Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

House Dems Score Special Election Upset

Physicist Bill Foster (D) defeated dairy magnate Jim Oberweis (R) in the Illinois special election to replace former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R), a win that reinforces the perils facing House Republicans at the ballot box this fall.

With 99 percent of precincts reporting, Foster had 52.5 percent of the vote to Oberweis's 47.5 percent. That result was amazing given the 14th District's clear Republican lean. President Bush won the district, which spans into the far western suburbs of Chicago, with 55 percent in 2004 and 54 percent in 2000. Hastert won reelection easily for more than two decades.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, was quick to cast the race as a national barometer. Foster's victory is "a stunning rejection of the Bush administration, its Republican allies, and presidential nominee John McCain," he said.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) called the race "the shot of change heard around the world."

Republican strategists downplayed the importance of the race, insisting that Oberweis's past runs for office had badly damaged him in the eyes of voters. Oberweis, who owns a chain of dairies throughout the state, ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in 2002 and 2004, and governor in 2006. His previous primary campaigns were knock down, drag out affairs as was his primary win over state Sen. Chris Lauzen (R) earlier this year -- races that left his image among voters seriously tarnished.

"The one thing 2008 has shown is that one election in one state does not prove a trend," said newly installed National Republican Congressional Committee Communications Director Karen Hanretty. "In fact, there has been no national trend this entire election season....The one message coming out of 2008 so far is that what happens today is not a bellwether of what happens this fall."

The defeat -- whether or not there are national implications -- is a major setback for the NRCC and House Republicans. The NRCC spent nearly $1.3 million defending the seat, a significant percentage of the $6.4 million the committee showed on hand at the end of January. That is a major investment of limited resources -- only to come up empty.

House Republicans, already dispirited by the loss of their majority in the 2006 election and more than two dozen retirements within their ranks since then, will likely take this defeat hard. Watch to see whether a rash of retirements breaks out over the coming weeks as vulnerable members take the Illinois special election as a sign of things to come in the fall.

We'll be back with more on this race and its implications next week. Want more on the state of play in the House? Check out this week's Friday Line.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 8, 2008; 10:53 PM ET
Categories:  House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucuses
Next: FixCam Week in Preview ... and Theme Song Finals

Comments

mewnjf bergsq lifed
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/taper-off-paxil.html taper off paxil

Posted by: taper off paxil | August 21, 2008 5:37 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: effects effexor side | August 21, 2008 2:26 AM | Report abuse

cwnah wjhy tiyolgv rbwfmdu
http://ticketsn.fcpages.com/hair-illinois-loss-treatment.html hair illinois loss treatment

Posted by: hair illinois loss treatment | August 18, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: herbal hair loss solution | August 18, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: zyprexa zydas | August 18, 2008 5:59 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: seroquel deaths pancreatitis | August 18, 2008 4:56 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: elavil for chronic pain | August 17, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: cymbalta effects sleep | August 17, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: cause of hair loss in cats | August 17, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

aurkw siovcf xlzk vazu
http://knotlyri.lookseekpages.com/paxil-lawsuit-wisconsin.html paxil lawsuit wisconsin

Posted by: paxil lawsuit wisconsin | August 17, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

ckdfy sirheg qcak
http://grenaeiny.100freemb.com/detox-and-cymbalta.html detox and cymbalta

Posted by: detox and cymbalta | August 17, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: seroquel adverse | August 17, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

isuy sidofva yqfkrl skafrcg
http://idioyyinv.25am.com/pictures-of-paxil-rash.html pictures of paxil rash

Posted by: pictures of paxil rash | August 16, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

ishopfa kbtlgxp adfqkrl
http://smallcla.arcadepages.com/buy-levitra-in-uk.html buy levitra in uk

Posted by: buy levitra in uk | August 16, 2008 6:33 AM | Report abuse

ishopfa kbtlgxp adfqkrl
http://smallcla.arcadepages.com/buy-levitra-in-uk.html buy levitra in uk

Posted by: buy levitra in uk | August 16, 2008 6:31 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: lexapro side affects loss of smell | August 15, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: lexapro side affects loss of smell | August 15, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: elavil vulvodynia | August 15, 2008 7:59 AM | Report abuse

xdcebf
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4920 propecia and over the counter canada

Posted by: propecia and over the counter canada | May 12, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

xdcebf
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4920 propecia and over the counter canada

Posted by: propecia and over the counter canada | May 12, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: propecia rogaine versus | May 11, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: propecia rogaine versus | May 11, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

dswf zrfstgh uabpm dupkets
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4551 cheap ultram without

Posted by: cheap ultram without | May 11, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram tab | May 11, 2008 1:45 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: fibromyalgia ultram | May 10, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: 50 mg tablet ultram | May 10, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: 50 mg tablet ultram | May 10, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

pyeatn bfqhiulad wunp gwpfnoty zjvynt jarpwzdi dfmiqp http://www.wtgybj.kaqnio.com

Posted by: lxokrdws vsarbxcqo | April 16, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

ndslvoc hmdycztpe mrsltzu bjrn pjtzqdix myxhrdu fdrcyjzah

Posted by: bxlrud ynwtisc | April 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Judge--you're right, Jennifer Brunner seems to be far more on top of things than Taft and Blackwell were, more sober and competent rather than a corrupt party hack. A number of aspects of Ohio elections seem to be going better with her in charge, as Cordray has made good on some important campaign promises as Treasurer (e.g. financial literacy). The Dems do seem to be running the state better. I hope we can take back the House this fall.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | March 11, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

This is another example of Obama's decisiveness and judgment. Had Foster lost, we would already see Clinton television adds blasting Obama's "lack of coattails". Clinton, on the other hand, preferred to take the safe, easy, less risky route and do nothing.

Posted by: GabsDaD | March 10, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand you Obama folks. The Democrats picked up another seat in the House in an upset win. It is an occasion to celebrate not one for internal warfare. Obama is a Senator from Illinois. He can and should take a position on candidates for office in Illinois. It does not follow that senators from other states (including Clinton, Biden, or Dodd) should do the same.

Posted by: esch | March 10, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

drindl - " they have, in fact, obstructed more legislation than any congress in history." Apparently you missed the last sentence of my post - the one about blaming R's for the D's lack of achievements.

Mark - While I don't have a problem with institutions trying to be more ethical, I also don't consider passing a bill to govern your own ethics to be something I would consider hugely important to Americans. In theory, this should not even need to be passed (yes, in theory). On the other hand, the nuke non-proliferation was something. I've always been of two minds on the split party governance. On one hand, it does prevent "extreme" ideas. On the other it prevents "extreme" ideas. A constantly split, or balanced, governance tends to give you part of what you want, not what you might need. Sometimes those "extreme" ideas turn out to be great. And sometimes they don't. I'm not saying that every far-flung idea needs to be implemented but a well balanced goverment virtually assures that no ideas too far outside the mainstream will get any serious debate or discussion. You may love or loath the Fair Tax, but does anybody think there will be any serious discussion of it with a split government?

Posted by: dave | March 10, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

One comment about your video: Are you ever going to show us "The Fix" tee shirt. This inquiring mind wants to know.

Posted by: rfpiktor | March 10, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Special Election Upset?

So now everytime a Democrat wins, it is considered an upset? Which polls were wrong? Do you trust them still?

Better revise your expectations, Chris, if you claim an upset every time a Republican loses in what was once a red district.

Dean's 50-State strategy and Bush's international strategy have contributed to a surge in anti-republican, grassroots, open-source, coffee-shop activism that can not be measured until the next election has passed. But it does not bode well for the Republicans.

Calling this an upset, regardless of your sources, suggests someone EXPECTED the Republican to win, and that entire concept may need to be revisited... especially in the red states, because they have no one to blame but their own state legislators.

Just like here in Kansas, a majority of residents oppose a new coal-fired plant in western counties that sell power to Colorado, but send their pollution to Wichita. Yet their Republican lawmakers are frothing at themouth and chomping at the bit to sell us out. We may be slow to anger here, but we are not stupid.

I saw this happen already in Iowa, the state-level lawmakers became so blatant in their support of special interests, factory hog lots and chemical fertilizers, that "The people" gave control to Democrats because of it.

These days, "expecting" a Republican win may just be a bad habit. It has become a very unfruitful expectation.

Considering the chasmic(chasm and cosmic both in one word)split in the GOP over the war, the economy, "free trade", the environment and immigration, you should expect them to lose seats in the 111th like a tree loses its autumn leaves.

Posted by: JEP7 | March 10, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

dave -- maybe you're just uninformed and pay no attention to what goes on in congress, or you might have some clue, as to what they've been doing. there is a razor slim majority, which means it's easy for the repuglican to block and obstruct legislation, which they have done constnatly since this last term. they have, in fact, obstructed more legislation than any congress in history.

so try to get your facts straight before you start whining.

the reason congress' ratings are so low is because people want this pointless 'war' to be over.

Posted by: drindl | March 10, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

dave -

I think they got an ethics bill passed and signed into law, and a nuclear non-proliferation deal. Those were good deals that took bipartisan support. I am not quibbling with you; I would not want to see a D Admin with a D Congress all other things equal [nor would I want to see R Party dominance]. Both parties make such ludicrous promises to their "bases" that they must be throttled, IMHO.

There is a better chance of achieving a bipartisan foreign policy and no extreme domestic legislation when the presidency and the legislature are in different hands, in theory. The Prez must be one who does not believe in the "unitary executive" for this to work - a Prez who operates outside congressional law can mess up the system as long as s/he serves absent a Congress with the will to strangle the budget or to impeach. The creeping incrementalism of an imperial presidency works against the balancing we need.

McC has often opposed the theory of the unitary executive.

A D legislature and a McC presidency works for me. Probably works better in theory than any other possible combination, for reaching a bipartisan foreign policy and no extreme domestic legislation - as well as for paying some attention to actual openness and efficiency, for awhile.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 10, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

You'd think with all this winning that Dems are doing, they would actually be able to get something done. For over a year now, the Dems have controlled Congress and accomplished what exactly? The reason Dems gained control in the first place was to set a timetable on Iraq and begin pulling out troops. Failed. Then they wanted to "fix" the economy. Despite such progressive ideas as raising the minimum wage, the economy has been tanking ever since the Dems took over. Greatly expanding government controlled healthcare? Vetoed. Rolling back the Patriot act? Rolling back the Bush tax cuts? Still waiting on those. Then there were the completely assinine things they wanted to do like begin impeachment hearings. Perhaps that is why 72% disapprove of the job that Congress is doing, according to the latest AP-Ipsos poll (which is worse than Bush!). At some point, Dems are going to have to actually do that thing called governing. They can't continue to blame the R's and a lame duck unpopular president forever.

Posted by: dave | March 10, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

some military leaders on mccain...

"I like McCain. I respect McCain. But I am a little worried by his knee-jerk response factor," said retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004 and is now campaigning for Clinton. "I think it is a little scary. I think this guy's first reactions are not necessarily the best reactions. I believe that he acts on impulse."

"I studied leadership for a long time during 32 years in the military," said retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, a one-time Republican who is supporting Obama. "It is all about character. Who can motivate willing followers? Who has the vision? Who can inspire people?" Gration asked. "I have tremendous respect for John McCain, but I would not follow him."

"One of the things the senior military would like to see when they go visit the president is a kind of consistency, a kind of reliability," explained retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, a former Republican, former chief of staff of the Air Force and former fighter pilot who flew 285 combat missions. McPeak said his perception is that Obama is "not that up when he is up and not that down when he is down. He is kind of a steady Eddie. This is a very important feature," McPeak said. On the other hand, he said, "McCain has got a reputation for being a little volatile." McPeak is campaigning for Obama.'

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/06/commander_in_chief/index.html

Posted by: drindl | March 10, 2008 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Have to agree with cbl-pdx; here in OH many voted by mail this year. Not all, of course, but it seemed to go just fine.

Now that a D is running things our state finished an election WITHOUT egg on its face. Could there be a trend there?

Posted by: judgeccrater | March 10, 2008 7:48 AM | Report abuse

'Bushies push Romney as VP.
Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard reports that President Bush favors former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney as Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) running mate, as does Jeb Bush, who "preferred Romney over McCain in the primaries." Bill Kristol also recently stated that "Mitt Romney would be good," adding that he "vetted the idea with former White House aide Karl Rove."

Wonder how McCain feels about Jeb, Kristol and Rove choosing his VP for him? Doesn't seem like he would like the idea much, given that he seems to hate Mittens..

Posted by: drindl | March 10, 2008 7:37 AM | Report abuse


INCREDIBLE!!! a DEM took Denny Hastert's REPUB SEAT!! WOW!!! Obama ran commercials for HIM!! Now those are some COATTAILS!!! YOU CAN GUARANTEE THAT IF HILARY RAN COMMERCIALS HE WOULD HAVE LOST!!!!! This shows the power of Obama's strategy....win in the RED AREAS!!! Go Obama....Down with the WITCH/EVIL HILARY!!!

SAMANTHA POWER WAS RIGHT!

Posted by: Rubiconski | March 10, 2008 4:13 AM | Report abuse

Foster's win shows once again that no one should take past voting patterns as a given.

The people are tired of Republican rule. Now we need a bigger majority and a Democratic President that will not veto progressive legislation.

A 50 state campaign will deliver these results.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | March 9, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Do you stupid Hillary fans think she is pure as the driven snow? Well why does she have to testify in California about illegal fraud contributions from a felon????? Yep Hillary is just as pure as they come. The only differance is that the press never says anything about Hillary's garbage. Only Obama. It is blatantly obvious..especially CNN that they support Hillary; so dont go there about the press always down on Hillary...is a bunch of crap. I for one will never...ever vote for Hillary. I dont care if Obama went on her ticket...I dont want that crooked .. criminal type in the white house. And I am sure many others wont either.

Posted by: Webster51 | March 9, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA another corrupt Chicago Politician
http://poligazette.com/2008/03/09/was-there-an-obama-daley-deal-on-the-presidency/

Among his seedy past:
This behavior is not unusual for Obama if you examine the record. To wit:

1. His very first race for state senate, he used the time honored Machine tactic of challenging the nominating petitions of every other candidate, getting all 4 of them removed from the ballot.

2. He cultivated a relationship with the ancient President of the Illinois State Senate Emil Jones who told a colleague in 2002 after the Democrats swept into office "I'm gonna make me a senator." Jones then proceeded to give Obama credit on the passage of 26 key legislative measures - almost all of which had been pushed by other state senators for years - thus giving Obama a record of sorts to go with all that charisma. Obama calls Jones his "political godfather."

3. While in the Senate, Obama has had numerous opportunities to live up to his promised "post partisan" reforms and has never - repeat never - participated in any bi-partisan agreement reached by Democrats and Republicans on any issue. He has gone so far as to reject the outcomes of those compromises on immigration reform and an agreement on confirming federal judges.

4. When faced with a choice between supporting a mayoral candidate who stood for clean government and the corruption of the Chicago Machine, Obama chose old fashioned power politics.

Obama's political career is replete with examples of opportunism, cynical deal making, hack politics, and business as usual relationships with crooks and scam artists like Tony Rezko. His entire presidential campaign is built on a lie; that he is a different kind of politician and will be able to change the way business is done in Washington.

When given the opportunity in the past, Obama has usually chosen doing things the old fashioned way. Why in God's name should we believe him now? Did he try and "reform" Chicago politics? Did he try and "reform" the Senate while his colleagues worked on bi-partisan agreements on vital issues?

You can support the man's policies without holding him up (and throwing in our faces) the idea he is some kind of "new" politician who will change everyone's lives. And if he keeps pushing that meme, he will look like the emperor with no clothes as facts about his relationships with various shady Chicago characters come to light, giving the lie to his grandiose claims like "We are the change that we are seeking."

More to come on OBAMA's nexus with Rashid a Palestinian/PLO player.

Posted by: ere591 | March 9, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

hey HRC supporters, it was actually your campaign that back tracked to the Canadians on NAFTA...another lie propogated by your campaign and the media you rail against:

http://www.drudge.com/news/105099/clinton-official-reassured-canada-nafta

Posted by: KAM3 | March 9, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

there many be man disappointed Obama supporters when they read comments from some of thestill uncommitted superdelegates:


"But Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury said that if there is no clear leader, he is prepared to exercise his judgment. "If the pledged-delegate total is within 100 votes or whatever, I don't think there's a great deal of significance in that," said Bradbury, who also represents other secretaries of state as a superdelegate.

"Sen. Jeff Bingaman (N.M.) said the decision to create the superdelegate category assumed they would use their own judgment. "If superdelegates were just intended to automatically vote for the preference someone else expressed, there wouldn't be any purpose," he said."

Posted by: leichtman | March 9, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Did any of you really think Obama's 50-state strategy was just about his own presidential campaign? This is just the beginning.

btw - it's not about getting rid of all Republicans, just the radical wingnuts who would argue if a Democrat said the sky was blue. Think of it as a Contract BY America.

Posted by: TomJx | March 9, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

The revenge for the Thune defeat of Daschle continues. First, the Delay seat, then the Hastert seat. Next up: McConnell, anyone? Those starched white republican collars must be feeling pretty tight in 2008. It might not be just Obama groupies feeling faint.

Posted by: optimyst | March 9, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

The only "upset" was for the business as usual crowd in Washington. Barak Obama made a point of endorsing this candidate, getting his people out to vote for him, he literally put his new politics on he line and won. This is pretty much what you can expect in the Fall election...unless Clinton and the Party insiders succeed in killing hope. Then, you will not only see a return to politics as usual, a return to cynacism, you will see the wholesale desertion of Obama's new people from Politics entirely and the self centered single issue Democrats will simply continue their loosing streak, deserted by betrayed black voters, deserted by the newly energized youth, and deserted by people with ethics and brains. And forget about the "dream ticket". Anyone checking out the various web sites and forums can see that Obama supporters loathe Clinton and will know that Obama caved to the Party hacks if the toxic hag appears on any ticket with him...pretty much ending his chances for the Presidency forever.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 9, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

awb75:

you wrote: "Is this country going to allow Florida to do mail in ballots for a Presidential primary which has never been done EVER before in our history and possibly allow that to determine the democratic party candidate?"

This is a mistake. We here in Oregon have been doing only mail-in ballots (primary and general election) for almost 10 years with great success. I'm an Obama supporter and would be ok with Fla redoing its vote by mail.

The rest of your post was right on!

Posted by: cbl-pdx | March 9, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

I think this congressional seat win for democrats brings up the all important question: how would concerns for congressional seats influence party leaders and super delegates in weighing in on either side. Which brings me to another question that I hope the Fix we'll be able to answer for me: By many accounts, we'll be roughly at the same place where we are now by the end of June in terms of votes and delegates won by either candidate. Whatever criteria super delegates are going to apply in June is applicable now. There are no game changers between now and then. Why then should Democratic leaders and super delegates stand by and watch the candidates waste nearly $100 million in campaign money attacking one another only to get to where we started? Wouldn't it be wiser for them to rally around the one candidate they are going to choose based on whatever criteria they are going to apply in June, but do it now instead?

Posted by: mjaber123 | March 9, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Don't expect to hear about this from Chris Cillizza or the rest of the MSM, but one minor contributing factor was a smear from a Mexico-linked group that the DCCC repurposed for the campaign:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007535.html

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | March 9, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

This has to worry Republicans. The 14th has a PVI of only R+5, but read Michael Barone's take on it in the Almanac of American Politics. This is ancestral Republican territory, exurban to small town to rural Midwest, monocultural, prosperous, where Reagan grew up and Colonel McCormick built a mansion to escape grim and grimy Chicago. If Republicans can't hold a seat like this, they're in some serious trouble.

Posted by: novamatt | March 9, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Of course, this explains why the Repubs want
Hillary elected. They need to rebuild the party inm the next 4-8 years, and what better catalyst than the Clintons? In addition, she is as caught up with the lobbyists as any old-school politician.

You'd think they arranged the Hagee and Bush endorsement to hurt McCain and help Hillary. McCain as Pres will only further weaken the Repubs...there's no upside to the R party with McCain.

Weird political season.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 9, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Do you believe this is the start of a National Trend for the Republican Party?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1855


.

Posted by: PollM | March 9, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Baaaaaaaaaaaaad news for repubs.
Very good news for Dems.
McCain going to Hagee and FISA and torture lost Indies.
Exceptional good news for Barack.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 9, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

seattle said:"Nominating Clinton would be a sure sign the Dem's don't want to win this election, that they seriously want 4 more years of Bush."

you certainy have a right to your opinions and no one will stop you from voting for the great narcisist Nader but that ridiculous comment that apparently is spreading like wildfire on your side, is one of the most inane comments I have read here.Perhaps like W if your side keeps repeating that ridiculous statement over and again, they will convince THEMSELVES that it must be true.

Incidentally do you not understand how totally contradictory your comment that you despise the Bush Administration but that you are ready to vote for the candidate, Ralph Nader, who was most responsible for putting W in the Whitehose, is. Think about that before posting your rant.

Posted by: leichtman | March 9, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

BTW, Wes Clark was raising funds for Foster - I am on his email list. I read that BHO cut a commercial for him. Did other Ds raise funds or campaign for him? How much did he spend? Was the turnout large or small? Are the demographics of this District changing?

There is a lot more to learn here. Any IL posters know?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 9, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

on topic - It looks to me as if the Ds will make gains in both houses of Congress; no one but a partisan, and not-too-well informed, R would think otherwise at this point.

This probable realignment provides an argument for Indies to consider McC as a counterbalance to one-party control of the levers.

off topic question: awb75 suggests a logistical problem for a FL do-over. This morning's talk shows all act as if the only obstacle is cash, and that the cash is readily available. awb75, can you point us to some authority about this?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 9, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

'President Bush's veto kills a bill that would limit CIA interrogation techniques to those approved in the Army field manual. Bush, the CIA director, and--now!--Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., say it's wrong to apply Army standards to the CIA, since the agency requires more 'flexibility.' The NYT and LAT say the veto underscores Bush's commitment to expanding the power of the executive branch'.

.. which is now being passed to John McCain, who will push for ever more expansive powers. He is being backed by everyone who ever backed Bush and the divisive, hate-filled, radical rightwingers"

'The evolving plan also calls for the Republican National Committee to use the time to seed the conservative echo chamber -- blogs, talk radio and independent groups -- with red-meat rhetoric.'

JOHN MCCAIN IS A COMPLETE PHONY:

'SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN:
BUILDING A BRIDGE TO THE RIGHT WING IN THREE EASY STEPS'

STEP ONE: SAY YOU'RE BEING CONSISTENT AS YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND


Abortion
THEN: McCain Opposed Overturning Roe: It Would Force Women To Seek Illegal Abortions. [San Francisco Chronicle, 8/20/99]

NOW: McCain Wouldn't Be Bothered By Supreme Court Ban On Abortion, Would Sign South Dakota's Abortion Ban. [CBS News, 1/25/06; ABC News, 3/29/06; ABC News, 2/26/06; NationalJournal.com, 2/28/06]

Evil
THEN: McCain Called Falwell "Evil Influence" on GOP. [Kansas City Star, 5/28/05]

NOW: McCain Met With Falwell To Lay Groundwork for 2008 Run And Agreed To Speak At Falwell's Liberty University. [US News and World Report, 11/14/05; Lynchburg News & Advance, 3/28/06]

Tax Cuts

THEN: McCain Opposed Bush Tax Cuts. [Baltimore Sun, 5/27/01; Statement, 3/18/03]

NOW: McCain Voted For Bush Tax Cuts. [New York Times, 2/21/06]

Gay Marriage

THEN: McCain Opposed Federal Gay Marriage Ban. [Los Angeles Times, 1/25/05]

NOW: McCain Said He's Willing To Support A Federal Marriage Amendment. [Meet the Press, 4/2/06]

Standing Up to Racism

THEN: McCain Condemned Bush For Failing to Denounce Racist Beliefs At Bob Jones University. [Fox, 2/24/00]

NOW: McCain Endorsed George Wallace Jr., Keynote Speaker at White Supremacist Group Gathering. [AP, 11/17/05; 6/6/05]

Creationism / Intelligent Design

THEN: McCain: Local Schools Should Decide on Teaching Creationism. [Times Union, 8/28/99]

NOW: McCain: "Young People Have the Right to Be Told" About Intelligent Design, Refused To Exclude It From Science Classes. [Courier Journal, 12/20/05; Arizona Daily Star, 8/28/05; NPR, 11/7/05]

Campaign Finance

THEN: McCain Was A Champion For Campaign Finance Reform. [New York Times, 10/22/01]

NOW: McCain Laying the Groundwork To Opt Out Of Campaign Finance System For '08 Campaign. [National Journal, 12/17/05; Hotline On Call, 12/16/05]

Lobbying Reform

McCain Said He Voted Against Lobbying Reform Bill Because It Was "Weak"... "Senator John McCain... who has long pressed for tougher laws on lobbying, called the [recently passed] bill 'very, very weak.'" [New York Times, 3/30/06]

But He Previously Rejected More Robust Lobbying Reform Bill. Previously when Feingold pushed a bill with "more robust disclosure of lobbyists' activities," McCain "had considered the idea, but viewed it as 'too onerous' on the lobbying community." [The Hill, 3/8/06; San Francisco Chronicle, 1/18/06]

Posted by: drindl | March 9, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Why is it that the Republican led administration of FL manages to screw up every vote? Gee, what a coincidence.

Posted by: drindl | March 9, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

IMPORTANT POINTS on Florida and Michigan:

1: Florida and Michigan are the only two states so far where MORE republicans than democratics voted in the primary
2: Florida had a state constitutional amendment on their Jan 29th ballot to lower property taxes
3: Florida is in the process of changing over its voting machines in all counties. At least 10 counties will not have voting machines in place until after July 1st

Summary:
1: There cannot be a new primary in Florida as there are no voting machines in place everywhere
2: Obviously - by the democratic turnout in Florida and Michigan - many democrats did not come out and vote in their early primary contests
3: Florida's only option is a caucus for a new contest - the Clinton campaign will not agree to a caucus in Florida (or Michigan)
4: This is why Sen B Nelson of Florida and the other pro Clinton Florida people are talking about a "new" type of mail in vote--
BECAUSE THEY BOXED THEMSELVES INTO A CORNER -

QUESTIONS:
FLORIDA:
Is this country going to allow Florida to do mail in ballots for a Presidential primary which has never been done EVER before in our history and possibly allow that to determine the democratic party candidate?
MICHIGAN: Sen Carl Levin does not want a new primary. Clinton campaign does not want a caucus.

Right now: Obama is tied 41-41 in Michigan polls

The Florida and Michigan delegations will likely need to be split evenly to be seated at the convention.. and that will not change the current pledged delegate situation

The bigger problem is the popular vote tally. With the evidence of democratic turnout in every other state so energized and coming out to vote - how does the underwhelming Florida and Michigan popular vote numbers factor in?

As a Florida voter - I think it's important that everyone knows there is no chance for a new Florida primary - no machines

Now what?

Posted by: awb75 | March 9, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

'The senators want investigators to find out:
• Iraqi oil revenues for 2003-2007
• What the U.S. and Iraq spent in that time on security, reconstruction, governance and economic development
• Iraq's projected oil revenue for 2008
• How much money the Iraqi government has earned from oil but not spent
• How much the Iraqi government has deposited in banks, and in which countries
• Why Iraq hasn't spent more on services for its people '

The important thing to watch here -- and it's very important to watch this, because it is significant -- who will oppose this? Who will try to quash it? Because anyone who does is the enemy of US interests.

Posted by: drindl | March 9, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

The most bipartisan duo in Congress -- Levin and Warner, are asking where the Iraqi oil money is going:

'BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Two senators are asking congressional investigators to look at Iraq's oil revenues and see if the war-ravaged nation can pay for its own reconstruction, an effort that has been bankrolled to this point by U.S. taxpayers.

Carl Levin, D-Michigan, and John Warner, R-Virginia, said in their Friday letter to the Government Accountability Office that Iraq has "tremendous resources" in banks worldwide but is doing little to improve security and reconstruction efforts.

Iraqi officials did not immediately respond to the senators' allegations.

"We believe that it has been overwhelmingly U.S. taxpayer money that has funded Iraq reconstruction over the last five years, despite Iraq earning billions of dollars in oil revenue over that time period that have ended up in non-Iraqi banks," wrote the senators, who are their party's top members on the Armed Services Committee.

The senators cited testimony of then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz who told a House subcommittee in March 2003 that the U.S. would not foot the entire bill for rebuilding Iraq. Wolfowitz predicted then that Iraq's oil revenues could reach between $50 billion and $100 billion in the next two or three years.

"We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon," Wolfowitz said in 2003.

Using numbers from the U.S. State Department and Iraqi Oil Ministry, the senators said Iraq hopes to produce 2.2 million barrels of oil a day this year. Weekly averages suggest that the number has climbed as high as 2.51 million barrels a day.

That kind of oil production could earn Iraq a projected $56.4 billion this year, an estimate the senators say is low given the rising cost of crude.

"In essence, we believe that Iraq will accrue at least $100.0 billion in oil revenues in 2007 and 2008," the letter said.

It added, "Our conversations with both Iraqis and Americans during our frequent visits to Iraq, as well as official government and unofficial media reports, have convinced us that the Iraqi government is not doing nearly enough to provide essential services and improve the quality of life of its citizens."

Iraq's ability to spend its $10.1 billion capital projects budget in 2007 was one of the 18 unmet benchmarks used to assess U.S. progress in stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq, according to the GAO.

The United States has spent more than $47 billion on Iraqi reconstruction efforts since 2003, according to the 2008 quarterly audit by the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.'

SO WHY ARE US TAXPAYERS STILL FOOTING THE BILL?

Ask yourselves, people, why are you paying for health clinics to be built for the Iraqi people, but not for you? Ask yourself, where is that oil money going? And in your heart, you know it is to Exxon shareholders and the corrupt Iraqi government.

Our troops are in Iraq because certain well-connected corporations are making a fortune there. Period.

Posted by: drindl | March 9, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

GO DEMS! This made my morning. Go Obama... maybe there is hope for the future after all.

Posted by: drindl | March 9, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

GOBAMA!!!! But as a citizen in The Windy City, the result was a no-brainer. The Republican Party in Illinois is about as demoralized as its national counterpart. The only difference is this has been so for a long, long time.

Posted by: garth | March 9, 2008 4:06 AM | Report abuse

the down side with Pantsuit is that there is no coat-tail

Monster.inc said that wyoming does not matter, too many white people to little hispanics

Posted by: jama201 | March 9, 2008 3:08 AM | Report abuse

She's a Republican, Dan, don't confuse her with facts.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | March 9, 2008 2:24 AM | Report abuse

She's a Republican, Dan, don't confuse her with facts.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | March 9, 2008 2:23 AM | Report abuse

And some Democrats want Clinton as the nominee? Good luck electing any Democrats from red states or conservative districts with her on their backs.

Posted by: light_bearer | March 9, 2008 2:19 AM | Report abuse

"The one thing 2008 has shown is that one election in one state does not prove a trend," said newly installed National Republican Congressional Committee Communications Director Karen Hanretty. "In fact, there has been no national trend this entire election season."

Are you kidding me? Has this woman not been paying attention to the record turnout advantage the Democrats have seen in the past 2 months over the Republicans in primary after primary?

If that isn't a trend I don't know what is.

Posted by: DanKirkd | March 9, 2008 2:16 AM | Report abuse

"The one thing 2008 has shown is that one election in one state does not prove a trend," said newly installed National Republican Congressional Committee Communications Director Karen Hanretty. "In fact, there has been no national trend this entire election season."

Are you kidding me? Has this woman not been paying attention to the record turnout advantage the Democrats have seen in the past 2 months over the Republicans in primary after primary?

If that isn't a trend I don't know what is.

Posted by: DanKirkd | March 9, 2008 2:16 AM | Report abuse

"The one thing 2008 has shown is that one election in one state does not prove a trend," said newly installed National Republican Congressional Committee Communications Director Karen Hanretty. "In fact, there has been no national trend this entire election season."

Are you kidding me? Has this woman not been paying attention to the record turnout advantage the Democrats have seen in the past 2 months over the Republicans in primary after primary?

If that isn't a trend I don't know what is.

Posted by: DanKirkd | March 9, 2008 2:14 AM | Report abuse

I forgot one.

WINNERS:
Sober physicists taking GOP House seats. Foster will find himself in good company with NJ Rep. Rush Holt, who ousted Mike Pappas in 1998 ("Twinkle, twinkle, Kenneth Starr") and has become a national leader on election reform. Young physics PhDs: academia too crowded to get a tenure-track appointment? Run for Congress!

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | March 9, 2008 2:14 AM | Report abuse

WINNERS:

DCCC/Chris Van Hollen--Incredible upset, potentially great harbinger of November, way more money left than the NRCC, momentum built. Money well spent.

Former House Speaker Tom Foley--Ok, I don't know that he had anything to do with this race. But after becoming the first Speaker to lose his seat in 100+ years, he has to be glad to see Gingrich's successor unable to keep his seat Republican on top of last cycle's Dem wave.

Australian beer brewers--They just got a new slogan. Foster: American for "Democratic upset".

LOSERS:

NRCC--blew a lot of what money they have and lost--embarrassingly

Dennis Hastert--picked a bad candidate in the primary and couldn't keep his seat in GOP hands

Perennially losing candidates--for the millionth time, they just never (almost) win. Why can't they move on with their lives and try something else?

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | March 9, 2008 1:52 AM | Report abuse

That helps explain this;

Obama vs. McCain- the Google Effect
And the Winner is...

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=48

Posted by: davidmwe | March 9, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse

THAT'S GOT TO BE DISAPPOINTING AND EMBARRASSING FOR THE GOP!

http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://RealConservativesSpeak.com

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | March 9, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

Let's see: McCain raised money and lent support for the Republican; Obama campaigned and cut a commercial for the Democrat. No, no national implcations there.

The Democrats now hold the house seats of former GOP leaders Tom Delay and Denny Hastert; nope, no national implications there.

Foster was strong against the war while Oberweis claimed the surge is working. Hmmm, not seeing any national trends here.

When all else fails, Chris, I guess you can just parrot the standard MSM line: This must be good for Republicans.

Posted by: havok26 | March 9, 2008 12:37 AM | Report abuse

FOSTER WINS BECAUSE OF OBAMA

What wasn't stressed in this article...(but will be very noticed in the Democratic party) was that the win of Bill Foster was made possible ONLY by the help of BARACK OBAMA.

The BARACK OBAMA campaign provided the volunteers, calls, door to door, etc. for Bill Foster.

BARACK OBAMA made endorsements and television ads for Foster.

(and made his win possible!)

(Hillary did nothing)

The proven ability of BARACK OBAMA to get other Democrats elected will not go unnoticed by the Democratic party...i.e. the super delegates...(getting elected is their bread & butter).

BARACK OBAMA'S "coat-tail" effect is now proven:

Only BARACK OBAMA can get Democrats elected in Republican strongholds.

(Hillary can't; in fact, quite the opposite!)


GO OBAMA !!

Posted by: kevinlarmee | March 9, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

What's with all the duplicative posts?

Anyway....

So let me get this straight, the House Repugs spent 20% of their cash on hand to defend this ONE seat that was previously held by a man who won re-election every two years with ease (even in 2006) and they LOST????

WOW, how can this not be a sign of things to come this November?

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | March 9, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

There was also a bit of Presidential-campaign intrigue to this race. Barack Obama endorsed Foster and made a TV ad for him. Clinton as far as I have been able to tell did nothing, not even an endorsement. Certainly if Foster is a superdelegate he'd me more inclined to vote for Obama, but also this gives support to the argument that Obama has strong coattails that will help put more Democrats into Congress if he is at the top of the ticket in November.

Posted by: jimmosk | March 9, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, add a superdelegate for Obama...especially since Obama endorsed him and cut a campaign ad for him. Way to go, Barack...show us your coat tails!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 9, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

There was also a bit of Presidential-campaign intrigue to this race. Barack Obama endorsed Foster and made a TV ad for him. Clinton as far as I have been able to tell did nothing, not even an endorsement. Certainly if Foster is a superdelegate he'd be more inclined to vote for Obama, but also this gives support to the argument that Obama has strong coattails that will help put more Democrats into Congress if he is at the top of the ticket in November.

Posted by: jimmosk | March 9, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Im not surprised.


The tide of revulsion at all things republican will take your breath away.


On every issue, they are wrong.

Posted by: pvogel88 | March 9, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

There was also a bit of Presidential-campaign intrigue to this race. Barack Obama endorsed Foster and made a TV ad for him. Clinton as far as I have been able to tell did nothing, not even an endorsement. Certainly if Foster is a superdelegate he'd me more inclined to vote for Obama, but also this gives support to the argument that Obama has strong coattails that will help put more Democrats into Congress if he is at the top of the ticket in November.

Posted by: jimmosk | March 9, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, add a superdelegate for Obama...especially since Obama endorsed him and cut a campaign ad for him. Way to go, Barack...show us your coat tails!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 9, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

There was also a bit of Presidential-campaign intrigue to this race. Barack Obama endorsed Foster and made a TV ad for him. Clinton as far as I have been able to tell did nothing, not even an endorsement. Certainly if Foster is a superdelegate he'd me more inclined to vote for Obama, but also this gives support to the argument that Obama has strong coattails that will help put more Democrats into Congress if he is at the top of the ticket in November.

Posted by: jimmosk | March 9, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

After this election there won't be enough neo-cons in congress for them to continue their war against the constitution, the economy, and the freedoms of the American people.
Then we can get on with the business of treason & war crimes trials. I hope they televise the executions.

Posted by: eco-pharm | March 8, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

The only trend here is that everyone hates Oberweise, his teeth look horrible on TV.


Everyone hates Hillary too.


That is the trend. If everyone hates you, get out and give it a rest. The Republicans will be strong this year.


Posted by: Miata7 | March 8, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

And add Bill Foster to the list of super delegates....

... for Obama!!

Posted by: zb95 | March 8, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

And add Bill Foster to the list of super delegates.

Posted by: optimyst | March 8, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company