Will use this thread for polls and news bits concerning all of the 2006 races.



With that in mind, I thought I would point out how well Mr. McCain is doing, both in various polls and in the money department. He is heavily tapping into the Bush 04 financial network with great success. Looks like my prediction from six months ago is becoming less and less of an impossibility by the day.

Yeah, McCain is definitely posturing to the base heavily. His joining up with Coburn on the earmark issue is going to help him strongly with the base I believe. It will also be highly publicized. Good exposure.

Hmmm... I need to create a McCain character for Political Machine...strong on media bias and money. :lol:

Things have been interesting here in Ohio. At first I thought there was going to be a contentious battle for the Democratic nomination for Senator DeWine's seat, but Paul Hackett bowed out and congressman Sherrod Brown is the <i>de facto</i> nominee to face Senator DeWine in the fall. It appears representative Ted Strickland will likely be the Democratic candidate for governor, and I can only assume Secretary of State Ken Blackwell will be the Republican nominee. I'm not excited with the prospect of a Strickland governorship, but I think he will probably beat Mr. Blackwell, given the latter's controversial standing and the general state of the Ohio GOP. I think Senator DeWine's seat is safe, for better or worse.

Things have been interesting here in Ohio. At first I thought there was going to be a contentious battle for the Democratic nomination for Senator DeWine's seat, but Paul Hackett bowed out and congressman Sherrod Brown is the <i>de facto</i> nominee to face Senator DeWine in the fall."Bowed out"? That's quite a charitable way of saying what really happened.

Economic sabotage, whisper campaigns, and threats: How the Democrats took Paul Hackett out.

By David Goodman

February 16, 2006

Democratic Senate candidate and Marine Corps Major Paul Hackett is accustomed to waging quixotic battles and taking his hits. He just didn’t expect the lowest—and fatal—blows to come from his own party.

In an announcement that stunned many in Washington and even some in his campaign staff, Hackett declared on February 13, 2006, that he was dropping his bid for U.S. Senate in Ohio, ending his 11 month political career. “I made this decision reluctantly, only after repeated requests by party leaders, as well as behind-the-scenes machinations, that were intended to hurt my campaign,” he said, only hinting at what had gone down. The day after his withdrawal from the race, he told me about the backroom battles that forced him out.

Hackett was running against seven-term Akron Democrat Rep. Sherrod Brown in a May primary, with the winner going on to face two-term Republican Sen. Mike DeWine in November (assuming DeWine wins his own primary against a longshot Republican challenger). DeWine is considered one of the most vulnerable incumbent Republicans, and the national Democratic Party is pulling out the stops to defeat him.

But first, the Democrats had to get Hackett out of the way. The weapons used in the rubout included economic sabotage, whisper campaigns, and threats.

Hackett, an Iraq War combat veteran, was hailed last summer as just the kind of “fighting Democrat” the party needed to reinvigorate its base and end its years in the congressional wilderness. After narrowly losing a race for Congress in a lopsidedly Republican district outside Cincinnati last August, the telegenic veteran—famous for dissing President Bush as a “chickenhawk” and “sonuvabitch” while on the stump—was courted heavily by Democratic leaders, including Sens. Charles Schumer and Harry Reid, to take on DeWine. But no sooner did Hackett enter the Senate race last October than Brown announced his candidacy for Senate, reversing an earlier decision he had made to stay out of the race.

With Brown, a party insider, on board, the Democratic establishment quickly began pulling away from the fiery Hackett. Schumer, after having wooed him in August, called again in October. “Schumer didn’t tell me anything definitive,” Hackett told me at the time. “But I’m not a dumb ass, and I know what he wanted me to do.” Hackett, a maverick who relishes the fight, decided to buck the Beltway insiders, and stay in the race.

Hackett’s scorching rhetoric earned him notoriety and cash on the campaign trail. He declared that people who opposed gay marriage were “un-American.” He said the Republican party had been hijacked by religious extremists who he said “aren’t a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden.” Bloggers loved him, donors ponied up, while Democratic Party insiders grumbled that he wasn’t "senatorial."

Swift boats soon appeared on the horizon. A whisper campaign started: Hackett committed war crimes in Iraq—and there were photos. “The first rumor that I heard was probably a month and a half ago,” Dave Lane, chair of the Clermont County Democratic Party, told me the day after Hackett pulled out of the race. “I heard it more than once that someone was distributing photos of Paul in Iraq with Iraqi war casualties with captions or suggestions that Paul had committed some sort of atrocities. Who did it? I have no idea. It sounds like a Republican M.O. to me, but I have no proof of that. But if it was someone on my side of the fence, I have a real problem with that. I have a hard time believing that a Democrat would do that to another Democrat.”

In late November, Hackett got a call from Sen. Harry Reid. “I hear there’s a photo of you mistreating bodies in Iraq. Is it true?” demanded the Senate minority leader. “No sir,” replied Hackett. To drive home his point, Hackett traveled to Washington to show Reid’s staff the photo in question. Hackett declined to send me the photo, but he insists that it shows another Marine—not Hackett—unloading a sealed body bag from a truck. “There was nothing disrespectful or unprofessional,” he insists. “That was a photo of a Marine doing his job. If you don’t like what they’re doing, don’t send Marines into war.”

A staffer in Reid’s office confirmed that Hackett had showed them several photos. “The ones I saw were part of a diary he kept while serving in Iraq and were in no way compromising. The one picture in question depicted Marines doing their work on what looked like a scorching day in Iraq,” said the aide.

But the whispering continued, and Hackett was troubled. “It creates doubt and suspicion,” Hackett told me, saying his close supporters were asking him privately about the rumors. “It tarnishes my very strength as a candidate, my military service. It’s like you take a handful of seeds, throw them up in the wind, and they blow all around and start growing. It really bothered me.”

Hackett backers suspected the smear was being floated by Sherrod Brown’s campaign. A senior Brown staffer angrily dismissed the charge this week as “ridiculous.”

Brown campaign spokesperson Joanna Kuebler declined to respond to the rumors. She offered this prepared statement: “This campaign has never been about Paul Hackett or about Sherrod Brown. This campaign is about the hard working people of Ohio, and what Republican corruption has done to them.”

Hackett wanted to fight to the finish. He raised nearly a half-million dollars in the last quarter of 2005, matching Brown’s fundraising. But Brown entered the Senate race with $2 million in the bank, a strategic cushion. Early polls show both Brown and Hackett running in a dead heat against DeWine. An internal poll done in February for the Hackett campaign that was obtained by the Cleveland Plain Dealer showed Brown leading Hackett by 20 points, but Hackett took the lead if voters simply heard both candidates' bios. The analysis concluded, “If Paul Hackett can raise the funds necessary to communicate his message to the voters of Ohio, he will present Sherrod Brown with a formidable challenge in May.”

With the very real prospect of a smear against him going public late in the campaign—a la the Swift Boating of John Kerry—Hackett knew that dollars would be especially important for him. “If I don’t have the $2 million or $3 million it would take to respond in the final weeks, to influence the battlefield with my message, then I would just be reacting and I’ll get trounced,” said Hackett.

Hackett had demonstrated his ability to shake money from donors during a January fundraising roadshow in California and New York. But he soon discovered that top Democrats were attempting to cut off his money. The hosts of a Beverly Hills fundraiser for Hackett received an e-mail from the political action committee of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) that concluded, “I hope you will re-consider your efforts on behalf of Hackett and give your support to Sherrod.” Waxman’s chief of staff, Phil Schiliro, said the e-mail was only sent to a handful of people and that “it probably came from a suggestion from the Sherrod Brown campaign.”

Michael Fleming, who manages Internet millionaire David Bohnett’s political and charitable giving, was one of the recipients of the Waxman email. Bohnett has given to hundreds of progressive candidates, but Fleming says, “This was the first time I had ever gotten an email or communication like that. I find it discouraging and disheartening. It’s unfortunate that the powers that be didn’t let the people of Ohio figure this out. We should be in the business of encouraging people like Paul Hackett and viable progressive candidates like him to run. The message instead is don’t bother, it’s not worth your time.”

Sen. Schumer was also reported to be trying to turn off Hackett’s cash spigots. No one would confirm this to me on the record. But veteran political activist David Mixner, who described himself as “a fanatically strong supporter” of Hackett and who helped sponsor a New York fundraiser, confirmed that he “received calls from a couple people in Congress urging Paul Hackett to withdraw or not to contribute money to his campaign. The reasons ranged from he can’t win, to he’s too controversial, Brown has more money, is more centrist, and more appealing. It was that inner beltway circle crap,” said Mixner. “They are people who have no idea what’s going on in the country but believe they know everything.”

Mixner added, “I don’t think it’s inappropriate to call me. What’s inappropriate is that the people calling me were the same people who asked him to run, and now they wanted to push him out. That's what made this unique.”

Hackett was infuriated by the subterfuge. “I felt like I got fucked by the Democratic Party because they enticed me in and then they pulled the rug out from beneath me. It sounds eerily familiar to sending in the military to Iraq, which was a misuse of the military, and then not giving them what they need to fight.”

In what is being called the Valentine’s Day Massacre, Paul Hackett threw in the towel, and insisted he would not be running for elected office anytime soon. He declined requests to switch races and run again in the Ohio Second Congressional District against Rep. Jean Schmidt, saying he had promised the candidates currently in that race that he wouldn’t run. “My word is my bond and I will take it to my grave,” he declared.

As word spread about the intra-party intrigue that helped bring down Hackett, supporters have reacted angrily. “If the Democratic Party continues with these suicidal decisions, we will continue to defeat ourselves,” declared Yolanda Parker, who recently attended a California fundraiser for Hackett. “The only strategy the Republicans need to stay in power is patience. They just need to wait while our party self-implodes through idiotic decisions such as the one to pressure an articulate Iraqi war veteran to pull out of the race.”

Party officials have tried to tamp down the anger. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) spokesman Phil Singer stated, “Neither the DSCC nor Senator Schumer reached out to donors to ask them to take sides in this race. Paul Hackett’s statesman-like decision will help us win one of the most important Senate races in the nation.”

Hackett, who says he would still like to help “retool” the Democratic Party, ends his meteoric political career with some advice for other maverick candidates. “They simply can’t rely on any of the party infrastructure to help them, and they must assume that people at high levels will work against them. These guys,” he says of the party insiders, “view the Senate as a club. They’re not gonna welcome you if one day they turn the key on the clubhouse door and you are sitting there with your feet on the table flippin’ them the middle finger. I understand that from their perspective. It works for them, but not for the rest of us out here.”

http://motherjones.com/news/update/2006/02/hackett_drops_out.html

"Bowed out"? That's quite a charitable way of saying what really happened.Yes, I was being charitable. :)

I hadn't really planned on "going there" unless someone else wanted to bring it up. I have close friends who are active in the state Democratic Party and I hear a lot of stuff I wouldn't necessarily repeat. Evidently, Hackett wasn't seen as that strong a candidate, but I don't understand why Democrats are going after DeWine when they should be marshalling resources to keep Blackwell out of the state house. :shrug:

Yes, I was being charitable. :)

I hadn't really planned on "going there" unless someone else wanted to bring it up. I have close friends who are active in the state Democratic Party and I hear a lot of stuff I wouldn't necessarily repeat. Evidently, Hackett wasn't seen as that strong a candidate, but I don't understand why Democrats are going after DeWine when they should be marshalling resources to keep Blackwell out of the state house. :shrug:



Just as important was Hackett's decision to not re-run for the Congressional seat. That he may have won.

It’s unfortunate that the powers that be didn’t let the people of Ohio figure this out. We should be in the business of encouraging people like Paul Hackett and viable progressive candidates like him to run. The message instead is don’t bother, it’s not worth your time.”.....
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) spokesman Phil Singer stated, “Neither the DSCC nor Senator Schumer reached out to donors to ask them to take sides in this race. Paul Hackett’s statesman-like decision will help us win one of the most important Senate races in the nation.”

These are part of the reasons I hate the DSCC and the NRSC. I will not donate to the "national" party. It has no good knowledge of what each state needs. They only exist to "win" majority. Hell, they're the reason Lincoln Chaffee still has a seat.


Hackett was infuriated by the subterfuge. “I felt like I got f*cked by the Democratic Party because they enticed me in and then they pulled the rug out from beneath me. It sounds eerily familiar to sending in the military to Iraq, which was a misuse of the military, and then not giving them what they need to fight.”

-ohbfrank-

Some ammo for the Governator against Westly.

Westly's history of questionable IPO stock trades

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/19/MNG8THBH511.DTL&feed=rss.news

State Controller Steve Westly made a $286,000 profit at the height of the dot-com boom through a pattern of stock trades that experts say is consistent with participation in a banned stock-market manipulation scheme.

His tax returns show that on 33 occasions between April and October 1999, Westly -- then an executive at the online auction house eBay and today a Democratic candidate for governor -- bought blocks of hot new dot-com stocks at the initial public offering price, a lucrative investment opportunity that underwriters steered to wealthy clients and other insiders.

Then, after the market opened and public trading began, Westly bought more of the same stocks -- almost always an identical number of shares. He paid premium prices, sometimes as much as triple what he paid for the IPO.

A Westly spokesman said Westly did nothing improper, but several experts consulted by The Chronicle said Westly's pattern of stock trading suggested "laddering," a scheme in which investment banks pump up the price of a new stock by requiring IPO purchasers to buy more of the stock after it opens for trading.

The insiders' post-IPO purchases drive up the price, creating the illusion that the stock is in heavy demand. Ordinary investors, unaware of what is happening, often lose heavily after insiders start to sell and the stock price drops.

In all 33 cases, Westly sold the stocks soon after buying them, his tax returns show. He lost more than $71,000 on the shares he bought after the stocks were made available to the public.


very long article, more on site

I am very little satisfied by what has been accomplished by republican control of congress and the executive. I believe we will witness a struggle within the party between the conservatives (word used as an adjective) and those with ideas and vision.

The democrats... I don't want to get in trouble with the mods. ;)

With that in mind, I thought I would point out how well Mr. McCain is doing, both in various polls and in the money department. He is heavily tapping into the Bush 04 financial network with great success. Looks like my prediction from six months ago is becoming less and less of an impossibility by the day.

It doesn't look that way to me.

You're, once again, ignoring the obvious about McCain's fatal flaw.

I remind you that Rudy is way up in the polls also. What do you think about his chances.

It doesn't look that way to me.

You're, once again, ignoring the obvious about McCain's fatal flaw.

I remind you that Rudy is way up in the polls also. What do you think about his chances.
His chances certainly increase if he can out spend everyone else. He will have a problem with the base though since he's Mr. Maverick and the base is who elects in the primaries. It would be interesting to see a McCain money juggernaut in the primaries.

It doesn't look that way to me.

You're, once again, ignoring the obvious about McCain's fatal flaw.

I remind you that Rudy is way up in the polls also. What do you think about his chances.



I am ignoring nothing. Frankly, the polls were the least relevant portion of my post, and even within those, I was more concerned with various straw polls conducted within very conservative and politically active groups. His strength in these polls have surprised many.

At any rate, it has been more his money, who it is coming from and how much of it, along with who is signing on to help his 'campaign' that has led me to my present belief. The very same, often conservative, people who helped elect George W. Bush, helped with their talents and monies, are now beginning to line up with Mr. McCain. It also won't hurt to have by far the biggest and strongest organisation in place when the primary season starts.

You are kidding yourself if you believe there is no chance that he can win the nomination. While that may have been true two years ago, it is not true today, particularly given the general softening of GOP support. And that from one who loathes him more than you do.

Much like capitalism being the best economic system aside from all the others, it appears Senator McCain is the least likely Republican nominee, aside from all the others. ;)

Appears?

Bet on it! It's a sure bet.

Appears?

Bet on it! It's a sure bet.My winnings at the baccarat table last weekend notwithstanding, I'm not a gambler. :)

Now, I thought this thread was about 200<b>6</b>, not 200<b>8</b>. Is Senator Kyl possibly losing his seat? What about Senators Lieberman and Santorum?

My hope is that the Democrats gain control of the House in 11/2006.

It's a long shot, but remember 1994.

My hope is that the Democrats gain control of the House in 11/2006.

It's a long shot, but remember 1994.
The country may be getting tired of Republicans in charge.

The Democrats are on the right side of the whole Ports in control of ME companies thing though. The admin seems to be trying to dig their heels in on this one.

My hope is that the Democrats gain control of the House in 11/2006.

It's a long shot, but remember 1994.I looked at midterm elections comparable to 2006, where it was the midterm of the second term of a presidency. The others I examined were 1940, 1958, 1974 (unusual because Nixon had just resigned), 1986, and 1998. This is what I found:

<table border="0" cellpadding="20" cellspacing="0" bgcolor="#66CCFF"> <tr> <td><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5"> <tr> <td><strong>Year</strong></td> <td><div align="center"><strong>Party in White House</strong></div></td> <td><div align="center"><strong>Senate 'Swing'</strong></div></td> <td><div align="center"><strong>House 'Swing'</strong></div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>1940</td> <td><div align="center">Democrat</div></td> <td><div align="center">-3</div></td> <td><div align="center">+5</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>1958</td> <td><div align="center">Republican</div></td> <td><div align="center">-13</div></td> <td><div align="center">-48</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>1974*</td> <td><div align="center">Republican</div></td> <td><div align="center">-5</div></td> <td><div align="center">-48</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>1986</td> <td><div align="center">Republican</div></td> <td><div align="center">-8</div></td> <td><div align="center">-5</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>1998</td> <td><div align="center">Democrat</div></td> <td><div align="center">0</div></td> <td><div align="center">+4</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Avg (1)</td> <td><div align="center">-</div></td> <td><div align="center">-5.8</div></td> <td><div align="center">-18.4</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Avg (2)</td> <td><div align="center">-</div></td> <td><div align="center">-6.0</div></td> <td><div align="center">-11.0</div></td> </tr> </table> <p>* President Nixon resigned from office ~3 months prior to the general election.</p> <p>Avg (1) includes the 1974 midterms; Avg (2) does not.</p></td> </tr></table>
So, while every election is unique, I don't look to the Democrats regaining control of either chamber, although it seems likely they will pick up a few seats in both.

I guess this thread isn't 'sexy' enough...

More on the Paul Hackett fiasco:

<a href = "http://www.dispatch.com/editorials-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/02/21/20060221-A9-02.html"><b>Underhanded abandonment of Hackett damages Democratic Party</a></b>
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
DALE BUTLAND

During the Vietnam war, some disillusioned troops "fragged" superior officers by rolling fragmentation grenades into their tents. Last week, the Democratic Party’s political fragging of Iraq war hero Paul Hackett resulted in the end of his Senate campaign. Like all fraggings, it was ugly. But the collateral damage may extend well beyond the intended target.

It began when party leaders in Washington, who had begged and ultimately persuaded Hackett to run against Sen. Mike De-Wine after others turned them down, suddenly abandoned him when Rep. Sherrod Brown of Lorain, who had previously demurred, changed his mind.

Next, false rumors were circulated among Ohio media and political insiders that the decorated Marine hero had committed war crimes while serving in Fallujah. The attempted "swiftboating" soon was followed by another whisper campaign falsely claiming that Hackett was expelled from college for sexual harassment. As the filing deadline approached, state and national party officials publicly began urging Hackett to drop out of the Senate race and seek election to the House. Phone calls to some of Hackett’s donors, discouraging further contributions, proved to be the coup de grace. Unable to raise enough money for TV ads that an internal poll suggested could propel him to victory, Hackett reluctantly dropped out. The party bosses won.

But what explains their ham-handed tactics?

For reasons that are not self-evident, Ohio’s Democratic leaders have lived in mortal fear of primary elections for the past 15 years – interestingly, a stretch of time that roughly parallels a period of unbroken Republican success in state-wide elections. Party pooh-bahs say primaries are divisive, expensive, give ammunition to the opposition and deplete campaign war chests for the general election.

Though the theory is clear, history isn’t. Whether one considers the spirited primary that preceded the election of former Gov. Richard F. Celeste in 1982, or the epic primary battles between former U.S. Sens. John Glenn and Howard Metzenbaum, nonincumbent Democrats running statewide often fare better with primaries than without them. It is no mystery why. Primaries hone candidate skills and provide shake-down cruises for campaign operations. Primary winners are better debaters, sharper on the stump and more artful with the media. Campaign workers are able to identify problems and shore up weaknesses before heading into November.

History aside, there are two other reasons why party elites’ conspiring to force Hackett out of this year’s Senate race was a monumentally bad idea:

• Hackett was a rising star in a party with far too few of them. Treatment like he received isn’t the best way to entice new blood and new ideas into an organization desperately in need of both. Democrats can’t hope to win consistently by running the same horses in different silks.

• Democrats need all hands on deck to win statewide in present-day Ohio. But the back-room maneuvering displayed in the Hackett affair has enraged legions of newly-minted Democrats who cut their political teeth in the 2004 presidential election, especially the young and idealistic "netizens" who frequent Internet blogs such as the Daily Kos. Suspicious of power elites and disdainful of politics as usual, they were drawn to Hackett’s authenticity and treated him like a rock star. If the mugging of their hero causes them to sit on the sidelines this November, the Democratic Senate and gubernatorial nominees will surely suffer. It would be ironic indeed if Brown became the penultimate victim of the very machinations designed to help him.

Party leaders should have allowed the primary process to play out and let the best man win. Defending his efforts to get Hackett out of the race, State Party Chairman Chris Redfern said the name Brown is golden in Ohio, noting, "It’s just that simple."

Perhaps. But if that’s true, why were power brokers so skittish about letting Brown conclusively prove it by oh, say, winning a primary election? In any event, it’s hard to see how the selfproclaimed "party of the little guy" enhances that image by letting big guys rig the game and fix the outcome.

<i>Dale Butland, a former press secretary and campaign director for Sen. John Glenn, served as senior adviser to the Hackett for Senate campaign. </i>

And also:
<a href = "http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/02/21/20060221-A4-03.html"><b>Ex-Senate candidate alleges smear</b>
Hackett suspects Brown’s campaign is behind rumor of war-service atrocities</a>
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Jack Torry
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Democrat Paul Hackett, who last week ended his bid for the U.S. Senate, yesterday accused the campaign of a former rival of trying to smear his Iraq war record.

Hackett, a Marine reservist who served in Iraq from August 2004 to March 2005, said he has been told by Democratic Party officials that supporters of U.S. Rep. Sherrod Brown were suggesting that Hackett had been photographed mistreating the bodies of dead Iraqis.

Hackett told The Dispatch that "there were people along the campaign trail" who said Brown’s aides engaged in a whisper campaign about his war record. Hackett said he was referring to Democratic county chairmen.

Hackett referred to rumors that, as a major in the civil-affairs section of the Marines, he was photographed in Fallujah "with bodies of Iraqis, which is utterly preposterous." Hackett said one of his jobs was to help collect the dead from the battlefield, which he described as a "gruesome task."

Last night on the MSNBC show Hardball with Chris Matthews, Hackett reiterated the charge that Brown’s campaign engaged in the alleged smear.

"Do I believe that it came from his campaign? Yes, I do believe it came from his campaign," Hackett said.

Hackett said his evidence came "from multiple, different sources throughout Ohio, all consistently pointing in that direction."

But he refused to name the Democratic officials who he said told him so.

Hackett said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called to ask about the alleged photos. A Reid aide yesterday confirmed the conversation.

Joanna Kuebler, an aide for Brown, of Avon, denied anyone with the Brown campaign was spreading rumors. She noted that Hackett has urged Democrats to support Brown in the Senate race against incumbent Republican Mike DeWine.

Isn't that just the "smoke-filled room" method of nomination favored for the Democrat party by some people here?

Isn't that just the "smoke-filled room" method of nomination favored for the Democrat party by some people here?Apparently it's too easy to see through the smokescreen these days.

Isn't that just the "smoke-filled room" method of nomination favored for the Democrat party by some people here?

You Repubs better hope that the Democrats don't return to that method. :lol:

You Repubs better hope that the Democrats don't return to that method. :lol:Your namecalling is getting boring and more than a little stupid. Since I have repeatedly told you I am a registered Democrat you are doing that over and over to try to bother me. That type of baiting behavior is frowned upon here.

Who is the last Democratic presidential candidate you've voted for?

Who is the last Democratic senatorial candidate you've voted for?

Who is the last Democratic gubernatorial candidate you've voted for?

Who is the last Democratic house candidate that you've voted for?

Which party platform are you in tune with?

BTW: Republican is name calling? :lol:

Your namecalling is getting boring and more than a little stupid. Since I have repeatedly told you I am a registered Democrat you are doing that over and over to try to bother me. That type of baiting behavior is frowned upon here.

"Repubs" is namecalling? :lol:

I suppose its a little tough to be one these days. ;)

BTW: Republican is name calling? :lol:It is if you're a Democrat. ;)

Reminds me of 'Texas Democrats.' "When did you start voting?" "I first voted in 1952 -voted for Ike." "How many Democratic presidential candidates have you voted for since Ike?" "Well, I haven't voted for any of them." "But I'm a strong Democrat." :lol:

So what you are saying is that the people, more than the ideals, set the party? So even if you believe in most of what party Z stands for you aren't a member of party Z unless you blindly vote for the people of that party simply because they are of that party. I agree though if you are completely voting for party Y while calling yourself Z you might want to rethink your stance on things ;)

there's a party at X's? :hscratch:

Yeah I thought that would get confusing... that's why I changed it to Z ;)

I'm a registered Democrat. I've been a registered Democrat for 25 years. I haven't voted Democratic in a presidential election since 1992. Anybody have a problem with that?

I'm a registered Democrat. I've been a registered Democrat for 25 years. I haven't voted Democratic in a presidential election since 1992. Anybody have a problem with that?
:wave: :(

How can you call yourself a Democrat and never vote for Democratic candidates, don't support the majority of the party platform, opposed to social programs, anti-union, favor tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, never critical of the Republican's control of the appropriations process, etc.?

I'm a registered Democrat. I've been a registered Democrat for 25 years. I haven't voted Democratic in a presidential election since 1992. Anybody have a problem with that?

Party registration, as I know you know, means very little. Example: The Democratic candidate for the U. S. Senate in Oklahoma received more votes than all the votes that were cast in the Republican primary. Dr. Coburn, Republican, won by 10 points in the general election.

BTW: I have a problem if you voted for Dole in 1996, Bush in 2000 & 2004. ;)

Wait, back up a minute. Is "X" claiming he is a Democrat?

rotfl

BTW: I have a problem if you voted for Dole in 1996, Bush in 2000 & 2004. ;)No, no, and no. :)

Wait, back up a minute. Is "X" claiming he is a Democrat?

rotfl
He always has, AFAIK. :shrug:

He always has, AFAIK. :shrug:

Then I must certainly be a Republican.

Calling the county office now. :lol:

Then I must certainly be a Republican.

Calling the county office now. :lol:
I don't like to see you all picking on our esteemed Administrator. :(

The Washington Post

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer

Republicans face a potential upheaval in the states this November, with Democrats positioned to capture a majority of the governorships for the first time since 1990 and seize an early advantage in the 2008 presidential contest.

While the battle for control of Congress has drawn more attention, the states may be the most competitive arenas in this midterm election year. Historically, shifts in power in the 50 capitals have held long-term implications for both parties, and control of statehouses can give parties tangible organizational advantages during presidential elections.

Republicans hold a 28 to 22 advantage among the governors, but they begin the campaign year on the defensive. Thirty-six states will elect governors in November, and the GOP must protect 22 of them to the Democrats' 14. Of the nine states where the incumbent governor is either term-limited or retiring, eight are held by Republicans.

The National Governors Association winter meeting has drawn most of the state executives to Washington this weekend. The governors will discuss health care, education, homeland security and the role of the National Guard, meet with President Bush on Monday at the White House and hear from former president Bill Clinton on Tuesday.

But the backdrop for the usually bipartisan gathering is the partisan competition back home in what could be the most consequential year for governors' races in more than a decade. In a year when fewer than one in 10 House seats appear to be in play, thanks to the power of incumbency and gerrymandered congressional districts, about half of the 36 gubernatorial contests appear to be competitive -- many of them clear tossups eight months from Election Day.

Democrats thought they would win a majority of governorships four years ago but fell just short. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, said this year's contests look like fertile ground for his party.

"Potentially, we could go from 22 Democratic governors to 27 or 28 after the '06 elections," he said. "The real reform and the real action in the Democratic Party is with governorships. It's a good omen for strengthening the Democratic Party for '08."

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), chairman of the Republican Governors Association, offered a more cautious, and vaguely worded, assessment. "The math is daunting," he said. "The math would say we will lose quite a few seats. I think we'll do better than that."

This year there are contests in every section of the country, but the most pivotal region is the same one that often decides the outcome of presidential elections. It is the band of states running from Pennsylvania in the East through the old industrial heartland of Ohio, Michigan and Illinois and including Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Democrats control five of the seven.

Republican hopes of retaining their majority may rest on their ability to win in several Midwestern states held by Democrats. Michigan Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle are widely regarded as the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents, followed by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell. Iowa offers Republicans their best opportunity for a pickup among those capitals where no incumbent is running.

Beyond the political stakes, voters may find the governors' races appealing for sheer entertainment value, starting in California, where Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) is trying to rebound from a shellacking last year on a series of ballot initiatives. Schwarzenegger, whose approval ratings remain well below 50 percent, has recruited Steve Schmidt and Matthew Dowd, veterans of Bush's reelection campaign, to guide his operation.

A former Schwarzenegger aide said recently the governor hopes to raise $120 million to secure reelection. A campaign official privately scoffed, calling the figure significantly inflated. But the contest still may end up as the most expensive gubernatorial campaign in history.

Democrats Look for Historic Shift in Governors' Races
Schwarzenegger's star power and California's size command national attention, but there are other compelling story lines in other states. Republicans have two African Americans -- former Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Lynn Swann and Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell -- running for governor this year. Former Massachusetts governor William F. Weld (R) has changed addresses and is trying to become governor of New York but must get through a GOP primary first. Close to home, Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. ranks among the most endangered Republican incumbents in a heavily Democratic state.

Even before the main events of November, both parties face difficult and potentially nasty primaries. Ohio Republicans got a taste last week, when Blackwell launched radio and TV ads accusing his opponent, state Attorney General Jim Petro, of having ethics worse than the incumbent governor, Republican Bob Taft, who pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor ethics violation last year and whose approval ratings have plunged toward single digits. Blackwell's ads drew a reprimand from Ohio Republican Party chairman Robert T. Bennett.


Presidential politics come into play, as well. New Mexico's Richardson hopes to use his reelection campaign to launch a 2008 bid for the Democratic nomination. Three retiring governors -- Republicans Romney in Massachusetts and Mike Huckabee in Arkansas and Democrat Tom Vilsack in Iowa -- would like to enhance their possible candidacies in the same way that former Virginia governor Mark Warner (D) did his at the end of last year, by helping elect a successor on their way out the door.

The gubernatorial landscape tramples conventional notions of an America rigidly divided into red and blue. In the 19 Bush-won states with contests, Democrats hold seven of the governorships. In the 17 states won by Sen. John F. Kerry (D) with gubernatorial elections this year, Republicans hold 10 of the governorships.

Some of the most popular and politically secure Democratic governors facing reelection this year preside over states won by Bush in 2004. They include Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry and Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal. The same is true for many Republican governors in states won by Kerry, among them Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell, Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle and Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas.

Nonetheless, Democratic hopes for gaining governorships begin in Blue America. The retirement of New York Gov. George E. Pataki (R) after 12 years -- he, too, has presidential ambitions -- gives the Democrats their best opportunity to pick up a seat. At this point, Eliot Spitzer, the state's aggressive attorney general, is the favorite to win the Democratic primary and the November election.

Romney's retirement after a single term to pursue his presidential ambitions gives the Democrats a second clear target in a heavily Democratic state. But Democrats have not won a gubernatorial election in the Massachusetts since 1986, in spite of the state's liberal leanings.

Ohio, which frustrated Democratic hopes of taking back the White House in 2004, is another state poised to shift parties. The corruption scandals surrounding the Taft administration are dragging down all Republicans this year, and Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland (Ohio) can spend his time raising money and getting organized while Blackwell and Petro go after one another.

Democrats see opportunities in two other states -- Maryland and Minnesota -- with strongly Democratic traditions but GOP executives. But gaining a majority likely will also require Democrats winning on Republican-tilting turf.

Their best opportunities at this point are in Arkansas, Colorado and Nevada. Florida is a target, given its importance in presidential elections. But even with Gov. Jeb Bush (R) retiring, the GOP has an advantage, if for no other reason than both Republicans running for the nomination have been elected statewide, while neither Democrat is well known around the state.
___________

It's looking more and more like the Democrats are going to be boisterously singing Happy Days Are Here Again come November, doesn't it?

It's looking more and more like the Democrats are going to be boisterously singing Happy Days Are Here Again come November, doesn't it?
There's still time for them to muck it up. :lol:

I'll keep my fingers crossed however.

It's looking more and more like the Democrats are going to be boisterously singing Happy Days Are Here Again come November, doesn't it?
Was that the episode where Fonzie jumps over the shark on water skis?

A couple of months ago I posted a table that listed all the current Senators and their monodimensional ideology (basically, rank-ordered by how liberal they were). Someone, I think c-man, asked if I could divide it up on two dimensions, economic and social. Using a different dataset of roll call votes I have. Last time I used <i>National Journal</i> key votes, this time I used the key votes compiled by the <i>Congressional Quarterly Weekly Review</i>, because of the larger number required to split the votes along two dimensions.

If anyone is interested I can post everyone's scores, but for now here is a scatterplot of just those senators who are up for reelection this November:

<a href = "http://users.ameritech.net/cinemastuff/Senate_Ideology.jpg"><img src = "http://users.ameritech.net/cinemastuff/Senate_Ideology_Small.jpg"></img></a>

The graph is arranged so that senators who are liberal on both dimensions are in the northeast, and those who are conservative on both dimensions are in the southwest. More 'libertarian' members (there were none, BTW) are in the northwest, and the lone 'populist' (Nelson (D-NE)) is in the southeast. If you click on the image a larger, more legible one loads.

I know return you to you regularly scheduled mudslinging and harangues. :)

That's cool wendersfan. Lugar has everyone in Indiana fooled that R=Republican. His ACU rating is pretty pitiful considering how red Indiana supposedly is -ohbfrank-

CaptialNews.org

Associated Press

GOP Govs. Say Bush Miscues Hurt Candidates
By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer

Republican governors are openly worrying that the Bush administration's latest stumbles — from the natural disaster of Hurricane Katrina to those of its own making on prescription drugs and ports security — are taking an election-year toll on the party back home.

The GOP governors reluctantly acknowledge that the series of gaffes threatens to undermine public confidence in President Bush's ability to provide security, which has long been his greatest strength among voters.

"You've got solid conservatives coming up speaking like they haven't before, it's likely that something's going on at the grass roots," said Republican Mark Sanford of South Carolina. "Whether it's temporary or not remains to be seen."

The unease was clear in interviews with more than a dozen governors over the weekend, including nearly half of the Republicans attending the winter meeting of the National Governors Association. The annual conference was taking place in a capital enthralled by the political firestorm over government plans to approve takeover of operations at some terminals at six U.S. ports by a company owned by the United Arab Emirates government.

Despite the discomfort, however, Republican governors gave the president a rock-star welcome as the headliner at a glitzy Monday night reception that added $9.6 million to GOP campaign coffers for fall races. "I thank you for your steadfast support," Bush told his statehouse colleagues.

Democrats see opportunity, and even those in conservative states say the administration's missteps will have a ripple effect politically at home. "I do think there's a considerable degree of skepticism about what's been happening at the federal level," said Democrat Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. "If you didn't pick it up on Katrina, you did when you tried to help your parents" get drugs through the new Medicare program.

But it wasn't Bush's political opponents alone who saw weaknesses. So did his allies — listing the days of chaos in New Orleans after the hurricane, the nationwide confusion over the drug prescription program that forced many states to step in to help seniors get medications, and the ports security debacle that has drawn criticism from leading Republicans in Congress and the states.

"I don't think he was well served on the port issue by the bureaucracy," said Republican Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho, who is leading a united front of governors pushing back on potential reductions to National Guard forces. "He's at the forefront on national security. When you combine this flap on the ports, and these potential cuts on the military, you need to make sure that issue doesn't slip away. It's one of his strengths."

He also said the lack of communication from the administration on the Guard issue has been a problem. "There has been too much we have learned outside the loop. It's time we be inside the loop."

Republican Bob Taft of Ohio offered judgment on Katrina: "This is hindsight, but it was a mistake to bury FEMA under the Department of Homeland Security."

In his state, where manufacturing job losses have left much of the Midwest lagging behind the improved economies that much of the rest of the country has seen in the past two years, the economy plays a bigger role. "There's a sense it's more wrong direction than right track. That affects how they feel about the president, it affects how they feel about anybody in power. It's bound to play some role in the elections" for Congress and the governors race.

Other Republican governors said that while constituents back home were paying attention, much could change for the better before elections nine months off.

The Medicare program left several governors shaking their heads, though they said efforts to improve it were helping. "Probably the design of the plan could've been better," said Republican Don Carcieri of Rhode Island. Bush has called for steps to limit the confusion. Still, Carcieri was sure voters would forgive, both on the drugs and on the hurricane response. "They're more understanding of that kind of thing. They understand they're only human."

The bigger problem, as he and several others saw it, is Iraq. "The biggest cumulative effect weighing on everybody is the war," Carcieri said.

Even governors from parts of the country where support remains rock solid said they've seen a change as the months, and the deaths, piled up.

"What was ebullient before has now — it's a more muted response. (Support for the war) still may be past the 51 percent mark, but it's a quieter level," Sanford said.

Bush's public support, already low, may be dipping further amid the debate over port security and the growing violence in Iraq. Public approval of Bush's handling of the war on terror dipped from 52 percent in January to 43 percent in a CBS News poll released Monday that indicated his overall support was slipping as well.

Republican Haley Barbour of Mississippi said midterm elections for second-term presidents are historically disastrous for parties in power, a fact that has Republican governors skittish about November. "Anybody with a brain in their heads knows that '06 historically could be a weak year for Republicans," said the former chairman of the Republican National Committee. "It has less to do with the weakness of the president."

For Republican Mitch Daniels of Indiana, who served in the administration as budget director and left to run for governor, the stumbles are undeniable but must be seen in context. "There's a lot of lousy luck involved," he said. "I'm not saying the White House hasn't had better days, but I'm probably not nearly so hard on them as most."

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/45793

Democrats Vow Not To Give Up Hopelessness

WASHINGTON, DC—In a press conference on the steps of the Capitol Monday, Congressional Democrats announced that, despite the scandals plaguing the Republican Party and widespread calls for change in Washington, their party will remain true to its hopeless direction.

"We are entirely capable of bungling this opportunity to regain control of the House and Senate and the trust of the American people," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said to scattered applause. "It will take some doing, but we're in this for the long and pointless haul."

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/democrats_vow_c.article.jpg
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi reaffirms the Democratic Party’s promise to remain marginalized

"We can lose this," Reid added. "All it takes is a little lack of backbone."

Despite plummeting poll numbers for the G.O.P nationwide and an upcoming election in which all House seats and 33 Senate seats are up for contention, Democrats pledged to maintain their party's sheepish resignation.

"In times like these, when the American public is palpably dismayed with the political status quo, it is crucial that Democrats remain unfocused and defer to the larger, smarter, and better-equipped Republican machine," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said. "If we play our cards right, we will be intimidated to the point of total paralysis."

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) cited the Bush Administration's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina as a model for Democrats.

"Grandmothers drowning in nursing homes, families losing everything, communities torn apart—and the ruling party just sat and watched," Lieberman said. "I'm here to promise that we Democrats will find a way to let you down just like that."

According to Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Democrats are not willing to sacrifice their core values—indecision, incoherence, and disorganization—for the sake of short-term electoral gain.

"Don't lose faithlessness, Democrats," Kennedy said. "The next election is ours to lose. To those who say we can't, I say: Remember Michael Dukakis. Remember Al Gore. Remember John Kerry."

Kennedy said that, even if the Democrats were to regain the upper hand in the midterm elections, they would still need to agree on a platform and chart a legislative agenda—an obstacle he called "insurmountable."

"Universal health care, the war in Iraq, civil liberties, a living wage, gun control—we're not even close to a consensus within our own ranks," Kennedy said. "And even if we were, we wouldn't know how to implement that consensus."

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/democrats_vow_jump_c.article.jpg
Democratic Party faithful cheer on their leaders’ resolutely defeatist agenda.

"Some rising stars with leadership potential like [Sen. Barack] Obama (D-IL) and [New York State Attorney General Eliot] Spitzer have emerged, but don't worry: We've still got some infight left in us," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said. "Over the last decade, we've found a reliably losing formula, and we're sticking with it."

Dean reminded Democratic candidates to "stay on our unclear message, maintain a defensive, reactive posture, and keep an elitist distance from voters."

Political consultant and Democratic operative James Carville said that, if properly disseminated, the message of hopelessness could be the Democrats' most effective in more than a decade.

"For the first time in a long time, we're really connecting with the American people, who are also feeling hopeless," Carville said. "If we can harness that and run on it in '06, I believe we can finish a strong second."

CapitalNews.Org

Associated Press

Re-Election Jitters Drive Budget Decisions

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer

President Bush's Republican allies on Capitol Hill are nearing votes on his austere budget blueprint for next year, and it's clear it will look a lot different by the time they're finished.

Nervous lawmakers are flinching from proposed spending cuts, and as GOP loyalists draft plans to implement the budget, election-year politics are driving their decisions.

The first item to be tossed overboard is likely to be Bush's proposal for $36 billion in savings from the politically sacrosanct Medicare program. A similar fate awaits proposals to cut spending on food stamps and crop subsidies.

"On our side of the aisle, in an election year, the message is: 'Can't we put this off?'" Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said Wednesday of the plan to cut payments to Medicare providers.

One item that can't be put off much longer is a bill to raise the $8.2 trillion limit on the national debt. Congress must act before lawmakers leave Washington on March 18 for a weeklong recess or else the first-ever default on U.S. obligations could occur.

Gregg and his House Budget Committee counterpart Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, have tentatively scheduled committee votes on the budget next week, though they've yet to detail their plans. Intractable budget deficits guarantee that whatever they produce won't play to rave reviews.

Both men are torn between the demands of conservatives for spending cuts and the reluctance of politically vulnerable Republicans from swing districts and states to cast risky votes to cut popular programs such as Medicare and education. The need to raise the debt limit at about the same time complicates their efforts.

Meanwhile, lawmakers have yet to act on Bush's $92 billion request for emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for additional hurricane relief.

The first step under Congress' arcane procedures for implementing the federal budget is to pass a budget resolution. That's a nonbinding blueprint that sets the limits of subsequent bills to implement the plan, including the appropriations bills that Congress passes each year.

Far less frequently, a budget resolution spins off a so-called reconciliation bill to cut benefit programs like Medicare. Last year's budget-cut bill — signed by Bush last month — was the first in eight years, and went through a legislative slog that showed rifts within the GOP and exposed many lawmakers to uncomfortable votes.

Nussle and Gregg both would like to try another round of cuts to entitlement programs whose budgets rise automatically with inflation and population growth. But they acknowledge it'll be difficult.

"In an election year it's very hard to do major entitlement savings," Gregg said.

"Members are a very nervous bunch," said Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record), R-N.H.

Bush called for $65 billion in benefit cuts over five years when submitting his budget a month ago. But many of his proposals, such as opening an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling and the curbs to food stamps and crop subsidies, were rejected by lawmakers last year.

"We're going to work with the committees and see what's doable," Nussle said.

A major complication in passing the budget is taxes. A key pillar of Bush's budget is extending his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, most of which are set to expire in 2010. But to add the cuts — to tax rates, the estate tax and dividend and capital gains income tax — to the budget would cost $120 billion in 2011 alone, which is virtually certain to run into resistance from deficit hawks such as Sen. George Voinovich (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio.

Bush is likely to have more success in clamping down on domestic agency budgets. He has proposed a cut of about 1 percent in so-called discretionary spending for domestic agencies, except for the Homeland Security Department. Even though a similar cut passed last year, squeezing even further promises to be very difficult. But veto threats should bring lawmakers to heel.

Congress hasn't wrapped up its appropriations work before Election Day in an even-numbered year since 1998, raising the likelihood of a postelection lame duck session to deal with the 11 appropriations bills.

"I don't see how the overall discretionary caps are going to be adequate," said Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., who chairs an Appropriations panel that funds education, health research and labor programs. Bush proposed cutting $4 billion, or more than 3 percent, from programs under Specter's jurisdiction, a move the Pennsylvania moderate called "scandalous."

He made his comments Wednesday after a hearing featuring Education Secretary Margaret Spellings in which he repeatedly upbraided the administration for proposing a 4 percent cut in the department's budget.

"Education is simply underfunded," Specter said.
___________________

Thank God that the Repubs have to face the voters in November.

Since we seem to be posting a lot of stories:

<b><a href = "http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/BenGoddard/030206.html">Bush gave his issue away</b></a>
Ben Goddard

It may be too early to say “stick a fork” in the Bush administration, but recent missteps by the White House, plummeting poll numbers and the scene of Republicans scurrying for the exits certainly suggest that President Bush’s team has lost control of the message, if not America’s entire political agenda.

In the six months since Hurricane Katrina first showed serious cracks in this administration, only the tape of national security has held it together. Now even that has come unstuck.

A Rasmussen Reports poll taken a few days ago shows Democrats in Congress are trusted on issues of national security more than the president. The margin is slight: 43 percent trust the Democrats and 41 percent the president. But even to have Democrats in the game is a startling turnaround.

In the 2002 midterm elections and the 2004 presidential election, Bush and the GOP won almost entirely on national security. Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has suggested that should be the central message of the Republican battle to retain control of Congress this year. It appears that they’ve lost a lot of ammunition in the past few weeks.

There is little doubt that the Dubai Ports World deal is driving much of this loss of support for the president’s leadership in the war on terrorism. Depending on whose poll numbers you like, somewhere between 16 and 18 percent of Americans support the deal, yet the president continues to say he’s going to approve it, apparently without regard to the 45-day investigation suggested by the company.

The escalating violence in Iraq isn’t helping either. Only 39 percent of Americans think we’re winning the war on terrorism, and a mere 38 percent believe the United States is safer now than before the Sept. 11 attacks. That number, also from Rasmussen, is down five points since the Dubai story broke.

That is the crux of the White House problem. This once seemingly invulnerable operation has bungled every major news story of the past six months. <b>No White House can predict that a major hurricane will hit or that its vice president will shoot someone on a hunting trip. What any competent administration should be able to do, however, is to respond quickly to these surprise events and manage them with intelligence and finesse.</b>

I last wrote here about a “politically tone deaf” White House allowing Vice President Cheney to mismanage news of his hunting accident. It is beginning to look as though “tone deaf” was too kind an assessment of the White House’s performance. The handling of the Dubai story was just plain arrogant.

Republican political and corporate consultant Ken Feltman reported a few days ago on “Decision-Maker” focus groups he’d observed over the weekend. He cites “unease over the White House’s tendency toward secrecy and questions about competence.” A majority of those decisionmakers fault the president for mismanagement of the war in Iraq and believe the country is on the verge of civil war.

That is a view shared by a majority of Americans in most polls. Fewer than 30 percent think things will improve there in the next six months and a majority thinks things will only get worse. While they witness Iraq falling apart they also hear a president saying everything is fine and we are winning. Trying to spin that message has undermined faith in President Bush and his ability to lead the nation.

Thus, it seems the White House has managed to squander its one remaining advantage, national security. That has driven support for the president into the low 40s or mid-30s, depending on which poll you prefer.

No wonder that Republicans facing reelection are moving to stake out positions removed from the president. There is grave danger that disillusioned Republicans may sit out the 2006 election waiting for a visionary they believe has the ability to lead the nation in 2008. If so, that could give Democrats the opening they need to gain control of the Senate and possibly the House in 2006.

I’ve written here on many occasions that the Democrats just can’t seem to find a message that will carry them to victory in 2006. The elements have been in place for an upset on the scale of 1994 for some time now. What has been missing is the message and the messenger.

Ironically, it seems this White House is working hard on the message that will win for Democrats, and recently it seems like the president is determined to be the messenger who will deliver it for them.

<i>Goddard is a founding partner of political consultants GC Strategic Advocacy.</i>

Gotta love those second terms. :lol:

The biggest problem facing House Republicans, and the only way they can lose control of the House, is retirements. If enough GOP members are frustrated by the polls and the administration to essentially give up, the Dems can, and likely will, retake control. The number of retirements needs to stay under 16 or so. Recruitment, or better stated retention, efforts are already seriously underway.

What this administration needs to do to get at least partially back on track:

1. Cheney needs to resign very soon.

2. Bush needs to totally clean house. The first step - get a new Chief of Staff. Card has been in there far too long. Bush needs to ask Rumsfeld to step aside - although I don't believe Rumsfeld has done that bad of a job. He's simply a lightning rod for those who are opposed to what we're doing in Iraq. Of course he'll have to get a new Secretary of State, since the old one will be the new Vice President. ;)

What this administration needs to do to get at least partially back on track:

1. Cheney needs to resign very soon.

2. Bush needs to totally clean house. The first step - get a new Chief of Staff. Card has been in there far too long. Bush needs to ask Rumsfeld to step aside - although I don't believe Rumsfeld has done that bad of a job. He's simply a lightning rod for those who are opposed to what we're doing in Iraq. Of course he'll have to get a new Secretary of State, since the old one will be the new Vice President. ;)


Doing all of those will be perceived too much as weakness. It won't cure the ails.

Doing all of those will be perceived too much as weakness. It won't cure the ails.

Past presidents have done it.

I don't agree that it would be perceived as weakness at all. It would be seen, IMO, as Bush attempting to get his agenda back on track. The problem might be that the American public wouldn't agree with his agenda - but that's for another thread.

In addition - it would give the media something new to talk about.

Doing all of those will be perceived too much as weakness. It won't cure the ails.
I agree.

What the admin really needs is Rove to get back on track. I think he's been distracted and that as much as anything has cost the admin. They need a new Press Secretary though, someone with some wit and charm, that's what the Washington Press Corps likes. You can move the deck of cards around all you like, but the head of the admin is as stubborn as ever and that's what is also hurting things. No one has the balls to say to the President, "Listen buddy, you need to get out there and handle this or that mess." Even if someone did say that, I don't think this bullheaded admin would listen. Bush and Cheney are just too thickheaded to listen to common sense advice.

You poor, misguided souls. :lol:

Just get Carl Rove back on track - are you serious?

Carl Rove is the problem.

Sure it would fun and give us a lot to talk about if they shuffled the deck of players, but how much difference would it really make with a President who's approval ratings are hovering around 40%?

Look at Rice, I think she's been doing a very good job, but no one cares. It's not about the subordinate players, not at this point. A lame duck President needs to get his approval numbers over 50% if he wants to get anything accomplished.

It's looking like a Democratic fall more and more and the Dems won't even have to do much to get it.

If things keep going as they have been, Bush will long for the good old days when he had a 40% approval rating.

If things keep going as they have been, Bush will long for the good old days when he had a 40% approval rating.
How much lower can it go? The Republicans will not abandon their man. As long as the base hangs in, the ratings are not going much lower. They have, however lost the faith of the independents and that's killer if you want to get your agenda passed.

How much lower can it go? The Republicans will not abandon their man. As long as the base hangs in, the ratings are not going much lower. They have, however lost the faith of the independents and that's killer if you want to get your agenda passed.

They've clearly demonstrated they'll run from him like a scared biddy. See what is now occuring on the budget resolution in Congress.

This president better shake things up a little. Stay the course ain't gonna cut it.

This president better shake things up a little. Stay the course ain't gonna cut it.

I'm pretty sure this has been the longest time the major players of any admin have been in place. There's been very little turn over and I agree w/ c-man it is needed if for nothing else to give the perception Bush is willing to change/refocus on what's important (now what that is specifically is another debate ;)).

They've clearly demonstrated they'll run from him like a scared biddy. See what is now occuring on the budget resolution in Congress.

This president better shake things up a little. Stay the course ain't gonna cut it.
Lawmakers will run from him, but will the average Joe Six Pack Republican? I'm not so sure. I think we've seen the bottom of the numbers. Not that I predict them rising any either though.

Without those lawmakers - Bush can't accomplish anything domestically. That's what Joe Six Pack Repub cares about.

Without those lawmakers - Bush can't accomplish anything domestically. That's what Joe Six Pack Repub cares about.
True true.

I was speaking to the polls specifically.

The question is will Bush's approval rating fall into the twenties?

The question is will Bush's approval rating fall into the twenties?
I say no. Is there any historical record of polls being in the 20's for a Pres? Not that anyone keeps records on polls. :lol:

The CBS poll that shows the low ratings was cooked. It was around 1000 adults(not even registered voters) and heavily polled dems with "when did you stop beating your wife?" type questions.

I say no. Is there any historical record of polls being in the 20's for a Pres? Not that anyone keeps records on polls. :lol:President Nixon's approval ratings fell to 24%, but President Carter reached the all-time low of 21%.

The CBS poll that shows the low ratings was cooked. It was around 1000 adults(not even registered voters) and heavily polled dems with "when did you stop beating your wife?" type questions.I must repeat:

Why does anyone pay attention to Presidential approval ratings not done by Gallup?

Why does anyone pay attention to Presidential approval ratings not done by Gallup?

Simple. It shows results that they would like to believe.

Simple. It shows results that they would like to believe.I was hoping someone would give that answer.

I was hoping someone would give that answer.

The questions in that CBS poll are also stated in a way to get the result desired by CBS.

Just a reminder that Texas will hold the first primaries this Tuesday. Included of course will be two extremely scrutinised races, TX-22 on the
Republican side, which is of course the district of Mr. Delay, and TX-28 on the Democratic side, where Rep. Cuellar is in a dog fight against former Rep. Ciro Rodriguez. Mr. Cuellar is being tied to the President which probably isn't the best thing for him at the moment. Both races are going to be interpreted as augurs of November.

Unfortunately it appears that the GOP will get one closer to that dangerous retirement number today.




edited to add official announcement update



Not really unexpected, but still sad. I don't expect the GOP to lose control of this seat however.



BAKERSFIELD, Calif. - Republican Rep. Bill Thomas, the powerful and mercurial chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, announced Monday he will retire from Congress after this year.
Thomas, 64, who has spent more than a quarter century in Congress, made the announcement at a news conference in his hometown of Bakersfield. The development was widely expected because, under House Republicans' self-imposed term limits for committee chairmen, Thomas cannot serve after this year as head of the influential committee that writes tax laws.
"Today I am announcing that I will not seek reelection to the United States Congress," he said.
For the past five years, Thomas has played a key role in shepherding President Bush's tax cuts and writing legislation on Medicare, Social Security and pensions.
His deep knowledge of such complicated issues has made him indispensable to party leaders, despite complaints that he was difficult to work with and not conservative enough because of some votes for abortion rights and gun control.
...

How long until Ms. Harris vacates the Senate race in Florida?

I'm glad to see Thomas go.

How long until Ms. Harris vacates the Senate race in Florida?
Don't tease me. :D

CIO Magazine

Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.)

Key legislative accomplishments:

Sponsor of American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. Corporate tax and trade bill encourages offshore outsourcing.

Crafted President Bush's 2003 income tax cut bill.

Widely regarded as the leading expert in the House on health insurance. Shepherded 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and 2003 Medicare prescription drug legislation.

Outsourcing's Friend in Congress
Rep. Bill Thomas, a free trade proponent, keeps the door open to offshore labor
BY BEN WORTHEN

Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, was once compared by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to both General George Patton and football coach Vince Lombardi. The bullheadedness Thomas shares with both men is captured in two stories about him that are part of congressional lore.

True story: Last summer (note: this was written in 2004), during debate on a pension reform bill, Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee secluded themselves in a congressional library, ostensibly to delay a vote. Thomas took the unprecedented step of calling the Capitol Police on them. (The cops declined to intervene, and Thomas later apologized.) Also a true story: In 1995, Thomas, then 53, had a chest-to-chest altercation with then-Rep. Sam Gibbons (D-Fla.), 75, during a debate over Medicare reform legislation—an episode still known in Washington as the "brawl in the hall" (Gibbons also pulled on Thomas's necktie).

http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/February%202006/Tennessee%20Senate%20February.htm

Tennessee Senate: Ford (D) Loses Ground

Don't tease me. :D



It is the speculation making the rounds.

http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/February%202006/Tennessee%20Senate%20February.htm

Tennessee Senate: Ford (D) Loses Ground

I won't believe it until I see it in Gallup. ;)

I said in a previous thread that Ford has problems - actually problem.

He's black, running in a southern state with the lowest percentage of blacks in any southern state. I believe I'm correct in that.

I said in a previous thread that Ford has problems - actually problem.

He's black, running in a southern state with the lowest percentage of blacks in any southern state. I believe I'm correct in that.

Interesting you should say that C-man:

Thirteen percent (13%) of Tennessee voters say they know family members or friends who will vote against Ford because of his race. Ford is black. Eighty-two percent (82%) say they don't know anybody with that attitude. Democrats (17%) are slightly more likely than Republicans (12%) to say they know someone in this category.

:shrug:

I won't believe it until I see it in Gallup. ;):flowers:

The Washington Post

Democrats Struggle To Seize Opportunity
Amid GOP Troubles, No Unified Message

By Shailagh Murray and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers

News about GOP political corruption, inept hurricane response and chaos in Iraq has lifted Democrats' hopes of winning control of Congress this fall. But seizing the opportunity has not been easy, as they found when they tried to unveil an agenda of their own.

Democratic leaders had set a goal of issuing their legislative manifesto by November 2005 to give voters a full year to digest their proposals. But some Democrats protested that the release date was too early, so they put it off until January. The new date slipped twice again, and now House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) says the document will be unveiled in "a matter of weeks."

Some Democrats fear that the hesitant handling is symbolic of larger problems facing the party in trying to seize control of the House and Senate after more than a decade of almost unbroken minority status. Lawmakers and strategists have complained about erratic or uncertain leadership and repeated delays in resolving important issues.

The conflict goes well beyond Capitol Hill. The failure of congressional leaders to deliver a clear message has left some Democratic governors deeply frustrated and at odds with Washington Democrats over strategy.

Party leaders, for example, have yet to decide whether Democrats should focus on a sharply negative campaign against President Bush and the Republicans, by jumping on debacles such as the administration's handling of the Dubai port deal -- or stress their own priorities and values.

There is no agreement on whether to try to nationalize the congressional campaign with a blueprint or "contract" with voters, as the Republicans did successfully in 1994, or to keep the races more local in tone. And the party is still divided over the war in Iraq: Some Democrats, including Pelosi, call for a phased withdrawal; many others back a longer-term military and economic commitment.

"It could be a great year for Democrats," said Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), but the party must present a more moderate face and distinguish itself more clearly from the GOP on issues such as ethics. "The comment I hear is 'I'd really like to vote for you guys, but I can't stand the folks I see on TV,' " Cooper said in a telephone interview from Nashville.

On issues such as explaining that former lobbyist Jack Abramoff's work "was a 110 percent Republican operation," Cooper said, "we're not making nearly as much headway as we should." Abramoff has pleaded guilty in a corruption scandal.

The Democratic leaders in Congress -- Pelosi and Sen. Harry M. Reid (Nev.) -- are the party's chief strategists and architects of the agenda, which they view as a way to market party ideas on energy, health care, education and other issues. They have held countless meetings to construct the right list, consulting with governors, mayors and just about every Democratic adviser in town.

"By the time the election rolls around, people are going to know where Democrats stand," Reid said.

But many in the party have their doubts. On Feb. 27, Reid and Pelosi appeared before the Democratic Governors Association. At one point in the conversation, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, noting that the two leaders had talked about a variety of themes and ideas, asked for help. Could they reduce the message to just two or three core ideas that governors could echo in the states?

According to multiple accounts from those in the room, Reid said they had narrowed the list to six and proceeded to talk about them. Pelosi then offered her six -- not all the same as Reid's. Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski said later: "One of the other governors said 'What do you think?' and I said 'You know what I think? I don't think we have a message.' "

Others, including Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) -- who head the Senate and House campaign efforts -- believe the November election will turn mainly on how voters view Republicans. Schumer is leading the Democratic attack on the port deal, excoriating the administration for jeopardizing national security -- a realm in which Republicans have held the advantage with voters.

He and Emanuel have sought to delay the agenda's release to allow Democratic attacks to hold the stage with minimum distraction. "When you're in the opposition, you both propose and oppose," Emanuel said. "But fundamentally, this is going to be a referendum on [Republican] stewardship."

Also dividing Democratic strategists is the question of what lessons to take from the Republican landslide of 1994, when the GOP won the Senate and picked up 54 House seats, wiping out 40 years of Democratic rule. Some Democrats associate that breakthrough with the House Republicans' "Contract With America," a list of proposals on policy and government.

"We should take a page from their book" and have "an overarching theme" similar to the 1994 contract, said Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.).

Many of his colleagues agree, but not Reid. "We're not going to do a 'Contract With America,' " Reid said in an interview. He noted that the GOP document received scant attention when it was presented a few weeks before the 1994 election, and political historians say it played a minor role in the outcome. "There's a great mythology about the contract," Reid said.

Even the party's five-word 2006 motto has preoccupied congressional Democrats for months. "We had meetings where senators offered suggestions," Reid said. "We had focus groups. We worked hard on that. . . . It's a long, slow, arduous process."

That slogan -- "Together, America Can Do Better" -- was revived from the 2004 presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry. It was the last line of Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's response to President Bush's State of the Union address, and Reid, Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have used it in speeches. But there is an effort afoot to drop the word "together." It tests well in focus groups and audiences, Democratic sources said, but it makes the syntax incorrect.

Governors privately scoff at the slogan. They also say the message coming from congressional leaders has been too relentlessly negative. "They want to coordinate. They want to collaborate. That's all good," said one Democratic governor who declined to be identified in order to talk candidly about a closed-door meeting. "The question is: Coordinate or collaborate on what? People need to know not just what we're against but what we're for. That's the kind of message the governors are interested in developing at the national level."

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said congressional Democrats have spent the past year redefining the debates over terrorism and Iraq and have prepared the ground for a shift to a more positive message that will focus on energy, health care and homeland security, all areas in which the governors would concur, he predicted. "We've had an unprecedented level of cooperation," he said.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly added: "At the end of the day, I think everyone will be on board."

Perhaps the Democrats' greatest dilemma is how to respond to the Iraq war. It looms as the biggest question mark over Bush's administration and the Republican lawmakers who have backed him on the conflict almost without question.

Congressional Democrats have been split over the war since 2002, when many voted to authorize military action. The ground shifted last November when Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), a leading Democratic voice on military matters, called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn as soon as possible. Two weeks later, Pelosi endorsed his stance.

Although Pelosi said she was not speaking for her caucus, some colleagues complained that she was handing Republicans a gift by enabling them to tag Democrats as soft on terrorism and forcing Democratic candidates to explain whether they agreed with their House leader.

There is little question that the political landscape looks promising for Democrats. A Feb. 9 poll by the Pew Research Center found that Democrats lead Republicans 50 to 41 percent in a generic ballot.

But congressional Democrats have some key deficiencies. For instance, they lack the hard-charging, charismatic figurehead that Gingrich represented for the House GOP in 1994. But the Democrats have an abundance of presidential hopefuls, and their agendas sometimes differ from those of Reid, Schumer, Pelosi and Emanuel.

For instance, Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.) tried to filibuster the renewal of the USA Patriot Act, a move opposed by most of his Senate colleagues, including Reid. Kerry (Mass.) led an unsuccessful filibuster attempt against Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s confirmation as a Supreme Court justice. The best-known Democrat is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), whose plans for a 2008 presidential bid leave many of her colleagues wary of how her famous but divisive presence might affect them.

"There are lots of skeptics," Schumer conceded. But the polls look better and better, he stressed. "There may be some inside-the-Beltway babble, but it's not affecting the voters," said Schumer, who wants the agenda delayed again -- until summer.
___________________

I agree with congressman Cooper and some of the Democratic governors who argue that the party must present a 'moderate' face. However, I believe the party needs also to forcefully point out the failure of this administration and the Republican Congress in many areas.

The Washington Post

The Democrats' Real Problem

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

It is now an ingrained journalistic habit: After a period of bad news for President Bush, media outlets invariably devote time and space to "balancing" stories that all say more or less: "Yes, the Republicans are in trouble, but the Democrats have no alternatives, no plans," etc.

The pattern began to fall in place this weekend in the wake of two truly miserable weeks for Bush.

The stories about the Democrats are by no means flatly false -- Democrats don't yet have a fully worked-out alternative program -- but they are based on a false premise, and they underestimate what I'll call the positive power of negative thinking.

The false premise is that oppositions win midterm elections by offering a clear program, such as the Republicans' 1994 Contract With America. I've been testing this idea with such architects of the 1994 "Republican revolution" as former representative Vin Weber and Tony Blankley, who was Newt Gingrich's top communications adviser and now edits the Washington Times editorial page.

Both said the main contribution of the contract was to give inexperienced Republican candidates something to say once the political tide started moving the GOP's way. But both insisted that it was disaffection with Bill Clinton, not the contract, that created the Republicans' opportunity -- something Bob Dole said at the time.

The Democrats' real problem is that they have failed to show how their critique of the Republican status quo is the essential first step toward the alternative program they will owe the voters in the presidential year of 2008.

This failure has made it easier for Republicans to cast anti-Bush feeling (aka, "Bush hatred") as a psychological disorder. The GOP shrewdly makes the president's critics look crazed and suggests that opposition to Bush is of no more significance than, say, the loathing that many watchers of "American Idol" love to express toward Simon Cowell, the meanest of the show's judges.

The president's critics need to identify precisely why they oppose him, not only so they can make clear that they are not psycho basket cases but also to convey the idea that they know what needs to be put right.

Bush critics will almost always point first to the administration's arrogance, a word used recently not by some left-wing Bush hater but by the loyal conservative writer Byron York. In the New Republic, York chose the A-word to explain why Republicans are turning on the White House's "we-know-best approach."

The cure for an arrogant government that doesn't take critics seriously is accountability. Divided government never looked so good. That's especially true at a moment when polls suggest that a majority is yearning for more competence and greater moderation.

For example, moderates and liberals alike are mystified by budget policies saddling our kids with debt tomorrow to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy today. Moderating this radical fiscal approach is something the voters clearly could accomplish with their ballots this fall.

But Democrats have no good answer to Iraq. True. And neither does Bush, who started the war and should be held accountable for where we are now.

The philosophical man who owns our neighborhood Chinese restaurant recently shared with me a brilliant aphorism to describe how to build a good business. "You have to do the right thing," he said, "and you have to do the thing right."

That summarizes what unites Bush's Iraq critics. Many Americans opposed the war in the first place, but many who supported it are aghast that the administration did the thing so badly. It did not dispatch enough troops to achieve order at the outset, and it failed to plan for the inevitable conflicts that would arise among the country's ethnic and religious groups.

What comes from this is not isolationism but an awareness that even a very powerful country needs to be a careful steward of its power. It should never go into a war without considering the probability of unintended consequences and planning for the worst case and not just the best one.

This is the basis for a saner foreign policy in the long run. As for Iraq, the voters should let the president know that he can no longer keep repeating his rah-rah mantras about standing down when the Iraqis stand up. Presidents deserve to be punished for insulting our intelligence.

Thus the shortcoming of Democratic leaders is not that they don't have a program but that they have not yet convinced opinion makers that fighting bad policies is actually constructive -- and that, between presidential elections, keeping matters from getting worse is sometimes the most positive alternative on offer.
________________

:up:

I hope JP Stevens retires in June. Now THAT'LL make for an interesting 2006 mid term! ;)

I hope JP Stevens retires in June. Now THAT'LL make for an interesting 2006 mid term! ;)

It will be much more interesting if Iraq continues to go badly. ;)

Generic Congressional Ballot from Gallup (http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2006-03-02-poll.htm) show Democrats preferred over Republicans 53% to 39% (+14), the largest gap since Aug 2005. Are the Democrats going to peak too soon or can they sustain the pressure on this Administration and Congress and do better than expected in November.

I think if the trends continue, I look for more retirements in the coming months from Republicans and hopefully Republicans in swing districts.

Big primary day in Texas.

DeLay faces two Repub challengers in his prima