Just Democrats Only: March 2012

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Democrats reject GAB's proposed recall timeline - msnbc.com

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Democrats oppose a timeline that would put any primary for Gov. Scott Walker's recall election on May 15 with the general election on June 12. Those dates were recommended Friday by the head of the state elections board. They are two weeks later than is required now and any extension would need approval by a judge. Democratic attorney Jeremy Levinson calls the requested extension "totally unreasonable and unnecessary." Levinson says he will fight against the additional time in court. Representatives of Walker's campaign and the Republican Party did not immediately return requests for comment. Government Accountability Board director Kevin Kennedy says there is no way the board can finish its review of the roughly 1.9 million signatures seeking the recall of Walker and five others any sooner than March 30.

View the original article here

Spending by super PACs in Colorado is the dominion of Democrats - Denver Post

Joan Fitz- Gerald speaks during a candidates forum in 2008. (Daily Camera file | Paul Aiken)

Colorado's version of liberal super PACs spent nearly 150 times more money than their Republican counterparts in the last election cycle, with most of the money coming from a small circle of unions, wealthy individuals and advocacy organizations, a Denver Post analysis found.

Collaborative and well-coordinated, the groups not only funded television and radio ads, but put large amounts of money — almost $600,000 for one state Senate race — into canvassing neighborhoods, phone calls and direct mailings that often contained withering attacks on GOP opponents.

The results: In a political climate favoring Republicans, Democrats retained control of the state Senate and lost the House by only one seat. They also won the governor's mansion three months after unleashing a half-million dollars in ads targeting Scott McInnis, the stronger candidate in the GOP primary, who was pushed out of the race.

"We do what it takes to win day in and day out," said Joan Fitz-Gerald, former Colorado Senate president and current head of America Votes, a Washington D.C.-based liberal organization that coordinates election campaigns with 37 Colorado groups.

A 2010 state law required so-called super PACs — independent expenditure committees that directly advocate for or against a candidate — to disclose not only their donors, but their disbursements. The Post analyzed that data to calculate for the first time the vast disparity between Democratic and Republican independent expenditure committee spending — about $4.24 million to $28,644. Interviews with those familiar with the Democrats' operations also gave The Post a glimpse into their long-term strategy to dominate state politics.

Unless there is a drastic change over the next eight months, Republicans say they have a tough road ahead.

The party, which continues to splinter among different interest groups, also struggles to attract big donors and faces a Democratic-drawn redistricting map. And while the GOP has started to construct a political infrastructure and tapped nonprofit advocacy groups for message delivery, they remain years behind the Democrats whose vast philanthropic, political and wealthy donor network shares everything from voter files to strategy.

"We've had a lot of chiefs trying to solve a lot of problems, but they aren't well-coordinated," said Colorado GOP consultant Katy Atkinson. "We need to get fed up with losing like the Democrats did. But I don't know if Republicans have hit bottom yet."

State politics transformed

It has been eight years since four rich liberals — Pat Stryker, Tim Gill, Jared Polis and Rutt Bridges — were brought together by Al Yates, a former Colorado State University president. The group transformed state politics by funding independent political committees, which can spend unlimited amounts of money as long as they don't specifically advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate or coordinate with a candidate.

The committees — called 527s, after the section of the tax code that governs them — launched surprise attacks on a handful of vulnerable Republican legislators. When the smoke cleared, the Democrats controlled the state Senate and House for the first time in 44 years. Two years later, similar groups helped Democrat Bill Ritter get elected governor.

The 2004 strategy sessions of the so-called Gang of Four evolved into the Colorado Democracy Alliance, or CoDA, a corporation that focuses on supporting candidates, as well as coordinating and funding a network of independent groups with similar agendas. And that model was exported to other states.

"We don't stand alone in silos. We meet on a consistent basis.We understand each other's issues and how to thread them together," said Fitz-Gerald, who became the state's first female Senate president after the 2004 election.

Democrats involved with the network are unwilling to publicly share details of their strategy. Part of the strategy is not talking about it, one said. But interviews with Democrats who asked not to be identified reveal a few simple principles.

Winning is everything

To start, state races have specific plans and funding sources. That way no one relies on money trickling down from the top of the ticket. Consistent interaction and a strong political infrastructure build trust and collaboration. Losing is inevitable, so the key is to never let the pendulum swing so far that those losses can't be recouped in a better climate. And most importantly, winning is everything. Policy and ideology can never get in the way of putting a Democrat in office.

Using this framework, Colorado Democrats have been able to recruit and organize wealthy donors, as well as bridge gaps in the party, even uniting unions with what one consultant calls the "Chablis and brie crowd."

Republicans have been trying to catch up for years, said conservative Jon Caldara, but their political and financial strategy remains out-of-date.

"Republicans still have 12:00 blinking on their VCR, while Democrats are asking, 'What's a VCR?' " said Caldara, head of The Independence Institute.

Colorado Democrats leaped ahead of the GOP again in 2010 after two federal court rulings gave corporations, unions and other independent groups the right to directly influence elections. Democrats quickly set up independent expenditure groups, which can lay out unlimited amounts of money and expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate as long as they do not coordinate with the office-seeker. Then they transferred money from the 527s, as well as infused fresh money, into the newly created groups, The Post found by examining financial records from the two types of organizations .

Both 527s and independent expenditure groups can roll out negative ads. But a 527 is limited to stating "call your legislator and tell her to vote no" on a certain issue, while an independent expenditure group can go a step further, using what has become known as the "magic words": "vote for," "reject," "defeat" or "elect" a specific candidate.

"Those words make a difference at the point of sale. When it's the second week of October and voting starts, you want to make the most direct statement. You want to tell them exactly what to do," said Denver pollster Floyd Ciruli.

So while the GOP stuck to a beat-around-the-bush strategy, Democrats hit Republicans head on with targeted and coordinated messages.

In the end, liberal groups won 17 of the 24 legislative races they put direct advocacy money into, The Post found. Senate Majority Leader John Morse of Colorado Springs raised $163,769 for his re-election campaign. Outside groups, however, put in nearly $600,000 on his behalf. Morse won by about 340 votes.

Two other victorious Democratic Senate candidates — Jeanne Nicholson of Black Hawk and Gail Schwartz of Snowmass Village — saw independent groups put in more than $300,000 for each race. And one group, Environment Colorado, spent $200,000 for neighborhood canvassing on behalf of the Democratic candidates for governor, attorney general, state Senate and state House.

"Even when the political environment is rotten to them, (the Democrats) have the capacity to turn the tide by targeting money at the very top and at the bottom of the ticket," said Republican Josh Penry, former minority leader in the state Senate. "It should be a call to arms for conservatives who have resources and can match the effort."

In the Colorado governor's race , a liberal group called The Freedom Fund spent $500,000 in the 10 days leading up to the GOP primary for attack ads against McInnis, who was caught up in a plagiarism scandal. Even though a Post poll six weeks earlier showed McInnis ahead of his GOP opponent by 28 percentage points, he lost.

"It seemed that we were actually starting to recover a little. And then, bam! They dropped the piano on our head," said Sean Duffy, former communications director for McInnis.

The Democrat, now-Gov. John Hickenlooper, easily won the general election.

During the 2008 and 2010 elections, Democrats spent roughly 70 percent of the $23 million shelled out by all 527s. The top contributors included a handful of unions, Gill and Stryker, and, especially in 2010, a few "social welfare" organizations, known as a 501(c)4s under the tax code. They included America Votes, which gave $464,250 and Progressive Future ($425,000).

These groups are legally allowed to engage in political activities as long as it it's not their primary purpose. But they are not required to disclose their donors.

Contributors who want to shield their identities often funnel money through 501(c)4s. Nationally, these groups have been effectively utilized by the GOP, most prominently by George W. Bush strategist Karl Rove. Colorado Republicans also used these groups to put out fliers and ads in 2010 races.

""We haven't gotten big money out of politics. We've just driven it into the shadows," said Rob Witwer, former GOP state representative and co-author of "The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care)."

In a state where current voter registration is 37 percent Republican, 32 percent Democrat and 30 percent unaffiliated, Democrats have also found other ways to use their money in a way hidden from public view. Philanthropic organizations are often responsible for voter-registration and get-out-the-vote efforts. Legally, the charities are prohibited from partisan activities. But their members can go to neighborhoods or cities, like Denver or Pueblo, that heavily lean Democratic and register voters there, Democratic sources said.

Additionally, Democrats have Catalist, a for-profit company that has an uber-voter file: demographic, political and commercial/marketing information for 280 million Americans.

President Barack Obama tapped into Catalist for his 2008 presidential race, according to The Atlantic, and Colorado Democrats say it was used for U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet's race. In the final two weeks, Democrats said, they targeted voters household by household, helping Bennet win by a narrow margin.

Also fully funded are layers of Democratic political infrastructure. Various Colorado and local chapters of national groups handle policy, opposition research, candidate recruitment, leadership and training, and media.

A news outlet does a story

A typical, hypothetical scenario might look like this: A liberal group with a nonpartisan name like Colorado First puts out a list of polluters and demands official action. A Republican running for Colorado office is on the list. Paid liberal bloggers chatter. An online liberal publication with a newspaper-like name writes an article about the candidate and his company polluting Colorado's streams. A liberal advocacy group puts out a news release, citing the group and the publication, which sound reputable to an ordinary voter. They mass e-mail the release and attach a catchy phrase to it like "Dirty Doug." At some point, the mainstream media checks out the allegations. Depending on the facts, a news outlet does a story.

Another group, or even the opponent of "Dirty Doug," uses the media story in a mail piece. And another group runs a TV or radio ad.

These types of integrated offenses were used against McInnis; Republican Bob Beauprez, a candidate for governor in 2006; then-Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave in 2008; and countless legislative candidates.

Republicans do have their own versions of some of these groups, but they still lack disciplined coordination. Some told The Post that the "it-takes-a-village" approach adopted by Democrats just isn't in the DNA of big-money Republicans. Many come from the business community, where they have a lot of control and don't like to delegate it. Others are focused on individualism, not the collective whole, and still others only want to back groups with certain social agendas. Additionally, it's hard to get donors excited when their team is losing and struggling to recruit fresh candidates, said Republican consultant Sean Tonner.

"Big donors got mad in '06 and '08. They are tired of the same people asking for money every cycle, especially when we aren't winning," he said.

Colorado GOP chairman Ryan Call, however, said he believes Republicans this year will have sufficient resources to compete with the Democrats.

"We will be able to draw contrasts," he said. "We're going to be aggressive under the First Amendment."

Karen E. Crummy: 303-954-1594 or kcrummy@denverpost.com; twitter.com/karencrummy

View the original article here

In Senate, Democrats halt pipeline measure - Philadelphia Daily News

WASHINGTON - With gas prices a high-octane campaign issue, the Democratic-led Senate beat back a Republican effort to advance the Keystone XL oil pipeline project.

Thursday's vote to attach the project to a must-pass transportation bill failed, 56-42, with 11 Democrats joining Republicans to support the measure. Sixty votes were needed for passage.

While both Pennsylvania senators, Democrat Bob Casey and Republican Pat Toomey, voted in favor of the measure, the other Philadelphia-area senators voted against it.

President Obama had called senators to urge a no vote.

"We hope that the Congress will ... not waste its time with ineffectual, sham legislation," White House press secretary Jay Carney said.

But the effort - along with a vote on a measure to expand offshore drilling that was also rejected - was designed to highlight differences between the two parties and provide campaign fodder in this year's battle to control the White House and the Senate.

"The president simply can't claim to have a comprehensive approach to energy, because he doesn't," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "And any time he says he does, the American people should remember one word: Keystone." No Republicans opposed the Keystone measure, but two did not vote.

Republicans are eager to showcase Obama's decision to withhold approval of the Canada-to-Gulf Coast pipeline as proof that the administration is not doing enough to generate jobs and increase energy supplies. But opponents of the project say supporters exaggerate the number of jobs it would create and dispute that it would bring down gas prices.

The pipeline issue has divided core Democratic constituencies. Some labor unions back the project as a way to create jobs; environmentalists warn the pipeline would expand the nation's carbon footprint and create more pollution.

An alternative Democratic measure that would, among other things, have prohibited the export of oil transported in the pipeline and, according to its sponsor, Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), put "teeth behind all of the debate that this energy is going to be for the America consumer," also failed.

Sen. John Hoeven (R., N.D.), who led the floor debate on the Keystone amendment, argued that the Democratic alternative measure would have added "additional impediments" to the project.

The Keystone votes come as the Senate is on track to pass a $109 billion, two-year transportation bill next week. The legislation sets road, highway, and transit priorities.

But the transportation bill's fate is uncertain because House Speaker John A. Boehner (R., Ohio) has been unable to corral a majority for passage in the Republican-controlled House. Republicans disagree on how big the bill should be and what it should include.

One measure passed Thursday would steer 80 percent of the penalties paid by BP for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico spill to restoring coastal ecosystems and rebuilding local economies in the gulf.

View the original article here

Democrats, Republicans each aim to woo support of women voters in November - Post-Crescent

WASHINGTON ? Is the 2012 election shaping up to be all about women?

President Barack Obama is working hard to woo this pivotal constituency in his re-election race. His Democratic allies are even accusing the GOP of launching a "war against women" after the Republicans reignited a new national debate over cultural issues, including birth control.

But now the Republicans ? including Ann Romney and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski ? are striking back with a promise: Their party will win women by focusing on the real No. 1 issue, the economy.

Not that Obama is ready to give up that issue.

"I believe that the Democrats have a better story to tell to women about how we're going to solidify the middle class and grow this economy, make sure everybody has a fair shot, everybody's doing their fair share, and we got a fair set of rules of the road that everybody has to follow," Obama said Tuesday as Republican presidential contenders competed in Super Tuesday primaries.

Hours later, Ann Romney ? the wife of GOP front-runner Mitt Romney ? answered him.

"Do you know what women care about? Women care about jobs," she declared on national television, as her husband waited nearby to speak. "They're angry, and they're furious about the entitlement debt that we're leaving for our children."

"I'm right along with Ann Romney," Murkowski said on Wednesday.

The Alaska Republican has been critical of her party's focus on birth control policy when people remain worried about economic stability. In a telephone interview, Murkowski added: "There is clearly a direction that we can take as Republicans that gives confidence and assurance that we are focused on the issues that matter to women."

Eight months before Election Day, women have become arguably the most sought-after voting group in an election year where the presidency and control of Congress are at stake. Females comprise a majority of voters in a typical presidential election year.

Women are a crucial voting group for Obama, particularly in the suburbs of big cities like Denver and Detroit. He would not be president today had he not beaten Republican John McCain by 13 points among women four years ago.

The importance of winning the women's vote may be magnified this year given that the fragile economy may weigh down the support of other groups that supported Obama strongly in 2008, such as Latinos and college-age voters.

Recent polling suggests Obama is gaining among women. An Associated Press-GfK poll conducted last month showed his approval rating had risen 10 percentage points among women since December. The poll also showed that women approve more strongly of the way the president is handling the economy.

For Republicans, conservative women represent a loyal sector of the party's base, and female independents offer an opportunity to eat into Obama's support. Independent women broke for Obama by a 10-point margin four years ago, according to exit polling, while among independent men he managed just a 5-point edge.

Both parties have viewed the furor over Obama's policy on access to contraception as an opportunity to curry favor with women. Republicans protested Obama's mandate that birth control be covered by insurance, even for employers whose faiths forbid contraception. The policy, Republicans insisted, was a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom, and they forced a vote on it in the Senate. The GOP measure to overturn Obama's policy lost, 51-48, with one Republican, Sen. Olympia Snowe, helping Democrats kill it.

Recent exit polls in the GOP nomination contest suggest some groups of women within the GOP are turned off by the focus on social issues. In Ohio, for example, married women broke for Santorum, while unmarried women favored Romney, a marriage gap that did not exist among men. Women who said abortion should be legal in most or all cases broke for Romney, while those who thought it should be illegal in most or all cases leaned toward Santorum.

Democrats called the Senate vote the latest attempt to roll back long-established women's rights. House Republicans, they also pointed out, had barred a young law student from testifying in favor of Obama's policy but allowed five men to testify against it. And then radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh called the woman a "slut" and a "prostitute" for arguing that her school, Georgetown University, should cover her contraception.

Obama made sure reporters knew he had telephoned the young woman, Sandra Fluke, to offer support. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, called Limbaugh's remarks "inappropriate." And Limbaugh, losing advertisers, apologized.

The Democrats' pitch ? that Republicans were launching a "war on women" was born. Coast to coast, Democrats hawked the theme. Women senators used it to raise money, wives of candidates included it in pleas for support, and surrogates ? from Sen. Claire McCaskill's mother to former tennis star Billie Jean King ? ran with it.

"Stop the GOP's War on Women!" read an email sent to Democrats by the party's House campaign committee.

The drumbeat has frustrated Republicans, pushed onto the defensive as polls showed a majority of Americans favored the president's contraception policy.

But the notion that Republicans are out to strip women of their rights "is just a lie," said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. "It's not a war on women. It's an effort to protect religious liberty."

But Ann Romney's rebuttal moves the response further, said veteran GOP pollster Ed Goeas.

Polling, he said, shows that different subgroups of women assess economic questions differently ? and that white women in particular respond well to the Republicans' economic message.

"Everybody's responding to this as if women vote as a monolith," Goeas said. "They don't."

Or, suggested Murkowski, they shouldn't.

In the interview, she said she regrets her vote for the GOP amendment to overturn Obama's contraception policy. If she had it to do over again, she would join Snowe in voting against it.

"Women in Alaska are worried about what they're paying for energy costs. They're worried about whether or not they're going to be able to put their kids through college, whether their savings are secure," Murkowski said.

Even Obama acknowledged that female voters are going to want questions answered on the economy.

"I'm not somebody who believes that women are going to be single-issue voters. They never have been," he said.

View the original article here

Hoyer predicts Democrats win back House if economic upswing continues - CNN

20 hours ago CNN Senior Congressional Producer Deirdre Walsh Washington (CNN) – The No. 2 House Democrat predicted Thursday that, if the economy continues to improve, Democrats will win control of the House of Representatives in November.

"I think our chances are reasonably good that we can take back the House, and if the economy continues to perform as it's been performing, I think we will take back the House," House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, told reporters in his Capitol Hill office.

– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker
– Follow Deirdre Walsh on Twitter: @deirdrewalshcnn

The Maryland Democrat argued that out of the 76 Congressional districts that House Democrats are focused on this November, "no less than 50 of these districts are really solid opportunities for us."

Democrats need to pick up 25 House seats to regain the majority in the House.

Hoyer cited a divided Republican Party - both in Congress and in the GOP 2012 presidential nominating process - as factors that position Democrats well in the fall election.

More than any other issue Hoyer said the economy will be what voters focus on in November, "If it's better we'll do better, if its worse it will affect us."

But the top-level House Democrat said his party learned a lesson from the last election when voters were unhappy they didn't focus enough on the issue and tossed them out of the majority. This time around he believes Democrats will be helped by the president being at the top of the ticket and traveling the country talking about his efforts to boost the recovery.

While Hoyer acknowledged that the backlash to the health care debate was a liability for Democrats in 2010, he argued that it will actually help the party this fall as seniors see lower drug prices, and younger Americans who aren't employed become eligible for health care coverage.

In addition, Hoyer said the tea party won't play the same role it did in the last election, when it helped elect GOP candidates. He cited his own race two years ago when he faced a tea party-backed candidate, who drew sizeable support because of his (Hoyer's) support of the health care bill. But after a couple of years of GOP control of the House that has seen fights over spending and few legislative accomplishments, the Democratic leader believes those activists may be less energized.

"The tea party is probably saying 'geez this isn't working,'" Hoyer said of Republican control in the House.

As the battle among Republicans for the presidential nomination continues to play out, the House Democratic Whip said the attacks on former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will help Democrats.

"Where Romney I think has been wounded over the last six months I think Obama has been strengthened over the last six months," Hoyer noted.

The latest news from CNN's political team with campaign coverage 24-7. For complete political coverage, bookmark PoliticalTicker.blogs.cnn.com as well as CNNPolitics.com.

View the original article here

Democrats Are Warming to Obama Connection - New York Times

But with the economy slowly crawling back to life, a shift in messaging at the White House and a Republican push on social issues, Democrats are accepting — and in some cases openly embracing — the inevitable yoking of their campaigns to Mr. Obama’s as election-year activities accelerate. On Capitol Hill, Democrats have begun to mention Mr. Obama more often and have gone out of their way to publicly back some of his proposals.

Democrats say Mr. Obama’s near monophonic campaigning in recent months — highlighting his differences with Republicans on policies affecting the middle class — is far more resonant in their districts and states than defending the health care law or the stimulus package, issues that have dogged Democrats.

Further, while Republicans spent most of 2011 dominating the national conversation on the federal deficit and seeking the upper hand in Congressional budget battles, Democrats have found themselves this winter on the more popular side of fights, including the recent one over a payroll tax holiday, which they believe Republicans turned into an unforced error for their team.

“I think it’s definitely shifting now,” said Senator Thomas R. Carper, Democrat of Delaware. “In part it’s just because the economy is improving. I don’t know that it’s springtime just yet, but the wind is coming back.”

This month, Mr. Obama’s pivot into an “all of the above” energy policy platform, one more or less lifted from the Republicans’ 2008 campaign, is something moderate Democrats, many of whom support things like the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that Mr. Obama has blocked, are also happy to hear.

“His focus on building jobs and restoring some stability in the middle class is what I have been focusing on all along,” said Representative Timothy H. Bishop of New York. “In 2010 the conversation was almost exclusively about health care, and there was so much emotion and so much fury. I think the climate is much calmer now.”

Republicans believe strongly that Mr. Obama remains a significant liability in states like Missouri, Montana and North Carolina, all places where Democrats are in jeopardy, as well as many Congressional districts where his policies remain radioactive.

Further, creeping gas prices, an escalation of the conflict in the Middle East or other factors could create severe head winds for Mr. Obama this year.

“By all means we would encourage Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, Tim Kaine and all other Senate Democratic candidates to campaign on the president’s record of massive government mandates, record spending, lost jobs and a $15 trillion debt,” said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

While it is far too early to see if Democratic incumbents are willing to actually campaign with Mr. Obama, the evidence of their willingness to align with him is legislatively apparent.

For instance, Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who last year proclaimed the president’s large jobs package as too big to get his vote, happily picked off the payroll tax cut component of the bill and made it his own. Mr. Tester, in a tough re-election race in Montana, also focused on one piece of the bill — a tax break for employers who hire veterans, which would be paid for by a surtax on millionaires — and claimed it for his own.

Some lawmakers are seizing on what they perceive as the best part of Mr. Obama’s record, and running with it, rhetorically. On the House floor recently, Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee said, “I want to say that I’m proud to support President Obama, his jobs plan, his efforts to maintain the automobile industry strong in America, and to support him in Libya and root out Qaddafi and Al Qaeda in other places.”

Joyce Beatty, who won the Democratic primary Tuesday for a House seat in Ohio, has already sided with the president, ending a recent campaign advertisement with a shot of herself and Mr. Obama.

Senator Mark Begich of Alaska, who in September called Mr. Obama’s proposal to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies “frustrating,” said last week that he was buoyed to hear Mr. Obama shift the conversation to his campaign-year energy policy, which includes increased domestic oil production.

“He goes down to Florida and actually mentions energy?” Mr. Begich said. “To me, that’s what we should be focused on. We should talk about what middle-class Americans care about, and that’s jobs, the economy, their tax rates.”

Mr. Begich, who is not up for re-election this year, even said that the much-maligned stimulus package had been good for his state, and that he was happy to embrace it. “I am the only member of the delegation that voted for the recovery money,” he said. “You bet I talk about it.”

Many Republicans also concede that Mr. Obama is not quite as effective a symbol as he was in 2010, and that they will have to focus harder on specific policies where they part ways with Democrats to get their message out. “It’s probably not as much as a liability as you saw in 2010,” said Representative Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, about ties between Congressional Democrats and the White House.

Democrats also see opportunities to seize on cases in which Republicans have distanced themselves from some of the positions of Mitt Romney, a leading Republican presidential candidate. In Michigan, Representative Fred Upton and other Republicans have said they disagree with Mr. Romney’s criticism of the auto industry bailout, and in foreclosure-wracked Nevada, Representative Joe Heck said he was not on the same page as Mr. Romney when it came to housing policies.

Of course, Democrats will not have a choice; Republicans are already running campaigns that will link them to the president in a negative way. “I think without any question my opponent will, whether it is true or not, connect me to him,” Mr. Bishop said. So they say they are trying to embrace what they can, and worry less about what they cannot stop.

“I try to control the things I can control, and the things I can’t control I just need to be honest about.” Mrs. McCaskill said. “In many ways the president can be an asset, in some ways he is definitely not an asset in my state. It’s a mixed bag.”

The recent drop in Missouri’s unemployment rate, she hopes, will help her in areas of her state where Mr. Obama remains unpopular and is likely to run behind this year. “I really think come November, if most Missourians are paying attention, they are going to realize it’s in their best economic interest to re-elect the president,” she said. “And me, of course.”

Other Democrats said they would try to cherry-pick Mr. Obama’s campaign themes, while still keeping their physical distance.

“The message that the president is running on is a message that most Democrats can get on board with now,” said Representative Daniel Lipinski, who represents a more conservative district in and around Chicago. “The people need a champion now, and that’s more and more the president.”

However, asked if he was longing to campaign with Mr. Obama, Mr. Lipinski said, “I am not answering that question.”

View the original article here

Friday, March 9, 2012

English Democrats: England's voice must be heard, says Tilbrook - BBC News

9 March 2012 Last updated at 13:10 ET

Mr Tilbrook says the biggest parties would not even mention the word "England" England's voice must be "properly heard" if Scotland votes for independence, the leader of the English Democrats has said.

Ahead of the party's spring conference in Kent on Saturday, Robin Tilbrook told the BBC the biggest parties were unwilling to address the issue.

The party will launch its local elections campaign at the conference.

Mr Tilbrook, who is standing for London mayor in May, said other parties were "not interested in England".

The English Democrats say they have about 3,000 members and Mr Tilbrook has said the party has a "big task ahead" to raise the £10,000 deposit, and 330 signatures - 10 from each borough and from the City of London - required to stand as mayor in London.

The party also plans to stand candidates for mayoral elections in Liverpool and Salford and in local elections in England. They are also campaigning for a "yes" vote in referendums in 12 English cities on whether they want directly-elected mayors.

Ahead of the conference, Mr Tilbrook told the BBC: "The political parties are not willing to mention the word England.

"You have only got to look at the fact that none of them came up with even a manifesto for England. They are quite happy to have a manifesto for Scotland, a manifesto for Wales and then they have a UK manifesto."

He said politicians were happy to talk about "our country" or the "United Kingdom" - even when they were referring to policies that applied to England only, like the NHS shake-up or university tuition fees.

"In the discussions that occur after the SNP have their referendum, if the vote is as we expect it may well be, in favour of independence, then obviously English interests have got to be taken into account."

He said the Acts of Union had joined the two kingdoms: "If the kingdom of Scotland goes, the UK has gone and at that point, we have got to have England's voice properly heard."

The English Democrats currently have one elected mayor - Peter Davies in Doncaster - one county councillor and five district councillors.

View the original article here

Democrats Use Limbaugh Controversy to Raise Money - NewsMax.com

Democrats are using Rush Limbaugh’s controversial criticism of a law student's contraceptive advocacy to raise money and are calling on more sponsors to drop his talk show. In a rebuttal, he says he's actually adding sponsors.

Limbaugh has apologized for calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” for testifying before Congress in support of health insurance coverage of birth control. But Fluke has called the apology meaningless, and Democrats are doing their best to keep the story alive.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, from Limbaugh’s home state of Missouri, featured Limbaugh’s words in a fundraising appeal. It paid off, netting her re-election campaign $10,000 in just one day.

"It's been one of our top fundraising emails for Claire," McCaskill campaign manager Adrianne Marsh told The Associated Press.

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have also invoked Limbaugh’s name in fundraising appeals. The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, chaired by Washington Sen. Patty Murray, called for donations to help fight Limbaugh.

“Personal attacks on a student — and all women — simply can’t be ignored,” the committee’s appeal said. “Stand with us, and denounce Rush Limbaugh’s vile attacks.”

Dozens of advertisers and some radio stations have dropped Limbaugh’s show, and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said he would “love” to see the Armed Forces Network ditch it as well.

Meanwhile, Limbaugh scoffs at the idea that such actions have hurt his show.

“Everything is fine on the business side,” he said on his program on Wednesday. “Everything’s cool. There is not a thing to worry about.”

Amid reports that at least 28 sponsors have left the show, Limbaugh said that is “out of 18,000. That’s like losing a couple of french fries in the container when it’s delivered to you in the drive-through. You don’t even notice it.”

Limbaugh also said he's adding more advertisers. “Whatever you are seeing on television about this program and sponsors and advertisers is just incorrect," he said.

Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod tried to tie the flap to the presidential campaign, telling reporters Wednesday that GOP front-runner Mitt Romney’s failure to denounce Limbaugh shows a lack of backbone.

"How can he stand up to [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad?" Axelrod continued, "How are you going to stand up to the challenges of the presidency? These are tests. Presidential campaigns are tests... The Limbaugh thing was a test of leadership, and you have them all the time, and Mitt Romney has failed those tests in the campaign."

Even McCaskill’s mother has joined the fray. An email sent out in 83-year-old Betty Anne McCaskill’s name carried the subject line, “Who are you calling a slut or a babe?”

In it, the senator’s mom accused Limbaugh of waging “a war on women.”

“Rush Limbaugh and his out-of-control nasty mouth is part of the problem,” she said. “I thought after 40 years of progress this wouldn’t be an issue any more. Unfortunately, it seems that I’ve thought too highly of Republican Party leaders.”

View the original article here

Study shows health care bill may have cost Democrats the House - Washington Post

???initialComments:true! pubdate:03/09/2012 11:15 EST! commentPeriod:14! commentEndDate:3/23/12 12:15 EDT! currentDate:3/8/12 7:0 EST! allowComments:true! displayComments:true!Posted by Aaron Blake at 11:15 AM ET, 03/09/2012

A top Democrat acknowledged Thursday that President Obama’s health care bill hurt his party in 2010. And a new study suggests it cost the Democrats something pretty specific: their House majority.

“It was clearly a liability in the last election in terms of the public’s fear,” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Thursday during a briefing with reporters.

The study, by five professors from institutions across the country, looks at the health care bill alongside other contentious votes in the 111th Congress and determines that, more so than the stimulus or the cap-and-trade energy bill, it cost Democrats seats. In fact, they lost almost exactly the number of seats that decided the majority.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) after the House vote on the payroll tax cut extension in December. (REUTERS/Yuri Gripas)

The study ran 10,000 simulations of a scenario in which all vulnerable Democrats voted against the health care bill and found that the rejections would have saved Democrats an average of 25 seats, which would have made the House parties close to a tie. (Republicans won 63 seats overall, but the study suggests around 25 of them would have been salvaged.)

In 62 percent of the simulations, Democrats were able to keep the House.

The study uses district-level data to show that the vote created “ideological distance” between the Democratic members of Congress and the median voters in their districts, compared with similar districts where the Democratic incumbent voted against the bill.

“Democratic incumbents who supported health care reform were seen as more liberal on average by their constituents than those who did not,” the study says.

The study comes at an important time for the health care bill — just as it’s threatening to become a major issue again in the 2012 election.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to take up a challenge to the individual mandate portion of the bill later this month when it holds oral arguments. Republicans are licking their chops, hoping to rekindle the kind of enthusiasm they reaped from attacking the bill two years ago, just as enthusiasm seems to be on the decline in the GOP.

Democrats, meanwhile, are planning to celebrate the two-year anniversary of the bill’s passage later this month as part of an ongoing effort to make sure the bill isn’t a political liability going forward.

Hoyer said that whatever harm the bill might have caused his party electorally two years ago, the effects are more mitigated now.

“I think some of the fears they had have not been realized,” Hoyer said. ”Therefore, I think you’ve dissipated the opposition. Republicans are going to use it, but I don’t think it’s as fertile soil as they had two years ago.”

The health care bill, in many ways, is a kind of sleeping giant. But it’s about to be awakened, and how the parties navigate the issue in the coming weeks and months will go a long way toward determining how the 2012 election pans out.