Note: we have included in this list last minute polling released showing 55 year incumbent John Dingell (D-Michigan) trailing 40-44% against his Republican challenger.

Detailed List

John Couvillon is a political consultant. His company is JMC Enterprises of Louisiana, Inc. with expertise in the data analysis aspects of political campaigns, such as poll sample development/analysis, development of targeted voter files for phone canvassing or mail outs, campaign strategy, and demographic consulting. See his site at WinWithJMC.com for more information.

Click on the bad-ass image to donate!

Specifically, an effort by Jim DeMint (R-SC) and David Vitter (R-LA) to remove Murkowski from her position as ranking Republican on the Senate Energy Committee failed in a conference vote on Friday. National Review’s Rich Lowry provides the details:

There were two questions before the Senate conference last week. One was whether to replace Murkowski as vice chairman of the conference. A vote occurred on that question, and she was replaced by Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming. The second was whether to accept the decision of the Republicans on the energy committee to strip her of her ranking status, which would go to the next in line, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina. The senators voted to table this question. So, technically they didn’t vote on the question, but they effectively acted to leave her in place and everyone understood the vote as such.

This was a secret ballot at a closed meeting, so getting senators to be forthcoming about what happened is like pulling teeth. We know DeMint voted against Murkowski. Amazingly, though, we’ve gotten only Inhofe and Sessions (via the Politico) on the record against Murkowski on the committee question. The others either say they support her retaining the committee position, or won’t say. If you’re a conservative primary voter, you’ll want to pay particular attention to those senators who are up in 2012.

The NRO piece contains lots of reasonable-sounding quotes from GOP senators like Lamar Alexander, Orrin Hatch, Bob Bennett and Kit Bond about how Murkowski is still a Republican Senator and even though they all support Miller now the vote was no big deal, the question of her committee assignment is moot and so on.

Vitter, who was not interviewed by NRO, is a bit less diplomatic. Spokesman Joel DiGrado had a more straightforward statement to offer when we caught up with him today:

“Sen. Vitter’s position is pretty simple: Sen. Murkowski lost in the primary and is now trying to undermine the Republican candidate by pursuing what’s best for her own interests over the party’s. She should not retain an important committee position as a result of those actions,” said DiGrado.

It’s clear, though, that the conservatives who are going to provide the Republicans with either a Senate majority or something close to it after November’s elections aren’t very satisfied with half-measures such as that provided by the caucus last week.

The POLITICO piece today outlining DeMint’s unpopularity among the Senate GOP brahmins which used the Murkowski issue as fodder won’t serve to improve matters. DeMint’s efforts at electing true conservatives like Miller, Marco Rubio in Florida, Mike Lee in Utah (who took down Bennett in a pre-primary caucus), Rand Paul in Kentucky (who knocked off Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell’s handpicked candidate in the primary) and Ken Buck in Colorado have ruffled lots of feathers among the old guard – some of whom have found themselves in his crosshairs. As such, he’s catching lots of javelins.

//

Since there has been a decent amount of polling done (as of today, polls have been released for all but the Hawaii Senate race) , we therefore have a better feel for how the race for the Senate is progressing.

Continue reading at http://winwithjmc.com/archives/1657

John is a political consultant and blogger with JMC Enterprises with expertise in poll sample development and analysis, development of targeted voter files for phone canvassing or mail outs, campaign strategy and demographic consulting, among other things. See his site at WinWithJMC.com for more information.

O’Donnell has been hammered by the GOP establishment in the past month, just as her campaign has eclipsed Castle’s and for the first time she has taken a small lead in the polls. There has been enough dirt on the insurgent candidate spread of late to fill in the Grand Canyon, and if you’re looking for an argument why she’s unworthy of support it’s not hard to find one. O’Donnell isn’t cut from the Carly Fiorina-Linda McMahon cloth, whereby she made millions as a businesswoman and demonstrated a keen ability for management or entrepreneurship. O’Donnell isn’t even a Sharron Angle, who made a reputation as a hard-core principled state legislator even if that meant lots of local politicos disparaged her for being an extremist.

O’Donnell is more your regular-Joe. She doesn’t have an impressive bio at all; in a more Republican-friendly state than Delaware she’d probably have won a small race or two and moved up from county commissioner to state senator, but instead she’s been something of a serial candidate and a performer of odd jobs in marketing and public relations. She only recently finished her college degree and it appears she’s embellished her accomplishments – though she hasn’t claimed to have fought in Vietnam or held herself out as a law professor – on her campaign bio.

Allen West or Rob Portman, she’s not. I get that. In a larger state than Delaware, with a healthier Republican Party, she wouldn’t have a chance at an office this high.

But, as Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, among others, have noticed, O’Donnell is an actual conservative. She ran for Senate in Delaware as a real conservative in 2008, when it was supposedly poisonous to do so, and got clobbered in the process. And while she’s an unimpressive individual, unimpressive individuals in the Senate are the rule rather than the exception. The difference is that O’Donnell is an unimpressive individual who isn’t connected to the Ivy League-Wall Street ruling class like, for example, Kristin Gillibrand or Chris Dodd are.

Meanwhile, on the Establishment side of this divide we have Mike Castle, an entrenched incumbent politician who has been Delaware’s only congressman for nine terms (that’s 18 years) and was the state’s governor at one time. Castle is 70 years old and his voting record is absolutely noxious to conservatives. He styles himself a moderate, which would be an accurate description if your definition of a moderate politician would encompass Ron Wyden or Mary Landrieu. Castle is, in fact, the most left-wing Republican in the House of Representatives; he’s the very definition of a RINO.

How bad is Castle? Well, via Michelle Malkin let’s take a look at his record on energy for example:

 * Voted YES on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
* Voted YES on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008)
* Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)
* Voted YES on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
* Voted YES on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
* Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
* Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
* Voted YES on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
* Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
* Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
* Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
* Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
* Voted YES on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
* Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
* Rated 33% by CAF, indicating a mixed record on energy independence. (Dec 2006)
* Sign on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Jan 2007)
* Supports immediate reductions in greenhouse gases. (Sep 1998)

That’s not a moderate voting record. That’s a left-wing nightmare of a voting record.

Castle also voted for the DISCLOSE Act, TARP, that $26 billion greasing of the teachers’ unions a couple weeks ago and Cap and Trade. He’s got a lifetime near-100 percent rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. The National Rifle Association has given him an “F” rating since the early 1990′s. The Club For Growth gave Castle a 43 percent rating in 2009, which was a high-water mark in recent years (and a product of increased party discipline with a smaller GOP caucus) after ratings of 35 and 26 in 2007 and 2008. In fact, when Castle earned a 26 in 2008 from the Club For Growth, Arlen Specter earned a 44.

As Limbaugh, Dan Riehl and Erick Erickson have both noted, GOP majorities peppered by Mike Castles are majorities in name alone. You can’t make policy with a Mike Castle in your camp, because you will either have to continually bribe him with pork and thus sabotage your credibility with the American people or you will watch him fight against you. Such a majority merely makes the Republicans responsible for policy and presents the Obama administration with an even more inviting target for demonization (the distinctly uncharismatic and boring Mitch McConnell) than their past and present bogeymen Limbaugh, George W. Bush and now John Boehner. With a Castle teaming with Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and (probably) John McCain, the GOP will be credited with 51 votes when they’ve actually got 46. There is no difference between the two other than having the responsibility for setting the agenda.

On the other hand, if Angle manages to knock off Harry Reid (she leads by one point in the latest poll), the Republicans might be in the minority in a Chuck Schumer-led Senate. This is electoral gold in 2012, when the vast majority of the seats up for re-election will be Democrat seats. When the country gets a look at Schumer’s leadership they’ll recoil in a similar fashion to what we’ve seen with Reid, if not more so.

This assumes the Delaware race will make the difference between 50 and 51 seats, when it’s probably more likely to make the difference between 48 and 49, or 51 and 52. In other words, it’s by no means proven that the nomination decided tonight will hold the GOP Senate majority’s fate.

But as DrewM. from Ace Of Spades said, “If this guy were running against Lindsay Graham, I’d send him money.”

Rubio brought down the house at CPAC 2010 in Washington today:

“To stimulate the economy and create jobs at no cost to the taxpayers, and without borrowing money from foreign governments for which our children and grandchildren will be responsible, and for other purposes.”

So reads the introduction to HR 1431, a piece of legislation that was introduced in the House of Representatives on March 11, 2009 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT).  Identical legislation was introduced in the Senate as S-570 by Senators Vitter (R-LA) and Shadegg (R-AZ) soon after.  David Vitter renewed his call for this legislation to be debated today.

The No Cost Stimulus Act, authored by “the party of ‘No’” and of “no ideas,” would create jobs in the energy sector by promoting domestic oil and gas production, streamlining nuclear powerplant construction,  and limiting the EPA’s authority to impose economy-killing mandates that many believe are outside their jurisdiction.  These proposals, excepting the latter, are completely consistent with President Obama’s comments on growing the energy sector during his State of the Union Message, though frequent readers will recall our skepticism of those remarks.  “Actions speak louder than words,” and past actions of the Obama administration cause us to extrapolate that skepticism to include any support for this legislation as well.  This legislation has been lingering for almost a year with no indication that the leaders of the majority party will place it on the docket of either chamber for debate.  Neither has there been an outcry from the public to debate and pass this legislation, for there has been little or no publicity of it (a Google search of the topic provided no sources from “mainstream media” websites in the first fifty hits).

As summarized above, this legislation addresses three primary areas of job creation, and simultaneously helps the nation make great strides towards energy independence.  Imagine a growing economy fueled by high paying jobs and clean, reliable energy sources that are not dependent on countries that hate us for their supply!

Oil Exploration and Production

President George W Bush, before he left office, took steps to open up 85% of US territorial waters for exploration and production.  Congressional limitations on exploring those waters were subsequently allowed to expire.  The Department of the Interior began taking steps to make these resources available.  The general public expressed strong support for renewed domestic exploration (remember “drill, baby, drill” and “drill here, drill now?”).  Then along came “hope and change,” and progress ceased.    As the Heritage Foundation reports,

“Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar extended the initial 60-day comment period to six months, unnecessarily delaying the process of leasing offshore areas to energy companies for drilling and access to domestic resources.”

The No Cost Stimulus Act includes provisions to expedite the lease approval process rather than delay it as Secretary Salazar is doing, while providing a reasonable environmental review process, but also recognizing that current technologies greatly reduce the likelihood of environmental harm from drilling activity.

There is an estimated 19 billion barrels of oil, the equivalent of 30 years of imports from Saudi Arabia at present day rates, available from this source.

While again remaining sensitive to environmental concerns, the No Cost Stimulus Act would open selected areas of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for exploration and production of oil, with similar provisions for expedited approvals.  Drilling in ANWR would only be allowed during periods when the ground is frozen, thus having no affect on wildlife migration that occurs during warmer periods.

There is an estimated 16 billion barrels of oil available from this source.

And lastly, this legislation provides for the recovery of crude oil from domestic shale formations.  Secretary Salazar recently reversed agreements that would have allowed for exploration and production of this oil on federal lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.  Sale of such leases by the DOI would be authorized by this legislation when the recovery technology becomes feasible.

Conservative estimates place available quantities of oil from shale at 800 billion barrels.

Expedited Approval Processes

Despite having received about 20 applications to construct more than 30 new nuclear reactors, no new reactors have been approved in this country for over three decades.  This legislation provides for accelerating that process so as to permit the construction of new, safe, clean power generation facilities.

Similarly, energy projects under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency for review generally require about 4 ½ years to advance through the process.  This legislation would limit those reviews to 270 days so the projects might one day be built.

Unlegislated Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction

Both the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act have been proposed as vehicles by which the construction of generating facilities and the production of domestic energy resources could be delayed or killed.  The No Cost Stimulus Plan would block recent efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases without legislative authority. 

Our nation needs this legislation.  It will create revenue for the national treasury, to the tune of an estimated $273billion per year from offshore oil royalties, and another $158billion from ANWR.  Estimates of revenue at the state level, and as would be generated from oil bearing shale, are not as readily available, but would be significant.  And these are not taxes on individuals, but rather are positive consequences of normal leasing activities.

And it will create an estimated 2million jobs which are sorely needed in this economy.  Engineers, geologists, and skilled craftsperson’s are required to locate and extract the oil, and to design and construct nuclear powerplants. 

Finally, it will greatly contribute to energy independence.  This nation is highly dependent on the importation of resources for the production of fossil fuels from regions of the world that don’t like us very much.  Monies we send them in exchange for their oil is often used to fund Jihadist terror training and attacks on this nation.  Why should we continue to fund those activities when the energy we need is available from our own sources?

This is important legislation.  ANWR.org reports that it was supported in the Senate at its introduction by Senators Christopher Bond (MO), Jim Bunning (KY), Tom Coburn (OK), Thad Cochran (MS), John Cornyn (TX), Jim DeMint (SC), John Ensign (NV), Michael Enzi (WY), James Inhofe (OK), James Risch (ID), Jeff Sessions (AL), and Richard Shelby (AL).  In the House, it is supported by Representatives Todd Akin (MO), Michele Bachmann (MN), Spencer Bachus (AL), Marsha Blackburn (TN), John Boozman (AZ), Charles Boustany (LA), Paul Broun (GA), Henry Brown (SC), Michael Burgess (TX), Bill Cassidy (LA), Jason Chaffetz (UT), Michael Conaway (TX), Mary Fallin (OK), John Fleming (LA), Virginia Foxx (NC), Trent Franks (AZ), Scott Garrett (NJ), John Gingrey (GA), Louis Gohmert (TX), Walter Herger (CA), Jim Jordan (OH), Jack Kingston (GA), John Kline (MN), Doug Lamborn (CO), Robert Latta (OH), Jerry Lewis (CA), Cynthia Lummus (WY), Kevin McCarthy (CA), Tom McClintock (CA), Thaddeus McCotter (MI), Patrick McHenry (NC), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA), Randy Neugebauer (TX), Devin Nunes (CA), Joseph Pitts (PA), Tom Price (GA), George Radanovich (CA), Dennis Rehberg (MT), Dana Rohrabacher (CA), Steve Scalise (LA), John Shadegg (AZ), Michael Simpson, (ID), Mark Souder (IN), John Sullivan (OK), William Thornberry (TX), Zach Wamp (TN), Lynn Westmoreland (GA), and Donald Young (AK).

These members of the House and Senate need to know that we support them, and members whose names are absent need to be encouraged to support it if they haven’t joined the contingent yet.  This legislation merits the same kind of grass roots engagement as was given healthcare “reform” and the Scott Brown for Senate efforts.  Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi must be strongly encouraged to bring this legislation forward.

Ashley Alber summarizes it best at Human Events.com, where she says

“The first so-called “stimulus” package cost each American family about $18,000.  But the Democrats aren’t done.  After a conference with economists (recently), Speaker Pelosi indicated she’d be open to a second spending spree in an amount to be determined.

Republicans – incorrectly being blamed for having no alternatives – are again proposing legislation that (a) would stimulate the economy and (b) not cost the taxpayers a dime.

An increase in GDP and creating more than 2 million long term, sustainable jobs without spending trillions of dollars sounds impossible during an administration that spends money like a teenage girl.”

From the Times-Picayune:

In an unusual alliance, conservative Sen. David Vitter is teaming with self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders to block a vote on Ben Bernanke’s nomination for a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Vitter, R-La., and Sanders, who is officially listed as an independent from Vermont, are joined by Sens. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., and Jim DeMint, R-S.C., in the move against Bernanke. All have said they won’t lift their holds until Senate leaders agree to establish congressional audits of the powerful monetary agency.

In opposing the Bernanke nomination, Vitter faulted Bernanke’s policies in trying to rescue troubled financial companies.

“Over the past year or so, the Fed has doled out several trillion dollars to any number of troubled institutions through a series of programs that were supposed to turn our economy around,” Vitter said. “These programs have worsened our economic crisis by making ‘too big to fail’ a permanent government policy and created further debt that will now be the burden of our children and grandchildren.”

At the very least, Vitter said, the Senate shouldn’t vote on Bernanke, who was first appointed by President George W. Bush, until a process is established for audits of the agency.

Senator Vitter, along with the other three Senators mentioned above, “gets it” on this issue, and they are standing up for U.S. taxpayers. Ben Bernake was one of the accomplices in the recent financial crisis by helping promote policies of “Too Big to Fail” and legislation that led to the vote-buying and blackmail that took place to pass the $700 billion financial bailout in 2008, now known as TARP.

Sen. Vitter has his own faults, but he was one of the few members of Congress and one of the few Republican legislators to stand up to his own party and colleagues and vote against the TARP boondoggle. It also appears he is going to be one of the few to demand accountability from Ben Bernanke and the policies he promoted since the Bush Administration.

Nick Bouterie is a resident of Acadia Parish

Blogger Chris Elliott, who had been served with a subpoena from TSA last night demanding he immediately turn over the identity of his source for the security directive, contacted a lawyer after his conversation with TSA agents. Anthony Elia, Elliott’s attorney, told the Associated Press that the subpoena had been suspended until Jan. 20. Later today on Elliott’s blog it was reported that the subpoena has been dropped altogether…

Mr. Elia:

This is to confirm our earlier telephone conversation that the TSA subpoena of December 29, 2009, issued to your client, Mr. Christopher Elliott, is being withdraw as no longer necessary.
Thank you for your assistance and have a happy and safe New Year.

John A. Drennan
Deputy Chief Counsel (Enforcement)
Office of the Chief Counsel
Transportation Security Administration
Department of Homeland Security

Elliott’s experience was a more positive one than was Steven Frischling’s. Frischling had his computer seized by TSA agents yesterday, and when it was returned to him by the agency today he says it was damaged. From Frischling’s blog today:

Yesterday was an interesting day, which I really wish had happened to someone else. At 10:30am two Transportation Security Administration Special Agents returned to my home and removed my laptop from my house. The TSA was looking for the email address of the person who sent me Security Directive SD-1544-09-06. I did not have the email address and knew it was not on my hard-drive, however the computer was removed to be searched by a Secret Service computer forensics expert. The search yielded nothing.

What worries me is this…and not for my own security and freedom…but for the safety of the traveling public which the TSA is charged with protecting. Why was I assigned two high-ranking TSA Special Agents?

One Special Agent, out of Boston, served with Secret Service for more than 30 years and has also served in the role of Director of Counter Terrorism & Law Enforcement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The other Special Agent, from New Jersey, served more than 20 years with the Secret Service, leaving the Secret Service in the position of Assistant Special Agent In Charge of the New York Field Office, and then going onto work as a Deputy Director of Global Security.

The agent from Boston joined the TSA as a Special Agent in October 2009; the agent from New Jersey also joined the TSA as a Special Agent in 2009.

I understand the TSA’s concern in finding their internal leak, however as much of the media has reported, the TSA appears to be using a heavy handed tactic in coming after Chris Elliot and myself regarding this issue. These two agents, with more than a combined history of 50 years of working as Secret Service investigators, may be better tasked to dealing with matters of direct national security issues.

The Department of Homeland Security could have better allocated its resources of two clearly senior investigators researching something more befitting their experience and expertise. The Department of Homeland Security could have better allocated its resources in having a Secret Service computer forensics specialist travel more than 100 miles to image my hard-drive.

When the TSA removed my laptop from my home, my computer and system was functioning perfectly. Shortly before the TSA returned to my home they called me to tell me that the Secret Service computer forensic investigator was encountering many ‘bad sectors’ in my hard drive. Upon checking my MacBook following its return, and running Disk Utility it appears that I have many bad sectors in my hard drive, countless errors in my operating system, my MacBook will not synch with Time Machine to be backed up, my audio is no longer working and a red-light inside my audio jack is on constantly.

The TSA has reportedly offered to buy Frischling a new computer. He attributes today’s fiasco to the agency’s lack of a full-time appointed head, a vacancy which exists because Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has placed a hold on Obama’s designate for the job Erroll Southers. The left is engaged in a conniption over DeMint’s hold, but the South Carolina conservative has made the point that Southers is a supporter of unionizing TSA employees. A move is already on by the National Treasury Employees Union to sign up the TSA’s workers; the NTEU is an affiliate of the George Soros-funded left-wing group Americans Coming Together.

“I’m only looking for some time to debate the issue and have a vote so this isn’t done in secret,” says DeMint.