the GOP conference during their tenures in Congress. As the longest-serving Republican Speaker of the House, Hastert was the unity choice of Republicans for the top post following the Gingrich-Livingston post-impeachment debacle of 1998. And as Republican Conference Secretary, Vice Chair, and Chair, and a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership, Pryce was one of the most prominent behind-the-scenes leaders of moderate House Republicans throughout her congressional career. How many of their best friends and allies in the House will decide to follow their lead? Republican campaign chiefs will have to work hard to keep this number to a minimum.

One such delegation with multiple retirements could easily be Ohio, where the smart money says that Reps. Regula and Hobson will retire in 2008.  In our last edition of the House Open Seat Watch, we offered many more possibilities, but it is worth noting that Pryce and Pickering were not even a blip on our radar a few weeks ago.

Another factor that might be of relevance is the $15 million ad campaign paid by a White House front group, targeting mostly Republican incumbents in the House and Senate and admonishing them to stay the course in Iraq.  By placing its team members between a rock (public opinion) and a hard place (the iron boot of Republican loyalty), could Ari Fleischer and friends actually inspire more incumbents to say “screw this” and jump ship?  Just a thought.

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

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

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

According to the Douchebag of Liberty (sub. required), GOP sources in Illinois are leaking the word that former Speaker Dennis Hastert “plans to resign November 6 this year instead of finishing out his term,” triggering a special election.  The Prince of Darkness lays out the ramnifications of such a move:

1. Under Illinois statute, the governor, Rod Blagojevich (D), would get to pick the date of both of the special general election and the special primary election (with separate ballots for each party). The general election would have to be within 120 days of the vacancy (meaning by early March, if the November 6 resignation date holds). February 5 is the date for Illinois’s presidential and congressional primaries, and slating the special election — either the primaries or the general — on that date would save state money.
2. The effect of the placing either the special primary or the special general on the same day as the presidential primary is impossible to determine at this point. If one party is seeing a more competitive presidential primary by that date, it could benefit from boosted turnout. The presence of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on the primary ballot could help Democrats.
3. In any event, a special election would entail a much briefer campaign, which would favor the more well-funded candidates. That would be businessmen Jim Oberweis (R) and Bill Foster (D).
4. On net, Hastert’s early resignation, by stirring the pot, gives Democrats a slightly better chance in this Republican district.

Hastert has previously said that he’d serve out the rest of his term as long as he felt effective, but I would not be surprised in the least if he’s preparing his ‘chute for an emergency exit.

Each 2006 pickup had a distinctive reason, almost like a category in an award show; so let’s rate them that way.  The categories would be loss because of changing electorate (DeWine-OH), loss because of unpopular war despite personal popularity (Chafee-RI), Macaca moment (Allen-VA) corruption (Burns-MT), just plain unpopular (Santorum-PA), and battleground (McCaskill-MO).  Who will lose for these reasons this time around, and why?  Here are my ratings.

Unpopular: Sunnunu.  Especially if Shaheen jumps in, but either way the guy keeps running to the right in a suddenly left state.  He’s antagonistic, abrasive, and nothing like the traditional new England republican he needs to be if he wanted to have an ounce of a chance of winning.

Corruption: Ted Stevens.  We finally have a chance to take the nut down, between the FBI raids, and corruption charges he’s going to be this cycle’s Burns.  An incumbent who would have won easily without the corruption.  Burns may have faced a more difficult than normal challenge even without the Abramoff connections, he would have still had a safe win, maybe 55-45.  With Abramoff however, he’s out hunting buck, or screaming obscenities at his family, or whatever crazy old senators do when they lose.

Personal popularity:  this is a toughie.  Collins would seem like the obvious choice, seeing as how she’s quite popular (not Snowe popular) in a strong blue state.  Still, she seems more like a Macaca moment senator to me.  Gordon smith is moderately popular, but not chafee, nor is Oregon Rhode Island.  I’d have to stick with collins, but that’s just me. 

Changing electorate: Ohio was (is) in major political upheaval, as is Colorado.  As it’s an open seat, it becomes even more likely that the state that is becoming rapidly more blue will give us a win similar to brown’s over dewine.

Macaca: these are hard to gauge, because they’re unpredictable.  If anyone had asked last year who it would be, everyone would have said burns because of his history of making stupid remarks.  For the moment I’ll say Coleman, but it might go to Mitch down in Kentucky, or collins may win both categories. 

battleground: since Ohio and Missouri don’t have senate seats up this cycle, I’m going to say Oregon.  While it’s not a bellwether, it’s been a swing state for most of the last elections.

These are just my opinions, please tell me what you think.