The fact that Republicans and their majorities are in jeopardy — especially in the House — is no secret around Washington. Congressional approval ratings are as low or lower than they were in 1994 and the President’s sinking poll numbers render him unable to help many vulnerable incumbents. Some conservative members of Congress have already privately conceded that Republican control of the House in January of 2007 is looking increasingly unlikely. That scenario would leave the Republican caucus in a vulnerable position. Not only would they be in the minority, but there would be plenty of finger pointing amongst themselves as to who is to blame for the fall from grace.

Congressional Quarterly ($) today examines the potential intra-party scrimmage in light of another possible scenario: Republicans maintaining power…but just barely:

In the House, the first post-election decision the leadership would have to make is what lesson to draw if the Republicans suffer significant but not majority-ending losses. Their governing strategy could depend on how they settle a debate already starting in the GOP ranks: Is their majority in trouble because they have moved too far to the right, or because they have made too many compromises that undermine basic conservative principles?

Many of the members most vulnerable to defeat are Northeastern moderates — among them Christopher Shays, Rob Simmons and Nancy L. Johnson of Connecticut — and lawmakers and political analysts generally agree that such moderates, many of whom represent areas with a Democratic lean, will take a disproportionate share of the losses Nov. 7. If so, the Republicans that remain in the House will be, on balance, even more conservative than they are now.

In some ways, that might make it easier for Hastert and Majority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio to hold the conference together on tough votes such as spending cuts, since there would be fewer moderates to raise concerns. “You’d end up with the Republican Study Committee being more of the majority than they are today,” just as liberals have come to dominate the Democratic Party as their moderate ranks have thinned, said Franc.

And many of the conservatives who were left would argue that the losses happened because the base was demoralized. They’d say the solution is a back-to-the-basics approach that stresses tax cuts and spending restraint and rejects departures from conservative doctrine. “I think you become more united. You don’t try to do as many exotic things, and you stick to your principles,” said Rep. Tom Feeney of Florida, a member of the Republican Study Committee. “I don’t think a Medicare bill could pass today on the House floor.”

“The base is not upset with conservative congressmen. The base may sit on its hands for the moderates,” he said. “That’s not something I wish for, but it may happen.”

As the CQ story goes on to point out, liberal Republicans who survive the Fall elections will not sit idly by as conservatives attempt to place the blame (correctly in my opinion) at the feet of the big-spending moderates who have abandoned conservative principle. Indeed, expect the liberal Republicans to increase their calls for a “big tent” and to blame the Republican Study Committee for the lossed seats.

The key to the conservatives winning this intra-party scrimmage will be the effective marshalling of hard data. Did conservatives sit out the election in a protest of the GOP’s big spending, go-along-to-get-along backslapping brand of politics? Somebody better have carefully studied poll data that shows that to be the case if it is. Did conservative incumbents themselves survive the elections while moderates lost their seats? This will be an effective indicator as well.

Right now it is still a guessing game. But both camps in the Republican party are gearing up to make their case should the voters send the Republican majority a deafening wake up call.

Yet another PA poll is showing Rick Santorum gaining ground on his Democratic opponent Bob Casey, Jr. The last Quinnipiac poll released showed Santorum trailing Casey by 18 points. Now the same poll shows Santorum closing to within 7.

Meanwhile, Townhall’s Mary Katharine Ham has an interview with Santorum that is well worth a read.

John Fund writing for the daily subscription WSJ Political Diary email:

A poll out this week by Rasmussen Research shows Senator Akaka leading Mr. Case, but only by 47% to 45%. Mr. Akaka is ducking debates with his opponent and hoping local union muscle will turn out his core supporters. Rated one of the five worst senators this year by Time magazine, Mr. Akaka is no master of the soundbite. Still, the aged incumbent’s avoidance of debates comes with some peril attached. Honolulu Advertiser columnist David Shapiro says that a debate for the incumbent “could be disastrous if he were to stumble and show his age . . but if Akaka ducks Case, he risks leaving the impression that he doesn’t have enough left to stand up to the pressure of tough questioning.”

Hawaii is still a Democratic state, and the GOP candidate is a non-factor this year — similar to Connecticut where the battle is between Sen. Lieberman and Ned Lamont. But unlike the Nutmeg State, the revolt within the Democratic Party in Hawaii is one of moderates against an aging liberal machine. The word “Aloha” means both hello and goodbye. Hawaii voters may say it twice this year, once to bid Mr. Akaka goodbye and the other to welcome a modern Democrat as their new senator.

RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman this afternoon conducted a conference call with conservative bloggers. I was on the call. What I found most interesting was Mehlman’s response to a question about whether or not the GOP would encourage the current GOP Senate candidate in CT to drop out of the race and endorse Lieberman.

Mehlman would not say either way, rather, he was inclined to leave that up to the GOP’ers in CT. This follows reports and speculation this morning that the White House may help clear the path for a Lieberman indy bid.

UPDATE: Why the GOP is loving Lieberman’s loss

A reader emails this very astute observation:

It occurred to me that the results should be seen as pure gold for the GOP. First, the results show that leftist extremism is the preferred path of Democrat activists. Second, the image of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson standing behind Lamont during his acceptance speech provides a powerful visual cue to where Lamont really stands–with the race-baiting socialists of the 1980s. Third, the GOP presumably needs to re-elect its vulnerable members in the Northeast if it is to keep its majority this November. To do so, it needs as many Democrats as possible to NOT vote the straight party line. With Lieberman off the Democrat line on the ballot in CT–where there are three GOP vulnerables–it seems like the results tonight just made it that much more likely that significant numbers of Democrats will engage in split-ticket voting this fall.

Interesting…In so much as the Lamont victory scares moderate-sensible New England Dems then this may be dead on. Also, just listening to Lieberman’s comments over the last 12 hours it is becoming increasingly clear that he plans to tack even further right. If Lieberman’s rightward march is successful in wooing moderate dems and independents then he might also make NE GOP’ers on the ballot look more palatable.

UPDATE: Horatius at Red State makes a compelling case that this outcome is unlikely.

Moderate Democrat Joe Lieberman, liberal Republican Joe Schwarz and super liberal Democrat Cynthia McKinney — all incumbents — lost their primary challenges last night. Lieberman has said he will continue campaigning as an independent.

Lieberman was a victim of the looney left’s need for a scalp. Led by the Daily Kossians in the blogosphere, who to their credit predicted a Lieberman was going to lose months ago, the angry Bush-lied-people-died caucus was able to oust a pro-war Democrat who only six years ago was their party’s vice presidential nominee. My how times change.

McKinney was a victim of her own lunacy.

Schwarz was a victim of his own liberal voting record. Targeted by the Club for Growth and conservative bloggers, Schwart’s liberal voting record and go along to get along demeanor became transparent. Chalk this one up as a win for conservatives.

After watching last night’s results roll in, a recent ABC news poll showing most Americans in an anti-incumbent mood seems more accurate than ever. Will this mood last through the fall? I suspect it will.

It could be a tulmutous November election.

John Hawkins wants Rudy Guiliani to run against Hillary in the 2006 NY Senate race.

The Washington Times points out the enormity of the stakes for the super liberal Moveon.org in today’s Connecticut Democratic Primary:

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Other than the candidates themselves, no one has more riding on today’s Connecticut Democratic Senate primary than MoveOn.org, a liberal organization at the edgy intersection of politics and the Internet.

With a victory for Ned Lamont, the group can claim a role in helping an anti-war challenger dump Sen. Joe Lieberman, who supports President Bush’s policy in Iraq and has the backing of Democratic Party leaders, including former President Bill Clinton.

A come-from-behind win for Mr. Lieberman would mark yet another setback for MoveOn in its parallel campaign — to strengthen its credentials as a force to be heeded by Democrats as they seek congressional majorities this fall.

It’s official, Tom DeLay will remain on the ballot:

The United States Supreme Court dealt a final blow on Monday to efforts by the Texas Republican Party to replace former Representative Tom DeLay on the Congressional ballot in November, leaving him the reluctant party nominee from his longtime district.

Three state and federal courts had already ruled that Mr. DeLay had to remain the party’s choice despite his assertions that he had moved to Virginia from Texas. In April, he announced he would give up his re-election campaign and resign his seat to allow the party to select another candidate while he battled legal charges.

This from the subscription only Wall Street Journal Political Diary email:

Mr. Ney bowed out in unusual fashion. On Saturday, he called state Senator Joy Padgett and asked her to run in his place, saying that his family couldn’t tolerate the strain of both the investigation and a House campaign. She said Mr. Ney told her that “there’s only so much he can take. He said, ‘I have to do this.’”

Ms. Padgett is likely to be the beneficiary of a flood of GOP money steered her way by House Majority Leader John Boehner, who hails from Ohio. She has the campaign experience to know how to use it. In her 2004 re-election bid, she faced a celebrity Democratic candidate: Terry Anderson, the former AP reporter who was held hostage by Islamic radicals in Lebanon during the 1980s. Ms. Padgett took the risk of taking on her opponent directly by calling him part of the “Blame America” crowd, and wound up winning with 54% of the vote.

This year, Ms. Padgett had less political luck as a candidate for Ohio lieutenant governor running as a last-minute addition to the ticket of GOP Attorney General Jim Petro, who was running for governor. Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell won the primary, and Ms. Padgett thought she was done with politics for this year. Then came Mr. Ney’s call, which leaves her with less than three months to assemble a campaign team and win an election.

Roll Call reports that Ohio Republican Bob Ney will not run for re-election. Ney has been a central focus of the Abramoff investigations in the nation’s capital.

I don’t think that the minimum wage issue moves many votes, especially given the pervasiveness of Iraq (and Lebanon, and North Korea). However, Morris is always interesting - and often right. And he is right that Democrats will surely run commercials contrasting estate-tax relief with the status quo on the minimum wage. In a close election in a swing district, I suppose such an attack might move some votes.

Morris’ column is here.

Cross-posted by the Editor at IP at the Influence Peddler.

Democrats are planning to spend the big bucks this fall:

Signaling a new phase in the struggle for control of Congress, House Democrats have reserved time for more than $30 million worth of campaign advertising this fall in roughly two dozen congressional districts, with a heavy emphasis on the Northeast and Midwest.

The Democratic targets include clusters of Republican-held seats in the Philadelphia area held by Reps. Jim Gerlach, Curt Weldon and Michael Fitzpatrick, as well as the Ohio River Valley, where Reps. John Hostettler of Indiana, Geoff Davis of Kentucky and Steve Chabot of Ohio can expect a protracted televised barrage.

As mentioned, the Senate yesterday caved to the pressure of political correctness and passed the Voting Rights Act without any amendments to fix existing problems that have been well-documented. The Washington Times writes it up:

States outside the South are largely exempted from the law’s most stringent requirements, which apply to areas where black voters were often disenfranchised before 1965.

“Some of the data in the act is based on 1968, 1972 turnout models, and the act does not reflect some of the progress, particularly in my region of the country; and I think it should have, but it doesn’t, so we will just move on,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican.

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, chastised his colleagues for refusing to stand up for Southern states and pointed out the South’s successful record of registering black voters and electing black politicians.

“The voter-registration rates among blacks in the covered jurisdictions is higher than in the uncovered jurisdictions,” he said and added statistical data, “During the time of the act’s passage, voter-registration rates for African Americans was at about 29 percent; now nationally it is at about 62.2 percent for noncovered jurisdictions and 68.8 percent for the covered jurisdictions.”

Southern Republican senators were all but forced to vote for the bill despite their objections and without any amendments, after Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, allowed debate but made it clear with the support of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, that he would not support amendments to the version sent to them by the House…

…The expiring provisions extended yesterday will be in effect until 2031. The language of the law will remain identical to what was passed in 1982, the last reauthorization, with the only differences being the recorded data on voter registration and participation and trends on new and old violations.

The Senate this morning is debating a 25 year extension of the Voting Rights Act. The VRA will be debated and voted on without any amendments. This is unfortunate, because there are some very serious problems with the extension as it is currently written. Despite these problems, a heavy fog of political correctness that currently hovers over the Senate floor will no doubt ensure overwhelmning passage of the bill.

For a list of problems with the bill, go here.

UPDATE: President Bush speaking before the NAACP moments ago got his greatest applause line: “I look forward to the Senate taking up this act and promptly passing, without amendment.”