A new campaign line is emerging: The Democrats control the House of Representatives. They are on their way to a filibuster proof 60 seat majority in the Senate. Therefore, we need John McCain in the White House to prevent the Democrats have complete control.

The Politico reports, “Dems could hit 60 Senate Seats.” Now, I have posted many times about the Senate races and the many chances they have to pick up seats, but let’s not lose sight of facts.

Currently, the Senate has 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and 2 Independents. Currently, the two Independents caucus with the Democrats, but it would be hard to believe that Joe Leiberman would continue this next year. He has gone from supporting McCain because the war in Iraq is his most important issues and outweighs the fact that he disagrees with McCain on most all over issues, to now attacking Obama on taxes and health care.

So, to reach 60, the Democrats need to hold all of their seats, plus gain 10 more. What does this mean?

1. They win in VA, NM, CO, OR, NH, AK and NC. 7 down, 3 to go.
2. They need to win in KY and MN. MN is looking better and better, but Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has never been down in his Kentucky race.
3. They need to find one more seat in GA, AL, NE, ME…none of these look too good so far.
4. They need to hold onto all of their own incumbents, include a tight race in Louisiana.

So, the Republican message is, Voters should be scared of Democrats in control and should therefore, vote for McCain. Is it credible to make voters scared of Democrats in power. It would seem that this is exactly what the voters want! They want an end to the war in Iraq. They want affordable health care coverage. They want investment in stem cell research. They want lower taxes for the middle class. They want opportunities to send their children to college. They want investment in renewable energy sources. So, while Republicans make the case that we need to be scared of Democrats, voters are sending the message that they’ve had enough of Republican policies.

Instead of being scared of Democrats, maybe voters across the country will come together to help candidates like Scott Kleeb defeat former Bush Administration insider Mike Johanns, and make the 60 seat majority a reality, instead of just a scare tactic.

Time Magazine joined the many news organizations to discredit the charges that the McCain campaign continues to make.

The latest is that Obama “pals around with terrorists.”

Time Magazine points out there the accusation is “simply wrong.” The truth is that Obama met Bill Ayers when they ended up both being on a charity board in Chicago.

Today’s assault comes from the left-wing Associated Press.  They suggest that the McCain campaign’s decision to assault Obama’s character is over the line, comparing it the the Willie Horton campaign in 1988 and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004.  The AP has the audacity to claim that trying to pair Obama with terrorists is over the line.  McCain and Palin just want voters to believe that Obama is not like us, and if that means they have to turn him into a terrorist sympathizer, what’s wrong with that?

Read the whole AP analysis here…if you can handle their liberal bias

by pointing out the truth.   Check out Brian Williams opening remark.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/04/brian-williams-on-the-lat_n_131858.html

At the next debate, after they shake hands, McCain is going to pretend like his wallet is missing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/04/the-good-news-is-palin-ca_n_131854.html

Check out this report from Dan Hill of Sensory Logic. Through analyzing people’s responses to Obama and McCain campaign ads, he concluded that while Obama is a credible messenger of Hope, McCain is only credible as a messenger of anger and indignation. Ouch!

Each time McCain airs an attack ad, “liberal” media types like the Washington Post, the Associated Press, Factcheck.org are quick to point out the falsehoods, misleading nature and misrepresentations in the ads.  Lately, McCain has been asked about them.  His response is that first, the ads are correct, and second, Obama won’t debate me.  Here’s an exchange from his interview with NPR:

Have you come back to your advisers at any point and said — for example, the ad that ran with your name on it saying that Barack Obama supported comprehensive sex education for primary school students, something that factcheck.org said was wrong. Have you ever gone to your staff and said, “Take that ad off. It’s not right”?

It’s factually correct. It’s absolutely factually correct, and you can go on my Web site and you can see the exact language of the bill that Senator Obama sponsored. But the point is that if he had agreed to the town hall meetings that I asked him to do all around the country, like Jack Kennedy and Barry Goldwater had once agreed to do, the tenor of this campaign would be dramatically different. (emphasis mine) If we’d have gone around the country, and stood side-by-side before the American people and listened to their hopes and dreams and aspirations, the whole tenor of this campaign would be dramatically different. I’m proud of the campaign we are running, the ads are factually correct. And if someone named factcheck.org or anybody else doesn’t agree with it, I respectfully disagree with their conclusions.

So when McCain talks about a different tenor, what is he trying to tell us.  If all of his attacks are honest, why wouldn’t they fit into a campaign with a more positive tenor?  Maybe that will be the next question he tries to answer.

From the Politico:

Republican defections proved fatal to the massive government intervention, rejected 228-205. Despite bipartisan appeals from the leadership, anti-Wall Street sentiment and the huge scale of the proposed government intervention proved too much for Treasury to prevail.

Democrats more than delivered a majority of their caucus, and Pelosi held the vote open to bring her numbers up to 140 votes for the package. But Republicans never topped 70, and the final GOP split was 133 against the bill and only 65 for the measure.

Doesn’t this open the door for the Democrats to push through a bill they all like?  They sacrificed 95 votes in an attempt to attract Republicans.  In exchange, only 65 Republicans joined them.  If they don’t want a compromise, why don’t the Democrats just craft a plan they can pass, leaving it to President Bush to veto if he’d like?

They are in trouble in North Carolina….

9-29-08: Hagan 46, Dole 38 (Note: This poll also has Obama beating McCain by 2. Is it an outlier, or is McCain in trouble too?)

They are in trouble in Oregon…

9-26-08: Merkley 45, Smith 40

They are in trouble in Colorado…

9-23-08: Udall 48, Schaffer 40

They are in trouble in New Mexico…

9-22-08: Udall 57, Pearce 37

New Hampshire is still a toss-up with numbers going back and forth…

9-22-08: Shaheen 48, Sununu 44

It would be hard to believe that the indicted Ted Stevens is not in trouble in Alaska…

9-19-08: Begich 50, Stevens 44

And in Virginia, you can’t really call it a targeted race, but it is one that is switching from GOP to Dem….

9-26-08: Warner 60, Gilmore 34

The Democrats would love to win 10 Senate seats. This is a near unheard of feat, but one that would give them 60 seats. This would require 3 more seats. Where will they come from?

Well, Minnesota is an option. One recent poll shows that Kentucky is a possibility. Where will the third come from? Nebraska? Maine? South Carolina? Alabama? Tennessee? Kansas? Georgia? None of these seem too likely at this point.

And a final note: The Democrats have one seat in danger, in Louisiana.

As you have probably already heard, Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska has been indicted on 7 counts, involving his failure to report gifts and services that were given to him. While he await the verdict in this manner, it is never too soon to see who else can be taken down with Stevens.

No good scandal takes down just one man!

So, while Stevens is accepting gifts, valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars, who is Stevens giving his money to?

Like so many other politicians, Stevens has a Leadership PAC that allows him to raise more money and distribute it among his colleagues. And it looks like more than a few of his friends are currently campaigning for the Senate this year:

Norm Coleman of MN received $10,000
John Cornyn of Texas received $5,000
Elizabeth Dole of NC received $10,000
Mike Johanns of NE received $1,000
Mitch McConnell of KY received $7,500
Gordon Smith of Oregon received $10,000
And Steven’s PAC was even generous enough to give Ted Steven’s $5,000.
Read the complete list at Open Secrets: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00331827&cycle=2008

Just for fun, lets looks at which one of these lucky recipients returned the money back to Stevens!

Norm Coleman’s PAC gave $5,000 to Stevens.
John Cornyn’s PAC failed to donate to Stevens.
Elizabeth Dole’s PAC failed to donate back to Stevens.
Mike Johanns is not a current officeholder and does not currently have an active PAC.
Mitch McConnell gave $10,000 to Stevens.
Gordon Smith gave $10,000 to Stevens.

This is a great way to fundraise. Since FEC law prevents your PAC from donating more than $10,000 to you own campaign, you can just donate money to other candidates and have their PACs give the money back to you! Genius!

**Note: All of this data is only for the 2008 cycle and can easily be viewed at OpenSecrets.org

Which candidate will be the first to rid itself of Steven’s money?