Unintentional Truth Of The Day

Rep. Steve Pearce (Crazed - NM) is about to lose a US Senate race to Tom Udall by 25 points. Today he shows why by confirming everyone's assumptions about Republicans and Big Oil:

"At a time when we're facing $4 gasoline, I think that you need people who've been in the energy industry to tell us what to do," said Steve Pearce, a House member from New Mexico who is running for the Senate.

After all, when have they ever steered us wrong?

Big Oil has invested about $600,000 into Steve Pearce over his career, and his statements reveal him to be a kept man. But in fact, this is true of the entire Republican Party in Washington. As this chart shows, the GOP leadership has consistently voted against every single effort that may actually lower gas prices instead of filling the pockets of the oil companies.

It's rare to see the truth made so explicit.

Keeping It To 8 Losses Would Be Nice

Fresh off of failing to recruit anyone decent to run as a Republican for the US Senate and seeing:

• loony Steve Pearce use Club for Growth money to beat the more moderate Heather Wilson in New Mexico's primary, putting that Senate seat against Ton Udall out of reach

• an 85 year-old former Green Party candidate win the Republican primary in Montana

• the golden boy candidate Jim Ogonowski fail to get on the ballot in Massachusetts

...NRSC Chair Jon Ensign (won't be NRSC Chair for long-NV) has settled on a at least we're not going to lose the right to filibuster strategy to fire up his base:

NRSC chair John Ensign has moved the goal posts, according to the Savannah Morning News, saying that the GOP will have succeeded if they don't lose more than eight seats.

Ensign pointed out that if the Dems win nine seats they'll get to the filibuster-proof magic number of 60 -- at which point, Ensign warned, "they will be able to do pretty much whatever they want."

So if the Dems can't get to a 60-seat super-majority, the GOP will have won. Talk about lowering the bar.

That's not lowering the bar, that's throwing the bar on the ground and stepping on any ants that try to get near it.

Meanwhile, Democrats have great recruits almost everywhere, including Al Franken, who won the endorsement of the DFL Caucus in Minnesota this weekend.

It's a good time to be the Senate Guru.

Other Races On The Radar Tonight

Besides that little matter of the Democratic nominee clinching victory tonight, there are primaries all over the the country outside of California, some of them worth noting.

TPM Election Central mentions two Senate races, in New Mexico and New Jersey. The entire Congressional delegation in New Mexico is running for the seat vacated by Pete Domenici, and on the Republican side, wingnutty Steve Pearce is facing wingnut in moderate clothing Heather Wilson. Weirdly, Domenici waited until the weekend before the primary to endorse Wilson, so there was probably no impact of that. Pearce is favored in this primary, but the winner will be stomped by progressive Tom Udall in the general election, IMO.

In New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg was challenged from inside the party by Rob Andrews, a moderate (at best) Congressman. I think he's just trying to raise his statewide name ID for when Lautenberg (who's 84) eventually steps down, because he's getting smoked by all accounts. Andrews is having his wife run for his own Congressional seat and will probably try to get it back by having her step down if he loses. I hope he gets crushed today.

And in IA-03, Ed Fallon is challenging Bush Dog Leonard Boswell for a seat in Congress. Stoller calls this race an experiment in grassroots campaigning but I don't think that's true. Maybe it's because I'm in California, but in most parts of this state you can't put an ad on the air unless you're running statewide or get a king's ransom from an independent expenditure campaign. So I see this "experiment" every cycle. And it usually doesn't win, unfortunately. And most observers don't expect Fallon to win, either. But if he can make Boswell sweat, maybe he can alter his behavior.

Prospects in the Senate

Eric Kleefeld did a nice analysis of the state of play in the Senate, where 23 Republican seats will be up for grabs in November, as opposed to just 12 Democratic seats. Of those 12, really only one of them, Mary Landrieu's seat in Louisiana, is seriously challenged, whereas as many as a dozen or even more Republican seats could be in play. Here's the initial list that Kleefeld references:

State GOP Candidate Dem Candidate Outlook
Alaska Ted Stevens Mark Begich Leans GOP
Colorado Bob Schaffer Mark Udall Tossup
Louisiana John Kennedy Mary Landrieu Tossup
Maine Susan Collins Tom Allen Leans GOP
Minnesota Norm Coleman Al Franken Tossup
Mississippi Roger Wicker Ronnie Musgrove Likely GOP
New Hampshire John Sununu Jeanne Shaheen Leans Dem
New Mexico TBD Tom Udall Leans Dem
Oregon Gordon Smith TBD Leans GOP
Virginia Jim Gilmore Mark Warner Likely Dem

In a follow-up post, Chuck Schumer maintains that we have leads in five seats currently, in Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Colorado and Alaska, where Senator "Series of Tubes" Ted Stevens is in legitimate trouble against Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. Schumer also says we have a shot in Oregon, Minnesota and Maine. But there are other states where Republicans will at least have to spend a little money. Rick Noriega will make John Cornyn work in Texas, for example. We have good candidates like Greg Fischer in Kentucky, Scott Kleeb in Nebraska, Andrew Rice in Oklahoma, Ronnie Musgrove in Mississippi, Larry LaRocco in Idaho, Jim Neal in North Carolina and even Jim Slattery in Kansas. Schumer is claiming that we'll have good candidates in 17 of those 23 races, and Schumer's idea of a "good candidate" is one that is worth spending DSCC money on. That means that the field is very spread out, and Republicans will have a lot to defend.

I don't think people have a sense of just how dire it is for Republicans here. I think you saw a piece of it in many Republicans' combative stances in the Petraeus/Crocker hearings. Iraq is an anvil, and their attempts to spin themselves as independent voices is simply at odds with the reality of them being reliable rubber stamps. Even Oregon's Gordon Smith, who has voted in favor of withdrawal on more than one occasion, is twisting himself in knots trying to appeal both antiwar independents and hardcore Republicans, claiming that he practically authored the Responsible Plan to End the War while being unable to endorse it and turn his back on the base. I fully expect most of these Democratic Senate candidates to use Iraq as a vice and constrict their opponents inside their own rhetoric and spin.

Senate Guru has the best day-to-day information on these races.

More Udall-Americans In The Senate

Tom is better than Mark, and it looks like he's jumping into the New Mexico Senate race. This immediately makes this a top-tier race, and certainly lean Democrat. This adds to Virginia, New Hampshire and Colorado as lean-Democratic Senate seats. Already.

Obviously it would be better with a Democratic President, but if they do get a wider majority in the Senate, as looks certain, it might be time to take a look at Harry Reid's Majority Leadership. His track record this year is almost uniformly bad. Chris Dodd only lost the Majority Leader race by one vote back in 2004.

NM-SEN: Missed Opportunity?

It's pretty clear that Bill Richardson or Tom Udall would walk to victory over whoever the Republicans put up in the now-vacated Senate seat in New Mexico, but neither of them want the job. Richardson still thinks he can be President, so that's understandable. But Udall simply wants to gain seniority in the House and is looking this gift horse in the mouth. It's troubling that a decent progressive wouldn't step up when even the DSCC would consider him a prize recruit. So now the remaining options are Martin Chavez, the mayor of Albuquerque (who I guess is more of a centrist), and Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish, who sounds like she would make a great candidate but is being very measured about taking the plunge.

“The compelling argument is this: The country is in a mess and what we need is really good candidates to step forward,” Denish said today in an interview. “If the country wasn’t in a crisis, I think I would not blink an eye (in deciding against running for Senate), but I think building a stronger majority in the Senate is a real priority at this time.”

Denish, a Democrat, told me several months ago that she had no interest in leaving New Mexico for Washington. She told me today that she’s still not certain she does have such interest because she loves New Mexico. But a lot of people are arguing that she is the Democrat who can defeat a Republican in a Senate race next year.

And Democrats in Washington are trying to convince Denish that such potential candidates must step forward, for the good of their country.

Denish said she hopes to make a decision later this week.

“This should be about getting the best candidates who can run strong races and win the Senate seat for New Mexico, so we can be part of the change that’s going to happen in 2009,” she said. “It’s a very personal decision, and I’m not an instant decision-maker about life changes like this.”

Businessman Don Wiviott, who attended Yearly Kos, is also out there. I think that with as push to up the name ID, any Democrat has a shot in this race. But Udall was a clear first choice.

NM-SEN: Replacing One Corrupt Republican With Another

Sen. Domenici retired today, and he claims that it was for medical reasons. Considering that Bush did a major fundraiser for him just a month or so ago, that's fairly credible.

After a medical exam last month revealed progression of an incurable brain disorder known as frontotemporal lobar degeneration, or FLTD, the 75-year-old senator discussed retirement with his family and concluded that he might not physically be able to serve a full seventh term.

"The progress of this disease is apparently erratic and unpredictable. It may well be that seven years from now, it will be stable," Domenici said. "On the other hand, it may also be that the disease will have incapacitated me. That's possible."

I wish him the best.

But here's the thing. Domenici was going to have a difficult re-election campaign, mainly because of the fallout from the US Attorney scandal, and the revelations that he personally called then-federal prosecutor David Iglesias to pressure him to bring indictments against state Democrats, to help discredit former Attorney General Patricia Madrid, who was running in a local House race. So who decides to step in to fill Domenici's shoes? The other public official who called Iglesias, and the woman who was RUNNING against Patricia Madrid!

Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M) will run for the New Mexico Senate seat that is expected to open up officially later Thursday when Sen. Pete Domenici (R) declares that he will not seek reelection in 2008, according to a source familiar with Wilson’s decision.

Domenici has taken Wilson under his wing in recent years, and as he has gotten older, Wilson’s name has topped the list of potential heirs.

They really had no choice. There's no other statewide candidate who would even have half a chance in New Mexico, from what I've heard. But Wilson, who also took the lead among Republicans in criticizing the Janet Jackson "Nipplegate," is damaged goods statewide. And that's especially true if Steve Pearce, the certified winger US Congressman and pretty much the only other high-profile Republican there, were to primary her. The other benefit here is that Democrats would be favored to retake Wilson's House seat.

Meanwhile, the Democratic bench is plentiful. Don Wiviott was already running a self-financed campaign. And there's word that Rep. Tom Udall is seriously considering the seat. Obviously everyone's preference is for Bill Richardson to step in and run away with the race, but failing that, Udall's a good bet. If he runs, 3 cousins would be running for Senate on the same day; Mark Udall in CO, Tom Udall in NM, and Gordon Smith in OR.

Let's hear it for 2 out of 3!

This immediately becomes top-tier.

Iglesiasgate: Domenici Makes An Admission

So I guess that, given the fact that David Iglesias is going to testify and name Sen. Pete Domenici as one of the two members of Congress who called him requesting that he speed up his investigation into Democratic corruption and get an indictment before Election Day, Domenici felt compelled to try and get ahead of the story. So he sent this out.

I take this opportunity to comment directly on media statements by former U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, David Iglesias.

Since my knowledge of his remarks stems only from a variety of media accounts, I have hesitated to respond. Nevertheless, in light of substantial public interest, I have decided to comment.

I called Mr. Iglesias late last year. My call had been preceded by months of extensive media reports about acknowledged investigations into courthouse construction, including public comments from the FBI that it had completed its work months earlier, and a growing number of inquiries from constituents. I asked Mr. Iglesias if he could tell me what was going on in that investigation and give me an idea of what timeframe we were looking at. It was a very brief conversation, which concluded when I was told that the courthouse investigation would be continuing for a lengthy period.

In retrospect, I regret making that call and I apologize. However, at no time in that conversation or any other conversation with Mr. Iglesias did I ever tell him what course of action I thought he should take on any legal matter. I have never pressured him nor threatened him in any way.

So Domenici essentially admits to everything Iglesias has alleged, but then severs the link between that action and the eventual firing of Iglesias by claiming he never threatened or pressured him. He claims that constituents pushed him to make the call, which seems dubious to me unless by constituents he means Rep. Heather Wilson, who sought that indictment to help her in a tight re-election campaign.

After admitting to the phone call, Domenici essentially takes the White House line that it was problems with not prosecuting immigration cases in a timely manner that led him to recommend a new US Attorney for New Mexico (meaning that he admits to requesting that Iglesias be fired):

During the course of the last six years, that already heavy caseload in our state has been swamped by unresolved new federal cases, especially in the areas of immigration and illegal drugs. I have asked, and my staff has asked, on many occasions whether the federal prosecutors and federal judiciary within our state had enough resources. I have been repeatedly told that we needed more resources. As a result I have introduced a variety of legislative measures, including new courthouse construction monies, to help alleviate the situation.

My conversations with Mr. Iglesias over the years have been almost exclusively about this resource problem and complaints by constituents. He consistently told me that he needed more help, as have many other New Mexicans within the legal community.

My frustration with the U.S. Attorney’s office mounted as we tried to get more resources for it, but public accounts indicated an inability within the office to move more quickly on cases. Indeed, in 2004 and 2005 my staff and I expressed my frustration with the U.S. Attorney’s office to the Justice Department and asked the Department to see if the New Mexico U.S. Attorney’s office needed more help, including perhaps an infusion of professionals from other districts.

This ongoing dialogue and experience led me, several months before my call with Mr. Iglesias, to conclude and recommend to the Department of Justice that New Mexico needed a new United States Attorney.

He says that he recommended that Iglesias be fired "several months" before the phone call. Why didn't it happen, then, until after the election, at the same time as a series of 7 other firings of US Attorneys around the country? If the problem was with caseload, wouldn't that get worse as time went on? And the entire arguement is kind of incoherent. Domenici says he was concerned with a lack of resources. The US Attorney's office agreed with him. Then Domenici blames Iglesias for not moving more quickly on cases. I would assume that if you didn't have the resources, you COULDN'T move any more quickly. Domenici says that in 2004 and 2005 he asked the Justice Department to look into resource allocation, but doesn't say if it was carried out. It's not like the US Attorney's office can magically increase their budget and hire staff and make the caseload go away.

So, shorter Domenici: The US Attorney's office had too much work, and it's their fault for not getting the work done, not my fault for getting them the proper resources to get the work done.

This is an attempt to get out in front of the criticism that's sure to abound on Tuesday. But I'm not certain it'll work. It's a complex explanation for what appears to be a simple problem: David Iglesias wasn't acting in the manner that the White House and New Mexico Republicans desired, so they cut him loose.

Iglesiasgate: Wilson and Domenici Fingered

Iglesias-gate just got a little hotter.

Via TPM Muckraker, US Attorney David Iglesias, who was fired by the Justice Department in their purge of prosecutors, essentially fingered the members of Congress who called him and pressured him to indict a Democratic former state Senator before Election Day 2006. Until these comments, Iglesias was careful to say "members of Congress" pushed for the indictment, but gave no details. But now he has pretty much acknowledged that it was Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, which makes perfect sense.

U.S. Attorney David Iglesias on Wednesday blamed his firing on failure by his office to bring indictments in the courthouse investigation before the November elections, saying he felt that two members of Congress pressured him to do so.

After his final news conference as U.S. attorney, he confirmed to the Journal that two members of the New Mexico delegation contacted him before the election and asked when indictments would be handed up by a federal grand jury.

Iglesias said he assumes that the members of the delegation were unhappy and complained to the White House, which led to his firing.

This is the first indication that the two members of Congress were definitively from the New Mexico delegation. There are only five members of Congress from New Mexico, and two of them are Democrats. Rep. Steve Pearce's office has officially denied involvement. That leaves Domenici and Wilson, who have both refused to answer any questions on the subject. So there you go.

We all remember that Wilson was in a tough re-election fight last year against former state Attorney General Patricia Madrid, and we remember that a central issue of the race was Madrid's alleged lax attitutde toward state corruption. If the US Attorney would bring an indictment against a former state Senator right in the middle of the campaign, it would further emphasize this point and embarrass Madrid. The senior Republican official in the state is Sen. Domenici, so his involement wouldn't surprise anyone either, especially considering his trying to help save his fellow incumbent.

This is kind of a big deal. We have two members of Congress who are using their position to tamper with a federal investigation, and additionally threatening the livelihood of a federal prosecutor. IANAL, but this seems to me to be a classic obstruction of justice crime. You also have the involvement of the executive branch, who ultimately has the power to hire and fire the US Attorneys, so there needed to be some communication between the offices of Wilson and Domenici and someone either at the DoJ or the White House political shop. AND, Justice Department officials like Paul McNulty LIED TO CONGRESS about why Iglesias and the other prosecutors were fired, citing performance reviews when the reviews themselves give Iglesias high marks for his official conduct.

Pass the popcorn. This one is getting veerrry interesting. And the implications for 2008 are enormous.