What Passage Means for Prop 2

The Michigan Court of Appeals is preventing health insurance from going to partners of gay employees at public universities and local governments in Michigan while it examines whether or not that health insurance is constitutional there in light of the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage passed in November 2004. This is due to the actions of the Democratic governor, Jennifer Granholm. Imagine what Texas, with its Republican governor will do if the absolute nonsense that is Proposition 2 passes. This is why these amendments are about more than the definition of marriage -- they're also about making life harder for gay people in as many ways as possible.

Samuel Alito

It looks like Bush has nominated 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Samuel Alito to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat as she retires. The fight is on. Alito's philosophy is bears little resemblance to O'Connor's. From ThinkProgress:

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.” [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.” [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]

Watch Virginia

Will 2005 be a sign of good things to come for Democrats, or for Republicans? Or will it be an isolated blip on the political radar, signifying nothing? Well, my answer is, "Watch Virginia." The New York City mayoral race appears destined to deliver a landslide for incumbent Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The New Jersey governorship appears likely to be won handily by Democratic Senator Jon Corzine.

The Virginia race, though, will be close. Democratic Lt Governor Tim Kaine seems to have taken a small lead over State Attorney General Jerry Kilgore. The latest Washington Post poll has Kaine leading 47% to 44%. The latest Rasmussen poll has Kaine leading 46% to 44%. The problem for Kilgore is partly national and partly personal. In a normal year, put a finger on the scale in favor of the Republican candidate in Virginia. But Bush is bringing him down and creating a close race. Meanwhile, popular outgoing Democratic Governor Mark Warner is bringing Kaine up. To some extent though, Kilgore's problem stems from campaign missteps. He invoked Hitler in a campaign ad, which is never ever ever a smart move, saying Kaine would not have favored the death penalty for him. And when faced with a hardhitting ad from Kaine featuring a paraplegic man criticizing Kilgore's stance on stem cell research, the Kilgore campaign did the unthinkable. They attacked the paraplegic man's credibility.

Anyway, Kilgore may still pull it off. It's close is all I'm saying. If Kilgore does win, 2005 probably cannot be seen as evidence of a Democratic wave. If on the other hand, Kaine wins in light red Virginia, it could be a sign of bad news for Republicans. Especially if Democrats gain seats in the Virginia legislature. According to the Washington Post, several races for seats in the House of Delegates are tightening in an uncomfortable way for Republicans. Republicans currently hold 24 out of 40 seats in the State Senate and 61 out of 100 in the House of Delegates. Also, there are two down-ballot statewide races, for Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General. Both are likely to be close as well. If Kaine wins, and Democrats have any further good news on top of that, it's probably a sign of problems for Republicans in times to come.

Libby Indicted

A bad week for Bush. First, Harriet Miers withdraws. Now the Vice President's Chief of Staff has been indicted. AP:

Vice presidential adviser I. Lewis "Scooter' Libby Jr. was indicted Friday on charges of obstruction of justice, making a false statement and perjury in the CIA leak case. Karl Rove, President Bush's closest adviser, apparently escaped indictment Friday but remained under investigation, his legal status a looming political problem for the White House.

The indictments stem from a two-year investigation by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into whether Rove, Libby or any other administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame or lied about their involvement to investigators. The five-count indictment accuses Libby of lying about how and when he learned about CIA official Valerie Plane's identity in 2003 and then told reporters about it. The information was classified. Any trial would shine a spotlight on the secret deliberations of Bush and his team as they built the case for war against Iraq.

Karl Rove is apparently still under investigation by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (emphasis mine):

Fitzgerald has been looking for weeks at whether Rove gave false testimony during his four grand jury appearances. Rove's lawyer recently waged a furious effort to convince the prosecutor that any misstatements were unintentional or were corrected.

"The special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he has made no decision about whether or not to bring charges," attorney Robert Luskin said. "We are confident that when the special counsel finishes his work, he will conclude that Mr. Rove has done nothing wrong."

Prosecutors identified Rove in the Libby indictment only as "Official A," recounting a conversation he had with Libby about Plame and Wilson in the days just before the CIA operative's identity was revealed. The mention could make Rove a witness at any Libby trial.

I don't know whether Libby or Rove are guilty or not, but I'm pretty ashamed of the White House for allowing the leak of a former undercover CIA agent, regardless of whether or not it was intentional. Here's what I think is the "best case scenario" for the Republicans here:

Reporters found out from Rove, who found out from Libby. Libby found out from Vice President Cheney. Cheney found out from mid-level CIA bureaucrats who are friends and allies of the Vice President through personal unofficial conversations. Those agents knew who Plame was, but didn't know she had ever been undercover and didn't convey the fact that her employment was classified to the Vice President. This "best case scenario" makes it directly the fault of the mid-level CIA bureaucrats, but implicates Libby, Rove, and Cheney for neglecting to make sure Plame never worked undercover. Maybe not a crime, but certainly not the way I want my government to behave.

And the deliberate outing of an undercover agent probably had consequences we'll never know about. Other nations probably immediately went through Plame's history to find out if she had any contacts there. Those contacts probably were compromised, but we'll never have any direct evidence of that. Such is the nature of the cloak of secrecy surrounding espionage and counter-espionage. In addition, this will make recruiting spies in other countries more difficult. If we don't protect our own, why would they work for us? In other words, the leak is probably a bigger deal than the media is making it out to be.

Indictment Potpourri

Looks like Scooter Libby will likely be indicted tomorrow by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Karl Rove may not be indicted.

Tom Noe, the Republican apparatchik and coindealer whose malfeasance spawned Ohio's Coingate scandal was indicted for money laundering.

Both parties have problems it seems. Democratic former Alabama Governor and current gubernatorial candidate Don Sieglman was indicted on 30 counts! Including "widespread racketeering". Withdraw, man! For the good of the party.

Sulu Comes Out

Kudos!

George Takei, who as helmsman Sulu steered the Starship Enterprise through three television seasons and six movies, has come out as a homosexual in the current issue of Frontiers, a biweekly Los Angeles magazine covering the gay and lesbian community.

Takei told The Associated Press on Thursday that his new onstage role as psychologist Martin Dysart in "Equus," helped inspire him to publicly discuss his sexuality.

Takei described the character as a "very contained but turbulently frustrated man." The play opened Wednesday at the David Henry Hwang Theater in Los Angeles, the same day that Frontiers magazine featured a story on Takei's coming out.

The current social and political climate also motivated Takei's disclosure, he said.

"The world has changed from when I was a young teen feeling ashamed for being gay," he said. "The issue of gay marriage is now a political issue. That would have been unthinkable when I was young."

The 68-year-old actor said he and his partner, Brad Altman, have been together for 18 years.

Harriet Miers Withdraws

Alas poor Harriet. Rather than twisting in the wind, she elected to withdraw her nomination. A wise move considering she would likely not have been confirmed. Here's Newsday's take:

For President George W. Bush, it's the political equivalent of tearing off a Band-Aid quickly -- pulling Harriet Miers' Supreme Court nomination as the White House braces for possible indictments today.

Like with the bandage, all that bad news would hurt a whole lot -- but then Republicans hope Bush could at least try to start the recovery process and move forward.
It won't be easy. Bush already is struggling with low approval ratings, Tuesday's 2,000-dead milestone for American troops in Iraq, falling consumer confidence and high gasoline prices.

The Miers withdrawal is deeply embarrassing to Bush, who should be able to get his pick of Supreme Court justices with a 55-seat Senate GOP majority.

Instead, he was forced to cave in to conservative opposition instead of trying to muscle Miers through -- a sure sign of his politically weakened state and an apparent recognition by the White House that it can't fight a two-front battle, over Miers and over any possible indictments.

Why did Miers' nomination go so poorly? Well, several reasons. First, Bush is unpopular right now. He has no political capital to spend, leaving him all the more adrift in the political currents of Congress and the conservative media elites. Second, Miers is too close to Bush, especially after fellow crony Mike Brown's performance during Katrina. Third, Miers did not have impeccable credentials, which also opened a general line of assault for those who didn't like her for other reasons. And fourth, Miers' record provided mixed signals as to her political and judicial philosophy, allowing moderates to find her too conservative, and especially allowing conservatives to find her too moderate. In the end, the lack of conservative support did her nomination in.

In my opinion, Bush will probably respond with a far-right conservative female judge like Edith Jones or Priscilla Owen, both of whom would be unacceptable to Democrats. Conservatives want to pick a fight, and if Bush shies away from it, he'll lose their respect for a long time. Of course, he may lose the fight he picks. After the Gang of 14 averted the nuclear option showdown earlier this year, it's not clear the Replicans would be able to break a Democratic filibuster. And they have just belied their talking point about every nominee deserving a vote on the Senate floor. Not to mention if it looks too obvious that a nominee would vote to overturn Roe v Wade, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee might just vote against her. I'm starting to wonder if he isn't actually independent of James Dobson after all.

DeLay Wins Paper Shredder at Auction

From Raw Story:

Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) bid on a wicker basket two weekends ago at the Needville Harvest Festival in Fort Bend County in his home state. And he won not just the basket, but the gadget inside it, too — a paper shredder, Roll Call's Mary Anne Akers reports Tuesday.

The shredder purchase would have perhaps remained a secret if DeLay’s potential 2006 Democratic opponent, Nick Lampson, hadn’t gleefully spilled the beans at a fundraiser last week. A national political reporter was also on hand at the festival to witness the basket/shredder bid. (So stay tuned for more details, including how much the Hammer paid for the shredder.)

A former House Member who was victimized by the redistricting engineered by DeLay, Lampson is having a ball telling the story of DeLay’s rather ironic purchase.

An ironic purchase indeed.

Re-thinking Save Texas Marriage Again

So I'd be a pretty horrible politician, always flip-flopping on things. I'm reconsidering whether or not I think the Save Texas Marriage argument is a good idea. Basically the argument is that Proposition 2 is so poorly worded, it could actually be interpreted as outlawing marriage altogether.

At first, I thought the argument was humorous and creative. Then my second-guessing nature took over and I worried that it was a risky argument to make. If the media didn't buy it, it might backfire and Save Texas Marriage itself could become the issue.

But now I'm reconsidering that. Basically, this is a Texas campaign, not a national campaign. The Texas media has pretty clearly stated its distaste for Proposition 2. And most people are not interested in this election at all, much less this particular proposition. I think, after all, the Save Texas Marriage argument looks like it could fly just enough under the radar to not provoke a hostile media response, and just enough "on" the radar to get into the public's back-of-the-mind.

So is Save Texas Marriage a good idea? I don't know. I think there are better reasons to vote against Proposition 2 (like that it's discriminatory, divisive and unnecessary), but the group's argument does point out how poorly worded the proposition is. I suppose if it works, it was a good idea. But I think gay rights groups should be wary of reusing it in future elections. It's playing with fire.

I Voted

I voted today at the Randall's on South Mopac. Have you voted yet?

Anti-Prop 2 Flyers

I finally got scans of the flyers I helped distibute in Central Austin the other day volunteering for No Nonsense in November.

The Front, asking people to vote against Constitutional Amendment 2 and clearly identifying who is behind the flyers:



The Back, telling people where the early voting locations in the Austin metro area are:

One More Poll

Forgot one:

It looks like Maine's ballot proposition repealing civil rights bills passed by the state legislature to protect gays and lesbians is going to fail.

Against: 56%
For: 42%

Wouldn't it be great if on the same day that Maine rejects anti-gay discrimination, Texas does too?

Yard Sign Glamour Shots

Ok it's my first yard sign. So sue me if I give my yard sign glamour shots:




Just so you know, this is not the sign's permanent location. I'm well aware that placing a yard sign behind a bush would not be particularly helpful. But for the glamour shots, I thought it looked better.

Vote No on Proposition 2!

Polling Roundup

Lots of polls out today. Take a look:

Survery USA released its latest 50-state poll of all US Senators' approval ratings. Several Senators recovered their ratings to the point that it changes their rankings in my amateur ranking system, including Senators Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Conrad Burns of Montana and Jim Talent of Missouri. Senator George Allen of Virginia declined to under 50%, making him more vulnerable according to my system. Unfortunately, I'm inclined to believe my earlier ranking for all of these Senators over their new ranking. Perhaps, I need to adjust my system somehow. I'll be thinking about it.

Survey USA also released Tom DeLay's approval rating (45%) in his own district (TX-22). Also, 42% in his district think he should resign from Congress. Make no mistake, TX-22 will be a competetive district.

Strategic Vision, a Republican polling outfit, released a Michigan poll. The poll gave Governor Jennifer Granholm (D) an approval rating of 44% and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D) an approval rating of 42% (which conflicts dramatically with Survey USA's poll above). Bush had an approval rating in Michigan of 34%. Both Granholm and Stabenow lead their opponents but are under 50%, an indication of vulnerability. I'm inclined to be a little skeptical since Strategic Vision is a Republican poll, but in a normal year, both the Michigan Governor and Senator should be vulnerable.

Stabenow 47%
Butler 28%

Granholm 46%
DeVos 35%

Quinnipiac has a poll out for the New York City Mayor's race. It looks like Mayor Bloomberg (R) will win re-election in a landslide:

Bloomberg 61%
Ferrer 30%

The Arizona Republic has a poll out. Governor Janet Napolitano (D) looks increasingly safe with a 57% approval rating. Bush has a 43% approval rating in the state of Arizona.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup has a poll out too. If there were an election today between Bush and a generic Democrat, the generic Democrat would win. Of course, no Presidential candidate ever gets treated generically in the end. But sometimes, Congressional candidates are. And that is usually a good thing. That's why Democrats should completely ignore Republican taunting about "not standing for anything" and being "the party of NO", at least until shortly before the election. It's where we want to be for now.

Generic Democrat 55%
Bush 39%

In Maryland, the Republican Governor, Bob Ehrlich, and Senatorial candidate Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, appear to be floundering against their likely Democratic opponents, according to a poll by Gonzales Research and Marketing Strategies.

Ehrlich (R) 42%
O'Malley (D) 48%

Steele (R) 38%
Cardin (D) 47%

Meanwhile, Republicans lead by narrow margins in Virginia, according to a Times-Dispatch poll:

Governor:

Kilgore (R): 44%
Kaine (D): 42%

Lt Governor:

Bolling (R): 41%
Byrne (D): 37%

Attorney General:

McDonnell (R): 42%
Deeds (D): 34%

Whew! Lots of polls! Enjoy!

The Problem With Save Texas Marriage

Alright, so in my previous post this evening, I was admittedly amused by the robo-call I got from Save Texas Marriage. But on further reflection, I think I agree with Charles Kuffner that this isn't the best argument we can make against Proposition 2. Proposition 2 will cause real damage to real families. But I doubt it will ever be used to overturn marriage in Texas.

Simply put, judges in Texas are elected. It would be political suicide for an elected official in Texas to forcibly divorce everyone in the state, even if the plain meaning of the amendment does look like it could be interpreted that way. And because of this little bit of common sense, the media might decide to take Save Texas Marriage to task, and make the group's outlandish claims the issue. If Save Texas Marriage becomes an issue in the campaign, the tactic will have backfired.

All this talk of unintended consequences stems from the very serious fact that the proposition is poorly worded and could be interpreted broadly and in many different ways depending on the inclinations of a particular judge. That is one of the many reasons to vote against the proposition. In my post, Distributing Flyers, I go over that and other reasons to vote against Proposition 2. I sincerely hope the voters will consider those reasons and vote against the senseless and spiteful ostracism of gay Texans out of a sense of moral duty.

Proposition 2 Roundup

Early voting has begun, and will continue through Nov 4. Turnout is already heavy at UT.

All major newspapers in Texas have come out against Proposition 2, including the Bryan-College Station Eagle, my parents' hometown paper.

The KKK is rallying in Austin for Proposition 2 on November 5. With enemies like these, who needs friends?

I got a robo-call from Save Texas Marriage arguing that, in fact, Proposition 2 will actually ban all marriage. I can see their point -- The ballot language says it is "prohibiting the state... from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage." There is only one possible legal status identical to marriage, and that is... marriage.

I put up a yard sign I got from No Nonsense in November -- my first yard sign ever. I hope to get a picture up tomorrow, along with a picture of an anti-Prop 2 flyer.

I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing to feel hopeful about this, but I do. Imagine the message it will send if Texas actually defeats an anti-gay ballot measure. It would be amazing if it came close, considering the 11 similar ballot measures that passed all around the country last year.

Early Voting Begins on Prop 2

Looks like every major newspaper in Texas has come out against Proposition 2 (via Burnt Orange Report). I've heard through the grapevine that according to Proposition 2 supporters' own polling, Texans only very narrowly support the measure. That means it comes down to turnout, and Proposition 2 really could be defeated. And the opposition movement seems much more organized and professional than the supporters. Please get out and vote early. BOR also provides a list of polling places in Austin where you can vote early for the next two weeks:

Central

* Randalls (35th Street)
1500 West 35th Street
* Fiesta Mart
3909 North IH35 @ Delwood
* Travis County Airport Boulevard Offices
5501 Airport Boulevard
* Travis County Courthouse
1000 Guadalupe Street, 1st floor
* University of Texas
Flawn Academic Center lobby, West Mall

East

* Northeast Health Center (Springdale Shopping Center)
7112 Ed Bluestein Boulevard, Suite 155
* HEB (East 7th)
2701 East 7th Street @ Pleasant Valley (temp. bldg. in parking lot)

North

* Randalls (Parmer Lane)
1700 West Parmer Lane @ Metric Boulevard

Northeast

* County Tax Office, Pflugerville
15822 Foothill Farms Loop, just off Pecan Street, Pflugerville
* Albertson's (North Lamar)
11331 North Lamar Boulevard @ Braker (temp. bldg. in parking lot)

Northwest

* HEB (Four Points)
7301 FM 620 North @ RR 2222 (temp. bldg. in parking lot)
* Randalls (Research)
10900-D Research Boulevard @ Braker

South

* Randalls (Ben White)
2025 West Ben White Boulevard @ Manchaca
* HEB (South Congress)
2400 South Congress Avenue @ Oltorf (temp. bldg. in parking lot)

Southeast

* Albertson's (Riverside)
1819 South Pleasant Valley Road @ Riverside (temp. bldg. in parking lot)
* Albertson's (Stassney)
5510 South IH35 @ Stassney

Southwest

* Randalls (Brodie)
9911 Brodie Lane @ Slaughter
* Randalls (South Mopac)
6600 South Mopac Expressway @ William Cannon

West

* Randalls (Lakeway)
2303 RR 620 South
* Randalls (Bee Caves)
3300 Bee Caves Road

Get out and vote! No on Proposition 2!

Miers Probably Won't Be Confirmed

It seems Harriet Miers has run into a snag. At the moment, according to Senator Schumer, Harriet Miers probably doesn't have the votes to get confirmed either on the Senate floor, or on the Judiciary Committee. The White House has begun making contingency plans to withdraw her nomination. But it's not just Democrats opposing her. Republicans, especially but not exclusively conservative Washington intellectuals, have been savaging her in the press. And Republican staffers don't exactly love her either. Criticism of Miers from fellow Republicans has helped the American public drive down Bush's poll numbers even further. Americans now think that Bush values loyalty over competence in his appointments, and consequently don't support Miers' nomination like they did with John Roberts earlier this year. So now the media is looking into Miers' background for scandals to report. I'm inclined to think Miers' nomination is in trouble.

Here's what I think will happen. Some conservative Republican on the Judiciary Committee, probably Tom Coburn or Sam Brownback, or maybe Lindsey Graham or Orrin Hatch, will oppose her based on her qualifications. Every Democrat on the Committee will probably oppose her too, except maybe Diane Feinstein. She'll be defeated in committee, and Republicans will blame Democrats for not allowing an up-or-down vote, even though most Senators of both parties probably don't really want her on the Supreme Court. I suppose I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of other Democrats vote for her, just to force a couple other Republicans to vote against her.

Ostracism

The Statesman has a great article today about faith and Proposition 2. Of course, I'm pleased as punch that the spokesman for faiths opposing Proposition 2 is none other than our own rabbi, Rabbi Alan Freedman of Temple Beth Shalom (article):

As part of a statewide Jewish Coalition effort to defeat the amendment, Rabbi Alan Freedman, who leads Temple Beth Shalom in Northwest Austin, distributed fliers urging Jews to vote "no" on Proposition 2 and addressed the issue in a sermon during the recent High Holy Days.

"Throughout Jewish history, we have known the pain of being ostracized from the greater society, and so, as Jews, how can we pull the lever to do that to somebody else?" Freedman told his congregation.

I absolutely agree that that's what this proposition is -- legal ostracism. And that is totally inappropriate.

2006 Governor Rankings

Democrats

Safe Hold

• Bill Richardson of New Mexico
  

Near Certain Hold

Likely Hold

• Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania
• Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas
• Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming
• John Baldacci of Maine
• Brad Henry of Oklahoma
  

Leans Hold

• John Lynch of New Hampshire
  
• Janet Napolitano of Arizona
• Bill Nelson of Florida
• Jim Doyle of Wisconsin
• Ted Kulongoski of Oregon
• Phil Bredesen of Tennessee
  

Tossup

• Iowa Open (Tom Vilsack)
• Rod Blagoyevich of Illinois
  

Republicans

Safe Hold

• Jim Douglas of Vermont
• Dave Heineman of Nebraska
• Mike Rounds of South Dakota
  

Near Certain Hold

• Rick Perry of Texas
• Mark Sanford of South Carolina
  

Likely Hold

• Frank Murkowski of Alaska
• Linda Lingle of Hawaii

Leans Hold

• Jodi Rell of Connecticut
• Sonny Perdue of Georgia
• Bob Riley of Alabama
• Bob Ehrlich of Maryland
  
• Idaho Open (Dirk Kempthorne)
  

Tossup

• Mitt Romney of Massachusetts
• Don Carcieri of Rhode Island
• Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota
• Arnold Schwarzenegger of California
• Ohio Open (Bob Taft)
• Colorado Open (Bill Owens)
  
• Arkansas Open (Mike Huckabee)
• Florida Open (Jeb Bush)
• Nevada Open (Kenny Guinn)
  

Leans Loss

• New York Open (George Pataki)
  

For another perspective, check out Charlie Cook's Governors Rankings.

Senate Rankings Update

Democrats

Safe Hold

• Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts
• Daniel Akaka of Hawaii
• Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
• Herb Kohl of Wisconsin
• Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico
• Diane Feinstein of California
• Kent Conrad of North Dakota
• Robert Byrd of West Virginia

Near Certain Hold

• Hillary Clinton of New York
• Tom Carper of Delaware

Likely Hold

• Debbie Stabenow of Michigan

Leans Hold

• Ben Nelson of Nebraska
• Maria Cantwell of Washington
• Bill Nelson of Florida
• Vermont Open (Jim Jeffords)

Tossup

• Maryland Open (Paul Sarbanes)
• New Jersey Open (Jon Corzine)
• Minnesota Open (Mark Dayton)

Republicans

Safe Hold

• Craig Thomas of Wyoming
• Richard Lugar of Indiana
• Orrin Hatch of Utah
• Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas
• Trent Lott of Mississippi
• Olympia Snowe of Maine

Near Certain Hold

• John Ensign of Nevada

Likely Hold

• George Allen of Virginia
• Jon Kyl of Arizona

Leans Hold

• Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island
• Conrad Burns of Montana
• Mike DeWine of Ohio

Tossup

• Jim Talent of Missouri
• Tennesee Open (Bill Frist)

Leans Loss

• Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania

Changes: Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) should be treated as a freshman, since his 2000 election was not contested by Democrats. Think of it as a sort of bye. He was originally elected in 1994, so he's only had one contested election so far. He moves from Near Certain Republican to Likely Republican. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) is from Ohio. I think because of the recent scandals there, for the 2006 election cycle, Ohio should be treated as Democratic territory. So Sen. DeWine moves from Likely Republican to Leans Republican.

Todd Baxter resigns

Texas State Rep. Todd Baxter (R-Austin) has resigned effective November 1, creating a second open seat in Austin for 2006, along with that of Republican Rep. Terry Keel. Those two races, along with that of freshman Democratic Rep. Mark Strama, and the Texas Senate seat being vacated by Democratic Sen. Barrientos should make Austin a hotly contested battleground for control of the Texas legislature in 2006. Exciting stuff!

I'd love to do an analysis of the Texas House and Senate like what I did for the US Senate (here, here, and here). I'd need a lot more information though.

Finally

Finally, someone who deserves the money has won the Lottery: multi-millionaire Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH). Let me just say that I think this is the whole point of the Lottery -- to make sure that everyone has a chance to become slightly more of a millionaire than they were before. Alas, he doesn't plan to quit his job.

DeLay Glamour Shot

DeLay had his mugshot taken today. It looks more like a glamour shot, don't you think?



Of course, any good politician knows how to take a good picture: smile, brush your hair, whiten your teeth, and have a crazed, defiant, I'm-better-than-all-of-you look in your eye. Notice anything missing from the photo? Could it be, oh, any sign that it is in fact a mugshot? Where are the height bars? Where's the number he should be holding? Here's what it should have looked like (from AMERICABlog):



Now I don't mind that he got a flattering mugshot in and of itself. I only mind if he got any special treatment in taking that mugshot. I have no proof of that, of course. But I strongly suspect it, since this is Tom DeLay we're talking about.

And Democrats can still use the photo in an ad. Especially if it gets lots of free media play first. And even if they couldn't, an artist's rendering of a mugshot might be more dramatic anyway.

Wanted

From Swing State Project:

MN-Gov: Pawlenty in Trouble

Of course, the election is in Nov, 2006, but Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) of Minnesota has attracted a top-tier challenger in Minnesota State Attorney General Mike Hatch (D). A poll from a couple weeks ago has Hatch leading Pawlenty, 48.6% to 45.2%. Usually when an incumbent is below 50% in a poll like that, he's in trouble. When the incumbent is actually trailing the challenger, he's really in trouble. And if 2006 is a Democratic year, things look doubly dark for Gov. Pawlenty.

50-State Poll on Bush Approval

SurveyUSA just released its latest poll on Bush's approval in all 50 states. These can be compared to their poll from a month ago. Bush's overall support dropped in the last month from 41% to 38%. Where did Bush's lost support come from? Well, it turns out it came mostly from the South, the Midwest, the desert Southwest, and New England. This territory, aside from New England, is Bush's base. So why are they deserting him? Two words: Harriet Miers. Conservative commentators have up until now been extremely supportive of President Bush, but once Harriet Miers appeared on the scene, they turned on him, not able to believe that he would rather appoint a crony than the best person for the job. So now Bush-ies and conservatives attack each other. Popcorn, anyone?

Sightings

This evening, my partner and I were taken quite aback when none other than former Comptroller and erstwhile Democratic gubernatorial-candidate-draftee John Sharp walked into our neighborhood Culver's, looking, dare I say, sharp, in his polo shirt, khaki shorts, and sockless topsiders. Part of me wanted to ignore the fact that he was with company and shake him vigorously (but gently), asking "Why oh why, in the name of all that is good and holy, are you not running against Rick Perry?". Instead, I showed my characteristic selfless restraint and simultaneously satisfied my voyeuristic curiosity and my social anxiety, by merely staring a little longer than I should have.

A few years ago, we ran into another Texas politician in an Austin restaurant. It was Republican Senator John Cornyn, then a mere Texas State Attorney General, dining with a friend at Castle Hill Cafe (which happens to be one of my favorite fancy restaurants). It's a little strange to get excited over these sorts of sightings. I mean, it's not like living in Los Angeles and seeing Tom Hanks at your dry cleaner, really. It's not like I got an autograph from either Cornyn or Sharp. And I highly doubt I'll be telling my kids about them, because I doubt they'd care. Nevertheless, both sightings were pretty exciting for me.

One question though, does it mean anything that we saw Cornyn eating a Pepper Glazed Pork Loin Chop with Green Apple and Apricot Chutney, Scalloped Custard Potatoes and Applejack Caramelized Onion Pork Jus at Castle Hill while Sharp was eating a Mushroom and Swiss Value Basket and Chocolate Frozen Custard at Culver's? (Probably not. Especially since I have no idea what they really ordered -- those were just the meals I would have gotten.)

Harriet Miers Blog

Quite humorous.

Craig Crawford Profiles John Courage

John Courage is running against Rep. Lamar Smith in my district - Texas Congressional District 21. Ever since Courage was endorsed by Democracy for America, I've seen his name more frequently among national analysts' writings. That makes me very happy. I'd love to see a strong challenge to DeLay crony Smith. Craig Crawford, a respected political analyst for Congressional Quarterly magazine, was one of those who recently profiled John Courage. Crawford's analysis seems to be that Democrats' reasons to hope include redistricting that has lessened the Republican content of TX-21, Courage's newfound attention, and lessons learned from his previous run in 2002.

Incidentally, I suspect Burnt Orange Report probably deserves a lot of credit for DFA's endorsement of Courage. DFA held an online vote for their first endorsement. And BOR, one of the most widely read progressive political blogs in the nation, called for readers to vote for him. I suspect, though I don't know, that BOR's readers probably put him over the top.

Anyway, here's Crawford's analysis, which I received by email. He seems pretty sharp to me:

The Democratic Party’s efforts to try to overturn the Republicans’ House majority have been hindered in recent elections by the redistricting-driven proliferation of districts that are “safe” for the incumbent party and the escalating cost of staging competitive challenges. This in turn handicapped the ability of party strategists to recruit candidates for long-shot efforts in Republican-held districts.

Seeking to overcome this problem, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) — and its first-year chairman, Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois — have made a priority of “spreading the playing field.” This is the catch-phrase for party efforts to recruit and compete in more congressional districts next year, including some in which Democrats have not made a serious effort in years.

The prospects for the spread-the-field strategies so far are mixed, as the Democrats gear up for a campaign in they would need a net gain of at least 15 seats to regain the command of the House that they first lost in the 1994 Republican upsurge.

Accentuating the positive, DCCC Communications Director Bill Burton said, “We’ve got candidates filed in 43 districts across the country where we think we’ve got a pretty good shot. We think there are a lot of places that haven’t been competitive that are now.”

Burton contrasted the current situation to that at the same point in the 2004 election cycle, saying the party as of October 2003 had candidates in place for only 12 targeted races.

Yet the DCCC’s strategy — while it has the potential to put the party in the running for a narrow House majority — does not appear likely to produce the kind of huge shift that could rocket the party back to its past position of dominance. At this point, most Republican-held districts continue to be regarded as safe for the GOP.

A Texan with the headline-friendly name of John Courage provides an example of an eager Democratic candidate who has not made his way onto the national party’s A-list.

Courage has entered next year’s race against 10-term Republican Rep. Lamar Smith in Texas’ 21st District, typically a Republican stronghold. The challenger gained some attention recently when he received the first House endorsement for 2006 from Democracy for America, a liberal-oriented political action committee that was founded by 2004 presidential contender Howard Dean before he won his bid early this year to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Courage, however, was not recruited for the race by the DCCC. He said, though, that he senses the DCCC’s door is more open to him than it was during his first bid against Smith in 2002.

“I’m dealing with them more than I did in my campaign four years ago. They are paying more attention,” said Courage, an eighth-grade social studies teacher. “At this early point in their targeting, I can see where they will look at obvious situations and pick the targets — I really believe including mine.”

Courage’s previous challenge to Smith does not give Democratic strategists much reason for optimism in a 2006 rematch. Smith trounced Courage by 73 percent to 25 percent.

But Courage contends that he could be an unintended beneficiary of the mid-decade redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay and implemented by the Republican-controlled Texas legislature prior to the 2004 elections.

The remap shrunk the size of the formerly sprawling 21st District and gave it a much-larger portion of Democratic-leaning Austin than it had before. As a result, the district appears somewhat less overwhelmingly Republican: Smith slipped to 61 percent in 2004 against a Democratic opponent, Rhett R. Smith, who was about as unheralded as Courage had been two years earlier.

“Circumstances have changed,” Courage said. “When I ran before it was 14 counties, a lot of them rural. Now it’s down to five counties.” He said he believes that half of the vote in the 2006 election will come from Travis County, which includes Austin.

Courage, who said he will run a more professional media campaign this time, plans to emphasize both the controversial redistricting plan and Smith’s ties to DeLay, who is under indictment in Austin on charges related to his campaign fundraising activities.

“People in Travis County are very upset [about redistricting] and Lamar Smith is a crony of Tom DeLay,” said Courage, who noted that Smith had contributed to DeLay’s defense fund.

Courage also plans to campaign on setting a date for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, repealing the tax cuts Bush pushed in to law during his first term, increasing education funding and stopping what he calls “political favoritism” in judicial appointments.

Republicans contend, though, that the Democrats are fantasizing if they think they can seriously threaten Smith’s re-election. National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Ed Patru said that although Smith lost a few points post-redistricting, “He’s up by 20-plus points in the district.”

“This is just another pipe dream — not a district the Democrats should be looking at,” Patru added.

Distributing Flyers

This Saturday, I helped my brother distribute flyers for No Nonsense in November that explain why Texas citizens should vote against Proposition 2. We walked around his neighborhood, rolling up flyers and placing them in the handles of his neighbors doors. As this was my first time doing anything like this, I was relieved we weren't knocking on doors to talk to people.

I'm well aware that actually talking to people is a more effective method of getting voters to the polls, but it terrifies me to death. I generally seek to avoid confrontation on political issues -- I've found arguing politics can get people very angry, often unreasonably so. And I have always especially avoided confrontation about issues as personal to me as gay rights, since the last thing I'd want to do is be participating in an unreasonably angry confrontation that suddenly turns personal.

So, my brother and I walked together around his block and a few near him, and whenever we saw people outside near their homes, my brother would go talk to them a little bit, identifying himself as a volunteer for No Nonsense in November and being generally very polite. The neighbors we met were all very supportive -- there weren't any confrontations like what I feared. I listened and learned what these sorts of conversations should sound like, and who knows, I might feel comfortable enough leading one next time.

It actually turned out we might have had time to talk to more people. We ran out of flyers after an hour. But what can I say, all four of us involved were really doing this for the first or second time, so -- you live, you learn. I hope to have a picture of the flyer to post later this week.

So what is Proposition 2? It's a discriminatory proposed amendment to the Texas State Constitution scheduled to be on the ballot November 8, 2005. Here's the ballot language:

"The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

So why should you vote against Proposition 2? Well, the No Nonsense in November campaign has made a couple of very good points:

It's a distraction from real issues. Despite three special sessions, the Texas legislature was unable to pass property tax reform, any school finance solution, or cover Texas children's health insurance. But they passed this Proposition, which is about as important to Texas as the other things they did: talk about sexy cheerleading, designate the chuck wagon the official state vehicle, and designate the Dutch oven the official state cooking implement.

It's a misuse of the Texas Bill of Rights to use it to deny rights. The Texas Bill of Rights protects the rights of Texans, such as freedom of religion and speech, crime victims' rights, and equal rights for women. It would be a cruel irony to use that same part of the Texas State Constitution to deny basic rights to some Texas citizens. A Bill of Rights is an important document. But when you start shoving other things in there, it's not really a Bill of Rights anymore, and people will take all of them less seriously.

It's unnecessary for its primary purpose -- prohibiting recognition of gay marriage. The Texas Family Code already states, "A license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex." Texas has a Defense of Marriage Act preventing the state government from recognizing same-sex marriages and civil unions from other jurisdictions. Can anyone seriously say the state legislature or the state courts are on the verge of changing this situation? And even if they were, the Constitution shouldn't be used as a safeguard against people changing their minds on an issue.

It's discriminatory in its secondary purpose -- denying rights to gay couples that exist for married straight couples. While the State of Texas currently offers no legal status like marriage, there are county and city governments that offer domestic partner benefits that would be nullified by this amendment. It would permanently deny gay couples basic human rights like the right to visit each other in the hospital, make end-of-life decisions for one another, and be recognized as parents of each others' children. And it hurts the children of same-sex couples in other ways too, denying them access to health insurance and Social Security benefits in the event of the death of a parent. It may call existing carefully-worded contracts into question as well.

It will have unintended consequences for straight couples as well. The ballot language is overly broad -- "legal status identical or similar to marriage" may include common law marriages. A similar amendment passed in Ohio, and judges there dismissed domestic violence charges because the straight couple involved were unmarried.

Please vote no on Proposition 2 on November 8 of this year. It really is nonsense.

Bush in Free Fall

Stangely fascinating. (Via Political Wire).

Smurf Wars

Also brought to my attention via email:

UNICEF has decided to kill the smurfs. Watch the VIDEO. Then call yourself a psychiatrist.

Harriet Miers' Religious Beliefs

From an email a friend sent (from Freewilliamsburg.com) :

Evidently, James Dobson devoted a large chunk of time on Tuesday's radio broadcast to reassuring his audience that Miers was on Jesus' team:

From Dailykos:
"I can't reveal it all, because I do know things that I'm privy to that I can't describe, because of confidentiality." He then states that Miers "is a deeply committed Christian" and that people who know her have all told him that "she will not be a disappointment."
....
"If I have made a mistake here ... the blood of those babies that will die will be on my hands, to some degree. And that's why is has weighed so heavily on me"

He then went on to confirm that GOP Senators had been calling him to find out what he knows, stating that he was privy to inside knowledge from the White House and Karl Rove:

"I'm getting calls from members of Congress saying 'tell us your take on this, we're not sure what we think of Harriet Miers.'"

He then admitted:

"It was leaked to the media that I've had conversations with Karl Rove and the White House, which is true."

Is it just us, or is the fact that some hack religious leader in Colorado has more access to the White House than Congress and the media? George Bush hates Democracy.

I responded basically that I'm not happy with the level of influence Dobson holds in America when Republicans are in power. And if anyone tells you there's no difference between the parties, just ask them how much influence they think James Dobson will have in a Democratic White House?

Intelligent Design and Evolution

A good friend of mine asked recently that I post my opinion on intelligent design and evolution, so here I go. What it boils down to is, while I am sympathetic to the idea of a Creator, I do not favor teaching intelligent design in science classes. Primarily, I feel that way because Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, unless scientists are not the ones who get to say what a scientific theory is. And I think they should.

Basically, what it comes down for me is, I don't buy the argument from design -- the argument that seems to say: Wow, our universe sure is magnificent. That means it can't just have spontaneously and randomly appeared on its own. That means God made it. Or at least an intelligent designer of some sort made it. Personally, I feel just as capable of feeling wonder at complexities that arise naturally as at complexities of supernatural origin. The universe's manifest complexity simply doesn't imply divine intervention. Just because we don't fully understand something doesn't mean it can simply be explained away as a miracle.

That's not to say I don't believe God made the universe, or life, or humanity. I do. Just not because of anything any scientist has ever said. Science will never be able to prove something that is not falsifiable. And God's existence is not. That is to say, a scientific theory must be able to be tested against data, and the results of that test can then disprove the theory if the data does not match up. The existence of a designer outside of the design is not testable in that sense. That alone is enough to tell me this "theory" isn't science.

But of course, why should falsifiability be a determinant here? Just because some scientist says so? Well, that's the point. Scientists should say what science is. Why? Because otherwise, everything is science and nothing is science and scientists will no longer have any special credibility to their claims.

And now we reach the heart of the issue. The entire reason why money and time are devoted to this debate is because some religious institutions want to increase their power at the expense of the power held by the scientific community. The entire culture war can, in a sense, be seen as an attempt by a group of churches to try and regain lost influence in American institutions. The universities, schools, courts, media, and government are all targets of their effort, and they have a billions of dollars to work with.

The reason why I reflexively oppose most conservative culture-war objectives, even when they don't necessarily seem that bad in principle, is that Reform Judaism is not one of the religions in the conservative theological alliance backing the proposals. And they oppose the philosophies of the Enlightenment, from which I probably draw a lot of my gut feelings about "church and state" issues. That means if they win, neither Reform Jewish thought nor Enlightenment philosophy (which they generally oppose directly) will be represented in the ultimate reform, whatever the issue is. In simpler terms, those people do not represent my values, and I don't want them in charge of the universities, schools, courts, media, and government.

All that said, the idea of an iintelligent designer is not incompatible with evolution. I personally believe God created life and humanity using evolution as a mechanism. But I'm willing to admit that the scientists could be wrong and God could have used a different mechanism. And I'm perfectly ok with intelligent design being taught in schools, as long as it's taught in a Social Studies class and not a Science class, not presented as a scientific theory, and taught in the context of the cultural divisions currently facing America.

Where I've Been

Yesterday was Yom Kippur. I was fasting and praying in the synagogue, and spending time with my partner. I am, however, back now.

A Shadow of a Contract

From Roll Call Magazine, which is subscription only, via the Stakeholder:

Seeing an opening to reach voters while Republicans are beset by turmoil, House Democrats are privately planning to accelerate the timing of the release of their platform and the major policies they will promote on the campaign trail next year.

Key Democratic sources say Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other House leaders are putting the finishing touches on what arguably will be Democrats most detailed “positive” election-year agenda since the party lost power more than a decade ago. Pelosi has been coordinating with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), key Democratic strategists, advisers and outside interest groups on the policy platform as well as the party’s broader 2006 message.

The move comes as many in the party have argued that Democrats need to do more than just complain of Republican excesses and the “culture of corruption” they charge the GOP with fostering.

An early draft of the agenda outlines the specific initiatives House Democrats will pledge to enact if given control of the House. Leaders have been working on the document for months, and have already started encouraging Members to unify around it and stick to its themes.

Among the proposals are: “real security” for America through stronger investments in U.S. armed forces and benchmarks for determining when to bring troops home from Iraq; affordable health insurance for all Americans; energy independence in 10 years; an economic package that includes an increase in the minimum wage and budget restrictions to end deficit spending; and universal college education through scholarships and grants as well as funding for the No Child Left Behind act.

Democrats will also promise to return ethical standards to Washington through bipartisan ethics oversight and tighter lobbying restrictions, increase assistance to Katrina disaster victims through Medicaid and housing vouchers, save Social Security from privatization and tighten pension laws.

The Democrats are borrowing an old play out of the Republican playbook. Sort of. In 1994, a few weeks before the election, Republicans released the Contract With America, a document which detailed what Republicans would do when they gained power. Later polls showed voters had mostly never heard of the Contract, and those that had were split on whether it made them more or less likely to vote for Republicans. But the reason it was brilliant was that when Republicans made great gains in November 1994, as they expected to by that point, it facilitated media coverage that provided them with a mandate for enacting a specific agenda. This is not the reason Democrats are putting forth their agenda now.

Democrats are hoping to draw a media comparison to 1994 to scare off potential Republican candidates. It is a risky strategy. It provides Republicans an opening to attack Democrats for something, which they sorely need to do right now to get the media spotlight off of their governing malfeasance. But Democrats need to do something risky now. Taking risks is what leads to greater victories.

Fighting Mad Indeed

The Advocate has a good story about Proposition 2 here in Texas, and another anti-gay ballot measure in Maine. The strategy here in Texas appears to be to mobilize as many progressives as possible for a low-turnout election. And I definitely detect a level of energy behind No Nonsense In November that I haven't seen for a gay rights cause in Texas before. Will it be enough? I'm cautiously optimistic. If it isn't, well, I don't have much hope for the Texas state government's ability to protect the equal rights of its citizens. But even if it isn't, a close call would have an energizing effect on gay rights across the country. And a victory... in Texas.. combined with a victory in Maine... could change the narrative for a few years.

I'm a starry-eyed optimistic today. Whistling while I work. Bluebirds on my shoulder...

Rita Gets a Clean Bill of Health!

Rita is FIV Negative!!! Woohoo!!! Rita, if you will recall, was the cat who appeared on my doorstep on the eve of the threat of a hurricane. She tested a weak positive for FIV when I took her in for a checkup. Apparently, when a cat is vaccinated for FIV, she tests positive for the disease as well with the most common test. The vet sent Rita's blood sample to a lab in California over the weekend, and the results came back today. She's negative. It was just the vaccine after all. I'm so unbelievably happy right now, I think I'll use my first smiley on this site. :) Here's a new picture of Rita:



Now the work of integrating her into the household begins. We already have two very happy, very loving, very settled-in-their-ways cats who are none too pleased...

Conservatives Oppose Don't Ask Don't Tell

From 365gay:

A poll conducted by the University of California at Santa Barbara and released Monday shows that only 21 percent of young conservative males who were potential recruits said they would be “less likely” to join the armed forces if the ban were repealed. Two percent of respondents said they were “more likely” to join while the vast majority - 77% - said allowing gays to serve openly would have no impact on their decision to enlist.

The poll would seem to disprove the Pentagon's contention that if the law were repealed moral and military cohesion would suffer.

The ban on gays in the military is doomed. Doomed, I tell you! It is only a matter of time now.

Statesman Opposes Proposition 2

The Austin American Statesman came out against Proposition 2, the Nov 8 ballot measure that would place a ban on gay marriage in the Texas Constitution. Good for them! From their editorial (emphasis mine):

A ban on gay marriage would do nothing — nothing at all — to protect or enhance traditional marriage. We urge Texans to vote against Proposition 2, the proposed amendment, because it's true purpose is to discriminate against gay Texans.

The proof that this is really aimed at gays, not protecting traditional marriage, is that the proposed amendment would also ban the state from recognizing "any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

A case can be made that the social institution of marriage is troubled and needs help. But no case can be made that it is gay people who threaten it. Texas has never recognized marriage between people of the same sex, and state law forbids it.

By installing the existing ban on gay marriage into the state constitution, opponents of gay marriage want to make it as difficult as possible to make any change in the law, even if a majority of voters and their legislators eventually change their minds.

Any change to a constitutional ban on gay marriage would first require a two-thirds vote of both the Texas House and Senate and then go before voters, as opposed to the simple legislative majority required to change a law.

For more reasons to vote against Proposition 2, see No Nonsense in November.

Amateur Senate Analysis Part III

Part I.
Part II.

In the previous two posts, I analyzed the overall terrain, the open seats, and the incumbents. In this post, I want to concentrate on the challengers. Information on challengers is slightly more difficult to come by, and that is precisely why incumbents are generally a safe bet for re-election. In 1994, when Republicans swept into power in the Senate, only two incumbents were defeated -- Senators Harris Wofford of Pennsylvania and Jim Sasser of Tennessee. All other Republican gains came from open seats. So, defeating incumbents is hard.

It is difficult to know when a challenger is a "quality challenger" or a challenger of the throw-away variety, running only because someone should. As a shorthand for quality, therefore, it is useful to use "experience". Note that I'm not saying only experienced challengers are quality challengers. In fact, history is replete with counter-examples. In 1994 (by now it should be obvious that 1994 is my favorite "example" year), Senators Fred Thompson and Bill Frist were elected from the state of Tennessee without any prior elective experience.

That said, challengers who have been elected before in the same voting district they are running in, even if not to the same office, are more likely to win than challengers who haven't. The higher profile position the candidate held, the better. And the more recent the candidate held it, the better. Among those who haven't, being elected by just part of the district helps. The larger the part, the more it helps. Also, having a personal fortune or a famous name helps too. Candidates for open seats can be measured for experience the same way.

The Democrats have fielded an impressive set of non-incumbent candidates for 2006. As analyst Charlie Cook recently said, they got their first or second choices in all the interesting races. Let's look at some of the candidates (from Wikipedia, where else? And also assorted other places):

Democratic Recruiting Successes

In Pennsylvania, Democrats got their first choice, State Treasurer Bob Casey to run against Senator Rick Santorum. Casey was elected State Auditor twice before becoming State Treasurer. He is also the son of a former Governor.

In Rhode Island, Democrats didn't get their first choice to face Senator Lincoln Chafee. Rep. Langevin was probably driven out by women's groups concerned about his pro-life views. But they have two good candidates in former Rhode Island Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse and current Rhode Island Secretary of State Matt Brown.

In Missouri, Democrats got their first choice to run against Senator Jim Talent: State Auditor Claire McCaskill. In 2004, she defeated incumbent Democratic governor Bob Holden in the primary, and lost narrowly to Gov. Matt Blunt in the general election. While losing usually damages a candidate for future runs, very close losses like hers actually enhance the candidate. Especially when the state develops "voters' remorse" for the candidate that won, as Missouri seems to be doing for Gov. Blunt.

In Ohio, Democrats appear to have their first and third choices running against each other in a primary to face Senator Mike DeWine. First choice is US Rep. Sherrod Brown, a former two-term Ohio Secretary of State. Their second choice, US Rep. Tim Ryan, declined to run. Third choice is Major Paul Hackett, who narrowly lost a special election in Ohio's second congressional district earlier this year, experiencing a narrow-loss enhancement akin to that helping McCaskill in Missouri. In my opinion, Brown would likely be the stronger candidate, and would be most likely to win the primary.

In Montana, Democrats have their top two choices running against each other in a primary, competing to take on Senator Conrad Burns. Their first choice is John Morrison, the two-term Montana State Auditor. Their second choice is State Senate President Jon Tester, a favorite of the liberal blogs. Tester is given a great deal of the credit for the Montana Democrats' resurgence in 2004. Although John Morrison has more and better experience in the sense I'm examining here, Jon Tester is a sentimental favorite.

In Arizona, Democrats got their first choice to run against Senator Jon Kyl, wealthy commercial developer and former Arizona Democratic Party chairman Jim Pederson. Pederson does not have elective experience himself, but was involved in the campaigns of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Terry Goddard. Strictly speaking, he doesn't count as an experienced challenger, since he has no experience being elected to office himself. However, his personal wealth and proven fundraising ability make him the next best thing. And given the weakness of the Arizona Democratic bench, there probably wasn't anyone available who will do better.

In Tennessee, Democrats got their top choice, Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. Although family scandals have marred his campaign, he is still considered a sufficient candidate by most analysts. Ford is a young and charismatic centrist US Representative with a high profile, and a strong family tradition of service in Tennessee.

In Vermont, Democrats sort of got their top choice to succeed retiring independent Senator Jim Jeffords. Rep. Bernie Sanders technically isn't a Democrat. Democrats are too conservative for him. He does caucus with Democrats however, so leadership votes will still go his way. This may be the first time in history a Senate seat is transferred from one independent Senator to another. Anyway, Sanders has been elected to the US House of Representatives from Vermont repeatedly, and since Vermont's has one single at-large congressional district, that means he has a history of being elected statewide.

In Minnesota, Democrats look likely to nominate Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar to succeed retiring Senator Mark Dayton. (Although County Attorney doesn't sound impressive, keep in mind that Hennepin County contains Minneapolis and has a population of 1,120,897 -- about 20% of the Minnesota population, and the County Attorney is an elected position.) She has a high profile and a record as a tough prosecutor and has already outraised likely Republican opponent Rep. Mark Kennedy, alarming the NRSC. If not Klobuchar, Democrats could get also-high-profile children's safety advocate Patty Wetterling, who had her own narrow-loss reputation-enhancing race against Rep. Mark Kennedy in 2004. Democrats have been encouraging her to abandon the Senate race, however, and run for the open House seat Rep. Kennedy is leaving.

In Maryland, Democrats got their first choice Rep. Ben Cardin, and their second choice former NAACP head and former Rep. Kweisi Mfume, running against one another in the primary to succeed retiring Senator Paul Sarbanes. Cardin appears likely to win that contest.

In New Jersey, assuming Senator Jon Corzine is elected Governor in November as expected, he will appoint his successor. Possibilities include Rep. Frank Pallone, Rep. Robert Menendez, Rep. Rob Andrews, and acting Governor Richard Codey. Although Codey consistently polls the best, he has repeatedly expressed disinterest. Of course, should Corzine lose the governor's race, he may or may not run for re-election to the Senate. If he does, he will immediately be weakened by his loss.

Democratic Recruiting Failures

In Nevada, amid rumors of a secret deal between freshman Senator John Ensign and Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada's other Senator, Democrats have had trouble recruiting a candidate to take on Senator Ensign. It looks like they may finally have their man in Jack Carter, son of former President Jimmy Carter. In Carter, Democrats' will have a candidate with a famous name and the attendant media attention, but not much else. Senator Ensign looks strong for re-election.

In Virginia, Democrats had one option to make an extraordinarily close race to unseat freshman Republican Senator George Allen, and they failed to recruit that option: popular Democratic Governor Mark Warner. Warner likely passed because of his Presidential ambitions. If Warner ran and lost, his image would be hurt for his desired 2008 Presidential run. If he ran and won, he would be weakened by the impression that he would be abandoning the people of Virginia just two years into his 6-year term in the Senate. Without Warner, and with Democratic Lieutenant Governor Tim Kaine running for Governor this year, Democrats in Virginia have had little alternatives. Those alternatives include former Reagan Administration Secretary of the Navy James Webb, and actor Ben Affleck. Affleck has money, and would probably create a media circus, but ultimately fail to unseat Senator Allen. He would undoubtedly make an entertaining sacrificial lamb, however.

In Maine, Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, the Senator with the highest home-state popularity in the country, seems to have scared away any potential significant Democratic challengers. Democrats look likely to nominate farmer Jean Hay Bright. Generally speaking, farmers don't usually unseat Senators.

Republican Recruiting Successes

In New Jersey, whether or not Senator Jon Corzine runs for re-election, the Republican nominee will likely be New Jersey State Senator Thomas Kean, Jr, the son of the former governor of the same name. He will likely be a strong candidate.

In Nebraska, the Republicans didn't get their first choice to challenge Senator Ben Nelson. Rep. Tom Osborne, the wildly popular former football coach for the Nebraska Cornhuskers, decided to challenge Republican Nebraska Governor Dave Heinemen in the primary instead. So they will mostly likely end up with 3-term Nebraska Attorney General Don Stenberg or (less likely) former Nebraska Republican Party chairman David Kramer. Although Stenberg will be a good candidate, Senator Nelson faced him last time around in 2000, and beat him without the 63% approval rating as an incumbent Senator Nelson now has.

In Maryland, the Republicans got their top choice to succeed retiring Democratic Senator Paul Sarbanes in Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele. A proven statewide vote-getter, and an African-American Republican, Steele will be a formidable candidate, especially if Democrats face a racially divisive primary between African-American Kweisi Mfume and Caucasian Ben Cardin.

In Minnesota, Republicans got their first choice to succeed retiring Democratic Senator Mark Dayton. That choice was Rep. Mark Kennedy. Kennedy will represent the Republicans' best opportunity to pick up a Senate seat, but will face a tough race against Amy Klobuchar or Patty Wetterling.

In Tennessee, Republicans have too many candidates to succeed retiring Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist. Former Rep. Ed Bryant, Rep Van Hilleary, and Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker are all running. All are reasonable candidates.

Republican Recruiting Failures

In Florida, Republicans failed to recruit an alternative to Rep. Katharine Harris to run against Democratic Senator Bill Nelson. Nelson is probably the single most vulnerable Democratic Senator, but against Harris, despite her experience, Nelson will probably be re-elected by an unexpectedly large margin. Why? Harris is the one exception to my system. She does have a proven statewide electoral record. She served one term as Florida Secretary of State. However, during that time, she acquired a rather negative public image in Florida. In fact, she is already better known than the Senator she seeks to replace, and is losing to him in the polls. That is not a good situation for a challenger -- usually they gain ground as they educate people as to who they are. In Harris' case, people know who she is and don't like her. That is a much more difficult polling situation to change. Even that would not be enough for me to make an exception for her. What will be enough is the fact that the President of the United States, and his brother Florida Governor Jeb Bush, were openly trying to recruit a challenger to Harris for the primaries and failed. That means Harris doesn't have her party establishment behind her either. She has already shown she has had a difficult time raising funds. There are just too many problems with her candidacy. She's the exception that proves the rule.

In Washington, Republicans failed to recruit former gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi, who in 2004 had a near-miss reputation-enhancing race against Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire. The race was decided in the courts, and Republicans are still angry. Rossi decided to opt for a 2008 rematch against Gregoire rather than a race against Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell. So instead, Republicans got wealthy insurance company CEO Mike McGavick. McGavick has no experience, but enough money to keep the race interesting. Rossi would have catapulted the race to top-tier instantly, however.

In Michigan, Republicans failed to recruit a candidate with elective experience to take on freshman Senator Debbie Stabenow. Rev. Keith Butler of Detroit, an African-American, may prove to be a better-than-average inexperienced candidate however, if the buzz is correct. Nonetheless, Butler was not Republicans' first choice -- Rep. Candice Miller was, and Rep. Mike Rogers and Michigan Secretary of State Lynn Land also passed. And so Butler remains a best-of-the-rest alternative.

In Vermont, Republicans failed to recruit either Governor Jim Douglas or Lieutenant Governor Brian Dubie to succeed retiring independent Senator Jim Jeffords. As a result, they are left with an inexperienced candidate in Lt Colonel Greg Parke. Like, Rev. Butler in Michigan, there is a chance Parke could turn out to be a quality candidate despite his lack of elective experience. But his inexperience combined with other more experienced candidates turning down the race causes me to consider this race another recruiting failure for Republicans.

In West Virginia, Republicans tried and failed to recruit their highest profile elected official to run against veteran Democratic Senator Robert Byrd. US Rep. Shelley Moore Capito would have been a formidable candidate. She represented 1/3 of the state in West Virginia's 2nd district. Despite West Virginia's predilection for Republicans in Presidential elections, the state Republican Party is still rather weak. So without Rep. Capito, Republicans are out of options to make West Virginia a real race.

In North Dakota, Republicans tried and failed to recruit popular Governor John Hoeven to run against equally popular Democratic Senator Kent Conrad. Hoeven would have been a dream candidate for Republicans, and would have instantly made this race one of the most heavily contested in 2006. Hoeven ran ahead of Conrad in some polls, an amazing feat against one of the country's most popular Senators. But since he declined, Republicans have been unable to recruit a challenger for Senator Conrad. There is no shortage of experienced Republicans in North Dakota, so if they succeed, the race could still become competitive. But in politics, the appearance of strength often contributes to actual strength. And Senator Conrad looks stronger than ever since Hoeven declined to run.

In New York, Republicans failed to recruit former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani to run against Senator Hillary Clinton, and in truth, he is the only Republican who could have beat her. He probably declined because a run for Senate would have been a no-win scenario for him, giving him a similar calculus to Governor Mark Warner of Virginia. If he had lost, his chance to become President would have been lost with the race. If he had won, he would be in a weaker position to run than if he had stayed out of the race. He would look bad to some for running for higher office just 1/3 of the way through his term of office in the Senate. The list of other Republicans with experience who could have made a run against her is actually fairly short: Governor George Pataki, Lieutenant Governor Mary Donohue, and current New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. All passed. Republicans did get Jeanine Pirro, Westchester County District Attorney and the likely nominee, and attorney Ed Cox. Pirro is technically a reasonable candidate. Westchester County contains New York City suburbs with about a million people. But given Senator Clinton's ability to raise funds, unique among Senators, Pirro probably doesn't stand a chance.

In Delaware, Republicans have little to choose from to challenge freshman Democratic Senator Tom Carper. Rep. Mike Castle, who represents Delaware's at-large district would be an excellent candidate, but I suspect he's more interested in running for the likely open seat in 2008 when the state's other Senator, Joe Biden, may retire to run for President. The only names I've seen so far have been those of State Senator Colin Bonini, and Marine veteran Mike Protack. Carper is one of those Senators, though, who is likely stronger than my system would indicate. He's been elected many times statewide to both Governor and US Representative in Delaware's at-large congressional district.

Summary

In the states that have close races, Democrats will most likely have candidates with state-wide electoral experience in the Vermont, Missouri, Ohio, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. In Maryland, Tennessee, Minnesota and most likely New Jersey, Democrats will have partial electoral experience. And in Arizona, Democrats will have a wealthy candidate who excels at fundraising. Democrats will probably not get a top quality candidate in Maine, Virginia, or Nevada.

Republicans will most likely have candidates with state-wide electoral experience in Nebraska and Maryland. In Florida, although they will have a candidate with state-wide electoral experience, that candidate is damaged goods. They will likely field candidates with partial electoral experience in Tennessee, New Jersey, and Minnesota, and New York. In Washington, Republicans will have an independently wealthy candidate. In Michigan and Vermont, Republicans will field a candidate with no electoral experience. Republicans will probably not get a top quality candidate in North Dakota or West Virginia.

Basically, Democrats have had a good recruiting year. Republicans have not. Democrats expanded the playing field by recruiting good candidates in Rhode Island, Ohio, Missouri, Montana, and possibly Arizona. Republicans failed to expand the playing field in West Virginia, New York, and North Dakota, and lost the opportunity to be competitive in Vermont, Michigan, and possibly Washington and special-case Florida by failing to recruit good candidates.

The Effect of Challengers on 2006 Rankings

In Part II, I condensed the groups into only Tossups and Likely Holds. I've rethought that method and decided to re-distinguish between the first and second groups and between the third and fourth groups. Having an experienced challenger ratchets the race up a notch. Having a partially experienced or independently wealthy challenger leaves the race in place. Having an inexperienced challenger with no famous name or independent source of wealth reduces the race by one rank. Having no challenger would restore the race to "Safe Hold", but it is way too early to know the final challengers for sure.

There are two exceptional challengers for 2006. In Pennsylvania, State Treasurer Bob Casey is not only an incredibly experienced candidate with the same name as his father, a popular former Governor, but he is also consistently leading Senator Rick Santorum in the polls with over 50% of the vote. This is a highly unusual situation, and causes me to give an extra point to Bob Casey. The second exceptional challenger is, as I mentioned, Rep. Katharine Harris running in Florida against Senator Bill Nelson. Due to her high name recognition and high unfavorable ratings, her low ranking in polls against Senator Nelson, and her high ranking in Republican primary polls, I feel obliged to ratchet Senator Nelson one notch toward safety.

So the current rankings for the 2006 Senate are:

Democrats

Safe Hold

• Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts
• Daniel Akaka of Hawaii
• Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
• Herb Kohl of Wisconsin
• Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico
• Diane Feinstein of California
• Kent Conrad of North Dakota
• Robert Byrd of West Virginia

Near Certain Hold

• Hillary Clinton of New York
• Tom Carper of Delaware

Likely Hold

• Debbie Stabenow of Michigan

Leans Hold

• Ben Nelson of Nebraska
• Maria Cantwell of Washington
• Bill Nelson of Florida
• Vermont Open (Jim Jeffords)

Tossup

• Maryland Open (Paul Sarbanes)
• New Jersey Open (Jon Corzine)
• Minnesota Open (Mark Dayton)

Republicans

Safe Hold

• Craig Thomas of Wyoming
• Richard Lugar of Indiana
• Orrin Hatch of Utah
• Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas
• Trent Lott of Mississippi
• Olympia Snowe of Maine

Near Certain Hold

• John Ensign of Nevada
• Jon Kyl of Arizona

Likely Hold

• George Allen of Virginia
• Mike DeWine of Ohio

Leans Hold

• Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island
• Conrad Burns of Montana

Tossup

• Jim Talent of Missouri
• Tennesee Open (Bill Frist)

Leans Loss

• Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania

Caveats

There are, of course, factors I have not taken into account. And some events are coming down the pipe that would change some of the rankings. I'll go over a few of those factors and events here.

First, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi could retire. If he did, his seat would immediately become a "Tossup". Republicans would probably turn to Rep. Charles Pickering. Democrats would turn to either Rep. Gene Taylor or former Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore. All would be good candidates, and this race would likely be close.

Second, Senator Lincoln Chafee could be defeated in the primary. Polls show Chafee leading Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey, but with under 50% of the vote, a dangerous place to be for an incumbent. The Bush Administration is pulling out all stops to try and save Chafee though, and the name Chafee has a long history in Rhode Island. Should Chafee be defeated in the primary, this race would immediately move to "Leans Loss" for Republicans.

A factor not included in my system is how the scandals in Ohio and Missouri affect the races for the Senate. Governor Bob Taft in Ohio has the lowest approval rating I have ever seen for any politician at 17% approval. Governor Matt Blunt in Missouri has a rather low approval rating as well at 36%. Both states are experiencing unusual anti-Republican sentiment right now. If it lasts through to election day 2006, Senators Talent and DeWine may be more vulnerable than my rating suggests.

Another factor not included in my system is that sometimes a victory in a previous race can obscure weakness. There are two Republican Senators in particular who may be one step weaker than it appears. Those Senators are Jon Kyl of Arizona and Mike DeWine of Ohio. Kyl had no Democratic opposition in his previous race. DeWine had a weak opponent in Richard Celeste, the brother of a former Ohio Governor. Both have solid challengers this time, and DeWine in particular has been weakened by other events as well -- a threatened primary challenge, his son's primary loss in Ohio's 2nd District earlier this year, a conservative revolt over his membership in the Gang of 14, and the collapse of the Ohio Republican Party's image in scandal. I suspect both DeWine and Kyl may be weaker than my system indicates.

A third factor that is not included in my system is candidates' ability to raise money. I'm sure there is a way to divine from the amounts of money raised and spent, figures freely available on the web, weakness or strength in a candidate. But at this point, the complexities of that task are beyond me. A low amount spent and raised could indicate weakness or it could indicate a lack of competition and therefore strength. A high amount raised could indicate vulnerability and therefore the need to raise and spend money, or it could indicate a solid fundraising ability and therefore strength.

My gut feeling having looked over at Open Secrets at the campaign financing of the Senators running in 2006 is that Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington is more vulnerable than she appears, since I've heard her personal fortune has shrank dramatically since her 2000 campaign. Also, Republican Senator George Allen of Virginia is stronger than he appears since he has raised money like few other Senators. And finally, Senator Hillary Clinton... well, she is simply unparalleled in her ability to raise money. She has nearly half again as much cash on hand as the next most well-financed Senator (Kennedy of Massachusetts, no poor fundraiser himself). Her race is more about keeping her from spending all that money to help other Senators than it is about actually defeating her.

How to Look at the 2006 Senate Rankings

So, now that the rankings are up there, how should they be looked at? Well, in a normal year, one should look at just the closest handful of races -- the "Tossups", and the "Leans" races. 5 Republican seats, and 7 Democratic seats. Even in normal years, the majority of the close races tend to go to one party or the other. In 2000 it was Democrats who won most close races. In 2002 and 2004, it was Republicans. All of those were normal election cycles.

So far, it appears that a wave is developing that will help Democrats in 2006. If the current expected Democratic wave holds, look on into the "Likely" and "Near Certain" races. In wave years like 1994, inexperienced challengers unexpectedly defeat experienced incumbents, and races that should never have been close become so.

Questions? Comments? I'd love to hear them. I figure I ought to get all this out here since few people are interested in sitting still long enough to talk about all this. I sincerely hope that, in the process, I've written something here that will interest someone. Enjoy! And please let me know what you think.