Conservative Outside Groups Outspending Liberals 4 To 1 On Congressional Campaigns

Lee Rogers & Norman Solomon, Blue America's top 2 California candidates

The good news--at least so far-- is that they're spending the money mostly to beat themselves up, defeating incumbents like Richard Lugar (R-IN) in the Senate and Mean Jean Schmidt (R-OH) and Don Manzullo (R-IL) is the House... and replacing them with weaker, most ideologically extreme candidates who Democrats may have a better chance to beat in November. Democrats have been far more reluctant to go after ideologically "impure" incumbents, the big progressive victory over corrupt Blue Dog Tim Holden (PA) being the exception. Still 4 to 1 scares Democratic Party leaders more than it relieves them. That $20 million right-wing groups have dumped into congressional races so far is seen as a harbinger of something far worse coming down the pike in their direction.

The surge suggests that big-spending super PACs and nonprofit groups, which have become dominant players in the presidential race, will also play a pivotal role in House and Senate contests that will determine the balance of power in Washington in 2013.

The money could be particularly crucial in races below the national radar that can be easily influenced by infusions of outside spending. One example came this week in Nebraska, where a dark-horse Republican Senate candidate upset two better-funded rivals in the GOP primary thanks in part to a last-minute, $250,000 ad buy by a billionaire-backed super PAC.

...“We’re just getting started,” said Club for Growth spokesman Barney Keller, who said the group will soon begin training its fire on Democrats. “Our group has already had an impact on what the composition of Congress is going to look like next year. That’s our whole goal is to have an impact, to improve the gene pool in Congress.”

Interest groups on both sides have reported spending $29.7 million on congressional races so far this election cycle, according to a Washington Post analysis of Federal Election Commission reports.

The spending is more than twice the amount similar groups had spent at this point ahead of the 2008 elections. It’s also higher than the $25.2 million spent during the 2010 midterms, when several high-profile special elections and primary fights drove outside expenditures to new heights.

Spending among the largest groups favors Republicans by about 4 to 1, although that is due in part to a number of fierce Republican primary fights, the data show. GOP Senate primaries in Indiana and Texas, for example, have each drawn more than $4 million in spending by independent groups.

Over the weekend, big-spending wrestling executive Linda McMahon, an extremist with no chance of winning a general election unless she moves from Connecticut to Alabama or Idaho, beat mainstream conservative Chris Shays, 730-389 for the official GOP Senate nomination in their state. The big winner: Democratic nominee Chris Murphy, who will now sit back and watch a bloody and costly primary battle that can only leave half the party base bitter and feeling cheated. In 2010, the deranged McMahon spent $50 million of her own money, won the primary against a mainstream conservative, Rob Simmons, and went on to have her head handed to her in the general election, losing in November 636,040 (55%) to 498,341 (43%)... in a banner year for Republicans. At the same time Tom Foley, the more mainstream Republican candidate for governor, came much closer to winning with 560,874 (49%).

So, it's not just all about money. But it's mostly just all about money. A couple weeks ago, when we asked Alan Grayson what political lessons he had learned from his 2010 defeat he told us that there was nothing worthwhile to "learn" about being swamped by outside special interests. (The context was how after Bill Clinton was kicked out of the governorship of Arkansas by special interest money he never took on special interest money again, abandoned any kind of economic populism and became a neo-liberal corporatist whore who served the interests of the one-percent for the rest of his career.) Grayson:

I represented a district that had been Republican for 34 years. I did the job in the way that I considered best for the people who were depending on me, knowing full well that it would invite vicious attacks from the other side, and it did. I was treated to a $2 million carpet-bombing from the health insurance lobby, $2 million more from the Koch Brothers, etc. But if you want to do the job properly, you have to accept that you might lose it. That's the way it goes. If I return to Congress, I won't do anything differently, because I'm still willing to take it or leave it-- as long as I can get things done for people who need help. If that makes the Koch Brothers hate me and attack me, then as FDR said, "I welcome their hatred." If all you care about is just being a Congressman, then you're no good to anyone but yourself."

Although Blue America, a strictly grassroots, small donor PAC, will never be able to compete financially with corporately-funded superPACs like Rove's outfits or with the Koch brothers or the neo-fascist Club for Growth or Chamber of Commerce, we are backing Grayson again in what looks like an excellent chance for a return to Congress. And we have endorsed 3 progressives for Senate and close to two dozen for the House, some of whom-- like Patsy Keever (D-NC), Matt Cartwright (D-PA) and David Gill (D-IL)-- have already gone on to beat conservative DC Democrat-backed corporate whores. Our next big challenge comes June 5 when 4 of our top candidates, Norman Solomon and Lee Rogers in California, Franke Wilmer in Montana and Eric Griego in New Mexico go up against more conservative and better-financed Establishment candidates in a veritable super-Tuesday.

Griego is being backed by a wide array of progressive groups but a strategically-impaired EMILY'S List has thrown a monkey wrench intothe race by backing a mediocre candidate and that support could throw the race to corrupt conservative Marty Chavez, exactly what the DCCC wanted EMILY'S List, no longer a part of any kind of a progressive coalition, to accomplish.

Blue America is virtually alone in our backing for Franke Wilmer and for our two candidates in California's jungle primaries. That our three candidates are in contention at all-- and Rogers and Solomon look like good bets to finish in the top 2 and proceed to the general-- has a great deal to do with the small donors who have been so generous and forthcoming with small contributions. All those $10 and $20 donations add up. Yesterday we made one last plea to our donors for the final sprint in CA-2 on behalf of Norman Solomon. (Lee Rogers is way ahead in polling and the big push for him will come in the general election against warmonger and bitter, deranged homophobe Buck McKeon.)

Tuesday, June 5th is what Blue America is calling its "Super Tuesday", when several extremely important primary races will be decided. In fact, early voting has begun in California and what we believe is one of the most meaningful congressional races of our era will be decided that day. We're talking about the election to replace progressive stalwart Lynn Woolsey in the second district just above San Francisco. We're talking about progressive hero Norman Solomon.

We don't need to tell you again what an amazing person Norman is. We have been among his staunchest supporters from the moment he announced he would run and endorsed him from the beginning. His progressive resume spans 30 years as an activist and media critic and an elected official. He's been endorsed by the most committed progressives in the nation.

His good friend and longtime colleague Jeff Cohen, co-founder of FAIR, is one of them. In a recent impassioned endorsement, he explained why this particular race is so important:

Getting to a bloc of 25 genuine, principled progressives in Congress is attainable. What’s needed is a strategy and resources to develop candidates in dozens of solidly progressive congressional districts nationwide: black, Latino, college town, liberal urban, etc. When an incumbent Democrat sells-out or leaves office, activists in such a district should be able to call upon national organizational and netroots support to get a 100% progressive into Congress. Once elected by the grassroots in such districts, it’s hard for corporate or conservative forces to ever get them out. Think Bernie Sanders. Think Barbara Lee.

Think Blue America. Think Norman Solomon-- a progressive leader with a lifetime of liberal activism representing a deep blue district, unencumbered by obligation to business or the Democratic establishment. This is how we build our bloc.

We don't have to worry about a bunch of Republicans and ConservaDems demanding "centrism" in the second district of California. It's a place filled with voters who will support liberal policies and reward political courage. It's a seat that rightfully belongs to a leader of the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

Ask yourself, if not Norman Solomon, then who? If not in a deep blue district that believes in progressive values, then where? If not now, when?

If you haven't given any money yet this year or if you planned to give a little more, please consider donating to Norman Solomon.

How Many Independent Candidates Will Thwart Republican Chances To Win Congressional Seats?

Will Ron Paul get to wipe that smug smile off his face?

I don't think Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr are going to do much damage to McCain anywhere (who, in any case, is doing plenty of damage to himself). I guess if it's really, really close in Georgia and Barr does better than anyone thinks he will, he could throw that state to Obama. The Libertarian candidate might also hurt McCain in Nevada, Pennsylvania, Colorado, maybe even Ohio. But I wouldn't count on it. And Obama isn't either. In Montana and Louisiana, on the other hand, Ron Paul is on the ballot-- on the Constitution Party and the Taxpayers Party, respectively. A few days ago, Gov Brian Schweitzer said that Paul would be the decider in Montana.

Now some down-ticket races are similar to the Montana situation. There are several where strong showings by independent candidates will decide the outcome. In the past we've written about right-wing xenophobe David Krikorian taking Republican votes from Mean Jean Schmidt in Ohio's 2nd CD, a red bastion, where Vic Wulsin is neck and neck with Mean.

Today's CQPolitics warns that there are half a dozen close congressional races where independent candidates could make the difference between the Democrat and the Republican. Two of these races hurt Democrats. In FL-13 progressive Democrat Jan Schneider is on the ballot, offering an alternative between far right extremist incumbent Vern Buchanan and conservative nominal Democratic Christine Jennings. Schneider doesn't seem to be doing much campaigning and Buchanan looks pretty safe from the lackluster, admitted Blue Dog anyway.

There's a somewhat-- but only somewhat-- similar situation in LA-06 (Baton Rouge), where extremely conservative nominal Democrat Don Cazayoux managed to win a special election with a massive turn-out in state Senator Michael Jackson's inner city district. Now Jackson is on the ballot as an independent and he could threaten Cazayoux's re-election prospects, particularly because Cazayoux has completely abandoned any pretense of support for a progressive agenda and, on crucial substantive issue, has voted with the Republicans almost twice as often as with the Democrats-- a despicable category he shares with other so-called Democrats pulled from deep of the bowels of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, like John Barrow (GA), Travis Childers (MS), Nick Lamspon (TX), Jim Marshall (GA), Joe Donnelly (IN) and Heath Shuler (NC). Blue America even thought about supporting Jackson-- until we discovered that he's nearly as bad as Cazayoux, at least on the choice issue.

The rest of the races are all bad news for Repugs. The highest profile one is the Senate race in Minnesota where Independence Party candidate Dean Barkley is polling at around 18%, probably hurting Coleman far more than Franken.

Also in Minnesota-- and also bad news for the far right Republican-- the Independence Party is running David Dillon for the seat being abandoned by mainstream conservative Jim Ramstad. The GOP has nominated a far right extremist, Erik Paulsen, to try holding the seat against progressive war vet Ashwin Madia. The latest polling shows Dillon with 8% of the vote-- crucial, since Madia is only leading the wingnut by 3 points.

In NJ-07 another mainstream conservative, Mike Ferguson, is retiring and, again, the GOP is trying to insert a far right extremist in his place, Leonard Lance. Democratic state Rep. Linda Stender is running ahead of Lance, at least partly because of the vigorous and well-financed campaign by ex-Republican Michael Hsing. Hsing will draw moderate Republicans away from Lance.

Meanwhile, a far bigger factor is coming into play that independents: "McCain Drag", or reverse coattails, on down-ticket races. McCain has already proven himself a disaster for GOP House candidates in special elections in red districts of Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi, all of whom were beaten by Democrats. Bush rubber stamp Chris Shays has been successful in distorting his record enough to trick many independents in CT-04 into thinking he wasn't a Bush clone. Now he's trying to persuade them that he's down with Obama, who is polling 20 points ahead of McCain in the district.

But progressive Democrat Jim Himes is looking like the man to finally put an end to Shays' disgraceful and dishonest political career.

McCain's non-existent coattails run counter to the initial conventional wisdom that said his moderate style and crossover appeal would lift Republican candidates down ballot. That's just not the case two weeks out from Election Day.

...A big wave for Obama might be too much of a burden for Republican congressional candidates to bear at a time when they are already saddled with an unpopular Republican president and an unpopular Republican brand.

An old friend of mine in Connecticut even told me that Shays is telling supporters there not to put up McCain lawn signs if they have Shays lawn signs in their yards, lest he be any further McTainted as the McCain campaign co-chair. In fact, Shays doesn't even have a McCain sign up in his own front
yard!

One more note on congressional races today: when Blue America endorsed progressive Democrat Annette Taddeo over reactionary Bush rubber stamp Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Annette was down by 31 points. The DCCC told us it was a hopeless race and one of the chairs of the Red to Blue Committee even refused to endorse her and was tacitly supporting her pal Ros-Lehtinen. A greta dela has changed since then and Annette has continued chipping away at Ros-Lehtinen's credibility-- and her lead. The latest polling from Miami-Dade:

Recent polling in the 18th Congressional District shows that Annette Taddeo (D) is now within striking distance of the incumbent Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R). Taddeo has significantly cut Ros-Lehtinen’s lead since the benchmark polling in June. Currently, Taddeo trails by 7 points (48% to 41%) while in June, Ros-Lehtinen led by 31 points (58% to 27%).2 Ros-Lehtinen’s re-elect numbers have also dropped, with a majority (56%) of the voters now planning on replacing or considering replacing her.

Taddeo’s gains reflect aggressive campaigning since June, resulting in an increase in Taddeo’s name recognition from 14% to 63%. Moreover, the climate in the district has become more favorable to a Democrat for a number of reasons. First, Barack Obama now leads John McCain 47% to 45%, coming back from a 10-point deficit in June. Second, Democrats are making historic gains in voter registration throughout south Florida, and in the 18th Congressional District in particular. In just two years, the Republican advantage over the Democrats in the 18th CD has dropped from 22,000 to less than 2,000,3 making this area a prime spot for a Democratic takeover.

Other key highlights from the poll include:

∑ Ros-Lehtinen’s favorables have declined while her unfavorables have increased. Moreover, because she is so well known in the district (94% are familiar with her) Ros-Lehtinen has very little room to grow her support, while Annette Taddeo is in a far better position to become better known to the electorate.

∑ Key issues such as bringing change to Washington are more likely to be associated with Taddeo than Ros-Lehtinen.

∑ Of the undecided voters who were then asked to whom they were leaning, 78% went to Taddeo and only 22% to Ros-Lehtinen.

Oh, and that Red to Blue chairperson who refused to support Annette? She donated $10,000 to the campaign and has given up on Ros-Lehtinen entirely. Now if we can just get the DCCC to include Annette in the Miami-Dade ads they're running for Raul Martinez and Joe Garcia... Who knows? But Annette can certainly use some help in continuing to close that shrinking gap. It will be money well-spent!



Yum, Yum Gordon Smith frozen peas!

Extra, extra, read all about it: Jim Himes takes the lead over Chris Shays's sad carcass in CT-04. PLUS: A wingnut outrage you won't believe in NC-05

by Ken

You know Howie well enough to know that even when he's traveling on business, as long as he has any access to information, he keeps an eye on political news. And he's just passed on a big breaking news story:

In a new SurveyUSA poll in this morning's edition of Roll Call, a poll taken Oct. 13-14 among likely voters shows outstanding Democratic challenger Jim Himes taking the lead over the entrenched once-moderate Republican incumbent Christopher Shays:

Jim Himes (D): 48 percent
Chris Shays (R): 45 percent

To me, Shays is one of the sadder spectacles in present-day politics. He's a guy who could once lay claim to being a moderate, a pol of genuine character. But he stood on the sidelines as his party moved farther and farther to the right, to the edge of its flat earth, and when the Bush regime issued its demand for unwavering party-line obedience, he knuckled under without an audible whimper. In fact, faced with the need to justify his appalling voting record, he increasingly sounded pretty nutty himself.

By the last election New England had of course become hostile territory for Bush-rubber-stamping Republicans, but Shays managed to survive. Apparently the home folks are sometimes the last to get the message, as seems to be happening in Maine, where Sen. Susan Collins has spent the Bush years cringing in cowardly acquiescence but seems still able to persuade her constituents that she is some sort of maverick, even in the face of as outstanding (and trustworthy) a candidate as Rep. Tom Allen.

A couple of days ago we had news that one of our favorite candidates, Darcy Burner, whom we expect to see become a progressive force in the House, has finally taken a lead over her rubber-stamp opponent Dave Reichert in Washington's 8th District. If Reichert's and Shays's constituents are finally getting the message, can Senator Susie's be far behind?

It goes without saying -- but we're going to say it anyway -- that you can contribute to the campaigns of Jim Himes and Tom Allen and Darcy Burner and the rest of our "better Democrats" on the Blue America page. It's looking like now you can make those contributions pay off more than ever.


WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT, CHECK OUT THIS AD
FOR DEM CHALLENGER ROY CARTER IN NC-05

Here's another pass-along from Howie. In NC-05, Roy Carter is challenging Virginia Foxx, whom Howie describes as "a horrible witch and one of the half dozen most extreme members of Congress." The campaign is now circulating this ad:

Summer Lipford is a Gold Star mom from NC.

Her son was killed in Iraq. When he died, Summer contacted Rep. Foxx's office for help with transportation to the memorial ceremony at Ft. Benning.

Foxx never called her back and Summer was never able to afford to attend her son's own ceremony.

Summer ran into two of Foxx's staffers at a couple months later in her hometown. She asked them, "Why has Foxx never called me back, or answered my letters?"

They replied, "Why are you so special that our Congresswoman should talk to you?"

Summer then said, "Because my son was killed in a war she voted for."

One Foxx staffer snapped back, "Well he volunteered for the war didn't he?" And the other one piled on, "Yeah and he was getting paid over there, so what's the problem?"

Yeah, what's the problem?

Besides, don't you know you have to be really "special" to be worthy of your congressmember's attention?


UPDATE: FOR MORE INFO ON THE ROY CARTER NC-05 AD --

Check out Bruce's comment in the comments section. And for more information on the NC-05 race, check out the Roy Carter for Congress website.
#

Chris Shays Tries Glomming On To Obama

Few of the rubber stamp Republican senators are as likely to be defeated in November as Oregon's Gordon Smith, someone who just spent 5 years voting for every single item on the Bush-Cheney agenda followed by 6 months of trying to convince Oregon voters that he's a "moderate," an "independent voice," and-- unbelievably-- kinda almost a Democrat. Back in June he was laughed off the air with a short lived ad that attempted to cash in on Barack Obama's huge popularity in his state. There's no Republican in the House who has tried this exact same tactic more forcefully than Chris Shays of Connecticut. Shays is the last Republican member of the House from the 6-state New Hampshire region and his Connecticut congressional district has a PVI of D+5, the bluest district in America represented by a Republican.

Like his close ally, Joe Lieberman, Shays has managed to stay in office by persuading Democrats that he isn't really that Republican. His voting record, however, paints a very different picture. When Bush and the Republicans needed his vote-- no matter what the harebrained scheme they were pushing, he was always there for them. Take Iraq, for example. "Mr. Moderate"  participated in 63 roll calls regarding Iraq since he voted 4 times on October 10, 2002 to authorize the use of force there. And "Mr. Moderate" voted against the Bush-Cheney agenda in Iraq exactly... 3 times, once to require competitive bidding on oil contracts when Cheney was caught trying to steal all of Iraq's oil, as did more than 4 dozen other Republicans, once to turn an Iraqi reconstruction grant into a loan (which was supported by 84 Republicans), and once on an inconsequential and unsubstantive budgetary matter. This week Shays, who is co-chairman of McCain's pointless Connecticut operation (he is polling just 36% against Obama) released an ad, very much like Gordon Smith's, trying to capitalize on Obama's immense popularity in Connecticut. Take a look-- and then consider donating to Blue America endorsee Jim Himes' campaign to replace him.



And Senator Obama's response? "In this race, the good people of Connecticut should know that Barack Obama supports Jim Himes and believes Himes is the candidate who will bring the change American families need to Washington."

The Long Overdue End Of Chris Shays' Political Career?

A few days ago we talked with Jeff Merkley, the progressive Democrat challenging rubber stamp Republican Senator Gordon Smith in Oregon. Jeff makes it clear that Smith follows a pattern of rubber stamping the most extremist and narrow-minded Republican policies for 5 years and then in the year before he has to face the voters, he tries running as a "moderate" and an "independent," hoping no one has the time to examine his lockstep voting record. In the state where Bush has one of his lowest approval ratings Smith has a breathtaking record of unquestioning support for the entire Bush agenda. Interestingly his lifetime ProgressivePunch score is 19.09. This year, as he comes to grips with a disapproval number higher than an approval number, he has crossed the aisle more and more frequently to try to make himself look like a Democrat or even a moderate Republican; his ProgressivePunch score for 2007-'08 is a more respectable 42.66-- and shows a great deal of effort having been put in to deceive Oregon voters. The new Rasmussen polling data shows the ploy isn't working and that Merkley is beating him.

And this is a pattern around the country, with rubber stamp Republicans desperately trying to inoculate themselves from Bush, Cheney and McCain and the radical right agenda they have been rubber stamping. On the Senate side we have down-the-line Bush-Cheney supporters like Susan Collins (R-ME), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Smith of course, John Sununu (R-NH) and even lunatic fringe incumbents like Ted Stevens (R-AK), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Liddy Dole (R-NC) and Pat Roberts (R-KS) trying, absurdly, to pass themselves off as moderates and independent voices who have stood up to Bush. They're not and they haven't.

Less examined are identical claims being made by Republican members of the House. One of the most successful rubber stamp Republicans to pass himself off as a "moderate" has been Connecticut's deceptive Congressman Chris Shays. Tell me how moderate Shays' record on Iraq looks to you. Since voting in total lockstep with Bush-and Cheney on the 4 bills to authorize the use of force against Iraq on October 10, 2002, Shays has voted on 63 roll calls regarding Iraq. Of the 63 opportunities he's had to break with Bush and Cheney's catastrophic policies he refused to go along with them exactly 2 times. How "moderate" is that! One was to join bipartisan coalition demanding an end to no bid contracts; and the other was to join an even wider bipartisan coalition to change the status to Iraq rebuilding funds from grants to loans. He never once voted to end the war or occupation or to slow down Bush's aggression. At the same time Shays was rubber stamping Bush's entire policy of Middle east war he was voting against our active duty military personnel (he voted against them 21 times out of 23 roll calls-- and both were procedural votes whereas the votes like supplying body armor and up-armored vehicles for our fighting men... well Shays decided to support Bush and Cheney instead.) Military veterans have gotten the same treatment from Shays: of 24 rolls calls, Shays has stood behind American vets exactly one time and that was voting to approve the overall budget to fund the federal government, a budget that included relief for veterans that Shays had opposed!

OK, so he's bad on foreign affairs, war and the military, so how does he get his "moderate" cred, you ask? Don't think it's on domestic issues. When it comes to fair taxation, Shays is as anti-working family as Bush could want. There have been 134 rolls calls regarding fair taxation since 2002. How many time was Shays on the side of working and middle class families in Bush's battle to redistribute the wealth of the nation upwards? Six times, mostly on procedural votes of no real consequence on the Republican war against the middle class.

And on all of the most contentious recent votes, Shays has stuck with Bush. On June 20 Shays was with Bush and Cheney again as he voted to permit warrantless wiretaps and retroactive immunity for those who already used them illegally. Of course, in this instance Shays had a special little extra incentive-- $5,500 in campaign contributions from the very people who were so desperate for the retroactive immunity. Would you call that bribery? I would. Oh, and on the latest Bush request for money to keep the occupation in Iraq going, Congressman "Moderate" voted a resounding and consistent YES, yes for Bush, no for peace.

Blue America endorsed Jim Himes one year ago this week and he's proven himself very much worthy of our endorsement, fighting against the war and against Bush's and Shays' FISA bill. Jim has been running neck and neck with the corporately funded Shays when it comes to fundraising. Shays has scooped up $2,330,014 and Jim has taken in $2,087,832. But where Jim is absolutely kicking Shays' ass is in voter registration-- and it's what looks like the decisive factor in ending the shameful career of the last of the Connecticut fake moderates.

Democratic voter registration is up sharply in southwestern Connecticut's 4th Congressional District, and political analysts said Friday that Republican U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays may face the toughest challenge of his career.

In fact, if city Democrats in Bridgeport, Norwalk and Stamford show up on Election Day in a tide of anticipated statewide urban support for Sen. Barack Obama, Shays' narrow 5,747-vote margin of 2006 could evaporate into a forced political retirement.

...Since Jan. 1, 11,329 new Democrats have registered in the 17-town district. Only 3,462 Republicans have signed up so far this year and only 8,299 unaffiliated voters.

Traditionally, unaffiliated voters outnumber Democrats and current statewide totals still hold true, with 801,002 unaffiliated; 707,885 Democrats; and 408,376 Republicans, with registration open until Oct. 28. But statewide this year, more than 47,000 new voters have declared themselves Democrats, compared to 38,000 unaffiliated and 14,000 new Republicans, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz announced on Friday.

That immediately prompted the Congressional Quarterly to change the race's rating from Leans Republican to Toss Up. The fact that the African-American population of Bridgeport wasn't enthusiastic enough of John Kerry's lackluster campaign to turn out in big numbers, worked in Shays' favor in 2004. With Barack Obama at the top of the ticket in November, it is clear that Shays' luck has hit a brick wall.

HOW MANY REPUBLICANS WILL LIEBERMAN ENDORSE BEFORE REID TOSSES HIS ASS OUT OF THE CAUCUS?

Marty Meehan doesn't belong in this picture with these 4 hypocrites

Because he's a member of the Senate Democratic caucus, Holy Joe Lieberman (I-CT)-- who was defeated in his bid to win the Democratic nomination for Senate in 2006-- holds the chairmanship of the powerful Homeland Security Committee. He has been using his position to slyly support Bush's agenda and has wrecked Democratic Party initiatives to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Harry Reid should have tossed him out of the caucus long ago but his formal endorsement of John McCain easily should have been the last straw.

A few weeks ago the Connecticut Democratic Party invoked the Zell Miller Rule and took away Lieberman's superdelegate status. Instead, Lieberman has offered to go to the Republican Convention in Minneapolis and talk about why McCain would be better than either Clinton or Obama. It's revolting that because of Reid he will be doing that as a member of the Democratic caucus.

And then there's his revolting endorsement of rubber stamp Republican Susan Collins (R-ME) who is running a vicious and desperate campaign against Democratic Representative Tom Allen. Shumer sure speaks up when he is trying to scare grassroots candidates out of races where he wants self-funding millionaire DLC creeps to represent the party of Franklin Roosevelt. But on Lieberman campaigning against the DSCC candidate... not a peep squeak.

Today we have Lieberman positioning himself to jump into another Republican campaign, that of the Bush-supporting Chris Shays. Let's see if Rahm Emanuel and Chris Van Hollen can talk some sense into Shumer and Reid. Shays' opponent, Jim Himes, is one of the DCCC's top priorities and also one of the shining examples of what the Democratic Party should be looking for in candidates. Watch him oozing his fake persona on TV today:



If you would like to register you're feelings about Lieberman, may I suggest a contribution-- and even $5 or $10 would be useful and welcomed-- to the progressive Democrats who have been dissed by Bush's favorite senator? You can donate to Tom Allen and Jim Himes at the same time right here.


UPDATE: LIEBERMAN ON THE ATTACK AGAINST CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATS

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies is a right wing front group, running partisan attack ads against Democrats all over the country. As expected, the odd assortment of Neocons and neo-fascists running the show include Steve Forbes, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Jack Kemp, James Woolsey, Newt Gingrich, Gary Bauer, Eric Cantor (R-VA), Frank Gaffney, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Zell Miller and... (get this): Joe Lieberman and Jim Marshall (D-GA). Since the group has launched a series of vicious and untruthful ads against Democratic congressmen like Chris Murphy, Joe Courtney and Ron Klein, Lieberman and Marshall should both be stripped of their seniority within their respective Democratic caucuses.

MIKE AND THE MAD DOG HAVE TREED CRAZY CHRIS SHAYS

DWT doesn't write much about baseball except when Ken gets all worked up about something that's usually over my head. Yesterday, one our our Blue America partners, John Amato, called me half a dozen times about some guys I don't know anything about back East. One is named Mad Dog and they were all worked up about Chris Shays and steroids and baseball. Besides running Crooks & Liars, John has a serious and well-respected Yankee blog, Pinstripe Alley and I know he knows what he's talking about. He kept insisting all day that this Mad Dog and his partner on WFAN were destroying Shays. John wrote a post about it at C&L today and now I'm starting to understand why this is such a big deal.

This sports talk radio show is amazing. Watch this video; it's a riot-- and it certainly is easy to figure out which one is Mike and which one is Mad Dog. Mad Dog just thanked God for Henry Waxman and Elijah Cummins. Mad Dog lives in CT-04, Shays district and he endorsed Jim Himes, the Blue America candidate. Watch this video:



A few things are clear, aside from the viciously partisan way the Republicans have approached this whole steroids mess, which should not be a Democratic or Republican issue, just a problem that needs to be solved by cool heads. Chris Shays has the elats cool head of anyone involved; what a clown! We endorsed Jim Himes long before this latest (third?) strike against Shays because it was apparent that the residents in Connecticut's 4th CD need a focused and consistent representative who has his priorities straight.

The whole idea of Shays on the Oversight Committee is a scandal. He's been an absolute buffoon, giving a free pass to Eric Prince and Blackwater, murderous mercenaries who are disgracing America daily and making the country less safe. Shays may see Eric Prince as doing a "perfect job" but he is going haywire about Brian McNamee and Roger Clemens. The guy is out of his gourd.

I think an awful lot of residents of Shays' Connecticut district who may not have been paying attention to what an atrocious job Shays has been doing as a Bush rubber stamp-- of 63 votes regarding Iraq, Shays broke with Bush only twice, both on insubstantial issues-- will hear about this latest example of their congressman's derangement. Lucky for them they have someone of Jim Himes' quality to replace him with.

ANOTHER GOOD REASON TO HELP JIM HIMES DEFEAT THE ATROCIOUS FAKER FROM CONNECTICUT, CHRIS SHAYS

Holy Joe licks his chops at the thought of helping to re-elect his doppleganger, homophobic Chris Shays (endorsed by HRC)

I think Jim Himes made the case why he'd be a great replacement for rubber stamp Republican Chris Shays really well when he visited Firedoglake for a live blog session on July 28. Apparently the folks at HRC were still busy reading the hate mail they've been getting for helping homophobic Republican shill Joe Lieberman slip back into office. HRC is up to the same old tricks.

Aside from being a general rubber stamp for the entire toxic Bush Republican agenda, Shays has voted 4 times on specific legislation that impacted gay men and lesbians directly. Guess how many times Shays had to vote pro-gay in order to earn HRC's endorsement. Zero times. He was 4 for 4 rubber stamping the far right, homophobic agenda of intolerance and bigotry. Is that what HRC stands for?

At least another of HRC's horrible endorsements this year, Al Wynn (D-MD) voted for gay rights once out of the 4 times. HRC sure sells their endorsement cheap. Is today the right time to tell HRC to go screw themselves? I smashed the award they gave me and removed them from my will when they endorsed Lieberman. Not much more I can do, I'd recommend that people use this opportunity to donate to Jim Himes' and Donna Edwards' campaigns. And you can do both here at the Blue America ActBlue page.

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL WHAT WHAT A REPUBLICAN MODERATE IS? CAN YOU NAME ONE?

The last Republican moderate (the white guy in the middle)

A couple days ago Congressional Quarterly, took a look at the impasse over ending the occupation of Iraq and, echoing a consensus among Inside the Beltway media outlets, blamed... the Democrats for not dealing with Republican "moderates."

After the defeat on Thursday of an amendment to the defense authorization bill that also would have drawn down most troops from Iraq by next year, the leaders declared they would not give ground on their demands for a fixed withdrawal date merely to pass what they said would be toothless war legislation with the support of some Republican moderates.

“Compromise,” Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, does not mean Democrats will “give up our principles. Our principle is that we need to change the course of the war in Iraq, not have an amendment that we say could pass [with] bipartisan [support].”

Likewise, the Senate’s Republican leaders, who have kept their caucus solidly behind Bush during this week’s Iraq War debate, dug in their heels in support of the president’s war strategy.

Although a number of centrists from both parties sought middle ground, they appeared to be toiling against the wishes of their leaders. The moderates remained hopeful that Democratic leaders, in particular, would agree to consider several compromise measures on the war next week, by which time the toughest proposals would likely be dead.

...Moderate Republicans such as Collins, Smith, John W. Warner of Virginia, George V. Voinovich of Ohio, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Norm Coleman of Minnesota have been meeting almost daily with Democratic centrists, including Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Ken Salazar of Colorado, to come up with a legislative formula both sides can embrace.

There have been 38 roll call votes in the Senate regarding Iraq since October 10, 2002's five roll calls on SJ Res 45 authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel have bucked the Bush Regime 8 times, although only four of those votes were considered controversial, the other four being routine and bipartisan matters. Even the most reactionary warmongering Bush-Dogs among Democratic senators-- Ben Nelson (D-NE), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Joe Biden (D-DE)-- were 3 times more likely to vote against Bush than these Republican fake moderates. And as for the other Republicans cited by Congressional Quarterly, Gordon Smith (R-OR), John Warner (R-VA), George Voinovich (R-OH), Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Norm Coleman (R-MN), they have even more spurious claims to "moderation." Alexander, for example-- up for re-election next year and desperate to appear independent of Bush-- voted against the Bush-Cheney line one time and that was on a non-controversial roll call with bipartisan support.

In the last few weeks I've asked why the traditional meet insists on labeling rubber stamp Republicans who have consistently and even reflexively backed every single Bush agenda item on Iraq as "moderate." I wrote several letters-- all unanswered-- to New York Times DC political chief Carl Hulse asking him on what basis he insists on labeling Lamar Alexander-- whose voting record makes a clear and unambiguous case that he is a down-the-line extremist on Iraq policy-- a "moderate." Lamar Alexander votes the same way

The following week the Washington Post was busy painting rubber stamp Republicans in the House, like Phil English (R-PA), as moderates. Again, there was not a single shred of evidence to point out a moderate stance on this. These Republicans all have to face moderate voters in 2008 and they all want to be perceived as moderates and in sync with their anti-war constituents... but not enough to vote against the demands of Bush and Cheney, not ever.

Are there any Republican moderates when it comes to the occupation of Iraq? Well, glad you asked. Let's look at that. There isn't a single one in the Senate, although recent votes indicate that Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) may be changing course and moderating their rubber stamp postures regarding the occupation of Iraq. In the House there are probably two Republicans who could honestly make the claim to moderate positions. Their votes are generally pro-Bush but each has taken significant stands against the Bush-Cheney line a few times: Ron Paul (R-TX) and Walter Jones (R-NC). Paul's votes on Iraq, in fact, are better than the handful of the most reactionary, pro-war Democrats (Chris Carney, Bud Cramer, Gene Taylor, and Jim Marshall). Other than that, there are no moderate Republicans when it comes to Iraq, despite the laziness of traditional media to check the facts before labeling members "moderate" or "independent."

The House has voted 56 times on Iraq-related bills. Regular readers of the NY Times, Washington Post, etc cannot be blamed from believing that there are some gung-ho moderate Republicans-- mostly in the northeast-- like Christopher Shays (R-CT), Mike Ferguson (R-NJ), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Christopher Smith (R-NJ), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mary Bono (R-CA), James Walsh (R-NY), Mike Castle (R-DE), Phil English (R-PA), Judy Biggert (R-IL), Charles Dent (R-PA)... The traditional media is constantly referring to these men and women as "moderates." Oft-proclaimed moderate Judy Biggert for example, has voted all 56 votes with Bush and Cheney. How is she a moderate? What is wrong with the media that they consistently bolster her re-election prospects by calling her a moderate every time they write about her. She never disagreed with the Bush company line... not one time. Neither did Charlie Dent, who is running around Allentown like a chicken without a head, campaigning against Blue America-endorsed progressive Sam Bennett (who adamantly opposes the occupation of Iraq) and he claims he's a moderate and an independent voice. The local and national media echo his claims, although his voting record puts them to the lie. He never, ever went up against Bush-- not a single time.

Oh but what about Christopher Shays? He's the one the NY Times is always touting as a paragon of moderation and independence. On October 17, 2003 he defied Bush-- along with a bipartisan majority in the House-- to demand competitive bidding on oil contacts and a few days later he again joined with a bipartisan majority to transform half of Iraq's $20 billion reconstruction budget from a grant to a loan. Other than those two votes and one bipartisan procedural matter he has been 100% behind the Bush-Cheney agenda of mayhem and destruction in Iraq. There is absolutely nothing "moderate" or "independent" about Chris Shays' Iraq voting record, a voting record he does everything he can to hide from Connecticut votes who are hearing Blue America-backed Jim Himes talk to them about plans to actually end the occupation of Iraq that Shays has so steadfastly supported.

These self-dubbed moderates, supported by a lazy and venal traditional media, all turn out to be radical right supporters of the Bush Iraq agenda. Who would have imagined? Perhaps that's why the latest Gallup Poll shows that nearly 60% of Americans have an unfavorable reaction to the Republican Party and that Democrats are favored 53-38%. And maybe that's why the GOP is broke and no one wants to donate to their loser candidates. And maybe that's why record numbers of Republican incumbents are announcing that they'd rather retire than face the voters in 2008. And, surely, that's why "None of the Above" beats each of the pathetic pygmies™ when Republican voters are asked which of the repulsive GOP candidate they favor for the presidency.

Greg Sargent over at TPM seems to have noticed something very similar. And so has David Shuster at MSNBC. Watch:




UPDATE: AND WHEN IT COMES TO CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE... THEY'RE NOT MODERATE ON THAT EITHER

The SCHIP bill originally passed the House on August first, 225-204. Ten reactionary Democrats joined with the Republicans in a vain attempt to defeat it. And 5 Republicans bolted from their greed-obsessed hateful leadership to vote with the Democrats. To get by Miss McConnell's obstructionist tactics in the Senate, the bill was considerably pared down in a compromise with Republicans that made millions of children ineligible. But even after the severe compromise, Bush and most Republicans are still against it. Radical right-- some would say neo-fascist-- Republican Eric Cantor of Virginia, a whip, says "this is a defining vote for Republicans. You are either for or against health care directed by the Washington bureaucracy." Hard core extremists like Cantor are threatening and berating Republican members who are wavering after hearing from their constituents that they want the bill passed.

While Cantor brags that he can keep enough Republicans cowed that Bush's veto will be sustained, Speaker Pelosi is hoping "to galvanize the support of the American people behind this legislation... The president has no credibility on matters of fiscal responsibility due to his astonishing record of compiling historic deficits over the last seven years... I urge the president to drop the partisan rhetoric, put down his veto pen, and work with the new direction Congress to complete this year's spending bills." Ray LaHood (R-IL), who is retiring and no longer fears the wrath of the radical right, joined with severely vulnerable Republican incumbent Heath Wilson (R-NM) to send a letter to other GOP House members urging them to ignore Cantor and the other Republican hate-mongers. They think they can bring in more than two dozen Republicans. I won't be holding my breath on that prediction.

"A bipartisan group of Senate and House Members have crafted this agreement. While not perfect, this agreement retains the core principles of SCHIP when it was enacted and provides states with new tools to enroll more eligible low-income children."

BLUE AMERICA: MEET JIM HIMES

Jim Himes with Obama. Recognize anyone in the background?

A couple months ago Jane called me from Connecticut and said something like "I want you to meet someone you're going flip over." She introduced me to Jim Himes, the progressive Democrat who has decided it's time to do something about retiring WINO/rubber stamp phony Christopher Shays. I'm guessing Jane and Himes knew each other because they were both very early supporters of Ned Lamont's-- back when he too was taking on a treacherous Bush Regime rubber stamp.

It's not hard to figure out why Jane found Jim Himes such an appealing candidate. He's not a career pol, but a dynamic and forward-thinking young businessman dedicated to issues of affordable housing. He's lived all over the world and has a broad understanding of America's place, historically, economically, ethically. He has two young daughters who he is very aware will inherit the nation and the world we leave them. I got the feeling from our 3 or 4 phone conversations since Jane introduced us that that's the key reason behind his decision to run for Congress.

His parents were working in Peru in 1966 and he was born there and grew up speaking English and Spanish. He graduated from Harvard and won a Rhodes Scholarship to study at Oxford. Afterwards his interest in business-oriented solutions to urban poverty led Jim to the Enterprise Foundation, where he researched financial services available to low-income people and, later, to running their NY operation, which included the construction of thousands of units of affordable housing in the New York Metro area. He was also a Commissioner of the Greenwich Housing Authority and later its chairman.

Taking on Shays, the last Republican member of the House from any New England state, is no easy task. CT-04, the southwest corner of the state closest to NYC, leans Democratic (Bush did badly in 2000 and 2004) but the 10 term incumbent has successfully passed himself off as a moderate, despite an abysmal rubber stamp voting record. Diane Farrell came close in 2004 and closer in 2006 but fallout from the Lieberman-factor helped save Shays neck while Connecticut's 2 other Republicans, Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons went down to defeat.

Jim feels that the key to victory in CT-04 is a thoroughly grassroots campaign, which he's already in the midst of. "I'll meet every single voter in the district or die trying. Lately Shays has really shown himself for what he is. He's not Tom DeLay and he's not the outward fringe of the Republican right-- but he's there when they need him. He voted with them for the war, for tax cuts for America's wealthiest and on the privatization of Social Security."

Jim is a nuts and bolts can-do kind of guy and the things he wants to do aren't glamorous or sexy for a congressman. He wants to devote his time to energy policy and he dreams on being on the Transportation Committee, a position most congressmen-- like one Chris Shays-- couldn't care less about but is where he can help solve the real problems that are plaguing people in southwest Connecticut.

Shays may have flip flopped last week on the occupation he's tirelessly supported and promoted over the last five years. Sure enough, he called for American troops to be out of Iraq by December of 2008. It's not the first done he's pulled that stunt right before an election. He did the same thing in 2006-- and then went on to vote three times against actual proposals to withdraw troops from Iraq. It looks like Shays is finally realizing that the costs of this war, at least to his political prospects, may be too much to bear.

Jim wrote up his ideas on how the Iraq catastrophe, supported by Bush, the GOP, reactionary Democrats and fake moderates like Shays, has cost America a great deal in less obvious ways than we see in the papers everyday. The dead and maimed Americans and Iraqis, the half trillion dollars wasted, the strengthening of al-Qaeda... are bad enough, but there are less intuitive costs as well. "As awful as these costs and mistakes have been, they don’t fully capture the price that we, as a country, have paid for this war. Conventional wisdom says that Americans, other than those in the military, have not been asked to sacrifice for this war. That is not true.

"If you work in affordable housing, as I do, you know that millions of hard working Americans are paying more of their limited incomes for housing because federal housing assistance programs have been cut in favor of the war.

"If you worry about the solvency of the Medicare and Medicaid programs that provide healthcare to the most vulnerable Americans, you know that neither resources nor attention have been devoted to the sustainability of those programs, largely because of the demands of Baghdad.

"If you think we should have a sustainable national energy policy that holds relevant our national security and the demands of a deteriorating environment, you know that the development of such a thing will demand an unprecedented concentration of political capital and innovative thinking. But there is no political capital left now, nor even much credibility.

"The list of sacrifices the American people have made in Iraq goes on and on: the chance to address the plight of 45 million Americans with no health insurance, the opportunity to meaningfully improve the educational system which will be the determinant of our future prosperity. These things, so critical to individual American day-to-day lives, have been sacrificed in favor of a war which has apparently made us no safer than we were in 2001.

"Advocates of the war like Chris Shays persist in talking about the outcome in terms of victory, as though we might hope for a battleship surrender ceremony in which we accept swords from cowed Al Qaeda leaders, Sunni terrorists and Iranians. The only possible explanation for this fantasy is that the advocates understand, if only subconsciously, the horrible direct and indirect costs we have paid for their folly. How else but through victory can they find redemption?

"The reality, of course, is that the American people will eventually succeed in demanding an orderly and responsible withdrawal. If that withdrawal is accomplished with uncharacteristic competence and the backing of the world, we might have a legitimate hope of avoiding further catastrophe. But it won’t look like victory. Victory will come when we rededicate ourselves, our attention and our resources to the grand challenges of improving the lives of the American people."

Jane and I want to ask you to join us in doing all we can to make sure competent, ethical men and women like Jim Himes are the people working towards that victory. If you live in Jim's district, he can really use volunteers. Jim is the newest candidate on our Blue America page and if you can afford a contribution, even just $5 or $10, it will be put to good use. In 2006 Shays spent $3,804,187 to hold onto his seat, almost $36 per vote. The Republican Party and Shays corporate allies are willing to spend even more this year. Jim is off to a competitive start, having raised more money than any other Democratic House challenger this year. He'll never be able to match Shays dollar for dollar but no Democrat ever needs to. He just needs enough money to get his message out, enough money to show high-info voters in CT-04 the difference between false claims of political independence and moderation and a voting record that makes right-wingers more than happy to open their wallets for Chris Shays.


UPDATE: JIM HIMES LIVE AT FDL

This afternoon Jim will be engaing the Blue America community in a 2 hour live blog session at Firedoglake, 2pm (EDT), 11am (PT). Come over and meet Jim and ask him a question or, if you missed it, check out the discussion in the FDL archive.

CHRIS SHAYS GRABS CAPITOL HILL POLICE OFFICER, SCREAMING, CURSING & THREATENING HIM... LATER ISSUES AN APOLOGY, BLAMES THE WEATHER

Chris Shays, WINO under stress

With the public finally wising up to a particularly offensive species of rubber stamp Republican-- the WINO: those who publicly waver and whine to the press and their constituents about changing course in Iraq and then always vote with Bush and Cheney-- Chris Shays has been having bad days. He's the posterboy for all WINOs. Shays calls himself a moderate and an independent voice and does everything he can to trick Connecticut voters into thinking he's not a Bush-Cheney Republican. All they'd have to do is look at his Iraq voting record to see what he is. There have been 50 votes on Iraq between the original October 10, 2002 Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force and the most recent call for redeployment. Shays is still the picture perfect Stay The Course Republican warmonger. He hasn't opposed the Bush Cheney agenda for endless war once when it comes to substantive issues.

Suddenly however, confronted with the reality of a strong Democratic opponent-- Jim Himes (who will be our Blue America guest on Saturday, July 28)-- Shays is sounding like he's had a change of heart. Keyword: "sounding." With that pure rubber stamp voting record he went on CNN yesterday and started talking about withdrawing troops:

"We do not have the force structure to maintain the level of troops we have in Iraq now, and certainly to increase them. So, whatever General Petraeus tells us in September, we are still going to have to reduce the number of troops in Iraq. And that's why I think it would be wise to let the Iraqis know that now, that there will be a gradual reduction in troops.

So with all that stress-- I mean just because this fake, last minute anti-war fervor worked last year for Lieberman, there's no reason Connecticut voters plan to get fooled again-- it looks like Shays has finally lost his mind.

He physically grabbed a Capitol Hill police officer, threatened him, screamed curses in his face-- including Cheney's favorite expletive. I wonder if CNN and Fox will give Shays the same career-ending treatment they gave Cynthia McKinney when she had a similar outburst last year. I don't really wonder. She's an outspoken working class Africa-American woman. He's an upper middle class white male. They hate her and identify with him. By Monday this will have never happened.