Campaign Diaries

It is telling of the current political climate that the three House races with which I am leading this post were not considered to be that competitive a few months ago; in fact, two of them were not competitive at all. But as the environment has deteriorated for Republicans, Reps. Bachmann, Foley and Shadegg are as endangered as some of their more obviously vulnerable colleagues.

This is a repeat of 2006, when a number Republicans who had always been at the top of the Democrats’ target list had time to prepare themselves and survive (Reps. Reichert, Shays, Gerlach) while many incumbents whose seats suddenly became competitive in mid-to-late September were submerged.

Of the three incumbents I mentioned, Tom Feeney of FL-24 is by far the most vulnerable, as his connection to Jack Abramoff has profoundly damaged him. In fact, a recent Democratic poll had Feeney trailing by more than 20%. And if you had any doubts that Foley is feeling the pressure, his new attack ad should answer them. No incumbent goes as far as accusing a challenger of having facilitated September 11th and of working to provide abortions to 13 year old girls (without detailing what that accusation is about) unless they are getting desperate:

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StrhNeBqDh0"]

Feeney’s attempt to connect the issue of driver’s licenses to 9-11 and to Mohamed Atta is reminescent of an attack ad aimed at Obama released last week by the National Republican Trust PAC; the group said the ad would air in some media markets in Ohio. This is also a fascinating reminder that driver’s licenses never became an issue this year even though just a year ago it seemed like it would be one of the most explosive topics of the year, and one Republicans were preparing to exploit. On the other hand, you could say that the issue had a disproportionate impact on the 2008 cycle, as the Democratic primaries might very well have had a different ending had Hillary Clinton not stumbled in her handling of this question at last October’s debate.

Meanwhile, in MN-06, Rep. Michelle’s Bachmann’s rant about anti-American activities continues to make waves. Her opponent’s fundraising haul since Friday afternoon has now reached a jaw-dropping $800,000, guaranteeing that Tinklenberg will be one of the best-funded challengers in the country. The DCCC has also pledged to spend $1 million the race, and that much money dumped on one district in the space of two weeks can certainly make a big difference.

The Minnesota media has been covering for days now, and while Politico (in a fascinating article) suggests Bachmann’s goal over the past two years has been to catch the national spotlight, this last-minute controversy has certainly cast Bachmann in an unfavorable light. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the Democrats’ determination to push the story as much as possible (the state’s entire Democratic delegation signed a scathing statement denouncing Bachmann today) and in Bachmann recognizing that she has to address the controversy. Bachmann went as far as to pen a lengthy response to the criticism she received in Politico, and she does not acknowledge that she said anything wrong:

“I never called all liberals anti-American, I never questioned Barack Obama’s patriotism, and I never asked for some House Un-American Activities Committee witch hunt into my colleagues in Congress… It’s like a political version of the children’s game of telephone. I make a statement in an interview. Chris Matthews distorts it — as he is paid so well to do.”

It is unclear what Bachmann thinks was distorted, as it is not just one out-of-context soundbite for which she is being criticized; rather, she went on and on about Obama being “un-American” and about the clear links between liberalism, leftism and anti-Americanism. While it is too early to know how all of this will play out among voters, Bachmann’s refusal to yield an inch suggests she is as interested in securing a job as an anchor on Fox News in case she loses as she is in saving her seat.

Note that Republicans are hoping that PA-12 becomes the mirror image of MN-06 after Democratic Rep. Murtha attracted criticism for declaring Western Pennsylvania (where his district lies) a “racist area.” And his opponent has released an ad hitting Murtha for his comments. But in the absence of any polling data to tell us whether Murtha is at all vulnerable, we will wait to see if Republicans can make anything of this race - particularly since the NRCC cannot come to Russell’s help given that it barely has enough money to help a few of its incumbents.

Finally, a very strange controversy is unfolding in AZ-03. This is the seat of conservative hero Rep. Shadegg, who until three weeks ago would have been put on very few list of competitive races. The Arizona Democratic Party revealed earlier today that the it had found a credit card belonging to Shadegg’s campaign in their own offices, “near Democratic campaign materials.” The party’s statement left no doubt as to what they were implying (”Did his staff member access any information in the office or remove any materials?”).

Shadegg’s campaign quickly responded that the card had been issued to a (Shadegg) campaign official who gave the card to a volunteer who then entered the Democratic offices to buy an Obama bumper sticker… and dropped the credit card. Democrats then issued a second statement pointing out (1) that the official this card belonged to was none othe than Ryan Anderson, Shadegg’s deputy campaign manager and (2) that the Obama campaign would have a record if he had bought a bumper sticker since anyone is required to file a form to file it as a campaign donation.

I am not sure I understand the respective arguments correctly given that some of the names on these statements are blacked out, but it seems to me (for now) that Democrats are conflating the deputy campaign manager and the volunteer when the GOP’s preliminary defense is that the card was not in the hands of a campaign staffer; how credible is the GOP’s claim is another question, and one that will surely be argued over tomorrow and in the coming days. Furthermore, the Shadegg campaign’s initial attempt to minimize the issue was certainly not the best way for them to proceed, whether or not they have something to hide.

No matter what else will be discovered about this story, it is bound to make an intrusion in the campaign. It has now been picked up by the AP, and the severity of the Democrats’ accusations guarantees that the issues makes it in the news. The party’s second statement explicitely tries to frame this as a Watergate-like scandal: “Will [Shadegg] continue to employ the individuals responsible for spying on the people of Arizona?”