As Democrat pessimism grows, some say House will be lost

Top Democrats are growing markedly more pessimistic about holding the House, privately conceding that the summertime economic and political recovery they were banking on will not likely materialize by Election Day.

In conversations with more than two dozen party insiders, most of whom requested anonymity to speak candidly about the state of play, Democrats in and out of Washington say they are increasingly alarmed about the economic and polling data they have seen in recent weeks.

They no longer believe the jobs and housing markets will recover — or that anything resembling the White House’s promise of a “recovery summer” is under way. They are even more concerned by indications that House Democrats once considered safe — such as Rep. Betty Sutton, who occupies an Ohio seat that President Barack Obama won with 57 percent of the vote in 2008 — are in real trouble.

In two close races, endangered Democrats are even running ads touting how they oppose their leadership.

“Democrats kept thinking: ‘We’re going to get better. We’re going to get well before the election,’” said one of Washington’s best-connected Democrats. “But as of this week, you now have people saying that Republicans are going to win the House. And now it’s starting to look like the Senate is going to be a lot closer than people thought.”

A Democratic pollster working on several key races said, “The reality is that [the House majority] is probably gone.” His data show the Democrats’ problems are only getting worse. “It’s spreading,” the pollster said.

Not all Democrats — or Republicans, for that matter — share this pessimistic assessment 68 days before the election. Republicans need to pick up 39 seats, and polls show most voters still have a downbeat view of the GOP’s ability to govern any better than Democrats. Republicans have been out-raised and outspent at the national level and in many of the key races.

Why do I have to name a party? I thought this was a free country

Many Democrats and Republicans running for Congress this year are hiding their party affiliations.

About one-third of Democratic and GOP candidates in battleground House races do not openly reveal which party they represent, according to a review by The Hill of candidate websites.

The Hill analyzed the homepages and bios of the candidates in races identified by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report as competitive.

The results indicate that Democrats are feeling the wind at their faces this midterm election and that the anti-establishment mood of the electorate has GOP candidates wary of embracing their party as well.

While most campaign experts anticipate a Republican wave in November, they point out that polls show the Republican Party is still suffering from President George W. Bush’s unpopular last term.

Republican nominees were slightly more likely than their Democratic opponents to display their party affiliation on their homepages. Of the 46 races reviewed, 22 Republicans and 19 Democrats made some reference to their party affiliation on the homepage of their campaign website.

For example, Democratic Rep. Glenn Nye of Virginia bills himself as “an independent voice, for a change.” House GOP hopeful Alan Nunnelee’s (Miss.) website says he hopes to be a “true conservative” in Washington.

The numbers reflect a sharp turnaround from the 2006 midterm campaign, in which Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress.

A similar analysis by The Hill in 2006 found that only 25 percent of Republicans in competitive contests displayed their party affiliation on their homepages. Roughly half of Democrats in such contests had their party affiliation on their homepage in 2006.



Among the key Democrats who don’t mention their party on their homepage or bio pages are Rep. Chet Edwards (Texas), a subcommittee chairman whose district was won by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008 with 67 percent of the vote.

 Among Republicans, Rep. Charlie Dent (Pa.) doesn’t mention his party on his homepage or bio page. Dent, whose district was won by President Obama by 13 percentage points in 2008, labels himself an “independent thinker.”

 The Hill’s rundown excludes some House races whose nominees had not yet been determined.

In the most competitive Senate races whose party nominees have been decided, five of nine Democrats and four of nine Republicans showed their party affiliation on either their homepage or bio page.

There are also many candidates running for both the House and Senate who do not mention their party in campaign ads.

New-media strategist Josh Koster said the results stem from an anti-establishment mood that has damaged both parties’ brands. Increased political polarization and growing concerns about the deficit among voters have contributed to that mood, he said. 

“I think the anti-establishment sentiment is causing both sides to downplay the party brand,” Koster said. “The fact that the deficit is on average voters’ minds is causing both sides to react to that.”


Only 32 percent of indies want Democrats to control Congress

WASHINGTON (AP) - Independents who embraced President Barack Obama's call for change in 2008 are ready for a shift again, and that's worrisome news for Democrats.

Only 32 percent of those citing no allegiance to either major party say they want Democrats to keep control of Congress in this November's elections, according to combined results of recent Associated Press-GfK polls. That's way down from the 52 percent of independents who backed Obama over Republican Sen. John McCain two years ago, and the 49 percent to 41 percent edge by which they preferred Democratic candidates for the House in that election, according to exit polls of voters.

Independents voice especially strong concerns about the economy, with 9 in 10 calling it a top problem and no other issue coming close, the analysis of the AP-GfK polls shows. While Democrats and Republicans rank the economy the No. 1 problem in similar numbers, they are nearly as worried about their No. 2 issues, health care for Democrats and terrorism for Republicans.

Ominously for Democrats, independents trust Republicans more on the economy by a modest but telling 42 percent to 36 percent. That's bad news for the party that controls the White House and Congress at a time of near 10 percent unemployment and the slow economic recovery.

"People are just struggling, they need a job but there's nowhere to get a job," said independent Leilani Buxman, 55, of Greeley, Colo. Of Obama, she said, "It seems like he talks but he doesn't do anything about it."

Both parties court independents for obvious reasons. Besides their sheer number - 4 in 10 describe themselves as independents in combined AP-GfK polling for April, May and June - they are a crucial swing group.

To try winning them over, Republicans say they will contrast Obama's campaign promises of change with the huge spending programs he's approved. Democrats say they will warn independents that a GOP victory will revive that party's efforts to cut taxes for the rich and transform Social Security into risky private investment accounts.

Targeting independents is tricky, though, because the makeup of independents evolves over time.

Their numbers have swollen from 3 in 10 two years ago, due partly to the weakened political loyalties that typify years without presidential elections. While some are conservatives dissatisfied with Republicans, similar numbers are disillusioned Democrats, underscoring a frustration with the party in power often seen when the economy is bad.

Reflecting these conflicting dynamics, today's independents are likelier to be minorities, conservatives, less educated, lower paid and from rural areas than they were in 2008. Sixty-seven percent think the country is heading in the wrong direction, compared with 59 percent of all voters who think so.

"Why not stop bickering and do something. Pull together," said Chip A. Hoeye, 54, of Fort Atkinson, Wis., an independent and Obama voter who says he doesn't care which party controls Congress because of their constant battling.

Independents trust Republicans far more than Democrats for handling national security, but give Democrats a 42 percent to 36 percent edge for dealing with health care - a potential sign that distrust over Obama's signature issue is receding.

GOP surpasses bumbling Democrats on recovery policy

Democrats cling to soak-rich bias made laughable by Laffer

Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.

—President John F. Kennedy,
Economic Report of the President,
January 1963

If only more of today's leaders thought like JFK. Sadly, in the debate over whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and if so whether the cuts should be extended to those people who are in the highest tax bracket, there is a false presumption that higher tax rates on the top 1% of income earners will raise tax revenues.

Anyone who is familiar with the historical data available from the IRS knows full well that raising income tax rates on the top 1% of income earners will most likely reduce the direct tax receipts from the now higher taxed income—even without considering the secondary tax revenue effects, all of which will be negative. And who on Earth wants higher tax rates on anyone if it means larger deficits?

Since 1978, the U.S. has cut the highest marginal earned-income tax rate to 35% from 50%, the highest capital gains tax rate to 15% from about 50%, and the highest dividend tax rate to 15% from 70%. President Clinton cut the highest marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains from the sale of owner-occupied homes to 0% for almost all home owners. We've also cut just about every other income tax rate as well.

During this era of ubiquitous tax cuts, income tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 3.3% of GDP in 2007 (the latest year for which we have data) from 1.5% of GDP in 1978. Income tax receipts from the bottom 95% of income earners fell to 3.2% of GDP from 5.4% of GDP over the same time period.

Foie gras Democrats spend lavishly and then rub our noses in it

Democrat John Kerry sets sail in a $7 million yacht built in New Zealand. Republican Scott Brown hits the campaign trail in a GMC pickup truck with 200,000 miles on it.

From Newport, R.I., where Kerry’s “Isabel’’ was berthed before heading to Nantucket, to Rhinebeck, N.Y., where Chelsea Clinton was married in a mansion modeled after Versailles, today’s Democrats are looking more like Louis XVI than Tip O’Neill.

Kick in the First Family’s vacation plans for Martha’s Vineyard, and there’s a real air of Marie Antoinette & Co. retreating to idyllic gardens, while Fox News whips up revolutionary flames. The ethics charges against Representative Charles Rangel of New York are added foie gras.

In 2008, Republican John McCain was the presidential candidate with so many houses, he lost count. Barack Obama was the guy with only one somewhat luxurious home. Today, President Obama presides over a party of perceived privilege, while Republicans accessorize themselves as the party of the people.

Brown accessorized brilliantly during last January’s Senate race in Massachusetts. He’s not mega-rich like Kerry, yet comfortable enough, with five properties and a horse his daughter co-owned for a time with a race track owner. But Brown’s humble pickup truck and barn jacket remain the enduring symbols of his upstart campaign to win the seat held for decades by the late Edward M. Kennedy.

Kennedy was a rich and powerful Democrat who kept a connection to the people in a way that Brown and millionaire Sarah Palin understand. But some Democrats just don’t get it, from Governor Deval Patrick’s fancy drapes and Cadillac to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Armani suits and taxpayer-funded military jet.

It isn’t about having a lot of money. It’s about making people feel you are rubbing your money in their faces, while draining their modest assets for sketchy government programs funded by taxes you don’t want to pay.

Democrats have charted a long-shot strategy to keep the House

Democratic strategists see a path to retaining their House majority.

To do so, they are aiming to pick off four seats held by Republicans, two open and two held by incumbents; then hold onto at least eight of their most endangered 16 open seats; and keep their incumbent losses down to less than 35 -- two-thirds of the Democratic incumbents in competitive districts, or just over 40 percent of the number if you include those who are potentially endangered.

In a normal election year, these would be very modest ambitions; today, it's a tall order. But it is plausible.

According to "Vital Statistics on Congress," in the last half century, a party has lost 35 or more incumbents only four times.

The first occurred in 1964, when 39 Republican incumbents were swept out in President Lyndon Johnson's landslide victory over Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz. In the very next election, Democrats lost 38 seats in a "six-year itch" -- a second-term, midterm election. Republicans lost 36 in 1974, another second-term, midterm election, just three months after President Gerald Ford's watch started in the wake of Richard Nixon's resignation.

The most recent was 1994, a first-term, midterm election like this one, under President Bill Clinton, when 35 Democratic incumbents lost.

Barone: This could be the GOP's best House election in 64 years

...the Republicans' current lead in the generic ballot question suggests they may be on the brink of doing better than in any election since 1946, when they won a 245-188 margin in the House -- larger than any they've held ever since.

Another metric is daunting for Democrats. Polls in House races almost always show incumbents ahead of challengers, because incumbent members of Congress are usually much better known than their opponents. An incumbent running below 50 percent is considered potentially in trouble; an incumbent running behind a challenger is considered in deep doo-doo.

In 1994, I wrote an article in U.S. News & World Report arguing that there was a serious chance that Republicans could capture the 40 seats that they needed then, as now, for a majority in the House. It was the first mainstream media piece suggesting that, and it appeared on the newsstands on July 11.

I cited as evidence five polls showing incumbent Democratic congressmen trailing Republican challengers. None of those Democrats had scandal problems; all five lost in November.

Today, a lot more Democratic incumbents seem to be trailing Republican challengers in polls. Jim Geraghty of National Review Online has compiled a list of 13 Democratic incumbents trailing in polls released over the last seven weeks.

They're from all over the country: one each from Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota; two from Virginia; three from Pennsylvania. Most if not all of these incumbents are personally attractive, hardworking and ethically unsullied.

Some of these poll numbers are mind-boggling. Tom Perriello, a 727-vote winner in Virginia 5 in 2008, has been running two weeks of humorous ads showing what a hard worker he is. A poll shows him trailing Republican state Sen. Robert Hurt 58 percent to 35 percent.

In industrial Ohio 13, which Barack Obama carried 57 to 42, a poll shows incumbent Betty Sutton trailing free-spending Republican Tom Ganley 44 percent to 31 percent.

Goldman Sachs trims donations to Democrats, but still hedges

WASHINGTON -- Goldman Sachs executives are pulling campaign cash away from congressional Democrats in the wake of their crackdown on Wall Street, and are now hedging their bets in the upcoming election, according to a Post analysis.

During the last election cycle, 64 percent of Goldman's PAC contributions went to Democrats.

Now, the cash split is an even 50-50, according to campaign data.

"They're reading the writing on the wall," said one House Democratic aide.

Goldman, which just settled a lawsuit with the feds for $550 million, is also snubbing a key Democratic Party election arm.

The firm gave $30,000 each to the top Republican campaign committees in Congress, and the same amount to Senate Democrats -- but gave House Democrats only half as much.

The $15,000 contribution represented just half the amount the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee got in 2008.

The House crafted a more stringent bill to regulate Wall Street, prompting some execs to warn lawmakers that they would withhold cash from the party's campaign committee and give only to favored Democrats.

How cram-downs by the political class replaced legislating

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors' "toxic assets" was the only alternative to the U.S. economy's "systemic collapse." In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets' nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term "political class" came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public's understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the "ruling class." And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

He's not on the ballot, but 41% will vote against Obama's policies

Voters will go to the polls this November with control of Congress at stake. Yet most voters say when they pull that lever, they will be sending a message to the White House, according to a Fox News poll.

The poll, released Friday, finds that 41 percent of voters will cast their ballots to register opposition to President Obama's policies. A third (33 percent) will vote to express their support. The policies of the administration will not be a factor for 20 percent of voters.

Most Republicans — 72 percent — describe their midterm vote as expressing opposition to the Obama administration. That's a bit higher than the 64 percent of Democrats who say their vote will express support. One in 10 Democrats will vote to express opposition to the president (11 percent).

Independents are nearly 20 percentage points more likely to say their vote will express opposition (41 percent) rather than support (23 percent) for Obama policies. Thirty-three percent of independents say the administration won't influence their vote.

If the election were held today, 41 percent of voters would back the Republican candidate in their congressional district and 37 percent would vote for the Democratic candidate. That's little changed from two weeks ago when the vote favored the Republican candidate by 42-40 percent (June 29-30).

Modest, clean, frugal, sensible government may become possible

Conservatives often blame elected Republicans for not producing revolutionary changes when in power. This frustration is understandable, but it is also wrongheaded. No political party can make revolutionary changes in American government unless that party not only controls the House of Representatives and the White House, but also, critically, has a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Until 1919, debate in the Senate was unlimited. There was no Senate Rule which allowed for cloture, or limiting debate. A determined Senate minority could effectively stop any congressional bill, any presidential appointment (which required Senate confirmation), and any treaty.

When Democrats have had that combination of power, they have used it to radically change America. FDR had four consecutive Congresses in which Democrats could do virtually anything they wanted, because Senate Democrats could pass a cloture motion. Democrats also had filibuster-proof Senate majorities from 1963 to 1967, the years in which LBJ's Great Society program was passed.

Senate rules were changed in the 1970s. Cloture required only a three-fifths majority instead of a two-thirds majority. Under these new rules, Democrats had filibuster-proof Senate majorities, along with control of the House and White House, from 1977 to 1979. Until Scott Brown won his special election earlier this year, Obama's Democrats did not need a single Republican to pass his stimulus bill and related measures.

These four separate eras -- in which Democrats could invoke cloture without Republicans and also controlled the House and White House -- have produced those giant leaps towards big government and socialism which bedevil us today. So why have Republicans not rolled Democrat programs when they have had power? Since the cloture rule was adopted over ninety years ago, Republicans have never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (much less had that supermajority in the Senate and also controlled the House and White House).

That may change in the next three election cycles.

Think the Dems are content with the damage done? Think again

...there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don't want to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation.

"I've got lots of things I want to do" in a lame duck, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W. Va.) told reporters in mid June. North Dakota's Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, wants a lame-duck session to act on the recommendations of President Obama's deficit commission, which is due to report on Dec. 1. "It could be a huge deal," he told Roll Call last month. "We could get the country on a sound long-term fiscal path." By which he undoubtedly means new taxes in exchange for extending some, but not all, of the Bush-era tax reductions that will expire at the end of the year.

In the House, Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters last month that for bills like "card check"—the measure to curb secret-ballot union elections—"the lame duck would be the last chance, quite honestly, for the foreseeable future."

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate committee overseeing labor issues, told the Bill Press radio show in June that "to those who think [card check] is dead, I say think again." He told Mr. Press "we're still trying to maneuver" a way to pass some parts of the bill before the next Congress is sworn in.

Other lame-duck possibilities? Senate ratification of the New Start nuclear treaty, a federally mandated universal voter registration system to override state laws, and a budget resolution to lock in increased agency spending.

Then there is pork. A Senate aide told me that "some of the biggest porkers on both sides of the aisle are leaving office this year, and a lame-duck session would be their last hurrah for spending." Likely suspects include key members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Congress's "favor factory," such as Pennsylvania Democrat Arlen Specter and Utah Republican Bob Bennett.

The GOP base is hot on immigration issue: biggest gainers are McCain, Brewer and other RINOs who usually bob and weave

The immigration issue, which immigration enthusiasts have fought desperately to keep bipartisan (and thus out of the reach of American voters), is finally precipitating out on party lines.

It’s not that Republican elected officials want to take a strong stand on illegal immigration, legal immigration or anything else for that matter. McConnell and Boehner, quoted above, are the single most important reason not one congressional Republican can be found to introduce a “Time Out” or moratorium bill in the teeth of record unemployment—even though they have no other ideas to reduce unemployment, and even though Senator Harry Reid (of all people) introduced one during the much less serious recession of the early 1990s.

Indeed, Senator John McCain’s response to the Obama attack on Arizona goes some way to answering the interesting question of where he will stand on immigration if he succeeds in convincing Arizonans that he really is a born-again border enforcer and staving off J.D. Hayworth’s primary challenge.

McCain (and the hapless junior GOP Senator, John Kyl) said in a statement: “It is far too premature for the Obama Administration to challenge the legality of this new law since it has not yet been enforced.” [Republicans Slam Obama for Suing Arizona, by Connie Hair, Human Events, 07/06/2010]

This, of course, implies that there will be a time when a challenge is not premature—like, for example, after John McCain’s re-election.

There is only one reason Republicans are now making these brave statements: they are being forced to do so by their base. This is the only reason Arizona’s RINO governor Jan Brewer signed SB1070 in the first place—and she has been rewarded by soaring polls and probably re-election in a race that had looked very difficult indeed.

New Jersey Dems surrender, agree to vote for Gov. Chris Christie's budget and pretend Christie will take a fall

What looked to be an impending showdown between the Democratic-controlled New Jersey legislature and Republican Gov. Chris Christie over the state budget for fiscal 2011 may be over before it ever began. Democrats in the state assembly publicly conceded this week that Christie’s $29 billion budget would pass largely intact with Democratic support.

The move comes on the heels of last week’s collision between Christie and State Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-Camden). Sweeney delivered two bills reinstating New Jersey’s expired “millionaire’s tax” to the governor’s office in the State House, only to see Christie veto the bills almost as quickly as he received them. Sweeney promised that the Democrats would return with a similar tax increase soon, but reports indicate that there was no stomach among Democrats either to attempt a veto override or pass another version of the tax.

Rather than confront Christie and his veto pen again, Democrats have decided to allow the budget to go through. However, they are going to try and force Republicans to “own” the proposed cuts to programs for the elderly and the poor by insisting that those bills be initiated and sponsored by the minority. Most Democrats will then vote against the bills, supplying only the eight votes in the Assembly and four in the Senate needed for the measures to pass each house.

The chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee, Assemblyman Lou Greenwald (D), explained that the Democrats’ strategy is designed to pin responsibility on Republicans in the legislature for Christie’s proposed cuts. “The Republican Party is going to own this budget,” he said. “We will get them the necessary votes to pass it, but they will own it.”

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Paul Sarlo (D) similarly challenged Republicans to stand up for Christie’s budget. Referring to the Democrats’ claim that Christie’s reductions in state aid to municipalities and a one-year elimination of property tax rebates contained in the budget will cause property taxes to go up. “Show us some sponsors,” he said. “Show us some people willing to stand up for these tax increases.”

If Democrats are trying to put them on defensive, however, New Jersey Republicans are not taking the bait. Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean (R) told HUMAN EVENTS last week that his caucus would be glad to sponsor any bills necessary to implement Gov. Christie’s budget. “If the Democratic majority is either incapable or unwilling to sponsor the bills, we certainly will do so,” Kean said.

Revulsion against the ins at all-time high on primary day

As voters head to the polls Tuesday for a crucial set of primary elections, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds antipathy toward their elected officials rising and anti-incumbent sentiment at an all-time high.

The national survey shows that 29 percent of Americans now say they are inclined to support their House representative in November, even lower than in 1994, when voters swept the Democrats out of power in the that chamber after 40 years in the majority.

The poll also finds growing disapproval of the "tea party" movement, with half the population now expressing an unfavorable impression of the loosely aligned protest campaign that has shaken up politics this year.

And at a time when Republicans anticipate significant gains in House and Senate elections, there is also fresh evidence of the challenges facing the GOP. Six in 10 poll respondents say they have a negative view of the policies put forward by the Republican minority in Congress, and about a third say they trust Republicans over Democrats to handle the nation's main problems.

This sour mood has made for nervous politicians, as candidates from both parties have tried to figure out what voters want -- and don't want. On Tuesday, hopefuls in Virginia and 11 other states will find out. It is the busiest single primary day of the year, and a big test of just how deep anti-incumbent and anti-establishment feelings go.

As curtains open on former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's trial, Illinois Democrats "are desperate to pretend they don't know him"

The infamous Tammany Hall boss George Washington Plunkitt distinguished between “honest graft” and “dishonest graft.” Dishonest graft, he said, meant actual theft from the treasury, or shaking down criminals for bribes. Honest graft, on the other hand, simply meant taking advantage of private deals that arose in the course of public office. “I might sum up the whole thing by sayin’: I seen my opportunities and I took ‘em,” he said.

Former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich starts his federal trial today. And the Illinois Democrats who clung to his coattails for years are desperate to pretend they don’t know him. Back in 2003, Rep. Jan Schakowsky proclaimed of Blago: “He really is very smart. I don’t laugh at the idea [of his running for President] at all.” She added that when he walked into a room, “there was this crackle of electricity. Everyone wanted to touch him.”

That electricity prompted Rep. Schakowsky to donate $28,000 to Blago’s campaigns for governor. Her husband, convicted felon and political strategist Robert Creamer, made $541,000 helping Blago get elected in 2002. She lobbied him heavily in November 2008 in the hope that he would appoint her to fill the Senate seat being vacated by Barack Obama, and is thought to be “Senate Candidate 3” in the original criminal complaint.

Now she is trying to laugh it off, nervously telling the Politico that the trial will be a “soap opera.” She and other Illinois Democrats are trying to pretend that even though Blago’s alleged crimes involved prominent figures in federal, state, and local government, he was a lone wolf. But they are nervous, because the connections are there. (Is it just a coincidence that President Obama chose last weekend, of all others, to visit Chicago?)

The story they are all sticking to is that Blago is a special case–and he has done his best to prove them right. Rather than laying low, he has used every camera and open mic to denounce the federal prosecutor and the allies who abandoned him. Yet selling the Senate seat–the “f***ing valuable thing,” to quote Blago–was what Plunkitt would have recognized as “honest graft.” It is the rule in Chicago, not the exception.

Smaller percentage of Democrats are at odds with their party, but they might do more damage than Republicans in election

There's an interesting dichotomy right now in how Democrats and Republicans feel about their own parties. Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to think their party is headed in the right direction. But at the same time unhappy Democrats are much more likely to abandon their party at the polls this year than unhappy Republicans. So even though there are a good deal fewer of them, angry Democrats are a much bigger threat to their party's prospects in 2010 than angry Republicans are to theirs.

On our most recent national poll just 54% of Republican voters said they were pleased with the direction of their party. The 46% who fall into the unhappy or not sure camps though still say they'll vote for the GOP by an 82-9 margin this fall.

By contrast 83% of Democrats are happy with their party's direction. But among those who aren't 48% are planning to vote for Republicans this fall to 36% who are planning to vote Democratic. So despite the fact that there are far more GOP voters mad at their party than Democrats, the number of angry Democrats planning to vote Republican is actually larger than the number of angry Republicans planning to vote Democratic. It's just one more thing the party is going to have to cope with for this fall.

Congressional Democrats applaud Mexican President Felipe Calderon after he endorses practices that damage the U.S.

If you are winning, go with the status quo.

That's what Mexican president Felip Calderon did this week. The question is, why did congressional Democrats give Calderon a standing ovation? Was that because the U.S. is losing, and further decline will hasten the day when free enterprise and free markets, institutions that many of the Democrats deplore, are finally tossed aside in favor of government by the biggest donors to their campaigns?

The most important relationship between Mexico and the United States is economic.

Mexico exports poverty and low skills to the United States.

The United States, in turn, supplies education and welfare benefits to imported Mexicans who, in turn, export billions of dollars to Mexico. In 2007, those remittances totaled $23.98 billion. In 2008, the total rose to $25.145 billion.

While the figure for 2009 is not yet in, it is expected to fall to about $21 billion. Hard times are at hand in Mexico.

If Arizona's new immigration law deters illegal border crossings into Arizona, the number of illegal aliens sending remittances to Mexico might fall off on a lasting basis. Emulation of the Arizona law by other border states could put a real crimp in Mexico's profit from illegal border crossings.

That's why Calderon spoke with such urgency about the awfulness of the Arizona law. President Obama appeared to agree with him, which was not surprising for a chief executive who has little good to say, but much to rebuke, about the land he has chosen to misgovern while awaiting his chance to govern the world.

Democrat who salvaged a win in PA not typical of the species

The candidate who on Tuesday won the special election in a Pennsylvania congressional district is right-to-life and pro-gun. He accused his opponent of wanting heavier taxes. He said he would have voted against Barack Obama's healthcare plan and promised to vote against cap-and-trade legislation, which is a tax increase supposedly somehow related to turning down the planet's thermostat. This candidate, Mark Critz, is a Democrat.

And that just about exhausts the good news for Democrats on a surreal Tuesday when their presumptive candidate for the U.S. Senate in Connecticut — the state's attorney general, Richard Blumenthal — chose to hold a news conference at a Veterans of Foreign Wars hall to discuss why he had falsely said he fought in a foreign war. National Democrats may try to find a less damaged candidate for Connecticut, but first they may have to do that in Illinois.
Their candidate to hold the Senate seat Obama held, Alexi Giannoulias, has a problem: The failure of the bank owned by his family — it made loans to Tony Rezko, the convicted developer who helped Obama with a 2006 property transaction — may cost taxpayers many millions. Proving his credentials as a disciple of the president, Giannoulias blamed the bank's failure on George W. Bush.

Illinois Democrats have already had to replace the colorful fellow they nominated for lieutenant governor. Five days after the primary, in a bar, during the Super Bowl, South Side pawnbroker Scott Lee Cohen wept as he bowed out beneath a cloud of controversies about a 2005 arrest for domestic battery against a former girlfriend — he was accused of holding a knife to her throat — and complaints of spousal abuse and revelations of steroid use.

If Democrats lose Obama's former seat, as they are almost certain to lose Joe Biden's in Delaware, and as they may lose the Nevada seat currently held by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, they will achieve a negative hat trick in November, losing all three of the so-called "trophy contests."