More Questions

Today's my birthday, and I was going to refrain from writing anything on my blog today in recognition of that personal landmark, but I have some serious questions to ask regarding the aftermath of Tuesday's elections. Here they are:

Why is Nancy Pelosi being scapegoated for the Democrats's loss of the House? Nancy Pelosi, who has announced that she will run for the position of House Democratic leader in the new Congress, is being blamed for the fix the Democrats in Washington find themselves in, and many moderate House Democrats - what few there are left - are pressuring her to take herself out of contention for a leadership position. Last time I checked, the Democrats were punished at the polls based on the perception that nothing got done. Outgoing Speaker Pelosi passed in the House over four hundred bills that would have improved the lives of many people (if not for the fact that they couldn't get through the Senate). She was more instrumental than Harry Reid in passing health care reform legislation, which Reid could only pass without some of Pelosi's reforms once it became apparent that Massachusetts would replace Ted Kennedy with a Republican. This bill actually will improve the lives of many people - ask Andy Griffith. Yet Reid will still be the Senate majority leader, so why does Pelosi have to be the sacrifical lamb? Because she's a woman? Because she's from San Francisco, a place even blue-collar liberals hate? Because there are certain parts of this country where they look down on anyone with a vowel at the end of his or her name? Actually, it's probably all of the above.

Why is Mitch McConnell acting like the Senate Majority Leader? Democrats had a bright spot in the midterm elections - they kept the Senate. And, they lost fewer seats than they were expected to. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania and Alexi Giannoulias in Illinois came close to winning their respective Senate races and minimizing the party's losses even further. And, Senate Democratic incumbents Michael Bennet and Patty Murray have just been declared the winners in their respective elections in Colorado and Washington State. And Senate Democrats add a strong, tough player to their ranks in the form of Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, known for his effectiveness as a fighter for ordinary people in his role as Connecticut Attorney General. But listening to Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, you'd think he's the new boss of the Senate. He certainly thinks so. But how can he control a chamber in which his side is outnumbered? Also, how can he control a Republican Senate caucus with rambunctious Tea Party stalwarts such as Florida's Marco Rubio and Tea Party godfather Jim DeMint of South Carolina? McConnell can't even control Rand Paul!

Why are the successes of Democratic gubernatorial candidates being ignored? It is true that the Democrats lost governorships in states where it's crucial to preserve Democratic advantages in redistricting for the 2012 elections. But they won back the governorship of California and held the governorship of New York. And in President Obama's home state of Illinois, Democratic Governor Pat Quinn, held onto his job. California, New York and Illinois are among the most populous states in the Union. That has to count for something.

Why is the Tea Party being heralded for their "success" at the polls? Remember - 61 percent of Tea Party candidates who ran in the 2010 elections lost. Wow, some big success!

Finally, why is the White House willing to make concessions over tax cuts or the rich? The Democrats could present sound, solid arguments that tax cuts for the top 2 percent of Americans eviscerate the economy and create few jobs, as they would have solid facts to back them up. And, they could make their case in terms that anyone, even the most minimally intelligent Fox News viewer or commentator could understand. So why is the President caving on this issue in the name of compromising with a congressional Republican leadership that is in no mood to compromise? Especially when the polls show that most Americans agree that more tax cuts for the rich are just plain wrong?

These are very relevant questions (they're not moot!). But I have no answers for any of them.

Pauline Perils

It's hard to figure out who is the most offensive of the Republican new faces that will appear in Washington in January, but right now I would guess Rand Paul by a wide margin. He's not named for Ayn Rand - his name is actually short for Randal - but he shares the selfishness-oriented and self-centered socioeconomic philosophy of Alan Greenspan's former mentor. He's actually been quoted as saying the rich should be "left alone" in any tax policy that the 112th Congress devises, and we depend on the wealthy to maintain a prosperous society. And remember, Paul has come out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a point of fact that would have likely brought out enough black voters elsewhere but not in Kentucky, one of the whitest states south of the Ohio River.

Runners-up in the new Senate for loathsomeness Pennsylvania's Pat Toomey, who has forwarded arguments against helping to rebuild his state's beleaguered steel industry; Ohio's Rob Portman, who was George Walker Bush's trade representative and is therefore in part responsible for Ohio's current industrial malaise; and Wisconsin's Ron Johnson, who says global warming is caused by "sunspots" and has refused to answer questions on specific issues, like veterans' affairs.

But we can take comfort that Carly Fiorina, Linda McMahon, Christine O'Donnell, and the spectacularly insufferable Sharron Angle - without question the scariest ladies' auxiliary in Republican politics in recent memory (although Sarah Palin is scarier than all of them put together) - won't be in that august chamber.

The House is less august, and so that chamber can take a few crackpots. The only problem is that those crackpots - including the incoherent and personally horrible Ben Quayle - are part of the new Republican majority.

Oh, and though the mainstream media aren't likely to make a big deal out of it, only 31 percent of Republican candidates for Congress associated with the Tea Party won on Tuesday.

As for Rand Paul, who now has the power to stop legislation by himself, he can now follow the Randian (as in Ayn) philosophy of one individual against the collective body.

Led in part by Mitch McConnell.

I don't know how President Obama is going to react, but I was anything but re-assured by his lame press conference yesterday.

Midterm Election Endorsements

Oh, Jesus Christ and General Jackson, Uncle Albert and Admiral Halsey, do I have to post my election endorsements a week in advance again? It's that time? It is, and I might as well do it now so I can return to important issues like Lindsay Lohan's bumpy road back to sobriety.

Back in August, I endorsed Charlie Melancon for the United States Senate from Louisiana, and although Republican incumbent and noted unindicted sex criminal David Vitter remains the favorite in that race, Melancon is gaining in the polls. The ragin' Cajun might pull an upset. He may be surging too late, though, but we'll see. That said, I now have to make other official endorsements.

I'm just going to make a blanket endorsement of Democrats in this election cycle, except for two elections in particular. (I'll tell you in a few moments.) But I am going to call to attention Democratic candidates in a few specific elections, because while I can live with with, say, Republican Rob Portman winning the Senate seat in Ohio (against Democrat Lee Fisher) or Republican Johnny Isakson of Georgia winning a second term in the U.S. Senate (I can't even name his Democratic opponent!), there are key races I must speak out on. I'm naming names.

So here are the races I am looking at right now:

For U.S. Senate, Pennsylvania: This blog wholeheartedly endorses Joseph Sestak. A former three-star admiral in the U.S .Navy and a congressman from Delaware County outside Philadelphia, Sestak has a progressive agenda meant at helping industry rebuild at home rather than outsource abroad. Republican opponent Pat Toomey sees Pennsylvania's industrial heritage as collateral damage in a global economy that doesn't need to be saved. Sestak, who's loyally served America, needs to move up to the Senate.

For U.S. Senate, Wisconsin: My man is Feingold. This blog endorses Democratic incumbent Russ Feingold, a champion of campaign finance reform whose expertise on the issue is needed more than ever with the Citizens United decision from the Supreme Court now the law of the land. Republican challenger Ron Johnson, I'm sure, stands for something, but he refuses to say what he stands for. When asked for details on specific issues, he changes he subject.

For U.S. Senate, California: This blog endorses Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer. Carly Fiorina has no business going to Washington and talking about jobs when her only expertise on the issue is destroying them while she ran Hewlett Packard into the ground.

For Governor of California: This blog endorses former governor and state attorney General Jerry Brown. Brown ran California in the tumultuous seventies, he's a proven cost cutter (he lived sparingly during his tenure as governor) and, unlike Republican opponent Meg Whitman, he's on the side of the people.

For U.S. Senate, Connecticut: This blog endorses Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. He is a tough, proven prosecutor who has handled tough civil cases involving consumer protection and job outsourcing. The only way Linda McMahon, the noted drug-pushing violence peddler and Republican candidate, can put her World Wrestling Entertainment business acumen to use in the Senate is if she encourages fist fights and duels in that chamber . . . and turns C-SPAN 2 into a Pay-Per-View channel . . . which I suppose could help balance the budget without raising taxes.

For Governor of New York: This blog endorses Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. The younger Cuomo has a proven prosecutorial record comparable to Blumenthal's, and Republican opponent Carl Paladino's personal behavior is comparable to Linda McMahon's professional profile, if not worse.

For U.S. Senate, Delaware: This blog endorses New Castle County executive Chris Coons. Christine O'Donnell may not be a witch, she may not be an heiress, she may not be an Ivy Leaguer, and she may not be a constitutional expert, but I don't care what she isn't - so long as she's not a senator.

For U.S. Senate, Colorado: This blog endorses incumbent Democrat Michael Bennet. When it comes to standing up for women's rights, Bennet stands up straight. Republican challenger Ken Buck develops back problems.

For Governor of Florida: This blog endorses Alex Sink. Sink is a financial expert that a state that could use her expertise, not a guy like Republican incumbent Rick Scott, who made his fortune bilking government programs through the hospital chain he ran.

For U.S. Senate, Florida: This blog endorses Kendrick Meek, the only real progressive in that race. This blog might have considered endorsing John Raese, who lives in Florida and is a well-respected businessman and has run an aggressive Senate campaign, but he is in fact running for Robert Byrd's seat in West Virginia.

For U.S. Senate, West Virginia: This blog endorses Governor Joe Manchin. Even if Raese were a real West Virginian, he still opposes the minimum wage.

For U.S. House of Representatives, Minnesota, Sixth District: This blog endorses Tarryl Clark. She's progressive, she's smart, and she's not like her opponent, incumbent Republican Michele Bachmann!

For U.S House of Representatives, Ohio, Eighth District: This blog endorses Justin Coussole. Because if we're going to have another Republican Speaker of the House, let it not be John Boehner, the incumbent.

For U.S. Senate, South Carolina: This blog endorses Alvin Greene. Greens is a nut case who makes Christine O'Donnell look like a scholar, and he has a police record, but even though he's not going to win, he'd still make a better senator than incumbent Republican Jim DeMint. Vote for Greene and smile on the way out of the voting booth knowing you've played an important part in shaking up the system. :-D

For Governor of Rhode Island: This blog endorses independent Lincoln Chaffee, the former U.S. senator. He's a reasonable man Democrats and Republicans in Providence can work with. General Treasurer Frank Caprio, the Democratic candidate, was disrespectful to President Obama because he did not get Obama's endorsement. He doesn't deserve to be rewarded with a victory.

For Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska: This blog endorses Levi Johnston. He's sharper than his former future mother-in-law, noted book-banning wolf killer Sarah Palin, and he's more literate.

Those are my endorsements. Now go out and vote next Tuesday.

I know I forgot about the Senate race in Nevada. I'm trying to.

Pledging My Time

The Republican "Pledge To America" sounds more like a threat than a promise. At a lumber company in Virginia, House Republican leader John Boehner and several of his factota unveiled a program Republican House candidates and incumbents are running on in the fall campaign. It;s essentially this: Cut taxes, cut federal spending, repeal the health care law, and oh yes, stop federally funded abortions while they're at it (in deference to the religious right). No mention of job creation, no explanation as to what they'd replace the health care bill with, none of that stuff. Boehner, deputy leader Eric Cantor, Mike Pence, and a couple of other GOP congressmen picked an amazingly low-key setting for their announcement; rather than trumpet a plan on the steps of the Capitol in Washington, as Newt Gingrich did with his Contract With America in 1994, they unveiled it at a lumber yard (manly) in northern Virginia (the real America), specifically in the unincorporated suburb of Sterling (unincorporated = no government = no taxes = no need to participate in local affairs).

Their presentation was so muted, in fact, it makes one think they believe they're going to win the House anyway. And, most likely, they will. Well, that's what Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog has been consistently forecasting for weeks. But this "lemon Pledge," as liberals have derided it, is so short on specifics and details, you wonder if maybe the Republicans take their would-be victory so much for granted that they don't need to deal with programs and solutions. Boehner himself just said yesterday that they don;t need to talk about solutions to problems in an election campaign. Uh, isn't that the best time to do it - I mean, to help persuade undecided voters and give the base something to vote for? Oh, right, the base voters already have something to vote against - President Obama - and they don't care about specifics. Just as long as there's a pledge to America.

Public radio is asking America for pledges of late. Because commercial radio is so awfully predictable and predictably awful, I listen to two public stations where I live, a folk rock station (WFUV-FM in New York) and a jazz station (WBGO-FM in Newark, N.J.). Both stations have been asking for money ad infinitum in their current pledge drives, both of which end September 30; they've been going on interminably, and I don't even remember when they started. But they fact that these drives have been going on for so long only underscores how bad the economy is and how badly these stations need money in light of money no longer coming from different sources. Public broadcasting always loses corporate donations and government assistance in bad times, and it's lucky to get any of it back when times get better. I'm even being made to feel guilty by WFUV announcers if I don't give anything, even though I can't. As a taxpayer, I'd be happy to see some of my tax money to keep public broadcasters on the air and free of corporate sponsorship, which is how countries in the rest of the Western world pay for public radio and television. But this is America, where the free market has the upper hand. I'm just quietly waiting for the current pledge drives to end so I can hear more music.

All of this pledging made me decide to take the pledge and commit myself to a fundraising party a woman in my social network is hosting on Saturday, when the march for jobs takes place in Washington. What made me decide to do so was the recent news from Connecticut, showing that the distinguished Democratic Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal has seen his lead over his drug-pushing, violence-peddling Republican opponent shrink to three points.

That scared the hell out of me.

Once More Into the D.C. Breach

Having been on the receiving end of attacks by the Republicans for months, Democrats are now fighting back, as evidenced by Democratic senator Barbara Boxer's spirited performance against Republican opponent Carly Fiorina in California and Democratic senator Russ Feingold's similar stand against Republican Ron Johnson in Wisconsin. In Minnesota, Tarryl Clark has noted right-wing gadfly Michele Bachmann running scared so much that Bachmann has put out a new e-mail calling for more help from her supporters to keep her House seat. Could this mean that the Democrats are gaining momentum?
Not a chance.
The economy remains so excruciatingly bad, and Republicans have such an established ability to communicate their message, that it's appearing less likely that the Democrats will even minimize their losses, much less reverse them. Furthermore, because the Republicans have been on the attack for so long, it seems almost like an act of desperation for Democrats to attack in response.

It's also proven to be very effective for the Republicans to divorce themselves from the governing process for so long. At the beginning of the year, many pundits believed that incumbents of both parties would be blamed for the sorry state of the economy, and that Democratic incumbents would naturally bear more of the brunt of voter antipathy simply because there were more of them. Now, however, they're bearing all of it. Republican incumbents, by contrast, are sitting pretty. In Iowa, Charles Grassley - once a likeable moderate but now known as a purveyor of the "death panel" ruse against the health care law - is on his way to winning a sixth term to the U.S. Senate. David Vitter in Louisiana is still a favorite for re-election to the Senate, despite two sex scandals and a reputation for protecting BP. The Democratic challengers in these races, Roxanne Conlin and Charlie Melancon, respectively, are fighting hard but with little wind at their backs. It is very difficult for Democratic challengers to run effectively against Republican incumbents in Iowa and Louisiana when the national party is trying to defend Democratic incumbents in tough races in California and Wisconsin.
To be fair to the Democrats, even if they had counterattacked months ago, they'd still be behind in the polls due to an economy that stubbornly refuses to recover. Nevertheless, for the Democrats to promise a counteroffensive in the midterm campaigns at this point is comparable to the notion of the French planning to invade Nazi Germany after the fall of Belgium. The Democrats still have a chance to hold the Senate, even though the House is probably gone. But if present trends persist - and there's not much time left - the Senate may also fall to the GOP.

President Obama is a cool and reasonable man, and that has hurt him in his inability to connect with voters. But if a Tea Party-dominated Republican party gains control of one or both houses of Congress, that might be the best thing for him.

Forgetting Elaine Marshall

At the beginning of the year, political pundits suggested that while 2010 would be a tough year for Democrats in which they were expected to lose seats in Congress due to the economy and the fact that the party not holding the White House does better in midterm elections, all incumbents regardless of party affiliation would have a tough time this year. Now these same pundits are suggesting that Republican incumbents are in much better shape because of all the momentum on their side. No one has come out and said so, but the punditocracy seems to expect a year like 1994, in which the Republicans not only took over the House but took over the Senate with every incumbent Republican senator being re-elected and every open seat going Republican, with two incumbent Democrats going down to defeat.

And so, it must seem silly to cover Senate races with incumbent Republicans this year. Maybe that's why you haven't heard much of this year's U.S. Senate campaign in North Carolina - except here on this blog, of course.

You remember North Carolina, a state with an incumbent Republican senator - Richard Burr - so well favored that Chuck Todd at MSNBC couldn't be bothered to talk a lot about it? You probably haven't heard all that much about the Democratic challenger, Elaine Marshall. She is North Carolina's Secretary of State, and has a distinguished record of accomplishment including the recovery of $340 million from Wall Street banks. Well, I don't mean to laugh at Chuck Todd - HA HA HA HA HA HA HA - but despite national disinterest in this race, she's moved up to two points behind Burr in one poll and moved ahead, also by two points, in a poll taken by WWAY-TV in Wilimington.

Burr is so unpopular in the Tar Heel State and is so connected with politics as usual in Washington he could lose his election running unopposed. Fortunately for him, though, he has a Democratic opponent whom he can define as too radical and too out of the mainstream for this very conservative state. Not if Elaine Marshall defines herself first. She doesn't have as much money, but she has a spirited group of progressive backers who are willing to contribute to and work for her campaign. Marshall also has free media at her disposal, and if she does enough interviews and hits the right notes, she can overcome Burr's financial advantage very easily. Most importantly, she, as a progressive, gives voters reasons to vote for her, not merely against Burr. This is how she defeated a White House-backed candidate for the Democratic Senate nomination, and this is why she is in a better position to win in North Carolina than Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, who's down by twenty points in her race.

Most pundits made note of Bill Halter's loss to Lincoln in the Arkansas Senate primary runoff and decided that it's not such a good idea for progressives to cast their lots with and spend their time and money on candidates not backed by the Democratic establishment. The likeliest reason they ignored Marshall's Senate primary runoff victory in North Carolina is because, while she defeated White House-supported candidate Cal Cunningham, Cunningham wasn't an incumbent senator like Blanche Lincoln is, and Marshall still has to defeat Burr. (And they act as if Joe Sestak's Senate primary victory in Pennsylvania, where he took out incumbent Democratic senator Arlen Specter, never happened.) But the passion is clearly on Marshall's side in North Carolina. She's surging in the polls, and it looks like a possible pickup that could offset Democratic losses elsewhere (like Arkansas). If I were Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey - who currently chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee - this year, I'd be getting ready to pout more money into this race. It looks competitive now.

Only solid support from Menendez's committee and grass-roots Democrats and progressives can help Elaine Marshall. If she wins, no one will forget about her then.

Bye Bye Bayh

Evan Bayh, the junior Democratic senator from Indiana, announced that he is not, in fact, running for re-election after all. He cited the fact that nothing is getting done in Washington and also the partisanship on Capitol Hill as reasons for his retirement, plus the assertion that he doesn't like the job anymore. Some folks suspect that he's afraid of losing. Former senator Dan Coats, who in 1998 gave up the seat Bayh now holds (it also belonged to Bayh's father, the legendary Birch Bayh, until he lost in in 1980 to a little-known two-term congressman named Dan Quayle), recently announced his desire to get his old job back. Bayh apparently decided he'd retire rather than lose his seat to someone named Dan, like his father did. Some wonder if Bayh thinks he can't win after Scott Brown won his special Senate race in Massachusetts. (Note: Brown won because he was a regular guy with a pickup truck, a bodacious personality, and a sense of charisma, while his opponent was a frosty Irishwoman with all the warmth and charm of a Zamboni.)

It seems to me that incumbents of both parties are rushing to get out of Washington as quickly as possible. Bayh's announcement comes on the heels of the announcement of two House members, Republican Vernon Ehlers of Michigan and Democrat Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island. Democrats are likely to bear the brunt of the anti-incumbent movement in the midterm elections, since they hold large majorities in both houses of Congress. The current game plan for the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees is to blame the lack of progress on health care and a jobs bill on Republican obstructionism, but no less an authority the congressional pundit Amy Walter thinks that no one is likely to buy that argument. Besides, the "tea party" movement is largely generating the anti-incumbent wave and pushing an old-fashioned right-wing agenda of smaller government and equal rights for white people. As much as President Obama talks about transforming America, it's worth noting that Fox News is riding high in the ratings, voters flee government social program proposals like vampires from a cross (to cop a phrase from retired columnist Donald Kaul), and gun sales are through the roof. And there is no liberal equivalent to the tea party movement afoot, or at least no liberal equivalent that's getting coverage from the media. The direction of America in 2010 looks a lot like the direction Ronald Reagan set it on after getting elected President in 1980.

Oh yeah, Patrick Kennedy. The younger son of the late Ted Kennedy says he hopes to pursue other interests. (Which I think means, he wants to move back to Massachusetts and challenge Scott Brown in 2012.) When the 112th Congress convenes in January, Congress will not only include fewer Democrats - far fewer Democrats - it will not have a Kennedy in it for the first time since 1947. Big deal. Washington has no more Bushes, no more Doles, and soon will have no more Kennedys. And, no more Bayhs. The republic will survive, just as it got along fine without the Adamses.