The Official 2006 Mid-term Elections Thread

QueEx · Sep 29, 2005

Barack Obama Steps (Carefully) Into the Spotlight

<font size="5"><center>Barack Obama Steps (Carefully) Into the Spotlight</font size></center>
<font size="4"><center>The senator from Illinois took a strong stand
over the federal response to Hurricane Katrina,
after months of waiting in the wings. Is the Democrats'
rising star finally raising his profile?</font size>

Obama at the Chicago Red Cross headquarters earlier this month</center>

TIME Magazine
By PERRY BACON, JR.
Posted Wednesday, Sep. 28, 2005

For his first eight months in the Senate, if you asked anyone why Barack Obama kept such a low profile, the answer was always the same: “He’s taking the Hillary approach.” Just as Hillary Clinton kept out of the spotlight after taking office to much fanfare, Obama, a star of last year's Democratic convention, has spent most of his time in Illinois, and out of the headlines. While he did appear on Oprah Winfrey’s television show in January, he has focused his energy on local issues like veterans’ benefits and has deferred to his more experienced colleagues on the big political fights. "What Sen. Clinton did when she first came in was what any person would do when they come into a new environment, that is listen and learn before you speak and you act," Obama told TIME in June. "I have tried to follow that same wisdom."

Now, Obama is breaking out. As the only African-American member of the Senate, Obama has faced some private grumbling for not joining the Congressional Black Caucus in challenging the electoral results in 2004 in Ohio. (Civil rights groups complained that African-American voters there faced long lines and other problems casting their ballots.) But after Hurricane Katrina, Obama toured the devastated areas with Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush and then appeared on CBS’s Face the Nation and ABC’s This Week to blast the federal government’s sluggish response and highlight the racial and economic gaps it exposed. The interviews marked his first appearances on the Sunday morning political shows since taking office. “It was a moment I thought I might add a useful perspective to the debate,” Obama told TIME this week.

Last week, he strongly criticized a proposal, made by a bipartisan commission led by Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, to require photo ID for people to vote. Obama worried that the measure might stop poor people who don’t have driver's licenses from voting. Then, he headed to the Senate floor to declare his opposition to John Roberts’s appointment as chief justice, citing his concerns about how Roberts would vote on civil rights and abortion.

And yet Obama has not strayed far from the strategy of the more famous senator from Illinois. (Clinton grew up in a Chicago suburb.) Clinton makes a point of appearing at small-town New York events, like the start of apple-picking season, and maintains nine different offices in her adopted state. Except for the three days each week the Senate is in session, Obama is almost religiously in Illinois, and his staff brags about the 34 town halls he has held in his home state. Clinton frequently joins Republicans like Rick Santorum, a darling of the religious right, to work on legislation on the rare issues where they agree. (One recent bill provides $90 million to research the effects of video games on the cognitive development of children.) Obama is now working with Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, one of the chamber’s most conservative members, to demand that President Bush appoint someone to act as a chief financial officer to oversee Katrina spending. Clinton, who focused mainly on domestic policy issues before she entered the Senate, has emerged as a key player on defense issues; Obama is expanding his horizons with foreign policy. When Katrina hit, Obama was on his first major foreign trip as a senator, a ten-day visit to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan, where he joined Republican Richard Lugar to learn about efforts to dispose of nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union.

What’s next for Obama? Continued work on his Katrina initiatives and nuclear non-proliferation, as well as some new ideas for education. Today, he and Clinton will jointly announce legislation intended to reduce medical errors and malpractice costs. And while he may not be as loud as he has been in the last few weeks, Obama is looking for other opportunities to make his mark—selectively. "If an issue of justice or equality is at stake,” he says, “I will speak out on it.”

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1110619,00.html

Greed · Sep 29, 2005

Re: Barack Obama Steps (Carefully) Into the Spotlight

i hope dick durbin loses next year so obama can be the senior senator from illinois.

then he can really speak up.

QueEx · May 17, 2006

QueEx · May 17, 2006

<font size="4"><center>Americans saying by wide margins that they now trust
Democrats more than Republicans ... cautions for the
Democrats, however: growing disaffection with incumbents
generally and their improved prospects for November appear
driven primarily by dissatisfaction with Republicans rather
than by positive impressions of their own party</font size></center>

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601264.html?referrer=email&referrer=email" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601264.html?referrer=email&referrer=email">link</A>

</IFRAME>

QueEx · May 21, 2006

QueEx · May 21, 2006

<font size="5"><center>Setting Up Easy Targets for Karl Rove</font size><font size="4">
Three Black congressmen poised to chair powerful
House committees could become a campaign issue</font size></center>

TIME
By JOE KLEIN
Sunday, May. 14, 2006

George W. Bush's unprecedented nosedive continued last week, as it has almost every week since Hurricane Katrina. The war in Iraq grinds on, unresolved and bloody. The Republican congressional scandals continue to grow; the latest to be investigated, for defense-contracting irregularities, is Representative Jerry Lewis of California, the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. The Congress did pass another round of tax breaks for wealthy investors last week, but it remained deadlocked or just plain dead on immigration, a new federal budget and most other real problems. New polls showed Bush hovering at about 30% approval, which puts him in the same pathetic league as Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon. A powerful majority of Americans-—about 70%—believe the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Logic would dictate that a profitable election season looms for the Democratic Party. There is a strong, substantive case of incompetence and ideological extremism to be made against the Bush Administration. The Democrats also seem more or less united on a reasonable agenda of domestic-policy alternatives—with fiscal responsibility leading the list—even if they remain boggled on foreign policy. Of course, the Administration doesn't inspire much confidence overseas either.

And yet one senses a fluttery uncertainty on the Democratic side—induced, I suspect, by the prospect of another nefarious Karl Rove campaign. This is a legitimate fear. Rove has shown a positive genius for organizing campaigns around poisonous trivia:

- He will question the patriotism of Democrats (and, once again, be aided by those on the noisome left who believe that the U.S. is a malignant, imperialistic force in the world).

- He will deploy an ugly, stone-throwing distortion of Christian "values," especially against those Democrats who choose not to discriminate against homosexuals.

-And if things get really desperate, he will play the race card, as Republicans have ever since they sided against the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

Conyers
The inevitability of race as a subliminal issue in the campaign became obvious as I watched House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, the personification of fluttery uncertainty, trying to defend Representative John Conyers on Meet the Press a few weeks ago. Conyers will be chairman of the Judiciary Committee if the Democrats win control of the House in November, and he has already threatened impeachment hearings against President Bush. This is one of the few scenarios that might rouse the demoralized Republican base from its torpor. It is also likely to alienate independents, who are sick of the hyperpartisanship in Washington and will be less likely to vote for Democrats if the party is emphasizing witch hunts instead of substantive policies. But the ugly truth is that Conyers is a twofer: in addition to being foolishly incendiary, he is an African American of a certain age and ideology, easily stereotyped by Republicans. He is one of the ancient band of left-liberals who grew up in the angry hothouse of inner-city, racial-preference politics in the 1960s, a group "more likely to cry 'racism' and 'victimization' than the new generation of black politicians," a member of the Congressional Black Caucus told me.

Rangel
The Republicans will not be so crude as to mention Conyers' race; they will simply paint him as an extremist and show his face in negative ads. Nor is Conyers likely to be the only target. We'll probably be seeing a lot of two other potential African-American committee chairmen: Charles Rangel of New York and Alcee Hastings of Florida.

Rangel would be one of the most powerful Democrats in the new Congress, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. He is regarded as more mainstream than Conyers, well versed in tax and entitlement policies, but he has had an unfortunate tendency to shoot off his mouth in the past. He has questioned interracial adoption, and has compared colleagues who opposed tax breaks for minority broadcasters to Hitler. After Hurricane Katrina, Rangel compared Bush to Bull Connor, the public-safety commissioner of Birmingham, Ala., who attacked peaceful civil rights marchers with dogs and fire hoses in the 1960s.

Hastings
In a way, Hastings, who would become chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is the most problematic of all. He is a former federal judge who was indicted in 1981 for influence peddling, acquitted on all counts, then impeached and removed from his judgeship by the Congress. In 1992 he ran for Congress himself and, improbably, won. It is an open secret that Pelosi has chosen Hastings to replace the respected and experienced Jane Harman as the ranking Democrat on the committee. This was a questionable decision even before it became apparent that the Democrats might win the Congress; now it's a devastating negative ad waiting to happen: "Why do the Democrats want to put an impeached judge in charge of your national security?"

Conyers and Rangel are embarrassments, but there is nothing the Democrats can do about them—and they are certainly no more objectionable than any number of right-wing extremists who fester in Congress. But it's not too late for Hastings to remove himself from the line of fire and make clear his support for Harman as ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,1193981,00.html

Greed · May 22, 2006

you would think the article would say how unfair and disingenuous it would be to attack those 3, but then it went ahead and did rove's potential job for him.

and why is it race based if he gave all those reasons of being bad choices based on being bad politicians and saying things politicians shouldnt say.

was this supposed to defend those 3?

Greed · May 22, 2006

- He will question the patriotism of Democrats (and, once again, be aided by those on the noisome left who believe that the U.S. is a malignant, imperialistic force in the world).

muckracker should read this part. but then again the extreme left will never understand how much they actually help the man they hate.

QueEx · May 22, 2006

<font size="5"><center>Elections Are Crux Of GOP's Strategy</font size><font size="4">
Bush Aides Look to Midterm Vote as Way to Reverse Slide</font size></center>

Washington Post
By Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 22, 2006; Page A01

Confronting the worst poll numbers seen in the West Wing since his father went down to defeat, President Bush and his team are focusing on the fall midterm elections as the best chance to salvage his presidency and are building a campaign strategy around tax cuts, immigration and national security.

Modern history offers no precedent of a president climbing from a hole as deep as the one Bush finds himself in, and White House strategists have concluded that no staff shake-up or other quick fix will alter their trajectory. In the sixth year of his tenure, they said, Bush cannot easily change the minds of voters whose impressions are fully formed.

And so short of some event outside their direct control -- such as a dramatic turnaround in Iraq or the capture of Osama bin Laden -- Bush advisers have turned to the election as the most important chance to rewrite the troubled narrative of his presidency and allow him to recover enough to govern his last two years, Republican strategists said. With that in mind, Bush last week called on the National Guard to help stop illegal immigrants, signed tax-cut legislation and headlined three party fundraisers.

If Republicans retain Congress in November, Bush advisers note, he could assert that for the third straight election, the party defied historical patterns and popular predictions. Bush, they said, could advance a fresh agenda in early 2007. But they acknowledge that a House takeover by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would foreshadow a contentious final two years fending off congressional subpoenas and hostile legislation.

"If she's not the speaker, then conceptually I think we've turned this thing around and he has two more years to get some things done," said Ron Kaufman, who was White House political director under George H.W. Bush and remains close to the former president. A Republican loss of the House, on the other hand, "makes the next two years that much more difficult."

Bush has turned his attention to the campaign. Six months before the election, he has made 36 fundraising appearances, more than at this point in 2002. He spoke at a party gala last week that broke off-year records for hard-money fundraising and later attended events in Virginia and Kentucky. Vice President Cheney has been even more active, making 62 fundraising appearances, including one in Nashville on Saturday, and he plans three more in California in the next couple of days.

With Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove reassigned from day-to-day policy management to concentrate on the fall campaign, the White House has begun setting an agenda. Bush focused on stopping illegal immigration with his National Guard plan announced in an Oval Office address last week, followed a few days later by a visit to the border. In between, he signed legislation extending $70 billion in tax cuts that he has made a signature issue on the campaign trail.

To address conservatives, who have been key to his election victories but have grown disenchanted with the administration, Bush and Senate Republicans are reviving their fight with Democrats over judicial nominations, and senators last week voted out of committee a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to set up a floor vote next month.

The White House also appears eager for a battle over the nomination of Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden as CIA director. With a committee vote expected this week and a floor vote by next week, the White House hopes voters will see the warrantless surveillance program Hayden started as head of the National Security Agency as tough on terrorism rather than a violation of civil liberties.

And Bush remains a firm believer in the "Iraq first" strategy. The war has overshadowed everything else and, in the White House's view, to a large extent has poisoned the public against other messages -- to the point that many Americans fault Bush's handling of the economy even though economic performance has been strong. So the White House calculates that if the public sees any improvement in Iraq and a withdrawal of even some U.S. troops, Republicans will be rewarded.

Aides point to the president's last spike in the polls, which came late last year after Iraqi elections and a series of Iraq speeches by Bush. A top adviser said Rove and White House political director Sara M. Taylor are advising candidates not to duck the issue of Iraq but rather to make it a centerpiece of their campaigns.

The Rove-Taylor view is that one-third of Americans agree with liberal Democrats calling for immediate withdrawal and another third support staying the course. The middle third wants a new strategy, but would be leery of pulling out and leaving behind a volatile Iraq, a position strategists believe leaves those voters open to persuasion.

"Look, we're in a sour time -- I readily admit it," Rove said in a speech last week. "I mean, being in the middle of a war where people turn on their television sets and see brave men and women dying is not something that makes people happy and optimistic and upbeat." But, he added, "ultimately, the American people are a center-right country who, presented with a center-right party with center-right candidates, will vote center-right."

Perhaps the most important element of the emerging strategy will be to "move from a referendum to a choice," as Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman put it. Instead of a verdict on Bush, Republicans want to frame the election as a contest with Democrats, confident that voters unhappy with the president will find the opposition even more distasteful.

"We're moving from a period where the public looks at things and says thumbs-up or thumbs-down, to a time when they have a choice between one side or the other," Mehlman said.

Nonetheless, the latest spate of polls deeply worries many Republicans, who are unsure they can rally the base as they have in past elections. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll last week found 33 percent of Americans approving of Bush's job performance, his worst showing ever in that poll and matching his father's lowest point. Support among Republicans has fallen to 68 percent, down from 93 percent after the president's reelection.

Recent staff changes orchestrated by new White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten have not proved to be an elixir. Aides who once talked of a "Bolten bounce" now anticipate a long, difficult summer. Although these aides believe Bolten has brought new energy and a more aggressive day-to-day approach -- and bought Bush some goodwill with Congress -- they believe it will take a long time for the public to notice.

Once a president has lost the public's faith so deep into his tenure, experience suggests it is enormously difficult to win it back. Depending on the surveys used, only four presidents in the past 60 years have fallen as far in the polls as Bush, and none genuinely recovered before leaving office. Harry S. Truman opted not to run again; Richard M. Nixon resigned under the threat of impeachment; and Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush lost reelection.

Even under optimistic scenarios, aides believe that Bush's ratings may never rise above the mid-forties, and privately are mulling contingencies if Democrats win the House. Whenever the White House thinks it is turning a corner, it runs into trouble, such as a 10-day period in February when Cheney shot a friend in a hunting accident, Republicans rebelled against Arab management of U.S. ports and militants blew up a Shiite shrine in Iraq.

"The president's run into a perfect political storm where the confluence of natural disasters from last fall, gasoline prices, staff changes, the continuing war in Iraq, all are giving conservatives a defensive fatigue," said Kenneth Khachigian, a California GOP strategist who served in Ronald Reagan's White House. "And let's put immigration in there, too. . . . There's just wave after wave washing over them at this point."

Still, he said, Republicans will come back to Bush when the contest heats up this fall. "The president still needs to find ways to motivate the troops, and that means using the powers of his office to find victories here and there," Khachigian said. "If I were sitting in their shoes, I'd be looking at probably some high-profile challenges with Congress, whether it's a veto of a spending bill or a battle over judgeships."

Ed Rogers, a prominent Republican strategist, offered similar advice. "We need less panic among Republicans in town and on the Hill and to some degree in the states, and more energy from the White House," he said. "Use the Rose Garden, sign some executive orders. Activity is our friend." But time may not be, some Republicans say. "Opinions do begin to set in . . . so we need successes now," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.).

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) offered a novel model for recovery: Bill Clinton. In 1995, after Gingrich's Republicans took over Congress, the White House rebuilt public support methodically. "He split with the left, he moved to the center, he did dozens of little things that worked, and gradually, week by week, he grew more acceptable," Gingrich said.

"You get to the point where you have to take a very deep breath and rethink what you're doing," he said of Bush. "He's still president, and he's got 2 1/2 years left. It's very important not just to him but to the country" that he recover authority.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6052101096.html?referrer=email&referrer=email

muckraker10021 · May 24, 2006

<body><font face="arial black" size="4" color="#d90000">
Dennis Hastert Gave the Dems the House, If They Want It</font>
<br><img src="http://www.madison.com/images/articles/tct/2006/05/19/28237_thumb.jpg">
<br><font face="georgia" size="3" color="#000000">
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
<br>One of the things that the Republicans understand and the Dem leadership doesn't is staying on message and repeating the message until it is implanted in the heads of voters. Bush, in a rare moment of awkward clarity awhile back, said something like: "My job is to repeat the same message...I've got to catapult the propaganda." (We are not making this up.)
<br>If the Democrats can finally create some message discipline, Dennis Hastert just gave them control of the House of Representatives in the fall election.
<br>In a debate over extending tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, Hastert justified the rip-off of the middle class and poor <font color="blue">with these words</font>: "well, folks, if you earn $40,000 a year and have a family of two, you don't pay any taxes. So you probably if you don't pay any taxes, you are not going to get a big tax cut. Now, if you earn $1 million a year, you are going to pay about $400,000 of taxes. Maybe you'll get a $40,000 tax cut ..."
<br>Message to Dems: Take this quote and run on it until the last vote is counted. You've been looking for an opening to the working families who can swing enough districts to retake the House, and Hastert just gave it to you.
<br>"The Republican Speaker of the House Says Working Families Don't Pay Taxes. Janice Coleman Doesn't Agree With Him, Do You?"
<br>Of course, in this case the name "Janice Coleman" represents the name of any Democratic Congressional candidate in the United States.
<br>The mid-terms have to be a national referendum on one-party Republican power distilled down to a simple message or two.
<br>Hastert -- who the Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin calls "the Marie Antoinette of American politics" -- is leading an anti-working class economic policy. It's time the Democrats countered the Republican demagogic wedge issues like gay marriage, immigration, and flag burning with the economic wollop of the GOP on America's working people.
<br>"Bob Williams, gas station attendant, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives says that you don't pay taxes. Had enough? Vote Democratic."
<br>Message to the Democratic poobahs with all the campaign cash: Don't get sidetracked, don't get distracted, don't get sucked into peripheral issues with no voter traction. Fire the losing consultants and let Hastert give you back the House.
<br>He already has. You just need to use his own words to remove him and the GOP from running Congress.
<br>"Hey, Marie [shown as a waitress, serving a ham and eggs breakfast], do you pay taxes? The Republican Speaker of the House says that you don't. He thinks only the wealthy need a tax break. Do you agree with him? Vote Democratic, because we know how it is to stand in your shoes. [shot of waitress taking off her shoes and rubbing her heels]"
<br>It's a simple and winning message.
<br>Hastert, who's fond of food and whose family owned a famous chicken farm and restaurant in suburban Chicago, just gave the Dems a Thanksgiving turkey on a platter, with all the trimmings.
<br>Will the Democratic leaders look a gift horse in the mouth, again?
</font>

<hr noshade color="#d90000" size="14"></hr>

muckraker10021 · May 24, 2006

<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
Joe Klein is just the latest Time magazine “fake liberal”, “fake progressive” columnist.
Time magazine is, and always was committed to a monopoly capitalism-oligarchy controlled America. It was Henry Luce, Times’s founder who coined the term “American Century,” [Pax Americana] said the purpose of U.S. power should be to establish “ international order”- in other words American Empire.
Luce encouraged his correspondents to collaborate with the CIA, and his publishing empire served as a longtime propaganda asset for the CIA. How did this happen? Well, John Foster Dulles and Allan Dulles were Time magazine & Henry Luce’s lawyers. The Dulles brothers later became Secretary of State and CIA Director, respectively in the 1950’s under President Eisenhower. Time magazine is one of the pillars & foundations of the “media of mass distraction”, always has been & probably always will be. Seymour Hersch or Paul Krugman or Bob Herbert or Frank Rich or Juan Cole or Sidney Shanberg and any reporter who speaks “truth-to-power” as it relates to American Empire will never work very long at Time. Joe Klein used to write for New York Magazine, (not The New Yorker) I remember when he “tore up” his liberal card in a column he wrote in New York Magazine in the late seventies, and became a “fake liberal”. He’s the same guy who wrote the Clinton smear & attack book ‘Primary Colors’ and didn’t have the balls to put his name on the cover. ‘Primary Colors’ written by ‘Anonymous’. Klein’s a complete fraud, lackey and stooge for the neo-cons, masquerading as Time’s liberal columnist. Get the fuck out of here. Greed is correct. Klein’s article is coming direct from Rove’s desk. It’s nothing more than a “Digital Brownshirting” and “Wille Hortonizing” of the African American representatives who would take control of key congressional committees. It’s 2006 and college drop-out, arrogant white-frat-boys, like Rove are still dropping the poisonous “Birth-Of-A-Nation” card into the political arena, and sycophants like Klein, a Jew who should know better, suck it up like a just released prisoner getting his freak on at a whorehouse. Now, let’s deconstruct Klein’s comment:
- “He will question the patriotism of Democrats, and, once again, be aided by those on the noisome left who believe that the U.S. is a malignant, imperialistic force in the world”-

This comment represents Klein kissing his corporate pay master’s filthy ass.
He knows its total bull shit. He’s not dumb. Is the US an malignant, imperialistic force in the world??
Of course it is, everyone in the “reality based” world knows this…but your not supposed to talk about it! The US military budget is larger than all other nations on the planet earth combined!! Despite the fact that America has the world’s largest economy, our total foreign aid is less than some far smaller nations contribute!!
The noisome left? Who might that be?
Could it be Warren Buffet, an American & the second richest man in America, who ridicules the bush junta economic policy?
Could it be Bill Gates, an American & the richest man in America who has given more aid to Africa than the US under the bush junta?
Could it be one of my former bosses – one who is now governor of New Jersey or maybe the second who was Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton, both who share my political beliefs?
Could it be Ted Kennedy who a few weeks ago on 'Meet The Press' said that instead of spending 8 Billion a month on Iraq, we should spend 10 Billion a year to guarantee any American citizen youth a college education if he or she comes out of high school with a B average our better.
Could it be George Cloney or Ben Affleck or Quincy Jones or any of the myriad of individuals who pay millions of dollars in taxes every year and are horrified at the direction the “bush crime family” is taking this country.
Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit “noisome” canard.
Klein is just bending over & spreading his checks so he can continue to receive his TIME paycheck.
</font>

Dolemite · May 24, 2006

muckraker10021 said:
<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
Joe Klein is just the latest Time magazine “fake liberal”, “fake progressive” columnist.
Time magazine is, and always was committed to a monopoly capitalism-oligarchy controlled America. It was Henry Luce, Times’s founder who coined the term “American Century,” [Pax Americana] said the purpose of U.S. power should be to establish “ international order”- in other words American Empire.
Luce encouraged his correspondents to collaborate with the CIA, and his publishing empire served as a longtime propaganda asset for the CIA. How did this happen? Well, John Foster Dulles and Allan Dulles were Time magazine & Henry Luce’s lawyers. The Dulles brothers later became Secretary of State and CIA Director, respectively in the 1950’s under President Eisenhower. Time magazine is one of the pillars & foundations of the “media of mass distraction”, always has been & probably always will be. Seymour Hersch or Paul Krugman or Bob Herbert or Frank Rich or Juan Cole or Sidney Shanberg and any reporter who speaks “truth-to-power” as it relates to American Empire will never work very long at Time. Joe Klein used to write for New York Magazine, (not The New Yorker) I remember when he “tore up” his liberal card in a column he wrote in New York Magazine in the late seventies, and became a “fake liberal”. He’s the same guy who wrote the Clinton smear & attack book ‘Primary Colors’ and didn’t have the balls to put his name on the cover. ‘Primary Colors’ written by ‘Anonymous’. Klein’s a complete fraud, lackey and stooge for the neo-cons, masquerading as Time’s liberal columnist. Get the fuck out of here. Greed is correct. Klein’s article is coming direct from Rove’s desk. It’s nothing more than a “Digital Brownshirting” and “Wille Hortonizing” of the African American representatives who would take control of key congressional committees. It’s 2006 and college drop-out, arrogant white-frat-boys, like Rove are still dropping the poisonous “Birth-Of-A-Nation” card into the political arena, and sycophants like Klein, a Jew who should know better, suck it up like a just released prisoner getting his freak on at a whorehouse. Now, let’s deconstruct Klein’s comment:
- “He will question the patriotism of Democrats, and, once again, be aided by those on the noisome left who believe that the U.S. is a malignant, imperialistic force in the world”-

This comment represents Klein kissing his corporate pay master’s filthy ass.
He knows its total bull shit. He’s not dumb. Is the US an malignant, imperialistic force in the world??
Of course it is, everyone in the “reality based” world knows this…but your not supposed to talk about it! The US military budget is larger than all other nations on the planet earth combined!! Despite the fact that America has the world’s largest economy, our total foreign aid is less than some far smaller nations contribute!!
The noisome left? Who might that be?
Could it be Warren Buffet, an American & the second richest man in America, who ridicules the bush junta economic policy?
Could it be Bill Gates, an American & the richest man in America who has given more aid to Africa than the US under the bush junta?
Could it be one of my former bosses – one who is now governor of New Jersey or maybe the second who was Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton, both who share my political beliefs?
Could it be Ted Kennedy who a few weeks ago on 'Meet The Press' said that instead of spending 8 Billion a month on Iraq, we should spend 10 Billion a year to guarantee any American citizen youth a college education if he or she comes out of high school with a B average our better.
Could it be George Cloney or Ben Affleck or Quincy Jones or any of the myriad of individuals who pay millions of dollars in taxes every year and are horrified at the direction the “bush crime family” is taking this country.
Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit “noisome” canard.
Klein is just bending over & spreading his checks so he can continue to receive his TIME paycheck.
</font>

***********************applause**********************

Greed · May 24, 2006

looks like mccain is in for smooth sailing into the white house in 2008.

and apparently hastert in 2006 too.

Greed · May 24, 2006

Keith Ellison may become Congress’s first Muslim

Keith Ellison may become Congress’s first Muslim
By Aaron Blake
May 24, 2006

With a fast-growing U.S. population estimated around 5 million, Muslims are increasing their voice in local and national politics every year. But thus far they haven’t had one of their own in a national position of power in Congress, the Cabinet or the Supreme Court.

He didn’t know it at the time, but Keith Ellison took a large step toward changing that earlier this month when he won the Democratic endorsement for the seat of retiring Rep. Martin Sabo (D-Minn.) in one of the safest Democratic districts in the country.

Ellison, a black Muslim, still faces a September primary challenge that could feature Sabo’s chief of staff, a former state Democratic party chairman. But he has already gotten closer than any other Muslim candidate in recent years and would be the first Muslim in Congress, according to several national Muslim groups.

He said that he’s not running on his religion and hasn’t thought much about what it would mean to be the first but that he sees the positives that could come from it. He would also be the first black congressman from Minnesota.

Ellison, who supports abortion rights, is calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops in Iraq because, he said, Iraqis and Americans both want them out and the war has cost too much. He disagrees with the route the House has taken on illegal immigration — turning “hardworking immigrants into felons” — and added that he supports a path to citizenship.

“I think it’s time for the United States to see a moderate Muslim voice, to see a face of Islam that is just like everybody else’s face,” Ellison said. “Perhaps it would be good for somebody who is Muslim to be in Congress, so that Muslims would feel like they are part of the body politic and that other Americans would know that we’re here to make a contribution to this country.”

Ellison is a 42-year-old two-term state representative who took the endorsement from a crowded field in surprisingly swift fashion at the 5th District’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party convention May 6. The district covers Minneapolis and some nearby suburbs.

Two other primary candidates skipped the convention, and Sabo Chief of Staff Mike Erlandson, whom the congressman endorsed, withdrew from the convention after being heckled and hasn’t yet said whether he’ll run in the primary. His campaign did not return phone calls.

David Schultz, a Minnesota politics expert at Hamline University in St. Paul, said Erlandson is Ellison’s top competition but will have a tough time making up lost ground.

“His strength has always been among the party leadership, if he had any strength whatsoever,” Schultz said. “And if you couldn’t get the endorsement with the party leadership, I don’t think he’s going to get it among the rank and file.”

According to the American Muslim Alliance, which supports Muslim candidates and educates Muslims about politics, four Muslims ran for Congress in 2004 — two for the Senate and two for the House. One was a Libertarian, and the other three lost in the primaries.

Overall, about 100 Muslims ran for public office in 2004, with close to half winning. One of them, a black Muslim Democratic state senator in North Carolina, is the highest-ranking Muslim elected official.

At least two others Muslims have run for the House this year, both in Texas. Republican Ahmad Hassan is a long shot running against Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) in her Houston district, and Republican Amir Omar lost a primary in the Dallas district.

Agha Saeed, chairman of the American Muslim Alliance, said getting a Muslim in Congress would be a step forward, but he emphasized that it must not be tokenism and should be part of a larger shift toward inclusion of Muslims in American politics and life.

“One person is not going to make any change, unless that victory for the individual marks the beginning of a new attitude and a new approach,” Saeed said.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is at the forefront of Muslim get-out-the-vote efforts nationwide. Spokesman Corey Saylor said CAIR put together substantial efforts in Ohio and Florida in 2004 and will broaden its scope in the upcoming midterms.

He said most of the progress in getting candidates elected has been on the local level but an Ellison victory would be a breakthrough.

“I think it would be huge, no questions asked — particularly for a community that feels very much like its presence in the United States is being questioned,” Saylor said. “This would be a tremendous assertion of the fact that we’re Americans and we’re just as interested in public service as anyone else, and here’s the proof — we have somebody in Congress.”

Saylor attributed the fact that there have been no Muslims in Congress to two things: The Muslim political movement in America is in its infancy, with the first groups having started less than two decades ago, and the lasting effects of Sept. 11 and the negative perceptions about Muslims that have resulted.

Ellison, who converted to Islam when he was 19 years old at Wayne State University in Detroit, said he doesn’t think district voters are afraid to vote for a Muslim, as long as they know he’s concerned about their welfare.

“My faith informs me. My faith helps me to remember to be gentle, kind, considerate, fair, respectful,” he said. “But I don’t make my faith something that other people have to deal with.”

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/052406.html

muckraker10021 · May 27, 2006

<table border="8" width="700" id="table1" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" bordercolorlight="#692B7B" bordercolordark="#660066" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<tr><td>

<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">The Black Stake In The 2006 Elections</font>
<font face="helvetica, arial unicode ms, microsoft sans serif, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>by Glen Ford and Peter Gamble
May 25, 2006
</b>
www.blackcommentator.com<br>
<center><img src="http://www.blackcommentator.com/185/185_images/185_cover_1.gif" alt="graphic" width="282" height="169"></center>
<br>The Democrats hope for – but are doing next to nothing to achieve – victory at the polls in November. Should that unearned triumph occur in the U.S. House of Representatives, African Americans will ascend to key committee positions, potentially pivotal to national policy and budgetary direction. But what will they do with these new franchises? Let’s not be fooled by the corporate media ("and corporate Black folks") framing of the contest in November as simply which party controls what committee of congress. Majority party status means little if Black congresspersons continue to act as extensions of a pliant, cautious Democratic leadership that is not committed to fundamental domestic and geopolitical transformation.
<br>The crisis in African American leadership at the congressional level cannot be resolved outside the dynamics of the Black body politic. A Democratic victory in 2006 does not necessarily translate to a Black victory unless Black Democrats stand for something. Black power can only result from Black demands – and, at present, Blacks are demanding nothing from the Democratic Party.
<br>We must not mistake <em>virtual</em> electoral success for the actuality of power to affect real social change.
<center><img src="http://www.blackcommentator.com/185/185_images/185_cover_2.gif" alt="graphic" width="329" height="143"></center>
<br>Democratic triumph and Black success are not synonymous. Just because Republicans can be counted on to equate Black power and Democratic power, doesn’t mean it is the same thing. We must stop buying into the liars’ racist prevarications, which only serve others who are supposed to be – but are not – our friends. Republican racism scared Black folks so badly during the Bill Clinton era that some fools anointed him the “first Black President.” This fear-frenzy contributed to the neutering of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and the Black body politic at-large, from which we have not yet recovered. The same theatrics are scripted for this election year. If Blacks buy into the narrative, African American political power will once again be subordinated to white Democratic ambitions. As usual, Republicans lead in this dance.
<br>Anticipating that the Iraq war and a tsunami of GOP scandals might allow the popular Democratic tide to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/06/AR2006050601336.html" target="_blank">seize control</a> of the House and – an even more remote possibility, the Senate – Republicans resort to their tried-and-true default tactic: race baiting. The GOP has already launched “fear of the Black menace” as the sub-text of their mid-term election defense strategy. The bogeymen are <a href="http://www.house.gov/conyers/" target="_blank">John Conyers, Jr.</a> (D-MI), the longest serving Black member in the House, who would assume chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, and <a href="http://www.house.gov/rangel/bio.shtml">Charles Rangel</a> (D-NY), the second <a href="http://www.cbcfinc.org/About/CBC/index.html" target="_blank">most senior</a> Black member and heir to chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee.
<br>Other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, such as <a href="http://alceehastings.house.gov/" target="_blank">Alcee L. Hastings</a> (D-FL) would also rise to influential positions, should the Democrats prevail in November. Republicans flash pictures of Black faces threatening to invade high congressional places, hoping to set off a reflexive, white racist electoral reaction. John Conyers is depicted as a man intent on using the Judiciary Committee chairmanship to impeach George Bush – a direct Black threat to white power.
<center><img src="http://www.blackcommentator.com/185/185_images/185_cover_3.gif" alt="graphic" width="289" height="145"></center>
<br>Although <strong>BC</strong> is certain that Conyers would dearly love to <a href="http://www.blackcommentator.com/183/183_rnc_john_conyers_attack_swanson.html" target="_blank">impeach</a> George W. Bush – just as Conyers contributed to the demise of <a href="http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/18105" target="_blank">Richard Nixon</a> in 1974 – it is not only the Republican majority that stands in his way.  Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi demands quiet and calm waters for what she thinks will be smooth sailing to conquest of the House. With Republicans determined to paint Democrats in blackface in order to induce a Pavlovian response from the white electorate, Pelosi has ordered the Congressional Black Caucus as a body to shut up. Keep a low profile. Don’t make waves. Wait until after the election. Maybe then….
<br>Even such a formidable mover and shaker as John Conyers, whose 41-year cumulative progressive legislative record dwarfs all others in the House, could not resist Leader Nancy Pelosi’s warnings that he must delete the “I”-word – impeachment – from his vocabulary, so as not to stampede the white Republican hordes. “John Conyers is an enthusiastic advocate. I am the leader,” Pelosi told Tim Russert of <em>Meet The Press</em> on May 7. “Our caucus will decide where we go” on impeachment. Meaning, <em>she</em> will decide.
<br>Conyers acquiesced. In a May 18 column for the <em><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR2006051701880.html" target="_blank">Washington Post</a></em>, he wrote:
<br>“…rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses. The oversight I have suggested would be performed by a select committee made up equally of Democrats and Republicans and chosen by the House speaker and the minority leader….
<br>“At the end of the process, if – and only if – the select committee, acting on a bipartisan basis, finds evidence of potentially impeachable offenses, it would forward that information to the Judiciary Committee.”
<br>Bush is the “Decider” – Pelosi is the “Leader-er.” But there can be no white leader of Black people, in or out of the congress. Pelosi’s victories are not ours. She is assuring Republicans and corporate America that she can keep the Black folks in check. However, in a nation in which Blacks are the only dependably progressive electorate, every diminution of African American political agency and independence weakens what remains of the progressive movement.
<br>Even if Democrats achieve a slim majority in the House in November, Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid will not willingly unhook the leash on Black Democrats and other progressives. There will always be some reason to placate the ultimately implacable Republicans and their fellow travelers in the Democratic Party. Our time will never come, unless we seize it.
<br><strong>A New Chairperson</strong>
<br>Right after the Labor Day weekend, in September, the Congressional Black Caucus holds its 36th  <a href="http://www.cbcfinc.org/ALC/index.html" target="_blank">Annual Legislative Conference</a>, the year’s premier African American social – if not political – event. Since its founding in 1969, the CBC has grown from 13 to 42 members of the House and one senator. The Black delegation on Capitol Hill is much bigger, but far from better. No longer can the CBC claim to be the “conscience of the congress.” As Leutisha Stills of the <a href="http://cbcmonitor.voxunion.com/" target="_blank">CBC Monitor</a> reported in the <a href="http://www.blackcommentator.com/184/184_cbc_monitor_wanted_plan_to_save.html" target="_blank">May 18</a> issue of <strong>BC</strong>, the Black Caucus “functioned quite well” on the basis of a progressive consensus during most of the first three decades of its existence. Those days are over.
<center><img src="http://www.blackcommentator.com/185/185_images/185_cover_4.gif" alt="graphic" width="307" height="147"></center>
<br>A growing faction of corporate-bought members, including Artur Davis (AL), David Scott (GA), Harold Ford, Jr. (TN), Albert Wynn (MD), William Jefferson (LA), Sanford Bishop (GA), and Gregory Meeks (NY), often votes with Republicans on key, “bright line” issues. (See CBC Monitor <a href="http://www.blackcommentator.com/169/169_cover_cbc_report_card_chart.html" target="_blank">Report Card</a>, February 2, 2006.) Although CBC chairman Mel Watt’s (NC) personal voting record ranks him among the CBC Monitor’s “Honor Society,” he has done nothing to stem the growing rightward defections. Watt only jumps when Nancy Pelosi demands that he impose discipline on <em>progressive</em> CBC members – in particular, Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney. As Leutisha Stills wrote:
<br>“Acting more as the Black ‘Whip’ for Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi than as a facilitator of Black influence on Capitol Hill, Watt has relentlessly sought to quash all Black deviation from the party line. Since Democratic leadership is intent on saying and doing nothing that could draw media attention away from assorted Republican failures and corruption, Watt has played the role of ‘silencer’ of the CBC.”
<br>This year’s CBC Legislative Weekend will be co-chaired by Barbara Lee (CA) and Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (MI). Both are progressive lawmakers, especially Rep. Lee, who was the <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0918-01.htm" target="_blank">only member</a> of the House to vote against giving President Bush broad “war on terror” authority in September, 2001. Lee is also co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus – Nancy Pelosi’s old slot, before her rightward turn as Minority Leader. According to <a href="http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/051606/news2.html" target="_blank">The Hill</a> newspaper, both Lee and Kilpatrick are actively campaigning to succeed Mel Watt as chair of the CBC in the next two sessions of congress.
<center><img src="http://www.blackcommentator.com/185/185_images/185_cover_5.gif" alt="graphic" width="308" height="168"></center>
<br>Whoever replaces Watt, it won’t be a minute too soon. Should the Democrats win the House, the newly empowered Black committee chairpersons will need an active and non-subservient Black Caucus to back them up, to keep Nancy Pelosi’s cold hand from strangling progressive initiatives. Most importantly, the progressive majority of the CBC must be allowed to give voice to their political will. The old system of consensus no longer works, due to the infestation of corporate money which has created a bought faction of the CBC. The next chairperson of the CBC should endorse “sense of the caucus” procedures that would remove the bought-out faction’s power to veto the majority’s wishes. Only then will the Caucus be enabled to take a stand on vital economic and foreign policy issues – to speak for Black America as a whole.
<br>The CBC as a body will not regain respect until it frees itself from the machinations of white congressional leadership and the dead weight of its corporate-owned minority. From our perspective at <strong>BC</strong>, the reclamation of the CBC’s role as the “conscience of the congress” is more important than reclaiming the House for the Democrats. Above all else, we must reclaim our <em>own</em> house, and speak truth to power.
<br>
</font>

<hr noshade color="#660066" size="14"></hr>

</td>
</tr>
</table>

QueEx · May 27, 2006

<font size="5"><center>Strong Signs of Rift Among Democrats</font size>
<font size="4">Support for a challenger to longtime Sen. Joe Lieberman
indicates tensions over Iraq war.</font size></center>

Los Angeles Times
By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer
May 27, 2006

WASHINGTON — The liberal challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) escalated Friday when the political arm of MoveOn.org, an influential online advocacy group, endorsed the political newcomer opposing his bid for renomination.

Gaining the support of MoveOn's political action committee was Ned Lamont, a businessman who wants to unseat Lieberman largely because of the veteran lawmaker's staunch support for the war in Iraq.

The group announced its backing after polling MoveOn's members in Connecticut.

MoveOn has emerged as a leading voice for left-leaning activists, and the endorsement marks the first time that its PAC has sought to unseat an incumbent Democratic senator.

"Lamont's message resonated with members who want a senator who will stand up to President Bush on key issues and represent the views of most people in Connecticut," said Eli Pariser, executive director of the MoveOn PAC.

With the endorsement, the group will seek to raise money and generate volunteers for Lamont among MoveOn's 3.2 million members nationwide.

Lamont earlier this week gained an endorsement from Democracy for America, a liberal grass-roots group that Howard Dean established as his campaign for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination foundered. Dean gave up his leadership role when he became chairman of the Democratic National Committee last year, but the group is headed by his brother, Jim Dean.

Lamont's candidacy also has become a priority for many liberal websites, such as Daily Kos — whose founder, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, recently appeared in one of Lamont's television advertisements.

With the involvement of these groups, the face-off between Lieberman and Lamont in Connecticut's Aug. 8 primary has emerged as the focal point of tensions between Democratic liberals and centrists over the party's direction.

"This is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party," said Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. "It will have repercussions for the 2008 presidential campaign and whether centrists will feel comfortable within the Democratic Party."

Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate, long had been considered politically invulnerable in his home state. First elected to his Senate seat in 1988, he remains the favorite to win the primary. But the same polls that show Lieberman leading the race also reveal widespread discontent among Connecticut Democrats over Iraq — the sentiment Lamont hopes will propel him to victory.

Earlier this month, Lamont won support from 33% of the delegates to the state Democratic convention, enough to win him a spot on the primary ballot.

The poll of MoveOn's Connecticut members was conducted during a 24-hour period that concluded Friday morning. Both Lieberman and Lamont were invited to make their case through e-mails, but Lieberman chose not to send one.

Pariser said that of the 5,500 people participating in the poll, 85% of them voted to endorse Lamont.

Lieberman campaign aides dismissed the results as insignificant. "Just as we expected, Joe Lieberman won neither the endorsement of MoveOn.Org nor was chosen the next 'American Idol,' " said Marion Steinfels, a campaign spokesperson.

Some analysts, however, believe the endorsement could strengthen Lamont.

MoveOn's PAC has proved capable of raising substantial sums from its members — it collected about $800,000 last year for Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), a strong critic of the Iraq war, in just a few days.

Lamont's credibility as a candidate also should benefit from MoveOn's stamp of approval, said Scott McLean, chairman of the political science department at Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Conn.

"Getting 33% at the convention is really impressive, but [Friday's endorsement] is even bigger because it shows the grass-roots and money [donors] … that there is something behind Ned Lamont," McLean said. "It's big. It's huge."

Wittmann said that if Lamont and his allies succeed in ousting Lieberman, "it would be devastating to the Democratic Party" by suggesting that centrists are no longer welcome.

"This shows that [MoveOn] is trying to precipitate a civil war within the party," he said.

Pariser dismissed that suggestion. "We think primaries are a healthy part of the democratic process for a reason — so voters can choose who represents them rather than the chattering class of Beltway insiders," he said. "And if supporters of the Iraq war — Republicans and some Democrats — are in electoral trouble, it's probably because a majority of the people in this country think it was a disastrous mistake."

Lieberman has responded to Lamont's challenge by stressing his support for traditional Democratic positions on issues such as the environment and abortion rights.

But McLean said Lieberman has been hurt by having "a tin ear" for the opinions of liberal Connecticut Democrats deeply disaffected with Bush and the Iraq war.

Thursday night may have been a case in point.

While the online poll was being conducted, Lieberman was at a Washington dinner receiving an award from the Committee on the Present Danger, a hawkish foreign policy group whose membership includes prominent conservatives and leading supporters in both parties of the Iraq war.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-lieberman27may27,0,5540870.story

QueEx · Jun 10, 2006

Greed · Jun 14, 2006

Clinton booed on Iraq

Clinton booed on Iraq
June 14, 2006
By Elana Schor

Angry boos greeted Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) at a liberal conference yesterday when she opposed fixing a date for withdrawing American forces from Iraq.

The sour audience response, at the Campaign for America’s Future conference, hints at the 2008 presidential front-runner’s shaky standing with anti-war Democrats, who wield increasing power in the party.

Clinton’s speech packed the room with a crowd billed as the nation’s largest gathering of progressives. But, although the left-leaning audience raucously cheered her domestic agenda, there was only a sprinkling of applause mixed with jeers when the senator refused to disavow her vote authorizing the Iraq war, as Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) did later in the day, renewing questions about possible fallout from her assiduous appeals to centrist voters.

“Our job is to do everything we can to help this [Iraqi] government succeed,” Clinton said to the silent audience. She rapped President Bush’s “open-ended commitment” to keeping U.S. troops in Iraq but added, “Nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain” for leaving.

At that, shouts erupted from the audience, dissipating only as Clinton turned back to the Democrats’ need to pursue alternative sources of fuel in response to high energy prices. When the senator, whose hawkishness on national security has alienated many liberals, urged Democrats to reach out to “people who may not yet agree with us,” a chant flared up in the hall: “Bring the troops home!”

Clinton was not the only 2008 hopeful to stray yesterday from the nascent Democratic orthodoxy of a quick exit from Iraq. Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack also dismissed calls to set a troop withdrawal date at a briefing that likely previewed his remarks to the liberal conference. As The Hill reported last month, Clinton and Vilsack have both also declined to echo their party’s calls for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

This year’s conference has become a breakthrough moment for the Campaign for America’s Future. Having started as a small-scale progressive push for a greater voice in Clinton administration policy, the Campaign has grown during the Bush presidency into a thrumming factory for Democratic policy.

“The Campaign has been very helpful and effective in a whole series of campaigns dealing with access to healthcare, the cost of student loans, the minimum wage, corporate corruption,” Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) said in an interview before addressing the conference on education. “They have used peoples’ connection with those issues as organizing tools … in all different kinds of congressional districts.”

Campaign co-director Roger Hickey cast his group and its allies, from MoveOn.org to USAction, as a winning counterweight to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and other centrist forces.

“The lesson we drew from the Clinton administration is that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party … needs to be better organized in order to be heard, especially given the influence of groups like the DLC and corporate influence in general,” Hickey said.

Yet Democratic unity was a pervasive theme of the conference, which opened with a new Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll that the Campaign touted as proof of the electorate’s realigning away from conservatism and toward progressivism. In fact, the poll showed a generic preference for Democrats over Republicans but a continued advantage for political conservatives over progressives.

“What we’re seeing now is incredible unanimity among Democrats and increasingly among Americans who have rejected all the signature issues of the Bush presidency,” Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who has appeared at several past Campaign conferences, said in an interview.

DLC senior fellow Marshall Wittmann pointed out that Democrats have difficult work ahead, even as many party leaders cast plummeting Republican approval ratings as a harbinger of victory in the fall midterms.

“The danger to the Democratic Party right now is, they’re lurching to the left and leaving behind the middle,” Wittmann said. “It’s to Hillary’s credit that she’s steering a centrist course even if it upsets some on the left, because that’s the only way the party is going to be back in control of Congress and win the White House.”

A column by author Norman Solomon questioning the Campaign’s labeling of Clinton as a “progressive leader” made the rounds yesterday among bloggers who attended the conference. “In the interests of truth-in-labeling, shouldn’t Hillary Clinton be described as anti-progressive?” Solomon wrote.

Hickey, meanwhile, reiterated the Campaign’s view of liberals as Democratic leaders — “The Democratic Party is a big tent, but the vast majority of Democrats are progressives” — and recalled last year’s successful fight against Bush’s Social Security plan.

“There was a time when the DLC supported privatization of Social Security. You don’t hear them talking about that very much because we have basically won that battle,” Hickey said. “There may or may not be [the] same debate on foreign policy, with the DLC saying the party ought to support the administration on Iraq.”

Hickey cited Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) as the “epitome” of centrist compromise. Lieberman’s surging Democratic primary foe, Ned Lamont, tied his evening fundraiser to the conference.

Clinton’s speech may have laid bare the Democrats’ internal fault lines over the war, but Democratic overconfidence became another contentious conference issue. While Campaign co-director Robert Borosage warned in The Nation this week that “nothing could be more pernicious” than Democrats’ expecting to take back Congress on the strength of low presidential approval, the air was thick with anticipation of a new majority.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus, led by California Democratic Reps. Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, hung a hopeful banner on its exhibition table: “If the House majority flips in November, half of chairs of 20 standing House Committees will be Progressive Caucus members. PLUS, An additional 31 Congressional Progressive Caucus members will be subcommittee chairs.”

Progressive Caucus policy adviser Bill Goold said the conference was “a golden opportunity” to connect left-leaning lawmakers with grassroots liberal networks outside Washington. Goold pointed to the group’s series of ad hoc hearings on U.S.-Iranian relations, the latest of which will take place next week.

The ultimate goal, Goold said, is to “develop an alternative Democratic national-security strategy,” separate from but “supplementary to” the security plan that Pelosi and other party leaders unveiled this spring.

“It’s a very hard thing to modulate,” said Matt Bennett, communications director on Gen. Wesley Clark’s 2004 presidential campaign and a co-founder of the new centrist group Third Way. “On the one hand, you definitely don’t want to measure drapes. On the other hand, you’ve got to look confident and got to be able to talk to people about what will happen if they vote for you.”

Clinton, in her speech, similarly called on Democrats to amplify their talk of an affirmative agenda, as did House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who proudly recalled her own vote against the war in Iraq.

When Clinton called U.S. troops “the best we have to offer,” she received a few small cheers and loud cries of “No!” from the conference audience. Pelosi made her own plea to support the troops and received a thunderous ovation.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/061406/news1.html

jamaa · Jun 14, 2006

Democrats are using myspace this election.
[hide][FRAME]http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/the06fix/index.php?id=91[/FRAME]

[FRAME][/FRAME][/hide]

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.yourvotematters.org/vote/index.cfm" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.yourvotematters.org/vote/index.cfm">link</A>

</IFRAME>

QueEx · Jul 24, 2006

QueEx · Aug 17, 2006

<font size="5"><center>Democrats' Stock Is Rising on K Street</font size>
<font size="4">Firms Anticipate A Shift in Power</font size></center>

Washington Post
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 17, 2006; Page A01

Washington lobbying firms, trade associations and corporate offices are moving to hire more well-connected Democrats in response to rising prospects that the opposition party will wrest control of at least one chamber of Congress from Republicans in the November elections.

In what lobbyists are calling a harbinger of possible upheaval on Capitol Hill, many who make a living influencing government have gone from mostly shunning Democrats to aggressively recruiting them as lobbyists over the past six months or so.

"We've seen a noticeable shift," said Beth Solomon, director of the Washington office of Christian & Timbers, an executive search firm that helps to place senior lobbyists and trade association heads.

In June, one of Washington's largest lobbying law firms, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP, transferred the chairmanship of its government affairs practice from a Republican, Thomas F. O'Neil III, to a prominent Democrat, James J. Blanchard, a former governor and congressman from Michigan.

"Being a Democrat didn't hurt me, that's for sure," Blanchard said. "This is going to be a big Democratic year."

At Patton Boggs LLP, another lobbying powerhouse, the calculation is similar. "Democrats' stock has clearly risen in the interviewing process this year as the chances for a Democratic takeover [of the House] have increased," said John F. Jonas, the head of Patton Boggs's health practice. "Serious hiring" of Democrats, he added, has become "a high priority here at Patton Boggs."

"Earlier this year, the propensity was to look mostly at Republicans" as candidates for lobbying jobs, said W. Michael House, director of the legislative group at the law firm Hogan & Hartson. "Now, we're looking at both Republicans and Democrats closely."

Lobbying managers have for years tended to hire Republicans because both Congress and the White House are controlled by the GOP, and access to officials at both places is lobbying's stock in trade. But, in recent months, many of Washington's top lobbyists said in interviews that their decision-making has been altered by an emerging consensus among election experts that the Democrats will boost their numbers in the House and the Senate in the midterm elections Nov. 7 and have a strong shot of winning a majority in the House.

As a result, the job market for Democrats has expanded, and the K Street Project -- shorthand for efforts by Republican lawmakers and lobbyists to pressure corporations and trade groups to hire GOP lobbyists only -- has faded away.

For example, earlier this month, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, or Bio, named Jeffrey A. Joseph, a well-known Democrat, as its vice president of communications. This followed other, high-profile Democratic hires this spring and summer, including Cory Alexander, former chief of staff to Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), who joined housing finance giant Fannie Mae, and Mark Schuermann, former chief of staff to Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.), who went to Public Strategies Inc., a large government relations firm.

In the spring, former Democratic congressman Calvin M. Dooley of California was named to head the major trade association that will result from the merger of the Food Products Association and the Grocery Manufacturers Association. The longtime and soon-to-retire chief executive of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, C. Manly Molpus, is a Republican.

Lobbying firms have also increased their Democratic numbers. Venn Strategies LLC, a bipartisan lobbying firm that specializes in tax legislation, lost a junior Democratic lobbyist earlier this year but replaced her in recent months with two senior Democrats, Jessica Battaglia, a former counsel to Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), and Lori A. Neal, previously a legislative assistant to Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.). Stephanie E. Silverman, a principal of Venn Strategies, explained the move: "We fully expect that the political outcome this fall will be such that we will have to deal on a more senior level with Democrats."

Even some all-Republican lobbying firms are starting to hire Democrats this year. The Federalist Group has added three Democrats to its once-all-GOP roster, including former representative Chris John (D-La.). And Tarplin, Downs & Young LLC, an all-Republican, all-female health lobbying company, is actively looking for a Democratic lobbyist. Both firms said the election outlook had nothing to do with their decision to bring in Democrats.

Indeed, most Washington lobbying outfits already employ lobbyists affiliated with both parties. But Democrats are being sought more eagerly in lobbying offices than they have been for years. "A couple of years ago, there was a bias against hiring Democrats for practical reasons," said Peter T. Metzger, vice chairman of Christian & Timbers, the executive search company. "Now there's an openness to both sides of the aisle."

The prospect of partisan change in Congress has also altered the way lawmakers and their aides are thinking about jobs on K Street. Some Democrats who had been looking for work "downtown" have postponed their switch, thinking that they might want to experience being in the majority for a change, according to Eric Vautour, who leads the Washington office of Russell Reynolds Associates Inc., an executive search firm.

In addition, Vautour said, a sizable pool of Republicans -- including two lawmakers seeking reelection whom he declined to identify -- "are willing to talk about becoming a lobbyist or an association head" even before Election Day.

At the same time, some lobbying managers see peril in trying to guess which way voters will turn. "Reading tea leaves can be tough; it's hard to time the political market," said David M. Carmen, president the lobbying firm the Carmen Group Inc. "There will always be time to make adjustments if that needs to happen after the election."

That is one reason some firms are putting off their hiring until after November. "People haven't been rushing to hire lobbyists anyway; it hasn't been the bang-up year," said Gregg L. Hartley, chief operating officer of Cassidy & Associates. "To the extent I can hold off hiring until the first of next year, I will."

In the meantime, Democrats are finding K Street a much more hospitable place. "There are certainly a growing number of groups that are much more open to hiring Democrats than they were six months to a year ago," said Nels B. Olson of Korn/Ferry International, an executive search firm.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/16/AR2006081601598.html?referrer=email

Greed · Aug 18, 2006

Eye on Election, Democrats Run as Wal-Mart Foe

Eye on Election, Democrats Run as Wal-Mart Foe
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MICHAEL BARBARO

DES MOINES, Aug. 16 — Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, a likely Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, delivered a 15-minute, blistering attack to warm applause from Democrats and union organizers here on Wednesday. But Mr. Biden’s main target was not Republicans in Washington, or even his prospective presidential rivals.

It was Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer.

Among Democrats, Mr. Biden is not alone. Across Iowa this week and across much of the country this month, Democratic leaders have found a new rallying cry that many of them say could prove powerful in the midterm elections and into 2008: denouncing Wal-Mart for what they say are substandard wages and health care benefits.

Six Democratic presidential contenders have appeared at rallies like the one Mr. Biden headlined, along with some Democratic candidates for Congress in some of the toughest-fought races in the country.

“My problem with Wal-Mart is that I don’t see any indication that they care about the fate of middle-class people,” Mr. Biden said, standing on the sweltering rooftop of the State Historical Society building here. “They talk about paying them $10 an hour. That’s true. How can you live a middle-class life on that?”

The focus on Wal-Mart is part of a broader strategy of addressing what Democrats say is general economic anxiety and a growing sense that economic gains of recent years have not benefited the middle class or the working poor.

Their alliance with the anti-Wal-Mart campaign dovetails with their emphasis in Washington on raising the minimum wage and doing more to make health insurance affordable. It also suggests they will go into the midterm Congressional elections this fall and the 2008 presidential race striking a populist tone.

Some Democrats expressed concern about the direction the party was heading, saying it could turn back efforts by such party leaders as former President Bill Clinton to erase the image of the party as anti-business and scare off corporations that might be inclined to make contributions.

Still, what is striking about this campaign is the ideological breadth of the Democrats who have joined in, including some who in the past have warned the party against appearing hostile to business interests.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who was a member of Wal-Mart’s board when she lived in Arkansas, the corporation’s home state, returned a $5,000 campaign contribution from the company last year. Mrs. Clinton said she did so to protest Wal-Mart’s health care benefits, and she has continued to distance herself from the policies of a company she was close to when she was the first lady of Arkansas.

Scheduling conflicts prevented Mrs. Clinton from attending any of the rallies being organized, her aides said. But she supported many of the campaign’s goals, they added.

“It’s not anti-business,” said Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, a former head of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council, appearing at an anti-Wal-Mart rally on Tuesday. “Wal-Mart has become emblematic of the anxiety around the country, and the middle-class squeeze.”

“All you need to know is Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont have appeared at these events,” Mr. Bayh said, speaking of the Connecticut senator and the man who defeated him in the Democratic primary on Aug. 8. “That’s pretty good evidence that Democrats across the country are rallying around this issue.”

Yet there are clear risks for Democrats, not least in alienating Wal-Mart employees and customers.

Wal-Mart has begun a counterattack. In interviews on Wednesday, company executives warned that they would alert their 1.3 million American employees to the anti-Wal-Mart campaign. They also pointed to a poll the company financed that reported that Americans were generally supportive of the company.

“There is far more evidence to show that this short-sighted political strategy will backfire than that it will actually work,” said Mona Williams, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart Stores. “We believe our associates vote, and it is our responsibility to let them know when a politician speaks out for or against our company.”

In a letter to its workers in Iowa, Wal-Mart warned of the political events, including appearances by Mr. Bayh, Mr. Biden and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

Wal-Mart “would never suggest to you how to vote,” the letter said, “but we have an obligation to tell you when politicians are saying something about your company that isn’t true. After all, you are Wal-Mart.”

Some Republicans said Democrats were trying to appease liberal bloggers, union leaders and an Democratic left wing invigorated by Mr. Lieberman’s defeat in the primary.

But Democrats say they are sure they have a message that will resonate. John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator and Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 2004, appeared at an anti-Wal-Mart rally in Pittsburgh two weeks ago. Mr. Edwards said in an interview that his party was not vulnerable to a backlash for this criticism so long as Democrats made clear that their main goal was improving policies for the poor and the middle class.

“Wal-Mart as an example of the problems that exist in America today is a powerful political issue,” he said in an interview on Wednesday. “I think our party pretty much across the board agrees that people who work hard should be able to support their families. When a company like Wal-Mart fails to meet its corporate responsibility, it make it impossible for that to occur.”

Democrats say Wal-Mart is a potent symbol of corporate excess. The company earned $11 billion in profit last year, but fewer than half of its employees in the United States are covered by its health care plan, and the average worker earns less than $20,000 a year.

Wal-Mart counters that its average wage is more than $10 an hour, and that more than 150,000 Americans who had no health insurance now have it through the company. It also says it has saved consumers billions of dollars by squeezing costs.

The challenges to Wal-Mart are hardly new: it has been the target of political attacks as far back as when Patrick J. Buchanan ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996, and said Wal-Mart was guilty of “gigantism” for crushing smaller businesses.

The criticism has become more intense as Wal-Mart has grown into an increasingly major influence on the American economy and culture. For example, there is an ongoing cross-country bus tour, now in Iowa, organized by Wake Up Wal-Mart, a union-financed group highly critical of the retailer. The campaign includes news conferences with elected leaders in 19 states, may be the most ambitious tactic to date.

Wake Up Wal-Mart’s communications director, Chris Kofinis, said a large cast of Democratic candidates was joining the rallies. They include candidates in Senate races in Ohio and Maryland, and the governor’s race in Maryland, where Wal-Mart’s practices have been the subject of a legislative battle. “Who can disagree with the proposition that corporations should provide affordable health care, pay decent wages, protect American jobs and help provide a safe and just workplace?” Mr. Kofinis said.

Ms. Williams, the Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said the rallies would not resonate with voters. Democrats, she said, were “attending a union-sponsored protest with small crowds of faithful union activists, and there is not a swing vote in sight.’’

“They are preaching to the choir,” Ms. Williams said.

For years, labor activists have characterized Wal-Mart as beholden to Republicans. In the last election cycle, they note, the company gave 80 percent of its contributions to Republicans. Many of its stores are in Republican-dominated territory in the rural South.

But as Wal-Mart has grown in size and power, it has tried to establish ties to the Democratic party. Its chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., has grown close to Mr. Clinton, who personally thanked him for Wal-Mart’s relief work after Hurricane Katrina and played host to Mr. Scott at his home in New York last month. In addition, Mr. Scott recently played host to the former Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore, to talk about the environment, and he appeared on the New York radio show of the Democratic activist Al Sharpton.

Even the Democrats who have been at the forefront of the recent attacks have not always had difficult relations with the corporation. Mr. Bayh, for example, took a total of $10,000 in contributions from Wal-Mart in the 2002 and 2004 campaigns.

“It’s clear that the contributions did not have any influence on how he has approached this issue,” said Dan Pfieffer, a spokesman for Mr. Bayh.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/w...51b&ex=1313467200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

elexington1989 · Aug 19, 2006

elexington1989 · Aug 19, 2006

This year a African American and Latino American(from Central America) is runing for Attorney General in the Democrat Primary.

Steward Simms was to run as Lt. Governor but, the Governor candidate decided to drop out of the race which left Mr. Simms to choose the second option which was to run for Attorney General:

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.stusimms2006.com/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.stusimms2006.com/">link</A>

</IFRAME>

<IFRAME SRC="http://mocoprogressive.blogspot.com/2006/08/simms-attorney-general-campaign.html#links" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://mocoprogressive.blogspot.com/2006/08/simms-attorney-general-campaign.html#links">link</A>

</IFRAME>

Tom Perez is a County Councilman that decided to run for Attorney General, but according to a lawsuit that was made last year he didn't have enough cradintials to run for Attorney General but the state court ruled in mr. Perez's favor. Also mr. Perez has track record for supporting the influx of Illegal Immigration and giving them the same rights(drivers lisence, Paying In-school College/University tuitions, voting in local elections, Medical Insurance, etc.) as the natural born American citizens and Legal Immigrants:

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.tomperez.org/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.tomperez.org/">link</A>

<IFRAME SRC="http://mocoprogressive.blogspot.com/2006/07/perez-okay-to-run-for-attorney-general.html#links" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://mocoprogressive.blogspot.com/2006/07/perez-okay-to-run-for-attorney-general.html#links">link</A>

</IFRAME>

</IFRAME>

QueEx · Aug 23, 2006

<font size="5"><center>Judgment Day Coming -- For the Neocons</font size></center>

By Patrick Buchanan
August 18, 2006

The Democrats are determined to make the election of 2006 a referendum on Bush and the war in Iraq. And, as of now, that is how history will likely record it.

But beneath the surface of the national election, a different plebiscite is being held, within the conservative movement, on the ideology George Bush imposed on Ronald Reagan's party.

What are the elements of Bushite neoconservatism?

First, an interventionist foreign policy, using U.S. power to impose democracy and "end tyranny on this earth." Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon are the laboratories and proving ground.

Second, "Big Government Conservatism," as seen in the deficits, the dearth of vetoes, soaring social spending in wartime, the bulking up of the Department of Education and "faith-based initiatives" -- LBJ-style cash grants to pastors and parsons for Social Gospel work, to reap a harvest of gratitude from the pulpits in elections to come.

Third, a La Raza immigration policy, featuring amnesty and a "path to citizenship" for 12 million illegal aliens, pardons for all businesses that hired illegals, and outsourcing of immigration policy to Corporate America to go abroad and hire workers for jobs here Americans cannot take at the wages offered.

Fourth, a trade policy rooted in the belief that it does not matter where goods are produced or whether Americans produce them. What matters is unimpeded global commerce, where the consumer is king and gets all the goods he wants at the cheapest possible price.

On these four mega-questions, Republicans are as divided as they were in the days of Rockefeller and Goldwater. Where the Right unites -- on tax cuts, John Roberts and Sam Alito -- the president has the nation behind him.

Wherever "conservatives" stand -- whether Old Right or neocon, supply-sider or deficit hawk, America First or global democrat, Big Government or small government -- the returns of Bush's policies are largely in and the outcome unlikely to change. And this is why Bush and the GOP are in trouble, and neoconservatism is in the dock.

The altarpiece of the Bush foreign policy is Iraq. American dead are at 2,600, the wounded at 18,000. Three hundred billion dollars has been plunged into the war. Yet, Iraq is a bloodier, more dangerous place than it has been since the fall of Baghdad. One hundred are being killed every day, half of them in the capital. IED attacks on U.S. troops are at record levels -- three-and-a-half years after Baghdad fell.

The Bush democracy campaign brought stunning electoral gains for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Moqtada al-Sadr in Iraq. Our ally Hamid Kharzai is today little more than mayor of Kabul, as the Taliban roam the southeast and coalition casualties reach the highest levels since liberation, five years ago.

North Korea and Iran remain defiant on their nuclear programs. Vladimir Putin is befriending every regime at odds with Bush, from Tehran to Damascus to Caracas. Neocon meddling in The Bear's backyard has gotten us bit.

Unless we grade foreign policy on the nobility of the intent, which is how the liberals used to defend disasters like Yalta, it is not credible to call Bush's foreign policy a success. The Lebanon debacle, once U.S. complicity is exposed, is unlikely to win anyone a Nobel.

Bush's trade policy has left us with annual deficits of $800 billion with the world and $200 billion with Beijing. Once the greatest creditor nation in history, we are now the greatest debtor. U.S. manufacturing has been hollowed out with thousands of plants closed and 3 million industrial jobs vanishing since Bush took office.

As for Bush immigration policy, the nation is in virtual rebellion. Six million aliens have been caught at the Mexican border since he took office. One in 12 had a criminal record. In April-May, millions of Hispanics marched through U.S. cities demanding amnesty and all rights of citizenship for aliens who are breaking the law by even being here. Bush and the Senate are in paralysis, appeasing the lawbreakers by offering amnesties and by opposing House demands that the president seal the border before the invasion brings an end to the America we once knew.

While the economy has been running well since 2003, creating jobs, and the markets are performing well, the real wages of working Americans have not kept pace with the portfolios of the clients of Lawrence Kudlow. Industrial states, like Ohio, could be killing fields of the GOP in November.

To the neocon guru Irving Kristol, "The historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be ... to convert the Republican Party and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy."

With some of us, the tutoring never took, but the neocons surely did convert George W. How's your boy doing, Irving?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/judgment_day_coming_for_the_ne.html

QueEx · Sep 3, 2006

<font size="5"><center>GOP's Hold on House Shakier</font size>
<font size="4">As Labor Day gets the campaign in full swing,
Democrats are counting on voters unhappy with
one-party rule and Bush's leadership</font size></center>

Los Angles Times
By Janet Hook, Times Staff Writer
September 3, 2006

WASHINGTON — Raye Haug, a retired librarian in northern Virginia, for years happily voted to reelect her longtime congressman, Republican Frank R. Wolf. But the GOP record of the last six years — on foreign policy, the economy and the environment — has so soured Haug that she wants to vote for a Democrat in this year's midterm election.

Any Democrat.

"I don't think I've ever before been willing to vote for someone just because of their party affiliation," said Haug, who walked precincts one sweltering Saturday for Judy Feder, Wolf's Democratic opponent, even though she knew little about her.

As Labor Day signals the start of intense campaigning for the Nov. 7 election, the political landscape is crowded with disgruntled voters like Haug, who tell pollsters they don't like the direction the country has taken under President Bush and Republican rule in Congress.

Most voters are just now beginning to pay attention to the campaign, but candidates and their advisors have been mobilized for months. After 12 years of Republican dominance, Democrats have their best shot in years at winning control of Congress — especially the House.

Early this year, the nonpartisan Cook Political Report identified 42 House Republican seats as competitive; now it lists 55. The analysis sees only 20 House Democrats in competitive races. Democrats, who need to gain 15 seats to win control, also have narrowed Republicans' traditional advantage in fundraising.

The mood of the electorate continues to be clouded by deteriorating conditions in Iraq.

"That's a recipe for a GOP disaster, and there is no reason to believe that things will change dramatically between now and election day to improve Republican prospects," said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of a nonpartisan newsletter that recently predicted a Democratic takeover of the House.

The Senate remains more firmly in Republican hands, but even GOP strategists fear their party could reduce their 55-45 margin of control.

The winds are blowing so strongly against the GOP that it raises a new question: If Democrats cannot win control of Congress under these circumstances, when will they?

If they do not triumph in such a hospitable climate, it will be a tribute to the strength of the political machine the GOP has built to cement the realignment that has given them control of Congress since 1994 and the White House since 2000. The party's agenda is tailored to mobilize its base, and its campaign machinery has made a fine art of getting Republican voters to the polls.

And most House members are protected by district boundaries that have been drawn by political bosses to keep seats safely in one party's control.

"If we do endure this cycle with a majority in both chambers, you have to argue this has been an unbelievable 12-year run," said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster. "You'd have to give Bush and his administration credit. That is an enduring legacy."

Helping secure that legacy are incumbents like Wolf, who make the Democrats' job harder than it seems. Although he is facing a well-financed opponent in a district that shows signs of becoming more Democratic, Wolf is still heavily favored to win. A 13-term incumbent who sits on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, Wolf has been bringing home the bacon for decades and is well-known by his constituents.

Even Haug — who plans to vote against him — concedes, "I like the guy. He has been a good congressman."

That's why Republicans are trying to keep the focus on individual candidates and local issues, while Democrats are trying to turn the election into a broad national referendum on one-party rule in Washington, the war in Iraq and Bush.

The parties' different strategies were on display last week in a day of campaign events in the suburbs of Philadelphia. Democrat Joe Sestak held an event on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina to criticize Bush's response to the disaster and to link the district's Republican representative to the administration's failures.

"If anybody's happy with George Bush, you are happy with Curt Weldon, and I am not your man," Sestak said. "He is super-glued to the president."

In a nearby district, first-term Republican Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick traveled to a dairy farm to say he had bucked the Bush administration to secure funding for a locally popular conservation program. "I've struck a real chord of independence," Fitzpatrick said.

Some Republicans take heart from a few inklings that Democrats may have peaked too soon.

In recent polls, Bush's approval ratings rose after the arrest last month of terrorism suspects in London. A mid-August Gallup poll found that generic support for a Democratic congressional candidate over a Republican narrowed to 2 percentage points, down from double digits in earlier surveys.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, called those findings fleeting, and he pointed to other signs that voters are as restive as they were in 1994, when they threw Democrats out of power in the House and Senate.

A key question is whether surly voters will punish incumbents of both parties. They have in early primaries: In Connecticut, Sen. Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary to an antiwar liberal, Ned Lamont. In Alaska, GOP Gov. Frank H. Murkowski came in third place in his party's gubernatorial primary. One House member from each party has been defeated so far in primaries.

But many analysts predict any throw-the-bums-out tide will take a greater toll on Republicans. Tim Storey, election analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures, sees warning signs for the GOP in the results of 53 special elections for state legislative seats. In 13 cases, incumbents were dumped; all but two were Republicans.

Most analysts see Democrats' gaining control of the Senate as a long shot, because so many competitions are in states that vote Republican in presidential elections. Virtually every contested race would have to go the Democrats' way for them to gain the six seats needed for a majority.

One sign of Republicans' angst is the number of candidates distancing themselves from Bush and the party.

In Missouri, GOP Sen. Jim Talent's first television ad says: "Most people don't care if you are red or blue, Republican or Democrat." In Maryland, GOP Senate candidate Michael S. Steele told reporters that being a Republican was like wearing a scarlet letter.

The trickiest campaign issue for members of both parties is Iraq.

Most Democrats have criticized Bush's handling of the conflict but have been divided over what alternative course to back. Still, with Iraq riven by sectarian violence, more Democrats have felt it politically safe — even advantageous — to speak out against the president's policy. Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), running in a contested primary for Senate, bragged in his first television ad of his vote against the Iraq war.

A handful of Republicans have criticized Bush's Iraq strategy. They include Fitzpatrick, who said in an August mailing to voters, "Mike Fitzpatrick to President Bush: America needs a better, smarter plan in Iraq."

But most Republicans have stuck with the GOP approach of lambasting Democrats for advocating a "cut and run" strategy—even though they acknowledge the status quo in Iraq threatens to harm them politically.

"Without more progress on the ground in Iraq, it's going to be a political problem for Republicans," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). "I don't think anything rivals Iraq as an issue that shapes the political environment in district after district."

In northern Virginia, however, Feder's long-shot campaign against Wolf is hardly putting that issue front and center. Her pitch to campaign volunteers in Sterling, Va., recently was a broader message.

"Are you ready for change in Washington?" asked Feder, a healthcare advisor to President Clinton who is now dean of the Public Policy Institute at Georgetown University. "We need to get rid of these guys."

Feder is hoping to gain traction in the district — which stretches from the suburbs of Washington, D.C., to West Virginia — because last year a GOP-weighted electorate voted for Democrat Timothy M. Kaine for governor. Dan Scandling, a Wolf spokesman, said he was confident that Wolf's close ties to his district — it is near enough to the Capitol that the congressman returns home every night — would help him easily beat his opponent. But he is not taking anything for granted.

"In this environment, you take every candidate seriously," Scandling said. "If you don't, you're crazy."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...rm3sep03,0,3663544.story?page=1&track=tothtml

QueEx · Sep 3, 2006

<font size="4">Midterm elections: races to watch</font size>

Here is a selection of Senate and House races that are bellwethers in the battle to control Congress. They will measure the effect of important trends shaping this year's political landscape, such as public opinion of President Bush, the war in Iraq and immigration.

<font size="3"><u>Senate Races</u></font size>

Pennsylvania

Sen. Rick Santorum (R), incumbent

Bob Casey Jr. (D), state treasurer

State of the race: Trailing by double digits in polls for months, Santorum has narrowed the gap but is still at about 40%.

Quick take: Darling of the Christian right, the senior GOP leader risks defeat in a swing state. His head is the one Democrats want most. His loss would be a blow to Bush and conservatives — and to Santorum's White House ambitions.

Rhode Island

Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R), incumbent

Stephen Laffey (R), City of Cranston mayor

Sheldon Whitehouse (D), former state attorney general

State of the race: Chafee faces a tough GOP primary Sept. 12. If he survives, an even tougher fight looms in November.

Quick take: The Senate's most liberal Republican is buffeted from both right and left. Democrats would have an easier time beating conservative Laffey in this blue state. Chafee's campaign tests whether there is still room in U.S. politics — and in the GOP — for centrists.

Maryland

(Incumbent Democratic Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes is retiring)

Michael S. Steele (R), lieutenant governor

Kweisi Mfume (D), former U.S. representative, former NAACP head

Benjamin L. Cardin (D), U.S. representative

State of the race: Contentious Democratic primary Sept. 12. July poll showed Cardin with bigger margin over Steele than Mfume.

Quick take: Both the Democratic primary and general election may test African American party allegiance. Steele is a rare breed: African American GOPer. Will he pick up black Democratic voters if Mfume, also black, loses the primary?

Washington

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D), incumbent

Mike McGavick (R), businessman, former Senate aide

State of the race: Cantwell is considered vulnerable to a strong challenger, but it is not clear by how much. There has been little public polling.

Quick take: Cantwell, like Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), has taken heat from liberals in this deep-blue state for supporting the Iraq war. Will antiwar Democrats stay home on election day? McGavick must fight a strong anti-Bush current.

<font size="3"><u>House Races</u></font size>

Connecticut 5 (northwest)

Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R), incumbent

Chris Murphy (D), state senator

State of the race: Johnson is favored, but is still vulnerable to a Democratic tidal wave.

Quick take: First tough race in a decade for the 12-term moderate in a state where Bush is unpopular. A test of whether the Northeast will become even more Democratic.

Ohio 15 (Columbus)

Rep. Deborah Pryce (R), incumbent

Mary Jo Kilroy (D), county commissioner

State of the race: The fight of Pryce's political life, but she's still favored.

Quick take: Pryce, a senior Republican leader, is hurt by Ohio GOP scandals and Bush's unpopularity. A test of whether Democrats can dislodge longtime incumbents from once-safe seats.

Pennsylvania 8 (Philadelphia suburbs)

Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick (R), incumbent

Patrick Murphy (D), former prosecutor

State of race: July Democratic poll favored Fitzpatrick, 44% to 38%

Quick take: The first-term Republican, in a swing district, tries to distance himself from Bush on Iraq and the environment. Murphy is an Iraq war veteran. Test of whether moderates will be dragged down by an unpopular war and president.

South Carolina 5 (north central)

Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D), incumbent

Ralph Norman (R), state representative

State of the race: A long shot for Republicans.

Quick take: Republicans paint the longtime incumbent as out of touch with a conservative district. But a huge fundraising advantage keeps Spratt favored to win. The race is likely to show limits to GOP march through the South.

West Virginia 1 (Wheeling)

Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D), incumbent

Chris Wakim (R), state representative

State of the race: Mollohan's running hard, favored to win.

Quick take: Dogged by ethics problems, 12-term incumbent faces his first serious challenge in years. A test of whether corruption accusations will hurt Democrats as well as GOPers.

Source: Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-midterm3sep03,0,1031771,full.story

Greed · Sep 14, 2006

Black Democrat Says He Will Back Allen, Not Webb

Black Democrat Says He Will Back Allen, Not Webb
By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 13, 2006; B05

RICHMOND, Sept. 12 -- A senior Democratic state lawmaker endorsed Republican Sen. George Allen's bid for reelection Tuesday, after having earlier criticized Democrat James Webb's position on affirmative action.

State Sen. Benjamin J. Lambert III (Richmond), who is black, praised Allen in a letter on his senate stationery released yesterday by the Allen campaign.

"Because we have worked well together over the years on many issues, and especially because you have delivered on your promises to support Virginia's Historically Black Colleges and Universities, I am pleased to support you in your re-election to the U.S. Senate," Lambert wrote. "I hope to be working with you in Washington long after November to continue fighting on behalf of all educational institutions for higher education."

Lambert's endorsement comes at a critical time for Allen, as his standing in public polls has fallen after comments he made to a Webb volunteer. In August, Allen was caught on video calling S.R. Sidarth "macaca" and welcoming him to "the real world of Virginia." Macaca literally means a genus of monkey and is considered a slur in some cultures.

An independent poll conducted by Mason-Dixon on behalf of several news organizations reported this week that Allen leads Webb by 4 percentage points, down from 16 at the end of July.

Allen campaign manager Dick Wadhams called Lambert's surprise announcement "a huge endorsement for Senator Allen, but it's also a very damaging blow to the Webb campaign."

In April, Lambert endorsed Webb's Democratic primary opponent, Harris Miller, and joined several other leading black lawmakers in questioning Webb's support for diversity programs for African Americans.

Since he became a candidate for the Senate, Webb said that he supports affirmative action for blacks but not as a broader program aimed at helping other minorities. "I'm a strong supporter of affirmative action in its original intent, which is to help African Americans," Webb said in June.

Webb spokeswoman Kristian Denny Todd said that it was "quite a surprise" to learn of Lambert's endorsement of Allen. "Not too long ago, Jim had a very productive meeting with Senator Lambert, where his concerns were addressed," she said. "We feel confident that we will move ahead in unity with African Americans to win in Virginia."

Asked if Allen supports affirmative action, Wadhams said he "supports affirmative recruitment, actively seeking out opportunities for minorities. He does not support quotas."

Lambert, who has served in the state Senate since 1986, said in an interview that he remains concerned about Webb's position.

"Affirmative action was one of the things that helped the black students and black people, period," he said. "When you start talking about not being for affirmative action, it really turns people off."

Lambert said he was not aware that Allen does not expressly support affirmative action. "I hope that I can get him to change his mind on that," he said.

Webb had difficulty appealing to the black community during the primary against Miller, and political observers have cited that as a weakness in his race against Allen. African Americans have traditionally been key to Democratic victories in Virginia.

Webb's problems stem from articles he wrote as a freelance journalist during the last two decades.

"Affirmative action, which originally sought to repair the state-induced damage to blacks from slavery and its aftermath, has within one generation brought about a permeating state-sponsored racism that is as odious as the Jim Crow laws it sought to countermand," Webb wrote in a Wall Street Journal book review in 2000.

Those comments drew sharp criticism this year from Miller and several black lawmakers, including Lambert.

Senate Minority Leader Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax) expressed dismay over Lambert's decision to break rank with the party and endorse Allen's reelection bid.

"Are you kidding me?" Saslaw asked when told of the endorsement. "It's unfortunate. I don't see why he would have done that, but certainly it's a free country."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/12/AR2006091201541.html

QueEx · Sep 17, 2006

Re: Black Democrat Says He Will Back Allen, Not Webb

<font size="6"><center>Major Problems At Polls Feared</font size><font size="4">
Some Officials Say Voting Law Changes And
New Technology Will Cause Trouble</font size></center>

Washington Post
By Dan Balz and Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 17, 2006; Page A01

An overhaul in how states and localities record votes and administer elections since the Florida recount battle six years ago has created conditions that could trigger a repeat -- this time on a national scale -- of last week's Election Day debacle in the Maryland suburbs, election experts said.

In the Nov. 7 election, more than 80 percent of voters will use electronic voting machines, and a third of all precincts this year are using the technology for the first time. The changes are part of a national wave, prompted by the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 and numerous revisions of state laws, that led to the replacement of outdated voting machines with computer-based electronic machines, along with centralized databases of registered voters and other steps to refine the administration of elections.

But in Maryland last Tuesday, a combination of human blunders and technological glitches caused long lines and delays in vote-counting. The problems, which followed ones earlier this year in Ohio, Illinois and several other states, have contributed to doubts among some experts about whether the new systems are reliable and whether election officials are adequately prepared to use them.

In a polarized political climate, in which elections are routinely marked by litigation and allegations of incompetent administration or outright tampering, some worry that voting problems could cast a Florida-style shadow over this fall's midterm elections.

"We could see that control of Congress is going to be decided by races in recount situations that might not be determined for several weeks," said Paul S. DeGregorio, chairman of the federal Election Assistance Commission, although he added that he does not expect problems of this magnitude.

"It's hard to put a factor on how ill-prepared we are," said former Ohio governor Richard F. Celeste, a Democrat who recently co-chaired a study of new machines with Republican Richard L. Thornburgh, former governor of Pennsylvania, for the National Research Council. They advised local election officials to prepare backup plans for November.

"What we know is, these technologies require significant testing and debugging to make them work," added Celeste, now president of Colorado College. "Our concern -- particularly as we look to the November election, when there is a lot of pressure on -- is that election officials consider what kinds of fallbacks they can put in place."

The main focus is on whether people know how to properly use the machines, particularly the large army of volunteers who staff the polls at most precincts.

"We know the equipment works because it's been qualified to federal standards," said Kevin J. Kennedy, executive director of the Wisconsin State Elections Board and president of the National Association of State Election Directors. "The real challenge is to make sure our poll workers are trained and make sure voters have been educated so that we don't have an experience like Maryland had."

What is clear is that a national effort to improve election procedures six years ago -- after the presidential election ended with ambiguous ballots and allegations of miscounted votes and partisan favoritism in Florida -- has failed to restore broad public confidence that the system is fair.

To the contrary, litigation is on the rise. Rick Hasen, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and the author of Election Law Blog, found that the number of election challenges filed in court had risen sharply from 2000 to 2004 -- from 197 per year to 361. "Parties have become more willing to go to court," Hasen said.

In 2004, some Democrats alleged widespread voting irregularities in Ohio, including questionable vote-counting and problems with machines in Democratic-leaning precincts. Nonpartisan election experts have said the problems were not so severe to call President Bush's victory, by about 119,000 votes, into question.

This year, there are debates over standards for keeping voter registration rolls up to date; for the handling of "provisional ballots" used by people who do not show up on those rolls but believe they are legally qualified to vote; and for assuring the validity of electronic vote counts through the use of paper trails for all electronic machines. State legislation requiring state or federal identification for all voters has been challenged in courts.

One reason many issues are coming to a head this year is that the Help America Vote Act set the start of 2006 as the deadline for states to comply fully with its regulations.

Help America Vote does not mandate electronic voting, but it has greatly accelerated that trend. The law banned lever machines and punch cards to end debates about ambiguous "hanging chads" of the sort that occurred in Florida in 2000. What is clear is that electronic machines have their own imponderables.

In Montgomery County, the breakdown came when election officials failed to provide precinct workers with the access cards needed to operate electronic voting machines. In Prince George's County, computers misidentified some voters' party affiliation and failed to transmit data to the central election office. At least nine other states have had trouble this year with new voting technology.

During Illinois's March primary, poll workers in Cook County (Chicago) experienced problems at hundreds of sites with new voting technology, delaying results in a crucial vote for the county's board.

In Ohio, results from the May primary election were delayed for nearly a week in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) when thousands of absentee ballots were incorrectly formatted for electronic scanners and had to be counted by hand.

Twenty-seven states require electronic voting machines to produce a paper trail available for auditing during a recount, but an analysis of Cuyahoga County's paper trail by the nonpartisan Election Science Institute showed that a tenth of the receipts were uncountable.

So far, none of these problems has prompted lingering legal challenges. But experts say turnout in general elections is much higher than in primaries and will put new stresses on the election system.

Although Help America Vote imposed national standards, it did not impose a uniform system. There are different styles and brands of equipment in use, with the potential for different bugs. The main systems are optical-scan machines and touch-screen machines. The potential problems election officials cite include machines breaking down or paper ballots not being read by optical-scan machines.

Beyond technical bugs, questions remain about whether the machines are vulnerable to vote fraud by hackers.

For several years, prominent computer scientists have taken aim at the electronic voting machines, which in essence are computers. In analyses of the software that runs widely used models of the machines, and in tests on specific brands, the scientists have shown how they could manipulate the machine to report a vote total that differed from the actual total cast by voters.

Machine vendors and some election officials have said that, while changing vote totals may be possible for someone with sophisticated technical knowledge in a controlled experiment, it is highly unlikely in a real election, given the security and oversight.

In the wake of Help America Vote, Congress has appropriated more than $3 billion to states to upgrade equipment, and Vermont Secretary of State Deb Markowitz, the president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, said many states have met all of Help America Vote's requirements. Backers credit the law with making voting easier for the disabled and people for whom English is not a primary language. And they say that when machines and databases work properly, they make voting more accurate.

As Election Day nears, however, states remain embroiled in legal disputes growing out of Help America Vote's requirements for centralized voter databases and for some first-time voters to show identification at the polls. The Justice Department has sued New York state for failing to comply with Help America Vote requirements, such as upgrading machines and building a central voter database.

Democrats and Republicans remain at odds over voter registration rolls. The Brennan Center for Justice, a liberal advocacy group, recently showed that properly registered voters in Florida, New Jersey and Kentucky were being removed from voter databases through electronic purges.

"Voter suppression doesn't happen with intimidation on Election Day, but rather through silent and sometimes secret government actions in the weeks leading up to an election," said Michael Waldman, the center's executive director.

Republicans have pressed for laws requiring voters to show a state or federal identification card -- a requirement Democrats say could disenfranchise low-income and minority voters.

A handful of states have passed expansive laws requiring voters to show state or federal ID at the polls. On Thursday, a circuit court judge in Missouri struck down as unconstitutional that state's ID requirement. That ruling followed a similar decision by a court in Georgia. A court in Indiana, however, upheld the requirement.

Further clouding the election process is the fact that, in many states, the administration of elections remains in political hands -- run by secretaries of state or other officials who run for office with partisan affiliations and who often have designs on higher office.

Robert Pastor, director of a commission on election reform organized by American University and headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of state James A. Baker III, said this tradition should be abandoned.

"The Carter-Baker commission identified 87 steps that need to be undertaken," he said. "Regrettably, almost none of them are being done right now. I would start by establishing statewide, nonpartisan election administration."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600885.html

QueEx · Sep 17, 2006

Re: Black Democrat Says He Will Back Allen, Not Webb

<font size="4">Voting Mishaps</font size>
Despite efforts to improve elections since 2000, states are mired in disputes over election law and administration that could have an impact on this year¿s elections.

Reporting by Zachary A. Goldfarb; Graphic by Patterson Clark, The Washington Post - September 17, 2006

Greed · Sep 18, 2006

Minneapolis Voters Make Ellison Congress’ First Muslim Member

Minneapolis Voters Make Ellison Congress’ First Muslim Member
By Libby George
1:54 AM; Sep. 13, 2006

Democrats in Minnesota’s strongly Democratic 5th Congressional District put history into motion by nominating state Rep. Keith Ellison in Tuesday’s primary — all but guaranteeing that he will become the first Muslim ever elected to Congress.

Ellison’s virtually certain victory in November also would make him the first African-American to represent Minnesota, and one of a small handful of black lawmakers who represent districts with sizable white majorities. The 5th, which includes all of Minneapolis and much of its suburbs, has a population that is about 70 percent non-Hispanic white.

The winner of the November election will succeed retiring Democratic Rep. Martin Olav Sabo, who never had a close race over his 14-term career. Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry took 71 percent of the 5th District vote in 2004.

Ellison earned his primary victory in a hard-fought campaign against two other leading contenders — longtime Sabo aide Mike Erlandson, a former state Democratic Party chairman, and former state Sen. Ember Reichgott Junge.

With all precincts reporting in unofficial returns, Ellison took 41 percent to 31 percent for Erlandson and 21 percent for Junge. Minneapolis City Councilman Paul Ostrow ended the race with 5 percent.

Business consultant Alan Fine was unopposed to stage the Republicans’ longshot bid for the seat. Independence Party candidate Tammy Lee and Green Party member Jay Pond also will contend for the seat.

Ellison was established as the front-runner for the Democratic nod in May, when he received the official endorsement of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (as the Democrats have long been known in Minnesota). His bid to make racial political history in the state also drew him an endorsement from the Congressional Black Caucus.

Sabo, though, stood by Erlandson, who chose to pursue the primary bid despite losing the party endorsement vote.

And Ellison had to recover his footing after some early stumbles. He was stung by news reports about a variety of personal problems, including allegations of unpaid parking tickets, late federal income tax payments and failure to file timely campaign finance reports in other elections. Perhaps most damaging were reports linking him to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan after his conversion to the religion as a young man.

But Ellison’s charm and progressive politics are what likely pulled him through, experts say. The 43-year-old state lawmaker has been likened to progressive political icon Paul Wellstone — a comparison that can go a long way in a state that is still mourning the late senator, who died in a plane crash late in his 2002 bid for re-election.

“The margin speaks to the strength of progressives and grass-roots in that district,” said Blois Olson, co-publisher of the newsletter Politics in Minnesota. “He’s been compared to Paul Wellstone . . . I think it was a factor, and I think the people could relate to that.”

Ellison also pushed hard in the final hours of his campaign, meeting with as many voters as possible to spread a message that included advocating withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, universal health care coverage and support for labor issues.

Throughout the race, Ellison focused on those subjects, eschewing a race-based campaign, and vigorously seeking face time with as many voters of all backgrounds as possible.

The tactic clearly worked: more voters showed up for this primary than any other primary in state history. “This is exactly how we planned it,” said Ellison campaign spokesman Dave Colling.

Colling contended the real reason Ellison is able to elicit so much enthusiasm is his willingness to stand up to authority, a trait he said President Bush will soon encounter. “I watched him do it in the state House, and I can’t wait to watch him do it in Congress,” Colling said.

Erlandson, who targeted older voters who usually cast the most ballots in primary elections, finished strong in the suburbs. “We just didn’t have quite enough juice at the end,” said Erlandson campaign spokesman Peter Brickwedde.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/09/minneapolis_voters_make_elliso.html

muckraker10021 · Sep 22, 2006

<img src="http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2005-11/20739816.jpg">
<font face="arial" size="2" color="#000000"><b>Michael J. Steele (left) and 'the decider'(right)</b></font>

<font color="#d90000" face="arial black" size="5">Black Republican Group's Ad Accuses Dems of Starting KKK, Claims MLK was Republican</font><font face="georgia" size="3" color="#000000">

<strong>by Ron Brynaert<br>
</strong><font color="#990000" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="2">Published:
Thursday September 21, 2006</font></font>
<i>(Update: Blogger-journalist Steve Gilliard calls ad a "time bomb" for Senate candidate Michael Steele)</i>

A radio advertisement running in Maryland, produced by the National Black Republican Association, has been drawing heat for claiming that Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was really a Republican and that Democrats opposed all civil rights legislation from the 1860's to the 1960's and were responsible for starting the Ku Klux Klan.

<h2>NBRA radio ad</h2>

<param name="FileName" value="http://www.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/000143/NBRA%20Radio%20Ad.mp3">
<embed allownetworking="internal" allowscriptaccess="never" type="application/x-mplayer2" src="http://www.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/000143/NBRA%20Radio%20Ad.mp3" name="MediaPlayer" height="42" width="320">

Although it doesn't mention any candidates, the advertisement is being aired to support Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele as he runs against 10-term Congressman Benjamin L. Cardin for the first open Maryland Senate seat in two decades. Last year, Democratic Senator Paul Sarbanes announced that he wouldn't be seeking reelection to a sixth term.

The 60-second advertisement is shaped as a casual conversation between two African-American women, with one explaining to the other how Democrats have "bamboozled" blacks into believing that their party has done more for the civil rights movement than the Republican Party.

The character named "Tina" claims that Democrats "passed those Black Codes and Jim Crow laws," "started the Ku Klux Klan," and "released those vicious dogs and fire hoses on blacks."

According to the "Tina" character, "Democrats have talked the talk, but Republicans have walked the walk."

"Girl, it's time for us to do the walk," the women say together at the end. "Y'know it, girl."

The National Black Republican Association believes that their "edgy" ad, paid for by the Black Republican Freedom Fund, a 527 organization, will "open the eyes of black Americans" by setting the "record straight," even though civil-rights historians are challenging their claims.

"It sets the record straight, demonstrating that it was Republicans, not Democrats, who championed civil rights for blacks over the past 150 years," NBRA Chairman Frances Rice said in a <a href="http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.PressReleaseRadioAd&tp_preview=true">press release</a>. "Democrats have hijacked the civil rights record of the Republican Party and fought every effort of Republicans to help blacks get off of the Democrat Party’s economic plantation."

Although Lt. Gov. Steele told the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092100735.html">Washington Post</a> only yesterday, before he heard the ad, that it was "about time the Republicans speak to their real place in history . . . and to debunk the myths," his campaign released a statement earlier today asking the group to pull it.

"NBRA’s current radio ad is insulting to Marylanders and should come down immediately," said the Steele <a href="http://www.steeleformaryland.com/NBRATakeDownRadioAd.htm">campaign statement</a>. "Although they may have had good intentions, there is no room for this kind of slash-and-burn partisan politics in the important conversation about how to best bring meaningful change to Washington, D.C. and get something done for Maryland."

"This is exactly the kind of attack politics Marylanders are sick of and why it's time to change this Washington brand of cut-throat politics," added Steele. "My campaign has already contacted NBRA and demanded the ad be removed from the air immediately."

<h2>Historians slam 'distortions'</h2>

The <i>Washington Post</i> spoke to a University of Maryland political scientist who slammed the ad's "distortions."

"It is a totally fallacious rendition of the platform of the parties because, in effect, what happened is, the two parties essentially switched ideology," Ronald Walters told the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092100735_2.html">Post</a>.

A Martin Luther King Jr. biographer and a senior researcher with the Atlanta-based King Center told the <i>Associated Press</i> that the Reverend was non-partisan and that he never endorsed any politician from either of the parties.

"I think it's highly inaccurate to say he was a Republican because there's really no evidence," King Center researcher Steve Klein told the <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/21/america/NA_POL_US_Black_Republicans_Ad.php">Associated Press</a>.

The AP also notes that the NBRA "describes itself on its Web site as 'a resource for the black community on Republican ideals'" but "does not say how many members it has.

Last year, it was <a href="http://www.reddingnewsreview.com/newspages/2005newspages/board_members_resign_at_black_re_05_0910032.htm">reported</a> that half of the newly formed group's board of directors had resigned, at the same time that the Bush Administration was taking heat for the federal response after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.

"The organization and it's current leadership is heading down a much different direction than was envisioned by myself and the other board members," former communications director Christopher Arps said in an email sent to <i>Redding News Review</i> last year.

<h2>'Steele knows it's a time bomb'</h2>

Yesterday, Manhattan journalist Steve Gilliard wrote a post at his <a href="http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/09/ah-what-you-do-when-you-think-black.html">News Blog</a>, which contained a point-by-point response to each line in the radio ad.

In reaction to the claim that "Democrats want us to accept same sex marriages, teen abortion without a parent’s consent, and suing the boy scouts for saying 'God' in their pledge," Gilliard fired back that "[m]ost black people care more about jobs and Iraq than gays marrying."

Gilliard told <a href="http://rawstory.com"><font color="#ff0000">RAW STORY</font></a> that the ad was particularly offensive because "it assumes that blacks are unsophisticated voters, who are driven by emotion," when Maryland just "may have the highest concentration of blacks with advanced degrees on the planet."

"So to try and rewrite history is insulting," Gilliard added. "People know the history of the two parties and this is just offensive."

Last October, a spokesman for Steele blasted Gilliard for posting a photograph on his blog doctored to portray the Senate candidate as a minstrel after he attended a fundraiser held for Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. at an all-white country club.

"The Democratic Party has finally reached a new low with the worst kind of racist gutter politics, and it's the kind of racism that people in Maryland reject, regardless of their political party," Steele's spokesman Leonardo Alcivar said.

Democratic strategist Joe Trippi told the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702115.html?nav=rss_metro">Washington Post</a> that the statement was "almost as bad as what the Web site did -- to try to smear an entire party with what one random person threw up on the Web."

Gilliard told <a href="http://rawstory.com"><font color="#ff0000">RAW STORY</font></a> that Steele knows the radio advertisement is "a time bomb for which he will pay for."

"Because Steele is the beneficiary of this ad, he will pay the most for it," said Gilliard.

<h3>Transcript of advertisement as prepared by NBRA:</h3>

Script: National Black Republican Association 60-Second Radio Spot
Paid for by the Black Republican Freedom Fund, an NBRA 527 affiliate
Not authorized by any candidate or political committee

Pam: Dr. King was a real man.

Tina: You know . . he was a Republican.

Pam: Dr. King, a Republican? Really?

Tina: Democrats passed those Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan.

Pam: The Klan . . . White hoods and sheets?!

Tina: Democrats fought ALL Civil Rights Legislation from the 1860’s to the 1960’s. Democrats released those vicious dogs and fire hoses on blacks.

Pam: Seriously!

Tina: And the Dixiecrats? Remained Democrats and vowed to vote for a yellow dog, before a Republican. Republicans freed us from slavery and put our right to vote in the Constitution.

Pam: What?

Tina: Republicans started the NAACP, affirmative action and the HBCU’s.

Pam: Democrats have bamboozled blacks.

Tina: Democrats blocked the minimum wage passed by Republicans. Over 200 billion dollars have been spent on education, healthcare and job training since President Bush took office.

Pam: So, Democrats want to keep us POOR and voting ONLY Democrat.

Tina: Democrats want us to accept same-sex marriages; teen abortions without a parent’s consent and suing the Boy Scouts for saying “God” in their pledge.

Pam: We NEED to THINK! and vote OUR own values.

Tina: Exactly… Democrats have talked the talk, but Republicans have walked the walk.

Pam: I hear ya girl. It time for us to “DO” the walk.

(Together they laugh about it.)

<IMG SRC="http://www.lawnjockey.com/mini_cav.jpg">

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Black_Republican_groups_radio_ad_accuses_0921.html
</font>

gene cisco · Sep 22, 2006

democrats released the dogs.

Democrats did jom crow.

SHUT THE FUCK UP, so democrats gave it to us in the ass, now its the republicans turn, actually none of them good for shit, but at least you have a fighting chance with dems.

Americas black population always had one major fucking problem that wasnt white.........................uncle fucking toms!!!!

"dam girl you need to come over to the johnson plantation and leave the thomas plantation!! over here we only have to pick cotton 16 hours instead of 17 hours. We get an extra cup of water a day. We only get 5 lashes instead of 6 for violations. Girl massa johnson got it going on, them thomas folks got you bamboozeled!!!!!!!!!!!" :smh:

Missing the big part you still a slave.

Anyway fuck house coons I came here to officially bury the democrats.

birth circa august 2006 death september 21 2006

Chavez and amhadajan are to be tried for conspiracy to commit murder, I want an arrest warrant issued right now for these fucks. :angry:

They supplied the ammo and weapon that the dems used to shoot themselves in the head with.

Also have you seen the gas prices? All of a sudden I can fill my tank without having to carry that embarrassing "will work for gas" sign around. Just in time for elections gas is 209. :lol:

These republicans are pimps, I mean their game is strong. Soon as they win gas gonna be 3.50.

Stand for nothing fall for everything.

Them house coons doing the add for republicans better slow down, she aint tell her girl if the republicans keep running shit she wont be able to afford her weave no dam mo'. Worried about teenage abortion without mothers consent????????????? Let the republicans ban abortion so we can fuck ourselves right into the stoneage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My state been run by republicans for years and we broke then a muthafucka, I mean I aint, but the schools even in the suburbs are cutting sports.

Greed · Sep 22, 2006

Muslims supporting congressional hopeful

Muslims supporting congressional hopeful
By FREDERIC J. FROMMER, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 51 minutes ago

When Mohamed Ghabour heard that a Muslim candidate, Keith Ellison, was running for Congress in Minneapolis, Ghabour turned to a sister-in-law who lives in Minnesota for a scouting report. "She said he's a good man," recalled Ghabour, a Muslim pediatrician from the Tampa, Fla., area. "That's all I needed to hear."

Ghabour contributed $999 to Ellison's campaign, joining other Muslim-American donors who are pinning their hopes, and their dollars, on Ellison becoming the first Muslim elected to Congress.

Ellison, a state lawmaker who converted to Islam as a college student, would also become the first black elected to Congress from Minnesota. He is the Democratic nominee in an overwhelmingly Democratic, Minneapolis-area House district that is about 13 percent black, according to 2000 census data. The current congressman, Democrat Martin Sabo, is retiring.

Ellison, 43, stressed that he's just a "regular Muslim," not a religious leader or scholar.

"Muslims want to express themselves in American life — just like all other Americans do," Ellison said in an interview. "I think that it's very encouraging that while some people seek extremism, American Muslims are seeking inclusion and engagement in the American body politic."

As of Aug. 23, the latest filing period, Ellison had raised $317,000, but it's not certain how much of that came from Muslim contributors. Ellison raised $15,000 to $20,000 last month at a fundraiser with Muslim business owners in Minnesota, and a July fundraiser by young Muslim Capitol Hill staffers in Washington brought in about $5,000, according to Ellison's campaign manager, Dave Colling.

Interviews with donors suggest Muslims from all over the country have sent money to Ellison's campaign, both to help elect a Muslim and because they like his stance on the issues.

"I'm Muslim myself, and so I think that's important, but more important than that is his bringing people together across religious, racial and age spectrums," said Jeffrey Hassan, a lawyer from Brooklyn Park, Minn., who has give Ellison about $800. "I think that's more important than the fact that he's Muslim."

Sameh Shabaneh, an engineer from Woodbury, Minn., who gave Ellison $1,000, cited the candidate's support for the environment, removing troops from Iraq, and preserving civil liberties.

Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights group, said Ellison's election would be a milestone for Muslim Americans.

"Every other community wants someone from their community to be part of the mosaic that represents the country," said Ahmed, who teaches finance at the University of North Florida and gave Ellison $500. "He would be a voice for people who don't have representation in Congress."

Republicans are trying to make an issue of a contribution from another Council on American-Islamic Relations official — executive director Nihad Awad, who gave Ellison $2,000.

In a fundraising letter last week, state GOP Chairman Ron Carey said Ellison has received "financial support from a self-identified supporter of Hamas."

That was a reference to Awad's 1994 statement that he preferred Hamas to the Palestinian Liberation Organization. In an interview, Awad said that was before the group engaged in suicide bombings and was designated a terrorist organization by the State Department.

"I don't support Hamas today," Awad said. "My position and CAIR's position is extremely clear — we condemn suicide bombings. We are mainstream American Muslims."

It's not the first time Ellison's associations — past and present — have provided fodder for the campaign. A day after Ellison won the Democratic primary last week, his underdog GOP opponent, Republican Alan Fine, said he was "offended as a Jew that we have a candidate like this running for U.S. Congress."

Fine cited Ellison's past ties to the Nation of Islam, a black Muslim group led by Louis Farrakhan, who has a long history of harshly criticizing Jews, gays and other groups. Ellison has since denounced Farrakhan and was endorsed by a Jewish newspaper in Minneapolis.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060922...2JI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

QueEx · Sep 26, 2006

Congressional Black Caucus Ranking on House Committees and Subcommittees

`

<font size="4">Presently, 24 Congressional Black Caucus members are ranking members on 23 House committees and subcommittees. If Democrats retake control of the House in the November 2006 Congressional elections, these members are in line to become Chairs of those committees and subcommittees, marking one of the most powerful moments in African American political history:</font size>

[frame]http://www.blackpolicy.org/resources/RankingCBCMembers.php[/frame]

The Official 2006 Mid-term Elections Thread

Rising Star

Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Star

Star

Rising Star

Superstar *****

Superstar *****

Star

Star

Star

Superstar *****

Rising Star

Rising Star

Star

Potential Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Star

Potential Star

Potential Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Star

Superstar *****

Not A BGOL Eunuch

Star

Rising Star

Similar threads