Archive for the 'House' Category

You wouldn't think it would be news that the president would have to answer questions, but hey, that's the world we live in.

So Bush will be speaking to the House Democrats at their annual retreat Saturday, the first time he's done so in the six years of his presidency.  Reuters identifies the motivation for this new step:

In his first six years, Bush, a Republican, was able to mostly ignore Democrats, who were the minority party in the U.S. Congress.

Now Bush is seeing a vigorous challenge from Democrats to his handling of the war in Iraq. The Senate is expected to begin debate next week on a nonbinding resolution opposing Bush's buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq.

With his national popularity sagging and Democrats eyeing a takeover of the White House in 2008 elections, Bush recently has been talking up the possibility of bipartisanship, using it as a theme of his State of the Union speech last month.

As the AP hints, this may be one of the more challenging events of Bush's presidency.

Bush will offer his views to the newly empowered Democrats in a session open to reporters. Then he retreats behind closed doors for a question-and-answer period that's expected to be considerably more frank. Democrats have several questions ready, representative of concerns of the caucus, Pelosi said.

Rep. Tim Walz of Minnesota said he would be questioning Bush on the administration's record with veterans.

How often has this man faced serious questioning?  How often has he even allowed himself to be in a room where people who disagreed with him outnumbered sycophants, let alone allowed them to speak?  Of course, the House Democrats will no doubt behave like adults:

Whatever the issues among themselves and with Bush, ascendant Democrats said they would receive the president with respect.

I have one question: Is that deal off if Bush engages in the childish disrespect of referring to the "Democrat party"?

Man, the electoral scare of his life hasn't done anything to scale back Doolittle's public corruption.

Rep. John Doolittle's campaign committee reported Thursday that it owed the Roseville Republican's wife nearly $137,000 in fundraising commissions lingering from the 2006 elections, and that its year-end debts exceeded cash reserves by $166,000.

The consequence is that Doolittle now is soliciting contributions and planning fundraisers for his 2008 campaign that, in the early going at least, will be raising money largely to pay off his wife's company, which is operated out of the couple's suburban Virginia home.

"Instead of recommitting himself to his constituents as he promised, this means he will be recommitting himself to improving his own financial interests," said Naomi Seligman Steiner, spokeswoman for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a left-leaning advocacy group that has been a fierce critic of Doolittle's arrangement with his wife's company.

During the 2005-06 election cycle, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions racked up almost $224,000 in commissions from the Doolittle campaign. The standard congressional salary last year was $162,500.

Doolittle's wife was taking her "commission" on fundraising even from dollars that didn't seem to come from her efforts. It was quite simply a bizarrely legal effort to funnel contributor money into their own pockets. The $224,000 "commission" she paid herself supplemented quite nicely the congressional salary of $162,500. Congress can be a lot more lucrative if you don't let pesky things like "ethics" get in the way.

Fighting Dem Charlie Brown, has started raising money for an epic rematch. Despite the solidly Republican district at the foot of in the Sierra Nevadas, Doolittle barely held on for a 49-46 victory, with the rest going to a Libertarian candidate. And off the gate, Brown already has a fundraising advantage.

Out of the starting gate he begins with a $225,000 cash advantage over Doolittle, whose fundraising ability could be weakened by the fact his party no longer is running the Congress and that he gave up his leadership position to spend more time on his district.

And how many donors want to give money to pad his and his wife's pockets?

Let's hope Doolittle keeps it up. The more he embraces his inner Abramoff, the better our chances of giving CA-04 a congressman who looks out for the district's interests and not his own bank account.

Update: The good folks over at Calitics will be following this race closely.

One of the under-reported factors for the Democratic victories in 2006 was the spoiler effect that the Libertarian Party played. Here are races in which the Libertarian vote was larger than the Democratic margin of victory:

That's control of the Senate right there. And in the House there was at least one race in which Libertarians helped deliver a seat to Democrats:

In several other contests, the Libertarians helped give us tight, tight, tight races:

The theocon and neocon takeover of the Republican Party has left many of its more Libertarian members adrift with few alternatives. I clearly hope the Democratic Party becomes more Libertarian friendly over the coming years, but that's a long-term project. In the meantime, the Libertarian ballot line (when available) can be an apt protest vote.

It can be argued that 58,000 Libertarian voters handed control of the Senate to Democrats, just as 97, 421 Greens in Florida in 2000 handed control of the White House to George Bush.

While Republicans try to fund Green candidates in races around the country, it looks like they have their own serious third party problem.

The 2006 House battle was about New England, Pennsylvania, and Indiana -- all three places where Dems made huge gains. In 2008, it looks like the epicenter will be very attainable seats in New Jersey and Michigan.

Van Hollen singled out New Jersey and Michigan as two states where Democrats can remain on the offense for 2008. He named Reps. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ 02), Tim Walberg (R-MI 07), and Joe Knollenberg (R-MI 09) as top targets for ’08.

Tim Wahlberg won a narrow 51-46 victory, despite having spent $1.16 million to $55,721 spent by his Democratic opponent Sharon Marie Renier. Joe Knollenberg in MI-09 won 52-46 against Dem Nancy Skinner, despite outspending her $2.65 million to $389K.

Another to watch for 2008 is MI-11, where newcomer Dem Tony Trupiano lost to incumbent Thaddeus McCotter 54-43 despite having been outspent $876K to $83K. And if it seems like 11 points is too huge a spread to overcome, consider that in 2004, now-Reps Boyda, Hodes and McNerney lost by 15, 20, and 22 points, respectively. Trupiano impressed me from afar. I'll be watching if 1) he runs, and 2) if the Michigan netroots embraces him. He's got great potential to follow in the footsteps of the above-named Congresspersons.

Meanwhile, New Jersey Dems running for the House can benefit from 1) the presidential-year turnout, and 2) what will likely be another quixotic, yet potentially competitive Senate race.

LoBiondo won easily against his low-profile and underfunded Democratic opponent. yet it's a district that Bush won by a mere 50-49 against Kerry in 2004. Our failure to contest this seat seriously in 2004 was a failure Van Hollen doesn't seem interested in repeating. In NJ-07, netroots candidate Linda Stender came within inches of unseating Michael Ferguson, losing 49-48. The district gave Bush a mere 53-47 Bush advantage, making it a solid contender for pickup in 2008. NJ-03 is a 51-49 Bush district, and another candidate for pickup. Depending on how the political winds blow next year, NJ-04 can also be potentially competitive.

Some other states potentially offering multiple pickup opportunities (based on district partisan performance or incumbent weakness) -- California (4, 24, 25, 26, and 50), New York (3, 13, 23, 25, and 29 -- yes, all remaining GOP-held seats), Ohio (1, 2, 14, 15, and 16), Virginia (2, 10 and 11), and Washington (5 and 8).

We've started the presidential crazy season, but before long we'll be arguing over primaries in key Senate and House races.

I've already talked about how bad argumentation can hurt your preferred candidate. My personal pet peeve is one of these arguments:

[Candidate name] is the only candidate that can win.

Or

[Candidate name] is the only candidate that can win [X].

"X", of course, being a state or constituency group like "Ohio" or "southerners" or "soccer moms".

The second I hear that argument, or one of its variants, I immediately tune out the person making the argument and disregard everything he or she has said. Not only are such arguments stupid (as we saw in the Ohio Senate race), not only are they simplistic, but they're insulting ("you are supporting a loser"). To me, those arguments are like nails on a chalkboard.

What are your pet peeve arguments from people advocate for a candidate?

It's delicious irony watching loser Harold Ford take the helm of the dying DLC, while Democrats who won tough conservative districts (the ones only DLC moderates are supposed to win) gear up for reelection utterly rejecting the DLC accommodationist playbook. Just goes to prove that 1) we're evolving as a party, becoming more effective, and 2) our freshman Democrats are no idiots. Even those elected in solid Republican districts are beginning their two-year re-election drive by -- get this -- establishing clear distinctions between themselves and Bush and his Republican Party.

In interviews with several of those freshman House Democrats following Bush's State of the Union address this week, an interesting trend emerged: Democrats not only appear confident about their prospects of holding onto power in '08, but despite (or perhaps because of) their perceived vulnerabilities, they're preparing to seek re-election on platforms that openly oppose the Republican president and the agenda he unveiled Tuesday night.

In often hostile terms, freshman Democrats in GOP-friendly districts said their increasingly partisan tone reflects a dramatic shift they've noticed back home regarding constituents' willingness to question and criticize the president they elected.

"In the 18 months I've been on the campaign trail, I've noticed a huge difference," said Rep. Jason Altmire (D), who ousted Republican Rep. Melissa Hart in a Pennsylvania district Bush won by 9 points in '04. "People once asked me to blindly support the president [on Iraq]. They said supporting the president was synonymous with supporting the troops. That's no longer the case."

This John Mercurio column includes harsh quotes from some of the most supposedly endangered Democrats. They include Tim Mahoney, who won Foley's old seat:

"He would not win in my district today, or even come close," Mahoney said of Bush. "This administration has been ineffective and in certain cases bordering on incompetent."

North Carolina's Heath Schuler:

"The American people are tired of talk," said Democratic Rep. Heath Shuler, who beat eight-term Republican Charles Taylor in North Carolina's rural 11th District, which Bush won by 14 points in '04. "Now, we need action."

Netroots hero Tim Walz:

"The reality is that the president has been wrong on almost every single occasion and I think my constituents want me to be skeptical," said Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., who ousted six-term Republican Gil Gutknecht in a rural district Bush won by 4 points. Walz called Bush's speech a "laundry list of broken promises and empty rhetoric."

And so on. Also in the article are John Hall, Carol Shea-Porter, Baron Hill, and even Nancy Boyda -- next cycle's most endangered Democrat according to the developing CW:

But perhaps no freshman Democrat has as much at stake in her criticism of Bush as Rep. Nancy Boyda, whose sprawling Kansas district went for Bush in '04 by a whopping 20 points. Republicans are already gearing up to challenge Boyda, widely considered the most vulnerable Democratic freshman.

In an interview Wednesday, however, Boyda was undaunted. She said she was "dismayed" and "bewildered" by Bush's health care plan. And while she "appreciated" his efforts to strike a "bipartisan" and "personal tone," she added, "I think it would have been nice if he had actually complimented Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi on getting so much done in the first 100 hours. But hey, maybe that's too much to expect."

A freshman House Democrat from a Republican stronghold is demanding that a Republican president heap public praise on a liberal Democratic Speaker? We're not in Kansas anymore.

No we're not. This is the dawn of a new era. None of these candidates (not even Boyda) won by running Harold Ford-style campaigns. They were aggressive. They refused to play inside Republican frames. They made clear distinctions between themselves and the GOP. And given a choice, people responded positively. It's good to see that they are continuing the same approach that served them well, despite what must be intense pressure from DLC-ish forces in DC to get them to try and out-Republican the Republicans. (The same people who thought Harold Ford's losing effort was a "perfect campaign".)