Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
I've met both Kuster and Swett and heard each of them speak on several occasions in various settings. I've had the chance to ask questions. I think they're both smart and they're both good people, they both have supporters who I like and respect as people and as activists, and I'll be happy to support either one in the general election. In the spirit of party unity and because I live in the 1st District, I haven't publicly supported either candidate.
Katrina Swett, at tonight's debate (any errors in transcription mine):
"Annie, you have cast yourself as the very, very progressive candidate, and have been warmly supported by the far left progressive movement. You policy positions bear this out. Your strong opposition to nuclear power as part of our energy future. Your insistence that President Obama withdraw American troops from Afghanistan immediately. Your support, as we've just talked about, for higher taxes, for example, a state income tax here in New Hampshire. I know these are sincere and deeply held beliefs, but they are out of step with the majority of voters. In a year when everyone understands that the country's moving back toward the center, and away from the more left, progressive point of view, if you were to become the nominee, would you try to distance yourself from your own positions, or are you hoping that your Republican opponent and perhaps the voters would simply overlook them?"
Between the UL piece, the Pledge Politicking that came out of nowhere, and this quote, the strategy going into the final days of the primary is in clearer focus.
Morning Update: I'm not the only one who noticed that Swett's 11th hour plan is to attract undeclareds by beating up on the left. And adding: It's taken Glenn Beck and Co. two years of language framing to try to turn "progressive" into the dirty word that the right has made out of "liberal," but last night was the first time, in NH or elsewhere, I've seen a Democrat employ that strategy in a Democratic primary. Note the careful repetition from her statement: "the very, very progressive candidate," "the far left progressive movement," "the more left, progressive point of view."
"We will see if Democrats, whatever the deepest feelings of their hearts may be, decide to nominate somebody who has that ability to appeal to a wide range of voters in what is going to be a very tough year for Democrats," Swett said, "or whether there is going to be an ideological purity test."
Annie Kuster is opposed to the buildup of troops in Afghanistan. Less than a month ago, 63% of Americans polled by CNN/Opinion research said they opposed the war.
Annie Kuster is also opposed to extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest. Less than a month ago, 56% of Americans polled by CBS News said the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest should expire.
Katrina Swett's 2002 position on a tax cut that disproportionately benefits the wealthy matched that of Charlie Bass, John E. Sununu, and John Stephen.
Here is how Swett herself characterized her earlier tax positions at last Tuesday's debate:
SWETT: In 2002 when I was a candidate for Congress, and Jeanne Shaheen was a candidate for U.S. Senate, we both supported targeted tax cuts for the middle class. And that is still my position today. And I think we need to permit the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans to expire, and we urgently need to extend the tax cuts for the middle class.
But your criticism-slash-attack on me is exactly the attack the John Sununu used against Jeanne Shaheen when he ran for her in 2008. It didn't work then, it's not going to work now. I said at the time in 2002 when I was a candidate that I would have liked to see those tax cuts targeted more heavily to the middle class. That's my position; it hasn't changed. We need to extend the tax cuts for middle class Americans and we need to let the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% expire.
Using Jeanne Shaheen as cover and casting Annie Kuster in the role of John E. Sununu is a repeat of the press release put out earlier by the Swett campaign, when her support for the Bush tax cuts was first highlighted.
Swett said much like others at the time she was misled into believing the Iraq war was justified
Yes, but: other Democrats weren't defending such support over three years later:
Swett believes Lieberman lost because of three perceived Democratic "sins": the sin of supporting the Iraq war and being tough on defense, the sin of being bipartisan and the sin of displaying religious faith. Swett said those traits might make Lieberman undesirable to many Democrats but they could be key for Democrats in winning future national elections.
Jon's already diaried this, but I would like to add that, with one exception, I think this is a great ad:
Remember when Hodes got criticized in '06 for the Bass fish mailer? I thought that was funny, and it worked well off of existing name rec. Swett probably has more name recognition than Kuster from her previous runs, so I see it as a clever way to capitalize on that.
I'm also down with the rest of the content - until this part:
...Wall St. and their lobbyists aren't sweating...
This is an odd inclusion, given DiStaso's revelation that Swett was a registered Washington lobbyist whose client was a notable Wall St. short seller. I take candidate Swett at her word, however, when she advocates in her policy positions an end to Wall St. bailout culture. But still, an odd thing to feature in the ad, imo.
Feedback on DiStaso's revelations has been something less than an endorsement. Dean Spiliotes:
But what a tactical blunder by the Swett campaign! I can't think of a better way to muddle their core negative message against Kuster than with the news that Swett has herself been a registered lobbyist. It doesn't matter that she may not have been actively engaged in the profession. For anyone paying casual attention to the race (which most people are in August), this disclosure will simply be seen as more evidence that politicians and would-be politicians are in the pocket of corporate America. If the Swett campaign has to get into a debate with the Kuster camp about which candidate was a bigger lobbyist, then the potential impact of the original negative attack is essentially lost.
The Concord Monitor:
Second District congressional candidate Katrina Swett could be this season's winner of the "glass houses" award. Swett's campaign had been making much of fellow Democratic candidate Ann McLane Kuster's record as a State House lobbyist when, lo and behold, Swett's own name was discovered on a federal list of registered lobbyists.
Finally, Charlie Cook (sorry, paywall) trains his lens on CD2:
The Democrats, who both come from notable political families and have ties to national networks of support, are raising more money. The favorite is attorney Ann McLane Kuster, a longtime party activist whose father served on New Hampshire¹s executive council and mother served as a liberal Republican state senator. Facing off against Kuster is Katrina Swett, the daughter of Hungarian immigrants, including late California Democratic Rep. Tom Lantos, and the wife of former 2nd CD Rep. Dick Swett. Swett ran for this seat against Bass unsuccessfully in 2002 and launched a shortly lived Senate campaign in 2008.
Please join us for great food, Vegan and Barbecue, (same great caterer)Mary Fagan Music, and great political discussion. Congressman Hodes, Ann Kuster, Katrina Swett, and Speaker Norelli are confirmed to attend and speak.
Our special guest speaker is known to many here on BH. He is Dr. Lawrence Lessig, bio below.Chairman Buckley believes as I do that the Citizen's United ruling will have far reaching impact on our politics. We need a disclosure bill, and the though NH House tried without success last session to pass one, the cause continues. Come here why this is central to preserving our democracy.
http://www.facebook.com/home.p... http://www.bluehampshire.com/e...
The Merrimack County Democrats invite you to our Summer Barbeque and Picnic. Join Cong.Paul Hodes, Ann Mclane Kuster, Katrina Swett, and other great candidates at the home of Steve Gorin and Cyndy Moniz...
Lawrence Lessig is the Director of the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University, and a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.
His current academic work addresses the question of "institutional corruption" - roughly, influences within an economy of influence that weaken the effectiveness of an institution, or weaken public trust. His current work at the EJ Safra Lab oversees a 5 year research project addressing institutional corruption in a number of institutional contexts.
He will talk about the relationship between change- every new administrations' mantra, lobbying in Washington, and Campaign Finance effects of the "Citizen's United" Case.
Swett's name is listed on a 1997 federal Lobbying Registration form for Dick Swett Associates, Inc., in a section requiring the "name and title of each employee of the registrant who has acted or is expected to act as a lobbyist for the client."
...Another form, a Lobbying Report filed in 1999, lists the registrant firm as "Katrina Swett Associates (formerly Dick Swett Associates)." The form was signed by chief operating officer Shireen Tilley.
...Based on those forms, the Swetts were described as registered lobbyists in a 2007 report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The Swett Associates website archive from 2007 lists "government relations" as chief among its services, with clients including the U.S. State Department, Design Futures Council, Computer Generated Solutions, Hans Christian Andersen Foundation, Gold Coast Innovation Center, Raytheon, Guardian Industries and EUA Cogenex.
But do click the link to read the painful pretzel logic Dr. Swett uses to explain this away.
Here's the thing. This wouldn't have been much of a story. But Katrina Swett spent the summer going negative on Kuster for her work in New Hampshire. It's been a one-note campaign.
When Kuster spent yesterday outlining her clean energy jobs plan, Team Swett simply hit send on yet another negative LOBBYIST!!!1! release, to use just one of many examples.
"I don't feel this is the best approach to keeping Americans safe from future terrorist attacks," Kuster said. "I think we need to have this narrowly focused counter-terrorism mission designed to disrupt al-Qaida."
Kuster said she would have joined U.S. Rep Carol Shea-Porter of the 1st District in voting against a bill the House passed last week providing $37 billion to pay for the two wars.
...Among Kuster's foreign policy advisers is John Hutson, dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center and retired Navy rear admiral and judge advocate general. Hutson, a former Republican who became a public supporter of Obama, said he and Kuster spoke about the plan to send more troops to Afghanistan.
I believe Kuster and Shea-Porter are broadly in line with Granite Staters, 65% of whom say the war is going badly.
Kuster's views on Afghanistan played a role in her endorsement by NH Peace Action, which release can be seen here.
Much of the rest of the Monitor article is devoted to Katrina Swett's early support for the Iraq war, which I spent some time looking at here.
From the latest strain of the one-note campaign, in part:
Blogger Acknowledges Kuster's Lobbying
"Lobbyists give money to both parties? This is shocking."
-- Dean Barker, Managing Editor of www.BlueHampshire.com, sarcastically defending Kuster's contributions to Republican state senate candidates. www.BlueHampshire.com has endorsed Kuster and has been actively promoting her candidacy.
Well, it wouldn't be the first press release about me, but it's the one that gave me the biggest chuckle.
In other news, I took a different way home than usual an hour ago and found four new Kuster signs on lawns. Still looking for my first Swett sign sighting.
(NB: SOTD = "Shrill of the Day," a new series I've started.)
Shorter Swett Campaign Release (I'll put a link up if they post it on their website): We got nothing, and the story is starting to feel stale, so: Lobbying!!1!
And the one note campaign plays on.
A friend of mine wondered why I cover this primary, as he does not see how it is possible Swett wins it.
I think he might be right; but in another sense this is the deferred primary Swett never got in 2002 when national Dems backed her pre-September and she strategically ignored a rival candidate who turned out to be right on the Bush tax cuts.
UPDATE: I think I'll be waiting a long time on putting that link in. I notice that the Prop 8 release was put on the website immediately, even though this negative attack release came earlier. And in fact, it looks like all the anti-Kuster releases are not on the press page.
"The National Republican Congressional Committee is going to make her lobbying record an issue. I don't want to kid ourselves. That is a reality," said Coffman, who added that Swett would support Kuster in the general election if she was the nominee.
Coffman confirmed that the campaign had bought TV airtime on New Hampshire TV station WMUR beginning in late August, but declined to specify whether the ads would be negative.
This is an obvious point, but I'm glad it's explicit, because it brings up an interesting dynamic in all this.
The Swett campaign's attack on Kuster right now is essentially at one with what we can expect with Charlie Bass and the NRCC.
"Kuster again is largely unknown," Smith said. "Eighty-five percent of those polled don't know anything about her. They can't even say if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of her."
But the poll also indicates that while Bass has strong recognition, his unfavorable ratings have climbed sharply since February. Currently, 34 percent of those polled have a favorable opinion of him, but 34 percent have an unfavorable opinion, with 33 percent neutral or saying they don't know enough to say.
Bass' zero percent net favorability is down sharply from his 25 percent net favorability in February.
To recap:
1) Folks don't know Annie's name yet. That's where you come in.
2) Folks know six-termer Bass' name. Yet he still can't crack 50% in matchups.
3) The more folks remember the man behind the name Bass, they less they like him.
Over to you, DCCC!
Actually, there is one more thing to know about this poll when look at the .pdf: Swett's net favorability is down 1% to -5%, while Kuster's is +8%.
This diary is an attempt to create a benchmark. It can be argued, but nothing will really come from it, as it is what it is, as they say.
"The reality is it was a very respectful, very amicable campaign up until about a week ago, and now the campaigning has begun," said Wayne Lesperance, a professor of political science at New England College. "It's taken a more aggressive tone, and it's probably going to get worse."
As the candidates seek to distinguish themselves, each side will attempt to tie its opponent to negative associations, Lesperance said. Among the Democrats of the 2nd District, which stretches from the Canadian border to the Massachusetts border and includes both Concord and the Upper Valley, both pharmaceutical lobbying and the unpopular former president could resonate, he said.
With Kuster leading in endorsements and local support, the Swett campaign may have drawn attention to Kuster's lobbying ties in an attempt to get traction, said political analyst Dean Spiliotes. But once the bouts of criticism have begun, he said, they will likely continue up to the primary.
"At some point you forget who the initial instigator was, and it becomes this tactical back-and-forth between the campaigns," Spiliotes said.
Some will suggest that supporters, from one side or the other, were out there bashing away. But we all know supporters are not the campaigns. I have yet to see either campaign use a notable surrogate to throw bombs.
So there, Swett/Coffman started it!
P.S. I have no inclination to allow a Republican to take this congressional seat. Losing control of the House would politcally cripple the President. That said, in no way am I inferring that there is an equivalency between Kuster and Swett. The distinctions are clear, when you get up close and look under the hood. Any suggestion of equivalency is an effort to lull voters to sleep until primary day, when all they'll have to go by is name recognition.
Of course, in the general election, a looming sense of anti-incumbency forecasts the will of the electorate. And if we end up with a 2002 do-over, independents may just decide that they like the President to be from one party and the Congress to be controlled by the other. (shudder to think) It ain't the 1990s no more.
The Kuster campaign yesterday highlighted Katrina Swett's 2002 opposition to repealing the Bush tax cuts.
I'm glad they did, because I was surprised, when researching my "War" post, to hear her on NH Outlook say the following after her support for the Iraq war, and I was interested in learning more.
"I don't favor a rollback of those tax cuts. You know, we're possibly still in a recession or in a very weak recovery, and I think that increasing taxes is the wrong thing to do at a time of recession. We want to stimulate the economy."
We are in a much deeper recession now than we were in 2002, but Swett now says she would repeal the cuts on those making over $250,000. I don't understand the difference in approach, if the idea in 2002 behind preserving the cuts was for economic stimulation.
But I'm going to leave the bigger issue of the Bush tax cuts aside for the moment and focus on a related one that resulted from yesterday's news.
For most of my life I have preferred poetry to politics, ploughshares to swords. As a result I found myself markedly unprepared for the world I needed to untangle after Osama bin Laden ordered a hit on 3,000 or so innocent people.
Two of them were high school classmates of mine. Many more were Port Authority cops, firefighters, and businessmen and women from the suburban neighborhoods around New York where I grew up.
As a frequent reader and only occasional commenter, I've been following the recent dust-up between Kuster and Swett supporters with great interest.
I've been astounded that two words have never appeared in any of the diaries or comments: "Joe Lieberman."
I know that Katrina informally repudiated Lieberman's ideas and his devolution into a Republican-lite senator several years ago, without renouncing her friendship with him, but still, to me and (I am sure) to many Democrats, it's her past and overlong association with Holy Joe that raises the most questions about her true beliefs, not all this careful parsing of her and Annie's marriage-equality semantics.
If I opened Blue Hampshire tomorrow and found a diary by Katrina Swett explaining how she believes her friend Joe Lieberman went astray--what Democratic ideals he no longer fights for, while she still does--that would provide the kind of clarity that to my mind is still missing when we try to think of Katrina Swett as a progressive Democratic candidate.
Mind you, I would vote for Katrina or Annie or any yellow dog against any Republican you can name. But we need to energize Democrats and Independents in this state. We need to know exactly who our candidates are, so we can get the vote out for them in November.
So come on Katrina--or come on, Dartmouth Dem--we already know you think Lieberman lost his way. Tell us how and why, and why the odious tag "Lieber-Dem" should not be applied to Katrina Swett. I think we all understand that she stuck with him too long out of friendship--but some of us really need to understand the relationship better.
I think that's the missing piece of the puzzle when it comes to exciting Blue Hampshirites and Dems throughout the state about a Swett candidacy.
I am honest to goodness completely surprised by this. From a caption from the Telegraph:
Social Issues: Supports abortion rights. Favors civil unions for gay and lesbian couples but not in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
Not exactly the kind of news I wanted to read on the day Argentina led the way, and NOM's protest was a dud.
On the one hand, I appreciate the honesty. On the other, I'm really just speechless. We spent a lot of time and effort on this site supporting the push to make marriage equality a reality in New Hampshire. I suppose the net result is that I am even happier today than I was yesterday that all the admins and contributing writers on this site chose to endorse Ann Kuster. Finally: if Swett wins the nomination, a truly Herculean effort will be required for the base to come together to overcome this position in the spirit of not electing Bass or Horn or Guida.
I suppose the next logical question is, will Swett work to reinstate the DOMA law that [] for?
UPDATE: This news was hiding in plain sight. Shame on me for not seeing it. WMUR:
Choose an Issue: Same-Sex Marriage
Ann McLane Kuster (D): I support marriage equality and believe the government should stay out of our personal lives.
Katrina Swett (D): It is important that the legal protections and benefits that the federal government offers be available to all families no matter where they live. I will work for the passage of federal civil unions legislation which will guarantee these rights for everyone.
UPDATE #2: Further statements from the candidates.
"I was a vocal supporter for passing marriage equality here in New Hampshire and I'll continue to support marriage equality in Washington. We should have less government interference in our personal lives, at both the state and federal levels."
As it often does, NH led the country by being the first in the nation to proactively enact marriage equality through the legislative process. In so doing, NH stood up for the proposition that all members of our community should be treated with respect and deserve an equal place at the table. I support federal civil union legislation that will extend the full range of federal benefits and legal protections to all families in our country, especially those who live in states that don't yet provide marriage equality.
