On the Democrat side of the aisle, probably one of the more agonized over U.S. Senate seats is what is known as the “Biden” seat.  Ok, maybe it’s a bad idea to name seats after their former office holders – remember what happened to the “Kennedy” seat?  Anyhoo, Democrat Attorney General Beau Biden, he’s Vice President Joe Biden’s eldest son, was first elected Attorney General in 2006 defeating Republican Ferris Wharton by just over 13,000 votes.  It should be noted that Biden’s name appeared as “Joseph R. Biden III” – giving a bit of a name ID advantage in a state that was used to having another Joseph R Biden on the ballot for centuries.  You’d expect a bigger margin of victory for such a solidly named candidate in a great year for Democrats – against unknown, but some would argue, much better qualified candidate.

Regardless – the Beau Biden star was on the rise, and it was only a matter of time before he took his dad’s place in the Senate.  The election of Barack Obama and Joe Biden seemed to only solidify that sense.  And then they took office.  And the rest, is history.  Who knows, maybe historians will be kinder to the Obama-Biden administration than the voters have been so far.  Maybe historians will view the Obama-Biden administration’s over reaching on health care, fouling up the war on terror, and ignoring the looming jobs and economy issues more favorably than those who are living through those issues now do.

So today we have Beau Biden, or Joseph R. Biden, III, trying to figure if he wants to put political steak on the grill in an election year that is proving to be tough for candidates linking themselves to national Democrat policies, or more to the point, the policies of Democrats Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Beau Biden - DE Online

It’s going to be tough for Democrats up and down the ballot, all across the country, to extricate themselves politically from the muck that Reid/Pelosi/Obama/Biden have made of their party brand.  It’s going to be even tougher – some might say down right impossible – for Beau Biden to credibly distance himself from his father’s party and policies (because really Vice President Biden can’t distance himself from President Obama’s policies).

So, what seemed like a sure thing for Democrats – sure thing being they get to keep the Biden seat in the family and in the party – is no longer quite so sure.  Beau Biden seeing Martha Coakley go down in flames in Massachusetts to Republican state senator Scott Brown in a special election makes Biden’s facing Republican Congressman Mike Castle, who has been a state legislator, Lt. Governor, Governor, and U.S. Congressman during his public career in the 3 county state that is Delaware, look down right terrifying.  Beau won in ‘06 by 13k votes during a great year for Democrats nationally against a candidate who was new to Delaware politics.  The ‘10 U.S. Senate race is a much different affair in a much more toxic – for Democrats – environment than any Biden has ever seen – against a very popular, statewide elected official, who is not seemingly inextricably linked to all that makes Independent, and some soft Democrat, voters down right furious.

So what’s the best thing for Beau Biden to do?

Well, if his name wasn’t Biden, and his dad wasn’t the Vice President of the United States, and this wasn’t his dad’s seat (again with the owning/naming the seat thing), the decision would be easier. He could run for the seat on his record as Delaware’s Attorney General, distance himself from the failing policies of Obama/Biden administration, and maybe have a shot at winning.  Or he could just not run and be done with it – no harm done.  But his name IS Biden, and he can’t just walk away and wait for another chance – w/out there being some serious political consequences for himself, his dad, and his party.  And if he runs, he can’t do anything to distance himself from what’s ticking off voters all across the country.

As you can see, Joseph R. “Beau” Biden, III is boxed in and it’s hardly his fault.  But he can’t blame anybody, and he can’t walk way.  And that really stinks for him.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) on Friday asked that a deal he secured for his state on Medicaid funding be removed from the health care reform bill, a move that follows weeks of unrelenting political blowback.

Nelson contends that a $100 million deal he extracted for Nebraska in December to pay the state’s cost of a proposed Medicaid expansion was misunderstood. He said it was intended to act as a placeholder to ensure that all states received similar treatment once negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate bills commenced.

But after weeks of criticism from Nebraskans and fellow Democratic Senators and a backlash that extended nationwide for a deal that came to be known as the “Cornhusker Kickback,” Nelson on Friday sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) asking him to strip the provision from the reform bill.

In his letter, Nelson asks that the Nebraska-only measure be replaced with one that would exempt all states from paying the cost of a proposed Medicaid expansion. However, his letter appears to make clear that regardless of whether that request is granted, he wants the provision affecting Nebraska removed.

Truth-o-meter

First, is Texas Democrat attorney general candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky gets torched by the Austin American Statesman’s truth-o-meter for claiming with zero factual, or even anecdotal backup, to her claim that the attorney general’s office requires rape victims to pay for their own rape kit.  From the Austin American Statesman:

We wondered whether Radnofsky’s statement was true. This is what we found:

Under current state law, sexual assault victims in Texas should never have to pay for their forensic exams, which are done by medical professionals to collect physical evidence for the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault suspects. Local law enforcement agencies are responsible for paying hospitals for rape kits in cases in which the victims report the crimes. Those agencies can seek reimbursement of up to $700 through the Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund, which is administered by the attorney general’s office. If a victim chooses not to report the crime, the Texas Department of Public Safety is responsible for paying for the exam and getting reimbursement from the fund.

Come on Radnofsky – Texas deserves better than what you’re delivering.

The next gem comes from Connecticut in what appears to be have been generated from some Democrat on Democrat interaction regarding whether or not Democrat Secretary of State, and now attorney general candidate Susan Bysiewicz (you can say that again) meets the basic requirements to serve as Connecticut’s next attorney general.  The Hartford Courant’s Capitol Watch Blog reported:

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz’s legal qualifications to run for state attorney general – a candidacy she formally announced Wednesday – were questioned Thursday on the basis that, even though she is an attorney, she may not have spent sufficient time in the actual practice of law.

And then a little further down:

State Rep. Cameron Staples, who is considering running for attorney general himself, jumped on the issue late Thursday and said that Bysiewicz clearly has a problem. He rejected the statements this week by Bysiewicz that serving as the Secretary of the State is, in essence, running a public-interest law firm through the supervision of lawyers in the office.

“That’s like saying the CEO of a corporation, who has a law degree, practices law just because there’s a law department in the corporation,” Staples said. “The Secretary of the State’s office, with all due respect, is not a law office. She is the CEO of the office. She’s not the lawyer in charge of the lawyers.”

In the same way, Staples said, a mayor of any town does not directly oversee the lawyers on a daily basis. That would be the job of the town attorney, and the mayor could not be considered as practicing law, he said.

“That does not meet the standard of the statute as I read it,” Staples said Thursday night. “Overseeing lawyers in an administrative capacity is not practicing law. I think she’s got a problem. I think she needs to look at another office.”

He added, “This is what happens when you choose your office without reading the requirements.”

That last line was really a harsh ding – but hey all’s fair when you have an open seat and a contested primary.  And yes – what makes it even more fun is that this just isn’t a blog story – it’s generating T.V. news coverage as well.

UPDATE ON THE BYSIEWICZ STORY:  According to this article, she’s doing her level best to keep this story alive and kicking – raising more and more questions about her qualifications for the top legal job.

Last, but probably tops on the national news list, is the massive campaign fail being executed by Massachusetts Democrat A.G. Martha Coakley – she’s running in the U.S. Senate special election against Republican state senator Scott Brown to fill the open “Kennedy” seat in the Bay State.  She’s had more downs than ups in this campaign – talking about her extensive foreign policy experience, expounding on her insight into the war on terror, roughing up the press – just to name a few.

And now, the Washington Examiner reports that Democrat strategist are saying the “bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers” while the the Boston Herald reports a Democrat strategist saying that Coakley’s campaign strategy has been “breathtakingly ignorant” and “incompetent”.  Not exactly the type of buzz you want generated by your own team about your slam dunk election to the U.S. Senate.  And to add insult to injury, Democrat insiders are comparing Coakley’s failing campaign to, are you ready for this, none other than failed Virginia Democrat gov candidate Creigh Deeds.  Cool huh?

Not the best of news days for you if you’re a female Democrat who is either, or wants to be attorney general of your state.

And why we’re at it, why not pose the same questions to Connecticut Democrat A.G. Richard Blumenthal.  He’s the guy who just announced today that he’ll be running for U.S. Senate in Connecticut to replace Chris Dodd.  No doubt candidate Blumenthal will invoke words like ethics, transparency, and reform throughout his campaign.  Those are words that A.G. Blumenthal has used through out his career as his state’s top cop.

If these two sitting state attorneys general want to be in the United States Senate – what do they think about the issue that is shining a bright light on the deal making that occurs in the United States Senate – the Cornhusker Kickback?

Saying it’s just politics isn’t going to get the job done.

A bipartisan effort is being made to all state A.G.s to completely address the Cornhusker Kickback.  Martha Coakley and Richard Blumenthal need to let the citizens of their states know where they stand on this matter.  From the Associated Press:

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – Two top state prosecutors are asking attorneys general across the country to let Washington know if they oppose the health care reform bill they say includes a political deal for Nebraska.

South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and Oklahoma top prosecutor Drew Edmondson asked their colleagues Wednesday to call on U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to remove the provision.

The news started to roll with the announcement from North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan stating he will not be running for re-election in 2010.  Things started rolling faster when embattled, embroiled, or just plain beat up, Connecticut Democrat Chris Dodd said he to will be taking a pass on running for re-election in 2010.

In Connecticut there are already a number of Democrats and Republicans lining up to seek the Dodd seat, but his official move now may change things enough that a higher profile Democrat with a record of being elected statewide may step into the breach now for Connecticut Democrats – and if nobody who legitimately fits that profile does step in – what does that say about the overall national environment if blue Connecticut can’t bring in a ringer? UPDATE: Democrat A.G. Richard Blumenthal is scheduled to announce his candidacy for U.S. Senate today.  Finally – the man makes a decision.

On the North Dakota side of the ledger Dorgan’s announcement comes as a surprise to many.  Though there has been a decent amount of chatter as folks pondered a November contest between North Dakota’s sitting Republican governor John Hoeven and Senator Dorgan.  The next couple of days will be very interesting in North Dakota as those with an interest in serving in the United States Senate – both Democrat and Republican – gauge the cold political winds blowing across the state.  Republicans are doing well in North Dakota despite a flood of national Democrat money over the past couple election cycles.  If Democrats are only able to pull up a retread candidate from the past, this seat will flip over to the R column.  UPDATE:  Republican Governor John Hoeven has said he’ll have a decision on whether or not to run for the open seat in the next 2 weeks.

You can read more about Dodd’s and Dorgan’s decision here.

Lastly – in what could be a leading indicator of things to come in Colorado, Democrat Governor Bill Ritter is announcing (to a surprised Colorado Democrat establishment) that he too is not seeking re-election in 2010.  Ritter was elected by wide margins in 2006, but clearly things have changed – and are still changing – in Colorado.  We wonder if Ritter’s departure is another indication that the Colorado model is coming apart for Democrats.

Get more on Ritter’s decision here.

Question wording and response:

If the 2010 election for US Senate were being held today between Kelly Ayotte, the Republican, and Paul Hodes, the Democrat, for whom would you vote – Ayotte or Hodes? (names rotated)

2010 US Senate	Ayotte	Hodes	Undecided
All voters	43%	36%	21%
Republicans	81%	6%	13%
Democrats	13%	70%	17%
Undeclared	37%	33%	30%
9/09	41%	34%	25

If the 2010 election for US Senate were being held today between Paul Hodes, the Democrat, and Ovide Lamontagne, the Republican, for whom would you vote – Hodes or Lamontagne? (names rotated)

2010 US Senate	Hodes	Lamontagne	Undecided
All voters	31%	37%	32%
Republicans	3%	77%	20%
Democrats	61%	13%	26%
Undeclared	30%	23%	47%

The document goes on to say: “Senator Nelson said it would be ‘fixed’ by extending the Cornhusker Kickback (100% federal payment) on Medicaid to every state.”

Senate Democratic leaders have made no reference to a plan to expand the Nebraska deal to the remaining 49 states — a move that would be prohibitively expensive to the federal government and raise serious questions about whether health reform would lower the expected federal deficit, as President Barack Obama claims it would.

At the same time, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said after the Nebraska deal came to light that he envisions other states lining up to seek a similar deal down the road. Under the Nebraska provision, all added expenses from expanding Medicaid to cover the uninsured in Nebraska starting in 2017 would be borne by the federal government forever, not split with the state as they are now.

According to the memo, McMaster responded to Nelson by saying that the goal of the GOP attorneys general was to remove the Nebraska Medicaid provision from the bill and that “he saw no way that he—nor any of the state attorneys general—will support extension of the Cornhusker Kickback to every state nor be a part of a deal like that.”

Senator Nelson can’t be feeling good about his situation right now.  It’s already clear that voters aren’t feeling good about what he’s done.  A recent Rasmussen survey has Senator Nelson getting just 30% of the vote in a hypothetical ‘12 U.S. Senate match up against Republican governor Dave Heineman.   Heck, only 17% of Nebraskans even approve of the deal he cut with Harry Reid on this one.  And 64% of Nebraskans oppose the health care legislation.

Nah, not feeling good at all…unless you’re a Republican with eyes on that U.S. Senate seat there in Nebraska.

Tonight it was in Hernando County, Charlie Crist’s back yard and Bill McCollum’s native county. The tally was 46 for Marco Rubio, zero for Charlie Crist.

“I’m surprised but I’m not surprised,” said party chairman Blaise Ingoglia, stressing the motion for the straw vote came from the floor, not the leadership. “They believe in Marco Rubio’s message and his values. The people in Hernando County tend to be a little more conservative.”