Is There A Difference Between Democrats And Republicans? If You Live In Missouri And Think So, Please Let Robin Carnahan Know

ummm...

When I started writing yesterday's post about the Missouri Senate race, I was almost elated over how really skillfully the Democratic nominee, Secretary of State Robin Carnihan, had gone after one of the most corrupt members of Congress, her opponent Roy Blunt. The 30 second ad is just spectacular. Here, watch it again (since it doesn't only refer to Blunt, but to the other Wall Street darlings who took boatloads of bribes from Wall Street and then helped engineer Bush's no-strings-attached Wall Street bailout, the biggest heist of taxpayer dollars in history (not counting war). So watch Blunt squirm but, remember, the ad could as easily be about almost any of the GOP congressional leaders John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Pete Sessions, Chuck Grassley, Richard Burr, Mark Kirk (being financed today by Wall Street in a bid for the Illinois Senate seat), Mike Castle (being financed today by Wall Street in a bid for the Delaware Senate seat), Mary Fallin (being financed today by Wall Street in a bid for the Oklahoma governor's mansion), or nearly the entire California Republican congressional delegation, including crooks like Jerry Lewis, Ken Calvert, John Campbell, David Dreier, Mary Bono Mack, Dan Lungren, Buck McKeon, Gary Miller and Wally Herger.



Wouldn't it have been nice to have been able to just end it there? But, alas, I couldn't. I couldn't because right after putting out a picture perfect populist message like that, the clueless Carnahan-- who must be getting advice from Claire McCaskill-- then announced she's on the same page as Blunt and other shameless Wall Street shills in trying to give multimillionaires another huge and unfair tax break. Not even Wall Street's reps in the White House, Rahm Emanuel, Tiny Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers, and the president's loudest anti-populist advisor, Robert Rubin, could talk Obama into that untenable position, regardless of how shrill the demands by the ruling elite. A new CNN poll just out shows that ordinary voters DO NOT WANT MORE TAX BREAKS FOR MILLIONAIRES. The poll didn't ask about favorability of mounting millionaires' heads on pikes in town squares but if it did, I think Carnahan might be in for quite the surprise.

The poll shows that 51% support Democrats’ plans-- real Democrats, not the Carnahan version-- to end the Bush giveaways to the rich, while keeping in place tax cuts for those making less than $250,000. A mere 31% support expanding the budget-busting tax giveaways for the rich, while 18% believe all of the Bush tax cuts should come to an end. So 69% want tax breaks for the rich to end. Even most Republican voters think the wealthy have had their tax breaks long enough! Carnahan made a really bad political blunder. That's why I wasn't surprised to read TomP's diary at Kos yesterday, Bye, bye Carnahan. No More $$$ From Me. Of course, he'll vote for her-- she's infinitely better than the crooked Blunt-- but no more campaign contributions.

This is a step too far. By supporting tax cuts for the rich, ones her mother voted for in the Senate, Robin turned her back on working people.

I only have so much money and I need to put it where it will do the most good. Robin's fighting for a Republican seat, and she'll be an upgrade, but Alexi will be a progressive voice who will not only support the President's agenda, but push him to the left. Robin clearly has decided to take a blue dog path.

You can't be an economic populist and support tax cuts for the rich.
 
...She took the blue dog road and I'm getting off here.

At a time when Democrats, Independents and most Americans are craving a strong, coherent populist message, why do we have Democrats presenting themselves as shills for the two or three hundred richest families in America? Isn't that why we have a Republican Party? And isn't that why the Republican Party was voted out of power?

Roy Blunt Would Like To Change The Subject From Economics To Mosques

My day started yesterday with a look at a really excellent new TV ad. Missouri Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan, who's been lagging the polls lately, hit the nail on the head with her fantastic reminder to her state's voters that Roy Blunt didn't just vote for the 2008 Bush no-strings-attached Wall Street bailout, he was one of the architects of the massive giveaway to the very people who caused the financial chaos because of their reckless, imperious, if not criminal, behavior. Please watch the video above.

It hits all the points we've been urging campaigns of other Democrats running against Republicans who fought hard for the $700 billion bailout-- John Boehner (R-OH), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Richard Burr (R-NC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and virtually all the crooked California Republicans from Ken Calvert, Mary Bono Mack, Gary Miller, Jerry Lewis, and John Campbell in the Southland to Dan Lungren and Wally Herger way in the northern part of the state-- to pound on.

Calling Blunt "the very worst of Washington," the ad states that Blunt in 1999 eliminated some financial system safeguards put in place during the Great Depression and then took a leading role in 2008 to work out the financial bailout legislation. It also says he has accepted more than $1.6 million in campaign donations from the banking and financial industry during his tenure in Congress.

The ad is running in markets across Missouri, Carnahan campaign spokesman Linden Zakula said Thursday. He said the spot is designed to hold Blunt accountable for wasting tax dollars, defending corporate special interests and hurting the middle class.

Blunt spokesman Rich Chrismer criticized the ad and said Carnahan was shying away from talking about jobs and economic development issues.

"This phony ad is the worst in political deception and hypocrisy," Chrismer said.

...The Sedalia Democrat reported in July that Carnahan, Missouri's Secretary of State, said the bailout money may have been needed to stabilize the economy but that Blunt and others failed to attach strict controls on how it was spent. Two weeks later, the newspaper reported that Carnahan said she was not convinced banks were in a crisis and would not have voted for the legislation and does not currently support it.

Blunt has no answer to the charges except some mumbo-jumbo about being for it and against it and a bunch of incomprehensible claptrap that emphasizes his beady eyes and focuses voters on the fact that he has taken more in bribes from Wall Street than any other Missouri congressman in history-- and almost more than any other Member of the House ($3,636,377 as of June 30 with more Wall Street money gushing into his coffers at an unprecedented rate. "A top official from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is accompanying the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, U.S Rep. Roy Blunt, around the state today to emphasize the chamber's commitment to help the congressman from southwest Missouri as he seeks to succeed another of their favorites-- retiring U.S. Sen. Christopher S. "Kit" Bond. Bond also voted for the Wall Street bailout, of course, although he hasn't been as blatantly in the pocket of Big Business and the banksters as Blunt.

If you're rushing off to the Blue America Senate Candidates Worth Fighting For page to donate to Carnahan's campaign, slow down. She's not there. We love the ad and she's infinitely better than Blunt and everyone involved with Blue America would vote for her over Blunt in an instant. But that doesn't mean we're going to donate money to her. I haven't spoken with her but from what I've been reading, she'd be another middle-of-the-road Democrat confusing issues and playing games in Washington. She may not be Blunt, but she's not Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders or Russ Feingold either. Yesterday, for example, she flip-flopped on tax cuts for the wealthy and basically adopted the same odious position as Blunt. Echoing the GOP talking points that Miss McConnell sent out to his cronies, she told pig eaters at the Missouri State Fair's annual ham breakfast that "Now is not the time to be doing anything to raise taxes. We're still in the midst of a downturn in the economy, so we need to keep those tax cuts in place-- all of them."

In a February radio interview, Carnahan had said she favored extending tax cuts for the middle-class but not for the wealthiest Americans. She said then that the nation couldn't afford it.

Carnahan said in an interview Thursday with The Associated Press that her position has evolved because of an additional six months of difficult economic times, which she blamed on policies backed by Blunt. Carnahan said she supports making permanent the tax cuts affecting lower and middle-income people and extending tax cuts for wealthier people until the economy improves enough to consider ways of balancing the budget. She declined to specify how long that extension should last.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated Thursday that renewing all the tax reductions would cost government at least $3.3 trillion over the coming decade.

At least Carnahan is making effort, albeit lamely, to talk about the bread and butter issues Americans care about. Blunt is trying to take the focus off his abysmal record in Congress and screech shrilly and hysterically about a supposed mosque in New York City. This time it didn't work and media reacted in horror at the grotesque nature of Blunt's latest attempt to throw everything at Carnahan to see if something sticks. He pulled down the ad. Although maybe he pulled it down because Carnahan sounded rational in it and his position is nihilistic and essentially anti-American. Take a look:

Old Whine In New Bottles-- Tedisco Campaign Stumbles And Falls Behind

Is Tedisco's nosedive all part of Steele's grand strategy?

Everyone thought the congressional race in New York's Republican-leaning 20th CD (PVI is R+3) would be a slam dunk for Jim Tedisco, the Minority Leader of the New York State Assembly. The Democrats came up with a totally unknown, cut-and-paste Blue Dog, some guy from Missouri named Scott Miller or Scott Murphy or something like that... just some self-funder with no real shot. Early polls showed Tedisco absolutely swamping him. But after weeks and weeks of inept, negative campaign ads from the Republicans and, especially, from extremist GOP front groups trying to turn the election into a referendum about President Obama's policies, polls started to shift away from Tedisco and towards Miller or Murphy or whoever the guy from Missouri is. Today, with just 4 days to go before election day, Miller or Murphy has pulled ahead and now leads Tedisco by 4 points.

What happened? It can't be the tepid ads the DNC started running, first with Biden and then with Obama tepidly endorsing Miller (or Murphy; I should look it up since he's probably going to be a Blue Dog congressman voting to sabotage Obama's programs who I'll be denouncing for the next couple of years). I have a feeling it was just the sheer ineptness of the Grand Obstructionist Party (AKA- The Party of No).

Tedisco's Republican colleagues haven't done him any good. And I don't just mean Michael Steele's strategic disaster of a campaign, which even Tedisco himself denounced. Republicans on the national stage look mighty clownish these days. Just yesterday, the House Republican leadership horribly botched an attempt to offer an alternative budget. It turned into a p.r. nightmare as they all stumbled all over each other and got laughed at by the national media.

With far right sad sack Mike Pence rushing to grab the spotlight, Paul Ryan was thrown under the bus before he could explain what the clowns were trying to accomplish. By the end of their news conference, everyone was laughing loudly as they dug a deeper and deeper hole for themselves. Ryan's explanation: "The problem is that somewhere along the line, someone got the mistaken impression that we were going to roll out a budget alternative today." How could that have happened? John Boehner, Ryan's boss: "Two nights ago the president said, 'We haven't seen a budget yet out of Republicans.' Well, it's just not true because-- Here it is, Mr. President." You know, people in NY-20 apparently have TVs and radios and read newspapers. They may be unsure about what they do want, but they sure know it isn't more of what we just experienced under George Bush and this crew of stale holdovers and ritual obstructionists.

The local paper, while pointing out that President Obama enjoys a high favorability rating among NY-20 voters (65%), has a less nationalized perspective on why Tedisco is losing, something that goes back to the chess master at the RNC:

Tedisco’s campaign is viewed by voters as more negative by a 44-25 percent margin, while Murphy’s campaign is seen as more positive by a 42-25 percent margin.

Forty-two percent of voters credit Murphy with waging the more positive campaign, compared to 25 percent who say that describes Tedisco. Similarly, by a 44-25 percent margin, voters say Tedisco has been running a more negative campaign than Murphy. Nearly one in five voters says it’s both candidates. More than two-thirds of Democrats say Murphy’s campaign is more positive and Tedisco’s more negative. Republicans see it more even, with 36 percent saying Murphy’s been more negative and 29 percent saying Tedisco. Independents say Tedisco’s more negative by 42-25 percent margin.

And NY-20 isn't the only constituency where Republican Party obstructionism is backfiring on the Party of No, the same way it did in 1934 when the Republicans tried to sink FDR's efforts to rescue the nation from the last depression right-wing ideology-run-amuck caused. At that time the Republicans saw their once mighty advantage in the Senate shrink by 10 more seats (after a shocking drubbing in 1932) to a pathetic rump: 25 Republican obstructionists left in the Senate. Even Harry Reid sees that the pattern this year is leading in exactly that direction again. Now new polling from Missouri shows that voters there aren't buying GOP snake-oil either.

Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D) leads both of her potential Republican opponents in the race to replace retiring Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), according to a new poll conducted by a GOP pollster.

Carnahan leads Rep. Roy Blunt (R) by a narrow 47 percent to 44 percent. The Democrat leads former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman by a wider 47 percent to 39 percent margin.

Is this what voters will be thinking about when they go to the polls? Looks that way.

Is The Senate About To Get Another Gay Member?... From Florida?

Last year Chuck Schumer, as grand poobah of the DSCC, decided that the Senate wasn't ready for an openly gay member-- at least not from North Carolina-- but as long as they stay the hell in the closet and not get messy and go wild like Larry Craig, no one minds a few well-mannered closet queens in the august chamber. And it looks like Lindsey Graham (R-SC), recently the victim of a blackmail plot threatening to expose him, and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) may be about to get a new pal. Florida Governor Charlie Crist is ready to make a deal.

In what could be a Sunshine State one-two punch, multiple Republican sources are confirming that Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) is giving serious consideration to running for Senate-- and that Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) is contemplating resigning from his seat before his term is up next year.

Florida’s lieutenant governor is a Republican and would appoint Martinez’s successor if he and Crist both resign prematurely.

Crist is under pressure from the GOP, particularly NRSC head John Cornyn, to take the seat and keep it out of the hands of surging Democrats. The gay card was played against him in the past-- in a vicious Republican primary that he won-- and it doesn't phase him at all. "Everyone" in Florida knows he's a closet case and no one really cares. (The ones who would care, the backward religionists who were the only ones who didn't know about Crists's buddy Mark Foley, are the only ones who don't know.) Today's Miami Herald explains the career choice dilemma the ambitious Crist is facing:

Why become one of 100 and a junior member of the minority party when you can be top dog?

''There's no doubt that he has higher aspirations,'' said Sharon Day, the newly elected Republican National Committee secretary from Fort Lauderdale. "Some people are pushing him to do things because it's good for them or good for the party... At the same time, I don't want to lose my governor."

Crist's decision will take into account his political ambitions, pet issues and simple geography.

If he wants to run for president, history shows that a state capitol is a better launching pad. But the Senate, where members can run for an unlimited number of six-year terms, offers more job security and better hours.

Dan Gelber, the progressive Democrat running for Martinez' seat, doesn't think this rumor's going to bear out. "I think the early-departure-self-appointment rumor while fascinating to pundits makes little sense and would be thoroughly unappreciated by voters. It would be very, very difficult," he told us this morning, "for a sitting Governor to resign in the midst of a true fiscal crisis (which Florida has), and I don't think Governor Crist would avail himself of that route even if he were interested in leaving his current post."


UPDATE: NO SHENANIGANS IN MISSOURI SENATE RACE... AND PAUL HODES DECLARES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE!

Unlike Florida and New Hampshire, they plan to fill the seat of retiring Kit Bond, the old fashioned way. And the probable winner, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, has made her official announcement today.

Senator Russ Feingold issued a statement today about the monkey business that's putting another unelected senator into office: "...[T]he apparent behind-the-scenes deal-making that went on to determine who will fill Senator Gregg's vacancy is alarmingly undemocratic. Once again, Americans will be represented in the Senate for nearly two years by someone they had no hand in electing. As the number of Senators appointed to their seats continues to rise, it's increasingly clear that we need to fix this constitutional anachronism. It is time to pass a constitutional amendment to end appointments by governors and the political gamesmanship they encourage."

I like Carnahan's approach a lot better than the backroom deal cut in New Hampshire or the rumors about what may happen in Florida:



And... Paul Hodes, the congressman from New Hampshire who Blue America helped elect in 2006, just announced that next year he'll be running for the seat Lynch, Gregg and Obama decided to give to Republican Bonnie Newman. I'm not certain if she's in the closet or out. Anyone know?

Republicans Preparing For Another Disastrous Election Cycle?

Senate Repugs counting on Cornyn to prevent a wipeout

Despite the press releases run by the Politico to make Republican Inside-the-Beltwayites feel happy-happy in their time of greatest need [Eric Bohlert derided at this shameless silliness at Media Matters this morning], the GOP knows they're in danger of another devastating set of congressional elections in 2010. And this goes deeper than the fact that Bush's disapproval ratings are high among every group except the hard core GOP base.

Happy talk about how handsome Marco Rubio is, isn't going to win the Florida seat being abandoned by Mel Martinez, especially not if Florida CFO Alex Sink runs. And not even rich giddy gays are going to vote for him if John Cornyn has his way and can persuade rich, giddy gay Governor Charlie Crist to run. With Jeb Bush out of the race, the Republicans know they have to do something to hold a state that Obama just won by over 200,000 votes-- and that shit-canned two entrenched Republican congressional incumbents, Tom Feeney and Ric Keller both from the pivotal Orlando area.

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) on Wednesday said efforts are ongoing to persuade Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) to run for his state’s open Senate seat.

Few Florida politicians can match Crist’s popularity and fundraising potential. The governor, a centrist who was elected in 2006,  has denied any interest in running for the seat being vacated by Sen. Mel Martinez (R), but Cornyn, who has spoken to the governor about the race, suggested Crist may be open to persuasion.

Cornyn is petrified of getting stuck with a far right extremist (like himself) who won't be able to win. And most faves of the Florida GOP base are far right extremists, from Rubio to Attorney General Bill McCollum to lunatic fringe Congressman Vern Buchanan. And he knows he better hold Florida, because Missouri is looking really bad for rightists. Secretary of State Robin Carnahan is poised to kick the ass of any of the extremist loons the GOP is likely to put up to replace Kit Bond, especially defeated Senator Jim Talent and corrupt Rep. Roy Blunt, whose son just left the governor's mansion with a whiff of scandal hanging over him.

Although Democrats were disappointed that New Hampshire Governor John Lynch has decided against running against vulnerable incumbent Judd Gregg, either Rep. Paul Hodes or Rep. Carol Shea-Porter looks like a good bet to give the Democrats a clean sweep of the entire New Hampshire congressional delegation. McCain only won 45% of the statewide vote in November-- in a state that he considered friendly territory-- the same losing percentage that incumbent Senator John Sununu managed. Lynch wound up winning 70% of the vote while Carol Shea-Porter, the GOP's #1 target against whom they deployed millions and millions of dollars in slanderous advertising, took 52% and Paul Hodes took 57%.

Cornyn is even begging Texas' other senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, who wants to run for governor, to stay in the Senate for another 6 years to keep that seat from falling to the Democrats. It looks like she'll keep her Senate seat while she campaigns for governor, short-changing Texans, who have certainly had their share of being short changed by their political leaders in recent decades. Notice how every angle is covered in the political calculus except one: what's good for Texas' working families:

Hutchison is not up for reelection until 2012, meaning she could retain her Senate job if she loses the gubernatorial primary.

Conversely, if she resigns early and gives Democrats a shot at 60 seats, it hands Perry a ready-made talking point for what is expected to be a pitched battle between the two Republicans.

Previously, Hutchison’s campaign has said that any resignation would come in late 2009, which would likely pave the way for a May 2010 special election.

But one insider said the forces are so strong that Hutchison is now leaning against resigning.

“There’s a lot of pressure on her to do the right thing and not allow Democrats to reach the 60-seat threshold,” the source said.

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.

#