(Being continually updated - if you find any items to add, share in the comments.)
The numbers are already beginning to trickle in.
AR-Sen: Blanche Lincoln (D): raised "more than $1 million," "more than $4 million" on hand
AR-Sen: Bill Halter (D): raised "more than $2 million"
AZ-Sen: John McCain (R): raised $2.2 million, $4.5 million on hand
AZ-Sen: J.D. Hayworth (R): raised "in excess of $1 million"
CA-Sen: Barbara Boxer (D): raised $2.4 million, $8.7 million on hand
CA-Sen: Tom Campbell (R): raised $1.6 million
CO-Sen: Jane Norton (R): raised $816,000
CT-Sen: Richard Blumenthal (D): raised $1.87 million, $1.6 million on hand
DE-Sen: Mike Castle (R): raised $826,000, $2.3 million on hand
DE-Sen: Chris Coons (D): raised $635,000 (in last 6 weeks)
FL-Sen: Marco Rubio (R): raised "more than $3.6 million" (woah!)
FL-Sen: Charlie Crist (R): raised $1.1 million, $7.5 million on hand
IL-Sen: Mark Kirk (R): raised $2.2 million, "over $3 million" on hand
IN-Sen: Brad Ellsworth (D): raised $625,000 (in last 6 weeks), "more than $1 million" on hand
KY-Sen: Rand Paul (R): raised "just under $630,000"
KY-Sen: Trey Grayson (R): raised "over $733,000," $1.1 million on hand
LA-Sen: David Vitter (R): raised "over $1 million," $5 million on hand
NC-Sen: Richard Burr (R): raised $1.4 million, $5.3 million on hand
NH-Sen: Paul Hodes (D): "similar" to his Q4-2009 total of $702,000
NH-Sen: Jim Bender (R): raised $100,000, loaned self additional $400,000
NH-Sen: Bill Binnie (R): raised more than $400,000 (unclear how much is personal loan)
NV-Sen: Harry Reid (D): raised "more than $1.5 million"
NV-Sen: Sue Lowden (R): raised "about $500,000," loaned self additional "about $500,000"
NV-Sen: Danny Tarkanian (R): topped his Q4-2009 total of $330,000
OH-Sen: Rob Portman (R): raised $2.35 million, $7.6 million on hand
PA-Sen: Pat Toomey (R): raised $2.3 million, "more than $4 million" on hand
WA-Sen: Patty Murray (D): raised "about $1 million," $5.9 million on hand
Colorado: As Senator Michael Bennet and former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff square off for the Democratic nomination, the Republican primary appears to be a battle over who can most appeal to the furthest right-wing elements of an already hyper-conservative Republican Party. While the Democrats are running largely centrist campaigns, despite being amid a Democratic primary, the Republican establishment pick and primary front-runner, former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, is doing nothing to cater to a general election electorate. Rather, Norton is joining her primary competition in far-right-wing revelry, espousing radical rhetoric and featuring a right-wing background that would make any sensible moderate shudder. Here are some of Jane Norton's greatest hits.
First, Jane Norton would completely eliminate the Department of Education. Discussion of eliminating the Department of Education was a popular topic of far-right-wing conservatives during the Reagan 80's and Gingrich early-to-mid 90's. One of the key traits of teabaggers has been ignorance - ignorance at the Obama Administration's tax cuts for middle- and lower-income families, ignorance at President Obama's birthplace and religion, and so on. Since she's part of a movement marked by turning ignorance into a virtue, why not eliminate the federal department committed to improving the education of Americans.
Second, after we've all spent the last year watching the tumultuous health care reform debates, I think we can all agree that we're not big fans of health care lobbyists. Well, for five years, Jane Norton was a health care lobbyist. She lobbied for the Medical Group Management Association, first as Executive Director in their Office of Strategic Relationship, then as Director of their Office of State Government Relations. On top of that, she subsequently lied about having been a lobbyist, given that lobbyist is one of the dirtiest words in politics nowadays.
Third, going full Palin, Jane Norton chooses not to correct misinformation spouted by supporters at her events, misinformation designed to prey on individuals' basest instincts, fear and hate. At a small coffee shop visit, a Norton supporter repeatedly said of President Obama, "He's a Muslim!" Rather than politely correct the misinformed supporter about the President's religion (notwithstanding the fact that, to this individual, "Muslim" is tantamount to a hateful slur), Norton rather put a positive spin on it, praising the "passion around what is happening in our own country." Perhaps Norton doesn't realize the mistake and actually is under the impression that President Obama is a member of the Muslim faith. If that's the case, perhaps Norton also believes that President Obama was actually born in Kenya. It'd be swell if someone in the Colorado media maybe asked her.
And what I believe is happening... is the fact that the rights of terrorists are more important in this administration that the lives of American citizens.
This is an ignorant and hypocritical response to the Obama Administration trying underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in criminal court rather than military tribunal. Why is it ignorant and hypocritical? Because the George W. Bush Administration successfully tried shoe bomber Richard Reid in criminal court rather than military tribunal. Basically, according to Jane Norton, President Obama is siding with terrorists over Americans because he did something exactly the same as George W. Bush. Interesting. This ignorance and hypocrisy not too dissimilar from Norton calling on President Obama to balance the budget in his first term or not run for re-election, even though he was handed record deficits by George W. Bush (who, you might recall, was handed recorded surpluses by President Bill Clinton but squandered them).
With regard to Social Security, it has turned into a Ponzi scheme. The money that people pay into it should be there for when they are ready to retire.
Taken literally, that individuals' money "should be there" waiting for them specifically when they retire, Norton seems to clearly support privatizing Social Security into personal accounts. Taken more broadly, that Norton believes Social Security is best likened to a Ponzi scheme, an illegal and fraudulent financial structure, one could reasonably surmise that she'd be willing to rid the country of Social Security altogether. Again, it might be helpful for a member of the Colorado media to press her on the topic. If she wants to privatize or eliminate Social Security, perhaps Colorado's hundreds of thousands of seniors receiving Social Security ought to know.
When all of this is assembled, it paints a picture of Jane Norton that is so far out of the political mainstream, she can no longer see it from her house. Taken together, Jane Norton is a fear-mongering, misinformation-spreading, ignorance-championing, Social Security-privatizing former lobbyist who would be happy to weaken education, health care and the rule of law in America. So, yeah, Jane Norton is that radically right-wing.
Pennsylvania: Word is that right-wing former Senator Rick Santorum is considering a 2012 Presidential run, despite getting his clock cleaned in his 2006 re-election bid. As such, he wants to stay on the good side of conservative activists. So, when asked why he endorsed Arlen Specter over primary opponent Pat Toomey back in 2004, he offered a pretty damning answer (damning for Specter, that is):
"The reason I endorsed Arlen Specter is because we were going to have two Supreme Court nominees coming up," said Santorum. "I got a commitment from Arlen Specter that no matter who George W. Bush would nominate, he would support that nominee."
According to Santorum, Arlen Specter put his own political well-being so far ahead of his civic duty as a United States Senator that he was willing to support two Supreme Court nominees, sight unseen. He cashed in his advise and consent duty as a Senator for a political endorsement. This is political fraud and governmental malpractice of the highest order.
Six years later, Specter now has a Democratic primary opponent, and Joe Sestak isn't taking kindly to Specter's reported quid-pro-quo (via e-mail press release):
"Rick Santorum's stunning confirmation that Arlen Specter sold his influence as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for a political endorsement should be extremely troubling to Pennsylvanians. There are few people in this nation who have a greater impact on the lives of the American people than the men and women who serve lifetime appointments on the Supreme Court. For Arlen Specter to take his marching orders from Rick Santorum and George W. Bush and pledge to support any nominee -- no matter how partisan, no matter how unqualified -- in order to win an election is a stunning betrayal of his duty as a public servant. This is one of the most glaring of the many red flags in Specter's record that he is willing to put his own political survival over his principles and his duty to the people."
Just another instance of Specter doing whatever it takes to protect his own political skin, the American people be damned. For a more light-hearted, but no less dishonest and politically opportunistic moment from Specter, this past week he not only lied about earning the College Democrats' endorsement (the organization doesn't endorse in primaries), but he misspoke and proudly touted the endorsement of the College Republicans at first, until someone whispered in his ear that he's nominally a Democrat now. (Video at right.)
Louisiana: Hookerlover David Vitter, speaking at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, appeared to take a shot at President Obama and praise Sarah Palin with the line:
"If that's the choice in 2012, I'll take a TV personality over a community organizer any day," he said.
Notwithstanding the obvious stupidity and unnecessary derision in the comment, it sure would have been swell of a reporter to ask Vitter where in this hierarchy of professions prostitute ranked for him. I'm guessing fairly high. (HT: PW)
The next best quote of the week from LA-Sen came from possible Senate candidate adult film star Stormy Daniels. People have wondered whether she would run as a Republican, Democrat, or independent if, in fact, she did run. Her answer came via e-mail press release:
"After months of careful deliberation and consult as to the true nature of my political affiliation I am ready today to declare that should I seek the office of US Senator from the great state of Louisiana that I will do so as a Republican.
"While this decision has not been an easy one, recent events regarding Republican National Committee fundraising at Voyeur, an LA based lesbian bondage themed nightclub finally tipped the scales. ...
"As someone who has worked extensively in both the club and film side of the Adult Entertainment Industry, I know from experience that a mere $1900 outlay at a club with the reputation of Voyeur is a clear indication of a frugal investment with a keen eye toward maximum return.
"And I firmly believe that it is precisely this type of creative and calculated investing that we, as taxpaying Americans, should expect not only from our political parties but from our government. The American taxpayer deserves consistent conservatives who reject wasteful spending and unwarranted government intervention in the private sector.
"As is the case with so many of my fellow Louisianans, I have been a registered Democrat throughout my life. But now I cannot help but recognize that over time my libertarian values regarding both money and sex and the legal use of one for the other is now best espoused by the Republican Party."
I can only assume that Vitter's camp will refuse any debate that includes Stormy Daniels. That is a shame. At the very least, Vitter may face yet another Republican primary opponent as former State Senator James David Cain announced that he is "seriously considering" a primary challenge to Vitter. Most interestingly, Cain doesn't appear to be ruling out an independent bid if he feels that the Louisiana GOP would effectively box him out and fix the primary for Vitter. Cain has tremendous anti-tax conservative cred from his time in the state Legislature; so, if he ran as a conservative independent in the general, he could definitely siphon off Tea Party support from Vitter, opening up more room for conservative Democrat Charlie Melancon.
Florida: Gov. Charlie Crist has definitively, no-fooling-around, once-and-for-all affirmed that he is running for Senate in 2010 as a Republican. Awesome. This improves the likelihood of a one-on-one Marco Rubio vs. Kendrick Meek general, which is a race we are in position to win. (It also doesn't help Crist that he took in less than one-third in first quarter fundraising than Rubio.) Speaking of Congressman Meek, he released a biographical video this past week that's very well-produced and gives thorough insight into his upbringing, priorities, and overall commitment to public service. The eleven-minute long-form is here. Below is the minute-and-a-half short-form promo. Take a watch and consider a contribution to Congressman Meek's Senate campaign via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page.
Delaware: Republican Mike Castle is open to repealing health care reform, which would re-instate pre-existing condition restrictions as well as do numerous other harms to families. I certainly hope the campaign of Democratic Senate candidate Chris Coons plans on doing something with this information.
Supreme Court: Thank you for your service and your tireless dedication to the rule of law, Justice Stevens.
(Let's welcome Arizona's Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, Rodney Glassman! I've said that AZ-Sen could be a big sleeper race, and Rodney is committed to running a vigorous campaign. -Senate Guru)
Tuesday, I announced my run against the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Arizona.
I'd like to tell you why this race for U.S. Senate is so important for the people of Arizona.
Arizona needs a U.S. Senator who understands and represents all Arizonans. For more than 20 years John McCain has jetted over Arizona on his way to meet with foreign dignitaries and heads of state, barely touching down in Arizona except to have barbecues to court the national press during his presidential runs. His homes in Phoenix and Sedona sit empty, along with tens of thousands of homes that have been foreclosed upon. The families who occupied those homes, though, don't have other homes to jet off to. Their dreams of owning a home were destroyed, and McCain has refused to take the bold steps needed to rebuild those dreams. Arizona needs a U.S. Senator who will work for Arizona's future.
Polling shows that both Specter and Lincoln are at risk of - if not likely to - hand these Senate seats over to far-right-wing Republicans. (And, even if these two retain the seats, that's not much better on many key issues.)
Congressman Sestak and Lieutenant Governor Halter winning these primaries are critical to keeping these seats in truly Democratic hands. Your support can help make that happen! Please hop over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page right away to make a contribution - an investment in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to pull out an old expression - and show your support.
Thanks SO much for any support you can provide. 40 Days.
In what could be the political blunder of the year, John McCain cashed in any hint of credibility and integrity with a single, simple comment to Newsweek (emphasis added by me):
Many of the GOP's most faithful, the kind who vote in primaries despite 115-degree heat, tired long ago of McCain the Maverick, the man who had crossed the aisle to work with Democrats on issues like immigration reform, global warming, and restricting campaign contributions. "Maverick" is a mantle McCain no longer claims; in fact, he now denies he ever was one. "I never considered myself a maverick," he told me.
There is no way to take this comment "out of context." McCain is simply shrugging away the singular descriptor he has applied to himself for years and for no reason more profound than political convenience. In doing so, McCain has turned himself into a laughingstock with a lie so demonstrably dishonest as to border on the absurd.
PolitiFact offers ten instances in which McCain personally labeled himself a maverick or officially approved a television ad (as per McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform rules) in which he labels himself a maverick - including a campaign ad calling him the "original maverick" in all capital letters. Steve Benen offers a link to a search of McCain's official Senate website, on which there numerous press statements in which McCain uses the maverick label - even an instance when it is used interchangeably with his very name. Huffington Post conveniently offers a rotating video shuffle of McCain maverick greatest hits.
Video highlights? You betcha! Talking Points Memo assembled quite the reel:
Then there is one of the books that he wrote, himself, John McCain the author - the book about him was written and titled by him, John McCain: Worth the Fighting For: The Education of an American Maverick, and the Heroes Who Inspired Him
It is supremely ironic that Chapter 11 of this book is titled, simply "Maverick," as, with this one act of McCain's, his sense of political integrity has declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
McCain's primary challenger, conservative former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, is effectively the inspiration for this move. As I've noted before, Hayworth is running tight with McCain in the 2010 Senate Republican primary in Arizona, after just a short while campaignng (a race that can easily turn into a Hayworth lead if Florida's Rubio v. Crist serves as any kind of example) - and campaigning under the slogan "The Consistent Conservative," designed ostensibly to serve as a sharp foil to the maverick brand. So it is fully expected that Hayworth would offer his own thoughts on McCain's maverick-ectomy:
"It's a word that has been expunged from his vocabulary," Hayworth said. "If memory serves, his campaign plane was called 'Maverick One,' and, as I understand it, in national campaigns they spend a lot of time on that stuff."
"If you're scoring at home, how many reversals is this?" Hayworth added, running through what he sees as a litany of McCain position changes. "He's moving away from legislative reversals into branding reversals. It's the new John McCain, nonmaverick edition, for the Arizona Senate election." ...
"To the extent that he can encourage amnesia in the electorate, that's what he's aiming to do."
Sharp commentators from Rachel Maddow to Jon Stewart keyed in on McCain's titanically cartoonish lie:
John McCain now says he hasn't considered himself a maverick except repeatedly, over and over and over again when he's called himself a maverick in speeches and in town halls and in debates and in campaign ads - and, it should be noted, in the subtitle of his own autobiography "Worth Fighting For." The subtitle is "The Education of an American Maverick and Heroes Who Inspired Him." It's the rare politician who will try to disavow the title of his own autobiography, but John McCain is up to the task.
Now, normally, this is obviously where we'd toss to a montage of John McCain calling himself a maverick, but I don't even f---ing need to! That's how embedded the word "maverick" is on his persona! It'd be like Rudy Giuliani coming out and going, "Hey, I never mentioned 9/11. I don't know what you're talking about."
In a desperate, flailing attempt to convince Arizona's conservatives that he has been a "consistent conservative" all along, rather than a maverick who co-sponsors major legislation with Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold, he may have given J.D. Hayworth exactly the message to bring to Republican primary voters in Arizona that will cement McCain's eventual primary defeat: you simply can't trust John McCain's word. Will upcoming polls of AZ-Sen bear out that this occurence is more than just a flub but rather a self-inflicted political wound of epic proportions? Stay tuned.
On the Democratic side, businesswoman Nan Stockholm Walden has decided against a bid. Barring any unexpected entries, this makes Rodney Glassman the likely nominee. Glassman is the now-former Vice Mayor of Tucson, as he had to officially resign his office to run for U.S. Senate, which he did yesterday, as per Arizona's resign-to-run law.
One can only wonder if McCain has more unforced errors like this in him. Either way, Glassman can continue touring Arizona and introducing himself to voters and raising money as McCain and Hayworth slug it out. Come general election season, Glassman will face either a far-right-wing Hayworth (complete with ties to corrupt Jack Abramoff) or a politically battered McCain who has had to dive so far to the right and cash in his integrity chips that he may significantly turn off independent, moderate voters. There's a lot to look forward to.
Iowa: New polling by Research 2000 finds that Republican Chuck Grassley is far more vulnerable than the conventional wisdom gives him (dis)credit for.
When asked if Grassley should be re-elected, only 42% said re-elect, while 31% said it was time for someone new, and 27% were not sure. (Remember, being unsure about an incumbent of twenty-nine years bodes poorly for the incumbent.) Among independents, only 39% said re-elect. Not too hot.
The money question of the poll was:
When Senator Chuck Grassley says President Obama and Democrats would QUOTE "pull the plug on grandma" UNQUOTE do you think that does Iowa proud in Congress or embarrasses Iowa?
By more than a 2-to-1 margin (53% to 26%), Iowans responded that Grassley's comments embarrassed them rather than made them proud. Among independents, the embarrass-proud ratio was an overwhelming 61-21. Research 2000 broke down the responses by Congressional district. Outside of right-wing radical Steve King's 5th Congressional district (which saw a 30-51 embarrass-proud ratio), every other district was overwhelmingly embarrassed by Grassley's remarks. The other four Congressional districts ranged from 53-64% embarrassed while only 19-24% proud.
Very interestingly, while only 35% of respondents favored the Senate version of the health care reform bill, while 56% opposed it, 62% of respondents favored a public option (a 2-to-1 margin over the 31% of respondents that opposed a public option); and, moreover, by more than a 3-to-1 margin, Iowans want Democratic Senator Tom Harkin to fight harder for a public option and would respect him more if he did.
The message from these numbers is clear: Iowans are open to voting for an alternative to Republican Chuck Grassley, would support a public option (and many who opposed health care reform in Iowa simply feel that it didn't go far enough), and were embarrassed by Grassley's dishonest kowtowing to the teabaggers with his "pull the plug on grandma" routine.
Grassley's own numbers must be telling him that his lies could constitute a politically fatal flub given how freaked out he got over the discussion of his comments and how he tripped over himself backpedaling:
By the end of the year, though, Grassley was blaming media reports for his association with the death panels meme. In a letter to a constituent forwarded to The Iowa Independent, Grassley said some "commentators" took his comments and twisted them as saying that health care reform would establish death panels.
"I said no such thing," Grassley said. "As I said then, putting end-of-life consultations alongside cost containment and government-run health care causes legitimate concern."
Who was that Democrat who cited Grassley's comments as a reason for entering the race? Attorney and Democratic former gubernatorial nominee Roxanne Conlin. She got into the race in late 2009, so this past quarter's fundraising report will be the first test of her campaign's financial viability. Word is, she's a fairly prodigious fundraiser.
On top of that, Grassley has handed her the issue and according message frames on which to run. Notably to me, Conlin has five grandchildren. In other words, she is a grandma. I think it would be powerfully resonant for Conlin to put out an ad highlighting Grassley's "pull the plug on grandma" comments that embarrassed a majority of Iowans and to close the ad (while talking to the camera, surrounded by her five grandchildren) with the line, "I'm Roxanne Conlin, and I approved this message because I'm a grandma and I'm embarrassed that Chuck Grassley is talking about pulling the plug on me."
Keep a close eye on IA-Sen; I'm expecting a competitive race that will surprise the traditional media.
Nevada's top political journalist, Jon Ralston, reports:
In the federal penal code, it is known as "structuring."
And it is a word Sen. John Ensign should remember because it is very likely to be on any indictment with his name on it.
That's what I am told by a reliable source familiar with the deliberations occurring inside the Justice Department as federal authorities in Washington try to do with Ensign what they could not do with former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens: Get their man. Or, because they had Stevens and then lost him because of misconduct, Justice wants to make sure if it goes to the next step with Ensign, the charges stick.
Indictment? Don't mind if I do. (Remember, it was the abysmal Bush DOJ that fumbled the Stevens prosecution.) So what is "structuring?"
Structuring is a broad term that refers to the crime of creating financial transactions to evade reporting requirements - for example, a $96,000 payment to your mistress laundered through a trust controlled by your parents and calling it a "gift" instead of what it obviously was: a severance payment that had to be reported.
Based on the facts already in public domain, it seems there may be enough for an indictment.
Two former federal prosecutors in the past two weeks have said there is enough evidence to indict Ensign. "Just based on what the senator has said himself and what Mr. (Doug) Hampton has said ... under the federal standard of probable cause, there's enough to indict the senator now," ex-prosecutor Stan Hunterton, a well-respected local attorney, said March 19 on "Face to Face." Then, Thursday on the program, Melanie Sloan, the former federal prosecutor who now heads a D.C. watchdog group that has filed several complaints against Ensign, said, "I completely think" Hunterton is right. ...
The department is being very deliberate in assembling a case against Ensign. But Justice has a mountain of documents and e-mails that, combined with the senator's own admissions or statements in e-mails, would seem to amount to a formidable case. And last week's New York Times story, showing how Ensign's contacts with a local company (similar to several other interactions), show how far the senator was willing to go to get Hampton work, mostly while he was employed by ex-Ensign aides who had formed a lobbying/consulting firm. The structure, so to speak, is becoming more transparent all the time.
Beyond Ensign's dire and deserved legal fate, what are the political implications?
If Ensign gets indicted, he will become a national and state nightmare for the GOP. National Democrats will brandish him as a symbol of corruption (they may anyhow) and local Democrats will wrap the junior senator around the GOP Senate nominee's neck, especially because Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian foolishly have said they would welcome his support. I wouldn't even be surprised to see Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid directly go after his pal to boost his sagging fortunes. I can hear it now: "Sorry, John. But now you know how Doug Hampton feels - how it feels to be screwed over by your best friend."
Why are the national and state Republicans mute? Cowardice, perhaps? Or is it, as NBC political guru Chuck Todd tweeted Friday, repeating something he previously said on "Face to Face" a couple of weeks ago: "NV/DC GOPers desperate to wait for Gov. Gibbons to be out of office before pushing Ensign out but can they really (http://nyti.ms/91kElt)?"
The Web link in Todd's tweet is to last week's Times story, emphasizing the point that if the Republicans wait too long, their silence could be very costly. And if Ensign gets indicted and no prominent Republican has called for him to resign, there's no way to structure that deal to the GOP's benefit.
Ensign and Washington Republicans can continue to do what they've been doing all along - ignore, ignore, ignore. But they might not be able to run out the clock on Election Day 2010 - still seven months away - before indictments come down. And, as Ralston points out, if the Washington Republican establishment stays mum on all of this, the issue becomes a matter of the entire Party coddling its corrupt members. Hmmmm, Republican Culture of Corruption, where have I heard that before? And that's on top of the already-competitive gubernatorial and Senate races in Nevada, which is also a key 2012 swing state, don't forget. (Lowden's and Tarkanian's poorly thought out statements welcoming Ensign's support will no doubt bite them in the backside if either is the Republican nominee against Majority Leader Harry Reid. The political ad writes itself.)
Particularly as it relates to the 2010 Senate races, the Senate Republican caucus is the Ensign-Vitter caucus. Every Republican incumbent Senator and candidate for U.S. Senate should be asked by their local media if they think hypocritical lawbreakers like John Ensign and David Vitter should resign their seats. They should be forced to call for the ouster of these hypocritical, lawbreaking Republicans or be forced to serve as apologists for them and let the voters decide. Though the media around the country largely may be dropping the ball on their responsibility, it appears federal investigators aren't. The national media that gave a relentless week of news coverage to the Eric Massa absurdity still hasn't fully given the Ensign matter (or the Vitter matter) its due. However, the handing down of indictments, should that come to pass, will be national news and should force the issue for every Republican seeking federal office in 2010.
Fundraising: On the Expand the Map! ActBlue page, Joe Sestak is just 1 contribution away from 50, Bill Halter is just 1 contribution away from 25, and Kendrick Meek is just 1 contribution away from 10. Can you help them reach these thresholds by sending 'em $20 today via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page?
Health Care Reform: After the passage of health care reform, a demoralized Republican leadership had to pep up their teabagger base with calls of "Re-write!" and "Repeal!" However, the bluster has wound down to whimpers of "Retreat!" as numerous Republican Senators and Senate candidates weigh the lose-lose scenario of alienating their teabagger base by not pushing for repeal or alienating the independent moderates who decide most elections by running in 2010 on a national platform of "bring back pre-existing condition restrictions!" In true cover their ass mode given their re-election bids in swing states, Richard "Bank Run" Burr of North Carolina is talking only about incremental fixes while Chuck Grassley of Iowa is actually taking credit for portions of the bill he opposed. Even Senate Republican "leader" Mitch McConnell is publicly recognizing his own impotence regarding a potential repeal effort. Most hilariously, though, was the addled Republican Mark Kirk of Illinois, running for President Obama's old seat. In just over one week, Kirk went from boasting about leading the "Repeal!" charge if elected to the Senate to tucking his tail between his legs and clamming up.
Florida: Republican former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani will endorse insurgent conservative Republican former state House Speaker Marco Rubio in his 2010 Senate primary bid against Charlie Crist. This will give Rubio cred with moderate Republicans (obviously Crist's base) and law & order/national security Republicans who mistakenly think Giuliani has credibility in this area. Some credit this endorsement as Giuliani's revenge against Crist for backing McCain over Giuliani in the 2008 GOP Presidential primaries. Whatever the reason, it's just another nail in a rapidly closing coffin for Crist's Senate bid and political career. Another such nail: Rubio also secured the endorsement of Oklahoma's anti-government Senator Tom Coburn.
Ohio: A new Quinnipiac poll offers good news for Democrats as two-time George W. Bush appointee Rob Portman narrowly trails both Democratic contenders, Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher (by a 41-37 margin) and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (by a 38-37 margin). A February Q poll showed Portman with narrow leads over the Democrats in what were high-water marks for Portman. As the economy improves, further strengthening Democrats' numbers nationwide, will we see Portman slip further behind? Stay tuned.
Louisiana: Family Research Council head and former Louisiana state legislator Tony Perkins urged conservatives this past week to stop contributing to the Republican National Committee, following revelations of highly controversial RNC spending, including paying for a social event at a bondage-themed sex club in the Los Angeles area. Perkins urged conservatives to contribute "directly to candidates who you know reflect your values" rather than give to the RNC. Not missing a beat, the Louisiana Democratic Party issued an outstanding press release (via e-mail):
Does Vitter Pass the Perkins Test?
Former Louisiana legislator urges followers to contribute to candidates who share their values
In the wake of Family Research Council President and former Louisiana legislator Tony Perkins' call for his followers to stop contributing to the Republican National Committee in favor of candidates for office who share their values, the Louisiana Democratic Party asks the former Louisiana legislator if U.S. Senator David Vitter meets that test. ...
In 2007, Perkins denounced David Vitter after the junior Senator admitted that he broke the law by engaging the services of prostitutes. Perkins said at that time that he would not defend the Senator's actions.
"Adultery is a serious matter that affects not only the individuals involved but families and the well being of the entire community," Perkins said in a statement. "Voters have the right to consider issues like this when they assess the character of an elected official."
The Louisiana Democratic Party asked Perkins if he believes conservatives should contribute to David Vitter's re-election campaign.
"If Tony Perkins thinks his followers shouldn't give money to the RNC because they held a fundraiser at a sleazy, but legal, strip club, then it's hard to imagine that he would condone contributing to the campaign of a Senator who has admitted breaking the law, adultery and engaging the services of prostitutes," said Louisiana Democratic Party spokesman Kevin Franck.
The Louisiana Dems are staying relentlessly on-message, not letting Hookerlover David Vitter off the proverbial hook for his misdeeds, both legal and moral, questions about which he still refuses to answer. I'd also urge you to visit the Louisiana Dems' website scrutinizing Vitter's dishonest record Cheating on the Truth:
Washington: One of the only Republicans in Washington state who has the potential to make a nominally competitive race out of Democratic Senator Patty Murray's 2010 re-election bid is two-time gubernatorial race loser Dino Rossi. There have been rumblings about Rossi meeting with the NRSC to discuss a possible bid. As such, the DSCC has wasted no time publicly scrutinizing Rossi's extremely shady business record, unveiling the website Dirty Deals Dino. Within the context of any race, a successful campaign should define their opponent as early as possible and on their own terms. In a post-bailout era, "shady businessman Dino Rossi" doesn't sound like a candidate Washingtonians will want to get behind. The DSCC's proactive effort could help discourage Rossi from making the race. It also doesn't help Rossi that a close adviser of his, former Slade Gorton Chief of Staff Tony Williams, is raising funds for Senator Murray's re-election. (Although, this may simply be a signal that Rossi is not serious about a bid.)
Kentucky: In the Bluegrass State's Republican primary, insurgent Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, has shocked the political establishment by outpacing Washington establishment pick Trey Grayson in both polls (Survey USA, 3/4/10: Paul 42, Grayson 27; Research 2000, 3/19/10: Paul 40, Grayson 28) and fundraising. Grayson and the Washington Republican establishment is freaked out that Rand Paul will beat Grayson for the GOP nomination. (Kentucky's primary date is May 18, just over six weeks away.) So what does Grayson do? Given that he's an establishment Republican in a defensive crouch, the answer should be obvious: a noun, a verb, and 9/11. Grayson released a new ad that claims that Paul blamed America for 9/11. Desperate? Obviously. So Paul called Grayson out in a response ad and, it appears, owned him. It will be interesting to see if Grayson makes up ground in the polls as a result of the controversial move or if this tactic winds up being considered as the last throes of the Grayson campaign. For your viewing pleasure, here are Grayson's ad and Paul's response ad.
Economic Recovery: Vice President Biden was right. No, I'm not talking about this. (Although, he was right about that, too.) I'm referring to this.
Senatorial Recovery: On a very serious note, the Senate Guru community wishes Republican Senator Johnny Isakson a speedy recovery. He was recently released following his second hospitalization in two weeks for an irregular heartbeat and a blood clot in his leg. Senator Isakson is up for re-election this year, and Georgia's filing deadline is April 30, less than four weeks away. If Senator Isakson decides against a re-election bid in light of his health issues, Republicans will have no shortage of stand-ins. However, until there is any news on this front, the operating assumption is that Isakson is still running for a second term despite lackluster approval numbers. (If I wanted to be snarky, I would make a comment along the lines of "I'm sure Isakson is glad that he doesn't have to worry about pre-existing condition restrictions on his health insurance.")
This is a bit off the topic of the Senate races, but I felt it was worth highlighting.
Bill Maher, one of America's finest satirists, was on Jay Leno's show recently and he claimed that the Tea Parties were responsible for the passage of health care reform. Basically, Maher argued that the Fox-News-backed teabaggers' zealotry revolted moderate America enough to push health care reform over the finish line.
This made the mindless drones on Fox & Friends cranky:
Toward the end of the segment, did you catch the image that Fox producers chose to use as their "Tea Party stock footage shot?" No? Well, here it is:
The image doesn't focus on the protesters - just on a single sign that says: "KILL the BILL." Of course, the "bill" referred to on the sign is the now-passed health care reform legislation - and that will be Fox News' defense in the court of public opinion if called on it. But this segment is about Fox News' discontent with another bill - Bill Maher. And the image they flash on the screen for just a moment, almost subliminally, has two words prominently displayed: KILL and BILL. That's the image they went with for their couple-of-seconds-long visual. Are they signaling a request to their limbicly-driven viewers?
Fox News couldn't have been more subtle if they took Sarah Palin's rifle target image and replaced the map of America with Bill Maher's head. This is just the latest in the ongoing trend of violent rhetoric and imagery - be it explicit, coded, or subliminal - with which Fox News, conservative talk radio, Republican elected officials and other right-wing radicals are populating American public discourse.
I don't imagine that the Fox producers who chose that "KILL BILL" image for their segment on Bill Maher did so arbitrarily or accidentally. Just abhorrent.
ADDENDUM: I can't believe I didn't mention this, too. In addition to the "KILL BILL" text, the title of the segment, also in the image, reads "TEA PARTY ATTACK." Sure, the story is about a verbal "attack" (I guess) on the Tea Party. However, it - like the "Kill Bill" command - can also be read as a command to the Tea Partiers: "Tea Party, attack!" More violent rhetoric, and it's hard to believe that it's just accidental.
Here are the big days! (Compiling courtesy of Swing State Project.) I'm particularly excited for May 4, May 18, and August 24.
State
Filing Deadline
Primary Date
Alabama
4/2/10
6/1/10
Alaska
6/1/10
8/24/10
Arizona
5/26/10
8/24/10
Arkansas
3/8/10
5/18/10
California
3/12/10
6/8/10
Colorado
5/27/10
8/10/10
Connecticut
5/25/10
8/10/10
Delaware
7/30/10
9/14/10
Florida
4/30/10
8/24/10
Georgia
4/30/10
7/20/10
Hawaii
7/20/10
9/18/10
Idaho
3/19/10
5/25/10
Illinois
11/2/09
2/2/10
Indiana
2/16/10
5/4/10
Iowa
3/19/10
6/8/10
Kansas
6/10/10
8/3/10
Kentucky
1/26/10
5/18/10
Louisiana
7/9/10
8/28/10
Maryland
7/6/10
9/14/10
Missouri
3/30/10
8/3/10
Nevada
3/12/10
6/8/10
New Hampshire
6/11/10
9/14/10
New York
7/15/10
9/14/10
North Carolina
2/26/10
5/4/10
North Dakota
4/9/10
6/8/10
Ohio
2/18/10
5/4/10
Oklahoma
6/9/10
7/27/10
Oregon
3/9/10
5/18/10
Pennsylvania
3/9/10
5/18/10
South Carolina
3/30/10
6/8/10
South Dakota
3/30/10
6/8/10
Utah
3/19/10
6/22/10
Vermont
7/19/10
9/14/10
Washington
6/11/10
8/17/10
Wisconsin
7/13/10
9/14/10
In case primaries are not decisive, Arkansas (June 8) and North Carolina (June 22) have run-offs.
Key Dates
March 30
South Dakota Democrats' FAIL: No challenger for Republican John Thune, who now gets to spend all his time stoking 2012 speculation.
April 30
Will Senator Isakson's health problems keep him from running again?
May 4
North Carolina & Ohio primaries: Which Dems will take on "Bank Run" Burr (Lewis, Cunningham or Marshall) and Bushbot Portman (Brunner or Fisher)? BIG day.
May 18
Kentucky, Arkansas & Pennsylvania primaries: Jack Conway vs. Dan Mongiardo, Rand Paul vs. Trey Grayson, Bill Halter vs. Blanche Lincoln, Joe Sestak vs. Arlen Specter. HUGE day.
June 1
Who will step up to take on the I-swear-she's-vulnerable Lisa Murkowski?
June 8
Who will win the Republican scrums in Nevada and California?
August 10
Connecticut & Colorado primaries: Which Republican will get to lose to Richard Blumenthal? In Colorado, Bennet vs. Romanoff and another GOP scrum.
August 24
Wingnut Christmas! Marco Rubio vs. Charlie Crist in Florida and J.D. Hayworth vs. John McCain in Arizona. Tea Partiers can end the political careers of two prominent Republicans today.
September 14
Last crowded primary day, including Republican scrums in New Hampshire, Wisconsin, New York and Delaware. Can one of the NH-GOoPers make Kelly Ayotte sweat? Can Christine O'Donnell give Mike Castle a hard time?
Arkansas: First, Blanche Lincoln had to deal with her primary opponent, Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter, outperforming her in not one but two polls in a week.
Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln's campaign said Thursday she's raised more than $1 million over the past three months for her re-election bid, a day after her chief rival for the Democratic nomination announced bringing in twice that amount in one month.
Lincoln raised $1 million in 3 months; Halter raised $2 million in 1 month. I'm not a mathematician or anything, but... well, you get it.
Of course, indignities come in threes. So, to cap it off, Lincoln is Olbermann's latest Worst Person in the World:
Basically, in radio advertisements targeted to African American communities, Lincoln highlights her commitment to health care reform and her standing with President Obama; but, in advertisements targeted to a broader, whiter, more conservative electorate, Lincoln highlights her opposition to health care reform. Yeah, you read that right. kos offers more cutting insights.
Lincoln's dishonest, two-faced advertising illustrates how unfit for office she is; and, the recent polling indicates that Halter rather than Lincoln is the strongest candidate to keep the seat Democratic.
Senator John Ensign sought financial backing for a troubled Nevada energy company in 2008, and at the same time he urged the company to hire his mistress's husband, according to people involved in the matter.
At the request of the company, P2SA Equity, Mr. Ensign had two senior aides contact one of the nation's largest oil pipeline businesses, Kinder Morgan, about forming a partnership, two executives associated with the project said.
Mr. Ensign's dealings with P2SA are at the center of a federal criminal inquiry into his efforts to line up lobbying work for Doug Hampton, a former top aide whose wife had an affair with the senator.
Investigators appear to be looking into whether Mr. Ensign sought to ingratiate himself with P2SA so that he could ease Mr. Hampton out of his office in Washington. Former Capitol Hill staff members like Mr. Hampton are barred from lobbying for a year after leaving their jobs, and if Mr. Ensign knowingly helped him evade that restriction, he could face ethics or criminal charges.
While some of Mr. Ensign's interactions with P2SA were first reported last month, the extent of them was not clear. The senator's office said then that he had not provided any assistance to the company. But subsequent interviews showed that his most senior Senate aides intervened in an effort to prevent the Las Vegas business from going under, a fact that Mr. Ensign no longer disputes.
"A fact that Mr. Ensign no longer disputes"?!?! I would hope not.
How have John Ensign and David Vitter not resigned their offices in utter shame? They ran on platforms of family values while cheating on their wives and families with a staff member's wife and prostitutes, respectively. One did everything he could to cover it up, from trying to hook up the wronged husband with jobs to having mommy and daddy pay hush money, while the other simply denied, denied, denied until it was undeniable.
Not only are John Ensign and David Vitter so devoid of any remote shred of integrity that they continue to "serve," putting their staffs and families through the shame of their misdeeds every single day, but they force the entire Senate Republican caucus to serve as apologists for their misconduct.
Three questions continue to dominate my thoughts on the topic:
1) How is John Ensign not in prison yet?
2) How have Ensign and Vitter managed to function in their duties without being crushed by the weight of their shameless hypocrisy and legal wrongdoing?
3) How on earth does the media get away with not asking every single other member of the Senate Republican caucus "Do you think either or both John Ensign or David Vitter should resign?" toward the onset of every single interview?
A bit of advice to every Democrat - incumbent or challenger - running for a Senate seat in 2010. Pose the question to your Republican opponent(s): "Do you think either or both John Ensign or David Vitter should resign?" Force the media to ask that question to Senate Republican incumbents and challengers. Force the Republicans to continually apologize for these misdeeds and own their hypocrisy. And don't let them get away with answers like "Well, that's a private matter for the Ensign/Vitter family to deal with."
Passing the buck on integrity is no more a "family value" than adultery (particularly with a staff member's wife), soliciting prostitutes, or doing everything possible to cover up misdeeds with complete disregard to the law.
Arkansas: A week ago, we saw a new Research 2000 poll showing Democratic Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter already largely outperforming Blanche Lincoln (D?-WalMart) against the Republican opposition:
While I'm loathe to cite Rasmussen Reports polls because of their documented rightward tilt, even Bill Halter's momentum is strong enough to overcome the Rasmussen effect, it seems. A new Rasmussen poll echoes Research 2000's finding that Halter is stronger against the Republican opposition than Lincoln:
Halter outperforms Lincoln against every single Republican challenger. On top of which, Lincoln can't hold most Republicans to under 50%, while Halter keeps all Republicans under 50% and most are held to single digit leads. And on top of that:
Eighteen percent (18%) of Arkansas voters have a very favorable opinion of Lincoln, while 43% view her very unfavorably. For Halter, very favorables are 15% and very unfavorables are 21%.
Halter and Lincoln have nearly identical "very favorable" marks, but Lincoln's "very unfavorable" is more than double Halter's and approaching the 50% mark! It's bad news with combined unfavorable AND very unfavorable marks total 50%. It's downright funereal when the very unfavorable mark alone approaches 50%. Lincoln has nowhere to go with an electorate that both knows her and does not support her. However, Halter has the momentum and still significant room to grow further.
On top of the great polling news for Halter, it appears he has some terrific fundraising news to report. In just his first month since entering the primary against Lincoln, Halter has reportedly raised over $2 million - in one month. Mammoth.
Primary day in Arkansas is on May 18, just 47 days away - or less than 7 weeks! If you're as tired as I am of Blanche Lincoln enabling Republican obstruction - illustrated by her spineless flip-flopping and dishonesty on health care reform - head over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and make a contribution to Bill Halter to keep the momentum going!
Republicans on the campaign trail can be expected to say some fairly ridiculous things that illustrate just how clueless, out-of-touch, and power-driven they are. This week was no exception. Without further ado, here are some of this week's most brain-cell-destroying utterances to escape the mouths of Republicans attached to key Senate races.
Passover is a time of remembrance and thanks. ... This week, as we break bread and spend time with our families and friends, I hope we also take a moment to say a word of thanks for our freedom and for those who have given their lives in freedom's name.
- from a campaign e-mail for Republican Senate candidate from California Carly Fiorina, recognizing the Jewish holiday of Passover as a time to "break bread." Of course, Passover is a holiday on which Jewish people explicitly do not eat bread - eating instead unleavened matzah. But what's a little religious ignorance and insensitivity among Republican Senate candidates?
"You know, we just got through (electing) a politician who can run his mouth at Mach 1, a black one, and now we have a Hispanic who can run his mouth at Mach 1," Day said of Rubio's to the Northwest Florida Daily News.
- Bud Day, a surrogate for Charlie Crist's Senate campaign in Florida, making racially insensitive comments in an attempt to compare President Obama and Crist's primary challenger Marco Rubio.
"Everyone has a right to their analysis and how they think somebody performs in office."
"It is clear to me that the stakes in our nation's capitol have never been higher," said Hutchison at a press conference announcing her decision.
- Demonstrating political opportunism following her gubernatorial primary loss, Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison reversing her pledge to resign her Senate seat. This should come as no surprise as Hutchison broke her 1994 pledge to serve only two full terms - she is currently about two-thirds of the way through her third full term.
"We're on the way to making this guy a one-termer."
- Republican nominee for Senate from Illinois Mark Kirk boasting about how he'll "lead the effort" to repeal health care reform and make Illinois' favorite son, President Barack Obama, a one-term President. I'm sure that will go over swell among Illinois independent voters. Anti-Obama, pro-pre-existing conditions, that's the Mark Kirk platform.
What's your favorite? Have you seen any choice quotes that I missed? Share in the comments.
Yesterday, Senate Guru offered the major Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate in North Carolina the opportunity to make their cases to the progressive netroots, just as this blog did last August for the Democrats running for Senate in the primaries in Kentucky and Ohio. Similarly, a high-profile primary for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate is underway in Colorado, where former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff is challenging Senator Michael Bennet, who was appointed by Governor Bill Ritter to fill the vacancy created by Ken Salazar's resignation to head the U.S. Department of the Interior. With Republicans also amid a crowded primary for this seat, Democrats across the country, and the progressive netroots especially, should pay close attention to who will carry the Party's banner in this competitive 2010 Senate race. To help inform us on the candidates, I contacted both campaigns to ask the same question as has been asked in the previous posts, with their responses below:
Why should the progressive netroots support your campaign in Colorado's 2010 Democratic Senate primary?
Michael Bennet has only been in the Senate a year, but he has proven that he is willing to cast tough votes for the good of Colorado.
Michael isn't a fan of playing it safe. Last summer, while other senators hedged, Michael hit the road, and held town halls where he fought for health care reform - including a public option - in some of the most conservative areas of Colorado. Then Michael went on national television and said he would be willing to lose his seat in order to pass real health care reform, and he meant it.
Michael didn't just vote for a health care bill - he worked to make it better. He voted against the Stupak/Nelson amendment, recognizing it as an unacceptable burden on a woman's right to choose. While other senators used their leverage to strike backroom Washington deals, Michael was the first Democrat to speak out against them. And Michael's push for an up or down vote on the public option reinvigorated the health care debate and sparked the momentum Congress needed to pass the reconciliation bill.
Michael's fight for Coloradans doesn't end with health care reform. He cast a deciding vote for sweeping credit card reforms that will reign in the industry's abusive and predatory lending practices. He voted to extend funding for unemployment and Medicaid benefits in order to spare state and local governments further painful cuts. And Michael has been a consistent champion of comprehensive immigration reform and is a Senate co-sponsor of the DREAM Act that will let children of immigrants who play by the rules attend college and earn permanent resident status.
Michael has a strong commitment to equal rights. That's why he is a co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act, and why he favors over-turning Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Most importantly, Michael understands the importance of changing business as usual in Washington. He's introduced tough reforms that would ban members of Congress from ever becoming lobbyists, ban earmarks to private, for-profit companies, and reform one of the most deeply embedded problems in the U.S. Senate - the filibuster - which an entrenched minority has increasingly come to use as a weapon to kill progressive action.
Michael has never once played it safe, and he's not about to start. Stand with Michael and help him keep fighting to change the way Washington does business.
Andrew led the Democrats in Colorado to our first majority in the Colorado House in 30 years and first back-to-back majority in 40 years. He used that power to lift our state out of its (then) deepest recession since the Great Depression. His victory in the U.S. Senate race will come despite the opposition of the national establishment - and without special-interest money.
In Colorado, Andrew made the legislative process more transparent than ever before (televising sessions and requiring any meeting between two legislators be open to the public). Andrew will fight to bring the same transparency to Washington that he championed in Colorado and values the democratizing power of the internet. Andrew will actively defend the open and democratic nature of the web and will oppose any attempt to limit participation or create preferred tiers of access. Unlike his opponent, Andrew believes that people who use the internet are "real" and have a political voice. (On March 24th when a web-based petition was delivered to Andrew's opponent, a spokesperson for the opponent said he, "Doesn't confuse the blogosphere, with real people and real voters.")
Andrew has a true connection with every person who's ever licked a stamp, knocked on a door, made a phone call or contributed on a blog to advance our cause. As the only candidate in this race refusing to take contributions from special interests and PACs, Andrew will never have to decide between what is best for his constituents and what is profitable for his contributors.
As Andrew recently told those assembled at county assemblies:
"To be clear: If you like the way Washington works, you should support someone else... I believe I am the strongest candidate in this race - the best qualified to serve and the best able to win... I promise you this: I will take all the energy I put into winning back-to-back majorities in the Statehouse and use it to hold this seat, to lead this ticket, and to use this power on behalf of the people...
... every poll says I have the best chance to win in November... when we win this race, our victory will reach all the way across the country, to the backroom-dealmakers and powerbrokers who prowl the corridors of the Capitol in Washington, DC. We're not taking their money either. But we are going to take our democracy back - with your help - one precinct at a time."
Last August, Senate Guru offered the major candidates in the 2010 Democratic Senate primaries in Kentucky and Ohio the opportunity to make their cases to the progressive netroots. Similarly, a vigorous primary for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate has materialized in North Carolina. The major Democratic candidates in the race are former State Senator Cal Cunningham, Attorney Ken Lewis, and North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall. With North Carolina being a key battleground state in the 2010 Senate map, thanks in part to freshman backbencher Richard "Bank Run" Burr being the most vulnerable Republican of the cycle, Democrats across the country, and the progressive netroots especially, care deeply about who will carry the Party's banner in this competitive 2010 Senate race. To help inform us on the candidates, I contacted all three campaigns to ask a simple question, with their responses below:
Why should the progressive netroots support your campaign in North Carolina's 2010 Democratic Senate primary?
If the Senate Guru community wants to unseat the most vulnerable Republican Senate incumbent in the country, in a swing southern state, in an off-year election, this is the campaign to support.
In his sixteen years in Washington, incumbent Senator Richard Burr has towed the right-wing party line at the expense of those he was elected to serve. Karl Rove calls him a rising star in the Republican ranks. North Carolinians call him "Bank Run" Burr.
My campaign is supported by the 65,000 member North Carolina Association of Educators, key labor groups and two thousand in-state donors.
The support from around the state continues to grow. I am committed to working with our President, to create jobs, restore innovation to the economy, invest in education, pass energy and climate legislation, reform the financial services industry and make progress on the rights of our fellow citizens.
The life experiences I would bring to the job are part of the North Carolina story. I would be the first Iraq War veteran in the U.S. Senate, a paratrooper decorated with the Bronze Star and General MacArthur award for holding corrupt contractors accountable. As a State Senator, I represented a swing district in middle North Carolina, a part of the state "W" won with 60% of the vote. During my time in office, I focused on education, jobs and the environment. Just like many North Carolinians across the state, my family and hometown have been deeply affected by the downturn in this economy. Elections matter - and the decisions made in Washington deeply impact our lives.
This also will be the first U.S. Senate campaign that started on a Facebook site. We have been fueled by the netroots, and continue to attract the attention of supporters all over America. We are using the netroots and social media to communicate and persuade voters with a pioneering video series - the voices of North Carolina - that profiles individuals in their daily challenges and answers the question: what can a Senator do to be on their side. I invite you to check it out: CalforNC.com.
Join this campaign - by working together, we will not only win but will also know that our best days are truly ahead of us.
Reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. The public option. Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Modifying the filibuster rule. Roe v. Wade. Ending the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy. Taxing the big bailed-out banks. Full and equal legal rights for same-sex couples. Sustainability tax credits for "triple bottom line" (profits, people, planet) companies. Regulatory reform, including an independent consumer financial protection agency.
I oppose:
The death penalty. Drilling in ANWR. The Iraq war. The Citizens United decision, giving corporate money a stranglehold on elections.
2. My life's work has uniquely prepared me to deal with the most important issue we face today: this brutal recession.
I've spent 22 years helping to create good jobs and strong communities. My specialty is business and community development law. I've spent my career helping launch start-up companies, helping larger companies grow, helping local governments build infrastructure to attract new jobs, and working on issues like affordable housing and predatory lending. I believe my proven track record of working effectively for jobs and communities is exactly what we need in the Senate.
I also understand that the economic crisis for most Americans is much deeper than today's recession. It is a fundamental, structural unfairness resulting from years of misguided economic policies. Long term, we must reward work, reform our tax code, make education more accessible, and create clean, green jobs. Working for fundamental economic fairness will be the centerpiece of my Senate service.
3. My life has enabled me to learn about the interests we all share.
I've been able to live, belong, and work in many diverse communities. My parents were in the first generation of our family to go to college. Growing up, I spent my afternoons on the historically black campus of Winston-Salem State University, where my father worked. I was able to go to Duke and Harvard law school with loans, work-study, and summer jobs as a dishwasher, a bus driver, a janitor, and a factory worker.
I've seen the shared interests and common destinies of those who sometimes think they're opposed. I've seen that opportunity, justice, and progress don't have to be zero-sum games, where one person benefits at another's expense.
I think that's a set of beliefs the United States Senate could use more of.
Like the progressive netroots, I'm not one to shy away from the tough challenges facing our country because it's too hard, or because there's an election around the corner.
I got into this race, not because it was easy, or because of establishment support but because like many North Carolinian's I'm tired of the games being played up in Washington, while down here in North Carolina families are hurting. So last summer I decided to take on the challenge of taking out Richard Burr. Senator Burr is part of the problem, just another Washington politician standing in the way of getting things done.
Whether taking on lobbyists in Raleigh to enact tough lobbying laws or advocating for a public option from day one of my campaign, I don't wait for polls to tell me what's safe to do, I just try and do what's right. As Secretary of State I've taken on Wall Street banks, returning now over $500 million in the last 18 months to North Carolinians so I understand the need for real financial reform.
Beating Burr is not going to be easy, but I faced similar odds in 1996 when I defeated legendary NASCAR driver Richard Petty, becoming the first woman elected to statewide office in North Carolina. The grassroots are what carried me to victory in that election, and that's what it will take in this one.
Friendly reminder time: the pivotal first fundraising quarter of 2010 ends this Wednesday. If you were thinking of making a contribution to one of our Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate, now is the time!
Please head over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and contribute whatever you are able to these terrific Democratic candidates for Senate.
Democrat
Currently At
End-of-Quarter Goal
Distance to Goal
Kendrick Meek
$25 $45
$300
$275 $255
Bill Halter
$445 $495
$750
$305 $255
Joe Sestak
$1,320 $1,345
$1,600
$280 $255
Paul Hodes
$1,447 $1,492
$1,700
$253 $208
Robin Carnahan
$1,163 $1,518
$1,400
$237 Goal met!
Remember, the contribution you can make isn't just a donation to a single candidate or political campaign. It's an investment against Republican obstruction (and conservaDem enabling) and an investment toward achieving that more perfect Union through better representation.
(You might notice that I didn't set a fundraising goal for Charlie Melancon. As you can imagine, I'm disappointed in his expected vote against health care reform, so I'm not being proactive in pushing for contributions to him - though I'll be happy to promote him if he surprises us. That said, I've decided against removing him from the Expand the Map! effort specifically because I believe that David Vitter's presence in the United States Senate simply undermines the legitimacy of the Senate as a respectable institution. Vitter is that bad - he is a cancer on the body, is entirely devoid of the slightest shred of integrity, and must be ousted from office. We can worry about primarying Melancon later.)
Arkansas: Despite only being in this race a short time, Democratic Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter is already largely outperforming Blanche Lincoln (D?-WalMart) against Republican opposition, according to a new Research 2000 poll.
Not only does Halter do better than Lincoln against Republican opposition, but the primary numbers between the two are quite promising. Lincoln only leads 44-31, with 25% still undecided - and that's with about a quarter of voters (and about a quarter of Democrats specifically) still with no opinion of Halter. Lincoln's favorable-unfavorable-no opinion among all voters clocked in at 42-52-6, compared with a much stronger 46-27-27 for Halter. Among Democrats specifically, Lincoln's had a 62-34-4, compared with a 68-10-22 for Halter. kos accurately nutshells it:
Lincoln is the incumbent, and undecideds tend to disproportionately favor the challenger. That's why incumbents over 50 percent are considered safe -- because the undecideds aren't enough to flip a seat. (Look at the primary undecideds -- down seven points, Halter got five, Lincoln got two.) Given the hole Lincoln faces against the northwest Arkansas congressman, it's hard to see how she makes up that ground and wins the race. She's still dead man walking.
On the other hand, a Boozman-Halter race would make Boozman the de facto incumbent -- he's been in Washington D.C. for 10 years now. In this environment, you want the outsider hitting the entrenched DC incumbent, and Democrats can do that with Halter as their nominee. And given the large number of people who still don't have an opinion about him, Halter has plenty of room to grow in a way Lincoln no longer can, further eroding Boozman's early advantage.
That's why Lincoln runs worse against the no-name outsider Republicans vying for the seat compared to Halter. People like outsiders.
Lincoln can't play that game, and Boozman can't play that game.
That makes Halter the best possible candidate Democrats can nominate in Arkansas.
Lincoln is already losing to every Republican and has a lousy 42-52 approve-disapprove. If she is the Democratic nominee, the seat is far more likely to turn red. Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter offers Democrats the strongest chance to keep the seat blue. Consider contributing to him via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page.
Florida: Traditionally, statewide political candidates in Florida just pay the $10,000 entry fee to appear on the ballot, as the alternative is an onerous gathering of over 110,000 signatures. Rather than buy his way onto the ballot, Democratic Congressman Kendrick Meek sought to use the signature gathering to establish his grassroots presence - and he has succeeded:
Meek Will Make History in Florida
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL) is expected to make history in Florida this week when he delivers more than 130,000 signed petitions to state election officials to secure a place on the U.S. Senate ballot, the Miami Herald reports.
No other statewide candidate has entered a race this way, as most simply pay a $10,000 fee to appear on the ballot.
Said Meek: "I thought it was very, very important that the people of the state of Florida place my name on the ballot to be the next U.S. senator."
Meanwhile, Republicans are engaging in one of the nastiest, most divisive primaries in a long time between Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio, which will likely result in a politically wounded Rubio winning the nomination against a grassroots-fueled Kendrick Meek ready to roll. Congressman Meek has a terrific chance to win FL-Sen and turn the seat blue, and he has been added to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page, so please chip in if you can.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has long been a vocal critic of the Democrat's health reform efforts, but today he started taking credit for some provisions of the bill, and talking up his own role in crafting the legislation.
In a release sent out by his staff to reporters today, Grassley says the bill will "hold tax-exempt hospitals accountable for the federal tax benefits they receive" thanks to his work. ...
Grassley has been among the most vocal opponents of Democratic reform over the past year, but he's also known as one of the biggest flip-floppers on the issue.
At the start of the process, Grassley was expected to be among those Senators working to craft a bipartisan bill. But it wasn't long before he abandoned that effort, and helped to start the "death panel" meme heard at town halls across the country throughout last summer. ...
Later on, Grassley joined with the Republicans in condemning the bill's medicare provisions. He jumped through several rhetorical hoops when he tried to explain his position in support Medicare while also attacking the idea of a public option last September. ...
Now, Grassley seems to be jumping through the same hoops after the bill has been signed, talking up the changes reforms he once said will allow the government to "decide when to pull the plug on Grandma" are making to the health care system.
In the memo send out to reporters by his staff on on the Senate Finance Commitee, Grassley claims that the bill will ensure that "Congress, the IRS, and the public will now have additional tools and information to ensure that charitable hospitals act charitably."
To appease the Tea Partiers, Grassley was more than happy to lead the way in spreading misinformation on health care reform - like the whole "pull the plug on Grandma" nonsense. Now that the health care reform bill has become law and will help people, the integrity-free Grassley sees it as his job to start taking credit for all of the good the legislation will do. Grassley's Democratic opponent this year will likely be attorney and former gubernatorial nominee Roxanne Conlin. Iowa is a purple state that went for President Obama by nine points. Meanwhile, Grassley's standing among Iowans plummeted throughout 2009, going from a 71-22 approve-disapprove in January '09 to an all-time worst 50-40 approve-disapprove in September '09 (a net 39-point freefall), when his numbers mysteriously stopped being tracked. Though an uphill battle, Grassley's dishonest dive to the far right coupled by his utter lack of integrity provides Democrats with an opening.
Ohio: Running against George W. Bush in 2010 is, typically, not necessarily the most effective strategy for Democratic victory. One race where that is the exception is Ohio's Senate race, where the Republican standard bearer is two-time George W. Bush appointee Rob Portman. Portman was a key architect of Bush-era trade and budget policies. Local activists and organizers haven't forgotten:
Ohio labor and trade leaders criticized the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate on the anniversary of his appointment as a trade representative, while the Republican's campaign press secretary dismissed the event as a manufactured anniversary to distract voters.
In a media teleconference, labor and trade advocates attacked the resume of former U.S. Rep. Rob Portman, who is seeking to fill the Senate seat being vacated by Republican U.S. Sen. George Voinovich. ...
Cincinnati AFL-CIO Executive Secre-tary-Treasurer Doug Sizemore said Bush chose Portman for a reason and that his record in the House show he "betrayed Ohio workers time and time again."
"Portman voted repeatedly to fast-track international trade agreements and also voted against helping workers who lost their jobs due to outsourcing," Sizemore said.
"Portman also supported NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and still thinks it created jobs. I can tell you there are 50,000 Ohio workers who would disagree with him on that.
"This anniversary is important because as we weather this recession, we can't forget how we got here," he said. "Portman's job killing trade policies were a recipe for disaster five years ago, and they are not the way out of this crisis ... and we can't afford to have him represent our voice in the Senate."
Ohio Conference on Fair Trade Director Karen Hanson blasted Portman and said the number regarding trade and loss of jobs speaks for his work.
"It's unthinkable for Portman to receive anything but failing marks for his record as Bush's U.S. trade representative," Hanson said.
She claimed 17,000 Ohio workers had their jobs shipped overseas on his watch and the U.S. trade deficit rose nearly 6.5 percent "slowing economic growth and impeding job creation." She also claimed the trade imbalance with China eclipsed $200 billion for the first time in U.S. history.
"These are just statistical numbers and they don't begin to reveal all the collateral damage to Ohio families and communities by this decimation of our manufacturing base in this state," Hanson said. "Ohio workers, businesses and middle class families deserve better than Portman's agenda in Washington."
Rob Portman, a consummate Washington insider and close friend of corporate lobbyists and Wall Street, will indeed have to answer to Ohio voters for the Bush economic record. Countless Ohio families are still facing momentous economic woes as a result of that Bush economic record - and they'll have an opportunity to express their discontent by opposing Portman for Senate. Portman's Democratic opponent will either be Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher or Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.
There is no bigger quarry in the eyes of many conservative activists than Mr. Bennett, who has drawn seven challengers and will not know for six weeks whether he will even qualify for the ballot. His fate is being watched not only by grass-roots conservatives testing their ability to shape the party, but also by many elected Republicans in Washington who are wondering, If Bob Bennett is not conservative enough, who is?
"If the anti-incumbent tide is as strong as some people think it is, I will be swept out, despite all my efforts," Mr. Bennett said in an interview. ...
His own polling shows him in third place, he said, trailing "Anybody-but-Bennett and Undecided." He said he knew that a tough fight for re-election awaited him after he voted for the bank bailout in 2008 and a few days later walked into a town meeting and "it was through clinched teeth that they welcomed me."
The rise of the Tea Party movement, along with an investment in the race by the Club for Growth, the antitax Washington-based group that seeks to influence Republican primaries, has turned the race into what the soft-spoken senator calls "the nastiest one I have experienced." ...
But the criticism of Mr. Bennett reads like this: He pledged to serve only two terms, but he is now seeking his fourth. He sits on the Appropriations Committee, which distributes earmarks, and has done little to slow the growth in federal spending.
And not only did he vote for the bank bailout, known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program (so did Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Utah's senior Republican senator, but he is not up for re-election), he also signed onto a bipartisan health care bill seen as an alternative to the main Democratic plan.
The long-time Republican incumbent isn't conservative enough for Utah Republicans, so they're looking to bounce him. As the story mentions, the Senator's own sister lost her bid at her precinct caucus to be a delegate to the state GOP nominating convention. Bennett truly may not win re-election. In case the eventual GOP nominee is an off-the-deep-end Republican, Democrats have a serious candidate running in Liquor Control Commission Chairman and businessman Sam Granato.
Arizona: John McCain and J.D. Hayworth are locked in a nasty, Crist-versus-Rubio-esque Republican primary. Meanwhile, Democratic candidate and Tuscon City Councilman Rodney Glassman has signed up a couple of Arizona's most prominent Democrats to Chair his campaign, from a press release:
Two of Arizona's most prestigious Democrats have committed to serving as honorary campaign co-chairs should Tucson Vice Mayor Rodney Glassman announce in April that he will run for U.S. Senate.
Former U.S. Sen. Dennis DeConcini and former Gov. Rose Mofford have stepped forward and offered to serve as honorary co-chairs of the Glassman senate campaign.
In 1976 DeConcini was a little known statewide candidate from Tucson when a pair of high-profile Republicans went after each other in a senate primary. DeConcini defied the odds and won the election.
Mofford worked her way up through Arizona politics and helped restore Arizona's image after Republican Gov. Evan Mecham was impeached and removed from office.
DeConcini's election, in particular, holds an important message about the potential of Glassman's uphill bid. If McCain-Hayworth fully goes the way of Crist-Rubio, Rodney Glassman could well have the opportunity to pull off a sizable political surprise.
As we await the historic vote on health care reform, it's important to remember that we're just ten days away from the end of the first fundraising quarter of 2010. The fundraising totals reported in this quarter will be pivotal to determining the tenor of many races for the rest of the year. If there is any time to contribute, now is the time!
Please head over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and contribute whatever you are able to these terrific Democratic candidates for Senate.
Democrat
Currently At
End-of-Quarter Goal
Distance to Goal
Kendrick Meek
$25
$300
$275
Bill Halter
$445
$750
$305
Joe Sestak
$1,320
$1,600
$280
Paul Hodes
$1,447
$1,700
$253
Robin Carnahan
$1,163
$1,400
$237
Remember, the contribution you can make isn't just a donation to a single candidate or political campaign. It's an investment against Republican obstruction (and conservaDem enabling) and an investment toward achieving that more perfect Union through better representation.
(You might notice that I didn't set a fundraising goal for Charlie Melancon. As you can imagine, I'm disappointed in his expected vote against health care reform, so I'm not being proactive in pushing for contributions to him - though I'll be happy to promote him if he surprises us. That said, I've decided against removing him from the Expand the Map! effort specifically because I believe that David Vitter's presence in the United States Senate simply undermines the legitimacy of the Senate as a respectable institution. Vitter is that bad - he is a cancer on the body, is entirely devoid of the slightest shred of integrity, and must be ousted from office. We can worry about primarying Melancon later.)
What? John McCain's Senate seat? The former Presidential nominee? The moderate war hero? Yup.
It looks like McCain will have a very serious dogfight in the Republican primary this year. Former Arizona Congressman, current radio personality, and staunch conservative J.D. Hayworth is providing McCain with a serious challenge. Playing to an increasingly far-right-wing base that has grown tired of McCain's occasional flirtations with sanity, particularly in the areas of campaign finance and immigration reform, Hayworth has taken the slogan "The Consistent Conservative." I'm no expert, but I think Hayworth plans on running to McCain's right.
I'm loathe to cite Rasmussen polling, but they seem to be the only outfit regularly polling AZ-Sen's GOP primary. In November, before Hayworth formally announced, Ras found McCain and Hayworth in a statistical dead heat, with McCain at 45, Hayworth at 43, and anti-immigrant wingnut Chris Simcox at 4%. In January, following news that Wingnut Queen Sarah Palin would campaign for the incumbent, McCain opened up a 53-31 lead over Hayworth, with Simcox still getting 4%. Then, in February, Hayworth officially announced his entry into the race, and Simcox immediately withdrew from the primary and endorsed Hayworth. This apparently went a long way toward erasing the Palin bump as, this past week, the primary became a single digit affair with McCain at 48 and Hayworth at 41.
Also among the recently released numbers was Ras finding that Hayworth leads by 7 points among men and 5 points among self-identified conservatives. The big number in the polling was that a whopping 61% of Arizona Republicans deemed McCain "out of touch with the party base." It seems to make sense that Arizona's primary day is the same as Florida's primary day - August 24 - because this McCain-Hayworth dynamic looks a lot like the early stages of the Crist-Rubio dynamic. A once-strong incumbent with a moderate image losing standing among an increasingly far-right-wing base, with a younger, more dynamic, more consistently conservative pol ready to steal the thunder. McCain turns 74-years-old just five days after the primary, so it may not be too hard for Hayworth to get mileage out of the out-of-touch meme. While McCain has a giant pile of campaign cash as ammunition, Hayworth has made it abundantly clear that he'll go right for the kneecaps if McCain tries to sling mud.
If Hayworth can motivate the Tea Party-fueled wingnut base enough, no amount of campaign cash will save McCain in a tight primary (again, see the trendlines on Rubio v. Crist). And, if McCain is able to squeak by Hayworth, he will have to do so by diving to the right, resulting in alienated moderate voters along with a Tea Party fringe that may decide to leave the Senate line on the ballot blank rather than vote McCain. (Or maybe, in case of a McCain primary victory, disaffected conservatives will back another conservative candidate in the general, like Libertarian Rick Biondi or conservative independent Ian Gilyeat.)
In short, McCain is in big trouble on his right flank. He will either lose the primary or, possibly, sneak out a primary win while managing to both piss off moderate independents and turn off the lunatic fringe right-wing base. But, Democrats still need a strong candidate in place in order to capitalize on a McCain-Hayworth bloodbath. So who do the Dems have in the race?
Currently, the most prominent name in the race for the Blue Team is Tuscon City Councilman Rodney Glassman. He's young, but he does bring substantive experience - and his municipal, rubber-meets-the-road office would allow him to perpetuate the meme of McCain being a D.C. insider who has lost touch with the common Arizonan. But he'd need to raise his statewide profile a great deal to be competitive. That's why it's great news that another potentially strong Democrat is eying the race. It was reported this week that businesswoman Nan Stockholm Walden is looking at a bid:
Walden, an executive at Farmers Investment Co. who served as a staffer for former Democratic Sens. Bill Bradley and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, could provide her party with a credible, well financed candidate in the event that McCain loses or is severely wounded in his nomination fight with former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Democrats said. ...
Walden's company owns a large pecan farm with several hundred employees, and she could be in a position to run as an outsider with private sector experience in an anti-Washington year. ...
But Walden's financial resources - she has donated nearly $50,000 to other Democrats since the 2002 cycle, according to OpenSecrets.org - and policy background could make her immediately competitive.
As long as the tone of the primary stayed positive, a Glassman-Walden primary would be exactly what the doctor ordered for raising both Democrats' profiles statewide. Just as Jim Webb benefited from a vigorous primary in 2006 before taking out George Allen, and just as Kay Hagan benefited from a vigorous primary in 2008 before taking out Liddy Dole, the winner of the Glassman-Walden primary would be all the stronger for the experience and better able to challenge the winner of Hayworth-McCain.
Either Democrat would have an uphill battle, but the Hayworth-McCain fight should get awfully nasty and leave the eventual Republican nominee politically bruised and cemented in the far right ideologically. Such a scenario could leave moderate independent voters up for grabs and quite open to voting for the Democrat. AZ-Sen could well prove to be the sleeper competitive Senate race of the 2010 cycle, and it is well worth keeping a close eye on.
Once upon a time, Charlie Crist had sky-high approval ratings. Nevertheless, last year, I declared that Marco Rubio would defeat Charlie Crist in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Florida. Recent polling has borne out that Rubio has soundly taken the lead away from Crist.
As of the end of December, Crist had just over $7.5 million on hand, compared to just over $2 million on hand for Rubio. As Crist continues to sink in the polls, you can believe that he will unleash millions in attack ads against Rubio. Similarly, Rubio will blow through whatever money he can raise defending himself against the Crist attacks. What will emerge from the Republican primary when the smoke clears is a victorious, but terribly bruised Rubio who has positioned himself too far to the right.
Meanwhile, Democratic Congressman Kendrick Meek has been dutifully campaigning across Florida while prodigiously raising funds to be saved for the general. As of the end of 2009, he was at just over $3.4 million on hand. Come the start of the general election, perhaps he'll be around $5 million or so on hand while Rubio is running on fumes, frantically trying to rebuild after the Crist onslaught.
Public Policy Polling released numbers (for both the GOP primary and the general) last week, and Research 2000 numbers came out this week. The PPP and R2K numbers were extremely similar:
GOP Primary
Rubio v. Meek
Crist v. Meek
PPP
Rubio 60
Crist 28
Rubio 44
Meek 39
Crist 46
Meek 33
R2K
Rubio 58
Crist 30
Rubio 41
Meek 40
Crist 45
Meek 36
According to PPP, 56% of Republican voters want Crist out of elected office altogether. Among Florida Republican voters who identify as conservative, PPP found that Rubio enjoyed a 71-17 lead over Crist - beyond overwhelming. In short, Rubio will be the Republican nominee for Senate. So how does a Meek v. Rubio affair shape up? Neck and neck.
Florida's primary day is toward the end of summer, on August 24. How will a Meek v. Rubio affair look at that point? Well, Meek will be stockpiling campaign funds while Rubio continues cementing himself in the far right while taking hit after hit from Crist. Of course, Crist's barbs won't hurt him too much among Florida's right-wingers. (Keep in mind, Research 2000 found that two-thirds of Florida Republicans either don't believe President Obama was born in the United States or aren't sure. They're nuts and they aren't swayed by factual arguments.) However, Crist's attacks will continue to hurt Rubio among independent voters, further strengthening Congressman Meek's hand.
Florida's 2010 Senate race is shaping up to be a solid pick-up opportunity for Democrats. As such, I have added Congressman Meek's campaign for Senate to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page. I hope you can chip in a few bucks and help Congressman Meek even more strongly position himself for a truly competitive general election.
And former NRSC Chair John Ensign is taking the National Republican Senatorial Committee down with him:
Recipients of subpoenas issued in the Justice Department investigation tied to Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) include several Nevada firms that donated to the National Republican Senatorial Committee during Ensign's tenure as chairman, as well as his former top aide, CBS affiliate KLAS-TV reported Thusday.
The NRSC also acknowledged publicly Thursday that it has received a subpoena for documents in the investigation, which is believed to be focused on Ensign's efforts to secure lobbying work for former aide Douglas Hampton. Hampton left the Senator's staff after Ensign ended an affair with Hampton's wife, Cynthia Hampton. A $96,000 payment that Ensign's parents made to the Hamptons may also be under review.
The station's Web site identified executives at the tech firms eCommLink, Selling Source and Pay Card USA, who Ensign allegedly pushed for contributions to the NRSC.
How soon will we know exactly how much hot water Ensign, his staff, and, possibly, NRSC staff are in? Soon (emphasis added by me):
Many of the federal agencies involved are being tight-lipped, but they have cast a wide net.
Some of the people subpoenaed will appear before the grand jury at the end of the month. From there, depending on the testimony and evidence, the Senate and the DOJ will have to decide if it's time for prosecution.
If the Justice Department decides that there is enough evidence to move forward with a prosecution of Ensign, Ensign staff, and possibly NRSC staff, that should be loads of fun for Senate Republicans leading up to Election Day. I don't imagine that it will be easier for the NRSC to fundraise while under federal investigation. And it can't be any easier for Republican incumbents and challengers running in 2010 to be linked to this Ensign-Vitter Republican Party.
If Ensign had resigned when the scandal first broke, at least it would be in the past for the Senate Republican Caucus. At this point, a scandal-tarred resignation will only further put the story front-and-center. And given Ensign's role leading the NRSC when all of this was going down, the scandal's tentacles reach across the Senate Republican Caucus. (Recall, for instance, that Republican Tom Coburn, up for re-election this year, knew of Ensign's improprieties for around a year before the news broke, and refuses to disclose key details - obstruction of justice much?)
Something tells me this matter will get much worse for the Senate GOP before it gets better.
Public Policy Polling is out with its latest poll of North Carolina's 2010 Senate race:
Favorable/Unfavorable/Not Sure Richard Burr* 35-37-28
Elaine Marshall 17-12-71
Cal Cunningham 4-10-86
Kenneth Lewis 5-9-85
Burr vs. Dems Burr v. Generic Dem 41-39
Burr v. Marshall 41-36
Burr v. Cunningham 43-32
Burr v. Lewis 43-32
*Burr's numbers are approve-disapprove, not favorable-unfavorable.
As far as I'm concerned, these are terrific numbers seven and a half months from Election Day. Freshman Republican backbencher Richard "Bank Run" Burr suffers from net-negative approval numbers; and, PPP reminds us that Burr is chronically unable to top 40% approval. He is in a statistical dead heat against a generic Democrat, and can only squeeze out an 11-point lead against Democrats unknown to between 80% and 90% of the electorate!
PPP further reminds us that then-State Senator Kay Hagan shaved about ten points off of her deficit against Liddy Dole between February and May of 2008 on her way to beating Dole. If the eventual Democratic nominee similarly picks up ten points between now and the May 4 primary, "Bank Run" Burr begins the general election effectively tied with his Democratic challenger, a terrific starting point for the Democrat. Given that "Bank Run" Burr is recognized to be the most vulnerable Republican incumbent of 2010, resources in support of the Democratic nominee should arrive as readily as they did for Hagan against Dole. After that, all that's left is "Bank Run" Burr trying to explain to North Carolina voters why nearly six years have gone by with him as a U.S. Senator without him having accomplished anything of substance on their behalf.
Republican dolt Tommy Thompson is making noise about challenging Senator Russ Feingold this year. And Thompson is reminding Wisconsin voters what a D.C. insider he is by headlining a lobbyist fundraiser. But Thompson isn't just best buddies with Washington's top corporate lobbyists. He's also a proud champion of right-wing idiocy. Thompson has been responsible for numerous instances of stupidity, bigotry, abuse of office, and putting partisanship ahead of the public interest. Without further ado, here are some of Thompson's greatest hits.
2001: Tommy Thompson versus liberal ol' science
By the time 2008 rolled around, America had seen plenty of the Bush-Cheney administration's attempt to politicize and undermine science. But did you know that Tommy Thompson was one of George W. Bush's first crusaders against science?
In 2001, Nobel laureate physiologist Torsten Wiesel was nominated by Gerald Keusch (then an employee of HHS: director of the Fogarty International Center, the branch of the National Institutes of Health) for a position on an advisory panel in the National Institutes of Health to advise on assisting research in developing countries. Thompson, who at the time was Secretary of Health and Human Services, rejected Wiesel. Thompson's office rejected 19 of 26 nominations and in return sent résumés for other scientists that his employee Keusch described in an interview as "lightweights" with "no scientific credibility". When Weisel's name was rejected, an official in Thompson's office told Keusch that Wiesel had "signed too many full-page letters in The New York Times critical of President Bush." This incident was cited by the advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists as part of a report detailing their allegations of abuse of science under President George W. Bush's administration.
Political agendas grounded in partisan ideology over scientific fact and public interest - that's the Tommy Thompson way!
July 2004: We don't need no stinkin' government transparency!
In addition to politicizing science, Thompson's tenure as Secretary of Health and Human Services was marked by the politically motivated hiding of cost data for key Bush initiatives, as well as the threatening of a government accountant who might reveal the real data to the American people, data that, again, the Bush-Thompson HHS worked to hide from the American people:
An internal investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services confirms that the top Medicare official threatened to fire the program's chief actuary if he told Congress that drug benefits would probably cost much more than the White House acknowledged.
A report on the investigation, issued Tuesday, says the administrator of Medicare, Thomas A. Scully, issued the threat to Richard S. Foster while lawmakers were considering huge changes in the program last year. As a result, Mr. Foster's cost estimate did not become known until after the legislation was enacted.
Predictably, the Bush-Thompson HHS investigated itself and found that - shockingly - it had done nothing wrong:
William A. Pierce, a spokesman for the department, said Tuesday that the threat was not illegal because the actuary was supposed to report to the head of the Medicare program, who, Mr. Pierce said, had a right to dismiss him in case of insubordination. ''No laws were broken,'' Mr. Pierce said.
But Representative Pete Stark of California, the senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, said, ''It sounds as though the Bush administration examined itself and found it did nothing wrong.''
The Tommy Thompson HHS apparently had as its motto: "Lie to the American people or you're fired."
December 2004: Thompson emboldens terrorists to attack our food supply.
"I, for the life of me, cannot understand why the terrorists have not, you know, attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do," he said. "And we are importing a lot of food from the Middle East, and it would be easy to tamper with that."
As far as I know, Thompson has not sent terrorists a map or any toxins with which to do the job - only moral support and encouragement.
2006: "Reform" is just another word for "whatever is good for my bank account."
It is no doubt coincidence that Thompson advocated for specific initiatives that would, to no one's surprise, financially benefit Thompson's post-Bush corporate benefactors and the Thompson family bank account:
Last week, Tommy G. Thompson, the former secretary of health and human services, proposed overhauling Medicaid in ways that he says would be good for the country. Critics contend that some of Thompson's recommendations also could be good for companies that he works for. [...]
Thompson, who served during President Bush's first term, is on the board of Centene Corp., a St. Louis-based company that operates Medicaid-funded health maintenance organizations in Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin. His proposals to move more Medicaid beneficiaries and uninsured people onto such plans could improve the company's bottom line.
Thompson also is chairman of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, part of Deloitte & Touche USA LLP, a consulting firm that has contracted with states to help improve their Medicaid programs. If Thompson becomes a driving force behind revamping Medicaid, states who hire Deloitte may feel they are contracting with a player. Ditto for clients' perceptions of the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, in which Thompson is a partner and which has health-care and insurance industry clients.
Thompson also is a part-owner and board member of VeriChip Corp., which makes microchips that store data and can be implanted in humans. The company might benefit if Medicaid were to embrace electronic medical records.
After all, what good is public service if you can't turn around and line your own pockets?
April 2007: It can't be anti-Semitic if it sounds complimentary, can it?
Former Wisconsin governor and Republican presidential hopeful Tommy Thompson told Jewish activists Monday that making money is "part of the Jewish tradition," and something that he applauded.
Speaking to an audience at the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington D.C., Thompson said that, "I'm in the private sector and for the first time in my life I'm earning money. You know that's sort of part of the Jewish tradition and I do not find anything wrong with that."
Later, he added: "I just want to clarify something because I didn't (by) any means want to infer or imply anything about Jews and finances and things. What I was referring to, ladies and gentlemen, is the accomplishments of the Jewish religion. You've been outstanding business people and I compliment you for that."
In Thursday night's Republican debate, Tommy Thompson appeared to endorse the right of employers to discriminate against gay employees, but the former Wisconsin Governor was backpedaling within 12 hours.
Thompson was asked Thursday night, "If a private employer believes homosexuality is immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay worker?"
Thompson said he "really, sincerely believe(s) that that is an issue that business people have to make their own determination over whether or not they (gay employees) should be (fired)."
"So the answer is yes?" moderator John Harris asked. "Yes," Thompson replied.
And, as above, Thompson's continued re-visiting of his controversial comment only digs his hole further. The next morning, Thompson begins backtracking:
"I misinterpreted the question," Thompson insisted. "I thought that I answered it yes when I should have answered it no. I didn't hear it. I didn't hear the question properly and I apologized. It's not my position and there should be no discrimination in the work place and I believe that."
Thompson suggests that he both misinterpreted the question and misheard the question. Two excuses in one. But that didn't stop Thompson, as he continued digging that hole, from coming up with two more excuses:
Tommy Thompson cited a dead hearing aid and an urgent need to use the bathroom in explaining on Saturday why he said at a GOP presidential debate that an employer should be allowed to fire a gay worker.
Speaking to reporters after giving an address at the state GOP convention, Thompson also said he was suffering from the flu and bronchitis and had been admitted to a hospital emergency room three days prior to the May 3 debate.
"Nobody knows that," Thompson said. "I've been very sick. ... I was very sick the day of the debate. I had all of the problems with the flu and bronchitis that you have, including running to the bathroom. I was just hanging on. I could not wait until the debate got off so I could go to the bathroom."
In summation, Thompson: 1) misinterpreted the question; 2) misheard the question, allegedly due to a dead hearing aid (that didn't seem to impair his performance during the rest of the debate); 3) urgently had to go to the bathroom; and, 4) had an emergency-room-caliber degree of both the flu and bronchitis (that didn't appear to give him the hoarseness of voice that usually comes with severe bronchitis). One stupid, controversial comment and four excuses, at least two of which appear utterly bogus given the context.
I suppose I'll close with this video, at right, of Thompson celebrating a Green Bay Packers victory while, well, pretty drunk. Or, um, does he usually slur his speech that badly in front of tens of thousands of Packer fans?
If the question is "Tommy Thompson for Senate?" then the only reasonable answer can be "Dear Lord, why?!"
