Catholic furor over birth control rule turns Democrats on one another - Christian Science Monitor

So what does contraception at a Catholic hospital or college have to do with a $109 billion highway bill?

Skip to next paragraph

Nothing, it would seem.  

But US senators can propose amendments on any subject. And the Obama administration’s proposed rule requiring church-affiliated organizations to provide health insurance that covers contraception has turned toxic.

It has thrown the White House back on defense after a rare spike of good economic news. It’s also dividing Democratic ranks at a time when both the White House and top Democratic leaders are urging a display of unity.

And that brings us back to the highway bill.

Senate Republicans wanted to get a vote on the matter as soon as possible. The amendment, proposed by Rep. Roy Blunt (R) of Missouri, would allow employers the right to provide employees with health coverage “consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions,” without risk of federal penalties.

“This bill would just simply say that those health-care providers don’t have to follow that mandate if it violates their faith principles,” said Senator Blunt in a floor speech on Thursday.

The measure, cosponsored by Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, prompted an objection by Senate majority leader Harry Reid, which blocked a floor vote.

“Republicans never lose an opportunity to mess up a good piece of legislation,” he said.

“They’re talking about a First Amendment right and I appreciate that,… but there’s no final rule," he said, suggesting that the rule is not yet set in stone. "Why don’t we just calm down and see what the final rule is.”

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops is not waiting. The USCCB, which initially opposed the health-care reform bill in 2010 in the fear that abortions could be federally funded, has called on Catholics across the nation to write to their elected representatives to protest the proposed rule.

“Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience,” said USCCB President and Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan.

On Wednesday, Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio pledged to overturn the rule.

While some Roman Catholic Democrats, such as Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, John Kerry of Massachusetts, and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, have called on the White House to back off the proposed rule, others – also Roman Catholics – are rallying around the president.

“I am dumbfounded that in the year 2012 we still have to fight over birth control,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) of New York, in a statement on Thursday.

“It is sad that we have to stand here yet again to fight back against another overreach and intrusion into women’s lives. This is what it is – a political overreach to roll back access to birth control – not a religious issue,” she added. 

View the original article here

Democrats in Senate warming to tax deal - Washington Post

Senate leaders are planning to begin debate on a far-reaching tax package as soon as Thursday as rank-and-file Democrats warm to an agreement between the White House and Republicans to extend a host of expiring tax cuts and pump fresh cash into the economy.

Democrats were still angry Wednesday about what they viewed as President Obama's capitulation to GOP demands to preserve tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, particularly a deal to exempt estates worth as much as $10 million from a revived inheritance tax. But lawmakers said the magnitude of the concessions Obama won came into sharper focus Wednesday as the White House highlighted independent forecasts predicting that the package could create as many as 2.2 million jobs next year.

For a second day in a row, White House officials made the rounds on Capitol Hill, stressing the economic significance of their deal with Republican leaders to preserve tax cuts that are set to expire on New Year's Eve, extend long-term unemployment benefits through next year, and create major new tax breaks for businesses and individuals aimed at spurring investment and consumer spending.

While Vice President Biden and House Democrats met into the evening, White House budget director Jacob Lew and senior Treasury adviser Gene Sperling held an afternoon session to field questions from Senate Democrats, who were more accepting of the package than they were a day earlier in a meeting with Biden, participants said.

"Members are more open today as they read the analyses of this package," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the chamber's No. 2 Democrat. Citing prominent liberals such as John Podesta, head of the Center for American Progress, and Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who endorsed the White House plan, Durbin said, "These are people that progressives respect and go to, and they've said positive things."

Durbin added that "I just loathe" parts of the deal, such as the provision on the estate tax. But he said: "I understand the predicament that we're in."

Biden faced a far tougher crowd in the House, where a fractious caucus dominated by angry liberals is emerging as the bigger legislative obstacle to the tax plan. During a two-hour meeting, dozens of lawmakers lined up to interrogate the vice president about the deal - almost all of them speaking in opposition, participants said.

"There remain very serious reservations on the House side. I think that there's still a very serious question whether this package can pass in the form it's in now," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) said afterward. Van Hollen represented House Democrats in bipartisan talks about the tax cuts that were rendered moot when the White House began dealing directly with Republican leaders, a slight that rankled nearly as much as Obama's decision to abandon the long-held Democratic position of opposing tax breaks for the wealthy.

Many Democrats, including Rep. James E. Clyburn (S.C.), the third-ranking House leader, emerged from the meeting saying they could not support the package unless major elements were changed, particularly the estate tax provision.

Most Democrats would prefer to renew the tax, which lapsed last year, with a 45 percent rate on estates worth more than $3.5 million for individuals and $7 million for couples. The Obama-GOP deal would impose a 35 percent tax on estates larger than $5 million for individuals and $10 million for couples for the next two years. If that change were made permanent, it would add $100 billion to deficits over the next decade, Democrats said.

In a forceful presentation, however, Biden made it clear that big changes are not in the cards. "The vice president said: 'This is the deal. Take it or leave it,' " an irritated Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.) said, paraphrasing Biden.

The tax debate is a central piece of a broader strategy to wrap up the legislative session by Dec. 17. The House and the Senate are scrambling to complete unfinished business. This includes a major resolution to continue funding the federal government through Sept. 30, 2011, approved by the House on Wednesday, as well as smaller measures, such as a plan to protect doctors from a sharp cut in Medicare payments, which cleared the Senate by voice vote Wednesday night.

View the original article here

Obama urges Democrats to support tax cut deal - USA Today

Obama urges Democrats to support tax cut dealBy Catalina Camia and David Jackson, USA TODAYWASHINGTON — President Obama on Tuesday defended the deal he reached with Republicans on extending a broad range of expiring tax cuts, saying he did not want Americans to be harmed while he engages in a long-term political fight with the GOP. Obama held a hastily arranged news conference to answer questions on the agreement struck late Monday.

Vice President Biden went to Capitol Hill to sell the agreement to Democrats who played no part in reaching a compromise Obama said he struck because Republicans would not budge.

"The deal we struck here … gives us time to have a political battle," Obama said, adding that he was unwilling to see millions of Americans "immediately damaged at a time when the economy is about to recover."

Many in Obama's party, who wanted the focus on poor and middle-class families, lashed out at the agreement that would extend Bush-era tax cuts expiring this year for all income levels, including the wealthy.

"Republicans have held the middle class hostage for provisions that benefit only the wealthiest 3%, do not create jobs and add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement.

Pelosi said discussions with the president and the Democratic caucus will continue in the days ahead.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, vowed to filibuster the deal. His colleague, Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, said the plan was "unconscionable."

Seeking to mollify angry Democrats, Obama vowed to fight further extensions of tax cuts for the wealthy when they expire in two years under the proposal being considered by Congress.

"To my Democratic friends, what I'd suggest is let's make sure that we understand this is a long game. This is not a short game," Obama said.

Republicans wanted the cuts to be permanent. The plan would include a tax cut extension for families making more than $250,000 a year.

As part of the deal, Obama won agreement from Republicans to extend jobless benefits for 13 months.

Obama said he will pressure Republicans to pay for the cuts they want. He said the debate reminds him of the battle over the health care bill: He got a historic piece of legislation passed but was criticized for compromises in the plan.

"In order to get stuff done, we're going to have to compromise," Obama said. "This country was founded on compromise."

The deal provided the first big test of how Obama will work with Republicans after their victory in last month's election. Republicans will take control of the House of Representatives next month and narrow the Democratic majority in the Senate.

Obama said he had no choice because he did not have the votes in Congress. For Republicans, he said, "this is their holy grail, these tax cuts for the wealthy."

When asked how much the tax cuts will promote economic growth, Obama said they wouldn't provide "as significant a boost" for the economy as the stimulus bill but that wasn't needed because the economy is starting to come back.

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said Biden characterized the agreement as "a bad situation but a good deal."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., emerging from a weekly lunch meeting for Republicans, said he considers the deal final and thanked Obama for "working with Republicans on a bipartisan plan to prevent a tax hike on any American and in creating incentives for economic growth."

Contributing: John Fritze in Washington; Associated Press

Guidelines: You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference. Read more.

View the original article here

Democrats stump for Southland voters - Los Angeles Times

Trying to blunt a national tide of Republican enthusiasm, Democratic candidates rallied voters across Southern California on Sunday, arguing that GOP victories here would put the state in the hands of those who care only for the wealthy.

Jerry Brown, Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom — Democratic nominees for governor, attorney general and lieutenant governor respectively — toured African American churches in the morning. Later, they and other Democrats, including U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, held a pep rally in Van Nuys.

"It's an important election," Brown told an audience at Greater Zion church in Compton. "It's an important election for … the whole Democratic Party. We're not perfect. We've got a lot of problems in this state, we've got a huge budget gap, but there's a lot of things we can do if we all pull together."

Without mentioning Republican opponent Meg Whitman by name, the attorney general repeatedly contrasted her voting record with the sacrifices made by African Americans to secure their right to vote.

"I'm running against somebody who almost never voted. And I've lived here all my life and I've voted in every election, and I've cared to make this beautiful state much better," Brown declared at City of Refuge church in Gardena. "We can't just be for the most powerful. We have to be for everybody."

A Los Angeles Times poll published Sunday showed Brown leading Whitman and Boxer running ahead of Republican nominee Carly Fiorina. Newsom, the San Francisco mayor, was slightly ahead of GOP nominee Abel Maldonado, and Harris, the San Francisco district attorney, was narrowly behind her Republican counterpart, Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley.

Democrats remain nervous that a Republican surge could swamp even the best-positioned candidates.

At the Van Nuys rally, Boxer took off after Fiorina's support for offshore oil drilling and her endorsement by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. She also dismissed Fiorina, the former head of Hewlett-Packard, as a failed executive who had outsourced American jobs.

"I'm not interested in creating jobs in India," said Boxer, a three-term incumbent. "I want to create them in Indio, Irvine and Inglewood."

Fiorina has insisted that layoffs and outsourcing while she was at H-P were necessary to keep the company afloat. She criticized Boxer this weekend as a has-been. On Nov. 2, she said, the nation would "look to California and say 'Wow.... The voters of California decided that 28 years of Barbara Boxer was enough.' "

Whitman had no public events on Sunday, but on Saturday she appealed to Asian American constituencies at stops in San Jose, Los Angeles' Koreatown and City of Industry.

"We have a choice between a career politician and a career problem solver," Whitman told several hundred supporters in Industry. "And do we have some problems that need to be solved, and I will solve them."

As she spoke to reporters after the event, Whitman recounted a Saturday Los Angeles Times article that showed city employees receiving substantial overtime while Brown was mayor of Oakland.

"What you saw was gross fiscal negligence," she said. "No one was home, no one was in charge, and this is the kind of fiscal mismanagement that we cannot stand in the state of California."

Brown on Sunday said the pay was required, and noted that Oakland's biggest employee union refused to endorse him for mayor.

"I think Whitman, because she hasn't been in government and doesn't vote, doesn't understand," Brown said.

Cathleen.decker@latimes.com

phil.willon@latimes.com

View the original article here

Election Day could bring historic split: Democrats lose House, keep Senate - Washington Post

The question around Washington today is not whether Nov. 2 will be a difficult day for the Democrats who control Congress, but rather how bad it will be.

Increasingly, it looks like the answer depends on which chamber of Congress you're following.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report now estimates that more than 90 Democratic House seats are potentially in play; on the Republican side of the aisle, it estimates that only nine appear in jeopardy. As a result, most leading forecasters say it is more likely that Republicans will win the 39 House seats they need to take control.

On the Senate side, however, the battle has narrowed to a handful of true nail-biters in Nevada, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Colorado - all of which are likely to stay close to the end.

It would take a sweep of nearly all of them, improbable but not impossible, for the Republicans to pick up the 10 seats they need to gain control of the chamber. At this point, it's possible that Democrats will end up losing only three or four seats, and they will count that as a good night.

If these trends hold - if the Republicans do gain the House without also taking control of the Senate - that would represent a historic anomaly: Not since the election of 1930 has the House changed hands without the Senate following suit.

Two national party officials, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele and Democratic National Committee Chairman Timothy M. Kaine, gave very different predictions Sunday of what would happen on Election Day.

Steele said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that an unprecedented GOP wave would win control of both chambers as well as state legislatures, in a broad condemnation of President Obama and Democratic policies.

"The voters are tired of the fact that the federal government has not listened to them over the past two years, has moved in its own direction, at its own rhythm, and they want to pull back on that," Steele said.

Kaine, speaking on ABC's "This Week" pointed to strengthening poll numbers for his party's candidates as a sign that the Democratic base was getting energized.

"Four or five months ago, the Republicans thought they had a great chance at taking both houses," Kaine said. "For a variety of reasons, the Senate has gotten much more difficult for them. And again, we're seeing this week strong moves in polling for our Senate candidates" in several states.

Reflecting that potential trend, a Los Angeles Times/USC poll released Sunday found Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.) eight points ahead of Republican challenger Carly Fiorina, and a Denver Post/SurveyUSA poll found Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet (Colo.) tied with Republican challenger Ken Buck, whom he had trailed for months.

View the original article here

Republicans, Democrats Make Final Push For Votes - Voice of America

  01 November 2010

Former President Bill Clinton holds up four-month old Natalie Fontana of Washingtonville, N.Y. while making a campaign stop for Rep. John Hall in Harriman, N.Y. (far left) 30 Oct 2010

Republicans and Democrats are making a final push for votes, on the eve of U.S. elections that experts say could give the minority Republicans control of at least one chamber of Congress.   

A new poll indicates that Republicans have a more commanding lead than either party has had in decades before a midterm vote.  The USA Today/Gallup survey says 55 percent of the 1,500 people asked say they plan to support Republicans in the elections, the widest margin since 1974.

Analysts are expecting Republicans to make enough gains to take control of the House of Representatives, but to fall short of winning a majority in the Senate.  Democrats currently control both houses of Congress.

The economy remains the main source of trouble for Democrats this year.  Republican leaders say the political energy and momentum is on their side this year, just as it was with the Democrats in 2006 and 2008.

At stake Tuesday are all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 37 of the 100 seats in the Senate.  A number of states also are holding votes for governorships, local officials and ballot measures.

President Barack Obama recently wound up a four-state campaign tour in which he sought to rally fellow Democrats, to limit the expected opposition gains.

During an appearance in Cleveland, Ohio Sunday, Mr. Obama blamed the current economic sluggishness and high unemployment rate on mistakes made by the previous Republican administration.  But Republicans have been blaming Mr. Obama.

Republican gains likely would make it more difficult for the president to win approval for his legislative initiatives.

View the original article here

Obama and Democrats count on Senate wins out West - Reuters

President Obama sitting next to Sen. Patty Murray at the Grand Central Bakery in Seattle, August 17, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing

By John Whitesides

WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:22pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With Republicans headed to big election gains on November 2, Democrats are counting on the liberal-leaning West Coast to counter the national trend and help them preserve their fragile Senate majority.

President Barack Obama heads to California and Washington state this week to drum up support for endangered incumbents Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray in the last days of a campaign that finds his Democrats playing defense around the country.

Wins in those two Democratic-leaning states -- most polls show Boxer and Murray with slight leads -- likely would be enough to ensure Democrats retain narrow control of the Senate even if Republicans sweep the other competitive races.

"Right now, Democrats have their best chances on the West Coast. They are in relatively good shape out there compared with the rest of the country," said Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Minnesota.

Public discontent with Obama and the economy has sparked widespread predictions of a Democratic election defeat, with Republicans favored to gain more than the 39 seats they need to seize control of the House of Representatives and perhaps even the 10 seats needed for a Senate majority.

Republicans, who have 41 seats in the 100-member Senate, already hold commanding leads in races for Democratic seats in North Dakota, Arkansas and Indiana.

That leaves them needing wins in seven of eight toss-up Senate races in Democratic-held states -- California, Washington, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois and West Virginia -- to regain Senate control.

"The odds are against the Republicans taking the Senate, but the odds are in favor of them getting very close," said Peter Brown, a Quinnipiac University pollster.

"It's going to come down to three or four seats that all have to go the Republicans' way," he said.

A narrow one- or two-seat Democratic majority in the Senate would almost certainly ensure partisan gridlock on Obama's legislative initiatives like climate change and immigration unless he is willing to make significant concessions.

It also would probably prompt Republicans to try to entice conservatives like Ben Nelson of Nebraska and independents like Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut to join their party as they try to repeal Obama's healthcare overhaul and cut federal spending.

OBAMA TO HELP REID

Obama also will campaign this week for threatened Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who is in a tight battle for re-election in Nevada against a Tea Party favorite.

Incumbent Democrats Reid, Boxer and Murray, along with Michael Bennet in Colorado, Russ Feingold in Wisconsin and Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, are in danger of falling victim to the foul public mood over the economy and government in Washington.

Boxer and Murray have solidified small leads in California and Washington in recent weeks as Democratic voters become more engaged. Democratic Senate candidates in Democratic-leaning states in the East like Connecticut and New York also have seen their leads widen.

“A narrow one- or two-seat Democratic majority in the Senate would almost certainly ensure partisan gridlock on Obama’s legislative initiatives like climate change and immigration unless he is willing to make significant concessions”

All of this gridlock bull is ridiculous. Many things have been accomplished across the aisle. Dems are losing seats because Americans don’t like Obama’s policies.

The result is gridlock?

How about compromise of which Obama has done nothing of the sort.

Unless you consider closed door sessions and reconciliation a compromise.

These bills are DOA because Obama does not want compromise, he wants in your face, screw you, Chicago politics.

Wake up America, wake up west coast.

BHOlied Report As Abusive

I hope the Dems are right. If the GOP and their corporate masters have their way they will just grease the skids of our national decline. The GOP hasn’t done anything right in twenty years. What makes anyone think they’ve got any answers to what ails us now? Oh, right, lower taxes and smaller government. Look at how well that silly mantra has worked for us in the past.

IntoTheTardis Report As Abusive

obama HELP read?? he is like “the kiss of death ” for anyone he has tried to “help” get re elected.
The country is finally on to the vision obama has of the “new” u.s. and most do not like it a bit.

chrisvb Report As Abusive

Well Barak, how would you east coast politicians and media know what is going on out here. You only show up once every four years. Otherwise you are sitting in your ivory towers or going on paid vacations. You deserve a good whippin at the poles.

fred5407 Report As Abusive

As Thanksgiving comes around the corner, aren’t we supposed to smell Turkey? Why does it smell so much like lame duck cooking? We may not be able to get him out of the office, but we can sure hogtie him (politically speaking).

Texicano Report As Abusive

Remember, Republicans want you to focus on what is going on now, so that you don’t remember what they did when they were in control. Unfortunately, SO many American voters only think of the here and now. Kind of like my dog.

idlespire Report As Abusive

Never have so many people been so anxious to vote.

Wonder why that is? Ooo, those nasty Republicans. Surely, it must be their fault.

giveitthought Report As Abusive

I’m just curious. Do Republicans really believe if McCain had won the election we’d have lower unemployment now?

Obama took on the presidency at the worst of all possible times, following 8 years of George W. Bush, 2 wars, the worst recession since the Great Depression, high unemployment, record deficits, and a very divided country. The Right’s reaction to Obama makes it clear that racism is still a major influence in America’s political landscape. Never has a president been so openly reviled and yet he’s a very centrist politician, too centrist for what we need now, and a very intelligent, hardworking, decent family man. People on the right just can’t accept having a black man as president.

I was walking my dog this morning and ran into a neighbor. She started talking about Obama and how much she can’t stand him. (She won’t say she hates him because she’s a good Christian woman.) It was interesting to me to hear her say that it wasn’t about his race or his religion. I didn’t say anything about his race or his religion. His religion? It was about his attitude toward our country, the disdain his has for America, and that we’ve never been in worse shape than we are now (because of Obama).

I found it to be very bazaar, though very telling and not surprising. I didn’t engage her in any kind of a debate because it was clear from the outset that her mind was awash in neocon Koolaid and couldn’t be reached. The morning was beautiful and I just wanted to get away from her. Apparently she was under the wrong impression that everything was fine until that black man showed up and started screwing things up (not that she has anything against black men). I also couldn’t help but wonder just what religion she thought Obama was, but it sure wasn’t her religion. She most likely believed that he is a Muslim, which of course would be a bad thing.

Since Obama is getting the blame for all of America’s miseries, a part of me wishes he had done nothing, letting America lose it’s auto industry, doing nothing to save jobs, banks, housing, doing nothing to help Americans afford health care, doing nothing about fixing the problems in Wall Street and our finance industry, and not lowering taxes on the Middle Class and small businesses. We deserve the depression we barely avoided and seem to so cravenly want. Eventually, America will get what it’s asking for. It’s sad: we’ve gotten too dumb for our Republic to function effectively.

ginchinchili Report As Abusive

View the original article here

West Virginia Poses Dilemma for Democrats: Must-Win or No-Win? - New York Times

Megan Liberman and I talked about the horse-race aspects of West Virginia in today’s TimesCast: suffice it to say that, from an electoral perspective, it’s as important a state as any in terms of Democrats’ ability to hold the Senate.

But — although it’s easy to forget it this time of year — winning elections is, in theory, just a means to an end, the end being the ability to affect public policy. And this is where the Democrats’ nominee in West Virginia, the incumbent Gov. Joe Manchin III, poses problems for them.

Even when West Virginia voted Democrat for president most years — as it did 14 out of 17 times between 1932 and 1996 — it was never some bastion of liberalism. Instead, Democrats would accept defections from the state’s elected officials on some issues — like social and environmental policy — in exchange for party-line voting on economic affairs, and matters like labor organizing rights.

It’s not surprising, then, that a Democrat like Mr. Manchin opposes abortion choice, or gun control, or gay marriage — or is shooting bullet holes, literally, in the Democrats’ cap-and-trade bill, which might create problems for West Virginia’s coal-based economy. Mr. Manchin knows his state (and he looks a heck of a lot better sporting a gun than, say, Michael Dukakis did in a tank).

What ought to be more disturbing to Democrats, however, is that Mr. Manchin is also abandoning them on bread-and-butter economic issues — the kind of issues on which West Virginia Democrats once showed their blue stripes. Mr. Manchin — who once said he would vote for the President’s health care bill — continues to distance himself from what he now calls “Obamacare,” threatening to support its repeal. In one of the nation’s poorest states, Mr. Manchin has expressed support for extending George W. Bush’s tax cuts to high-income earners. In one of its most heavily unionized, he has declined to support a key provision in the Employee Free Choice Act, which would ease union organizing.

Mr. Manchin’s incentives are transparent: Barack Obama performed badly in West Virginia in 2008, and he certainly has become no more popular there since. A Public Policy Polling survey put Mr. Obama’s approval at 30 percent among likely voters in West Virginia — and just as importantly — found that the substantial number of voters who both like Mr. Manchin and dislike Mr. Obama were inclined to vote for his Republican opponent, John Raese. Thus, the decision rule for Mr. Manchin seems to be to pick a policy that the President supports and oppose it.

Perhaps, some Democrats hope, Mr. Manchin could pivot to the left — or at least the center — after winning the election. West Virginia’s other senator, Jay Rockefeller, as well as the late Robert Byrd, voted with the Democrats on most issues and had little trouble winning re-election.

However, because Mr. Manchin is competing for an abbreviated, two-year Senate term — that vacated by Mr. Byrd when he died — he will essentially be in re-election mode just as soon as he wins office. It is more likely than not that the overall political environment will be better for Democrats in 2012 than it is now — but this may not hold in West Virginia, where Mr. Obama’s presence on the ballot in a Presidential year could motivate conservative and Republican turnout.

Can Democrats count on Mr. Manchin to support any of their major policy initiatives in the next Congress? Other than a few votes on things like extending unemployment insurance, it seems unlikely. Nor is Mr. Manchin likely to be held in check by the threat of a primary challenge, which — in a state where even the Democrats are quite conservative — would be a long-shot to succeed.

All of which raises the question: how much fiscal support should Mr. Manchin expect to get from groups like the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is scrambling to rally around him in a state that wasn’t even scheduled to have a Senate election until July?

Currently, we show there being nine Senate races in which each party has at least a 10 percent chance of victory. In addition to West Virginia, these are the races in Wisconsin, Washington, California, Nevada, Illinois, Kentucky, New Hampshire and Colorado.

In each of these other states, there is abundant ideological daylight between the Democrat and his opponent. In some of them, like Illinois and California, the Republican is fairly moderate, but the Democrat is very liberal. In others, like Kentucky, the Democrat runs to the center-left,  but the Republican is very conservative.

In an effort to be a bit more rigorous about this, I took the Democratic and Republican candidates in each of these states and assigned them ratings from -2 (liberal) to +2 (conservative) on each of five issues –fiscal policy (i.e. taxes and spending), social policy (abortion and gay rights), energy policy, immigration, and health care — based on their public statements and public votes. A down-the-line liberal, like Alexi Giannoulias of Illinois, would receive a rating of -10; a staunch conservative, like Sharron Angle of Nevada, would get a +10. A score of 0 indicates a centrist.

When I assigned ratings to Mr. Manchin, he came out at a +3.5 — meaning, that I’d expect him to be somewhat to the right of center over all, based on the positions he has articulated recently. Although I rated Mr. Raese as being a +9 — more conservative than Mr. Manchin — the 5.5 point difference between the candidates was only about half as large as in any other state.

Looked at this way, a win by Mr. Manchin might be only half as helpful to Democrats from a policy standpoint as one in a state like New Hampshire might — and the difference is greater still as compared to a state like Wisconsin, where there is a distinctly liberal (albeit unorthodox) Democrat in Russ Feingold running against a fairly conservative Republican in Ron Johnson. And Democrats would only be buying two years of Mr. Manchin’s time rather than six, since he’d be on the ballot again in 2012.

Of course, there are other factors that would argue for putting money into West Virginia: it’s an extremely cheap state to advertise in, so the return on investment may be fairly high. And two of the state’s three House districts, where the Democrats could get a boost from Mr. Manchin’s coattails, are competitive.

Still, Mr. Manchin is increasingly looking like a candidate who might be no easier for Democrats to live with than without.

View the original article here

Polls tighten as elections approach. Good news for Democrats? Maybe. - Christian Science Monitor

It’s just four weeks (and two days) until the midterm elections. But that’s a lifetime (or two) in politics, and it’s way too early for Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Minority Leader John Boehner to be staking claim to the fanciest digs in the US House of Representatives.

Skip to next paragraph

According to a race-by-race analysis by The New York Times, “Enough contests remain in flux that both parties head into the final four weeks of the campaign with the ability to change the dynamic before Election Day.”

“We have a lot of work to do,” Boehner told the newspaper.

Fund raising and targeted advertising – both for your guy and against the other guy – are important. Maybe more so – for Democrats especially – is rousing the party faithful from the typical midterm lethargy, then getting them to the polls on Election Day Nov. 2. That was the main point of the “One Nation Working Together” rally at the Lincoln Memorial Saturday organized by liberal groups.

The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows the GOP edge in a generic poll asking which party should control Congress dropping from nine percentage points last month to just three points today. Gallup shows the generic poll essentially even, as does the POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll.

Meanwhile, there’s this:

“CNN has learned that Tom Donohue, the powerful president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who has vowed to spend more than $75 million on key House and Senate races, has privately told colleagues in recent weeks he believes Democrats will just barely hold on to the House majority,” writes CNN’s Ed Henry.

Why the shift (or at least the perception of shift)?

“The NBC/WSJ pollsters attribute the tightening to increased enthusiasm for the upcoming midterms by African Americans (who saw a six-point gain in high interest) and Hispanics (who saw an 11-point gain),” reports MSNBC deputy political director Mark Murray.

Still, it is the youngsters that need to be aroused if Democrats are to hold onto power, writes Murray: “Young voters, who helped fuel Obama’s presidential victory in 2008, are now sitting on the sidelines. Just 35 percent of those ages 18-34 are enthusiastic about the election in November, versus 65 percent of seniors who say that.”

That’s exactly the point that President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have been making lately.

“We have to get folks off the sidelines,” President Obama said in a recent interview with Rolling Stone magazine. “People need to shake off this lethargy, people need to buck up.”

While the election is a month off on the calendar, in fact it’s already begun. People can already vote early in seven states. Two week from now, voters will be able to fill out their ballots in nearly half the country – 24 states.

Despite catching up in the “who should run Congress?” polls, there’s another reason for Democrats to be worried

“I hate to be a (Democratic) party pooper, but here’s the next piece of bad news,” writes Linda Hirshman at the Daily Beast. “Guess who’s not coming out to vote? White women. The enthusiasm among all women is down, but Gallup shows that white women are the least enthusiastic of all the major demographic groups.”

Time for Mr. Obama to turn on his legendary charm?

“Democrats still have a last-ditch chance to attract the crucial margin of white female voters,” writes Hirshman. “Since women poll as more concerned with children’s’ issues than men do, the recent activation of health care for children would be a good start.”

Well, maybe.

View the original article here

Liberals rally in Washington: Will it help Democrats? - Christian Science Monitor

The Democratic base gathered in Washington Saturday, seeking to rouse their party in the face of likely losses in the midterm elections just a month from now.

Skip to next paragraph

Comparisons to Fox News commentator Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally at the same Lincoln Memorial site five weeks ago were obvious. National Park Service police stopped counting crowds years ago, and although tens of thousands (at least) gathered at Saturday’s “One Nation Working Together” rally it likely did match the tea party crowd who flocked to see Beck and Sarah Palin.

The full title of the event was “One Nation Working Together For Jobs, Justice and Education for All” – which covers just about everybody under the Democratic Party’s big tent, as well as its current effort to highlight differences with Republicans.

Sponsoring and participating organizations – some 400 in all – ranged from steelworkers and public employees unions to environmental groups, gay rights advocates, Hispanic organizations, and peace groups.

While Beck’s rally was more religious than overtly political, Saturday’s “One Nation” event focused specifically on next month’s elections.

"Today we march, tomorrow we vote,” the Rev. Jesse Jackson told the crowd.

Getting out that vote is a challenge.

“What's clear to me is that getting ourselves to the poll is truly up to us,” NAACP president Benjamin Jealous told NPR’s Steve Inskeep on Thursday. “A lot of folks who have invested in encouraging massive voter turnout – black voters, brown voters, students, working class whites – for whatever reason are not investing in it right now.”

From the top of the Democratic Party on down, leaders are trying to stir that base, particularly since many polls show Republicans – not to mention their tea party allies – much more enthusiastic about the upcoming elections.

“We have to get folks off the sidelines,” President Obama said in a recent interview with Rolling Stone magazine. “People need to shake off this lethargy, people need to buck up.”

At a political fund-raiser in New Hampshire Monday, Vice President Joe Biden said Democrats must “remind our base constituency to stop whining.”

From the beginning, the White House has frequently found itself at odds with liberal activists pushing for a more progressive agenda – a public option as part of universal health care, for example. In August, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs famously complained about the “professional left.”

Such comments have brought some pushback.

“I can't for the life of me understand what the White House thinks it gains by continually poking the base – the people who actually vote in mid-term elections – only five weeks before the election,” wrote blogger John Aravosis. “Are they trying to convince the rest of Democrats – you know, the people who don't vote in mid-terms – that if they did vote, they should vote for Democrats because the people concerned about the state of the party, and the nation, are ‘whiners’?”

Saturday’s rally was an attempt to get beyond the party’s intramural squabbling, rouse the troops, focus on what’s politically doable, and reverse current trends showing congressional losses just a few weeks from now.

View the original article here