Republican Senate

Two new polls released this week suggest that two more Senate seats have moved considerably in favor of the Democrats. In Alaska, it appears as though the already-too-long career of the poster-boy for earmark reform, Sen. Ted Stevens, is about to come to an end. Other polls have shown this race to be close, but it now appears that Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich has begun to pull ahead. According to a Research 2000 poll, Begich enjoys a five point lead over the incumbent, whose favorable/unfavorable ratings are an abysmal 38/58. When those someone who has been in office for forty years is showing those numbers, the writing is on the wall. Unless Ted Stevens retires or a late viable primary challenger emerges, we will lose this seat. Frankly, if we don’t dump Ted Stevens ourselves, we will deserve to lose it.

The other troubling poll comes from Kentucky, where Senate Minority “Leader” Mitch McConnell finds himself polling under 50% and with mere 10 and 12 point leads over his Democrat rivals to be, Bruce Lunsford and Greg Fischer, respectively. As with other Republicans whose poll numbers are not where they should be, McConnell enjoys a hefty cash on hand advantage that will make it extremely difficult for the Democrat challengers to compete. Both Democrats find their campaigns deep in debt with not much more money in the coffers beyond the amount owed. McConnell’s nearly $8 million in the bank raises the bar for Lunsford and Fischer and sends a signal to the DSCC that it would require a heavy investment in the state to give their candidates a serious shot a winning. These poll numbers, though, spell trouble for McConnell. Democrats would love to unseat him in revenge for the 2004 Republican ousting of then-Sen. Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Just how badly they want that revenge remains to be seen.

Perhaps worst of all, though, is that McConnell and his Senate colleagues failed to get the memo that a major reason for Republican losses in 2006 and in recent special elections was fiscal irresponsibility. Silent until the last minute, McConnell gave political cover to those hoping to buy off voters in their home states by voting in favor of the farm bill. Democrats expect their members to vote in favor of legislation that pays people not to do things ($30 billion will go to farmers for not growing food on their land, along with some environmental programs). Republican voters, however, want fiscal responsibility. Independents want a choice, and Republican Senators aren’t offering it to them. Only 13 Republicans, along with two Democrats (thank you Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, who on this one, was probably better than his predecessor) voted against the bloated legislation, and only two of them are facing reelection this year. As much as it pains me to give credit to her, Sen. Susan Collins was one of them. Sen. John Sununu was the other.

Simply put, most of the Republican caucus sold out on the principles of limited government yet again in hopes of buying the votes of their constitutents. This suicidal strategy failed miserably in 2006 and will be even worse in 2008. I won’t say that Republicans voting in favor of the farm bill deserve to lose, but if they do, they can look back on this vote as a failure to regain the high ground on the issue of fiscal responsibility. We had the chance to begin to turn the tables here, and McConnell and company mucked it up again. This terrible missed opportunity could well cost us a seat or two in November. If it does, here’s hoping that Ted Stevens is one of them.

Not content with their failure to recruit their two strongest possible candidates to face off with former Gov. Mike Johanns, Nebraska Democrats decided on Tuesday to nominate darling of the left-wing blogosphere Scott Kleeb rather than DSCC Chairman Chuck Schumer recruit businessman and former Republican Tony Raimondo. In fairness, Kleeb overperformed in Nebraska’s solidly Republican third Congressional district in his bid against now-Rep. Adrian Smith, but he was not running statewide in a Presidential election year, nor was he facing off against an extremely popular former Governor who already scared off another popular former Governor.

Although he will get some positive press in the wake of his victory over Washington’s pick, his victory was largely drowned out by coverage of Sen. Clinton’s victory in West Virginia. Kleeb enters the general election with some major obstacles to overcome. For starters, Sen. John McCain will win Nebraska by upwards of 20 points. While Johanns probably won’t need the coattails, they will be there for him if he does. Not only that, but Johanns himself has been polling in the high fifties in match-ups with Kleeb, who lags about twenty points behind. Kleeb is also far behind in name recognition, which could be hard to make up with his fundraising deficit - he trailed in cash on had by roughly a 6:1 margin at the end of March. Because it is a small state, though, campaigns are inexpensive, and this would be an opportunity of the DSCC to exploit its cash advantage without blowing its budget.

The next few polls out of this race should tell us quite a bit. Kleeb has the opportunity to peak and probably needs this race to be within 10 points within the next week or two to really have a chance. I doubt that that will happen, but recent polls in North Carolina and Texas suggest that we can take little for granted. If Kleeb does narrow the gap to a reasonable difference, expect him to have more than enough money to be competitive, though probably not enough to win. If, however, the next couple of polls don’t show Kleeb fairing much better against Johanns than he has in previous polls, it is extremely difficult to see how the former Governor could possibly lose.

Five polls in three states that were considered second or third-tier pick-up opportunities for Democrats suggest that the bottom may be falling out from under us. In North Carolina, Rasmussen Reports shows state Sen. Kay Hagan with a statistically insignificant lead over incumbent Sen. Elizabeth Dole. At first, I had hoped that this would be an outlier. Unfortunately, Public Policy Polling released another poll confirming that Hagan had in fact closed the huge gap with Sen. Dole. The good news is that both polls show Dole with big leads among independents, and that Democrats were likely oversampled. The bad news is that the new polls show that Hagan, while probably still behind, is within striking distance of the incumbent with nearly six months to go. This is one seat in which the DSCC can exploit its cash on hand advantage to go on the attack while the NRSC will be unable to respond, leaving Dole to fend for herself. Fortunately, Dole enjoys a 10:1 cash on hand advantage. Unfortunately, these new poll numbers are likely to help Hagan to raise far more than she could have hoped before they were released. If Dole is to fully exploit her cash on hand advantage, she needs to go on the air now to define the still largely unknown Hagan to voters before Hagan has the opportunity to do it herself. If this race is won in June, Dole holds on. If, however, she allows Hagan to introduce herself to the state, all bets are off.

In Texas, two new polls show challenger state Rep. Rick Noriega within the margin of error with Sen. John Cornyn. While those numbers are certainly troubling, Texas is an extremely expensive state, meaning that national Democrats would have to make a much more significant commitment to help make Noriega competitive. What’s more, Cornyn’s fundraising advantage makes the money race in North Carolina look competitive. Cornyn enjoys more than a 26:1 advantage, dominating Noriega, who had less than $330,000 on hand at the end of March. The question thus becomes, “Are Democrats willing to make a play for a tremendously symbolic seat in Texas, which would illustrate a national repudiation of the Bush Administration, rather than spend their resources in cheaper states in hopes of driving up their numbers in less costly states. The other problem here is that this will inhibit Cornyn’s ability to campaign with other Republicans in their respective states.

Finally in Oregon, Rasmussen shows Sen. Gordon Smith with a statistically insignificant lead over Jeff Merkley. Since the last poll, which was taken in July, Smith lost two points, falling to 45%, while Merkley gained 8 points, jumping up to 42%. Democrats had suffered major recruiting failures here and would likely be leading now had any of their top targets decided to make the bid. Even so, Merkley, a B-lister at best, has managed to narrow the gap, mainly on the weakness in the President’s popularity. The Democrats will continue to try to tie Smith to the President in spite of his independent voting record. Smith, for his part, is trying to choose his opponent at this point. Again, the incumbent has a huge cash on hand advantage, but this is one seat for which national Democrats will definitely make a play.

Although each of these polls is worrying in its own right, that is only half the story. If two of our safe and one of our semi-safe incumbents are all facing the prospect that they could actually lose in November, what does that say about other races? It is extremely worrying to consider what other polls might come out in the next week or two. If North Carolina and Texas are competitive, what of Alaska, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska and, with the special election today being so competitive, Mississippi? Unless Republicans move quickly to rectify this situation, our worst fears may come to pass in November, with Democrats now facing the realistic possibility that they could actually find the 60 votes they need to stop a filibuster. At this point, we can take almost nothing for granted (the two Senators from Wyoming are both going to win), and we must accept that we are going to lose - badly - in November and allocate resources accordingly to avert the potential disaster of a return to permanent minority status.

Rep. Steve Pearce picked up the endorsement of the FRC’s political branch on Wednesday, thus bolstering his claim that he is the real conservative in the race to replace retiring Sen. Pete Domenici. Pearce, who has been among the best friends of social conservatives, earned the endorsement for his support of a ban on human cloning, his opposition to federal funding of abortion, and his opposition to federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, among others. These issues present a clear distinction between Pearce and his pro-choice primary opponent, Rep. Heather Wilson.

The endorsement is the latest in a series for Rep. Pearce, who also enjoys the support of the Campaign for Working Families, the Club for Growth, the National Right to Life Committee, and the Susan B. Anthony List. Wilson, for her part, has rounded up the support of those who don’t understand the need for restraint in federal spending. Senators Kit Bond and Wayne Allard, for example, are supporting her largely because of her opposition to earmark reform and her free-spending habits. Hopefully these endorsements will continue to flow in on both sides so that New Mexican Republicans have the opportunity to see the contrast between the candidates as clearly as possible. A vote for Heather Wilson is a vote for the Republican Party that got obliterated in 2006 while a vote for Steve Pearce is a vote for the fiscal and social responsibility that put the Party back in power in 1994.

I will readily state that I have major misgivings about our Presidential nominee when it comes to judicial nominations. His history in the Senate of spurning highly qualified nominees in favor of the media-grabbing “middle ground” gives me pause when I consider whether I can cast my ballot for the chosen one. That said, his speech today in North Carolina suggested that he might be alright on the issue. Although it will take a lot more to convince many conservatives that McCain can be trusted on the issue, his speech today demonstrated a greater understanding of the problem of judicial abuses than his previous statements.

McCain promised to nominate judges like John Roberts, Sam Alito, and William Rehnquist, whom he says have avoided legislating from the bench. Each of those judges has a solid history of focusing on the law rather than their own personal views. Each of them would also have had a difficult time getting through a Senate with a solid Democrat majority. If McCain is to be trusted on this issue, we can look forward to some knock-down, drag out nomination fights.

Here are some highlights from his speech:

For decades now, some federal judges have taken it upon themselves to pronounce and rule on matters that were never intended to be heard in courts or decided by judges. With a presumption that would have amazed the framers of our Constitution, and legal reasoning that would have mystified them, federal judges today issue rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically. Assured of lifetime tenures, these judges show little regard for the authority of the president, the Congress, and the states. They display even less interest in the will of the people. And the only remedy available to any of us is to find, nominate, and confirm better judges…

The moral authority of our judiciary depends on judicial self-restraint, but this authority quickly vanishes when a court presumes to make law instead of apply it. A court is hardly competent to check the abuses of other branches of government when it cannot even control itself…

Sometimes the expressed will of the voters is disregarded by federal judges, as in a 2005 case concerning an aggravated murder in the State of Missouri. As you might recall, the case inspired a Supreme Court opinion that left posterity with a lengthy discourse on international law, the constitutions of other nations, the meaning of life, and “evolving standards of decency.” These meditations were in the tradition of “penumbras,” “emanations,” and other airy constructs the Court has employed over the years as poor substitutes for clear and rigorous constitutional reasoning. The effect of that ruling in the Missouri case was familiar too. When it finally came to the point, the result was to reduce the penalty, disregard our Constitution, and brush off the standards of the people themselves and their elected representatives.

Although the speech was generally welcome news, Sen. McCain failed to apologize for his votes to confirm both of President Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees. He failed to recognize that he is partially responsible for the abuses of the Courts because he voted to confirm many of the judges abusing their judicial power. Unless and until Sen. McCain comes to terms with that reality, there will always be lingering doubts about the types of judges he would nominate.

A new SurveyUSA poll shows that a majority of Minnesotans think that Al Franken should withdraw from his race against Sen. Norm Coleman. 51% of Minnesotans say that Franken should pull out, as opposed to only 39% who believe that he should stay in the race. The poll comes as stunning news to a campaign that has been reeling from recent news stories about the comedian’s tax evasion, and even suggests that this race may be nearing its end. The survey also found that 59% of Minnesotans consider themselves less likely to vote for Franken in light of the revelations.

These results come on the heals of two recent polls that show the Franken campaign to be in a tailspin. In spite of his attempts to pin the blame on his accountant for his tax evasion scheme, the voters of Minnesota appear to be too smart to fall for that. Unlike Franken, they seem to know that his taxes are ultimately his own responsibility and that the buck stops with him.

While other races continue to favor Democrats, Sen. Coleman appears to be edging ever closer to safety. When a majority of people in a candidate’s state think that he should actually withdraw from the race, it is a sure sign that a candidate is in serious trouble. Unless Franken can come up with some better explanations in a hurry, you’ll be able to turn out the lights at DFL headquarters, cause their party will be over long before it was supposed to begin.

On Thursday, the US Chamber of Commerce endorsed former Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns in his race to replace retiring Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. The endorsement comes as no surprise as Johanns has been known as a tax cutter and a free trader. His opponents, on the other hand, look to government for solutions to the world’s problems. Both would be likely to repeal the Bush tax cuts and would look to increase regulations rather than freeing businesses to create jobs in America.

The endorsement is also politically astute. When he entered the race, Johanns managed to force out not only his fellow Republicans, but also Democrat heavy hitter former Sen. Bob Kerrey. Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey dropped out shortly thereafter, meaning that Democrats had to turn to Congressional race loser Scott Kleeb. Kleeb has since disappointed them as a candidate so much that they are trying to stop him with someone who was a Republican just a few months ago.

Democrats are in disarray, and Johanns continues to coast. They had hoped to make this one competitive, but you can turn out the lights. This one’s over.

Just two months after abandoning his campaign in hopes of uniting earlier to take on incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman, Mike Ciresi is considering reentering the Minnesota Senate race because of just how scandal-ridden current candidate Al Franken is. Ciresi had been unable to gain the momentum he would have needed to defeat Franken, largel due to the money that the comedian had managed to raise from the states in which he had avoided paying taxes. Franken’s lead in cash on hand, name recognition, and endorsements seemed just too much to overcome.

Now, though, Democrats are now having serious doubts over whether Franken can win given recent press stories about his multi-state tax evasion. After initially closing a twenty point gap with Coleman to actually pull even with him in recent polls, he now trails by seven points and continues to suffer bad press over, according to him, the errors of his accountant. Meanwhile, Coleman’s approval rating is in the low 50s and he polls at 50% against Franken. While he was in the race, Ciresi typically polled a few points weaker than Franken, but those numbers may turn around given Franken’s obvious weaknesses.

The good news here is that it appears as though Democrats trying to unseat Coleman are in total disarray. After failing to recruit a top-tier candidate, Democrats hoped that Ciresi could derail Franken’s campaign and offer them a reasonable shot at taking down the incumbent. After failing in their last ditch effort to have someone other than Al Franken on the ticket, they finally settled for him in hopes that doing so could at least avert a messy primary. Now, though, they are beginning to realize their worst fears about a Franken candidacy, and they will have to revive a dead candidacy in hopes of keeping him off the ticket. In doing so, though, they may well succeed only in further weakening Franken’s already diminishing campaign.

Well, Al Franken may wish that he hadn’t made this run, but I’m sure glad he did.

I have a million ideas and America can’t afford them all.
– Hillary Rodham Clinton

In what could be a foreshadowing of what is likely to come in a new Clinton Administration. the junior Senator from New York requested a jaw-dropping $2.3 billion in earmarks this year, three times more than any Senator received in the appropriations bills last year. Most of that money is for her supposed home state of New York. Presumably she wants to bring home the bacon for the good of her constituents. In fact, she is quite obviously preparing for potential defeat in the Presidential campaign.

What is most troubling, though, is the fact that she still could become President. Doing some quick math, New York’s population is roughly 7% of the nation’s population. If she is requesting $2.3 billion for seven perecent of the population, it suggests that she would be willing to approve such requests for members of Congress should she become President. That total, assuming roughly the same amount per constituent, comes to roughly $40 billion a year in earmarks, or $160 billion over four years.

Suffice it to say that America cannot afford all of her “good” ideas. Americans can barely afford any of her ideas. Regardless of whether Sen. Clinton’s heart is in the right place - and I have no interest in granting that it is - her election would be a financial disaster for the country. Her latest requests demonstrate that she completely lacks any sort of fiscal restraint and would be willing to spend money at will to engratiate herself to voters and contributors alike. Sen. McCain, by contrast, has sworn off earmarks and has vowed to make earmarkers famous. Although conservatives certainly have problems with the Senator from Arizona, one can’t help but notice that he and Clinton are polar opposites on the subject. McCain wants to spend responibly and understand that Americans have a budget just like the government does. Clinton, on the other hand, would act like a kid in a candystore, buying everything she possibly could. Americans can only afford one of the choices.

Al Franken, head of Al Franken, Inc. - a corporation that doesn’t play by the rules, is once again passing the buck to his accountant for his multi-year tax evasion in California. Franken, one who claims that he wants to go to the Senate to look out for the working man, said, “we have people working on that as we speak.” Funny, I don’t think working men make five-figure errors like Franken’s accountant has repeatedly done and they do their own taxes. In fact, usually when working men make mistakes like that, they get fired. Sometimes they even get sued.

The real issue here, though, is that Franken apparently hired somebody to do a job and that person failed miserably. But paying his taxes is ultimately Franken’s responsibility, not his accountant’s. The buck stops with Al, or at least it should. Apparently, though, Al Franken hired someone who was either as crooked as William Jefferson or as incompetent as Ray Nagin. How does he make up for his error? He makes the accountant the scapegoat and keeps him on the payroll so he will have someone to blame in the future.

Unless Al Franken really thinks that he will be able to do his job as a Senator without any staff, can the voters of Minnesota really expect that he would do any better in hiring staff for a government office than he did hiring for his own corporation? Do they think he would be more careful, or would he just hire the first schmoe who comes along so that he has someone to blame for similar illegalities SNAFUs Can they trust that he would hold his staff and himself to a higher standard? What happens when Franken actually casts votes and then discovers years later that his staff actually misinformed him of what was in the legislation? In six years, when he gets blamed for something he didn’t realize he did (or did because he thought he could get away with it), will he look the voters of Minnesota straight in the eye and say, “It was my staff’s fault”?

Al Franken has some serious soul searching to do, which will be hard since nobody is actually certain whether this guy has a soul, and ask himself whether he is really fit to serve the people of Minnesota. It is open to debate whether Franken himself attempted to engage in illegalities or simply made some bad personel decision. What is not open to debate is that Franken himself bears a great deal of the responsibility for illegalities in two states and that he refuses to acknowledge any responsibility therefor. Most of us learned when we were young that we have to take responsibility for our actions. Apparently Al Franken has never grown up.