No, really, I want to know. And though I have donated to Rodriguez’s opponent Francisco Canseco (more coverage of the race here), I don’t mean that in an ominous, scary voice-over attack ad sort of way. I’m genuinely curious.
I believe that this is the Mel Sykes in question. He seems to be involved in Asbestos and mesothelioma litigation, among other things.
Looking through that list of Rodriguez contributors, a lot of the donations are pretty typical for an incumbent Democratic congressman. Lots of donations from local business leaders, plus lots of money from DC lobbyists, such as:
Those I all understand. Those are fairly typical Democratic incumbent donations. But Sykes seems to be an actual litigator rather than a lobbyist. And according to Rodriguez’s official congressional website:
Today Congressman Rodriguez serves on the House Committee on Appropriations where he sits on the Homeland Security; Transportation, Housing & Urban Development & Related Agencies; and Legislative Branch Subcommittees. He also sits on the House Committee on Veterans Affairs where he is a member of the Subcommittee on Health and the Subcommittee on Assistance & Memorial Affairs. Congressman Rodriguez remains a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) where he serves as the Chair of the Taskforce on Agriculture and Rural Communities.
Granted, trail lawyers (like Big Labor) love Democratic incumbents. But why the donations from this particular Maryland lawyer to Ciro Rodriguez? If you have any idea, post below or email me.
(One of the most disappointing things about pursuing Rodrigeuz’s donor list is the fact that former Republican congressman and current lobbyist Jack Fields gave him $2,000, a sad example of William F. Buckley’s aphorism that “By the time one of our people get into a position of power, they’re no longer one of our people.”)
The king of creating jobs, that is. “More than half of the net new jobs in the U.S. during the past 12 months were created in the Lone Star State.”
Funny what happens when you have:
No state income tax
Right to work laws
No out-of-control public employee unions
Conservative Republicans in charges of the Governor’s mansion, the House, and the Senate
Which have actually constrained the growth of government during boom times
A requirement by law to balance the budget
Regulations that encourage private enterprise rather than punish it
A healthy disdain for Political Correctness
A thriving high tech sector
Warm weather
Natural ports
Some might think the last three are the most important factors, but California has all those as well, and their economy is biting the moose hard.
For a more detailed breakdown of of why Texas is kicking California’s ass (and not just at football), read this Arduin, Laffer & Moore report put out by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Notice, for example, that Texas has lower taxes in every single category except sale tax (where the two are close to even)…and California is still broke! You can’t tax your way to prosperity.
Liberal policies don’t fail because of bad luck, or because of some sinister conservative conspiracy to make them fail. Liberal policies fail because the liberal ideas behind them are wrong.
So here are some long-shot campaigns for the seats of particularly egregious incumbent House Democrats that just might fall the GOP’s way in this election:
Jerry Costello of Illinois vs. Teri Newman for Illinois 12th Congressional District. (Teri, here’s a free hint: Auto-running movies with sound on your website isn’t going to win you any votes.) Costello is a Stupak bloc flip-flopper who voted for the Stimulus, but against TARP and Cap-and-Trade.
Joseph Donnelly vs. Jackie Walorski for Indiana’s second congressional district. Donnelly is another Stupak bloc flip-flopper, and also voted for TARP and the Stimulus, but against ObamaCare. Walorski has been endorsed by Sarah Palin, so she might well have more money and attention than others on this list.
Lloyd Doggett vs. Dr. Donna Campbell for the Texas 25th congressional district. Having endured having old liberal warhorse Lloyd Doggett as my Representative back when I still lived within the confines of The People’s Republic of Austin, I would be delighted to see a Republican take Doggett out. Doggett voted against TARP, but for the Stimulus, Cap-and-Trade, and ObamaCare. One issue in the campaign is Doggett’s writing language into federal law to deprive Texas of almost a billion dollars in federal education funds. In this Human Events piece on the race, Campbell notes that Doggett “voted 98% of the time with Nancy Pelosi. And him getting in again, is one more vote that keeps Pelosi in.”
Charlie Rangel vs. Michael Faulkner for New York’s 15th congressional district. Rangel is, of course, a corrupt scumbag. (The question of whether he’s the most corrupt scumbag in the House I’ll leave as an exercise for the reader.) Like Al Sharpton, he has a certain amount of venomous charm. Unlike Sharpton, he’s actually been elected. Like Frank, Rangel has a perfect liberal record in voting for TARP, the Stimulus, Cap-and-Trade, and ObamaCare. Faulkner has a good bit of name recognition from being a former New York Jets football player. The differences between Faulkner and Rangel are legion (not least of which is my working assumption that Faulkner isn’t a corrupt scumbag), but one of particular local interest may play a role if this race becomes the upset of all upsets: Rangel supports the Ground Zero Mosque while Faulkner opposes it. Polling for the race is non-existent (Democrats outnumber Republicans 15-1), but at least some observers think it might be more competitive than expected.
Remember, in 1994 no one expected Speaker of the House Tom Foley’s race to be even remotely competitive, but George Nethercutt still beat him, and there are some observers who say it could very well be much worse for Democrats this year than 1994. If that’s the case, then it’s a good bet one or more of the Republican candidates listed above will pull off an upset.
Imagine that. Ordinary Americans thinking they know what’s better for themselves than their political betters. Has someone informed The New York Times of this heresy?
And yes, that’s the actual Gallup Poll headline, not an Iowahawk parody of a Gallup Poll headline.
Number of people in Rep. Jim Oberstar’s Minnesota Eighth Congressional District: 614,935
Number of individuals in his District who donated to Oberstar’s election campaign this year: 1
I’ve long thought that limiting campaign contributions to in-district or in-state might radically cut down on special interest abuse, and Rep. Oberstar is now the poster-child for that notion.
(BTW, Oberstar racked up a perfect liberal 4×4 record by voting for for TARP, the Stimulus, Cap-and Trade and ObamaCare.)
Though I’m going to be concentrating heavily on election coverage the next three weeks, the rest of the world doesn’t stop just because the U.S. is having an election. Here’s a roundup of this week’s problems with Jihad, Islamists, Sharia, Islam, and the Middle East in general. (You might also have noticed that I’ve added a Foreign Policy/Jihad links section.)
So here’s a week’s worth of (mostly depressing) developments:
Advice Goddess Amy Alkon recently got in touch on Facebook via a mutual (non-political) friend. (Yes, I’m on Facebook. No, I don’t take friend requests from people I don’t already have some sort of personal connection to, which excludes most political figures; as one friend put it, “I don’t friend anyone on Facebook who couldn’t pick me out of a police lineup.” I also don’t post political links on my Facebook feed. What would be the point?) Anyway, she’s been doing a lot of coverage on the Jihad front. This week she links the complete text of this Geert Wilders speech that’s well worth reading.
I’m not sure if you noticed, but National Review Online has put up a new blog, Battle ’10, for this year’s elections. It’s well worth checking out if you want to follow various races. (And I’m not saying that just because they linked to me.)
So right after I put this piece on vulnerable Democratic House seats, this New York Times story appears stating that three of the Dem Reps we profiled, Steve Driehaus (OH 1), Suzanne Kosmas (FL 24) and Kathy Dahlkemper (PA 3) have been “triaged” and will no longer receive national Democratic TV advertising buys. As I noted yesterday, all three flipped their ObamaCare votes from No to Yes, two of them (Driehaus and Dahlkemper) as theoretically Pro-Life members of Bart Stupak’s bloc.
So the same party that pressured them to abandon their “deeply held beliefs” to pass ObamaCare is now tossing each of them aside like a used condom. I hope they enjoy the sour lemony tang of those just deserts.
The Times piece goes on to state that the Democrats are now targeting ad buys for Rep. Charles Wilson (OH 6) (not to be confused with late Texas Rep. “Goodtime” Charlie Wilson, of anti-Communist fame), another Stupak-bloc flipper who was not on that list of 72 endangered Democrats, which would indicate there are fewer and fewer “safe” Democratic seats in this election. In addition to ObamaCare, Wilson voted for TARP and the Stimulus, but against Cap-and-Trade. Wilson’s opponent is Bill Johnson, who’s drawn endorsements from Sarah Palin and other GOP heavy hitters.
Although it’s always wise to heed Instapundit’s “don’t get cocky” advice, I like the way Power and Control’s M. Simon Rockford put it: “Republicans at 100+ House seats is looking better every day.”
So how bad are Democratic House members doing this election? According to the National Journal, pretty bad. They count 60 seats among the most competitive and another 19 very close. Of those 79 House seats in play, 72 are currently held by Democrats.
As for where Democrats are spending their money, six of the seven districts the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is spending money on went for Obama by more that 54%. They say that they’re trying to “nail down” relatively easy seats before moving on to harder ones, but that makes absolutely no sense; if you really want to help the marginal seats, you start helping them out first, because they need the most work. No, this smacks of triage, and suggests that the DCCC considers most districts below that line as good as gone.
There are a number of interesting races and names that should be familiar to regular BattleSwarm readers, either from being in Texas or having been mentioned here before:
Chet Edwards (TX 17) comes in at #7. (I would say that Edwards is the last remnant of the old Texas Blue Dogs, but I didn’t know that Henry Cueller (TX-28) was an actual member of the Blue Dog Collation, which Edwards is not.) Edwards voted against ObamaCare and Cap-and-Trade, but did vote for the Stimulus and the TARP bank bailout. District is heavily Republican; went for Bush by 68% in 2000, 70% in 2004, and 67% for McCain. His opponent is Bill Flores.
Suzanne Kosmas (FL 24) comes in at #9 on the list. You may remember this BattleSwarm piece on her back when she was a wavering no vote on ObamaCare; as I predicted, she was easier to flip to a Yes vote that Rep. Jason Altmire (PA 4), who I also profiled, and who stuck to his no vote. Which goes a long way toward explaining why Kosmas is likely to lose her seat, while Altmire isn’t on the list of endangered Democrats. Go figure. She also voted for the Stimulus and Cap-and-Trade. (Kosmos was first elected in 2008, so she didn’t vote on TARP.) District went for Bush in 2000 by 53%, Bush in 2004 by 55%, and McCain by 52%. Her opponent is Sandy Adams.
Indiana’s open 8th congressional district, held by Brad Ellsworth, who is leaving for a Senate run (which polls show he’s currently losing by 17 points), comes in at #11. The contest is between Democrat Trent Van Haaften and Republican Larry Bucshon. Ellsworth was of the theoretically Pro-Life members of the Bart Stupak bloc that rolled over for Nancy Pelosi on ObamaCare. District went for Bush by 57% in 2000, 62% in 2004, and for McCain by 51%.
Steve Driehaus (OH 1) comes in at #16. Another Stupak-blocer who rolled over to let Nancy Pelosi rub his furry belly. In addition to ObamaCare, he voted for the Stimulus and Cap-and-Trade. (He was elected in 2008, and so didn’t vote on TARP.) District went 51% for Bush in both 2000 and 2004, but only 44% for McCain. His opponent is Steve Chabot, who held the seat for 12 years before Driehaus edged him 52%-48% in the Obama wave of 2008.
Kathy Dahlkemper (PA 3) comes in at #20. Yet another turncoat Supak-blocer Pelosi flipped for ObamaCare. Also voted for the Stimulus but against Cap-and-Trade. Wasn’t in Congress when TARP was voted on. District voted 51% for Bush in 2000 and 53% in 2004, and McCain edged Obama by a mere 20 votes in 2008. Her opponent is Mike Kelly.
Speaking of Stupak, Michigan’s open 1st congressional district comes in at #35. Realizing that his betrayal of his Pro-Life position to pass ObamaCare made him electoral toast, Stupak declined to run for reelection, leaving the battle to Democrat Gary McDowell and Republican doctor Dan Benishek. District went for Bush by 52% in 2000 and 53% in 2004, but 50% for Obama.
Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23) is off the list of top 60 races, but shows up in the “Knocking on the Door” section. Another Stupak bloc turncoat. In addition to ObammaCare, he voted for the Stimulus, but against Cap-and-trade and TARP. His district went for Bush by 54% in 200 and 57% in 2004, but for Obama by 51%. His opponent is Francisco “Quico” Canseco. Rodriguez came to national attention recently thanks to his defensive tone when constituents asked him to defend his vote on ObamaCare:
Time permitting, I’ll try to do additional posts on each of those races, plus a few others (including some longer shots that just might pay off in a tidal wave year). But if you’re looking for places your campaign contributions might be the most effective at unseating Democrats, the challengers linked to above are certainly worthy of your consideration.