2008 Senate

The political career of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens is not dead yet. The 84-year-old Republican facing seven felony charges won the state's Republican primary yesterday with 63 percent of the vote.

Stevens recently lost a motion to move his upcoming trial to Alaska. The trial is scheduled to begin in Washington, D.C., on September 22, potentially keeping Stevens off the campaign trail for weeks.

Despite these challenges and a recent poll which show him behind Democratic challenger Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich by 17 points, yesterday Stevens defiantly called his re-election prospects a "piece of cake."

The fate of Stevens's troubled fellow state Republican Don Young, Alaska's sole U.S. representative, remains unclear. His primary battle with Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell is still too close to call.

This is what happens when a Democrat embraces domestic energy production. In what was considered by most (including myself) as the most vulnerable senate seat in the country, Mary Landrieu has opened up a 16 point lead. Part of this is a big problem on the part of the Republicans to capitalize on an opportunity, but Rasmussen suggests another possibility.

At the same time, Landrieu has been one of the few Democrats to openly support calls for lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling. That issue is very popular with voters nationwide and in Louisiana. Last month's poll found that 75% of Louisiana voters favored offshore drilling.When "leaners" are included in the current polling, it's Landrieu 56% Kennedy 39%. Landrieu is seeking her third six-year term.

So while Daily Kos is crowing about their senate opportunities, they still are apparently oblivious to the reason that their most vulnerable Democrat is flying high. Stop and think what this election would look like if the Democrats jettisoned the environmental lobby and started campaigning on domestic energy, domestic energy jobs, and domestic energy production... in all shapes and sizes including oil.

The Republicans would be sunk. Good thing for them it won't happen.

Via a RNC memo, the GOP caucus in the House of Representatives is successfully attracting some names to their protest:

House Republican leaders confirmed today that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) will join House Republicans' ongoing national protest over the decision by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to adjourn the House without a vote on legislation to lower gas prices and increase American energy production. The former Speaker will join House Republicans in the Capitol on Wednesday morning to deliver a message of on behalf of the 1.4 million Americans who have signed a petition demanding that Congress increase American energy production.

Newt's always been good at this revolutionary kind of stuff, but his cachet has sagged as of late. No word from McCain yet as to whether he will show up. Minority leader John Boehner is also "live blogging" and I am glad to see that my own representative Jean Schmidt from OH-2 is there as well. I put the live blogging in quotes, because I really doubt that Mr. Boehner himself is sitting down at the keyboard scratching out a post. Plus the frequency is not all that high for a real live blog. But two hours is good and whatever staffer is assigned seems to be on top of things.

You've got to admit, the House Republicans have jumped on this issue like it's their best hope of having a decent November. Probably because it is. But yes, on the issues, it is crazy that we're paying high fuel costs yet have energy resources that we won't go after.

A recent USA Today/Gallup poll of registered voters shows that Congress's historically low approval ratings could come back to bite majority Democrats in this year's Congressional elections. In the poll, taken last week before Congress recessed for August, just 36% of respondents say that most members of Congress deserve reelection. Gallup reported similarly low levels in three prior elections: 1992, 1994, and 2006. In all three of those election years, there was a higher than usual turnover of incumbent seats; and in the last two, control of Congress changed hands.

On the bright side for members of Congress worried about their reelection chances, the same poll finds a majority of respondents support their own Congressman's reelection. Fifty-seven percent said that their representative was deserving of being returned to Washington. But Gallup cautions that result is, "on the low end of what Gallup has measured historically for one's own member."

The Gallup data should serve as a warning to majority Democrats in Congress. In this election year, believed to be ripe with advantages for Democrats, the public increasingly views Congress as fundamentally disconnected from the will of the people. A "throw the bums out" mood appears to be building within the electorate. That could conceivably sweep Republicans out just as easily as Democrats. In fact, Gallup reports that Democratic incumbents fare slightly better than their Republican counterparts in the poll, however, Democrats are in control of Congress. If the public continues to sour on Congress's performance, Democrats will take a disproportionally larger hit than minority Republicans. It will likely not change the balance of power in the House or Senate, but it could limit Republican losses or even produce modest gains. That would leave House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) short of their goal of achieving a veto proof majority in Congress.

The debate over who played the race card last week, if anyone did, is starting to peter out, and it seems that everyone is willing to walk away from the issue with minor dents on Obama, and nary a scratch on John McCain.

Obama's remarks about not looking like the faces on U.S. currency were either about race or not, but presumably, they were about the same thing that McCain's use of Obama on the $100 bill was about.

Less clear to me, at least, is whether the McCain campaign was using subtle racial messaging in its "Celeb" ad. My colleague, Caleb Howe, joins the Daily Show's Jon Stewart in mocking the notion that the inclusion of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears in the ad was a nod to miscegenation, similar to the ads run against Harold ford, Jr.

As I reported last week, I missed it at first, too. Stewart and I, not being from the South, are far less attuned to the "white women with black men" aspect of racism. Up here, the racism is mostly about crime and employment.

The thing about subtle racial coding is this: It's subtle and coded. Luckily, David Gergen is familiar with Republican messaging, and acts as a Rosetta Stone for us in this clip:

Today a "gang of 10" senators showed up in the news putting together a plan that puts conservation together with, yes, drilling offshore. Here's Neil Abercrombie, a Democratic Senator from Hawaii:

"If we're going to go to talk to the American worker and say we're looking out for their interests, to automatically dismiss the idea that it's possible to drill in the OCS in a way that will be environmentally safe...I think that will harm us politically," Abercrombie said in an interview.

Speaking on this proposal, Barack Obama himself appears to be at least preparing to throw his environmentalist buddies (and Al Gore) under the Jeremiah Wright bus:

"My attitude is that we can find some sort of compromise," Obama told the Times shortly after talking with voters at Gibbs High School. "If it is part of an overarching package, then I am not going to be rigid in preventing an energy package that goes forward that is really thoughtful and is going to really solve the problem."

Translated: 'Hell if you're going to trap me into voting against this in an election year." Message to Reid and Pelosi: Don't let this get near a real vote, because I won't be able to help you. And helloooo new offshore drilling.

To dismayed Democrats who think that drilling won't make a difference: What did you expect. Polls are polls and they speak louder than money or grassroots activists in an election year. The politicians first responsibility is to get and stay elected. The American people overwhelmingly support new drilling as a part of an overall energy program and the Republicans have been relentless.

And it appears that the best case scenario is unfolding for the GOP. The Democratic cave in will occur, but it will occur only after it is apparent that the Democrats had to be dragged kicking and screaming. The GOP gets their preferred policy enacted, but also will be able to wring maximum political effect from it during a presidential election.

Sorry about being a sort of one trick pony with my last few posts about drilling, but it is the salient political issue of the summer and it is generating a lot of good political theater. This one is from Mitch McConnell, who ran this little maneuver yesterday:

Obviously this is political theater, Ken Salazar was certainly not going to agree on behalf of the entire Democratic party to drill at a set price. In fact his only role here is to represent his party to stop anything real from happening. But Mitch McConnell takes the opportunity to point out that the current Democratic position is that we will not touch offshore oil and oil in ANWR at any price, which is insane. And he does it in a nice quick sound-bite.

Hat tip to Redstate, who points out that the Democrats want Mitch McConnell gone.

Salon had an interesting pair of articles today about the Democrats dilemma with their blue dogs in congress. These are Democratic congressman who are either conservative, or in the center on many issues. They have given the president many victories in a Democratically controlled congress. FISA and funds for the Iraq War among those.

Here's Greenwald:

If simply voting for more Democrats will achieve nothing in the way of meaningful change, what, if anything, will? At minimum, two steps are required to begin to influence Democratic leaders to change course: 1) Impose a real political price that they must pay when they capitulate to -- or actively embrace -- the right's agenda and ignore the political values of their base, and 2) decrease the power and influence of the conservative "Blue Dog" contingent within the Democratic caucus, who have proved excessively willing to accommodate the excesses of the Bush administration, by selecting their members for defeat and removing them from office. And that means running progressive challengers against them in primaries, or targeting them with critical ads, even if doing so, in isolated cases, risks the loss of a Democratic seat in Congress.

Oh sure, by all means, run a more progressive candidate against Zack Space in OH, who lucked out in a +R district by running against indicted Bob Ney who had to drop out at the last minute. Or knock out Heath Shuler in North Carolina and give the district back to the Republicans pronto. Both of these guys voted for FISA, and need to stay somewhat conservative or they lose their seats. it's really that simple.

Ed Kilgore has a more level-headed approach:

But even if I'm wrong about everything I've said until now, the biggest and most obvious problem with a vengeful effort to discipline Democrats deemed to have failed to stand up to Bush is that this whole measurement is about to become moot, particularly if Barack Obama wins in November. In an Obama administration, all the arguments about which tactic or strategy congressional Democrats should have used to win or "take a stand" on this or that issue in the Bush era will be relevant only in terms of which Bush policies can be reversed, since we'll have a president and a Democratic congressional majority that's -- for the first time, perhaps, since 1965 -- basically pulling in the same direction.

Well, actually it would be the first time since 1992, but I don't blame Ed for wanting to forget about the lost chances and missed opportunities (for Democrats) of that era, which ended when the door slammed shut with a thud for them in 1994. But his point is correct. The point of having the majority in a legislature is the ability to set the agenda, not a guaranteed pass for whatever you want. And in order to get the ability to set the agenda, you must have a broad coalition that includes conservatives and centrists, or liberals and centrists if you are a Republican. And then, if the stars are aligned, and you can make the case to the American people, you might actually get some game-changing legislation passed. If you have the majority and a president willing to sign it.

Which should remind us that in the American system of government it is very, very hard to pass legislation that doesn't have a broad consensus. And that's the whole point.

From the Justice Department comes word that Senator Ted Stevens (the longest serving Republican Senator in U.S. history) has been officially indicted today on 7 criminal counts of making false statements. Among the things he is accused of lying about to federal investigators is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from a private company, including various home improvements and new furniture. The good folks at Talking Points Memo have been all over this story from the very beginning. Their voluminous archive of stories on the Stevens investigation can be found here.

Stevens, of "Bridge to Nowhere" fame, has long been an embarrassment for the GOP. His temper has erupted on the floor of the Senate more than once, and he's come to be seen as a symbol of both corruption and pork-barrel spending among Democrats and Republicans alike.

But for many, Stevens will best be remembered for his bizarre, bumbling description of the internet as "a series of tubes." That performance quickly became a re-mixed YouTube hit.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to get to a middle path that responds to voter anger about high gas prices and does not tick off the environmental lobby.

A group of influential Senate and House Democrats has sided with environmental groups against Reid to call exploration in new areas unnecessary.

The legislation, drafted by Reid and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), would open nearly a billion new acres off the coast of Alaska to study for drilling. It would also dramatically accelerate oil leases in the western and central Gulf of Mexico.

"I am unalterably opposed to drilling," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who cited a massive oil spill that closed nearly 100 miles of the Mississippi River last week.

Translated, the middle ground here is basically non-existent. Democrats are exposed on one side to allegations that they don't care about low income drivers, for whom high food and gas prices take a much bigger budget bite, and allegations on the other side that they don't care about the environment.

Harry Reid clearly feels like he has to do something, but the path he has chosen only serves, apparently, to tick off both sides. Again, this is one of those either or situations: Drill or not. The environmental lobby should be prepared to give up a lot to preserve Democratic seats and appear concerned about the middle class. But so far, that's not happening.

John McCain should send Greenpeace a thank you card.