No, it's not Sunday.  And this isn't the Senate 2008 Guru's Week in the Senate Races.  It's been over nine months since Election Day 2006; and it's less than fifteen months until Election Day 2008.  In other words, the 2008 election cycle is more than one-third over already.  With all of the discussion about vulnerable Republican-held Senate seats taking place, I thought it might be useful to take a look at how the races are shaping up for the twelve Democratic-held Senate seats in 2008.  Soak it in:

So what do we see here?

First and foremost, we see that (unless Tom Latham challenges Tom Harkin or Bobby Jindal unexpectedly loses the LA-Gov race and opts for a Senate bid) Republicans don't have a single top choice challenging a Democratic incumbent.  Keep in mind, this is not a comparison to Democrats, who have had ups and downs with recruiting (though, with 22 Republican-held seats up compared with only 12 Democratic seats up, that is to be expected).  Simply put, I don't know how much time NRSC Chair John Ensign spends recruiting, but if it's more than zero, it may be wasted time.  Certainly, there is still plenty of time for candidates to enter a Senate race, as Senators Claire McCaskill, Sherrod Brown, and Jim Webb will tell you (all officially entered their races after August 2005), but, after this point in the 2006, only one single Republican entered a Senate race: Michigan loser Mike Bouchard.  If 2006 is at all indicative, the NRSC should be just about done recruiting by now, not just starting.

You'll also note two asterisks, in Louisiana and South Dakota.  In Louisiana, statewide elections occur later this year.  While several Republican Congressmen have announced that they will be opting against a 2008 Senate challenge to Mary Landrieu, it is not unreasonable that other potential candidates would wait until after the 2007 state election before making any decisions, particularly in the case of statewide officeholders Secretary of State Jay Dardenne and currently-Democratic Treasurer John N. Kennedy.  In South Dakota, Senator Tim Johnson is, of course, still recuperating from illness.  If he feels able to run for re-election, it is reasonable to assume that he will, and that Gov. Mike Rounds is unlikely to challenge him.  However, if Johnson opts against a re-election bid, that changes the entire dynamic, which could lead to a top-tier battle between Gov. Rounds and possibly Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth.

We also see a lot of previously unheard-of names.  Jeffrey Beattie in Massachusetts and Jon Scott in Rhode Island are both Congressional race losers, I suppose looking for a promotion to losing Senate races.  The announced challengers in Illinois and Iowa are all unknown political entities, charitably considered third-tier opponents.  As it currently stands, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota feature a smattering of second- and third-tier opposition.  Assuming both that Joe Biden drops his Presidential bid and runs for re-election and that Iowa's Republican Congressional delegation all opt to take a pass on a 2008 Senate bid, it is not unreasonable to expect (barring out-of-the blue surprises) that incumbent Democratic Senators will face no more than token opposition in Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.  (At the same time, it wouldn't be wildly shocking if: Tom Latham did enter the race in Iowa; Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land did enter the race in Michigan; Joe Biden did retire from the Senate; and the AR-GOP did find somebody to offer Mark Pryor at least minimal opposition.)

Further, assuming that Senator Tim Johnson is up for a re-election campaign, it is not unreasonable to expect that incumbent Democratic Senators will face no more than second-tier opposition (and thus be strong favorites) in Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota.  Now, I recognize that I'm suggesting that, given a few reasonable caveats, eleven of twelve Democratic Senate seats are fairly to very safe (though it is also, in part, due to the hurting Democrats took in the Senate in 2002, losing close races in Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee, which in turn thinned out Democratic vulnerabilities and created pick-up opportunities for 2008).  That is pretty close to a "best case scenario."  But it is also a fairly reasonable scenario.  The catch is that Republicans, wanting to avoid a repeat of 2006 when they failed to turn a single Democratic-held Senate seat (or House seat or Governor's office) Republican, may pour relatively large sums of money into Louisiana once they have a candidate.  With the DSCC trouncing the NRSC in fundraising, Democrats can counteract that, but it could be very expensive.

What do you think?

For daily news and updates on the U.S. Senate races around the country in 2008, check out Senate 2008 Guru: Following the Races.

From Republican Senator David Vitter's scandal to second quarter fundraising numbers to Iraq to news from Senate races around the country, a lot happened this week.

First and foremost, the Vitter scandal is not simply a caricature of a seedy politician screwing around.  It's another reminder of the hypocrisy endemic to the Republican Party at the national level.  For those who don't know, Republican Senator David Vitter confessed to having been a client of the infamous DC Madam after his phone number was found in her found records.  He claimed to have received the forgiveness of his wife and his God (I don't know how he confirmed that one).  As a side note, his wife did once intimate that if her husband ever cheated on her, she'd more likely castrate than forgive.  Just when we thought that was all there was to the story, it turns out that he also frequented a New Orleans brothel.

The hypocrisy that exists in this sordid tale exists on many levels.  First is the standard that Vitter himself set.  Vitter called for President Bill Clinton's resignation when Clinton's marital infidelities came to light.  If Vitter held himself to his own standard, he'd have already resigned.  Vitter discusses the "moral fitness to govern" readily when it is someone else being judged.  Heck, forget about moral fitness to govern; how about the presence to govern?  Vitter apparently received phone calls from the DC Madam during roll call votes while he was a House member.  And, amid the current scandal, he opted to go into hiding rather than actually do his job, leading him to miss seven roll call votes between Wednesday and Friday on such minor issues as Iraq, Iran, and al Qaeda.  He was even more than happy to lie to constituents back in 2002 when asked explicitly about one particular prostitute by name.

The second level on which the hypocrisy exists is the level of "family values."  Vitter ran on a platform of "family values," making his wife and kids the stars of his campaign ads, inserting them into the public sphere and inserting his personal values and private life into public scrutiny.  He also explained to us immoral heathens that "marriage is truly the most fundamental social institution in human history" while legislating how others should live their lives and regard the institution of marriage.  All the while, he had debased his own marriage.  To say that Vitter is falling short of his own standard is an understatement.

The third level on which the hypocrisy exists is the level of the rule of law.  Soliciting a prostitute is a crime in Washington, D.C. and Louisiana.  As much as some Republicans might scoff at the idea, the rule of law still applies to them.  Vitter committed a crime, and simply receiving the forgiveness of one's wife does not qualify as legal absolution.  Any legal researchers want to dig up what the statute of limitations is in both Washington, D.C. and Louisiana on soliciting?

Much more below the fold.

After a brief respite not achieving any progress on the immigration front, the Senate's attention is turning back toward not achieving any progress on the Iraq front.

A few Republican Senators have lately begun voicing (though not yet voting) their discontent with the way things are going, and have been going for quite some time, in Iraq.  What Republicans were dismissing as "cut and run" not so long ago is becoming a more acceptable policy among the GOP, especially to those Republican Senators who are approaching re-election bids in what is shaping up to be another cycle, like 2006, hostile to not only pro-war Republicans but, in many parts of the country, potentially anyone with an R next to their name.

As a renewed push on Iraq is expected, the Senate is expected this week to take up the Iraq Study Group Recommendations Implementation Act, S 1545, or as mcjoan has dubbed it "The Salazar Distraction," as it is questionable whether this measure would do anything to actually further U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.  Nevertheless, in a powerful editorial this morning, the New York Times calls for just that, immediate withdrawal:

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit. ...

It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush's plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost. ...

Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation's alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.

But is it principle or mere political posturing that has led the few Republican Senators who have recently spoken out on Iraq to do so?  While Dick Lugar is considered safe, George Voinovich is up in 2010 in Ohio.  While that may seem a long way off, Ohio is where a scandal-plagued state Republican Party is still recuperating and where two-term Senator Mike DeWine got beat by then-Congressman Sherrod Brown 56-44 last year.  Voinovich might simply retire in 2010, as might John Warner in 2008, but whether they are looking ahead to impending retirement or the motivation is fear of retribution from voters seeking an end to Bush's Iraq debacle, freedom from the shackles of allegiance to the Bush Administration is being sought.  Pete Domenici is perhaps the clearest case of political posturing.  Domenici, up for re-election in 2008, has seen his approval rating plummet from 68-25 in November 2006 to 51-42 last month, primarily as a result of his role in the Attorney Purge scandal.  He could use a pick-me-up, and with George W. Bush's approval in New Mexico at 31-66, this could be a quick way for Domenici to score some points.

Much more below the fold.

It has been a tough slog for Republicans hoping to retake their majority in the United States Senate this cycle. The National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee is raising less and spending more than the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, a fact that has played a large part in the committee's roughly $5 million cash-on-hand disadvantage. The GOP has had trouble recruiting top-tier candidates in its most targeted races, and the candidates that they have been able to encourage to run have been remarkably unremarkable. (The Republicans' latest recruit, South Dakota state Rep. Joel Dykstra, had some interesting things to say about rape and incest exceptions to the proposed outright ban on abortion in his state.) Now it appears that they have lost another big recruitment battle, as the Associated Press reports.

Montana's U-S House member, Republican Denny Rehberg, will not challenge U-S Senator Max Baucus in the 2008 election.

The Montana Republican Party made that announcement today.

[...]

Former Montana House Majority Leader Michael Lange has announced he will run against Baucus as a Republican. However, the field still is considered wide open.

While Baucus would probably have been considered a slight favorite to win this rematch race (Baucus defeated Rehberg in 1996 by a 50 percent to 45 percent margin), this would have been an expensive race for the Democrats -- not only for Baucus but also for the DSCC, which would have been expected to invest to protect their incumbent. A poll from back in December showed Baucus leading, though within the margin of error, 48 percent to 44 percent over Rehberg. But now that Rehberg is out of the way and the foul-mouthed Lange is the lone semi-serious Republican in the race, it looks like it's going to be mightily difficult for the Republicans to pull out a win in Montana, which theoretically should be one of their top three targets for 2008.

This is not the end of the line for the Republicans' hopes in the Senate. But there is going to come a point when their recruiting woes are going to put them in the position where they don't realistically have a shot at even picking up the single seat (or possibly the two seats, if the Democrats win the White House) necessary for control of the upper chamber of Congress.

There were two big buzz words in the Senate and 2008 Senate races this week: obstructionism and immigration.

A long, long time ago, when the Republicans were in the majority in the Senate, they decried Democrats daring to get in the way of their agenda.  Now that they find themselves in the minority, Republicans are all too happy to hypocritically engage in any and all obstructionist maneuvering they can conjure up on a whole host of issues from lower prescription drug prices to workers' rights and much, much more.

Well, Democratic leadership has taken notice and began an offensive with this powerful video taking aim at those hypocritical, obstructionist McConnell Republicans:

The 2008 election will be a referendum on George W. Bush and a referendum on Iraq, but it can also be a referendum on a progressive, American agenda that Democrats are trying to advance and Republicans are trying to, well, obstruct.  Any Democrat running for Senate can point to this agenda and say, "A vote for me is a vote for progress, a vote for affordable health care, a safer America, a fairer, stronger economy.  A vote for my opponent is a vote against progress, a vote to obstruct this agenda."  Pretty simple.

Much more below the fold.

[Cross-posted at my blog Senate 2008 Guru: Following the Races.]

A little over two months ago, I took a look at the state of NRSC recruiting in the one open seat (Colorado) and the twelve states with Democratic incumbents, concluding, up to that point in time, that the NRSC was 0-for-13 in recruiting so far.  Keep in mind that we're approaching the dog days of summer, not a heavy recruitment period.  (Note that during June-August of 2005, only five Senate candidates announced, all five of whom were Republican losers.)  So where does the state of NRSC recruitment stand, and what has changed in the last two months?

(Much more below the fold.)

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

Over at MyDD, there's a little discussion going on about the merits of having a primary challenge against Senator Max Baucus (D-MT). It's been noted that he's no friend to Democrats on many domestic issues. You know it's bad when even The New Republic thinks that Baucus is a sellout:

If you look closely enough at recent domestic policy debacles, you'll invariably see his fingerprints. Facing George W. Bush's massive tax-cut proposal in 2001, Baucus undermined the Senate Democrats' strategy of forcing concessions by maintaining a united front. In private negotiations with his GOP counterpart, Chuck Grassley, Baucus produced a bill that handed the White House virtually all of its top priorities. Afterward, he boasted that he'd done Democrats a favor, since they "would have been in trouble in 2002 just saying no to every one of the president's proposals." We shudder to think what might have happened had the Democrats been labeled "obstructionist."

Then there was the 2003 Medicare debate. Baucus, true to his method, agreed to a set of procedural conditions that undermined Democratic unity and preordained a disastrous outcome. Then he used the little authority he retained to--how to put it?--give away the store. In addition to agreeing to Health Savings Accounts--a gambit that he had once condemned as irresponsible--Baucus assented to a provision preventing Medicare from negotiating discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Baucus and his defenders--alternately known as his press office--make two arguments on his behalf. The first is that Baucus is simply doing what he needs to do to get reelected. (This argument usually masquerades behind the mantra of doing what's best for the "people of Montana.") But, unless the way to get ahead in Montana is to insist on overcharging Medicare patients by billions of dollars, the senator has been going far above and beyond the call of duty.

Robert Reich has an important post on lobbying and Democrats.  The signs are clear that big money is buying support very quickly, and that we have a lot of work to do to make sure Democrats fulfill their promises made to the electorate.  The Medicare Part D no-brainer to negotiate lower drug prices may not apparently be going so smoothly, for instance, and it's due to a Senator you should become familiar with really quickly.

The only thing that might stop the new Congress from going through with this sensible plan is huge bargaining power of a different kind. I'm talking now about politics. Because when it comes to campaign contributions and Washington lobbyists, Big Pharma has more bargaining clout than almost anyone. It has already lined up former Democratic congressmen and officeholders to lobby their old colleagues. And it's showering the Hill with money. Already Max Baucus, the upcoming head of the Senate Finance Committee, is expressing doubts about the new Democratic plan.

On economic policy, Baucus is the worst Democrat out there, and he's out of step with his constituents in Montana, which, while a red state, is economically populist.  And Baucus is in charge of the Finance Committee, which is a horrific place for someone like Baucus to wield power.

There are certain signposts to look out for in terms of creating a progressive majority.  We cannot as a party enable big pharma to steal from the government.  And that's what Baucus looks like he might be doing.