Blue Catablog

The Smart Money: Where to Put Yours in the Last 2 Weeks

2006-10-25T13:55:00.000-07:00

We want to help, but have limited funds – which campaigns would benefit most from smaller, last-minute contributions? Focusing on House races, where contributions will have a greater impact at this point, I am looking for races that: 1) Are potentially competitive, maybe surprises at this late point in the campaign season; 2) Are not getting the support they need from the national party; 3) Are the districts in media markets where a little more money will mean the candidates will be better able to get their message out;

The 8 races I have come up with:

1) Victoria Wulsin (OH-2): One would think that after Mean Jean Schmidt’s misguided tirade against Jack Murtha last Fall, this seat would have been a DCCC target, but when Paul Hackett didn’t run for this seat, the national party lost its interest. While this race shares the media market with the Cranley-Chabot race (OH-1), and the DCCC has supported Cranley from the beginning, they have not done much for Dr. Wulsin. She has a great ad that she is trying to air as much as possible and polls show her within striking distance. The leaked RNC memo that Chris Bowers posted early this week has the GOP believing this race is a toss-up.

2) Larry Grant (ID-1): All Larry has to do is to show the statements of Republican elected officials about his opponent, Bill Sali, to make this race competitive in a very Red state. But as a bonus, Larry has a great resume and is running a well-balanced, thoughtful campaign. Republicans for Grant has become an essential part of the campaign. The last poll I saw had Grant ahead but over 60% undecided, but the GOP must be nervous as they are pouring hundreds of thousands into a seat that should normally be a sure-thing.

3) Eric Massa (NY-29): Eric wiped the floor with Randy Kuhl in a series of debates over the past 3 weeks. His integrity, energy and engaging personality shine through when you meet Eric, and his experience in the Navy and with Wesley Clark in Europe for NATO is well-suited for these times. This district used to be represented by the moderate Republican Amo Houghton until he retired two years ago, but Randy Kuhl is no moderate. If he gets the support, Eric should be able to ride the NY Democratic wave into office.

4) Tessa Hafen (NV-3): Going up against incumbent Jon Porter is no easy task, but Tessa Hafen has made a race of it. The latest poll has Hafen down just 2 points, 43-41, and Charlie Cook now rates the seat a toss-up. This former Harry Reid aide is running a smart campaign, and despite the fact that Porter has called her a “carpet-bagger,” Tessa is a 3rd generation Nevadan. The district is large, including Reno and Carson City. But many of the media markets in this wide swath are small and cheap, meaning every contribution to her will have an impact.

5) Lois Herr (PA-16): This one is way off the map in that it isn’t even on Charlie Cook’s list of competitive seats as most of the attention in Pennsylvania has gone to the Philly-area seats in a very expensive media market. But, incumbent Joe Pitts is a terrible campaigner, and Lois Herr, having already run in 2004, has name recognition. She also wiped the floor with Pitts in their debates. Plus there is the fact that this is one of the cheapest media markets on the East Coast, with one major television station and an ad on Oprah costing just a couple hundred bucks. This is definitely a case of where a little money will go a long way.

6) Ellen Simon (AZ-01): Representative Rick Renzi has just made news this week with reports of legal investigations into some of his land deals. But what may not be as well known is that Ellen Simon has been running a competitive campaign even before Renzi’s questionable dealings became news. The Majority Watch poll had her up 50%-46% earlier this month. This is also a district similar to the NV-1 seat in that it is large and generally cheap in terms of media buys. Helping Ellen drive her campaign home would definitely be a wise investment at this point.

7) Tim Walz (MN-1): This Army National Guard veteran and High School coach and teacher just got the endorsement of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune over incumbent Gil Gutknecht, who the paper had endorsed two years ago. In a seat that also was thought to be safe GOP. Tim has accomplished all this by raising under $1 million, so you know that his campaign uses its funds wisely.

8) Peter Goldmark (WA-5): With Larry Grant’s surprise race bordering this district’s eastern border, and Darcy Burner’s insurgent campaign on its western border, there appear to be effects on this district. Peter, a molecular biologist who has specialized in agricultural research, has seen his fortunes rise, resulting in RNC expenditures for Freshman incumbent Cathy McMorris. This is a huge district taking up Spokane and most of Western Washington. Peter was down just 8 points, 45% to 38% in a poll early in October. Again, a cheap district to play in for a smart, thoughtful candidate.

So those are my suggestions as to where your money would go furthest in the last 2 weeks of campaign season.

What are your thoughts? Do you ahev any suggestions?

Review: Shut Up and Sing -- Doc about the Dixie Chicks

2006-10-18T14:38:00.000-07:00

Back in 2003 Natalie Maines, the lead singer for the Dixie Chicks made an off the cuff remark during a London concert on the eve of the Iraq War -- “Just so you know, we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.” That remark was then picked up by web sites and then the news media and led to a national press frenzy, boycotts of their music on country radio stations, protests, and in one instance a death threat.

Now Barbara Kopple, famed documentary film maker, has used behind the scenes footage from the Chicks tour in 2003 and from film she took while the chicks were working on their latest album in 2005 and 2006. The Center for American Progress held a screening of the film, Shut Up and Sing, Wednesday night in Washington and the film is more powerful as you see these musicians grow from thinking the issue at hand is merely a PR problem, to defiant patriots uncompromising in their views.

The film goes back and forth between the events of 2003 and the 2005 recording sessions for their recent release. When you first see the Chicks learning about the outrage by certain right-wing groups and country stations, they react as though they just need to put out the proper publicity statement, but as the outcry continues and country radio stations stop playing their songs, the Chicks become more strident and defiant, determining that they would rather stand by their principles than compromise just to sell more CDs and concert tickets.

The star of the film is obviously Maines, who is the one who made the controversial remarks. The other two Chicks, sisters Emily Robison and Martie Maguire, are supportive of Natalie and believe in her rights, but it is Maines who, at every turn, wants to make sure that they do what they believe in, and not sell-out in any way. As the film moves along you see her develop into a real patriot – believing her rights to say and believe what she wants is part of being an American.

There are many parts of the film that are amusing, but the rivalry with Toby Keith (Some uber-Republican country singer that I don’t know since it isn’t my genre of music) is extremely amusing. Keith wrote some song attacking the Chicks and had a video during his concerts that compared Natalie with Saddam. Natalie laughs it off, using his own tactics against him. At one point she dons a T-Shirt with “F.U.T.K” on it, and while fans start mimicking her shirt, protesters wear “F.U.D.C” shirts – to which Natalie remarks, “I wanna tell em nice shirts, but what do you have against Dick Cheney?”

Maines’ principled intelligence and determination to stick to her beliefs is what shines through most in the film. By the end you see how the three musicians feel more free than they did before, deciding that now they can write what they want and say what they want as nothing worse can happen to them. By viewing their recent recording sessions we see how they are using what they have learned in their music and in their attitudes. As one panelist, “Mudcat” Saunders said after the film, we see real patriots being formed in this movie.
I am not a country music fan, but the music in the film, both in performance and on the soundtrack is moving and wonderful to listen to. I am definitely going to pick up their latest album.

Release dates according to the Director are: Oct 27th for NY and LA, Nov. 17th for major cities, and a roll out for smaller cities after that. Not only do I recommend the film, but it is one of those rare films that when you leave the theater, you feel proud to be an American for the right reasons.

September 18th: Fifty Days, Fifty Bucks

2006-09-15T12:21:00.000-07:00

Monday, September 18th will mark 50 days to go before the election. While Democratic challengers have done an excellent job of raising money for the most part, they are still well under-funded when compared to the Republicans they are running against. Plus we are already seeing the beginnings of 3rd party funding for ads by right-wing groups, the RNC and the NRCC that will probably dwarf the campaign budgets of most Democratic congressional candidates. While the national polls show good news for the Democrats, the Republican onslaught is coming.

So what is it worth to try to help the Democrats get their message out, or to counter the coming attacks? How about a dollar a day? My suggestion is to send $50 to a Democratic candidate, a Democratic PAC, or some other Democratic fund of your choice. It will be your down-payment on the rest of the campaign season and also get funds to candidates before the all-important September 30th reporting deadline.

Maybe you have one candidate you really want to see win and want to focus your $50 there. If you want to try to help a number of candidates you may decide to give to a multi-candidate PAC (If you choose this option please consider the PAC I am involved with, Blue Catapult at www.bluecatapult.com). Maybe you want to spread your $50 around, and if so, the netroots ActBlue page would probably be a good resource.

So think about it over the weekend and on Monday, send $50 to the candidate or PAC of your choice. Please use the comments section here to post suggestions as to where people should pledge their dollar a day, $50 contribution. Or if you have decided, please tell all of us where your money is going.

Fifty Days, Fifty Bucks. Where will your contribution go?

2006-08-31T13:01:00.000-07:00

Olbermann Delivers Powerful Commentary on Rumsfelds Attacks

A direct link to the video for those who wish to see and hear it.

Olbermann on Rumsfeld: Your certainty is the Danger

2006-08-31T12:28:00.000-07:00

In March of 1954 the great American journalist, Edward R. Morrow, took on Senator Joe McCarthy in a series of episodes of the weekly “See It Now” program that he hosted on CBS. Murrow’s courage in taking on McCarthy’s crusade against communism, where enemies everywhere and those in dissent were aiding and abetting the communists who wanted to control the U.S. government, is now well known and accepted as one of the greatest moments in journalism.

Keith Olbermann’s show-ending commentary yesterday (8/30/2006) on MSNBC’s “Countdown” evoked Murrow both directly and indirectly as the host took on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his speech to the American legion convention on Tuesday, in which he evoked the days before World War II, comparing current critics of the Bush Administration’s Iraq actions with how Neville Chamberlain infamously dealt with Hitler and the fascist threat through what is now called appeasement. Olbermann’s commentary was not only a beautifully reasoned stinging rebuke to Rumsfeld’s attacks, but reminded me how we have lost appreciation for the artful use of the English language in this era of the shouting pundit masses on cable news networks and, yes, even on blogs.

Before getting to Olbermann’s insightful and eloquent comments, I want to point out the relevant parts of Rumsfeld’s speech. If you want to read it in its entirety it is HERE.

Rumsfeld raises the specter of WWII to draw the parallel between the Nazism of its era to the fundamentalist Islamic fascism of the current era:

I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts
to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today -- another enemy, a different kind of enemy -- has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history's lessons.

So Rumsfeld is both the teacher and watchman, alerting us to those in our midst whose ignorance is causing dangers flame rather than dissipate. He then lays out what he views as “The central questions of our time” that his critics are answering with either ignorant or sinister malice:

With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we
truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be
appeased?
Can folks really continue to think that free countries can
negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
Can we afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply law enforcement problems, like robbing a bank or stealing a car; rather than threats of a fundamentally
different nature requiring fundamentally different approaches?
And can we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but
America, is the source of the world's troubles?

Putting aside the fact that few consider the first three so-called critical questions are in any way representative of those who are criticizing this Administration – the question is not one of negotiating or appeasing the terrorists, but one of a good, effective strategy – The fourth question, I believe, is the kind of question that the Administration hears its critics asking – or rather asserting its implied conclusion. Most Americans, I would guess, wouldn’t believe that the United States is the source of the world’s troubles, but rather this Administration has exacerbated them to such an extent that their origins are now clouded and intertwined with the foreign and military policy of the current United States government. Rumsfeld then remarks:

We hear every day of new plans, new efforts to murder Americans and other free people. Indeed, the plot that was discovered in London that would have killed hundreds -- possibly thousands -- of innocent men, women and children on aircraft flying from London to the United States should remind us that this enemy is serious, lethal, and relentless. But this is still not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters there's more of a focus on dividing our country than acting with unity against the gathering threats.

So then, it is not the incompetent planning and poor execution of the War in Iraq… it is not the stretching of our military resources or the fact that this Administration ignored terrorism as an issue before September 11th – the problem is that by merely criticizing this Administration, the goal of critics is to divide the country, weakening the ability of this nation’s assets to counter those who threaten us. The obvious conclusion to this is that criticism is in itself dangerous to the country and its interests.

Rumsfeld then attacks the media (and Amnesty International) for what he perceives as an emphasis on the negative:

It's a strange time:

When a database search of America's leading newspapers
turns up literally 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers who has been
punished for misconduct -- 10 times more -- than the mentions of Sergeant First
Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the Global
War on Terror;
Or when a senior editor at Newsweek disparagingly refers to the brave volunteers in our armed forces -- the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard -- as a "mercenary army;"
When the former head
of CNN accuses the American military of deliberately targeting journalists; and
the once CNN Baghdad bureau chief finally admits that as bureau chief in
Baghdad, he concealed reports of Saddam Hussein's crimes when he was in charge
there so that CNN could keep on reporting selective news;
And it's a time when Amnesty International refers to the military facility at Guantanamo Bay --
which holds terrorists who have vowed to kill Americans and which is arguably
the best run and most scrutinized detention facility in the history of warfare
-- "the gulag of our times." It’s inexcusable.

Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds
of myths and distortions that are being told about our troops and about our
country. America is not what's wrong with the world.

So now these groups are also part of those who wish to divide us – those whose activities are aiding the enemy. Again, Rumsfeld is not criticizing any actions except the exercise of free speech as contained in the First Amendment. The actual critique of the statements is fine – and he could be making good points about these specific examples, except that he then extrapolates that these outlets are, from these examples, somehow concluding that “America is what’s wrong with the world” – and with that strawman concludes, boldly, that it is not.

Then Rumsfeld brings the Legionnaires to his main point:

Your watchdog role is particularly important today in a war that is to a great
extent fought in the media on a global stage, a role to not allow the
distortions and myths be repeated without challenge so that at the least the
second or third draft of history will be more accurate than the first quick
allegations we see. You know from experience personally that
in every war there have been mistakes, setbacks, and casualties. War is, as
Clemenceau said, “a series of catastrophes that result in victory.” And in every army, there are occasional bad actors, the ones who dominate the headlines today, who don't live up to the standards of the oath and of our country. But you also know that they are a very, very small percentage of the literally hundreds of thousands of honorable men and women in all theaters in this struggle who are serving our country with humanity, with decency, with professionalism, and with courage in the face of continuous provocation.
And that is important in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong, can weaken the ability of free societies to
persevere.

That last line is what has gotten most of the attention – one where critics are not merely in disagreement, but “morally and intellectually” confused, unlike the moral and intellectual clarity that Rumsfeld and his ilk must view as the hallmarks of this Administration’s foreign policy, the evidence be damned. The problems are not on the ground, where the honorable soldier’s sacrifices and goodwill take place, but rather in the media, which focus on the bad eggs and where the moral and intellectual confusion of this Adminsitration’s critics reigns.

Enter Olbermann. To get the full force of his counter-Rumsfeldian commentary, you need to see it in all its perturbed glory, as linked below, but if you want to read the whole thing, it is HERE.

HERE is the YouTube version if you want to see and hear the full commentary (Which I recommend) Or you may click on the YouTube screen as attached to this blog below.

Olbermann’s brilliance here is not just in the erudite and playful words and arguments, but in the way Olbermann recasts the debate – one in which those who are certain of their certainty are the true enemies of democracy. Olbermann’s main task, turning the WWII analogy back against Rumsfeld and the Administration is one in which only a person who is both smart and has a thorough knowledge of the historical facts can accomplish. He then can explain that is Rumsfeld and his cronies who are the ones who are truly confused:

That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a
Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.

And, as such, all voices count -- not just his.
Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience — about Osama Bin Laden’s plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one year ago — we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their “omniscience” as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego. But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.
Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have — inadvertently or intentionally —profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer’s New Clothes?
In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?

Olbermann’s rhetorical flourishes are beautiful to hear, both in logic and delivery. We often complain about how the news media have let this administration off the hook too often on a host of issues and actions. But let’s acknowledge the great work of Olbermann and give kudos to MSNBC for allowing “Keith to be Keith.”

I was reminded during Olbermann’s commentary of a quote that, while attributed to Huey Long, really has no certain origin: “When fascism comes to America it will be called anti-fascism.” Rumsfeld’s speech has shown us that whoever originally wrote or spoke those words had this Administration in mind.

Olbermann makes this point himself near the end of his commentary:

And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a “new
type of fascism.”
As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it. This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.
Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow. But never in the trial of a
thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: “confused” or “immoral.”
Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:
“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954. “We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.
“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.”And so good night, and good luck.

Yes... Good Luck to us All.

Democrats Becoming more Competitive as we get closer to November

2006-07-14T14:29:00.000-07:00

The latest Cook Political Report ratings offer really hopeful signs for Democrats in November. Of the two categories of most competitive seats, Lean and Toss-up, only 10 Democratic seats are listed in the Lean Democratic category and NONE are in the Toss-Up category. As for Republican-held seats, 14 are in the Toss-Up category and 21 are in the Lean Republican category, basically meaning that competitive Republican seats outnumber Democratic seats by a more than 3 to 1 margin.

You can see all the rankings in this pdf file: http://cookpolitical.com/races/report_pdfs/2006_house_comp_jul12.pdf

What is even more encouraging is when you compare these rankings with the ones Cook put out just two months ago in May. At that time there were just 11 Democratic-held seats considered most competitive, but two of them were in the Toss-Up category: IL-08 (Melissa Bean) and OH-06 (OPEN-Strickland). Both of those seats are now moved into the slightly safer Lean category.

The Republican rankings in May showed 9 seats in the Toss-Up category and 15 in the Lean category. So while there are 11 more competitive seats in currently GOP districts from May, the Democrats went down one to just 10, and eliminated theirs in the Toss-Up category.

This momentum is a sign that: 1) The Republicans are in trouble with voters overall, nationally; 2) The Democrats have good candidates making more seats competitive, and 3) The Democrats are being competitive when it comes to fundraising, as the current round of FEC filings illustrate. The key will be moving more of these GOP held seats in the Likely category into Lean or Toss-up – which means getting more support to those challengers who are against the GOP incumbents in those seats.

But the critical element is the momentum: As we get closer more GOP seats are competitive and more Democratic seats become safer.

My choices in the Forward Together Candidate Poll

2006-06-21T07:18:00.000-07:00

Mark Warner's PAC, Forward Together, is running an online poll to see who will get their next donations. The top ten vote-getters will each receive $5000 from the PAC for their campaigns.

This was my ballot:

My MapChangers

WEST

CO-06 Bill Winter: Colorado generally should be Blue this year
MN-06 Patty Wetterling: An excellent candidate in a purple district
TX-10 Ted Ankrum: The second seat in TX that the Dems can challenge
MT-Sen Jon Tester: Bye Bye Burns!
CO-05 Jay Fawcett: A fantastic candidate who is making a normally red district competitive

EAST

NY-29 Eric Massa: A smart canddiate who would work for an economically depressed district that the incumbent isn't serving
IL-10 Daniel Seals: A developing campaigner who has a chance in a district that went for Kerry, Gore and Clinton
PA-10 Chris Carney: Well qualified veteran who can challenege a weak incumbent
PA-06 Lois Murphy: A great campaigner who has a nice shot at a Blue district
VA-Sen James Webb: The man who can beat George Allen

Want to choose your own MapChangers?

Cast Your Vote

Forward Together PAC

Please sign up (it is free) and place your own votes, and especially support Eric Massa, Chris Carney and Dan Seals.

CO-4: Angie Paccione Taking on Marilyn Musgrave -- Polls SHow she acn Win

2006-06-15T14:30:00.000-07:00

Last night I attended a House Party for Democratic Candidate Angie Paccione, who is running against Marilyn Musgrave in Colorado’s 4th Congressional District. Angie shared with us the results of her new poll and the results were extremely encouraging. The poll shows that 51% of voters in Colorado’s 4th CD believe it is “time for someone new,” and just 34% are firm in their belief that Musgrave should be reelected.

In a head-to-head match-up, Musgrave gets 37% to Angie’s 36% – Basically a toss-up. This is especially interesting since Musgrave has sent out 9 mailings over the past couple of years while Angie has yet to use paid communications. Once voters hear Angie’s bio and compare it to Musgrave’s bio, Angie is up by 5 points. This is definitely a winnable district for Angie and the Democrats.

At the event last night, Angie explained her strategy for winning the district that covers all of Colorado’s eastern border plus areas north and east of Denver. She is engaging the entire district, including a “Tent Tour” of the whole district this summer, where she will give basketball clinics to kids and speak under a tent at night. She is determined to offer a positive agenda for change and not just run against Musgrave’s record. And if you could see Angie talk in person, you would see her enthusiasm for the race and the people of Colorado, as well as her intelligence when considering the various issues presented to her. Plus she is a great listener – she answers the question you ask her and not just the question she wished you had asked.

This race is critical for the Democrats if they want to win control of the House. Musgrave got just 51% of the vote in 2004, and both she and Bush are much less popular this time out. However, for some reason, the DCCC hasn’t fully targeted the race in their Red to Blue Program. Emily’s List has yet to adopt Angie. Our own PAC, Blue Catapult (www.bluecatapult.com) , sponsored last night’s event and gave a small donation to Angie, but to take on Marilyn Musgrave’s $1.2 million cash-on-hand, Angie is going to need an infusion of support to use the Denver media market to counter the expected onslaught from Musgrave, who once again is the House sponsor of the Anti-Gay Marriage amendment in the House.

Angie is a progressive in every sense and is a two-fer: She is right on the issues AND she can win. She got the highest percentage of the vote any Democrat has ever received in her district in her last election for the Colorado legislature so she knows how to campaign and count votes. But the powers that be need to recognize this as a critical race.

Bilbray Correct -- He Won Because of Immigration

2006-06-07T07:52:00.000-07:00

In an interview on CNN , Brian Bilbray was asked why he won the race for CA-50, Duke Cunningam's seat. . His response, was that he went full force in opposition to Bush’s immigration policy in the last week of the election. By attacking Bush’s program as amnesty and stating that if he was elected he would fight against the Bush immigration program, that is when he saw his numbers move (I assume he is talking about his internal campaign polling numbers).

I actually agree with Bilbray’s analysis of his own victory. In addition to Francine Busby’s “You don’t need papers to participate” comment, McCain not coming to the district for Bilbray probably played to his advantage in the end. Immigration may become in this election what the “Gay Marriage” issue was in 2004 – and it has the added advantage of helping Republicans distance themselves from Bush in a year where their President is unpopular.

I think Democrats in areas where immigration is a hot-button issue need to learn from this race that they can not support the Bush/Senate proposal whole-heartedly or they will be giving their Republican opponents a key to winning the election. Especially in certain border areas such as metropolitan San Diego, where the Busby-Bilbray race was fought, Democrats need to be careful as to how they address immigration reform.

All this almost makes me think that this is a deliberate strategy on the part of Republicans to find an issue that will give them enough distance from the President so that they can claim independence, but tie Democrats to the President on the same issue. But they aren’t THAT clever… are they?

DCCC Chooses first "Red to Blue" candidates, and Blue Catapult's Darcy Burner is one of them

2006-04-27T13:05:00.000-07:00

The DCCC has announced its first Democratic candidates that they will support under their “Red to Blue” program. These candidates will be given extra support in the quest to turn these Republican-held House seats into Democratic ones. The goal is laudable, since in order to gain the 15 seats that are necessary for the Democrats to control the House of Representatives, and I like many of the choices made by Rahm and the DCCC:

Democratic Challenger -- Incumbent -- District’s % for Kerry
Darcy Burner (Wash.) Dave Reichert 51
Phyllis Busansky (Fla.) Michael Bilirakis (ret) 43
Francine Busby (Calif.) Vacant Cunningham’s seat) 44
Joe Courtney (Conn.) Robert Simmons 54
John Cranley (Ohio) Steve Chabot 51
Jill Derby (Nev.) James Gibbons (Gov race) 41
Tammy Duckworth (Ill.) Henry Hyde (ret) 47
Brad Ellsworth (Ind.) John Hostettler 38
Diane Farrell (Conn.) Christopher Shays 52
Steve Filson (Calif.) Richard Pombo 45
Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) John Sweeney 46
Tessa Hafen (Nev.) Jon Porter 49
Baron Hill (Ind.) Mike Sodrel 40
Mary Jo Kilroy (Ohio) Deborah Pryce 50
Ron Klein (Fla.) Clay Shaw 52
Ken Lucas (Ky.) Geoff Davis 36
Patsy Madrid (N.M.) Heather Wilson 51
Harry Mitchell (Ariz.) J.D. Hayworth 45
Chris Murphy (Conn.) Nancy Johnson 49
Lois Murphy (Pa.) Jim Gerlach 51
Heath Shuler (N.C.) Charles Taylor 43
Peter Welch (Vt.) Bernie Sanders (I) — running for Senate 59

SOURCE: The Hill

These 22 challengers are just the first round of the “Red to Blue” program, with more expected to be added in a few weeks. But I am curious as to some of the choices made for the first list.

I am pleased to see Darcy Burner chosen, as she is in a district that voted for Kerry and she is running an energetic campaign (Full Disclosure –She is a Blue Catapult adopted candidate). But why add at the first step those candidates who already have raised a large amount of money. Howard Park has discussed on MyDD the problem of diminishing returns – that at some point more money doesn’t help as much in some races as it would in others where the cash has been less prevalent. The “Red to Blue” Program meant an average of $250,000 more in contributions in 2004. For candidates who are already prolific fundraisers, such as Madrid, Lampson and Duckworth, this extra money is probably not going to be a deciding factor. In other seats, such as Harry Mitchell running in AZ-5, who just recently got in the race against J.D. Hayworth, this extra boost will probably be incredibly helpful. I also like the choice of Tessa Hafen in NV-3 against Jon Porter, which is a seat that can be put in play IF there is money behind it.

But I am surprised with the Peter Welch choice. The VT seat should be safe Dem and extra help should not be needed until later in the year, if there are signs of danger. John Cranley in Ohio is a good choice, though from what I know from friends near his district, his campaign has been somewhat lackluster so far.

In the end, no real major complaints, though I wish the DCCC would focus on expanding the map of challengers rather than just buffering the so-called “top-tier” candidates. I do have a few thoughts on who they should add in their next round:

Angie Paccione in CO-4 running against Marilyn Musgrave
Eric Massa in NY-29 running against Randy Kuhl
Chris Carney in PA-10 running against Don Sherwood
Dan Seals in IL-10 running against Mark Kirk

Anyone have any other suggestions? They should be candidates who really become more viable with the extra help the DCCC could provide.

Would a Democratic "Contract with America" Help or Hurt?

2006-04-06T12:43:00.002-07:00

The Hill newspaper, one of the two main Capitol Hill newspapers, had an interesting article about whether the Democrats should offer their own alternate agenda, like the Republicans' Contract with America in 1994. Republicans and strategists who were involved in creating and implementing the agenda make some interesting observations:

There seems to be consensus that while the Republicans would have won seats in the 2004 election anyway, the Contract helped with the magnitude of the win -- 52 seats. Ed Gillespie, who later became RNC Chair but at that time worked on the Contract as a staffer for Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) said “We wouldn’t have picked up 52 seats [in the House] if it weren’t for the fact that we ran on a positive agenda.” The positive agenda helps give a reason to not just stay home.
Former Rep. Bob Walker (R-PA) noted that those mid-term elections saw 9 million new voters -- a very large number for mid-terms.
Frank Luntz, who did the polling behind the Contract, explained that when the items in the Contract were identified as a Republican Contract, it did not receive majority support. That is why it was titled without a party label. This seems to be a good lesson in not trying to seem too partisan and appear more as though you will work with anyone to get things accomplished.

Interviews with Democrats in the article seem to illustrate that despite studying the impact of the Contract, they do not see it as something the Democrats should emulate this year. Steve Elmendorf, who was one of the top advisors to former Democratic leader Dick Gephardt, sees a Democratic version of the Contract as distracting from the main idea: “People want to be positive. That’s fine... But I don’t think it’s the most important thing in this election. The most important thing is that Bush is unpopular, people don’t like the war and they want new leadership in Washington.”

While the problems of Bush and the GOP are what give the Democrats this opportunity, the question is: How do the Democrats actually take full advantage of the situation? A specific agenda will give voters an idea of how a Democratic Congress would be different. It will give voters specific items to hold onto, understanding exactly the ways in which their lives will improve if there is a change in leadership.

My concern is that what the Democrats are doing right now is slowly reeling out talking points rather than action items. The agenda areas they are unveiling sound like the same old political claptrap that the average voter will tune out. They have unveiled their first two "agenda areas" which are Real Security and Honest Government. These are uninspired generalities that won't gain the Democrats any seats in Congress. Even though these categories contain specifics, the items themselves should be specifics. Nobody is going to read the details of the Democrats' "Real Security" program. But they would understand "Inspect all cargo in U.S. ports." It is those proposals that are simple, understandable and doable. It is those specific items that the Democrats should be touting.

--Ian

How Should the Democrats Nationalize the Elections?

2006-04-05T13:16:00.000-07:00

With the political atmosphere both in Washington and in the country as a whole being compared to that of 1994, there is serious discussion as to whether the Democrats should have their own Contract with America a la Newt Gingrich in those elections 12 years ago. The idea being that this could give reasons for people to vote FOR the Democrats and not just AGAINST Republicans.

There are other ways to nationalize the elections:

The Democrats could just focus on the corruption of the Republicans and general incompetence of the Administration. This would mean that there would be no specific agenda for the GOP to attack and in current circumstances would probably be somewhat successful. The problem with this strategy is that it relies on creating and sustaining angry voters, who often will just as likely stay home rather than vote for someone.
The Democrats could make this election about the Administration's incompetence in Iraq and the Republican Congress' failure to critically examine the strategy and execution of occupation in Iraq. This would definitely galvanize the base and put the Republicans on the defensive, but the Democrats are not united behind an alternative policy that could attract more voters than are probably going to vote against the Republicans as it is. And, frankly, there probably is not a policy the COULD unite the Democrats in Congress right now.
Democrats could run against the "Do-nothing" Congress that has abandoned its job beyond tax cuts for the wealthy. Again this would get some traction, but probably not the tidal wave that is needed for Democrats to retake at least one chamber of Congress.

All of the above are important strategies, but they do not bring more people to the voting booths than otherwise would have without those strategies. What is needed is a reason to vote FOR Democrats and some type of national agenda would be an important piece of the goal of increasing turnout for the party.

But what should be contained in such a national agenda? Last month, James Carville and Stan Greenberg, in one of their regular Democracy Corps memos, provided some interesting suggestions based on their polling:

Block any payraise for Congress until the average worker's wages begin to rise.
Replace Bush's prescription drug plan with a simpler one that controls costs.
Raise the Minimum Wage to $7 an hour.
Repeal the tax loophole that encourages companies to move operations overseas.
Implement all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and inspect 100% of containers coming in through America's ports.
Repeal the cuts in all student loan programs and increase tax breaks for college costs.
Create tax incentives to expand the development of wind, solar, and biofuel technologies.

While I don't know if these items really constitute an agenda rather than a few small items, there are aspects I like about them. They address an array of issues from personal economics to security to education so it gives candidates something to say on each of the areas.

They are very specific -- vague language about "Bringing back ethics" and "Protecting America's Ports" sounds too much like the language of a weasely politician. People respond to specificity because it sounds like someone will actually do something rather than just talk about it. Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" was also specific and it gave Republican candidates around the country action items to talk about.

They are all very doable. The most complicated item would be the simpler prescription drug plan and I would prefer a few more specifics about that, but overall these are items that could be passed within a year putting President Bush in the position of either signing these popular items or vetoing them for ideological reasons.

I do think that offering an alternative agenda, and a specific one at that, is the right direction to go in 2006. The Carville/Greenberg proposal could probably be revised and gain additions but I do think it is an excellent place to start the debate. I know that the Democratic leadership and the DNC have been working on some kind of national platform, but from what I have read, it is expected to be more vague goals. Nice, tight, specific items would, I believe, be much more effective in nationalizing the elections and in giving Democratic challengers around the country specific talking points.

If you want to see the full Democracy Corps memo (It is a pdf file), click HERE

--Ian

Can Lampson Still Win in TX-22?

2006-04-04T11:42:00.000-07:00

So we are divided as to what to think about the resignation of Tom DeLay. Yes he will not be in Congress to wreak havoc on all that is good, but it will be harder for the Democratic Party to use him as the symbol of a corrupt, out-of-touch, hypocritical Republican Congress. But while he may not be the symbol, the Republicans in Congress certainly have done enough themselves to make certain their overall competence and corruption is the main issue in the November elections. And who says that just because he is gone, that we must forget The Hammer.

The biggest loss, however, could be the potential of the Democrats taking the congressional seat that DeLay is leaving. DeLay's claim that the reason he is resiging is that he probably could not win back his seat, but another Republican could probably keep it in GOP hands, is most likely part of the truth (though his former Communications Director and Chief of Staff pleading guilty to various charges is probably the greater reason.) But TX-22 will still now be an open seat with the Democrats running a formidable former member of Congress, Nick Lampson, who already has raised over $2 million.

While the natural advantages are certainly with the Republicans in the district, DeLay actually gave up some of his GOP partisans during the redistricting he maneuvered a couple years ago in order to protect other Republican TX House members. In 2004 DeLay received 55% of the vote against a weaker opponent than is Lampson and with Bush at the top of the ticket. Granted, some of the ethics problems had already appeared, but still 55% is not a safe seat by any means. However, the Democrat in that election only received 41% of the vote as third party candidates got about 4%. Before the mid-decade redistricting, DeLay had received 63% in the 2002 election.

But will the citizens of TX-22 want to go back to the status quo of being represented by a Republican representative? A lot, I believe, will ride on who the Texas Republicans choose as their replacement candidate. The selectors, according to Roll Call, include 4 county Republican chairmen, and four representatives selected by precinct chairmen. These are basically party hacks and it will be interesting to see whether they choose someone who has curried favor with the party, or whether they look at someone who is electable. According to various articles, the potential replacement candidates are:

David Wallace, Mayor of Sugar Land
State Representative Charlie Howard
State Senator Kyle Janek
Harris County Judge Robert Eckels

Supposedly party insiders think that if Eckels wants the nomination it is his. And considering the ethics issues surrounding not just DeLay but the Republican Party in general this year, a judge could be a good choice. The problem with any of these choices, however, is that none of them have been on the ballot in more than a quarter of the district. Nick Lampson's old district covers part of the current TX-22 and as he has been running for months, his name recognition is probably fairly high. Sugar Land covers about 10% of the voters in the district, and considering that it is a satellite of Houston, Wallace probably isn't that well known beyond his city's borders. Howard was unchallenged in his last election. Kyle Janek's district covers an interesting slice of the 22nd CD and may be the most viable candidate geographically.

I don't know the backgrounds of any of these candidates, but on the surface it seems that we shouldn't write off Lampson' candidacy quite yet.

--Ian

2006-03-31T08:35:00.000-08:00

Our First Blue Catapult Blog.

We now have a blog! Discuss....