2006 American Midterm Elections

True, we still have another week of blood-splattered Iraq headlines to get through.

http://www.menendez2006.com/video/big_ad/

I imagine it's got something to do with Darcy Burner

my comment was directed towards your fantasy of "getting stuff done" in Congress and wasn't meant to be conflated with what Al said. But whatever.

I heard snippets of that Kerry press conference on the radio. What a toad that guy is.

Given the choice between the "vigorous" foreign policy of the last three years combined with obscene federal domestic spending or inertia, I'll take the latter, thanks.

Here's their latest Senate box score, btw.:

NRO SENATE BOXSCORE DEMS +5
Race
Republican Democrat Margin
NJ 42.2% 46.7% Menendez +4.5%
PA 40.2% 52.2% Casey +12%
MO 47.5% 46.7% Talent +.8%
MD 44.7% 50% Cardin +5.3%
MT 43% 48% Tester +5%
RI 40.5% 47.3% Whitehouse +6.8%
OH 40.3% 51.6% Brown +11.3%
TN 48.2% 45% Corker+3.2%
VA 46.8% 47.5% Webb +.7%

My mom apparently wrote the Dems an e-mail saying that after Webb's book excerpt got out, women aren't going to vote for him, and he's dead in the water, so the DNC should give his money to actual female candidates in close races instead.

But it's a novel!

newsflash: we live in a fairly conservative country. democracy! what a beautiful thing..

What did Kerry say that was a big deal? I mean, it's standard Kerry - never quite pissed off enough to stop being in love with his own rhetoric - but what I'm wondering is, he often does his own thing regardless of whether the party wants everyone to stay on message. did he actually make news or is this just the blog story of the day.

i think we're probably gonna lose TN, and that the ad will have played a small role, while push polls (which i wish we were doing; maybe we are in VA) and other under-the-radar stuff will have played a big one.

SO HOW DO YA LIKE ME NOW

I like ya now tombot

thirty years ago, he argued against women in combat, while saying that a push for gender equality in other areas was a good thing. what are the other strikes? you think george allen is more enlightened on this score?

If nominated she would not run.

Given that Dubya-friendly 'holy' types still think Saddam = 9/11, the facts should elude them.

we live in a fairly conservative country.

A (Cokie Roberts-style) assertion we've batted around many times before, but if you're right, fuck us.

The best government we have a right to expect is the one that SHUT DOWN altogether

I'm with Alfred, this is the outer limit of my optimism these days.

gabbneb's ideal Dem candidate: A pile of tasty mashed potatoes. Liked by all, says nothing.

"NED, CALL ME"

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

16 Yes/No measures for the city of Seattle alone.

I guess I could go to their house since their address was printed in the paper, but it doesn't seem right that I have to go to them.

Wait, I changed my mind. Yes on the fourth.

I'd vote for Stalin if you snuck him onto the ballot against Joe Barton.

I get the NYTimes and the WallSt. Journal delivered. I read the alterna weekly every week, which had a voting guide last week. It's sitting on my desk. It will be read. BUT PROLLY NOT UNTIL THE WEEKEND.

Jeezus, people.

THANKS, NEWSPAPER!

I don’t know when things went south with this party (literally and figuratively- and I am sure commenters here will tell me the party has always been this bad- I disagree with that, and so do others), but for me, Terri Schiavo was the real eye-opener. Sure, the Prescription Drug Plan was hideous and still gets my blood pressure pumping, and the awful bankruptcy bill was equally bad, and there were other things that should have clued me in, but really, it was Schiavo that made me realize this party was not as advertized. And it is frustrating as hell.

What makes this even more frustrating is that not only do I feel like I have been duped, but I established a lot of friends in the right wing of the blogging community- and now I read their pages and I can’t believe what I am reading, even though I know that five years ago I probably would have been saying the same or similar things. I know many of them as people- and not just GOP parrots- having spent time working on collaborative projects with them, serving on the editorial board at Red State, appearing on radio shows with them- you name it. I have, at one point in time, defended many of them from what I perceived to be unfair attacks. So I know that by and large they are not bad people (Dan Riehl is an unmitigated asshole, however). Yet I read their pages now, and through my eyes, it looks like they are so divorced from reality it makes me question what, if anything, I ever believed in.

In short, it really sucks looking around at the wreckage that is my party and realizing that the only decent thing to do is to pull the plug on them (or help). I am not really having any fun attacking my old friends- but I don’t know how else to respond when people call decent men like Jim Webb a pervert for no other reason than to win an election. I don’t know how to react to people who think that calling anyone who disagrees with them on Iraq a “terrorist-enabler” than to swing back. I don’t know how to react to people who think that media reports of party hacks in the administration overruling scientists on issues like global warming, endangered species, intelligent design, prescription drugs, etc., are signs of… liberal media bias.

And it makes me mad. I still think of myself as a Republican- but I think the whole party has been hijacked by frauds and religionists and crooks and liars and corporate shills, and it frustrates me to no end to see my former friends enabling them, and I wonder ‘Why can’t they see what I see?” I don’t think I am crazy, I don’t think my beliefs have changed radically, and I don’t think I have been (as suggested by others) brainwashed by my commentariat.

I hate getting up in the morning, surfing the news, and finding more and more evidence that my party is nothing but a bunch of frauds. I feel like I am betraying my friends in the party and the blogosphere when I attack them, even though I believe it is they who have betrayed what ‘we’ allegedly believe in. Bush has been a terrible President. The past Congresses have been horrible- spending excessively, engaging in widespread corruption, butting in to things they should have no say in (like end of life decisions), refusing to hold this administration accountable for ANYTHING, and using wedge issues to keep themselves in power at the expense of gays, etc. And I don’t know why my friends on the right still keep fighting for these guys to stay in power. Why do they keep attacking decent people like Jim Webb- to keep this corrupt lot of fools in office? Why can’t they just admit they were sold a bill of goods and start over? Why do they want to remain in power, but without any principles? Are tax cuts that important? What is gained by keeping troops in harms way with no clear plan for victory? With no desire to change course? With our guys dying every day in what looks to be for no real good reason? Why?

It is all a sick joke, btw.

Mr. Que, I am neither charismatic enough to lead a political war against the entrenched corporate party duopoly, nor enough of a megalomaniac to think so.

-- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), campaigning for congressional candidate Peter Roskam (R). His opponent is Tammy Duckworth (D), an Iraq war veteran who lost both legs during her service.

Yes, but the problem is that Kerry suggested that only the poor and uneducated are sent to Iraq. I must hand it to him: he has a talent for morphing into Karl Rove's prototypical northeastern Democratic liberal when his party most needs him to shut the fuck up.

right or wrong it really wasn't Kerry's job to make news today. I don't think he meant to, but srsly, how could you not realize that would cause the other side to go OMG L@@K DEMOCRAT WHO HATES AMERICA

and yeah, lots of the poor and uneducated are sent to Iraq. the part of MD where I'm from, its claim to fame is being home base for the unit involved in Abu Ghraib

----

We can expect the charges raised at these hearings to be serious, and to come from two groups. The first will be Democratic critics of the administration. These will be unimportant: Such critics, along with people like former White House security adviser Richard Clarke, already have said everything they have to say. But the second group will include another class -- former members of the administration, the military and the CIA who have, since the invasion of Iraq, broken with the administration. They have occasionally raised their voices -- as, for instance, in Bob Woodward's recent book -- but the new congressional hearings would provide a platform for systematic criticism of the administration. And many of these critics seem bruised and bitter enough to avail themselves of it.

This intersects with internal Republican politics. At this point, the Republicans are divided into two camps. There are those who align with the Bush position: that the war in Iraq made sense and that, despite mistakes, it has been prosecuted fairly well on the whole. And there are those, coalesced around Sens. Chuck Hagel and John Warner, who argue that, though the rationale for the war very well might have made sense, its prosecution by Donald Rumsfeld has led to disaster. The lines might be evenly drawn, but for the strong suspicion that Sen. John McCain is in the latter camp.

McCain clearly intends to run for president and, though he publicly shows support for Bush, there is every evidence that McCain has never forgiven him for the treatment he received in the primaries of 2000. McCain is not going to attack the president, nor does he really oppose the war in Iraq, but he has shown signs that he feels that the war has not been well prosecuted. This view, shared publicly by recently retired military commanders who served in Iraq, holds out Rumsfeld as the villain. It is not something that McCain is going to lead the charge on, but in taking down Rumsfeld, McCain would be positioned to say that he supported the war and the president -- but not his secretary of defense, who was responsible for overseeing the prosecution of the war.

From McCain's point of view, little would be more perfect than an investigation into the war by a Democrat-controlled House during which former military and Defense Department officials pounded the daylights out of Rumsfeld. This would put whole-hearted Republican supporters of the president in a tough position and give McCain -- who, as a senator, would not have to participate in the hearings -- space to defend Bush's decision but not his tactics. The hearings also would allow him to challenge Democratic front-runners (Clinton and Obama) on their credentials for waging a war. They could be maneuvered into either going too far and taking a pure anti-war stance, or into trying to craft a defense policy at which McCain could strike. To put it another way, aggressively investigating an issue like the war could wind up blowing up in the Democrats' faces, but that is so distant and subtle a possibility that we won't worry about it happening -- nor will they.

What does seem certain, however, is this: The American interest in foreign policy is about to take an investigatory turn, as in the waning days of the Vietnam War. Various congressional hearings, like those of the Church Committee, so riveted the United States in the 1970s and so tied down the policymaking bureaucracy that crafting foreign policy became almost impossible.

George W. Bush is a lame duck in the worst sense of the term. Not only are there no more elections he can influence, but he is heading into his last two years in office with terrible poll ratings. And he is likely to lose control of the House of Representatives -- a loss that will generate endless hearings and investigations on foreign policy, placing Bush and his staff on the defensive for two years. Making foreign policy in this environment will be impossible.

Following the elections, five or six months will elapse before the House Democrats get organized and have staff in place. After that, the avalanche will fall in on Bush, and 2008 presidential politics will converge with congressional investigations to overwhelm his ability to manage foreign policy. That means the president has less than half a year to get his house in order if he hopes to control the situation, or at least to manage his response.

Meanwhile, the international window of opportunity for U.S. enemies will open wider and wider.

And, of course, it is.

http://www.presidentialprayerteam.org/images/ppt/pw/pg_top.jpg

Dan Savage: Kerry might cost us another election

Kerry Stops And Eats At Dick's

I changed my mind on global warming too when I found out that the most outspoken critic of global warming theories, Richard S. Lindzen of MIT, was actually listed as one of the scientists supporting global warming on the NAS's recent study on the subject.

Some say the most outspoken critic of global warming got on a study supportive of it because he's "secretly" supportive of the theory he publicly decries, but others say the study was just a typical example of media disinformation and not bothering to check basic facts when it didn't suit ideological purposes. If there's anything neater than the Bush administration overruling scientists I'd have to think it'd be scientific studies that overrule scientists!

"This is Robert De Niro for Hillary Clinton, calling with an offer you cannot refuse..."

The whole Kerry thing is a wash - Republicans look silly for making a mountain out of a molehill, yet Kerry's responses haven't seemed very noble. He should've started by directly addressing and apologizing to the Armed Forces, explaining that his remarks were misnterpreted - but all he can offer is a defensive, "Me, I'm a veteran! I'd never insult the military!" and go off on grandstanding tirades. I assume the common military folk's take on Kerry is VINO (veteran in name only), so his comments don't do anything but incense them / reinforce their preexisting view of him.

There was an interesting documentary on CNN about Democrats and the South, and how the Dems get it wrong with the little things, e.g. Kerry went duck-hunting (to show he's one of the guys) but was filmed letting someone else carry the duck he shot, which is apparently some hunting faux pas.

well, shit, where are you going to find them? they don't publish 'em over here any more...

ding ding ding ding!

dan gets the dings today!

Basically, this is what the 00s is going to be remembered for.

If you talk to Democrats of the middle-class and upper-middle-class and (in John Heinz Kerry’s case) the neo-Gulf-emir-class, you’ll have heard the same thing a thousand times: these poor fellows in Iraq, they’re only there because they’re too poverty-stricken and ill-educated so they couldn’t become Senators and New York Times reporters and tenured Queer Studies professors like normal Americans do.

and when somebody actually does get victimized, like say getting bodychecked by a senator's goons, there's plenty who'll say it's proof that they deserved it

If Ohio is still the hotspot of dubious polling, I'd like to see the GOP turn around DeWine's current 11pt deficit. I mean, I wouldn't, but the aftermath if they somehow did would be interesting. Perhaps, if there's any dodginess to be had in OH, it'll be in the four or five close House races. Surely the Dems are going to take 20-25 nationwide, though?

I keep refreshing the numbers on various sites and, like two years ago, I'm liking what I see. NJ now seems safe(r) and MO and VA have tightened to the point that they've gone the palest of blue.

i still hold to my earlier view that the kerry kerfluffle will not be a crucial factor in ANY election. why would any swing-voter give a damn about what john kerry thinks at this point?

Seriously? Despair should have set in when Foleygate opened up and it turned out that the environment crashing to pieces on the only planet we have to live on, not to mention US GDP growth slowing to 1% and some change, are nothing, NOTHING compared to the exciting prospect of having a secret fag in the house. Political discourse in this stupid illiterate overweight country was reduced to noxious, infertile sludge about forty years ago. I mean, if you're going to get upset about people's inability to discuss any issues that have any relevance to the nation's people and future, that bus done been left the station a while ago.

And we're good at getting distracted, and tend to get the gubmint we deserve.

xp

this kinda shit just makes me lament the fact that politics has been left to others for decades, and it always takes shit to get this bad before people have to care again.

(Blimey, did I really misspell "despair"? Tombot, I'll admit the only reason Stuckgate has me shouting at the TV screen [and not Foleygate] is that it stands to harm the Dems, and I don't want that. There's always this eggshell period the week before an election when things are going well when you think "Just keep it simple - no fannydangle on the edge of your own box". One slip and it's "Aha - they're unelectable!" Kinnock's Sheffield rally in '92, for example. Though that was worse than this. I mean, I know it's all bollocks.)

There will be more attacks--major GOP figures will give stump pieces--MSM will hold roundtables about it and so on and so on.

So I guess Kerry was Rove's Octoberish surprise. Fuck it all.

huh? how is the guy randomly fucking up a line that these assholes are trying to spin into something else fit into anything that could be considered an october surprise? and christ, that phrase has been thrown around daily for two months now, and if the Mark Foley thing wasn't it or North Korea, nothing will be.

and still, is this gunna reverse Bill Nelson's double-digit lead over Katherine Harris? Is this gunna add 15 approval points to whatever douche they found to replace Mark Foley's spot?

well, he could've not held a press conference to go make a stink about it instead of admitting he fucked up.

he just apologized. somebody got to him. luckily. too bad they didn't yesterday..

that Drudge pic is hilarious! and I hate Drudge, but goddamn, Kerry is an ass

But, given that to date we're unable to change their behavior and we're unable to get the news media to not behave like three year olds playing soccer.. Well, the choice is, today, do you prolong the issue by arguing about it, or do you back down for the greater good, and focus on next weeks' v crucial midterm elections? And he DID screw up by making the statement badly - I don't see the dishonor or whatever in saying, "sorry if I offended, I misspoke" when it happens to be true.

oh i certainly agree with that. But i think he's handy as a draw on the campaign trail in supporting local House candidates(e.g. like Cleland, Clark, Edwards, Obama is). If you announce that he's gunna be there, people will show.

the whole incident means electorally nothing unless those krazy Netrootz want to push it down the campaign triail further.

With all due respect, let's hope that Kerry doesn't decide to point that little factoid out to any more reporters.

This isn't going to die.

That kerry, he got mad skillz.

but there were to the effect that he was withdrawing

don OTM re the electoral effect.

"Earlier, Kerry canceled campaign appearances with Democratic candidates in three states to avoid becoming a 'distraction' in the run-up to the vote...

Hopefully this will appear but if not it's available at this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/01/AR2006110103212.html

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/homepage/hp11-1-06hh.jpg

So that's what "election reform" means...

--------------------reform--------------------

-- Pleasant Plains /// (pleasant.plain...), November 2nd, 2006 1:03 AM. (Pleasant Plains ///) (later)

what does that have to do with kerry?! nothing.

the one good thing about all this kerry brouhaha is it means he won't run in '08, thank god.

So Lieberman's gonna win, huh?

Yes, Lieberman's going to win. I think it was always clear he was - Lamont had little chance of moving enough votes from the independents & Republicans.

vote curt weldon - maybe he didn't accept bribes?

Anyway, Kerry thought he had a chance, so he was going to make a shot at it and say more of these sort of dumbass things that would color public perception of the Dems. He's like the alcoholic uncle you just want to stay in the house and not embarass you in public.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ea/John_Tester.jpg/300px-John_Tester.jpg

xpost

yes, but it already fit in w/ the common media narrative (and popular perceptions) of kerry -- the whole "elitist northeastern/massachusetts frenchy-lovin' limo-lib" thing that bushco beat into the ground 2 years ago. which, coincidentally, is the same reason why i don't think it will make any real difference election-wise -- kerry was acting "true to form SHOCKAH!!" in the eyes of many. it isn't as "shocking" as if, say, barack obama or sherrod brown had said the same thing.

I agree that the way he phrased it and especially the audience to whom he was speaking made it a completely inappropriate statement (though perhaps many of us would have found it more amusing if it had been spoken by Steve Colbert or Sean Penn or someone from whom we expect this sort of politcally-incorrect outrageous behavior, rather than a known buffoon who's known for snatching political defeat from the jaws of victory). But I'm just saying that even taking economic disadvantage into account doesn't rule out laziness and not studying hard as contributing factors (though perhaps it's not polite to say so).

I don't really know of anyone who's dropped out of school and had to go to Iraq, I only know people who couldn't afford college and so joined the military, but maybe you do.

When Colbert says things they're intended to be taken as humorous exaggerations of reality. Not so much with actual politicians. (Exaggerations, yes, humorous, no.)

Sullivan decides Kerry meant something other than what he said. And when he said that he love you he meant that he love you foreVAH.

Apparently, the sched should work out so he'll be home by the time the next session starts, assuming no stop-loss bullshit goes on.

A more detailed but crazier-sounding take.

A Republican congressman accused of abusing his ex-mistress agreed to pay her about $500,000 in a settlement last year that contained a powerful incentive for her to keep quiet until after Election Day...

In short, I'm thinking his strategy is all post-'election'. Demanding recounts, claiming tampering and so on in close races. In a pinch, the Supreme Court is always there.

Yes, I agree. I don't think he'd do anything post-election. I despise the guy but it's smart that he doesn't get stuck in the past (another big advantage they had over Kerry in 04.. Kerry always wanting to debate what went on yesterday, or several decades ago..).

I could be overestimating Rove here. 2 years is not very long and Bush will still be in office to fuck up and look even more pointless when faced with a (hopefully) Democratic congress.

Which is?
-- Grey, Ian (igre...), November 3rd, 2006.

and then from donate to make ilx zoom:

Is Raggett running with Perry in '08?
-- Billy Dods (butterbubble...), November 2nd, 2006.

I'm his Karl Rove (ie, a purported genius who in all honesty knows jack shit).
-- Ned Raggett (ne...), November 2nd, 2006.

i detectivfied it!

looks like Rove was beaten to the punch by this strategy.

Pryce goes nuts.

Some solid Democrat Senate leads -- and this is from the NRO! Couple of too close to call ones but even so.

Lowry over there posting this:

Was just talking to a Republican strategist who still does not rule out holding the House, but thinks it's looking unlikely at this point and says, "it's easy to get to 22" in terms of Dem pick-ups.

Earlier he also posted this:

From a well-informed e-mailer on this post from yesterday:

"Read your latest dispatch on House races. The Republicans put a lot of lipstick on the pig."

In a statement issued to CNN later, Pryce finished her response, writing, "What's happening in Iraq is not a direct reflection on me."

hahaha. "Can't talk right now; kinda down. Go away."

Clippard reserved his strongest words for what he said he considered paramount for all Americans: the threat of Islam. "Today, Islam has a strategic plan to defeat and occupy America," he told the 1,200-strong crowd of delegates (called "messengers"), pastors and lay people, many of whom cheered his words.

Clippard said the Saudi Arabian government and royal family had funded teaching positions and 138 Muslim student centers on university campuses across the United States, three in the University of Missouri system in Columbia, Rolla and St. Louis. "What they are after is your sons and daughters," Clippard said. "They are coming to this country in the guise of students, and the Saudi government is paying their expenses."

[...]

Clippard said that Muslims were hoping to take over the United States government one city at a time, and that they were starting with Detroit, where there is already a large Muslim population.

"They are trying to establish a Muslim state inside America, and they are going to take the city of Detroit back to the 15th century and practice Sharia (or Islamic) law there."

In an interview Tuesday, Clippard said he believed the Islamic "strategy for taking over America" was to wait until there was a Muslim majority here and then "eradicate those who don't conform to their religion."

On Monday night, he told the crowd that "your freedom is on the floor with their foot on it, with their sword raised, and if you don't convert, your head comes off..."

aaaaaaaaand the punchline:

Clippard said Tuesday that his message was really about love.

"I don't hate Islamic people," he said. "We need to love these folks, go after them and love them, one at a time. We need to crucify them with Christ."

Detroit was Muslim in the 15th Century?

The Gatlin Brothers finished singing, and Larry Gatlin took the microphone to warm up the crowd for his old friend from West Texas. A little red meat never hurt a few days before an election. "I tell ya what," Gatlin told thousands of cheering Republicans, "we're gonna git Osama!"

Instead of Special Forces, though, out onto the stage bounded Louie the Cardinal and Fetch the Dog, presumably to keep the audience entertained for a few more minutes rather than to hunt down the world's most dangerous terrorist. After the Springfield Cardinals mascots finished handing out T-shirts, the loudspeakers blasted out that well-known Republican anthem "We're Not Gonna Take It," by Twisted Sister.

with what?

in other news, kos has written off DLC Harold Ford at the first sign of trouble, and is telling people to focus instead on AZ's Jim Pederson, who has never broken 45% in a single poll.

"Awww man, i only got a Medium!"

I'm glad they didn't, personally. A rising Dow doesn't even necessarily mean that the economy is "doing great" even, but swing voters wouldn't know the difference and they would have eaten it up good.

Hardly. Halperin, sweetly partisan hack that he is, is grasping at straws to try and make himself feel better. 2002 was probably going to swing more GOP no matter what, sadly (9/11 barely a year old, Iraq in the 'cakewalk' planning stages, etc.), and 2004 was another just barely victory thanks in part to another terrible Democrat candidate that rode some honest energy while never providing any -- for all his faults, Bush at least has a sense of what makes a campaign trail, and Rove ain't the one up there talking all the time. In both cases Rove was lucky in his opponents and the larger situation. Now he's being called Pollyannaish by a slew of his regular water carriers.

I will not be relaxed until the day after the election at the least, if I am going to be relaxed at all. But this paper tiger is just that.

I don't think momentum exists in MO. I err on Claire's side, but it's really like 51-49, I think.

I linked this before but I'm addicted.

After that ridiculous exchange with Hewitt, I am not inclined to spare any kind thoughts on him.

All the asshattery around the Kerry quote wasn't meant to convince any voters to switch to the Republicans. Rather it was an attempt to rouse their zombie base into voting once more for their corrupt overlords - instead of curling up on a couch with their thumbs in their mouths, which is what they most likely will do anyway, as the Kerry quote wasn't exactly the sort of bait that was needed to offset the avalanche of bad feelings about the Iraq war, Katrina, and the 40,000 news stories detailing the rampant, flaming corruption under Bush.

"people who live in Bethesda, Chevy Chase, and Manhattan should understand that in much of red America, Rove is beloved and respected"

...is essentially "One stereotype of a group of people should be aware of another stereotype of a group of people." WOWZERS SIGN ME UP FOR YOUR EXPLICATION OF GRAND LOGIC PLZ.

OTM. Halperin's a douche.

Of course, Nazi Germany did not train children in the use of suicide belts, as the Islamic fascists do. But manipulating the pliant minds of youth toward fanatical hatred employs the same techniques. Unlike our confrontation with Nazi Germany, the current crisis may be worse...

[...]

Thus, it may well be that today’s fascists are a far greater threat to the free world than the fascists of yesteryear.

b/c, as many have noted, the wartime production of these evildoers obviously outclasses anything ever assembled by the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, Kreigsmarine, Imperial Navy, et al combined, not to mention the Soviet Army, the fact that they really did have warheads on Cuba, etc.

Unlike our confrontation with Nazi Germany, the current crisis may be worse for two reasons: First, Adolph Hitler, for all his charisma, did not rely on the power of pure religious faith to compel his followers.

Uhm...except for that whole Deutsche Christen thing.

Oh yeah, this thing debuted last year at the rightwing film festival, run by a site where the authors use a pic of Harry Lime, which is a curious championing by a really conservative site of either a hollywood liberal or a craven war profiteer.

I might not have seen it anywhere, but I can't name a single blogger for this election saying, "I used to vote Democrat all this time but now I can't, and will therefore vote GOP or abstain or vote for a third party."

I suspect this kind of internal decision making is being played out more broadly than anyone realizes.

that's exactly what I'm referring to. kos and atrios &c read that and think omg he's begging to be thought of well by them (with a sideline in his purported need to be accepted by the non-radical goys)! i read it and think, no he's not, he's buttering them up so they read his book. that book, he thinks, will tell them how to win better, but it also seeks to persuade them (and everyone else) of the longerm superiority of a political style that favors democrats (or at least doesn't favor republicans). to the extent he has something personally invested in this, it's in favor of something that might be naive (which he recognizes), but is also explicitly contrary to how Rove does things. he says this more explicitly here.

I don't regard Rove as a "genius," but Halperin and co persuade that he's at least smart in a way that the Dems have not been (until recently), no matter the landscape favoring the GOP in 02 or the candidate sucking in 04.

""Matt Drudge is the gatekeeper... he is the Walter Cronkite of his era." "Matt Drudge is the gatekeeper... he is the Walter Cronkite of his era." "Matt Drudge is the gatekeeper... he is the Walter Cronkite of his era." "Matt Drudge is the gatekeeper... he is the Walter Cronkite of his era." "Matt Drudge is the gatekeeper... he is the Walter Cronkite of his era." "Matt Drudge is the gatekeeper... he is the Walter Cronkite of his era." "Matt Drudge is the gatekeeper... he is the Walter Cronkite of his era." "Matt Drudge is the gatekeeper... he is the Walter Cronkite of his era."

Gabbneb, this is HUGH HEWITT we're talking about. The man exudes so much oil from his own skin given his power-worshipping/never-admit-wrong stance towards every last GOP leader he has on the air that trying to butter *him* up is like selling ice to Eskimoes ten times over. His internal reaction was probably "Well how NICE that you appreciate me for the true genius of political thought that I am, you leftist scum."

You are right that a lot of the talk is exclusively over which GOP incumbents get out rather than which Democratic ones do. Be interesting to see how that plays out. (Where are you counting Lieberman in your 51/49 split, BTW?)

Ned: ok, 51-48-1. Doesn't really matter, does it? If the Dems do take those three key states (I must resist the impulse to call them "marginals" after all the confusion last time!), Leiberman will give the Dems their majority. Unless there's some precedent preventing a Dem-leaning independent doing that.

Interesting article about something I was wondering about -- namely, the senior vote.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2006/11/05/poll_chafee_appears_to_gain_ground_in_rhode_island_senate_race/

Which is mostly due to this late-breaking development:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2006/11/01/roger_williams_doctor_criticizes_whitehouse/

Doesn't mean a lot outside RI but the Roger Williams scandal is a pretty frequent headline here. There was a fairly damning story that ran on the front page of the Providence Journal on Friday.

Doctor unveils deal to not fault hospital or Whitehouse
Saturday, November 4, 2006

By Katherine Gregg
Journal State House Bureau

WARWICK — The doctor who was fired by Roger Williams Medical Center after blowing the whistle on then-hospital president Robert Urciuoli’s expense-account abuses and camouflaged hiring of a state senator, yesterday made public a severance agreement offering him $184,994 on the condition that he not criticize the hospital or then-Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse’s handling of the case.

More specifically, the Feb. 17, 2000, agreement brought to light by Dr. Philip O’Dowd at a joint news conference yesterday with U.S. Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee, said:

“Dr. O’Dowd agrees that if the Rhode Island attorney general negotiates or enters into an agreement with Mr. Robert Urciuoli or the Hospital with respect to certain issues … Dr. O’Dowd shall not comment upon or criticize the terms, conditions or circumstances leading to … such an agreement or the conduct of the negotiations.”

Coming to light in the closing days of Democrat Whitehouse’s campaign to unseat Republican Chafee, the don’t-talk clause was immediately seized upon by Chafee as evidence that Whitehouse had “cut a deal” to “muzzle” a whistleblower.

The doctor – and Chafee – called it significant that Whitehouse publicly announced a financial settlement with Urciuoli on March 2, 2000, little more than two weeks after O’Dowd, who had been pressing him to launch a criminal investigation – and threatening to “bark like a dog, and squeal like a pig” if he did not – signed the severance agreement. Neither Chafee nor O’Dowd had proof that Whitehouse had a direct role in crafting the agreement. But Chafee said: “The timeline just supports the allegation that as soon as the whistleblower, the good doctor trying to look out for the nonprofit institution … is muzzled, the attorney general is free to announce his civil settlement.”

After days of ignoring Chafee’s comments about his alleged mishandling of this and other cases – including a judge’s disqualification of the wiretap evidence gathered on Whitehouse’s watch against a former Lincoln town administrator accused of bribery – the Whitehouse campaign issued this statement slamming Chafee for raising what were characterized as false and irrelevant issues in a campaign of national significance:

“We’re at war, seniors are hurting, but Lincoln Chafee refuses to address these issues and instead has chosen to base his campaign on a series of baseless, negative attacks.”

Whitehouse campaign spokeswoman Alex Swartsel cited Whitehouse’s role in getting Urciuoli to repay the hospital the $85,000 cost of an investigation conducted by a private Boston law firm hired by the hospital’s trustees to look into Urciuoli’s expense-account abuses. She also cited a letter in which the hospital board’s six-member executive committee told the attorney general that while Urciuoli used poor judgment, it did not believe criminal prosecution would be “in the hospital’s best interest.”

In other words, Swartsel argued, “the hospital, the alleged victim of Mr. Urciuoli’s misuse of expense account funds, did not intend either to fire Mr. Urciuoli or press charges, effectively disabling any potential criminal prosecution.”

As for the severance agreement, she said confidentiality clauses were “not unusual.”

But, in this case, she said: “The attorney general’s office was not a party to that agreement, did not enter into it, was not involved in creating it, is not bound by it, and has nothing to do with it. The agreement in no way suggests that Sheldon Whitehouse personally is shielded from criticism by Dr. O’Dowd, and for Lincoln Chafee’s campaign to make such an allegation is irresponsible.”

Urciuoli was convicted last month of federal corruption charges that he put a state senator, John A. Celona, on the hospital’s payroll for his political influence.

The conviction, on the day of the first Chafee-Whitehouse debate, led Chafee to step up his attacks on Whitehouse for not aggressively pursuing the Roger Williams allegations. In response, Whitehouse produced a letter in which the hospital’s executive committee said, in part: “While the committee recognizes that the Department of Attorney General has a distinctly different decision-making process, we respectfully believe that a criminal prosecution of this matter is not in the best interests of the hospital.”

O’Dowd said he went public with his criticism of Whitehouse for the first time earlier this week at risk of losing his severance pay – because Whitehouse “misrepresents the case when he said the hospital told him not to pursue criminal charges. It was the board of cronies that told him that.”

The letter was signed by 6 of the 20 board members. O’Dowd, who was on the board and was president of the medical staff at the time, said the rest of the board never saw the letter or the review by the Boston law firm Goodwin Proctor & Hoar that precipitated it.

The review found that Urciuoli had not only misspent thousands of dollars on golf trips, family dinners and stays in luxurious hotels such as The Breakers in Palm Beach, Fla., but may have also committed "a serious fraud" upon the hospital, when he billed $5,998 for an eight-day sojourn to the Scottsdale Princess Resort in Arizona for a nonexistent health-care conference.

O’Dowd said he visited Whitehouse three times with folders of evidence. He said he suggested that Whitehouse might have a conflict, since Urciuoli was married to the sister of former Providence Mayor Joseph R. Paolino Jr., and a leading Urciuoli defender on the hospital board was former Lt. Gov. Richard A. Licht, another prominent Democrat.

He said Whitehouse listened politely, but “hardly said a word.”

Just before he left the last time, O’Dowd recalled saying: “If you don’t prosecute this in the criminal arena, when you announce your decision, I am going to bark like a dog and squeal like a pig. I am going to try to get every TV camera and every radio person and every print journalist in town and I am going to make the arguments to them that I am making to you. This won’t go away. I’m stubborn. I’m right.”

O’Dowd said his term on the hospital board ended Dec. 31, 1999, and he was fired days later.

He said the cited reason was anger-management problems, but he viewed his dismissal as punishment for pursuing a criminal case against Urciuoli. Asked yesterday whether he had anger issues, he said: “I did have anger-management problems. I was very angry at the management.”

O’Dowd would not identify his lawyer. But state Democratic Party Chairman William Lynch acknowledged yesterday that he represented the doctor at the time.

He would not comment on how the attorney-general shield clause made it into the agreement. But speaking as party chairman, he said: “I think Linc Chafee is doing what he has been increasingly doing as he’s gotten more and more desperate as Election Day approaches – and that is saying or doing anything to try to impugn Sheldon Whitehouse, and at the same time distract people in Rhode Island from the real issue, which is changing who runs the Senate in Washington.”

also, time to be the ham not the eggs dip a (perhaps slightly optimistic) toe in the water and make some predictions. I split the Hourse races into tiers according to the size of the wave, but added arrows for races I think might fall out of the wave in either direction (a for a race that might be more), and pluses for races in which I think the Dem matches up well personally, and tildes for races in which I think the GOPer does.

if it's a 15-foot wave, I say we take...

AZ-8 (open)+
CO-7 (open)+
CT-4 (Shays) >
CT-5 (Johnson)+
FL-13 (open) >
IN-2 (Chocola)+
IN-8 (Hostettler)+
IA-1 (open)+
IN-9 (Sodrel) >
NM-1 (Wilson) >
NY-24 (open)+
NC-11 (Taylor)+
OH-15 (Pryce)
OH-18 (open)+
PA-7 (Weldon)+
PA-8 (Fitzpatrick) >
PA-10 (Sherwood)+
TX-22 (open) >+

if it's a 25-foot wave, I say we have a good chance of taking...

AZ-5 (Hayworth)+
CA-11 (Pombo) >+
CO-4 (Musgrave) >
CT-2 (Simmons)~
FL-16 (open)+
FL-22 (Shaw)+
IL-6 (open)
KY-3 (Northup) >~
KY-4 (Davis) >+
MN-1 (Gutknecht) >+
MN-6 (open)~
NH-2 (Bass)
NY-20 (Sweeney)+
OH-1 (Chabot) >+
OH-2 (Schmidt) >
PA-4 (Hart) >
PA-6 (Gerlach) <
VA-2 (Drake) >
WA-8 (Reichert) >~
WI-8 (open)

if it's a 30-foot wave, I say we can take...
AZ-1 (Renzi)
CA-4 (Doolittle) >
IA-2 (Leach) >~
ID-1 (open) >+
KS-2 (Ryun)
NC-8 (Hayes) >
NJ-7 (Ferguson)
NY-19 (Kelly)~
NY-25 (Walsh)+
NY-26 (Reynolds) <~
NY-29 (Kuhl)~
OH-12 (Tiberi)
TX-23 (Bonilla) >
WY-AL (Cubin)+

if the wave goes beyond that, things are too unpredictable to forecast but i'd say both that you have to favor the more experienced (incumbent) candidate and that each side has a serious surfer or two...
CA-50 (Bilbray)~
CO-5 (open)*
IL-10 (Kirk)
IN-3 (Souder)
KY-2 (Lewis)
MI-7 (open)
MN-2 (Kline)~
NE-1 (Fortenberry)
NE-3 (open)*
NV-2 (open)
NV-3 (Porter)
NY-3 (King)~
NY-13 (Fossella)
PA-18 (Murphy)
VA-10 (Wolf) <
WA-5 (McMorris)

if I have to pick one totally crazy longshot that's flying under everyone's radar, it's Charlie Stuart over Ric Keller in Florida's 8th

ultimately, i'm betting on a 25-foot wave, or a pickup of about 38 seats, and think 45+ is a fantasy. if it comes down to individual races, I'm sticking with 22 +/- 2.

in the Senate, there are too many balls in play to really predict. I think Webb takes VA by a hair, but I'm not very confident there. In MO, I think it's a very slim McCaskill lead plus the Dem climate working against the GOP turnout program and funny business (this will be ground zero on the Senate side; on the House side, I'm looking at OH and FL, surprise surprise), and while i do think we have the edge, I'm uncomfortable saying we're better than 50-50 against the court/media fight that follows from a tie. I also wouldn't be hugely surprised if MT (or RI) slipped away, but I think we've still got some comfort there. A Snowe defection (in the event of a Dem cleanup in the Northeast?) is probably too much to hope for, but also not entirely out of the question (what about Snowe and Lieberman (and Chafee? and more?) as I's who caucus with D's?). Nor is a Ford win, though I've largely written that race off. Ultimately, I think the Dems end up somewhere between 50 and 51, and whether we break the tie remains unclear for a while, but I'm not ruling out 49.

and he gets to interview pat buchanan.

i'm a little surprised that menendez has pulled away here in NJ -- though i wouldn't be shocked if there's a combo of a "wilder effect" (i.e., suburban soccer-moms and preppy-dads deciding at the last minute to not vote for a latino) or the "hudson county effect" (again, in the suburbs). i still think menendez will eke out a win.

i'm a little surprised that menendez has pulled away here in NJ

the state's just too Democratic (and Kean's just a tad too young - he should have gone for the House first). the Torch lost because he really was a crook, but the GOP is lost statewide in NJ until they put a major, moderate Northeasterner on a national ticket.

I resisted referring to Peahi, etc. Don't think that's in the cards (nor is Scott Kleeb quite a Laird Hamilton).

nice Hersh reference. I dig her Milo.

the Torch lost because he really was a crook

I didn't realize we had to dumb things down this much, but then I have to remember that people like Alcee Hastings et al are still very much alive and serving The People.

yeah, I think that's entirely possible, given that Bush is less popular in MO and VA than he is in NH, but is still at 50% in MT, GOP'ers started coming home to Burns as soon as they trotted "liberal" out, Schweitzer isn't being very convincing in the closing days, and I'm a huge David Sirota skeptic. But while the polls do show Burns consolidating his support, they don't show him uncomfortably close to the 50% mark. I think Tester still has a real (if very small) lead, and enough GOP'ers stay home on Tuesday to give him the edge.

if it wasn't for the gay amendment bill, i bet a lot of gop voters would just stay home. even tho gay marriage is already against the law here. they felt like they needed to beat the dead horse and put it in the constitution. but the governors race won't be close. (incumbents win here.) etc etc. it's a nice peppy bit for corker.

"The gossip site Wonkette.com has made a minor sport out of exposing what newsmakers' offspring have done on the Web. There was Tennessee Republican Senate candidate Bob Corker's daughter's Facebook page, for example, which showed her locking lips with another woman and dancing in what appeared to be her underwear."

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/bob-corker/tenn-senate-race-where-the-white-women-at-209733.php

roffle at the faux-righteous soon to be another vote deciding our fates.
m.

they're trying to talk it into contention, but i think it's a little late for that.