Keep yer clothes on, Scott Brown -- Cosmo's now "picking brains over brawn"

Isn't it just like us to be trotting out -- yet again -- these ancient beefcake pictures? Sure, but ask yourself whether they aren't still the most noteworthy thing about our Scott.

by Ken

Before we get to the, er, meat of this story, could we pause for a bit of, er, dressing? Namely, Cosmo is now doing political endorsements? Huh?

It might be useful here to have some political strategists to poll on the expected impact of a Cosmo endorsement. I'm not suggesting that Cosmo readers don't vote. I bet a lot of them do. Or at least as high a precentage as that of non-Cosmo readers. Not much of a standard, I admit, but it's the one we seem to be stuck with here in the U.S.A. No, my question is whether those readers are apt to be influenced by the magazine's endorsements. If I sound skeptical, I am.

On the other hand, given Scott Brown's particular history, being snubbed by Cosmo in his challenge to NH Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, makes for irresistibly merry copy. HuffPost's headline is "Cosmo Endorses Jeanne Shaheen Over Its Former Centerfold"; USA Today's, "'Cosmo' nixes former centerfold Scott Brown for Jeanne Shaheen." And so on and on, ad -- I'm guessing -- infinitum. As far as I know, though, our own head is the only one that has tackled the urgent issue of making sure Scott keeps his clothes on.

The head on the "In the Loop" item on washingtonpost.com is "Worth a look, not a vote?":

To all the young aspiring politicians pondering the age-old question “Should I pose nude in an international women’s magazine?”: Yes, you can still have a career afterward. No, the editors cannot guarantee their support when you run for office three decades later.

Scott Brown, the former U.S. senator from Massachusetts who is hoping to return to Capitol Hill via New Hampshire, famously appeared as the centerfold in Cosmopolitan in 1982. Brown, then a 22-year-old law student at Boston College, won the magazine’s “America’s Sexiest Man” contest.

But the people at Cosmo were far more impressed with Brown’s looks back then than they are with his politics now. On Tuesday, the editors announced the magazine’s endorsement of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the incumbent Brown is challenging in a tough race. (In addition to sex tips and fashion no-nos, Cosmo started doing political endorsements for the 2014 midterms.)

“And while we wish we could support the man who once posed nude in our pages, his policy positions just aren’t as solid as his abs were in the ’80s,” the editors write. They go on to explain their support for Shaheen, noting her stances on abortion, equal pay and other issues of women’s rights.

“Scott Brown may have been Cosmopolitan’s ‘sexiest man’ in 1982, but in 2014, we’re picking brains over brawn — and that’s Jeanne Shaheen,” they conclude.

Now, I like to think I yield to no one in my appreciation of hotness, and our Scott was pretty hot for a 50-something -- in fact, arguably hotter than he looked back in 1982 -- when, in January 2011, he got Massachusetts voters to making him the elected successor to the late Sen. Edward Kennedy. And if he hadn't been pretty hot, I don't think there's any chance he could have pulled it off. But I never understood why it was an issue then. Did voters imagine he was going to have sex with them?

Gosh, was that really only January 2011? It seems so long ago -- long enough that Massachusetts voters have already had and exercised their chance to express second thoughts. In fairness, he still got 46.3 percent of the vote, but now-Sen. Elizabeth Warren got the remaining 53.7 percent. Jeanne Shaheen isn't Elizabeth Warren, but then, the 2014 Scott Brown isn't the 2011 Scott Brown, even apart from his deft magic-carpet ride to New Hampshire. Then again, if New Hampshire voters want a dullard, go-along Republican senator, that's their choice.

Scott just has to hope Cosmo doesn't have a lot of pull with NH voters.

#

Too Early To Predict A Scott Brown Wipeout In New Hampshire?

At this point, no one even knows for sure that opportunistic Massachusetts carpetbagger Scott Brown will actually be the candidate New Hampshire Republicans decide to run against popular Senator Jeanne Shaheen. Former Senator Robert Smith, an underdog and crackpot who's running to the right of Brown, appears stronger with the GOP base than anyone had thought-- despite the endorsements Brown has trotted out from the mistrusted GOP Establishment (Romney, Ayotte, Sununu. Merrill…). Most polls of Republican voters show "undecided" in the top slot. That said, let's go along with conventional wisdom and assume that Brown makes it through the primary-- on which he hasn't spent one dime to the $119,385 Smith has spent and the $51,461 Karen Testerman has spent. (Testerman dropped her bid on June 13 and endorsed Smith: "I am going to step aside and let Bob Smith be the only name on the Republican primary ballot that is a conservative.")

Yesterday's Concord Monitor was trumpeting the new WMUR Granite State poll (more on the unreliability of that operation below) that shows Shaheen kicking Brown's butt from Seabrook to Pittsburg.

Shaheen holds a comfortable lead against all of her Republican challengers, a new WMUR Granite State Poll released tonight shows. Her 12-point lead over Scott Brown, the likely Republican nominee, is double what it was in April when Brown made his candidacy official. The margin of error is 4.3 percent.

…Fifty-seven percent of people surveyed have a favorable opinion of Shaheen’s job performance, which is near the high end of her approval ratings since she was elected in 2007. Meanwhile, all of her opponents have net negative ratings, meaning more people have an unfavorable view of them than a favorable one. Overall, the poll shows Shaheen in a position to win a second term. Many voters, however, pay little attention to politics in the summer and only 17 percent of people surveyed said they have definitely decided who they will vote for in November.

...If the election were held today, Brown would take 38 percent of the vote compared to Shaheen’s 50. In comparison, she leads Smith 47 to 34 percent and Rubens 56 to 30 percent. Smith called on Rubens to drop out of the race earlier this week and these poll results will likely only strengthen those calls.

When it comes to favorability, 31 percent of people like Brown while 40 percent have an unfavorable opinion of him, with a margin of error of 3.8 percent. Only 18 percent of people see Smith favorably while 55 percent don’t know enough about him to say. Rubens, who has been campaigning the longest, has a 10 percent approval rating with 77 percent of voters not knowing enough to say.

Caveats. First of all, as of the last FEC reporting deadline, Shaheen had raised $7,378,748 and spent an astronomical $3,037,316-- and with no primary opponent, all bolstering herself against Brown. She had $4,351,281 cash-on-hand, which has probably grown appreciably since then. Brown had only raised $274,728 and hadn't spent a dime of it. Smith raised $217,854 and spent, with Brown in his sights, $119,385. Keep in mind, of course, that just two years ago Brown's status as Wall Street's favorite senator allowed him to spend $35,058,354 in a futile effort to keep his seat in Massachusetts. Wall Street will be there for him again-- although, as of now, outside groups have spent $1,146,716 attacking Brown and Republican outside groups have only spent $70,222 helping Brown and $91,072 attacking Shaheen. If Brown wins the September 9 primary, the big Wall Street and right-wing cash will start flowing into New Hampshire. (Brown has refused to make the same deal-- the People's Pledge-- with Shaheen to keep outside money out of the race that he made with Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts.)

Caveat #2: As Nate Cohn pointed out in yesterday's NY Times polling isn't worth much this far out before the midterms. Polling averages are poisoned by untrustworthy partisan outfits like Rasmussen which aren't really polling firms as much as propaganda extensions of the political parties who whomever else with an agenda is paying them. And as Daily Kos pointed out, polling from WMUR has to be taken with-- at best-- a grain of salt. They were looking at the bizarre results from NH-01 in the same polling we referred to above for the Senate race.

I think I'm finally ready to give up on UNH's polling once and for all. Check out their latest numbers from New Hampshire's 1st Congressional District. Starting in October of last year, Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter had a 16-point lead on her likeliest GOP opponent, ex-Rep. Frank Guinta. Then in January, Guinta went up 6, followed by Shea-Porter going up 9 in April, and now Guinta leaping back out in front by 3. Five polls, four lead changes, and often with huge shifts-- just look at this crazy chart. Seriously, wtf?

"Gotcha, bitch!" screamed Scott Brown at NH Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. Only the cannonball landed on his own foot, which happened to be in his mouth at the time

"Ooh, gotcha!" apparently thought once and would-be-future Sen. Scott Brown. "Bitch'll never know what hit her!" Maybe, maybe not.

by Ken

Normally the modern blood sport of "gotcha" politics thrives on ignorance and stupidity, a perfect match for the virtually achieved right-wing dream of an electorate -- and a snoozemedia gang -- dominated by people with absolute-zero functional IQs (fIQs). Every now and then, though, this dream of a world where political intercourse is squeezed free of any intelligence quotient encounters a hiccup.

It turns out that in America in the year 2014, it may after all be possible to be too stupid. Today's posterboy is former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, who of course is currently campaigning to be New Hampshire Sen. Scott Brown. And man, did the Scottster ever think he had his eventual general-election opponent, NH Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, set up for one of those "Gotcha!"s that constitute the intellectual core of modern-day policy-making. Except, well, except for that old problem of not having a clue WTF he was talking about.

The Washington Post's In the Loop team of Al Kamen and Colby Itkowitz reports:

Mass., N.H., whatever . . .

Scott Brown’s New Hampshire Senate campaign sent a news release Wednesday questioning why Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) wasn’t appearing with President Obama while he was “in town.”

But Obama was in Worcester, Mass., about 50 miles from the New Hampshire border. The president will then visit Boston to raise money for Senate Democrats.

Brown’s hometown is Wakefield, Mass. And for one term, he served the state as its U.S. senator. He moved to neighboring New Hampshire to challenge Shaheen.

When asked what constitutes being “in town,” Brown campaign spokeswoman Elizabeth Guyton said the statement itself clarified that Obama was “in New England.” Guyton reiterated that Shaheen “wasn’t there, even though the money raised at the event will be used to prop up her race.”

The Senate is in session and had votes scheduled on a health-care bill for veterans and student-loan legislation. Shaheen also attended the state delegation’s fifth annual New Hampshire reception on Capitol Hill in the evening.

Pro-tip for the Brown camp: When your aim is to endear yourself to a new constituency, suggesting that your old and new states are one and the same (it’s all New England, we guess) may not be politically wise.

Gotcha! (At least within the standard right-wing margin of error of 100 percent.)

#

Scott Brown Wants To Change New Hampshire-- "Live Free And Die"-- And Thomas Ravenel Wants To Do Something Weird In South Carolina

Last night, Rachel Maddow's opening segment was the Scott Brown Story (above). It's an excellent piece of reportage and I recommend it. Thursday he makes his "official" declaration of candidacy to run for Senate (in New Hampshire). There are 4 other Republicans running, including an ex-New Hampshire 2-term U.S. Senator, Bob Smith. He might find it awkward using the carpetbagger charge against Brown because after he was ousted by John Sununu is the 2002 primary he moved to Florida (and ran for Senate there, unsuccessfully, in 2004 and 2010). But, awkward or not, he'll use it. And he won't be the only one. Mark Hounsell, Republican former assistant leader of the New Hampshire state Senate, pounded him as a shameless carpetbagger in the Conway Daily Sun and said Brown is a dunce to ignore the primary and assume he's the candidate against Shaheen.

To me, either Bob Smith, or Jim Rubens are much more preferable than the slick looking, silver tongued, golden boy from the flatlands.


Scott Brown is looking to the November general elections and not considering the GOP primary at all.  The John H. Sununu camp and his puppet, GOP Chairman Jennifer Horn, are doing all they can to see to it that Brown gets that nomination. Political hucksters, such as Karl Rove, are raising huge amounts of money for Brown’s campaign. Yet, they are forgetting one thing.  The GOP primary voters favor conservatives. Case in point.  the recent Executive District  One GOP primary.  The NHGOP establishment all lined up behind the moderate Chris Boothby and were floored when the conservative Joe Kenney prevailed.  That is real good evidence that in spite of everything else the independence of the New Hampshire voter cannot be bought.  Scott Brown will be a bright and short-lived Roman Candle, in the mold of Texas Governor and short-lived presidential candidate, Rick Perry. Rubens will split the moderate vote from Brown and Bob Smith will eek out a victory and secure the Republican nomination.


Regardless, of where they may fall philosophically on the political spectrum of left or right, both Bob Smith and Jim Rubens have something that Scott Brown lacks.  That is New Hampshire roots and New Hampshire experience.  New Hampshire voters will not elect a “Johnny come lately”  who will say, or do anything in order to achieve what he wants. When Brown loses his bid to become a Senator from New Hampshire where will he move next?  Perhaps he will pack his carpetbag and shamelessly move to Maine?

Yesterday, Joshua Miller interviewed Elizabeth Warren for the Boston Globe about Brown's chances against Shaheen. “Jeanne is tough, she is independent, and she is strong," she told him. "I think Scott Brown is going to have his hands full.” She also predicted Shaheen, who was New Hampshire's popular governor from 1997 until 2003, will win another term. Shaheen is the first woman in U.S. history to have been elected as both a governor and senator.

Recent polling backs up Warren's prediction. PPP reported that 40% of New Hampshire voters already have an unfavorable opinion of Brown (and only 34% have a favorable opinion of him). In a head-to-head match-up she beat him 46-43%.

Speaking of loser Republicans running for the U.S. Senate, last night, after his incredibly dysfunctional weekly appearance on BRAVO's sit com/reality show Southern Charm, South Carolina's Republican former state Treasurer, Thomas Ravenel, announced that he's a candidate for Lindsey Graham's Senate seat. He was forced to resign when he was caught selling cocaine and sentenced to prison. He's out of prison now, a BRAVO star, an embarrassment to Charleston and someone who could take away enough votes from Lindsey Graham in the general election to see progressive Democrat Jay Stamper become South Carolina's senator. Imagine!

Scott Brown Predicts He'll Die In Massachusetts-- Just As His Sleazy Political Career Did

A few days ago, Elizabeth Warren sent out a note to her followers warning that Scott Brown, "Wall Street's favorite senator," was back for another try… this time in New Hampshire. When Warren beat Brown in 2012, he managed to win 46% of the vote and spend $35,058,354 to achieve that. Far right hate groups like America 360 Committee, Americans forTax Reform, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Rove's Crossroads GPS poured another $2,192,513 in negative ads into the race smearing Warren. Wall Street gave more money to Brown that to any other Member of Congress-- more than a million dollars more even to Speaker Boehner! This chart shows what the financial industry crooks shelled out to their favorite shills in the 2012 cycle:

The latest polling of New Hampshire voters, doesn't bode well for Brown as he announces his "exploratory" committee. A Suffolk/Herald poll last week showed him losing to Sen. Jeanne Shaheen 52-39%. On top of that, only a third of New Hampshire voters have a favorable impression of Brown and 42% say they have a negative impression. When asked for a word of phrase that first comes to mind when Scott Brown's name is brought up the half dozen most frequent were “Carpet bagger/interloper” (10.88%), “Massachusetts” (6.75%), “Untrustworthy/dishonest” (6.63%), “Competent” (4.13%), “Wishy-washy/flip-flops/uncertain” (3.50%), and “Opportunist” (3.38%).

I was finishing high school when Bobby Kennedy, someone well-associated with Massachusetts, decided to leave his job as Attorney General and take on New York Republican incumbent Kenneth Keating. I got a job at his Manhattan campaign headquarters as the elevator operator. I saw him and his top aides every day and I was happy when he ousted Keating 3,823,749 (53.5%) to 3,104,056 (43.4%). Keating, a right-of-center "moderate," had one major attack: carpetbagger, carpetbagger, carpetbagger. New Yorkers, a cosmopolitan bunch to begin with, bought Kennedy;s response: "If the senator of the state of New York is going be selected on who's lived here the longest, then I think people are going vote for my opponent. If it's going be selected on who's got the best New York accent, then I think I'm probably out too. But I think if it's going be selected on the basis of who can make the best United States senator, I think I'm still in the contest."

In 2000, Hillary Clinton, identified with Illinois and Arkansas, ran for the open New York State senate seat against Long Island Congressman (and crooked Wall Street favorite) Rick Lazio. She kicked his ass 3,747,310 (55.27%) to 2,915,730 (43.01%). She ran for reelection 6 years later and enjoyed a two-to-one landslide victory over the Republican mayor of Yonkers, John Spencer, 3,008,428 (67%) to 1,392,189 (31%).

Over the weekend, the Christian Science Monitor asked if Brown can do the same thing in New Hampshire.

On Friday, Brown noted that his well-traveled pickup-- now adorned with “Live Free or Die” New Hampshire license plates-- was approaching 300,000 miles.

He’ll need it if he’s too overcome any perception that he’s a newcomer to the Granite State. (He moved to his family’s vacation home there last summer and registered as a New Hampshire voter in December.)

“New Hampshire is a traditional retail politics state,” Matt Mowers, executive director of the New Hampshire GOP, told the Globe. “The voters here want to hear you talk two or three times, not just once. People are much more interested in where you stand on issues and how you’ll help them.”

Like virtually every Republican running for election or re-election, Brown is zeroing in on the Affordable Care Act as his prime target.

“If we don’t like Obamacare, we can get rid of it. Period,” Brown said in his speech Friday at the Northeast Republican Leadership Conference in Nashua. “A big political wave is about to break in America, and the Obamacare Democrats are on the wrong side of that wave.”

Outside influence is likely to be a big issue in New Hampshire’s senatorial race.

American Crossroads, Karl Rove’s super PAC, is about to launch $600,000 in attack ads against Shaheen.

“Scott Brown is for Scott Brown and the powerful interests that back him, not New Hampshire,” New Hampshire Democrats said in a statement. “New Hampshire isn’t going to let Scott Brown and his big oil buddies like the Koch brothers buy themselves a Senate seat.”

On Saturday, Shaheen sent a letter to Brown asking him to sign the "People's Pledge," the same thing he agreed to while running against Warren two years ago.

“I have signed and attached two copies of an agreement with the exact same terms for the New Hampshire 2014 Senate race,” Shaheen wrote. "I hope you will join me in once again committing to the same People’s Pledge you signed in Massachusetts and limiting the influence of outside groups in New Hampshire this year."

Brown quickly knocked back that idea, calling it “hypocritical and self-serving.”

…Brown’s nomination-- assuming he moves beyond his exploratory effort to official candidacy-- is no slam dunk.

Former US Sen. Bob Smith, former state Sen. Jim Rubens, and conservative activist Karen Testerman, have announced for the seat as Republicans.

Smith says he and the other two declared candidates "are being ignored by the establishment.”

"This is really something,” he told the New Hampshire Union Leader. “To have a Massachusetts liberal being promoted, actually being pushed, by the powers in Washington and the establishment here in New Hampshire to run against three people who have been on the ground here for decades is really pretty bizarre.”

Scott Brown only runs against women-- and against women's equality

Which Republican Will New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen Beat In 2014?

I doubt we'll see a Republican primary fight between Florida's Bob Smith and Massachusetts' Scott Brown for the worthless GOP Senate nomination. Brown seems to have made up his mind to run for president governor (of Massachusetts), leaving the field open for Smith, who, unlike Brown, actually did at one time, live in New Hampshire, having moved there from New Jersey. In fact, he was both a Representative (beating someone named Dudley Dudley) and a Senator from that state. He's 72 now and living in Florida... but wanting to get back on the Beltway ego/gravy train.

Smith was a bit of a crackpot even before the Republican Party institutionalized crackpottery as the official party stance and world view. He tried running for the presidency in 2000 and got angry when no one was interested so he quit the GOP and joined a series of fringe parties. But no one was interested in seeing Bob become president in any of them so he finally withdrew-- and re-joined the GOP. He was defeated in the next New Hampshire primary by John Sununu and then moved to Florida and ran for the Senate there in 2004 and 2010. Still: no one interested.

So now he's back, metaphorically, hoping to run against extremely popular New Hampshire Democrat, Jeanne Shaheen. New Hampshire Republicans have had a hard time recruiting a viable candidate, especially because everyone was so afraid of Scott Brown's gigantic Wall Street warchest when he said he might relocate to New Hampshire to run there. Smith still has a summer home in Tuftonboro, so technically, he's still a Granite Stater, although he's been voting in Florida.

"I am giving it serious consideration," Smith said Friday, but "I have not made a final decision. I have not."

He said he expects to make a decision in the next two to three weeks.

...Smith said the biggest issue for him is the country's huge debt, which both parties helped create. He said he is also concerned about a push for national health care, government spying on private citizens and deficit spending.

"We need leadership to try to head that off," Smith said. "I did have a voting record over 18 years of anti-deficit, anti-debt. I lost that battle, but now we need to turn it around before it is too late."

He said while he has been out of politics for 10 years, he does not want to be a "sunshine patriot" and believes he still has something to contribute to the debate. 

Smith said he has been meeting with people, including a small gathering Friday evening, to hear what they have to say, pro and con.

Several other candidates have said they are interested in the Republican nomination, and one, conservative activist Karen Testerman, has announced she will seek the nomination.

Others exploring a run include state Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, and former state Sen. and gubernatorial candidate Jim Rubens of Etna.



Former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., has also been mentioned as a possible candidate, often appearing in the Granite State and refusing to rule it out, although he is also considering a run for governor of Massachusetts. His family owns a summer home in Rye.

Apparently Brown didn't find the reception he was looking for in Iowa and told the Des Moines Register, rather than any Massachusetts (or New Hampshire) news papers that he'll be announcing his campaign for governor (of Massachusetts, presumably) “in a week to 10 days.”

Between stops for bacon-wrapped ribs and a hammy photo with the super bull, Scott Brown didn’t introduce himself to many Iowans.

Brown, a Republican former U.S. senator from Massachusetts, strolled for over two hours today through the Iowa State Fair, an annual 11-day event that’s a magnet for politicians who might want to run for the White House.

Few Iowa fairgoers recognized him as he ate his very first corn dog, drank a couple beers at the Bud Tent, shot a bunch of photos of his wife, Gail Huff, posed in front of the fair’s main attractions (the butter cow, a deep-fried Oreo stand, the Big Boar) and did three local news interviews.

...Brown was voted out of the U.S. Senate nine months ago in Massachusetts, where there are three times as many Democrats as Republicans. He’s now on the buzz list for several possible political offices--  the Senate again, the Massachusetts governor’s office and, as of this weekend, the White House. He told the Des Moines Register on Saturday that he’s scoping out whether Iowa would be favorable to his brand of Republicanism-- fiscally conservative, open minded on social issues, dedicated to bipartisan problem-solving... "I’m here, seeing if there’s any interest.”

GOP In Tumult? Scott Brown And Peter King

So he's an unrepentant Islamophobe... the Dems will take him anyway

Defeated Republican Senator Scott Brown wants to get back into the Senate but polls showed him that Massachusetts voters had had enough of him and he passed on the prospect of running against Ed Markey. But he hasn't passed on running altogether. Maybe he finds lobbying demeaning after being the #1 target of lobbyists affection for so long. So he's been hinting he could run in New Hampshire against Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, the most popular political leader in the state, with a career-high approval rating. "In the most recent Granite State Poll, 59% of New Hampshire adults say they have a favorable opinion of Shaheen, 22% have an unfavorable opinion of her, 9% are neutral and 11% don’t know enough about her to say. Shaheen’s net favorability rating is +37, up from +27% in October. Shaheen’s favorability ratings have improved in a bipartisan fashion since October, she is viewed very favorably among Democrats (net favorability rating of +80%), favorably among Independents (+34%), but unfavorably among Republicans (-9%)." Still, Beltway insider Stu Rothenberg claims Brown is serious about running there, regardless of how boneheaded the idea is.

Former senators who were defeated for re-election can’t simply go to another state-- even if they have property there and have paid taxes there-- and get elected to the Senate, especially if the state is politically competitive.

Former New Hampshire Sen. Robert C. Smith, for example, briefly tried running for Senate in Florida in 2004, two years after he was defeated in the Granite State GOP primary by John E. Sununu. He dropped out after finding that nobody in Florida knew who he was or cared.

For many voters, Brown would appear to be nothing more than “seat shopping” if he were to run in New Hampshire. He’d look like a perfect example of a personally ambitious politician who didn’t care who he represented as long as he had an office on Capitol Hill and the title of U.S. senator.

And coming after Republicans mocked Ashley Judd, who lives in Tennessee but grew up in Kentucky, for publicly mulling a run for the Senate from her home state, those same Republicans would look hypocritical if they backed Brown.

The Brown argument that this would be different because he has had property in the state and paid taxes there is a loser. He represented the people of Massachusetts in the Senate and he’d look like someone without principles-- a carpetbagger who was more interested in his own career than in the country’s future-- if he tried to move on to New Hampshire. After all, if he wants to be in the Senate, why didn’t he run in this year’s special election in Massachusetts?

Never gonna happen. Well, let's put it like this... it's probably less likely than Peter King switching parties and becoming a Democrat-- something we've speculated on before. And there's not much new in the month that's elapsed since that speculation... except this interview he did on Morning Joe a couple days ago. Watch:



He's pretty pissed off at "Republicans in Congress" and singles out Marco Rubio for particular vituperation. "My relationship with Congress," he told Joe Scarborough, "will never be the same again. They made us wait 90 to 100 days to give the most basic human aid that is required. It's absolutely disgraceful. And when I see these Republicans, we slap each other on the back, all the camaraderie, 'hey, we're great friends.' All I know is there were people who were close to dying in my district and no one gave a damn." So how is all that anger manifesting? Peter King is no right-wing whack-job like Steve King, but he's far from a liberal. His career-long ProgressivePunch crucial vote score is 8.34, pretty miserable even for a Republican. This year the score tells a very different story. For the first time in his career, King is voting against the Republican leadership more frequently than any other Republican in the House. His score is 38.89, basically the exact same score Steve Israel and Ron Kind have been steering freshmen into. The 38.89 brigade includes worthless losers like Ann Kuster (D-NH), Dan Mafei (New Dem-NY), Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY), Scott Peters (New Dem-CA), Raul Ruiz (New Dem-CA) and Kyrsten Sinema (New Dem-AZ). Peter King actually has a more progressive voting record this session than DCCC faves Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC- 35.29), Ron Barber (New Dem-AZ-33.33), Bill Owens (New Dem-NY-33.33), the House's worst Democratic freshman, Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-23.53) and, of course, the House's worst over-all fake Democrat, Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT-16.67).

So maybe if Boehner or Cantor do one more thing to alienate him, he'll knock on his buddy Steve Israel's door and work on a jazzy press release.

Despite Beltway Conventional Wisdom, Democrats Could Win Big In 2014... If They Actually Behave Like Democrats

In 2010, Beltway Democrats miscalculated badly. Many of them-- with the acquiescence and even the encouragement of the leadership-- decided the safer bet was to vote like a Republican rather than to embrace and explain a progressive vision for solving real problems that face the country. So Democratic voters didn't go to the polls and dozens of House Democrats-- mostly Blue Dogs and New Dems but a few good people as well-- lost their seats. Preventing another catastrophe like that should be a big focus of the House Dems. But they're off on a really bad foot already, having chosen failed DCCC head Steve Israel-- who is delusional enough to claim he was a victor-- to run the show again. The Senate campaign was far better run (by DSCC Chair Patty Murray), where the goal was to just win seats, unlike in the House, where the goal was to restock the House with Blue Dogs and New Dems.

There's every reason to believe that Blue Dogs, New Dems and their corporately-funded cohorts in the Senate learned nothing from the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse of 2010 and are about to turn off the Democratic base by undercutting Medicare and Medicaid as part of some phony-baloney Grand Bargain to "save us" from the trumped up "Fiscal Cliff" that the elites created just for the purpose of starting the process of disabling America's social safety net on behalf of the millionaires and billionaires who finance the careers of the politicians. And new polling from PPP, easily the most reliable polling firm from the last cycle, shows that in the case of New Hampshire, virtually the only thing that could defeat a popular moderate Senate freshman, Jeanne Shaheen, would be if she sells out working families.

Shaheen may face a rematch with the Republican kook she beat in 2008, John Sununu. The poll shows her with a comfortable lead, 53-42%, probably-- if it holds up-- enough to discourage Sununu from jumping in. If you look at her ProgressivePunch crucial vote score, you find her pretty much in the center of the caucus, equidistant from liberals like Jack Reed, Sherrod Brown, Al Franken, Sheldon Whitehouse and Bernie Sanders and conservatives like Ben Nelson, Joe Manchin, Claire McCaskill, Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor. Of the 52 Democrats in the Senate, her voting score is the 25th most progressive.

The poll gave strong indication that Granite Staters oppose cuts to Medicare and Medicaid benefits and support higher taxes for the rich.

If Shaheen supported cuts to Medicare or Medicaid, 46 percent said they would be less likely to vote for her, while 35 percent said it would not make a difference, 13 percent said they would be more likely to vote for her and 7 percent were not sure, according to the poll.

If Shaheen “led the national fight to raise taxes on the rich,” 48 percent said they would be more likely to vote for her, while 31 percent said they would be less likely to vote for her, 19 percent said it would not make a difference and 1 percent said they were not sure.

“New Hampshire voters spoke clearly in 2012,” said PCCC spokesman Neil Sroka, a former spokesman for U.S. Rep.-elect Ann Kuster. “Tax the rich, invest in jobs and don't even think about cutting Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid benefits. If Senator Shaheen fights hard for this agenda, New Hampshire voters stand ready to support her in 2014.”

The poll also showed 48 percent of Granite Staters viewed President Barack Obama's key “mandate” in the election as “standing up for regular families -- even if it means fighting,” rather than compromising with Republicans, which was the view of 36 percent.

On another question, 49 percent viewed Obama's mandate as creating jobs rather than reducing the federal debt, which was the view of 22 percent.

Other results showed that to reduce the national debt:

• 66 percent favored raising taxes on those with incomes of more than $250,000 a year, while 29 percent were opposed.
• 75 percent opposed, and 13 percent favored, cutting Social Security benefits.
• 74 percent opposed, and 17 percent favored, cutting Medicare benefits.
• 66 percent opposed and 25 percent favored cutting Medicaid benefits.
• 53 percent supported and 40 percent opposed cutting military spending.
• 79 percent supported and 12 percent opposed ending agriculture subsidies to “agricorporations.”
Also, 49 percent supported and 34 percent opposed public financing of congressional elections.

Some Blunt Words

The Conservative War Against Women

For organizations which argue that if we just had more gays... or women... or African-Americans (you pick the group) everything would be so much better (at least for that group), I say, look at the Senate vote on the Blunt Amendment yesterday. Blunt's Amendment was meant to deny women access to contraceptives. There are 10 Democratic women and 5 Republican women in the Senate. All the Democratic women (plus one Republican, Maine's Olympia Snowe, who just announced she's retiring) voted against it. But all the other Republican women-- Kelly Ayotte (NH), Susan Collins (ME) Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) and Lisa Murkowski (AK)-- voted with the right-wing boys-- including shameful Democrats Ben Nelson, Joe Manchin and Bob Casey.

When EMILY's List dredged up and endorsed a woman, Nikki Tinker, against a male congressman in Memphis, Steve Cohen, they screwed up totally. Cohen is so much better on every issue important to women and to working class families than Tinker that it was scandalous. And when Tinker ran an anti-Semitic campaign against Cohen, EMILY's List-- fearing their Jewish donors would get pissed off-- withdrew the endorsement... on election day, after the damage was done. Similarly they just picked a rich, pro-business flake, Stacey Lawsen, over potentially the best congressman in our lifetimes-- Norman Solomon. They never learn.


We need more women in Congress and throughout our political system-- but more progressive women, not unqualified idiots that EMILY's List digs up because they happen to be women. David Dreier is 100% gay but what does he do for the LGBT community? Spits in its face every opportunity he gets. His voting record on gay issues is a zero. He voted against the LGBT community every single time a rollcall on one of their issues came up. And it isn't even like he's trying to fool someone into thinking he's not gay the way fearful closet cases like Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Aaron Schock (R-IL), Trent Franks (R-AZ) and Adrian Smith (R-NE) do. Everyone in DC already knows Dreier is gay. He doesn't talk about it publicly, but he doesn't deny it either and when Hastert tried making him Minority Leader, the far right of his party-- particularly Blunt from yesterday's Blunt Amendment-- started screaming they're not being lead by some (you can imagine)! But as for the gay community, they're much better off with a straight ally-- take José Serrano from the Bronx-- who is operating out of progressive principles and values not because of identity group politics. And back to Memphis... do you think that city's overwhelmingly African-American population was better off with a corrupt, conservative corporate hack like Harold Ford, Jr. than they are with a stalwart progressive white guy, Steve Cohen? Nope; Ford was looking out for the banksters and for whomever would give him a schmeer; Ford is diligently super-serving his constituents.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent out a press release on Blunt's Amendment that probably would have been similar to one sent out by a male secretary. It's about the right policy, not the gender. Half the Cabinet should be women and half the Congress should be women and half the Supreme Court should be women-- give or take-- and the next president should be a woman but I'll take a progressive man over a conservative woman any day. Sebelius' statement, while we're on the topic:

Earlier this month, the Department of Health and Human Services reported that over 20 million American women in private health insurance plans have already gained access to at least one free preventive service because of the health care law. Without financial barriers like co-pays and deductibles, women are better able to access potentially life-saving services, and cancers are caught earlier, chronic diseases are managed and hospitalizations are prevented.

A proposal being considered in the Senate this week would allow employers that have no religious affiliation to exclude coverage of any health service, no matter how important, in the health plan they offer to their workers. This proposal isn't limited to contraception nor is it limited to any preventive service. Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to. This is dangerous and wrong.

The Obama administration believes that decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss. We encourage the Senate to reject this cynical attempt to roll back decades of progress in women’s health.

Now a woman (or a man) who thinks the way Darcy Burner thinks... that's the kind of candidate, regardless of gender (but I'm glad she's a woman) deserves to be supported-- and you can do that right here. Here, in part, is what she wrote after the Senate beat back Blunt's amendment yesterday:

Thankfully the amendment didn't pass, but it reflects a disturbing Republican worldview that women's control over their own pregnancy is a luxury. That is, to be blunt, outrageously obnoxious.

The fact is, thousands of women's lives are saved every year by treatment to prevent or end pregnancy, and many millions more have dramatically improved quality of life because they can decide whether and when to get pregnant. I understand how important that is, because I am one of those women.

My husband Mike and I tried very early in our marriage to have children. But while I was pregnant with our daughter Deirdre, I developed a life-threatening infection; only prompt medical care and nearly a week of hospitalization saved me. Our daughter was born prematurely and died while we held her.

When nearly a decade later I became pregnant again with our son Henry, that pregnancy too was life-threatening. I was on strict bed rest for twenty weeks. We finished the pregnancy in January 2003 with fluid filling my liver and lungs, my life in clear danger-– and Henry was early, but we were eventually able to bring him home from the hospital healthy and thriving. I lost count of how many things went wrong during that pregnancy. It seemed like every two weeks I was having another conversation with my doctor about how much I was willing to risk. I’m glad the story has a happy ending, but the idea that some politician thinks they have more standing to make such decisions than I do is patently absurd.

For me, pregnancy is life-threatening. And it isn’t just me: the maternal mortality rate in the U.S. is 8.8 deaths for every 100,000 pregnancies. Every year people lose wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers to pregnancies gone wrong. The costs of childrearing are high, as well. Women are entitled to decide for themselves whether they want to take such risks, whether to bear such costs, and it’s offensive that Republican politicians have the gall to claim that women have no standing to make decisions about their own bodies and health if their bosses or random politicians disagree.

No politician is entitled to make those decisions for any women. No employer is entitled to make those decisions for any woman. And it’s long past time that women’s healthcare stopped being a political football.

Now you know a little more about why Blue America supports her with such enthusiasm. It's not her gender per se; it's her mind.

The ConservaDems-- Evan Bayh's New Anti-Obama Bloc

Tone-deaf douche bag Evan Bayh

If you've been over to Blue America lately, you may have noticed we've taken down a name. Many of us had a suspicion it was just a matter of time before our borderlinest endorsee from last year, Mark Begich, would, sooner or later, come screaming out of the closet as a full-blown... well, not sure exactly what. He's not interested in being a progressive, as we figured out as the Alaska senate campaign wore on and departing staffers warned us that he wasn't what he portrayed himself as. Then after the election... a so-so voting record. Oh well, we thought, at least he's not as bad as Landrieu, Nelson and Bayh. Today Bayh announced that Begich is as bad as himself.

Many allies had asked me why we weren't endorsing and raising money for Jeanne Shaheen last year. I wanted her to beat Sununu, of course, but I never add anyone to the Blue America list unless I want to write a check personally. And she just smelled like a Blue Dog or DLC character to me. That was borne out yesterday as she joined Bayh's Bloc of right-leaning conservative Democrats who seem eager to hold up President Obama's agenda, even if it means bolstering the heinous Senate Republicans.

Bayh's bloc's agenda is to eviscerate Obama's agenda in order to prevent healthcare reform and climate change policies. The Democrats willing to admit to being part of this new anti-Obama bloc are all the usual suspects, the conservatives with shit voting records who seem always eager to show the folks back home how much they detest working families and how dependable they are when it comes to denying the aspirations of ordinary Americans (listed in order of how frequently they vote with the GOP on contentious matters-- from bad to worse: Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Mark Warner (VA), Michael Bennet (CO), Kay Hagan (NC), Bill Nelson (FL), Herb Kohl (WI), Mark Begich (AK), Mark Udall (CO), Evan Bayh (IN), Claire McCaskill (MO), Tom Carper (DE), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Mary Landrieu (LA), and, worst of the worst, Ben Nelson (NE).

Bayh went on Joe Scarborough's right-wing morning show to blare his intentions of screwing up the Democratic Party and the country and admitted that "3 or 4" other Democrats are in "a witness protection program" (i.e.- too cowardly to admit what they are). Sources tell us that the others are Mark Pryor (AR), Max Baucus (MT) and Jim Webb (VA). I sure hope John Tester isn't a fourth.

Oh, well, we now have a new question for Senate candidates asking for Blue America assistance: "are there any circumstances that you would join with the reactionary, anti-family conservatives that Evan Bayh has formed to fight change?" If the answer is "yes" or "maybe" you can be sure they won't be on our endorsed list of candidates. Meanwhile Campaign for America's Future has launched the "Dog The (Blue) Dogs" campaign, urging Americans to call Blue Dog congresspeople and demand they support President Obama's budget. Bob Borosage explained what they're trying to accomplish yesterday at HuffPo. and Rachel Maddow explained the ugly phenom on her show last night:



If you don't like the idea of conservatives hijacking everything we accomplished last year-- and watering down everything Obama is striving to accomplish, and doing it all at the behest of their campaign donors Big Oil, Big Pharma, insurance companies, agribusiness, global corporations, Wall Street, please consider donating to a proven fighting progressive running a grassroots campaign for the Senate seat in Florida, Dan Gelber. The conservatives can always count on Big Business. Progressives like Dan count on us. The finance/insurance/real estate sector, responsible for the devastation of the economy is especially close to Bayh and many of the members of his bloc. These industries have donated more legalized bribes to members of Congress than any other sector-- $2.2 billion since 1990. and while most of the money has gone to actual Republicans (55%), take a look how some of the very worst Democrats have raked in the tainted money in return for voting against their constituents' interests (the 10 worst listed in order from corrupt to even more corrupt):

Jeanne Shaheen ($997,310)
Mark Udall ($1,669,706)
Blanche Lincoln ($1,671,292)
Tom Carper ($2,160,628)
Mary Landieu ($2,399,134)
Mark Warner ($2,431,066)
Ben Nelson ($2,667,406)
Bill Nelson ($3,056,968)
Evan Bayh ($3,987,896)
Joe Lieberman ($9,981,924

Do Tuesday's primary results signal the end of the line for Bush rubber-stamper Sen. John Sununu?

We don't usually bother you with breaking news from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, but yesterday on the DSCC blog Matthew Miller took an interesting look at some of the New Hampshire primary numbers, more or less the way they might be viewed by reelection campaign strategists for one of the Senate's most undistinguished Bush rubber-stampers, New Hampshire's own John Sununu. He concluded: "New Hampshire Results Show Big Trouble for John Sununu."

It has been generally accepted that Sununu is in deep trouble in his reelection bid. The way Miller looks at Tuesday's numbers suggests that it's pretty much all over but the vote-counting, that it's just a matter of time before former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen sweeps out another of New England's dwindling band of GOP officeholders:

The turnout results were dramatic--50,000 more Granite Staters voted in the Democratic primary than the Republican primary, with nearly 280,000 voting in the Democratic race and only 229,000 turning out for Republicans. This was the first time since the establishment of the modern New Hampshire primary system that more people voted in the Democratic primary than the Republican primary when both were contested. Republicans actually turned out 10,000 fewer voters for their primary than in 2000, the last time there was a contested Republican presidential primary in their state. On the Democratic side, there were 125,000 more voters than in the 2000 primary, and 61,000 more voters than the 2004 primary, which was then a Democratic record, largely due to the fact that there was no Republican contest that year.

New Hampshire independents also showed that they are trending Democratic. According to exit polls, in the Democratic primary, 42% of voters were independents, up 1% from 2000, while in the Republican primary, only 34% of voters were registered independents – a 7% drop from 2000.

#

WHY SHOULD THE CITIZENS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL NEXT NOVEMBER FOR JOHN SUNUNU TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SENATE? AND WHY ISN'T ROVE IN PRISON?

For several years now DWT has been following the case of New Hampshire's stolen U.S. Senate election of 2002, when John Sununu managed to slip into office the same way Bush did two years earlier-- by cheating. Several of the Republican operatives involved in stealing the election were charged, convicted and imprisoned. But they were low-level Republican slime-for-hire, and no real investigation of the people from whom they took their orders, or who paid them, was ever undertaken. Mehlman, Rove and, of course, Sununu were the ones who should have been in prison. Instead they all got away scot-free... until now.

One of the perps, Allen Raymond, has written a book about how the GOP stole a U.S. Senate seat, How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative, due out from Simon & Schuster in January. Raymond explains the cover-up and "offers a raw, inside glimpse of the phone scandal as it unraveled and of a ruthless world in which political operatives seek to win at all costs."

Next year Sununu will face the woman, (now former Gov.) Jeanne Shaheen, he stole the 2002 election from once again, and every poll shows him trailing badly. That's good, but not nearly enough. He should be tried for a very grave crime, along with the Republican Party officials who enabled and him and their party, starting with Rove and Mehlman.


UPDATE ON GOP ELECTION STEALING IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

Will it surprise you to read that successful attempts to steal a desperately needed U.S. Senate in New Hampshire went beyond Republican Party officials and right into the heart of the Bush Regime? Today the McClatchy newspapers are reporting that "the Justice Department delayed prosecuting a key Republican official [subsequently convicted Karl Rove stooge James Tobin] for jamming the phones of New Hampshire Democrats until after the 2004 election, protecting top GOP officials from the scandal until the voting was over... [T]he official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, told McClatchy that senior Justice Department officials slowed the inquiry. The official didn't know whether top department officials ordered the delays or what motivated those decisions." Who would like to venture a guess?

JEANNE SHAHEEN IS CHUCK SCHUMER'S CANDIDATE TO TAKE ON SUNUNU IN NEW HAMPSHIRE BUT THERE IS ALSO A PROGRESSIVE RUNNING-- MEET JAY BUCKEY

Were it up to Chuck Schumer and the Inside the Beltway Democratic Establishment, there would be no primary for the U.S. Senate seat in New Hampshire. There would be a coronation for former Governor Jeanne Shaheen, who seems to have finally made up her mind to run. Fortunately for New Hampshire Democrats and for democracy, Chuck Schumer and his ilk don't call the shots in their state. I asked Kevin Bowe, former Director of Operations for Wes Clark's 2004 primary campaign in NH and a Carol Shea-Porter volunteer last year, to give us the run-down on the progressive candidate in this race, Jay Buckey. Here's Kevin's report:

Senator John E. Sununu’s US Senate seat in New Hampshire is widely considered one of the most venerable in the 2008 cycle. As it should. Favorable demographics and a strong backlash against Bush/Republican policies have erased the legacy of conservative dominance in New Hampshire, giving the Democrats control of both Congressional seats, both branches of the legislature and the Governor’s Office.

If Sununu were a true RINO, he would have a much better chance-- like neighboring Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. But Sununu is a true movement conservative, embraced by the Club for Growth, no doubt for his vote to eliminate the minimum wage, and other far-right groups.

Recent polls indicate just how out of sync Sununu is with the New Hampshire voters. In one poll only 31% of the likely voters surveyed felt Sununu "deserves to be re-elected" and an astonishing 47% preferred "someone else"-- a polite way of saying anybody but John Sununu.

Given the deep hole Sununu is in, the question Democrats-- and netroots activists-- should be asking is, "Who will be the best US Senator from New Hampshire" instead of the typical Inside-the-Beltway question of, "Who will be able to beat Sununu". Poll after poll taken in New Hampshire answers the latter question-- anyone not photographed with a dead body or live child. (Granted, Sununu will not just roll over and be defeated. The Sununu name has been on ballots in New Hampshire since the 80’s; he’ll have lots of money and, as was evident from the 2002 Election Day phone bank scandal, New Hampshire Republicans will resort to illegal dirty tricks to win close elections. But assuming Party and activists support, any of the rumored or announced candidates will beat this very unpopular Republican.)

The Democratic field is shaping up with very capable people who will all be working hard to defeat Sununu. Former congressional candidate Katrina Swett [from the Lieberman end of the party] has been fundraising very successfully and attacked Sununu's record with vigor. Portsmouth Mayor Steve Marchand and former Governor Jeanne Shaheen are both DLC members with political savvy, fundraising abilities, and good connections within the state. Shaheen has great name recognition and polls very well even this early out. Marchand has stated that he would back out of the race if Shaheen entered, something he will presumably do in the next week. All three of these potential nominees would have a good shot at taking the seat-- but my choice is physician and former astronaut Jay Buckey, the new face in New Hampshire's political scene.

Why Jay Buckey? First and foremost Jay embodies the values of the grassroots/netroots community. While Jay has impressive professional accomplishments-- Astronaut, Doctor, dual professor of Engineering and Medicine at Dartmouth College, Major in the Air Force Reserves-- his involvement in the political process has been at the grassroots level. I met Jay in the citizens’ effort to draft Wesley Clark for President, with Jay working the phone banks and holding signs in the New Hampshire primary. He attended meet-ups; organized community forums on New Energy and Global Warming and urged his representatives to oppose the 2002 Iraq War resolution. The political-class [represented by the Chuck Schumers, Tom DeLays and Rahm Emanuels] may scoff at this, but these are the activities of someone who values real participatory democracy, which is the cornerstone of our system. Of course the political-class will hail this value in their speeches, but as insiders-- who value their exalted position, it’s all talk. Jay Buckey walks the walk and embodies people-powered-politics. The US Senate is filled with the political-class, either people born into politics or whose only career has been politics. Jay Buckey is a highly accomplished person who personifies the citizen-statesman that our founders envisioned for our system of government.

Given the many complex problems facing us today-- the quagmire of Iraq; the global environmental crisis we have created; health care; the promise and peril that science and technology can bring us-- Jay Buckey will be one of the few people in Congress (maybe in the country) who has the real experience to help solve these problems, as opposed to the political experience others have to posture on these issues.

On the bread and butter issues, Jay is a solid progressive Democrat-- who favors universal health care; withdrawal from Iraq; ending the use of oil to "fuel" our economy; opposes the Bush tax cuts for the rich-- visit his campaign's website to learn more about Jay on all the issues.

In closing, I realize I’m making a case of nominating Jay Buckey to take on John Sununu because Jay will make the best US Senator that exemplifies grassroots values and the real experience to deal with our challenges. Many activists will still want to focus on the best candidate to beat Sununu. Fair enough. But it is Jay’s "narrative"-- Doctor, former Astronaut and veteran who is running for US Senate to solve our problems-- is far more powerful than any narrative that can be cobbled together by traditional Democratic candidates. Sununu’s only hope is that the Democratic opponent is part of the political class and Sununu tries to spin the tired narrative of "tax and spend, anti-troop liberal who is out of touch." I doubt any fake narrative like that will save Sununu. But why take a chance. John Sununu won’t know how to handle a candidate like Jay Buckey.

Kevin has decided to volunteer for Jay's campaign. If you live in New Hampshire you might want to consider volunteering for the campaign as well.
If you want to contribute to Jay's campaign, you can do it through ActBlue or by sending a check.

If you'd like to get a feel for who Jay is, I'd recommend watching this short video clip of him talking about health care:




UPDATE: OPEN LEFT HOPES JAY STAYS IN THE RACE TOO

Chris Bowers, over at Open Left is hoping Jay's presence in the race will force the top-down, establishment-oriented Shaheen to embrace the grassroots and maybe even some progressive policies.

Shaheen is one of the many, many Democrats who first helped lead the party into simultaneous minority and pro-war status back in 2002-2003, but who is now capitalizing on the favorable electoral stage that was prepared mainly by the progressive movement during four years of intense guerilla warfare against conservatism from 2003-2006. While the Jean Shaheen's and Rahm Emanual's of the party were supporting things like the Bush tax cuts, the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, and legislation to support Terry Schaivo, it was the netroots who were doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in opposition to Republicans. I feel like they are capitalizing on what we rightfully earned, and both dissing us and preparing to destroy all of our work in the process. They are pretenders to the new Democratic majority.

A SERIES OF REALLY BAD TURNS FOR THE SENATE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS

According to today's NY Times "Democrats are feeling bullish these days about expanding [their Senate] majority in 2008-- and with good reason." And the good reason goes well beyond the conventional wisdom that the Republicans have 22 seats to defend and the Democrats have only a dozen to defend. The good reason, in fact, has more to do with another perfect storm gathering for Republicans. There is a steady drum beat of scandal after scandal-- from Ted Stevens' financial improprieties in Alaska and Pete "Sneaky Pete" Domenici (R-NM) getting caught up in the purge of the U.S. Attorneys to Bob Allen's (R-FL) and Larry Craig's (R-ID) poor toilet training in public restrooms all over the country. Furthermore it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the South Carolina GOP doesn't see something in the next week or two that will make the Tom Ravenel cocaine bust last month seem like a tea party. And then there's the big advantage Democrats have in fundraising over Republicans lately ($17.6 million for the DSCC in the last quarter and only a paltry $8.6 million for the NRSC). Smart money knows giving to the Republicans is like flushing your contributions down one of Larry Craig's favorite toilets.

All this goes back to the public being sick and tired of Bush, Cheney, the lies, the war, the occupation, the incompetence... all the hallmarks of the worst presidential administration in the lifetime of anyone in the country. Mitch McConnell's policy of obstructionism in the Senate-- preventing popularly-backed legislation from passing-- is not going over well. The needless prolonging of the war to salve the bruises to Bush's ego isn't something the public approves of. The politicization of the Justice Department is something American understand-- and are revolted by.

Add to that heady mixture an exceptional string of good luck for Democrats and bad luck for Republicans, and you could see a changeover of historic proportions next year. Wayne Allard is far too extreme for moderate-trending Colorado and he probably couldn't have held the seat there anyway, but by retiring he's making it a lot easier for the Democrats to claim that one. John Warner, on the other hand, would have probably held the Virginia senate seat. But he's decided to retire and Democrat Mark Warner, who will announce officially tomorrow that he's ready for his coronation, will slaughter whichever hapless chump the Republicans decide to sacrifice. The latest Rasmussen Poll shows the popular ex-Governor swamping either of the two GOP front-runners, mainstream conservative Tom Davis (57-30%) or far right Jim Gilmore (54-34%). Even the overly cautious Charlie Cook calls Warner the "prohibitive favorite." Similarly, it is expected that New Hampshire's ex-Governor Jeanne Shaheen will challenge and beat John Sununu in a rematch. New Hampshire voters are very aware that several Republican operatives are rotting in prison after confessing to having rigged Sununu's previous win over Shaheen. When ARG polled New Hampshire voters at the end of June they picked Shaheen over Sununu by a prohibitive 57-29%.

Chuck Hagel (R-NE) is also bailing and could well be replaced by conservative Democrat Bob Kerrey, a well-liked ex-governor and ex-senator. And, of course, regardless of what happens in court or in the Senate Ethics Committee, Senator Craig won't be running in Idaho again.

The national trends remain auspicious for the Democrats, many polls suggest. As they were in 2006, (and we know how that turned out,) voters remain deeply unhappy with the Bush presidency, the course of the war in Iraq and the direction of the country, polls show. They may not be thrilled with the Democratically controlled Congress, which has an approval rating that remains strikingly low, but Republicans “continue to have big image problems” and the trend in party affiliation continues to favor the Democrats, said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center.

Certain regions of the country are especially restless, notably, the Northeast, where anti-war sentiment is strong. In the most recent New York Times/CBS News Poll, 77 percent in the Northeast said the United States “made a mistake” getting involved in the war in Iraq, compared to 52 percent who felt that way in the South. After the substantial Republican losses in the Northeast in 2006, some suggested New England was in the middle of a major realignment toward the Democrats-- not unlike what happened in the South, in a shift toward Republican dominance.

That will leave the Northeast with three Republican senators, Olympia Snowe (ME) and Arlen Specter (PA), who are not unwilling to work in a bipartisan manner with Democrats, and Judd Gregg (NH), who is likely to be defeated in 2010. And when the frontline for the GOP becomes a Kansas incumbent's seat, you know the Republicans are hurting... bad.

The only Democrat likely to be defeated is Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, who votes more frequently with the GOP than any other Senate Democrat other than arch-reactionaries Ben Nelson (NE) and Max Baucus (MT). Most progressives will be glad to see her take her pernicious brand-damaging self back to the Bayou State.

With Bush promising to appoint a hardcore partisan hack like Ted Olson to succeed Gonzales in the Justice Department-- and Harry Reid saying, figuratively at least, "Over my dead body"-- Democrats desperately need principled cohesion. Earlier today, Jane Hamsher pointed out even more reasons why it is essential to elect a strong Democratic Congress for the post-Bush era.