Nader on “talking white”:

I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson?

And Nader on appealing to “white guilt”:

He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he’s coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it’s corporate or whether it’s simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.

Reports filed with the Federal Election Commission late Friday show Republicans picking up serious ground on the financial front, but only thanks to Mike Duncan’s efforts at the Republican National Committee. As GOP campaign committees in both the House and the Senate continue to lag far behind their Democratic counterparts, RNC fundraising, thanks perhaps to a nomination battle that wrapped up far earlier than the Democrats’ did, continues to outpace the Democratic National Committee by leaps and bounds.

The RNC raised $24.3 million in May, FEC reports show, while spending $11.5 million. The DNC raised just $4.8 million and spent $5.2 million. After John McCain clinched the GOP nomination, the party began raising funds through the Victory program, a joint fundraising effort with their presidential nominee. Republicans ended the month with a whopping $53.5 million in the bank, compared with just $3.9 million on hand for the DNC.

Barack Obama’s clinching the nomination in early June should boost Democrats’ fundraising numbers this month, though the South Capitol Street gang has a long way to go to catch up to their rivals at the Capitol Hill Club.

House Democrats continued to put distance between themselves and the National Republican Congressional Committee in May, raising $6.1 million and spending $4.2 million to end the month with $47.1 million in the bank. Republicans raised $5 million and spent $5.1 million, to finish with $6.65 million on hand. Much of both parties’ spending went to early May special elections in Louisiana and Mississippi, both Republican seats which Democrats won.

Perhaps most telling, Democratic members of Congress are investing in their own conference. Last month, members gave $1.9 million to their own cause, building the party’s cash-on-hand edge to a more than seven-to-one ratio. Republican members of an NRCC oversight committee, meanwhile, have complained about a lack of contributions from their own members, many of whom have apparently decided to stockpile their own cash in the event they, too, have more competitive races than expected.

On the Senate side, Democrats outraised Republicans as well, though Republicans earned enough to close their own yawning disparity. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised $5.9 million and spent $4.9 million, to end the month with $38.5 million on hand. Much of the money went to building field organizations in key battleground states, a process which began last month. The National Republican Senatorial Committee raised $4.9 million and spent $2.7 million, bringing their total in the bank to $21.5 million.

Both Senate committees have something to brag about this month. Republicans point out that they are in better position than they were in 2006, with nearly $3 million more in the bank and having raised more than they did two years ago last month. Democrats, though, have also raised more, and their cash on hand advantage is up slightly from two years ago.

Senate Republicans aim to undercut Democrats’ claim to be the environmentally conscious party by combining their own conservation message with a longstanding push for more oil drilling.

The shift, to call for increased energy production and less oil use, allows Republicans and their presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), to argue they will do whatever it takes to stop soaring gas prices. And it could throw cold water on Democratic attempts to link McCain with President Bush and the oil companies reaping record profits.

Energy policy has become a flashpoint this campaign season, and both sides are jockeying over who has the best plan to handle gas prices that top $4 per gallon.
“Republicans will do BOTH — find more oil, use less — Democrats won’t,” according to a presentation, obtained by The Hill, that Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) gave at a closed-door lunch on Tuesday.

Democrats have long opposed expanded offshore drilling, highlighting environmental concerns and claims that there is enough land to drill and that more is an unnecessary giveaway to oil and gas companies.

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democrats’ chief campaign strategist, called the GOP message a “defensive and sort of last-gasp effort.”

“Two words: oil companies,” Schumer said. “They have for seven years done exactly what the oil companies wanted.”

Republicans are trying to debunk that claim with a greener message: more investment in plug-in electric cars and trucks, less energy use by the federal government and increased oversight of market speculation on oil futures.

The move could be perceived as a shift toward McCain, who has been at odds with many in his party on cutting greenhouse emissions and has used environmental issues to distinguish himself from Bush.

McCain called for more efficiency rules in a campaign stop Tuesday in Santa Barbara, Calif., arguing that energy could be conserved in the 3.3 billion square feet of federal office space nationwide.

The Republican proposal also calls for moving away from the party’s bedrock position of emphasizing oil drilling in the Alaskan wilderness and instead promoting oil-shale extraction and offshore exploration.

Read FULL STORY 

U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo blasts presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain for his secret meeting with Hispanic leaders in Chicago last week and challenges the Senator from Arizona to stand firm on border security, regardless of the audience he’s addressing.

In a letter sent to McCain on Tuesday and released by the Associated Press, the congressman from Colorado chastises McCain for reportedly pushing his amnesty agenda, then slams him for promising the group that he plans to pursue comprehensive immigration reform.

McCain, the letter contends, promised Republican lawmakers and activists that he will set aside his push to grant illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship, at least until he can certify that the U.S. borders have been closed to illegal immigration. Yet, at the same time, he is trying to win back support from Hispanic voters who fled the GOP when the party took up the immigration issue in 2005.

Tancredo, who drew attention early in the Republican primaries as a champion of securing the nation’s borders against illegal crossing and fighting against amnesty for illegal immigrants, questions McCain on whether he is backpedaling on border security.

“Senator, given your past sponsorship of amnesty legislation, such statements raise troubling questions,” reads Tancredo’s letter. “Are you planning to break a promise you made in February to postpone all other immigration reform legislation until we have first secured our borders?”

Tancredo alleges promises for secure borders were dangled as carrots to lead legislators into voting for amnesty measures. He claims they were then yanked away unfulfilled “after amnesty was achieved.”

Tancredo’s letter serves as a bold challenge to McCain as he prepares to address the National Council of La Raza, the largest national Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S., next month in San Diego.

“I challenge you to deliver a message to that assembly which does not pander to their amnesty agenda,” Tancredo writes.

“You should speak to the La Raza convention, and to all Hispanic audiences, about America’s need for secure borders as a priority above all other immigration reforms,” notes Tancredo. “Moreover, I hope you take that opportunity to make it clear that it is in the long term interest of Mexico and other Latin American nations to halt the massive out-migration of their citizens.”

Tancredo’s letter goes on to say, “Senator, you have said many times in recent months, ‘I got the message’ on border security. If you go to the La Raza convention in San Diego and deliver a message that surrenders to their amnesty agenda, tens of millions of Americans who heard your earlier message will feel betrayed – and rightly so.”

Tancredo warns, “Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives are resolved to never let that happen again. Are you prepared to wage war on conservatives to secure another amnesty for illegal aliens? I hope not.”

The letter concludes with a challenge to McCain to maintain a commitment to border security “whether the audience [is] black or white, Asian or Hispanic.”

Rosalanna Pulido, a Hispanic Republican who attended the Chicago meeting with McCain, tells the Associated Press the senator appears one way in front of white Republicans and another in front of Hispanics.

“He’s having his private meetings to rally Hispanics and to tell them what they want to hear,” she says. “I’m outraged that he would reach out to me as a Hispanic but not as a conservative.”

Tancredo’s letter is only the most recent fire McCain has drawn for his closed-door meeting last week, and presidential challenger Barack Obama’s campaign is not letting the potential flip-flop go unnoticed.

In a conference call with reporters, Obama’s communications director Robert Gibbs describes the Chicago event as double-talk, referencing McCain’s advocacy of immigration reform in 2006 and 2007, his rejection of the reform bills he once promoted, and his new promises of reform once again.

“Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is going after Republican rival Sen. John McCain, questioning whether the Arizona senator is offering contradictory language on the hot-button issue of immigration reform,” Gibbs responds in a statement released by the Obama camp.

“[This is] just one of several examples through out the week of John McCain being in a tortured debate with John McCain,” Gibbs says, terming the event as “the end of pander week aboard the double-talk express of the John McCain campaign.”

By Hastings Wyman
Southern Political Report
June 25, 2008 — When the Obama campaign launched its first television ads in 18 key states across the country, four of them were in the South — Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. With a combined total of 70 electoral votes, were these four states to desert the solid (Republican) South and back Obama, it would be almost impossible for McCain to win the presidency. Moreover, the move by Obama to gamble in these four states will force the McCain campaign, with its tight finances, to campaign in states that it has surely hoped it could count on, while Obama, with his seemingly limitless supply of Internet-supplied cash, can afford to make a serious play for states where he’s not necessarily the favorite.

The Obama campaign will not acknowledge what its television strategy indicates, i.e., that some states are getting more attention from them than others. According to Obama spokeswoman Amy Brundage, “Senator Obama has strong grassroots support throughout the South — and in all 50 states,” further noting that they expect to have “a campaign presence, staff and leadership in each of the 50 states.” Nevertheless, there is already some Obama staff operating in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia, and more are likely to be added in the coming weeks. For now, they are concentrating on voter registration, mostly working through “Vote for Change,” an Obama campaign effort.

The fact that Obama intends to compete seriously in these four states does not mean the Illinois senator will carry them. McCain has strong factors in his favor — especially voting history — in all of them. Moreover, at this early stage, it is not certain what the big issues will be this fall. But Obama’s strategy, and the poll numbers behind it, does suggest that the South, rather than being a taken-for-granted part of the GOP base that is basically ignored by the Democrats, will be a crucial element in one of the most competitive and historic elections in modern American politics.

Here are snapshots of Obama’s effort in the four targeted states.

Florida: A Close Race Once Again

The latest polls show a close fight in the Sunshine State, nothing new for this major battleground in 2000 and 2004. It is Obama 49%, McCain 44%, said American Research Group on June 13-17. Flip that, said Rasmussen Reports on June 18, giving McCain 47%, Obama 39%. Obama’s “Vote for Change” already has a state director here, as well as other staff. There are still some bumps in the road for Obama, however. The Clinton and Obama factions are squabbling over which party officials get to take the one-half vote delegate slots allotted to them at the national convention, with even Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL), an African American who backed Clinton, declaring he will not attend the convention as a protest.

Georgia: No Longer Safe Republican?

The latest survey of Peach State voters shocked political observers here and across the country. SPR’s affiliated pollster, InsiderAdvantage/PollPosition, in a poll taken June 18, showed McCain with a razor-thin 44% to 43% lead over Obama. The survey showed Obama winning the black vote by 83% to 9% and McCain winning the white vote by 61% to 25%. If the turnout patterns are any guide, black turnout will be substantially higher than usual this fall. An additional problem for McCain is that Bob Barr, the former Georgia Republican congressman, will be on the ballot as the Libertarian candidate and received 6% in the survey. Moreover, Obama has already been in high gear here, with voter registration staff on the ground, as many as eight or eighteen, according to unconfirmed reports. McCain, however, will have Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue and a slew of other elected officials from the GOP in his corner.

North Carolina: A Battleground This Year

It’s McCain 45%, Obama 41% in the Tar Heel State, said Tel Opinion for Civitas Institute on June 11-13. Moreover, voter registration trends are favoring the Democrats,

Since January, 121,000 Democrats have registered to vote in the Tar Heel State compared with 13,000 Republicans. This is a major change toward the Democrats, who at the end of 2007 had 45% of registrants to 34% for Republicans. The new voters aren’t just a boost for Obama, but are also likely to help other Democratic candidates. If there is a shift in the turn-out toward the Democrats, it could help state Sen. Kay Hagan (D) in her already competitive battle with US Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R), or in the governor’s race, help Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue (D) against Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory (R). However, it’s hardly a done deal for Obama; the Republicans, for example, may run even better than usual among mountain voters in Western North Carolina, where Clinton ran strongly against Obama in the primary.

Virginia: Moving Toward Obama

Obama has come out ahead in several recent polls in the Old Dominion; in the latest, it’s Obama 47%, McCain 45%, said Public Policy Polling in a survey taken June 14-16. In addition to Obama’s “Vote for Change” organization, Gov. Tim Kaine (D), an early Obama backer, is cooperating with several groups to pardon qualifying felons who have served their sentences — not including those convicted of violent crimes — so that they can register to vote this November. While the Obama campaign is not affiliated with this effort, the Washington Post quoted an Obama volunteer who acknowledged that “Vote for Change” volunteers carry ‘vote restoration’ forms to apply for the pardon when they canvas for potential voters. The effort has drawn fire from Republicans, who see it as a boost to Obama (some 20% of African Americans in Virginia are ineligible to vote because of felony convictions), but praise from liberals, including the Post in an editorial. Here again, however, McCain can’t be counted out; for starters, the heavy military presence in the state is likely to help him.

Patrick Kennedy, 43, was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter in Louisiana. He is one of two people in the United States, both in Louisiana, who have been condemned to death for a rape that was not also accompanied by a killing.

Are we ruled by 9 philosophers, or by legislation and representation. I’m beginning to wonder if the Constitution means anything once the doors are closed during these meetings. How do they rule with such absolute authority?– as if they were incapable of error and full of insight and infinite knowledge that we mere mortals can never even hope to understand.
Justice Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion

“The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child,” AND “there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape…”the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim’s life was not taken.”

Samuel Alito in his dissent wrote:

“The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapists is grave. It is the judgment of the Louisiana lawmakers and those in an increasing number of other states that these harms justify the death penalty.”

Southern Appeal’s owner/operator said this about the decision.

As someone who opposes the death penalty in all instances, and who also believes that death is too good for any rapist (put his sorry a*s on a Cool-Hand-Luke-style chain gang for life, I say), I obviously favor the outcome in this case. That having been said, Justice Kennedy’s “reasoning,” as usual, is beyond pathetic. The Court’s opinion today in Kennedy v. Louisiana, as in Roper v. Simmons, is a constitutional abomination. There is simply no basis in the Constitution’s text, history, or structure for the Court’s decision (which rests instead on the Court’s own “independent judgment” and “evolving standards of decency”).. It is nothing less than rule by judicial fiat.

At some point, the American people are going to have to decide whether they wish to be ruled by nine (and in many cases five) unelected philosopher kings, or whether they would rather have the most contentious issues of public policy we face as a people hashed out in the legislative arena (as was envisioned by our founders/framers).

I, for one, favor the latter.

Oh, and given the nature of today’s decision, I thought I would excerpt a bit of my standard originalist stump speech that I give to Federalist Society chapters across this fine land of ours below the fold. Enjoy!

(more…)

ATLANTA — A fiery former GOP congressman who gained national prominence for doggedly pursuing impeachment of President Clinton has some Republicans worried he’ll play spoiler in a tight presidential contest.

Bob Barr’s Libertarian Party bid for the White House is the longest of long shots, but political experts say he may be able to exploit the unease some die-hard conservatives still feel about Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee-in-waiting. Combined with the surge in turnout among Democrats during the primaries and a difficult political climate for Republicans, they see what could be a recipe for trouble for the GOP.

“Bob could be the Ralph Nader of 2008,” said Dan Schnur, a GOP consultant in California who worked on McCain’s 2000 campaign but is not involved in this year’s contest. Consumer advocate Nader is the third-party candidate many Democrats blame for helping George W. Bush narrowly win in 2000.

Rep. John Linder, a Republican who defeated Barr in 2002 after Georgia’s Democratic-controlled Legislature redrew congressional boundaries to put the two lawmakers in the same district, said he didn’t think Barr would top 4 percent of the vote.

“But in some states that may be enough,” Linder said.

Democrats seem gleeful at the prospect. Tad Devine, a Washington-based Democratic strategist, said Republicans “are crazy if they aren’t worried about Barr.”

“Undoubtedly any votes he gets come out of McCain’s votes,” Devine said. “He hurts them.”

Barr, a former federal prosecutor, was swept into Congress with more than 70 other House GOP freshmen in 1994. An articulate, sometimes outspoken orator, he gained attention as the first lawmaker to call for Clinton’s resignation over the Monica Lewinsky scandal and was one of the House prosecutors who pressed the impeachment case in the Senate.

Barr also was known during his four terms in the House for his opposition to softening drug laws, including the medical use of marijuana, and his support for gun rights. He tried unsuccessfully to bar military bases from according witchcraft adherents the same accommodations as other religious worshippers.

Even after Clinton left office, Barr continued to pursue him. He asked congressional investigators to study the extent of White House damage done by departing Clinton staffers and tried to build a “Counter Clinton Library” in Little Rock, Ark. He filed a $30 million lawsuit against Clinton, adviser James Carville and Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt for causing him “emotional distress” in retaliation for the impeachment proceedings.

Some Republicans aren’t worried about Barr’s candidacy. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said voting for Barr is the same as voting for Democrat Barack Obama, and said he’s confident most GOP voters will understand that.

“No reasonable conservative is going to vote for anyone except McCain,” Gingrich said.

Even so, Barr campaign manager Russell Verney said he expects Republicans to mount challenges to keep Barr off the ballot in a number of states, much like Democrats did to Nader in 2004.

Verney was campaign manager for H. Ross Perot, who rocked the political establishment with his 1992 independent presidential bid that drew 19 percent of the vote.

The Libertarian Party hasn’t cracked 1 percent of the national popular vote in a presidential race. But it bills itself as the third-largest political party and is already on the ballot in 30 states, with petition drives this summer aiming at 20 others.

The toughest obstacles are likely to be in West Virginia, Oklahoma, Illinois and Washington, D.C., where ballot access rules are prohibitive, said Libertarian Party political director Sean Haugh.

Democrats also have had success knocking third-party candidates of the ballot in Pennsylvania, considered a swing state.

But Barr may have the most impact in his home state of Georgia, where he is still well-known.

In recent years, Barr has earned a reputation as an iconoclast. A National Rifle Association board member, Barr has joined with the liberal American Civil Liberties Union against the Bush administration-backed Patriot Act and reversed himself on medical marijuana use, now lobbying in favor of it.

He said it is the unchecked growth of government that led him to abandon the GOP two years ago.

In the coming weeks, Barr plans to open a campaign headquarters in Atlanta.

“I think John McCain is going to have to battle for Georgia, a state that was a gimme for George Bush,” said Matt Towery, a former Republican state lawmaker in Georgia who runs a political media company.

Georgia and its 15 electoral votes have been expected to go Republican on election night, and McCain spokesman Jeffrey Sadosky said he remained confident they still would.

Still, the enthusiasm Obama has generated among Georgia’s large black population continues to worry McCain strategists. Far from writing off Georgia, Obama has a campaign team registering voters and is airing a TV ad in the state.

Barr scoffs at talk that he will play spoiler, saying he is in the race to win it and it won’t be his fault if McCain loses.

“If Senator McCain is not successful, it will be because his message and his vision did not resonate with a plurality of the voters,” Barr said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Barr also hopes to tap into the zealous grass-roots network of Rep. Ron Paul, who recently dropped his bid for the GOP presidential nomination and pledged to support “Libertarian-leaning Republicans.” Paul, a Texas Republican who ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988, drew hefty campaign contributions online, but did not win any primaries.

Paul supporters said they’re giving Barr a look. Some are skeptical.

“We’re waiting to see if he’s deliberately moving toward Ron Paul’s principles to be politically popular,” said Marlane O’Neill, a Paul supporter in Atlanta.

The year 2006 was disastrous for Republican House candidates, and nowhere was the carnage worse than in Pennsylvania. The Republicans lost four House seats along with Rick Santorum’s Senate seat, the biggest shift in the nation.

This year the Democrats, who hold an 11-8 edge in the state delegation, don’t expect the same kind of gains, but they still hope to pick off one or two more GOP veterans, including two established incumbents in Western Pennsylvania — Rep. Tim Murphy, of Upper St. Clair and Rep. Phil English, of Erie.

Roughly half a dozen of the state’s 19 House seats are expected to be in play this year — most of them held by Democrats, thanks to the party’s successes in swing districts, such as Rep. Jason Altmire’s upset of his current challenger, former Rep. Melissa Hart, the last time around.

Confounding GOP hopes that the pendulum was bound to swing back were three House special elections this spring, in Illinois, Mississippi and Louisiana, in which traditionally safe Republican districts fell to the Democrats.

The serial defeats prompted public soul-searching in the GOP hierarchy. Rep. John Boehner, the minority leader, promised action to respond to “a change election.”

One of the GOP caucus’ first re-packaging decisions sparked derision, however. Critics gleefully noted that the new slogan — “the change you deserve” — was already the motto of an anti-depression medication.

John Brabender, a media strategist advising a number of GOP House candidates in Pennsylvania and across the nation, cautions against concluding too much from the separate, isolated contests this spring, but acknowledged that their collective results can’t be dismissed.

“Those were unique cases,” he said. “In some cases, the candidate was not the best candidate in the world, but those were districts where even a flawed candidate should have won — I do think it’s a wake-up call.”

Fewer Republican House members feel secure this year as they contend with headwinds generated by an unpopular war and a president with historically low negative ratings. But GOP partisans, as well as some neutral observers, argue that the recent Republican history does not mean that the fall will follow the same pattern.

“President Bush was [figuratively] at the top of the ticket in 2006; John McCain will be at the top of the ticket in 2008,” said Mr. Brabender.

Nathan Gonzales, political editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report, observed that the results of the special elections “prove that we are still in the 2006 election environment.”

“Republicans still have problems with voters in the middle as well as socially conservative Democrats they’ve enjoyed support from in the past,” he said.

But the analyst said that it’s still difficult to forecast the political environment for the fall. Discussing the GOP’s three special election setbacks, he said, “In the context of the Pennsylvania races, it doesn’t change much today.”

David Wasserman, the House editor for the Cook Political Report, another nonpartisan newsletter, cited one potentially crucial distinction between those contests and the broader competition for House seats in the fall. In each of the special elections, he noted, Democratic turnout was high, just as it had been in the Democratic primaries this year. Republican turnout lagged. Historical patterns suggest that that differential will be much smaller with the presidential election at stake.

“Turnout in November is universally high,” Mr. Wasserman said. “In these races it was unilaterally high for the Democrats.”

For the Republicans, the top Pennsylvania targets are in the districts they forfeited two years ago. Chief among them is Rep. Chris Carney, the Democrat who ousted former Rep. Don Sherwood in the 10th District, which sprawls over the state’s northeast corner. Following the 2000 Census, the seat was redrawn to make it a virtual fortress for the GOP incumbent.

No Democrat could be found to run against Mr. Sherwood in 2002 and 2004. But after an ugly lawsuit filed by an ex-mistress raised a question or two about Mr. Sherwood’s family values, Mr. Carney was able to find a place in the Democratic tide in 2006.

The district’s GOP potential drew a big field of Republican challengers this year. Businessman Christopher Lawrence Hackett prevailed in an expensive and hotly contested primary and has the resources to wage what promises to be a competitive campaign against the freshman Democrat. This is the Pennsylvania race most often cited as a race to watch by neutral observers, including the Cook and Rothenberg publications.

Rematch in 4th District

The 4th District, north of Pittsburgh, offers a compelling story line in the state’s only rematch. Ms. Hart, who was a rising star in the GOP majority before the 2006 results ousted both, is banking on her district ties and name recognition as she attempts to reclaim the seat. But it is Mr. Altmire who has the advantages of incumbency this time around, including the prospect of raising significantly more money than his challenger.

Federal Election Commission data showed that on the eve of the primary in which neither had an opponent (former county Councilman Ron Francis had dropped from the GOP race and endorsed Ms. Hart) the incumbent had raised $1.6 million and had $1.3 million in cash on hand. Ms. Hart had raised $529,081, and had a cash balance of $393,396.

That financial imbalance points to another concern for Republican candidates across the country. In contrast to past election cycles, the DCCC has far out-raised the NRCC this year, meaning that fewer GOP candidates can expect national cash to supplement their own war chests.

The other new Democrats in the state’s delegation represent districts in the Philadelphia suburbs that have been trending toward their party after generations of Republican dominance. Rep. Joe Sestak, a retired admiral, is regarded as the safer of the two veterans. Rep. Pat Murphy, the only Iraq veteran now in Congress, may have a tougher battle. Part of Mr. Murphy’s appeal rests on his military background. His challenger, Pat Manion, is a retired Marine colonel whose son was killed last year while serving a second tour of duty in Iraq.

This district, the 8th, is dominated by Bucks County and includes a small slice of Philadelphia. Larry Chiseler, a Philadelphia political analyst, noted that Mr. Murphy actually lost the Bucks County portion of the district two years ago, but was carried to a close victory by his dominance in Philadelphia. Since then, however, Bucks County’s registration advantage has switched to the Democrats.

Perhaps the only non-freshman Democrat with the potential for a competitive race is Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Louis Barletta, who, as mayor of Hazleton, Pa., won national headlines for his opposition to illegal immigration, opposes him. Mr. Kanjorski’s critics have circulated videotape in which he acknowledges that in pursuit of the House majority in 2006, Democrats exaggerated their ability to bring an end to the war in Iraq.

Two Western Pennsylvania Republicans, Mr. English and Mr. Murphy, are near the top of the Democratic priority lists. Both survived previous challenges with relative ease, but Democratic officials say that they face stronger candidates with more fund-raising ability this time around.

Businessman Steve O’Donnell emerged from a multi-candidate field that included the daughter of former Auditor General Barbara Hafer to win the right to take on Mr. Murphy. This district, the 18th, has a nominal Democratic registration edge, but it gave a majority to President Bush twice. The president, in fact, did better there in 2004 against Sen. John F. Kerry than he had against former Vice President Al Gore in 2000. Mr. O’Donnell can be expected to remind voters of charges that Mr. Murphy’s public staff improperly mixed governmental and political work. The charges, based in part on the comments of a staffer he has since fired, surfaced shortly before the 2006 election.

While they put Mr. Murphy on the defensive they had did little apparent harm to his re-election bid, which he won in a landslide.

“This could end up being a race to watch, but right now we don’t see it as a first, or even second tier race for the Democrats,” said the Rothenberg report’s Mr. Gonzales.

Mr. English, first elected in 1994, hasn’t had a tough election in more than a decade. This year, however, Democrats claim that his district, which extends from Erie to Pittsburgh’s northern suburbs, is ready for a change. His challenger is Kathy Dahlkemper, a first-time candidate. Ms. Dahlkemper, the director of the Lake Erie Arboretum, won a four-way Democratic primary.

Stephen Porter, the unsuccessful Democratic nominee for the seat in the past two elections, is running this year as an independent.

The poll, conducted 6/11-13 among 600 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/- 4%, and was conducted by Tel Opinion Research, a GOP firm in Alexandria, Virginia, on behalf of the Civitas Institute. Lieutenant Governor Beverly Perdue, the Democratic nominee, and Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory, the Republican standard-bearer, were tested, alongside Libertarian candidate Michael Munger.

General Election Matchup

(All / Dem / GOP / Ind / Men / Wom)

Perdue……..43 / 65 / 13 / 43 / 37 / 47

McCrory……41 / 16 / 74 / 39 / 44 / 38

Munger……….2 / 2 / 2 / 4 / 3 / 2

 Unfortunately for the GOP, the presidential election may send a higher turnout for black voters due to Barack Obama’s popularity with that demographic. However, if things stay normal McCrory has a chance to win. He will most likely be able to raise all the money he needs for an expensive state-wide battle. Additionally,  he has the added benefit of  a city machine to churn out votes and support in Charlotte which may be the ‘bump’ needed to win in what appears to be a likely razor thin margin of victory. 

The survey, taken 5/17-20 by the Mellman Group on Landrieu’s behalf, polled 600 likely voters for a margin of error of +/- 4%. Landrieu and State Treasurer John Kennedy, the likely Republican nominee, were tested.General Election MatchupLandrieu……..49 (+1 from last, 12/07)Kennedy……..33 (-2)

Many national Republicans no doubt hoped to play off a Bobby Jindal landslide win and have the wind at their backs with a state looking to go red. But Kennedy is an ex-Democrat himself (an economic populist at that) which may make it harder for GOP voters to truly understand what they are getting. Landrieu on the other hand, has enjoyed success and popularity in Louisiana for her response to Katrina and pushing the federal government for assistance in-spite of the state government (Democrats) getting booed out of power. Everyone knows that the GOP is in damage control right now and will exploit every opportunity they see for any possible victories. Thus far Kennedy has raised a considerable amount of money and national Republicans are very likely to dump all they can in this race despite any polls showing setbacks. This seat was targeted early last year for a possible win and I see no reason why the strategy for victory will change.

In a McCain administration, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson would play a dominant role in selecting Supreme Court nominees and other judicial appointments, sources close to the McCain campaign and to Thompson tell us.And why is Fred suddenly everywhere? These sources say that the agreement between McCain and Thompson is behind Thompson’s resurgence in the national media in recent weeks. In a McCain campaign conference call with reporters yesterday on last week’s Supreme Court decision on terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Thompson — without claiming such status — played the role of a prominent McCain adviser. Developing…

“We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run,” Mr. Obama said. “They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?” 

Continuing in a mocking tone, which he seldom shows in public, “He’s got a feisty wife.”Mr. Obama went on, “We know the strategy because they’ve already shown their cards. Ultimately I think the American people recognize that old stuff hasn’t moved us forward. That old stuff just divides us.”

Thank you Barack for the heads-up. Thank you for getting the race thing out there first before the evil white Republicans could. And by the way, we know your black (though your mother is white) you’ve made that clear enough for us. Now who is running on the ‘race’ thing and the fear factor?  

Hagel’s vocal criticism of the Bush administration since the 2003 invasion of Iraq has touched off speculation that if Obama were to pick a Republican running mate, it might be Hagel. Hagel said in an interview with The Associated Press that after devoting much of his life to his country — in the Senate and the U.S. Army — he would have to consider any offer.

“If it would occur, I would have to think about it,” Hagel said. “I think anybody, anybody would have to consider it. Doesn’t mean you’d do it, doesn’t mean you’d accept it, could be too many gaps there, but you’d have to consider it, it’s the only thing you could do. Why wouldn’t you?”

Read the FULL STORY

In a memo released Friday, McCain Campaign Senior Adviser Steve Schmidt paints Barack Obama as a flip-flopper to end a week that started with the campaign using some of it’s strongest language to date to cast the Democrat as weak on terror and believer in a “September 10th mentality.”“As we scrutinize Barack Obama’s words, it is increasingly difficult for those of us with the responsibility of following this year’s election closely to discern what Obama truly believes at his core on the issues of great importance to the American people,” Schmidt writes in the memo-as-press release sent to reporters this morning. (Full Memo after jump)Feeling a little bit of deja vu?Schmidt, of course, was one of the key strategists for the Bush-Cheney 2004 messaging team that successfully depicted John Kerry as a flip-flopper who put America’s security at risk. Can that strategy work again?For his part, Obama has been making it a bit easy of late. Seeking to exploit Obama’s evolution on issues as he shifts into general election mode–when most candidates turn towards the center on issues to attract moderates and independents–the McCain campaign uses yesterday’s flip by Obama on public financing, as a jumping off point to delve into other recent Obama policy shifts on NAFTA, Jerusalem and energy.(In all fairness, we should note that McCain is also guilty of some election year moves to the right on offshore oil drilling, immigration and the Bush tax cuts–that Democrats are attempting to use to chip away at the McCain-as-straight talking maverick image the Arizona Republican has crafted for years.)While the McCain campaign has been hammering Obama for months on his lack of foreign policy experience–one of his greatest vulnerabilities–the flip-flop narrative is a newer phenomenon.McCain recently got into the mix himself for the first time at a June 6 press conference when asked about Obama’s backtrack on an “undivided” Jerusalem.“I can’t react to every comment that Senator Obama makes because it will probably change,” McCain told reporters, before also slamming his opponent for his rhetorical dance on negotiating with Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.Obama is new to the national stage and has yet to firm up a narrative/image outside of “change” but will the flip-flop/words vs. actions label stick to the second straight Democratic nominee? Conversely, McCain has taken years to build up his reputation as an independent who will pave a middle path to achieve consensus, even sticking his finger in the eye of President Bush a few times, begging the question: can Democrats significantly damage his maverick label and succeed in casting him as Bush’s third term?The campaigns will be throwing every attack they have at one another during the next couple months to see what will stick for the general election. We shall see what works.Memo after the jump….To: Interested PartiesFrom: Steve Schmidt, McCain 2008 Senior AdvisorDate: June 20, 2008Re: Words MatterBarack Obama’s rapid ascent to the Democratic presidential nomination is nothing short of remarkable and historic. Much of this rise can be traced to the power of Barack Obama’s spoken and written words. As Barack Obama said during the primaries, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter.”Because of his rapid ascent and the relative lack of record from which the American people can judge, the words that Barack Obama uses deserve a level of scrutiny befitting the importance that he places on them. But when examined closely, more often than not these words are empty of any meaning in the light of his record and reality.As we scrutinize Barack Obama’s words, it is increasingly difficult for those of us with the responsibility of following this year’s election closely to discern what Obama truly believes at his core on the issues of great importance to the American people.Obama’s Words On Public Financing: Just yesterday, Barack Obama reversed his position on accepting general election public financing. This change in position comes after nearly two years of speaking to and signing his name to his commitment to the public financing system.In June 2006, Barack Obama said quite clearly, “I strongly support public financing”:OBAMA: “Well, I strongly support public financing. And I know [Senator] Dick [Durbin] does too. He’s going to have some things to say about it because when we were having - as you’ll recall - the major debates around lobbying reform, one of the things that Dick, I think, properly pointed out was that you can change the rules on lobbying here in Washington, but if we’re still getting financed primarily from individual contributions, that those with the most money are still going to have the most influence.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Constituents Breakfast, 6/29/06)In November 2007, Barack Obama signed his name to his commitment to accept public financing as his party’s general election nominee:QUESTION: “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?” OBAMA: “Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Presidential Candidate Questionnaire,” Midwest Democracy Network, www.commoncause.org, 11/27/07)In February 2008, Barack Obama said that he would meet and “sit down with John McCain” to discuss and negotiate public financing were he to be his party’s nominee:NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “So you may opt out of public financing. You may break your word.” Obama: “What I - what I have said is, at the point where I’m the nominee, at the point where it’s appropriate, I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody.” (Democratic Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/0Yet, in the end, Barack Obama’s words were empty and he decided to break his pledge to accept public financing in the general election.Obama’s Words On Running A Different Type Of Campaign: The McCain campaign has made a good faith effort to reach out to Barack Obama offering to go Iraq together and hold 10 joint town hall meetings. These offers came after Barack Obama pledged to meet “anywhere, anytime”:OBAMA: “I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy. If John McCain wants to meet me anywhere, anytime, to have a debate about our respective policies in Iraq, Iran, the Middle East or around the world, that is a conversation I am happy to have. Because I believe that there is no separation between John McCain and George Bush when it comes to our Middle East policy and I think their policy has failed.” (Barack Obama, Media Availability, Watertown, SD, 5/16/0However, Barack Obama has rejected each and every offer to raise the dialogue in this campaign. As the St. Petersburg Times wrote today, Barack Obama’s words come down to “cynical political calculations,” not the new politics he promised:“Avoiding town hall meetings and rejecting public campaign financing may be predictable strategies for minimizing one of McCain’s greatest strengths and exploiting one of his key weaknesses. But they pull Obama down into the cynical political calculations he pledged to rise above.” (Editorial, “Obama’s Big Words Ring Hollow,” St. Petersburg Times, 6/20/0Obama’s Words On The 2005 Energy Bill: As part of his standard stump speech, Barack Obama criticizes the Bush-Cheney energy policy. However, not spoken is the fact that he voted for the Bush-Cheney energy policy in 2005.On the campaign trail, Barack Obama has criticized the Bush-Cheney energy bill:OBAMA: “When Bush assigned Cheney to create energy policy, he met with the environmental groups once, the renewable energy groups once, he met with the oil and gas companies 40 times. Washington has become so dominated by the powerful, by the well-connected, that the voices of the American people are no longer heard.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Detroit, MI, 6/16/0This is good rhetoric but it does not match the record. The energy policy that he assails for being a Bush-Cheney creation for the benefit of the oil companies is the very same energy policy he voted for in the 2005 Energy Bill. Again, Barack Obama’s words on energy are empty and actually contrary to his own public record.Obama’s Words On Trade: Barack Obama claims that he believes in free trade. However, a headline in the Detroit Free Press captures the internal conflict of Barack Obama’s words - “Obama Tries to Have it Both Ways on Free Trade Issue.” Barack Obama says, “I believe in free trade” but “then he reverted to the anti-trade rhetoric of the primaries.” We all recall Obama adviser Austin Goolsbee dismissing his candidate’s own rhetoric as primary politics. In light of this, Barack Obama’s words on the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) deserve even greater scrutiny.During the primaries, Barack Obama pledged to unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA:NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “A simple question. Will you as president say to Canada and Mexico, this [NAFTA] has not worked for us, we are out?” OBAMA: “I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about, and I think actually Senator Clinton’s answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.” (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/0However, in the general election, Barack Obama is backing off these words which were pretty clear. Now, Barack Obama says his words are not to be believed if they are “overheated and amplified.”“In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA. ‘Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,’ he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA ‘devastating’ and ‘a big mistake,’ despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.” (Nina Easton, “Obama: NAFTA Not So Bad After All,” Fortune, 6/18/0Obama’s Words On His Tax Hikes: Barack Obama has made tax increases a centerpiece of his economic agenda. However, when asked by CNBC’s John Harwood if he would be willing to hold off on raising taxes if he thought they might harm the economy, Barack Obama said:OBAMA: “Some of those, you could possibly defer. But I think the basic principle of restoring fairness to our economy and encouraging bottom-up economic growth is important.” (CNBC, 6/9/0This is a tacit acknowledgment that his tax increases would hurt the economy and American workers. Likewise, Barack Obama consistently attacks John McCain for favoring “tax breaks to corporations.” Yet, he recently told The Wall Street Journal that he too was considering cutting corporate taxes. Just last month, Barack Obama called corporate tax cuts “the exact wrong prescription for America.” On one day, Barack Obama took two positions on one issue, again leaving observers and voters unsure of what he really believes.Obama’s Words On Iraq: Throughout the primaries, Barack Obama has been determined to withdraw from Iraq regardless of the consequences or the facts on the ground. This week, Barack Obama talked with the Iraqi Foreign Minister. According to The Washington Post, the Foreign Minister left the conversation “reassured” and thinking “that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain.”The ABC News headline captures this perplexing issue clearly: “Obama and Iraqi Foreign Minister have Different Memories of their Conversation.” In our foreign policy, we cannot afford a president whose public words are discounted by allies and enemies alike.Obama’s Words On Jerusalem: For weeks, debate has swirled around Barack Obama’s use of the word “undivided” in his speech before the Annual AIPAC Policy Conference. In the end, the American people are left with a confused position that is constantly being reinterpreted by advisors because “undivided” was nothing more than an empty word with great symbolism but no weight.Before the Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Barack Obama clearly said that Jerusalem should be the “undivided” capital of Israel. Barack Obama and his advisers knew what this word would mean to his audience.OBAMA: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/0Yet, only a day later, Barack Obama said the future of Jerusalem would have to be negotiated by Israel and the Palestinians. Barack Obama was no longer prepared to say that Jerusalem should be undivided.CNN’S CANDY CROWLEY: “I want to ask you about something you said in AIPAC yesterday. You said that Jerusalem must remain undivided. Do Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem in the future?” OBAMA: “Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 6/5/0

McCain raised $21 million in May and ended the month with $31.6 million in the bank. Of Obama’s cash on hand, $10 million is available only for the general election, leaving him with about $33 million to use between now and the party conventions in late summer. Obama reported debts of $304,000; McCain had debts of $1.3 million.

Read the FULL STORY