Tuesday, September 12, 2006
PA-07: Sestak Hits the Airwaves
Posted by James L....and I have a feeling that it will tickle some of Matt Stoller's erogenous zones (via YouTube):
What do you think?
UPDATE: Joe Courtney, the Democratic challenger to Rob Simmons in CT-02, is up with his first ad, too:
Posted at 01:00 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Pennsylvania | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, September 11, 2006
PA-Sen: Finally, Casey Shows Some Teeth
Posted by James L.You remember that saucy book by Rick Santorum? It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good? It was filled with such pearls of wisdom like this one:
Santorum questions whether both parents really need to work:In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them really don't need to, or at least may not need to work as much as they do. And for some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home. [Pg. 94]
It's filled with tons of wingnutty shit, like saying that it's inappropriate for unwed mothers with low levels of eduction to go back to college in order to better their job prospects. And holding it against mothers of any kind to hold a job outside their home in order to support their family. And calling public schools "weird". And supporting Social Security privatization.
Really, his whole book was filled with about two dozen negative ads waiting to be written. I've been waiting for Democratic challenger Bob Casey to release a few, but I guess he felt he didn't need to so far (and, when you've been 10 to 20 points ahead in the polls for months, maybe he had a point). However, in the last few weeks, Santorum's thrown a significant amount of resources into an effective barrage of TV advertising across the state, and the insiders are buzzing about a rumoured Casey internal poll showing Santorum trailing by only three points. It could very well be a b.s. story, but somehow, I wouldn't be surprised if it were true--especially now that I see Casey baring some fangs. A visit to the DSCC's website shows a new attack ad on Santorum prominently on the page, and it goes right for the jugular, attacking Santorum for criticizing working moms for earning the necessary incomes in order to put food on the table for their families. Bob Casey has the ad up on his website here, but the tech genius responsible for the website did a horrendous cropping job with it, so I'd recommend the DSCC version instead.
I'm not sure what kind of excuses Santorum will throw up for his shameless attacks on working families, but who knows, maybe he'll get his kids to defend himself again.
Update: Thanks to Mike at the DSCC, we now have the ad up on YouTube:
Again, good stuff. Casey is starting to hit where he needs to hit.
Posted at 01:22 AM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Pennsylvania | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Netroots August Fundraising Push: Support Joe Sestak
Posted by DavidNYC
Joe Sestak, a recently retired Vice Admiral, took everyone by surprise with his impressive entrance into the race for Pennsylvania's 7th congressional district. A political unknown, he raised over $400,000 less than two months after declaring his candidacy. Needless to say, people - the netroots included - took notice.
We quickly learned that Sestak was running in a district that had moved markedly to the left over the years - from R+4.4 in the 90s to D+3.6 - something the local bloggers had, in fact, been pointing out for some time. Sestak's entrace crystallized this fact for the rest of us. Yet despite this shift, incumbent Curt Weldon hadn't received a serious challenge in years.
But then it got better: Those of us not familiar with Weldon soon realized he was a totally unhinged conservative extremist. While Curt Weldon was off selling access to the highest bidder, Joe Sestak was honorably serving his country.
It was hard to believe that Weldon had gone unchallenged for so long, but with a strong Fighting Dem clearly well-positioned to put up a tough fight, we realized Joe Sestak was a perfect fit for the netroots page - and, it turns out, vice-versa. From the Washington Post, just a few days ago:
Sestak is getting support from traditional sources such as labor unions and newer ones such as the "Net roots" -- online activists who are channeling significant sums to anti[-Iraq ]war Democrats. He has raised $230,000 online this cycle, including thousands through blogs."We really hit a vein," he said.
Indeed he has. Around a month after the netroots endorsement, Sestak was added to the first wave of the DCCC's Red to Blue list. This fit perfectly into our strategy of helping to get the ball rolling so that the big boys take notice and come in later. Of course, it's our privilege to stick with Joe until he crosses the finish line in November. So please consider contributing or volunteering today.
Posted at 04:30 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Fundraising, Netroots, Pennsylvania | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
PA-10: Carney (D) First to Go Up on TV
Posted by DavidNYCThis is good news. From a Carney campaign press release:
Today, Chris Carney put his first television ad, "Pennsylvania Values" on the air. This is a huge victory because Don Sherwood has already started a campaign of negative attacks that the Towanda Daily Review called "ugly," "irresponsible," and a "low blow.""Chris Carney beat Don Sherwood to television so he can tell the truth about himself, his family, and the values he will take to Washington," said Carney campaign manager Andrew Eldredge-Martin. "Beating Sherwood to television is a huge victory for all the Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who support our campaign to take our values back to Congress. In fact, this first ad includes both Republican and Democratic supporters who are all ready for a change in Washington."
You can find the ad here.
Why, you might be asking, does this matter? I mean, doesn't this seem like the ultimate insider baseball - who has ads on TV first? It's not like voters care about ridiculous stuff like this, right? Well, of course they don't. But what matters - as Carney's campaign manager explains above - is that Carney can now tell his story to the voters of the tenth district. By going up on TV before Sherwood does, Carney can blunt Sherwood's ability to drive up Carney's negatives.
Chris Bowers has a new post up on the so-called "incumbent rule," which holds that most undecided voters will break for a challenger on election day. However, this rule has weakened considerably in recent elections, notably in 2002 (see Wayne Allard, CO-Sen) and especially in 2004 (George Bush and many others).
One of the oft-cited reasons (discussed by Chris) for this phenomenon is that incumbents have started slamming their opponents hard and early. Thus, by the time undecided voters get to the polling booth, they are presented not with one known and one unknown quantity, but rather one known and one undesirable quantity. So naturally, they start sticking with the incumbent.
Carney is in a fortunate position, in that he has enough cash to go up on the air, and in that the media market in PA-10 is very, very cheap (especially compared to other competitive Northeastern races). Every Democrat who can expect a nasty, negative campaign from his or her opponent (ie, every Democrat on the face of the earth) should consider taking a cue from this move.
Now, I'm not merely extolling the virtues of paid media, which many consultants will do to the deleterious exclusion of all else. Rather, I'm praising Carney's timing. If you're gonna spend money to get noticed, and you can afford to go up before your opponent slanders you as a lily-livered, Bible-burning, hate-America terra-ist, then do it. Obviously, the move has to be carefully calculated - you don't want to wind up like Matt Brown in Rhode Island. But, of course, you also don't want to wait too long to go on the offensive. Just ask John Kerry.
Posted at 12:57 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Pennsylvania | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
PA-Sen: Tightening
Posted by James L.Lordy, I sure do hope that this is an outlier (Quinnipiac, June in parens):
Bob Casey (D): 47 (52)
Rick Santorum (R-Inc.): 40 (34)
Undecided: 11 (12)
MoE: ±3.1%
In a three-way general election match-up that includes "Green" Party candidate Carl Romanelli, the lead is ever so slightly narrower:
Bob Casey (D): 48
Rick Santorum (R-Inc.): 42
Carl Romanelli (Green): 5
Undecided: 5
I'll say this delicately: if Bob Casey allows Rick Santorum, one of the creepiest and most off-the-wall members of the Senate, to somehow dig his way out of his political tomb, then Casey will prove himself to be one of the most incompetent and disastrous challengers of the 2006 cycle. Casey has a reputation for being the sleepy Mr. Rogers of Pennsylvania politics; he's going to have to learn to go for the kill and not let Santorum get away with inoculating himself with warm 'n' fuzzy TV ads. Remember Santorum's recent book in which he sung the virtues of "conservative family values", including making sure that women stay barefoot in the kitchen? This guy's entire career is just one big negative ad waiting to write itself. If Bob Casey thinks he can casually stroll to victory based on a year's worth of very favorable poll results, he may be in for a rude awakening.
Fortunately, Casey's still got a very fertile field to play in: 49% of Pennsylvania voters believe that Santorum doesn't deserve to be re-elected. That's insanely bad for an incumbent. But if Casey lets what could have been a blowout turn into a nailbiter, we're going to see a lot more resources and manpower spent on shoring up his campaign that could have been directed elsewhere by the DSCC. Still, we should wait to see if this trend is verified by other polling outfits before we get ahead of ourselves. If one thing can be said about this race, it's that there's never been a shortage of polls on it.
Posted at 10:51 AM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Pennsylvania | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Friday, August 04, 2006
PA-06: Dead Heat
Posted by DavidNYCLois Murphy's campaign just released a new internal poll (likely voters, no trendlines):
Murphy (D): 42
Gerlach (R-inc.): 41
Undecided: 17
(MoE: ±4.1%)
Obviously, few details apart from the top-line numbers have been released, but the poll was conducted by Garin-Hart-Yang, which I understand to be a pretty reliable outfit. Hopefully we'll learn more about the MoE, etc., soon. [UPDATE: MoE, voter type, and undecided percentage all added, via Polling Report. Also, Gerlach has a 37-46 job approval rating according to this poll.]
In any event, if you followed House elections closely last time, you may recall that Lois Murphy was one of the "DKos Dozen" candidates, sort of a predecessor to the netroots list.You may also remember that Lois Murphy suffered one of the most heart-breakingly narrow losses, losing just 51-49 (less than 7,000 votes out of over 300K cast). She raised a ton of money and ran an excellent campaign - and she's doing that once more this year. She is one of my favorite candidates this cycle, and I've long felt she is our single-best chance of beating a Republican incumbent. If we win only one seat this year, we'd win PA-06.
The flip-side, of course, is that if we do poorly in PA-06, we're almost certainly doomed - which is why, needless to say, I'm glad to see this poll showing the race so competitive. You may recall my cash-on-hand competitiveness chart: Lois Murphy is at the very top of the list, one of only four Dems who actually has more money on hand than her opponent. She'll need every penny, though: This campaign got started incredibly early, and Gerlach has been working furiously trying to tarnish Murphy's name.
But Gerlach himself is being dragged down by the Bush anvil. And, near as I can tell, Murphy has run a picture-perfect campaign. There's still a long, hard slog ahead in PA-06 - just like there is in every race throughout the country - but I feel very good about this race.
Posted at 01:51 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Pennsylvania | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, July 10, 2006
PA-07: Update on Republican Push Polling
Posted by James L.A few weeks ago, DavidNYC asked if anyone had any information on an alleged nasty push poll against Joe Sestak, a retired Navy vice-admiral running against crazy Curt Weldon. Well, it now looks like those rumors are true. From the Philadelphia Inquirer:
It's going to be a long campaign season in the Seventh Congressional District, judging by opening telephone salvos against U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon and his Democratic opponent, Joe Sestak.Dennis Berry of West Chester said that Venture Data L.L.C., a Salt Lake City polling company, asked him a series of negatively framed questions about Sestak, including one he described as outlandish. Berry said he was asked if he would be more or less likely to vote for Sestak if he knew Sestak "had an opportunity to capture Osama bin Laden in Sudan and passed."
Sestak, a retired Navy vice admiral, served as a National Security Council official in the Clinton White House. He said he had heard about the phone calls, but not the details of the message - and nothing about bin Laden.
Venture Data didn't return phone calls. Michael Puppio, Weldon's campaign manager, said that the polling company was not working for the Weldon campaign.
On the other side, Working America, an AFL-CIO affiliate, used a robot dialer to urge Seventh District voters to call Weldon's district office and ask the congressman why he voted against an increase in the minimum wage. Weldon has said that the call distorted his record on the minimum wage.
As an aside, notice how the Inquirer seems to take the narrative that a push poll designed to suggest that Admiral Sestak brushed off an opportunity to capture Bin Laden is 'tit-for-tat' with a robocall saying that Weldon voted against the minimum wage. As if one "salvo" is anywhere near on the same level as the other.
Curt Weldon's history of complete looniness is well-documented. It shouldn't come as a surprise that his Republican friends are already cooking up ways to slime Admiral Sestak while Weldon is off planning his next opportunity to play dress-up as Indiana Jones and find his mythical WMDs in the Iraqi desert.
Posted at 03:19 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Pennsylvania | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, June 22, 2006
PA-07: ALERT: Sestak a Victim of Push-Polling?
Posted by DavidNYCPassing on an alert from the Joe Sestak campaign, for those who live in the district:
A supporter called in and said that he was just surveyed about the election, and was asked VERY negative slanted questions about Joe.If you get polled, please take notes, and ask who sponsored to poll. Get back to us with the info (info@sestakforcongress.com, or 610-891-8956). They must be nervous!
If enough people document such a poll in action, we can make these kind of tactics backfire.
And of course, if you somehow are able to actually RECORD such a phone call, you'd be a hero. I personally think the Internet makes it harder to get away with push polling like this because the response time is so fast. In the past, it might be days before anyone realized what was going on. Now, we can mobilize instantly - and we stand a better chance of catching the SOBs who are doing this.
So please, pass this along to anyone you know who might live in the district.
UPDATE: Uh, maybe you don't wanna try taping anything, actually. As several commenters point out, PA is one of the few states that prohibits recording phone calls without the consent of ALL parties. Hey, I'm busy studying New York law!
Posted at 09:00 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Pennsylvania | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Friday, May 26, 2006
PA-Gov: New Poll Shows Swann Fumbling
Posted by James L.From Rasmussen (likely voters, April in parens):
Ed Rendell: 52 (41)
Lynn Swann: 34 (44)
(MoE: ±4.5%)
If this holds, the PA Republicans are going to be up the creek this year, with the anemic performances of Swann and Santorum potentially dragging down Republican performance other races, including their most vulnerable Congressional seats (the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 10th).
Posted at 05:20 PM in 2006 Elections - State, Pennsylvania | Comments (15) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Friday, May 19, 2006
PA-10: Sherwood (R) on the Ropes
Posted by James L.One of the few real surprises out of Tuesday evening's primaries was scandal-haunted incumbent Rep. Don Sherwood’s close call in a primary battle with political newcomer Kathy Scott. Let's take another look at why the battle for the 10th is going to be a real barn-burner this fall.
As far as incumbent protection schemes go, Rep. Don Sherwood has had a pretty sweet deal in recent years. After winning a nailbiter in 1998 (by a margin of 606 votes) and another tight race in 2000 over Democrat Patrick Casey, the Republican-controlled state legislature worked to cover his vulnerable ass in the last round of redistricting, moving Democratic-leaning Scranton to the nearby 11th C.D. and adding swaths of Republican-friendly rural territory to the 10th. What was once a tight swing district turned into a solid Republican bastion that gave 60% of its votes to George W. Bush in 2004. Sherwood had it so good, that Democrats didn't even bother to oppose him in 2002 and 2004. Now, if only he didn't have to go and get himself $5.5 million lawsuit for allegedly choking his 29 year-old mistress of five years. You just had to go and ruin a good thing, didn't you Don?
Undoubtedly, the lingering aftermath of Sherwood's extramarital scandal has poisoned his political capital in the 10th. That this guy still managed to win any kind of election is rather perverse on a deeper level, but his 56%-44% margin of victory over primary opponent Kathy Scott is a bad omen for his chances in November against Democrat and former Pentagon intelligence analyst Chris Carney. The Donster wasn't exactly resting on his laurels for this race. As The Hotline notes:
Sherwood spent $300,000 on seven direct mailings and automated phone calls from President Bush and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).
That's right: Sherwood had to dump $300k of his $800k warchest to survive a primary challenge from an unknown who presumably spent less than $5,000. Moreover, even direct appeals from Santorum and Bush couldn't prevent this anemic result. Better yet, Scott spent the last several weeks attempting to refute accusations that she was a stealth Democrat:
"Why would a Democrat change her party affiliation just days before the filing deadline and run in the Republican Primary for Congress? That's what ... Kathy Scott did," states a flier mailed out to registered Republican voters by the Sherwood re-election campaign on May 1. "And what's to stop her from changing back to a Democrat should she and the Democratic Party's liberal leaders win the election?"
Scott claims that she's switched her party registration back and forth to support "good candidates" across party lines, but that's beside the point. Obviously, a good share of PA-10 Republicans have a significant level of disgust for Sherwood that they'd throw their vote to a possible Democrat. With that in mind, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that a few of them would even go so far as to vote for the real deal come November.
Chris Carney has been a solid challenger this cycle, but he's lacked the big break to make his campaign truly competitive and catch the attention of statewide and national donors. This is it. The DCCC started to make noise about funding Carney last week, and you can bet that after these results, they're salivating over what looks like yet another competitive race in Pennsylvania.
Posted at 02:10 AM in 2006 Elections - House, Pennsylvania | Comments (13) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
KY, OR, PA Primary Results Open Thread
Posted by DavidNYCKentucky, Oregon and Pennsylvania all have primary elections today. The main events:
PA-08: Patricky Murphy vs. Andy Warren. I'm rooting strongly for Murphy.KY-03: Andrew Horne vs. John Yarmuth. Horne, like Murphy, is also a Fighting Dem, but I don't really have a dog in this fight.
OR-Gov: Incumbent Ted Kulongoski faces a surprisingly strong primary challenge. This race hasn't been especially prominent on my radar, though from what I've read, it looks like Kulongoski will have a fight on his hands in November even if he prevails tonight.
Posted at 09:37 PM in 2006 Elections, Kentucky, Oregon, Pennsylvania | Comments (19) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, May 04, 2006
PA-07: Surprise! "Army of Curt" a Proud Member of the Culture of Corruption
Posted by DavidNYCUnhinged lunatic Crazy Curt Weldon already has a long list of demerits to his name. Now - not that it's any surprise - you can add corruption:
Over the past eight years, Weldon has spent about $80,000 of campaign treasury funds—donated money that congressional ethics rules say should be used for “bona fide campaign or political purposes”—on restaurant meals. His dining choices range from high-end establishments like The Monocle, a Capitol Hill restaurant popular with lawmakers and lobbyists, to the humble Cracker Barrel. During the same period Weldon also dropped about $30,000 on hotels.Take January 3, 1999: less than two months after winning reelection with 72 percent of the vote and 22 months away from his next election, Weldon spent $435.39 in campaign funds at the Capitol Grille in Washington. (The Grille’s website bears the slogan: “Remind yourself why you work so hard.”) Then, during the summer and early fall of 1999, still more than a year from election day, Weldon put down $400 of campaign funds on five meals in Wildwood, New Jersey, where he then owned a beach house. Three of those meals were on the weekend.
Weldon has drawn from his campaign funds for a number of other seemingly unusual expenditures. He spent $1,698 for a personal computer, delivered to his home, and several hundred dollars in Budapest, Moscow, and at a Tex-Mex restaurant in Oslo—all highly unusual campaign stops for a man representing a district in eastern Pennsylvania. In Atlantic City he spent $502 at The Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa and $405.61 at the Taj Mahal. Add to that $4,618 paid for landscaping to a company owned by a campaign contributor and some $13,000 in unitemized personal reimbursements.
Landscaping? As a campaign expense? Are you kidding me? At the very least, I hope Curt did a good job winning over all those voters in Hungary, Russia and Norway, because he'll need them big-time if he wants to win this fall.
Man, stuff like this may be legal, but it shouldn't be. Or as they say, the scandal isn't the illegal behavior - the scandal is what's legal.
Posted at 04:43 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Pennsylvania | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Sunday, April 30, 2006
PA-07: Loony Weldon Thinks CIA Is Out To Get Him
Posted by DavidNYCCurt Weldon's batshittery knows no bounds. Last year, he claimed that the CIA was out to get him because he published a report critical of the agency. Now, his conspiracy theory (as they always do) has cast a wider net. Joe Sestak, you see, is just the latest minion to rappel out of a black helicopter:
Veteran Rep. Curt Weldon has a proclivity for calling out shady government doings that have him in mind as a principal target. A year ago, for example, after the No. 2 Republican on the House Armed Services Committee published “Countdown to Terror,” a frontal assault on the CIA’s track record before Sept. 11, he claimed that Clinton administration veterans with ties to the agency were out to get him.So it’s not surprising that as Weldon girds for the most difficult re-election bid during his two decades representing the Philadelphia suburbs, his campaign is alleging that the CIA is probably abetting the opposition. Last month, his campaign manager Michael Puppio Jr. announced that Weldon’s expected Democratic opponent, Joe Sestak, a former Navy vice admiral, had taken campaign contributions from Mary McCarthy, the CIA operative recently fired for allegedly leaking secret information to the media. McCarthy, who was specifically accused of being a source for The Washington Post’s Pulitzer Prize-winning story on secret CIA prisons overseas, has denied that charge through her lawyer.
The media also has raised suspicions in the Weldon camp. The reporter on the Post article, Dana Priest, wrote a piece last year about Weldon’s book that the congressman viewed as critical.
It’s just a question of following the money, says Puppio. “What’s a CIA analyst doing giving money to a partisan political candidate?” he asks. “I’m not sure she violated any laws, but then when that analyst is alleged to have leaked information to a reporter who in turn is extremely critical of Curt Weldon, that raises some big questions.”
That last quote from Puppio, the campaign manager, is vintage conspiracist nuttery. No conspiracy is too attenuated, too poorly supported by the evidence, and too downright stupid for a bonafide conspiracy theorist. This reminds me of Ross Perot's lunatic assertion that GOP operatives were planning to disrupt his daughter's wedding, forcing him to drop out of the presidential race in 1992. Ross & Curt should hang out - they're both equally nuts and seem to share the same worldview, which shouldn't surprise anyone.
Posted at 03:32 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Pennsylvania | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
Friday, April 07, 2006
PA-07: Cook Report: "Weldon More Vulnerable Than Ever This Year"
Posted by DavidNYCAmy Walter, Senior Editor for House races at the Cook Political Report, writes about PA-07 in her column today, titled "New Races On The Radar." It's subscription-only, so I'll just quote a few excerpts - but you're gonna like what she has to say. This is the theme of her piece:
When it comes to incumbent retention, party strategists on both sides admit that what worries them most are not the incumbents who have been targeted year after year (think Republican Anne Northup or Democrat Dennis Moore), but incumbents who have not been tested in years. These folks tend to be overconfident and underestimate potential threats, are not as sensitive to the changing demographics of their districts, and are often out-of-touch with modern campaign technology (one insider told the story of a longtime incumbent who had his fundraising contacts on note cards). Examples include former GOP Rep. George Gekas who lost re-election for an 11th term in 2002 and Democrat David Minge who lost his re-election bid in 2000.
Walter identifies Curt Weldon (along with Republican JD Hayworth in AZ-05 and Democrat Allan Mollohan in WV-01) as one such untested incumbent:
Rep. Curt Weldon is getting his first significant contest since winning this seat in 1986....
Republicans concede that the underlying political environment and Weldon's lack of experience in a competitive campaign environment are liabilities for the Republican congressman. While there is no doubt that Weldon is readying himself for a tough fight - he told The Hill newspaper that he is going to unleash the "Army of Curt" - his rusty campaign skills have already been revealed. Weldon's zeal to define his opponent went over the top in early April.
Army of Curt - LOL. Goofy and crazy as he may be, Weldon won't be a pushover:
Yet, labeling Weldon's voting record as out of touch with these suburban voters isn't going to be easy. According to the National Journal vote ratings, Weldon's voting record was pretty evenly divided between liberal and conservative. His composite voting score was 57 percent conservative and 43 percent liberal - not much different from the other two Republican Reps. in the Philadelphia suburbs, Mike Fitzpatrick and Jim Gerlach. CQ pegs his party unity score at 85 percent....
Given the ugly numbers for President Bush nationally, it's not too much to believe that Weldon is more vulnerable than ever this year. But to knock off a well-known, well-liked, and entrenched incumbent like Weldon, Democrats need more than just a good political environment. Sestak also needs to prove to be a strong and well-funded candidate with an effective message who can break through the clutter of the crowded (and expensive) Philadelphia media market.
I think Sestak has the potential to be exactly that guy. And I think "rusty" Weldon could be in for a bit of surprise this campaign season. Remember, Sestak's now on the netroots page, so please consider contributing or volunteering.
Posted at 09:35 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Pennsylvania | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
PA-07: Curt Weldon Sells Access via His Daughter
Posted by DavidNYCWhat is it with Republicans setting up their inexperienced family members with lucrative gigs in the GOP money machine? First we learned that Reps. Doolittle and Sweeney let their wives - who had no consulting experience - skim off the top and collect a percentage of all funds raised for their campaigns. Now it turns out that Curt Weldon's daughter (also neophyte) has earned scads of money as a lobbyist by helping her clients to "develop relationships" with none other than her father.
TPM Muckraker gets credit for pointing us to this LA Times story from 2004 which lays out all the sordid details:
Karen Weldon, an inexperienced 29-year-old lobbyist from suburban Philadelphia, seemed an unlikely choice for clients seeking global public relations services.Yet her tiny firm was selected last year for a plum $240,000 contract to promote the good works of a wealthy Serbian family that had been linked to accused war criminal Slobodan Milosevic.
Despite a lack of professional credentials, she had one notable asset — her father, U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), who is a leading voice in Washington on former Eastern Bloc affairs.
...
Karen Weldon said her father "developed a rapport" with the Karics and introduced her to them. But her firm, Solutions North America Inc., won the consulting contract on its merits, she said. Her father declined to answer questions for this article.
The congressman also has gone to bat for at least two of Solutions' other clients, both struggling Russian companies.
Together, the three contracts are worth almost $1 million a year to her firm for services that have included joining her father on congressional trips and in meetings with clients.
Nice work, if you can get it. This whole charade may technically be kosher, but as is often the case, the real crime is that it's legal in the first place. As they say, there oughta be a law. If you wanna make that happen, support Joe Sestak.
P.S. Sestak's been added to the combined netroots-wide ActBlue page. He's very much worthy of our support. He's running in a lean-Dem district (D+3.6, the seventh-most Dem CD held by a Republican), he's shown himself to be a strong fundraiser, and - as should be clear to everyone by now - he's taking on a seriously crazy mouth-breathing wingnut. If there is indeed a Democratic wave this year, one place the Republican dominoes will surely fall is in the Democratic-leaning suburbs of Philly - ie, exactly where Sestak is running. Bowers has more here.
Posted at 03:14 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Pennsylvania | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, April 06, 2006
PA-07: Curt Weldon a Moonie Cultist
Posted by DavidNYCWhen I got an e-mail yesterday from Admiral Joe Sestak's campaign about Curt Weldon's depraved attack on Sestak's four-year-old, cancer-stricken daughter, I wanted to throw things. What kind of disturbed, twisted nutbag could stoop so low? Well, as community member Predictor reminds us in the comments, this kind of nutbag:
Weldon spoke at the coronation of Sun Myung Moon "as humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent", on March 23, 2004. His office originally vehemently denied his attendance, then when he was revealed to be a co-chair organizer of the event claimed that he had intended to attend but could not because of a scheduling conflict; then when a photo surfaced of him speaking at the event while standing next to a lifesize photo of him pinning a Unification Church medal on Moammar Al Qadhafi, stated that he had left immediately after the speech and had no knowledge of what else went on.
That whole Moon coronation thing seriously, seriously creeped me out. I mean, it was really beyond insane. Get this:
• It was freakin' coronation for cryin' out loud! Since when do we have coronations in this country, except at Burger King?• It was in a Senate office building! The United States Senate! Hell, Art. I, Sec. 9 of the Constitution even forbids Congress to grant "titles of nobility." I realize this was not some kind of legislative act, but jeez.
• Rev. Moon declared himself to be the Messiah?!? Look, man, I don't know about you, but in my religion, worshipping false gods is a serious no-no. Oh wait, Weldon's a Christian. So that means the Ten Commandments apply to him, too. Weldon even voted for something called the "Ten Commandments Defense Act," a bill to let states display the decalogue in government buildings. And man, even I know that Christianity accepts Jesus as the Messiah, not Rev. Sun Myung Moon.
• And Moon himself? How could any serious person ever be associated with someone so sick? This is a man who has called gays "dirty, dung-eating dogs," declared that "the Jews" killed Jesus, and thinks that "Satan is clinging to our sexual organs." How is it acceptable for politicians to even get near this freak?
Personally, I think the whole Rev. Moon story is just too weird for the media. Crazy tax felon billionaire with delusions of being the Messiah publishes major DC paper, holds Washington power-players in his thrall? That's the plain n' simple truth, and yet because it's so bizarre, I just think the traditional media has no interest in touching it. If they ran honest stories about Moon, I think ordinary folks would assume they were made up.
Of course, that doesn't excuse the media turning a blind eye to this savage cult - and it certainly doesn't get sicko Curt Weldon off the hook for being a Moon lackey. As noted above, Weldon denied attening Moon's "coronation," but only later fessed up when photos emerged - including a photo of another photo of Weldon pinning a medal on that well-known American hero, Col. Muammar Qadafi.
Busted, you sonofabitch. Now how about apologizing to Joe Sestak and his daughter?
UPDATE: Another photo of Weldon giving a plaque (or as Monty Burns would style it, "the plague") of some sort to Qadafi. I gotta say again, what the hell? What American - let alone what American politician - would want to be within 100 feet of a terrorist-supporting dictator like Qadafi? This is so topsy-turvy that even I can hardly believe it.
Posted at 11:16 AM in 2006 Elections - House, Pennsylvania | Comments (16) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
PA-Sen: Santorum's Ethics Mire
Posted by DavidNYCWe all knew how much of a joke it was when Bill Frist tapped Dick Santorum to be the GOP's "ethics point man." It almost seemed like a perverse set-up job at the time - Li'l Ricky was sure to crash and burn on the ethics front. And indeed, that fate has come to pass:
SEN. RICK SANTORUM and his wife received a $500,000, five-year mortgage for their Leesburg, Va., home from a small, private Philadelphia bank run by a major campaign donor - even though its stated policy is to make loans only to its "affluent" investors, which the senator is not.Good-government experts said the mortgage from The Philadelphia Trust Co. raises serious questions about Santorum's conduct at a time when he is the Senate GOP's point man on ethics reform. They said it would be a violation of the Senate's ethics rules if Santorum received something a regular citizen could not get.
A campaign spokeswoman for Santorum, who is seeking re-election, said the couple's mortgage interest rate was "market-driven," but she refused to offer specifics, as did officials from Philadelphia Trust.
Reminds me of a great episode of Law & Order where a wealthy family bribes a judge by pressuring their bank to offer him a low-interest loan available only to the uber-rich. But wait, there's more:
• A political-action committee chaired by Santorum, America's Foundation, spends less money on direct aid to GOP candidates - its stated purpose - and more on expenditures than similar PACs. And its expenditure reports are littered with scores of unorthodox expenses for a political committee, with charges at coffee and ice cream shops and fast-food joints as well as supermarkets and a home-hardware store.For example, America's Foundation made 66 charges at Starbucks Coffee, almost all in the senator's hometown of Leesburg, Va., and 94 charges at another D.C.-area vendor, HMSHost Corp. Virginia Davis, the campaign spokeswoman, defended all the charges as campaign-related, saying the senator prefers to meet political aides in coffee shops rather than on Senate property.
• A little-publicized charity founded by Santorum in 2001, the Operation Good Neighbor Foundation, is not registered in Pennsylvania, even though the majority of its fundraising and spending takes place here.
What's more, three years of public tax returns show the charity spent just 35.9 percent of the nearly $1 million it raised during that time on charity grants, well below the 75 percent threshold recommended by experts. The group's Web site says it has distributed a total of $474,000 to groups, many faith-based, that fight social ills and urban poverty.
The part about the charity really steams me. So many charities in this country are near-scams, spending most of what they raise on expenses, rather than directing their contributions to the people and groups who really need the money. I'm hardly surprised that someone like Santorum is engaged in that kind of activity, but it still infuriates me.
Fact is, though, wittingly or not, Bill Frist shone a bright spotlight on Santorum's own ethical record, and it's an ugly, ugly sight. I seriously hope DC Democrats can make some hay out of this one, because this particular story is not just about one senator's misdeeds. The storyline here is that the Republican tasked with cleaning up ethics practices himself is an unethical scoundrel. That's definitely man-bites-dog - or should I say, man-on-dog?
Posted at 03:39 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Pennsylvania | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Band of Brothers: Chris Carney is Coming on Feb. 8th. Are You?
Posted by DavidNYCFrom Lt. Commander Chris Carney, running in PA-10:
Next Wednesday at 10:00 a.m., Chris Carney, democratic candidate for Congress, will stand with over 40 fellow veterans on the Capitol West Lawn to call for a change of direction in Washington.Today Chris Carney issued this statement:
Cadets at the U.S. Military Academy take a simple oath: Do not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate those who do. Those are the values we learn and live by when we fight for our country. Those are the values that we will take to Washington.
Our band of brothers and sisters is leading the charge to empty the sewers of Washington. We will not lie, cheat, steal, nor tolerate those who do.
It is time for change of direction in Washington, time for Americans to stand proud again. The bribery, the money laundering, and the high crimes of the highly placed cannot continue.
We are talking about reform on a personal scale. We need the right people in Washington–people who can tell right from wrong, and honorable from dishonorable.
Without the right people, all the rules and reforms in the world will amount to nothing. I will make the 10th District proud of its representation in Washington.
Chris Carney will be there on Feb. 8th. Will you?
Posted at 10:16 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Band of Brothers, Pennsylvania | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, January 19, 2006
PA-Gov: Swann Surges Against Rendell
Posted by DavidNYCA new poll from Rasmussen on PA-Gov (likely voters, Nov. in parens):
Rendell: 45 (50)
Swann: 43 (36)Rendell: 46 (47)
Scranton: 36 (39)
(MoE: ±4.5%)
Ed Rendell is the incumbent Democratic Governor. The Republicans are Lynn Swann, a former star received for the Pittsburgh Steelers, and Bill Scranton, a former Lt. Gov. Swann just formally announced his candidacy a couple of weeks ago and may be benefitting from the media coverage. The stability of the Rendell-Scranton numbers suggests, at least, that Rendell is not to blame for Swann's surge.
Here's my question to Pennsylvanians: Rendell is the consummate pol's pol and strikes me as unlikely to make too many obvious mistakes. But does Swann have what it takes to be as slick on the campaign trail as he was on the gridiron? Or is he coasting on star power and name rec now, only to get taken down once things heat up?
Posted at 11:19 PM in 2006 Elections - State, Pennsylvania | Comments (13) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Saturday, January 14, 2006
PA-12: Don Bailey: Biased, Bitter & Bonkers
Posted by DavidNYCFormer Rep. Don Bailey ("D"-PA) is making up stories about conversations he allegedly had with Rep. John Murtha. Why do I know that Bailey is bullshitting?
Pennsylvania 12th Congressional District Primary - May, 1982John Murtha: 52%
Don Bailey: 38%
That primary was a poignant election - Bailey and Murtha, both incumbent Congressmen, were pitted against each other because Pennsylvania had lost seats after the 1980 census. No one feels more entitled to his next victory than an incumbent - and because incumbents lose re-election campaigns so rarely, failure is exceptionally galling to them. I am sure Bailey has been carrying around a grudge - "It should have been him, not me!" - against Murtha for over twenty years. Bailey's so embittered he's become delusional: He thinks that a one-sided recollection by an obviously biased party constitutes legitimate news.
Oh, and how angry was Bailey after his loss in May of 1982? Angry enough that the Republicans were courting him to run against Murtha in the general election that fall!
Democratic Rep. Don Bailey is doing nothing to discourage growing speculation he'll run for Congress as a Republican in November. Bailey, a casualty of reapportionment this year, lost to fellow Democratic Rep. John Murtha by more than 8,000 votes in the May primary.Talk of a Murtha-Bailey rematch has been growing since Clair Saylor, the GOP nominee, withdrew from the race, citing lack of support and money. [UPI, 7/5/1982]
Bailey's been peddling his lies since 2002, when Murtha was once again involved in an incumbent-vs.-incumbent race. Yet if Murtha supposedly made some confession to Bailey during the ABSCAM goings-on in 1980 (as Bailey claimed to the National Journal), why didn't Bailey use that against Murtha in 1982? The answer doesn't change: The story is bullshit, and Bailey hadn't bothered to invent it yet. Rather, Bailey - after spending two decades losing a whopping four more races - dreamed up his tale in 2002 as a way to settle an old score against Murtha. (He failed, badly: Murtha won the primary that year 54-30.)
I obviously expect every gutter-dwelling conservative website... but I repeat myself. I obviously expect every conservative website to fawn all over Don Bailey's every phony word. He's a less credible witness than a nun-beating crack dealer - in other words, perfect for the non-reality-based community. But if the traditional media wishes to pay attention to Bailey's pedigree, they'll realize there's no way he could be telling truth. His story doesn't add up, and his motives are so nakedly venal that it should be plain for anyone to see.
Posted at 05:57 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Pennsylvania | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, January 05, 2006
PA-Sen: Santorum to Head GOP Ethics Batallion? Don't Make Me Laugh
Posted by DavidNYCSo Bill Frist has tapped Dick Santorum to, as CREW puts it, "head the ethics charge in the Senate" on behalf of the GOP. Of course, this is the ultimate joke, given Santorum's disgraceful ethics record:
• Sen. Santorum runs the K Street project, created by conservative activist Grover Norquist and former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), in which he ensures that all top lobbying and trade association jobs are filled by Republicans.• Two days before Sen. Santorum introduced a bill that would benefit private national weather companies at the expense of the National Weather Service, the Senator's political action committee, America's Foundation, received a $2,000 donation from the chief executive officer of AccuWeather, Inc., a leading weather data provider located in State College, PA.
• Working to undermine public confidence in the National Weather Service, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina Sen. Santorum stated in an interview with a local Philadelphia radio station that the National Weather Service failed to predict the storm's fury and that its warnings were "not sufficient." In fact, the early warnings about Hurricane Katrina issued by the National Weather Service were praised for their accuracy by news organizations such as Associated Press, NBC News and The New York Times.
• Since the 2001-2002 school year, at least three of Sen. Santorum's children have attended a Pennsylvania cyber charter school in Penn Hills, PA, costing local taxpayers about $67,000, despite the fact that the Senator and his family spend most of the year in Virginia.
It's actually number three (in concert with number two) which really gets me steamed. These guys are so removed from the reality-based community that they'll spew outright lies just to benefit lobbyists and screw taxpayers. Yes, our tax money pays for the National Weather Service, but Santorum's bill would prevent the NWS from releasing its information to the public! Imagine how much worse Katrina would have been without the rock-solid NWS.
Fact is, though, Frist only has some 50-odd guys and gals to pick from, and each one is lousier than the next when it comes to governmental ethics. If Frist is saying that Dick Santorum is the best he can do, that is saying a hell of a lot about the modern GOP. And anything which increases Santorum's profile on ethics only drives a few more nails into his already tightly-sealed political coffin.
Posted at 03:06 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Pennsylvania | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
PA-06: Gerlach Can't Count - To the Tune of $2.2M
Posted by DavidNYCA little background: Pennsylvania's 6th CD is one of our best pickup opportunities this cycle - Superribbie, for one, ranks it 6th overall. The district went narrowly for Gore in 2000. Our challenger is Lois Murphy; the incumbent is Republican Jim Gerlach.
Alright, so this is kind of an amazing story. At least, I can't recall anything quite like it. Just read:
A million here, a million there, and soon you have a real political war chest.Or maybe not.
A spokesman for U.S. Rep. Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.) conceded yesterday that Gerlach had overstated his campaign receipts for this year by $2.2 million.
But it was all a clerical and computer error, campaign spokesman Mark Campbell said.
A clerical error AND a computer error? Oh, that's good. Some flunky entered the wrong number into an Excel spreadsheet AND the software also malfunctioned. Guys, at least keep your phony excuses simple, okay?
The Murphy camp has filed a complaint with the FEC. Unfortunately, FEC "enforcement actions" are pretty toothless (if and when they ever happen). But the sheer embarassment of being off by $2.2 million should give this story the legs it deserves. At the very least, itll be good for a few snarky political ads and a good joke or two in any debate.
More on the Murphy complaint here and here.
Posted at 09:14 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Pennsylvania | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
PA-Sen: McCain, Santorum, Third-Party Ads, and the Moment of Truth
Posted by DavidNYCFirst, the table-setter:
Arizona Sen. John McCain will attend fund-raisers this week in Pennsylvania for fellow Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a Santorum spokeswoman said Sunday.
Second, the dirty business:
Nearly $1 million from hidden sources is pouring into Pennsylvania to buy television ads supporting U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum.The money is flowing through a Virginia-based organization called Americans for Job Security, a Republican-leaning, anti-tax group that says its money comes from 500 individuals, corporations, business groups and other sources.
It refuses to identify any of them, or the amounts they have donated. (Emphasis added.)
Third, the record:
The need to reform the avalanche of soft money in our political system is evident in every competitive race in this country where parties, business and labor, and ideological groups on all sides are spending hundreds of millions of unlimited, and in some cases, unreported dollars to influence federal elections. (Emphasis added.)- John McCain
Fourth, the inevitable intransigence:
Making an appearance yesterday in Northeast Philadelphia, Santorum refused to tell a Daily News reporter whether he believes the group should identify its financial backers. (Emphasis added.)
And finally, the moment of truth. Will Sen. McCain stand up for what he claims to believe in and call on "Americans for Job Security" to disclose their donors - or call on Santorum to reject their help? Or will he willingly play the hypocrite and stick his neck out for a candidate who relies on shady, secretive organizations for political support?
John McCain, we're all watching to see what kind of man you are. Do you have the courage of your convictions? Or will you sacrifice your principles for expediency? Either way, we'll remember your choice here.
Posted at 04:47 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Pennsylvania | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Monday, November 14, 2005
Santorum Challenging Casey to Debate?
Posted by DavidNYCThis is pretty funny. We've officially moved into Bizarro World. According to Hotline On Call, incumbent Senator Dick Santorum has sent a letter to his challenger Bob Casey, Jr. asking Casey to debate Li'l Dicky.
In any normal universe, it's the challenger who clamors to debate the incumbent - and usually the incumbent gives said challenger the back of his hand. But here, Sen. Man-on-Dog is so desperate to improve his public image, he's gotta beg Casey for some free air-time. Since we're in Bizarro World, I assume we'll also see Santorum start to distance himself from George Bush. Oh wait... he already has!
Through the looking glass, indeed. Soon enough, though, we'll wake the Red King and Rick Santorum will disappear like the bad dream we know he is.
P.S. Dick Santorum named World's Worst Person by Keith Olbermann (our next Edward R. Murrow?) - video clip here!
Posted at 03:50 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Pennsylvania | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, November 10, 2005
PA-Sen: No Mas! No Mas!
Posted by DavidNYCTwo polls came out today showing Rick Santorum, fully a year away from election day, getting utterly, completely demolished by his putative opponent, Bob Casey, Jr. The first is from Franklin & Marshall College and some media outfits and is known as the Keystone Poll (registered voters, September in parens); the second is from Rasmussen (likely voters, July in parens):
KeystoneCasey: 51 (50)
Santorum: 35 (37)
Undecided: 14 (13)
(MoE: ±4.2%)
Rasmussen
Casey: 54 (52)
Santorum: 34 (41)
Other: 4 (4)
(MoE: ±4.5%)
Just when you thought things couldn't possibly get worse for Little Ricky, they do. I would not be at all surprised if the Republican Party is looking to "pull a Torricelli" here and replace Santorum with a more likeable candidate. At the very least, these polls give added credence to reports that the national GOP has already abandoned Sen. Man-on-Dog.
The Rasmussen poll is extra-interesting, though, because it shows you where Santorum is getting killed: Undecideds. (I'm presuming the balance of Rasmussen polls consist of people who haven't yet made up their minds, since they don't actually list an "undecided" line.) He dropped seven points in that group, which is devastating because those are precisely the people Ricky needs to win back if he wants to have a prayer. Good luck, bub.
P.S. Fans of Chuck Pennacchio: F&M did you a solid and actually asked a question on the Democratic primary, the first I've ever seen. Unfortunately, Chuck trails 67-5 with 28% undecided. Don't get me wrong - I like Chuck. But the odds of him rising from obscurity ala Howard Dean are slim indeed.
Posted at 10:54 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Pennsylvania | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, October 20, 2005
PA-Sen: Santorum Forced to Fend for Himself
Posted by Tim TagarisTalk about being thrown to the wolves.
Capital Hill sources say his support from RNC heavies has also evaporated. The blow-dried bible-thumper, who launched his campaign with a giant war chest, is also being deserted by the party’s major moneymen, who are focusing their largesse on more competitive candidates.“This is how the Republicans operate,” sighs a veteran GOP campaign manager close to Santorum. “Even if you agree with their agenda, they’ll abandon you if you’re behind in the polls and move on to the next-most important race.” [...]
“It’s disgusting. Rick used to be Bush’s biggest booster on issues like stem-cell research, Social Security, and the Iraq war. Now the White House won’t even take his phone calls.”
This would be a miracle of miracles. What was once supposed to be the highest profile race of 2006 might be able to take place largely in the shadows. Democrats could not have asked for anything more than this, at all, period. First, we defeat Santorum, 'nuff said there. But as an added bonus, any confusion about a national message that might have taken place with the spotlight on Bob Casey is avoided. This news comes on the heels of a new Strategic Vision poll (Republican outfit) that shows Casey Jr. with a 16 point lead over the incumbent.
It's also important to note that the ultra-conservative base in Pennsylvania is not likely to rally to the side of the Senator. Amazingly, he is not even a hero to the extreme right in his home state--he's more of a villain. In 2004, that base rallied around current Club for Growth President Pat Toomey in his primary bid against Arlen Specter. Santorum endorsed Specter when the upstart group of supporters needed him to step up. Toomey lost, barely, and Santorum's own base for 2006 eroded. In fact, many in the conservative PA blogosphere would prefer to elect a "real Republican" to that seat...go figure.
Posted at 11:37 AM in Pennsylvania | Comments (9) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
PA-Sen: Casey Outraises Santorum
Posted by DavidNYCIt's that time of year again - time for campaigns to release their quarterly fundraising numbers. The official FEC quarterly filing deadline is always on the 15th day of the month following the end of the quarter, meaning that the approaching due-date is 10/15. (Campaigns get a couple weeks extra to submit end-of-year reports - those are always due on Jan. 31.)
Anyhow, the numbers are out in the Pennsylvania senate race, and it looks like the third quarter was pretty good to Democrat Bob Casey, Jr.:
Casey 3Q Amount Raised: $2M+
Santorum 3Q Amount Raised: $1.7M+
However, the cash-on-hand disparity favors Santorum:
Casey Cash-on-Hand: $3M
Santorum Cash-on-Hand: $6.6M
As Adam Bonin points out, though, Santorum's latest poll numbers are atrocious. If things stay this way, Casey simply won't need as much money as Santorum in order to win. If anything, it is Santorum who is desperate right now. However, Little Ricky still has time to turn his image round, though his penchant for wingnuttish blunders (such as writing and publishing that misogynistic book of his) will make that difficult.
I'm also not sold on the Casey the Younger's political acumen (and I disagree strongly with many of his views on important issue), so it's possible that the race might turn if he starts making mistakes. But with the way things look right now, ya gotta believe that Sen. Man-on-Dog will soon be sent to the kennel.
Posted at 12:42 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Pennsylvania | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, October 06, 2005
PA-Sen: Landslide
Posted by Tim TagarisBob Casey Jr. has extended his lead from 11 to 18 in the most recent Quinnipiac poll.
From September 27 - October 3, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,530 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points.If the 2006 election for Senator were being held today, and the candidates were Bob Casey Jr. the Democrat, and Rick Santorum the Republican, for whom would you vote?
Bob Casey: 52% (50)
Rick Santorum: 34% (39)
Don't Know/Other: 14% (12)
If you look closer at the numbers, you'll find that Casey has a lead on Rick Santorum in each and every region of the state, with the exception of Central PA. Also, I think you'll find that this Casey bounce has a lot to do with disaffection with the current Republican Adminstration. Support for the occupation of Iraq in Pennsylvania is at a thirty-seven percent, to fifty-seven who disapprove. Bush's approval rating is at a lowly 37% to 61% who disapprove. For the first time, a plurality of Pennsylvania voters believe Rick Santorum DOES NOT deserve to be re-election, 41% to 42%, that's from a 45-38 spread last time Quinnipiac was in the field. Meanwhile, Casey's approval rating has barely budged:
Is your opinion of State Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. favorable, unfavorable, mixed, or haven't you heard enough about him?Approve: 38% (39)
Disapprove: 9% (9)
Mixed: 20% (17)
DK: 33% (36)
For the past few months, I have always thought Casey's numbers would go down; it was just a matter of time. But maybe this thing really will be a blowout that never materializes into a real race? We can only hope. To the extent we can keep his race out of the national spotlight (which a close race would be), we minimize further national confusion about what we stand for as a Democratic Party.
Posted at 10:54 AM in Pennsylvania | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Hackett Effect: Six Veterans Running as Democrats
Posted by Bob BrighamWhile the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is hiding from the Iraq issue, individuals are stepping up to fill the DC Establishment leadership void. In fact, there are already 6 veterans ready to serve again -- in Congress:
While fighting in Iraq, a private asked then-Capt. Patrick Murphy why U.S. forces were in the Persian Gulf nation and was told it didn't matter; there was a job to do and just try to return home safely."That wasn't the time to question our government," Murphy recalled.
Now, however, Murphy and five other veterans of the war are asking questions about President Bush's policies in Iraq as part of their broader Democratic campaigns to win congressional seats in next year's elections.
Given their experience in Iraq, the six Democrats in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Maryland and Virginia say they are eminently qualified to pose the tough questions.
Unlike the DCCC, these six candidates are in line with the American people:
Their reservations mirror public opinion, with an increasing number of Americans expressing concern about the mission and favoring a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll indicated only 37 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Iraq, with 62 percent disapproving.
This summer, Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran, nearly defeated Republican Jean Schmidt in a special election in an Ohio district considered a GOP stronghold. Hackett focused on his wartime experience and his opposition to Bush's policies.
Unlike the DCCC, these six candidates are doing their duty:
"Some guys don't think it's time to question our government, but the fact is I love my country," said Murphy, 31, a lawyer who fought in the 82nd Airborne Division. "We need to have an exit strategy now."Murphy is challenging first-term Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, a Republican in the northern Philadelphia suburbs of the 8th District.
Another Iraq war veteran, Texas Republican Van Taylor, is also running for a House seat, but he backs President Bush.
It's too soon to measure the impact of the war on the 2006 elections, but the handful of veterans pursuing seats in the House of Representatives is an early indicator.
The press thinks this is a story, the veterans know first-hand how high the stakes are, and it is clear that individuals are stepping up to fill the leadership vacuum created by wimpy Washington Establishment Democrats.
Please use the comments to let us know what you know about this six Democrats.
Posted at 02:17 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, Democrats, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Thursday, September 29, 2005
PA-Sen: Casey Lead Down to Eight & Santorum Revelations
Posted by Tim TagarisChock full of discoveries today in Pennsylvania.
1.) We found out that Bob Casey would have voted to confirm Judge Roberts.
2.) Rick Santorum used to be very pro-choice, and as a young lady, his wife lived with a doctor who co-founded Pennsylvania's first abortion clinic.
3.) Bob Casey's lead over Rick Santorum is down to eight points, from anywhere between tweleve and fifteen in recent studies.
Among the 54 percent of Pennsylvania voters dissatisfied with Bush's job performance, only 9 percent intend to support Santorum while 57 percent back his likely Democratic challenger, Bob Casey Jr. Overall, Casey leads Santorum, 37 percent to 29 percent, with 31 percent undecided. [...]The telephone survey of 477 voters was conducted between Sept. 18 and 25 and has a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.
Opinions about Santorum, a leading conservative voice, were strongly divided. Forty percent of voters have a favorable view of him and approve of the job he's doing. But 37 percent were unfavorable, and 36 percent disapproved of his job performance.
Twenty-nine percent of voters had a favorable view of Casey, while only 12 percent were unfavorable. But 57 percent were neutral toward Casey, and 3 percent had not heard of him at all. Casey being a blank slate with most voters could work in Santorum's advantage as the campaign goes on and voters learn more about the challenger, Borick said.
And there you go.
Posted at 02:50 PM in Pennsylvania | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
PA-Sen: Stances on Roberts Crystalize Campaign Strategies
Posted by Tim TagarisFor months, I have a kept a very close eye on the Pennsylvania U.S. Senate race. I have watched as meme after meme floated by the Santorum folks has been shot down by the mainstream media. First, it was "Casey the opportunist," running for four offices in eight years; that didn't work. Then it was Casey is a Liberal; yeah right. But now the media in Philadelphia has seemed to find the angle they are going to run with: Casey is the same as Rick Santorum.
And in this instance, both Casey and Santorum [heart] John Roberts:
After considering factors such as character, resume and judicial philosophy, and listening to Roberts' testimony before the Judiciary Committee, "I would vote to confirm him," Casey said in a statement issued by his campaign.Casey's decision erases a potential contrast with incumbent Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, who says he will vote for Roberts when the Senate takes up the nomination today.
This line of attack is penetrating, putting the Casey camp on the defensive. Ironically, when responding, Casey's campaign manager attempted to focus on their differences and included Iraq, where the two have almost exactly the same position -- would still vote for authorization and funding if the vote were held today.
It's not that the two are the same, cause they aren't. The difference is in campaign strategy, as a local pollster pointed out:
Berwood Yost, a pollster with Franklin and Marshall College, said Casey's choice is politically safe. "Opposing Roberts runs a broader risk of alienating people who are in the middle," Yost said. [...]Casey was unavailable to comment yesterday. But through Reiff, Casey said he was initially concerned that Roberts would "bring an ideological agenda to the bench." "Based on his testimony and statements, Bob Casey believes Judge Roberts adequately addressed this concern," Reiff said.
Aside from the fact that Roberts refused to answer any questions, the campaigns seem to have fleshed out their strategies for the next few months. Casey is going to follow the prevailing winds of public opinion (except on Iraq) and take the side of positions that avoids controversy at all costs (anti-choice/anti-stem cell research). Santorum on the other hand, is running around promoting his crazy book, still stumping for social security upheaval, and taking whatever controversial position he can...seemingly on purpose.
At the end of the day, Rick's camp will make the argument that "you may not agree with me, but I will take the difficult position, and you know where I stand." -- Sound familiar?
UPDATE (Bob): Stirling whacks Mighty Casey:
In Pennsylvania, Casey, the machine candidate, has said that he would vote to confirm Roberts, where as Pennachio, the insurgent, has said that he would not.In the coming years, ask yourself how many progressive judgets Casey will kill, and how many reactionary judges he will vote to confirm. Over the course of 24 years in the senate, the some of these reactionary judges may well be on the bench in 2060. Every election matters, because your great grand children will be living with the results of them.
The Fourteenth Amendment is not a minor issue, over half a million Americans died to bring about a nation which assured citizenship to all, and it took another century to actually give that promise teeth. Voting for Casey is to toss away the lives of those who perished at Gettysburg. Think about what that blood cost, and what the freedoms it bought are worth.
Something to think about.
Posted at 11:06 AM in Pennsylvania | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Friday, September 16, 2005
PA-Sen: Imagine It Getting Worse For Santorum
Posted by Tim Tagaris...Cause it just did. A whole slew of new numbers to chew on from the most recent Keystone Poll released today.
Keystone Poll. September 8-13. 650 Respondents - MoE Not Reported.Head-to-Head
Bob Casey: 50%
Rick Santorum: 37%
Don't Know: 13%Favorables for Santorum
Favorable: 40% (42)
Unfavorable: 32% (26)
Undecided: 14% (13)
Don't Know: 14% (18)Favorables for Casey
Favorable: 32% (40)
Unfavorable: 7% (9)
Undecided: 22% (15)
Don't Know: 39% (36)
Just when you thought it couldn't get much worse for Santorum. These numbers are pretty close to the Strategic Vision numbers released yesterday. Again, a whole bunch of good stuff to take a look at inside the poll, including a few questions about evolution/creation, statewide politics, and the governor's race in Pennsylvania. In short, Republican's aren't certain about the three primary choices they have, but Lynn Swann (25%) leads Picolla (5%) and Scranton (18%); the majority of voters remain undecided. I'd guess there will not a be a primary here. Rendell leads all three of the Republicans, but interestingly Picolla is the closest at 46-37. Scranton trails Rendell 51-34, and Swann fares even worse at 53-33.
No other canidates were included in the Keystone Poll for U.S. Senate (Chuck Pennacchio or Alan Sandals). It's interesting to note the steep decline in Casey's favorables, however. For the time being, it appears the hide-and-seek campaign against Santorum is all that its been cracked up to be.
Posted at 07:48 AM in Pennsylvania | Comments (1) |