2006 Election thread

[markalot]

One of the reasons I'm glad WOXY is staying around is because I was looking forward to the play by play of election day.

So here it is, a little over a month before the election, and most stories are going to be somehow election related.

Can the dems overcome their own incompetence and throw out what may go down as the worst congress in US history? Right now things are looking good but BEWARE George says.

Bush: Democrats shouldn't be trusted to run Congress

STOCKTON, California (AP) -- President Bush, on a campaign swing in the West, is arguing the Democratic Party is weak-kneed on national security and shouldn't be trusted to hold the reins of Congress.

"If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party, it sounds like -- it sounds like -- they think the best way to protect the American people is, wait until we're attacked again," Bush said Monday at a $360,000 fundraiser in Reno, Nevada, for state Secretary of State Dean Heller's congressional campaign.

Bush delivered the administration's oft-repeated claims about the Democrats as it struggles with persistent questions about a recent intelligence report that suggests the Iraq war has helped recruit more terrorists, and a new book, "State of Denial," by journalist Bob Woodward that contends Bush misled the country about the war.

In the latest development, a State Department official confirmed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did receive a CIA briefing about terror threats just about two months before the Sept. 11 attacks. Rice has said repeatedly she could not specifically recall the meeting. (Spokeman: Rice didn't 'brush off' terror warning)

Spokesman Sean McCormack said the information at the July 10, 2001 session is not new.

In the home stretch of campaigning for the Nov. 7 elections, Bush is using his $2.3 million fundraising sprint through Nevada, California, Arizona and Colorado to try to draw a line between Democrats and Republicans.

Bush was speaking Tuesday at a $400,000 breakfast fundraiser in Stockton, 60 miles east of the San Francisco Bay Area, for Rep. Richard Pombo. Later, he was to attend a $600,000 fundraiser in El Dorado Hills for Rep. John Doolittle and then raise $1.3 million at a Republican National Committee event in the Los Angeles area.

Pombo and Doolittle easily survived primary challenges this year from opponents who criticized them for their connections to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

One presidential action was tucked into Bush's Tuesday schedule, perhaps to help the various campaigns defray the cost of getting the president to the political events. Bush was to sign the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act. Pombo sponsored the House version of the bill, which aims to help landowners restore and manage fish and wildlife habitats on private property.
Stomping in Nevada

Bush's first stop on his trip West was an airport hangar in Reno, Nevada, where a few hundred people gathered to support Heller, who is running against Democrat Jill Derby.

Republicans have held the seat since it was created 25 years ago to represent more than 100,000 square miles -- nearly the entire state except for Las Vegas. Republicans hold an edge of more than 47,000 registered, mostly rural voters, but polls suggest it is a close race.

About 100 protesters chanting "Vote for Change" rallied nearby.

"I think it's an indication of how desperate the Republicans have gotten to try to hang onto a seat that just a year ago was considered a slam dunk for the Republicans," said Pam duPre, executive director of the Washoe County Democratic Party.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/03/bush.ap/index.html

[jps]

Bush: Democrats shouldn't be trusted to run Congress


Bush telling us that someone that disagrees with him should not be trusted is one of the funniest and saddest things I have ever read. Bush is pathetic

[markalot]

More Finger-Pointing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 5, 2006; 9:16 AM

The curious case of Kirk Fordham helps explain why the GOP has got Foleygate problems that go well beyond Maf54.

I broke this angle on Monday, reporting that Fordham, Foley's former chief of staff, had tried to cut a deal with ABC's Brian Ross to suppress the seamier details of the scandal. If Ross would withhold the sexually graphic IMs from the Florida congressman, Fordham said, ABC could have the exclusive on Foley's resignation. Ross, not surprisingly, refused.

What I quickly learned was that Fordham had another job: chief of staff to Rep. Tom Reynolds, the New York Republican who happens to head the House GOP campaign committee.

So you had the top aide to the House's senior GOP campaign guy trying to keep the seedy details out of the media. No wonder some critics are charging cover-up. That's what's driving this whole thing, the sense that key Republicans were more concerned with the politics of the Foley mess than protecting the teenagers he was hitting up online.

Now Kirk Fordham has quit, and he isn't going quietly.

"A former Congressional aide said Wednesday that Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's office knew about reports of 'inappropriate behavior' by Representative Mark Foley far earlier than Mr. Hastert's office has acknowledged," says the New York Times .

"Mr. Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, denied the account of the former aide, Kirk Fordham, who said in an interview that he informed Mr. Palmer of the concerns about Mr. Foley before 2004. Mr. Hastert's office had previously said it first learned of concerns about Mr. Foley in the fall of 2005."

Before 2004 ! The plot is really thickening.

And here's a crucial point, in USA Today : "In an interview, Fordham said Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, told him that he had informed the speaker of their meeting." Palmer denies this -- in a statement -- yet another conflicting account of who was told what and when.

In a piece yesterday, before he resigned under fire. USAT said in confirming what I wrote:

"Foley's former chief of staff said that he asked ABC News to edit out of its reports Foley's most sexually explicit messages.

"Kirk Fordham told reporters he was trying to spare Foley's sister, Donna, and his ailing parents from the 'lurid' details. He called 'absurd' assertions that he was trying to cover up the incident.

" 'Perhaps a bit naively, I was thinking of Mark's family, primarily his parents,' said Fordham, who is now chief of staff for Rep. Thomas Reynolds of New York, who is chairman of the House GOP campaign committee. 'It was never, ever my intention to suppress this information.' "

It all depends on the meaning of the word suppress.

The Los Angeles Times weighed in with a Fordham profile:

"Fordham is at the center of questions over whether Republican leaders should have known more about Foley's behavior before the revelation broke last week that Foley was sending sexually explicit messages to teenage boys.

"Fordham, 39, is now chief of staff to one of the most powerful Republicans in the House, Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, who as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee is in charge of helping the GOP retain its majority -- a goal that has been placed further in jeopardy by the Foley scandal.

"Fordham left Foley's office in 2004, but on Friday he joined in a conversation at the congressman's Capitol Hill town house advising Foley to resign. Fordham counseled his former boss as the story began breaking last week -- first with a report of an e-mail in which the congressman had asked a former House page for his picture and then with the more explicit instant messages that followed. He asked an ABC News reporter to not publish the messages, a protective role Fordham had performed for years as he sought to prevent mainstream media reports about his ambitious boss' sexual orientation. Democrats charge that Fordham's involvement reflected the GOP's desire to minimize the political fallout by, at least initially, keeping the issue quiet."

John Aravosis of Americablog, who was the first to pick up on my Fordham story, explains why he didn't go public sooner on Maf54:

"I published the Foley emails on my blog last Thursday after ABC News story broke. I had received the emails in July, as I already explained on this blog last Thursday, but I didn't think it was appropriate to publish allegations of pedophilia/child sex predation, even against a member of the other political party, until I had all the facts (and not being Speaker Hastert, it's not like I had access to the House GOP leadership, to Foley or the pages to quiz them about the emails). Shortly after I received the emails, I found out that CREW [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington] had also received copies of the emails and had immediately passed them to the FBI. I figured that took care of the situation (silly me to trust George Bush's FBI, they didn't investigate) and I let the issue go until I saw ABC had published the story last week and that Foley had confirmed to ABC that the emails were real."

Meanwhile, is Denny Hastert's job really in jeopardy, or is that the product of hyperactive media imaginations? Certainly, he's seemed anything but sure-footed in how he has handled this debacle.

The Chicago Tribune says that "a defiant House Speaker Dennis Hastert fought Wednesday to hold on to his leadership post while fractures appeared among his lieutenants."

Here's the good part: "In an interview with the Tribune on Wednesday night, Hastert said that he had no thoughts of resigning and he blamed ABC News and Democratic operatives for the mushrooming scandal that threatens his tenure as speaker and Republicans' hold on power in the House."

Democratic operatives? How's that? Plus, shouldn't Hastert be thanking ABC for exposing Foley's predatory behavior, which the speaker now decries, saying he was "deceived" by his colleague?

All this seems to be spreading to other races:

"On the campaign trail," says the Wall Street Journal , "Democrats are pressing Republicans to declare whether they will vote to re-elect Speaker Dennis Hastert, who is under fire for not launching an investigation earlier. In Pennsylvania, Chris Carney, a former military officer challenging Republican Rep. Don Sherwood, has urged Mr. Sherwood to cancel a fund-raiser with Mr. Hastert and House Majority Leader John Boehner.

"A number of Republicans, including Virginia Sen. George Allen and Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico, are returning campaign donations from Mr. Foley, who resigned Friday after news broke that he sent sexually graphic messages to underage House pages. But the House re-election committee says it has no plans to return $100,000 that Mr. Foley donated this summer."

The New Republic's Michael Crowley recalls how the Illinois congressman, who succeeded Newt Gingrich, owes his speakership to Tom DeLay:

"DeLay engineered the selection of one of his closest House allies -- a scandal-free figure who could be counted on not to further embarrass the embattled House GOP: Dennis Hastert.

"Since then, Hastert has lived up to the blandness of his qualification. He is a curiously invisible character: Rather than follow in the recent tradition of brash, epic speakers like Tip O'Neill and Gingrich, Hastert has laid low. He generally shuns speeches and television appearances (in part because the man is tragically inarticulate, almost to the point of incoherence). He seems to have no particular vision you couldn't find enunciated in a White House press release.

"For years, people have asked: Does Hastert truly run the House? Or was he just an inoffensive figurehead fronting for DeLay? Now that DeLay is gone, those who argued the latter seem vindicated. Discipline among House Republicans has collapsed, stalling the GOP agenda. And, where House Republicans were once masters of coordinating their message, the Foley fiasco -- in which various GOP leaders are peddling conflicting versions of who knew what about Foley's bad behavior -- is just the latest example of a total communication breakdown. (Hastert's own inability to communicate hasn't helped. His statements about what he knew of FoleyGate have shifted over the past few days, and, in his sit-down interviews with TV reporters, he has seemed bumbling and unsympathetic.)

"But Hastert's biggest problem now may be that he simply doesn't have a loyal constituency. He was effectively installed by DeLay -- but now Hastert's advocate and protector is now gone, driven from the House by his own scandals. Meanwhile, House Republicans are criticizing the GOP leadership to prove their outrage to voters. Worst of all, no one else in the Republican leadership has anything invested in Hastert's survival. Beneath him are two fiercely ambitious men, House Majority Leader John Boehner, who recently replaced DeLay, and House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, who lost out to Boehner. Neither man owes much to Hastert, and both would presumably like to move up the ladder."

...

[markalot]

...

Salon's Walter Shapiro says the Democrats shouldn't pop the Champagne corks:

"It is too soon to know whether the Mark Foley saga will ultimately be remembered for the crime (the chilling online pursuit of Capitol Hill pages) or the coverup (the failure of Speaker Denny Hastert's team to respond to warnings about an out-of-control Florida GOP legislator). But reading the front-page headlines and watching the breathless TV coverage five weeks before the election, one could glibly assume that the fallout from the Foley frenzy will be the tipping point that will produce a Democratic sweep in the House. Especially seeing the Republicans in full meltdown, vacillating between fetal-position defeatism and a desperate effort to find a scapegoat.

"Such sweeping predictions for November, though, are risky. Interviews with strategists and pollsters from both parties suggest the more limited conclusion that this uproar is more apt to help Democrats in individual races than to reshape the national mood. What may matter the most is whether the furor over Foley fits into the story-line that the Democratic candidate in each race has been pushing to the voters. . . .

"There is also a difference between citizens voicing their disapproval of Foley to a stranger on the telephone reading from a prepared list of questions and these same voters treating the scandal as important enough to dictate their choice for Congress in November."

A former House Republican staffer says Hastert is basically toast, telling National Review:

"All of this decapitation talk is only about timing. Hastert is finished. The only question is whether it is now or later. Regardless of the election outcome, Hastert won't be Speaker next year. If the Democrats take the House, then, obviously, [Nancy] Pelosi will be Speaker. If the Republicans somehow hang on, there are enough House Republicans who will withhold their support so he won't have enough votes to remain as Speaker and he won't have his patron, Tom DeLay, around to twist arms for votes to keep him in the Speaker's chair.

"The relevant question is whether it is in the Republicans' political interest for him to step down now or later. I don't know if there is time to do so, but I think it would help the base if he announced that he was stepping aside and said that the House needs new Republican leadership. It might be a little messy but they should consult with Newt and Rove about how to project a message of a new start returning to conservative ideals (avoid the word 'values'). They can still run on a positive agenda that might save the House. The current path will lead to Speaker Pelosi."

Need a grand summary of GOP talking points on the scandal? Dick Polman helpfully provides one:

"1. The 'all in good fun' defense. Tony Snow, the White House press secretary and one-time conservative commentator, tried this one yesterday. He dismissed Foley's chatter with the kids as 'simply naughty.'

"2. The 'yeah, well, what about Bill Clinton?' defense. This one was to be expected. Commentator Ben Stein wrote yesterday that Foley is just 'a poor misguided Republican man who had a romantic thing for young boys,' but that's nothing compared to 'a man named Bill Clinton who did not send suggestive emails as far as we know, but who had a barely legal intern give him oral sex. . . .

"3. The 'who's out to get us?' defense. Mark Levin, an attorney for a conservative legal foundation, blogged Sunday that the real outrage in the Foley case is that somebody was leaking about Foley to the press on the eve of the '06 elections: 'The timing of this revelation has more to do about helping Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats than protecting teenagers.' (But Brian Ross, who broke the saga late last week on the ABC News website, indicated in a New York Times story today that his sources were Republican.)

"4. The 'homosexual agenda' defense. One top religious conservative group, the Family Research Council, broke its silence on the story late yesterday by arguing that, even though 'the slow response' of House leaders is noteworthy, 'the real issue' is that Foley is proof of the depravity of gay behavior -- because he demonstrates 'the link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse.' (Actually, many abuse experts have long concluded the overwhelming majority of men who sexually abuse children live their lives as heterosexual men.)"

Power Line hasn't had much about Foleygate, but Paul Mirengoff certainly isn't giving Hastert high marks:

"Speaker Hastert was not Foley's supervisor. Foley 'worked' for the people in his district, not the Republican leadership. Nonetheless, I believe that Hastert had a moral obligation to take action in the face of reports that Foley may have been making inappropriate comments to underage employees of Congress. Actually, it's clear to me that any member of Congress has such an obligation -- who else but a member's colleagues has the power to protect teen-age kids from a predatory Representative? However, as the leader of the House, Hastert had a stronger obligation.

"Even on Hastert's account (which I take to be true unless proven otherwise), he did not meet that obligation. A report that a member of the House was writing 'overly friendly' emails (a characterization that raises more questions than it answers) to a page should have prompted Hastert to seek details. He should not have accepted on faith, or on the vague assurances of others, that Foley had not crossed the line."

Gee, now that Patricia Dunn has been indicted , maybe it was a bad idea for Hewlett Packard to spy on journalists and its own employees.

I hadn't really tuned into this incident, recounted here by American Prospect's Greg Sargent , but it sure raises a host of questions:

"WHY DID SECRET SERVICE ARREST MAN WHO DISAGREED WITH CHENEY? This is very interesting. The Associated Press and the New York Times both have stories today about Steven Howards, a Colorado man who announced yesterday that he's suing a Secret Service agent for wrongful arrest. Howards was arrested in June by the agent after he approached Cheney and criticized him briefly about the Iraq war. Howards' lawyer says he may call Cheney as a witness in the case, and may even name Cheney as a defendant. That seems to suggest that Howards' lawyer wants to find out whether Cheney himself ordered the arrest.

"So what happened here? Howards said yesterday that he was taking his eight-year-old son to a piano lesson two hours west of Denver when he saw Cheney at an outdoor mall. Howards then approached within several feet of Cheney and said something like, 'I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible.' Howards says he then went on his way. The Times continues:

"About 10 minutes later, he said, he was walking back through the area when Agent Reichle handcuffed him and said he would be charged with assaulting the vice president. Local police officers, acting on information from the Secret Service, according to the suit, ultimately filed misdemeanor harassment charges that could have resulted in up to a year in jail .

"The charges were ultimately dropped by the local DA. But why was the man arrested in the first place? Who ordered him arrested?"

Johnny Apple was a great journalist, a larger-than-life character and a royal pain to deal with, sometimes all at once. He is remembered by the NYT for his Falstaffian appetites and amazing expense account.

The Daily Show , just as substantive as "real" network news? It's serious, dude.

© 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive

[markalot]

House Speaker Dennis Hastert will hold a briefing at 1 p.m. ET from his office in Batavia, Illinois, CNN has learned.


I'm going to lump everything in this thread because just about every piece of political news is going to be tangled up in the election. If he resigns that will most likely be another seat gain for the dems.

[akip]

the dems need a good messenger more than a message. the greatest message in the hands of a shitty candidate is useless. a candidate who's a great communicator can make nothing sound like something.

the message is meaningless anyway in a society where most people don't want to face the truth that the world has changed and it ain't never going back.

[markalot]

I've been searching for the democrats message, found this site:

http://www.100actions.com/a/2006/10/action34.html

I don't watch a lot of TV, has this 100actions thing been getting airplay at all?

[akip]

I've been searching for the democrats message, found this site:

http://www.100actions.com/a/2006/10/action34.html

I don't watch a lot of TV, has this 100actions thing been getting airplay at all?

considering the monumental hurdles in front of the nation at this moment, it's not all that impressive, is it. not that i disagree with most of it, but it seems rather anemic when you consider the crisis we're in.

[PeterABnny]

Can the dems overcome their own incompetence and throw out what may go down as the worst congress in US history?



Nonsense! I have every faith and confidence in the stupidity of the American People to keep Capitol Hill Republican-controlled. Just throw the whole national security/fear of terrorism thing at them an' they'll forget everything else by Election Day. Open and shut.

[markalot]

Nonsense! I have every faith and confidence in the stupidity of the American People to keep Capitol Hill Republican-controlled. Just throw the whole national security/fear of terrorism thing at them an' they'll forget everything else by Election Day. Open and shut.


The american people are not stupid and anyone that thinks so will never get elected. This is exactly the problem the democrats are trying to overcome.

And of course they'll vote republican if the dems only respond with stammering followed by high pitched squealing.

[akip]

The american people are not stupid and anyone that thinks so will never get elected. This is exactly the problem the democrats are trying to overcome.

if they're so smart, how come every election boils down to a popularity contest?

[the_birds]

I don't know if you guys listen to NPR, but this morning they reported the results of the latest Pew Research center poll on traditional Red State Republicans. The Mark Foley scandal, hasn't eroded their support AT ALL. They are completely rationalized up and on board.

Which really is only relatively shocking and just speaks to the job at hand for the Dems. Get the crossover vote. Its really been the goal of all the recent elections. The Dems have just sucked hard at it.

I don't think the Dems are out there championing the failures of the Republican party hard enough. Effective campaigning is about starting the fight and not letting up. Serve and volley and score the winner. Stay in the news on topic. The Dems are definitely falling WAY short on this.

[akip]

I don't know if you guys listen to NPR, but this morning they reported the results of the latest Pew Research center poll on traditional Red State Republicans. The Mark Foley scandal, hasn't eroded their support AT ALL. They are completely rationalized up and on board.


yeah, i heard it. hypocrits.

[akip]

I don't think the Dems are out there championing the failures of the Republican party hard enough. Effective campaigning is about starting the fight and not letting up. Serve and volley and score the winner. Stay in the news on topic. The Dems are definitely falling WAY short on this.

the problem is they send pelosi out to do that. what a :eek: :eek: :eek:

[the_birds]

the problem is they send pelosi out to do that.

I totally agree. Pelosi is NOT the right person to do this. I think this is why she hasn't really been doing it lately, despite the fact that she's the Minority leader.

[markalot]

The repubs won't lose their 20%, that's no surprise, though that 20% might stay home. It's also silly to take a poll on a scandal that's still unfolding. If it can be proven that other repubs covered this up then, and only then, will it make a difference.

I believe that the hardcore 20 of both parties will never vote for the opposition, but they will stay home and they'll never tell anyone they didn't vote.

[akip]

I totally agree. Pelosi is NOT the right person to do this. I think this is why she hasn't really been doing it lately, despite the fact that she's the Minority leader.

i saw her doing her thing last night and i just cringed.

[slopechz]

if they're so smart, how come every election boils down to a popularity contest?
Touche! :cool:

[markalot]

What defines popularity, one might ask? Likeability, smarts, looks, good ideas, ideas that match ones own ideas (good or bad)?

I'll quote from the dems own page:

While Republicans have made news all week with their gross incompetence and unbelievably unethical behavior, we don't need to focus on it. It's not enough to just repeat bad things about Repubicans. If we want to win over voters, we need to give them reasons to vote for Democrats. Fortunately, there are plenty of those.

I think smarts might best be defined by learning from past mistakes. This is where Bush fails, this is where the republicans are failing, this is where the dems have failed in the past.

[the_birds]

i saw her doing her thing last night and i just cringed.

Did you? I haven't seen her mousey pontificating in a long time...

[akip]

Did you? I haven't seen her mousey pontificating in a long time...

the cheese was sitting there right outside the mousehole and she just couldn't resist.

[akip]

What defines popularity, one might ask? Likeability, smarts, looks, good ideas, ideas that match ones own ideas (good or bad)?



think gw, then think bob dole. who would've made a better pres? who got elected and who didn't?

maybe dole was up against a better candidate, but he just doesn't translate to tv. he's a guy who was experienced, respected on both sides of the aisle, but not seen as "presidential." yet people felt bush, a guy with almost no relevant experience, looked presidential. wtf was that?

another example----everybody hates negative campaigning on tv---most of it's out of context and utter bullshit. but people obviously listen to it and believe it enough to change their votes accordingly.

people are very, very easy to manipulate.

[the_birds]

think gw, then think bob dole. who would've made a better pres? who got elected and who didn't?

I don't think America will ever elect a gimp.

[akip]

I don't think America will ever elect a gimp.

i had a friend whose father lost his arm to polio as a kid. he (the father) said that he'd never vote for dole 'cause he knew how losing a limb made you bitter.

[AvatarOfVishnu]

Speculation:

Dems will win back 20+ seats in the House & take control of that...the Senate, though, is not quite as clear. Possible Senate pick-ups for the Dems:

1 PA
2 MT
3 OH
4 MO
5 RI
6 VA
7 TN

Possible Senate pick-ups for the GOP:

1 NJ

So, in order for the Dems to take over the Senate, they need 6 out of the 7 seats listed above, OR all 7 if they lose NJ

Predictions anyone?

[markalot]

Poll Track: Burning down the House
Can Democrats flip enough seats to win control in November?
By Gwen Glazer
National Journal

Updated: 4:47 p.m. ET Oct 5, 2006

WASHINGTON - Smaller stakes and campaigns without much easy cash usually result in fewer polls on House races than on Senate or gubernatorial contests. But in this year's political climate, with control of the House in play and a new GOP sex scandal fanning speculation about yet another seat the Democrats might be able to grab, a national pollster got in on the debate.

Reuters and Zogby teamed up to poll 15 of the most competitive House races in currently Republican districts, and they came up with some worrisome news for the GOP. (Not coincidentally, 15 is the number of seats Democrats need to win the House.)

The surveys showed Democrats leading in 11 of the districts surveyed. Pollsters tapped at least 500 residents of each area. Some highlights:

Ariz.-08 and Colo.-07: Democrats are leagues ahead in both of these open-seat districts, which Chuck Todd has in the top two spots on his list of most competitive House races. Gabrielle Giffords led her opponent by 7 points, and Ed Perlmutter led his GOP counterpart by 10 percent.

Conn.-04: It's a tough time for moderates in Connecticut, and consummate moderate Rep. Christopher Shays (R) is feeling heat from anti-war challenger Diane Farrell (D); Reuters/Zogby put her about 5 points ahead. Shays bucked the Bush administration Wednesday and called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation.

Iowa-01: This district was one of the four that showed some genuinely good news for the GOP: Republican Mike Whalen is cruising along 12 points ahead of Democrat Bruce Braley. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is trying to keep hope alive for Braley, lavishing attention in the form of heavy TV advertising.

Minn.-06: The Democrat, Patty Wetterling, trailed in this open-seat district as well, but she's just 3 points behind Republican Michele Bachmann. Wetterling -- who became a child-safety advocate after her 11-year-old son disappeared almost two decades ago -- has emerged out in front of the Mark Foley scandal, demanding the resignations of members of Congress who knew about Foley's conduct with underage House pages.

Pa.-06: GOP Rep. Jim Gerlach is running for his second term in this wealthy district on the outskirts of Philadelphia -- and trying, like many Republicans, to keep his distance from President Bush. A June TV ad showed the congressman detailing his opposition to Bush on immigration policy; a response from challenger Lois Murphy ties Gerlach back to the president on trade, drug companies and tax breaks. The Reuters/Zogby poll showed Murphy ahead of the incumbent by less than 3 points, well within the margin of error.

Zogby's Web site (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1176) has more breakdowns and analysis, and more new surveys released today highlight some of the year's most contentious Senate races.
Gwen Glazer is managing editor at nationaljournal.com
Copyright 2006 by National Journal Group Inc.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15141918/from/RS.4/

[DaHood]

I don't think America will ever elect a gimp.
Really :rolleyes:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/images/fdrl_fdr_09-1844a.jpg

[akip]

Really :rolleyes:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/images/fdrl_fdr_09-1844a.jpg

of course, they did their best to hide the severity of his disability.

[markalot]

How the Democrats Can Step Up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501574.html

By David Ignatius
Friday, October 6, 2006; A23

It's too late for the Democrats to forge coherent positions on Iraq or tax policy before the November elections. But fortune has presented them with a mission that can be summed up in a simple sentence: They must be the party of accountability and reform.

The pollsters report that nearly two-thirds of the country now believes that America is heading in the wrong direction. The events of the past several weeks offer a devastating argument for the Democrats of why that is so. With the Republicans in control of the executive and legislative branches, arrogance has become a way of life. In a series of widely disparate cases -- from ignoring the ethics problems of former House majority leader Tom DeLay to refusing recommendations to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to covering up the egregious conduct of Rep. Mark Foley -- the Republican leadership's instinct has been political self-protection rather than accountability and effective government.

The Democrats are talking about a culture of corruption in Washington, but what are they going to do about it? That's the question Democrats should address over the next month if they want a mandate for change. If they win the House of Representatives, will the Democrats embark on a two-year binge of investigations and score-settling? Or will they get serious about solving the country's problems?

The challenge for the Democrats, if they do triumph in November, will be to break out of the partisan straitjacket that constricts American politics. That has been the real inner demon of the Republicans -- they appeared to care more about their party and its prerogatives than about the country's welfare. The Democrats, in recent years, have drunk deep from that same poisoned chalice, and they need to stop.

The Democrats' first priority next year should be ethics reforms that address the gross misconduct that surfaced in the DeLay and Jack Abramoff scandals. They should start by seeking GOP co-sponsorship for new legislation on lobbying and campaign finance. The Republicans will try to paint Democrats in the next Congress as liberal fanatics bent on revenge. The Democrats should answer with a spirit of bipartisanship -- an offer to work with the Republicans on effective oversight of the executive branch and congressional reform. If a Democratic victory in November becomes an exercise in "payback," the public rightly will be angry.

To see how far the Republicans have strayed from accountability, it's useful to recall their response to the DeLay scandal. At every opportunity, they tried to evade, obstruct and bully. When the House ethics committee admonished DeLay in late 2004 for ethics violations, the GOP leaders stonewalled. First they changed the Republican caucus rules so that DeLay could remain as leader even if he was later indicted. The leaders were forced to back down on that one, but they then fired the conscientious Rep. Joel Hefley as chairman of the ethics committee and purged two other Republican members and several staffers. The effect was to gut the committee, which didn't function at all during 2005.

Even after the Abramoff influence-peddling investigation brought a string of indictments, the GOP-controlled Congress failed to pass lobbying reforms. "These are the worst congressional scandals in three decades, and Congress has done absolutely nothing about it," argues Fred Wertheimer, president of the campaign watchdog group Democracy 21.

The case of Rumsfeld partakes of the same circle-the-wagons spirit that has sapped the GOP. Rumsfeld should have resigned after the Abu Ghraib scandal in mid-2004. (Imagine what that signal of accountability might have done to help America's image.) But by early this year, it was obvious even to those in the Bush White House that Rumsfeld had to go. They were moving to ease him out this spring when a parade of retired generals called publicly for his resignation. I'm told that the White House, fearful of being seen as caving in to pressure, backed off at that point and left Rumsfeld in place.

And now we have the Foley scandal, which, even by Washington standards, is a remarkable piece of hypocrisy and cronyism. For at least a year senior House Republicans knew or should have known that Foley had inappropriate communications with House pages. They did nothing -- and the only possible explanation is that they were afraid of political damage. Indeed, they allowed Foley to remain co-chairman of the House caucus on missing and exploited children until the day his revolting messages were disclosed.

The Democrats will benefit from the GOP meltdown to the extent that they offer the country a genuine alternative: In place of scandal, reform; in place of partisanship, cooperation; in place of arrogance, accountability.

The writer co-hosts, with Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues at http://www.washingtonpost.com. His e-mail address isdavidignatius@washpost.com.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[akip]

i think the dems have to start a drum beat for BIPARTISAN reform---yeah, reach across the aisle to sensible repubs, saying, look our system is in crisis, the middle east is in crisis, and we'd better come up with some fucking answers TOGETHER or we the people are all screewwwed. which is the absolute truth. there is just no way any of the grave problems ahead can be tackled until they put down the sledge hammers and stop catering to the worst elements of both extremes.

[george]

As someone who has a pretty staunchly conservative political philosophy, I am really hoping that these big-spending, morality-legislating, special interest-kowtowing assholes who have hijacked what was once the Republican party get their heads handed to them next month.

[ICONOCLAST420]

As someone who has a pretty staunchly conservative political philosophy, I am really hoping that these big-spending, morality-legislating, special interest-kowtowing assholes who have hijacked what was once the Republican party get their heads handed to them next month.
Word. With the republican record on big government and spending, who needs democrats? The constant posturing on morality issues makes me sick, at least Foley happened along at the right time. :D

[akip]

as a dem, i really don't object at all to the fiscally responsible wing of the repub party, well, if it still exists anyway.

[markalot]

as a dem, i really don't object at all to the fiscally responsible wing of the repub party, well, if it still exists anyway.

It doesn't. Conservative now means religious. Conservative now describes social behavior. If the republicans can't get back to being the party of true conservatives then we need a new conservative party.

[akip]

It doesn't. Conservative now means religious. Conservative now describes social behavior. If the republicans can't get back to being the party of true conservatives then we need a new conservative party.

john danforth was on npr last night talking about the repub's calculation to become the party of a particular religious faction and how he believes it's come back to bite them in the ass. not how he put it, but you get it.

[markalot]

I'm not sure this poll has an merit. If you want to know if something is going to hurt republicans it seems to me you have to restrict your response to republicans (or people pwho usually vote that way) and then make sure your subject set is in a district that matters. Someone from a district thats heavily democratic where the democrat is expected to win has no valid meaning to this poll.


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1543199,00.html?cnn=yes

Two-thirds of Americans aware of the lurid e-mails set to congressional pages by a G.O.P congressman believe Republican leaders tried to cover up the scandal — and one quarter of them say the affair makes them less likely to vote for Republican candidates in their districts come November. Those are among the findings of a new TIME poll conducted this week among 1,002 randomly-selected voting-age Americans.

The poll suggests the Foley affair may have dented Republican hopes of retaining control of Congress in November. Among the registered voters who were polled, 54% said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress, compared with 39% who favored the Republican. That margin may be fueled by the rolling scandal over sexually explicit e-mails sent to teenage pages by Republican Representative Mark Foley. Almost 80% of respondents were aware of the scandal, and only 16% approve of the Republicans' handling of it. Those polled were divided, however, on whether House Speaker Dennis Hastert should resign over his handling of the Foley affair, with 39% saying he should resign and 38% saying he should not.

Iraq, meanwhile, is continuing to be a problem for the Republicans. Only 38% of respondents in the TIME poll now support President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, down from 42% three months ago. A similar number believe that the new Iraqi government will succeed in forming a stable democracy, while 59% believe this is unlikely. Almost two-thirds (65%) of respondents disapprove of President Bush's handling of the war, while 54% believe he "deliberately misled" Americans in making his case for war — a figure that has increased by 6 points over the past year. President Bush's overall approval rating, according to TIME's poll, now stands at just 36%, down from 38% in August.

[the_birds]

of course, they did their best to hide the severity of his disability.

They didn't KNOW he was a gimp. Not until his 3rd or 4th term. They would never be able to hide something like that today!

Just think, he had his paralysis and an affair, and Eleanor's been accused of being a dyke and having affairs too.

A totally modern presidency, I'd say. ;)

[slopechz]

It doesn't. Conservative now means religious. Conservative now describes social behavior. If the republicans can't get back to being the party of true conservatives then we need a new conservative party.
You hit the nail on the head.

[markalot]

Pelosi says she would drain GOP 'swamp'

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061006/ap_on_el_ge/pelosi_time_3

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

Franklin Roosevelt had his first hundred days. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours. Time enough, she says, to begin to "drain the swamp" after more than a decade of Republican rule.

As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats — in her fondest wish — win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history.

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds — "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.

"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work."

"We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few, she added.

Pelosi, 66, has been a leader of the House Democrats since 2002. But her political apprenticeship dates to childhood, when her father was mayor of Baltimore.

Now, her political base is about as liberal as it gets, San Francisco. It's a fact that Republicans love to emphasize to voters who might want to visit, but not feel comfortable living there.

Republicans find her an attractive political target, and recently said she would try to "cut-and-run" from Iraq while "launching bitter partisan investigations" of the Bush administration, possibly including impeachment hearings.

A grandmother five times over, Pelosi pops chocolates, shuns coffee and flashes her wit. Asked what offices should would occupy if in the Capitol if she becomes speaker, she laughed. "I'll have any suite I want."

She would, too.

"If the election were held today we'd be successful," Pelosi predicted, claiming that her party's prospects are expanding as the campaign enters its final month. "So many other races are emerging right now," she said.

At the same time, she said, "I have all the races I can afford," the only drawback to an improving political environment. She spends several hours a day raising money on the telephone, making the short trip from the Capitol to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's headquarters a few blocks away. So far, the DCCC tally sheet shows she's brought in $50 million for the party's candidates and committeres, more than anyone else.

Democrats must gain 15 seats to regain the majority they lost in 1994, and have candidates in competitive races for 30 or so Republican-held seats, according to strategists in both parties. By contrast, only about a handful of Democratic-controlled seats appear ripe for possible Republican takeover.

Democrats have a pamphlet that lists all their promises and have run through several slogans in the past year or so as they test campaign messages. In recent days, Pelosi said, their prospects have improved by the discovery that former Republican Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record) of Florida had sent sexually explicit computer messages to teenage male pages.

Not long before sitting down for a lunchtime interview, she turned down a suggestion from Speaker Dennis Hastert that they jointly appoint former FBI Director Louie Freeh to recommend improvements in the page program.

"That was about protecting their majority" rather than the pages, she said dismissively.

Instead, she wants to put Hastert and other Republicans under oath and make them say what they knew of Foley's actions, when they learned it and what they did to stop him.

The potential for political gain is clear to her.

"It's an opportunity for growth among women" for the Democrats, she said. "They don't always vote and this could be a motivation."

With married women, in particular, it's a huge issue, she added.

Among older voters, too.

"If there's an ethical issue, seniors take a hike" and abandon politicians they blame, she said.

"If we hold onto seniors we win the election."

[akip]

They didn't KNOW he was a gimp. Not until his 3rd or 4th term. They would never be able to hide something like that today!

Just think, he had his paralysis and an affair, and Eleanor's been accused of being a dyke and having affairs too.

A totally modern presidency, I'd say. ;)

yep. i couldn't remember the details, but i know that somehow roosevelt was able to keep his condition in the shadows for a long time. blows your mind how much things have changed.

[akip]

i think things will keep coming out that are unflattering to the repubs. they've had their uncontested run but the tide has shifted.

mainly, this is the classic consequence of one party having too much power and abusing it. it could be either party. same old song---a balance of power is better than a hegemon.

[weeone]

In France, I'm pretty sure you just get a mistress when you become president. Everyone's cool with it - like "OH ! That Mitterand... crazy old baby daddy ! Chirac ! You chaud lapin, you !! Go France !" No one gives a crap. In fact, I think it might even help the presidential image. I suppose virile men are looked upon more readily as powerful leaders than, say, a mentruating mother-of-four. I don't know - I'm just trying out the French perspective. Sorry - carry on.

[markalot]

GOP's Hold on Evangelicals Weakening
Party's Showing in Midterm Elections May Be Hurt as Polls Indicate Support Dropping in Base

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501763.html

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 6, 2006; A06

ANOKA, Minn. -- Lynn Sunde, an evangelical Christian, is considering what for her is a radical step. Come November, she may vote for a Democrat for Congress.

Sunde, 35, manages a coffee shop and attends a nondenominational Bible church. "You're never going to agree with one party on everything, so for me the key has always been the religion issues -- abortion, the marriage amendment" to ban same-sex unions, she said.

That means she consistently votes Republican. But, she said, she is starting to worry about the course of the Iraq war, and she finds the Internet messages from then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) to teenage boys "pretty sickening." When she goes into the voting booth this time, she said, "I'm going to think twice. . . . I'm not going to vote party line as much as to vote issues."

Even a small shift in the loyalty of conservative Christian voters such as Sunde could spell trouble for the GOP this fall. In 2004, white evangelical or born-again Christians made up a quarter of the electorate, and 78 percent of them voted Republican, according to exit polls. But some pollsters believe that evangelical support for the GOP peaked two years ago and that what has been called the "God gap" in politics is shrinking.

A nationwide poll of 1,500 registered voters released yesterday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that 57 percent of white evangelicals are inclined to vote for Republican congressional candidates in the midterm elections, a 21-point drop in support among this critical part of the GOP base.

Even before the Foley scandal, the portion of white evangelicals with a "favorable" impression of the Republican Party had fallen sharply this year, from 63 percent to 54 percent, according to Pew polls.

In the latest survey, taken in the last 10 days of September and the first four days of October, the percentage of evangelicals who think that Republicans govern "in a more honest and ethical way" than Democrats has plunged to 42 percent, from 55 percent at the start of the year.

Here in Minnesota's conservative 6th Congressional District, the loosening of the GOP's hold on religious voters is helping Patty Wetterling, an antiwar Democrat, run an unexpectedly close race against Republican state Sen. Michele M. Bachmann, who has made opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage her signature issues.

This week, Wetterling became the first Democrat in the country to air a television advertisement about the Foley scandal.

"It shocks the conscience. Congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman . . . ," the commercial said, adding that Wetterling is "demanding a criminal investigation and the immediate expulsion of any congressman involved in this crime and coverup."

Wetterling is best known as an advocate for missing children. Her 11-year-old son, Jacob, was abducted in 1989 and never found. The uproar over Foley's sexual correspondence with teenage employees of Congress has played into her political strength.

"This is something we all watched with churches years ago, where they didn't do anything. Congress has no excuse -- they know better," she said in a telephone interview.

The incumbent, Rep. Mark Kennedy (R), is vacating his seat to run for the Senate. The national GOP has spared no effort to bolster Bachmann. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, political strategist Karl Rove, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez all have been out to campaign for her.

Unlike some Republican candidates across the country, Bachmann is not running away from Bush. She says she is "thrilled" to be associated with him.

But the president's ratings have slipped even within his most loyal constituency. Since the start of his second term, Bush's favorability rating has dropped from 52 percent to 42 percent among all adults, and from 71 percent to 60 percent among white evangelical Protestants, according to Washington Post-ABC News polls.

"I think he's too set in his way to listen to what's really going on in Iraq," Sunde said. She noted that her rising concern about the war "possibly could" lead her to cross party lines and vote for Wetterling.

She is not alone in Anoka, Garrison Keillor's hometown and a place that, like the imaginary Lake Wobegon, defies stereotypes about religious conservatives.

"If you're pro-life and mad about the war, where do you go? That's the Bachmann-Wetterling race in a nutshell," said state Rep. Jim Abeler, 52, a Republican who represents part of the 6th district.

Jim Bernstein, 56, a Democrat who served as Minnesota's commerce commissioner under then-Gov. Jesse Ventura, agreed: "There are a lot of people here who say, 'I'm pro-life, but I'm also concerned about health care, about education, about jobs.' "

Across the country, many Democratic candidates are wooing religious voters by talking about their faith. Wetterling is not among them. Her campaign manager calls her "a very spiritual woman," but says: "We have her all over the district now, so much so that she's not able to attend church."

Bachmann, on the other hand, attends an evangelical megachurch and is known for her unsuccessful effort to put a state constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage on the November ballot. If same-sex marriage spreads, she has warned, "public schools would have to teach that homosexuality and same-sex marriages are normal, natural and that maybe children should try them."

Christopher P. Gilbert, a political scientist at Gustavus Adolphus College in central Minnesota, said there "haven't been a lot of candidates in Minnesota who closely associate themselves with the Christian right, but Bachmann has. She's the real deal when it comes to religion in politics."

Nationally, the Republicans' once formidable hold on churchgoing voters has begun to slip. Among those who say they attend church more than once a week, the GOP still holds a commanding lead. The main shift is among weekly churchgoers, about a quarter of all voters. Two years ago, they favored the GOP by a double-digit margin. But in the new Pew survey, 44 percent leaned toward Republicans and 43 percent toward Democrats, a statistical dead heat.

The slippage is particularly striking among evangelicals. According to Pew data, the portion of white evangelical Protestants who identify themselves as Republicans rose steadily from 2000 to 2004 but leveled off this year at about half. The percentage who support keeping troops in Iraq has dropped to 55 percent, from 68 percent in early September.

"The allegiance of evangelicals has been more in flux over the past 12 months, suggesting that the considerations going into their votes are changing," said Scott Keeter, Pew's director of survey research.

In addition to the war and congressional scandals, those considerations may include a broader definition of religious issues. Some influential ministers, such as the Rev. Rick Warren, author of the bestselling "The Purpose-Driven Life," are urging evangelicals to fight poverty, safeguard the environment and oppose torture on biblical grounds.

To the extent that evangelicals now view these issues as "matters of conscience" alongside abortion and same-sex marriage, they could shift some votes into the Democratic column, said Ron Sider, head of the group Evangelicals for Social Action.

Another factor in evangelicals' changing loyalties may be the efforts of Democrats to reach out to them. In Michigan, evangelical pastors helped write the preamble to the state party's new platform. "Democrats in this state are seeking the Common Good -- the best life for each person of this state. The orphan. The family. The sick. The healthy. The wealthy. The poor. The citizen. The stranger. The first. The last," it says.

But before Democrats take credit for the shift, they might ponder one of the findings in a recent survey of 2,500 voters by the Center for American Values, a project of the left-leaning People for the American Way Foundation: Republicans have lost more support (14 percentage points) than Democrats have picked up (4 points) among frequent churchgoers.

That rings true to Michael Cromartie, an expert on evangelicals at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a Washington think tank. "Erosion for evangelicals doesn't necessarily lead to Democratic voting. It leads to nonvoting," he said.

Republican strategists are hoping the drop will prove temporary.

"There is a dip in support for the GOP among religious conservatives, no question," said Leonard Leo, head of Catholic Outreach at the Republican National Committee.

"People of faith were disaffected over the summer, but I think they'll come back," he added. "It's like any other election season -- people get frustrated that they haven't achieved everything they want. But as you get close to the election, you begin to look at the alternatives and realize that staying home is going to make things worse rather than better."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[akip]

saw halperin and harris on charlie rose talking about their new book "the way to win." mandatory reading for anybody who's curious about who's likely to survive all the way.

too long to cut and paste. print er up.

the way to win - excerpt (http://i.abcnews.com/GMA/Books/story?id=2517449)

the focus of the book is how the bushes and clintons won (and the opposition lost) and how those strategies could play out in the next campaign.

anyway, both these guys think hillary could indeed win BECAUSE of the particular political climate we find ourselves in---they also think mccain would be the one who could beat her. in a nutshell, whoever wins HAS to be tough enough to weather the vicious personal character assassinations that's certain to come without crumbling and losing their sense of themselves like both gore and kerry did (no matter how exemplary they may indeed be in reality---because bio will NOT protect them). not only that, but whoever wins MUST have a coherent vision of what they want to do if they get elected that is consistent with what they run on, and that they are genuiinely committed to (also something that neither kerry nor gore had).

they think most of the dem candidates out there are pretty superficial in terms of core understanding of the issues, EXCEPT hillary, and voters will sense that.

[classicgrrl]

i think things will keep coming out that are unflattering to the repubs. they've had their uncontested run but the tide has shifted.

mainly, this is the classic consequence of one party having too much power and abusing it. it could be either party. same old song---a balance of power is better than a hegemon.


yeppers. I also think its the classic case of the pendulum swinging - I just wished it would stop swinging so WIDE and keep the middle a bit more.

[REMgirl]

yeppers. I also think its the classic case of the pendulum swinging - I just wished it would stop swinging so WIDE and keep the middle a bit more.

I agree, and the elections coming up could make that more possible. The problem with such a one-sided government is that the Repubs in total control saw no need to "reach across the aisle". They knew they could push any agenda they wanted and the Dems could do nothing about it, short of a filibuster, and that didn't work, either. So why should they even consider compromise?

What has to happen next is that if the Dems do manage to gain some seats and get the House back and even some Senate strength, then they have to prove they have a plan and start showing the country that they can do it better. Which should not be that difficult, considering how the Republicans have screwed the pooch. ;)

[classicgrrl]

I agree, and the elections coming up could make that more possible. The problem with such a one-sided government is that the Repubs in total control saw no need to "reach across the aisle". They knew they could push any agenda they wanted and the Dems could do nothing about it, short of a filibuster, and that didn't work, either. So why should they even consider compromise?

What has to happen next is that if the Dems do manage to gain some seats and get the House back and even some Senate strength, then they have to prove they have a plan and start showing the country that they can do it better. Which should not be that difficult, considering how the Republicans have screwed the pooch. ;)

see though, thats what I hate about our 2 party system. the Repubs SHOULD have wanted to reach across the isle because it is better for the country. the DEMS should want to work with the Repubs because it is better the for the country.

The parties seem to have lost the concept that they work for US -all of us not just special interests or corporate or anyone who can money them into running and winning.

This is not a sports contest.
:mad:

edited to add: even though they work for US - fixing health care and social security literally means some of us are going to get screwed or not get what we want - in order to truly FIX or get working anyway these problems means having the balls and guts to make unpopular decisions and stick with them.

there is no easy way to deal with health care, social security, the homeless, poverty, too many black in prison, what have you. we have to STOP looking for the easy way out and START seriously considering solutions that benefit the majority or else at a minimum work for the majority of Americans.
:mad: :mad: :mad:

I DON'T WANT A PRESIDENT AND I DON'T WANT A CONGRESS. I WANT (A) REAL LEADER(s) WITH REAL LEADERSHIP!!!
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[REMgirl]

Oh, I definitely agree that there has to be a fresh commencement of compromise. There has to be some sort of balance struck because it doesn't matter who holds the most power; the power inevitably goes to corruption. If the Dems do gain some seats, they will have to be the bigger party and make some advances to those Republicans who are willing to work with them.

Too bad we can't flush 'em all out and start fresh. :p

[CablinasianRam]

I guess the good news out of the artice is that they won't influence the vote as much in years past. The bad news is, there are still plenty of those crazy whackos around . . .

[akip]

I guess the good news out of the artice is that they won't influence the vote as much in years past. The bad news is, there are still plenty of those crazy whackos around . . .

it's going to be interesting to see how much mccain does or doesn't play to the religious extreme---whether he decides to play to independents who like his maverick side, or suck up to his former enemies.

halperin was saying that a candidate can no longer paint him/herself as more ideologically biased for the primaries, then run as a moderate in the general election. he says that the internet's ability to expose those hypocrisies has changed the dynamic.

[CablinasianRam]

McCain's already played to them by speaking at Liberty (to hate) University. He's going to do whatever he can to make sure the age issue doesn't come up and he'll hedge his bets with whatever girl brings him. I honestly think the nomination is Mitt Romney's to lose. He'll be even more elevated if the Dems take back Congress, since he's had to work with an opposition legislative branch in Massachusetts.


For the Democrats, it's a crapshoot. I love Mark Warner's resume, but he has what I like to call 'Nixon Face'. For another example: see Arlen Specter. Other than him, Gore probably has the best chance and he's already been vetted. I'll be waiting until 2012 until Schweitzer or Obama runs: those guys are incredible.

[akip]

For the Democrats, it's a crapshoot. I love Mark Warner's resume, but he has what I like to call 'Nixon Face'. For another example: see Arlen Specter. Other than him, Gore probably has the best chance and he's already been vetted. I'll be waiting until 2012 until Schweitzer or Obama runs: those guys are incredible.

halperin and harris were talking about obama on charlie rose. maybe a good pick for vp.

they interviewed both rove and bill c. extensively for their book. bill clinton says that one of the first commandments of running is to pick the right time. obama's terribly young and green yet. hope he'll wait.

the thing that halperin kept hammering on was, nobody out there on the democratic slate really has a deep understanding of the issues and where they stand---they only have talking points from their campaign staff. except hillary. so if they're serious, they'd better dig in hard.

[grumpybumpas]

A vote against everty incumbant in every election would give us term limitations in spite of our polititions if not because of them.

(Power to the people thrue the balot.)

[DaHood]

Vote them all out, no matter what party is running against... Every time until they get the message that they serve us.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Jumbo Shrimp doesn't like career politicians!!! Term limits should be enforced!!! Damn them damn them damn them!!!

[seafoamgreen]

Me, i like career politicians. I think they're pretty cool.

Oh, and i see know sense in kicking people out once they've been there long enough to know how to actually get things done. Term limits aren't the issue, selective redistricting/gerrymandering and campaign contiributions are the problem.

Term limits are like cutting off your finger instead of getting stitches.

[classicgrrl]

Me, i like career politicians. I think they're pretty cool.

Oh, and i see know sense in kicking people out once they've been there long enough to know how to actually get things done. Term limits aren't the issue, selective redistricting/gerrymandering and campaign contiributions are the problem.

Term limits are like cutting off your finger instead of getting stitches.

to a certain extent I agree with this. I think the whole damn rotten thing could be cured with campaigne finance reform but congress has already tip toed down that yellow brick road and look how seriously they took the idea.
:rolleyes:

[akip]

HA! charlie rose is upgrading his website so you can watch entire archived shows on google video (instead of the shitty real player version he used to have, before he got rid of that altogether)! if you're interested, you can watch last week's interview with mark halperin and john harris about their book on campaign strategy "the way to win."

scroll down to halperin's screen (middle of the home page) and click on play.

charlie rose - "the way to win" (http://www.charlierose.com/)

in a couple days, it'll get bumped to the archive. you'll just click on "watch charlie rose on google video" on the right bar to access the archive. btw, the full-hour interview with bob woodward is there.

[purple_octopus]

yeppers. I also think its the classic case of the pendulum swinging - I just wished it would stop swinging so WIDE and keep the middle a bit more.
I just wish the pendulum would swing so damn hard that the whole thing breaks.

[markalot]

I just wish the pendulum would swing so damn hard that the whole thing breaks.

That's happened before and I suspect it will happen again. The system doesn't break but a party is replaced.

[markalot]

GOP Officials Brace for Loss Of Seven to 30 House Seats

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100901218.html

By Jim VandeHei and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 10, 2006; A01

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/10/10/GR2006101000046.gif

Republican campaign officials said yesterday that they expect to lose at least seven House seats and as many as 30 in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, as a result of sustained violence in Iraq and the page scandal involving former GOP representative Mark Foley.

Democrats need to pick up 15 seats in the election to take back control of the House after more than a decade of GOP leadership. Two weeks of virtually nonstop controversy over President Bush's war policy and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's handling of the page scandal have forced party leaders to recalculate their vulnerability and placed a growing number of Republican incumbents and open seats at much greater risk.

GOP officials are urging lawmakers to focus exclusively on local issues and leave it to party leaders to mitigate the Foley controversy by accusing Democrats of trying to politicize it. At the same time, the White House plans to amplify national security issues, especially the threat of terrorism, after North Korea's reported nuclear test, in hopes of shifting the debate away from casualties and controversy during the final month of the campaign. These efforts are aimed largely at prodding disaffected conservatives to vote for GOP candidates despite their unease.

Still, GOP leaders privately said that Democrats are edging much closer to locking down a majority of House seats because a small but significant number of conservatives are frustrated with Republican governance, while independent swing voters are turning against GOP candidates.

"If you are a Democrat, you have to like the atmosphere," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), a top campaign strategist for the GOP. Davis said Republicans could lose as many as 30 seats if conditions worsen.

With four weeks left in the campaign, GOP strategists, speaking on background, have begun to outline a highly gloomy view of the House election for their party.

They are all but writing off GOP open seats in Arizona, Colorado, Texas and Florida (the one previously held by Foley). Party officials said that three GOP incumbents in Indiana are trailing in private polling and that seats thought safe suddenly appear imperiled. These include the open Florida seat vacated by Rep. Katherine Harris, who is running for senator. "It is unquestionably closer than we would like," said Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.).

In a sign that the political environment is getting worse for Republicans, political handicapper Charlie Cook now lists 25 GOP-held seats as a tossup -- seven more than before the Foley scandal broke Sept. 29. Stuart Rothenberg, a nonpartisan expert on House races, has raised to nine the number of GOP seats tilting Democratic or likely to switch hands.

Unlike in most elections, when both parties defend several seats, Democrats are favored to win every seat they now occupy and are spending money to defend only a few. As a result, Democrats are not as vulnerable to the GOP's campaign finance advantage in the final weeks as they have been in past campaigns.

A Democratic takeover of the House is not a foregone conclusion, however. Because of congressional redistricting plans that gave huge advantages to incumbents, fewer than 50 of the 435 House seats are competitive. Democrats said internal polls show that the fallout from the Foley scandal is confined to half a dozen races. Moreover, House elections are traditionally shaped by local issues and personalities, and the closest races come down to which party can turn out its most loyal voters.

The page scandal erupted two weeks ago when Foley abruptly resigned after being confronted by ABC News with sexually explicit messages that he exchanged with a former page on the Internet. Investigations by the Justice Department, the House ethics committee and Florida authorities have ensued.

The GOP's emerging strategy on the Foley scandal is to try to limit losses among conservative voters who are expressing alarm about the scandal and about the apparent failure of GOP leaders to act on early warnings about Foley's behavior.

As part of that strategy, the Republican National Committee is seeking to convince conservatives that the debate is fundamentally centered on politics, not values. The RNC is shipping reams of information to conservative radio hosts, television commentators and bloggers. Those GOP talking points detail the Democratic connections of groups including the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and American Family Voices, which are working to turn the scandal into an issue with national implications.

The NRCC is highlighting Democratic leaders who supported former representative Gerry E. Studds (Mass.), who was censured by the House in 1983 after admitting to sexual contact with a male page a decade earlier; Studds went on to serve in Congress until 1997. "It is important to contrast how Republican leadership is handling the situation with problems with one of its own, and how Democrats did," said former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie, a close White House ally.

Still, the "Foley factor" has made GOP strategists nervous. Several officials said it has dramatically undermined the reelection prospects of several incumbents, including Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (N.Y.), who was criticized by Democrats for not doing enough to stop Foley's advances on young male pages after learning about them this spring.

Several interest groups with Democratic ties are seeking to take advantage of Reynolds's newfound vulnerability. Majority Action, a group designed to help Democrats retake control of the House, is sponsoring a radio ad in which a narrator says: "Another scandal in Washington, and our Congressman Tom Reynolds is right in the middle." Two public polls show Reynolds trailing his Democratic challenger, Jack Davis, in a race neither side considered very competitive a few weeks ago.

Rep. Deborah Pryce (Ohio), the fourth-ranking GOP leader, is facing the toughest reelection race of her career. She has said she had no prior knowledge of Foley's behavior but has faced criticism for telling a reporter that the former congressman was one of her closest friends in Congress.

"I don't think this is personally sticking to Deborah Pryce, but it is certainly having people have a more jaundiced view of Washington, which is not good for Republicans," said George Rasley, Pryce's spokesman. Pryce had a slight lead over Mary Jo Kilroy in her internal polling before the Foley scandal, an aide said, but Republicans expect Pryce to suffer as much as any incumbent for the renewed scrutiny of congressional ethics.

Scandals are hurting Republicans elsewhere in Ohio, where charges of corruption have rocked the GOP at the local and state levels for the past two years. In the open seat vacated by indicted GOP Rep. Robert W. Ney, Joy Padgett is struggling to lock down a reliably GOP seat east of Columbus, the state capital. Polls show Democrat Zach Space, a liberal critic of the war, on top and GOP strategists agree Padgett is behind.

"It is definitely a challenge to overcome," says Padgett spokesman Morgan Ortagus. "Voters are definitely in a throw-the-bums-out mood."

Space is calling for Hastert's resignation and is asking Padgett to do the same. Padgett canceled a fundraiser with Hastert last week.

In other races where Republican incumbents have been dogged by scandal, Democrats are pushing the Foley story hard.

Former representative Nick Lampson (D-Tex.) is asking Houston City Council member Shelley Sekula-Gibbs (R) to call for the resignation of any member of the House leadership who knew about the e-mails and instant messages exchanged between Foley and former congressional pages. The two candidates are competing for the seat from the 22nd Congressional District, left vacant by the departure of former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R), who is under indictment in Texas.

Elsewhere, the political debate is returning to traditional disputes over the war, taxes and health care, according to Democrats and Republicans. The Foley story "is getting a lot of attention now, but I don't think it will have the legs to last four weeks," said Ron Carey, chairman of the Minnesota Republican Party.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[Patas]

I once again get the pleasure of voting in Florida.

JIM DAVIS for GOV!!!

[markalot]

Poll Shows Strong Shift Of Support to Democrats

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100900868.html

poll graphic and link to full results at the end of this post

By David S. Broder and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 10, 2006; A01

Democrats have regained a commanding position going into the final weeks of the midterm-election campaigns, with support eroding for Republicans on Iraq, ethics and presidential leadership, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Apparent Republican gains in September have been reversed in the face of mounting U.S. casualties and gloomy forecasts from Iraq and the scandal involving Mark Foley (R-Fla.), who was forced to resign his congressional post over sexually graphic online conversations with former House pages.

Approval of Congress has plunged to its lowest level in more than a decade (32 percent), and Americans, by a margin of 54 percent to 35 percent, say they trust Democrats more than Republicans to deal with the biggest problems the nation is confronting. Fifty-five percent of those surveyed said congressional Democrats deserve to be reelected next month, but just 39 percent said Republicans deserve to return to office.

The poll measures broad public attitudes and cannot be translated into individual House districts, but it sketches an environment that is the most difficult the Republicans have faced since taking control of Congress in the 1994 elections. By a margin of 54 percent to 41 percent, registered voters said they plan to vote for the Democrat over the Republican in congressional elections next month.

Since Congress adjourned 10 days ago, Republicans have been swamped by bad news, particularly from Iraq. The Foley scandal, while not a dominant voting issue for many, nonetheless has contributed to dissatisfaction with the majority party's performance, the survey found.

President Bush's approval rating, which rose to 42 percent in September after an anti-terrorism offensive marking the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, registered 39 percent in the latest poll. The percentage of respondents who said they strongly disapprove of his performance is about double the number who strongly approve. This disparity in voter intensity could have implications for turnout on Nov. 7, since impassioned voters are most likely to go to the polls.

The president's approval rating reached a low of 33 percent in May, but he has since regained support from Republicans who had expressed unhappiness with his performance. In the current poll, 82 percent of Republicans said they approve of how he is handling his job, compared with 68 percent in May.

Democrats and independents are almost as negative in their appraisals of the president now as they were five months ago.

Bush's ratings on the war in Iraq are among the lowest of his presidency, with 35 percent approving of how he is handling the situation and 64 percent disapproving (54 percent strongly disapprove). On terrorism, a majority (53 percent) said they disapprove of his performance. That is the lowest rating Bush has received on his signature issue.

Asked whether the war in Iraq has been worth fighting, 63 percent said no, the highest recorded during Bush's presidency. Fifty-one percent agreed with Bush's argument that Iraq is a front in the global campaign against terrorism, the lowest of his presidency. Fifty percent of those surveyed said that the country is safer today than it was before Sept. 11, 2001, but 42 percent, a new high, said the nation is now less safe.

Still, there is no significant support for withdrawing U.S. forces immediately. Half of those surveyed -- about the same percentage it has been throughout the year -- said they would like to see troop levels decrease. Despite the high number of casualties, only a fifth said they supported immediate withdrawal.

With the decline in gasoline prices, Americans are somewhat more positive about the economy, with 47 percent describing it as good or excellent -- the highest since July 2001 -- and 53 percent saying it is not so good or poor. Forty-one percent approve of how Bush has handled economic issues, about the same percentage as in August.

Bush's performance remains a potentially significant factor in the midterm elections, with 35 percent of those surveyed saying they will use their congressional votes to express opposition to the president, a new high on that question, and about twice the number who said they will use their votes to show support for him.

The Post-ABC News poll is based on interviews with 1,204 adults and was conducted Oct. 5-8. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

The Foley scandal has remained a key news item over the past 10 days and the poll shows that Americans are reading and watching. Seven in 10 said they are following the story "very" or "somewhat" closely. But only about two in 10 said the issue will be very important in their votes next month.

The political fallout is mixed. Almost two-thirds said Republican leaders tried to cover up the scandal, but about the same percentage said they think Democratic leaders would have done the same. More than three in five said Democrats are criticizing Republican leaders for political advantage. Voters are evenly split over whether House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) should step down from his post.

There is broad dissatisfaction among voters this fall, with one-third saying the country is heading in the right direction. Similarly, Congress has proved to be a disappointment to most Americans, with two in three saying they disapprove of its performance, the highest number in a Post-ABC News poll since November 1995.

As bad as these findings are, they are not as bad as they were in the months before Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994. Congressional approval hit 18 percent in October of that year.

On another measure, 60 percent of those surveyed in the new poll said they approve of the performance of their own House member. That compares with 49 percent in an October 1994 poll.

The new poll suggests that there are few issues on which Republicans can hope to appeal to voters in the next four weeks. When respondents were asked which party they trust to handle various issues, Democrats led on every subject, by 33 percentage points on health care, 19 points for ethics, 17 points for the economy, 13 points each for Iraq and immigration.

Even on terrorism, which Republicans hoped to turn into a powerful issue this fall, Democrats led in trustworthiness by six percentage points, reversing a seven-point deficit in September.

There are also modest signs that Democrats have improved their posture among voters. For the first time, a narrow majority, 52 percent, said Democrats are offering the country a clear alternative direction to Bush and Republicans. While Americans are split on the performance of congressional Democrats -- 48 percent approve, 50 percent disapprove -- they are overwhelmingly negative about GOP performance, with 63 percent disapproving and 35 percent approving.

Republicans are closely monitoring Christian conservatives for signs of disaffection that might contribute to lower voter turnout next month. The Post-ABC poll shows that they are not as strong in their support for Republican House candidates as they were in 2004, but it is unclear whether that is related to the Foley scandal. Forty-eight percent of white evangelical Christians said that House GOP leaders took the proper steps in responding to Foley's actions, compared with 60 percent of all conservative Republicans.

Robert Nelson, a machinist from Laurens, S.C., said the Iraq war is one of the issues that have turned him against the Republican Party. "I guess you could said I'm a Reaganite," he said. "Ronald Reagan got me interested in the Republican Party and I pretty much voted the party line." He did not support Bush two years ago, he said, and now thinks the country would be better off with Democrats in control of Congress. "The Republican Party has lost track, gone off in their own direction," he said.

Francis Jacobs, a computer tutor and technician from Grand Ledge, Mich., said he thinks Hastert should resign as speaker because "he knew more" about what was going on with Foley. Jacobs thinks that both parties "are having a field day" with the scandal but is highly critical of the Republican-controlled Congress.

"The question is, what have they accomplished?" he said. "They've accomplished nothing."

In the Post-ABC News poll, 71 percent agreed that Congress did little or nothing this year.

Polling director Jon Cohen contributed to this report.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Full poll results: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_100906.htm


http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/10/10/GR2006101000047.gif

[akip]

now let's see if the dems fumble it.

[seafoamgreen]

now let's see if the dems fumble it.

i hear they are concocting strategies as we speak.

[markalot]

Bush's Downward Slide

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, October 10, 2006; 1:18 PM

President Bush's approval ratings appear to be dropping to their lowest levels ever -- and this time, to the enormous apprehension of the White House, there's something voters can do about it.

Officially, the White House refuses to even consider the possibility of a Democratic takeover of Congress in the November 7 elections. (As Ken Herman writes for Cox News Service, "It's a question the White House has banished to the won't-dignify-it-with-an-answer category.")

Maybe that's because it's hard for anyone -- Bush fan or foe -- to imagine how different a Bush presidency would be with a Congress that doesn't bend to his will and maybe even starts to question him.

And while it's too soon to count Karl Rove and the White House political machine out, it's going to be awfully hard for Bush to come to the rescue of his party when his lack of credibility is the cause of so many of its problems.
Poll Watch

Underlying grim news at the polls for Republicans generally is a dismal report card for the president in particular. Bush approval ratings in a nutshell: Washington Post/ABC, 39; Newsweek, 33; New York Times/CBS, 34; USA Today/Gallup, 37.

David S. Broder and Dan Balz write in The Washington Post: "Democrats have regained a commanding position going into the final weeks of the midterm-election campaigns, with support eroding for Republicans on Iraq, ethics and presidential leadership, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll. . . .

"President Bush's approval rating, which rose to 42 percent in September after an anti-terrorism offensive marking the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, registered 39 percent in the latest poll. The percentage of respondents who said they strongly disapprove of his performance is about double the number who strongly approve. This disparity in voter intensity could have implications for turnout on Nov. 7, since impassioned voters are most likely to go to the polls. . . .

"Bush's ratings on the war in Iraq are among the lowest of his presidency, with 35 percent approving of how he is handling the situation and 64 percent disapproving (54 percent strongly disapprove). On terrorism, a majority (53 percent) said they disapprove of his performance. That is the lowest rating Bush has received on his signature issue."

Here are those poll results .

Marcus Mabry writes for Newsweek that "the president's approval rating has fallen to a new all-time low for the Newsweek poll: 33 percent, down from an already anemic 36 percent in August."

There seems to be little doubt that the congressional page-sex scandal revolving around former Republican representative Mark Foley has crystallized voters' doubts about the GOP overall.

Writes Mabry: "The scandal's more significant impact seems to be a widening of the yawning credibility gap developing between the president, his party and the nation. While 52 percent of Americans believe [House Speaker Dennis] Hastert was aware of Foley's actions and tried to cover them up, it's part of a larger loss of faith in Republican leadership, thanks mostly to the war in Iraq. For instance, for the first time in the Newsweek poll, a majority of Americans now believe the Bush administration knowingly misled the American people in building its case for war against Saddam Hussein: 58 percent vs. 36 percent who believe it didn't.

"And pessimism over Iraq is at record highs on every score: nearly two in three Americans, 64 percent, believe the United States is losing ground there; 66 percent say the war has not made America safer from terrorism (just 29 percent believe it has); and 53 percent believe it was a mistake to go to war at all, again the first time the Newsweek poll has registered a majority in that camp."

Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder write in the New York Times: "Mr. Bush's job approval rating has slipped to 34 percent, from 37 percent in September. That is one of the lowest levels of his presidency and poses a complication for the White House as it seeks to send him out on the road to rally base voters. Mr. Bush's job-approval rating has even slipped with his base: 75 percent of conservative Republicans approve of the way he has handled his job, compared with 96 percent in November 2004.

"The president clearly faces constraints as he seeks to address the public concerns about Iraq that have shrouded this midterm election: 83 percent of respondents thought that Mr. Bush was either hiding something or mostly lying when he discussed how the war in Iraq was going. . . .

"The number of Americans who approve of Mr. Bush's handling of the campaign against terrorism dropped to 46 percent from 54 percent in the past two weeks, suggesting that he failed to gain any political lift from an orchestrated set of ceremonies marking the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks."

Here are those results .

Joseph Carroll writes for the Gallup Poll: "A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds that 37% of Americans approve of the way President George W. Bush is handling his job as president. This marks a seven-point drop from Gallup's most recent poll in mid-September, but is generally in line with Bush's average approval rating since June. The current poll also finds a decline in Bush's rating on Iraq, now at a new low, and terrorism, but little change in his ratings on the economy. . . .

"Seventy-seven percent of Republicans approve of Bush, compared with 31% of independents and 12% of Democrats. Bush's current approval ratings among Democrats and independents show little variation in recent months, but Republicans' ratings of Bush dropped nine points since mid-September and are at their lowest level since June."
Abandon Ship -- Just Not Yet?

Jake Tapper blogged for ABC News on Friday: "Now today comes word from Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, that two other Senate Republicans have told him they'll break with the White House Iraq strategy.

"But here's the hook -- they won't do so until after the November elections.

"'Two leading Republican Senators have come to me,' Biden recalled, and said that after the election 'the need to protect the president will be nonexistent' and Republicans will be freer to break with the White House and call for change in Iraq."
Rove's Top Aide Resigns

A massive ethics scandal that has spawned criminal prosecutions on Capitol Hill and on K Street claims its first victim deep in the heart of the White House.

You'd think that would be more than a one-day story, wouldn't you?

But you would be wrong.

There's a reason this White House, like the one before it, dumps bad news late on Friday afternoons. It rarely fails to rob the stories of traction.

Add to the mix the fact that the Foley scandal has been a heck of a distraction, and the result is that a lot of people haven't heard anything at all about an awfully consequential event.

Peter Baker and James V. Grimaldi wrote in Saturday's Washington Post: "A top aide to White House strategist Karl Rove resigned yesterday after disclosures that she accepted gifts from and passed information to now-convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, becoming the first official in the West Wing to lose a job in the influence-peddling scandal.

"Susan B. Ralston submitted her resignation to avoid causing political damage to President Bush a month before the midterm elections, officials said. 'She did not want to be a distraction to the White House at this important time,' said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

"A congressional report showed last week that Ralston accepted sometimes-pricey tickets to nine sports and entertainment events from Abramoff while she provided him with inside White House information. The bipartisan report said there is no evidence that Rove knew of or approved of Ralston's actions, and sources said yesterday that the White House was surprised by the report's revelations.

"The White House counsel's office conducted a review of the report, but with Ralston's departure it closed its inquiry yesterday. 'Nothing more will come from the report, no further fallout from the report,' Perino said."

In other words: Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

Peter Wallsten wrote in Saturday's Los Angeles Times: "Susan Ralston had worked as Rove's executive assistant, functioning as a gatekeeper of sorts for President Bush's most trusted political advisor. She was an aide to Abramoff before she joined the White House and became what the lobbyist called his 'implant' there.

"As Rove's top staffer and a special assistant to the president, Ralston becomes the closest aide to Bush to leave in a scandal that has so far enveloped lobbyists, lawmakers, Capitol Hill aides and an administration procurement official while, until now, sparing the inner sanctum of the White House."

Anne E. Kornblut wrote in Saturday's New York Times: "For more than a year, Ms. Ralston was entangled in two Washington scandals at once. A nexus between Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Rove, she was also pivotal in the C.I.A. leak case. It was Ms. Ralston who patched through a telephone call from a Time magazine reporter to Mr. Rove, a conversation that cast a suspicion on the White House strategist. Ms. Ralston testified to a grand jury on the leak and was interviewed by prosecutors in the Abramoff case. . . .

"On Friday, Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, which issued the report, accused White House officials of 'trying to make Susan Ralston the scapegoat.'"

...

[markalot]

Meet Susan Ralston

Baker and Grimaldi write in The Post: "As right hand to the president's most important adviser, Ralston was closer to the center of the Bush operation. She was a key organizer of presidential events, coordinating with White House political, scheduling, advance and public liaison offices."

For the first four years of Bush's term, Ralston had the relatively lowly title of executive assistant to Rove. But after the election, and Rove's own short-lived promotion to deputy chief of staff for policy, she was given the much loftier title of "special assistant to the president and assistant to the senior adviser." Her salary shot up from $67,600 in 2004 , to $92,100 in 2005 , to $122,000 in 2006 . Her latest perch at the White House was just steps away from the Oval Office. (See my White House floor plan .)

Peter H. Stone wrote in the National Journal in 2004: "As presidential adviser Karl Rove set up shop in the West Wing in 2001, he was looking for an assistant to serve as the trusted gatekeeper of his new fiefdom. Superlobbyist and Republican fundraiser Jack Abramoff was happy to lend a hand. Abramoff knew just the right person for the job: his own assistant, Susan Ralston. She interviewed with Rove and got the position."

Ralston told Filipinas magazine in 2004: "Working for Karl Rove is like being at the center of the Bush universe -- I am fortunate to be where I am, and be involved in much of what goes on at the White House."

Anne E. Kornblut wrote in the New York Times a year ago: "At the nexus of two high-profile investigations roiling the nation's capital is an unlikely -- and largely anonymous -- figure known for fiercely safeguarding her bosses.

"Susan B. Ralston, 38, has worked as an assistant and side-by-side adviser to Karl Rove since 2001, helping manage his e-mail, meetings and phone calls from her perch near his office in the West Wing. That has made her an important witness in the C.I.A. leak investigation, as the special prosecutor has sought to determine whether Mr. Rove misled investigators about his contacts with reporters about Valerie Wilson, the undercover operative whose identity was made public in 2003."

Kornblut wrote that Ralston functioned "as Mr. Rove's own chief of staff, coordinating the five groups within the West Wing that he oversees."
Opinion Watch

From a Washington Post editorial : "You might think a White House worried about honor and integrity would want to look more closely at Mr. Abramoff's dealings. You might think it would be concerned about whether Ms. Ralston violated the rules that prohibit administration officials from taking gifts valued at more than $20, though there is an exception for gifts based on preexisting friendships. You might think it would want to make clear that -- whether technically permitted by the rules or not -- this is unacceptable behavior from government officials.

"Not this White House."

From a New York Times editorial : "The White House spin is that Mr. Abramoff had a well-known affinity for exaggerating the impact of his lobbying efforts. If so, full disclosure of relevant records by the White House could help support that claim. Meanwhile, the idea that Mr. Abramoff exerted no influence with the administration seems about as believable as Mark Foley's early claim that his only interest in 16-year-old pages was 'mentoring.'"

From a St. Petersburg Times editorial : "The more the Bush administration denies any past relationship with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the hotter the trail gets to the Oval Office. Abramoff's fingerprints have now been found in the White House. . . .

"It may not be so easy to keep distancing President Bush from Abramoff. . . . Only a full investigation of Abramoff's connections to the White House can close this case."

Dale McFeatters writes for Scripps Howard News Service: "The White House finally caught a break on scandals. Thanks to the uproar over former GOP Rep. Mark Foley's steamy e-mails, the departure of a top aide to White House political guru Karl Rove passed, as planned, almost unnoticed."
North Korea's Bomb

Michael Abramowitz and Colum Lynch write in The Washington Post: "The White House pushed yesterday for aggressive new sanctions on North Korea, including measures to limit trade in military and luxury items, as Pyongyang's claim that it conducted an underground nuclear test defied the administration's efforts to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction."

Warren Hoge and Sheryl Gay Stolberg write in the New York Times: "At the White House, President Bush called the North Korean test 'a threat to international peace and security' and condemned it as a 'provocative act.' . . .

"Mr. Bush also issued a pointed, albeit carefully worded, warning to the North not to export any nuclear technology it might have."

Here's the text of Bush's statement.

Craig Gordon writes for Newsday: "President George W. Bush called for a swift global response to North Korea's purported nuclear test yesterday, but Bush's options are limited at best and unthinkable at worst, analysts said."
The Bush Legacy

Gideon Rachman writes in the Financial Times: "'The United States of America will not allow the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most dangerous weapons.' That ringing proclamation by President George W. Bush lies at the heart of the 'Bush doctrine,' which took America to war in Iraq.It was made in the president's 2002 State of the Union address -- the same speech in which he introduced the world to an 'axis of evil' of three countries: Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

"Almost five years on and the North Koreans' apparently successful test of a nuclear weapon has delivered what may be a final blow to the Bush doctrine."

Glenn Kessler and Peter Baker write in The Washington Post: "Nearly five years after President Bush introduced the concept of an 'axis of evil' comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the administration has reached a crisis point with each nation: North Korea has claimed it conducted its first nuclear test, Iran refuses to halt its uranium-enrichment program and Iraq appears to be tipping into a civil war 3 1/2 years after the U.S.-led invasion.

"Each problem appears to feed on the others, making the stakes higher and requiring Bush and his advisers to make difficult calculations, analysts and U.S. officials said."

Glenn Kessler wrote in The Washington Post on Monday: "North Korea's apparent nuclear test last night may well be regarded as a failure of the Bush administration's nuclear nonproliferation policy.

"Since George W. Bush became president, North Korea has restarted its nuclear reactor and increased its stock of weapons-grade plutonium, so it may now have enough for 10 or 11 weapons, compared with one or two when Bush took office.

"North Korea's test could also unleash a nuclear arms race in Asia, with Japan and South Korea feeling pressure to build nuclear weapons for defensive reasons.

"Yet a number of senior U.S. officials have said privately that they would welcome a North Korean test, regarding it as a clarifying event that would forever end the debate within the Bush administration about whether to solve the problem through diplomacy or through tough actions designed to destabilize North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's grip on power."

What About Talking?

...

[markalot]

Barbara Demick writes in the Los Angeles Times: "So what went wrong? . . .

"[A]s North Korea plowed ahead with its nuclear program, the Bush administration refused to meet directly with its adversary. Instead, it insisted on a rather clunky diplomatic initiative known as the six-party talks. . . .

"Donald Gregg, a U.S. ambassador to South Korea under Bush's father and now head of the New York-based Korea Society, said the crisis could have been averted if the current Bush administration had talked to the North Koreans directly. He visited Pyongyang in late 2002 and brought back a written offer from the North Koreans to negotiate one-on-one."

Gregg himself writes for the PostGlobal blog: "Why won't the Bush administration talk bilaterally and substantively with NK, as the Brits (and eventually the U.S.) did with Libya? Because the Bush administration sees diplomacy as something to be engaged in with another country as a reward for that country's good behavior. They seem not to see diplomacy as a tool to be used with antagonistic countries or parties, that might bring about an improvement in the behaviour of such entities, and a resolution to the issues that trouble us. Thus we do not talk to Iran, Syria, Hizballah or North Korea. We only talk to our friends -- a huge mistake."

Joseph Cirincione writes for Salon that "despite some internal dissent, hard-liners in the administration have controlled the U.S. approach to North Korea since Bush took office. That approach has brimmed with tough talk and threats, while scorning diplomacy as a badge of weakness. The White House refuses to negotiate directly with North Korea -- but it has no viable plan, military or otherwise, for stopping further tests. North Korea's provocative move is the latest evidence that Bush's strategy for preventing the global spread of nuclear weapons has failed."
The White House View

Writing in Time, Mike Allen presents the White House press office's stance: "If Kim Jong-Il thought he was could take advantage of a president who was down politically, he may be in for a surprise. Osama bin Laden's electronic appearance in the closing week of the 2004 campaign didn't do much for John Kerry either. Republicans, while taking care to express appropriate concern about the possibility of an Asian arms race, said they were relieved to see Bush back in the bully pulpit, wearing his commander-in-chief hat and leading the world in pushing for punitive action by the U.N. Security Council. 'Once again North Korea has defied the will of the international community, and the international community will respond,' Bush said this morning in the Diplomatic Reception Room, where a row of books added gravity. 'This was confirmed this morning in conversations I had with leaders of China, and South Korea, Russia, and Japan.'"

Stop for a moment, though, and consider two unsupported assumptions in those first two sentences: That Kim Jong-Il is rooting for Democrats in November, and that bin Laden was, too.

That may be what the White House would like you to believe, but without any substantiation -- and as regards the latter point, considerable evidence to the contrary. As Ron Suskind wrote in his book, "The One Percent Doctrine," CIA analysts quickly concluded that the bin Laden video was designed to help Bush get reelected -- as Bush's policies were strengthening his position.

Woodward Watch

Sarah Wheaton blogs for the New York Times: "The White House pushback on the Bob Woodward book 'State of Denial' is operating in a bizarro public relations universe where the press staff trumpets the administration's worst data to the media.

"The latest blast comes in response to the Washington Post reporter's appearance on NBC's ' Meet the Press ' with Tim Russert Sunday."

It came in the form of another of the White House's

" Setting the Record Straight " memos.

Cheney's Barnyard Epithet

On that same " Meet the Press ," Woodward had this exchange with Russert:

"MR. RUSSERT: Have you spoken to the president or the vice president since this book came out?

"MR. WOODWARD: The vice president called me I guess as it was coming out, 10 days ago.

"MR. RUSSERT: And?

"MR. WOODWARD: Well, he called to complain that I was quoting him about the meetings with Henry Kissinger that he and the president had. I had interviewed Vice President Cheney last year a couple of times at length about material I'm gathering on the Ford administration, on-the-record interviews, but he volunteered, he said, 'Oh, by the way, Henry Kissinger comes in' and he, Dick Cheney, sits down with him once a month and the president every two or three months. And Cheney was upset I was quoting him. And I said, 'Look, this 'on-the-record' doesn't have anything to do with Ford, you volunteered that.' He then used a word which I can't repeat on the air. And I said, 'Look, on the record is on the record,' and he hung up on me.

"MR. RUSSERT: What, what do you mean, he swore at you?

"MR. WOODWARD: He, he said what I was saying was bull-something."

Russert tried to change the subject, but Woodward was on a roll.

"MR. WOODWARD: No, but he, but he hung up. Now, look, I can, I can see, I went back and looked at the transcript. . . . [Have you] ever had a disagreement about ground rules with someone. Have you?

"MR. RUSSERT: Well, he thought he was talking, he thought he was talking to you for one project and you used it in another project.

"MR. WOODWARD: Well, exactly. But it had nothing to do with it, and it's clearly spelled out that it's an on-the-record interview. And so -- now, what does he do instead of saying, 'Well, okay, I look at it this way, you look at it that way'? It's a metaphor for what's going on: Hang up when somebody has a different point of view or information you don't want to deal with."

Blackened Mood?

Thomas M. DeFrank writes in the New York Daily News: "Suddenly, like the fierce 'blue northers' that sweep across Texas each autumn, the political winds have turned bleaker for Republicans -- and President Bush's private mood has blackened accordingly. . . .

"'He's on scent and he's driving hard,' a longtime political confidant of the president reported early this month. 'He's got the microphone and thinks he's controlling the political debate.' . . .

"Now, however, friends, aides and close political allies tell the Daily News Bush is furious with his own side for helping create a political downdraft that has blunted his momentum and endangered GOP prospects for keeping control of Congress next month.

"Some of his anger is directed at former aides who helped Watergate journalist Bob Woodward paint a lurid portrait of a dysfunctional, chaotic administration in his new book, 'State of Denial.'

"In the obsessively private Bush clan, talking out of school is the ultimate act of disloyalty, and Bush feels betrayed from within.

"'He's ticked off big-time,' said a well-informed source,' even if what they said was the truth.'"


First Comedian

Ken Herman blogs for Cox News Service about Bush's remarks at a Hispanic Heritage Month celebration Friday afternoon.

"'I am proud to be here with Lieutenant Colonel Consuelo Kickbusch. She's the winner of the Hispanic Heritage Award 2006. Interesting name: Kickbusch. Sounds like a political campaign,' Bush said. . . .

"Bush also welcomed 'his royal highness, Prince Felipe de Borbon, the crown prince of the kingdom of Spain.'

"'Please give your best to His Majesty and your mom,' Bush said. 'And I will do the same on behalf of you to my father and Her Majesty, my mother.'"

[markalot]

Poll: Voter interest highest in decade

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/11/motivated.voters.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Politics is a water-cooler topic, a dinner-table subject, an issue to discuss after Sunday services, and this year the interest of American voters is at its highest level in more than a decade.

That renewed attention could translate into higher voter turnout on Nov. 7, according to an Associated Press-Pew poll.

Seventy percent say they are talking politics with family and friends, and 43 percent are debating the issues at work. Among churchgoers, 28 percent share their political views, a number that rises to 34 percent among the congregations in the South.

The relationship with politics is not unrequited.

Americans have heard from the candidates and campaigns through phone calls, e-mail or one-on-one. In turn, they've participated more in the political process, attending campaign events, circulating petitions and making political donations.

"Politics comes up fairly frequently in my workplace," said Christine Adkinson, an operating room nurse in Lakeland, Florida. "Most of the physicians are Republicans and some of my fellow nurses, we are mainly against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan -- we have quite lively discussions." (Watch voters across the country tell CNN how they fell about the issues Video -- 1:20)

The embrace of the democratic process comes despite the view of some that it is flawed, with significant percentages saying their votes don't count. Only 45 percent of Democrats are very confident their votes will be counted, and only 30 percent of blacks are confident. Almost six in 10 of all voters polled had a lot of confidence their votes will be counted, according to the AP-Pew survey.

"I'm reasonably confident about my vote," said Jeff Francis, an architect from Palisade, Colorado. "But I'm still not convinced Florida was accurate in 2000 and I'm not too sure about Ohio in 2004."

The level of interest outpaces 1994 when Republicans swept Democrats from power in Congress. It's a far cry from the weeks after the disputed 2000 presidential election when discussion of politics was verboten at many family gatherings, especially those with carving knives nearby.
Interest driven mainly by Democratic anger

The high levels of political interest are driven largely by Democratic anger and optimism that they can win in November. Republican interest is close to its usual levels, according to the poll of 1,804 adults, including 1,503 registered voters. (Watch how the Foley scandal may suppress the evangelical vote Video -- 1:46)

The survey was conducted September 21-October 4 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan, fears of terrorism and anxiety that the middle-class dream is slipping away have drawn intense interest in next month's elections.

"Women are very, very concerned at the direction that this country is going," said Shannon Hargrove of Fort Worth, Texas, who talks politics frequently with her friends. "A lot of us have sons that are the age to participate in the wars, and we have daughters and sons that are of the age that are trying to find jobs, and that's very difficult." (Watch how the latest news has put the GOP in damage control mode Video -- 2:44)

In the past, high levels of voter interest haven't always translated into votes, especially in midterm elections.

Turnout figures for midterms are generally about four in 10 of those eligible to vote, said Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University. That's far lower than the number who said they almost always vote, probably because people give the answer they think is expected.

The poll also found:

# Almost two-thirds oppose replacing voting at the polling place with voting by mail, but a majority favors allowing the option to vote by mail.

# 14 percent of voters who plan to vote say they plan to vote early. Those 50 and over, who live in cities, and have more education and higher incomes were most likely to vote early.

# Three-fourths have seen or heard campaign ads, and the more ads they have seen, the more the likelihood they will vote.

Becky Mayer of Waverly, Tennessee, votes in spite of political advertising.

"The political ads are awful," she said. "My mother taught me if you don't have nothing nice to say, don't say nothing."

But Mayer hasn't lost faith that a politician someday will earn her vote.

"Somebody, somewhere will come along and be for the people," she said. "I keep hoping."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[PeterABnny]

Damn, Mark! Being the little librarian, are we? Interesting info.

I still believe the Repubs will make it through the elections intact. Sure, the Dems may pick up a seat or two, but for the most part, damage to their monopoly on power will be minimal. Why? I heard a poll that came out that said that while the American public is dissatisfied with the job the Repubs are doing as a whole, they still believe their own local Republican candide is doing a good enough job to warrant re-election anyway. And anyway, after Bush's re-election in '04, I believe anything's possible.

I've heard it said that if the Dems can't seize the opportunity on these elections, they never will. Somewhere I have to agree...

[markalot]

Yea,

I'm getting kind of out of control with posting article, but links don't last and I want a record of how things work out. I have no clue what's going to happen.

[markalot]

This was unexpected.

White House denies book's allegations

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061013/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_aide_s_book_1

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

A former Bush aide claims that evangelical Christians were embraced for political gain at the White House but derided privately as "nuts," "ridiculous" and "goofy."

The allegations — denied by the White House on Friday — are in a new book by David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of President Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003.

The book describes Kuo's frustration at what he felt was lackluster enthusiasm in the White House for the program, which seeks to steer more federal social service contracts to religious organizations. Details from the book, "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction," were reported by MSNBC ahead of Monday's publication date.

Kuo singled out staffers in the office of Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser and deputy chief of staff, as particularly condescending toward evangelical Christians, viewing them as necessary to help win elections but ridiculing them behind the scenes.

Kuo also described how officials from the faith-based office were systematically dispatched to hold large events in areas where there were key House and Senate races before the 2002 elections.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said he had not yet seen the book. But he said Rove was asked if he made the comments and replied he had not. Kuo, however, doesn't single out anyone by name as making the condescending comments.

"These are people who are friends. You don't talk about friends that way," Snow said.

Bush's spokesman also said there was no attempt to exploit the office to score political points, and that the president had specifically directed it not be politicized.

Snow denied Kuo's charge that the White House's religious charities program wasn't given the status it deserved, saying Bush's personal commitment to the policy was solid. Kuo has complained publicly in the past that the White House did not push hard enough for promised federal funding for religious groups to help the poor.

Snow read from what he called a "very warm letter" Kuo wrote to Bush when he left the White House. Kuo told the president he was proud of what the initiative had accomplished and said "it's your staff's keen awareness of your unwavering support for this initiative that's made the difference."

Snow concluded that the reports on the book "seem at odds with what he was saying inside the building at the time he departed."

Kuo's account of how the faith-based office has been regarded inside the White House recalls that of another high-level alumnus of the program. John J. DiIulio Jr., the faith-based office's first director, who quit in 2002, told Esquire magazine that "Mayberry Machiavellis" led by Rove based policy only on re-election concerns. After his comments caused an uproar, DiIulio apologized for making what he said were rude remarks.

[seafoamgreen]

I can't say i'm shocked by that article, Mark. There has always been a good bit of tension between old-school conservatives/ neo-conservatives whether they be intellectuals or policy wonks, and the religious conservatives who are supplying grassroots muscle and votes. I'd just be surprised if someone like rove would let that slip considering the job he's done holding that coalition together.

[twentyshots]

Yea,

I'm getting kind of out of control with posting article, but links don't last and I want a record of how things work out. I have no clue what's going to happen.

i am glad you are doing it. i won't read everything but even skimming and catching bits and pieces helps.

[markalot]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15252903/

Too big to copy. This is the overview, click on section links to read the entire article. I hate the way MSNBC formats their articles.

[akip]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15252903/

Too big to copy. This is the overview, click on section links to read the entire article. I hate the way MSNBC formats their articles.

this should be mandatory reading for everyone on ce/p.

[markalot]

...
Democratic leaders, candidates, and their surrogates are likely to maintain their argument that the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 resulted in a windfall for the wealthy and contributed to the relative stagnation in income for middle- and low-income families. They cite data showing that most American families saw their take-home pay lag behind inflation in the past five and half years, and they say that Republican tax cuts have made the distribution of wealth and income more unequal today than at any other time since the early 20th century.

From a crassly political point of view, one question that has hung over the Bush tax cuts is why Republicans wouldn't have structured them to give a proportionally larger refund to the lower 80 percent of the income-distribution curve, which comprises vastly more voters than the top 20 percent, which got the lion's share of the benefits. Was it smart politics to give most of the tax cuts to a small number of rich folks, even if they do pay most income taxes? Wasn't it dumb to stiff the vastly larger bloc of voters who aren't rich?

Not as dumb as one might think, based on who actually votes. During the 2004 election, about 34 million voting-age people lived in households that earned $30,000 a year or less, according to the Census Bureau [PDF]. Fifteen million, or about 44 percent of them, turned out to vote. On the other hand, 19 million people from households earning $100,000 or more turned out to vote that year. The number of high-income people in the population was much smaller -- only 24 million compared with 34 million lower-income people. But they turned out to vote at nearly twice the rate -- 78 percent.

According to exit polling by CNN, 58.7 percent of voters from households with more than $100,000 a year in income voted for Bush in 2004, and 41.2 percent of them voted for Kerry.

Exit polling doesn't reveal why high-income people, in particular, voted the way they did, but we do know a related fact -- in 2004, taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year received 59 percent of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. By comparison, people from families earning $30,000 or less got 8 percent of the tax-cut pie. Upper-income voters also turned out in greater numbers in 2004 than they had before. In 2000, the turnout rate for people from households earning $75,000 or more was 71.5 percent, but it rose to 76.5 percent in 2004. ...

[markalot]

This section is a real must read for conservatives.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15253047/

Of course only Bush had a moajor terrorist attack to contend with, and that has to be factored into the numbers somewhere, but it doesn't explain the out of control health costs.

[REMgirl]

Everyone should read these findings, Markalot. This was very interesting:

"The news on income isn't good for Republicans. Bush's results are worse than those for any other two-term president since World War II except Dwight Eisenhower. Worse than under Richard Nixon, a period that was not a very good time for the economy. During four horrendous years for the economy, income grew faster under Jimmy Carter than it has since 2001. The only recent president who had a worse record on income growth was -- George H.W. Bush.

More interesting, though, is how that growth has been distributed. Corporate profits have doubled under Bush -- they grew 104.4 percent, to be precise -- compared with 57.2 percent during Clinton's first five and a half years (before the really spectacular profits of the late 1990s) and 43.3 percent under Reagan. Some corporate profits are retained and invested, but the bulk are distributed disproportionately to the wealthy through dividends and boosted stock values. More than one-quarter of the increase in GDP under Bush came from corporate profits, compared with 13.7 percent of GDP growth under Clinton, and 7.1 percent under Reagan. Meanwhile, tax revenue from corporate profits is about the same as it was during the Reagan years.

Another way to look at this is to compare corporate profits and pay for private workers -- most of the labor force. While corporate profits were doubling, wages and salaries to workers grew 21.9 percent under Bush. This compares with wage and salary growth of 44.7 percent under Clinton and 42.2 percent under Reagan.

Corporate profits grew by $813 billion under Bush, not much less than the total of all raises earned by private workers ($912 billion). By contrast, workers got a much larger slice of the pie under Reagan and Clinton. Under Clinton, pay raises were about four times as much as profits, while under Reagan, workers got five times as much."

It's a must read for Dems and Republicans alike.

[akip]

this is what the news media OUGHT to be doing. as it is, the parties operate on the premise that if you repeat something ad nauseum, it becomes truth.

[classicgrrl]

MAL, the other election thread is WAY better.
:p

[OldManIndieKid]

MAL, the other election thread is WAY better.
:p<agreed>
<runs off to read other, less boring election thread>

[markalot]

Big Democratic wins likely on Election Day
NBC/WSJ poll: Public's opinion of GOP hits record low

partial poll data
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/061018_Release_nbc-wsj_poll.pdf

By Mark Murray
Political reporter
NBC News

WASHINGTON - Just 20 days until Election Day, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds approval of the GOP-held Congress is at its lowest mark in 14 years, the Republican Party's favorability rating is at an all-time low and President George W. Bush's approval rating remains mired in the 30s -- all ominous signs for a party trying to maintain control of Congress.

In fact, according to the poll, Republicans are in worse shape on some key measures than Democrats were in 1994, when they lost their congressional majorities.

"There is not a single number in here that would suggest the Democrats will not have their best showing in a decade -- and maybe two decades," says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican Bill McInturff.

Landslide of bad GOP news
The poll, which was taken of 1,006 registered voters from Oct. 13-16 and has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points, comes a few weeks after Republicans encountered a series of setbacks, including the release of an intelligence estimate calling the Iraq war a "cause célèbre" for Islamic militants, journalist Bob Woodward's unfavorable portrayal of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq, and the news that former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., had inappropriate correspondence with teenage congressional pages.

In the survey, Bush's approval rating is at 38 percent, a one-point decline from a previous NBC/Journal poll released earlier this month after the Foley news first broke. Perhaps more revealing, only 16 percent now approve of the job Congress is doing -- its lowest mark since 1992.

Both sets of numbers suggest that the Republican Party is on more unstable ground than Democrats were in 1994, when they lost 52 House and 8 Senate seats. In October of that year, President Bill Clinton's approval rating among registered voters was at 46 percent, and 24 percent approved of the job the Democratic-controlled Congress was doing.

Dems a 'marginally accepted alternative'
What's more, in this latest poll, just 32 percent of respondents see the Republican Party in a positive light, while 49 percent view it negatively. Those are the party's worst marks in the history of the poll. In contrast, voters -- by a 37-35 percent margin -- view the Democratic Party positively.


McInturff, the GOP pollster, observes that after several months when both parties have had net-negative ratings on this question, this is second-straight NBC/Journal survey in which a plurality of voters see Democrats in a positive light. Hart adds that Democrats have become a "marginally accepted alternative."

"It might be grudging admiration," he says, "but it is enough admiration to make it through."

Moreover, 52 percent say they prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress, compared with 37 percent who want Republicans to maintain power. It is the first time ever in this poll when a majority has sided with one party on this particular question. Earlier this month, Democrats held a nine-point advantage (48-39 percent).

The final GOP straw
Indeed, the poll finds that the events of the last few weeks -- such as the Foley scandal, the Woodward book, and the intelligence estimate -- have taken a toll on the GOP. Forty-seven percent say that these events have given them a less favorable impression of Republicans maintaining their majorities in Congress. Only 14 percent say they've given them a more favorable impression.

While Republicans were already in a precarious position before the Foley scandal, Hart explains, it has become a final straw of sorts that might have sealed their fate. "It is the event that allowed certain voters to say, 'Enough.'"

McInturff adds that the scandal took Republicans by surprise, and he expects them to be able to regroup and spend the next three weeks trying to disqualify Democrats on taxes and social issues.

The war in Iraq also continues to be a drag on Republicans and the White House. In the poll, a whopping 68 percent say they feel less optimistic about how things are going there, compared with only 20 percent who feel more optimistic. That's a significant shift from June, when voters were evenly split on this question.

Control of Congress
All of these numbers seem to suggest that Democrats are poised to pick up a sizable number of seats in November, and maybe even regain control of Congress. Hart says it's been clear for the last several months that an electoral hurricane would be arriving on Election Day. The only question was how big it was going to be.

This new poll, he observes, signals that it will be a Category 4 or Category 5 storm. "Simply put, the low lying areas are [going to be] under water."

Mark Murray covers politics for NBC News.
© 2006 MSNBC Interactive

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15319792/

[seafoamgreen]

I keep hearing this, but i still wouldn't put it past the republicans to pull of something close to a stalemate in the election.

I guess i'll believe in the competence of the democratic party when i see it.

[REMgirl]

My spouse is a rabid Democrat and he currently has a campaign commercial at the Contagious Festival at Huffington Post.

I think he did a really good job. It's moved up from 37th place to 11th place. I'm proud of his effort. I hope it will motivate some folks to vote in November. :)

You can see it here:

http://ultimatecampaign.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

[markalot]

Independents Favor Democrats Over Republicans
Poll Finds Votes Motivated by War Pessimism, Dissatisfation With GOP

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102300766.html

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, October 23, 2006; 5:46 PM

Two weeks before midterm elections, Republicans are losing the battle for independent voters, who now strongly favor Democrats on the major issues facing the country and overwhelmingly prefer to see them take over the House in November, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Independents are poised to play a pivotal role in next month's elections because Democrats and Republicans are basically united behind candidates of their own parties. Ninety-five percent of Democrats say they will support Democratic candidates for the House while slightly fewer (88 percent) Republicans said they plan to vote for their party's candidates.

The independent voters surveyed said they plan to support Democratic candidates over Republicans by roughly 2-to-1 (59 percent to 31 percent), the largest margin in any Post-ABC News poll this year. Forty-five percent said it would be good if Democrats recapture the House majority while just 10 percent said it would not be. The rest said it would not matter.

The poll also found that independents are highly pessimistic because of the Iraq war and the overall state of the country. Just 23 percent said the country is heading in the right direction compared to 75 percent who say things have gotten off track. Only a quarter of independents approve of the job Congress has done this year and only a third believe the Iraq war has been worth fighting.

Independent voters may strongly favor Democrats, but their vote appears motivated more by dissatisfaction with Republicans than by enthusiasm for the opposition party. About half of those independents saying they plan to vote Democratic in their district said they were doing so primarily to vote against the Republican candidate rather than affirmatively for the Democratic candidate. Just 22 percent of independents voting for Democrats are doing so "very enthusiastically."

Overall, the poll showed that the political climate continues to favor Democrats. President Bush's approval rating among all Americans stood at 37 percent. Two weeks ago, he was at 39 percent, and in September at 42 percent. By more than 2-to-1, Americans disapprove of the way Congress has been doing its job.

The so-called generic vote for the House -- a question that asks people to say which party they favor in their district but that does not match actual candidates against one another -- remained strongly in the Democrats' favor, 54 percent to 41 percent.

These national numbers do not translate directly into predictions of whether Democrats will gain the 15 House seats or six Senate seats they need to take control of those chambers. But an analysis of the findings shed light on why Republicans are now deeply worried about losing their House majority and why the Senate is in play as well.

The poll showed that Democrats not only have a significant advantage in Blue states (those won in the 2004 presidential race by Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts) but also have a narrow advantage in Red states won by Bush, which helps to explain why the number of GOP-held seats that now appear competitive has increased recently.

Iraq is cited most frequently as the most important voting issue in the midterm elections. Two weeks ago, 26 percent of those surveyed cited the war as the single most important issue determining their vote in November, compared with 23 percent who cited the economy and 14 percent saying terrorism. In the new poll, 27 percent say Iraq but 19 percent mentioned the economy, with 14 percent saying terrorism.

Independents are almost as likely as Democrats to cite Iraq as the single most important issue in the campaign. Both are twice as likely as Republicans to single out the war when asked about the election's top issues.

Independents do not limit their criticism of the war to the president. Fifty-five percent of independents said congressional Republicans deserve a "great deal" or a "good amount" of the blame for problems there. Fewer (just 36 percent) give congressional Republicans credit for helping to prevent a terrorist attack against the United States since Sept. 11, 2001.

Bush said last week the United States could end up in a Vietnam-like situation in Iraq, but the percentage of Americans who believe that (45 percent) is no higher than it was last June. Four in 10 Americans said the war was not worth fighting and three-in-four said the war has damaged the U.S. image in the rest of the world. Not quite half of those surveyed said that overall the war has helped to improve the lives of the Iraqi people, a sharp decline since June when roughly seven in 10 believed it had.

The small decline in the economy's ranking as a top voting issue comes at a time when Americans are increasingly upbeat about the state of the national economy. Fifty-five percent of those surveyed said the economy is now either "good" or "excellent," a sharp jump over the past two weeks and the highest since President Bush took office.

But Republicans appear to be getting little tangible benefit from the growing economic optimism, which has come at a time of declining gasoline prices and a record high in the Dow-Jones industrial average. Those who cite the economy as the most important issue favor Democrats by 18 percentage points (57 percent to 39 percent).

One reason is that only a quarter of those surveyed they are getting ahead financially. About the same number said they are falling behind. Most, however, said they are just able to maintain their standard of living. Republicans have an advantage only among those who say their financial condition is improving.

Among those voting primarily on Iraq, Democrats hold a sizeable lead (76 percent to 21 percent) in voting intentions. Democrats also are favored by those who cite health care as their most important issue, while those Americans voting on terrorism or immigration strongly favor the Republicans.

Voters also continue to trust Democrats more than Republicans to deal with the war, as well as the economy and ethics in government. On terrorism, the two parties are at parity.

But independents, the key swing voter group, strongly trust the Democrats on all of those issues by margins ranging from 14 percentage points on terrorism to 23 percentage points on Iraq and North Korea and 26 points on ethics in government.

The growing independent support for Democratic House candidates represents a significant shift in attitudes since the 2004 election, when the Democrats held only a narrow advantage. In winning his reelection, Bush and Kerry split the independent vote (49 Kerry-48 Bush) and in the vote for the House, independents divided 49-46 percent for Democratic candidates.

One important question that will affect the outcome of the election is who shows up to vote. More Democrats than Republicans (32 percent versus 24 percent) say they are "very closely" following the campaign. Democrats are more likely to be very enthusiastic about voting. Independents show less enthusiasm about this election than do Democrats or Republicans.

Almost three in five said this congressional election is more important than past congressional elections. A higher percentage of Democrats said they see this election has more significant than did Republicans or independents.

Both parties are making extraordinary efforts to turn out their voters in November and 29 percent of registered voters said they had been contacted by one party or the other for their votes, and three in 10 of those said they had been contacted by advocates for both parties.

Republicans appear to be doing a better job of contacting independents. In the poll, 45 percent of those independents who said they had been contacted said they were urged to vote for Republicans, while 17 percent said they were urged to vote for Democrats. The rest said they were contacted by both sides.

The Post-ABC News poll findings are based on telephone interviews with 1,200 adults conducted from last Thursday through Sunday. The margin of sampling error is plus-or-minus three percentage points.

Data base editor Dan Keating contributed to this report.

poll data:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_102306.htm

Bush approval rating widget:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2006/02/02/CU2006020201345.html

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[markalot]

Poll: Middle class voters abandoning GOP

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061027/ap_on_el_ge/election_ap_poll_6

By LIZ SIDOTI and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press WritersFri Oct 27, 12:25 PM ET

The 2006 election is shaping up to be a repeat of 1994. This time, Democrats are favored to sweep Republicans from power in the House after a dozen years of GOP rule.

Less than two weeks before the Nov. 7 election, the latest Associated Press-AOL News poll found that likely voters overwhelmingly prefer Democrats over Republicans. They are angry at President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress, and say Iraq and the economy are their top issues.

At the same time, fickle middle-class voters are embracing the Democratic Party and fleeing the GOP — just as they abandoned Democrats a dozen years ago and ushered in an era of Republican control.

"I don't think the Republican Party represents what I stand for. The guys I golf with, we're in the middle class, we're getting hurt," says Joseph Altland, 73, a retired teacher in York, Pa. He is a registered Republican but says he is considering becoming an independent.

The AP-AOL News telephone poll of 2,000 adults, 970 of whom are likely voters, was conducted by Ipsos from Oct. 20-25.

In it, 56 percent of likely voters said they would vote to send a Democrat to the House and 37 percent said they would vote Republican — a 19-point difference. Democrats had a 10-point edge in early October.

"I don't care if I vote for Happy the Clown, just so it's not who's there now," said Mary Nyilas, 51, an independent voter from Cologne, N.J. She said she would do everything she could to "vote against the powers that put us in this situation" in Iraq.

In the minority, Democrats need to gain 15 seats in the House and six in the Senate to win control of Congress. They are arguing for a change in leadership and trying to tap into intense public anxiety about the Iraq war as well as discontent with Bush and the Republicans in charge of the House and Senate.

The 2006 election has been likened to 1994, when backlash against the controlling party — then the Democrats — triggered the election of new rulers — in that case, the Republicans.

On Thursday, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., dismissed talk of a sour outlook for the GOP and cited signs of a strong economy. "Things are looking pretty good, and I don't think anybody would really want to change that at this time," he said in Aurora, Ill.

One of Hastert's lieutenants, Rep. Philip English (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., said that while he senses "a strong anti-Washington blowback ... the conclusion that, therefore, this is going to be an election like '94 or that control of Congress is likely to shift, I don't think is warranted yet. I think this is gong to come down to the wire."

Unlike in 1994 when the GOP offered a policy platform, English said, Democrats "seem unable to unite behind a common theme."

Democrats say history is on their side.

"Every decade, the American people at some point get angry at Washington for the course they've chosen and the results of that course," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (news, bio, voting record), the head of the House Democrats' campaign effort, rattling off various election years and circumstances that infuriated voters in each.

This year, he said: "it's a failed strategy in Iraq and a failed economic agenda here at home, and that's what this election is about."

Overall, the picture looks bleak for Republicans.

Likely voters have low opinions of both Bush's job performance and that of the GOP-controlled Congress. The president's approval rating is at a dismal 38 percent while Congress' is even lower — 23 percent. Two-thirds of adults say America is on the wrong track.

"The country's in a big, big mess," said Cynthia Leininger, 44, a homemaker in Wilson, N.Y., who says she leans toward Democrats. "I'm looking for change."

Voters have grown increasingly angry at the Bush administration and Republican leadership in Congress throughout October.

Only 12 percent of likely voters say they are enthusiastic about the administration. The percentage of those who say they are angry with it has grown to 40 percent from 32 percent in early October. As for the GOP-controlled Congress, 32 percent of likely voters call themselves angry, up from 28 percent.

Groups of voters who grew more angry throughout the month include: women, minorities, liberals, moderates, Democrats and people who voted for Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., for president in 2004.

In 1994, exit polls found that a majority of voters were dissatisfied with the federal government, with two in 10 reporting they were angry. Voters now are twice as likely to be angry at the current administration.

The AP-AOL News poll shows Democrats remain tied with Republicans on who would best protect the country, but Democrats have a 15 percentage point advantage on which party would best handle the situation in Iraq.

On that front, nine in 10 likely voters call Iraq a very or extremely important issue to them personally, pushing it to the top of a list of topics voters care deeply about.

"I'm just not seeing a lot of progress," frets Kimberly Froeschner, 34, a GOP-leaning independent in Raleigh, N.C. She said she has grown frustrated with Iraq in the past year and feels "it's more about oil."

Aside from the level of voter anger, the other dynamic that invites comparisons to 1994 is the attitude of middle-class voters — those earning less than $75,000 a year and who have graduated high school or have some college education.

In 1994, these voters deserted the Democrats in droves, helping Republicans capture dozens of Democratic-held House seats to seize control for the first time in decades.

Democrats recovered some of that lost ground in the following years, but they never fully regained their grasp on the middle class. In the intervening midterm elections, Democrats and Republicans split the House vote among middle-income and middle-education groups.

This fall, however, the AP-AOL News poll shows that Democrats have an advantage — in some cases in the double digits — among middle-class voters.

A majority of middle-class voters now favor Democrats to control the House and say that Democrats best represent their most closely held beliefs. They trust Democrats more than Republicans to handle the situation in Iraq, which most of them view as a mistake. The war is this voting group's most important issue. The economy and health care are close behind.

Like voters of all stripes, the middle class is angry with Bush and GOP leaders on Capitol Hill — and these voters could take out their fury out on the controlling party at the ballot box as they did in 1994.

The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points for all adults and 3 percentage points for likely voters.

___

Associated Press writers Will Lester and Kasie Hunt, and news survey specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

Ipsos: http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com

[twentyshots]

so i was thinking.........if ohio actually has these projected problems with absentee balloting (votes being thrown out due to the whole ID thing) which side does that hurt more i wonder?

[markalot]

As Final Weekend Arrives, Experts Say Democratic House Is a Done Deal

Posted at 05:55 PM ET, 11/ 3/2006

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/11/the_final_weekend.html

As we head into the final three days of the 2006 campaign, nonpartisan prognosticators are growing more and more certain that Democrats are headed for large-scale gains (20 seats or more) in the House and may even take control of the Senate.

Congressional Countdown
A Key Race Scorecard -- Nov. 3, 2006

House (35 contested races)
Leans GOP 1
Toss-Up 21
Leans Dem 13

Senate (9 contested races)
Leans GOP 0
Toss-Up 4
Leans Dem 5

Full Analysis (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign06/countdown.html)

The Rothenberg Political Report is now estimating Democratic gains of between 34-40 seats in the House and 5-7 seats in the Senate.

Rothenberg ranks 16 Republican-held House seats as either tilting, leaning or favored for Democrats -- meaning that if Democrats win only these races they will claim the majority. Contests in Arizona's 8th, Colorado's 7th and Indiana's 8th districts all "favor" Democrats, according to Rothenberg. Iowa's 1st, Indiana's 2nd, Ohio's 15th and 18th and Pennsylvania's 7th and 10th are rated as "lean Democrat." And Arizona's 5th, Connecticut's 5th, Florida's 13th, Indiana's 9th, New Hampshire's 2nd, New York's 24th and North Carolina's 11th are toss-ups that tilt toward Democrats.

The Cook Political Report is currently predicting a Democratic House gain of 20-35 seats, but Amy Walter, the publication's House expert, wrote today that the low end of that range is "a cautious prediction" -- suggesting larger gains are likely. Cook ranks seven Republican-held Senate seats in the toss-up category and one other -- Arizona -- in the lean Republican category.

The Cook Report currently considers six Republican-held seats to be leaning in Democrats' favor: Arizona's 8th, Colorado's 7th, Florida's 13th, Iowa's 1st, New York's 24th and Ohio's 18th. It has 34 more Republican-controlled seats in its toss-up category and 15 additional GOP seats rated as "lean Republican."

What this means is that barring some sort of unforeseen event, House Democrats will take the majority on Tuesday night; the only question is how big that majority will be. Control of the Senate, however, remains less certain, although the chamber is clearly in play.

[markalot]

NEWSWEEK Poll: GOP Losing More Ground

A new NEWSWEEK poll shows that the GOP has lost more ground. Will rallying the base stem a Democratic tide?
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Marcus Mabry
Newsweek
Updated: 11:08 a.m. ET Nov 4, 2006

Nov. 4, 2006 - As President George W. Bush jets across Red State America this weekend, Republican candidates are falling further behind Democratic rivals, according to the new NEWSWEEK poll. While the GOP has lagged behind Democrats throughout the campaign season, the trend in the past month—when NEWSWEEK conducted four polls in five weeks—had suggested the Republicans were building momentum in the homestretch.

No more. The new poll finds support for Republicans (and for President Bush) receding. For example, 53 percent of Americans want the Democrats to win enough seats to take control of one or both houses of Congress in the midterm elections on Tuesday. Those results are close to early October levels, while less than a third of Americans (32 percent) want Republicans to retain control. If the elections were held today, 54 percent of likely voters say they would support the Democratic candidate in their district versus 38 percent who would vote for the Republican-a 16-point edge for the Democrats.

Despite round-the-clock coverage of John Kerry’s Iraq gaffe this week and non-stop rallies in which the President paints Democrats as weak-on-terror tax lovers, the political momentum has returned to the Democrats. Maybe that’s because nearly a third of registered voters (32 percent) now say Iraq is the most important issue in deciding their vote. The economy comes in second at 19 percent. And just 12 percent say terrorism, the Republican trump card in the last three elections, is their most important issue. In fact, as millions of Americans fill in their employers’ health-care selection forms for next year, terrorism is statistically tied with health care at 11 percent.

Meanwhile, the President’s approval has fallen back to 35 percent, after a slow but steady rise from 33 percent at the beginning of October to 37 percent in the NEWSWEEK poll last week.

The good news for Republicans is that their voters are coming home; 90 percent of likely Republican voters say they would vote for the GOP’s candidate if the elections were held today, not far behind the 95 percent of Democrats who back their party’s nominee. But independents say they would vote for the Democrat over the Republican in their district nearly 2 to 1 (26 percent versus 51 percent.)

And the President’s campaign stops this weekend suggest that the GOP has given up on reaching beyond its base and that the strategy now is focused on getting supporters to the polls come Election Day. Most of Bush’s stops are in the reddest of the red states: Kansas, Montana, Texas. Compare that to the 2002 midterm campaign, when the president was fishing for independent and conservative Democrats in such swing states as Florida, Minnesota and Illinois as well. (Holly Bailey and Richard Wolffe report in their online column, The Oval, this week that administration officials say “they are keeping Bush’s schedule flexible to aid any last-minute political maneuvering.”)

But with only 29 percent of Americans saying they’re satisfied with the direction of the country—and 64 percent saying they’re not—the President’s territory to maneuver is small.

Expect to hear lots in the news and on the Web during the next few days about the GOP’s “72-hour campaign,” the party’s hyper-organized, multimillion-dollar get-out-the-vote effort that uses mailing lists, consumer marketing information and high-tech data crunching to find Republicans and roust them to the polls. But with Democrats making their own effort, Republican turnout may not be enough to turn back the tide.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15557264/site/newsweek/

[REMgirl]

My fingers and toes are crossed in hopes that the Dems gain House seats and maybe even the Senate. It would certainly help level the playing field, instead of having the Republicans run the show. There are some serious cracks in the veneer of the Republican facade. Iraq may be the key to public revolt against Bush.

There is a very strongly worded article in Vanity Fair this week, which I read over at Crooks and Liars:

"As Iraq slips further into chaos, the war's neoconservative boosters have turned sharply on the Bush administration, charging that their grand designs have been undermined by White House incompetence. In a series of exclusive interviews, Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, David Frum, and others play the blame game with shocking frankness. Target No. 1: the president himself.

To David Frum, the former White House speechwriter who co-wrote Bush's 2002 State of the Union address that accused Iraq of being part of an "axis of evil," it now looks as if defeat may be inescapable, because "the insurgency has proven it can kill anyone who cooperates, and the United States and its friends have failed to prove that it can protect them." This situation, he says, must ultimately be blamed on "failure at the center"—starting with President Bush..."

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

So the big rats are jumping ship and the Evangelicals are scampering around trying to keep their base from running away from the Bush party. I wouldn't ever place a bet on who comes out ahead on Tuesday, but I have high hopes...

[Artpunchehorse]

HFordJr v BCorker.

Fuck them both. at least Ford is for giving Jr high girld some abortion pills

[markalot]

WP-ABC poll numbers over the weekend:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_110406.htm

1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president? Do you approve/disapprove strongly or somewhat?

-------- Approve -------- ------- Disapprove ------ No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opin.
11/4/06 RV 43 27 16 55 10 45 2

2. Thinking about next week's election for the U.S. House and some U.S. Senate and governor seats, are you following the election very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely or not closely at all?

------- Closely ------- ------- Not closely ------ No
NET Very Somewhat NET Not too Not at all op.
11/4/06 RV 80 38 42 20 13 7 *

3. I'd like you to rate the chances that you will vote in next week's Congressional election: Are you absolutely certain to vote, will you probably vote, are the chances 50-50, or less than that?

Don't think Already
Certain Probably Chances Less than will vote voted No
to vote vote 50/50 50/50 (vol.) (vol.) op.
11/4/06 RV 70 11 7 4 2 5 *

3a. (IF ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN TO VOTE) Have you already voted by absentee ballot or early voting, or not?

Yes No No opinion
11/4/06 RV 10 90 *


4. (and 4a) If the election for the U.S. House of Representatives were being held today, would you vote for (the Democratic candidate) or (the Republican candidate) in your congressional district? (IF OTHER, NEITHER, DK, REF) Would you lean toward the (Democratic candidate) or toward the (Republican candidate)? (IF ALREADY VOTED) Did you vote for (the Democratic candidate) or (the Republican candidate) in your congressional district?

Net Leaned Vote:

Dem Rep Other Neither Will not No
cand. cand. (vol.) (vol.) vote (vol.) opin.
11/4/06 LV 51 45 1 1 * 2

5. (IF ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN TO VOTE OR ALREADY VOTED) As you know, this is a mid-term election, with no presidential contest. Is voting in mid-term elections something you do always, nearly always, usually, or just sometimes?

Nearly Just Never First chance No
Always always Usually sometimes (vol.) to vote (vol.) op.
11/4/06 RV 71 17 7 4 1 1 0


6. Which of the following (will be/was) the SINGLE MOST important issue in your vote for Congress this year: (the U.S campaign against terrorism), (the war in Iraq), (the economy), (immigration), (ethics in government), (health care) or something else?

Health Immi- Terror- Ethics No
Iraq Econ. care gration ism in govt. Other op.
11/4/06 RV 31 21 12 9 11 6 7 2

7. Do you think things in this country (are generally going in the right direction) or do you feel things (have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track)?

Right Wrong No
direction track opin.
11/4/06 RV 39 59 2

8. (IF WRONG TRACK) What's the main reason you feel that way?

11/4/06 RV 11/2/05
Economy, jobs, gas prices, prices,
low income, debt, finances 16 30
War in Iraq 31 21
Problems with Bush 11 15
Distrust of politicians, government,
Washington, ethics in government/
corruption 12 7
Problems too big 3 6
Moral decline/lack of religious faith 4 6
Environmental problems/global warming 1 3
Problems with Republicans/conservatives
(not specifically Bush) 3 2
Terrorism/threat of terrorism 2 1
Health care 2 1
Illegal immigrants 2 1
Problems/issues not being resolved 2 1
Ignoring domestic issues 1 1
Everything 1 1
Problems with Democrats/liberals 1 *
Foreign policy * *
Other 6 4
No opinion 3 *


9. Do you approve or disapprove of the way the U.S. Congress is doing its job? Do you approve/disapprove strongly or somewhat?

-------- Approve -------- ------- Disapprove ------ No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opin.
11/4/06 RV 36 7 29 60 25 35 4

10. Do you approve or disapprove of the way your own representative to the U.S. House of Representatives in Congress is handling his or her job?

Approve Disapprove No opinion
11/4/06 RV 56 35 8

11. Will/was one reason for your vote for Congress (be) to express (support for) Bush, to express (opposition to) Bush, or is/was Bush not a factor in your choice?

Support Opposition Not a factor No opinion
11/4/06 RV 17 31 50 2

Compare to: Is one of the reasons you support this candidate to express support for Bill Clinton, to express opposition to Clinton, or would you say that Clinton is not a factor?

Support Opposition Not a factor No opinion
11/1/98 13 9 77 1

2. Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq?

Both Neither No
Democrats Republicans (vol.) (vol.) op.
11/4/06 RV 42 42 1 11 3

13. Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you think better represents your own personal values?

Both Neither No
Democrats Republicans (vol.) (vol.) op.
11/4/06 RV 48 44 1 6 2

14. Whether or not you agree with them, do you think the Democrats are or are not offering the country a clear direction that's different from the Republicans?

Yes, No, No
they are they are not opin.
11/4/06 RV 49 47 4

15. Do you think most of the (INSERT) in Congress deserve to be re-elected, or not?

11/4/06 - Summary Table, Among Registered Voters


Yes No No opin.
a. Democrats 48 41 10
b. Republicans 39 53 8

Trend:

a. Democrats

Yes No No opin.
11/4/06 RV 48 41 10
10/8/06 RV 55 37 8


b. Republicans

Yes No No opin.
11/4/06 RV 39 53 8
10/8/06 RV 38 56 5



16. Have you recently been contacted in person, by telephone, or by e-mail by any organization working in support of a candidate for Congress, asking for your vote?

Yes No No opinion
11/4/06 RV 41 59 *
10/22/06 RV 29 70 1
All 25 74 *

17. (IF CONTACTED, Q16) Were you asked to vote for a (Republican) candidate or for a (Democratic) candidate?

Rep. Dem. Both Other No
cand. cand. (vol.) (vol.) opin.
11/4/06 RV 29 20 41 1 8

18. All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?


----- Worth fighting ---- --- Not worth fighting -- No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly op.
11/4/06 RV 44 33 12 53 10 44 2

19. In making its case for war with Iraq, do you think the Bush administration (told the American public what it believed to be true), or (intentionally misled the American public)?


Told the American public Intentionally misled No
what it believed to be true the American public opin.
11/4/06 RV 51 47 2

[markalot]

20. Which best describes your family's financial situation? Do you feel as if you (are getting ahead financially), have just enough money to maintain your standard of living, or (are falling behind financially)?


Getting Just enough Falling No
ahead to maintain behind opin.
11/4/06 RV 28 48 23 1

21. How confident are you that your own vote in this election will be accurately counted this year: very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident or not confident at all?


----- Confident ----- ----- Not Confident ----- No
NET Very Somewhat NET Not too Not at all op.
11/4/06 RV 84 49 34 15 9 6 2
10/27/04 LV* 91 62 29 8 6 2 1
*"Your own vote for president…"


901. Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as:


Democrat Republican Independent Other No op.
11/4/06 LV 33 34 30 2 1
11/4/06 RV 35 32 30 2 1
11/4/06 All 33 30 32 3 2

905. Are you registered to vote at your present address, or not?


Yes No No opinion
11/4/06 80 19 *

908a. Would you say your views on most political matters are liberal, moderate, or conservative?


Don't think in No
Liberal Moderate Conservative those terms (vol.) op.
11/4/06 19 42 36 2 1

911. What, if anything, is your religion?


Christian Other Non- No
Protestant Catholic (Non-Protestant) Christian None op.
11/4/06 48 23 12 2 12 1

911b. (IF CHRISTIAN) Would you consider yourself a born-again or evangelical Christian, or not?


Yes No No opin.
11/4/06 43 55 2

Q909. What was the last grade of school you completed?


Less than high school 14
Graduated high school 32
Some college 22
Graduated College 20
Post-graduate 12



Q910. What is your age?


18-29 21
30-39 16
40-49 23
50-64 24
65+ 17



Q918. Are you of Hispanic origin or background? IF YES: Are you White Hispanic or Black Hispanic? IF NO: Are you white, black, or some other race?


White 78
Black 9
Hispanic 7
Asian 1
Other Race 4



Q921. RESPONDENT'S SEX


Male 48
Female 52



***END***

[markalot]

http://www.cookpolitical.com/

November 6, 2006

• Going into Election Day, we see a 20-35 seat gain for Democrats in the House, a four to six seat gain for Democrats in the Senate and a six to eight seat gain for Democrats in the governor's races.

All Monday there was considerable talk that the national picture had suddenly changed and that there was a significant tightening in the election. This was based in part on two national polls that showed the generic congressional ballot test having tightened to four (Pew) and six (ABC/Wash Post) points.

Seven national polls have been conducted since Wednesday, November 1. They give Democrats an average lead of 11.6 percentage points, larger than any party has had going into an Election Day in memory. Even if you knock five points off of it, it's 6.6 percentage points, bigger than the advantage that Republicans had going into 1994.

Furthermore, there is no evidence of a trend in the generic ballot test. In chronological order of interviewing (using the midpoint of field dates), the margins were: 15 points (Time 11/1-3), 6 points (ABC/Wash Post), 4 points (Pew), 7 points (Gallup), 16 points (Newsweek), 20 points (CNN) and 13 points (Fox).

In individual races, some Republican pollsters see some movement, voters "coming home," in their direction, and/or some increase in intensity among GOP voters. All seem to think that it was too little, too late to significantly change the outcome. However, it might be enough to save a few candidates. None think it is a major change in the dynamics of races, and most remain somewhere between fairly and extremely pessimistic about tomorrow's outcome.

• SENATE RACES: The State of Play. Polls over the weekend showed tightening in several Senate races. According to Democratic pollster Harrison Hickman, this might be an indication that 2006 may be a mirror image of 1998, the last Six-Year Itch election.

SENATE RATINGS CHANGES:

MN Open Lean Democratic to Likely Democratic
NE Nelson Likely Democratic to Solid Democratic
OH DeWine Toss Up to Lean Democratic
PA Santorum Toss Up to Lean Democratic
WA Cantwell Lean Democratic to Likely Democratic
WV Byrd Likely Democratic to Solid Democratic

• GOVERNORS RATINGS CHANGES:

AL Riley Likely Republican to Solid Republican
CO Open Lean Democratic to Likely Democratic
OH Open Likely Democratic to Solid Democratic
PA Rendell Likely Democratic to Solid Democratic

• HOUSE RATINGS CHANGES:

AZ-01 Renzi Lean Republican to Toss Up
FL-13 Open Lean Democratic to Toss Up
ID-01 Open Lean Republican to Toss Up
IN-07 Carson Solid Democratic to Likely Democratic
KY-03 Northup Lean Republican to Toss Up
MI-07 Open Solid Republican to Likely Republican

• Which party will have the majority in the House and Senate? How many gubernatorial seats will Democrats pick up? We have created a scorecard to help you track the results tomorrow night. And, subscribers can check their math against ours Wednesday morning.

• Check out the final House, Senate and Governors polls.

[seafoamgreen]

I'm pissed that i've got to be on campus till 9 this evening. I could watch coverage all day.

yes, i do realize how lame this is and that i should probably get a life.

[PeterABnny]

Looks like I was wrong about this one, and SO glad for it, too!

Okay, Dems, ya got both houses now. Now DO SOMETHING!

[slopechz]

Looks like I was wrong about this one, and SO glad for it, too!

Okay, Dems, ya got both houses now. Now DO SOMETHING!
What can they do unless the President becomes more bipartisan? If he sticks to his guns, I don't see much getting done. I forget which program I saw this on last night but what was suggested was that the Dems will send one bill up after another that they know the President will not sign.

[markalot]

What can they do unless the President becomes more bipartisan? If he sticks to his guns, I don't see much getting done. I forget which program I saw this on last night but what was suggested was that the Dems will send one bill up after another that they know the President will not sign.

It all depends. If the dems send liberal/progressive legislation to him he'll veto it, but if they send pretty moderate stuff and he veto's too many then he'll look like an obstructionist.

I think the BIG question is what will the dems try to get passed?

Minimum Wage - moderate
Healthcare Reform - still too liberal
Tax reform - seems to be leaning moderate
Rollback of some patriot act / wiretapping laws - really not sure

If Pelosi decided to veer to far left the dems won't be in power for more than 4 years.

[slopechz]

It all depends. If the dems send liberal/progressive legislation to him he'll veto it, but if they send pretty moderate stuff and he veto's too many then he'll look like an obstructionist.

I think the BIG question is what will the dems try to get passed?

Minimum Wage - moderate
Healthcare Reform - still too liberal
Tax reform - seems to be leaning moderate
Rollback of some patriot act / wiretapping laws - really not sure

If Pelosi decided to veer to far left the dems won't be in power for more than 4 years.
A prevailing theme I have picked up from you over the last two years is that you appear to equate Democrats as liberal (or possibly too liberal). I doubt very much if anything overly "liberal" will be accomplished with the crop of new moderate and conservative Democrats voted into office. Besides the social conservative issues and tax cuts during the last six years, how has the GOP even come close to resembling the party of Barry Goldwater? They haven't.

[akip]

It all depends. If the dems send liberal/progressive legislation to him he'll veto it, but if they send pretty moderate stuff and he veto's too many then he'll look like an obstructionist.

I think the BIG question is what will the dems try to get passed?

Minimum Wage - moderate
Healthcare Reform - still too liberal
Tax reform - seems to be leaning moderate
Rollback of some patriot act / wiretapping laws - really not sure

If Pelosi decided to veer to far left the dems won't be in power for more than 4 years.

according to the talking heads on charlie rose, it's neither rahm emanuel or pelosi that'd blow it. it would be congressional committee chairs like dingle, rangel, etc., who've been waiting for their chance to attack. dingle's hot to reform the prescription drug benefit---take on the drug companies.

[the happy prole]

I think Bush told the Democrats what they should work on yesterday: immigration reform. He's actually more moderate than the rest of the GOP on that issue, and the Democrats winning actually helps Bush.

A lot of Democrats are okay with No Child Left Behind if it's actually funded and administered properly.

You'll see some healthcare reform, too. I don't know why you think that's too liberal when Bush already revamped and spent lavishly on Medicare on his own.

[markalot]

A prevailing theme I have picked up from you over the last two years is that you appear to equate Democrats as liberal (or possibly too liberal). I doubt very much if anything overly "liberal" will be accomplished with the crop of new moderate and conservative Democrats voted into office. Besides the social conservative issues and tax cuts during the last six years, how has the GOP even come close to resembling the party of Barry Goldwater? They haven't.

The dem leadership will be very very liberal. The dems overall are not liberal. It's very similar to the republican leadership which is/was very nutjob (I hate to use their version of conservative) while much of the rank and file are more moderate. The repubs were worse (far more nut jobs than moderates) don't get me wrong there.

So if the leadership decides to go hard left and the rank and file doesn't put up a fight then the dems will be in trouble.

[the happy prole]

No offense, but I don't think you have a very objective view of what's liberal and what isn't, markalot.

Sure, the leadership will be older Democrats who tend to be more liberal than the newly elected ones, but Pelosi's not insane. As long as Murtha doesn't get appointed to Whip there's really not going to be crazy left-wing faction running Congress. I mean, to YOU it'll probably be a crazy left-wing faction but I don't think most moderate Democrats are going to feel like they're being swallowed by the fringe.

[akip]

emanuel might go after whip. he's making up his mind.

[the happy prole]

Sorry, I meant majority leader. Emanuel should back off on Whip, he knows it's not his time. They're going to have to have a black member (Clyburn) in leadership.

[markalot]

No offense, but I don't think you have a very objective view of what's liberal and what isn't, markalot.

It's just a word. To me it means trying to pass laws that conservatives generally oppose. Tax increases, additional regulations, anti-business legislation, increased government spending, etc.

[the happy prole]

It's just a word. To me it means trying to pass laws that conservatives generally oppose. Tax increases, additional regulations, anti-business legislation, increased government spending, etc.

umm.... no, not even close. This is why you don't really understand what's going on.

Here's a tip: The election results were not a victory for conservatives (as you claim), but rather for "moderates."

[markalot]

umm.... no, not even close. This is why you don't really understand what's going on.

Here's a tip: The election results were not a victory for conservatives (as you claim), but rather for "moderates."

You are being needlessly confrontational. Like George Will, I think that old fashion conservatism was a winner in this election. Even if you think of it as social it still wins as two dems who are pro-life got elected.

So where are you coming from here? Is it just some kind of childish need to make me look like an idiot? I don't need your help to look like an idiot .... :confused:

[berzerker]

It's just a word. To me it means trying to pass laws that conservatives generally oppose. Tax increases, additional regulations, anti-business legislation, increased government spending, etc.

Personally, I prefer tax-and-spend Democrats (budget surplus) to DON'T-tax-but-still-spend Republicans (biggest budget deficit ever.)

[purple_octopus]

Personally, I prefer tax-and-spend Democrats (budget surplus) to DON'T-tax-but-still-spend Republicans (biggest budget deficit ever.)
True. At least the Democrats are honest about it.

[slopechz]

You are being needlessly confrontational. Like George Will, I think that old fashion conservatism was a winner in this election.
You keep spinning this any way you can to make yourself feel better.

[DaHood]

Personally, I prefer tax-and-spend Democrats (budget surplus) to DON'T-tax-but-still-spend Republicans (biggest budget deficit ever.)
Really. I love the arguments Republicans use against Democrats about taxes. Sheesh.

Sure Republicans are for cutting taxes, but everyone in Washington spends like drunken Democrats.

[DaHood]

Like George Will, I think that old fashion conservatism was a winner in this election.
I think there is an element of truth to that. Perhaps 'traditionalist' more so than conservative?

[the happy prole]

So where are you coming from here? Is it just some kind of childish need to make me look like an idiot? I don't need your help to look like an idiot .... :confused:

No, I'm just telling you that liberals don't spend a lot of time thinking about how to create more regulation, or how to make the government bigger. That (arguably) might be the result of liberal thinking, but it's certainly not the goal nor is it always true.

Know your enemy. If you don't understand what liberals believe, then you have a hard time predicting what liberals will do.

Also don't read so much George Will, he's anything BUT a classic conservative.

[the happy prole]

emanuel might go after whip. he's making up his mind.

He's decided to settle on #4, which is a smart move for him and his party.

Actually with his personality and energy he'd be an awesome whip (both for his positive and negative attributes). Can you imagine Ari Gold/Josh Lyman as whip?

Like I said, it's just too early for him. He needs to pay his dues and not rock the boat. The in-fighting would screw everyone.

[akip]

He's decided to settle on #4, which is a smart move for him and his party.

Actually with his personality and energy he'd be an awesome whip (both for his positive and negative attributes). Can you imagine Ari Gold/Josh Lyman as whip?

Like I said, it's just too early for him. He needs to pay his dues and not rock the boat. The in-fighting would screw everyone.

i hadn't heard the news. i think you're right---a good move. i'm happy with it.

ari gold, haha. :D

[markalot]

No, I'm just telling you that liberals don't spend a lot of time thinking about how to create more regulation, or how to make the government bigger. That (arguably) might be the result of liberal thinking, but it's certainly not the goal nor is it always true.

Know your enemy. If you don't understand what liberals believe, then you have a hard time predicting what liberals will do.

Also don't read so much George Will, he's anything BUT a classic conservative.

I disagree that George Will is not a classic conservative.

Let me show you some numbers to try and prove my point about conservatives.

901. Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as:


Democrat Republican Independent Other No op.
11/4/06 LV 33 34 30 2 1
11/4/06 RV 35 32 30 2 1
11/4/06 All 33 30 32 3 2
10/22/06 30 28 36 4 2
10/8/06 38 27 31 3 1
9/7/06 33 32 30 3 2
8/6/06 34 27 34 4 1
6/25/06 33 28 35 3 *
5/15/06 34 28 33 4 1
5/11/06 33 30 33 3 1
4/9/06 34 29 34 3 0
3/5/06 32 28 36 3 1
1/26/06 32 27 34 6 *
1/8/06 31 30 34 5 1
12/18/05 33 32 33 2 *
11/2/05 31 27 38 3 1
9/11/05 31 27 34 8 1
9/2/05 32 31 31 5 2
8/28/05 32 29 33 5 1
6/26/05 34 28 32 5 1
6/5/05 30 31 34 4 *
4/24/05 35 28 32 5 *



and



908a. Would you say your views on most political matters are
liberal, moderate, or conservative?

Don't think in No
Liberal Moderate Conservative those terms (vol.) op.
11/4/06 19 42 36 2 1
10/22/06 22 42 32 2 2
10/8/06 21 43 33 1 1
9/7/06 24 39 33 2 2
8/6/06 18 42 38 1 1
6/25/06 21 41 35 1 1
5/15/06 19 48 31 1 1
5/11/06 18 49 33 * *
4/9/06 21 41 35 2 1
3/5/06 22 42 33 2 1
1/26/06 21 40 37 1 1
1/8/06 20 40 37 2 1
12/18/05 22 42 34 1 1
11/2/05 23 44 32 1 *
9/11/05 22 44 31 2 2
8/28/05 20 44 34 2 1
6/26/05 21 44 33 1 1
6/5/05 23 40 35 1 *
4/24/05 20 47 30 1 1


So first off, as far as political parties go we have almost an even split between dems, repubs, and independents. It's a wash.

Now look at the liberal / conservative question. Clearly there are more people who think of themselves as conservative than liberal, on the order of 10-15% more. Do we know what they mean when they say conservative? Socially, Fiscally, Interpretation of the Constitution? Does it really matter?

At the link below you can read the profiles of the dems who won by beating a republican.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/house/

If we look at the democratic wins in this election we see a common theme. A couple of pro-life dems, mostly fiscally conservative dems (not sure how to quantify that), most importantly all of them are moderates. There are a good number of dems who 'used to be republicans'.

So I don't think its such a leap to say conservatism was a winner in this election. Depending on your definition of conservative it may be the the conservatives have found a new party. :) We're taking over!

I think a lot of people read conservative and think republican, which explains some of the nonsensical comments made when talking about conservatives. Maybe the word conservative is as tainted as the word liberal.

So is this spin? I don't think so. I'm very happy with the election results and I think the prediction I made to by brother in law, that Bush would destroy the republican party, is proving to be accurate. We'll know for sure in two years when voters get to decide if Pelosi and crew have done a good job of running a moderate government.

[the happy prole]

I actually met Rahmbo and Ari Emanuel at an event pre-Entourage, and Ari Gold really is a pretty accurate depiction of both them. Sure he's exagerated for comic effect.... but really not very much. They're nutty balls of energy with huge egos but also very smart and crafty and can turn on the charm when they need it. You do NOT want to be on their bad side. Perfect whip material.

[the happy prole]

So I don't think its such a leap to say conservatism was a winner in this election. Depending on your definition of conservative it may be the the conservatives have found a new party. :) We're taking over!

Yes but the whole big government/small government and the rest of those dichotomies have never applied to liberal or conservative viewpoints. Would you say the conservatives of the late 60's were "anti-government?" Is pro-choice or against gay-marriage bans in the consitution pro-legislation?

Take Webb for example, since I'm pretty familiar with that race. He's pro-stem cell research funding, he's for giving undocumented aliens a chance for citizenship, he's concerned about the class schism, he's pro-choice, pro-minimum wage hike, and pro (limited) affirmative action. He attacked the GOP and his primary opponent for being too pro-corporation. Does this in any way sound like a whatever your view of a traditional conservative is?

The key is that he's moderate on all these issues. His plan for affirmative action would be limited to blacks, and he doesn't mind scrapping it-- but only if it's replaced with something based on economic class. See? Left-wing, just not rabidly so.

We don't know how he'll actually vote in reality, but my opinion is that he was not pandering but actually lost votes by being so far left. The liberals would have voted for anyone over Allen, and most moderate conservatives *wanted* to, but I'm sure some of them found that platform tough to stomach.

Another way to look at it is Santorum lost... but so did Chafee.

[markalot]

I can't explain the Chaffee loss, but Santorum was a hater, and haters lose. The democrats who were running against republican incumbents had to appeal to the dems while not sounding to liberal for the moderates. They did just that.

But what does that mean? Does it mean they are actually more liberal than the platform they ran on, or more conservative. I say conservative, especially considering the large number of former republicans.

But conservative and liberal is so muddied up at this point.

Anti stem cell research is considered conservative, but I think that's nonsense.

Being religious is considered conservative, also nonsense.

Giving undocumented aliens a chance for citizenship, in my opinion conservative, not the other way around.

He attacked the GOP and his primary opponent for being too pro-corporation. True conservatives hate corporate welfare.

/shrug

[classicgrrl]

But what does that mean?

it means they are politicians and you are reading too much into it.

[the happy prole]

Yeah but you're just taking a set of viewpoints you agree with and calling it "conservative!" :p

If you really want to look at a true small-government/low-tax/no-regulation viewpoint, that's libertarianism. Which is why P_O is against stem cell research funding. She has a true "classic conservative" framework, although a non-traditional justification for it. Most libertarians nowadays seem to mix-and-match from Ayn Rand and Adam Smith even though in many ways they are complete opposites.

I consider myself a liberal, and really Webb's political views and mine are dead-on (although I'm not sure I like him). Moreover, they really aren't any different than things liberals have been expounding for years. He's a Reagan-man yes, probably a bit conservative on the national security front but for the most part that platform is what most people would consider solidly if moderately, liberal.

Here's one for you: Where would you put Nancy Pelosi? Conservative or liberal, moderate or extreme?

[akip]

i think, after the failures of the right and the left, plenty of people find themselves without an ideology. they do want to feel as though the country is "on the right track," which usually just means they feel reasonably secure in their jobs and in their homes and things are "moving ahead." they might lean conservative about morals and financial matters, but that doesn't mean they buy into some pure laissez faire theory or into firebrand religious movements. they generally think that if something bad happens, like katrina, the govt should step in. they don't want total privatization, but they don't want socialism either. they just don't want to feel they are being screwed out their share of the pie by some corrupt force---whether that's big govt OR big business. therefore, loosely speaking, i'd call em moderates.

[DaHood]

i think, after the failures of the right and the left, plenty of people find themselves without an ideology. they do want to feel as though the country is "on the right track," which usually just means they feel reasonably secure in their jobs and in their homes and things are "moving ahead." they might lean conservative about morals and financial matters, but that doesn't mean they buy into some pure laissez faire theory or into firebrand religious movements. they generally think that if something bad happens, like katrina, the govt should step in. they don't want total privatization, but they don't want socialism either. they just don't want to feel they are being screwed out their share of the pie by some corrupt force---whether that's big govt OR big business. therefore, loosely speaking, i'd call em moderates.
Finally something that truly piques my interest.

[the happy prole]

Yep, that's how I read it as well.

The victory is really a factor of three not entirely independent causes:

1) A pullback to the middle
2) People hate Bush
3) The GOP ran a bunch of buffoons

I think the GOP would have lost some seats regardless due to #2, but they probably could have held the Senate and generally done much better had they taken into account #1 and #3 and run some intelligent moderates out there.

The GOP's biggest problem going forward is they drummed a lot of the potential moderates out of the party so they'll have to dig up some new ones. But it can be done. They could easily snag the elections back in 2008. The Democrats know this as well, which is why both sides will be scrambling to try and stake out new positions.

I'm still shocked at how bad the ass-whupping was. I would have still thought the GOP would take things right back in 2008 after the Bush backlash fades but now I think it's 50/50.

[REMgirl]

And contained within #2, People Hate Bush, would be the subsets

A) Iraq is a black hole, sucking lives and dollars with no end in sight and Bush repeatedly refused to adjust his plans to end it.

B) People are still pissed (and rightly so) about the lack of progress in the Katrina-hit areas.

C) The corruption within Bush's administration finally boiled over, in cases as early as the Bill Frist and Tom Delay dismissals, then with Foley. And I wonder how many votes rolled in as a protest against the Rush Limbaugh comments against Michael J Fox late in the race in Missouri. (Thanks, Rush!)

D) The "Vote the Bums Out" mentality. It didn't matter if the Republicans put up Superman as a candidate. Good guys like Lincoln Chaffee got pulled under, too. The "Blue Wave" was this country's patience running out and voting a straight Democratic ticket.

[akip]

i actually voted repub for state comptroller. but this is new york, another planet. ;)

[twentyshots]

i actually voted repub for state comptroller. but this is new york, another planet. ;)

how about that Spitzer, eh? i hope that guy goes a long way. what i do know about him is that he has the cojones to stand up to any special interest.

[akip]

how about that Spitzer, eh? i hope that guy goes a long way. what i do know about him is that he has the cojones to stand up to any special interest.

spitzer's my man! i got to meet him and he's crackling.

talked to a repub bank pres who supports him. he thinks it'll take a dem, but an SOB dem, to shake up new york state. i'm all for it.

[slopechz]

And contained within #2, People Hate Bush, would be the subsets

A) Iraq is a black hole, sucking lives and dollars with no end in sight and Bush repeatedly refused to adjust his plans to end it.

B) People are still pissed (and rightly so) about the lack of progress in the Katrina-hit areas.

C) The corruption within Bush's administration finally boiled over, in cases as early as the Bill Frist and Tom Delay dismissals, then with Foley. And I wonder how many votes rolled in as a protest against the Rush Limbaugh comments against Michael J Fox late in the race in Missouri. (Thanks, Rush!)

D) The "Vote the Bums Out" mentality. It didn't matter if the Republicans put up Superman as a candidate. Good guys like Lincoln Chaffee got pulled under, too. The "Blue Wave" was this country's patience running out and voting a straight Democratic ticket.
Exactly on point. The corruption issue was #2 in exit polling.

[markalot]

Here's one for you: Where would you put Nancy Pelosi? Conservative or liberal, moderate or extreme?


I don't think Nancy can be judged yet because she's never held a 'national' seat. She has been a good representative of her district, which is liberal and pretty extreme (extreme for me anyway). Let's see what she does now that it counts.

Yeah but you're just taking a set of viewpoints you agree with and calling it "conservative!" :p


Hey, if they can do it so can I. :D I'm not saying you're wrong (I don't think it's possible to be correct), I'm simply defending my use of classic conservatism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism

Defining "American conservatism" requires a definition of conservatism in general, and the term is applied to a number of ideas and ideologies, some more closely related to core conservative beliefs than others.

1. Classical or institutional conservatism - Opposition to rapid change in governmental and societal institutions. This kind of conservatism is anti-ideological insofar as it emphasizes process (slow change) over product (any particular form of government). To the classical conservative, whether one arrives at a right- or left-leaning government is less important than whether change is effected through rule of law rather than through revolution and sudden innovation.

[the happy prole]

1. Classical or institutional conservatism - Opposition to rapid change in governmental and societal institutions. This kind of conservatism is anti-ideological insofar as it emphasizes process (slow change) over product (any particular form of government). To the classical conservative, whether one arrives at a right- or left-leaning government is less important than whether change is effected through rule of law rather than through revolution and sudden innovation.

You think this applies to you and George F. Will? You don't particularly care about the size or policy of government? Your major concern is societal stability and preventing revolution? If that's the case, you both do an awful lot of complaining and crying out for change. :p

I don't think there are a whole lot of classical conservatives in the US. It's probably a good thing. Our society is pretty stable, and we're happy with our system of government overall so whacky changes are not a big concern. Look at our politics vs. Europe's and you'll see we're pretty tame. I guess you could also look at it like we're all sort of classical conservatives. Either way, it ceases to be a meaningful term to contrast viewpoints in this country.

[markalot]

You think this applies to you and George F. Will? You don't particularly care about the size or policy of government? Your major concern is societal stability and preventing revolution? If that's the case, you both do an awful lot of complaining and crying out for change. :p

I don't think there are a whole lot of classical conservatives in the US. It's probably a good thing. Our society is pretty stable, and we're happy with our system of government overall so whacky changes are not a big concern. Look at our politics vs. Europe's and you'll see we're pretty tame. I guess you could also look at it like we're all sort of classical conservatives. Either way, it ceases to be a meaningful term to contrast viewpoints in this country.

I disagree.

Clinton's massive health care reform was not conservative. But I was hoping you'd read the wikipedia article and not just that quote. That's the basis of conservative and then it wanders around a bit. I take classic conservatism and blend in some more modern aspects to come up with my conservatism. I have no idea if that matches Will's or not. But generally speaking my brand of conservatism seemed to do quite well in this election.

[slopechz]

I disagree.

Clinton's massive health care reform was not conservative.
What health care reform? Your kidding, right? :rolleyes:

Welfare reform, yes. Health care reform, no.

[the happy prole]

markalot, I don't care what you label yourself. The problem is that you use your own label to contrast yourself with the world at large. Basically it's you-- the "classic conservative," vs the dreaded "progressive liberals" and the equally hated "neocons."

Apparently your view is that liberals are anti-business, pro-regulation, pro-large government, and all that other junk. And your view of "conservative" is that you're against all that. But it just so happens that my brand of liberalism scored very well this election as well. In fact, I think liberals everywhere are pretty happy today.

So how can polar opposites *both* be so happy with the election? Perhaps you need to rethink your definitions.

Nancy Pelosi is basically a meat-and-potatos, middle-of-the-road Democrat. Draw a line in between center and far left and that's Pelosi. She's done a poor job representing her district as her district is much farther left than her. I don't think she's all that well liked. She won her seat in a replacement election by beating out a more liberal opponent because Republicans voted for her. Since then, she's been the incumbent in a district where the GOP has no chance. She is in danger of losing to a more liberal opponent, which is why she is so aggressive about getting PAC contributions.

People think she is much more left-wing than she is because she happens to be in a prominent position and because of her district. Just like every liberal thought Newt Gingrich was extreme right wing when in fact he was pretty down-the-middle Republican. The party did well under him in large partly because he held the extreme right in check. You see what happened once he left. Pelosi is pretty much to the left what Gingrich was to the right.

[markalot]

What health care reform? Your kidding, right? :rolleyes:

Welfare reform, yes. Health care reform, no.

The healthcare reform he tried to pass in his first year in office failed and was one of the reasons the republicans took over the very next election. Welfare reform was crafted with the republicans and was a great example of a moderate policy put together by both parties that is still hailed today as one of the best pieces of legislation ever passed.

[markalot]

markalot, I don't care what you label yourself. The problem is that you use your own label to contrast yourself with the world at large. Basically it's you-- the "classic conservative," vs the dreaded "progressive liberals" and the equally hated "neocons."


So how can polar opposites *both* be so happy with the election? Perhaps you need to rethink your definitions.


One of us is wrong. :) Or, we're so close it no longer matters.

Does it surprise you that liberals see themselves as moderates? My brother in law (religious conservative) thinks he's moderate! But apparently you can label yourself what you want, and label Nancy middle of the road (hahaha) Pelosi what you want.

Ok, I post this editorial below for amusement, but lets get one thing clear. I am not the liberal hater you think I am. I like moderation just like you do, and if we could plot it we'd probably be quite close, me a little to the right. It seems you're frustrated I'm not a foaming at the mouth conservative. Sorry.

--------------------------------------

Only a Minor Earthquake

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 10, 2006; A31

How serious is the "thumpin' " the Republicans took on Tuesday? Losing one house is significant but hardly historic. Losing both houses, however, is defeat of a different order of magnitude, the equivalent in a parliamentary system of a vote of no confidence.

On Tuesday Democrats took control of the House and the Senate. As of this writing, they won 29 House seats (with a handful still in the balance), slightly below the post-1930 average for the six-year itch in a two-term presidency. They took the Senate by the thinnest of margins -- a one-vote majority, delivered to them by a margin of 8,942 votes in Virginia and 2,847 in Montana.

Because both houses have gone Democratic, the election is correctly seen as an expression of no confidence in the central issue of the campaign: Iraq. It was not so much the war itself as the perceived administration policy of "stay the course," which implied endless intervention with no victory in sight. The president got the message. Hence the summary resignation of the designated fall guy, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Nonetheless, the difference between taking one house vs. both -- and thus between normal six-year incumbent-party losses and a major earthquake that shakes the presidency -- was razor-thin in this election. A switch of just 1,424 votes in Montana would have kept the Senate Republican.

A margin this close should no longer surprise us. For this entire decade the country has been evenly divided politically. The Republicans had control but by very small majorities. In 2000 the presidential election was settled by a ridiculously small margin. And the Senate ended up deadlocked 50-50. All the changes since then have been minor. Until now.

But the great Democratic wave of 2006 is nothing remotely like the great structural change some are trumpeting. It was an event-driven election that produced the shift of power one would expect when a finely balanced electorate swings mildly one way or the other.

This is not realignment. As has been the case for decades, American politics continues to be fought between the 40-yard lines. The Europeans fight goal line to goal line, from socialist left to ultra-nationalist right. On the American political spectrum, these extremes are negligible. American elections are fought on much narrower ideological grounds. In this election the Democrats carried the ball from their own 45-yard line to the Republican 45-yard line.

The fact that the Democrats crossed midfield does not make this election a great anti-conservative swing. Republican losses included a massacre of moderate Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest. And Democratic gains included the addition of many conservative Democrats, brilliantly recruited by Rep. Rahm Emanuel with classic Clintonian triangulation. Hence Heath Shuler of North Carolina, antiabortion, pro-gun, anti-tax -- and now a Democratic House member.

The result is that both parties have moved to the right. The Republicans have shed the last vestiges of their centrist past, the Rockefeller Republicans. And the Democrats have widened their tent to bring in a new crop of blue-dog conservatives.

Moreover, ballot initiatives make the claim of a major anti-conservative swing quite problematic. In Michigan, liberal Democrats swept the gubernatorial and senatorial races, yet a ballot initiative to abolish affirmative action passed 58 to 42 percent. Seven of eight proposed state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage were approved. And nine states passed referendums asserting individual property rights against the government's power of eminent domain.

To muddy even more the supposed ideological significance of this election, consider who is the biggest winner of the night: Joe Lieberman. Just a few months ago he was scorned by his party and left for dead. Now he returns to the Senate as the Democrats' 51st seat -- and holder of the balance of power. From casualty to kingmaker in three months. Not bad. His Democratic colleagues who abandoned him this summer will now treat him very well.

Lieberman won with a platform that did not trim or hedge about seeking victory in Iraq. And he did it despite having a Republican in the race who siphoned off 10 percent of the pro-war vote. All this in Connecticut, a very blue state.

The public's views on what we ought to do with the war remain mixed, as do its general ideological inclinations. What happened on Tuesday? The electorate threw the bums out in disgust with corruption and in deep dissatisfaction with Iraq policy. Reading much more into this election is a symptom of either Republican depression or Democratic wishful thinking.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

[the happy prole]

All right, screw this. I was hoping maybe you could grasp something important, but it's obvious you're not gonna. So dialogue time is over, and I'm just going to *tell* you what the score:

1) Your description of liberals is clownish and inaccurate and typical of the right wing and that's why I think you don't have a proper perspective on what happens going forward. The difference between you and Krauthammer is much less than you think; he'd describe liberals the exact same way you do. Krauthammer's an ass and the neo-cons are dodging blame and deserting the ship, for now.

2) Whether you believe it or not Nancy Pelosi is mid-stream liberal. I'm sure in your view she's extreme and she's farther left than I like as well. But she's not as far out of touch with the populace as you think. Pelosi and Schumer run things now. If you have a problem with that, you are not going to like the next year or so.

3) These newly elected "conservative" Democrats will mostly toe the line. Because it's Rahm Emanuel that picked them, and it's the party's money that's behind them. They don't have the seniority and power the old Boll Weevils did because their constituents will vote them out in a second, considering most of them are Republican.

4) Healthcare reform. It is foregone conclusion that you'll see some sort of legislated health plan, the only question is how much. The only way this will not happen in the next two years is if the GOP can finagle a way to delay things so that they have a chance at getting what will be a very similar plan passed so they can hog the credit. Baby boomers are old, rich, selfish and have actually kind of carried the GOP the last few years. But really, Clinton's healthcare plan would have passed way back in '94 if it hadn't been the fact that Gephardt wanted to trot out his own version. Everyone wants it, it's going to happen.

5) Estate tax, all other upper class tax cuts-- Forget it. The middle class may get another tax cut because everyone caters to the middle class. If they do, it'll come out of the pockets of the upper class.

6) Social Security reform/privatization-- Forget it. People can't run from it fast enough. Old people love SS, and both sides need old people bad.

[markalot]

I think you're sadly mistaken.

4) Healthcare reform. It is foregone conclusion that you'll see some sort of legislated health plan, the only question is how much.


Sure we will. :rolleyes:

---------------------------------------------------

If it walks, talks like a conservative, can it be a Dem?
From John King
CNN

(CNN) -- Brad Ellsworth opposes abortion and same-sex marriage and is an Indiana sheriff who very much believes in the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

And he's coming to Congress as a Democrat.

"We're a pretty conservative bunch, and I think that I fit right in with those values of the people here," said Rep.-elect Ellsworth.

President Bush isn't the only conservative that Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California will have to deal with when she becomes House speaker in January. (Watch Pelosi explain how voters cast ballots for change -- 2:34Video)

Ellsworth is one of a crop of conservative and moderate Democrats who helped the party seize Congress in what has been viewed as a referendum on Bush, the Iraq war and corruption.

Democrats rode an anti-GOP, anti-incumbent wave right to the helm of Congress, and as ex-Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas noted, voters may have cast ballots against Republicans rather than for Democrats.

"The Democrats didn't win; the Republicans lost," said the former House majority leader. DeLay stepped down earlier this year after being indicted on state money-laundering charges. He has denied wrongdoing.

The new Democrats, say analysts, are likely to force the party to shift more toward center, or else butt heads with more liberal congressional leaders.

Among those in January's incoming freshman class are Ellsworth and Joe Donnelly from Indiana, Tim Mahoney of Florida, Ed Perlmutter of Colorado, John Yarmuth of Kentucky and Heath Shuler of North Carolina.

The House newbies are joined by a like-minded class in the Senate, including abortion opponent Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and guns rights advocate Jon Tester of Montana.

At least one of the freshmen says Democrats should rise above any political differences.

"Now is a time to come together. It really is the time to put politics aside," Tester said during his acceptance speech.

But Shuler, a devout Christian who abstains from alcohol and caffeine, was quick to distance himself from liberals when the GOP tried to peg him to Pelosi during the campaign.

"That's why we have to do a good job, being in the district like this, where we can talk and spread the word and say, 'You know, he's not like some of the national Democrats. You know, he's one of us,' " Shuler said.

Of course, friction between the conservative and liberal Democrats is inevitable. But one old pro, former Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri, says his party will figure out how to join forces.

"It won't be easy, because there is a lot of disagreement even in the Democratic caucus, but they all know the test is what can we get done and what can we get done that is important to the American people," said Gephardt, who served 14 terms in the House before deciding not to seek re-election in 2004.

The differences are going to be tough to detect at first because the new Democratic majority will first have to deal with shared campaign promises.

"They ran on two basic premises," said John Podesta, who served as White House chief of staff under President Clinton. "The first is we need a new course in Iraq, and the other is we need to strengthen the middle class in American again."

Podesta predicts the freshman class will help the Democrats overall heading into the 2008 presidential cycle.

"You are going to see particularly the more conservative members saying, 'Let's make sure the face we are showing on security is one I can go home and run on,' " he said.

They don't have to run again for two years, he said. Until then they'll have to prove they can get along.



Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/10/new.dems/index.html

[akip]

if i were trying to convince people i was a moderate, i don't think i'd point to the opinions of charles krauthammer. :p

there are two ways to win in american politics---fuel up the base by being hardline, or cater to the middle by compromising. rove pushed the former strategy beyond the breaking point. the middle was wide open for the taking. the dems took it. good.

[slopechz]

The healthcare reform he tried to pass in his first year in office failed and was one of the reasons the republicans took over the very next election. Welfare reform was crafted with the republicans and was a great example of a moderate policy put together by both parties that is still hailed today as one of the best pieces of legislation ever passed.
Really??? Wow I had no idea that's how it went down. Good grief. Your explanation was so helpful. :rolleyes:

[REMgirl]

Krauthammer, David Brooks, and countless other Republican mouthpieces are trying desperately to put their spin on the election losses. If you can't claim a win, then claim that the other side is really just trying to be like your side.

Progressives won and moderates won, but "conservatives" lost. It's wrong to label the Democrats as "republican lite" because they are different on many issues and they have no intention of adopting the talking points of the Republicans.

Minimum wage increases passed in five states, and that's a liberal issue. Missouri voted for stem cell research, another liberal cause. South Dakota voted down the abortion ban, another liberal issue.

Santorum, out. Allen, out. Delay, gone. Frist, gone. And goodbye to Rumsfeld, Hastert, and Mehlman. The Conservatives are no longer the forced voice of the American people.

I am looking forward to a strong Democratic voice being heard. It would be nice to "reach across the aisle" and learn to compromise and show some common sense for a change. That remains to be seen.

[classicgrrl]

The healthcare reform he tried to pass in his first year in office failed and was one of the reasons the republicans took over the very next election. Welfare reform was crafted with the republicans and was a great example of a moderate policy put together by both parties that is still hailed today as one of the best pieces of legislation ever passed.

MAL,

I deal first hand every day with the practical and logistical implications of this "best pieces of legislation ever passed" and I'm sorry but it stinks.

In theory it may sound wonderful; in practice, not so much.

It's hurting many, many children and it's effects will be felt within the next 5-10 years.

[akip]

there's so much bull still floating about clinton and his "liberal" agenda. when clinton was in office, my true-believer leftie friends (the 'democracy now' crowd) hated him---he was way too conservative for them.

as for clinton and health care, my geriatrician friend told me that under clinton he was constantly being scrutinized for medicare fraud. immediately after bush got in, the scrutiny STOPPED entirely. so, if conservatism is measured by the willingness of the govt to control its expenditures, then clinton was more conservative than bush. if conservatism is measured by the willingness of govt to cut back regulation, then bush is more conservative than clinton was.

of course, clinton was criticized by lefties for loosening the regulations on the financial markets as well as media ownership. so pick your fav facts and you can make a case either way.

[the happy prole]

Sure we will. :rolleyes:

Okay, I'm so confident of this I'll even tell you how it'll go down. Don't worry, it won't be a single payer system. It'll be something pretty modest and moderate, although "moderate" for most people might be "crazy socialist" for you.

What you'll get:

- A revised "Patient Bill of Rights" with a bit of teeth
- Bush's medicare subscription plan scrapped in favor of the government setting prices on prescription meds.
- Either tax incentives for small businesses to provide insurance, or the "managed competition" thing the Conservative Democrats have been trying to push out there. Maybe a combo of both.

Here's why:

-The McCain-Edwards-Kennedy version of the Patient Bill of Rights passed the Senate when the GOP had control. If anything, McCain's gotten more hardcore about this and the Democrats have the House now.

- Old people did not like Bush's medicare reform. You cannot make old people mad.

- Pick any one of your "conservative Democrats--" Shuler, Casy, whoever. Check out their stance on healthcare. They will ALL say Bush's medicare plan sucks and that the Government needs to step in and control the cost of prescription meds. And they will all say something about providing middle class America with insurance, and freeing them from the clutches of those horrible HMO's. Shumer and Emanuel made this a requirement for party backing.

- Healthcare is the one area where Democrats have consistently polled ahead of the GOP, probably going back at least since 2000. Pelosi knows this, and that's why it's on her Six for '06.

[akip]

it seems to me there was some bipartisan (clinton-fritsch?) push to computerize medical records. i wonder if that'll be revived.

while some people balk at the idea for privacy reasons, the current manual records-keeping system is a mess.

[markalot]

Krauthammer, David Brooks, and countless other Republican mouthpieces are trying desperately to put their spin on the election losses. If you can't claim a win, then claim that the other side is really just trying to be like your side.

Don't connect republican spin with conservative spin. The republicans got their asses kicked because they were not conservatives at all. I still say that if the dems in now stick to a moderate agenda the republican party will be out of power a long long time. Calling republicans conservative is akin to calling dems liberal. Used to be true, not true anymore.

CG, of course welfare reform hurts people, that's the purpose, it just doesn't hurt them as much as it could have. And like it or not it's still held in big regard by members of both parties.

What you'll get:

1 - A revised "Patient Bill of Rights" with a bit of teeth
2 - Bush's medicare subscription plan scrapped in favor of the government setting prices on prescription meds.
3 - Either tax incentives for small businesses to provide insurance, or the "managed competition" thing the Conservative Democrats have been trying to push out there. Maybe a combo of both.



Problems with Managed Competition
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba118.htm

Written during the Clinton years.

[markalot]

it seems to me there was some bipartisan (clinton-fritsch?) push to computerize medical records. i wonder if that'll be revived.

while some people balk at the idea for privacy reasons, the current manual records-keeping system is a mess.

Many doctors offices have computerized records, but there is no universal standard. The best 'standard' for medical data is an interchange standard that defines a format for exchanging data, but leaves the storage format up to the individual system.

[akip]

Many doctors offices have computerized records, but there is no universal standard. The best 'standard' for medical data is an interchange standard that defines a format for exchanging data, but leaves the storage format up to the individual system.

the hospital system where i work has manual records. i've often seen gaps, errors, and contradictions from report to report within a single chart, and i've seen multiple admissions of the same patient unmentioned in subsequent chart history. so doctors are going over the same ground on a repeat patient, and missing history, on top of the fact that the doctors' handwriting is often insanely difficult for transcribers and even other doctors to read. they admit that it's a problem, but say it's hard to make a change.

scripps in la jolla had computerized records, which was fantastic. they didn't have to ask the same damn questions over and over again and history is retained. a lot less room for inefficiency and inaccuracy.


btw, you also see a lot of sifting, copying and faxing back and forth of handwritten reports, which is of course performed manually. it's like a time-trip to another millenium.

[classicgrrl]

CG, of course welfare reform hurts people, that's the purpose, it just doesn't hurt them as much as it could have. And like it or not it's still held in big regard by members of both parties..

I wonder why corporate welfare reform is not held in big regard by members of both parties.
:rolleyes:

we waste FAR FAR FAR more money on coporate welfare than we ever did or ever will on personal welfare.

if I ever have to go on welfare (and I never will because I was smart enough not to breed), I will shoot myself. it's just easier.

[classicgrrl]

Many doctors offices have computerized records, but there is no universal standard. The best 'standard' for medical data is an interchange standard that defines a format for exchanging data, but leaves the storage format up to the individual system.

well get ready 'cause there is now.

bushy boy passed a little known thingy-ma-jig regarding standard computer healthcare records. I know because we have a whole fuckin' degree based off of it coming called HIT - healthcare information technology.

I don't know much about it except it is coming and is supposed to do for healthcare what was done for personal finance (FICA and all that mess).

[slopechz]

well get ready 'cause there is now.

bushy boy passed a little known thingy-ma-jig regarding standard computer healthcare records. I know because we have a whole fuckin' degree based off of it coming called HIT - healthcare information technology.

I don't know much about it except it is coming and is supposed to do for healthcare what was done for personal finance (FICA and all that mess).
It's not bushy boy, rather King George. :D

[markalot]

After the Democratic sweep of Congress, President Bush's approval reaches a new low. But voters want Democrats to chart a moderate course.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15667442/site/newsweek/

[classicgrrl]

It's not bushy boy, rather King George. :D

His dad may have been King but W is not.

[the happy prole]

The Democrats ARE moderate, and they will stick to a moderate agenda. I don't think anyone's arguing with you, Markalot. I think all of us here on the left are saying, "Yes, this was a definite move towards the middle."

Where you're completely off-target is your assumption that moderate is the same as conservative. You can go a lot farther left than you think and still be moderate. I'm not talking about whether health care reform or managed competition is a good idea, I'm just saying it will happen. And in fact, it would have happened and possibly even faster had the GOP held the line.



Welform reform really hasn't worked as well as people think, btw. The dot-com boom was responsible for some of the good stats. But there's also a good amount of people that used to get a welfare check, and now they get benefits through various programs that don't technicall count as welfare.

It just depends on your view of welfare. If the goal was to actually give people a chance to get to college and move into the middle class, it hasn't done that. If you're a fiscal conservative, it's a huge failure. The government is spending any less money, but there's a bigger loss of efficiency with administering all these requirements instead of handing out straight cash.

If you don't mind helping out the poor, but you want the government to try to target the funds towards healthcare or childcare instead of just handing out a blank check to the poor, then I think the program's been decently successful.

One thing is true: Both sides think it's the greatest thing ever. I think you can expect that formula to be followed. There will be some more funding for the lower class, but it will be "incentive funding." If one of the areas they explore is education, then it could actually have a huge impact. Which is pretty much why that won't happen.

[Docta]

i think how the dems succeeded is by taking 3 devisive issues off the table; abortion, gay marriage, and gun control. none of these are going to change no matter who's in charge (how far did the right get even when they had the house/senate/president/governors in their control?) so the dems are welcoming candidates (voters) who traditionally lean conservative on these issues.

and of course there's what al franken says too that helped, "republicans will tell you that government simply does not work.... then they get into power and prove it."

[markalot]

Where you're completely off-target is your assumption that moderate is the same as conservative.

I never once said that. I think this congress is conservative, and I think the election was a win for true conservatives, but I did not say moderate is the same as conservative.

[the happy prole]

Congress is in a weird spot because the election changes were largely a protest pf how Bush is handling the war. Unfortunately, they have very little control over it as that's an executive branch function.

I have no idea where the GOP goes from here. They're on the wrong side of health care reform. The natural issue would be immigration policy, but they may not actually have Bush in their corner. The GOP is still the tax-cut party so there will probably be very large middle-class tax breaks coming up. Other than that, there's not an issue for them.

Honestly, their best bet is to just play very nice with the Democrats and hope this blows over. And then in 2008 they can retake the red states that just voted against Bush. Pretty risky strategy, though.

[markalot]

Honestly, their best bet is to just play very nice with the Democrats and hope this blows over. And then in 2008 they can retake the red states that just voted against Bush. Pretty risky strategy, though.

I really think the republicans are done for a while. All the dems have to do is stay moderate for 2 years and they will win big in 08. If a republican wins the presidency in 08 then congress will move more democratic, otherwise the repubs may reclaim the house or senate in 2010, but not in 08.

I think 9/11 changed some of the rules, but only temporarily. Typically Americans don't allow the same party to control all branches of government but 9/11 and the security issue allowed the repubs to stay in power a lot longer than they should have.

Moving forward I think the repubs still get the nod for national security, so the presidency will most likely go repub, but congress should stay dem. The only question is how much damage Bush has done, and how much if any he can repair before the 08 elections.

[twentyshots]

this was interesting from yesterday, the latest al Qaeda tape remarked on the election:

"The terror group leader applauded this week's U.S. election results, saying, "The American people have put their feet on the right path by ... realizing their president's betrayal in supporting Israel. So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections."
Describing President George W. Bush as "the most stupid president" in U.S. history, al-Masri reached out to the Muslim world and said his group was winning the war in Iraq faster than expected because of U.S. policies."

you can't trust a snake but it is intriguing to wonder what is 'reasonable' to a terrorist organization?

[classicgrrl]

you can't trust a snake but it is intriguing to wonder what is 'reasonable' to a terrorist organization?
anything not Bush?

[markalot]

this was interesting from yesterday, the latest al Qaeda tape remarked on the election:

"The terror group leader applauded this week's U.S. election results, saying, "The American people have put their feet on the right path by ... realizing their president's betrayal in supporting Israel. So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections."
Describing President George W. Bush as "the most stupid president" in U.S. history, al-Masri reached out to the Muslim world and said his group was winning the war in Iraq faster than expected because of U.S. policies."

you can't trust a snake but it is intriguing to wonder what is 'reasonable' to a terrorist organization?

Nothing, just propaganda. Unless they're dumb they know both the repubs and dems support Israel.

[akip]

i'm close to two people who would support bush to his last gasp---my brother and an expat-brit (thatcherite) friend. they both made much of this election as a message to hamas and al qaeda to attack.

i don't think either organization is so naive as to think that nancy pelosi's taking over as speaker gives them their big opportunity. i don't think it means they are ready to shake hands either. i heard someone (i think it was richard haas of the council on foreign relations) say that iran does NOT want to see us pull out of iraq, 'cause they have their own kurdish problem to worry about----better to see us bogged down and spinning our wheels, while keeping the chaos somewhat in check. i don't know enough about it to agree or disagree (though it sounds logical), but i do think that our enemies are just as circumspect as we are. they'll keep doing what they do and so will we.

[akip]

just an aside---i was skimming through "vanity fair" at the kid's hockey practice, big article on rove. i don't remember having read this---his mother committed suicide and there's a persistent rumor that his father was gay. rove says he doesn't know whether he was or he wasn't.

interesting, coming from mr. wedge issue.

[Hogarth]

I heard on NPR that his stepdad was actually gay, and yet Karl was still close to him, despite the policies that he supported.(I sense a theme here. Just what is the deal with conservatives? I wish I'd taken psychology just so I'd understand how these people can compartmentalize themselves. The thought of cutting myself into little pieces like that is sad, just sad. This doesn't match with my ideal of integrety.) In any case, I think Karl Rove is done. No matter how conservatives spin it, he just ran the party aground.

[akip]

I heard on NPR that his stepdad was actually gay, and yet Karl was still close to him, despite the policies that he supported.

okay, this is where the plot thickens.

according to "vanity fair," louis rove was the man karl knew as his father, but when karl was 19, louis walked out. not long after, karl found out that louis was NOT his biological father. it was also after louis left his family that rove's mother broke down and ended up killing herself. anyway, friends of louis rove said that louis was lived as openly gay in palm springs afterwards and that he and karl became even closer late in louis' life.