So goes Louisville, Kentucky, maybe goes the GOP. In the toilet, thatis. The race is Rep. Anne Northrup, usually reliable Republicanincumbent, versus a supposedly weak Democrat. Only with 70 percentcounted, Northrup is below 50 percent and Yarmouth is above. If sheloses, even narrowly, it's a good signal that the Rs are in much deepertrouble this evening.
Still very early in the evening, but I don't see any Republicanofficials on TV talking up "hopeful signs." In a tight situation, theywould be keeping the balloon aloft at this hour, if only to encourageGOP voters on the West Coast not to give up prematurely. Tonight, theydon't seem to be trying.
We don't know the election result yet and thanks to the MSM killjoys we don't even know the exit polling at the moment, but what we do know is that the electronic voting machines are a threat to the very foundation of our democracy. In yet another failure of competence, machines across the country arefailing to work.
In Indiana officials in 175 precincts were forced to turn to paper ballots and the deadline for voting has had to be extended. In New Jersey, Republicans are complaining that the ballots were pre-marked with a vote for the Democratic Senate candidate. Republican Don Sherwood, who stands accused of knowing how to choke his mistress, had to ask a poll worker how to send his vote. Even Republican "Mean Jean" Schmidt had problems.
There will no doubt be Congressional hearings about these voting machines after the election and there should be. Here at The Nation we want to collect your stories about any problems you may have experienced. Let's document today for investigations tomorrow. Please share them with us in the comment board below.
We are in the weird zone at just after 7 pm EST, when nobody really knowsanything and political types are flashing inside information around the country.
I picked up the following from a Democratic source. It sounds verypromising for Democrats, but don't jump to conclusions at this hour.
First-breakout of exit polls for Senate races in eight states showDemocrats leading:
Virginia 52-47. Rhode Island 53-46. Pennsylvania 57-42. Ohio 57-43. New Jersey 52-45. Montana 50-48. Maryland 52-46.
Republicans are leading in Tennesseee 51-48 and Arizona 50-46.
Again, don't pop any corks yet...but this does make a nice start forthe evening.
With the Allen-Webb race in a dead heat, the Allen campaign is claiming that the incredibly high turnout in Virginia is from Christian conservatives who showed up to vote for the anti-gay marriage amendment. CNN is reporting that over 100,000 more absentee ballots were cast this year than in the last midterm elections, and activists I spoke to said that the wait at some poll stations was over 45 minutes long.
I just got off the phone with Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, the campaign manager of The Commonwealth Coalition, the hard-charging group who've moved the marriage amendment from a right-wing sure thing to a live issue. Gastanaga dismissed the Allen campaign's claim as just smoke and mirrors. She's highly skeptical that high turnout has been motivated from the right-wing. "We're seeing high turnout in northern Virginia where the latest Mason-Dixon poll showed us ahead on the issue 60-38," says Gastanaga.
Gastanaga concedes that turnout is high across the state and includes some right-wing voters, but she says, "There's a lot of intensity on our side of the issue too."
Gastanaga also has heard of reports of voter intimidation and Republican dirty tricks. In Roanoke, two of the voting stations are at churches where marquees read "Vote yes on Amendment 1" and where parishoners had ringed the parking lot with cars covered in vote yes bumper stickers. "Voters had to get through a phalanx to get to the poll," she said.
CNN is also reporting that the FBI is investigating phone calls that inaccurately told voters they may be inelligible to vote. I'll post more when I know more.
The great machinery of American democracy whirred into action thismorning, only to seize up and shut right down again--in precinct afterprecinct, county after county, and state after state. Some of the chaoswas widely forecast in an election in which one-third of the nation's precincts were deploying brand-new, technically suspect machinery for the first timeand pollworker training was spotty at best. Some of it was simply acontinuation of the inglorious American tradition of dirtyelectioneering.
More than forty precincts in Cleveland, Ohio--a city under the microscopeafter the controversies of the 2004 presidential race--couldn't gettheir electronic touch screen-terminals fired up on time. InIndianapolis, officials facing the same problem in more than 100precincts resorted to handing out paper ballots. In Delaware County, Indiana,northeast of the state capital, a programming error meant the votersmart cards would not work, prompting hours of delay and a courtpetition to keep the polls open an extra couple of hours. And that wasjust the situation before breakfast.
By mid-afternoon, the city of Denver was on the verge of the electoralbreakdown, as the computer terminals either seized up or broke down andthe paper ballots offered as a substitute started to run out. It tookBill Ritter, the Democratic candidate for governor, almost two hours tocast his vote. In New Jersey, Republicans complained that the machineswere rigged in favor of incumbent Democratic Senator Bob Menendez; inVirginia, where Democratic Senate candidate Jim Webb's name wastruncated on the interface of voting machines in several counties,Democrats complained that the machines were rigged in favor of theRepublicans.
The list of problem states encompassed almost the entire country:Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland,Maryland, Utah...Even where the machines started up correctly, there werecomplaints of screen freezes, votes for one candidate apparently beingmarked for another, optical scan readers that wouldn't read ballots, andmore.
And those were just the technical problems. In several heavily AfricanAmerican districts around the country, Republican operatives took a pageright out of the Jim Crow-Jesse Helms playbook, calling voters to tellthem their precinct location had changed when it hadn't, or warning themthey risked arrest if they showed up to vote, or trying to talk theminto believing the election was on Wednesday, not Tuesday. In heavilyAfrican-American Buckingham County, Virginia, a widely circulated flyerannounced in bold letters: "SKIP THIS ELECTION".
Virginia, with its pivotal Allen-Webb Senate race, appeared to sufferthe worst of these problems, but it was far from the only affectedstate. The Republican Party's "robo-call" campaign--repeat phone calls,many of them late at night, appearing to endorse Democratic candidatesbut really designed to dump dirt on them and deter voters from showingup at all--took place in twenty closely fought House districts across thecountry. The radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham, meanwhile, fouled upthe Democratic Party's voter complaint hotline by openly mocking it onair and reading out the freefone number several times. The hotlinereported a spike in crank calls, slowing down voters with bona fidecomplaints to lodge.
Will any of this affect the outcome of the election? In close races,absolutely it might. Several states have already either restricted oreliminated recount procedures--their idea of avoiding another meltdownlike Florida in 2000 – so transparency and accountability are alreadyshaky notions at best. If Allen and Webb, or any other two candidates,are just a few hundred or a few thousand votes apart by tomorrowmorning, there may be literally no way of knowing which is the deservingwinner. The attorneys, out in unprecedented force, will have their say,of course. But they are likely only to obscure things further.Elections, after all, are for the people to speak out, not the lawyers.
Everyone is talking about whether there will be a Democratic wave tonight. That's an important question, to be sure. But there are other, perhaps more telling, waves to watch for.
The central issue of the 2OO6 election season has been the war in Iraq. But that does not mean that every House and Senate contest will provide a clear read on sentiments regarding the conflict. In many contests, Democratic and Republican candidates have spun their stances on the questions of how and when to bring the troops home. A few Republicans are actually emphasizing their support for some sort of exit strategy -- including contenders in tight races, such as Rhode Island'Senator Lincoln Chafee, and Iowa Congressman Jim Leach, both of whom voted against authorizing President Bush to use force, and Connecticut Congressman Chris Shays, whose conversion from a strong pro-war stance would seem to have a lot to do with the tough challenge he faces from war-critic Diane Farrell. On the other hand, several high-profile Democratic challengers, including Nebraska House candidate Scott Kleeb, have explicitly opposed setting a timeline for withdrawal of the troops,
But there are certainly enough clear contests to make it possible to detect whether we'll see an anti-war wave tonight.
The first polling places to close tonight will be in Indiana and Kentucky, at 6 p.m. EST. In a Louisville-based House district, Democrat JOHN YARMUTH, an alternative newspaper publisher, has a chance of upsetting Republican incumbent Anne Northrup. Yarmuth has made his opposition to the war a central focus of his campaign from the start, and he's gotten so much traction that Northrup has started to break with the administration -- using the now-common dodge of calling for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign. If Yarmuth wins, it will send a clear signal about the viability of the anti-war message.
.At 7 p.m. EST, polls close in Virginia, where embattled Republican Senator George Allen faces a strong challenge from Democrat JIM WEBB. Webb, a veteran who was a Reagan administration appointee, switched parties and got into the race because of his fury over the war. Allen has stumbled frequently during this campaign, but at the end of the day a Webb win will say a lot about whether southern voters are as upset as voters in the rest of the country about the mess in Iraq.
At 7:3O p.m. EST, polls close in Ohio, where Democratic challenger SHERROD BROWN has highlighted his vote in the House against authorizing Bush to invade Iraq, complained about the cost of the war and called for an exit strategy from the start of his race against Republican incumbent Mike DeWine. A Brown win cannot be seen an anything but a big victory for anti-war forces., The same goes for a win by Democrat ZACK SPACE, who is running for the seat opened up by the decision of disgraced Republican Congressman Bob Ney to quit Congress. Space has made his anti-war stance a prime feature of his campaign in a traditionally Republican district.
At 8 p.m. EST, polls close in New Jersey, where incumbent Democratic Senator BOB MENENDEZ has come from behind in his race with Republican Tom Kean Jr. by putting opposition to the war at the top of his platform. Menendez is one of a number of Democrats who have employed blunt anti-war messages in their television ads. Polls will also close at this time in Connecticut, where the Senate contest between Democrat NED LAMONT and the man he ousted in the party primary, incumbent Joe Lieberman, who is running as an independent, will tell us a good deal about the depth of anti-war sentiment. Lamont's fall campaign has frequently stumbled and he trails in the polls. If Lamont were to win, or at this point finish close to Lieberman, it would indicate that even when a challenger has vulnerabilities an anti-war stance counts for a lot. In another key state where polls close at 8, Pennsylvania, a big win for Democratic Congressman JACK MURTHA, perhaps the House's most identifiable war critic and a favorite Republican punching bag, would make it clear that Democrats who have spoken out against Bush administration policies are not suffering for it. And a win in another Pennsylvania race by Democratic challenger JOE SESTAK, a military man who has been outspoken in his advocacy for an exit strategy in his challenge to Republican Congressman Curt Weldon in the state's 7th district, would say something more about the potency of the anti-war message. If Democrat PAUL HODES upsets Republican Congressman Charlie Bass in New Hampshire's 2nd district, it will be opposition to the war by Hodes that made the difference. The can be said if Democratic challenger LINDA STENDER defeats Republican Mike Ferguson in New Jersey's 7th district.
At 9 p.m. EST, polls close in much of the country, including the upper Midwest and some of the interior west, North Dakota Senator KENT CONRAD, a Democrat who cast a courageous vote against authorizing Bush to go to war in 2OO2, is running well ahead in his reelection race. A big Conrad win -- with over 6O percent of the vote -- would show that even in rural, conservative states it does not hurt to oppose the war. If fast-closing Democratic challenger JIM PEDERSON upsets Republican Senator Jon Kyl in Arizona, it will be because of Pederson's unrelenting focus on the need to end the war. A win in Minnesota's 1st district by Democratic challenger TIM WALZ, a retired dergeant major in the Army National Guard, would come at the expense of pro-war Republican Congressman Gil Gutknecht. In the open Minnesota-6 seat, a win by Democrat PATTY WETTERLING, who has advocated for the rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq, would send a very loud anti-war message. The same would go for a win in the 19th district of New York state, where polls close at this hour, by Democratic challenger JOHN HALL, who has used his opposition to the war to close the gap in his race against popular Republican Congresswoman Sue Kelly. Hall's still got an uphill climb in this contest, but if he succeeds, then clearly it is the war that is taking Republican incumbents down. Finally, watch in Wisconsin for how well a Green challenger, RAE VOGELER, finishes in her race against Democrat Herb Kohl. Like many Greens around the country, Vogeler has focused attention on the failure of Democrats such as Kohl to take clear anti-war positions; If Vogeler or other Greens delivering similar messages finish with significant percentages of the vote, it will serve as another indication of the intensity of anti-war sentiment.
At 1O p.m. EST, polls close in most western states. If Democrat JON TESTER upsets Republican Senator Conrad Burns in Montana, Tester's criticism of the war will have been a big factor -- indeed, it was the Democrat's anti-war stance that helped him win his party's primary in June over a more centrist Democrat. Similarly, a win by Democrat BRUCE BRALEY in Iowa's open 1st district, will send an anti-war message. Braley has highlighted his support for an exit strategy from the start of the race.
At 11 p.m. EST, polls in the far west close. If Democrat DARCY BURNER defeats Republican Congressman Dave Reichert in Washington state's 8th district, the war will have been a big factor. In California's hotly-contested 11th district, Democrat JERRY McNERNEY won his primary in large part because he was the more clearly anti-war candidate. If he defeats Republican Congressman Richard Pombo in what is likely to be one of the last contests to be decided tonight, Congress will be tipped a little further in the direction of a "Bring the Troops Home: position.
John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism is being published this month by The New Press. "With The Genius of Impeachment," writes David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, "John Nichols has produced a masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States." Studs Terkel says: "Never within my nonagenarian memory has the case for impeachment of Bush and his equally crooked confederates been so clearly and fervently offered as John Nichols has done in this book. They are after all our public SERVANTS who have rifled our savings, bled our young, and challenged our sanity. As Tom Paine said 200 years ago to another George, a royal tramp: 'Bugger off!' So should we say today. John Nichols has given us the history, the language and the arguments we will need to do so." The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com
It will apparently be a cold day in Texas before CBS forgives Dan Rather. Katie Couric will be turning to Bob Schieffer for expert advice, while Rather has been confined to basic cable--Comedy Central of all places. While Dan is known for his unique phraseology, his sense of humor will certainly be put to the test.
In thanks for his years at the anchor desk and to make up for CBS's shabby treatment, I think we should all pitch in to think up punch lines for Rather to use with Jon Stewart. Please post your jokes in the comment boards below. Suggested topics: "Punching Foley for Joe," Crazy Katherine Harris, and George Allen's confessional, Conrad Burns' foot-in-mouth disease, and the Voter Strangler.
Below are five of the nastiest ads of the midterms. They offer a glimpse into what a party and its candidates do when the issues are stacked against them (Bush, Iraq, health care, energy, the economy, global warming, incompetence, corruption, etc.). The GOP playbook: distract, divide, smear, slime…win by any means necessary and hope you fool the voters.
Nasty Ad #1: Target: Michael Arcuri (paid for by the NRCC): This ad accuses Arcuri of using taxpayer dollars to dial a sex fantasy hotline – even though everyone admits that it was a wrong number dialed by one of the candidate's aides, who tried to call the state division of criminal justice, which had a number almost identical to that of the porn line. The misdial cost taxpayers $1.25. The ad cost about $10,000.
Nasty Ad #2: Target: John Cranley (paid for by NRCC): "Cranley voted to allow children as young as seven to be tased." The ad is illustrated with a pigtailed girl being struck by lightning bolts. It refers to the candidate's refusal to ban police from using a taser on kids – because, Cranley has argued, it's better to use a taser to stop a weapons-wielding child than a real gun.
Nasty Ad #3: Target: Harold Ford (paid for by the RNC): This race-baiting ad accuses Ford of meeting a white woman at a Playboy party. The ad ends with an actress – playing the role of the aforementioned woman – winking into the camera and whispering, "Harold, call me." Note that the RNC at first said that it had no control over the ad, and then a spokesman stated that "the party was replacing the ad as part of a normal 'rotation.' "
Nasty Ad #4: Target: Ron Kind (paid for by the Paul Nelson campaign): "Ron Kind pays for sex, but not for soldiers." The ad takes Kind's support for funding of National Institutes of Health studies completely out of context, and makes a false leap that those funds could have been used to instead supply body armor.
Nasty Ad #5: Target: Brad Miller (paid for by the Vernon Robinson campaign): This congressional challenger in North Carolina manages in 60 seconds to tie Miller to Osama bin Laden, gay marriage, "lesbians and feminists," activist judges, infanticide, flag-burning, racial quotas, illegal immigrants, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and last but not least – space aliens!
Over $2 billion will be spent on tv ads this political season – $2 billion. Imagine how meaningful reform – such as publicly funded campaigns – might change things. Instead of endless streams of emails and letters begging for money to fund the ad wars, candidates might be able to raise resources for things that really matter – and lead by example.
Tom Kean is down in the polls. So he's unleashing a desperate last-ditch effort to smear Sen. Bob Menendez (who I mention in a recent post on peace candidates). It involves the favorite-flavor-of-the-cycle – immigrant bashing – and distorting Menendez's record on social security.
Here are some excerpts from two of the ads: "You can stop the Menendez plan to give your money to illegal migrants by voting for Tom Kean"…. "My opponent supports amnesty and has voted to give our Social Security benefits to illegal migrants…."
It's hard to decipher what Kean is talking about since the assertions are outside the realm of even Colbert's "truthiness." But Kean seems to be referring to Menendez's support for the recent Senate immigration bill – which, as Media Matters notes, "would do nothing to change the current prohibition on illegal immigrants receiving Social Security benefits."
To borrow from that great American political tradition of employing football analogies: the ads are akin to throwing a "Hail Mary" in the 4th quarter when your opponent has nearly put the game out of reach…. Let's hope voters recognize GOP desperation when they see it.
No one is going to suggest that the mainstream media that spent much of the last week of a critical national election campaign focusing on a non-candidate's failed attempt to tell a joke distinguished itself by offering citizens the information they need to cast informed votes. The absurd amount of attention that was devoted to a flap surrounding U.S. Senator John Kerry's attempt to poke fun at George Bush's ignorance of international affairs served as a reminder of how easily most broadcast journalists and talk-show hosts can be spun. It is much easier to note the exceptions to the rule -- such as CNN's "Broken Government" series and Jack Cafferty's commendable "throw-them-all-out" commentaries, and syndicated radio host Stephanie Miller's daily dissection of Republican talking points and the right-wing media's repetition of them -- than it is to count all the examples of tangled truths and mangled realities.
But the campaign season did close with one remarkable example of a prominent television personality using his program to challenge a particular politician's penchant for peddling sleaze. The politician in question is U.S. Senator Mike DeWine, the Ohio Republican who, like several other members of the GOP caucus, has fallen behind in his bid for a new term.
Ohio political observers know that DeWine has a long history of engaging in dirty and deceptive tactics in the final stages of his campaigns -- especially when the Republican is trailing. DeWine once accused former Senator John Glenn of being soft on communism, as part of a campaign that led the Dayton Daily News newspaper to accuse "mud-loving Mike DeWine" of running "a thoroughly negative campaign." That was a rare example of the media calling the Republican to account.
For the most part, however, DeWine has gotten away with smearing his opponents because fewin the media have challenged him on his tactics. In fact, as the media has become increasing lax in recent years, the senator has come to count on journalists to swallow his spin without challenge or complaint.
So when DeWine went on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" a few days before this year's election, the senator expected to be able to use the national "free-media" exposure to attack his Democratic challenger, U.S. Representative Sherrod Brown, without any facing any consequences.
DeWine appeared on "Hardball" to amplify charges made in a campaign commercial that was airing on television stations around Ohio. The ad dredged up a discredited claim that, when Brown served in the 198Os as Ohio Secretary of State, the Democrat failed to address charges that a low-level employee of the office sold marijuana. The DeWine ad failed to note that, when Republicans first raised this "issue" in 199O, the Akron Beacon Journal newspaper reported that that there was "no evidence of impropriety" by Brown, while the Dayton Daily News described the Republican attacks on the Democrat as "trumped-up charges" that had been "officially discredited."
DeWine wasn't betting on Matthews to question the validity of the attack ad?
He bet wrong.
After the senator repeated allegations from the ad, Matthews asked, "What was the person's name? What's the person's name who was selling drugs, you say, illegally? Who was that person?"
DeWine mumbled, "I don't know the person's name..."
"Well, did this person ever get arrested?" asked Matthews. "Was this person ever arrested or convicted?"
"There was no charges filed," admitted DeWine.
Matthews pressed the senator: "O.K., what year was this?"
DeWine: "We're talking now, uh, er, the buy itself was made in 1986..."
Matthews: "You're talking about what your opponent's office did twenty years ago. You can't give me the name of the person involved. You've admitted that the person was never charged or convicted..."
DeWine tried to interrupt Matthews with another recitation of Brown's supposed sins. But Matthews was not going to let the senator get away with it.
"Isn't it kind of embarrassing having been a good Senator from Ohio without a mark on you to have to go back and dig up this scum?" Matthews asked. "Don't you feel embarrassed you're doing this, Senator? You wouldn't be talking about this if you weren't well behind in this race."
Truth may be a precious commodity in contemporary politics. But, sometimes, a ray of light shines through the spin. And Chris Matthews deserves credit for using that light to expose the scum on Mike DeWine's reelection campaign.
COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE: MOVED FROM ONLINE BEAT SECTION
What would really be refreshing to me is a MSM that that stops catering to the whims of their corporate sponsers and instead truly imforms people as to what is really going on in this country. Legitimate news networks like CNN and mSNBC know full well that the Faux News Channel is full of crap and lies but they get away with it because the other networks don't hammer them.
Here's a good tag line for CNN. CNN, the real news, not Faux News.
What would happen to Alan Colmbs if he said on air, this news channel is phony. Think he would get headlines and a good job at CNN or MSNBC? I think so. He just needs to grow a set of balls.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/07/2006 @ 01:25am | ignore this person
I wish I knew how confident and confrontational Chris Matthews would have been if DeWine weren't so far down in the polls. Is he being a courageous investigative journalist, or is he kicking a guy that he's pretty sure is going to be voted out of office tomorrow?
Posted by CYRANO 11/07/2006 @ 01:29am | ignore this person
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/07/2006 @ 01:25am
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. You think Alan Colmes is going to speak against the people who pay him? You think Fox News (or CNN or any news channel) is going to speak against their sponsors?
You think KVH or Peter Rothberg or John Nichols will speak against the Nation?
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/07/2006 @ 01:40am | ignore this person
I wonder if Matthews would ask Sherrod Brown about his vote FOR the "torture bill"?
Posted by MASK 11/07/2006 @ 07:00am | ignore this person
As always, your outrage is selective as is Mathews' tough questioning of certain political opponents, he is loathe to answer for his own hypocrisey ie the Plame debacle. On his own deceptions, he is eerily silent.
Posted by CPT 11/07/2006 @ 07:07am | ignore this person
The real spin is in! Based on past tax tables the Demoncrat party defines the RICH as any family or person making OVER $50,000.!!!!! So, is it any wonder that;
Appearing on Fox News Monday morning with Bill Hemmer, DNC Chairman Howard Dean refused to give the Democrats' definition of the middle class, with respect to the Democrat plan to raise taxes. Dean said that should the Democrats regain the House, Senate or both, taxes will be raised but, not on the middle class.
When Hemmer asked Dean to define the middle class, with respect to salary range, Dean refused to answer. Instead, he said: "If you ‘think you're middle class', we won't raise your taxes." Dean went on to say that Democrats will substantially raise taxes on oil companies, insurance companies and "the wealthy".
Get ready to get SOAKED for more entitlement programs and socialistic government programs giving away YOUR income and taking back tax cuts!!!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/07/2006 @ 07:22am | ignore this person
I make about 50K. I'd be happy to give up my $100/year tax break from Herr Bush if it would help return some sanity to our fiscal policy.
The last time a Republican balanced the budget was - er - 1969? 1929?
You write good fiction, Rio Bravo . . .
Posted by SDELEVE 11/07/2006 @ 07:43am | ignore this person
Posted by SDELEVE 11/07/2006 @ 07:43am
He is the James Frey of the blog.
How many jobs did you create with your hundred bucks? We spent our $300 bribe (everybody remember that?) on gasoline.
So, one journalist grew some cojones? Small victory. Although, Chris was pretty hard on "Thanks for apologizing, Harry" Cheney on Sunday. He actually asked him some questions. Birdshot, of course, was detached from reality and there was no follow up.
Lib media my lilly white ass!!
Posted by CRABWALK 11/07/2006 @ 08:15am | ignore this person
Dems pick up 18 in The House, 4 in Senate. Chimp blames The House, and the "lib media", for all ills in his last two lame duck years.
Posted by CRABWALK 11/07/2006 @ 08:17am | ignore this person