Opinions, Context & Ideas from the TPM Editors TPM Editor's Blog

In the department of

In the department of races I've been watching, let me mention a new poll out from Connecticut's 2nd District, where incumbent Republican Rob Simmons is facing Jim Sullivan.

The 2nd District is basically the eastern half of the state (see here), an area that I can fairly call myself an expert on, as long as we stick to how things were in the 1600s. About the area's more recent history, I know pretty little.

That ignorance aside, however, a new poll out, commissioned by the Sullivan campaign and the DCCC, has Simmons up by two points over Sullivan, 41% to 39% among likely voters. The poll was taken on August 11th and 12th and had a sample size of 504 likely voters.

Now, that's a relatively small sample size, though not so small for a congressional district poll. And the poll was commissioned by the challenger. Still, it shows a basically dead-even race and an incumbent that is deep down in the danger zone at 41%. Add in the fact that the most recent Quinnipiac poll put President Bush's approval rating in the state at 37% and you've got a very winnable race for the Democrats.

Give this race a look. Here's Sullivan's site.

What exactly did the

What exactly did the Iranians tell European diplomats last month in Paris at talks about Iran's nuclear program?

Yesterday Undersecretary of State John Bolton spoke on the Iran issue at a panel discussion at the Hudson Institute in Washington. I wanted to be there. But I wasn't in town.

According to press accounts, Bolton said that the Iranians told their German, French and British counterparts that they could produce enough uranium for a bomb within a year, and that they'd do so if the Europeans didn't back down in their demands that the Iranians dismantle their nuclear program.

In other words, the Iranians threatened that they'd make a bomb within a year if the Europeans didn't back off.

The Post says, delicately, that "there were discrepancies between Bolton's account and those of European and U.S. diplomats, who said that Iran's deputy negotiator, Hoseyn Moussavian, said Iran could start enriching uranium within a year, but it would take longer to enrich enough for a weapon."

In a small note on page A4 in USA Today Barbara Slavin puts the point a little more squarely, saying that "two diplomats from two of the European countries at the Paris talks said they were unaware of such a threat. The diplomats ... were not present at the talks but were briefed on them..."

(Slavin, at least according to the invitation, was one of the panelists at the Hudson event.)

Now, my point in noting this discrepancy (to use the Post's delicate phrasing) is not to gainsay the seriousness of the challenge of Iran's nuclear program or to paint them with white hats. But US and European officials seem to be saying, about as clearly as they can, that what Bolton says happened did not happen. And that fact should have everyone's attention.

Mr. Bolton is probably more guilty than any other member of this administration of repeated, public mistatements, exaggerations and distortions of intelligence about Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba and other countries regarding weapons of mass destruction and proliferation issues.

The big story here is not what Bolton said -- at least not in the sense of considering it presumptively factual. It is rather that while we're in the midst of the administration's passing off its past sins on admittedly blameworthy intelligence agencies, it is continuing to practice the same sort of manipulative and deceitful practices that have already caused the nation such grief.

Tough words? Sure. But given what we've witnessed to date I cannot see how they are not fair. Nor can I understand how such repeat performances don't garner more attention.

Quote of the day.Ive

Quote of the day.

"I've never been a press hound."

Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL), explaining her lack of public appearances in <$NoAd$>her congressional district, which includes some of the hardest hit counties in the state.

Writes a columnist today in the local paper ...

Harris hit those counties on Tuesday for the first time. She said she was in Sweden over the weekend attending a family wedding. When she heard about the destruction, she cut short her stay in Europe and headed home.

Although she wasn't visible to the public the past few days, Harris said she and her staff have been working behind the scenes to help victims.

...

Harris said if she had been in the country and toured the hurricane damage, she's convinced the newspapers and her critics would have accused her of having a political motive.


Another candidate for Rich Kids Who Can't Catch a Break.

I wanted to pass

I wanted to pass on this passage from Charlie Cook's most recent 'Off to the Races' column in which he analyzes the state of the presidential campaign in various states ...

At this point, there remains 10 states that are too close to call: Florida with 27 electoral votes, Iowa (7), Minnesota (10), Missouri (11), Nevada (5), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21) and Wisconsin (10). While too close to call, these states are not necessarily dead even. In Pennsylvania, President Bush, after holding a consistent lead over Kerry, finally slipped behind last month, but not far enough to warrant moving it into the "Lean Kerry" column. The same case exists in Florida, where a recent poll by a Republican firm for a private client put Kerry up by four points, but no one believes that the state is anything but a toss up. In Minnesota, New Hampshire and New Mexico, Kerry seems to be up by a bit, but again not quite enough to move those into the Kerry column. Bush is ahead in Missouri, but it's a close call as to whether the lead is big enough to justify moving it into the "Lean Bush" column.

In adding up all the electoral votes that are in the safe and lean columns for each candidate, President Bush has a tight 211 to 207 lead in the Electoral College. Bush also has 120 votes in the toss up column. However, if you pushed each of the 10 toss up states to Kerry -- who seems to be ahead by a slight margin -- he would come out on top.


Two points on this. <$Ad$>

These numbers seem somewhat different from ones you can find on sites like this one that tally up all the different state-wide polls to give a read on where the electoral college numbers are. But I think it's worth noting that those tallies can be at least somewhat misleading for the following reason. Unlike people, all polls are not created equal. And when you get down to state-level polls the range of quality becomes much greater than it is at the national level. A veteran politics watcher like Cook can see through that smoke and take into account the poor quality in some polls and deeper trends at work in given states. For that reason, I put a lot of stock in Cook's opinion.

Still, he does seem to me to be understating Kerry's recent strength in Pennsylvania and Florida. In the case of Florida, what seems to have been a private GOP poll may have put Kerry up by 4 points. But the most recent independent poll, done by Quinnipiac, put him up by 7 points (6 with Nader added to the mix). And the poll before that, by ARG from the beginning of this month, also put Kerry up by 8 points (7 with Nader).

In fact, if you just go by the polls (which is not necessarily the best way to go) Florida is as solidly in the Kerry camp as Michigan -- and Cook doesn't put Michigan on his list of too-close-to-call states.

I agree with Cook to a degree. Some skepticism is warranted on the Florida numbers. One has to take the state's history into account, who the governor is, and what we might call the natural advantages the GOP has in the state, both legal and otherwise. If Kerry really ends up winning Florida by 7 or 8 points, it'll mean that President Bush was defeated in a blow-out.

In any case, these aren't criticisms of Cook, just possible points of disagreement. I'm posting his analysis because I put a lot of stock in what he says. Those are just my two cents.

I finally got a

I finally got a chance to talk to Chris Homan, Campaign Manager for Pete Sessions, about the sign war going on in the Sessions-Frost race down in Dallas.

Homan said he believed that the school sign incident (described below) was authorized by the Frost campaign and designed to "intimidate" Sessions and his disabled son. He called Frost's charges that the whole stunt was a Sessions dirty trick "delusional" and an example of the "near psychopathic level [Frost] is willing to drop to" to win the election.

It seems awfully hard for me to believe that the Frost campaign really authorized covering Sessions' kids school with Frost for Congress signs. On the other hand, Homan notes that Frost's campaign hasn't put forward any evidence to support its dirty tricks claims. And while I doubt very much that Frost authorized this little stunt, it certainly doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility that this is something that might have been done by over-zealous supporters.

Homan also said that the Frost campaign had a history of sign practices that were "sleazy at best."

Now, finally to the matter of the police report I mentioned earlier which showed Sessions getting questioned by a police office for personally removing his Democratic opponents signs late in the evening a few days before election day 2002. (According to the police report, Sessions was not cited.) Homan confirmed that it was a genuine police record but called it "more or less a police activity report ... a meaningless piece of paper."

According to Homan, Texas has a law against putting candidate signs on public roadways. And Sessions and his aide were merely "collecting yard signs ... that had been illegally placed along the road."

In other words, says Homan, Sessions was just doing his (rather late night) civic duty.

You cant say Alan

You can't say Alan Keyes doesn't have a novel approach to homeland security issues. Yesterday, according to the Sun-Times, Keyes reaffirmed his view that the September 11th terrorist attacks were a warning from God that America should outlaw abortion.

Theres an interesting passage

There's an interesting passage in the analysis portion of the new Zogby poll. It says ...

Kerry leads among all age groups except 30-49 year olds, where the two candidates are pretty much tied. Catholics give Kerry a 50%-37% edge – numbers more similar to Clinton’s leads in 1992 and 1996 than Al Gore’s 51% to 46% margin in 2000. Protestants are for Bush (57% to 33%), especially on the strength of the President’s 68% to 20% margin among Born Again Protestants.


Meanwhile, the last major sounding of Hispanic <$Ad$>voters, done by the Post, Univision, and Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, puts Kerry over Bush by a 60% to 30% margin.

Jewish voters, though probably only electorally significant in one swing state this year, remain as Democratic as they were four years ago (75% to 22% for Kerry), despite much more than the usual degree of pandering from the White House, according to this poll just out from the National Jewish Democratic Council.

And though it's probably not too much of a surprise that President Bush isn't doing all that well among Muslim voters, let's note for the record that this poll from June has the president clocking in at a rather anemic 3% support among voters who say there is no god but God and Muhammad is his messenger.

Now, many times I've noted the unlovely tendency many political commentators have of claiming that Democrats are 'dependent' on the black vote or that absent black votes the Democrats would be a permanent minority party. And far be it from me to make the same disreputable charge in reverse.

But if you look at these numbers you can see pretty clearly that the weight of the GOP comes heavily from white voters and particularly white evangelical voters. Despite all the terrible buffeting the country has gone through in the last few years, the thesis of Chris Caldwell's masterful 1998 essay, 'The Southern Captivity of the GOP' is well worth revisiting.

(Unfortunately, the Atlantic Monthly has chosen not to make it available to the public on its website. If someone can point me to a site that has reprinted the piece, using some sort of public interest exception to the IP laws, I'd be much obliged.)

The Illinois Republicans are

"The Illinois Republicans are not just guilty of tokenism. They are guilty of last-minute scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel tokenism. The local party has been undergoing a sort of collective mental breakdown ever since Jack Ryan's Senate candidacy collapsed in June over a sordid sex scandal."

That's from the well-known lefty rag, The Economist.

Some challenges are best

Some challenges are best left unmade?

Marty Frost and Pete Sessions are two sitting Texas congressmen battling over the same district -- fallout from the redistricting battle last year. A side note to the campaign in recent days has been a fairly silly tussle over campaign road signs and whether one or the other of the two campaigns is stealing them, using them for dirty tricks, or doing anything else that no one in his or her right mind would care about at any other time save for during a hotly-contested congressional race.

The latest round started yesterday when Sessions was dropping his 10 year old son, who is a special education student, off for his first day of school at Lakewood Elementary School. There he saw the school and playground covered with Frost campaign signs.

"It was obvious that I was being targeted, my son was being targeted, my family was being targeted," said Sessions. "It disappoints me. It's disturbing."

The Frost campaign said it had nothing to do with it, noting that many of their campaign signs had recently been stolen and suggesting that those stolen signs had ended up in said school yard.

Now -- and I promise, this is actually going somewhere -- Sessions, not surprisingly, responded that his campaign had done no such thing and demanded that the Frost campaign come forward with any proof that his campaign was involved in stealing signs or any other such disreputable sign-related activity.

Well, the Frost campaign seems to have done him one step better.

Late this afternoon the Frost campaign sent out a press release with a police report from a few days before the 2002 mid-term election (Oct. 27th 2002) in which a Dallas police officer, Jana A. Brewster, caught Sessions -- then a sitting member of congress -- and an aide on a late-night sign stealing run.

(I have not been able to independently verify the authenticity of the report. But, given the fact that the Frost campaign is publicly distributing it, I'm going to assume it's on the level.)

The relevant portion of the police report states that the responding officer was driving along when she spotted Sessions' truck pulled over on the side of the road with a man "pulling up elections signs." The officer then stops the two guys and ...

both susps were asked for identification. R/O looked in the bed of the truck and there were approximately 10 political signs iwth the name "Pauline Dixon" (i.e., his '02 opponent) on them. Susp1 (i.e., Sessions) was asked if Pauline Dixon was aware that he was pulling up her signs and Susp1 replied, "No." Susp1 was then asked if she was who he was running against and Susp1 stated, "Yes." Both Susps were released at the scene and the signs remained in the bed of the truck...


The driver of the car (or in Dallas police talk, Susp2) seems to have been Bobby Hillert, Sessions Health, Education and Technology LA in his capitol hill office.

I tried to contact the Sessions campaign for comment. But when I called, the person designated to field press inquiries was busy in a conference call and couldn't speak to me. If and when we hear back from him, we'll post his response.

LiveWire