By Stephen Yellin
Today Kos put up an update to our midday open thread, in which he says the following about Nevada's 2006 US Senate race:
"Las Vegas (M)ayor Oscar Goodman is still mulling a Senate bid. Where he to run, he'd face a potential primary against Jack Carter (the former president's son). It would also immediately make this a top-tier pickup opportunity."
I have to disagree strongly with my former boss on what he said. Kos has essentially claimed that in order to defeat Senator John "Goodhair" Ensign (A freshman Republican most famous for his sports exploits on Capitol Hll) we need to beg an essentially ambivalent public official to run for the US Senate. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jack Carter not only is an excellent candidate for Nevada, but he has the makings of a thoughful, conscientous and truly competent US Senator. I'll tell you why on the flip. http://www.caterfornevada.com
There are four major reasons why Jack Carter is the candidate to defeat John Ensign in Nevada, and why we should give him our support:
I.A national name = A national following
As Kos mentioned briefly above, Jack Carter is the eldest son of President Jimmy Carter, our 39th Chief Executive. We all know about Jimmy Carter as one of the most decent, idealistic and honorable Presidents this country has had in the last century. We all know about his efforts to wage peace throughout the world, from Camp David to SALT II with Brezhnev to returning the Panama Canal territory to its citizens. We all know about his tireless efforts to improve the world after his term in office, from building homes with Habitat for Humanity to the Carter Center to promoting better Mideast relations. And, to be fair, we also know about the tough economic times and the Iran Hostage Crisis that he faced, and how his brilliant renewable energy plans went nowhere. After 25 years out of office, Jimmy Carter remains one of America's most well-known leaders. Just last week he made national news again on Larry King Live by suggesting that Hamas be "given a chance" to show itself ready to work towards peace. In a political climate where black-and-white ideologies wage war, President Carter is one of the few leaders who can still see shades of grey in our world.
Jack Carter is a chip off the old block. And that's a good thing. More importantly, he has the ability to make the Nevada Senate race nationally watched. Just last week he appeared on TV with his dad on Larry King's show; how many Senate candidates manage that this early on? Most Senate races (save for Pennsylvania, which has been designated "#1" by the press) this cycle are being covered almost entirely by local press; Carter as the Senate nominee would attract national attention to Nevada and thus to a critically important state, both to our 2006 and our 2008 hopes. Which brings me to my next point:
II.Nevada is vitally important - and winnable.
The Democrats need to pick up six seats in November to regain the US Senate, as we all know. So far the DSCC (run by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York) has identified seven seats to make that happen: Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Tennesee and Arizona. Of those seats, the Democrats currently are in good shape to win four (PA, MT, OH and possibly MO (if polls are to be believed)), and could very well win the other three (I list RI as such because no poll has showed Chafee vulnerable outside of the primary, which he may very well lose. Should he do so, then the race is clearly winnable). However, all seven of these races will be hard fought, and some of them may elude our grasp.
In Arizona, for example Senator Jon Kyle leads Democrat Jim Pederson (the former State Chair) by a whopping 55-26 margin in the latest poll. Pederson is self-funding, to be true, and so may very well be able to close the gap. But overcoming a 30-point lead is tough against an incumbent backed by the beloved John McCain in a state Bush got 55% the second time around. It's possible, certainly, but far from certain. This is likewise true with Tennessee, where African-American Congressman Harold Ford will have to win a state where Bush got 56% in and where his aunt and uncle are politically damaged goods.
This, of course, does not take into account Democratic seats such as Minnesota or New Jersey, where Klobuchar and Menendez are in dead heats with Kennedy and Kean the Lesser. While I'm confident both states will stay our way, they can't be taken for granted. So, in other words the Democrats need to run the table with the 2006 races if they want to make Harry Reid Majority Leader. Having a state like Nevada on the competitive (and winnable) column would expand the playing field in our favor and make the GOP spend precious dollars and resources to try and defend.
And Nevada is definitely winnable. When Michael Dukakis ran in 1988, he got just 38% to Bush the Elder's 59% in Nevada. In 2004 John Kerry got 48% to Bush the Lesser's 50%. Don't forget that Bill Clinton narrowly won the state twice, and the Gore/Nader total was 48.5%, making this state more purple than an Iraqi Election finger. Nevada has boomed in population as well, from 345,000 voters in 1988 to 815,000 in 2004 - a 236% increase in the voting population. Competing in this state in 2006 will not only help us to win the Senate, but will also pave the way to winning Nevada again in 2008. Having two Democratic Senators (one of whom would be the Majority Leader) and possibly a Democratic Governor would make winning the state all that more likely. Along with Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado, Nevada represents a valuable package of 29 electoral votes that could easily make up for an Ohio or a Florida in 2008. Electing Jack Carter in 2006 would help make that possible. (Data here courtesy of http://www.uselectionatlas.org/)
III.Carter is electable in Nevada
You may wonder why I'd say this, especially as a Mason-Dixon poll last fall gave Ensign a 59-25 lead over Carter. There are a number of reasons, the first being that only about 40% of Nevadans knew the name of Carter. With Jack having his father and mother (the wonderful Rosalyn Carter) coming in for his announcement on Monday, you can be certain that the media will make Nevadans aware that "Jimmy Carter's son" is running for the US Senate.
The second reason is that Ensign is more vulnerable than you'd think. He lost to Harry Reid in 1998 by a narrow margin as a Congressman, then pulled a John Thune and ran in 2000 as well. Democratic Senator Richard Bryan decided to retire at the last minute, leaving a colorful Las Vegas attorney named Ed Bernstein to face Ensign. Senator Goodhair romped to victory by a 55-40 margin, as the DSCC never bothered to get involved. If they had, they would have won the US Senate in 2000. But that's a speculative pipe-dream. Ensign currently has a 50-37% approval rating, according to Survey USA's January poll - 84th out of 100 US Senators. Of those up for reelection, only four Senators (all Republicans, btw) are worse off than Ensign, and all four are being targeted by the DSCC in 2006. What's even more telling about Ensign's potential weakness is that the groups most likely to vote Democratic (women, African-Americans and young people) have the most undecided voters. Shockingly, Democrats give him a 36% approval rating, and liberals a 40% approval rating. Wanna bet that a Carter candidacy sends those numbers down in a hurry? It's certainly a good bet for the Las Vegas roulette table... (see http://www.surveyusa.com/... for more nuggets of data)
Carter has his own strengths as a candidate that make him viable. He's been a resident of Nevada since 2003, to be true - but as the voter roll increase from 1988 to 2004 shows, a large portion of Nevadans are new to the state. Carter's slogan is "A New Voice for Nevada", and it fits a state with mostly new residents to a tee. His speaking style closely resembles his father's; not bombastic or outspoken, but soft, soothing and reasonable. It is a voice made for conversation and for televison - a voice perfect for a state that requires both door-to-door campaigning rurally and TV buys in crowded Las Vegas.
Carter's issue stances are also a good fit for Nevada: fiscally responsible, socially liberal and with a good dose of common sense. He has said that his motivations for entering the race was his " allergic reaction to the Bush administration policies", such as botching the Hurricane Katrina relief effort and the War in Iraq. He also had this powerful message on Bush's foreign policy:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"The War on Terror is at its essence a War for American Values.
On 9/11, Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts struck at symbols of American strength - business through the World Trade Towers, military might at the Pentagon, and our government with the foiled attempt aimed at the Capitol Building.
But the true target of these attacks was the wellspring of our strength, the values upon which our Nation stands: individual freedom, the separation of power among the three branches of government, the rule of law, and the fierce pride these values arouse in all Americans who rise to defend them at every threat...
In a recent speech to the Heritage Foundation, Vice President Cheney defended the legality of an eavesdropping program that ignores Congress and bypasses judicial oversight and said, "Either we are serious about fighting this war or we are not."
But being "serious about fighting this war" means more than launching a counter-attack at these immoral villains and destroying them. We must recognize that their real target is not just our people, but the ideas and values upon which we stand.
Military theorists know that winning requires both a solid attack and a sober defense. Without the attack, Osama can regroup, lie in wait, and pick his time. Without the defense, we expose our core to a corrosive rot which may forfeit the war while we win the battle.
There is no doubt that torturing people is un-American.
There is no doubt that unfettered eavesdropping on Americans by the executive branch is un-American.
There is no doubt that holding prisoners without due process is un-American.
These are the spear marks our attackers left, every bit as much a wound as the gaping hole in New York's skyline. These were inflicted, not by suicide bombers, but by Fear - the opponent of Values and the "other" weapon in the terrorists' arsenal.
We must defend our families and our values as fiercely as we attack our enemies. Our government must fight Terrorists, but our Values must battle Terror. These principles define us. They make us American more than geography ever did.
This administration does not appear to understand that being "serious about fighting this war" requires us to defend our values. Defense of our values is not a sign of weakness, it's the foundation from which we launch our attack." http://www.carterfornevada.com/...
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you'd like to have a US Senator saying that, then you'd like Jack Carter.
IV.Why Not The Best?
That was Jimmy Carter's 1976 slogan, and it irked a lot of establishment Democrats. The elder Kossacks may recall that primary season, when over a dozen Democrats ran for was then seen as a golden opportunity to win the Presidency. Yet the winner came from completely outside the Beltway - a peanut farmer and ex-Georgia Governor named James Earl Carter, Jr. So terrified were Beltway Democrats of having Carter as the nominee that they threw everything and the kitchen sink at Carter. First it was Birch Bayh, then Scoop Jackson, then Mo Udall, then Frank Church and finally Jerry Brown that was trumpeted as the "anti-Carter" for 1976. They all failed to stop the Peanut Brigade. Carter won, of course, but he wasn't able to change the system. Congressional Democrats didn't get along well with him, and when Carter stumbled in mid-1979 (a 23% approval rating) they sent Ted Kennedy after him. This is not to knock any of the politicians that ran against Carter; in fact, all of those I mentioned were great Democratic statesmen. But they were all (save Brown) from Washington, and Carter was not.
Jack Carter is up against the same "buddy system" in 2006, only statewide. Harry Reid and John Ensign have a good friendship (rare for a bipartisan team in the Senate), and Ensign did not actively support Reid's opponent in 2004. Likewise, Reid would like to give Ensign some leeway for 2006.
But the stakes are too high in this country right now for this kind of leeway. Nevada's Senate race could well make the difference between victory or defeat in our 2006 hopes - indeed, Reid's hopes of becoming Majority Leader. We all know how much good a Democratic Congress - either or both chambers - could do for our country in 2007 and beyond. If some national Democrats have their way, Nevada will go the way of New Mexico - having failed to recruit one strong candidate, the opposition party pulls out and leaves a few strong, but poorly funded candidates to lose. If WE have our way, Nevada will go the way of Ohio - a race that few saw becoming competitive this cycle, but ultimately became a tossup. Ohio's that way now, and we have a shot at making Nevada that way as well.
So, why not the best? Why not a Democratic US Senate? Why not a US Senator that will calmly tell the truth about our nation? Why not a blogosphere that will make that all possible? Why not Jack Carter? If you agree with me, go to http://www.carterfornevada.com and make "why not?" a reality.