By: Alex Isanstadt

In an unprecedented expansion of their scope and profile, conservative women’s groups are plowing cash into the campaigns of female candidates across the map.

At least three separate groups are actively engaged in efforts to elect conservative women to Congress, providing a counterpoint to influential Democratic-oriented women’s groups, such as EMILY’s List, which have long played an outsize role in funneling resources into electing women to office.

The Susan B. Anthony List, an organization that backs female candidates who oppose abortion, is on track to raise and spend as much as $12 million this election cycle — $4 million more than the group spent in 2008 and more than twice as much as it spent in 2004. As recently as three weeks ago, the SBA List announced it was launching a $215,000 independent expenditure campaign in support of California GOP Senate candidate Carly Fiorina, who won the nomination June 8. The group also spent $200,000 in neighboring Nevada, where it backed former state GOP Chairwoman Sue Lowden, who finished second in that state’s June 8 Senate primary.

“The stakes are high for women and unborn children this election,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser, whose group claims 280,000 members. “Our membership is energized like never before, and we are committed to making gains at the ballot box in November.”

The groups’ leaders say they’ve been spurred to action by a confluence of political events — the inspirational value of Sarah Palin’s vice presidential nomination, an abundance of credentialed female conservative candidates and a landscape that is rife with opportunities for Republicans.

“We are definitely ramping up,” said Concerned Women for America Political Action Committee Executive Director Mike Mears. “We are seeing a lot going on out there.”

The Concerned Women for America PAC, another group that opposes abortion rights, plans to bundle $10,000-$15,000 for candidates in more than 40 targeted races this cycle and, for the first time in the organization’s history, will launch an independent expenditure campaign.

The 50,000-member organization has already endorsed 38 House and Senate candidates — more than double the number of contenders it backed in 2006 and 2008. In January, the PAC brought in Penny Nance, an outspoken and visible social conservative activist, to serve as its chief executive officer.

Independent Women’s Voice is another group that is suddenly flexing its muscles. IWV has invested more than a half-million dollars in key 2010 races — not enough to leave a big footprint in races but a significant amount for an organization that had never previously spent money on elections.

Already, IWV’s presence has been felt: In May, the group was the only outside organization on the airwaves in Hawaii’s House special election, spending about $250,000.

Heather Higgins, the organization’s president and chief executive officer and a longtime conservative activist, says the group is planning an independent expenditure campaign in the fall.

The increased involvement is in no small part the result of the increased number of viable GOP female candidates seeking office this year. According to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, 17 Republican women have sought Senate seats this cycle, compared with six in 2008. And 113 Republican women have sought House seats in 2010, compared with just 65 in 2008.

“There has been a big shift. We are seeing Republican women running and really stepping up,” said SBA’s Dannenfelser. “It’s qualitatively different this year than last.”

“We are seeing women come of age in politics,” added Concerned Women for America’s Nance. “It’s a coming of age in conservatism to have women embracing becoming our leaders.”

The more expansive conservative female presence is also a reflection of the rise and prominence of outspoken, high-profile female pols such as Palin and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), both of whom are frequently credited with advancing an activist mind-set in conservative women’s circles.

Dannenfelser, whose organization played host to Palin at a May breakfast fundraiser in Washington, noted that the former Alaska governor played an important role in conservative politics — a world that is dominated by men.

Palin’s model “has absolutely produced a template to step up in a way we haven’t seen before,” said Dannenfelser. “You have a traditional woman doing a nontraditional thing. Before those doors opened, they were largely closed to Republican women.”

The issue agenda, once the primary focus for many of the groups, is another reason the groups have stepped up their efforts.

As the debate over federal funding for abortion took center stage in the health care push, the SBA List launched a “Votes Have Consequences” campaign aimed at contacting hundreds of thousands of anti-abortion voters across the country. Concerned Women for America PAC, for its part, is set to announce a similar campaign, targeting Democrats who voted for the “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal.

“When you’ve got a Congress that just passed don’t ask, don’t tell, when you’ve got an administration that is the most pro-abortion administration in years, I think that’s a factor,” said Mears. “I think groups are saying the stakes are pretty high.”

Social issues, however, aren’t the groups’ sole focus. IWV is centering its campaign on the nation’s ailing economy, running an ad in the Hawaii special election that hammered former Democratic Rep. Ed Case as a “tax-raising liberal.”

“For the last year, we think [Troubled Asset Relief Program], the stimulus and the health care bill have really brought economic issues to the fore,” said Higgins.

And while social issues like abortion and gay marriage have for years dominated the agenda for conservative women, Kellyanne Conway, a GOP pollster who works with all three women’s groups, said homing in on the economy was key to appealing to those voters in 2010.

“I think, for years, women were concerned about the abortion issue. I think women’s issues in 2010 begin with the economy,” said Conway. “You can’t say abortion is a women’s issue and leave it at that. This year, the predominant concerns are jobs, the economy and health care.”

Case Slams GOP Women For Last Minute Attacks

By: Alex Isenstadt

Independent Women’s Voice spent about a quarter-million dollars on ads blasting former Democratic Rep. Ed Case as a “tax-raising liberal.” It was the only outside group on either side of the aisle to spend money on the airwaves.

The Hawaii special election is only the second race that Independent Women’s Voice has invested in heavily. Earlier this year, the group spent more than $200,000 in the Massachusetts election that ended with Republican Sen. Scott Brown’s victory. It also spent a smaller sum – $20,000 – on get-out-the-vote efforts in the special election this month in Pennsylvania’s 12h Congressional District.

Heather Higgins, the president and CEO of Independent Women’s Voice, said the group saw an opportunity to make a mark on the Hawaii campaign as the National Republican Congressional Committee stayed off the airwaves there.

“We thought we could make a difference,” Higgins explained. “We try to pick our shots and we try to play in a way where we get results.”

Higgins said her organization plans to remain active in the midterms through issue ads and an independent expenditure campaign, but has not decided exactly how much money it intends to spend. ]]> http://iwvoice.org/2010/05/26/in-the-news-politico-conservative-group-makes-mark-in-hawaii/feed/ 0 http://iwvoice.org/2010/05/25/in-the-news-gop-won-hawaii-by-focusing-on-case/ http://iwvoice.org/2010/05/25/in-the-news-gop-won-hawaii-by-focusing-on-case/#comments Tue, 25 May 2010 18:16:09 +0000 The Admin http://iwvoice.org/?p=3283 National Journal

Reid Wilson

Rep.-elect Charles Djou‘s (R) upset win in HI 01 this weekend, and Dems’ decision several weeks ago to abandon the race, was the result of a GOP decision to focus their fire on ex-Rep. Ed Case (D), who both parties saw as the stronger Dem running.

Party strategists on both sides acknoweldge Case had the name recognition and the political acumen to beat Djou in a one-on-one matchup. The DCCC quietly helped his campaign, while GOP-affiliated groups, most notably a group called Independent Women’s Voice, focused their TV ads and mail campaigns entirely on Case, rather than on state Sen. Colleen Hanabusa(R).

The GOP’s entire strategy hinged on treating the race as a one-on-one contest. Case had soft name-ID, according to partisan polling. His support came from independents and those who lean Dem. All the party needed to do was win over the soft GOPers to build a winning coalition.

In the end, the strategy of targeting Case accomplished its goal; Djou took 39% of the vote to Hanabusa’s 31%. Case came in third place, with 28%.

But Dems face deeper problems even as they work to convince the media they can win back the district. The party tried to nudge Hanabusa out of the race, arguing she has a ceiling much lower than Case’s.

Hanabusa’s second-place finish will complicate those efforts. Local Dems are already angry with the national party for meddling, and with labor and the party establishment — including Sens. Daniel Inouye (D) and Daniel Akaka (D) — solidly behind Hanabusa, Case faces an uphill fight to win the Dem primary.

What’s more, the Sept. 18 primary gives the eventual winner just 6 weeks to stock up on much-needed cash before a general election. Djou already has $200K in the bank for a general contest, giving him an important financial head start.

Dems are beginning to consider the need for some kind of compromise candidate. Hanabusa is still unlikely to win a general election, they believe, and Case will have trouble winning a primary. Though official behind-the-scenes talks have yet to begin, they are likely to start in earnest in the future.

Dems don’t have a lot of time; the filing deadline is July 20. DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen is optimistic about his chances of winning the seat back this Nov., despite the fact that HI has never booted an incumbent. If Dems want to change that streak and back up their chairman’s claims, they have to move fast to heal what is, at the moment, a splintered party.

By: Michael Barone

Republican Honolulu Councilman Charles Djou has won the special election in the 1st congressional district of Hawaii, the birthplace and childhood home of Barack Obama, with 40% of the vote, to 31% for state Senator Colleen Hanabusa and 28% for former 2nd district Congressman Ed Case, both Democrats. The Djou percentage is different from that widely reported, because I don’t count blank votes and over votes in the total as the Hawaii authorities do. Under Hawaii law, there was no primary in this special election; candidates of all parties ran with the leading votegetter elected. This was obviouslty an advantage for Djou, the only well-known Republican in the race. Democrats were split between state Hanabusa, a pillar of the Democratic machine led most of the last 50 years by Senator Daniel Inouye, and Case, elected to Congress after the death of incumbent Patsy Mink in September 2002 and reelected n 2004. In 2006 Case ran against the then 86-year-old Senator Daniel Akaka in the Democratic primary, which was considered lese majeste by the machine (amazingly enough, Senators Inouye and Akaka were born within four days of each other in September 1924); Akaka won 55%-45%. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Obama White House reportedly favored Case over Hanabusa in this contest, presumably on the theory that his reputation as a reformer and moderate would make him a stronger candidate. But Inouye and company insisted on supporting Hanabusa and the DCCC pulled out of the race during the mail-in voting period, when a poll suggested that Djou was leading.

There’s an important backstory here: the efforts of an independent expenditure by a group called http://iwvoice.org/ Independent Women’s Voice. IWV commissioned a poll in the race in April, which showed Case leading and Djou within reach. In response IWV started running three ads prepared by the Brabender Cox firm, one charging that Case had voted 72 times for higher taxes, one charging that he had gotten an “F” rating from the National Taxpayers Union and one noting that he had hired a former consultant to former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (“Advisor B” on the FBI surveillance tapes). When these ads appeared, the Djou campaign stopped running negative spots and ran one showing Djou’s wife talking to camera instead. Subsequent polling for IWV showed Case’s negatives rising, and to the surprise of many he ended up running behind Hanabusa and far behind Djou.

This leaves Djou about as well positioned for the general election as a Republican could be. Yes, his 40% is well below the 50% needed to win a contest against the single nominee of the Democratic party. But it’s likely that Djou was the second choice of many who voted for Ed Case, which would position him well if Hanabusa is the Democratic nominee. And if Case is the Democratic nominee, his negatives are now much higher than they were at the beginning of the special election campaign.

It’s been noted by others that although Hawaii 1 voted for native son Barack Obama by a 70%-28% margin, it has not always been so heavily Democratic: it voted 53%-47% for John Kerry in 2004 and 55%-39% for Al Gore in 2000. In its 50 years as a state, Hawaii has shown two basic political characteristics: it tends to favor Democrats and it tends to favor incumbents. (Hawaii has only two congressional districts, with the 1st typically slightly more Republican than the 2nd, so statewide figures here are relevant). In the 13 presidential elections in which it has participated starting in 1960, it has voted an average of 54% Democratic and 42% Democratic. It voted heavily for incumbent Democratic Presidents Johnson (79%-21%) and Clinton (57%-32%) and was one of the six states voting for incumbent Democratic President Carter (45%-43%). It voted solidly for incumbent Republican Presidents Nixon (62%-38%) and Reagan (55%-44%) and cast pretty strong minority votes for incumbent Republican Presidents Ford (48%-51%) and George W. Bush (45%-54%). Only incumbent Republican George H. W. Bush was soundly defeated (37%-48%).

In addition, Hawaii has never voted against reelecting an incumbent member of Congress—a record shared, I believe, by no other state. Before last Saturday, 12 individuals had been elected to Congress from Hawaii, two Republicans and 10 Democrats. They are listed below, with their political fates; Hawaii elected only one member of the House in 1959 and 1960.

Hiram Fong (R), elected to the Senate in 1959, reelected in 1964 and 1970, retired 1976.

Oren Long (D), elected to the Senate in 1959, retired in 1962.

Daniel Inouye (D), elected to the House in 1959, reelected in 1960, elected to the Senate in 1962, reelected in 1968, 1974, 1980, 1986, 1992, 1998, 2004, still serving and running for reelection in 2010.

Spark Matsunaga (D), elected to the House in 1962, reelected in 1964, 1966, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1974, elected to the Senate in 1976, reelected in 1982, 1988, died in April 1990.

Tom Gill (D), elected to the House in 1962, ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in 1964.

Patsy Mink (D), elected to the House in 1964, reelected in 1966, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1974, ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in 1976, elected to the House in 1990, reelected in 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000 and, though she died in September 2002, in 2002.

Cecil Heftel (D), elected to the House 1976, reelected in 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984, resigned to run unsuccessfully for governor in 1986.

Daniel Akaka (D), elected to the House in 1976, reelected in 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, elected to the Senate in 1990, reelected in 1994, 2000, 2006, still serving.

Neil Abercrombie (D), elected to the House in September 1986 special election, defeated simultaneously for the Democratic nomination for the full term 1986, elected to the House in 1990, reelected in 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, resigned in February 2010 to run for governor. Abercrombie lost the September 1986 primary to Mufi Hannemann, now Mayor of Honolulu, by a 40%-39% margin, but he was not an incumbent then since the special election was held the same day as the primary; Hannemman lost the general election to Republican Pat Saiki by a 59%-37% margin.

Pat Saiki (R), elected to the House in 1986, reelected in 1988, ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in 1990.

Ed Case (D), elected to the House in special elections on November 30, 2002, and in January 2003, reelected in 2004, ran unsuccessfully for senator 2006.

Mazie Hirono (D), elected to the House in 2006, reelected in 2008, still serving.

The closest precedent to the situation in Hawaii 1 today was the 1986 race for the same seat, which featured both a special election and a divisive Democratic primary and resulted in a Republican victory in November. That divisiveness presumably contributed to the poor showing of Democratic nominee Mufi Hannemann in November. That looks like a good omen for Charles Djou.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Will-new-Republican-congressman-hold-Obamas-home-district-94777124.html#ixzz0oxJFvLB6

By: Michael Barone

On Monday I wrote a blogpost noting that a poll showed Republican Charles Djou well ahead of the two Democratic candidates in the first-past-the-post Hawaii 1 special election scheduled for May 22. One reason for Djou’s performance may be the TV ad placed by Independent Women’s Voice targeting one of the Democrats, former Congressman Ed Case.

IVW took a poll showing that Case had more potential to gain votes than the other Democrat, state Senator Colleen Hanabusa, who is part of the longtime Hawaii Democratic machine which held the governorship and the legislature from 1962 to 2002. Case, who opposed the machine-backed incumbent Senator Daniel Akaka in the 2006 Democratic primary, potentially had some credibility as a reform-minded candidate. Last week the IWV put up this ad, which links Case to former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (he hired a Blagojevich advisor.

This is reportedly the only independent expenditure made against a Democrat in this race; the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was running negative ads against Djou before deciding to pull out of the race last weekend. The poll cited above showed Case running about even with Hanabusa, and far behind what is needed to win.

Independent expenditure ads worked for Democrats in the 2006 and 2008 cycle. Now IWV may be showing that independent expenditure ads may be working for Republicans in the 2010 cycle—even in Hawaii-1, where Barack Obama was born and which he carried 70%-28% in November 2008.

John Fund

Democrats are frustrated that they may lose a special House election on May 22 in the most unlikely of places — the Hawaii congressional district where President Obama was born in 1961 and which he won with an overwhelming 70% of the vote just a year and a half ago.

The rules for the special election for the seat vacated by Democrat Neil Abercrombie provide for a single election with no primaries. That means all candidates run on one ballot and the top vote-getter wins even if he or she only has a plurality. Currently, polls how Republican Charles Djou, a member of Honolulu’s City Council, leading former Democratic Congressman Ed Case and State Senate President Colleen Hanabusa. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee tried valiantly to convince Ms. Hanabusa to drop out, but met resistance from Democratic U.S. Senators Dan Inouye and Dan Akaka, who are still furious at Mr. Case for daring to mount a primary challenge against Mr. Akaka in 2006.

After spending $243,000 in TV ads attacking Mr. Djou, the DCCC has apparently concluded the fusillade has not slowed his momentum. So the group has decided to conserve its resources and is pulling out of further ad campaigns. Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, says that the DCCC move amounts to “effectively ceding the race to the Republicans.” The thinking of key Democrats apparently is that should Mr. Djou win the special election this month, he will be much easier to defeat next November when he must run for a full two-year term against a single Democrat.

One of the factors boosting Mr. Djou’s chances has been a flood of independent expenditures that have eroded Mr. Case’s image as a “moderate” Democrat. Independent Women’s Voice, a conservative group, has been running ads noting that Mr. Case had voted to raise taxes 72 times and had received failing grades from anti-pork barrel spending groups such as the National Taxpayers Union.

A GOP victory in President Obama’s native state would be a psychological blow to Democrats, still reeling from their loss of Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts in January. For Democrats who were confident that passing health care would brighten the political atmosphere for them this fall, the forecast is for continued turbulence.

– John Fund

Thank you, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter.Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter have come up with a parliamentary maneuver — “deem and pass” — reeking of evasiveness and trickery that Democratic members are going to have to embrace. But it gets better! The point of “deem and pass” is to allow representatives to vote directly only on the reconciliation “fixes” rather than on the Senate health care bill bill (which will be deemed to be passed if reconciliation passes). But the reconciliation “fixes” make the Senate bill even more politically unattractive.

Here’s what Democrats will be asked to vote for Sunday (thanks to Keith Hennessey for his useful list):

* Additional tax increases, on top of the ones in the Senate bill. The reconciliation bill raises the Medicare payroll tax by 0.9% to a combined employer-employee 3.8% for individuals with income over $200K and couples over $250K, and, beginning in 2013, creates a new 3.8% tax on some capital income from interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, and rents for those individuals and families.

* Even deeper cuts to Medicare Advantage, which will mean fewer and less attractive Medicare Advantage plans available to seniors.

* Increases in the employer penalties for not complying with the mandates, which will hit all businesses with more than 50 employees.

Now, Democratic leaders will tell members that there are some popular things in the new package — for example, the one-time $250 “rebate” in 2010 for seniors who reach the Medicare drug benefit coverage gap. But they’re likely wrong that even this will be popular. In an era of concern about the deficit, the giveaway will be ridiculed as an attempt at pure election-year vote-buying, and will backfire.

What’s more, the reconciliation bill the House will be voting on has several clear Byrd rule violations. Senate Republicans will be able to use the Byrd rule to strike these provisions from the bill. So if the Senate then passes a modified reconciliation bill, it will return it to the House, which will have to vote on a version of this bill AGAIN.

The Democrats would actually be better off — well, less worse off — simply voting to pass the Senate bill. But by embracing the Slaughter Rule and this package of reconciliation fixes, they’ve managed to make a bad political situation for themselves worse. Congratulations!

The survey released by the Polling Company and Independent Women’s Voice polled 1,200 registered voters in 35 districts represented by pivotal House members who could determine the outcome of the healthcare debate.

82 percent of voters in those “swing districts” regard the healthcare bill as either the top or one of the top three issues for deciding whom to support for Congress next November.  60 percent want Congress to start from scratch on a bipartisan healthcare reform proposal or stop working on it this year.

Majorities feel the legislation will make them and their loved ones, the economy and the U.S. healthcare system worse off.

Julie Gunlock, a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, says the findings of the poll show that constituents in the 35 swing districts are paying attention.

“They’re paying attention to the issue, and they’re going to pay attention to how their members vote,” she comments. “This is not about a lack of information – people are focused on healthcare, they’re focused on this debate and they’ve really educated themselves.  The reaction is clear – people do not want this particular package of healthcare reform.  They don’t want Obama healthcare, and they’re going to be watching how these members vote.”

The survey also found that three in four voters disagree that the federal government should mandate that everyone buy a government-approved insurance plan, and 81 percent believe any reform should focus first on reducing costs.