Blue Granite

Visit Blue Hampshire

2006-11-22T01:32:00.000-05:00

I'm overdue in saying this, but, together with Keener and Yankee Doodler (who are now known as Mike and Dean), I have started a new soapblox community blog called Blue Hampshire.

Once you register there, you can not only participate in nested comment threads, but post your own diaries. Even though we've yet to do much to publicize it, there are already diaries being posted and lively discussions happening there.

All three of us are from NH-02, but we hope Blue Hampshire really can live up to its name and have coverage of the whole state, so if you're from NH-01 please come and let us know what's going on in your district.

Looking Ahead

2006-11-18T03:06:00.000-05:00

From the Journal News of the Lower Hudson Valley, New York:

As a musician who wrote and sang pop hits in the 1970s with the group Orleans, [NY-19 Representative-Elect John] Hall has also been scouting around for ways to express himself musically in the new Congress. He met fellow freshman Paul Hodes, D-N.H., who plays guitar, and suggested they form a group, called Hall and Hodes.

That would be a group I'd have to see.

In a way, I feel oddly like I've been transported back in time to the summer, when just writing about Charlie Bass occasionally got boring but there wasn't yet a lot of news to be had about Paul Hodes unless I went out and saw him myself. Back then, I was thrilled to find two paragraphs about Paul stopping into a new store in Concord and eating some cheese. Now, there's not much point in writing about Charlie Bass - he's pretty much just marking time - and while there's a little more news to be had about Paul Hodes, it's not much.

I can tell you that he voted for Steny Hoyer rather than Jack Murtha for Majority Leader, but since I think that the Majority Leader vote in general was kind of overblown as a news story, and since I had no strong opinion as between Hoyer and Murtha (honestly I didn't think either of them was particularly appealing), it doesn't seem worth much notice.

Mostly right now it's a waiting game. We know a new Congress is coming, but they're not in office yet, so there is little reporting to be done on them. I'll be keeping up with the news, and broadening my focus to include the presidential primary and more New Hampshire state politics, but right now is a bit of a trough as far as any of it goes. So bear with me and more will be happening soon, I promise.

Milford and the Margin of Victory

2006-11-13T14:00:00.000-05:00

This is me checking in on my earlier thoughts.

Today's Telegraph has an article about how Milford, and other traditionally Republican towns, were a key to Paul Hodes' victory or Charlie Bass' loss, depending how you look at it. Although Bass won Milford, and Pelham and Hollis and Amherst, he barely did so - by 28, 457, 48, 131. Those towns all gave him solid wins in 2004, and could have helped carry him along this year, but Republicans just didn't show up to vote.

Back in September, I wrote about the Milford Labor Day parade, focusing on how strikingly few people I saw visibly supporting Republicans there. I was hesitant to embrace anecdotal evidence like that, but it did give me some hope. No, Hodes didn't win Milford. That would have signaled a win of truly epic proportions. But he held his own, against expectations.

Victory Blogging

2006-11-08T01:45:00.000-05:00

I owe an apology: I've been useless when it came to providing news for the past several days. It just seemed more important to do the work of getting Paul Hodes elected, and while I don't at all want to downplay the importance of having available the kind of information that we have been able to provide here and at NH-02 Progressive and Yankee Doodler - because I do think it had an actual effect on this race in at least a few subtle ways - in the end, it came down to knocking on doors and calling people. And at the end of the day I just didn't have the energy for much else.

Friday I didn't do a whole lot. Helped clean the office, did some visibility at a football game.

Saturday 3 canvasses and some phonebanking.

Sunday 1 and a half canvasses and some phonebanking.

Monday 2 canvasses, some phonebanking, and a late-night lit drop.

Tuesday distributing signs to polling places, phonebanking, canvass, phonebanking. I've made no bones about my hatred of phonebanking, though unless you've known me for a decade or more you probably wouldn't quite get it. As a teenager, the trauma of calling to order something from a catalogue brought me to tears at least once. In college, I routinely got into fights with my housemates over who'd call to order pizza, because I sure wasn't making a phone call to a stranger. I will still spend a good long time looking around for a way to do something online rather than making a phonecall. And Patrick and Toby could tell you that I didn't always phonebank entirely cheerfully this campaign. But today, this was it. It just had to be done.

The canvass was as it grew dark, and we were literally running through the streets, going right up and squinting at mailboxes to see if this was the last house we needed, if this might make the difference. Then we got back and got back on the phones; we were phonebanking as results started coming in, pushing through calls until 15 minutes before the last polls closed, begging people to get out to vote right now because they could make the difference. We kept doing it even when numbers came in that looked good, because you never know how it will go.

And this time, it went right.

Other people got the great pictures of Paul, and I'm sure I'll take advantage of those when they become available. But here are a few of the staff letting the victory soak in.

Patrick and Luke. Patrick's first time as a field director and he won.

Toby and Bethel. Bethel was a summer intern and came back for about a week to help with election stuff. She and I did the late-night lit drop Monday and were hilarious even to ourselves, we were so nervous of being called out as suspicious for going up on people's porches in the dark.

Emily, Brooke, and Torey.

I told you Jane wasn't always so blurry.

Donkey got to come to the victory party.

Whole Lot Going On

2006-11-04T18:46:00.000-05:00

Yesterday felt like the calm before the storm at Paul Hodes' campaign headquarters. Today it does feel like the storm is starting, but not in a bad way.

I've done 3 canvasses and a little phonebanking. I'm a little tired. But it feels good - things are rolling here, with volunteers on all the phones and several canvasses going at a time just in Concord alone. And there are staff in several other locations, running more phonebanks and more canvasses.

The picture is last night at dinner at the Barley House in Concord - like I said, the calm before (though that's not to say that it wasn't a serious work day; we went to dinner around 9).

Thursday I diaried at Daily Kos about the new WMUR/UNH poll, which had Hodes leading by 8 points. That's a tracking poll, and last night's results had him up by 13. Waiting for tonight's results. The poll has a large margin of error and I'm assuming that overstates his lead, but it looks good. Meanwhile, the Concord Monitor has a poll that has Bass leading by 1%. I think even less of the Monitor poll than I think of the WMUR/UNH poll, though. Back in mid-September, their poll was a serious outlier, with Hodes down by 25 points. Seriously, Hodes has been catching up, but 24%? (To be clear, my distrust of the current poll is mostly founded on my distrust of the former - I'm too tired to have looked at this very closely.)

Keener's been providing pretty comprehensive coverage of the robocalls the NRCC is running to annoy voters. They start off sounding like they support Paul Hodes, and they come repeatedly. So anyone who hangs up early, before it turns into an attack on Paul, thinks the repeated, annoying calls are coming from his campaign. It's a clear suppression tactic. The Hodes campaign and the New Hampshire Democratic Party have done well getting some coverage showing this for the dirty trick that it is, but it's a continuing battle, and people have been calling the campaign office irate at the calls they think they're getting from us. (Although it is fun to tell them what's really going on and tell them to call the Bass campaign about it, or file a complaint with the attorney general.) Let everyone you know in the district that this is going on.

But in actual life, it's sort of a blur of, canvass partner shows up and I go out canvassing. Come in, breathe a few minutes, go out again, come in, breathe, make some phone calls, stop to quiver and moan about being tired. The internet was out here for most of the afternoon, which was an adventure. It felt like I was at the Lieberman campaign or something for a while there.

I think Patrick's look in this picture pretty much sums it up:

WMUR/UNH Poll Gives Hodes 8-Point Lead.

2006-11-03T00:13:00.000-05:00

All of the caveats that have applied to every other UNH poll apply - the sample size is slightly larger and the margin of error correspondingly lower, but it's still a small sample and a big MoE.

But yes, in this poll Paul Hodes leads Charlie Bass 45% to 37%, nearly reversing their positions in the September WMUR/UNH poll. The poll results are here (PDF).

Looking good. Now we just have to work our butts off for a few more days and hopefully we'll have a new member of Congress.

And speaking of working our butts off, you should be doing that if you're in the district. There will be non-stop phonebanking and canvassing pretty much until the polls close on Tuesday. Call 603 223 2006 or email Patrick.

Rally with Paul Hodes and Gov. John Lynch

2006-11-02T02:58:00.000-05:00

Friday, November 3
10:15 AM

The Hunt Building
6 Main Street
Nashua, New Hampshire

Late-Night Photos

2006-11-02T02:28:00.000-05:00

Field director Patrick doesn't like it when people leave their things on his desk, which is centrally located and close to the fridge, so people do tend to leave things there. Dana demonstrated his deep affection for Patrick by bringing him the gift of all these nice cups and bottles. (Pat: "Don't leave all these coffe cups on my desk!" Dana: "They're not coffee cups, Patrick. They're tea cups.")

Press secretary Reid starts to debrief on his day, starts up the stairs, remembers something else, and finishes the story of his day from the stairs.

Dana gives Reid his rapt attention.

Photoblogging: Campaign Office

2006-11-02T02:01:00.000-05:00

Back at the office, Charlie and Kaili phonebank.

I spent a couple hours this evening phonebanking, and got a few good responses. I also got royally yelled at by a crotchety old man who thinks that political calling is un-American and destroys democracy and that I should get a real job (Me: "Actually, sir, I'm a volunteer.") and also, for some reason, an education. Probably my favorite call, though, was to the woman who when I asked how she was doing, said, somewhat dubiously, that she was fine. When I said something like "great," she kind of gasped and said "you're a real person!" She'd gotten so many robocalls that she assumed that's what I was. It actually kind of affirmed my desire to start calls by saying "My name is Laura and I'm a real live person volunteering for the Paul Hodes for Congress campaign."

If you like slight, semi-pretty preppy boys, deputy campaign manager Luke is really fairly handsome. Here he makes himself look bizarre and accusatory. I figure he brought it on himself and can just live with having it posted.

Jane is the scheduler. She's not really blurry in real life.

Dave is the finance director. In the foreground is his tiki god. I'm not sure I fully comprehend the set of practices with regard to the tiki god, but it seems in some way to be responsible for the campaign's financial status.

Dana is the campaign manager. I can't think how to elaborate on that.

Emily also lives in this area of the office, but for various reasons the pictures I took of her are not very usable.

Canvassing with Toby

2006-11-02T01:45:00.000-05:00

This afternoon I did some canvassing with Toby, pictured here. Mostly people aren't home in the middle of the afternoon and you leave literature, but there was one amazing encounter. We split up a street and I went off to do my houses while Toby crossed over to a woman mowing her lawn. I finished my houses and they were still talking, so I went over. It turns out that the woman had begun the conversation by saying that she was a Republican and a born-again Christian and liked George Bush because she thought he was a good Christian. But Toby got her talking and the more they talked, the more her dissatisfaction with the state of the country came out. They covered the economy, health care, abortion, congressional pay raises and the minimum wage. And as we left her, she was saying she would vote for Paul Hodes. It was wonderful - so few people really want to talk about the issues like that, let alone people who enter the conversation assuming they prefer the other party. And talking people around like that? Just wow. It really makes you feel good about what you're doing.

In other Toby news, I apparently look like a cradle robber. When we stopped for lunch, the hostess at the restaurant asked if we were on our honeymoon. Random!

Telegraph Endorses Paul Hodes

2006-11-02T01:28:00.000-05:00

Adding its voice to the Concord Monitor, Keene Sentinel, and Valley News, the Nashua Telegraph endorsed Paul Hodes. Notably, the Telegraph endorsed Bass in 2004.

The endorsement says

We recommend Hodes over the Republican incumbent not only for his positions – thoughtful and realistic – but also for his ability and willingness to present his ideas in a clear, straightforward and unflinching manner.

And

There are several reasons we have changed our position on these two candidates this time around. In part, we think Hodes has grown considerably as a candidate since the last time we saw him, and believe he has honed the skills necessary to be an effective legislator in Washington.

At the same, we believe that in recent years, Bass has let the 2nd District down in one of the most basic duties of a member of the House of Representatives: holding the two other branches of government accountable, especially the executive branch.

A Busy Day in NH-02 - And a Good One for Hodes

2006-10-31T00:50:00.000-05:00

It's hard to even know where to start today. First off, there's a new poll from Majority Watch (click on the NH dot to see details) that shows Hodes in the lead with 50% to Bass' 47%. This poll has a low margin of error at +/- 3.11%, and has 988 respondents - a large number obtainable because it was an automated poll. Opinions differ on automated polls, but they don't seem to be much worse than other public polling. The details of the poll look especially good for Hodes, with his support firmer than Bass' and Democratic voter motivation higher than Republican.

I'm still not 100% sold on polling in general, but seeing a Hodes lead on the poll with the largest sample and lowest margin of error I've seen yet is nice.

Second, let's talk about the fact that the Cook Report changed NH-02 from "lean Republican" to "toss up." This is huge. As he lays out informally but cogently in this comment thread at Daily Kos, Charlie Cook is a careful prognosticator, and one who

decided many years ago to have a policy that is almost iron-clad, not to put un-indicted incumbents worse than Toss Up.

So toss up is the most Hodes-favorable category possible without Charlie Bass getting indicted for something. (Thanks to Yankee Doodler for the catch.)

Third, not only has the DCCC come close to matching the NRCC's buy on WMUR, I hear they've gone into the Boston tv market. Still waiting for an FEC filing on that to be able to give details, but it sounds pretty good. Piggybacking on that, the SEIU has added $23k to their earlier radio ad buy in support of Hodes - I heard the ad, which is about healthcare, today and it sounded effective.

Finally, there's a new sign up in Concord at least. Placed strategically next to signs for Republican incumbent Charlie Bass (which say, simply "BASS"), it says "He voted for torture." Oh, and there's an arrow pointing to the Bass sign.

The sign says it's paid for by "People Against Torture." The only information I can find about a group by that name is here, but that focuses on Kenya, so I'm not sure it's the same group. Notice, though, that the sign could be put next to the sign of any incumbent who had voted for a number of measures effectively allowing torture. It's kind of brilliant, really. Has anyone else seen these elsewhere in this district, or in other districts applied to other candidates?

Paul Hodes and the Coming Ad Battle

2006-10-27T21:46:00.000-04:00

NHPR has a story on the NRCC ad buy against Paul Hodes, noting also that today, the DCCC answered with a buy of around $300,000. NHPR previews the NRCC ad, which is pretty standard-issue fare: "Liberal Paul Hodes wants to raise taxes." Well, yes, for the very very wealthiest people - those making several hundred thousand dollars a year or more. Very few families would see their taxes go up, and he supports tax credits for things like college - things that ordinary working people, rather than the wealthiest, worry about.

But it's not just about taxes, it's about the sneering tone on the word "liberal." As it happens, Paul has a ready answer for that. Though his stump speech changes from event to event, he often quotes his hero, John F. Kennedy, from his September, 1960 speech accepting the nomination of the Liberal Party:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

Paul, too, is proud of that name and those ideals. The NRCC would have us think that's shameful, but read that passage, consider what that kind of leadership would mean, and consider too what a change it would be from our current leadership. After that, the choice for Paul Hodes shouldn't be difficult.

Huge NRCC Ad Blitz Coming

2006-10-26T21:06:00.000-04:00

The NRCC has made a $365,585 ad buy against Paul Hodes. Remember how last night I said things were going to get "not just negative but dirty"? This would represent an enormous increase in the amount of dirt, both because it's an enormous increase in the money devoted to dirt, and because frankly, I don't think Charlie Bass is as nice and clean a guy as he likes to market himself as being, but the NRCC is nastier than he is. That's what they do, and they're doing it here because they know they are on the path to losing this election.

So just remember to check what you hear, because it comes out of desperation and a lot of it is going to be anywhere from unfair to false. And start your checking here: Paul Hodes is a good man. He is a responsible, careful, knowledgeable political thinker who will do responsible, careful, knowledgeable legislation. He will represent the people of New Hampshire faithfully and well, and treat the role of member of Congress with the respect it deserves.

Bass Brings in Bigger Guns

2006-10-26T02:36:00.000-04:00

According to the Union Leader, Bob Stevenson, the new spokesman that has just appeared for the Bass campaign (number three, after Scott Tranchemontagne and Lindsay Jackson)

has been through the political wars as a communications director for former New Hampshire Sen. Warren Rudman, Sen. Pete Domenici and most recently, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

His task?

To do opposition research and communicate the "contrast" between the two candidates.

In case you're wondering, that means "to go not just negative but dirty." So watch for it. The avalanche of dirt and slime is coming.

Meanwhile, the Union Leader gets in a howler when it claims

So far, this race has been all about Bass. He's focused on himself, stressing in campaign stops and television advertising that he is an independent voice.

Is that what he was doing in those two ads that featured Hodes more prominently than they did Bass? You really could've fooled me on that one.

Hodes and Bass Debate

2006-10-26T01:17:00.000-04:00

I'm going to shock all of y'all and say that Paul Hodes won tonight's televised debate. (As Yankee Doodler says in his post on the debate, "Well, what did you think I would say?") But I do believe this to be whatever passes for objectively true, as measured by the number of times Charlie Bass seemed at a loss for words and the number of occasions on which he used a significant amount of his time to return to a previous question.

This flusteredness is put into context by the Evans-Novak Political Report, which says (passages both bolded and italicized are emphasized by me; plain bold appears in the original)

New Hampshire-2: Here's a surprise. No one expected Rep. Charlie Bass (R) to fall behind late in the game, but that's where he is. Bass appears to have been caught off his guard. He has been outraised by his repeat opponent, Paul Hodes, whom he defeated by 20 points in 2004. Republicans complain about Bass's lacksidaisical staffers and discuss the possible loss of his Northern New Hampshire seat. Bass's get-out-the-vote effort is extremely disorganized. He is also upsetting his base with ads that brought his pro-abortion stance into the race and that distance himself from the Republican Party.

It is unclear whether Bass can be saved in time. He just started a huge phone drive Tuesday to save his seat, and some Republicans remain hopeful that he can bounce back by November 7. Leaning Democratic Takeover.

Bass is running a sloppy effort, and that's being remarked on by his own partisans. Whether he's sloppy because he's been knocked off his game by Hodes' challenge, or whether he never had any game to begin with and is currently flustered because he never expected to get in trouble for that, his petulant, disorganized debate performance is clearly indicative of a broader or deeper phenomenon.

In other debate news, Yankee Doodler deserves a major hat tip for providing the material for Hodes' first question to Bass, on why Bass was so aggressive in demanding accountability for the successful military action in Kosovo, only to be a consistent yes-man for Bush's failed Iraq policy. It is simply amazing the impact a set of really very small blogs have had on this race. We all know, of course, that much of that impact wouldn't have happened without an interested, illicitly participatory Bass staff, but I think that the degree to which the Hodes campaign has been attentive and responsive, making judicious use of what we provide without playing to it overly much, has been somewhat underestimated. So huge credit to Yankee Doodler for the find, and credit also to the Hodes campaign for seeing it for what it was and using it to effect.

Bass on Social Security, Review with Hodes Counterpoint

2006-10-24T16:27:00.000-04:00

Back in August, I posted on Charles Bass' record with regard to Social Security. Short version: He's a long-time advocate of privatization. And that is still a relevant issue, with President Bush once again affirming his intention to phase out Social Security. If Charlie Bass is in Congress in the new year, he will be another vote in support of Bush and against Social Security.

Charlie Bass is, after all, someone who has signed onto letters urging privatization, someone who has voted to use Social Security money for other purposes, including tax cuts for the wealthy, someone who has sworn to work with and for George W. Bush in "reforming" (which is to say, privatizing) Social Security. This is not someone who believes in the idea of a safety net for America's elderly. Then again, this is not someone who needs a safety net: He's a multimillionaire, and apparently not one of the ones who is enough in touch with ordinary, working people to understand - or care - about the necessity of having income that doesn't evaporate if the stock market drops.

In addition to my post on Bass and social security, look at Yankee Doodler's follow-up.

Meanwhile, Paul Hodes today swore never to support privatization.

“Our seniors deserve better treatment than cuts to their guaranteed benefits and huge gaps in drug coverage,” Hodes said. “I will never support privatizing Social Security, and when I get to Congress I’ll make fixing Medicare Part D a top priority. It’s unbelievable that our Congress, and our Congressman, agreed to a bill that gives the drug companies everything they want while seniors get only partial coverage and financial headaches. It’s time we had a Congressman who will stand up to the drug lobby and put our seniors first.”

Bass Gets C+ on Veterans' Issues

2006-10-24T15:24:00.000-04:00

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), a non-partisan group, has produced a scorecard on legislation affecting veterans.

To calculate the Ratings, IAVA reviewed all legislation voted on in the Congress since September 11, 2001. For each piece of legislation that affected troops, veterans or military families, IAVA took a position either in support of, or in opposition to its passage. The letter grades were derived, using the scales below, from the percentage of times that each legislator's vote matched the official IAVA stance.

The result? Charlie Bass, like many in his party, may talk a good game about supporting veterans, but when it comes to the actual legislation, he doesn't do such a good job, receiving a C+.

Concord Monitor Endorses Paul Hodes

2006-10-22T16:11:00.000-04:00

The Monitor, in an endorsement focusing on the Iraq war, indicts Bass' unwillingness or inability to question the course of the war:

Indeed it doesn't matter today that Charlie Bass voted to authorize the war in Iraq, or even that he remained initially optimistic about the potential for a desirable outcome. What matters is that 3½ years after the U.S. invasion, at a time when even some of the most hawkish proponents of remaking Iraq see that events have spun out of control, Bass remains a bystander in the corridors of power.

The endorsement concludes that

Of course, Hodes cannot single-handedly change U.S. foreign policy; only the president can do that. But Hodes would bring to Washington much-needed skepticism: a quality that's been lacking from the Republican majorities in the House and Senate. A similar eagerness to ask questions will be vital when the next Congress examines the administration's tax policies and education policy, particularly the No Child Left Behind law.

Because of its mix of liberal and conservative residents, the 2nd District is not an easy one to represent. If rewarded with the voters' trust, Hodes had better make sure his skepticism extends to both parties' agendas. It's a balancing act that in years past Bass managed to pull off.

Unfortunately, when it came to Iraq, he lost his balance. Hodes deserves the chance to try to do better.

I would, of course, argue that these points are applicable to many more issues than just Iraq - as the single sentence mentioning taxes and education hints at - but the Monitor's editors clearly have come to understand, at least partially, the degree to which Bass has failed in his jobs of oversight, of questioning, of actively seeking the best policies for this country. Paul Hodes says that the job of Congressman requires being "tough and smart and fearless." Charles Bass has abdicated all of those responsibilities, and it is time that this district is represented by someone who understands and is committed to them.

Nashua Rally with John Kerry Cancelled

2006-10-20T17:20:00.000-04:00

From the Hodes campaign:

Out of respect for the family and colleagues of Officer Briggs, and for his service to the State of New Hampshire, the rally and canvass originally scheduled for tomorrow (Saturday) morning at 11:00 AM with Sen. John Kerry and Paul Hodes has been cancelled.

Hodes Campaign Mailer Makes a Splash

2006-10-19T19:55:00.000-04:00

(Re: The title - I'm really sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

Anyway, this mail piece from the Hodes campaign has not struck the fancy of New Hampshire newspapers. Mike Pride at the Monitor says it was a mistake, that it will detract from the perceived seriousness of Hodes' campaign, that it looks like a cheap shot. John DiStaso in the Union Leader cites Pride's dislike of the piece as evidence that it must have "backfired."

But on what evidence do they judge the piece? By what standard of success? So far, all we've got is that Mike Pride doesn't like it and John DiStaso thinks that's evidence of something.

Anything we can say about the effectiveness of this piece will be anecdotal or speculative: I know someone who liked it - you know someone who was offended. Research suggests X about the general effectiveness of direct mail, but we can only guess about this piece.

So, where is the evidence? A piece like this won't have the direct measurability of a fundraising mailing, where you can track how much money comes in as a result. But presumably the company that put it together is one that has learned the lessons available from such fundraising direct mail. (Contrary to Pride's imagining of "the campaign people putting this ad together. They probably chortled to themselves about their cleverness," I believe this piece was in fact done by direct mail professionals.)

Pride feels that Hodes needs to appear serious - but polls suggest that Hodes is in need of greater name recognition, and a memorable mail piece might help with that.

How can a piece be memorable? The Altosa Group, a research and marketing firm, says (PDF)

Be visual.
Two-thirds of newspaper readers only look at pictures and headlines. A message buried in the text won't get read! Pictures and headlines must carry your entire message. Let the text support that message.

This piece is highly visual - indeed, that seems to be a large part of Pride's problem with it. But perhaps its visual nature can help it cut through the American consumer's well-developed ability to ignore information - especially advertising. In The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell writes that the "stickiness factor" is necessary for successful advertising:

Reaching the consumer with the message is not the hard part of direct marketing. What is difficult is getting consumers to stop, read the advertisement, remember it, and then act on it. (Page 93)

This means that maybe the point is not that Mike Pride fears that this mailer was a bad move for Hodes. Maybe the point is that he looked at it, and decided to write about it. That in itself is a measure of effectiveness. NH-02 Progressive has another measure of effectiveness: His own brother. You really have to read the whole post, which is excellent, but in brief

My brother would have got to the polls because he hated Bush, and because I would have hounded him for two years if he didn't. But he wasn't sure about this Hodes guy. Too stuffy, he thought. Maybe a little full of himself.

I told him I met Hodes a couple of times, and that was not how he was at all in person. But he pointed to the TV ads. Stiff, he said. I'll vote for him, but he's stiff.

Well, now my brother has discovered that he has something in common with Hodes: a sense of humor. Despite the draining years Bush and Bass have put us through, we can still laugh.

As I said above, the effectiveness of this particular piece at getting votes is an open question. But it sure has gotten attention, and, as Gladwell notes, in advertising, that is one of the most difficult tasks.

Rally and Canvass This Saturday with John Kerry

2006-10-18T13:08:00.000-04:00

RALLY WITH PAUL HODES AND JOHN KERRY (D-MA)

Where: Nashua City Hall (229 Main Street)
When: 11:00, Saturday October 21
Contact: Patrick (phone 603 223 2006)

Clearly everyone should be there.

Will Bass Get Bailed Out?

2006-10-18T00:16:00.000-04:00

As I noted on Sunday, and GraniteProf elaborated on somewhat on Monday, the last several polls released have Charlie Bass below 50%, which is considered the danger line for an incumbent.

You might expect the national party to come to his aid, bail him out by attacking Paul Hodes. And it wouldn't be surprising if they do - after all, given the way New Hampshire has been trending Democratic over the past 10-15 years, once the Republicans lose this seat, it's not too likely they'll get it back for a good long time. So it would be in their interest to try to save the seat if they possibly can, rather than focusing on ones they'll be able to get back given a slightly more Republican-friendly national environment in 2 or 4 years.

The National Republican Congressional Committee has been spending a lot of money trying to help a lot of different Republican incumbents (warning: link takes a long time to load). For instance, Swing State Project reports today that the NRCC is putting $400,000 into Idaho's first district, which in 2004 went 70% for Bush. This is part of a pattern in which Republicans are playing defense in districts that shouldn't be remotely competitive, rather than the ones that, six months ago, you would have expected them to have to work to defend, never mind the pick-up opportunities you'd have figured they'd have.

So what does it mean when the NRCC doesn't spend in a district like NH-02, which should be competitive? Despite spending $21,000 to survey the second district back on August 21, the NRCC has not yet spent any money on advertising or mailing to help bail Bass out. They may yet - and if they do, it'll get dirty in a hurry - but so far, nothing. Maybe they didn't like what that survey told them. Have they given up on winning this one? We won't know until about November 6, but right now it seems like a significant possibility.

Who is Paying Lindsay Jackson's Salary?

2006-10-17T18:25:00.000-04:00

Those who have been following the Congressional race between Paul Hodes and Charles Bass will by now be familiar with Bass' campaign spokeswoman, Lindsay Jackson. She's regularly on WMUR and in New Hampshire papers speaking for the campaign.

For the campaign.

So it's an interesting thing that Ms. Jackson, whose regular job is as Bass' press secretary in his Congressional office in Washington, DC, is apparently not being paid by the campaign. The latest FEC filings show her receiving two disbursements from the campaign: One on 9/15 in the amount of $852.08 for airfare/car rental/gas, and one on 9/29 in the amount of $119.80 for gas/parking/photo development. But there is no salary listed for her in the campaign filing, although she is clearly working hard for Bass, spinning away.

This lack of salary for someone whose role has shifted from DC office to campaign staff is particularly interesting in light of a Mother Jones story detailing how NH-01's Jeb Bradley apparently kept his chief of staff on full, or nearly full, pay from his House office while she ran his 2004 campaign. Add this behavior from New Hampshire's other Congressman to the fact that we know that someone in Bass' House office was engaging in campaign activities when he shouldn't have been and, well, you have to wonder. I'm not accusing Bass of having his House press secretary working on his campaign while on the government payroll, I'm just saying that, based on appearances, this arrangement is open to question and I'm curious to hear more about it.

Is Lindsay Jackson continuing to collect a government paycheck? If so, is it her usual full pay, or a reduction? If a reduction, how much? Why is the campaign not paying her when she is clearly doing campaign work?

I think we as taxpayers and voters deserve an explanation.

Bass the Backbencher

2006-10-17T17:58:00.000-04:00

The last appearance Tad Furtado, aka IndyNH, made here at Blue Granite was not to respond to polling numbers. It was to respond to a post arguing that Charlie Bass is not a leader in Washington. I pointed to the fact that Bass does not chair any subcommittees, while others who have served the same number of terms or even fewer do hold subcommittee chairs. IndyTad replied with an essay-length comment beginning

People are going to read this blog from me and think that I am a Bass supporter, but I am really not.

He went on to spend over 350 words laying out the exact line of Bass' first tv ad of this campaign - Bass is just too principled for things like that. You think maybe I struck a nerve?

Over at NH-02 Progressive, Keener has a post about his recent conversation with Bass' 1996 opponent Arnie Arnesen, in which she makes a point similar to the one I made about Bass' lack of leadership. Keener's "rough approximation" of Arnesen's characterization of Bass is

Back-bencher, Charlie the back bencher? Let me tell you something. There aren't enough benches for Charlie to hide under. First sign of trouble and that wimp curls up like a baby and hides under his chair...he never take risks without permission from leadership; he calls it courage, I call it calculating and disingenuous.

--snip--

Sadly, this guy is so two-faced even the REPUBLICANS don't trust him -- tolerate is as far as the emotion goes.

This view of Bass is echoed, albeit slightly more diplomatically, in a Valley News report of Bass' "Sandernistas" comment:

Sanders' campaign spokesman, Jeff Weaver, yesterday said Bass may have been “upset” by losing a recent skirmish with Sanders over a wilderness bill and said of the New Hampshire Republican, “the truth is he's kind of a backbencher down in Washington who doesn't get a lot of attention or play a leadership role.”

That's who he is. That's who's representing this district. A backbencher who gets petulant and insulting when he loses a skirmish, and insults not just the person he lost to but all of his supporters, working people, and the people of an entire borough of New York City. Does it make you proud? Contrast when Paul Hodes was asked the other night in Hanover what difference he could make as a freshman Congressman. He said

I'm not a shy person - I'll speak up. I will be tough and smart and fearless in relation to my party and anyone else.

What the Heck are They Building?

2006-10-17T16:41:00.000-04:00

I'm looking at the Bass campaign's most recent FEC filing and the campaign seems to be buying an inordinate amount of lumber. Between August 24 and September 30, there are four disbursements for lumber. It's unclear how much money was actually spent on it, because the lumber charges are lumped in with mileage and hardware, but those four charges in which lumber is included come to $1587.06.

So what are they building? My thinking is, it's probably a boat for Charlie to sail away in after he loses. Rather than sails, it will be drawn by balloons filled with $200 worth of helium.

That said, I'm on the lookout for any suspiciously hollow-sounding wooden horses.

Charlie Bass Re-Mix

2006-10-17T03:08:00.000-04:00

Keener has done a nice little re-mix of some of the high points of Charles Bass' fabulous YouTube moment.

Taxi drivers, Mark Foley, Iraq, the economy, all there, plus a zippy soundtrack and a few explanatory titles.

Bass Makes Stuff Up, part I(a)

2006-10-16T01:59:00.000-04:00

On Thursday, I noted the ridiculousness of Charlie Bass' YouTubed claim that

If the Dems had control of the budget of this country, they’d raise it by a trillion dollars in two years!

Sunday's Valley News has an editorial making much the same point, and doing so in such a frankly caustic way that I feel a little shamed - I've clearly been being much too nice.

Noting that Bass didn't have "the courage to stand by his slurs," the editorial asks

And what about the predictions from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that the decline in the size of the deficit is temporary -- that it will begin growing again next year, and that the national debt will expand by about $1.8 trillion over the next decade? A fair amount, but not all, of that borrowed money has been sucked up by the ill-advised war in Iraq and the ineffectual rebuilding effort along the Gulf Coast. A significant amount of the gap between spending and revenue also can be attributed to the Bush administration's tax cuts, which flowed overwhelmingly to those who least needed the help. Bass, perhaps to erase any doubts that he can be counted on to be a loyal supporter of this fiscal folly, also warned that Democratic victories would mean reversing the tax cuts.

Wow. That sure puts the "Republicans are the party of fiscal restraint; Democrats will bankrupt the country" line into context, doesn't it? But that's the line Bass was enthusiastically trying to sell on that video. Maybe it's what he believes. Maybe he knows better but also knows that it's in his self-interest to pretend - not just because he's a Republican in Congress and that's one of the claims on which Republicans campaign, but because he's actually the 81st richest person in Congress, with a personal net worth of well over $2 million. But we can't know what he believes, because what he says varies so radically according to who he's talking to.

In fact, the Valley News ran an editorial back on June 4 that concluded exactly this. The editorial is no longer online, but I excerpted it in a diary at Daily Kos:

Over the years, Bass has taken enough contradictory positions to give virtually everyone a reason to both like and dislike him. It's hard to pin a label on someone who won't stand still. Maybe the more persuasive case to make against his continued service in the 2nd District is not that he's this or that but rather that he's whatever is politically expedient at the moment.

Two Independent Polls - One Up, One Down

2006-10-15T13:57:00.000-04:00

The Nashua Telegraph mentions two polls of NH-02. In one by the Becker Institute, Paul Hodes is up by 9, 48%-39%. In one by the American Research Group, Bass is up by 6, 48%-42%.

It's hard to know what to make of all these different numbers, especially without access to any of the internals. A few limited conclusions can be drawn.

It's great to see an independent poll showing Hodes in the lead, if only because no matter how carefully done and how much in the candidate's interest it is to have internal polls be as accurate as possible, any internal poll will always be reported with caveats, hower undeserved. So, for the doubters of the Hodes poll and the DCCC poll that showed the race within a point and tied, respectively, here you go.

According to the Telegraph's report on the Becker Institute poll

“This is by far the worst image recorded for Charlie Bass through 12 Becker Institute readings over the past seven years,’’ the poll summary said.

Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of their methodology, if it is at least consistent, that's a telling finding.

I do think it's significant that no poll in the past month, and only one since July, has shown Bass over 50%. That's been one of the few consistent things in recent polls, and being under 50% is a major sign of weakness in an incumbent, particularly one in a district trending away from his party.

My take on the big picture of all these polls - from the Hodes poll to the UNH poll to this Becker Institute poll - aggregated is that the race is close, and the momentum is with Hodes, who needs to continue to work as hard as he has been doing on name recognition, because these numbers are coming after a relatively short time of television advertising, and as some people are only starting to pay attention to the race.

In other words:

We have to keep fighting. All of us. Not just Paul. Not just the people paid to work for him. All of us, every Democrat or fed-up Independent or fed-up Republican in the district.

But, looking good.

So I'm on the Phone with John Kerry, and...

2006-10-13T16:29:00.000-04:00

Ok, that's really my whole story, that and the fact that as a result I'm sitting here thinking "my life is so weird." I mean, I'm not such a crack interviewer that anything very unusual was said, but the point is, John Kerry's people are reaching out to New Hampshire bloggers, even those of us who never planned to be bloggers, and he called me this morning and we talked for a while.

He'll be speaking at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Manchester this evening; he said that at that speech he would continue his focus of several years on "the sequence of lies and deceptions of this administration with respect to Iraq, and the disaster that Iraq is today." He also mentioned the administration's "irresponsibility with regard to North Korea and Iran," identifying all of this as "Setting us back in war on terror and relationships with other countries" and "blocking our ability to move forward in critical areas like global warming."

I asked specifically for his take on the New Hampshire congressional races, and he echoed some of the things he said in today's excellent Monitor story on his support for Paul Hodes (the story is mislabeled as being about the first district). Specifically, he told me that

Charlie Bass and Jeb Bradley have helped to rubber-stamp these policies [mentioned above] - they have not done their job of acting as independent voices. The New Hampshire ethic has been broken by both as they've walked in lockstep with Bush.

In contrast, he said,

Both Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter offer independent voices to move the country in the right direction. New Hampshire should embrace them boldly and strongly.

He mentioned a number of other New Hampshire candidates he has supported in various ways, including Molly Kelly, Sylvia Larsen, Betsi DeVries, Iris Estabrook, and Elizabeth Roth (all strong state senate candidates - we have Molly Kelly on our Blue Hampshire ActBlue page, but all are worthy), in addition to his support of the state party.

Kerry particularly emphasized the need to focus on and fight for next month’s elections, saying

November 7 is all about that and we’ve got to get people geared up to stand up and fight. You can’t sit in a coffee shop and complain and you can’t go out for a foliage walk without standing up for New Hampshire and fighting for it.

He concluded that

If New Hampshire fights as hard as in 2004, we can win seats, and that’s what’s important. New Hampshire has proven we can do it.

And he’s right. We need to be out, working hard for this election. Don’t sit and wait for the campaign staff to do the work – go out and do it yourself, as much as you can. This should be an effort of every Democrat in the state, because it will be to the benefit of the whole state and the whole country.

Bass "Nobody Would Have Been [Offended], But..."

2006-10-13T10:51:00.000-04:00

Technology has taken Charlie Bass by surprise once again. After years of dirty, anti-semitic campaigning when he thought nobody was paying attention who would call him to account, as detailed by his 1996 opponent Arnie Arnesen in a 1999 Globe story excerpted at NH-02 Progressive:

Smith was shocked. Didn't I know the story out there was that I was Jewish? Smith bubbled on: "Why didn't you tell people . . . it would have made a difference in your campaign." Out of the mouths of conservative babes.

Sure I had known. Charles Bass kept telling radio interviewers all through the congressional campaign that I wasn't like him, a native of New Hampshire. He had continually stressed the fact that I was from New York and had "New York values." We all knew that "New York values" was code for "Jew."

Well, this time around Charlie's little anti-semitism habit is on view for all of us to see, not just the people it's going to help him with (whoever they are). Because let's face it, that's what his Bronx-taxi-driver remarks about Bernie Sanders and his supporters were: veiled anti-semitism, coming from someone who we know to have previously campaigned against Arnesen, a Methodist, by implying or outright saying that she was a Jew. This was not an innocent remark.

So what does Charlie Bass have to say about it now that nearly 1200 people have gone to YouTube and watched his little display?

According to the Valley News

Said Bass: “I meant in no way to offend anybody under any circumstances, and nobody would have been, but some fellow snuck into the party with a video camera meaning to do anything he possibly could to create an issue.”

That's right. The Honorable Charles Foster Bass' position when he's caught out being insulting and anti-semitic is to blame the person with the camera, to say that what he said was ok as long as he was only using it to incite hatred in people who agreed with him rather than to insult people to their faces. By this standard, Senator George Allen's "macaca" remark was only offensive because the person he was describing was in the room.

This explanation from Bass shows yet again how deeply dishonest his public nice-guy-moderate persona is. This is a man who has no problem insulting a fellow Congressman (soon to be Senator) and all of the voters who have returned him to Congress election after election on ethnic and class lines - as long as he doesn't think he's going to be caught. But we have it on video to see now, so next time someone tells you what a nice guy he is, let them watch the first minute or two of that video, and then ask again about how nice he really is.

Charlie Bass Makes Stuff Up, part I

2006-10-12T21:35:00.000-04:00

Let's refresh our memories. Charles Foster Bass was caught on video, which was subsequently YouTubed, saying that

"It’s going to be nice not to have Hugo Chavez across the Connecticut River representing Vermont at-large. Bernie Sanders and his Sander-nistas should go back to taxi-driving in the Bronx of New York City, where they came from to begin with."

The Hill has covered these comments, and Bass tries to play them off as joking. Nice jokes there.

Moments later, he sneeringly downplayed the Mark Foley scandal, focusing on Foley's individual actions and brushing off the longstanding Republican cover-up of those actions in a brief phrase.

Throughout this, his tone is the key. Charlie the moderate Bass is a sneering, hectoring, mud-flinging Republican.

And, like a Republican, he makes stuff up. For instance,

If the Dems had control of the budget of this country, they’d raise it by a trillion dollars in two years!

Oh, really?

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, noted in 2003 that

The Bush administration's newly released budget projections reveal an anticipated budget deficit of $450 billion for the current fiscal year, up another $151 billion since February. Supporters and critics of the administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit on tax cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the fact is we have mounting deficits because George W. Bush is the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter. One could say that he has become the "Mother of All Big Spenders."

Meanwhile, Media Matters for America says

In fact, Clinton's presidency was marked by a gradual reduction in budget deficits leading to four years of large surpluses, while Bush's presidency has seen record budget deficits.

This is cleanly illustrated in this table.

So, tell us again about that extra trillion dollars in the next two years if the Democrats are in control? Tell us about how Republicans are more fiscally responsible, Charlie.

Only he can’t. He said it where he thought he wouldn’t get caught. And now he’ll try to brazen his way out of it, if the media takes it job seriously enough to even question him on that and other distortions, manipulations, and lies he tells in this 8 minute 51 second clip.

Drinking Liberally(s)

2006-10-12T16:12:00.000-04:00

I won't be able to make it to Hanover Drinking Liberally tonight, but as always it's at Murphy's at 7:00.

Meanwhile, tomorrow night is a special Keene Drinking Liberally. In addition to not being the first Friday of the month, the location will be changed. It will be held at Tony Clamato's (the address for which appears to be 15 Court Street) at 7:00. The hope is that the acoustics will be more conducive to conversation, and GOTV will be one focus of said conversation, although I'm sure that as usual it will be wide-ranging and, if I'm involved, occasionally clothing-focused.

I'll be there for sure, although I am a little grief-stricken over the loss of the chocolate martinis at 21, where Keene DL has been held to this point (they have a Hershey Kiss at the bottom!). The good company will just have to make up for that.

Although 21 also has really good steak fries, so I'll have to think of something else to make up for their loss. Oh, right! It's not just, like, a couple hours of good company, it's the matter of good company and fun that builds the Democratic party in New Hampshire and promotes great candidates like Paul Hodes and Molly Kelly.

Paul Hodes in Action

2006-10-12T15:59:00.000-04:00

On Tuesday night I went to "All for Paul," an evening of performances at the New London Inn. For me, the highlight was hearing Peggo Hodes sing Gershwin's "The Man I Love" with newly-written, race-specific lyrics. I hadn't gotten to hear her sing before and she has a lovely voice. As well, I can guarantee you that if there is not already some sort of award for "most adorable couple in Congress," there will be soon after Paul's election, because they verge on ridiculous, so adorable are they.

I also got to hear Paul speak for the first time in a month or so, and while I've always been impressed with the content of his positions, I was really blown away by how comfortable he has become, the degree to which he is loose and free-flowing and thoughtful while remaining organized and well-paced. He is so warm and personable, and that now comes through fully as he speaks.

The video quality isn't fabulous, but you can see something of those traits on this video of him speaking recently in Milford, New Hampshire.

New Paul Hodes Ad

2006-10-12T15:54:00.000-04:00

Paul Hodes' second TV ad is up and running.

You can watch it on YouTube.

Charlie Bass on YouTube

2006-10-11T19:21:00.000-04:00

Keener has already posted on this at NH-02 Progressive, but it's worth spreading as widely as possible. In short, Charles Bass? Not so much going with the "moderate" line he tries to follow before a general audience.

Responses to this vary from "wow" to "you have to see this, now."

Moi, Predictable?

2006-10-09T12:38:00.000-04:00

The Valley News has an editorial linking Bass' and Martha Rainville's little staff ethics problems of late. (Rainville, the Republican House candidate in Vermont, lost a staffer to plagiarism of the issues statements of other politicians - notably Democratic ones.) Of Bass' Furtado, it says

Furtado's actions were wrong primarily because they were dishonest, but also because he used a government computer in Bass' office to promote his boss' candidacy. Democratic partisans predictably said that Furtado’s misbehavior reflected poorly on Bass himself -- that it revealed an atmosphere of ethical permissiveness or anxiety about Bass' prospects.

That's what they're supposed to say. For most people, though, the real question raised by this incident is: What was Furtado thinking? Didn't he know that urging Hodes supporters to deploy their resources outside of New Hampshire might tip off others that a dirty trickster was at work? And what did he think he might accomplish -- that bad-mouthing Hodes' chances would scare off supporters? (Since when do New Hampshire Democrats become faint of heart at the prospect of being involved in a losing cause?) And why send these messages from a government computer in Bass' office -- making the act not only easily traceable but also in possible violation of House ethics rules and federal campaign law?

I can't imagine who said ethical permissiveness and anxiety about Bass' prospects. Possibly the same person who's going to go on to quote the editorial's conclusion

While these small-potatoes incidents are more entertaining than they are scandalous, we can't help but be concerned about what apparently is a talent shortage in the political trenches. These were the best aides that congressmen and candidates could find?

Perhaps in a predictably partisan way, I'll point out that these were not the best aides that just any congressmen and candidates could find. These were the best aides that Republican congressmen and candidates could find. Or they had grown so accustomed to functioning in an atmosphere of, yes, ethical permissiveness that they didn't think they'd get caught no matter how incredibly, mind-blowingly stupidly they acted.

Is Bass' Website in Denial?

2006-10-08T01:17:00.000-04:00

When Charlie Bass ran his first negative ad against Paul Hodes just over a week ago, I noted that this meant that Bass could no longer stress his positivity in every interview he gave. When he ran his second negative ad against Hodes, I figured the matter was effectively closed.

Turns out, Charlie counts on the voters of New Hampshire not to be bright enough to have noticed or remembered those ads. His website, in fact, does not include his ads attacking Hodes on Iraq and on taxes (both misleadingly, ignorantly in the case of the Iraq ad). You can see his ads portraying him as a folksy, independent guy, but not the ones with the threatening voiceover and the Paul Hodes quotes taken out of context.

Now that is one hell of a positive campaign Bass is running! He must be so proud! Not only can he not voice his own ads, he can't even have them associated with his campaign more than is legally required.

Does it strike anyone else that if you're that ashamed of your campaign, maybe you should be running it differently?

Final Ballot Design

2006-10-07T00:51:00.000-04:00

On a couple of occasions I've written about the order to change the order in which candidates are listed on New Hampshire ballots. A solution has finally been reached, to the voluble distress of Secretary of State Bill Gardner:

"This decision is illogical, nonsensical and defies common sense," Gardner said in a statement he distributed, adding he would have appealed Thursday's decision if time had allowed.

"This is not a ballot I would have designed on my own, but it is a ballot we will print and distribute," Gardner said.

The "illogical, nonsensical" ballot, of course, is one that runs candidates' names KLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZABCDEFGHIJ rather than KABCDEFGHIJLMNOPQRSTUVWXY.

So it's taken me a while to write this post because I'll be honest, my first response was "is this the stupidest guy in the state of New Hampshire?" (Actually, there was another word in between "stupidest" and "guy" when I first thought it.) His sense of what's confusing is just so bizarre it defies comprehension.

Then someone told me

He's old. Just think Grandpa Simpson. He doesn't like change and tries to pare change down to the absolute minimum.

Ok, I guess. I still don't see how it looks like less change to take one letter completely out of context than to cut the alphabet in half but keep it from jumping around unless you throw a healthy dose of stupid into the mix, and I'm not really sure I think Grandpa Simpson belongs in a position of importance, but that makes it slightly more comprehensible.

And the important thing is, we now have a ballot that makes some sense.

Bass' Evolving Position on Hastert

2006-10-06T15:19:00.000-04:00

Friday, September 29: Florida Representative Mark Foley resigns due to revelations of sexually explicit emails and IMs sent to teenage Congressional pages. Information quickly begins emerging that House Republican leadership, including Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority Leader John Boehner, and National Republican Congressional Committee head Tom Reynolds have all known of Foley's inappropriate behavior for months or even years and have covered it up for political benefit.

Saturday, September 30: Republican Congressmen Peter King and Chris Shays call for any leader who knew about Foley's behavior and didn't take action to step down.

Wednesday, October 4: Charlie Bass finally makes a public statement:

"I have to take the speaker's word (that he had no knowledge of the conversations)," Bass said in an interview. "Why would they cover it up?" he asked.

Thursday, October 5: Bass' position develops a small wiggle:

“I’m watching . . . this situation very closely,” Bass said. “If the speaker said he didn’t know about it, he probably didn’t.

“But he had people working for him, and he has a responsibility, as I obviously know, for the behavior of his staff.”

Friday, October 6: Bass' finger in the political wind tells him to change course:

"For the good of the House of Representatives and our nation, the questions about who had what knowledge about Mark Foley's behavior must be resolved quickly and thoroughly."

-------

"If the Speaker or his staff had information that any House page was at risk and failed to take appropriate steps, the Speaker should resign.

Let's be clear. This is not Bass taking a principled stand. This is Bass having held out as long as he possibly could before saying anything that might offend Hastert, in case Hastert remained in a leadership position. Only when it became absolutely clear that not only did Hastert know, but that the American public cared that Hastert knew and was demanding accountability, only then did Bass venture farther than "if he says it it must be true."

If Bass was the independent he'd like us to believe he is, he'd have called firmly and unequivocally for an investigation immediately after Foley's resignation. He'd have acknowledged that, given the number of fingers pointed in Hastert's direction, Hastert's conduct in possibly covering up Foley's behavior was one of the things that needed to be investigated. He did not do those things. Instead, his positions were not only politically expedient, they were politically expedient from the point of view of someone cravenly beholden to the Republican leadership.

It is enablers like Charlie Bass that have made the Republican culture of corruption viable these last several years. The only path to accountability - accountability for Iraq, accountability for torture, accountability for sexual predation - is to change control of Congress. In New Hampshire's second district, that means electing Paul Hodes.

Bass Comments on Foley Cover-up

2006-10-05T01:09:00.000-04:00

In Wednesday's Union Leader, Charles Bass takes a brave, brave stand. For a six-term Congressman to make online sexual advances toward teenagers working under him, he says, is a bad thing.

"The decisions and actions of Mark Foley that have been brought to light over the past couple days are disgusting and inexcusable," Bass said in a statement.

Wow. There is some backbone. Five or six days later, Charlie issues a statement saying something completely noncontroversial.

But, wait. What's that you say? The real question here is not whether he thinks sexual predation is bad? It's what he says about the fact that the Republican leadership knew about Foley's "disgusting and inexcusable" behaviors years ago?

So, what does Bass have to say about that?

"I have to take the speaker's word (that he had no knowledge of the conversations)," Bass said in an interview. "Why would they cover it up?" he asked.

Consider that by taking Dennis Hastert's word on this, Bass is calling National Republican Congressional Committee head Tom Reynolds and majority leader John Boehner liars, because they both said Hastert knew. Has Bass been asked why he believes Hastert over Reynolds and Boehner? (I'm sure Reynolds, the man in charge of choosing how much financial support to give Bass' campaign, must be wondering the same thing.) So it's a fascinating answer. Bass can't think why this kind of scandal would be covered up. And he's been in Congress for how long?*

Why would they? Paul Hodes has an answer

"Whether it's knowledge of intolerable conduct within the House or warnings about the war in Iraq, this Congress just doesn't want to face reality, much less hold anyone accountable. They'll say and do anything to hold onto power," said Paul Hodes, a Democrat challenging GOP Rep. Charlie Bass in New Hampshire.

*Twelve years.

Why is Charles Bass Silent?

2006-10-02T15:14:00.000-04:00

On Friday afternoon, news emerged that Florida Congressman Mark Foley had been sending sexually predatory emails and IMs to former Congressional pages. Further, much of the Republican leadership in the House had been either actively covering this up or, at a minimum, putting their hands over their eyes and refusing to investigate when they knew that there was something worthy of investigation. This cover-up extends to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, Majority Leader John Boehner, and head of the National Republican Congressional Committee Tom Reynolds.

This should not be a controversial issue. A six-term Congressman sending sexually explicit messages to teenagers over whom he has or has had authority is simply wrong. Yet since this became public, the Republican leadership that has covered this up for nearly a year, and the White House, have sought to to minimize it, referring to it as a matter of "naughty emails" (even as IMs emerge that suggest that Foley sought and may have gotten private meetings with at least one former page), calling for investigations in carefully-worded terms that would leave themselves out of the investigation, and otherwise responding to this as a political crisis rather than a serious issue to be addressed in human, moral, and ethical terms.

Some Republicans, including Chris Shays of Connecticut and Peter King of New York, have called for the resignation of anyone who knew about Foley's sexually predatory actions and did not take action. So far, Charlie Bass has been silent. He has condemned neither Foley's actions nor the Republican leadership's attempt to cover them up. If Bass is the independent man of integrity he would have us believe, this should be a no-brainer. It should not be a decision influenced by political concerns. Fear of offending Denny Hastert or John Boehner or Tom Reynolds should not matter.

So I'm waiting to hear from Charlie Bass on this one. He's already late out of the gate - the principled thing would have been to be, with Shays and King, one of the first voices calling for a full investigation. Every minute it takes before we hear from him on this is another piece of evidence for cravenly beholden to the Republican leadership he is.

Hodes Lays Out Iraq Plan

2006-09-30T01:18:00.000-04:00

Coincidentally, the day that Charlie Bass started running an ad attacking Paul Hodes on Iraq, Hodes held a press conference to suggest a plan for the war.

Hodes has a press release detailing his full plan here, with explanations of the following bullet points:

I. Make it clear that we will not occupy Iraq permanently.

II. Withdraw our National Guard and Reserve troops immediately.

III. Immediately focus our mission on training the Iraqi military and police and security for their operations.

IV. Require the Iraqis to forge a political solution to the current crisis.

V. Support that solution while redeploying the remainder of our troops.

VI. Bring other countries into a comprehensive and sustained peace process.

VII. Rebuild our military.

VIII. Replace the leadership.

According to the Concord Monitor's report on the press conference

[Hodes] pointed to Monday's Iraq deployment of 138 soldiers with the New Hampshire National Guard's 3643rd Security Force and to Bass's vote against a debate on the National Intelligence Estimate report on the effects of the war on U.S. security.

"Do you think New Hampshire voters want a congressman who takes a critical look at the mission or a congressman who says, 'Let's not bother talking about it'?" he said.

In the Union Leader, a Bass spokeswoman runs Republican plays 1, 2, and 4 on the Iraq war: Claim that any criticism of the planning and leadership of the war is an attack on American soldiers; imply that massive successes are being overlooked in the politicized rush to paint the war as a disaster; accuse your opponent of wanting to cut and run regardless of what affect doing so will have.

Responding last night to Hodes comments, Bass campaign spokesman Lindsay Jackson said it's a shame the Democrat views U.S. accomplishments in Iraq over the last two years as a failure.

"Today Mr. Hodes laid out his plan, which includes pulling U.S. troops out immediately, eventually hoping to have all U.S. troops gone in a year," Johnson said. "That kind of plan would be setting up an effort to fail. Congressman Bass has confidence and respect in the young service men and women to do their jobs and come home as soon as our mission has been accomplished."

Ok, Lindsay, whatever. The Monitor also quotes her saying

Bass "feels that we must keep forces on the ground until we can confidently hand over control to the Iraqi security forces."

Except that, as I've previously noted, this is just a deceptive way of saying "Bass supports an indefinite US presence in Iraq." There is no way Iraqi security forces will be able to take control for the foreseeable future. It's saying "stay the course" without having the guts to actually say it.

Or, as Paul Hodes characterizes the situation

Hodes said the Bush administration is "too deep in its own mess" to resolve the situation in Iraq. "George Bush has failed this country and Charlie Bass has gone right along with him."

Weekend Canvassing for Hodes

2006-09-28T11:30:00.000-04:00

There will again be canvassing for Paul Hodes in a number of towns this weekend. Canvassing is important, and a good way to get involved with the campaign. You'll also get a little bit of exercise and maybe meet some people.

North Country

Gorham
Time: 10am
Date: Saturday 9/30
Meeting Location: Berlin Democratic Office (across from Berlin City Hall on Main St)

Berlin
Time: 2pm
Date: Saturday 9/10
Meeting Location: Berlin Democratic Office (across from Berlin City Hall on Main St)

Littleton:
Time: 2pm
Date: Sunday 10/1
Meeting Location: Café Flora

Merrimack County:

Concord
Time: 10am
Date: Saturday 9/30
Meeting Location: Campaign Headquarters (12 N. Main St, Concord)

Concord
Time: 2pm
Date: Saturday 9/30
Meeting Location: Campaign Headquarters (12 N.Main St, Concord)

Hopkinton
Time: 5:00pm
Date: Tuesday 10/3
Meeting Location: Campaign Headquarters (12 N. Main St, Concord)

Nashua Area & Rockingham County

Pelham
Time: 10am
Date: Saturday 9/30
Meeting Location: Pelham High School (85 Marsh Rd, Pelham)

Salem
Time: 2pm
Date: Saturay 9/30
Meeting Location: Law Office of David Carney (59 Stiles, Salem)

Nashua
Time: 2pm
Date: Sunday 10/1
Meeting Location: Nashua Democratic Office (82 Main St. Nashua)

Cheshire & Sullivan Counties

Keene:
Time: 10am
Date: Saturday 9/30
Meeting Location: Keene Democratic Office (2 Eagle Ct, Keene)

Keene:
Time: 2pm
Date: Saturday 9/30
Meeting Location: Keene Democratic Office (2 Eagle Ct, Keene)

Hillsborough County:

Peterborough:
Time: 10am
Date: Saturday 9/30
Meeting Location: Sop & Shop Parking Lot (19 Wilton Rd, Peterborough)

Amherst:
Time: 2pm
Date: Saturday 9/30
Meeting Location: Town Library (14 Main St)

Town of Hillsborough:
Time: 2pm
Date: Sunday 10/1
Meeting Location: Dunkin Donuts (258 W. Main St, Hillsborough)

Upper Valley:

Lebanon
Time: 2pm
Date: Saturday 9/30
Meeting Location: Lebanon Democratic Office (2 Whipple Place, Lebanon)

If you're interested in doing any of these, Torey is your contact for the North Country, Justin for Nashua and Rockingham County, Jamie for Hillsborough County, Brooke for Cheshire and Sullivan Counties, and Toby for Merrimack County. Email any of them at their first name at HodesforCongress.com. The campaign office phone number is 603 223 2006.

New Bass Attack Ad

2006-09-28T02:18:00.003-04:00

Charlie Bass has a new ad, attacking Paul Hodes on Iraq. Swing State Project and The Yankee Doodler have posts highlighting one of this ad's central absurdities, namely that the ad says

Now, Hodes wants to send troops into Kurdistan. Kudistan? Hodes says he’s got a plan for Iraq.

Problem being, of course, that Kurdistan is part of Iraq.

This is hilarious and pathetic all at once, especially given how ragingly amateurish the ad is. Seriously, it looks like someone with no design or advertising background whomped it together on their PC one night.

But the ad signals something important, and I don't want that to get lost.

All along, Bass has insisted on the positivity of the campaign he was going to run. I've posted before on the way he focuses on the positivity of the campaign he's going to run, and refuses to engage with the important issues of the day. As I wrote then

Charlie Bass's game is to pretend to be above politics, above partisanship, while he sneaks in in the middle of the night to vote to interfere in people's personal lives. Paul Hodes, on the other hand, may be doing politics (and I'd hope so, given that this is a political campaign), but he can do so openly, without shame or sneering about it, because he is doing an honorable politics.

This was after Bass had accused Hodes' support of a plan to improve tax credits for college students as stemming from "the difference between policy and politics" and gone on

“I’m going to run for re-election the way I have the previous six terms. I’m going to run a positive campaign and I’ll work harder than anyone else,’’ Bass said.

“I’ll win re-election the old fashioned way.’’

I'll be curious to see if he continues to insist that this is what he's doing, but I think any reasonable observer would conclude that Bass has abandoned any pretense of positive campaigning. He's done so just five days after his spokeswoman's response to Hodes' ad on Iraq was to say

We think it’s unfortunate and disappointing that once again Mr. Hodes decided to go with a negative ad campaign.

We could argue about whose ad is more negative; it might not surprise you to find that I think the Bass ad is substantially more so. I say this because Bass' ad is done in classic negative ad form: The candidate only appears for long enough to say he authorized the message, there's a threatening-sounding voiceover by someone other than the candidate, there's a lot of black screen with leading questions written on it. It's amateurish but textbook attack ad. By contrast, Hodes' ad features a good deal of video of the candidate, and he does the voiceover. There's no need for the candidate to hide from this message. And that in turn speaks for the fairness of the message itself.

Let's just remember this the next time Charlie tries to claim he's running a positive campaign. Just because you don't have the nerve to voice your own ad doesn't mean it's not your ad.

Bass Policy Director Resigns

2006-09-27T00:27:00.000-04:00

Tad Furtado, Charlie Bass's policy director, resigned due to extreme sockpuppetry, and also sort of because of me and NH-02 Progressive and Yankee Doodler. It's been kind of overwhelming. He clearly did wrong on several different levels, and this seems like an appropriate initial response. Apparently the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct will be looking into it; I'll be curious to see how that goes. On the one hand House Republicans have not been particularly good at disciplining their own of late; on the other, maybe because he's just a staffer he'll be the sacrificial lamb or something. So I don't know what to root for - I want a clear statement that this is unacceptable behavior, but do I want to see someone disciplined because they weren't powerful enough to intimidate their way out of it, a la Tom DeLay?

Charlie Bass has offered an apology - in a written statement to the press, mind you, not to us - and I'm not sure what to make of it. Whether or not it's sincere, it's clearly more honorable to have followed this path than the NJ Senate path of denial. But this was happening in his office, by one of his top aides, over a period of months - of more than a year if you count his Our Congress post on Bass. Whether or not he knew anything about it, this, in my opinion, speaks to an atmosphere of ethical permissiveness in the Republican party today that pervades Bass's office no matter how much he talks about his independence. This didn't happen in a vacuum. It was done by a member of the party of the New Hampshire phone jamming scandal, the party of Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham. This certainly doesn't rise to the level of any of those, but it's part of a broad and disturbing pattern. Until Bass addresses that, and declares true independence from it - which he has not done - his apology is incomplete.

On Bass Sockpuppets

2006-09-25T15:11:00.000-04:00

There's a pretty good chance that if you're coming here today it's because you've already read the story about a Bass staffer trolling this site, but in brief:

As I posted on Thursday, here and at Daily Kos, someone named "IndieNH" or "IndyNH" had been leaving comments on this and other NH-02 blogs claiming to support Paul Hodes but always managing to work in sorrowful references to how very strong and independent Charlie Bass is. Those comments were being left from a House of Representatives IP address, which is deceptive and probably in violation of House rules against using government resources to campaign.

Roll Call's Heard on the Hill has covered the story (Roll Call is subscription-only, but it's reproduced at Raw Story), and Bass' office has admitted that Indy is in fact one of their staffers. Several blogs have posted on the Roll Call story.

I have little to add at this point - I'm amazed and pleased to see the story get this much attention. Given the amount of deception and corruption Republicans in the House and elsewhere have engaged in over the past several years, I'd have thought this wouldn't even show up on anyone's radar. But even if it's no Abramoff scandal, using government resources to campaign while pretending to be someone you're not is wrong and also just plain lame, so I'm not complaining.

For the record, I am in no way paid by the Hodes campaign. I am open about my partisanship and support of Hodes. I volunteer for the campaign whenever I have the chance, and I have contributed money. But they do not pay me for anything and do not control what I say.

WMUR Story on Hodes Ad

2006-09-24T02:49:00.000-04:00

WMUR did a pretty good story on the new ad. You can watch it here. It's unfortunate that they chose to mention the Monitor poll but not the DCCC poll, but otherwise I have few complaints.

As a minor but fun side point, note what part of the word "Bass" is visible behind his staffer's head in her first interview clip. That was some fine, fine set-up on his campaign's part.

All Hail Justin the Pumpkin-Maker

2006-09-24T02:41:00.000-04:00

Justin, of the field staff and of pee muffin fame, made this pumpkin of Paul Hodes.

When he's not eating pee muffins or carving amazing pumpkins, he's making people laugh so hard they almost spray salad with blue cheese dressing all over him. Unfortunately, most of his funny stuff wouldn't really translate to writing, so you'll have to settle for appreciating the pumpkin. Or you could canvass in the Nashua area sometime, in which case you'd meet him.

Paul Hodes TV Ad on YouTube

2006-09-22T12:31:00.000-04:00

It's on Iraq. I think it looks good. They've got Charlie dead to rights, tied firmly to Iraq and to Bush, and Paul is firm, clear, and direct, emphasizing the Bass-Bush link and the need for a new direction.

If you want to help them air it, you can contribute to the Hodes campaign.

A Very Special Guest

2006-09-21T18:09:00.000-04:00

Today, I'd like to give a special welcome to one of my (and NH-02 Progressive and Yankee Doodler's) most regular readers and commenters, IndyNH (also known as IndieNH). What's so special about Indy?

Well, s/he loves Paul Hodes, but only shows up to comment about how sad it is that Charlie Bass is such a strong candidate that Paul will have trouble defeating him. This never fails to grieve Indy, though s/he rebounds with suggestions like

I am going to look at the competitive race list to figure out where to send another mydd.com / netroots donation and maybe help out in other ways. Maybe CT or NY for me - they are at least close by.

Anyone interested in pooling NH efforts for some of those races? Maybe we could even go help out for a few days in buses or something in November?

The other special thing about Indy? S/he is posting from the House of Representatives, where s/he works, we must assume, for that member of New Hampshire's Congressional delegation who likes to style himself "independent" while voting with the Republican leadership nearly 90% of the time.

It's called sitemeter, Indy, and it lets me see where you're posting from. You'd be obvious enough as a concern troll without that information, but that lets me know to a pretty good certainty that you're a paid concern troll. And the fact that you'd bother trolling here? That just says "we're worried about this race."

Non-Indy readers should think about how they can support Paul Hodes in his campaign. I'd suggest contributing time or money.

(Keener, Yankee Doodler, and I posted a collaborative diary on this at Daily Kos.)

About Polling: As I was saying...

2006-09-21T01:33:00.000-04:00

From John DiStaso's Union Leader column:

Perhaps answering the Concord Monitor's recent poll showing Hodes trailing Bass, 55 to 30 percent, the DCCC has a poll by the Mellman Group of 400 2nd District voters that shows the race tied at 41 percent each. The poll shows George W. Bush's job approval rating at 30 percent in the district, and that 61 percent of voters believe the country is on the wrong track.

As you're weighing the reliability of this poll vs. that Monitor one, bear in mind that the DCCC would have been doing this poll to help them decide whether or not to add Hodes to the Red to Blue program. Adding a candidate to R2B is a substantial investment of finite resources. They would want to choose the strongest possible candidate to maximize their chances of retaking the House. Therefore, while this is a "partisan" poll, and was certainly released to counter the Monitor's poll, in doing the poll, the DCCC had every incentive to poll as carefully as possible to be sure they didn't end up wasting their money.

Now, about those Bass or National Republican Congressional Committee polls...

We know they're out there. The subscription-only Cook Report said at the beginning of the month that "Privately, Republicans say they have polling that shows Bass in good shape." Privately? They have good news and they don't want to share? Why do I doubt that news was as good as they wanted people to believe?

Canvassing for Hodes this Weekend. Yes, Again.

2006-09-20T22:58:00.000-04:00

There is canvassing just all over New Hampshire this weekend. Full details are below, but if you live in or near Berlin, Gorham, Nashua, Concord, Peterborough, Claremont, Lancaster, Hudson, Antrim, Swanzey, or Bow, you should be doing this.

Saturday

Berlin – 10am-1pm
Gorham – 2pm-5pm
Meet at Coos County Democrats Office (across from Berlin City Hall) Contact Torey.

Nashua – 10am-1pm
Nashua - 2pm-5pm
Meet at Nashua Democrats Office (82 Main St.) Contact Justin.

Peterborough – 10am-1pm
Stop & Shop Parking lot Intersection of Rt. 101 & 202 Contact Jamie.

Claremont – 10am-1pm
Claremont – 2pm-5pm
MEETING LOCATION TBD – Contact Brooke.

Concord – 10am-1pm
Concord – 2pm-5pm
Meet at Hodes campaign headquarters at 12 North Main street. Contact Toby.

Sunday

Lancaster – 1pm-4:30pm
MEETING LOCATION TBD contact Torey.

Hudson – 1pm-4:30pm
Meet at Nashua Office (82 Main St) Contact Justin.

Antrim – 1pm-4:30pm
MEETING LOCATION TBD Contact Jamie.

Swanzey – 1pm-4:30pm
Meet at Keene Office (2 Eagle Ct.) Contact Brooke.

Bow – 1pm-4:30pm
Meet at Concord Office (82 Main st) Contact Toby.

(In each case, the email address is the person's first name at hodesforcongress.com)

Is Charles Foster Bass a Leader in Washington?

2006-09-20T20:59:00.000-04:00

I spend a fair amount of time talking about Charlie Bass's record on particular issues - the environment, social security, the minimum wage - but tonight I want to step back a little bit and look at what you might call his effectiveness. The bulk of his job is to vote on other people's bills, of course, but does he ever lead, and if so, how effectively?

One measure of this is what committees he serves on in Congress, and whether he has any kind of leadership role. And the answer is, he's on the committee on energy and commerce, and he does not chair any of its subcommittees. This is not a matter of lack of seniority: Many chairships are held by people with the same or fewer years in office. For instance, on the committee on energy and commerce, Kentucky's Rep. Ed Whitfield, who was elected in 1994 just like Charlie, chairs the subcommittee on oversight and investigations. On the judiciary committee, Rep. John Hostettler, of Indiana, was elected in 1994 just like Charlie and chairs the subcommittee on immigration, border security, and claims; Rep. Chris Cannon, of Utah, was elected in 1996 and chairs the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law.

And so on. Charlie Bass isn't the chair of a subcommittee not because he hasn't been in Congress long enough. He isn't the chair of a subcommittee because he's not a leader. He can do some little useful things, like get an in-state tv station to satellite subscribers in the North Country, or get a little money thrown the way of New Hampshire defense contractors rather than defense contractors somewhere else. But that's the extent of it.

New Hampshire deserves better. New Hampshire deserves a leader.

Monitor Poll Flawed

2006-09-18T02:58:00.000-04:00

Update: Since this post, my claim that the poll was flawed has been backed up by every poll released. While only one of 4 polls since has shown Hodes in the lead (with one showing a tie), the Monitor poll is an outlier by more than 5 points in each direction. For posts on the subsequent polls, see here and here.

The Concord Monitor is reporting a poll that doesn't look great for Paul Hodes. Here's what they tell us about the methodology:

Bradley led Shea-Porter 56 to 31 percent, according to a Monitor poll of 300 likely voters in the First Congressional District (with a 6 percent margin of error). In a poll of 300 likely Second District voters, Bass, a six-term incumbent, led Hodes 55 to 30 percent. Libertarian Ken Blevens was supported by 1 percent of the vote.

and

Research 2000 used randomly generated telephone numbers to interview 600 likely voters. Those interviewed - 180 Democrats (30 percent), 192 Republicans (32 percent) and 228 voters who identified themselves as independents (38 percent) - reflect voter registration numbers statewide. The interviews were divided evenly between the two congressional districts, and they included 294 men and 306 women.

First, we have to note that that's a pretty huge margin of error.

Next, I have some questions, drawing on a Mystery Pollster post from 2005 in which 19 pollsters discuss their criteria for evaluating a poll's reliability.

The partisan breakdown matches statewide, but does it reflect the differing partisan breakdown of the two districts, or does it see each district as essentially a subset of the whole state?

They were doing random digit dialing, but from what source of numbers? What type of voter list were they working from? Did they know anything about the voting histories of the people they were calling? They claim these were likely voters, but what kind of likely voter model was it?

What was the age distribution? (In particular, it's very easy to overrepresent older voters.) The geographic distribution? Race and ethnicity are probably somewhat less of an issue in New Hampshire than in many states, but nonetheless important, so what about them?

This poll was apparently done in two nights, in contrast to the poll done by Anzalone Liszt Research for the Hodes campaign, which called the same number of people (but all in the Second District) over a period of a week; as Jeff Liszt says in the Mystery Pollster post, "Very large samples taken in one or two nights sometimes raise a red flag because of the implications for the poll's call-back procedures."

In short, we just don't know enough about this poll to really evaluate it, though the large margin of error and the short time period in which it was done suggest that it was done on the cheap. So...if you want to know where I'll be over the next few weeks, the answer is probably going to be "out canvassing," because that's clearly an important part of this race. But while I'm certainly motivated to work like we really need to make up this differential, I'm not going to be losing any sleep over these results.

It's also worth noting, as The Yankee Doodler does, Bass's poor showing in the primary. At the same time, as I think about the fact that this poll was done in the two days following the primary, Bass may well have been benefitting from a related media boost. Because he had a contested primary, Bass was much more the focus of television and print coverage of the primaries, so this poll was done during a mini-blitz of media for Bass that was not equaled by coverage of the unopposed Hodes.

Hodes Makes Red to Blue List

2006-09-15T16:25:00.000-04:00

Press release from Paul Hodes' campaign:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced today that Paul Hodes has been selected for the Red to Blue program, affirming that the Hodes campaign is one of the top Democratic campaigns in the country.

According to the DCCC

Red to Blue was a proven success in 2004 and the DCCC is making key improvements to it as well as maintaining the most impactful elements of the program. In 2004, the Red to Blue program raised nearly $7.5 million for twenty seven campaigns across the country with an average of more than $250,000 per campaign.

I’m not finding a DCCC press release announcing this yet, though perhaps that’s me.

Anyway, this is big—it’s recognition from the DCCC that Hodes is the strong challenger we already knew him to be, and it will bring concrete support to the campaign.

Saturday Canvass Update

2006-09-15T13:13:00.000-04:00

If you want to canvass for Paul Hodes on Saturday (and you do, you really do), here's the information:

Concord: 10:00-1:00, and 2:00-5:30. Meet at the campaign office at 12 North Main Street. If you're interested email Toby.

Nashua: 2:00-4:00 or 5:00. Meet at the Nashua Democratic headquarters at 82 Main Street; if interested, email Justin.

Littleton: 2:00-5:00. Meet at Flora Latte, 17 Main Street. Email Torey.

Charles Bass on Iraq

2006-09-15T01:47:00.000-04:00

As the Yankee Doodler has noted, Bass appears to be flip-flopping on Iraq coming up to the election:

July 16, 2006:

"the military commander will set the policy and the withdrawal time. For Congress and politicians to try back-seat driving is not a smart thing."
September 12, 2006:

Bass restated his support for President Bush, but said: "We need to be prepared to change our game plan if the situation on the ground changes. I think we will see significant troop reductions in the next couple years ... but it has to be a strategic redeployment, not a political one."

Once again we see Bass, who has spent most of his adult life as a politician, arguing against the dirty nasty game of politics. It's nice that he's so, so above it all, and wouldn't it be cynical of us to think that the kind of turnaround Yankee Doodler shows him doing in 2 months time had anything to do with politics?

Interestingly, where Bass's old website (you know, the one that had him running for a sixth term back in early July - three quarters of the way through his sixth term) didn't really talk about Iraq, the new site includes Iraq in the Charlie on the Issues section (ain't that just folksy). It's not political or anything, just that a war doesn't merit its own issues page until it's at least 3 years old, and back in 2004 it was only a matter of a year and a half.

Anyway, good news!

Notably, this year, Iraqi forces have taken the lead in the majority of combat operations. With over 150,000 troops on patrol, they are well on their way to being able to sustain themselves without our support.

Totally cool! Except, wait, there seem to be some conflicting reports. The Washington Post reports that within the government itself, there's a little disagreement:

Until now, the U.S. military view of Iraq has tended to be more optimistic than that of much of the rest of the government, such as the CIA and the State Department.

And the reports we are getting, no matter how optimistic government spokesment try to be, suggest that the picture is not as rosy as Charlie wants us to believe. Again according to the Washington Post

A senior American commander in Iraq said Tuesday that U.S.-led military operations are "stifling" the insurgency in western Anbar province but are not strong enough to defeat it.

According to the same article

As of Monday there were 147,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, the highest number since December 2005. Most of the recent increase was for Baghdad, where U.S. and Iraqi forces are trying to avert a civil war.

And

The New York Times reported Tuesday that the Devlin report concluded that Anbar's political and security situation will continue to deteriorate unless it gets a major infusion of aid and substantially more U.S. troops.

Then there's Gen. John Abizaid's statement, reported September 7 in the Tampa Tribune:

The top U.S. military commander in the Middle East said Wednesday it could take "many more months" to end the sectarian violence in Baghdad and "a matter of years" to train the Iraqi army properly.

Somehow, that makes the replacement of American troops with a functioning Iraqi army seem a little less imminent than Charlie's issues statement, doesn't it?

William Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Rich Lowry of National Review, no liberal peaceniks, argue that

The administration's military strategy has long been based on getting the Iraqis to do the "holding" in the counterinsurgency strategy of "clear, hold and build." That would obviously be ideal. But the experience of the past three years is that the Iraqis aren't yet up to it, at least not in hotly contested areas such as Baghdad. The administration deserves credit for the strides it has made in training the Iraqi army. But for now we have to do much of the holding ourselves for it to be effective. That simply requires more manpower.

They continue

One reason to prefer having Iraqis hold secured areas is that indigenous forces, in theory, don't risk creating the kind of nationalist reaction that can be prompted by a foreign occupying army -- i.e., us. But in the current environment of sectarian bloodletting, all signs are that American troops are more trusted and more welcome than Iraqis.

When the pro-war conservatives who are not up for re-election are saying that the US needs to send more troops over to Iraq, and the pro-war conservatives who are up for re-election are saying that everything's peachy and Iraqi troops will be taking over any day now and this isn't at all political, it's just the right thing to do, who do you believe?

Canvassing for Hodes this Saturday

2006-09-14T22:50:00.000-04:00

There will be a number of canvasses for Paul Hodes happening this saturday.

Littleton: Meet at Flora Latte, 17 Main Street, at 2:00.

Concord: Meet at the campaign office on Main Street, at 10:00.

There will also be canvassing in Swanzey, Hillsborough, and Nashua; I'll post those addresses and times when I have them.

The Pee Muffin, and Other Adventures in GOTV

2006-09-14T13:18:00.000-04:00

So we’re sitting in the Nashua, New Hampshire Democratic party headquarters and Justin decides to eat one of the muffins I’ve brought. “They’re healthy,” I warn him, as if you couldn’t kind of see that just at a glance. As he reaches into the bag, one falls out and bounces on the floor a couple of times. Although the running, and all too believable, joke is that the pee hasn’t been cleaned up from the office’s recent stint as some kind of social service agency and, pee or no pee, the carpet is unquestionably nasty (the kind of place where you don’t feel guilty for spilling something because it makes no appreciable difference), and although there are plenty of muffins, he picks it up and starts eating. I can’t tell if the suspicious expression on his face is more about the carpet residues or the healthiness of the flax/buckwheat/apple/carrot/raisin/walnut muffin. Eventually he claims that the muffin “was good, once I got past the carpet and hair and pee taste.”

Later, Pat arrives to drop off some new campaign literature and almost the first thing he says to me is “it was Justin who said you were talking about jelly beans.” “I remembered you saying it.” “I was repeating what he said.” “Well, I’ll issue a correction.”

Consider that corrected: Justin, not Patrick, originated the notion that Emily and I discussed jelly beans for like 5 hours of canvassing.

Hearing discussion of that diary, Justin says in a disgusted voice “great, you’re probably going to write about the pee muffin, too.” (Thereby leaving me no choice.)

But backtrack. I wrote about doing GOTV for Paul Hodes in Nashua over the weekend, but it didn’t end there. I took Monday off, but the field staff worked as hard Monday as they had all weekend. In fact, they went out and did a lit drop late Monday night to Tuesday morning before catching a few hours of sleep where they could. When I arrived Tuesday morning, Brooke’s nose was bright red from having just finished a stint standing outside in the cold New Hampshire morning doing visibility at a polling place. Toby and Justin had slept on the floor of the Nashua office. Jamie kept curling up on one of the chairs and trying to sleep; it looked like she hadn’t had a chance to take a shower. Torey had a 5 o’clock shadow, except it might have been from 5 the previous morning.

No primary opponent for Paul Hodes, and this is how hard they were working.

I did visibility at one polling place with Torey, where we tried with varying success not to get into conversations with the eccentric if not mentally ill man who was also holding Hodes signs. I believe he had been a client at the agency that used to be where the Dem office is now, and had been taken up by one of the people who works there. He was installed on a lawn chair with a 2-liter bottle of Coke Zero, a cup of coffee, and a donut. As people left after voting he called out thanking them. In between, he regaled us with various pieces of information. Somehow an explication of the Big Bang led directly to an extended argument that General Custer had been killed by his own troops because they were angry about his close friendships with Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull. I must say that hearing a General Custer conspiracy theory was a first for me. When Torey went inside to use the bathroom, the man explained to me at some length how it is “a fact of female plumbing that women need to go to the bathroom eight times as much as men.” I did not, however, hear his case for extraterrestrial colonization directly from him, which was kind of sad.

Kaili and I spent the afternoon canvassing the neighborhood Emily and I had done Sunday afternoon, plus a neighboring area. It was startling how in the space of about a block the houses went from large Victorians set well apart from each other on straight, orderly streets to seedy apartment buildings on little streets criss-crossing each other at angles that made navigation difficult. Exhausted, I stared stupidly down at one woman’s George W. Bush doormat for a minute, wondering why they’d sent me to the house of someone who liked him so much, before I figured out that it was an invitation to wipe my feet on his face. At another house, my ringing the doorbell was answered by a voice from above, and I stuck my head out from the porch to see a genuinely scary-looking old man (think the Cryptkeeper, only pasty skin with red rings around watery eyes) leaning off the balcony above.

As it grew dark, Toby and I did visibility outside another polling place. In addition to having slept in the office, he’d spent the day there – while I was doing visibility and canvassing, he was cutting turf and phonebanking in the windowless, fluorescent-lit, faux-wood-panelled rooms. He said he'd lost track of time, thinking it must be night only to find out it was noon. Mosquitos came out and started going for our faces, the only bare skin they could find. A write-in candidate tirelessly introduced himself to the bare trickle of people going in. We talked about Mark Warner, John Edwards, Paul Hodes, Toby’s hope for one day off work between now and the general election.

Finally, at 8:00, the polls were closing and we went in to wait for results. We watched while the flock of elderly poll workers, led by a man with the second-worst combover I’ve ever seen, removed the optical scan ballots from the machine and took them over to sort, printed a receipt from the machine, and, after a seeming eternity, brought it over and taped it to the wall, emphasizing that these were unofficial results. There were no surprises. On the Republican side, Charlie Bass handily beat his opponents, who had spent about $16,000 between two of them. Neither party had a gubernatorial primary. Paul Hodes had no opposition. In isolation, there was no narrative to draw from these results.

As we walked out, Toby called the office. “Dude, we WON!” he yelled, laughing.

In the car, I noticed I had a voicemail. It’s Paul Hodes, thanking me for my contributions, as he was doing for everyone who contributed via ActBlue and left a phone number.

So that was Tuesday on the Hodes campaign.

Drinking Liberally in Hanover Tonight

2006-09-14T11:22:00.000-04:00

If you're in the Hanover area, Drinking Liberally is at Murphy's from 7-9 tonight. It's in the back room, and there'll be a little sign on the table. You can drink or eat while discussing whatever politics seems interesting.

Nashua GOTV, part one

2006-09-14T02:02:00.000-04:00

I put this on Daily Kos a couple days ago, but not here for some reason. So better late than never.

I used to hate canvassing. Sometimes it just had to be done, but every porch I went up onto, I was praying that nobody would be home so I could leave some literature and slink away. If anyone answered the door, I was likely to forget a crucial part of the script, like the part where I asked them to actually do something. Shoot, if I remembered to say my candidate's name I was proud. But I'm getting to where I kinda like it, and I'm wanting to encourage anyone who is like I used to be to give it a shot.

Both saturday and today, I was canvassing with Emily-the-campaign-press-person. She is fabulous and we talked a great deal about jelly beans, as Patrick-the-field-director characterized it. (I don't know quite what that means, either.) By the end we had this perfect routine - we could alternate who did which part of the spiel without any advance notice or real hesitation, and that kept things a little fresher.

Our lists were of hardcore, regularly-voting Democrats, so the job was less one of persuasion than of reminding them to vote in the primary tuesday, lack of opposition notwithstanding, and, since Paul Hodes' name recognition is not particularly high, being sure that these committed Dems know enough about him to go from voting for the Democrat to voting for Paul specifically.

For almost everyone we talked to, hearing that Paul is a Democrat was good enough. Past that, the question I got more than any other, oddly, was "where is he from?" (Concord) But then, as many people knew him personally or professionally as wanted to know where he's from. One man asked his position on Iraq and Emily answered, quickly and firmly "finding a responsible exit strategy now." The man nodded once, decisively, like "good enough, we're done here." This being New Hampshire, land of the impossibly large state legislature, when a woman answered the door and cheerfully said "you know who I am, don't you," Emily immediately got the correct answer: "a state representative."

This was an unusual canvass in that we got so few negative responses - a few total blow-offs, a couple of mixed marriages where we were unlucky and the Republican spouse came to the door, definitely some people pretending not to be home when they obviously were (c'mon, guys, the door is open, the tv is on, and we heard dishes clinking as we came up the walk). So the conditions were right for me to feel really good about it. But that being the case, it also reminded me of some of what can be great about canvassing.

Canvassing brings you to neighborhoods you'd never go to otherwise, like the working-class neighborhoods we did yesterday with their tchotchke-covered porches and their conspicuous patriotism. I don't go to those neighborhoods - I do college town and urban and rural, but very rarely ranch houses with painted mailboxes and goose statues. One neighborhood was obviously in transition, with elderly people with French names (a constant pronunciation issue, since the degree to which such people have anglicized pronunciation varies immensely) making way for Latino people. Approaching one door, for instance, we noticed that instead of Boucher the mailbox said Diaz; I looked down at the sheet and noted that Camille Boucher would have been 88. Ms. Diaz had just moved in and was not yet registered to vote, so we told her where her polling place is and that she could register on election day if she brought a utility bill, and gave her our literature.

Today we were in a neighborhood of gorgeous New England Victorians of the sort found in the nicest neighborhoods where I grew up. I don't live in one of those, and I never get tired of looking at them, but I'm familiar with them. Emily's from New York City, and she was in raptures. We picked our favorite houses and gardens as we went, including a couple that we just couldn't get enough of looking at.

I'm not dwelling on this stuff to further my carefully-cultivated image as a shallow fluffball. The point is, canvassing is not only important work, it's an interesting way to spend a day. On the sidewalks between houses you get to know your canvassing partner (if you don't already) and there are always going to be fascinating conversations to be had - about the issues in the election, about the campaign, about that creep at the last house you went to, about the garden at that last house you went to, about whether the fact that this next house has a flag and two honkin' big SUVs is a bad sign, and on and on through infinite possibilities. You learn about people - maybe just that they're all out of the house on saturday mornings, maybe that even many Democrats who always vote only start paying real attention to elections in mid september, maybe that it's as important that Paul Hodes is from Concord as what any of his positions are.

Anyway: canvassing, not as fun as it is important, but still good fun. And mega-important. I recommend it. I look forward to hearing from others about their experiences with it.

"Unparalleled"

2006-09-10T00:00:00.000-04:00

From Charlie Bass's brand-spanking-new website:

Bass has an unparalleled record of protecting the environment and commitment to conservation. The Peterborough Republican has helped secure federal funding to preserve, protect, and enhance some of New Hampshire’s most exceptional natural resources, drawing praise from environmental groups across the state.

Unparalleled:

Without parallel, equal, or match; unequaled. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Not paralleled; unequaled or unmatched; peerless; unprecedented. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary)

Let’s take a narrow view of this. For 2005, Charles Foster Bass receives a score of 33% from the League of Conservation Voters. Other scores of 33% would precisely parallel that. In that sense, Bass is paralleled by fellow Republicans Thomas Davis, Rodney Frelinghuysen, and Todd Platts.

In the sense of being peerless, unmatched, or unprecedented? There are twenty House Republicans with better environmental records in 2005.

I know it’s campaign talk and all, but calling Bass’s record of protecting the environment “unparalleled”? Is also kind of a lie.

Charlie Finally Came!

2006-09-09T07:36:00.000-04:00

His faaaaaabulous website is up. Perhaps as a wedding present for DavidNYC? (To whom wishes of the greatest happiness, by the way.)

I don't know about you, but I'll be bookmarking it for future ease of access. Unfortunately, much as I would like to offer a detailed reading of it this very moment, I am headed out to Nashua in just a few minutes.

Etc.

2006-09-09T01:47:00.000-04:00

I'm sorry to have to, but I've instituted word verification for comments - stupid spammers.

And as a reminder, GOTV in Nashua today through Tuesday.

Republicans Whine about Fair Balloting

2006-09-07T20:19:00.000-04:00

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about the NH Supreme Court decision ruling unconstitutional the state law that put the previous election's winning party first on the ballot and alphabetizing candidate names. By now, many things have become clear. Primary ballots that were already printed up in alphabetical order will be used, rather than scrambling not only to come up with a new system but to implement it in less than a month's time. And some form of new ballot order rationale will be used for November's general election.

Secretary of State Bill Gardner and various Republicans in the state legislature continue to have hissy fits over the changes called for by the Supreme Court. And the pretexts for these hissy fits continue to appear to mask partisan angst, with Senate Majority Leader Bob Clegg arguing for a special session of the state legislature to deal with the issue (this was after he finished arguing that the ballots shouldn't be changed until 2007, and that it really wasn't any of the Supreme Court's business anyway). Because after they didn't deal with the problem for 40 years, the only fair thing is that Republican legislators should get another chance, don't you think?

From the moment the ruling was handed down, Gardner fussed about implementation as if, as I said earlier, no one ever before had to make a ballot that didn't always have the exact same party listed first. He argued that it would be too difficult to count the votes. Then, he argued that voters would be too stupid to actually vote their intent:

The original ballot called for three columns of party candidates in the general election: Republican, Democrat and independent. A true rotation could confuse voters, Gardner said, because some ballots would have a short list of independent candidates sandwiched between two long columns of Democrats and Republicans.

For someone who was completely blase about studies showing that putting one party consistently first could garner it an extra few percent of the vote, Gardner was suddenly awfully concerned about the possibility of voter confusion.

Having a short column between two long ones could confuse people? Really? That's what he went with? I mean, my goodness, imagine the confusion for voters who got a ballot with a short column followed by two long ones! They might think there were no Democrats or Republicans running at all, and fail to vote for offices that didn't have independent candidates! There might be no governor!

But he did ultimately announce a plan for party rotation on the ballot for the general election.

Gardner proposed that Republicans, Democrats and independent candidates all have an equal chance at appearing in the first column on the ballot. He said representatives of each party would come to his office tomorrow afternoon to draw numbers from a hat that correspond to each of the 24 state Senate districts; each of the three parties or groupings would hold the left column on the ballot in one-third of the Senate districts.

This seems, on the face of it, reasonable. It's also what I immediately thought might make sense back on August 18, so it's interesting it took him this long to get to this point.

Alphabetization remains a problem area, though. Interestingly enough, not only does Gardner continue to have problems with it, it's the area that state Republicans have also been focusing on. Fancy that.

What gets me is that it looks like these Republicans are just making a fuss to show that they have power - their suggestions of why it would be a problem to do anything other than straight A through Z are so ridiculous. They've gone from downplaying the significance of the same party always going first on the ballot:

[Chair of the state Republican party Wayne] Semprini said he doubts that ballot arrangement makes a difference in election results. "New Hampshire voters are way too smart and way too involved to vote based on whose name is first," he said.

To re-reading the Supreme Court's judgment (which had already been clarified once) and suggesting that changing the alphabetical order was a nefarious Democratic plot to confuse voters and wreak havoc, throwing election results into question:

"It's my opinion that if the Supreme Court really meant that you couldn't alphabetize anything, then they would change their website and stop listing the justices in alphabetical order," [Senate Majority Leader Clegg] said. "Can you imagine how ridiculous it would be if we stopped using the alphabet" for ballot purposes because the judges considered it unfair?

On the surface, the alphabetical issue would seem an unlikely one for a partisan fight. But Clegg said he thinks the Democrats want a randomized order because any confusion might help the minority party gain seats. "Anytime somebody makes a mistake, the mistake might benefit them,"he said. "I don't think people should be elected by mistake."

Meanwhile, Gardner has a novel proposal for how to eliminate alphabetizing. Perhaps it's because I'm a Democrat, but my original thought of how you could keep things easy to understand while eliminating strict A to Z order turns out to have been the same as the Democrats proposed:

Paul Twomey, a lawyer acting for state Democrats, had wanted Gardner to choose a letter and continue the alphabet after the one chosen. Under that scenario, if the letter “J’’ were chosen, candidates whose names began with “J” would be listed first followed by candidates with a last name starting with “K” and so forth, ending with candidates whose names started with “I.”

But no. That would be confusing and we know how Gardner and the Republicans hate confusion. Instead, his proposal is soooooo much simpler.

To address alphabetization, Gardner proposed pulling one letter from a hat to determine how to begin the lists of candidates for state representative, the one office that calls for long lists of names on the general-election ballots. For example, if Gardner draws an "H," candidates with last names beginning with "H"would lead the question for state representative across New Hampshire. However, the list would revert to A-Z alphabetizing after H (H-A-B-C-D and so on), instead of following in alphabetical order from H (H-I-J-K etc.), Gardner said. If a district had no candidates whose names began with H, the list would simply run in regular A-Z format, he said.

Now, I don't want to be cruel here, but was he hit over the head really hard anytime recently? Because I can't think of how a reasonable human being could think that it was less confusing to be presented with this:

HABCDEFGIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

than with this

HIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZABCDEFG

I also have to question Gardner's ability to do the job he's been doing for like 30 years when his initial responses to being asked to change the ballots involved things like this:

The law also requires rotating names in primaries, which Gardner said is done by printing different ballots for different precincts, not by varying ballots within a precinct. If that were required, voting machines, which are used by two-thirds of the state’s voters, would have to be reprogrammed, he said.

“I’m not even sure if the computer software exists to accommodate the number of different ballots this could require,” Gardner said.

Right. No other state ever dealt with the ballot intricacies faced by New Hampshire.

Except, of course, that I could think of a case right off the top of my head, and I haven't been the secretary of state for even one year.

The 2003 California gubernatorial recall election had 133 candidates and, being out of cycle, was put together relatively quickly. And they didn't do things alphabetically.

On the sample ballot, the candidates' names are listed in alphabetical order according to a randomly chosen alphabet (RWQOJMVAHBSGZXNTCIEKUPDYFL). The order of the list rotates from district to district, like a batting order, so as to offset what's called "the primacy effect"—the natural advantage lent to candidates appearing near the top of a list.

Now, I don't advocate that kind of random-ass order; I agree with Slate's perspective on that:

From an information-design perspective, this is insanity. The customary A to Z, like any form of standardization (miles, dollars, pounds) helps us navigate the world. While a random R to L order might be democratically fair to candidates, it makes it harder for voters faced with finding their chosen candidate on a list of 133 names. As almost any designer would tell you, it would be far better simply to rotate through the trusty A to Z from district to district. This would ensure that no one candidate benefited from being at the top of the list and also that no frustrated voter gave up on finding the name she was looking for.

But the point is, Gardner was not facing a unique situation. The things the Supreme Court judgment implied, they've all been done by some voting district somewhere.

So let's recap:

New Hampshire has had a balloting system that was obviously and provably unfair, and this system has continued at the will of the Republican-controlled state legislature.

The state Supreme Court ruled this system unconstitutional.

Democrats said, roughly, "great, let's get to work figuring out a fair system." They have compromised and worked with the secretary of state to allow the primaries to go on and aren't challenging his alphabetization idea.

The secretary of state said it couldn't be done. Then the same guy who'd acknowledged "that the candidates at the top of the ballot can gain as much as a 6-to-10-point edge in certain races"
decided that the confusion that might possibly result from a short column sandwiched by longer columns was a serious problem. Then when he lost on that, he came up with a totally bizarre and counter-intuitive way of changing alphabetical order.

State Republican leaders said the decision wouldn't change anything. But it shouldn't be carried out this year because it would be difficult. (Not that it has anything to do with this being an election year or anything.) Then they said it wasn't the Supreme Court's business, and that maybe they'd hold the first special session of the legislature since 1954. In fact, maybe it would be unconstitutional not to hold a special session. And also that the Supreme Court had implied that aphabetization has no place anywhere in American society (and that's just ridiculous, so clearly the whole decision is ridiculous!).

What I'm smelling is not alphabetical, but neither is it too confusing for my feeble voter's brain:

It's called desperation.

Hodes Canvassing in Nashua This Weekend

2006-09-06T20:24:00.000-04:00

Tuesday, September 12 is primary day. Starting Saturday, and running through Tuesday, the Hodes campaign will be doing GOTV in Nashua. This is a good chance to get involved with the campaign, to get some training and practice at canvassing and other GOTV work before the general election.

Meet at Nashua Democratic headquarters at 82 Main Street, next to the Nashua Telegraph offices, at any of the following times:

Canvassing Saturday, September 9:

10am to 12:30 or 1:00

2pm to 4:30 or 5:00

Canvassing Sunday, September 10:

1pm-4pm

Canvassing Monday, September 11:

Starting at 9am, in 2-hour shifts.

Tuesday they're looking for poll watchers from 6am to 8pm, people to do visibility from 6am to 9am, 11:30am-1:30pm, and 5pm-8pm, as well as canvassers for 2-hour shifts all day.

There may be phonebanking to be done during the evenings as well, but that's not settled yet. To find out more you can email justin [at] hodesforcongress [dot] com.

Hey, Charlie. Define 'Soon.'

2006-09-05T16:54:00.000-04:00

Or, we'll let the American Heritage Dictionary do it for us:

1. In the near future; shortly. 2. Without hesitation; promptly: came as soon as possible. 3. Before the usual or appointed time; early.

Yeah, that's about what I thought.

It's after Labor Day. Still no Charles Foster Bass for (seventh term in) Congress campaign website. And I'm not the only one who's noticed: The Nashua Telegraph has now noted this twice. (Thanks to The Yankee Doodler for the catch.)

This is a positively Liebermanesque level of web lameness.

Blue Milford

2006-09-04T21:18:00.000-04:00

Anecdotal evidence about the country's turn against Bush and Republican control of Congress is as scary as it is tempting. In the run-up to the 2004 elections, after all, if you read left-wing blogs, you heard a lot of these stories about someone's father who'd voted for Bush in 2000 and hated him now, with the implication that that meant the country as a whole was ready to have the guy out.

Well, we know how that turned out.

This year, I've heard (read) more of that, and this time, polls are supporting the anecdotes much more clearly. But, having touched a hot surface and gotten burned two years ago, I remain nervous about touching it again even though this time the "caution: hot surface" light of polling is off.

In light of what I saw today, though, I'm reaching out to touch, because I kind of believe there may be a Democratic tidal wave coming.

Today I went to Milford for the parade there, where Paul Hodes and just about everyone else was marching. Well, ok, Paul himself was not allowed to march, since the parade organizers have some weird thing against politicians talking to and shaking hands with people (fear of politician cooties? seems an odd fear in NH of all places), so he rode on the float. But you get the picture. Charlie Bass was apparently even there, though I didn't see him. Governor Lynch was there. I'm not sure if gubernatorial candidate Jim Coburn was there himself, but he definitely had a float, plus a ginormous RV or bus with his picture on it - quite a campaign investment for a guy running against one of the most popular governors in the country. Senator Joe Biden was there. It was definitely The Place To Be, even if the opportunities for interaction with voters were sadly (and, some might say, bizarrely) limited.

The number of lawn signs for candidates was a useless measure of popularity, since the Lynch and Coburn campaigns in particular had clearly been engaged in turf wars, with some stretches of road lined by signs for one or the other candidate every two feet. In at least one spot, they seemed to be trying to outflank each other - the signs went Lynch-Coburn-Lynch-Coburn, so close together that you couldn't read any individual sign for a block. Whoever had the end sign in either direction got the visibility, and other than that it was a blur.

Because it was against the rules, nobody associated with the campaigns handed out stickers as their own float went by, but most of the campaigns had people working the crowds separately, doing so. Some little kids clearly cared much more for stickers than for partisanship, and were sporting both Coburn and Lynch stickers. Everyone, and I mean everyone, had a Lynch sticker. I think I saw about 10 adults out of hundreds of people who had Coburn stickers.

As we started the parade route, almost no one was wearing a Hodes sticker. It was sort of dispiriting, although since many people waved or clapped at us in particular, it also didn't feel like a rejection. But it turned out that the people handing out the stickers had just hit that end of the route before crowds gathered, and that as we got closer to the center of town, there were not only way more people, way more of them were wearing Hodes stickers. I don't know if Bass's campaign was the only one not on top of it enough to hand out stickers, or what, but I didn't see any of his.

Looking around at all the stickers people were wearing, one of the other volunteers in the Hodes contingent said "this sure is a blue town." And today, it was.

But in 2004, Milford voted for George W. Bush and Craig Benson. John Kerry and John Lynch won New Hampshire as a whole, and the second district in particular, but Bush carried Milford 3,757-3,516 and Benson got it 3,877-3361. Those are close votes, but they are Republican wins. The sticker vote today was not close, and it was a Democratic win.

As I began by saying, I have serious hesitations about attributing meaning to this sort of thing. But, as I also said, it's tempting...and this isn't a story about one person turning against Bush, it's about a town crowded with people embracing Democratic candidates, at least enough to wear their stickers.

Feels pretty good.

Red-Handed Redux

2006-09-02T16:55:00.000-04:00

So NH-02 Progressive has found confirmation that the MoveOn ads WMUR resumed running omitted the description of Charlie Bass as "red-handed."

The Yankee Doodler has already found an appropriate use of "red-handed" courtesy of Ari Fleischer - that Iraq had been "caught red-handed" with WMDs. Yeah, right. So anyway.

Now in comments at Daily Kos, Elwood Dowd brings us some other examples.

From the Washington Post, on Sen. George Allen's "macaca" incident:

But Allen failed to follow the other George's playbook for what to do when caught red-handed.

Again from the Washington Post, this time a quote from a National Review editor:

National Review Editor Rich Lowry accused the department of trying to "bully" his reporter. "He caught them red-handed on a program designed to coddle the Saudis," Lowry said. "He didn't go to Columbia Journalism School. He's just aggressive and has a good nose for things."

Clearly the Washington Post and Rich Lowry should both be sued for defamation for their uses of that dreadful word. Perhaps after their poor victims are revived with smelling salts, they will be sued.

I'm sure there are more such uses out there, and I'll be looking.

Fundraising Reports.

2006-09-02T16:27:00.000-04:00

DavidNYC has the fundraising numbers for Paul Hodes and Charlie Bass up at Swing State Project, and for the first time this year, Bass has outraised Hodes, $134,000 to $101,000. Bass's cash on hand now stands at $503,000 while Hodes has $410,000.

David notes that this is "yet another unimpressive showing for an endangered incumbent." I'll just second that.

Valley News Kicks Sensenbrenner, Bass Ass

2006-09-01T00:59:00.000-04:00

The Valley News has weighed in on last week's US House immigration hearing. And, well, if the Union Leader was hard on the motivations behind and conduct of the hearing, you can imagine where a paper that's not hard right went with it.

They start off with a little misdirection:

On behalf of the state of New Hampshire, we'd like to thank the U.S. House Judiciary Committee for traveling up to Concord last week to hold a hearing on the immigration bills now before Congress...It's not often that people in the hinterlands get such a clear, close-up view of Congress at work.

And you're thinking "the Union Leader was more critical than the Valley News??? The hell?????"

Then they lower the boom:

And if not for the fact that the committee demonstrated its contempt for the people of this state and its indifference to actually doing anything about a serious issue, this absurdist-theater performance might have been amusing, or at least entertaining.

And finally, they bring it on home, to New Hampshire and Charlie Bass:

If the committee didn't have the slightest interest in actually learning what New Hampshire residents thought about immigration, why did it go to the trouble of staging this dog and pony show? A Democratic member of the committee suggested that it was put on for the political benefit of Reps. Charlie Bass and Jeb Bradley, the state's two Republican congressmen who acted as “hosts” and sat with the committee.

“I have no objection to the idea that we would have the debate in Concord, N.H., or Concord, Calif., or anywhere else in the United States because it's good for America to participate in this important issue,” said Bass.

“Participate”? Does even one of New Hampshire's own representatives have such little respect for the intelligence of the people of this state?

I'm thinking that's a rhetorical question, but sometimes even rhetorical questions are worth answering: That is exactly how much respect Charlie Bass has for us. This is the kind of government he stands for - voters, like children, are to be seen and not heard.

Kudos to the Valley News and Union Leader for calling the Republican show-trial organizers on this. And, again, to the Democrats on that committee for relentlessly calling attention to what was going on.

Paul Hodes on YouTube

2006-08-31T20:45:00.000-04:00

Here's a short interview with Paul Hodes done at the event in Stoddard with Mark Warner a couple weeks ago. It gives a nice little thumbnail intro to what Hodes is like in person. Go watch it, and forward the link around to anyone who might want to get a sense of the guy.

Good for WMUR

2006-08-31T20:43:00.000-04:00

After taking the anti-Bass MoveOn ads off the air for a while, WMUR is again running an ad - I'm not sure whether it's the original one or a replacement.

Charlie Bass is still a disingenuous whiner for attempting to intimidate them into removing the ads.

Red-Handed:

2006-08-30T01:32:00.000-04:00

American Heritage College Dictionary:

In the act of committing something wrong.

Merriam-Webster:

In the act of committing a crime or misdeed.

So Charlie Bass doesn't like MoveOn's ads about his Iraq appropriations votes because of that word. According to the Concord Monitor (thanks to NH-02 Progressive for the catch)

Bass's campaign singled out the claim that Bass was caught red-handed. The campaign, using the Oxford English Dictionary, said the term means Bass has been caught in "the very act of crime."
"It is an intentional and false smear on his character and integrity," the letter said.

Anyone wonder how many dictionaries they looked at before they found the one that just said "crime" and not "crime OR misdeed/something wrong"?

Because it would be wrong to accuse Bass of an actual crime. He didn't commit one. But see, in voting for funding for the Iraq war on 13 separate occasions (PDF), he did "commit something wrong" or "commit a misdeed." Or, you know, 13 of them.

Did he know the first time he voted for money for Iraq that the things the MoveOn ad details would happen - that Halliburton would get $18 billion, much of it in no-bid contracts, that nearly $9 billion would end up "unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management"? Probably not.

Maybe Charlie Bass didn't know those things the second, or the third or even the fourth times he voted for money for Iraq. But the eleventh time? The twelfth? The thirteenth? If he didn't know by then what he was voting for, his red-handedness problem stems not from being caught in a misdeed but in stupidity that defies belief.

In any case, the facts are indisputable: Whatever you thought of it at its inception, whatever you think of the politics or morality of it, the Iraq war has been horrifically mismanaged. And Charlie Bass has been there every step of the way, helping make it go on and on and on. That is the result of his "character and integrity."

2,638 members of the American military dead. Tens of thousands of Iraqis dead. Tens of thousands of Americans wounded. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent. Growing civil war in Iraq. No end in sight.

But no, it would be wrong to use a word like "red-handed."

I Cannot Believe I'm Saying This

2006-08-29T13:21:00.000-04:00

::deep breath::

The Union Leader has a good editorial on the immigration hearing I wrote about Thursday.

Clearly, this was no hearing, it was a traveling road show, a campaign event disguised as a public hearing.

and

Next time, we hope [Sensenbrenner] will remember that the people of New Hampshire are more politically savvy than he thinks. If members of Congress are going to come here to hold a "hearing," we expect that they will be the ones doing the listening.

I'm just stunned. My best theory here is that the Union Leader's politics are trumped only by its fierce New Hampshire boosterism. In any case, good for them.

On Deciding to Blog

2006-08-26T21:16:00.000-04:00

Recently, the proprietors of NH-02 Progressive and The Yankee Doodler and I have been talking about how it is that we all started blogging in the space of a month or so when there hadn't been much NH blogging to that point. So this is my story.

One of the first places I saw Paul Hodes seriously discussed was in a netroots candidates nomination thread at Daily Kos, so the question of whether Hodes would be added to that list was on my mind from the beginning. In fact, it would be fair to say I thought about it quite a bit. Ok, in actual fact I made a table with the requirements for consideration and tried to fill in which requirements the proposed candidates fulfilled and how much support there was for them. And it was clear that the single major strike against Paul Hodes would be the lack of a local blogosphere.

I fretted about this, but I certainly didn't feel equipped to do anything about it. Then Hodes was put on the list and it didn't stop my fretting, because when you looked at the ActBlue netroots page, everyone else had local blogs listed and Hodes only had Swing State Project. SSP is pretty formidable, but not local. I worried that would discredit him for some people.

The thing is, I'm not generally big on taking initiative or taking the lead. I'm just not. I don't enjoy taking risks, and in cases like this, I tend to believe there's someone more qualified out there. It's not that I don't think I'm competent and smart, just that I believe someone else is bound to be more so on any given topic, and that I'm most useful providing support to them as much as I can, working hard maybe but in the background. That was certainly the case here.

And it's never been an ambition of mine to blog. I spend huge chunks of my life at Daily Kos, but I've only ever even diaried irregularly there. I'm much more comfortable as a commenter, engaging in discussion in a framework someone else sets (maybe attacking that framework as inadequate, but still taking it as a starting point). In that context I can be forceful, but I'm happiest sitting back at least that far.

So anyway, there I am, in no doubt that there needs to be a local blog covering NH-02, but sure that there's someone better to do it. But all those better people, they're not coming forward. Finally, at the end of June, DavidNYC and I had an exchange of emails in which he took my reasons for hesitating and demolished them one by one.

(Paraphrasing:)

"I don't know enough."

"Yes you do. And anyway, all you need is critical thinking skills + google."

"I don't know tech stuff."

"You diary at Daily Kos. You know enough. Just go to blogger."

And so on. So I told myself, well, even if it totally sucks, it's a local blog for them to post on the ActBlue page, so mission accomplished no matter.

Ironically, after I had my name and had set up my template, but before I'd posted, Yankee Doodler got going. But having agonized for so long before making up my mind to do it, my mind was made up to do it. Then a little while later, I happen across NH-02 Progressive. But instead of feeling like I've been let off the hook, they've really spurred me to care more, to look harder for stories, to think more creatively about my take on any given story. It's become this genuinely fun and engrossing and stimulating thing in my life, one that makes me feel purposeful and potentially if not yet actually useful.

Dems Call Bullshit on House Immigration Hearing

2006-08-24T17:43:00.000-04:00

Today I went to a House Judiciary Committee hearing on immigration, held in Concord, New Hampshire, really to get a first in-person look at Charlie Bass, who currently fails to represent me in Congress and who was, shockingly enough, included at the hearing despite not being on the relevant committee (nothing political here, though, move along). But Charlie turned out not to be the story for me. Instead, what struck me (repeatedly, hard) was how hard the Democrats on the committee were fighting Republican tricks-playing.

So why was there hearing on immigration in a state with as few immigrants as New Hampshire?

The Yankee Doodler has already highlighted an AP story asking those questions prior to the hearing:

Critics questioned why New Hampshire - which has few immigrants - was chosen to host a hearing. They also asked why hearings were needed since both bills already have passed.

and

"This is just a normal congressional committee hearing," [spokesman for James Sensenbrenner, R-WI] Lungren said.

He was less able to explain why New Hampshire was picked. "Basically I don't have a good reason for exactly why New Hampshire, other than we're having them all across the country."

Not only was the placement of the hearing politicized, so was its title, which referred to the "Reid-Kennedy Amnesty Bill" - the heading on the press release referred to the "staggering costs" of the bill. So as I entered the hearing a few minutes late today, I was glad to hear Marty Meehan (MA-05) hammering on both those points, insisting that the hearing was an inappropriate substitute for negotiation between the House and Senate to reconcile their two immigration bills, and detailing the bipartisan nature of the supposed "Reid-Kennedy" bill, the sponsors of which actually include Specter and McCain.

Throughout the hearing Meehan and fellow Democrats William Delahunt (MA-10) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20) kept up that refrain in a way that would almost make you question all those accusations that Democrats these days lack spines or message discipline. It was actually pretty inspiring.

There were five witnesses, ranging ideologically from really, really hating illegal immigrants (many of whom are apparently murderers seeking to adopt new identities and become legal under the proposed amnesty) to thinking that it would be a good thing if children of illegal immigrants were able to get good, consistent medical care. Each had 5 minutes of testimony, followed in theory by questions from the committee members but in practice by argument from said committee members.

This is where the Democrats hit hard. Each took on specific questions relating to the testimony that had been given, but also continually brought into question the motivation for the hearing itself. Meehan questioned the decision to hold hearings around the country, arguing that it is unprecedented for the House and Senate to both pass bills and then, rather than going into conference, to hold hearings. He suggested that Republicans are making border enforcement and immigration issues appear more difficult than they are in order to build them up as election issues.

Delahunt, again noting that committee members should not be at a hearing in New Hampshire but in Washington in conference with the Senate, said that President Bush had called Mexican President Vicente Fox to say that there was no hope of legislation being passed just now. With Republicans controlling the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, he said, such delay tactics are clearly to secure political advantage. But what political advantage specifically? He dismissed the notion that the hearing might be being held in NH to pressure Senator Gregg to come over to the view of House Republicans, suggesting instead that it was probably about New Hampshire's two competitive House races, which was why the Democrats would be holding a press conference to follow the hearing.

Wasserman Schultz followed up by discussing a chart Delahunt had introduced which showed three ways in which border and immigration enforcement under Clinton had exponentially outstripped it under Bush. She argued that the Republican administration and Congress had had the opportunity to get the job done but instead were just talking about it, then pointed out that the "staggering cost" of the Senate bill - $127 billion over 10 years - was about 1/3 of what has already been spent in Iraq, questioning whether the Republicans were really saying that that amount of money was not worth spending to solve a major issue critical to national security and many other areas of concern.

In a second round of questions/statements from the committee members, the Democrats continued to just pound away at these themes, with Wasserman Schultz also introducing the question of why New Hampshire Congressmen Bass and Bradley had voted against enhanced border security 10 times.

(Bass, who I was after all there to see, gave a brief and fairly content-free statement, which I imagine is largely similar to his Union Leader op-ed. My major impression of him was that he looks like an unsuccessful accountant in a cheap suit, and appeared to be incredibly bored most of the time, except when Bradley arrived and they started whispering together. Nothing much to report about him.)

At the end of the hearing, I was just looking around at the crowd, trying to see if there were visible contingents of people concerned with the issue (for instance, I saw one SEIU t-shirt, and one in a Legalize the Irish t-shirt), when Dana Houle, Paul Hodes' campaign manager, beckoned me over to where the Democrats were holding a press conference in the next room.

Well, that was fun. They'd been pretty forceful in the hearing, but in the press conference were even more so.

They again raised the question of why "our friends in New Hampshire" talk about support for border enforcement while the record of their votes belies such support, presenting a chart detailing Bass and Bradley's votes against enforcement and suggesting that either Bass and Bradley had to explain a rationale for those votes or answer the question of whether they were marching in lockstep with Republican leadership.

Asked about the politics of the hearings, Meehan said they were a "dumb idea." The Republicans have control of the government and yet have failed to pass legislation, and are now engaging in hearings which are dumb politically, having drawn negative editorials in several places, and dumb procedurally, costing taxpayer money to put on. A rather argumentative questioner followed up, asking if the Democrats were not playing politics by holding this press conference and using it to question the records of Bass and Bradley. Meehan and Wasserman Schultz answered forcefully, pointing out that they would not have been there if the Republicans had not set up the hearing, that they were doing their jobs as committee members in attending but also that as Democrats they would not allow the political ploy to go unanswered.

As Wasserman Schultz said, "we don't believe in unilateral disarmament if that's what you're asking."

And that's what was inspiring about today: sometimes it seems like Democratic officials do believe in unilateral disarmament. Today, they didn't, and they kicked ass at it. They kicked ass on the specifics of immigration, they kicked ass on the political game-playing of the fact that this hearing was held at all, and they kicked ass on the specific races that were clearly being targeted by holding Bass and Bradley's records up to the light.

MoveOn Running Ads Against Bass

2006-08-23T13:35:00.000-04:00

In yet another suggestion that national progressive and/or Democratic organizations see this as a promising race and that Paul Hodes is on the right track, MoveOn is running tv ads against Charlie Bass, focusing on Iraq appropriations. The Boston Globe website is covering this, and you can see the ad at MoveOn's site (link to ad in upper right corner). MoveOn also has a PDF file of the text of the ad, with factual basis given for each claim made.

The ad shows a dump truck dumping bags of money in the desert, with a voiceover saying

What happened to the 300 billion dollars we sent to Iraq?

Halliburton got 18 billion.

9 billion is just plain missing.

And our Congressman Charlie Bass has been caught Red Handed voting for all of it. [here showing black and white image of Charlie with a red hand]

That's money we need for jobs and healthcare here in New Hampshire.

Now Charlie Bass is ready to dump billions more in Iraq.

Charlie Bass: Another Republican caught redhanded.

I'm curious to know where and how often the ad will be showing, so if you see them, let me know. (In the mean time, I guess that's an excuse to watch more tv for a while.)

Hodes Breaks In-State Fundraising Record

2006-08-22T21:08:00.000-04:00

Back when the second-quarter fundraising totals were announced, I and others noted that Paul Hodes had raised more money from people in New Hampshire than any other candidate in NH-02, Charlie Bass included, had ever done.

Well, he's gone one better. Tonight at a meet the candidates event held by the Rumney Democrats, Hodes announced that he has now broken the all-time record for in-state fundraising for any Congressional candidate in any party for an entire cycle.

And there's time yet before the election for that record to be not just broken but ground to dust. (If you're out of state, don't think you don't count - do feel free to contribute.) Reminder number 50,268: Tomorrow is the pre-primary filing deadline. It's a good time to contribute, so that he can turn in strong numbers. Not that that sounds like it's going to be a problem.

Pardon Me While I Get Cheesy and Touchy-Feely for a Sec

2006-08-22T16:36:00.000-04:00

This is going in a direction I don't usually go here, so bear with me or not as you choose. I spent the last few days out of the state, and driving back home today, up I-91, I looked, as I usually do, to New Hampshire on my right. And, as I usually am, I was overwhelmed by how beautiful it is. I've been to many beautiful places, but I don't think any of them felt as right as this one. Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park, in California, is breathtaking. The vastness of the mountains and canyons and sky makes you realize how very very tiny we all are, how insignificant. Western Ireland is glowing-green and soft and gorgeous in a way that makes you feel cupped and held gently. In the canyons of the San Juan river, you see the river rushing in front of you and the layered walls and the sky, a strip of vision that is always thrilling but ultimately, well, narrow.

New Hampshire has beauty in common with all of these places, but here, for me, the scale is perfect. The mountains and valleys are big enough to put me in my place, reminding me that I am small and that I should be most concerned with things bigger than myself, but they don't dwarf me, making me feel so insignificant that to try to change anything would be hopeless. The landscape is broad enough, the horizon far enough away, that I can see many things, but the mountains and trees are there for perspective, so again things don't recede into an incomprehensible vastness. I feel in place in New Hampshire, able to see where I want to go and some of how I want to get there.

It's a big task, defeating an incumbent Congressman. But we deserve better than Charlie Bass. This beautiful state deserves better than someone who gives lip service to protecting the environment but in the final analysis bends to his party leaders who see nature as something to be exploited. It is a big task, but in this landscape, in the view it gives me, I see how we can get there.

Paul Hodes Pulls Even

2006-08-22T15:44:00.000-04:00

A poll done by Anzalone Liszt Research for the Hodes campaign shows Bass at 43%, just one point ahead of Hodes' 42% - when people who are only leaning toward one candidate or the other are removed, Hodes and Bass are dead even at 40%.

At Swing State Project, DavidNYC highlights some key points, one in particular:

The absolutely amazing thing is that Bass has full name recognition - 94%. Hodes, meanwhile, is at just 27%. The only thing which can explain this is extreme voter dissastisfaction with incumbents and Republicans. Charlie Bass, of course, is both.

He also returns to the issue of sampling and partisan breakdown:

Turns out that registration in the 2nd CD is 30R-26D-44I - a four-point net GOP advantage. And these numbers are a couple of years old - if anything, I'd believe the GOP edge is a bit smaller now.

So remember that UNH poll we disected a while back? It had a partisan breakdown of 32R-23D-38I, a nine-point Republican edge. Clearly, that just doesn't reflect reality.

Anzalone Liszt's memo on the poll, available below Hodes' press release on it, notes that

Historically, this is a 50.3% Democratic performance district (John Kerry won here) and Republicans only have a four-point registration advantage over Democrats. The polling sample used in this survey also reflects a Republican registration advantage.

That and the other discussion of methodology in their memo suggest that this is a solid poll, one in which they did their best to find out the real lay of the land. As far as I can see, every single finding they came up with is positive for Hodes - in addition to the head-to-head matchup numbers, a majority of respondents said they wanted someone new elected, a majority gave negative job ratings to Congress and to Bush, a majority said the country is headed in the wrong direction, and confronted with a generic Democrat vs. Republican choice, they chose the Democrat by 50% to 29%. So this is definitely reason for us to celebrate, happy dance (or, as Yankee Doodler suggests, weeping with joy) and all.

Of course, we get this good news courtesy of a well-run, well-funded campaign. You can help them continue to be well-funded (that they may have the resources to continue to be well-run) by contributing to the campaign. And, as a reminder, tomorrow is the filing deadline, so it's especially good if you can give before then.

Because You Can Never Meet the Candidates Too Many Times

2006-08-21T11:37:00.000-04:00

I can think of nothing better to do with a Tuesday evening than go to a meet the candidates event, can you?

According to the Hodes website

Join Democrats from Orford, Rumney, Ellsworth, Worth, Campton, Holderness and Plymouth for a Meet the Candidates event.

Short presentations will be made by Democratic candidates including Paul. Possible other presentations made by John Lynch, Deborah Reynolds, Jim Aguiar, Carol Friedrich, George Morris, Bill Sharp and Martha Richards.

The event will be held at the Russel Elementary School on School Street in Rumney from 7-8:30pm Tuesday August 22nd.

Although Hanover to Rumney is a “you can’t get there from here” deal, I believe I shall go. (I’ll be the one who’s neither a dominatrix nor a fluttery girly-girl, just to narrow it down.)

Oh, and lest you forget, Wednesday is the campaign's filing deadline, so see if you can't give them a little by then.

Tell Me Again How the Media is Liberal?

2006-08-20T19:56:00.000-04:00

I'm out of town for a couple days (and in a hotter, moister part of the country - blech) so I couldn't make it to any of the many political events this weekend. But it sounds like it was quite a weekend. NH-02 Progressive is enthusiastic about Paul Hodes' performance at the event with Mark Warner - sounds like Keener's falling in love with Hodes in much the same way I am.

But that event dueled with a similar Republican event, and news coverage is instructive. The Union Leader, of course, offers a primer on how to slant your coverage to the right. It's not a surprise that they'd do so, but it's worth looking at how, and at how that contrasts with coverage from the Concord Monitor.

Keener estimated the crowd at the Democratic event at 200+; the Monitor at "several hundred." The Union Leader's estimate? "About 100 people." Even by downplaying Democratic attendance, though, they couldn't erase a significant size difference - they estimated attendance at the Republican event at "about 40 GOP faithful." I guess that, lacking quantity, they decided to give the appearance of quality - people at a Democratic event are...people, who have congregated in a place for some reason, we're not sure just what; people at a Republican event are faithful. (The Monitor gives a similar estimated attendance: "dozens.")

The Union Leader's coverage of the Democrats focuses most on former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, to the exclusion of Paul Hodes and Governor Lynch, neither of whom are mentioned until the story's final two paragraphs. This provides the illusion of balance - "look, we focused on Democrats as much as on Republicans!" - without deigning to give more than a sentence of coverage to anyone who's actually, you know, running for office this year.

Charlie Bass, meanwhile, gets to speak for himself:

"We as Republicans have a lot to celebrate with 13 or 14 straight quarters of economic growth, low unemployment and an economy that is going well," Bass said.

He noted there have not been any terrorists attacks since Sept. 11. "That is real leadership," Bass noted. "Democracy is not a natural thing. We have to nurture and maintain it."

(Ok, quick break from media critique here. That's the best he can do? "Sure, 9/11 happened on our watch but nothing just exactly like that has happened since. Iraq? Something's happening in Iraq? Well, it's not terrorism, so it doesn't matter how many people die because we just said we were stopping terrorism." And "We have to nurture and maintain [democracy]"??? How exactly are you doing that, Charlie? Wiretapping? Gitmo? Abu Ghraib? The Plame leak? I hope nobody's thinking of putting you in charge of nurturing any puppies, because nobody likes to see a starved puppy. And let's not even get started on the economy.)

The Monitor, by contrast, treats the better-attended event as genuine news and gives Hodes a spot at the table:

Hodes started his speech jovially, asking his wife, Peggo, to help the guests sing "Happy Birthday" to former President Bill Clinton, who turned 60 yesterday. Then he grew serious, criticizing Bass's support for President Bush, whom Hodes called an "emperor" and "imperial." He called for developing frugal ways to provide better social services and withdrawing from Iraq.
"We've got to get our people out of that civil war now," he said.
Democrats, he said, must do a better job of challenging Bush.
"A spine is a terrible thing to waste," he said. "And I'm bringing my backbone with me."

Yet, and this is the crucial thing, they don't blow Bass off. I see no reason to give any more coverage to his BS claims just now, but the Monitor does what the Union Leader barely even pretends to: It actually covers both events, both candidates, both speeches. And they could, you know? They could say "well, there were well over twice as many people at the Democratic event; it's clear that one is a bigger story than the other."

Just a little note on the "liberal media."

One-Month Anniversary

2006-08-20T11:16:00.000-04:00

It's now been a month since I noticed that Charlie Bass's website was "coming soon."

It still is.

I'm just wondering - when election day is like 3 1/2 months away, do you really get to define one of those months as an amount of time insignificant enough to count as "soon"?

Vote for Paul Hodes Now

2006-08-18T16:48:00.000-04:00

You can't vote for Paul Hodes in New Hampshire until November 7, but right now the DCCC has up a "Candidate for Change" vote. Hodes is not one of the candidates named, but there is a write-in option, and I'd encourage you to go vote by August 23.

Coincidentally, August 23 is also the pre-primary FEC filing deadline in NH, so now is a good time to contribute. You can do so through our new Blue Hampshire ActBlue page.

Court Rules GOP Ballot Primacy Unconstitutional

2006-08-18T15:14:00.000-04:00

Well, this could be interesting.

The Concord Monitor:

The state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the organization of the state's election ballots violates the New Hampshire Constitution. In a unanimous decision, the judges struck down a law that rewards the winning party in one election by listing the party's candidates first on the next ballot - a provision that has kept the Republicans atop the ticket for 40 years.

The new form the ballots will take is to be decided by superior court.

Responses to this decision vary from downplaying its significance (that would be Republicans, as spoken for by Wayne Semprini, state party chair), to freaking out (Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who will have to implement the new system once it's decided on), to, well...

"Oh, glory hallelujah," said state Sen. Peter Burling, a Cornish Democrat and former House minority leader. "We finally have justice; we finally have fairness."

It's not at all clear what this means for 2006. Not only have new rules not been established, but despite downplaying the effect a change will have in the long run, the Nashua Telegraph reports that some Republicans are arguing it shouldn't be implemented until 2007:

Senate President Ted Gatsas, R-Manchester, predicted the ruling would cause major voter confusion and should not be applied to the 2006 election. Putting it off would give lawmakers time during the 2007 session to create a ballot that complies with the ruling, Gatsas said.

“Turmoil for the primary and general election ballot will result otherwise,” Gatsas said. “I predict it’s going to take a massive bunch of money to do this the way the court wants it.”

However, no one else was quoted arguing for this and it does appear likely that something will be changed by November's elections, if not by the primaries in three and a half weeks.

So why and how could this be significant? Well, it turns out that being at the top of the ballot produces a "primacy effect," meaning it can garner some extra votes, as a political scientist from Stanford University hired by the Democrats found and as even the state admits:

The state did not contest that effect. Secretary of State Bill Gardner has said that the candidates at the top of the ballot can gain as much as a 6-to-10-point edge in certain races, such as House campaigns with a dozen candidates.

Instead, the state argued that placing the winning party first -and listing candidates in alphabetical order - was a practical way to produce a logical and easily understood ballot. In essence, the state contended that the system might not have been perfect, but it wasn't unconstitutional.

That's genius. No, it's not fair, yes, it could perpetuate essential one-party rule, but hey, it's easy for us to implement. And Bill Gardner is going on about the difficulties of implementing a new system as if it's the end of the world, as if no one ever before had to make a ballot that didn't always have the exact same party on top. (In fact, some are making such a big fuss over the implementation difficulties that the Keene Sentinel, running the article that the Nashua Telegraph titled "GOP's top ballot spot ruled unfair," retitled it "Ballot ruling may cost N.H. taxpayers." Yes, that's exactly the biggest news associated with this decision.)

This is very much a developing situation. It looks as though something will be changed for 2006 - but what, and what kind of effect it could have, remains in question. Should be interesting, could be good.

Policy and Politics

2006-08-17T19:11:00.000-04:00

I think that The Yankee Doodler is right that, beyond the point we all noted yesterday - Rahm Emanuel did a press conference and a fundraiser with Paul Hodes - today's story is in Charlie Bass's response.

Charlie likes to act so, so above it all, resignedly accepting the dirty, dirty fact of his opponents bringing up nasty political issues. In the Nashua Telegraph, he talks about "the difference between policy and politics" and says

“I’m going to run for re-election the way I have the previous six terms. I’m going to run a positive campaign and I’ll work harder than anyone else,’’ Bass said.

“I’ll win re-election the old fashioned way.’’

This sounds familiar. It sounds, in fact, like his derisive dismissal of issues Katrina Swett raised in 2002 as "silly season issues." And yet, color me confused, because our Charlie hasn't proven immune to "silly season issues" raised by his own party.

Let's review. How many times in the space of a month did Charlie vote against raising the minimum wage?

Seven.

When he finally did vote to raise the minimum wage, what else was he voting for?

Tax breaks for the wealthy.

Preempting state laws for tipped workers, thereby cutting wages for waiters and others in several states.

And was this bill a matter of politics, done with the November elections in mind?

Yes.

Or, regardless of season, let's think about the fact that this is the guy who showed up in the middle of the night to strip courts of their jurisdiction and Michael Schiavo of his right to allow his wife to die in peace. That was policy not politics?

For that matter, what about the press conference Bass held yesterday

to announce that all satellite-dish owners in New Hampshire can receive WMUR, the state's only network-affiliated television station.

I'm sure that'll be great for the population of people affected by his measure, that being people with satellite tv in the North Country, but as Yankee Doodler observes

It boils down to this: While Hodes wants to help you get an education, Bass gets you more TV. Bread and circuses, anyone?

(And never mind that even on the subject of tv, while Bass giveth with one hand, he taketh away with the other.)

Charlie Bass's game is to pretend to be above politics, above partisanship, while he sneaks in in the middle of the night to vote to interfere in people's personal lives. Paul Hodes, on the other hand, may be doing politics (and I'd hope so, given that this is a political campaign), but he can do so openly, without shame or sneering about it, because he is doing an honorable politics.

Rahm Emanuel! and Paul Hodes!

2006-08-17T03:15:00.000-04:00

I've just been so excited about Rahm Emanuel coming out and supporting Paul Hodes in some very public ways that I haven't been able to post on it. The Yankee Doodler has posted - and covered the substance of the college tax credit being proposed very well. Swing State Project has posted - and hat-tipped me while I sat here tongue-tied with pleasure.

Well, it's simple, really. Rahm Emanuel, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the man in charge of winning the House of Representatives for the Democrats, did a fundraiser for Paul Hodes. Rahm Emanuel did a press conference with Paul Hodes, talking about the kind of bill we'd get from a Democratic Congress - one that would make it easier for middle-class families to afford to send their kids to college without crushing debt.

Rahm Emanuel knows a thing or two about Democratic candidates for Congress, and he believes in Paul Hodes. As do I. As should you.

New Hampshire's Second Resurfaces on Hotline House Rankings

2006-08-16T14:19:00.000-04:00

After Paul Hodes was dropped from Chuck Todd's last House rankings, I pouted, folded my arms, drummed my fingers, thought disapproving thoughts.

My strategy apparently worked. That, or Hodes is running a great campaign and Bass is in trouble.

Currently, New Hampshire's second district is number 46. (And Hodes is joined in the top 50 by four other netroots candidates. You can give to Hodes and the rest of the netroots candidates at ActBlue.)

And that's just in time for a last push toward the August 23 pre-primary fundraising report deadline. If you're looking for a good political investment, Paul Hodes could be your guy. He'll make a wonderful member of Congress, the kind that his constituents and the country at large can be proud of.

Charles Bass's Sorry Record on Social Security

2006-08-15T14:20:00.000-04:00

One of the things that Bush and members of the Republican leadership have made known will happen if they retain a majority after November is that they will again go after Social Security. For instance, Majority Leader John Boehner says "If I’m around in a leadership role come January, we’re going to get serious about this." Josh Marshall has been all over this - see here, here, and here for starters. This was not, you may recall, a winning strategy in 2005, with polling finding that 64% of Americans disapproved of Bush on Social Security in June of that year, but apparently they are eager for another go-around.

I've read various references to Charlie Bass being in favor of privatizing Social Security. But that can mean a variety of things. Some politicians will go along with Bush if that's what he wants. Some aren't sure what they think is right, or aren't willing to say so if they are sure. And then there are those who really, really believe in privatizing Social Security. Turns out, Bass is and has been a full-on, no flip-flopping privatizer for some time now.

He has consistently refused to sign the pledge to protect Social Security. In 2001, (PDF)

Bass joined more than 100 Members of Congress in writing a letter to President Bush's Social Security Commission strongly endorsing the Commission's work and urging privatization.

In the same year (and from the same PDF)

Bass voted for a federal budget that uses the Social Security Trust Fund for other purposes, including the Bush tax cut package that largely benefits the wealthiest.

In 2002, Bass said (PDF)

I am an advocate of the President's call for Social Security reform and will work with him in the next two years to save and protect this important program. I will also work to meet our shared goal of implementing these policies while practicing sound fiscal restraint and slowing the growth of government.

The Campaign for America's Future (yet another PDF) considers Bass to be a "privatization ideologue." Also according to the Campaign for America's Future (this time not a PDF) :

215,453 people from New Hampshire receive Social Security checks each month

152,109 receive retirement benefits

39,603 receive disability benefits

23,741 widows, widowers and children receive survivors benefits
(Social Security Administration)

71,000 New Hampshire seniors rely on Social Security for at least half of their total income today. (Economic Policy Institute)

35,000 New Hampshire seniors rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income today. (Economic Policy Institute)

63,000 New Hampshire seniors would live in poverty without Social Security benefits. (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)

More than $2,336,676,000 flowed into the New Hampshire economy from Social Security checks in 2004 - more than $194,723,000 per month. (Social Security Administration)

Typical New Hampshirites would see their Social Security benefits cut by $210,283 over their lifetime with the president's plan.

The average Social Security check for retired New Hampshirites is $944 per month. (Social Security Administration)

According to the Left Coaster, there are nearly 75,000 Social Security retirees in NH-02. Bass believes in taking away the safety net of his elderly constituents, and even more so the safety net for his younger constituents as they age. If there is a Republican Congress in 2007, we can expect to see him voting enthusiastically to dismantle Social Security, replacing it with mandatory private accounts that will be vulnerable to the fluctuations of the stock market. The stock market drops, elderly people are left with nothing. That's Charlie Bass policy for you.

Go Read Yankee Doodler NOW!

2006-08-12T23:54:00.000-04:00

The Yankee Doodler has a new post that's too important to miss.

A challenge: Read it, and then come talk to me about Charles Bass's commitment to the environment.

Read it, and come tell me about his commitment to the health and well-being of the people of New Hampshire.

Read it, and come talk to me about his independence.

Just read it.

Back Soon

2006-08-10T14:03:00.000-04:00

I'm going to be out of town until Monday, which will of course produce a massive change from my otherwise-heavy posting this week.

In the mean time, The Yankee Doodler is back from vacation and NH-02 Progressive will continue to be on a normal schedule, whatever that means.

Any bets on whether Bass's website will return before I do?

Paul Hodes in Alstead

2006-08-07T16:12:00.000-04:00

I'll be honest with you.

When I first looked at the candidates for House of Representatives in NH-02, I was most immediately struck by the falsehood of Charles Bass's claims to being a moderate. Votes with the Republicans 89% of the time? Not a moderate. End of story.

Paul Hodes is a Democrat. That was all I knew, and given his opponent, that was about good enough. Short of certain kinds of craziness, I was supporting him. When I saw the various Swing State Project posts on him, I thought "oh, good, it's actually a race." And I figured that if the guy was actually nuts, it wouldn't be a race anyway, or at least one of the SSP posts would have some kind of caveat about that. So I figured Hodes was reasonably solid, and I started doing a little research and I liked what I found.

Focused a little more on Bass's record and continued not to like what I found. But I understand why name recognition is a challenge for people like Paul Hodes, because I wanted to learn about him and it was difficult.

So I went and met him. And I was impressed, based on a very brief conversation. But this sunday I got a more complete view at a Meet the Candidates event put on by the Alstead Democrats. And now I'm more impressed.

I was a little late getting there and he was already speaking, so I missed however he began, and I was exhausted so my processing speed was poor, but he never hit an off note. He talked about how the US is faced with "great challenges and great opportunities," and needs a government that can do something other than "talking tough and acting dumb," how the technical and entrepreneurial skills exist to meet a whole range of problems but we lack the leadership to do it. He noted that it might take sacrifice and hard work to do so, but that can and must. Call me silly, but I like to hear the word "sacrifice" coming from a politician, rather than just sweeping promises with no recognition that there may be tradeoffs down the road.

The thing I like best in what he said is that he's so clearly committed to reaching out beyond the core of the Democratic party. It's not that he seems to want to participate in the current horse-trading notion of bipartisanship in which people cut cheap deals with each other to be able to brag that they can work with the other party; rather, he seems open to considering a range of opinions and consulting with a range of people. He said "As Democrats in New Hampshire, we must talk with independents and thoughtful Republicans." As he talked, it was clear how genuine a sentiment this was; it was also clear that he would be willing and able to talk to different wings of the Democratic party, as for instance when he called for universal healthcare but rather than laying out one plan as the only way to go, referred respectfully and knowledgeably to both a single-payer system and to other plans that might perhaps go over a little better in the current American political atmosphere.

In addition to what he said, though, there's something else that really, really impresses me about Paul Hodes. When I talked to him, he was incredibly nice. I've also now spoken, at least briefly, with maybe six of his staffers and with his wife, and they were also all incredibly nice. I don't like the kind of politics where you vote for the person you imagine you'd most like to have a beer with, but there's something to be said for nice. Nice is a cheesy word, one that doesn't say much necessarily, but in this case I think its simplicity and generality are appropriate, because I don't mean solely that they are good at being schmoozy and affable. I mean that I'm a judgmental bitch who dislikes plenty of people basically on sight, and even I think they're good people.

Bass Following Bush's Example Yet Again

2006-08-06T23:27:00.000-04:00

From a letter to the editor in Sunday's Nashua Telegraph:

I had to work nearly 20 years before I earned four weeks of vacation. It seems that two, four or even six weeks of vacation is not enough for Congressmen Charles Bass and Jeb Bradley, and Sens. John Sununu and Judd Gregg.

As an example, Charlie Bass has already taken seven weeks of vacation already in 2006. No wonder nothing gets done in Washington......

Wouldn't want to make Bush look bad by actually doing your job, I guess.

Actually, there's more substance to the letter, but anyway.

Paul Hodes on Homeland Security

2006-08-05T01:51:00.000-04:00

Paul Hodes does a masterful job addressing homeland security in an AP article, to be found at the Boston Globe site. I say masterful because he hits the stuff one needs to say to questions like these--again and again the article presents him "agreeing" or "sharing concerns" with the Republicans in the race (incumbent Charles Bass and his primary opponent Berlin Mayor Bob Danderson)--and then he goes a solid step beyond.

For instance, Hodes and Bass both told the AP they were concerned about the strain imposed on the National Guard by overseas duty.

BUT

Hodes is more forceful than Bass in expressing that view.
"We should adhere to the Guard's traditional role as stewards of domestic security, not as a standard military option for deployment in extended wars like Iraq," he said. He blames some of the shortcomings in the nation's response to Hurricane Katrina on a shortage of specially trained Guard members due to deployments in Iraq.

Or, on the relationship between national security and civil liberties, it becomes clear that though Bass gives lip service to the importance of civil liberties, Hodes really means it:

But Hodes said he is uncomfortable about the administration's commitment to civil liberties.
"I find it disconcerting that President Bush talks about an unending war on terrorism. I do not advocate any permanent suspension of civil liberties," he said.

Hodes also continues to see the interconnections between seemingly unconnected issues. For instance, he is quoted saying that

The problem with homeland security grants is that President Bush and Congress have cut homeland security to pay for tax breaks for the super-rich.

That kind of understanding of the trade-offs involved in government funding, and willingness to speak to it clearly and directly, distinguish Hodes from the mush of a Bass too scared to participate in serious discussion of policies he won't know if he supports or opposes until he gets the word from his masters in the Republican leadership.

Breaking News

2006-08-03T22:32:00.000-04:00

Charlie Bass's campaign website is still "coming soon!"

As it has been since at least July 20.

It just amuses me to keep track.

Poll Ungoodness.

2006-08-02T00:17:00.000-04:00

At Swing State Project, DavidNYC looks at a new Granite State Poll, which is not as good for Hodes as their April poll was. In April, they put the race at Bass 42% - Hodes 35%. This time, they have it at Bass 53% - Hodes 25%. So what would account for a 10 point swing?

David suggests that it's much more about the poll, specifically the sample, than about the race:

The current sample has 10% more Republicans than the prior poll. While I'm aware that party ID among independents tends to shift with the political winds, there's been nothing to suggest that even so much as a gentle zephyr has been blowing in the GOP's direction in New Hampshire over the last twelve weeks. What's more, if Bush's favorability shows an increase comparable to Bass's, that would make him more popular in blue New Hampshire than in the nation as a whole - and more popular than he's been in the state since January.

I would add one or two other things supporting this critique. This poll puts Bass's favorable ratings higher than they've been since October 2003, and his net favorability hasn't been this high since July 2004. Where would that be coming from? I could see a rebound of a few points, but a 2 or nearly-3-year high, depending on the measure you look at? Not so much, especially given that he doesn't seem to be campaigning actively or be in other ways visible in the district. This poll also has the first district's Jeb Bradley at an all-time high net favorability. Given that polls of the rest of the northeast seem to be coming out distinctly negative for Republicans, I'm just not buying this result without an argument as to why New Hampshire would be so distinctive at this moment in time.

(A possibly interesting side point echoes the pattern cited by Keener and SSP: While Bass's favorables are lowest among people who have been NH residents for 5 years or less, in the head-to-head match-up, Hodes does best among people who have been in NH for 11-20 years. There's no significant difference in Hodes' numbers for the other three length of residency categories, but Bass's next-worst group is the 20+ years.)

Update: In comments at SSP, bosdcla14 notes

Also bizarre: All of Bass's new support in this poll came from former Hodes supporters. The number of undecideds stayed the same.

Canvassing Keene

2006-07-29T21:44:00.000-04:00

There's not a huge amount to say about today's "Democratic Reunion" canvassing event in Keene except that it was good. ("Good" - now there's some razor-sharp writing for you. I guess the other thing to be said is I'm exhausted.)

I didn't think to count, but there were maybe 8-10 just regular people there plus a few people from campaigns - in particular Molly Kelly's state senate campaign and several staffers from the Hodes campaign. We were giving out the generic Democratic party doorhangers but were really focusing on literature for Hodes and Kelly (we were also distributing literature from Governor Lynch, but I think the prevailing feeling was that we didn't need to try too hard to sell him). I'm glad we were focusing on candidates rather than trying to sell the Democratic party in some generic way; it gave the day more purpose and was something that I anyway could do with more conviction than being like "look, there are six bullet points on this doorhanger! which one would you like to discuss?"

We went out in groups of 2 and 3, and were going to the homes of people identified as Democrats or leaning Democratic. In truth, we didn't end up talking to all that many people, late saturday morning being what it is. And hardly anyone seemed much like they were just leaning Democratic - maybe that was luck of the draw, or maybe it was a reflection of what's happening with independent voters in general (fingers crossed). Instead, almost everyone I talked to wanted to talk about how they wished they could get rid of Bush right now, how much they hated him. One little old lady said she wanted to "give him a kick in the fanny." Those criticisms of Bush provided the perfect entry to point out that Bass is a reliable vote pushing Bush's agenda, and that they could take a lot of power away from Bush by helping to take down the Republican majority in the House.

The only person I walked away from unsure of how they'd vote was a man who is clearly one of those people who takes suspicion of politicians as a point of pride, a sign that he's sharper and smarter and less easily fooled than most. I dutifully chuckled at his unbelievably stale jokes about how you know politicians are lying because their lips are moving, etc etc, and reiterated that Paul Hodes is a very good guy - this guy seemed like one of those oft-referred-to people who vote based on their gut reaction to a candidate rather than anything about the policies, so no point going there.

However, I came away from that interaction with one nice thing: I had not yet heard the nickname "Charlie Basstard."

It was miserably hot - one woman who initially said she didn't need any information on the candidates because she knew she was voting a straight Democratic ticket looked at my wiping sweat away to keep it out of my eyes and said she'd take the literature because I was out in this hot weather. It's not like I was on commission, but it was sweet nonetheless. At least my red red sunburn didn't develop its fully coloring until later, because I don't think it would've looked good against my pale pink shirt. As it is, I'm left with a square neckline imprinted on me. Lurvely.

There's no big point here. I recommend canvassing highly - it was great to see both volunteers and campaign staff out doing this, it was genuinely fun talking to people, I feel like maybe, maybe we could've at least laid the groundwork for making some kind of difference come November. What more could you want?

In other news, Republican corruption continues:

More sleaze from Doug Lamborn. Rick Renzi is named one of the most corrupt reps in Congress. John Hostettler cited w/ gun at airport. Conrad Burns calls firefighters lazy. J.D. Hayworth's supporter spews hatred.

Jim Talent thinks opponent should file on time, even during the weekend her compliance director dies tragically. Michael Steele compares stem cell research to the Holocaust.
John Doolittle's connections to Abramoff and Delay become problematic. People continue to say no to Richard Pombo.

Brian Bilbray a target of a criminal investigation. And Marilyn Musgrave is one of the 10 worst members of Congress.

Against It Before He Was for It.

2006-07-29T19:25:00.000-04:00

Imagine that. Charles Bass voted to raise the minimum wage.

After voting against raising the minimum wage something like seven times in a month, Charlie Bass voted to raise it.

A day after his representatives were quoted saying that, in calling for a raise in the minimum wage, Paul Hodes was "attacking a problem that doesn’t exist," Charlie Bass voted to raise it.

What possibly could have changed his mind so quickly?

Could it be the fact that House Republican leadership tied an increase in the minimum wage to a reduction in the estate tax, to better protect the transmission of wealth from one generation to the next for the very richest Americans? Might that be what made it ok for this "moderate," "independent" Republican to support inching up pay for the hard work of the lowest-paid Americans?

All those votes against raising the minimum wage? That's because those votes were on "Democratic gimmicks" that would have hurt people. It's a good thing Republicans don't get gimmicky with their bills:

The minimum wage vote came after House Republican leaders scrambled to respond to appeals from Republicans in the Northeast and the Midwest who said they needed to dilute escalating Democratic attacks and were worried they would be pounded in the August recess by labor groups. Some Republicans said they would have preferred that the wage increase be tied to legislation other than the estate tax cut, with a health initiative for small businesses one popular alternative.

But Republican leaders seized on the opportunity to advance the estate tax plan, and advocates of a wage increase went along. “It could have been done differently,” said Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, “but it is done.”

This does look like a vote of principle on Bass's part. It's just a shame that the principle in question is obedience to his Republican party masters and service to the very wealthiest Americans, with no consideration for the hard-working poor.