Does The Acknowledgment Of Franken's Victory Mean Anything To America's Working Families?

Ken got all the news out immediately: the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled unanimously to dismiss defeated Senator Norm Coleman's frivolous law suit against Al Franken and Gov. Tim Pawlenty-- with no choice other than breaking the law-- agreed, if reluctantly, to allow his state to have two U.S. Senators just like states with normal governors. Having been informed by John Cornyn of the NRSC that the Republican Party wasn't spending any more than the million they'd already spent to forestall the inevitable, Coleman called Franken and conceded.

So now the Democrats have 60 votes and can stop all the knee jerk Republican filibusters and obstructionism and can do anything, right? No, not even close. Even if the House of Lords really worked that way-- which is doesn't-- Kennedy and Byrd may or may not return to the Senate; neither is well enough to vote. Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, Mark Pryor, Arlen Specter, Mary Landrieu, Max Baucus, Evan Bayh and, depending on the issue, any number of other junior presidents, aren't much more likely to vote for progressive legislation than... well, at least one Republican: Olympia Snowe-- and she isn't likely to vote for much at all. When Dick Durbin pointed out a month or so ago that the CEOs at the banks and Wall Street firms who dole out the campaign contributions to members of Congress-- like drug kingpins dribbling out heroin to addicts-- own the Senate, he wasn't kidding. Or exaggerating. Although it isn't only the banksters. It's the CEOs of Big Business in general who are calling the shots.

Pennywise and pound foolish, a kind way of saying "cheap and stupid," the American people have chosen the most corrupt possible system of campaign finance. It is virtually impossible to shake up the status quo when shaking it up adversely effects the bottom lines of the corporations financing the politicians making the decisions. It's that simple. Obama can intone "change" and "hope" all he wants; until there's real campaign finance reform-- and a non-corporate Supreme Court that will uphold it-- we are pretty much doomed to no change and to hopelessness. Yes, we deserve candidates and elected officials like Sarah Palin and Mark Sanford-- or the Oklahoma state legislature. On the other hand, there's always the chance that a corporation like WalMart will, for its own selfish reasons, line up behind something that is actually good for the public and then pull on the leash of the shills it owns-- like Blanche Lincoln.

I'm not a TV watcher and I don't think I ever saw Senator Al on Saturday Night Live. I read books, though, and I read all of his. I was absolutely hooked on Al when I read the uproarious-- ahead of its time-- Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot. The memories of that, particularly, persuaded me that Al would be a great addition to the U.S. Senate despite the rather tepid defense of progressive policies he always made on his so-so Air America show. Democrats saved him 4 committee assignments, one dealing with the health care reform fiasco that will either make the Democratic Party the dominant political force in the country for another decade or sink it utterly.

Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island has been temporarily filling the seat the Democrats reserved for Franken on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which has spent two weeks working on a complicated health-care overhaul that is expected to be completed July 10. The work on that bill has taken so long that Franken might still be able to
participate.

Franken had argued for the urgency of resolving the court case because of his interest in participating in the health debate, which Democrats call their top domestic priority.

In addition, Ron Wyden of Oregon has been serving temporarily in Franken's place on the Judiciary Committee, which has a hearing scheduled July 13 on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. Democrats hope to confirm her before the August recess.

Two other committee vacancies have been held open for Franken on the Special Aging and Indian Affairs panels.

Today at noon the DFL will hold a victory rally at the Minnesota State Capitol. If I were anywhere nearby that's where I'd be. Al'll be speaking. It took a helluva long time but the recognition of his victory neither guarantees that he'll be more like Durbin and Merkley and Sanders than like the moderate he always promised he'd be. And as for the Democrats using their filibuster-proof majority to do something for ordinary working families... don't make me laugh. They may be better than the Republicans, but that just makes them worthless instead of satanic. Today's NY Times says their campaign contributors' top priority is to kill an Obama initiative aimed at protecting consumers from bankster predators. Let's see which Democrats stick with Obama and their constituents and which ones go along with their paymasters at the Big Banks.

The agony of defeat from GOP-TV. Feel their pain:

Bunning May Be Senile But He's Ready To Take His Revenge On Miss McConnell In A Big Way

Bunning shows us how much he hates Cornyn and Miss McConnell

As you have probably guessed, the Republicans will do anything to prevemt a filibuster-proof Senate. They have been encouraging Norm Coleman to keep suing and fighting a tawdry battle over every single ballot that wasn't cast for him to keep Al Franken out of the Senate for as long as possible. Now that Reid has said that the Senate will seat Franken on April 1 despite Coleman's frivolous challenges and appeals, the Republican obstructionists are gnashing their collective teeth or, in some cases flapping their collective gums, worried that between the two Maine senators and a very independent-minded Arlen Specter, they can be in for a rocky road. The RNC's new jive-talking chairman, Michael Steele, made a major blunder when he threatened to fund primaries against Specter, Collins and Snowe, any of whom could guarantee re-election for themselves by shedding their Republican patinas and joining the Democratic Party (although Collins has no reason to do so, not having another election to face until 2014, long after Michael Steele will just be an embarrassing footnote in the history of the GOP).

But Specter is known as a vindictive and ornery character and if Steele and other extremists push him, he's certainly capable of saving himself the misery of tough primary and general election campaigns by rediscovering his Democratic roots. And Specter is hardly the only one with a grudge and a vindictive streak.

Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn have been pushing Jim Bunning to retire. Bunning may be suffering from severe dementia but he's hardly the first senator afflicted with that and it hasn't, at least in his own opinion, hampered his performance for the last 6 years. He doesn't want to retire and he really doesn't want to be pushed around by McConnell, who he has an old fashioned idea is only "half a man" anyway. McConnell and Cornyn seemed to have cooked up a scheme to starve Bunning of institutional Republican funds, making it impossible for him to run. They've also been encouraging primary opponents-- namely Secretary of State Trey Grayson (who McConnell is rumored to have a thing for) and KY state Senate president David Williams-- to rattle Bunning's nerves.

Well, they have certainly succeeded in getting on Bunning's nerves and yesterday he struck back with a threat that probably caused Miss McConnell to ask David Vitter if he could borrow some diapers. According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, Bunning is ready to give the Democrats their 60th member!

Already in conflict with his party’s leaders, Sen. Jim Bunning has reportedly said privately that if he is hindered in raising money for his re-election campaign he is ready with a response that would be politically devastating for Senate Republicans: his resignation.

The Kentucky Republican suggested that possible scenario at a campaign fundraiser for him on Capitol Hill earlier this week, according to three sources who asked not to be identified because of the politically sensitive nature of Bunning’s remarks.

The implication, they said, was that Bunning would allow Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, to appoint his replacement-- a move that could give Democrats the 60 votes they need to block Republican filibusters in the Senate.

“I would get the last laugh. Don’t forget Kentucky has a Democrat governor,” one of the sources quoted Bunning as saying.

“The only logical extension of that comment is, ‘(Make me mad) … enough and I’ll resign, and then you’ve got 60 Democrats,’ ” said another source who was present at the event.

That was the clear message Bunning was sending, said a third source who heard the senator’s remarks at the fundraiser, which attracted about 15 people.

...“Why would he say that?” attendees asked each other, according to the source.

One source said he contacted a Bunning campaign official and warned, “This is going to get out-- there were 15 to 20 people who heard this and it’s newsworthy.”

“It’s not because he’s old and senile-- he’s always been like that. He’ll tell you what he thinks,” the source said.

But Bunning’s resistance to retirement is “sad to see,” the source said.

Bunning was denying he ever said it yesterday-- but there were 15-20 witnesses... and the message was sent. It is likely that McConnell will shut up now and tend to his knitting and allow Bunning to lose the seat to a Democrat in 2010 the old fashioned way: through an election.

Maybe Obama Doesn't Need 60 Senate Votes After All?

I know, I know, I know... I've been a big ole bundle of gloom and doom about the Democrats' prospects of effecting any real substantive change with a Senate that has morphed into an even less democratic body than it was when I was growing up and only 51 votes (instead of the current 60) were needed to get anything done. But with goose-stepping reactionaries like Kyl and McConnell bragging to the Federalist Society that they would prevent Obama from enacting his agenda and with a clown like Saxby Chamberpot-- albeit in a backward red state filled with religious fanatics-- running on a platform of pure anti-Obama obstructionism, how can anyone be optimistic?

If you have to ask, you probably didn't read your Reuters yesterday... did you? Thomas Ferraro, who is not a humorist, assures us that Senate Democrats will pack plenty of muscle even without the 60 votes required to overcome rampant GOP obstructionism.

Sixty votes are needed to override the roadblocks, which Republicans routinely invoked over the past two years to stop or at least slow down legislation they opposed...

Senate Democrats will have the muscle, with the help of a few moderate Republicans, to pass a crush of bills, including ones to stimulate the economy, ensure equal pay for women, ease global warming, lower prescription drug prices for the elderly and change course in the Iraq war... Democrats will be able to reach 60 with the help of a handful of moderate Republicans willing to break ranks with their conservative leadership on certain issues.

A real page-turner! I can't wait to find out who these "few moderate Republicans" are. Willing to break ranks, no less! Who? Who?

McCain-- on global warming and an economic stimulus package. And it isn't just McCain. Democratic operatives insist that on almost any given issue-- except EFCA of course-- there is a Republican or two they can dig up who will help them. I'll believe it when I see it; I mean I don't even believe they can dig up reactionary assholes like Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson to help them on half this stuff-- and they're sort of Democrats in a manner of speaking... officially. Anyway, here's what they say they can do-- even despite McConnell, Kyl and Chamberpot:

* Give residents of the U.S. capital of Washington, D.C., a full-voting representative in the U.S. House. It presently has no voting rights in Congress.

* Allow the government to negotiate with companies the prices of drugs covered under the Medicare program for the elderly.

* Overhaul U.S. immigration policy with a guest temporary guest worker program and border security.

* Mandate that U.S. military personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan be allowed to remain at home for the same amount of time they spent in battle.

* Reverse a U.S. Supreme Court decision that made it tougher for workers to sue for pay discrimination.

And McConnell as much as says he doesn't care about any of this crap as long as the Democrats don't push through EFCA. That's the Chamber of Commerce and Big Business' line in the sand and I'll bet the GOP is more willing to stand and fight there than Obama is.

Obama Keeps a Low Profile In Georgia And Louisiana Races-- Possibly Dooming Both Democratic Candidates

Woulda, shoulda, coulda... Palin did and Obama didn't

By wide margins, Americans approve of President-elect Obama and his cabinet choices. Almost 70% approve of his choice of Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State and 80% approve of his decision to keep Robert Gates on at the Pentagon.

In the poll, Americans by more than 3-1 say they trust Obama more than Bush to handle the economy. By 58%-33%, they support Obama's promise of a huge spending package to stimulate the economy.

...There's little concern Obama is relying too much on veterans of President Clinton's administration. By nearly 4-1, those polled say the picks will make the new team more effective.

Numbers like that mean he's getting support across the board. Even 40% of Republicans approved of the Clinton choice (as did 89% of Democrats and 69% of independents). In fact, 78% of Americans approve of the way Obama is handling his presidential transition, with only 13% disapproving. A majority of Democrats (94%), independents (79%), and Republicans (57%) all say they approve. By way of comparison 66% approved of Bill Clinton's 1992 transition and 63% approved of Bush's right after he stole the 2000 election.

Still, Obama was unwilling to put any political capital on the line to try to win a veto proof Senate and defeat one of his most die-hard reactionary opponents, Saxby Chambliss, whose entire negative campaign is based on stopping Obama. Polls close at 7pm Eastern Time and short lines so far presage a win for Chambliss. The only way he could have been defeated would have been for Obama to go to Georgia and work it. He chose to stay above the fray, cutting a radio spot-- not even TV!-- and a robocall. And the DSCC sent around e-mails begging us to help by sending money! Screw them!

Polling stations across Georgia reported low to moderate voter turnout. At the Atlanta Public Library on Ponce de Leon Ave., where more than 1,600 people voted in the general election, only 400 people had voted by noon today.

But among those who did bother to get out to the polls, "many voters interviewed today said the balance of power was an important factor in their choice of a candidate."

But how important is this election if Obama is doing approximately the same thing for Jim Martin as he did for a backward, reactionary asshole, Paul Carmouche, running as a Democrat in Louisiana's 4th CD in an election this coming Saturday. Carmouche-- like Don Cazayoux, who was one of only 4 Democrats defeated last month (and unlike Jim Martin) is unlikely to support much of what Obama tried to do to change the direction of the country-- now has a radio ad from Obama, which is expected to appeal to progressives and African-Americans, two groups that have no logical reason to support Carmouche. In fact, Obama is either disingenuous or naive in his statement:

"To change America and to get Louisiana's economy back on track-- I need leaders like Paul Carmouche working with me in Washington. Paul Carmouche is the kind of leader we need in Washington...to make a difference for the people of Northwest Louisiana."

It was just a few weeks ago that enough African American and progressive voters abandoned Cazayoux-- basically cut from the same vile mold as Carmouche-- to throw his seat to a Republican. They had given him a chance and elected him but once he got into Congress he abandoned all pretense of serving working families and threw his lot in with the Republicans. On substantive matters that divided the two parties in the House, Cazayoux voted with the GOP far more frequently than with his fellow Democrats. And the voters back in Baton Rouge noticed and voted for a third party candidate. The only Democrats who voted more frequently with the Republicans than Cazayoux were Nick Lampson (TX), who was also defeated last month, Jim Marshall (GA) and Joe Donnelly (IN). African-Americans in LA-04 don't appear inclined to vote for Carmouche, which is why the DCCC implored Obama to cut the radio spot. Of all the people who took part in early voting, only 19% were African Americans, who make up almost a third of registered voters in the district. Paul Carmouche deserves to lose. Jim Martin doesn't.


UPDATE: POLLS ARE CLOSED IN GEORGIA

Votes are coming in and the Secretary of State's website seems to be getting the results up pretty fast. Tondee's Tavern is a good place to watch for fast interpretations and details. Atlanta Metro will probably come in late though-- that's what happened last time-- and if Martin has any chance of winning, it will be because of unexpectedly large margins in Fulton and Dekalb. So far, comparing early returns to returns from last month don't show any surprises at all (good news for the bad guys).

9:08 PM, Eastern: CNN projects Chambliss

UPDATE: RIGHT WING FANATIC, SENATOR CHAMBERPOT RE-ELECTED IN GEORGIA

Obama supporters didn't turn out in the same kinds of numbers that hysterical right-wingers did. African American participation was down drastically from last month.

Martin appeared to suffer mightily from a lack of African-American turnout, which dropped from 30 percent of early votes four weeks ago to around 20 percent in the runoff.

In Atlanta-based Fulton County, Chambliss was almost even with Martin with half the precincts reporting. Martin defeated him nearly two-to-one in the county in the general election.

Can Obama Change America Without a Filibuster-Proof Senate?

Fortunately DeWine is gone but you don't want to count on this crew to bring about progress

Today's Washington Post speculates that even if Georgia, as expected, re-elects extremist Senator Saxby Chambliss, a die-hard obstructionist who is as much to blame for America's economic crisis as Bush or any other lockstep Republican ideologue, Obama will still be able to get much of his agenda through Congress. Chambliss' re-election means that even if Al Franken wins the Minnesota recount, Democrats will not have the votes they need to win cloture votes and stop an onslaught of partisan filibusters.

Though they are two votes short of their quest for 60 votes-- with two races still undecided-- Democrats say that regular support from a few Republican moderates will allow them to pass bills that were halted in the current Congress by GOP parliamentary roadblocks. These include healthcare programs, immigration revisions and presidential nominations.

"The truth is . . . we will be fine on most major issues. We will almost always have some moderate Republican support," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

There's more than just math at work here-- and any given issue is likely to result in different coalitions. One "Democratic" vote belongs to the unreliable treacherous senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman. And there are 5 actual Democrats in the Senate who have voted more frequently with Bush on substantive matters than even Lieberman-- from bad to worse, Tim Johnson (SD), bumbling imbecile Mark Pryor (AR), Evan Bayh (IN), Mary Landrieu (LA) and Ben Nelson (NE). These six are likely to find some new like-minded colleagues among the freshly elected batch. Certainly Kay Hagan (NC) and Mark Warner (VA) can not be counted on to push a progressive agenda and although Jeff Merkley's and Tom Udall's priorities will be all about working families, more than a few of the new Democratic members are untrustworthy Establishment corporate shills.

Likely internal divisions among Democrats make it difficult to handicap the outcome of the biggest issues next year, particularly comprehensive efforts to secure universal health insurance and energy independence legislation, aides say.

Example: notorious right of center corporate shill Max Baucus is trying to grab health care reform away from progressive Ted Kennedy. Kennedy will be fighting for working families and Baucus will be fighting for corporate campaign contributors.

The Post story sounds confident that Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine can be counted on by the Democrats. Snowe is a good guess; Collins isn't. She just won re-election and is filled with animus towards Democrats who campaigned against her and has nothing to fear from moderate voters for 6 years. She's likely to show an extremely conservative side for at least four of those years before "turning" moderate again.

The Post also concludes that Arlen Specter and John McCain, each of whom will face voters in 2010, are likely to lend Obama a hand from time to time. Specter will probably be challenged from the extreme right in a GOP primary and he'll be looking to burnish his conservative cred between now and then.

A combination of shifting alliances, a lack of party discipline and incredible corruption guarantees that nothing is for sure and that Obama will have to fight for anything he hopes to accomplish. It isn't a good sign that he's unwilling to go down to Georgia and fight to elect Jim Martin in the face of a constant barrage of attacks by extremist Chambliss who is campaigning on a platform of sabotaging Obama's agenda.

The Race To 60: Alaska, Minnesota, Georgia

Would Chambliss dare bring Bush back to Georgia for a campaign event?

By now, you surely know that Republican convicted felon and senator, Ted Stevens-- unlike sore losers GOP reps Marilyn Musgrave, Virgil Goode and Randy Kuhl-- has conceded defeat. Not sure when he'll be reporting for prison. Just kidding; he'll certainly be one of the Republicrooks Bush pardons. One assumes that Bush will refuse, as a matter of "principle," to read Russ Feingold's warning about the abuse of pardons, which in any case only addresses the really huge, heinous stuff the Bush Regime was involved in, not the bribery and corruption one expects from political hacks like Stevens.

Despite the conviction, Stevens keeps his pension, which the National Taxpayer's Union calculates at about $122,000 a year. Members of Congress can lose their pensions for being convicted of specified crimes, such as bribery and racketeering, but Stevens' offenses aren't on the list. Senators also have investment retirement accounts.

Anyway, that leaves the Democrats with 58 seats-- if you count Lieberman as a Democrat-- with 2 to go. As I mentioned the other day, I'm just a passive observer in the race to 60. But I figure readers want to know what's going on. So... let's start with Minnesota, where Paul Wellstone seems to be smiling down from Heaven. The recount started yesterday and it's all bad news for the bad guys.

By day's end, with about 18 percent of the vote recounted, Coleman continued to lead Franken -- but by only 174 votes, notably narrower than the unofficial gap of 215 votes at which the recount had begun. Franken's gain owed much to a swing of 23 votes in the Democratic stronghold of St. Louis County-- the result of faintly marked ballots and older optical scanners that failed to read the marks.

Nate Silver has a more comprehensive analysis of what happened yesterday than the Star Tribune, although the same ending, of course: a shrinking margin for Coleman (now 172 votes). The important thing to remember is that Democratic strongholds in Minneapolis and Duluth are yet to come in with their numbers, which are expected to overwhelmingly favor Franken.

Minnesota reports that it has thus far re-counted 15.49 percent of its ballots. If the first day's results are indicative of the pace that the candidates will maintain throughout the recount process, Franken would gain a net of 278 votes over Coleman, giving him a narrow victory. For any number of reasons, however, the results reported thus far may not be indicative of future trends.

Although Franken gained ground relative to Coleman, in actuality both candidates have fewer votes than they began the day with. This is because of the "challenge" process in which representatives of either candidate may challenge any ballot for any reason, which will subsequently be reviewed one at a time by Minnesota's canvassing board in December. Challenges can occur to ballots that had previously been deemed to be legal, in which case those votes will be deducted from the opponent's total. Coleman has thus far challenged 115 ballots and Franken 106. However, based on local reports, many or perhaps most of the challenges are frivolous, and are unlikely to be upheld upon review. Thus, the candidate who has challenged fewer ballots probably stands to gain ground once such challenges are adjudicated.

And that leaves Georgia's run-off. The good news for Jim Martin yesterday was an enthusiastic and very compelling endorsement from the state's biggest newspaper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Jim Martin and Sen. Saxby Chambliss may be former fraternity brothers at the University of Georgia, but they look, act, think and speak in very different ways. The two candidates in the Dec. 2 Senate runoff offer Georgia voters a stark choice.

Martin, the Democrat, has been a fighter for the little guy throughout his life, and he’s proved effective in that role. He served his country in the U.S. Army in Vietnam and as a state legislator, lawyer and head of the state Department of Human Resources. Throughout his public life he has been known as a workhorse not a showhorse, someone whose first concern was getting the job done well rather than trying to get the credit.

In fact, Martin was so well-respected for his competence and ability to work across party lines that when Gov. Sonny Perdue became the state’s first Republican governor in a century, he asked Martin to remain as head of the state Department of Human Services.

In his six years in the U.S. Senate, Chambliss has set a very different course. He fought against stricter immigration policies not out of a sense of compassion, but because easy immigration and lax enforcement served the interests of industry. When he fought against reform of farm subsidies that cost taxpayers billions, it wasn’t out of concern for the small family farmer. The reforms championed by President Bush but opposed by Chambliss would have cut payments only to huge corporate farms.

Time and again, on issue after issue, Chambliss has taken the side of the powerful and influential over those of the taxpayer and general citizen. His performance this year at a Senate hearing, in which he took the side of corporate management by browbeating a safety whistle-blower at a Savannah sugar mill, has become the stuff of legend. (A few months earlier, an explosion at the plant had killed 14 workers.)

The less good news for Martin is that the polling data shows Chambliss slightly ahead, 50-46%. Polls are less relevant in special elections like this however because the entire game is turn-out, which is expected to be low. It comes down to this: will the Republican's hysterical fear-mongering about a Democratic ability to overcome reactionary filibusters of the Obama's agenda for change trump an effort-- if there is one, which I doubt-- by Obama to win the 60 seat filibuster proof majority and get on with the change he promised in the election campaign? Bill Clinton was in Georgia explaining the damage a filibuster will do. If Obama goes down there and does it, Martin will win. (And a radio spot is only a halfway effort and won't do the trick.) If he doesn't, Chambliss will be re-elected:

60 Seats? Who Cares?

Reactionary crook defeated in Alaska

I have nothing against the Democrats getting 60-- or 70-- votes in the Senate. In fact, every Republican defeated is a step, more or less, in the right direction. Last night when Blue America-endorsed Mark Begich was finally declared the winner in Alaska-- the first Democrat to win a Senate seat in that bizarre former Russian colony since Mike Gravel-- I would have opened a bottle of something for a toast if I was a drinking man. Instead, I thought, "Mark's a good man and all it cost Blue America was six grand; let's hope it was worth it."

The Senate is an intensely conservative body. It was meant to be. They call it the world's most exclusive club. In fact, just a few years ago arch-reactionary Zell Miller (GA), who was appointed to a seat opened up by the death of a Republican, proposed a constitutional amendment repealing the 17th, which gave voters the right to elect senators. Ole Zell believes that was way too progressive and that senators should be chosen by (easily-bribed) state legislatures, not by the unwashed masses (who he referred to as "special interests").

There was never any real chance the Senate was going to discipline Joe Lieberman. In the end only 13 members voted to do it-- far more than the small handful of unabashed reactionaries who actually campaigned for him in Connecticut against the Democratic Party candidate, Ned Lamont. They love Lieberman because he's one of them. Any of them could empathize with his predicament. They all like to think of themselves as independent (at least independent of anyone not giving them direct bribes). What a crappy job Harry Reid has, keeping all these assholes on the same page!

OK, so last night Stevens was defeated bringing the Democratic majority to at least 58. An intense recount procedure looms for Minnesota, where only 206 votes separates Al Franken and rubber stamp incumbent Norm Coleman. And early voting has already begun in the December 2nd Georgia run-off between Jim Martin and Saxby Chambliss.

Political insiders are all excited about all this stuff. Should the grassroots be? I'm not so certain. Sure, I think Norm Coleman and Saxby Chambliss are two of the absolute worst members of the U.S. Senate and each makes the place an even bigger disgrace than it would be without them. And both Franken and Martin seem like decent and conscientious guys. (Even Allen Buckley, the Libertarian candidate who threw the Georgia race into a run-off, thinks Martin is a better choice.) I'm rootin' for him and Franken. But no fund drives at Blue America. We've given enough this year. And what did we get in return? Joe Lieberman smirking on TV. If I lived in Georgia I'm sure I'd go vote for Martin. If the pitiful slobs in the Senate Democratic caucus want him to win... they're stinking rich and basically take as much in bribes from corporate America as the Republicans do-- if not more. This will be expensive but they don't need our money. We'll be saving it for primaries in 2010.

Do The Democrats Even Deserve A Filibuster-Proof Majority?

I hope Jim Martin beats Saxby Chambliss. I hope he beats him by a lot. Chambliss is one of the worst members on the Senate, both in terms of his unbelievably extremist voting record and in terms of his utter disregard for even the vaguest sense of personal ethics. Lately he's taken to defending his putrid ad against Max Cleland, which even John McCain denounced as reprehensible and is now running a similar a similar smear tactic against Jim Martin. As much as his ad campaigns, Chambliss himself is reprehensible. And, like I said above, I hope Martin defeats him.

So why no fundraising campaign here? Jim Martin actually meets the criteria we use at Blue America. He's not just better than Chambliss-- after all, it would be hard for anyone not to be better than that venal slug-- Jim Martin's vision for America is pretty progressive and very much geared towards serving the needs of the working families ignored over the past 8 and 6 years, respectively by George Bush and Saxby Chambliss. But we're just going to let President-elect Obama and the Senate Democratic caucus win this one on their own. Let them put up the money and go for that 60-vote filibuster-proof majority if they really want it. (I have my doubts that they do, since it would leave them with no excuses if they fail to deliver on their campaign promises and on the expectations of the voters.)

And whether they really want it or not, do they even deserve it? The Senate Democratic caucus-- which includes reactionary scumbags like Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, and Ben Nelson-- is sickening, cowardly and next-to-worthless. Patrick Leahy is the ONLY member of the caucus with the balls to publicly state that the treacherous Joe Lieberman doesn't deserve to be given the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. "I’m one who does not feel someone should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after what he did." (Listen.) Alas, he's the only one so far. At least the vote won't be unanimous. Too bad the voters of Connecticut don't get a say. In a new poll that came out this morning, most Connecticut voters express so much dissatisfaction with Lieberman that it's next to impossible to see him ever winning an election there again. If the voters there could re-do the 2006 election today 59% would vote for Ned Lamont and only 34% would vote for Lieberman. And if loses his chairmanship and then jumps to the GOP only 31% of Connecticut voters say they would favor his re-election.

So what to do? Well, it's clear to me that the Democratic caucus should start acting with some degree of self-respect and, at the minimum, take away his chair. If they do, we'll do whatever we can to help get Jim Martin elected. Meanwhile, I want to suggest that the ones siding with the caucus' reactionaries watch Rachel Maddow's explanation and pay attention to her suggestions. She's got it right-- much more so than hack political reporter Ron Brownstein, who is urging the Democrats to step on the people who elected them and to instead govern like less extreme Republicans.



It looks like we were correct a few days ago when we predicted that a small handful of progressive Democrats would stand up against the inherent conservative inertia that makes the world's most exclusive club nearly worthless. Bernie Sanders just joined Patrick Leahy in opposing Lieberman's demand that he get the Homeland Security chair to prevent him from becoming (officially) a Republican. Most of the cowards, led by reactionary Evan Bayh, are wimpering that an "apology" is enough for them. Bernie:

"To reward Senator Lieberman with a major committee chairmanship would be a slap in the face of millions of Americans who worked tirelessly for Barack Obama and who want to see real change in our country.

"Appointing someone to a major post who led the opposition to everything we are fighting for is not 'change we can believe in.' I very much hope that Senator Lieberman stays in the Democratic caucus and is successful in regaining the confidence of those whom he has disappointed. This is not a time, however, in which he should be rewarded with a major committee chairmanship."

How Badly Will McCain's Collapse Hurt Down Ballot Republicans?

It isn't even clear if it'll be a landslide or not and Republicans are already picking over the bones trying to figure out who to blame. There are still dozens of congressional seats hanging in the balance and the GOP is still looking like they have a chance-- albeit a slight chance-- to save seats for far right extremists like Vern Buchanan (FL-13), Brian Bilbray (CA-50), Sam Graves (R-MO), Thelma Drake (VA-02), John Culberson (TX-07)... maybe even Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL-21) and Dean Heller (NV-02). And then there's the anticipation of the one sure victory they know they will have when right-wing extremist Tom Rooney beats moderate Republican Tom Mahoney (FL-16) and the GOP has something to celebrate. But instead of savoring the end of Tim Mahoney-- something that should bring both Democrats and Republicans together on-- they're gnashing their teeth over that Governor of Alaska's sinking poll ratings and the ugly tensions over her inside the campaign. The lobbyists who run the Double Talk Express seem to have decided that she will be the star of the post mortem: "Four Republicans close to Palin said she has decided increasingly to disregard the advice of the former Bush aides tasked to handle her, creating occasionally tense situations as she travels the country with them. Those Palin supporters, inside the campaign and out, said Palin blames her handlers for a botched rollout and a tarnished public image-- even as others in McCain's camp blame the pick of the relatively inexperienced Alaska governor, and her public performance, for McCain's decline. "

A majority of likely voters in a new Washington Post-ABC News national poll now have unfavorable views of the Alaska governor, most still doubt her presidential qualifications and there is an even split on whether she "gets it," a perception that had been a key component of her initial appeal.

Palin's addition to the GOP ticket initially helped McCain narrow the gap with Obama on the question of which presidential hopeful "better understands the problems of people like you," but at 18 percentage points, the Democrat's margin on that question is now as big as it has been all fall. Nor has Palin attracted female voters to McCain, as his campaign had hoped.

Bill Kristol rarely gets anything right-- and never on any of the big stuff-- but in today's neo-fascist propaganda sheet, the Weekly Standard, he hits the nail on the head: McCain's going to lose. What he doesn't say is that it was the fact that his always bad judgment was exposed to the American people through the cynical Palin pick and that that was the decisive blow against his candidacy. The only lines worth reading in this week's Weekly Standard:

It's always darkest before it goes totally black... Well, with 10 days to go before the election, it's getting pretty dark out there.

Kristol, neo-Con loon 'til the end and beyond denounces the Republicans who have been abandoning McCain's sinking ship as rats. He may be right but one of the worst of the rats, Kenneth Adelman, defends himself today at, of all places, HuffPo:

McCain's tempera- ment -- leading him to bizarre behavior during the week the economic crisis broke-- and his judgment-- leading him to Wasilla -- depressed me into thinking that "our guy" would be a(nother) lousy conservative president. Been there, done that.

One of the hateful Republican extremists on the fringes of the far right, who basically admits what most right-wing loons believe-- that he would rather see America on its knees, its working families starving and desperate, than see Obama succeed as president-- ripped into Adelman on a Republican hate site:

...it is ironic that Ken Adelman-- the man who assured us Iraq would be a "cakewalk"-- would criticize Bush's competency. Second, if Adelman values conservative philosophy above all else, shouldn't he consider a "competent" liberal be the worst possible combination?  After all, an incompetent liberal might not be able to pass liberal legislation-- but a competent liberal would use his intellect and ability to pass tax hikes, create more departments, nationalize more industries, etc.

So while McCain desperately tries to win solid red states like Indiana, Ohio and Montana, where he's behind, and even Arizona, where observers say McCain's own state would slip away if Obama would schedule just one rally in Phoenix, the Obama campaign has its eyes on areas where Democrats haven't tread in far too long. He is the culmination of Howard Dean's 50 state strategy.

By every metric, Barack Obama's presidential campaign appears headed for the upper deck. Polls (both national and state-by-state), organization, money, and momentum are all running strongly in Obama's favor. At this point, one wonders whether Obama's winning margin could be greater than Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton's 5.6-point win over President George H.W. Bush in 1992, more than Bush's 7.7-point win over Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis in 1988, or more than Clinton's 8.5-point win over Sen. Bob Dole in 1996. Even higher on the landslide roster is California Gov. Ronald Reagan's 9.7-point victory over President Carter in 1980 and Gen. Dwight Eisenhower's 10.9-point win over Adlai Stevenson in 1952.

For many professional politicians on the right the only question worth talking about between now and election night is how badly McCain's toxic coattails will hurt the Republican Party and how many rightists' careers will be destroyed. The GOP has completely written off incumbents like Don Young (AK), Tom Feeney (FL), Randy Kuhl (NY), Tim Walberg (MI) as well as "up-and-comers" like Darren White (NM), Leonard Lance (NJ), and Tom McClintock (CA). And they now view races to retain the seats of Robin Hayes (NC), Ric Keller (FL), Marilyn Musgrave (CO), Joe Knollenberg (MI), Chris Shays (CT), Mark Kirk (IL), Jon Porter (NV), Dave Reichert (WA), Steve Chabot (OH), and Michele Bachmann (MN) as a waste of time and resources. Instead the battleground has moved to saving incumbents once thought untouchable-- like Dana Rohrabacher (CA), John Shadegg (AZ), Virgil Goode (VA), Scott Garrett (NJ), Michael McCaul (TX), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Bill Sali (ID), Frank Wolf (VA), and Lee Terry (NE).

On the Senate side, they've written off New Mexico, Virginia, Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, and North Carolina entirely and are hoping for miracles to save their incumbents in Mississippi, Minnesota, and Oregon. Their last stand against a filibuster-proof Senate is taking place in Kentucky, Georgia, Maine, Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska.

Back to McCain for a second: it looks like the new battleground state is Georgia, where Obama has just pulled ahead. Bob Barr, a former conservative Republican Georgia congressman says it isn't so much that Obama is winning; it's just that McCain is losing.

If you're looking to help: one stop shopping-- for our nation's future.

Will The Democrats Win A Filibuster-Proof Senate?

Key to a filibuster-proof Senate is in Oklahoma

Yesterday we used CQPolitics new tool to see which members of the House have clung most desperately to Bush's agenda. We exposed the worst Republican and Democratic rubber stamps-- and the handful of proud Democrats who have resisted most consistently. Today, let's do the same thing for the Senate.

First, the most pathetic senatorial Republican rubber stamps who are up for re-election in 2 weeks:

John Cornyn (TX)
Michael Enzi (WY)
James Inhofe (OK)
Mitch McConnell (KY)
Thad Cochran (MS)
Jeff Sessions (AL)
Saxby Chambliss (GA)
John McCain (AZ)

Now the worst of the Vichy Democrats, the traitors who have backed Bush up, betrayed working families and are as responsible for the nation's problems as are the Republicans:

Ben Nelson (NE)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Bill Nelson (FL)
Mark Pryor (AR)
Evan Bayh (IN)
Max Baucus (MT)

Those are the worst of the Democrats, none of whom are worthy of being re-elected. There were damn few Democrats who really stood up to Bush in a consistently meaningful way. The best ones:

Bernie Sanders (VT)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Ben Cardin (MD)
Robert Menendez (NJ)
Jon Tester (MT)
Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
Amy Klobuchar (MN)

Voters are in a pissed off mood-- and it isn't only McCain they're pissed off at. It looks like the target isn't going to be the Bush Democrats-- just rubber stamp Republicans. Today's Boston Globe predicts an electoral bloodbath in both houses. And in the Senate they've honed in on Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), while mentioning that Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), John Sununu (R-NH), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are all also in grave jeopardy of losing their seats.

Blue America's Senate Page only features 5 progressives that are the tough races that will make the difference between Democrats having an enhanced majority that will still be subject to systematic obstructionism from reactionaries and having a filibuster-proof majority-- and one that includes real live progressives who won't be joining the Ben Nelsons and Mary Landrieux as they cross the aisle to stab working families in the back. There is virtually no way to get to 60 Democrats (and that's 60 without Lieberman of course) without electing at least a couple of the great candidates in the difficult races:

Andrew Rice (OK)
Jeff Merkley (OR)
Tom Allen (ME)
Rick Noriega (AK)
Mark Begich (AK)

Please consider donating today. In fact, anyone who spreads some contributions to all 5 of our candidates in the next 24 hours will get a present from Blue America.

Now here's a fun question: "What will happen with Lieberman if Obama wins the election?"

Is there anyone who wouldn't like to see that creepy grin
wiped off Holy Joe's reptilian puss?

by Ken

My European-born friend Leo, who splits his time between Europe and the U.S., asked the above question in an e-mail. When the e-dust settled, I thought I might as well share my e-reply:


Ooh!

Actually, there are two parts to the question/answer:

(a) if Obama wins the election, and

(b) if the Democrats win a substantial Senate majority


IF (a) HAPPENS BUT NOT (b) --

depending on how close the final Senate breakdown is, the son of a bitch may actually have leverage. A lot of Senate Democrats still consider him a friend and colleague, and may STILL be reluctant to strip him of his committee chairmanship or even drum him out of the Senate Democratic caucus. However, if the Democrats need him to control the Senate, he may be hold onto his present situation.

Even if he should wind up either becoming a Republican or organizing (as an Independent) with the Republicans (right now he's technically an Independent organizing with the Democrats), if the Democratic majority is slim, he could carve out a position as some kind of power broker, with a lot of influence over a bloc of conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans.

(Note: Right now, it doesn't really look as if the new Senate is going to be close. There is even the distinct possibility that the Dems could reach the magic number of 60, which means they could defeat filibusters -- that is, assuming all 60 Dems actually vote together, which I don't really see happening.

(This raises an interesting question, which I haven't heard discussed. If the Dems DO reach the magic number 60, including Holy Joe, do they then have to keep him in order to HAVE the filibuster-proof majority? Even though on "his" issues he won't vote with them anyway.)


Now it doesn't appear likely, though until a couple of weeks ago it seemed quite possible:
IF (b) HAPPENS BUT NOT (a) --

then His Holiness doesn't need those stinking Senate Democrats. He walks into his choice of jobs in the McCranky administration. Secretary of state, anyone? Or maybe secretary of morality?


BUT IF BOTH (a) AND (b) HAPPEN --

which I suspect is your real question, then I would say the Holy One is fucked. All the more so if Majority Leader Reid is as pissed at him as he sometimes seems to be. Ever since the Dems regained control of the Senate, and Senator Reid went from minority leader to majority leader, he has been VERY cautious in speaking publicly about his old pal Joe. So we really don't know what he's really thinking. But His Holiness has helped make our Harry's tenure as majority leader VERY difficult, and every now and then we've had these brief glimmerings that he has not at all appreciated his old pal Joe's behavior, especially his bad-mouthing all the Democratic presidential candidates and announcing his support for McCranky so early.

What I'm getting at is that our Harry may be closer to the breaking point than he has let on. If this is the case, and if some of His Holiness's other onetime friends feel the same way (remember, the Senate majority leader doesn't have much independent power -- he has as much power as he has backing from his caucus), then Holy Joe could find himself a pariah among his former Democratic colleagues. And since he wont' have anything at all to offer the Republicans (his ONLY value to them these last seven years was as a Democrat who supported their president), he could serve out the rest of his current Senate term a VERY lonely man.

And if President Obama remembers the trash His Holinesss has talked about HIM during this campaign . . . well, I don't think a senator who has no friends to speak of left in the Senate will really enjoy having a sworn enemy in the White House.


THE SHORT(ER) ANSWER, THEN --

is that under certain circumstances our Joe MIGHT be able to carve out a role for himself as the "elder statesman" influencing a bloc of 10-15 "centrist" senators whose votes could become crucial on every issue the Senate considers. That's the BEST-case scenario. The other possibilities are much less cheery for him. And the WORST-case scenario could be pretty bleak.

But then, I don't think he gives a damn about anyone else. When his term expires, he can openly become a full-time corporate lobbyist, and be able to take all the cash the big companies want to throw his way openly instead of having to be so secretive about it. The lovely Hadassah, of course, is already a lobbyist, but obviously she has to observe certain limitations while her Joe is a sitting senator. I think they're both very greedy individuals, and could adjust very nicely to living openly as hired hands of the rich and powerful.

Republicans Looking Forward To Senate And House Elections... In 2010

These 5 Democrats could make all the difference

Unlike delusional and barely rational GOP propaganda tool Hugh Hewitt, realistic Republican strategists are already structuring a world view around a President Obama and significantly strengthened Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. The Democrats are back in the range of as many as 4 dozen House districts in every part of the country including deep red bastions (many gerrymandered to create safe Republican seats) in Idaho, Ohio, Texas, Arizona, and Alaska.

Take California, for example. The GOP jihad to take back "Dirty Dick" Pombo's old seat with a pathetic clone of the rejected and corrupt former congressman, has completely fizzled. This leaves the close-to-bankrupt California Republican Party playing defense in four red districts two in the north and two in the south, each considered "safe" until recently:

CA-03 (R+7)- Bill Durston vs Rep. Dan Lungren
CA-04 (R+11)- Charlie Brown vs Tom McClintock
CA-26 (R+4)- Russ Warner vs Rep. David Dreier
CA-46 (R+6)- Debbie Cook vs Rep. Dana Rohrabacher.

But for Republicans looking to contain the damage, even those who are writing off McCain as a hopeless case and factoring in dozens of GOP House seats, the real fear is the Senate, where Democrats are poised to win a filibuster-proof majority. Voting for any Senate Republican in November means voting for more obstruction, deadlock and tying Obama's hands when it comes to making the kinds of change that has so galvanized American voters. The first races the GOP gave up on were Republican open seats in Virginia and New Mexico. Colorado, another open red seat also appears lost to them. The two incumbents almost certain to lose are Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) and John Sununu (R-NH). That's halfway to the 10 they need. Polls have shown indicted and senile Ted Stevens losing in Alaska to Mark Begich and brand new polls are now showing Al Franken beating Norm Coleman in Minnesota, Jeff Merkley beating Gordon Smith in Oregon, and good shots for Democrats in Georgia and Kentucky. Georgia's Saxby Chambliss had finally put his rubber stamp support for Bush's-- and McCain's-- unpopular immigration amnesty behind him when he went and voted for the Wall Street bailout, which has local Republicans vowing to stay home and just skip this election season altogether. One of the two Mississippi seats (Roger Wicker's) is vulnerable and Rick Noriega, Andrew Rice and Tom Allen have been picking up steam in Texas, Oklahoma and Maine. If all that breaks for the Democrats, they could wind up with 65 seats-- 64 if they kick Lieberwhore out of the caucus.

65 is unlikely but 60... well, it looks more doable by the day.

Republicans have been bracing for big losses, but it wasn’t until the past few days that they have started to privately sound the alarms that the bottom could fall out on Election Day.

GOP Senate candidates are getting pounded by the same waves of public discontent over the economy and Bush that could sink McCain, and it shows in polls from coast to coast.

Republicans fully expect to lose Virginia and New Mexico. They think there is a pretty strong chance that they also lose Colorado, Alaska, New Hampshire, Oregon and North Carolina.

...Several Republican strategists close to the White House said there is increasing fear among party leaders about a bloodbath. But they added that they hope to keep losses to as few as five or six seats, rather than the nine that Democrats would need to gain to reach the magic number of 60 seats.

You want to see Senate Republicans reduced to the impotence they have earned? Visit the threshold to a filibuster proof majority.

Can The Democrats Win A Veto-Proof Senate? If Andrew Rice Beats Jim Inhofe...

In 2006 everything went right and the Democrats took back the Senate. Since then McConnell and a core of reactionaries-- sometimes with the help of Lieberman, sometimes with the help of right-wing corporatists like Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Tim Johnson and Mary Landrieu-- have managed to obstruct everything the Democrats have tried to accomplish. I've never seen so many filibusters-- de facto filibusters, since Reid doesn't make them actually filibuster for real-- in my entire life. Without referring to any history book, I'll say that McConnell has gotten in the way of more legislation than any other senator in history. If there is one member of Congress to be blamed for the dysfunctionality the legislative branch, it is Mitch McConnell. But, of course, he could never have done it alone.

Without the connivance of Gordon Smith (R-OR), Susan Collins (R-ME), Norm Coleman (R-MN), John Sununu (R-NH), John Cornyn (R-TX), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Ted Stevens (AK), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Elizabeth Dole, (R-NC) and, of course, Oklahoma's tone-deaf lemming James Inhofe, McConnell, would have bee brushed aside. Even if Obama wins a landslide victory in November-- with a genuine mandate for change-- and even if the Democrats pick up 6 or 7 seats, as now seems likely, McConnell will still be obstructing and filibustering and preventing progress.

Radical right Republican Phil Roe proved 2 weeks ago, by ousting right wing radical David Davis from his Tennessee congressional seat, that even Republican voters are sick of the status quo, sick of congressmen taking-- in this case $221,843,888 from Big Oil since 1990-- and then repaying their "generosity" with billions of dollars in tax breaks and with policies designed specifically to raise the cost of gasoline. (After all, these companies are donating all these hundreds of millions of dollars because they want to pad their bottom lines and there are only two ways for them to have earned the massive profits-- the most of any quasi-legitimate business in history-- and that is thru tax breaks and higher prices-- which our representatives have provided them with.)

It is certainly not just a Republican problem-- there are also Blue Dog and DLC Democrats who perform exactly like Republicans-- but it is telling that the vast bulk of the $222 million dollars in legalized bribes went to Republicans. In fact Democrats only got 75% of the loot. And the Democrats who got the lion's share are fully own subsidiaries of Big Oil, like Mary Landrieu (D-LA- $616,744) and Dan Boren (D-OK- $379,860). The hundred thousand and more "donations" went mostly to Republicans, but Big Oil took good care of Blue Dogs and reactionaries as well, like Rick Boucher (D-VA- $242,467), Jack Murtha (D-PA- $232,945), Charles Melancon (R-LA- $204,450), Nick Lampson (D-TX- $174,942), Steny Hoyer (D-MD- $165,395), Jim Matheson (D-UT- $164,997), William Jefferson (D-LA- $152,425), Bart Gordon (D-TN- $120,550), Mike Ross (D-AR- $113,100), John Tanner (D-TN- $112,650), Ellen Tauscher (D-CA- $89,000). Of course, all these Democrats together didn't rake in as much as just two of Big Oil's most outrageous shills, John Cornyn (R-TX- $1,317,825) and James Inhofe (R-OK- $1,090,023)-- and that's not even looking at the $1,642,810 that Big Oil has lavished on Mr. Straight Talk Express (R-AZ) and his long record of sabotaging renewable energy.

Anyway, that brings us to where we started, making sure there is a filibuster-proof majority in January. It isn't going to be easy. And you won't see Blue America supporting the easy candidates like Mark Warner (D-VA) or Mark Udall (D-CO). That doesn't mean we don't want them to win; they must win for this to work. But traditional, institutional Democrats are pouring massive resources into those races. Mark Warner has raised $9,300,791 and Mark Udall has raised $7,197,413. Each is massively ahead of his opponent. Instead, Blue America will focus on the less institutionally-supported races, the long-shots-- long shots we must win to reach the filibuster-proof majority for Obama.

One of our key Senate races is in Oklahoma, where progressive/populist state Senator Andrew Rice is facing off against one of the 3 most reactionary extremists in the entire Senate, James Inhofe. (Inhofe ranks as the most reactionary among all the senators up for re-election in November.) Inhofe has raised over $5,000,000. Andrew is closing in on $1,500,000.

This morning the DSCC reported a very encouraging poll they just completed in the bright red state many insiders are writing off. Two months ago, Inhofe had a 20 point lead on Andrew. Now that Andrew is running TV and radio and visiting every part of the state-- again and again-- he is getting better known. And Oklahomans are taking to him. He's cut Inhofe's lead back to a manageable-- and winnable-- margin. If the election were to be held today, Inhofe would squeak to re-election with 50% while Andrew would get 41%. But the election isn't being held today.

How about considering three ways to help? You can go volunteer at Andrew's website or you can donate directly to Andrew's campaign-- he uses his money well-- via our Blue America ActBlue page or you could donate something to keep this ProgressiveKick independent ad on the air in Oklahoma

JOHN ENSIGN BLAMES LIKELY GOP LOSSES IN NOVEMBER ON REPUBLICAN SEX PERVERTS VITTER, CRAIG &... FOLEY

Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) is widely considered the worst chair in the entire history of the NRSC. Not only did she fail to gain any Republican senate seats, she wound up losing enough to switch majority control from the GOP to Democrats. She was unceremoniously sent packing back to North Carolina. Now her successor, Nevada rubber stamp John Ensign, is well on the way to accomplishing the impossible: doing even worse than Liddy.

Ensign has dropped the pretense of even talking about gaining back the majority, which could be accomplished with just one net gain and an easy flip from the junior senator from Connecticut. Instead, he's trying to frighten Republicans by pointing out that Democrats could win 10 seats and make the GOP minority superfluous. Today's CongressDaily says he's "using the specter of an almost filibuster-proof Democratic majority to motivate potential GOP supporters in November."

I just got back from Washington where the talk everywhere was about what it would take to make sure there is a filibuster-proof majority come January. I've long held that they key-- at least symbolically-- is replacing red state rubber stamp reactionaries Inhofe (OK), McConnell (KY), Dole (NC), and Cornyn (TX) with strong, principled progressive leaders Andrew Rice, Greg Fischer, Jim Neal and Rick Noriega. Those 4 are the key to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate-- and a progressive legislative agenda. The biggest obstacle to achieving that isn't the pathetic ensign, but, ironically, his Democratic Party counterpart the craven and powermad Chuck Schumer.

According to the CongressDaily piece Ensign's picture has deteriorated rapidly. "Despite having 23 Republican seats to defend this fall against 12 for Democrats, Ensign held out hope this year that it was possible for Republicans to pull off a huge upset and regain a majority. That was before a handful of promising Republican challengers withdrew from races. Ensign conceded in an interview with CongressDaily that it is virtually assured Republicans will not be in the majority in January 'unless something miraculous happens.'"

Ensign seems to be in full delusion mode and concludes that what Americans want from the Senate is obstructionism on everything, from health care to ending the Iraq occupation. He's going to be in for quite the shock in November. "While Republicans may be striving to limit the damage, Ensign is confident their legislative record during the 110th Congress will attract support." McConnell, who himself is highly unpopular in Kentucky uses obstructionist tactics to block one popular initiative after another. The GOP seems to think this is the winning formula.
     
"In the Senate, a strong minority can be very effective," Ensign said. And he's correct. If Americans want endless war in Iraq, no real plan for national security or homeland protection, no health care for vets, no health care for children, no health care for anyone but millionaires, if they want warrantless wiretaps, torture, retroactive immunity, outsourcing of American jobs to third world countries, offshoring to avoid paying taxes, and if they think corporations shouldn't be regulated but should have a free hand to rob banks, cheat families out of their homes, pollute the air and water... well, then Ensign and McConnell have an excellent case. "It's really motivating businesses" to support Republican candidates, Ensign said, "because they understand the consequence of it... It's becoming more of a 'getting our team excited,' and so I see momentum definitely building."

Whatever steam the Republicans can produce heading into the fall, the NRSC will still be hampered by its fundraising woes-- since May 2006, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has raised more every month than the NRSC.

That cash disadvantage means Republicans will have to be careful where they direct their funds, lest they be wasted. Ensign pointed to Republican Sens. John Sununu in New Hampshire and Norm Coleman in Minnesota as races on which the NRSC will keep a close eye when making funding decisions.

Sununu faces a stiff challenge from former Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, who continues to lead the GOP incumbent in polls, while Coleman faces comedian and satirist Al Franken, whose national image has enabled him to raise money to make that race competitive.

...Money is not the only thing Republicans need to worry about.

Although they have put a few months between them and scandals involving Republican Sens. Larry Craig of Idaho, who was accused of soliciting sex in a men's bathroom in the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, and David Vitter of Louisiana, who was accused of using a Washington, D.C.-based escort service, Ensign cautioned against underestimating the collateral damage from scandals.

"I dropped 12 points because of [former Rep.] Mark Foley," Ensign said, referring to his own polling in the wake of disclosures in September 2006 that the Florida Republican House member had been sending sexually suggestive text messages to congressional pages.

"What did I have to do with Mark Foley? Nothing," said Ensign, and yet his campaign felt the impact.

UPDATE: HOUSE REPUBLICANS HAVE NOTHING TO BE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT EITHER

Everything points to another dozen or more losses for them in November and 23 Democratic challengers outraised Republican incumbents in the quarter that just ended! Included in that total are 7 Blue America candidates: Vic Wulsin (D-OH), Joe Garcia (D-FL), Mark Schauer (D-MI), Eric Massa (D-NY), Darcy Burner (D-WA), Tom Perriello (D-VA), Debbie Cook (D-CA) plus two more we are talking about endorsing (Judy Feder in Virginia and Joshua Segall in Alabama).