The Agonist - USA: Campaign 2006

Report: WH Used Taxpayer Money to Promote GOP Candidates

Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:00:57 -0700

JUSTIN ROOD and MADDY SAUER | October 15

ABC News - Cabinet Secretaries and Top Officials Deployed to Key Districts for Political Events, Report Finds

The Bush White House mounted an "unprecedented" political effort to use top officials and taxpayer funds to promote Republican Congressional candidates during the 2006 election cycle, according to a congressional investigation.

The White House Office of Political Affairs deployed roughly 30 cabinet secretaries and other top officials over 300 times to key districts around the country -- often on the government's dime -- to appear at political functions supporting Republican candidates, concluded the probe by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

In 2006, the Bush White House was facing a fast-rising tide of anti-Republican sentiment that threatened to sweep Democrats into the majority in both the House and Senate. In a largely fruitless effort to stem that tide, Bush's Office of Political Affairs dispatched 32 top officials to make a total of 326 appearances supporting 99 Republican candidates, according to today's draft report by the committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Ca).

Obama Doesn't Take Special Interest Money?

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:54:34 -0800

The media is all abuzz with this presidential primary race between the two Democratic contenders. They are so excited and I’m feeling like a zombie. I can’t watch the television or go on the big websites because I am thoroughly disgusted, and so totally not interested. I don’t care what kind of “spin” they put on these two politicians; I can’t stand either of them. If it’s not totally clear in every Liberal/Progressive’s head’s by now, it really should be. These two candidates represent just about everything, and everyone that we have been screaming about since Bush came into office.

Let’s get down to the real nitty-gritty on this campaign. We all know that campaign finance is just about the biggest problem we have. We are constantly reminded of this every time we read or hear of the cost of running a successful bid for the White House. It’s fact that the candidates this cycle have outspent the previous candidates in the last Presidential election. We should realize that it is all about money. It’s not about our money however; it is all about corporate money from the Military Industrial Corporate Complex. Many people get a knee-jerk reaction to that phrase. Let me clear the air and present some facts that will underscore exactly what I am saying here; that there is absolutely no difference between the three corporate candidates that the MICC media has presented to us. Oh, by the way, Mussolini’s definition of fascism; corporatism.

Let’s see where these candidates get their money to convince you to vote for them;

Hillary Clinton;
Goldman Sachs $413,361 Morgan Stanley $362,700 Citigroup Inc $350,895 Lehman Brothers $241,870 JP Morgan Chase & Co $214,880 EMILY's List $213,266 National Amusements Inc $210,010 Kirkland & Ellis $179,676 Greenberg Traurig Llp $177,800 Skadden, Arps et al $167,796 Merrill Lynch $165,042 Cablevision Systems $145,313 Time Warner $144,977 Microsoft Corp $143,459 Bear Stearns $141,835 Latham & Watkins $138,598 Patton Boggs $137,200 Ernst & Young $126,865 PricewaterhouseCoopers $121,939

Barack Obama:
Goldman Sachs $421,763 Ubs Ag $296,670 Lehman Brothers $250,630 National Amusements Inc $245,843 JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848 Sidley Austin LLP $226,491 Citigroup Inc $221,578 Exelon Corp $221,517 Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420 Jones Day $181,996 Harvard University $172,324 Citadel Investment Group $171,798 Time Warner $155,383 Morgan Stanley $155,196 Google Inc $152,802 University of California $143,029 Jenner & Block $136,565 Kirkland & Ellis $134,738 Wilmerhale Llp $119,245 Credit Suisse Group $118,250

John McCain:
Merrill Lynch $155,950 Citigroup Inc $153,362 Blank Rome LLP $141,401 Greenberg Traurig LLP $130,587 Goldman Sachs $85,252 Univision Communications $82,000 IDT Corp $79,250 Bank of New York Mellon $74,000 Bridgewater Assoc $72,100 MGM Mirage $70,400 Irvine Co Apartment Community $66,100 JP Morgan Chase & Co $65,485 Credit Suisse Group $65,000 Pinnacle West Capital $64,000 Lehman Brothers $63,450 Wachovia Corp $58,675 Cisco Systems $56,650 Morgan Stanley $55,701 Blackstone Group $47,950 MacAndrews & Forbes $45,000

Mike Gravel:
Floor Surplus inc $2,550 New Perspectives Quarterly $2,300 Jim Stork for Congress $2,300 Decode Biostructures $2,008 Mitchell Gold Co $2,000 Hewlett-Packard $2,000 Exxon Mobil $2,000 Paypal Inc $1,695 Worldwide Media $1,500 Internet Communication $1,000 Urburn Univiersity $1,000 Ogim $1,000 Crisis Consultants Group $1,000 VOTEC Corp $1,000 Pictures Inc $1,000 Hypertone Inc $1,000 Apple Inc $1,000 Witness for Peace $1,000 American Ecology Corp $1,000 Treeman Inc $875

Is there something a wee bit fishy up there? Seems like the same people are financing the same “top three”, Is it me being suspicious or is it really true? By the way, these contributions are from employees of these companies that give and are “bundled” together by their employers. Are they being patriotic? Some of these corporations aren’t even American corporations!

Let’s look at the Military Industrial Complex:
Election Cycle 2008*
Total Contributions $9,307,088
$2,819,665 Contributions from Individuals
$6,487,423 Contributions from PACs
$4,861,181 Donations to Democrats
$4,439,327 Donations to Republicans
% to Dems 52%
% to GOP 48%

Why would the MIC give to the Democratic candidates unless they want to influence them?
What I’m saying is that there is no difference between which “corporatist” you see in the major parties that are still in this race, save the only one that hasn’t bet the farm, and that is Mike Gravel. The rest are supported (or should I say employed?) by the same corporations.
So the next time Obama says he doesn’t take “special interest” money, you know that he is a liar. The next time they rant and rave about “change”, you know what change you’ll get: what’s left after their payback to their benefactors.
So, like I said before, vote for the corporate-backed candidate of your choice, we could have stood up to the Mainstream Media when they selected who would get promoted, but we didn’t. We can either keep playing their game, or wake up and smell the coffee. Just one more thing, I don’t make this stuff up.
*Data is from www.OpenSecrets.org

Liberal/Progressives and Corporatism

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:28:29 -0800

It’s about time that Liberals were proud of being called…well, Liberals. There has been change in this country, brought on by the radical Neo-Conservative movement that seems to have been utterly rejected by the American people. The Neo-Cons and their right-wing radio personalities and their Faux-News network have found their days numbered, and their audience shrinking. The constant bromating and discordance has provided no defense against the surge of Democrats that flock to the caucuses and primaries to remove the Republican Neo-Con stain that has sullied our government. The people in this country want change, and for the moment, that change is being touted by Barack Obama who seems certain to win the Democratic Primary by a significant margin, that is unless the super-delegates swing the tide to Hillary, and that doesn’t seem likely.

What most people seem not to grasp, is that Obama, while a more appealing candidate that say, John McCain, might seem a bit more palatable than Clinton, in actuality, there’s not a whole lot of difference. Both are supported by the Military-Industrial-Corporate-Complex that has until recently, hedged their bets on the side of the GOP. Obama claims that he “takes no special interest money” but yet, all one has to do is glance at opensecrets.org or WhiteHouseforSale.com and see the special interests that have contributed to his campaign. To stand in front of an audience and repeat the same old theme, that he is for “change” and at the same time take money from those that resist any type of change, is almost surreal. The American public becomes enchanted with moxie and verve almost immediately, and Obama has both. This eventually will be his undoing however, when the Liberal/Progressive’s in the Democratic Party realize that they are again, being taken for an expensive ride. This is a ride that has been funded by the very same entities that they sought to break free from, the same MICC that gave us George W. Bush.

Unless you can suspend your disbelief and trust that a donation of almost a half-million dollars from bankers and other donations of a quarter of a million dollars from others isn’t vying for influence, then no, Obama has only taken a little over $78,000 from “special interest lobbyists”. Still, I am one that can’t be that trusting. I didn’t believe George W. Bush when he claimed to be a “compassionate conservative” and I can’t believe Barack Obama when he claims not to be “influenced” by special interests. I was born at night, but I wasn’t born last night.

Besides the rhetoric that Obama has borrowed from other politicos, what exactly is he talking about when he talks of “change”? That he will withdraw all combat troops out of Iraq in the first eighteen months? Where will he send them after he invades Pakistan acting upon “actionable intelligence”? That’s what he said, not me. Does that type of talk make you raise your eyebrows just a little? Where is this going? Is he going to get the United States out of the “war” business or not? It doesn’t seem so.

When are Liberal/Progressives going to demand more substantial answers from a man that is seeking the highest office in the land? To this writer, I see no roots of “change”. Not with Obama, not with Clinton. All I see is more of the “Same Old, Same Old”. The problem isn’t really with Obama or Clinton. The problem is with the Democratic Party. Progressives have lost their voice, and they can’t rally around each other to make that voice heard. We have let Gravel, Kucinich and Edwards to be effectively muzzled by the Mainstream Media. We should have protested and screamed the day that ABC denied Senator Mike Gravel the right to speak in that third debate. First they got rid of Gravel, then Kucinich and finally Edwards. Clinton and Obama were the most “newsworthy” I guess. At least that’s what we have heard.

So where does that leave the Liberal/Progressives? That’s the million dollar question. Do we just “go along to get along” and hate ourselves the next morning like a desperate person at closing time at the local pick-up joint? Can Liberal/Progressives ever really become a force to be reckoned with in this country ever again? That my friends is completely up to you, if we would just stop fighting amongst ourselves and break free of the insane stranglehold that the Democrats seem to have us in we would all benefit. The Democrats haven’t done us any favors in 2006 and they don’t appear to in 2008. Maybe it’s time we found a new home, one that doesn’t stink of corporatism.

That’s the way I see it.

Less than half of military votes overseas counted

Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:16:41 -0700

Leo Shane III | Washington | Sept 25

Stars and Stripes - Overseas military voters had less than half of their votes counted in last year’s congressional elections, according to data released by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission on Monday.

“One thing is clear: At every level of government, we need to do a better job,” said Donetta Davidson, chair of the commission. “We must make sure all eligible voters are getting their opportunities.”

The figures, released at the commission’s annual conference on ways to improve and troubleshoot the absentee voting process, showed that only about 992,000 of the nearly 6 million eligible overseas citizens requested ballots for the 2006 general election.

That included about 119,000 military personnel stationed outside the United States. Of those, only about 57,000 — less than 48 percent — had their votes successfully cast or counted.

EAC officials said that’s roughly the same percentage that were counted for expatriates and domestic military filing absentee ballots. The major failures were on the ballot delivery side, with about 72 percent of those who failed to vote never receiving any of their requested election materials.

Commerce, Treasury funds helped boost GOP campaigns

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:15:13 -0700

Marisa Taylor and Kevin G. Hall | Washington | August 17

McClatchy - Violations of the Hatch Act are treated as administrative, not criminal, matters, and punishment for violations ranges from suspension to termination.

Top Commerce and Treasury Departments officials appeared with Republican candidates and doled out millions in federal money in battleground congressional districts and states after receiving White House political briefings detailing GOP election strategy.

Political appointees in the Treasury Department received at least 10 political briefings from July 2001 to August 2006, officials familiar with the meetings said. Their counterparts at the Commerce Department received at least four briefings — all in the election years of 2002, 2004 and 2006.

The House Oversight Committee is investigating whether the White House's political briefings to at least 15 agencies, including to the Justice Department, the General Services Administration and the State Department, violated a ban on the use of government resources for campaign activities.

RFK: Rove And Rove’s Brain, ‘Should Be In Jail,’ Not In Office

Tue, 08 May 2007 07:48:00 -0700

By Greg Palast, May 7

NEW YORK — Voting rights attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called for prison time for the new US Attorney for Arkansas, Timothy Griffin and investigation of Griffin’s former boss, Karl Rove, chief political advisor to President Bush.

“Timothy Griffin,” said Kennedy,”who is the new US attorney in Arkansas, was actually the mastermind behind the voter fraud efforts by the Bush Administration to disenfranchise over a million voters through ‘caging’ techniques - which are illegal.”

[Hear Kennedy on Griffin, Rove and ‘caging lists’ here]

Kennedy based his demand on the revelations by BBC reporter Greg Palast in the new edition of his book, “Armed Madhouse.” On one page of the book, Palast reproduces a copy of a confidential Bush-Cheney campaign email, dated August 26, 2004, in which Griffin directs Republican operatives to use the ‘caging’ lists.

This is one of the emails subpoenaed by Congress but supposedly “lost” by Rove’s office. Palast obtained 500 of these, fifty with ‘caging’ lists attached.

more ...

Voting Machine Co. Directed Own Audit in Contested Florida Election

Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:41:29 -0700

Brad Friedman | March 24

BradBlog - Terms of 'Independent' State Run Audit, Source Code Review Dictated by Voting Machine Company to Florida State Election Director Prior to Tests of Failed Touch-Screen Voting Systems from Contested Jennings/Buchanan Election!

The private voting machine company which manufactured the touch-screen hardware and software used during Sarasota, Florida's contested District 13 Congressional election between Christine Jennings (D) and Vern Buchanan (R) sent a letter in December of 2006 to David Drury, the chief of the state's Bureau of Voting Systems Certification, dictating the terms of the state-run audit convened to investigate the causes for massive undervote rate which seems to have tipped the election.

The extraordinary 3-page letter (posted in full at the end of this article) from Electronic Systems & Software, Inc. (ES&S) Vice President, Steven Pearson, is described as an "agreement" and instructs Drury on what may and may not be disclosed in the state's final audit report regarding the investigation.

[...]

The long list of ES&S narrow dictates of what may or may not be discussed in the state report, which was finally released last month to much criticism from Jennings and others, includes (but is not limited to):

* No statements about "potential" situations
* No statements that discuss what "might" have occurred
* No statements about possible "vulnerabilities"
* No statements about the "style" of the source code
* No statements commenting on the use of less desirable techniques, instructions, or constructs
* No statements rendering opinions on proper uses, improper use, or correctness of source code
* No statements rendering opinions on security techniques employed or not employed
* No statements discussing relevance of any discoveries made in this review to any elections or contests outside the 2006 Sarasota General Election, U.S. House of Representative District 13 race.
* No statements regarding conformance to source code standards of any type or kind

...etc.

...continued

Speaker-to-be wants Ciro as a rep-to-be

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:19:37 -0800

Gary Martin | San Antonio | November 30

San Antonio Express-News - Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi and other House leaders are pouring thousands of dollars into Ciro Rodriguez's bid to unseat Rep. Henry Bonilla and expand a Democratic majority in Congress.

The help from Pelosi, D-Calif., comes after Texas Democrats and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus pledged cash to Rodriguez and his uphill fight against a better-funded Bonilla.

Meet Senator Millionaire

Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:55:29 -0800

Jessica Holzer | Washington | November 20

Forbes - Despite having a hardscrabble farmer and an avowed socialist in their ranks, the incoming class of senators does little to shake the Senate's image as a millionaires' club.

The wealth of the incoming class will hardly raise eyebrows in the Senate, where about half of the current 100 members are also millionaires and the average net worth is $8.9 million, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington. By contrast, less than 1% of the U.S. population has a net worth of $1 million or more.

In 2006, senators were paid an annual salary of $165,200.

More at the source.

Comment:
Unfortunately the article has been written by a soap opera style. No summaries or group comparisons between senators. Are Republicans or Democrats richer? Are the newcomers richer?

Democrats are set to subpoena

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 04:28:08 -0800

Richard B. Schmitt & Richard Simon | Washington | November 10

LAT - Rep. Ike Skelton knows what he will do in one of his first acts as chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Democratic-led House: resurrect the subcommittee on oversight and investigations.

The panel was disbanded by the Republicans after they won control of Congress in 1994. Now, Skelton (D-Mo.) intends to use it as a forum to probe Pentagon spending and the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq war.

It has been 12 years since Democrats were in control of both the House and Senate. But they are looking to make up for lost time, and in some cases, make the Bush administration and its business allies sweat.

With control of every committee in Congress starting in January, the new majority will inherit broad powers to subpoena and investigate. And that is expected to translate into wide-ranging and contentious hearings.

The agenda is likely to be dominated by the Iraq war, but could include probes into the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance, environmental policies and new prescription-drug program for seniors. Industries, such as oil companies, could also come under closer scrutiny.

What Happened, What's Next? : Agonist 2006 Post-Election Open Thread

Thu, 09 Nov 2006 08:12:20 -0800

Team Agonist | Blogistan | November 8

Stoic Tester(D-MT) still waiting (NYT).

Claire McCaskill(D-MO) gains Senate

(epa/Scott Rovak)

The Agonist catch-all Open Thread for 2006 post-election events and ruminations. Post away!

The Guardian - Democrats have taken back control of the House of Representatives, 12 years after Newt Gingrich's Republican revolution.

As the new Speaker of the House, San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi will control its agenda. Democrats will also assume control of the powerful House committees. The advent of a Democrat-led House will reintroduce a system of checks and balances that has been absent from the first six years of the Bush presidency.

More threads:
• OH-15 winner still in doubt
• Democrats edge closer to control of Senate
• Senator-Elect Jim Webb (D-VA) Recount Thread
• A battle not the war- notes on what comes next
• ballot initiatives

Hastert Tells GOP Leaders He Won't Run for Minority Leader

Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:47:44 -0800

Washington | November 8

AP - Triggering a post-election shake-up, Dennis Hastert announced Wednesday he will not run for leader of House Republicans when Democrats take control in January.

"Obviously I wish my party had won," the House Speaker said in a statement that added he intends to return to the "full-time task" of representing his Illinois constituents.

His decision to step down from the leadership cleared the way for a likely succession battle among lawmakers who face the sudden loss of power after a dozen years in the majority.

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, currently the majority leader, is expected to run for leader, and Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana announced during the day he also will seek the post. Joe Barton of Texas has signaled he may join the field. Republican leadership elections are scheduled for Nov. 15.

Hastert first conveyed word of his plans in a conference call with fellow GOP leaders one day after Republicans lost control of the House in midterm elections.

There is no recent precedent for Hastert's situation. The last time control of the House changed hands, in 1994, the speaker at the time, Democratic Rep. Tom Foley of Washington, lost his House seat.

Hastert, 64, became speaker nearly eight years ago, stepping up after Newt Gingrich resigned and the next-in-line lawmaker, Bob Livingston, quit after saying he had had an extramarital affair.

[...]

Hastert's tenacious — but plodding — approach to his tenure received mixed reviews. He largely shunned the talk-show circuit. He pushed much of Bush's legislative agenda to passage, although critics said he occasionally failed to line up GOP support for key legislation, including a 1999 resolution supporting U.S. intervention in Kosovo and gun-control measures.

Although conservative, Hastert became known more as a legislative tactician with a pragmatic, consensus-building style than as an ideological purist.

In an effort to keep his fragile, fractured Republican majority — and himself — in charge of the House, Hastert maintained a dizzying fundraising pace as speaker that rivaled the legendary cash-collecting abilities of his predecessor, Gingrich.

He took steps to decentralize the House, allowing policy to bubble up through the committees rather than being dictated down from the top.

Hastert won 10 terms by concentrating on issues important to his north central Illinois district, a mix of far-out Chicago suburbs, farmland and high-tech industry.

...

Democrats edge closer to control of Senate

Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:37:47 -0800

Washington | November 8

NBC News - The battle for the Senate hung on a single race after Democrats picked up a seat in Montana, defeating incumbent Republican Sen. Conrad Burns, NBC News reported Wednesday.

Don Tester’s race against GOP incumbent Burns was delayed by equipment glitches, a heavy turnout and the narrowness of his lead — fewer than 2,000 votes.

Ballot Initiatives

Wed, 08 Nov 2006 06:49:27 -0800

Catherine Philp | Los Angeles | November 8

UK Times - Voters may be turning against the Republican Party but results from a host of ballot initiatives across the country suggest that the conservative social values it embodies are far from dead.

Gay rights took a pounding across the country with seven states in the South and Midwest voting to ban both gay marriage and civil unions, and Colorado looking set to reject a proposal for domestic partnerships.

Republicans had put the issue on the ballot in key battleground states as a device to get out the vote among disillusioned conservatives who might otherwise stay at home. The tactic apparently worked.

Proposals to legalise possession of marijuana in Nevada and Colorado were also heading for defeat, despite the best effort of pro-pot campaigners.

Growing hostility to rampant immigration was credited for the victory of Arizona campaigners to make English the official state language, making life harder for the thousands of new immigrants from Latin America now unable to get official documents in Spanish.

Voters in six states decide to raise minimum wages

The state also voted to deny state services to illegal immigrants and strip them of their right to bail and to receive damages awarded by a court.

In a blow for minorities, Michigan voted to restrict affirmative action in state universities, a measure that may reignite the campaign to ban racial preferences which has stalled in recent years.

But there was success too for the main Democrat-sponsored initiative, the raising of the minimum wage. Democrats got the measure on the ballot in six battleground states with votes on gay marriage to counter the strong Republican turnouts there. It proved wildly popular, meeting with strong approval in all six battlegrounds, even the most conservative ones.

Republican politicians are traditionally opposed to minimum wages that displease their corporate backers, but voters have no problem voting for more money in their pockets courtesy of the big companies.

South Dakota, the setting for the most contentious of all the ballot initiatives, over a proposed ban on abortion, proved the most unpredictable of all the traditionally Republican Midwestern states.

Although highly conservative, the state's votes on whether to ban gay marriage were still being counted down to the wire, with only four percentage points dividing the two sides.

The same margin split the two camps over the legalisation of marijuana for medical purposes. South Dakotans, it seems, may have their conservative values, but they do not necessarily want to foist them on others.

So it seemed the case for the battle over abortion, one of a few initiatives with truly nationwide implications. South Dakota's assembly voted earlier this year for a near-complete ban on abortion in an effort to create a test case to challenge Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that legalised abortion 33 years ago.

But its authors reckoned without local abortion rights campaigners, who instead of appealing the law took it to the polls yesterday. They looked set for victory last night with 55 percent of the vote against 45 for the pro-lifers.

he pro-lifers' downfall appeared to be their decision not to allow any exceptions to the ban, even for rape and incest, a decision that proved too extreme and distasteful to South Dakota's voter.
The pro-life lobby can be expected to try again with another ban granting this exception, which polls indicate voters would accept. But they will now be unable to force the case to the Supreme Court and their defeat will give pause to 12 other states who were watching the battle carefully as they considered their own abortion bans.

Some initiatives still to be decided were unlikely to keep viewers up all night. Michigan voters were asked to consider re-invoking a 100-year-old ban on the hunting of mourning doves while Arizona voters wrestled with the knotty issue of whether to mandate a minimum living space for pregnant pigs or cows.

Of all those at the polls today, Arizonans were by far the hardest working, with a massive 19 ballot measures to consider. But they declined the chance to reward themselves, voting down the Arizona Voter Reward Act which would have provided voter incentives by making them eligible for a $1 million lottery draw after every election.

At least they could still go and have a cigarette; the state voted, by a narrow margin, not to ban smoking in public places.

2006 US Midterm Elections Open Thread

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:32:01 -0800

Team Agonist

The Agonist catch-all open thread for results, rejoinders, and rat-catching on and in Tuesday's democratic process. It's now closed. The post-election discussion continues at "What Happened? What's Next?"

Democrats regain House

MSNBC - Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 12 years Tuesday night and made strong gains in the Senate, according to NBC News projections.

Projections by The Associated Press show the Democrats’ picking up 19 seats in the House, more than the 15 they needed to regain control.

12:45 Chris Matthews is reporting 33,000 uncounted votes in Fairfax County, VA. If true, Webb will win, that's Dem country.

12:04 Every minimum wage raise referendum is currently either ahead or has been won, except Colarado's which is running very slightly against. Arizona's ban on same sex marriage currently looks like it is failing, but Colorado's domestic partnership referendum is running behind (hmmm, anyone see a pattern here?) South Carolina is voting no to same sex marriage, but South Dakota has defeated a ban on abortion.

11:49 Maybe I should stop posting VA updates till it's called? CNN is now reporting Webb ahead by a little over 2,000. Fingers crossed. And bitten.

11:43 With 97.42% of the Virginia votes counted, Allen is ahead of Webb by aboiut 5,000, or .11% of the vote. 24,850 votes, which is 1.1% of the vote went to the Greens. Odds of making them up? Minimal. And if this seat doesn't flip (D) that means we're probably looking at a (R) Senate.

Earlier updates and more stories in comments, and after the jump

10:30 Webb now leading by 1 point.

9:39 Update Because if Greens can't throw a branch of goverment to the Republicans, they aren't happy.... 85% reporting in VA, and this is the key race - the other Senate tossups are less likely to go Democratic than this one. If Webb loses this (and odds are he's going to, sadly) that probably means a 50/50 Senate, with Cheney casting the deciding votes. Most of the remaining precincts are northern, so Webb may still pull it out.

G F Allen_______Republican_____901,775_____49.63%
J H Webb Jr_____Democratic_____893,535_____49.17%
G G Parker______Green__________20,090______01.11%

9:35 Update:
AP: Ellison elected in Fifth District(MN)

Democrat Keith Ellison was elected as the nation's first Muslim member of Congress on Tuesday, easily winning a district Republicans had not carried since 1962, the Associated Press reported. He is also Minnesota's first nonwhite representative in Washington.

9:18 Update:CNN is calling Connecticut for Lieberman. This is the thorn in today's rose and I'll be writing about it later or tomorrow. In the meantime, Lamont should not concede - there have been too many indications that street money was used heavily by Lieberman and they need to be resolved first. No other campaign in the country had hundreds of thousands of dollars of "petty cash" disbursements (most didn't even have a thousand dollars).

8:50 Update CNN is calling Menendez as winning over Tom Kean Jr. Seems dad couldn't swing it for Junior, even with Disney's cooperation on Path to 9/11. They are also calling Klobucher in MN.

8:30 Update

(CNN)Challenger Jim Webb holds a narrow lead over incumbent Sen. George Allan in early returns in the Senate race in Virginia, a crucial contest for control of the Senate.

Webb held a 1-point lead over Allen with 29 percent of precincts reporting.

Virginia is one of a few states -- Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Maryland, Tennessee, Missouri, Montana and Rhode Island -- that will determine who controls the Senate for the next two years.

In other early returns, CNN projects that independent U.S. Rep. Bernie Sanders will win the seat that Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont is vacating. Jeffords is the lone independent in the Senate, though he usually votes with Democrats.

Political observers expect Sanders to vote along the same lines as his predecessor.

Incumbent Republican Senators Richard Lugar and Republican Sen. Olympia Snow are projected to win their races in Indiana and Maine, respectively.

7:35 Update:

CNN predicts Ohio's Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell is going down to defeat. He had his thumb on the scale, but sometimes you need more than a thumb... I wonder if Kenny has the sense to go on a shredding frenzy before the new Secretary of State takes office.

7:15 Update:

(AP)As the first polls closed, Rep. Harold Rogers (news, bio, voting record), a 13-term Republican, and Rep. Ben Chandler (news, bio, voting record), two-term Democrat, easily won re-election in Kentucky, as expected. Neither race was competitive...

....Those early exit polls also showed that three in four voters said corruption was very important to their vote, and they tended to vote Democratic. In a sign of a dispirited GOP base, most white evangelicals said corruption was very important to their vote — and almost a third of them turned to the Democrats.

7PM Update

ABC Exit Poll Results

Preliminary exit poll results indicate that nearly six in 10 voters today disapprove of the way President Bush is handling his job.

About four in 10 approve. That's down from 53 percent approval in 2004, and 67 percent just before the 2002 midterm elections.