Month: February 2006

Election Analysis: Dems Could Pick Up Six to 14 Congressional Seats

Buck Banks

Laying odds: Charlie Cook of the National Journal and a colleague developed a method of statistically evaluating election odds that provides insight into how the mid-terms might play out. Cook notes that a year ago, following Republican victories in the 2004 elections and with President Bush’s job-approval ratings still above 50 percent (remember the “mandate” and “political capital”), the Democrats’ chances of taking back the House looked slim to nil. But with Bush’s approval rating stagnating at 42 percent, Cook says the odds of a Democratic takeover, while less than 50-50, are real.

House Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats in November to have a majority. Cook notes that the battle will be tight because “few House Republicans are retiring, and few of the Republican incumbents who ought to be vulnerable are in districts that actually are competitive.” Nonetheless, his statistical model suggests the race will be close and could be impacted by a “wave” effect among the electorate.

Here’s how it works:

On an Excel spreadsheet, we gave each of the 435 House districts a numerical score based on our assessment of the chances of its going Republican this November. The score is computed by taking into account the historical voting patterns of that district, the caliber of this year’s candidates, the strength of the campaigns, and the political atmosphere in the district.

If a district looks solidly Republican, we give it a score of 1.0. If a district is rock-solid Democratic, we assign it a score of 0.0. If the parties have an equal chance of winning in a given district, we give the district a .5 score. Very few districts are in the toss-up territory; the vast majority fall close to the partisan extremes — 1.0 or 0.0.

The GOP’s resources might not be sufficient to douse all the anti-Republican fires that could erupt around the nation.

The current model predicts a net Democratic gain of 10 seats. When we factor in a four-seat margin of error, the model projects that as of today, under current conditions, and without speculating about what the national political environment may do between now and November, Democrats will make a net gain of six to 14 seats. With a bit of luck — or a wave of any size — Democrats might even grasp their gold ring: 15 seats.

Factors that could sway the Dems’ prospects include whether they can field strong candidates, whether there’s a groundswell of support for Democrats or a backlash agsinst Republicans, whether the Dems can raise enough money and how effective the Republicans’ nasty attacks are on Democratic challengers.

The not-so-secret weapon of the National Republican Congressional Committee in recent elections has been its use of money to rip into Democratic challengers and Democratic open-seat candidates early and often. Early attacks have thus enabled the NRCC to create negative impressions of those contenders before they could define themselves positively.

In the past few campaign cycles, the NRCC had enough money to go on the attack very early and very effectively. The danger for Republicans this time is that while the committee has much more money than the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — $19 million at the end of 2005, compared with $15.7 million for the Democrats — the GOP’s resources might not be sufficient to douse all the anti-Republican fires that could erupt around the nation.

If it’s just a question of money, it’s likely that the Republicans will prevail, but if such issues as the warrantless surveillance of Americans, unchecked executive power and assault on civil liberties continue to dog the GOP, the people’s desire for change could win back the House.

Carter: Bush’s Domestic Spying Is ‘Illegal’

Jon Ponder

“Under the Bush administration, there’s been a disgraceful and illegal decision — we’re not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we’re spying on the American people. And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act.”

— Pres. Jimmy Carter, speaking yesterday at an event launching his son Jack’s bid for senator from Nevada

Rightwing Is Unhappy with Bush about SOTU

Jon Ponder

Trouble on the right: Rightwing blowhards like to complain that criticism of President Bush by liberals offers aid and comfort to terrorists and undermines the morale of our troops. They equate being critical of Dear Leader to disloyalty to the United States, as if the Tory Bush really were their King George.

They should get a load of this reaction to the State of the Union speech from their own base:

The Wall Street Journal editorial page accused President Bush of playing “miniball,” code for a Clintonian love of “small political ideas.” Robert Novak reported private concern among congressional conservatives that Mr. Bush was moving toward bigger government. George Will called Bush’s most memorable line – that America is addicted to oil – “wonderfully useless.”

“He’s conservative by temperament; many of his policy positions, such as cutting taxes, are on the right side of the political spectrum,” says John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron in Ohio. “But he doesn’t have a consistent set of conservative principles. That’s what a lot of the complaint has been about, especially after the State of the Union.”

One of the best known rightwing fundraisers is not happy either:

“The party has been hijacked by big-government Republicans,” says [Richard] Viguerie, hinting that it might be good for the party to lose congressional power later this year. “The importance of losing elections is greatly underrated,” he adds. “There’s not any way Ronald Reagan would have been elected in 1980 if [Gerald] Ford had been elected in ’76…”

“We hoped [Bush] would be more like Reagan than his father, but clearly he is not like Ronald Reagan,” says Viguerie. “Reagan was no pure conservative – he wandered off the conservative reservation here and there. But there was such a massive reservoir of goodwill for Reagan, because he was one of us. He walked with us and came to our meetings and receptions and dinners and sat with us.”

Drama at the Domestic Spying Hearings

Jon Ponder

Since others are covering the substance of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee today to discuss the president’s domestic spying program, I thought (being in Los Angeles and all) I’d cover the style:

A protester was just (8:59 PST) escorted out after calling Gonzales a “fascist.”
The sudden announcement earlier this morning that there were 9/11 families in the hearing room struck me as a non sequitor — although it shouldn’t have. Republicans have been playing the 9/11 card as fast and hard as they can.
The Attorney General has an involuntary smile — or is it a smirk? — that belies arrogance. When Sen. Kennedy asked him why he hadn’t bothered to consult with Congress before it began wiretapping without warrants, Gonzales said something like, “Because we didn’t think we had to.”
Kennedy made an excellent point. By conducting the searches outside the law, the Bush Administration has created legal jeopardy for its top officials, the NSA employees who are doing their illegal bidding and any cases brought to trial based on evidence that was illegally obtained. The idea that government lawyers employed by President Bush’s cronies will have the last say on the legalities of his domestic spying program is just silly. This America. Everything gets litigated.
Republicans use the adjective form of “Democrat” instead of “Democratic” because it sounds like “bureaucrat” and vaguely Soviet — a slur. This bit of message discipline has been around since the Lee Atwater days, so it must work pretty well for them. But when a Gop senator refers to a “Democrat president” it reveals him to be a political hack, and smart people stop listening.

Update:

The hearings ended with a bang. Chairman Specter outlined specific areas where he disagreed with the administration’s rationale for its illegal domestic spying program and warned the Attorney General that constitutional conflict between the Legislative and Executive branches could lie ahead.
Gonzales just smiled.

Glenn Greenwald Is Live Blogging Senate Domestic Wiretap Hearing

Jon Ponder

It may sound like hyperbole but to a great degree the future of our democracy hangs on the hearings taking place right now in the United States Senate. The issue at hand is whether President Bush does or does not have absolute power. On its face, this would appear to be a slamdunk but, tragically, it is not.

On C-SPAN “Washington Journal” this morning Glenn Greenwald masterfully took on a rightwing hack Robert Turner over the Bush Administration’s illegal wiretapping of American citizens.

Greenwald is live blogging the hearings on his website.

The session opened with controversy, as Democrats objected to the fact that committee chair Arlen Specter refused to swear in Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. The Democrats want the AG under oath because he apparently lied in sworn testimony he gave to the committee during his confirmation hearings. (See paragraph six in this post.)

Another SOTU Eviction: Florida Man Was Detained Because He Is Brown-Skinned

Jon Ponder

Time Magazine:

T-shirts, it turns out, aren’t the only things that get you in trouble with the Capitol Police at the State of the Union address. Much has already been made of the fact that both anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and Beverly Young, the wife of Republican Congressman Bill Young, were ejected from the speech for wearing shirts with political messages; in Sheehan’s case, her t-shirt read “2,245 dead. How many more?”, while Young was sporting a sweat shirt with the words, “Support the Troops-Defending Our Freedom.” Both have denounced their treatment-and both have received apologies from the police.

But on the same evening that President Bush was lauding democracy and freedom, there was one other person in attendance whose rights were infringed upon. The man, who did not want his identity revealed after the disturbing incident, was a personal guest of Florida Democrat Alcee Hastings. He is a prominent businessman from Broward County, Florida who works with the Department of Defense-and has a security clearance. After sitting in the gallery for the entire speech, he was surrounded by about ten law enforcement officers as he exited the chamber and whisked away to a room in the Capitol.

For close to an hour the man, who was born in India but is an American citizen, was questioned by the police, who thought he resembled someone on a Secret Service photo watch list, according to Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer. Eventually, the police realized it was a case of mistaken identity and let him go. Gainer has assured Hastings that the Capitol Police, Secret Service and FBI will investigate why the man was detained for so long, and try to “sharpen our procedures.” But the man was “very, very scared” by the incident, says Fred Turner, a spokesperson for Hastings. On Tuesday night, he told the congressman that the experience was “maybe just the price of being brown in America,” Turner says.

Republicans Have a Pre-1776 Mentality

Jon Ponder

And we’re in a post-1776 world: In the Era of Squishy Democrats, especially in the Senate, it is refreshing to read this from Russ Feingold, Democratic senator from Wisconsin. He may be the only senator to say that President Bush and the Republicans are acting as if the Constitution was “rendered quaint” by terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001:

Stop the power grab, stop the politics, stop breaking the law. It’s time to stand up — not to cheer, but to fight back.

I’ve seen some strange things in my life, but I cannot describe the feeling I had, sitting on the House floor during Tuesday’s State of the Union speech, listening to the President assert that his executive power is, basically, absolute, and watching several members of Congress stand up and cheer him on. It was surreal and disrespectful to our system of government and to the oath that as elected officials we have all sworn to uphold. Cheering? Clapping? Applause? All for violating the law?

The President and his administration continue their spin and media blitz in attempts to defend the fact that they broke, and continue to break, the law. Their weak and shifting justifications for doing so continue. The latest from the President seems to be that basically the FISA law, passed in 1978, is out of date. His decision that he can apparently disregard “old law” fits the pattern with the President and his administration. He’s decided to disregard a statute (FISA) and the Constitution (the 4th Amendment) by continuing to wiretap Americans’ phone calls and emails without the required warrant, while at the same time claiming powers of the presidency that do not exist. (Perhaps he feels the Constitution is too “old,” as well.) This administration reacts to any questions about spying on American citizens by saying that those of us who stand up for our rights and freedoms are somehow living in a “pre-September 11th, 2001 world.”

In fact, the President is living in a pre-1776 world.

[…]

John Edwards: Americans Need Hope and Inspiration

Trish

Say what you will, but I think John Edwards has it right.

America needs leaders who understand that the country needs to be inspired again, former Sen. John Edwards said Friday.

Edwards gets that Americans like you and me are…better than snarky rich idiots who act like assholes because they know deep down inside no amount of money or external success makes up for the fact they are small, nasty people

Edwards said that after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, Americans reached out to volunteer and take families into their homes.

“It says something about the heart and character of our country,” said Edwards, a Democrat. “What we need is we need leaders who tap into that.”

Ain’t it the truth? Full disclosure: I voted for Edwards in the Florida primary in 2004, even though the press and my party had already given the state to Kerry. I see something in him that I saw in Carter and in Clinton, and it’s not just the Southern thing, although “not for nothin’,” as we say down here.

Edwards now heads the Center for Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina law school and has previously said he has not decided whether he will run for president in 2008…

“The people I’ve met, they violate every stereotype that exists about people who are struggling,” Edwards said.

He said the great moral issue in the country today is that 37 million people live in poverty.

“They have never had a champion,” Edwards said. “They can’t even imagine someone actually being willing to speak up for them.”

Contrast Edwards’ remarks with those of former First Lady Barbara Bush, who in the wake of the most devastating natural disaster of our times looked on her idea of the bright side for the evacuees:

And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them. They are faring far better than before Katrina.

Edwards gets that Americans like you and me are better than that, better than snarky rich idiots who act like assholes because they know deep down inside no amount of money or external success makes up for the fact they are small, nasty people.

During his travels, Edwards said he has learned that there is a hunger in the United States for something big and important that people can be involved in and inspired by…

“We need hope,” Edwards said. “We need the belief inside us that we are good, strong, honorable people and we can do great things together.”

Somebody say “Amen!”

Wrong Again, O’Reilly — ‘Brokeback’ Plays ‘Well, and Widely’ in Montana

Jon Ponder

“They’re not going to go see the gay cowboys in Montana. I’m sorry. They’re not going to do it.”

— Bill O’Reilly, Dec. 20, 2005

Au contraire, Monsieur Loofah: “Brokeback Mountain” is doing a brisk business in Montana, according to columnist Joe Nickell in the Helena Independent Record:

O’Reilly believes that Joe Sixpack’s heterosexuality — like his own — is so tenuous and fragile that it might be destroyed by exposure to guy on guy action — even the 30 seconds of it in “Brokeback Mountain.”

Here in Missoula, the film has been a smash hit since it opened at the 1,100-seat Wilma Theatre on Jan. 6. “It’s been super every night since we started showing it,” said Bill Emerson, who manages the 85-year-old theater.

Data collected by Focus Features, which produced the film, show that “Brokeback” grossed more than $33,000 at the Wilma during its first four weekends alone.

And…

“Brokeback” isn’t just doing well in this, traditionally the most liberal part of the state… It was the No. 1 draw during opening weekends in Helena and Whitefish…

And guess where the film enjoyed its best opening weekend in Montana? Hint: It wasn’t liberal Missoula.

Try Billings.

In its opening three-day weekend, “Brokeback Mountain” grossed … 15 percent better than the film did during its opening weekend at the Wilma…

So…

“O’Reilly apparently forgot that stereotypes and off-the-cuff prognostications, no matter how confidently voiced, have an uncanny way of falling apart under the cold light of reality.”

Last month, O’Reilly also admitted to Matt Lauer that he was scared to see the film, which has been nominated for eight Academy Awards:

“I’m afraid of cowboys. I’m from Long Island. I’m afraid of all cowboys. And gay cowboys? I mean, I don’t — I don’t get the whole shepherd-cowboy-pup tent connection. I’m not getting all of that stuff.”

Sadly, O’Reilly probably really believes that he understands the psyche of the average guy “out there” in the Red states, and that like him, Joe Sixpack’s heterosexuality is so tenuous and fragile that it might be destroyed by exposure to guy on guy action — even the 30 seconds of it in “Brokeback Mountain.”

That is scary. In my 50 years I’ve seen hundreds of hours of guy-on-gal tussling in Hollywood movies and it hasn’t moved me even a quarter notch off my perfect Kinsey 6.

The point is, O’Reilly’s “man of the people” persona is a hollow shell. He is as pampered and pompadoured as any TV star — and just as clueless about the real world in his first-class bubble as the average Republican senator or presidential advisor.