THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Follow our progress toward the presidential election of 2008 on this page. This election is our next, and most important opportunity to rescue America from the hands of the extremist neoconservatives that have taken control of our country. Nothing less than world peace and the security of our constitutional rights is at stake.

UPDATE ON THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL RACE
(Reprinted from the June 1, 2006 Newsletter)

The Tradesports.com website still shows a virtual dead heat in the overall chances of winning the presidential election in 2008. It has reversed, however, to 49.2% vs. 48.4% in favor of the Democrats. The closeness comes in spite of George Bush’s extremely low approval ratings. This may be because many people feel that the current Democratic front-runner is not likely to win the general election.

Front-runners in both parties faded a bit but their hold on the lead remained firm. The odds below are made by people placing bets, and it is not surprising that they are putting their money where the political contributions are going.

Republican Candidates

HILLARY'S FOOLISH SHIFT TO THE RIGHT
(Reprinted from the June 1, 2006 Newsletter)

On Tuesday, May 9, during a talk at the National Archives, Hillary Clinton was asked to say one nice thing about President Bush. She outdid herself in a foolish attempt to broaden her appeal.

The current leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination lauded Bush on his personal congeniality and his “on track” promises to help the people of New York after 9/11. Hillary did not seem to understand, or care, that Bush is only friendly when it suits his purposes, and his promises are likewise only fulfilled when it is to his advantage. Her speech was not the kind that should be made by someone who wants the job of leading the American people against the neocon mob, or of defending the Constitution. Hillary’s words were that of a political opportunist, and not a political hero, a wimp and not a winner. We’ve seen enough of those types.

The pundits are all over the board on this one. Some are saying that she is the only one that can beat McCain, while McCain people are saying that he is the only one who can beat her. The most telling comments are coming from Republicans who would like to support her in November. They want her to win big in order to be sure that she will be the nominee in 2008. When she becomes the nominee, they will swift-boat her from the first minute. She will be so ridiculed and maligned, and be so unprepared for it, that by the time the election comes around she will be buried in a pile of political garbage and go the sorry way of Gore and Kerry. I am not saying that she would lose her cool, but it won’t matter.

I believe that almost any of the top Democratic candidates can beat John McCain except Hillary Clinton. The Republicans want Hillary Clinton to run.

One advantage to the Republicans in having Hillary as their opponent is that their constituency hates her so much that it will be easy to get donations for their candidate, and to rally support against her. The kicker is that a lot of Democratic voters hate her also.

Hillary Clinton has never come out clearly against the war and has rejected Russ Feingold’s censure motion. She has formed temporary expeditious alliances on different issues with Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich and Bill Frist, but none of them is more politically naive then her association with Rupert Murdoch.

On May 9, Murdoch and Hillary Clinton jointly announced that he would run a breakfast fundraiser to help her with her 2006 Senate campaign. Murdoch owns the conservative New York Post, and the sleazy “fair and balanced” right-wing Fox News Channel. He campaigned against Clinton when she ran for the Senate in 2000. Hillary’s acceptance of Murdoch’s help is a little like a child being lured into the car of a pedophile with an offer of candy.

If Hillary wins big in 2006 it would be hard to stop her from getting the Democratic nomination in 2008. If she has a tough race, then the nomination is up for grabs. Can Karl Rove’s plan be any more obvious? Rove’s careful statement on the nomination was that “anybody who thinks that she’s not going to be the candidate is kidding themselves”. Short of an endorsement, but certainly a hint that Democrats and donors should get behind her if they know what’s good for them. Could it be more obvious that the Republicans be supporting the candidate that they’d most like to run against? Letting the Republicans pick the Democrat’s candidate is like letting the cat baby-sit the mouse.

McCain is also a loser. He has lost the aura of moderation that he once had, and he has inextricably tied himself to the extreme right. He has sought, and had photo opportunities with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. He firmly supports the war in Iraq, the teaching of intelligent design and the rest of the right-wing agenda. On abortion, he has told supporters that he would only nominate pro-life judges. Even Bush was not willing to say that out loud.

PEOPLE POLLS VS. WAGER POLLS
(Reprinted from the June 1, 2006 Newsletter)

Averages of all major polls, as published in Wikipedia show a large divergence in opinion from the probabilities on tradesports.com that this newsletter presents on page two. The difference may have to do with hopes and wishes vs. the pragmatism of people making a financial commitment by trying to bet on the winner. The pragmatists are probably going to be more accurate, but it is certainly interesting to look at the Wikipedia information.

Republican Candidates

ARE DEMOCRATS FINALLY GROWING A PAIR OF CLAWS?
(Reprinted from the December 1, 2005 Newsletter)

Well, yes and no. One cannot help but be impressed by the bold statements of Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania. His stand is definitely a good sign that liberals are beginning to stand up to the Neocon bullies. However, it is still not enough. Democrats and the honest press must do better. It was they who let America down in the first place, and allowed the United States to get into its current abysmal state.

On the positive side, The Nation magazine (liberal and wonderful) ran this front page sprawl last week:
“There can no longer be any doubt: The American war in Iraq-an unprovoked, unnecessary, unlawful invasion that has turned into a colonial-style occupation- is a moral and political catastrophe. It has also become the single greatest threat to America’s national security…. The Nation will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the American war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign.

That’s a very good thought, and we should all help to spread the idea.

Hillary Clinton will never get the idea right. She has supported the war from the beginning, and has never shown the slightest propensity to tell it like it is. In a recent statement in the Village Voice she said: “I don’t believe it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal…I don’t think it’s the right time to withdraw”. Well, if that’s a liberal speaking, we don’t need her! Any honest politician with common sense can tell by this time that America was flimflammed into this war and that we should get out ASAP. Meanwhile the Republicans will do little to damage Clinton’s reputation because they want to tempt the Democrats to nominate her in 2008. Not coincidentally they have managed to paint McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, as a common sense moderate. Republicans must feel that if Clinton should run against McCain in 2008 they will win another four years in the White House. As I have said before in this newsletter, I believe that the Neocons would tear Hillary apart, and enjoy doing it. She must not be the next Democratic Presidential nominee.

John Kerry did nothing to rehabilitate himself with his lukewarm support of John Murtha after his blunt and heroic speech in the House of Representatives. He said, in part: “…John Murtha is really just adding to the debate in a very personal way. This man’s statements have to be taken seriously even if you don’t agree with his policy…”. Kerry did not show enough courage when he ran for President, and has shown little improvement since.

As for Joe Leiberman, he should simply come out of the closet and call himself a Republican.

John Edwards, however, should be elevated to the honor roll. His clear and forthright statement this month begins with “I was wrong”. He goes on: “…The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda. It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake.” We have a long way to go to 2008, but at this point John Edwards is first on my list.

Howard Dean has always been courageous and would also make a great presidential candidate in 2008. Part of his defense of Murtha, emailed as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is as follows: “…Republicans have disgraced themselves by viciously attacking John Murtha with such disrespect that not only veterans, but every decent American should be angry.”

Although it is not possible to measure objectively, the press also seems to be more willing to be critical of the Administration. Let’s hope this is the beginning of a trend.

REMAKING THE IMAGE OF JOHN MCCAIN
(Reprinted from the January 1, 2006 Newsletter)

On December 15, the Chicago Tribune ran the headline “McCain not flinching on torture”. American Panthers would like to congratulate Senator McCain for taking such a strong stand on this controversial issue (duh!).

Without question, the neocons are reshaping McCain’s image for 2008. There is still plenty of time to decide who they will choose to run against the Democratic candidate, but if the war in Iraq keeps going badly, they will need someone who can claim that he opposed Bush’s handling of the situation. They are grooming McCain for that role.

Another asset that McCain has for the neocons is that he can be controlled. Like Reagan or W, McCain would be a neocon puppet. Make no mistake about it, the next presidential election will be between the neocon puppet and the Democratic nominee.

One reason that McCain will be controllable is his age. If he wins the presidency he would be 72 at time of his inauguration. The only president who was older was Reagan who was 73 at the time of his second inauguration. It may be politically incorrect to say it, but we do get weaker as we age. At 72 John McCain would not be able to go against those who helped him to get elected and also occupy his bubble. On the other hand, a Republican candidate like Giuliani could run a Whitehouse independent of the neocons, and thus pose a potential threat to their power.

Senator John McCain of Arizona is a solid right-wing Republican. He is against a woman’s right to choose, in favor of a larger military, has adamantly supported the Iraq war and is a strong supporter of so-called “family values”. At the same time, he can talk out of the other side of his mouth and say that he opposed the conduct of the war, and took a strong stand against torture, in spite of opposition from the Bush people.

McCain and his handlers have been going out of their way to paint him as a moderate and a person who could reunite America. He is credited with sponsoring steroid legislation, immigration reform and being a key player in the bipartisan agreement against judicial filibusters.

He has also been engaging in a big publicity push. He has co-authored a book called “Character Is Destiny”, had a made-for-TV movie based on his POW experience in Viet Nam, and appeared on innumerable TV interview shows. He polls well with independents and Democrats. All that he needs now is permission from the neocons, and he’s off and running.

The Republicans strategy in 2008 might be just to maintain McCain’s image and swift-boat the Democratic candidate. That could be enough for them to win. It’s time for all liberals with claws to get prepared for a fight.

SHARPTON AND THE TRANSPORT STRIKE
(Reprinted from the January 1, 2006 Newsletter)

We are sorry that one of our favorite liberal politicians has stood behind the Transport Worker’s Union in their greedy extortion of money from the City of New York. The 33,000 member TWU has severely inconvenienced millions of working New Yorkers and cost hundreds of millions of dollars to the working people, business owners and government of that great city.

American Panthers stands squarely against the New York TWU for its arrogant use of brute power. Obviously, many more working people were inconvenienced by the strike than were benefited. The wages and benefits of members of the TWU are not decided by the laws of supply and demand in the open market as, in this case, they should be. (The unlivable minimum wage is one exception.)

As far as Reverend Sharpton is concerned, he has shown a tendency toward taking the side that is politically expedient for himself, and it does not seem as if he is about to change his ways.

THE MORNING LINE ON 2008
(Reprinted from the February 1, 2006 Newsletter)

Betting in the United States has become institutionalized, formalized, internationalized and web accessible. The website, Tradesports.com, to be sure a Gamblers Anonymous bane, lets the player bet on almost anything from the comfort of his home. Most of the bets involve financial numbers or sports. However there are various imaginative bets available on almost anything that there may be an interest in. For example, you can buy a “featured” contract on whether or not Bird Flu will show itself in the United States by March, at 15.5%. The contract matures after the fact, at 0 if there is no bird flu, or at $10 if there is.

Other “featured” wagers are: Will Rumsfeld resign by December 2006 (22%)? Will there be an air strike in Iran by June 2006 (13.5%)? Will the Colts win the Super Bowl (47.5%)?. Based on that quote, the buyers of the Colts contracts paid $4.75 each, and they are now worth zero. The sellers of that contract received $4.75 each, and kept it. (The prices shown in this article, including the odds on the candidates, are from actual trades that occurred late in the trading day on January 4th.)

If you want to bet that Bird Flue will be here in March, you buy the contract, paying $1.55 for each. If you are right, since the contract matures at $10, you would make $8.45 times the number of contracts you bought. If you are wrong, you will lose your bet, $1.55 for each contract that you bought.

Conversely, if you think there will be no incidents of Bird Flu in the U.S. by March you sell the contract and get the $1.55 put into your account. If you are right, you keep the $1.55, but if you are wrong, you have to buy back the short contract for its maturity value of $10.

You can even make a bid for the contract at a more favorable rate. Bid and asked prices are quoted at, say, 15%-16%. You simply bid for as many contracts as you wish, at the price that you wish. It is also possible to close out the contract before it matures, and at whatever price is available at that time.

Please note that we are not recommending the site or vouching for its honesty or security. The format, however, is pretty clever and yields interesting insights, and broad applicability.

While the website may go too far in tempting the vulnerable to gamble, its use to us is that it gives the odds on the various Presidential nominees of the two parties. The statistics at right are based on “last trade” on January 4th, and not “bid” and “asked”. The numbers will jump around with time but they are a good approximate guide to where things stand now. We will revisit this website periodically so that we can follow the fortunes of the hopefuls.

Republican Candidates

1. John McCain....Senator.....Ariz... 29.6%
2. George Allen...Senator.....Va..... 16.0%
3. Rudy Giuliani..Fmr Mayor.. NYC.... 14.6%
4. Mitt Romney....Governor....Mass.....9.2%
5. Jeb Bush.......Governor....Fla......4.3%
6. Condol. Rice...Sec.State...U.S......4.0%
7. Chuck Hagel....Senator.....Nebr.....3.5%
8. Sam Brownback..Senator.....Kansas...3.3%
9. Mike Huckabee..Governor....Ark......3.2%
10.Bill Frist.....Sen. M.L....Tenn.....3.2%

Democratic Candidates

1. Hillary Clinton.Senator.....N.Y....46.0%
2. Mark Warner.....Fmr Gov.....Va.....20.4%
3. Al Gore.........Fmr VP......U.S.....5.9%
4. John Edwards....Fmr Sen.....N. Car..5.0%
5. Russ Feingold...Senator.....Wisc....4.2%
6. Joseph Biden....Senator.....Del.....3.7%
7. Bill Richardson.Governor....N.Mex...3.2%
8. Evan Bayh.......Senator.....Ind.....2.8%
9. Barack Obama....Senator.....Ill.....2.6%
10.John Kerry......Senator.....Mass....2.1%

The current statistics give us concern because American Panthers does not feel that Hillary Clinton can beat John McCain in a presidential race. These are, however, very preliminary odds and there is plenty of time for things to evolve.

Tradesports.com certainly can’t be faulted for a lack of thoroughness as it lists the top 26 Republican and the top 24 Democratic hopefuls (or deniers of same).

Among the other democratic notables are former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (0.5%) Newly elected Governor of New Jersey Jon Corzine (0.1%), Democratic Party Chairman John Dean (0.6%), Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack (1.8%), General Wesley Clark (1.2%) and Senator Joe Lieberman (0.1%). I have always liked Wesley Clark and John Dean for the job, and I have always wondered how the neocons were able to so damage Dean’s reputation because of a single errant shout. I myself thought that Dean’s victory whoop was pretty cool.

Here’s a couple of surprises: Colin Powell is on both the Democrat (0.1%) and the Republican (1.0%) list and, I’m sorry to say that Kucinich did not make the list at all.

It will be interesting to see how these names shift around in the coming months.

MARK WARNER, RUNNING SECOND TO HILLARY
(Reprinted from the February 1, 2006 Newsletter)

Number two in line for the Democratic nomination is Mark Warner, former Governor of Virginia. That state only allows its Governors to serve for one term, freeing Mr. Warner in January to pursue higher goals. He’s an un-admitted candidate--with a “Draft Mark Warner” website.

Mr. Warner’s attitude toward Iraq is much too soft. He feels that it is not wise to set a firm withdrawal date, and instead, to “set milestones for progress”. This Democrat says he doesn’t think we need to “re-fight” how we got into the Iraq war. “I think we have to focus more on how to finish it”.

Those statements should not be acceptable for the next Democratic candidate for president of the United States. To forget about (“not re-fight”) how we got into the war lets the neocons go without having to answer for the catastrophe that they have caused. Mr. Warner seems to be trying to pander to both sides of the issue at the same time.

Mark Warner’s claim to acceptability is that he became governor of a state that has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1968, and therefore he can bring other Republican leaning states into the Democratic camp. Not enough! We need some honesty and courage too.

Mark Warner is a problem for liberals. Unlike Hillary, he does have a chance to win the election. However, like her, he has taken a very centrist position in order to try to capture the maximum amount of votes. It seems difficult to understand why the right can feel free to take an extreme position on issues like Iraq and abortion, while the left feels it has to move toward a compromise position to capture votes.

That, and other questions abound. For example, when did freedom of speech become a liberal position? When did the necessity of court orders for wiretaps become a liberal position? When did a balance of power between the three branches of government become a liberal position? We liberals have to remember that we are the way we are because it is the moral, fair and progressive way to be. We are not extremists, and it is wrong for us to allow the country to come to believe that we are.

Mark Warner’s let-bygones-be- bygones attitude means that we should just forget about the lies and deception that got America into the abominable Iraq quagmire. Should we forget about who caused the needless deaths in excess of 2200 American soldiers? Should we forget about the squandering of at least a half trillion dollars, and putting that debt burden on the backs of future generations?

This country needs a leader, and when he (she?) appears, the people will be willing to follow. John Kerry was a disappointment when he could not say during the campaign that he would not have voted for the war if he had the information that he had during the debates. The Democrats need a candidate that can state unequivocally that America was flimflammed into this war. The Democrats need a candidate who can state flat-out that any jurist who does not believe in a woman’s right to choose is not qualified for the Supreme Court. The Democrats need a candidate who has the guts to say that George W. Bush has committed more than one impeachable offense.

Maybe it’s too much to ask for, but the Democrats also need a candidate that will open his campaign on the attack. One who will not wait until he is swift-boated and then freeze-up until he figures out what to do. America needs a new and bold hero to carry the flag. We need a candidate with the charisma of (J.F.) Kennedy, the political positions of Kucinich, and the razor tongue of Al Sharpton. I hope that we don’t have to settle for much less.

Meanwhile, Mr. Warner is not without his virtues. He has the reputation of flexibility, managerial competence, pragmatism, political astuteness and bipartisanship. He successfully ran a red state, leaving office with a constituency approval rate of over 70%. He got a tax reform package through the Republican controlled legislature that turned a potential $6 billion budget deficit into a $544 million surplus. Time Magazine selected Warner as one of America’s five best governors, and he was decisive in getting Tim Kaine elected as his successor.

While it is understandable that Democrats may feel that centrist positions are the way to get votes, American Panthers does not agree. We feel that a candidate who can tell it like it is will get the votes.

CAN REPLACING CHENEY HELP THE REPUBLICANS IN 2008?
(Reprinted from the February 1, 2006 Newsletter)

The 25th Amendment passed in 1967 during the Johnson Administration, and cleared up the issue of Presidential and Vice Presidential succession. Before that, if the Vice President died or resigned, he wasn’t necessarily replaced. Now, the President is permitted to select a new Vice President subject to approval of the Legislative Branch.

Gerald Ford was Minority leader of the House of Representatives when he was called on by Nixon to be Vice President after the resignation of Spiro Agnew. He served in that office for 9 months before he became president. This route is certainly a good way to use the power of the presidency to introduce the next Republican presidential candidate. Ford, of course, became President when Nixon resigned, and then lost the 1976 presidential race to Jimmy Carter. That part was not in the neocon plan, but the concept of getting a head start on the presidential race is still a good one. Should the Republican’s decide who they would want to replace Bush, they will probably have Cheney resign for “health reasons”, and elevate the new candidate along with an unprecedented level of flag-waving, “God Bless America” chanting and “the-messiah-has-arrived-to-save-us-all” propaganda.

At this point, the only possible candidate that the neocons might agree on is John McCain. They will try to play the tried and true Roberts-and-Alito two faces game, with one face fair and moderate, and the other face staunchly conservative. The truth about McCain’s real face does not really matter. The neocons know that they can control him, and effectively get another four years in the White House for Cheney, Rove, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Gonzales and the rest of the gang.

This Republican strategy can be defeated. The problem is that it will take some courage and aggressiveness on the part of the Democrats. The same party that has not yet been able to begin impeachment proceedings in the face of the most severe and blatant abuses of power this country has ever seen. We can always hope.

THE MORNING LINE ON 2008
(Reprinted from the March 1, 2006 Newsletter)

Republican Candidates

.....NAME..........POSITION....STATE...1/4/06....2/20/06
1. John McCain.....Senator.....Arizona..29.6%.....34.1%
2. George Allen....Senator.....Va.......16.0%.....28.0%
3. Rudy Giuliani...Fmr Mayor...NYC......14.6%.....10.7%
4. Mitt Romney.....Governor....Mass......9.2%......7.0%
5. Condol. Rice....Sec.State...National..4.0%......4.3%
6. Jeb Bush........Governor....Florida...4.3%......3.7%
7. Newt Gingrich...Ex HouseSpk Georgia...3.0%......3.1%
8. Mike Huckabee...Governor....Arkansas..3.2%......2.5%
9. Bill Frist......Sen. M.L....Tenn......3.2%......2.3%
10.Dick Cheney.....Vice Pres...National..3.0%......1.7%
11.Chuck Hagel.....Senator.....Nebraska..3.5%......0.7%
12.Sam Brownback...Senator.....Kansas....3.3%......0.6%

Democratic Candidates

.....NAME..........POSITION....STATE...1/4/06....2/20/06
1. Hillary Clinton.Senator.....N.Y......46.0%.....42.0%
2. Mark Warner.....Former Gov..Va.......20.4%.....26.0%
3. John Edwards....Former Sen..N. Car....5.0%......6.0%
4. Al Gore.........Former VP...National..5.9%......5.2%
5. Russ Feingold...Senator.....Wisc......4.2%......4.7%
6. Evan Bayh.......Senator.....Ind.......2.8%......3.8%
7. Joseph Biden....Senator.....Del.......3.7%......2.8%
8. Bill Richardson.Governor....N.Mex.....3.2%......2.5%
9. John Kerry......Senator.....Mass......2.1%......2.2%
10.Barack Obama....Senator.....Ill.......2.6%......1.2%

The most notable change is the concentration of leadership in, and the narrowing of the gap between, the top two Republican candidates. The nightmare candidates, Cheney and Gingrich, did not make progress, but now appear in the top ten by virtue of it being easier to qualify than it was last month. The top ten Democrats are the same as last month, but there too the gap between the top two candidates has narrowed considerably. Edwards and Feingold have each made a little progress, and Obama has notably lost some.

This month Feingold’s largely unsupported and single-handed filibuster is credited as being responsible for the delayed passage of the Patriot Act until March. Recent minor changes negotiated by the White House have drained the will of Democrats to continue fighting the Patriot act, which now seems assured of passage. The changes, according to Feingold are “…a fig leaf to allow those who are fighting the act to step down...”

THE 2006 Races
( Reprinted from the April 1, 2006 Newsletter)

The 2006 election will critically effect the direction of our Nation and should be closely followed. Members of the House of Representatives are elected for two-year terms. Therefore, all of the 435 members will be up for election in November. They will serve in the 110th United States Congress from January 2, 2007 through January 1, 2009. There are currently 231 Republicans, 201 Democrats, 1 Independent (who tends to vote Democrat), and two vacancies. The Democrats would need to pick up 16 seats to wrest the majority from the Republicans who have been in control of the House since 1995. There are currently 29 open seats, which consist of 18 Republicans, 8 Democrats, 1 Independent, 1 Republican vacancy and 1 Democratic vacancy. One vacancy will be filled before the election, and one will remain vacant until the 2008 election.

Senators are elected for six-year terms with one-third elected in every two-year election cycle. Thirty-three seats will be contested this year. The majority has been held by the Republicans since 2003. Presently there are 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one retiring independent. Of the other 32 seats being contested, 17 are held by Democrats and 15 by Republicans. Democrats would need to gain 7 seats, for a total of 51, to control the Senate. A gain of 6 seats would leave control with the Republicans since the Vice President, who acts as President of the Senate, casts the tie-breaking vote. A total of 60 seats is called a “working majority” since 60 votes are required to break a filibuster.

In all races, open seats are extremely important since incumbents have a very high rate of getting re-elected. Many of us (including myself) have been missing the importance of the gubernatorial races. The party that controls the majority of the statehouses has an advantage in fundraising and statewide support. Governors have employees at their command, and are in a good position to mobilize people and energize a campaign. Of the three races, Senate, House and governorships, the latter is the one that the Democrats are most likely to win. Republicans have controlled the majority of the statehouses since 1992. Many feel that the governor’s race in 2006 will strongly influence the results in 2008. One thing for sure, all close governor’s races will be hotly contested, and probably very nasty.

At the present time 28 of the governorships belong to the Republicans, and 22 to the Democrats. 36 states are electing governors this year with the GOP having to defend the majority of 22. Of those 22, there are eight in which the Republican incumbent is not running for re-election.

States with a big electoral vote count are especially important. In California Arnold Schwarzenegger has low approval ratings, and in New York Eliot Spitzer is very popular and will be hard to beat. Republican Governor Bob Taft of Ohio is leaving office amidst widespread GOP corruption scandals. Democrats also have a good chance to pickup governorships in Massachusetts, Arkansas, Alaska and Colorado. On the other hand, Republicans claim that they have a chance to take the statehouses from the Democrats in Pennsylvania, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan. All of these races will be vitally important and probably very close.

One of the most exciting House races will be by Democrat Tammy Duckworth for Illinois” 6th District. (See page 8. of the April 1 Newsletter.) In the Senate, Bernie Sanders is running as an independent, against a Republican, to take the seat of the retiring independent in Vermont. He is expected to caucus with the Democrats. If he wins, the Democrats will only need to gain six seats to control the Senate.

Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee will not try to keep his seat in the Senate in order to run for President in 2008. Democratic Representative Harold Ford will try to replace him. Tennessee is a tossup state, leaning slightly toward the left side of the aisle. The state voted for Bush in the last two elections, but currently has more registered Democrats and more Democrats in the House than it does Republicans. It would be a great psychological victory to replace the very conservative Frist with a great liberal like Ford.

In Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman, that conservative in Democratic clothing, will run to keep his seat in the Senate. He is challenged by Liberal Ned Lamont and the issue will be decided in an August primary. If Lieberman wins, we will be faced with a lose-lose situation in November.

In Florida Governor Jeb Bush cannot run for reelection due to term limitations. The leading Democrat is Jim Davis, state congressman and former Majority Leader. The leading Republican is Charlie Christ, state Attorney General and former Education Commissioner. Christ usually led by a significant margin in poles taken in 2005. However, in a January 2006 poll he was ahead of Davis by a negligible 1%. A win here for the Democrats would be a great psychological and moral victory.

In the New York gubernatorial race Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced early and got a fast start. On the other hand, GOP incumbent George Pataki made a lateannouncement that he would not run, delaying announcements by other Republican hopefuls. Spitzer currently enjoys a runaway lead in the polls against any potential opponent.

TAMMY DUCKWORTH
A REAL WAR HERO AND PATRIOT
(Reprinted from the April 1, 2006 Newsletter)

It’s hard to recall a story about Iraq that is as inspiring as that of Black Hawk helicopter pilot Tammy Duckworth. On November 12, 2004 she was a passenger flying low near Baghdad in a helicopter piloted by Chief Warrant Officer Dan Milberg. A rocket propelled grenade hit the bottom of the craft and exploded near herfeet. Milberg was able to land the damaged helicopter and pull her out, thinking that she was dead. Although severely injured, Duckworth proved to be anything but dead. She lost one leg below the knee, and lost the other high up on her thigh, leaving a 2.5-inch stump. She came close to losing an arm, which now remains functional but badly damaged.

She was taken to Walter Reed Army Hospital where she underwent a long recovery. In March she was fitted with prostheses, enabling her to begin to walk. Her physical therapy is far from over.

It’s impossible to imagine the level of pain and depression that must accompany such an incredibly difficult rehabilitation. She was aided by constant attention from her husband and visits by Bob Dole who was himself injured in World War II. Dole frequently, and without fanfare, visited the wounded soldiers at Walter Reed. It may have been a visit from Dole in early 2005 that made Duckworth feel that there was something more that she could accomplish in her life. When Senator Richard J. Durbin (D) invited Duckworth, as he did other Illinois veterans, to attend last years State of the Union Address, she agreed to go. After that she found the strength to became politically involved, and began working at getting help for military families. Later in the year Durbin and Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D) urged her to run for Congress in the 6th District, and she agreed.

With the help and counsel of Durbin, Rahm and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D), she studied a broad range of issues with a special interest in healthcare. She earned the endorsement of the AFL-CIO and proved herself to be a superior campaigner and fund-raiser. On December 18th on “This Week with George Stephanopolous” she announced her candidacy for the United States Congress as the Illinois Representative for the Republican 6th District.

Duckworth is one of about a dozen Iraq/Afghanistan veterans running for national office this year. All but one are running as Democrats.

Her first hurdle was the primary, held on March 21, against experienced Democratic opponents Christine Cegelis and Lindy Scott. She won, but it was close.

The 6th district congressional seat was held for 32 years by Republican Henry J. Hyde, who is not running for re-election. In November, the 37 year old Duckworth will face well-financed Republican state Senator Peter J. Roskam.