What will happen in the 2006 mid-term elections?

[BobG]

Dems giving an honest answer about what they'll do about Iraq is their biggest problem.

Well, that's the thing - with the election coming up, they'll need to talk about it more if they want it to be an issue. And like last time, talking but saying nothing will hurt them.

Maybe, maybe not. Right now, the strategy seems to be to blame Rumsfeld for things going so bad. There is no unified Democratic position on what to do now. The logical comeback should be for Republicans to ask what Democrats would do differently, but that holds a lot of risk. What if the logical answer is that there really isn't a better way to do things now - that this is the best conditions you could expect given bad initial decisions?

Well, there are lots of ways to look at that, tooo - Clinton failed to stop a rising star in the terrrist world, and 9/11 was soon enough after Bush took office that Clinton must share the blame.

Also, "record" is wins vs losses. Bush has had to come up to bat a lot more times than Clinton did (because Clinton failed to stop that rising star). Maybe it has mostly been one man (bin Laden, not Clinton), but radical islamic terrorism has been on the rise since the early '90s.

Also, you don't necessarily need to call it terrorism, but you won't gain a lot of fans by leaving the Cole and embassy bombings off the batting average.

I'd call both terrorism. The reason Bush has focused on the absence of terrorist activities within the US is because there's been an increase in terrorist activities overall. Some of that could be attributed to Bush and Iraq (at least the terrorist activities in Iraq), but it's a little like blaming rising crime rates on the police department. Our anti-terrorist activities may be effective or ineffective in minimizing our own risk, but there's a lot of other factors besides anti-terrorism measures that go into the overall rate of terrorist activities. Bush hasn't been effective against the global war against terrorism, but neither has anyone else to this point.

My point about Bush is that with such a small sample size, there isn't a valid way to judge our current internal anti-terrorism measures. Evaluations have to be fairly subjective. If he sells the public on the idea that his actions make sense (which he has for the most part), then he wins politically regardless of whether his actions really are effective or appropriate to the level of threat.

 

[Skyhunter]

It is beginning to look more and more like the 2007-2008 House of Representatives will be Democratically controlled.

While Democrats have been crowing for months, it is only over the past few weeks that nonpartisan analysts have identified enough likely victories for Democrats to pick up the 15 House seats they need for a majority.

Rothenberg predicts Democrats will win between 15 and 20 additional seats. University of Virginia political scientist and congressional race handicapper Larry Sabato projects the party will pick up between 13 and 19 seats. Cook identifies 46 competitive seats -- 36 of which are held by Republicans -- and predicts: "Unless something dramatic happens before election day, Democrats will take control of the House.''

As a sign of the growing acceptance that Democrats are poised to win, the National Journal asked 75 GOP insiders last week to assign a number between zero (no chance) and 10 (virtual certainty) to the likelihood that Democrats will take over the House. The average score was 5.7.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/03/MNG4FKUMR51.DTL

Is Nevada turning blue?

The first polls done since the Aug. 15 primary are good news for Democrats Dina Titus and Jack Carter.

Titus, the state Senate Minority Leader, is ahead of GOP Congressman Jim Gibbons, 46.8 percent to 44.1 percent, according to the Wall Street Journal/Zogby Interactive poll.

Carter, the Democratic challenger to U.S. Senator John Ensign, is in a statistical ‘dead heat’ with Ensign, according to the Wall Street Journal/Zogby poll.

The poll shows Carter is 3.4 percentage points behind Ensign, with Ensign at 48.1 percent and Carter is at 44.7 percent. The poll has a margin of error of plus/minus 4.3 percent.

http://www.rgj.com/blogs/inside-nevada-politics/2006/08/new-polls-good-news-for-titus-and.html

It is only one poll, but it is right after the primary, and I think people are starting to pay attention to the mid-terms now. A better picture will emerge during September, but this has to be an encouraging sign for Dem's in the Senate.

Arizona could be a surprise as well. The Dem's have more money for get out the vote efforts. Good turnout of one parties voters in an off year could be the difference in tight races.

The Arizona Democratic Party has a lot more money than its Republican counterpart — thanks in no small part to its ex-chairman.
Campaign finance reports filed late in the week show Jim Pederson has contributed more than $1 million to the Arizona Democratic Party.
That brings the party's total contributions for this election cycle up to $3.8 million.
And even after expenses, the party reports more than $1 million in cash on hand.
By contrast, the Arizona Republican Party lists its contributions this election cycle at $878,000. With its expenses so far, that leaves $263,842 as of last week.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/145006

And Pederson is a good politician. If this succeeds, he will have aligned himself with a very popular Arizona Senator.

In making the announcement, Pederson said immigration is his top issue and has endorsed a bill introduced by Arizona's senior senator, John McCain; Kyl has a competing bill. After formal remarks, Pederson said: ""Look, I'm an Arizona Democrat... I'm a businessman ... and I'm a fiscal conservative. I yearn for the days when pragmatic solutions were the goal, not partisanship."

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/203144.htm

I am starting to see chinks in the Senate armor.

 

[Astronuc]

G.O.P. Seen to Be in Peril of Losing House
By ROBIN TONER and KATE ZERNIKE (NYTimes, Sept 5, 2006)
Republicans enter the fall campaign with their control of the House in jeopardy and the possibility of major Senate losses.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 — After a year of political turmoil, Republicans enter the fall campaign with their control of the House in serious jeopardy, the possibility of major losses in the Senate, and a national mood so unsettled that districts once considered safely Republican are now competitive, analysts and strategists in both parties say.

Sixty-five days before the election, the signs of Republican vulnerability are widespread.

Indiana, which President Bush carried by 21 percentage points in 2004, now has three Republican House incumbents in fiercely contested races. Around the country, some of the most senior Republicans are facing their stiffest challenges in years, including Representative E. Clay Shaw Jr. of Florida, the veteran Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee; Representative Nancy L. Johnson of Connecticut, a state increasingly symbolic of this year’s political unrest; and Representative Deborah Pryce of Ohio, the No. 4 Republican in the House.

Two independent political analysts have, in recent weeks, forecast a narrow Democratic takeover of the House, if current political conditions persist. Stuart Rothenberg, who had predicted Democratic gains of 8 to 12 seats in the House, now projects 15 to 20. Democrats need 15 to regain the majority. Charles Cook, the other analyst, said: “If nothing changes, I think the House will turn. The key is, if nothing changes.”

Republican leaders are determined to change things. Unlike the Democrats of 1994, caught off guard and astonished when they lost control of the Senate and the House that year, the Republicans have had ample warning of the gathering storm.

The question is - "are the Democrats ready to do a better job?"

I would actually prefer a block of Independents, who are not beholden to the traditional special interests of the Republicans and Democrats. We need a legislative branch whose members write the laws rather than lobbyists and consultants.

It's time that the American People come first and that Congress takes care of the People's business rather than the enrichment of members of Congress.

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe, maybe not. Right now, the strategy seems to be to blame Rumsfeld for things going so bad. There is no unified Democratic position on what to do now. The logical comeback should be for Republicans to ask what Democrats would do differently, but that holds a lot of risk. What if the logical answer is that there really isn't a better way to do things now - that this is the best conditions you could expect given bad initial decisions?

I don't know - can you win an election using that argument? 'Things suck, but I wouldn't be able to do any better' doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the electorate.

The reason Bush has focused on the absence of terrorist activities within the US is because there's been an increase in terrorist activities overall.

Do you mean if you include those against US troops overseas? The definitions get a little tricky (which is why I wasn't sure about how to label the Cole), but when the Cole was attacked, the "war on terror" was not underway. I don't think attacks in Afghanistan or Iraq would go on that scorecard. The 'fight 'em there so we don't have to fight 'em here' argument tends to hold considerable weight.

Some of that could be attributed to Bush and Iraq (at least the terrorist activities in Iraq), but it's a little like blaming rising crime rates on the police department.

Well anti-organized crime police know about that issue: You do get stung more if you go after the hornet's nest. But again, as long as they are stinging our military, they aren't stinging the general public.

My point about Bush is that with such a small sample size, there isn't a valid way to judge our current internal anti-terrorism measures.

Valid or not, the argument that we haven't had a terrorist attack on US soil (and have thwarted several) will carry a lot of weight in the upcoming elections. It is simple, true, and easy to see, even if the reality of the situaiton is far more complicated.

 

[russ_watters]

It is beginning to look more and more like the 2007-2008 House of Representatives will be Democratically controlled.

One reason I'm skeptical of such poll numbers is because poll numbers themselves are a campaign tactic. The Democrats are cheerleading and I think they are unlikely to pick up as many seats as they hope.

Part what I think fueled the election 2004 conspiracy theories is the overconfidence/overhyped pre-election polls. As one of your articles points out - they are often wrong.

 

[Astronuc]

One reason I'm skeptical of such poll numbers is because poll numbers themselves are a campaign tactic. The Democrats are cheerleading and I think they are unlikely to pick up as many seats as they hope.

There is that, and they need to stop. What happens when they have to step up to the plate, i.e. if they win a majority of one or both Houses.

Part what I think fueled the election 2004 conspiracy theories is the overconfidence/overhyped pre-election polls. As one of your articles points out - they are often wrong.

I have heard the same from Democrats and political scientists. On the other hand, there were irregularities, but perhaps not more than usually. It just got attention because Ohio, like Florida, became the swing state.

On the other hand, Bush motivated his supporters, and Kerry, like Gore, failed to motivate his supporters. Then there was the 45% who did want either.

In 2004, Bush got about 51% of the 55% who voted - or 28% of the eligible vote. That certainly is not a majority of the population, and certainly not a mandate. Kerry got 26-27% of the eligible voters.

 

[wasteofo2]

Early September updates:

Montana: Burns has been cutting Tester's lead. As I thought, Tester's going to be repeating the same **** about Burns being corrupt over and over, while Burns has time to remind Montana voters that they've very Conservative, and that Democrats aren't. I'm no longer sure how this race will turn out.

Pennsylvania: Santorum is still down, doing a little better, but generally losing by 5-8 in recent polls. He's probably the only senator garunteed a loss.

Ohio: Brown has consistantly been up by 3-7 points in polls all throughout August, and at this point, looks likely to pull off a win.

Rhode Island: In almost every recent poll, Whitehouse has been winning by very significant margins. Rhode Island might have finally realized that they have someone with an (R) next to their name representing them, and that it's not a very good match at this point.

Missouri: Still very close, lead switching back and forth. This race will probably be decided by only several thousand votes either way. Bad weather in one part of the state, or a very small scandal or particularly good ad could easily swing this election the little bit either way to give either candidate a win.

New Jersey: Kean pulled ahead by 3 points in the latest Farleigh-Dickinson and Rasmussen poll. This race will probably end up going to Menendez just cause of general anti-Republican sentiment, but in any year, he probably would end up losing.

Virginia: What was once a 31 point lead for Allen has turned into a loss in the latest Zogby poll, which for the first time in the race has Webb ahead (by less than 2%). Republican fatigue, Allen's apparent racism, and Jerry Falwell giving Webb an A- personal rating have probably all had a hand in Webb's remarkable performace. It's far from decided, but it seems now that Webb and Allen can compete on equal ground for the duration of the campaign.

Tennessee: Ford's only down by a few points in recent polls. Still an unlikely pickup, but the odds aren't insurmountable. If he could come up with a good ad campaign, he might be able to sway the 3 or 4% he'd need to in order to affect a change.

All poll numbers linked to at this wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2006

 

[McGyver]

Bold Politcal Tactics can Pay Off

Bold political campaign tactics seem to pay off more favorably than not, by perhaps a 70/30 margin. Bush won reelection in 2004 by boldly scaring voters with respect to terrorism, and he has repeatedly and boldly used 911 and terrorism favorably for his own political devices. I believe Sen Kerry would have faired better in 2004 if he had been more BOLD.

Rep. Murtha garnished a lot of favorable support for his bold comments regarding the war in Iraq, yet as much as many Democrats even allowed him to be beat up - by not supporting his position. Some Democrat candidates have beaten Democrat office holders in recent primaries by boldly declaring their opposition to the war in Iraq.

Bush and Co. believes so strongly in BOLD political maneuvers that they recently and desperately began throwing around rhetoric about facism - and they got a favorable bump in the polls. I believe if the Dems had boldly attacked the facism rhetoric, it would have removed most of its favorable charm.

It seems pretty clear that whatever party and candidates are willing to come off more bold and brash will fare better than those too afraid to try. Sizzy sells steak! So - let the campaigns rip with fire-raging ads.

The Dems should be able to can get more popularity boosts out of 911 related ads because Bush and Co. have failed to capture Bin Laden. But if somehow - Bin Laden were captured prior to the election - it would create a major boosts for all Republican candidates. But the Dems can pull from images of Katrina, high gas and heating costs, and domestic job losses vs. cash rich U.S. corporations. The former Exxon CEO and his $400M compensation makes him a poster boy for the Bush administration.

 

[BobG]

G.O.P. Seen to Be in Peril of Losing House
By ROBIN TONER and KATE ZERNIKE (NYTimes, Sept 5, 2006)
Republicans enter the fall campaign with their control of the House in jeopardy and the possibility of major Senate losses.

The question is - "are the Democrats ready to do a better job?"

I would actually prefer a block of Independents, who are not beholden to the traditional special interests of the Republicans and Democrats. We need a legislative branch whose members write the laws rather than lobbyists and consultants.

It's time that the American People come first and that Congress takes care of the People's business rather than the enrichment of members of Congress.

Maybe we'd better off with some politicians with a little courage, regardless of party. Here's a an article from January 2003 (before the invasion) rehashing the Senate debate over whether to authorize Bush to go to war in Iraq: Week of Shame.

I think the author, Winslow Wheeler, was against the idea of invading Iraq, but his article (about 20 pages in length) focuses on the process that went into passing the legislation, not the outcome. The primary gauge of whether a Senator or Representative performed well or badly was based on whether they held true to their own beliefs or opinion, not on whether they approved or disapproved the legislation.

For example, he says voters should take pride in John Warner and John McCain (pro-war) and in Robert Byrd, Lincoln Chafee, and Paul Wellstone (anti-war).

The list of politicians who seemed to be living in an alternative reality (their comments said exactly the opposite of what their votes said) included Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Clinton, Nelson (NE), Voinovich, Hagel, Bayh, Dodd, and others (both Republican and Democrat - in fact, being a potential Presidential contender almost ensured an absurd denial of the reality of what they were voting on).

Biden came so close to making the 'pride' list, but then seemed to decide he'd better not lose ground to other Presidential contenders and managed to successfully depart the world of reality.

A debate like the Oct 2002 debate is something worth remembering come election time, both this year and in 2008. It kind of puts McGyver's theory to the test, even if in a more subtle manner.

 

[Astronuc]

I've been catching some of the results of yesterday's primaries.

Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island won the Republican primary there on Tuesday, fending off a bid from a populist challenger that the national Republican Party had feared would cost it a seat it had held since 1976 in an overwhelmingly Democratic state.

NY Times, Sept 13, "In Setback for Democrats, Incumbent Wins Republican Senate Primary"

On the other hand, Eliot Spitzer and Clinton won their primaries. Andrew Cuomo is running for Attorney General. Cuomo made a comment that he was going to run a positive campaign - in the same speech he was trashing George Pataki and George Bush. Problems in the NY State government have as much to do with the way the Republicans and Democrats have decided to share the spoils, and the way Sheldon Silver (D, Assembly) and Joseph Bruno (R, Senate) deal with Pataki.

The list of politicians who seemed to be living in an alternative reality (their comments said exactly the opposite of what their votes said) included Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Clinton, Nelson (NE), Voinovich, Hagel, Bayh, Dodd, and others (both Republican and Democrat - in fact, being a potential Presidential contender almost ensured an absurd denial of the reality of what they were voting on).

Pretty sad group of people.

 

[BobG]

The list of politicians who seemed to be living in an alternative reality (their comments said exactly the opposite of what their votes said) included Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Clinton, Nelson (NE), Voinovich, Hagel, Bayh, Dodd, and others (both Republican and Democrat - in fact, being a potential Presidential contender almost ensured an absurd denial of the reality of what they were voting on).

Pretty sad group of people.

Rumsfeld said you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.

The only way I can interpret what that list did was that they voted for the resolution they wish they had, not the resolution they had.

“Exhausting all efforts at the [United Nations]is essential ... . We must do everything we can to get the [United Nations] to succeed ... . Completely bypassing the [United Nations] would set a dangerous precedent that would undoubtedly be used by other countries in the future to our and the world’s detriment. It is too high a price to pay.”

Gephardt not only voted for, but was co-author of the legislation that authorized Bush to bypass the United Nations. But, technically, we didn't completely bypass the UN. We stopped in momentarily to embarrass ourselves.

“Our resolution does not give the president a blank check. It authorizes the use of U.S. military power only ‘to defend the national securityof the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq’ and to ‘enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.’

Lieberman was co-author of the Senate version of the resolution and stood in front of the cameras with the President to endorse it. Technically, what he said was true. Lieberman was instrumental in limiting Bush's powers to a blank check in Iraq vs. a blank check to wage war against the entire world.

His other comment was interesting, as well.

If we come to that moment where we have no other choice but war, then it is clear that we will have allies in good number at our side. That was one of the items we added to the resolution ...

I guess that's one way to get allies - just legislate them into existence.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world...

Well, at least she wasn't a co-author. Maybe she just didn't read it.

America must understand it cannot alone win a war against terrorism. It will require allies, friends, and partners.

If we do it right and lead through the [United Nations] in concert with our allies, we can set a new standard for American leadership and in-ternational cooperation.”

Even Republicans from Nebraska felt the need to say weird things when faced with a vote on this.

Biden's deliberations were the most poignant of all:

The president said he has not decided whether or not we are going to go to war. He said it is his hope that it can be avoided. Yet, for the first time in the history of the United States of America … the president of the United States is asking for the Congress to give him the equivalent of a declaration of war – to go to war– before the president has made up his mind.

But, later:

This is not a blank check for the use of force against Iraq for any reason. It is an authorization for the use of force, if necessary, to compel Iraq to disarm, as it promised after the Gulf War.

Well, technically, if you read the resolution, it is a blank check for the use of force for any reason. Perhaps he meant he had faith that Bush would only use that blank check appropriately?

 

[Astronuc]

Rumsfeld said you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.

That is such a pathetic and lame statement. Bush planned to invade Iraq in 2000 - before he came to office. Bush became president Jan 20, 2001, and the US forces invaded on March 20, 2003. In two years and two months, these guys didn't have time to prepare?

No Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al had personal agendas and they did not care enough for the lives of the US troops and the innocent people in Iraq.

And now today I've learned that the CIA is suppose to doctor their analyses to support the view of the Bush administration (I still have to follow-up on this allegation, but it is consistent with other information). It's bad enough when it comes to health care, the environment and education, but to mislead the people and Congress in foreign policy, especially when it involves a protracted military action, is utterly unconscionable, and probably criminal.

With regard to the vote on the resolution that gave Bush the power to exercise the military option, where were the members of the House and Senate Intelligence committees? Where was the oversight? Where were they during the 1980's and 1990's, when the CIA and intelligence communities were warning of blowback and al Qaida. With a flurry of travel warnings, especially the increase in 1999 and 2000, it didn't occur to these people that the US could be attacked? Well, the Republicans were focussed on trying to remove Clinton from office, besides the fact that Dems and Reps were trying to get re-elected in Nov 2000.

 

[Gokul43201]

NY Times, Sept 13, "In Setback for Democrats, Incumbent Wins Republican Senate Primary"

This is a bad thing for the dems because Chafee is a very moderate Republican, and will pose a much bigger threat to Whitehouse (the Democratic candidate) than Laffey could have. Polls I saw last week showed Chafee and Whitehouse neck to neck, but Laffey was almost 20 points behind Whitehouse (on head to head).

 

[Skyhunter]

This is a bad thing for the dems because Chafee is a very moderate Republican, and will pose a much bigger threat to Whitehouse (the Democratic candidate) than Laffey could have. Polls I saw last week showed Chafee and Whitehouse neck to neck, but Laffey was almost 20 points behind Whitehouse (on head to head).

That should be an interesting race to watch.

With the poor calibre of statesmen that this Congress has produced, I certainly hope that we can elect a higher quality Congress in 2006 and 2008.

We already got rid if the worst of them, Delay, Ney, Jefferson, and Cunningham through indictment, or impending indictment. Now if we can manage to get some decent replacements, and have a large incumbent turnover, it is possible we might see a shift in the direction of leadership in this country.

I am not however holding my breath. A Democratic Congress would be preferable, but I would settle for any Congress that would do it's job. Having the House and Senate switch parties however would be the surest way to change leadership. Not only new leadership but leadership motivated to stop Bushco.

Then let us see if they can establish a unitary executive.

 

[Skyhunter]

One reason I'm skeptical of such poll numbers is because poll numbers themselves are a campaign tactic. The Democrats are cheerleading and I think they are unlikely to pick up as many seats as they hope.

I have seen the cheerleading polls. Those are the ones that are cherry picked, while ignoring other less favorable polls. Here is website that explains the myths about polls and shows how polls do reflect public opinion.

The poll that is most telling however in this case is that 52% of Americans do not trust Bush. Therefore, logically they are not going to be happy with their Representative, if said Representative has been a Bush enabler. The other problem is that most of the issues favor Democrats. Here is the http://people-press.org/reports/cache.php?ReportID=289 from the Pew Research Center from today. Republicans are in trouble in the House, no question about it. Will the Dem's be able to get the Senate... I would have said no, but now I think it is possible, call it a coin flip.

Part what I think fueled the election 2004 conspiracy theories is the overconfidence/overhyped pre-election polls. As one of your articles points out - they are often wrong.

I think it is much simpler than that. 2 presidential elections decided by 1 very close race in the state that Bush's campaign chair was also in charge of conducting the election. Machines that are not audit-able, long lines in Democratic precincts, blanket felons lists, etc. etc. etc. These are not theories, these things happened. Why they happened is not as important as how do we stop them from happening again.

Now the big GOP push is to require an ID to vote. Disenfranchisement and voter suppression is the meat and potatoes of the GOP's strategy. Couple that with the anti-immigrant hate initiatives to mobilize the republican redneck base, and there you have the makings of a neo-republican mid-term.

Unfortunately for them, I know a lot of redneck republicans that are fed up with Bush and his rubber stamp Congress. They might vote to ship all the illegals back to where they came from, but they plan to vote for the democratic or third party Representative.

 

[BobG]

Looks like Democrats are picking up at least one seat in the House that they didn't expect.

Rep Foley resigns over e-mails to 16 year old page

 

[edward]

Jack Abramoff He's baaack

It is going to be interesting to see how the White House justifies their previous claim of having only limited contact with Abramoff.

Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Lobbyist Jack Abramoff claimed in billing records that he and his associates had at least 485 contacts with White House officials during the Bush administration's first term, according to a report by a U.S. House panel.

Abramoff, 47, claimed he personally had at least 66 contacts with White House officials, including at least 10 with White House chief political adviser Karl Rove, according to the yet-to- be-released report by the House Committee on Government Reform. Bloomberg News obtained a copy of the study, which was first reported last night by ABC News.

``Abramoff was selling information and entrée that shouldn't need to be bought while making his clients pay inflated fees for access and influence which shouldn't be for sale,'' wrote committee chairman Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, and ranking Democrat Henry Waxman of California.

The new information about Abramoff's contacts with the White House may refocus attention on the influence of lobbyists in Washington six weeks before House and Senate elections.

 

[Astronuc]

It is going to be interesting to see how the White House justifies their previous claim of having only limited contact with Abramoff.

Yeah . . . Sure . . . I think there is at least one picture of Bush with Abramoff in the background . . . at the Whitehouse, IIRC.

http://indianz.com/News/2006/012514.asp

"It's not, as photos for a superlobbyist's power wall go, a terribly impressive shot: President Bush, his back to the camera, shaking the hand of Raul Garza, chief of the Kickapoo tribe of Texas. In the foreground, Karl Rove, smiling at a 2001 White House meeting to promote the president's tax cuts. And there at the back of the room, only his slightly blurry head visible, the chief's lobbyist: Jack Abramoff. Which, of course -- along with the refusal of the Bush administration to release information about what Mr. Abramoff was doing at the White House, how often he was there and with whom -- is what makes the picture a big deal.

Kim Eisler of Washingtonian magazine has reported that the disgraced lobbyist met with Mr. Bush almost a dozen times over the past five years and was invited to the president's ranch in Crawford, Tex., in 2003. According to Mr. Abramoff, who raised at least $100,000 for Mr. Bush's reelection, the president was once well acquainted enough with the lobbyist (or at least well briefed enough) to inquire about his twins. But now, as in the photo, Mr. Abramoff somehow has gone blurry in Mr. Bush's memory. The president doesn't recall meeting or posing for pictures with him.

Mr. Rove's memory is fuzzy, too, as luck would have it. His name, according to the Associated Press, was rather routinely dropped by Mr. Abramoff as his big White House contact. Mr. Abramoff's former assistant, Susan Ralston, went to the White House to work for Mr. Rove, and, the Associated Press reported yesterday, Mr. Rove's office helped set up a 2002 meeting between Mr. Bush and the prime minister of Malaysia, another Abramoff client. One Abramoff business associate reported being in the lobbyist's office when Mr. Rove's office called to confirm the meeting."

Is this a Republican thing where Republican presidents get amnesia. Bush is much younger than Reagan, who apparently stopped remembering about 1986. Shades of Iran-Contra.

 

[Astronuc]

I was listening to Marketplace on NPR. They were wondering if the legislative branch of the federal government was broken.

Starting Monday, Marketplace will feature - The Real Agenda.

Election day is November 7, and the politicians are buying ads and making speeches. But are they taking on the problems we really care about?

Marketplace set out to answer that question. We reviewed polls, talked to analysts and put our ear to the pavement with a new tool: Public Insight Journalism. We came up with feature stories, interviews and commentaries that make up our election coverage. We're calling it The Real Agenda. It's Your Agenda.

Many people shared their thoughts on the obvious, big issues of the day: Iraq, gas prices, health care, and immigration. But we also heard about issues that aren't on the national political radar, but are important: the "crunched" middle class, government accountability, climate change, and more.

To cover the Real Agenda, reporters are finding out how states are wrestling with problems that Congress has ignored. We've invited top commentators to tackle the Real Agenda. And we've asked Marketplace commentators Robert Reich and David Frum to debate solutions for the problems voters care about most.

Want to share your Real Agenda? Click here. By responding, you'll be joining the Public Insight Network and signing up to help Marketplace and other American Public Media programs report the news.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/realagenda/about.html

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/realagenda/index.html

 

[Astronuc]

For senators, pride goeth before the fall election
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/09/29/PM200609295.html

JEFF BIRNBAUM: The Senate is a bit too self-important. It thinks its members are above letting the public know in a timely way how much money they collect and spend for their elections.

Candidates for the House, the White House, plus every other type of political organization — from lobbyists to independent groups called 527s — have to file their campaign-finance reports via the Internet.

When that happens people can see which special interests are pouring money into campaigns at the moment those campaigns most need it most. That can be a pretty good indicator of the sorts of policies that legislator may later push.

But the Senate is exempt from the fixed eye of cyberspace.

That body has declined to vote itself into the 21st Century, though it's done that with every one of those other entities.

As it is, senators and Senate candidates deliver their reports on paper, even though those reports are written on computers.

The government then spends hundreds of thousands of dollars having the documents listed in an expensive computer system that is not searchable. Goodbye useful information.

The result: voters don't know in the last critical months before an election, including this one, how much their candidates for Senate are spending and who is bankrolling them.

After the election, when they do find out, it's too late to vote a different way. If that's not arrogance, I don't know what is!

! is my edit.

Isn't it time for a change?

Get involved! and VOTE in November!

 

[Astronuc]

Polls Find Voters Are Restless with Incumbents
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6168159

All Things Considered, September 29, 2006 · Recent polls depict American voters having anti-incumbent sentiments similar to the levels of 1994, when the House shifted from the incumbent Democratic majority, to a newly elected Republican majority. Michele Norris talks with Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

Gee - I wonder why?

 

[Astronuc]

So, with the Abramoff scandal, Bob Woodward's book "State of Denial", and the Mark Foley scandal, what is going to happen next? and in five weeks?

What is happening in Hastert's district?

Interesting times.

 

[edward]

Odd that Republican media and web sites keep claiming that this is the October surprise that the Democrats had promised.

It seems to me that it was Karl Rove who in September promised an October surprise that would win in November.

edit: Here it is. It appears that Rove's October surprise is still to come. The spin man has not yet spun.

WASHINGTON -- In the past week, Karl Rove has been promising Republican insiders an "October surprise" to help win the November congressional elections.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/20/141615.shtml?s=lh

 

[McGyver]

Odd that Republican media and web sites keep claiming that this is the October surprise that the Democrats had promised.

It seems to me that it was Karl Rove who in September promised an October surprise that would win in November.

It appears that Rove's October surprise is still to come. The spin man has not yet spun.

Rove appears to have made the incorrect move in his support of Hastert as House Speaker. Where goes Hastert - goes the House of Reps!

 

[BobG]

Rove appears to have made the incorrect move in his support of Hastert as House Speaker. Where goes Hastert - goes the House of Reps!

I disagree.

You're criticizing him for choosing not to leap from the frying pan into the fire. If Republicans jumped, the best that could be said is that it would be a quick and certain end. Bouncing around the skillet may be more painful, but, hey, who knows, they might get lucky and bounce somewhere better than the fire.

If Hastert left, all it would do would be to allow the sights to be set on the next target down. It's going to be bad for Republicans regardless. If Hastert, Boehner, and Reynolds all resign, then the landslide in November will be even worse than what will probably happen with Dems focusing on Hastert.

 

[Astronuc]

Foley, Iraq Cause Headaches for GOP
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6209640

Day to Day, October 6, 2006 · NPR senior correspondent Juan Williams talks with Madeleine Brand about how the unfolding scandal surrounding disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), plus a spike in violence in Iraq, is causing Republican political candidates headaches as the November nationwide elections approach.

If Hastert left, all it would do would be to allow the sights to be set on the next target down. It's going to be bad for Republicans regardless. If Hastert, Boehner, and Reynolds all resign, then the landslide in November will be even worse than what will probably happen with Dems focusing on Hastert.

Like any captain, Hastert has to go down with the ship, which hopefully will be the case in November.


Will Mark Foley End the GOP Reign?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6195951

NPR.org, October 4, 2006 · There was, of course, the war. And President Bush's polling numbers. Uneasiness about the economy. The response to Katrina. Throw in a little Jack Abramoff.

But if the Republican Party is going to forfeit the control of Congress it has held since 1994, it may be its response to the escapades involving Mark Foley, the Florida House member who resigned his seat in disgrace, that does the trick.

There's still five weeks to go, and the momentum could shift. But the revelations about Foley, his salacious e-mail and instant-message history with underage males who had worked as congressional pages, and questions about who in the Republican leadership knew about these goings on -- and whether or not they did anything to stop it, or cover it up -- have struck a chord around the country. It's one thing to harp on the scandal involving Abramoff, the convicted lobbyist who distributed favors to his political pals, mostly Republican. For the most part, the reaction around the country to lawmakers on the take was "what else is new?"

 

[Astronuc]

Wall Street's political cash favors Democrats
http://elections.us.reuters.com/top/news/usnN06393176.html/?src=092906_MARKETING_CMS_ElecMidArt
By Tim McLaughlin

ST. LOUIS (Reuters) - Wall Street has shifted its allegiance in the 2006 election cycle by donating more to Democrats than Republicans who have been the investment banks' usual benefactors, U.S. Federal Election Commission data show.

Five leading firms Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Bear Stearns Companies Inc.,Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch & Co. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. have contributed $6.2 million so far to candidates before the November elections, with about 52 percent going to Democrats.

"People give ideological money and they give money to people they think are going to win," said Maurice Carroll, director of Quinnipiac University's Polling Institute in Hamden, Connecticut. "It looks like it's going to be a good year for Democrats."

Despite being awash in record profits, Wall Street executives, investment bankers, brokers and traders may be getting weary of Republican control, Carroll said. President Bush's polling numbers are low and growing violence in Iraq also weighs heavy on Republican leadership, he said.

Meredith McGehee, policy director at The Campaign Legal Center, said Wall Street also may be concerned about the U.S. deficit, which has ballooned during the Bush administration.

"The last time the deficit was under control was under the Democrats," McGehee said.

Still, it's unlikely Wall Street would embrace higher taxes, a move some Democrats favor to cut the deficit.

The 2006 election cycle that began Jan. 1, 2005, marks the first time in a dozen years that securities firms' donations have skewed leftward, according to analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks political contributions.

Democrats have received $23.8 million from Wall Street compared to $21.7 million for Republicans. Over the previous five election cycles, Republicans captured 52 to 58 percent of the industry's political donations.

About 80 percent of the contributions from the industry comes from employees. The rest comes from political action committees, which remain loyal to Republicans for lowering tax rates on dividends and capital gains, for example.

Wall Street - the bastion of capitalism - are turning away from the GOP!?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As one of the talking heads noted today: It would take a nuclear detonation [in N. Korea] to change the subject!

Rummy replied: I can manage that!

 

[BobG]

If you're a Republican candidate, sometimes you must wonder why you even get out of bed in the morning.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_5040148,00.html

Lamborn is the Republican candidate in a district where Republicans outnumber Democrats 190,000 to 89,000. He can't get the endorsement of the retiring Republican Congressman from his district. He can't get the endorsement of his primary opponent.

Lucky for Lamborn, he did get Hastert's support for a spot on the House Armed Services Committee should he win - a slot that's critical to a town with five military bases. That's sure worth a lot now.

Unbelievably, this district has moved to 50th on the "most likely to swap party" list. (Of course, that was before Foley's district suddenly jumped to number 1)

 

[McGyver]

Democrats may not get big post Foley scandal election boost

In spite of all what has been reported on the Foley scandal's anticipated impact on the November elections, the Foley scandal was ranked as 4th yesterday in an ABC poll. ABC World News October 9th reported the latest poll of voter sentiments of Foley scandal in upcoming election at 18%, with Iraq way at the top, terrorism, the economy next, and then the revellations of the Foley scandal. I have looked and looked and cannot find the ABC poll I quote from last night - if any of you can.

This poll would suggest that Dems are not getting the election boost that is being widely reported, and the Dems must continue to work hard to make their case known before the election.

As for any real impact of the Foley scandal in next month's election, it will have to emerge thru a revolt of a breach of the Republican's moral values Contract with America, and not thru Congressional corruption as many now think.

True conservatives will accept a certain amount of corruption as a "means to an end" in achieving their objectives and agenda. This is ever so apparent in how the Catholic church managed to keep the clergy molestation issue under wraps for hundreds of years. It only reached a crisis point when victims and their attorneys pushed the morality buttons!

Dems should NOT look to get a big boost from the Foley House corruption aspect of the scandal, but rather thru voter sentiments of a breach of the "moral values" clause, and which party is viewed as more committed to this end.

 

[BobG]

Unbelievably, this district has moved to 50th on the "most likely to swap party" list. (Of course, that was before Foley's district suddenly jumped to number 1)

Err, make that moved to a dead heat between Fawcett and Lamborn! State's 5th District a tossup The poll was taken last week while interest in the Foley scandal was fresh, so that result of 37-37 has to be somewhat artificial.

Although, if the debate they had last week got any real air time, Lamborn would be toast. He had obviously never been in a debate before in his life. Highlight of the debate, and the most widely shown video of the debate, was [MEDIA=youtube[/URL]. Sad, sad, sad to see Republicans nominate a candidate that bad solely because he has the backing of Christian Conservatives.

Still, I sure wish I could change my prediction of 5-10. I think the new prediction [b]by Republicans[/b] is 7 to 30 seats lost to Dems.

 

[Astronuc]

Foley Hurting Congress’s Image, Poll Shows
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/us/politics/10poll.html

With four weeks left before Election Day, the poll indicates that the scandal involving Mr. Foley, a former Republican congressman from Florida, is alienating Americans from Congress, and weakening a Republican Party that was already struggling to keep control of the House and Senate. By overwhelming numbers, including majorities of Republicans, Americans said that most members of Congress did not follow the same rules of behavior as average Americans, and that most members of Congress considered themselves above the law.

“Politics goes to people’s heads and they see themselves as their own little entity,” said Donna Mummert, 68, a Republican from Marsing, Idaho, in a follow-up interview after participating in the poll. “They forget why they’re there to represent us.”

Well, the incumbents in congress are the same people and same values that were there from the beginning. They were elected with these values.

Maybe it's time to seriously think about independent candidates, and stop voting for the party.

 

[Skyhunter]

Maybe it's time to seriously think about independent candidates, and stop voting for the party.

The only way that will happen is with public financing of elections. Coupled with free air time for candidates to say something substantial.

If ads were banned, and replaced with substantive debates, the electorate might become slightly more educated.

I am personally in favor of instant runoffs. Where you have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice. This way voters could select the candidate they want, instead of the lesser evil with a chance to win. Maybe with a system like this, third party candidates would have a more equal playing field. If nothing else it would force the two national parties to be more responsive to their districts.

 

[BobG]

Foley Hurting Congress’s Image, Poll Shows
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/us/politics/10poll.html

Well, the incumbents in congress are the same people and same values that were there from the beginning. They were elected with these values.

Maybe it's time to seriously think about independent candidates, and stop voting for the party.

Or maybe voters should seriously think about showing up for the primaries. It's pretty sad when 5% of a district's population can pretty much ensure a candidate's election just by attaching a letter to their name come time for the general election.

 

[Astronuc]

If ads were banned, and replaced with substantive debates, the electorate might become slightly more educated.

And people would be crying about "freedom of speech" or "free speech". It is amazing how much "free speech" costs. But then again "money talks", and politicians listen.

Or maybe voters should seriously think about showing up for the primaries. It's pretty sad when 5% of a district's population can pretty much ensure a candidate's election just by attaching a letter to their name come time for the general election.

Agreed. I remember my civics/government class in 8th grade when we watched movies from the 60's about the political process. The gist of it was that citizens attended community meetings - usually a specific party function and/or a debate between party candidates. It is rare to see a substantitive debate these days. Then good citizens are supposed to vote. I like the Australian idea of mandatory voting.

There plenty of rallies which are orchestrated, but it seems politicians control the political process rather than the people. Gee, the seems more like Russia and China! Aren't we supposed to be different?