Senate Races
CO-Sen: A Garin Hart Yang poll from the DSCC confirms last week's Rasmussen result; Democrat Mark Udall leads Republican Bob Schaffer by nine points. The DSCC poll has it at Udall 46%, Schaffer 37%.
Schaffer has had a pretty bad time of it so far in his campaign, but has managed to hang within striking distance in polling to date. Now, however, it certainly seems as though Udall may be pulling away.
NM-Sen: Speaking of guys named Udall, Mark's cousin Tom continues to steamroll his opposition in New Mexico. Rasmussen shows Udall with a 28-point lead over Republican Rep. Steve Pearce, 58% to 30%.
Yes, that's 30% for the Republican candidate, in a purple state, one-third of which he represented in Congress. That's an ugly performance for Steve Pearce.
Here's Udall's current ad on the Bush economy:
Here's an exciting thought: The only members of New Mexico's current federal delegation who will be in Washington in January 2009 are the state's two Democrats, Udall and Jeff Bingaman. That's goodbye to Pete Domenici, Heather Wilson, and Steve Pearce, all casualties of this Senate race.
MN-Sen: The DSCC's ad against Norm Coleman speaks volumes:
House Races
UT-03: This district is living proof that even the single-partiest of districts can host competitive races.
With a PVI of R+26.2 (which would have earned it the nickname "Marathon District, if anyone had bothered to coin that nickname), UT-03 is the most Republican district in the country (UT-01 is eighth, and UT-02, Jim Matheson's district, is 28th).
Still, and all, Republican Rep. Chris Cannon faces a strong primary challenge once again (he's been down this road before, having been marked for death by the Utah GOP). This time, it is former gubernatorial chief of staff (and BYU placekicker) Jason Chaffetz waging battle.
Cannon nearly did not make it to the June 24 primary election, having barely squeaked out just over 40 percent at the state party convention in Orem on May 10. Under the state party’s unusual way of culling candidates, a primary is required because no one candidate received 60 percent of the delegate votes on any ballot.
This is Cannon’s third serious challenge for the Republican nomination in as many elections. He was beaten 52 percent to 48 percent at the 2006 state convention by developer John D. Jacob, only to pull out a 12-point win in the primary. Two years before that, he could not get 60 percent against state Rep. Matt Throckmorton in the convention, but defeated him 58 percent to 42 percent in the primary.
Chaffetz, owner of a corporate communications firm, has some name familiarity as a former football placekicker at Utah’s Brigham Young University. He is also a former campaign manager, congressional liaison and chief of staff to Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.
I find it remarkable that anyone can manage to wage a challenge to Chris Cannon from the right, but that's just what Chaffetz is doing:
Chaffetz is trying to paint himself as the "true" conservative candidate and says Cannon is not. He cites the congressman’s support of the No Child Left Behind Act and the 2003 Medicare prescription drug benefit expansion laws. He said he would repeal the NCLB education law, arguing, "The federal government should not be in the public education business." He advocates abolishing the Department of Education and making deep cuts in government spending.
Hang on, this bears repeating:
"The federal government should not be in the public education business." He advocates abolishing the Department of Education and making deep cuts in government spending.
Urgh.
Chaffetz has a decent chance of beating Cannon, in fact. In a poll by Utah outfit Dan Jones and Associates has Cannon leading by four, 44% to 40%. There's almost no hope for a Democrat in this district, so whoever makes it out of this primary will likely be the district's next Congressman.
OH-02: Ah, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.
Jean Schmidt on June 5, 2008:
"The Chinese are drilling off the coast of Florida with their new energy partner, Cuba".
This was false.
Vice President Dick Cheney, who made a similar claim, has issued a statement acknowledging that the Chinese are not drilling in that area, and Florida GOP Sen. Mel Martinez called the rumor "simply false."
"They are akin to urban legends," Martinez said on the Senate floor.
So, naturally, the Hamilton County Democratic Party asks for a retraction:
It is imperative on you to acknowledge the inaccuracy of your statement and set the record straight. Your constituents are already having enough difficulty dealing with skyrocketing gas prices and a failing economy. You don't need to stir them up with false claims about a red scare off the beaches of Florida.
But Daredevil Jean has a tough time admitting mistakes:
While I have yet to receive a copy of your letter attacking me, I wanted to respond as soon as possible.
Good strategy, responding to letters you haven't read.
I always enjoy your loose relationship with the truth, but this one may earn you a gold medal for hypocrisy.
Pot, meet kettle.
Schmidt goes on to defend herself by naming four Democrats who supposedly said the same things she did on offshore drilling. She then cuts loose with this zinger:
Further, I find it amazing that the Communists in Cuba have demonstrated a better understanding of the laws of supply and demand than your party.
Ha ha. Jean made a funny. I think.
Anyway, about those four Dems that made the same mistakes she did? Well, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer, they didn't.
Shocking, no?
CT-04: Chris Shays, it seems, is very very excited to send Big Oil into Iraq.
Under the agreements, the companies would provide technical support to Iraq to boost oil production in exchange for payment in cash or oil barrels...
"This is a huge story," Shays said in a phone interview. "We would have liked it two or three years ago, but it's finally happening..."
Don't worry, though. We're not actually taking their oil. That would be bad business. But that's not what we're doing:
In his defense of the Iraq war, Shays has said Iraqis are warming up to the U.S. presence, in part because America isn't taking Iraqi oil...
The situation with the no-bid contracts, Shays said, is different.
"We're not coming in and taking their oil," he said. "The oil that exists, we're not having them produce oil and then taking it..."
Oh, of course. Because it hasn't been produced yet, it's not Iraqi oil. It's our oil. Even though it's in Iraq. Because it hasn't been produced.
Got it.
