Washed It!

Qantas grounded all six of its Airbus 380 superjumbos after one of them blew out an engine Thursday, shooting flames and debris and forcing an emergency landing in Singapore with 459 people aboard.

The carrier said the double-decker Airbus A380 landed safely with no injuries.

It was most serious midair incident involving the A380, the world’s largest jetliner, since it debuted in October 2007 with Singapore Airlines flying it to Sydney — the same route that Qantas flight QF34 was flying when it was stricken Thursday.

Qantas said there had been no explosion, but witnesses aboard the plane and on the ground reported hearing blasts.

After the plane touched down in Singapore, the engine closest to the fuselage on the left wing had visible burn marks and was missing a section of plate that would have been painted with the red kangaroo logo of the airline. The upper part of the left wing also appeared to have suffered some damage.

One passenger, Rosemary Hegardy, 60, of Sydney, said she heard two bangs and saw yellow flames from her window.

“There was flames — yellow flames came out, and debris came off. … You could see black things shooting through the smoke, like bits of debris,” she said.

In another seat, Tyler Wooster watched as part of the skin of the wing peeled off, exposing foam and broken wires.

“My whole body just went to jelly and I didn’t know what was going to happen as we were going down, if we were going to be OK,” Wooster told Australia’s Nine Network news.

Hegardy said the pilot informed passengers of the engine trouble and that the plane would have to dump fuel before it could land.

Witnesses on the western Indonesian island of Batam, near Singapore, reported hearing a large blast and seeing debris — including a massive red panel with a white Qantas streak — falling onto houses, an elementary school and a nearby shopping mall. No one was injured.

Indonesian police inspected massive chunks of metal the size of emergency exits while others carted away smaller, black twisted panels for future investigations.

The engine trouble happened 15 minutes after takeoff from Singapore at 9:56 a.m. and before the flight had time to approach Indonesia’s Mt. Merapi, which has erupted frequently over the past 10 days. The plane landed after one hour and 50 minutes.

“The shutdown of the Qantas engine had no connection with Mt. Merapi,” said Bambang Ervan, a spokesman for the Transportation Ministry. “It was too far from the volcano — the sky over Singapore and Sumatra island is free of dust. “

The flight is a regular service that flies between Sydney, Singapore and London. Qantas’ A380s can carry up to 525 people, but flight QF34 was carrying 433 passengers and 26 crew, all of whom were evacuated by a step ladder in an operation that lasted two hours.

Qantas spokeswoman Emma Kearns in Sydney said there were no reports of injuries or an explosion on board. The airline described the problem as an “engine issue” without elaborating.

“We will suspend those A380 services until we are completely confident that Qantas safety requirements have been met,” Qantas CEO Alan Joyce told a news conference in Sydney.

Joyce appeared to blame the engine, made by Rolls-Royce.

“This issue, an engine failure, has been one that we haven’t seen before. So we are obviously taking it very seriously, because it is a significant engine failure,” he said.

Qantas grounds its Airbus 380 superjumbo jets after engine blows out

In a number of key races around the country, aggressive and meticulously targeted spending by independent conservative groups appears to have helped produce dramatic results for Republicans.

Unlike Democrats, who relied heavily on financial assistance from unions and Democratic Party committees, Republican candidates got their boost from advertising, mailers and get-out-the-vote drives financed by more than a dozen newly formed conservative groups.

Those groups employed a two-pronged strategy: First, they poured much-needed cash into districts where Republican candidates lagged behind in fundraising. Second, they sent millions into what were once considered safe Democratic districts in an attempt to thin out Democrats’ resources.

The strategy appears to have been a success. In an election cycle where Democratic candidates and party committees had out-raised Republicans by about $168 million, outside conservative groups, armed with $187 million, were able to strategically and successfully leverage that money to produce results for the GOP.

In the 74 House and Senate seats that had switched party hands by early Wednesday morning, 57 were won by Republicans who held the advantage in spending by outside groups, according to an analysis by the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.

Republican Mark Kirk enjoyed the greatest advantage in non-party outside spending in his winning bid to represent Illinois in the Senate. Thanks to large and consistent ad buys by groups such as American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS — big spenders that were formed this year by Karl Rove and other GOP strategists — Kirk held an $8-million advantage in outside money over his Democratic opponent, Alexi Giannoulias.

In the House, Republican Mick Mulvaney topped the list of outsider support with his successful bid to replace 14-term incumbent and chair of the powerful House Budget Committee, John M. Spratt Jr.

In the final two weeks of the campaign, non-party groups opposing Spratt spent nearly $500,000 in his South Carolina district, compared with just $6,000 spent by groups in support, according to data compiled by the Sunlight Foundation

In southern Virginia, 14-term incumbent Rick Boucher was defeated after conservative groups waged a costly ad campaign that went unmatched by groups on the left.

On the Iron Range of Minnesota, 17-term incumbent James L. Oberstar, chair of the House Transportation Committee, was swept from office after a late October storm of conservative group advertising on Duluth television.

“We were able to go places where Democrats were comfortable and require them to start spending money,” said Carl Forti, political director at the Crossroads groups, citing Oberstar’s district and others. “For us, it was an effort to expand the field.”

Liberal groups did not spend a single dollar advertising in Oberstar’s district, according to the Public Citizen analysis. But the onslaught forced Oberstar to run the first negative ad of his career.

kim.geiger@latimes.com

Times staff writer Tom Hamburger contributed to this report.
Outside groups made the difference for some Republicans

Shaken by Tuesday’s Republican landslide, Democratic fundraisers who felt hobbled by President Obama’s hard-line opposition to outside campaign spending are now planning to do what many groups did for the GOP — funnel millions of dollars into independent political advertising and voter mobilization campaigns.

Republican-aligned

In one declarative night, California on Tuesday confirmed its status as a political world unto itself, zigging determinedly Democratic while most of the rest of the country zagged Republican. Voters not only restored the governor’s office to Democratic hands, they may have given Democrats a sweep of statewide offices, though uncounted ballots could still shift one race.

Driving much of the success — and distancing the state from the national GOP tide, according to exit polls — was a surge in Latino voters. They made up 22% of the California voter pool, a record tally that mortally wounded many Republicans.

Latinos were more likely than other voters to say it was the governor’s race that impelled them to vote, and they sided more than 2 to 1 with Democrat Jerry Brown over Meg Whitman, the Republican whose campaign had been embroiled in a controversy over illegal immigration. Once at the polls, they voted for other Democrats as well.

California Republicans had multiple reasons for head-shaking on Wednesday. For decades, the state party has squabbled over whether success would come more easily to candidates running as conservatives or those who presented a more moderate face to the state’s sizeable bloc of independent, centrist voters. This year they tried both. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina ran a firmly conservative race and Whitman took a more moderate road.

Holding their coastal strength, Democrats ran away with their big counties. Brown carried Los Angeles County, home to 25% of the state’s voters, by 31 points, giving him almost 60% of his lead. Republican candidates, including Whitman, did better than Democrats in their traditional interior California strongholds. But the strong Republican counties tend to be heavier on acreage than voters.

On Tuesday each hit a double-digit dead end, as Fiorina lost to Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and Whitman came in a distant second to Brown.

Democratic successes in the midst of 2010’s national Republican renaissance marked a sharp turnabout from how the state behaved during the last major Republican year, in 1994. That year, as Republicans took back Congress, they won in California as well, picking up five of seven statewide offices, including the governorship, and adding legislative seats. This time, Democrats picked up a legislative seat despite Republican gains nationally, and were waiting for uncounted ballots to see whether they lost a congressional seat or two.

The difference between then and now rests on the changes in the California electorate. Those changes also explain the gulf that now exists between California and the nation. California in 1994 was more white and proportionately less Democratic than it is today, thus more similar to the country today. Nationally, non-whites made up only 22% of the Tuesday electorate; in California they made up 38%. Latinos nationally represented 8% of the national electorate, just shy of a third of their power in California. The California and national exit polls were conducted by Edison Research for a consortium of news organizations, including television news networks and the Associated Press.

Tellingly, Latinos in California had a far more negative view of the GOP than other voters — almost 3 in 4 had an unfavorable impression, to 22% favorable. Among all California voters the view of Republicans was negative, but at a closer 61% negative and 32% positive. Latinos had a strongly positive view of Democrats, 58% to 37%, whereas all voters were closely split, 49% to 45%.

“The brand name is still a tremendous liability,” said Allan Hoffenblum, a former Republican consultant who runs a nonpartisan election-tracking publication. “People of color are just turned off by the Republican Party.”

Despite their efforts to appeal to Latinos, Whitman and Fiorina came under fire throughout the campaign for their views on illegal immigration. Fiorina supported Arizona’s anti-illegal immigrant law. Whitman, while opposing that measure, was pressed in her primary into talking about how she would be “tough as nails” toward illegal immigrants. The closing month of the campaign featured a controversy over Whitman’s firing of her illegal immigrant housekeeper; shortly before the election she said she favored the woman’s deportation.

Not surprisingly, Latino voters drawn to the polls because of the governor’s race went lopsidedly for Brown, 73% to 18%.

State Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring said the election results confirmed that party leaders and candidates needed to build stronger relationships with non-whites, and not just before an election.

“The reality is that Democrats have strong relationships with urban and immigration communities that Republicans have not had, and that must change,” he said. “It is not only a matter of politics; it is a matter of mathematics.”

But Nehring stressed that he was not advocating a change in Republican policy. “Republicans have stressed for decades that we support legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration,” he said. “Despite saying that, that message has not resonated. It is not only a matter of how we talk about this issue, but how other people hear us.”

Views of the parties appeared strongly entrenched in California, however. Tellingly, the biggest vote-getter among Republicans was attorney general nominee Steve Cooley, who came into the race from a nonpartisan post as Los Angeles County’s district attorney and took pains Tuesday night to de-emphasize his party membership. Even with that, he was narrowly trailing Democrat Kamala Harris in a race so close it may not be decided for many days.

As election day dawned, Democrats outnumbered Republicans in California by 2.3 million voters, a gap that has been growing. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was able to pull significantly from Democratic-leaning groups, including independent voters and women, but Tuesday’s candidates were not able to replicate that success.

Brown, for example, drew 600,000 more votes than the 2006 Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Phil Angelides. But Whitman drew 1.8 million fewer votes than Schwarzenegger had in 2006.

A persistent problem for Republicans in California, but an accelerant for them nationally, were views about Obama. Nationally he had a negative job-approval rating; in California, that flipped to a positive rating by 10 points. The results suggest that while Obama may not throw as large a shadow as he did with his record victory in California in 2008, he remains a formidable candidate in the state for 2012.

Asked whether Tuesday’s results suggested that Republicans would simply cede the state in 2012, Nehring demurred. “I think it is premature to make that determination,” he said.

But other Republicans suggested that their best chance for relevance in two years would be a continuation of the unsettled national environment that did not quite reach the California state line.

“You never say never,” said Hoffenblum. “Who would have predicted two years ago that Barack Obama and the Democrats would have crashed as quickly as they did? The temperature of the times is not normal.”

cathleen.decker@latimes.com
California went its own way

The political center, where swing voters reside and compromise happens, is suddenly a much smaller part of the Washington landscape.

There were the usual kind words and olive branches extended on Wednesday. But nothing could hide the fact that the two parties have deep and abiding differences on nearly every issue facing Congress. The composition of the House and Senate may have changed, but not Washington: The place may be more polarized than ever.

That could make it exceedingly difficult to accomplish anything of great magnitude between now and the next presidential election in November 2012.

The clearest indication of the growing partisan gap was Tuesday’s rout of the Blue Dog caucus, a group of moderate and conservative Democrats who urged the party to adopt a more business-friendly and fiscally conservative agenda. Fewer than half of its 54 members will be returning next year after incumbents were ousted in Pennsylvania, Ohio and a few Democratic pockets of the Deep South. Their absence will likely push the 190 or so remaining House Democrats even further left.

On the Republican side, the victory of dozens of insurgents backed by the “tea party” movement means the emboldened GOP majority will be even more conservative and confrontational than the one that harried President Obama over the last two years.

These lawmakers, and the legion of activists who plan to monitor their performance, have called for drastic changes, including eliminating the Department of Education, privatizing parts of Social Security and repealing the healthcare law just now starting to take effect.

After the presidency, the most difficult job in Washington may soon fall to Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader who will likely be the next House speaker. He must balance an agenda that satisfies his fervent tea party caucus without scaring off the voters — politically independent, largely nonideological — who delivered the GOP its big win Tuesday.

It was something Newt Gingrich, the House speaker after the last big GOP landslide in 1994, failed to manage when he led a similar class of zealously partisan freshmen. President Clinton, who had to argue after the so-called Republican Revolution that he was still relevant, romped to reelection just two years later.

Extensive polling, including thousands of voter interviews conducted Tuesday, shows that neither party is well regarded. The election was the third in a row in which 20 or more House seats changed hands, a level of upheaval unseen in more than half a century; these days, voters seem willing to discard unwanted politicians like so much used tissue.

But that hasn’t stopped both sides from claiming to speak for a majority of Americans. A mandate is in the eye of the beholder, and Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, an online conservative network, seemed to speak for many when she suggested compromise was a good thing — so long as others were doing the compromising.

“We hope that rather than having the gridlock, that the House and Senate will work together to find a way to be responsible with our money again and the other side will move to the center,” Martin said. “Because our side is the center.”

Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who may soon be dueling each day on Capitol Hill, said much the same thing. Both nodded toward the notion of compromise, with qualification.

“We hope President Obama will now respect the will of the people, change course and commit to making the changes they are demanding,” Boehner said. “To the extent he is willing to do this, we are ready to work with him.”

Reid, fresh off reelection in Nevada, said “the time for politics is now over.” He then suggested Republicans “must take their responsibility to present bipartisan solutions more seriously. Simply saying ‘no’ will do nothing to create more jobs, support our middle class and strengthen our economy.”

None of which bodes well for a new era of comity and bipartisan cooperation.

“If you’re a betting person, I would bet on less rather than more being accomplished in Washington,” said Geoff Garin, a longtime Democratic strategist.

If politicians look to the people for guidance, as they presumably should, they are likely to come away confused.

Voters say they hate gridlock, but many also seemed to hate the prolific legislative output of the Obama administration and the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. Asked what lawmakers should make their top priority in the next Congress, nearly 4 in 10 said reducing the federal deficit. A like number said spending money to create jobs, a move that would increase the deficit. (Two in 10 said cutting taxes, which would also increase the debt.)

On a more fundamental level, voters sent similarly contradictory signals. Nearly 8 in 10 said in a Pew Research poll that lawmakers’ unwillingness to work together was a major problem. But in a subsequent survey, nearly half said they admired a politician who sticks to principle rather than compromising.

Clearly, voters are conflicted. More than ever, they have a government in Washington to match their mood.

mark.barabak@latimes.com

kathleen.hennessey@latimes.com
Midterm election’s big loser is the political center

%content%
Meg Whitman: No regrets about record spending

With Republicans expected to win control of the House in Tuesday’s election, President Obama scheduled a press conference for Wednesday in what was expected to amount to a mid-course correction to deal with the power shift on Capitol Hill.

Obama is expected to try to reach out to Republicans, who have campaigned against his economic stimulus plan, healthcare overhaul and other policies. But if the GOP gains seats in the House and Senate, as expected, heavy partisan conflict is anticipated, especially as the parties gear up for the 2012 reelection campaign.

“This election’s going to be a referendum on Obama’s policies,” Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican Governors Assn., said on MSNBC on Tuesday. “What is the president’s response going to be?”

Citing the GOP’s pledge to cut spending aggressively, Barbour added: “Hopefully, the president is going to be willing to come forward and say, ‘I recognize we have to do that; let’s work together.’ ”

But Democrats question Republicans’ sincerity, noting Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky recently said that his top priority was to make “Obama … a one-term president.”

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a former Democratic National Committee chairman, offered his own advice to the White House. “We’ve got to use the president more. He’s a great communicator,” he told MSNBC. “If tonight turns out to be better than expected for Democrats, it’s because the president got energized in the last month.”

If Republicans win control of the House, Obama will still be setting the agenda, Barbour said. “The Republicans are not going to be running the government, but they will have much more of a say than we’ve had for these two years,” he said on MSNBC.

But signaling the conflict that awaits the administration and the new Congress, Barbour said Republicans were going to try to repeal the healthcare reform bill. “If they can’t repeal it, they’re going to try to change it so that you wouldn’t recognize it,” he said on NBC’s “Today.” “They’re going to be faithful to what the voters vote for tonight.”

Fellow Republican Tommy Thompson, a former Wisconsin governor, however, told CNBC: “When it’s all said and done, you’re not going to be able to repeal healthcare because President Obama is not going to sign it, and they don’t have enough votes to override a veto. So why push a cart uphill when you know it’s not going to be able to get to the top?”

richard.simon@latimes.com
Obama’s response: President plans post-election press conference

%content%
Election will test accuracy of polls

%content%
Brown votes, talks Greek mythology

As Nevadans streamed to the polls Tuesday morning, Sen. Harry Reid gave handshakes and hugs to volunteers phone-banking in a Las Vegas campaign office, which was down the street from an apartment complex touting its “Recession Special!”

The embattled Democrat was notably relaxed, considering his battle with Republican Sharron Angle has been so filled with mud-slinging that a radio station Tuesday dubbed the pair “Dirty Harry” and “Psycho Sharron.”

Dressed in a button-down shirt and khaki pants, Reid joked about being scheduled to serve the volunteers doughnuts, a box of which had been opened in a different room. While in high school, Reid said, he worked part of the year at a Henderson, Nev., bakery glazing baked goods.

“Even today, I can’t stand the smell of doughnuts,” he said to laughter.

Reid told reporters — who outnumbered volunteers — that his team estimated nearly two-thirds of ballots had been cast in two weeks of early voting, during which he’d done “extremely well.” He also bragged about his “second-to-none” turnout operation, whose effectiveness will likely determine the razor-close race. (Indeed, the office lobby had a poster labeled “getting out the vote to victory.” A drawing of a thermometer had been colored in just below a line marked “800 shifts.”)

“We feel comfortable where we are,” Reid said, a sentiment he’s repeated often in recent days, even as public polls showed Angle gaining momentum. Reid, who’s been endorsed by numerous GOP rainmakers, said he’d likely peeled off support from moderate Republicans alarmed at Angle’s conservative “tea party” beliefs.

“They don’t want a Republican Party with her brand on it,” he said, but instead coveted GOP leaders in line with Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush.

A comic strip riffing on “Peanuts” taped to the office wall — called “It’s A Tough Election, Harry Reid” — summed up what the Reid considered the race’s “clear choice” between the powerful Senate majority leader and a Republican prone to lightning-rod statements. Reid was portrayed as Charlie Brown and Angle as Lucy.

“Harry Reid, stop being lazy like the unemployed and try to kick this football,” Angle says.

Unlike Charlie Brown, Reid nails the kick. “Good grief, you’re a terrible candidate,” he says.

ashley.powers@latimes.com
In campaign’s closing hours, a relaxed Harry Reid hands out handshakes, hugs and doughnuts