Thoughts on KTI’s top five most vulnerable Senate incumbents of the 2010 election cycle…

Last week, we took a look at the most intriguing House races of this election year. Today’s look at most vulnerable Senate incumbents highlights candidates who face unique challenges in retaining their seat, or their party’s nomination. So without delay, KTI presents the reasoning behind the worries of the most vulnerable incumbents up for reelection in 2010.

#5 - Bob Bennett of Utah (Rep)
In a move that angered Utah conservatives, and especially the boisterous Tea Party, three term Senator Bennett's vote for the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 has placed this incumbent in a defensive position relative to his supporters. Despite the broadcasted support of Bennett by Mitt Romney, many Republicans, and conservative independents, are weary of Bennett’s true colors. Democrats have used the anti-incumbent sentiment, and the infighting amongst Republicans to launch a fight for this traditionally red seat. Since Utah’s party nominations are done by conventions, which often hinge on important single issues like the Recovery Act, our number five most vulnerable, Senator Bob Bennett, has set himself up for a difficult fight in 2010.

#4 - Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas (Dem)
At number four, Lincolns views on environmental and healthcare reforms have her head deep in hot water with liberal voters in Arkansas. In addition, she has a laundry list of competitors for her seat, highlighted by her Democratic Primary opponent, Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter, who has the all-important monetary backing of the labor unions and the liberal activist group MoveOn.org. In defending her seat, Lincoln faces a fierce battle as her vulnerabilities continue to be exploited by her primary opponent. Should she make it out of the first round, she is sure to face a difficult November election challenge.

#3 - Michael Bennet of Colorado (Dem)
As a freshman Senator appointed to the position by Colorado’s Democratic Governor Bill Ritter, Senator Bennet faces the difficult task of holding his seat in an anti-incumbent election cycle. He faces a tough primary opponent in former Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives, Andrew Romanoff, and is defending his vulnerable post, which formerly belonged to now Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. Though Barack Obama won Colorado with 54% of the vote in 2008, the current political climate will make the November election a difficult one for our number three, Bennet, should he survive the May Democratic primary.

#2 - Richard Burr of North Carolina (Rep)
Freshman Senator Richard Burr defends his seat, which has been unkind to incumbents since 1968, in a state where Barack Obama narrowly won with 50% of the vote. As a largely unknown and somewhat unpopular figure, he faces the name identity dilemma, and the bleak history of his seat in an uphill climb to return to the Senate. His Republican primary opponent is Asheboro businessman and City Council Member Eddie Burks. Look for an upset in North Carolina in 2010, as Burr’s precarious position puts him second on our list.

#1 - Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania (Dem)
Our number one, former Republican turned Democrat Arlen Spector, is one of the biggest GOP targets of the 2010 election cycle. After a change to his party identification, Spector immediately stamped his name into Republican ire by voting in favor of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. His primary opponent, U.S. Representative Joe Sestak, is planting a formidable campaign to steal the Democratic nomination from Spector. Should the Senator survive to face the heat in November, he is likely to encounter former U.S. Representative Pat Toomey, who came within 1.7% of defeating Specter in the 2004 GOP primary. Therefore, despite his tenure, Spector appears to be the most vulnerable incumbent senator in 2010.

Thoughts on American ingenuity, the current economic environment, and leading by example…

Today’s brief statement revolves around the thought that we are at an important crossroads when it comes to returning to our prior role as the world’s leader in both innovation and inspiration. Many Americans seem poised to join the ranks of their progressive European peers, creating 21st Century models in areas such as transportation, energy, and the environment. Our decade long focus on fighting terrorism at home and abroad, while necessary, has drained both our coffers and our economic leverage. The economic leverage we had coming out of the Clinton Administration, with a balanced budget aimed at paying down the national debt, was intended for use in areas such as science and math, college grants for research, and improved everyday services. However, as a result of 9/11, the Iraq War, and our continued response to terror in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere, the majority of our national energy has been spent on fending off threats at the expense of the well-being of the homeland.

As we near the official trillion dollar point with regards to our 21st Century war spending, the impending transition to a more focused counter terrorism effort will open previously tied off money lines for national priorities which can positively empower all Americans going forward. We need to begin catching up with nations like China when it comes to developing and implementing green technology, and we need to invest in high speed transit systems to assist in our transition from oil to other legitimate sources of energy. In addition, increased investment in our colleges and universities to promote research and development, and a commitment to making higher education the norm in America, will be of the utmost importance if we are to emerge as the leader in future technologies going forward. Our private sector requires increasingly skilled workers, which with the proper levels of funding and motivation can become once again populated with American graduates of institutions of higher learning.

Our next generation will be in a better place if we are mindful of our priorities upon the conclusion of the large scale wars we are waging. We must pay down our debts while ensuring that our economic system is playing by rules which are set up to help all American’s succeed, not just those with enough money to gamble on the livelihoods of their fellow citizens. Wall Street must make the best of the flood of money which will head its way during the next American economic boom. Our willpower has been tested over the past decade, and the overwhelming sense is that America is due for a great comeback. With an emerging collection of new deal style policies in place that are aimed at making the rules of the game fair for American citizens of all economic backgrounds, it is my hope that we will take the initiative and reinvest in our intelligence and harness our traditional ability to bounce back from the most difficult of times. In doing so, I believe that we can become an extraordinary example of perseverance, functionality, and ingenuity for all emerging and existing democracies, in the 21st Century and beyond.

Thoughts on the difficult balancing act between our security concerns and the protection of civil liberties…

In a follow up to yesterday’s article on US v Shahzad, today’s discussion revolves around what civil liberties should and shouldn’t be off limits when it comes to protecting America and our allies from future terror attacks. Each of us cherishes our inherent right to privacy, but because of the heightened concern for attempts by terrorists to destroy American targets, many of these rights are being bent to the breaking point in the name of national security. For instance, in order for our intelligence agencies to thwart future terror threats, cyber units need to have access to any computer they deem to possibly contain evidence of a threat to America. They must also have access to a certain degree of private web traffic, including e-mail and instant messages, in order to determine whether a cell is developing, or if a group or individual is showing signs of acting upon a radical thought. In 2010, the fact is that we are an interconnected world with new kinds of threats appearing on a more frequent basis. The US Government must be able to determine whether there has been a hack attempt into their secured networks and without a certain level of access to previously private information it is nearly impossible to do so without alerting the suspect.

Having learned our lesson from tragic past events, most Americans are willing to give up a certain degree of their personal privacy in order to ensure the safety of their communities. The passing of the USA Patriot Act in 2004, 05’, and 06’ was an example of Congress putting the security of the nation ahead of the basic constitutional rights granted to us in the First and Fourth Amendment’s. The act essentially allows law enforcement agencies to spy on their citizenry in order to detect potential terrorist suspects. However, as hard as it may be to accept that authorities can monitor our behavior on the internet, along with our financial transactions, there is no other feasible way to assure the absolute security of a populace as large as ours. Eyes and ears on the ground can only get us so far. As we saw in Times Square, and with the Christmas Day bomber, we usually find out about these kinds of attempts after the fact. Sure, we caught the guy before he left the country, and sure, a brave street vendor did lead law enforcement to the scene, but the fact is that we missed the vital signs that this man was going to act out such a potentially deadly attack.

Post 9/11, as the national priority quickly changed to preventing future attacks on our soil at all costs, those costs essentially meant that our private internet activity and financial transactions would be monitored minute to the minute by the fed’s. The resources necessary to effectively spy on ourselves are financed by our very own taxpayer dollars. It’s in nobody’s best interest to have homeland security agents spying on the day to day, non-criminal activities of American citizens. Thus, the good intentions of our intelligence agencies must be balanced out with the possible ability of rogue agents to access private information on the American citizenry. These agencies must be stringent in their commitment to verify the backgrounds of all who are allowed access to the secure information of ordinary citizens. These privacy concerns, if correctly addressed, can make the accelerating transition into an age of transparency easier for all Americans.

The balancing act between prioritizing privacy rights and security concerns will be an ongoing point of contention in the affairs of the US and other countries worldwide. Our constitution must continue to guide us in the 21st Century, and the rights of American citizens must never be in jeopardy. However, we know that if we hinder the ability of our intelligence agencies to detect our biggest threats, we do more harm to ourselves than good. In finding this difficult balance, our leaders must be mindful of the privacy concerns of all Americans, of all races and all religions. Our privacy is something we hold dear, and in no way should we let our basic rights slip away because of outside or homegrown threats. We must also adjust our idea of what constitutes true privacy to match the realities of the world we live in. As citizens, we must do a better job of assisting the government when it comes to policing the internet and the streets. It is my opinion, that if we can reach a decent balance that is both effective and preserves our civil liberties with regards to our right to privacy, we can secure the sanctity of the constitutional rights which we are so fortunate to have as Americans. If we approach our networked activity with an open eye for suspicious behavior, we can prevent our privacy rights from being pressed to the brink in the future.

Thoughts on United States v Faisal Shahzad and the keen eyes of New Yorkers…

As a disclaimer, I am not stating in this article that the vast majority of citizens in other US cities are not capable of deciphering terror attempts and smelling imminent danger; but in a Post 9/11 world, there is a noticeable level of heightened awareness that many long time New York City residents share when it comes to situations like this weekend’s failed car bombing by Connecticut resident Faisal Shahzad. The heroic actions taken by Time Square vendors to alert police of the danger at hand cannot go understated and reinforce this thought. In a culture that largely chooses to look the other way, or run for the hills in times of crisis or danger, these keen eyed individuals saw a suspicious vehicle, saw smoke, and reacted without hesitation to protect the people around them, and not just themselves. Whether it would have mattered had the bomb detonated quicker is of no matter. For police, this kind of petty terrorism is almost undetectable until it’s too late. Therefore, the critical cooperation between ordinary citizens in the streets, and the officers of the NYPD, is a prime example of the kind of open eyed approach to counterterrorism that ultimately saves lives.

We know, as of the release of the Federal Charges against Shahzad, that the newly naturalized United States citizen was a former resident of Pakistan. He had returned in early February from his latest trip to Karachi where he visited his family, but also made his way to Waziristan to train himself in bomb making. His claims to be working alone are under investigation, but his tracks are slowly leading him to a connection with the Pakistani Taliban and possibly Al Qaeda. In addition to his quickly unraveling story line, it seems that Shahzad was a rookie when it came to his attempted car bombing. Though his materials could have combined for a huge explosion, it has been revealed that his wiring job was amateurish, and his subsequent attempts to leave the country with a ticket to Dubai bought with cash lead me to believe he was chosen as an actor with little hierarchical importance to any major terror network. He parked his SUV in a location where cameras could catch his every move. He apparently bought the SUV off Craig’s List with cash, even inquiring to the previous owner about the cargo space at the expense of a faulty engine. Basically, this man has all of the signs of a wannabe who went too far.

As the details of United States v Faisal Shahzad continue to emerge, it should not surprise anyone if it is found that the Pakistani Taliban hired this green individual to carry out its dirty business. Why sacrifice an important individual to carry out an act which is likely to result in a bust or failed launch? The Taliban and Al Qaeda are growing increasingly desperate, and they are resorting to petty acts of terror in order to stay in the game. The Obama Administration has embraced the recent cooperation of the Pakistani government and military, and by doing so, the two sides have teamed together to slowly root out the radical influences in the region. It’s a struggle between divergent ways of life which is likely to last as long as humans are on the planet earth, and in order to leave the region in better shape than it was before we arrived in 2001, we must find a way to prevent US citizens such as Shahzad from reaching terrorist camps around the world.

Unless we and our allies can produce a full proof, globally intertwined system to detect the movement of high risk individuals into hotbeds of terror around the globe, it will be the keen eye of our citizenry, along with our collective willingness to work with law enforcement, that will ultimately determine our success in stopping future plots on our own soil. Our intelligence communities can help us to narrow down the major players of the various terror networks around the globe. They can help the TSA and other transportation safety agencies to flag individuals who are deemed a threat to their intended destination or are fleeing the scene of a crime. But, without our timely cooperation, and a New York City type awareness of the world we live in, the hard work of our homeland security officials can only get us so far in the fight to end terrorism. We, like those heroic Times Square vendors, need to alert the authorities to suspicious activities, especially when we are in crowded areas such as airports, tourist attractions, mass transit systems, and other high profile venues. In 2010, we have the ability to use our technology to capture videos and still images of suspicious behavior as it happens. We can then quickly forward that information to law enforcement. If we do this, we can rest assured that what is preventable is prevented, and the parties responsible, like Shahzad and his accomplices, are apprehended and brought to justice in a timely manner.

Thoughts on the DISCLOSE Act and the numbing down of the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision…

Last week, U.S. Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Al Franken (D-MN) introduced legislation which is aimed at numbing down the potential effects of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision with regards to corporate personhood and campaign ads. In an earlier KTI article, we discussed how the Supreme Court’s controversial decision is believed by many to be the end for the small guy in the electoral process. Thus giving the largest corporations, foreign interests included, overwhelming influence over election spending in the United States. Also, in allowing corporations to act as individual citizens with regards to their participation in the political process, the Citizens United decision left the door wide open for opponents in Congress to take action in balancing out its effects. The DISCLOSE Act (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act) is the first proposed, post-Citizens United legislation, which address’s this matter directly. The provisions, endorsed by President Obama in an address last week, are expected to pass through both Houses, with or without bipartisan support.

The DISCLOSE Act, as written, addresses four key areas:

1.) THE REGULATION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF POLITICAL SPENDING
a.) Banning pay to play practices by preventing government contractors and corporate beneficiaries of TARP from spending money on elections.
b.) Preventing foreign influence on elections by closing a loophole for spending by domestic corporations controlled by foreign nationals. Companies with the following four situations will be prevented from contributing to candidates, Pac’s, and parties:
b1. A foreign national owns 20% or more of voting shares in the corporation
b2. A majority of the board of directors are foreign national’s
b3. One or more foreign nationals have the power to direct, dictate, or control the decision-making of the U.S. subsidiary
b4. One or more foreign nationals have the power to direct, dictate, or control the activities with respect to federal, state or local elections
c.) Preventing organizations from coordinating their activities with candidates and parties. More specifically, for House and Senate races, the legislation would ban coordination between a corporation or union and the candidate on ads referencing a Congressional candidate in the time period starting 90 days before the primary and continuing through the general election. For presidential campaigns, the legislation would ban coordination between a corporation or union and the candidate on ads referencing a Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate in the time period starting 120 days before the first presidential primary and continuing through the general election.
d.) Regulates Party Communications, stating that any payment by a political party committee for the direct costs of an ad or other communication made on behalf of a candidate affiliated with the party will be treated as a contribution to the candidate only if the communication is directed or controlled by the candidate and party-paid communications that are not directed or controlled by the candidate are not subject to limits on the party’s contributions or expenditures.

2.) PROMOTING EFFECTIVE DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN RELATED ACTIVITY
The legislation ensures that the public will have full and timely disclosure of campaign-related expenditures (both electioneering communications and public independent expenditures) made by covered organizations (corporations, unions, section 501(c)(4), (5), and (6) organizations and section 527 organizations). The legislation imposes disclosure requirements that will mitigate the ability of spenders to mask their campaign-related activities through the use of intermediaries. It also requires disclosure of both disbursements made by the covered organization and also the source of funds used for those disbursements.

3.) DISCLOSURE BY COVERED ORGANIZATIONS OF INFORMATION ON CAMPAIGN-RELATED ACTIVITY
Requires periodic disclosures to shareholders, members, and donors of information on disbursements for campaign-related activity. The covered organization shall post the information described in subparagraph not later than 24 hours after the organization files the information with the Commission under the applicable provision of this Act, and shall ensure that the information remains on the website until the expiration of the 1-year period which begins on the date of the election with respect to which the public independent expenditures or electioneering communications are made.

4.) TELEVISION MEDIA RATES
Requires media outlets to charge the lowest possible rate for air time and to afford the same rate to all parties seeking advertising spots. This ensures an evening of the electioneering playing field by forcing media outlets to diversify and open their airwaves to less financed candidates. These rates, regulated by the FCC, would apply 45 days preceding the date of a primary or primary runoff election and during the 60 days preceding the date of a general or special election in which such person is a candidate.

These anticipated, and widely supported adjustments, are a best case reaction to the unpopular Citizen’s United decision that will ultimately serve to improve on the legislative goals of McCain-Feingold. The increased focuses on monetary transparency, and the impending removal of shadowy contributors from the process through CEO and donor testimonials, are widely viewed as positive moves that should be politically popular with most Americans. With regards to protecting the voice of the individual voter, the influence of big money on elections has served to alienate the lower and middle class from the electoral process. Therefore, if implemented correctly, the DISCLOSE Act may be the appropriate legislation to counter to the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Senators who drafted this legislation have the important benefit of an electorate that feels trumped by the power of special interests and corporate lobbyists. Coupled with the vociferous support of President Obama, and many progressives in Congress, the lost voices of the individual voter may soon get a much needed boost in volume and importance.