Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

Bob Kerrey thinks boosting the Democrats' chances of increasing their Senate majority is not a good enough reason for him to leave his job and run for office.

Talking about his decision, made public today, not to seek the Nebraska Senate seat vacated by retiring Republican senator Chuck Hagel, Kerrey told me a few minutes ago that he was less worried about the Democratic majority than he was about the country as a whole.

"What I feel responsibility for is the possibility of putting the country in danger," Kerrey said. "I do worry about the direction and don't like the direction the country is going in a number of areas." 

"The idea of increasing the Democratic majority is not a motivator for me," he said. " Because it is me personally. I cannot run just to increase the number. If that's all that's motivating, that's a very, very small factor."   

More after the jump.  read more »

Warren Buffet will be headlining a fund-raiser for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee tomorrow night at the Regency in midtown that is expected to bring in $1.5 million, according to a source with a role in planning for event.

In case you thought Chuck Schumer was slacking.  read more »

Speaking of Chuck Schumer, here, after some ado, are a few passages from his new book.

"One of the open secrets in Washington is that senators of the same party and same state rarely get along. Hillary and I are both ambitious hard working politicians who occasionally step on each other's toes. We have had out high point and our low points. But we have the bonds of my campaign in 1998 and hers in 2000 that are unique to our relationship."

The book starts with some curious little tidbits. For example, Schumer, aka Mr. 1600,reveals that in 1964, as a 14-year-old, he worked the mimeograph machine for Stanley Kaplan of the eponymous SAT prep course and that he nervously munched on "Cold calamari and oversized cookies" in the Hyatt Regency Washington on midterm election night. At Harvard, he originally planned to be an organic chemist and, much less surprisingly, what he looks for in a restaurant is a place where the "food is good and not very expensive."

(Hillary Clinton will be throwing Chuck his book party in his favorite haunt, a cheap Chinese restaurant in D.C.)

As far as the future of the Party, Chuck was not satisfied with the Democratic takeover of the Senate.

"Our victory was well deserved, but the Democratic Party still needs a new paradigm," he writes. And Schumer thinks he is just the person to provide it. His key to perpetual victory is encapsulated in the title for Chapter 2: "It's the Middle Class Stupid."

Chuck talks at length about Joe and Eileen Bailey, the middle class family he has conceptualized and who he feels should be the Party's target voters.

They live in Massapequa and are both 45. He's an insurance agent and she works in a doctor's office. They have two cars in the garage, are worried about terrorists, heath care property taxes and college tuition. They are infrequent church goers and "politically, they are up for grabs."

One of the reasons he recruited Casey over significant opposition, he said, is that "Casey was the guy who best represented the Joe and Eileen Baileys of Pennsylvania."

Chuck says that he was at first reluctant about taking on the head job at the DSCC.

"The DSCC job is not necessarily a plum assignment. It's like being elected resident of your condo association - someone's got to do it. It requires a lot of travel and a lot of time dialing for dollars.

"The number-one reason that I decided to take the job was because I worried that if we had another bad election, if we lost another two or three seats, it would be over...The Supreme Court would take this nation backward 130 years."

The major cause for the 2004 electoral losses, Schumer says, was losing touch with middle class voters.

"We were competitive among the middle class - voters with household incomes between $30,000 and $75,000 - only because of near- unanimous support among middle-class African-American voters. Meanwhile, among white middle-class voters - a third of the electorate - Bush beat Kerry by twenty-two points. Twenty-two points!"

"We needed to do a better job of reaching the middle class, regardless of ethnicity, and, whatever we did, we could never ignore African-American voters."

Schumer attributes the decay of Hispanic support for the Democratic Party in 2004 to their increased incomes, which put them more in the middle class that he thinks the Democrats were ignoring.

The rest of the book targets the more wonkish reader, and consists of Chuck's "eureka moments" about how to "increase reading and math scores by 50 %," how to "reduce property taxes that fund education by 50%" how to "increase the number of college graduates by 50%," how to "reduce illegal immigration by at least 50% and increase legal immigration by up to 50%" "reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 50%" and how to reduce cancer mortality, abortions, tax evasion, child obesity and access to child pornography by 50 percent.

--Jason Horowitz

Chuck Schumer, politician, campaign guru and fund-raiser extraordinaire, is now also officially an author.

From "Positively American," the senator's 270-page offering which is scheduled to show up in stores later this month, we'll get his take on the Democratic Party's appeal and the Supreme Court, among other things.

Schumer has said that he is not satisfied with the Democratic takeover of the Senate that he helped engineer this year, and is offering a strategy in this book for attracting middle class families who are not committed to either major political party.

Schumer was at first reluctant about taking on the head job at the DSCC, but has said that he did so in part because of the lasting impact that a GOP-led Congress could have had by appointing more conservatives to the Supreme Court.

-- Jason Horowitz

UPDATE: After being made aware by the Schumer people of certain embargo details, we've re-posted this item without some quotes and details that were in the original. The official publication date is Jan. 23.

The Democratic Senate leadership is going to be announced in a matter of minutes, and it's likely to be another good day for Chuck Schumer. Schumer told me last week that he would "likely" accept Harry Reid's request that he stay on as chair of the committee to elect Senate Democrats through 2008. --Jason Horowitz UPDATE: It's done. Schumer is now the Vice-Chair of the Democratic Conference -- the third-highest ranking Democrat in the U.S. Senate -- and still head of the DSCC.

Here's part of his statement:

"As a member of the new Democratic leadership, I will have a voice in our policy decisions, our legislative priorities, and the direction of our party. We must make sure the middle class has a strong voice in Washington and there are some very concrete things we can get done for them right away, like restoring the $4,000 college tuition tax credit, and allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices."

Schumer was also promoted to Chair of the Joint House-Senate Economic Committee (JEC).

That's what Senator and New King of the World Chuck Schumer told me earlier today, seeming to confirm an anonymously sourced reportthat he's going to stay on, at Harry Reid's request, for another term as head of the DSCC. --Jason Horowitz

When Harry Reid first tapped Chuck Schumer to lead the DSCC back in 2005, Republicans were still riding a wave of popularity. But an extreme reversal in the political climate, coupled with Schumer's success in recruiting good candidates, has made for much more lofty ambitions. Gains are now a given. The question is simply whether the pick-up will be three seats -- probably the minimum required for this year to be judged a success -- or something between that and six, the number the Democrats need to attain a majority.

Back in June, Schumer told me that the barometer had already changed significantly.

"When I took it in 05 I said to Harry, a bad year we'll lose three, a moderate year we'll stay even and in a good year we'll pick up two. Now that's changed. A bad year now will be staying even. A moderate year pick up one or two and a good year we pick up three or more."

Here's what DSCC spokesman Phil Singer told me today:

"We are a lot closer than anybody ever thought we would be but we are not there yet, and we are going to keep on working as hard as we possibly can until Election Day. Nobody is popping any champagne yet."

And here, for the hell of it, is the assessment of always-enthusiastic Democratic fund-raiser and TV talking head Robert Zimmerman:

"If the Democrats pick up four, Schumer's going to get pats on the back. Five, he gets a parade. If it's all six -- they're going to build him a statue."

-- Jason Horowitz

Joe Lieberman's decision to run as an Independent in the Connecticut Senate race has forced Democrats across the country to decide whether to endorse the Democratic nominee or Democratic incumbent.

But Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey found a simpler solution last night, according to this fun story in the Times. Endorse both of them.

"In a written question from an audience member, Mr. Menendez was asked why he supported Mr. Lamont. Mr. Menendez said that his support of Mr. Lamont was a "mischaracterization," adding that he supported Mr. Lieberman's run as an independent candidate. "I wish him well and hope he returns," he said.

The Senator's comments, published on the Empire Zone, were then posted on Joe Lieberman's blog . Menendez' press secretary then called the Times reporter, John Holl, and asked that the senator's comments to be changed, according to the article.

So all this begs the question, what happened between Menendez' comments and Miller's call? One immediately imagines Chuck Schumer getting on the horn and chewing Menendez out. The DSCC isn't helping Menendez out in New Jersey just so he can help the competition in Connecticut, after all. The DSCC had no comment. (Lieberman and Lamont blogs have been bickering about the ephemeral endorsement all day.)

Miller said the whole thing was just a big misunderstanding and that really, it was all Kean's fault.

"He kind of comes up with this silly stunt, but it's more a sign of a sinking campaign than anything else," Miller told me earlier.

Whatever happened, Kean is happy. His campaign just sent out the Times article, in full, as a press release.

--Jason Horowitz

When liberals want to raise lots of money, they call on Hillary Clinton. When conservatives want to raise lots of money, they call on...

Hillary Clinton.

In an email to readers today, the conservative weekly Human Events claimed Hillary is part of a vast left-wing conspiracy against Senator George Allen of Virginia.

"Just last week, New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton came to Virginia to endorse and raise money for Webb at an upscale French restaurant. Two days later, she sent $1 million to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the DSCC immediately turned around and bought $1 million in vicious attacks ads against Senator Allen."

After that claim, HE makes its pitch.

"We need to respond to these unprecedented negative attacks and we need your support to do so."

Which makes me wonder if Hillary can still be as effective a fund-raising tool for Republicans if she decides not to run in 2008. Is there any other Democrat who can fill that role for Republicans?

-- Azi Paybarah

• 0 comments

Yesterday I got a fundraising letter from Bill Clinton, on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. It's three pages long and begins, thumpingly, by saying "The next five weeks are critical for America and the world. We've got to stop projecting distrust and arrogance to the world..."

Couldn't agree more. But the entire document does not use the word Iraq. Not once. And according to polls, all but 124 people in America now think it was a mistake to invade Iraq. The letter demonstrates that Democrats still do not know how to capture the antiwar vote—i.e., they have no plan that is different from Bush's, really, as Chris Matthews points out so often—and also that Democrats are, from a financial standpoint, a war party. Most of the Dem Sen.s of course voted for the war, and they did so as a real reflection of their constituency. And many of the people who would be giving money to the Dems are for the war, or at least somewhat for it. I can imagine a few reasons that the Blue-State rich would feel this way; the identification of our interests with Israel's, at a time when many fear that Israel faces an existential threat from Iran, cannot be left out (underscoring the point that the domestic opposition to this war has to flow from a different source from the opposiition to Vietnam).

If Chuck Schumer has a dartboard, chances are there’s a picture of Jon Corzine fastened to its bul  read more »

If Chuck Schumer has a dartboard, chances are there’s a picture of Jon Corzine fastened to its  read more »

More evidence that Al Gore, endorser of Howard Dean for president, insurgent hero of the Netroots, once again finds himself in the party's warm embrace...

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's latest fund-raising letter, which recently arrived in mailboxes on Al Gore letterhead, runs nearly two-and-a-half pages in length and is filled with plenty of outrage, urging donors to give "$50, $75, or even more" to help the Democrats reclaim the Senate and "pull our country back from the brink of constitutional crisis."

He also reprises one of his pet theme of the GOP message "machine":

"We know that George Bush and Dick Cheney will not give up the power they claimed for themselves easily. The GOP muckraking machine is already in full force in Senate races around the country -- distorting the truth and smearing our candidates."

-- Lizzy Ratner

It seems that Chuck Schumer is trying to quietly move away from the tough spot he found himself in this week with regards to Connecticut's Democratic primary.

According to a line in today's New York Times, Schumer's advisors say the DSCC chair will support Ned Lamont if he beats Joe Lieberman, a modification on the 'I don't speculate' position he expressed on Sunday's Meet The Press.

We have calls into the DSCC to find out exactly where Chuck stands on the matter, but are there any ideas what would motivate Chuck's shift?

- Jason Horowitz

It seems that Chuck Schumer is trying to quietly move away from the tough spot he found himself in this week with regards to Connecticut's Democratic primary.

According to a line in today's New York Times, Schumer's advisors say the DSCC chair will support Ned Lamont if he beats Joe Lieberman, a modification on the 'I don't speculate' position he expressed on Sunday's Meet The Press.

We have calls into the DSCC to find out exactly where Chuck stands on the matter, but are there any ideas what would motivate Chuck's shift?

- Jason Horowitz

Senator Chuck Schumer has been a busy fund-raising bee.

The latest national senatorial campaign committee numbers are out, and it looks like the DSCC -- which Schumer chairs -- has once again outraised its Republican alter ego, the NRSC. No doubt the committee also owes some credit to the various White House and Congressional scandals that have rocked the GOP these last few months.

According to the committees' March filings, the DSCC raised nearly $ 7 million in March, bringing the total amount raised for the 2006 campaign cycle $56.4 million. The committee has spent $24.6 million and now has $32.1 million on hand.

But the NRSC -- chaired by North Carolina Senator Elizabeth Dole -- has also done a decent job of milking its donors this past month. The committee raised $5,043,456 in March, bringing its 2006 total to $50.4 million, the Hotline reports. It has $16.5 million on hand.

Now it remains to see what both committees do with all their loot.

-- Lizzy Ratner

"I don't want to handicap the candidates," U.S. News and World Report has Chuck saying, "But...as DSCC chair, if I could shake hands with the devil and say Ed Cox is the candidate against her, I'd do it right now."  read more »

Never mind that The Century Club only began admitting women in 1988, some 140 years after it was founded. And never mind that it only took the threat of a Supreme Court decision to get it to open its doors to the fairer sex. Last night, March 29th, the club belonged to a group of (gasp) feminists - including former ambassador Robin Duke, Democratic donoress Jill Iscol, and pro-choice warrior Kate Michelman - who were embroiled until recently in a tussle with the Senate Democratic leadership (including DSCC chief Chuck Schumer) over whether or not it should recruit anti-abortion candidates to run for office.

The ostensible purpose of last night's event was to raise money for Rhode Island's boyish Secretary of State, Matt Brown. (Yes, we said "Rhode Island," that small blip of a state between Connecticut and Massachusetts.) Brown is running for U.S. Senate in 2006, and until last week, he was considered the main alternative to Congressman Jim Langevin, the candidate who had been favored by the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (i.e., Chuck Schumer & Co.). The difference between the two candidates? Brown is pro-choice. Langevin is anti-choice.

(Langevin, it should be noted, is not the only anti-choice candidate who was recruited to challenge a Republican incumbent. Robert Casey, Jr., Pennsylvania's state treasurer and the son of the state's former Governor Robert Casey, Sr., has been recruited to run against the scary Rick Santorum.)

Brown's pro-choice stance has made him something of a cause celebre among well-heeled reproductive rights advocates. Angry that the DSCC was backing Langevin - against the pro-choice Republican senator Lincoln Chafee, no less - they began actively bolstering Brown's campaign, raising money for him at events in Boston, Los Angeles, and points in between.

On March 8th - International Women's Day - Gloria Steinem spoke at an event at the home of Melissa Bomes and Adam Winkler (the son of movie producer Irving Winkler) in Los Angeles. Kate Michelman, former head of NARAL Pro-Choice America, recently held her own fund-raiser in DC. Meanwhile, Victoria Hopper, wife of actor Dennis Hopper, recruited 16 actors, producers and philanthropists to sign a letter urging Democratic women to donate to Brown's campaign - or call the DSCC to "object to their support for radically anti-choice candidate Rep. Langevin."

Robin Duke, a former ambassador to Norway and one of the doyennes of the reproductive rights movement, decided to do both. "I called Chuck [Schumer] on the phone - and I've supported him ever since he ran the first time for the senate," Ms. Duke told The Observer. "Then I called Ted Kennedy. I did not speak to Ted. I spoke to his administrative assistant and told her what I thought."

Last Wednesday, Jim Langevin announced that he would not be running for Senate in 2006. The reason, according to his spokesperson, Mike Guilfoyle, was that "he thinks he can do a better job for Rhode Island in the House." Guilfoyle stressed that Langevin's decision had nothing to do with Matt Brown's growing piggy-bank, and several other political insiders suggested that Langevin would have knocked Brown out in the primary. But that has not stopped women's rights advocates from claiming victory.

"I don't think there was any question that that was a factor in Langevin's decision not to run, that the pressure and the message and the money and the organized effort had an impact," said Kate Michelman, the former head of NARAL Pro-Choice America.  read more »

Meanwhile, some 45 big-spending pro-choicers gathered at The Century Club last night to celebrate. Other sponsors of the event included Hearst Entertainment president Bruce Paisner and almost-First Daughter Rebecca Lieberman. Tickets cost $500.

New York's senior Senator, Charles Schumer, recently had a nightmare-well, not exactly a nightmare,  read more »