Senate 2010 (continued): In closely balanced Missouri, will third parties imperil the reelection of Sen. Kit Bond, or the hopes of another Republican?

Sen. Kit Bond and Minoriy Leader Mitch McConnell

by Ken

We talked earlier about the 2010 Senate race shaping up in Texas. Now we move on to:

MISSOURI
seat currently held by Christopher Bond

Earlier we talked about Texas. If Missouri remains a tough state for Democrats, it's no garden paradise for Republicans either. The obvious question for 2010 is, will Sen. Christopher Bond run for reelection? (Bond is a horror show, and by rights ought to be one of the most appalling Republicans in the Senate. It just happens that by the standard of the caliber of Republicans who've been elected, he barely sticks out.) Even if he doesn't, is there any reason to be optimistic about the kind of Democrat who might make the race? In any case, who stands to be helped and hurt by the state's conservative third parties?

The estimable Senate Guru walks us through the 2010 race as it shapes up now:

MO-Sen: Conservative Third Parties Will Play a Significant Role
by: Senate Guru
Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 18:11 PM EST

Missouri's last Senate race was in 2006. According to the official results, Democratic then-state Auditor Claire McCaskill defeated Republican Jim Talent by 48,314 votes. The margin of victory was almost identical to the 47,792 votes earned by Libertarian candidate Frank Gilmour. It can't quantifiably be said that Gilmour's absence alone would have shifted the race to Talent; but, clearly, the presence of a conservative third Party candidate had an impact on the race that could have been pivotal.

Fast forward to the 2010 cycle. The incumbent is Republican Kit Bond, who turns 70 in March. Surely, he may be weighing retirement, but it would not be a shock to the system if he ran for re-election. On the Democratic side, the strongest potential opponent for Bond is Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, who won re-election to her office last month while garnering more votes in a single election than any previous Missourian ever.

The most recent public polling on a potential Bond-Carnahan match-up shows the Republican incumbent in a very vulnerable position. The poll showed Bond leading Carnahan by only 4 points (47-43), equal to the margin of error -- in other words, a statistical dead heat. It is indeed a bad sign for the incumbent that, after three decades serving Missouri in three different statewide offices (state Auditor, Governor and, now, Senator for over two decades), he can't break 50%. Further, the poll showed Bond and Carnahan with nearly identical approval rates, 49% for Bond, 48% for Carnahan; but, Bond's disapproval rate was nearly double that of Carnahan's (43 to 26). In a nutshell, Carnahan starts off basically tied with Bond, and she has also more room for positive growth.

But that's not the end of the bad news for Kit Bond. Missouri's 2006 Senate race featured a conservative third Party candidate whose tally nearly equaled the margin of victory for the Democrat over the Republican. While not every one of Gilmour's votes would have gone to Talent, surely a majority of them likely would have. So what would happen if two conservative third Party candidates ran in Missouri's 2010 Senate race? Kit Bond may find out.

Glenn Nielsen, Chair of the Missouri Libertarian Party, informs me via e-mail:

The Missouri Libertarian Party has run a candidate for every US Senate race since 1988. There is no announced Libertarian candidate for the 2010 US Senate race yet but I know of several Missouri Libertarians who are considering running.

Given the very early stage of the cycle, it's not a surprise that there are no announced Libertarian candidates for Senate yet. However, that several potential candidates are already considering bids suggests that it will be extremely likely that the Missouri Libertarian Party will field a candidate for Senate like they did in 2006. But it doesn't end there.

Donna Ivanovich, Chair of the Constitution Party of Missouri, relays to me via e-mail:

The Constitution Party absolutely is considering this race in 2010 along with that of State Auditor. These are the only 2 statewide races open in 2010 that help us maintain ballot access.

The conservative Constitution Party will likely run a candidate not only to promote its platform but also to maintain ballot access -- in other words, they need to run a candidate.

In 2006, one conservative third party candidate roughly matched the Democrat's margin of victory over the Republican. In 2010, should the race evolve into a match-up between Kit Bond and Robin Carnahan, we could expect a similarly close race. However, instead of one conservative third Party candidate shaving votes from the right flank of the Republican, we will have two such candidates. In a race that could come down to a difference of just a couple of percentage points one way or the other, having two right-leaning third Party candidates each potentially earning a couple percent apiece would mean curtains for Bond.

Given these additional obstacles to the success of Bond's potential re-election bid, perhaps this would further encourage Bond to consider retirement.

#

True, we're even further than we've been from knowing who's going to sit in THIS Senate. Still, it's never too soon to be thinking about the NEXT one

Senator Hutchison and Governor Perry with, I dunno, some old guy

by Ken

It seems as if day by day we know less rather than more about who exactly's going to be in the Senate when the 111th Congress convenes next month.

Of course we're still waiting for a final count in the Coleman vs. Franken race in Minnesota. And we're still no closer to any resolution of the questions, in Illinois and New York, as to who will replace President-elect Obama and Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton -- though in New York note is being taken of the Politico report that Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg has hired "major Democratic fixer" Josh Isay as a consultant, apparently (a) to show she means business about being considered for the job, (b) to plug the large gaps in her New York political connectedness, and perhaps (c) to scare off some lower-power contenders.

[UPDATE: On FireDogLake, Jane Hamsher points out that in 2006 Isay did ads for Joe Lieberman which helped persuade Connecticut voters that His Holiness meant business about bringing the troops home from Iraq.]

Meanwhile, the impending designation of Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar as interior secretary will create yet another opening to be filled by gubernatorial appointment followed by a special election in 2010, when Gov. Bill Ritter Jr., a Democrat, will presumably also be running for reelection.

While we await the scramble for that appointment, we're already looking ahead to the 112th Congress. We have news of two currently Republican seats, in Texas and Missouri, that may be more competitive in 2010 than Democrats would have thought.

Let's take them one at a time, starting with --

TEXAS
seat currently held by Kay Bailey Hutchison (R)

If Senator Hutchison decides to run for reelection, I doubt that anyone gives any potential Democratic opponent a serious shot at defeating her. But as has been widely reported, the senator has apparently been giving serious thought to running for governor instead -- even if that means a primary challenge to her fellow Republican, two-term Gov. Rick Perry, widely considered a serious contender for the title of Dumbest Human in Electoral Politics. The talk is serious enough that it includes the possibility that Senator Hutchison might actually resign from the Senate to make the race. Clearly, if she decides to pursue the governorship, the Senate race changes complexion..

One of our online go-to guys in matters of finance and economics, Bonddad, happens to be a Houstonian, and a big fan of Mayor Bill White, who now seems prepared to make the race in the event that Senator Hutchison does step down from the Senate to run for governor. Passing this Houston Chronicle story on, Bonddad didn't even try to curb his enthusiasm:

I am so incredibly excited about this. Bill White has been a fabulous mayor for the city. He has been especially good during the two hurricanes we have been through here. He is plain talking, straightforward and just simply a good guy. Most importantly, he gets the job done. Houston has worked under his leadership.

Now other Texas progressive sources are more cautious about White, whom they describe as a conservative Democrat. But my Houstonian sources, while conceding that White himself can't be described as a progressive, insist that the man inspires confidence and gets things done.

Here's the story:

White eyes Hutchison's U.S. Senate seat
Houston mayor plans to run if she vies for governor

By MATT STILES and PEGGY FIKAC

Mayor Bill White has decided to seek the U.S. Senate seat held by Kay Bailey Hutchison, should the two-term Republican resign next year to challenge the sitting governor, the Houston Chronicle has learned.

Ending months of speculation about his political future, White plans to announce his intentions at an event next week, according to several sources close to the mayor.

White declined to confirm his intentions during an interview Friday evening, saying it would be inappropriate to discuss his political future on the day the city buried a police officer. He said he plans to make an announcement next week.

He also said that it's "possible, but unlikely" he will change his mind over the weekend.

In considering his future in recent weeks, White said a number of Texans have indicated he should "try to shape policies that can result in secure and affordable and cleaner forms of energy, both for this community and for the country. That's been a big part of a lot of conversations."

White, a third-term mayor and former state Democratic Party chair, has been discussed for years as a possible gubernatorial candidate, in part because of his appeal as a popular, moderate leader from the state's largest city.

The mayor joins another moderate Democrat seeking the seat -- former Texas Comptroller John Sharp, who announced earlier this week that he plans to get into the race.

"I know that he's been concerned that Texas does not have sufficient voice in Washington, and he feels that he can fill that gap," said Harris County Democratic Party Chairman Gerry Birnberg.

Hutchison has filed paperwork allowing her to explore the idea of challenging current Gov. Rick Perry, a fellow Republican.

Perry, already the longest-serving Texas governor in state history, has said he intends to keep his job, setting up a potential primary battle between two well-funded and known Republicans.

That potential contest was highlighted Friday when the Hutchison team released a poll conducted for the senator by Voter Consumer Research, based in the Houston area.

The Hutchison team said a poll of GOP primary voters found Hutchison with 55 percent support and Perry with 31 percent, with the rest saying they did not know or choosing another option. The Hutchison team also said she would top either White or Sharp in a general-election race, but did not release figures.

Perry pollster Mike Baselice, while declining to release figures, said the governor's team has its own poll showing that in a Republican primary, "He beats her like a drum."

Neither White nor Sharp has filed documents with the Federal Election Commission, establishing a Senate campaign committee for 2010, according to commission spokesman Bob Biersack.

A spokesman for Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., the incoming chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said to his knowledge White had not spoken to Menendez about support for a prospective campaign.

If Hutchison resigns her seat, which she has said she would do late next year, Perry would appoint her temporary successor pending a special election.

That would spark a multi-candidate special election which, if held in November, could coincide with city elections in Houston influencing statewide turnout -- a potential benefit to White.

Former Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams, also a Republican, said Friday he plans to explore a run. At least three other Republican prospective candidates have filed for the seat: Texas Railroad Commissioner Elizabeth Ames Jones, insurance sales manager Scott Nichol and state Sen. Florence Shapiro of Plano.

Other rumored possibilities are Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Attorney General Greg Abbott, Railroad Commission Chairman Michael Willliams and U.S. Rep. Kay Granger of Fort Worth -- all Republicans.

Prospective Senate candidates exploring campaigns are permitted to accept donations and use the money for polling, travel, telephone calls and lodging without immediately reporting the donations and expenditures to the commission, Biersack said.

Only when they decide to become full-fledged candidates do they have to report donations and spending.

The prospect of a special election for a Senate seat could be a tantalizing one for candidates, said Southern Methodist University
political scientist Cal Jillson. The 1961 Senate race drew more than 70, he said.

Nor would a surprise winner be unheard of, Jillson said, noting that the late Republican John Tower emerged the winner in 1961.

"Special elections bring out large numbers of people," he said. "They have unpredictable outcomes."

A successful Senate bid would allow White a chance to return to Washington, D.C., and, perhaps, pursue one of his passions: national energy policy. He worked as a U.S. Energy Department undersecretary during the Bill Clinton administration, and as a U.S. House aide on natural gas policy during the 1970s.

Still, the odds of a Democratic victory could be long.

"Bill is one of the brightest people I've ever met," Birnberg said. "He doesn't decide things unless he believes in his heart of hearts that he can win."

Reporters Janet Elliott, Alan Bernstein, Carolyn Feibel, Stewart Powell and Bradley Olson contributed to this report. Fikac reported from Austin.

[Up next: MISSOURI. At 70, will Republican Sen. Kit Bond run again? What effect will third parties have in 2010?]

#

What the heck are they hiding? House Dems move closer to accepting the GOP's frantic cover-up of the Bush regime's electronic-surveillance activities

"It's about finding middle ground, and we have middle ground. It's not going to please everyone, but let's get on with it."

--House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, quoted by CongressDaily, on "a Republican-brokered deal to rewrite the nation's electronic surveillance laws" which Reyes "disclosed late Tuesday that he is ready to accept"

"There just isn't enough money at stake to explain this. Nobody's suing for the money, they are suing for the discovery. Something bad happened here and the Democrats are helping the Republicans cover it up."

--Digby, in "FISA Zombie," a post of the CongressDaily article

I wasn't originally going to pass on this CongressDaily article about the new "compromise" on a replacement for the expired FISA laws which Chairman Reyes has now signed on to. I know how complex and technical this whole issue is -- both in its substance and in the politics of it. I know people's hair tends to hurt when they hear mere mention of FISA, not to mention "retroactive telecom immunity."

Then I saw that Digby had posted the CD article, and noted in particular the above paragraph that she appended. As usual, she's got it exactly right.

The crucial "compromise" -- negotiated, curiously, with the ranking Republican, Kit Bond of Missouri [right], on the Senate Intelligence Committee (not that the Democratic chairman, Jay Rockefeller, is any more enlightened on the issue) -- concerns the ever-contentious issue of telecom immunity, which is neither granted nor denied. Instead it is to be determined, in secret of course, by the always-secret FISA court.

As regards the politics of the issue, it's still impossible to know from the CD article where matters stand. If we accept that Chairman Reyes is prepared to sign on to the "compromise," that doesn't mean that either House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer or Speaker Nancy Pelosi is, which means we still don't know what the Democratic leadership position is. It's just not an encouraging step that the Intelligence Committee chairman has decided that the crucial issue is "getting on with it."

But as regards the substance, allowing the telecom companies to get their "get out of jail free" cards in secret means the Bush regime, or whoever is working so hard to make sure that no proper investigation of illegal surveillance ever takes place, have won their case. Because contrary to the usual Republican obfuscation, which has it that FISA-related lawsuits, like most lawsuits, are just money-grubbing opportunities promoted as usual by sleazy lawyer-loving Democrats, as Digby notes, the importance of the FISA lawsuits has nothing to do with money. Such suits may in fact be the only way to force public disclosure of . . . well, whatever the people who are hiding stuff are trying so hard to hide.

Again as Digby notes, "Something bad happened here and the Democrats are helping the Republicans cover it up." And the more ferociously the behind-the-scenes negotiators work to obliterate those lawsuits, the badder we may guess that something is that happened. The working hypothesis has to be that it's so bad, there are people who will do whatever it takes to make sure it never becomes public.

That said, since CongressDaily is a subscription deal, here is the full text of the article:

House Chairman Open To Republican Compromise On FISA
by Chris Strohm

The House Intelligence Committee's top Democrat disclosed late Tuesday that he is ready to accept a Republican-brokered deal to rewrite the nation's electronic surveillance laws, signaling that a long-running congressional impasse could soon be coming to an end.

House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes told CongressDaily that he is "fine" with language offered by Senate Intelligence ranking member Christopher (Kit) Bond and other Republicans to overhaul the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Notably, the GOP language, which was offered a day before the recent congressional recess, would leave it up to the secret FISA court to grant retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have helped the Bush administration conduct electronic surveillance on the communications of U.S. citizens without warrants.

About 40 civil lawsuits already have been filed against the companies. The administration, Bond and other Republicans had backed a Senate-passed FISA bill that would have shielded the telecom firms from the lawsuits upon enactment.

"It's about finding middle ground and we have middle ground," Reyes said of the compromise offered by Republicans. "It's not going to please everyone but let's get on with it."

Reyes said he believes enough Democrats will support the proposal to pass it in the House.

But he said House Majority Leader Hoyer told him that House Democratic leaders want to have the liability of the telecoms reviewed in federal district court as opposed to the FISA court.

A senior Reyes aide clarified his boss' positions by saying that while Reyes thinks Bond's proposal is a positive one, he remains supportive of Hoyer's efforts to improve on it.

A FISA reform bill passed by the House earlier this year would have had the cases heard in district court.

Efforts to obtain comment from Hoyer's office were unsuccessful at presstime and Reyes' assertion that the GOP language would pass the House could not be confirmed.

Public interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have criticized the GOP language on the immunity issue, saying it does not empower the FISA court to determine if the administration or the telecom firms broke the law. They say the court review would be too limited to give plantiffs in the lawsuits a fair hearing.

On another issue, the proposed GOP compromise would require the administration to submit its procedures and certifications to the FISA court for review before surveillance could begin, except in exigent circumstances. This would apply to wiretaps involving the communications of a U.S. citizen inside the United States.

Republicans also have said they will accept, for the most part, language from House Democrats making FISA the exclusive means for conducting wiretaps to collect foreign intelligence. House Speaker Pelosi has said that having such language in a final FISA bill is her top priority.

And Republicans have agreed to accept a Democratic demand that the inspectors general of the intelligence agencies conduct audits of the terrorist surveillance program.

The House-passed FISA bill included a provision that would have established an independent commission to investigate the administration's warrantless wiretapping activities.

"We knew we weren't going to get everything, but we need to get this done," Reyes said.

#