Just think of left wing logic like this. 5 x 8 = 73. Then get really mad about it! Once you can do that, you will be able to understand them. -- Don_cos
Quote Of The Day: There's Never A Shortage Of Nuts At A Liberal Dinner Party
"When I asked Gore Vidal at dinner why the White House seemed so serene and at ease about the vote, he replied that, this time around, the Bush-Cheney henchmen could simply call on martial law. He glumly noted that we are so far down the road toward totalitarianism that, even if Democrats do win back the Congress, it would take at least two generations before the last six years of damage to the nation could be reversed." -- Lyn Davis Lear at The Huffington Post
Yesterday, I was thrilled to get an opportunity to interview syndicated radio host and columnist, Larry Elder. What follows below is an edited transcript of our conversation. Read and enjoy!
John Hawkins: Despite being lavished with favorable attention from the mainstream media, Air America just went bankrupt. Now, you're a successful talk radio host, you're syndicated all over the country, so you know the business. Tell us, why did Air America fail?
Larry Elder: Air America - first of all, I'm not sure it has failed. It's gone into Chapter 11 which is re-organization and it's not uncommon for companies to go into Chapter 11 and come out leaner and stronger, so I don't think we ought to write their epitaph just yet.
...The reason they're having difficulty is because of why they exist in the first place. They are not there because they perceived there to be a need in the market place. They're there to counter what they consider to be this monolithic domination of talk radio by right wingers. A radio star becomes a radio star in his or her town first, like the way Rush did in Sacramento, and then begins taking in markets. You do it from the bottom up rather than from the top down.
This is somebody saying, "Ha, right wingers have dominated talk radio. Let's do something about it," as opposed to, "There seems to be a screaming market for liberal radio. There are areas in the country where a liberal radio host would do well because our surveys have shown that prospective listeners have nowhere to go." I doubt very seriously that they did it that way.
They did it as a counter to talk radio rather than as a need to address a gap in the marketplace and the reason there is no gap in the market place is because Air America, in a much more subtle form, is on television every day. It's just called ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN.
If you want to have an article or a point of view against gun control, in favor of the Brady Bill, and in favor of further gun control, cut on your television. You know, ...there'll be talking heads that will talk about the need for further gun control just the way a talk show host on Air America would. So, it's not as if the marketplace is screaming for points of view that are liberal.
If you want a point of view about the need for Hillarycare, a type of health care, cut on your television. It's there. If you want a point of view about the need for greater federal government involvement in education, cut on your television. Cut on your local news, cut on your national news, pick up your local newspaper. Read the editorial section. It's all there.
Talk radio on the conservative side fills a need. The need is that our perspective is not getting out -- the desire for limited government, lower taxes, a strong national security, calling Bush "not a moron." Those kinds of things are not addressed in the...I call it the "mainscream" media - and that's the need.
So I figured it was going to fail as soon as I heard what their desire was, which was to basically serve as a "counter" to what they perceived to be the pernicious effect of right wing radio. Hey, that's a recipe for a disaster.
I've run a business before. I practiced law for 2 ½ years, John, and then I ran a head hunting business for about 15 years. I sold it to go into talk radio, never missed a payroll, always kept the door open, and it is a very, very difficult thing to do - to start and run a successful business, which is why most of them fail. But, you don't go into it saying, "I'm going to right the wrongs, I'm going to level the playing field." You go in there because you feel that there is a market demand that you can fulfill. They went in there for exactly the wrong kinds of reasons.
How about clicking on just a few of these ads? It helps support Right Wing News and it rewards advertisers for spending money on conservative blogs. So, hope you'll help out!
Yesterday, I did a phone mini-interview with Bob Corker, the GOP candidate for the Senate in Tennessee. Corker's race against Harold Ford is incredibly important because if the Democrats are going to take over the Senate, it looks like they're going to have to beat Bob Corker to do it.
So, with the election just a few weeks away and with the race between Corker and Harold Ford considered to be a dead heat by most pollsters, he agreed to be interviewed by Right Wing News. What follows is an edited transcript of our conversation:
John Hawkins: If a Tennessee voter were to come up to you and say, "Bob, give me 3 differences between you and Harold Ford, that would convince me to vote for you, what would you say to him?"
Bob Corker: Oh gosh, coming up with only 3 would be tough. ...We have a totally, totally different view of the world as it relates to what the federal government should and should not be doing. I obviously embrace those...conservative common sense values that have made Tennessee great. He is the most liberal voting member of the Tennessee delegation. He votes 88% of the time like Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy.
He opposed the tax cuts in '01 and '03. Opposed their extensions. Opposed doing away with the death tax as foolish. Opposed capital gains cuts up until the very last (time) when he was running for the United States Senate. He opposed doing away with the marriage penalty. Opposed Judge Alito and said so publicly. I can go on and on and on and on. But, his view of what we should do nationally and what I think should happen nationally could not be more different.
John Hawkins: Now, we just talked a little bit about the issues. Now if there were some other things you could have the voters in Tennessee know about Harold Ford, what his background is like, any sort of ethical problems he has, what would they be?
Bob Corker: You know, I have stayed away from those sorts of issues. I think though, that what people see is a Ford political machine. People in the state have seen a Ford in his seat now for the last 32 years. You know, politics is the family business....One of his cousins ran in the Democratic primary and lost, so now his brother is running as an independent for that same seat. I think you know that his father lobbies down in Washington. (Harold Ford) sits on the financial services committee and oversees Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae hired his dad to be a lobbyist. I could go into a lot of other issues, but it's probably not appropriate for me to do (that). But,...politics to my opponent is truly the family business. It's what he does and what he has always done.
It's just a very different approach to public service. I approach it with a tremendous sense of mission, to really put those changes in place to make our country stronger and this is just what he does, if you will, for a living.
John Hawkins: Now, if we're talking about the sort of conservatives who read my blog, there are probably three issues that they care about the most. Those issues are illegal immigration, deficit spending, and the war in Iraq. So, tell us about where you stand on those issues.
Bob Corker: ...We need to secure our border. There are all kinds of technology available for us to be able to do that easily. Obviously in the more urban and congested areas, we need to have barriers.
Number 2, we need to allow people to work in our country only if they're legal.
...Thirdly, anybody who is here illegally, I believe should return home and only come back through legal channels. Senator Cornyn of Texas has done some good work in that regard. I know that's controversial, but I believe it's the only way to deal with the issue in the appropriate way.
Fourthly, I believe we should have an instant certification process so people know if (workers) are here legally or not. There's a tremendous amount of document fraud that takes place all across our country. And, I think employers who abuse (the process) ought to be punished.
My last point is that I really do believe that if people wish to become citizens, which is aside from illegal immigration ...I think people who want to become citizens need to learn the English language and understand what it means to be an American. Those are my views on illegal immigration.
John Hawkins: ...Now, quick follow-up question on illegal immigration. Are you prepared to say, given what you just said, that you'd have been prepared to vote against the Senate immigration bill had you been in the Senate?
Bob Corker: There is no question that I would have voted against the Senate legislation.
...On deficit spending, I think that one of the reasons, today, that Republicans have so much wind in their face at the national level...people talk about the war in Iraq, people talk about a lot of things, but I think it has been the spending. Spending has caused people across this country to look at Republicans in a different way. It's like we've lost our brand at the national level of being the Party of limited government. I am very concerned about the culture in Washington today, the lack of focus on putting downward pressure on government spending. I can assure you that if I'm elected, I will be somebody that focuses every day on that issue.
I came in as Commissioner Of Finance, John, in the middle-nineties when (we had a) 250 million...gap in our state budget and through cuts, was able to balance our budget. And, I still have people in the state of Tennessee that won't support me in this race because of some of those cuts. But, that's just what you have to do to keep our country strong and keep Tennessee strong.
...As far as the war in Iraq goes, like most Tennesseans, I think we did not go to Iraq with enough troops in the first place. I don't think we listened to the military commanders on the ground in the way that we should have and I really do believe that we need to listen to them, that we need to make sure that they've got the tools and equipment necessary. I think we need to focus on the hot spots like Baghdad and get civil order in those places. We need to disarm the militias. You know, if you think about the way that Iraq is, it's almost like every politician has his own militia. You can see where that is the formula for tremendous chaos there. ...And, I think we need to continue to work hard to train the (people of Iraq) to defend their country and as soon as we do that...I look forward to bringing (our troops) home. I think that the worst thing we could do in Iraq right now would be to leave prior to the Iraqi people being able to secure themselves.
John Hawkins: Both you and Harold Ford have pledged self-imposed term limits in the Senate. But, of course, sometimes politicians who make those sort of pledges don't stick to them...
Bob Corker: Right.
John Hawkins: If you were elected, would you be willing to support legislation making term limits mandatory?
Bob Corker: Sure. ...I think one of the reasons that we're seeing a lack of focus on fiscal spending in Washington is that I think the Republicans have started to act like the party in power. There have been things like the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska and I can cite other examples. And, I realize that those are not the bigger ticket items, but they create a mentality there that I think is unhealthy. Listen, I have served 5 1/2 years total in the public arena and I came from one of those families where you go do what you say you're going to do and then you leave. I served a year and a half as the Commissioner of Finance in our state. It was a job to do. I went in and I did it and I left. I did the same thing as Mayor (of Chattanooga). I loved being Mayor more than anything I've ever done in my entire life, but I had done everything I said I would do.
John Hawkins: Ok...(thank you for answering my questions, I really appreciate your time!)
The Top 6 Pick-Up Opportunities For The GOP In The House
Unfortunately, pollsters haven't been doing a good job of polling seats where the GOP has an opportunity to pick up seats. So, I've been scouring the polling data, making phone calls to campaigns, talking to contacts, I've come up with, at least for the moment, our top 6 pick-up opportunities in the House. The links are below if you'd like to contribute to each campaign:
Everything You Wanted To Know About Liberals On A Bumper Sticker
Earlier today, as I was perusing the The Smirking Chimp, I ran across an ad for a company called CarryaBigSticker and I thought you might enjoy seeing a few of the stickers that apparently appeal to a liberal audience. Enjoy, read it and weep, you know, whatever does it for you:
Gas Stamp Act (McDermott, D-WA)—H.R. 3712. Creates billions of dollars in gas stamps each year for people to get free gas, to be distributed to those already eligible for food stamps.
Ex-Offenders Voting Rights Act (Rangel, D-NY)—H.R. 663. Allows those convicts who are just out of prison to vote.
National Health Insurance Act (Dingell, D-MI)—H.R. 15. Institutes a new 5% value-added tax on property and services and creates a board to oversee payment to any individual for medical services not covered by Medicare.
End the War in Iraq Act (McGovern, D-MA)—H.R. 4232. Defunds the War in Iraq, forcing immediate troop withdrawal.
A Living Wage, Jobs for All Act (Lee, D-CA)—H.R. 1050. Builds on and strengthens FDR’s “Economic Bill of Rights,” creating rights to “decent” jobs, income for individuals unable to work, a “decent” living for farmers, freedom from monopolies, “decent” housing, “adequate” health care, Social Security, education, work training, collective bargaining, a safe working environment, information on trends in pollution sources and products and processes that affect the well-being of workers throughout the world, voting, and personal security. The bill also requires the Attorney General to create a registry of all corporations convicted of violating state or federal law.
Social Security Forever Act (Wexler, D-FL)—H.R. 2472. Imposes a new income tax on workers, employers, and self-employed businessmen to fund Social Security.
Universal National Service Act (Rangel, D-NY)—H.R. 4752. Makes it an obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the U.S., between the ages of 18 and 42, to perform a two-year period of national service, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense.
And then there are the proposed amendments.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of citizens of the United States to health care of equal high quality (Jackson, D-IL)—H.J.Res. 30. Creates a constitutional right to equal health care.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing (Jackson, D-IL)—H.J.Res. 32 and Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to a home (Rangel, D-NY)—H.J.Res 40. Creates a constitutional right to housing.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to full employment and balanced growth (Jackson, D-IL)—H.J.Res. 35. Creates a constitutional right to full employment.
Granted that most of these bills might not make it out of committee or the House, much less into law. But it is an eye-opening look at how different the discussion in politics would be with Democrats in control. Are those conservatives who are so fed up with GOP spending ready to face a House that would be led by Democratic members looking to guarantee all sorts of new entitlements. And note the clear willingness to raise taxes to pay for these new rights. No matter how annoyed you are with the GOP for spending, at least we haven't been discussing new taxes while they've been in control. And we certainly haven't been talking about the federal government guaranteeing voting rights for convicted felons or mandating service from 18 to 42 year olds!
This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.
A Simple, Three Step Guide To Getting The Most Out Of Election Polls
You hear a lot of people saying that you can't trust the polls and that they're always slanted against the GOP. That's actually not true. Rather than go into a long, detailed breakdown on polling data, let me give you some short and simple tips on how to actually get meaning out of the poll numbers you're going to see in abundance in the run-up to the election.
#1) What Type Of Voters Are Being Polled: Polls of adults? They're meaningless for political purposes and slant heavily towards the Democrats. Polls of registered voters? They're a bit more meaningful, but they still slant towards the Democrats. Polls of likely voters? These are the most meaningful and accurate polling numbers for election results.
#2) All Pollsters Are Not Created Equal: In my book, there are two types of elections pollsters.
The first is reputable pollsters including, but not limited to: Gallup, Rasmussen, Survey USA, Quinnipiac, Mason Dixon, etc. The pollsters aren't perfect, but you can have some confidence in their numbers.
The second group of pollsters includes universities and newspapers in general, internal polls, polls done by partisan polling companies, and Zogby. These polls aren't meaningless, but you should really take the numbers they put out with a grain of salt.
#3) Don't Look At Polls, Look At Trends: Because of the margin of error built into every poll and the occasional statistical blips that cause polls to blow out in one direction or another, any one poll isn't necessarily all that meaningful (although of course, you'd always prefer to be ahead, rather than behind, and the bigger the margin, the more chance that it accurately portrays who's ahead and who's behind.)
So, in order to get the most value out of polling data, you need multiple polls from multiple polling agencies to get a real sense of who's ahead or behind.
For example, show me three polls from a month ago showing a candidate down by an average of 15 points and three polls from last week showing the same candidate down by an average of 4 points and you can comfortably predict that candidate has momentum.
Show me three polls, all from roughly the same time period, showing a candidate down by 4, 1, and 5 points, and you can feel comfortable in saying that candidate is really down.
Show me three polls, showing a tie, one candidate up by 2, and the other showing the other candidate up by 3, and you can comfortably predict that the race is within the margin of error.
Now, will this always work? No, because when you play with statistics, you're going to come up with some oddball numbers every once in a while. But, it will usually work and if you follow trends, not individual polls, you'll have a pretty good idea of what's going on as long as there is enough polling data to work with.
The Latest From The Daily Kos: Bush-Hitler Will Call Off The Election!
Over at the most popular liberal blog on earth, The Daily Kos, diarist radio waves has a bold prediction: that Chimpy McBushHitler will actually cancel the election (These guys just keep getting crazier and crazier as time goes on):
"Many of us have by now made the Bush/Hitler comparison. Most of us are good and decent and have had a hard time fully grasping the reality of the first Hitler, and now it looks like few will see the new Bush/Hitler for what he is until it's too late.
Three years and several usernames ago I did a Diary on a book titled "Nazi Seizure of Power: The Experience of a Single German Town 1922-1945". The book describes the Nazi version of our complicit media, including the use of Rush Limbaugh type apologists. Anyone who read the book pre-2000 has been watching Bush in horror. I wrote then how we were watching the same Nazi plan unfolding again. I didn't expect many to listen. I wouldn't have had I not studied Hitler so thoroughly.
...We know that The American-Nazi party has been working diligently to dismantle our Constitution in preparation of something. Would such a large and powerful group go to such extremes for no reason other than to ensure they held onto power in America? No No No! They HAVE all the power they could use HERE. They own the media, the military, most business, and they are quite happy and successful buying our laws ala cart. No, this Nazi Party, like the first, has a bigger plan than national domination.
...SO, WHAT'S NEXT? An honest election? LOL! I'm in no mood for jokes, please! I don't imagine Adolf Hitler allowing ANY election with his own Party so weak and bound to lose miserably. Bush/Hitler has the power to stop this election, and now has the power to stop us all from doing anything about it. He's knows there's no love to lose between us.
The only question that really matters now is, when and how will he stop this election, and WHAT WILL WE DO IN RESPONSE? That's where we're at.
The world is about to change, and I'm spending as much time as I can with my grandkids till the fan quits slinging sh*t.
Sorry, but I'm too tired and feel too bad to sit here any longer."
Over the next few days, you're probably going to hear people talking about Hot Soup, a brand new website with a lot of high profile members.
Well, they recruited me to participate in the project, which has other people involved -- like Ed Gillespie, Lance Armstrong, Donna Brazile, Mary Matalin, & John McCain, Berkeley Breathed, & Jon Bon Jovi. Now, why they recruited me? That's another question. Maybe they were coming up short on the conservative blogger demographic or something =D
In any case, as an experiment (and in hopes of getting my name out there a little more), I decided to create a Conservative Forum over at Hot Soup.
Feel free to head on over and give it a proper kick-off!
George Stephanopoulos: “You've used some pretty tough rhetoric. You said this election is 'a choice between Republicans and Democrats who want to wave the white flag of surrender in the war on terror.' Can you name a Democrat who wants to 'wave the white flag of surrender'?”
President George W. Bush, referring to Senator John Kerry: “I can name a Democrat who said there ought to be a date certain from which to withdraw from Iraq, whether or not we've achieved a victory or not-”
Stephanopoulos: “That's surrender?”
Bush: “Yeah it is, if you pull the troops out before the job is done. Absolutely George.”
Stephanopoulos: “So you don't think that's questioning their patriotism when you say that?”
Bush: “No, I know it's not questioning their patriotism. I think it's questioning their judgment.”
Clap, clap, clap! That is magnificent!
However, I am burying the lede. The headline of the article is, "Bush Accepts Iraq-Vietnam Comparison." Here's the relevant portion of the article:
"President Bush said in a one-on-one interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that a newspaper column comparing the current fighting in Iraq to the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam, which was widely seen as the turning point in that war, might be accurate.
Stephanopoulos asked whether the president agreed with the opinion of columnist Tom Friedman, who wrote in The New York Times today that the situation in Iraq may be equivalent to the Tet offensive in Vietnam almost 40 years ago.
"He could be right," the president said, before adding, "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election."
"George, my gut tells me that they have all along been trying to inflict enough damage that we'd leave," Bush said. "And the leaders of al Qaeda have made that very clear. Look, here's how I view it. First of all, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. They are dangerous. They are lethal. They are trying to not only kill American troops, but they're trying to foment sectarian violence. They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw."
What was the Tet Offensive? It was a massive offensive by the Vietcong that was, from a military standpoint, a complete and utter disaster. To say that we decimated their forces during the Tet offensive is an understatement. Yet, what happened? The mainstream media in the United States portrayed an incredible American victory as an enormous American defeat.
Saying that what's going on in Iraq is like Tet isn't an admission that it's a failure, it's a way of saying that the terrorists are losing, we're winning, and the media is botching the coverage. Of course, since portraying American victories as defeats is the standard operating procedure of the American media, it's not surprising that they weren't self-aware enough to understand the reference.
PS: Let me add that the war in Iraq is not going as well as I'd hoped it would. For example, I expected that we would be withdrawing a significant number of troops from Iraq this year as the Iraqi military filled the void. Of course, that still may happen by the end of the year, but it is disappointing that it hasn't happened yet.
That being said, the terrorists cannot win unless we give up before the Iraqis can replace us. And, I'm still of the opinion that by the end of 2007, the US role in Iraq will be more similar to the one we're playing in Afghanistan currently than the policing the streets role we're playing now. In other words, we'll be using special forces, air power, training the Iraqis, and helping them with logistics, but I don't think our troops will be acting as policemen. Given the number of Iraqis that have already been trained and the number that are coming through the pipeline, there should be no reason for our troops to be filling that role at that point -- and let's face it, if the American people don't see a lot of American troops coming home by then, the mood will get so ugly that Congress will end up forcing Bush's hand. On the other hand, if our causalities drop off significantly because our troops aren't patrolling and a lot of our boys get to come home, the public's mood should improve significantly.
So, as George Bush says, there shouldn't be a timeline, because this needs to be a decision made based on what's happening on the ground in Iraq, not based on political maneuvering back home. But still, the Iraqis and our generals need to understand that no matter how resolute George Bush is, the American people's patience is starting to wear thin, and the overwhelming majority of the Democrats in Congress will happily abandon Iraq to the terrorists if they think it's politically expedient. That means we've got to take some more steps forward in Iraq -- or more to the point, the Iraqi forces need to start standing up faster, so our troops can start standing down.
Where Your Campaign Contributions Can Have The Biggest Impact Right Now
Now that it has become apparent that the GOP is in a real dogfight to hold onto Congress, a lot of Republicans who had tuned out before are starting to wonder where their campaign contributions can have the greatest impact.
Well, let's think about that. Governors' races and Senate races tend to be big money affairs, while House races, comparatively at least, tend to be won or lost with much smaller sums. Next, you have to consider that incumbents have a much easier time raising money than candidates running for open seats.
So, especially in this political environment, where Republicans are on the defensive right now, non-incumbent Republicans, in close races for open seats, are the candidates who can probably get the most good out of campaign contributions.
But, has anyone out there put together a list of candidates like that? Well, as of now, they have.
What you will find below is a list of non-incumbents, in tough races, trying to hold onto key seats in the House for the GOP. If you want to put your money where it will really make a big difference, these seats are a great place to start:
You can contribute to the following candidates through Rightroots:
Michele Bachmann (MN-06)
John Gard (WI-08)
Ray Meier (NY-24)
Rick O'Donnell (CO-07)
Peter Roskam (IL-06)
Mike Whalen (IA-01)
There are two other candidates for open seats that a lot of other people seem to think are vulnerable and I'm going to list them for that reason, but, at least for the moment, to me they look like they're in decent shape given their latest poll numbers and the composition of their districts:
For the last few months, whether you're talking about Republicans or Democrats, politicians in competitive races have fallen into one of two camps: politicians who are tough on illegal immigration and politicians who are pretending to be tough on illegal immigration.
Since that's the case, it would seem to be a no-brainer to trumpet the building of a fence along the Southern border to the high heavens. But, if the latest article from the Washington Times is to be believed, the Bush Administration doesn't want to do a public signing ceremony for the wall and they're also going out of their way to undermine everyone's expectations that the wall will be built:
"The White House is pleading with Congress to send over the bill authorizing 700 miles of fence on the U.S.-Mexico border so the president can sign it immediately...
Congressional Republicans, though, are convinced the issue is a political winner and want to hold onto the bill so it will be signed closer to next month's congressional elections. Once the bill is sent to the president, he has a limited amount of time to sign it before it dies as a pocket veto.
...Many blogs from across the political spectrum have speculated he is trying to scuttle the bill with a pocket veto, but Mr. Bush has said he will sign it, though in private, without a signing ceremony.
...The official rejected a signing ceremony, and said the White House doesn't want voters to expect too much out of the wall.
"We've got to be careful," the official said. "We are doing a lot on the border, and we cannot raise expectations that this bill of 700 miles of fence is going to happen immediately."
The official said the Department of Homeland Security doubts the value of 700 miles of fencing, instead saying that between 316 miles and 377 miles makes the most sense."
So again, if this article is to be believed -- and the Times is a conservative paper, so there's no reason to think that they're trying to sandbag the White House -- Bush is acting ashamed of signing onto the wall and White House officials are hinting that half the wall isn't going to be built. This is the sort of political acumen you'd expect from the Carter Administration, not from the same guys who ran circles around the Democrats for the last three election cycles.
Someone needs to walk up to the bubble those guys are in, knock on it a few times, wait for someone to come to the door, and then yell, "Have a public signing ceremony, talk about how much you can't wait to build that wall, and start acting like you're the President of the United States, not the President of Mexico!"
"Every movie needs a villain. Towel-heads and rednecks — of which I am one. If you write that word, please say that. I mean, I don't use that pejoratively, I use it defensively. Towel-heads and rednecks became the easy villains in so many movies out there." -- James Webb
Just for the fun of it, here are the TV shows I've got my Tivo set to record regularly:
Blade: The Series: Incredible first season! CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: I can't get into the other CSI shows for some reason. Dog the Bounty Hunter: I just started watching this. So far, so good. Family Guy: I think the quality level of the show has dropped off a bit. Futurama: I just watch this occasionally since I've seen 'em all. House: They never put on a bad show. Jericho: I've watched a couple of episodes and thought they were OK. Korgoth of Barbaria: Where are the rest of the episodes? PRIDE Fighting Championships: These fights are incredible! Reno 911:! The show isn't as funny as it used to be. South Park: The new season has been great! Supernatural: This is just an OK show, but it makes nice filler. TNA iMPACT!: These guys are head and shoulders above the WWE. The Venture Brothers: The new season has been great!
Whether the GOP holds onto Congress or not, it's clear that there needs to be some changes in the way that they're conducting business. That may mean some changes in leadership. It may mean instituting more party discipline so that members who sell out the base on key issues pay a bigger price for it. And, it definitely means that there needs to be some soul searching about how the Party is going to improve our stature in the eyes of the American public. Towards that end, here's an agenda that Republicans in Congress should consider pursuing in 2007 and 2008:
1) A Balanced Budget Amendment: The foundation that the modern Republican Party is built upon is limited government and fiscal responsibility. That's why we need to get back to fundamentals and propose a Balanced Budget Amendment. It'll prove to the American people and the base that the GOP hasn't forgotten what the Party stands for and besides, if it was good enough for the Contract with America, it should be good enough for the Republican Party.
2) Non-Retroactive Term Limits: Term limits come right out of the Contract with America and they're consistent with the conservative belief that the longer congressmen stay in office, the more likely it is that they'll be corrupted by the system. However, we have to face reality. We'll never talk members of Congress into term limiting themselves out of office. So, what's the solution? Non-retroactive term limits. The term limits would only apply to members of Congress who are elected for the first time in the 111th session of Congress. It's an imperfect solution, but it moves us in the right direction.
3) Continue to Stand With The President On Foreign Policy: 2007 will be the make or break year in Iraq and it’s entirely possible that we could see things come to a head with Iran and North Korea over the next two years as well. Since that's the case, the GOP needs to continue to stand behind the President, even if the political waters get choppy. The American people need to assured that at least one political Party in this country has the stomach to stand tall when this country is threatened.
4) Continue to Stand With The President On National Security Issues: Protecting this country from foreign enemies is the first job of the United States government and in an age when the Democratic Party no longer up to the task, the Republicans have to show the American people that they will be resolute. Let the Democrats spend their days demanding that we coddle members of Al-Qaeda and insisting that we give constitutional rights to the foreign terrorists decapitating our troops. It will only help emphasize the fact that there is just one Party that's willing to stand up against this country's enemies, and it's not the Democrats.
5) Prove To The American People That We're Still The Party Of Low Taxes: The GOP should push to make all of President Bush's tax cuts permanent and, at a minimum, they should try to repeal the Death Tax. Moreover, it would be a great idea to push for a change that would require a supermajority of Congress to raise taxes. Let the Democrats spend the next two years arguing for higher taxes while the GOP tries to reduce the tax burden on the American people.
6) Election Reform: Republicans never have anything to fear from fair elections; so the GOP should take the lead in pushing election reforms. All machines should be required to produce a paper ballot, Voter ID should be required at every polling place, and provisions should be put in place that preclude voting machines from being hooked up to the internet. Poor losers like Al Gore and John Kerry have lessened the people's faith in our electoral system, but it can be Republicans who prove to everyone's satisfaction that the system still works as it should.
7) A Health Care Reform Bill: We need to prove to the American people that we can compete with Democrats on "mommy" issues like health care. Towards that end, we should push a bill that will include: tort reform, streamlining the regulations that make bringing a new drug to market so slow and expensive, health care savings accounts, and allowing health insurance companies from anywhere in America to compete for business in any state.
8) A 21st Century Energy Policy: Americans are sick of high gas prices and tired of being told that we can't meet our energy needs. That's why the GOP needs to push a large new energy bill that allows more drilling for oil, particularly in ANWR, provides more tax credits for new refineries and nuclear power plants -- while simultaneously cutting away at the red tape, lawsuits, and environmental regulations that are stopping the country from meeting its energy needs. Let the Democrats argue that we should have high gas prices and people should get used to wearing sweaters when it gets cold. Let the GOP be the party that looks out for the future of this country.
9) Getting Tough On Illegal Immigration: The American people are sick and tired of illegal immigration and they're even more sick and tired of Congress refusing to do anything about it. The Republican line needs to reflect that. Any guest worker program and amnesty must come not before, but after the wall is built and our borders are secure. That's the sort of position people expect from the "Law And Order Party."
In addition to those items, let's add Social Security reform, Medicare reform, pushing through conservative judges, Constitutional Amendments banning the burning of the American flag and defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, more ethics reform, pushing for conservative judges, flattening and simplifying our tax system, and expanding free trade policies.
What Republicans up on the Hill need to do is get back to basics. They need to be the "Daddy," Party again. They need to be the “Contract with America” Party again. Most of all, they need to be the Party of Ronald Reagan again -- strength, optimism, patriotism and the belief that America is great because of its people, not because of the government, which only tends to get in their way. Win, lose, or draw in the 2006 elections, it's time for the Republican Party to stand on principle again in a way that, unfortunately, we haven't been doing enough over the last few years.
Originally, ABC PAC told us that the 15th of October was the last day that they could guarantee that they could get the money that Rightroots raised out to the candidates we've been supporting. Well, last night, they informed us that has changed and that money contributed to the candidates can make a difference right up until election day.
So, we're back!
Do you still want to help? Well, the good news is that it's not too late. But, where should you chip in your money? Well, here's a suggestion: why not put a few bucks into some of those key seats that we need to defend in order to hold on to the House? Want a few suggestions?
Ok, here you go:
Michele Bachmann (MN-06)
John Gard (WI-08)
Ray Meier (NY-24)
Rick O'Donnell (CO-07)
Peter Roskam (IL-06)
Mike Whalen (IA-01)
Now, if you're looking to go on offense, there are a wider array of options open:
Chuck Blasdel (OH-6)
Max Burns (GA-12)
Diana Irey (PA-12)
Jeff Lamberti (IA-03)
David McSweeney (IL-08)
Ralph Norman (SC-05)
Van Taylor (TX-17)
Scott Tipton (CO-3)
Chris Wakim (WV-01)
Andrea Lane Zinga (IL-17)
Then, of course, there are always the Senate races. If I were doing them in priority order right now, I'd have to say it would go:
Thomas Kean (New Jersey)
Michael Steele (Maryland)
Mike McGavick (Washington)
Mike Bouchard: (Michigan)
Mark Kennedy (Minnesota)
Excerpt Of The Day: The Freaky Office Environment At The Nation
Okay, I admit it. As the election approaches, I am feeling a creepy sense of paranoia. My right brain reads the newspapers, studies the polls and thinks we are looking at a blow-out next month--Dems conquer at last. My left brain hoots in derision. Get real, sucker.
...When I heard the news flash that a plane had crashed into a Manhattan apartment tower, I didn't think, how horrible. I said to myself: those rotten bastards in the White House.
I wasn't thinking terrorists. I was thinking the Bush regime had gone to new extremes in its search for a believable "red alert." That tactic is worn out, it's been used so many times in election seasons. Instead, why not blow up a chunk of New York City to remind folks how scary life can be in these United States? Okay, that thought is irrational (also slanderous). But office conversations the next day told me I was not alone." -- William Greider at The Nation
I know this is not Q&A Friday, but I have a question I would like your opinion on. What happens to the Dems if they don't win either house of congress or just pick up one in November? A lot of analysis has been poured into what happens to the republicans WHEN they loose, but what happens to the Dems if it all just falls apart on them and they wind up not having a chair when the music stops on election day?
You site is the first one I look at in the morning. Thanks for being there.
Sincerely,
Dave Wells
P.S. This is not an original question, I first heard it asked by Rush earlier this week, but haven't been hearing many answer it."
Politics is cyclical. At times the environment favors the GOP and other times, it favors the Democrats. Right now, the environment is about as good as it's ever going to get for the Democrats. The Republicans control all three branches of government and people are unhappy with their performance. The President has an approval rating below 40%. The war in Iraq has been dragging on longer than people expected and hasn't been going as well as anyone hoped. Although gas prices have dropped, they're still high. There are an unusually high numbers of Republican seats in the House that are vulnerable because of corruption and scandal. It just doesn't get any better than this for the Democrats.
Now, if the Democrats still can't AT LEAST take the House, it should shake them to the core because if you can't win when everything is leaning your way, what happens when the Party is back on even ground or the GOP gets the upper hand again?
In other words, if the Dems still can't regain power in the House, it may be an indication that they need to make serious and lasting changes in the Party's core philosophy so that they can continue to remain competitive as a political party over the long-term.
What Passes For "Mainstream" Liberal Thought These Days Part 2
Would you like to see what the average liberal today believes, live and in living color? Then head on over to The Smirking Chimp, a wildly popular, mainstream liberal weblog.
So, what sort of "mainstream" ideas does this "mainstream" liberal blog promote? Well, what you're going to read below are some quotations from articles on the front page of the Smirking Chimp. Keep in mind that every single quote you're about to read comes from the authors of the posts on the front page, not from the commenters.
As you read what the people over at the Smirking Chimp have to say, just remember that the people writing these remarks are not that dissimilar in mentality to the Democratic staffers up on Capitol Hill, the Democratic Party activists, and indeed, the very people who will take the reigns of power in the United States if the Democrats do well enough at the polls in November.
This is what most liberals in America believe today. Read it and weep.
"Here is that address to Democrats Abroad (Munich), delivered 11 October, 2006:
Two years ago, when we last met in this same building shortly after the debacle of the 2004 election, the situation in the U.S. was really bad, but not yet desperate. The question then was "how bad would it get under CheneyBush?" The short answer to that question now is "Very VERY bad." Consider:
...* So bad that many of my friends and colleagues, depending on what happens November 7, are seriously thinking about getting out while the getting is good, like those who emigrated in fear from late-'30s Germany.
...* So bad that, at least on the fringes -- from the far Right and the far Left -- there is starting to be talk about the possible need for some kind of revolution, even if undefined.
* So bad, that some liberals -- yes, liberals! -- are starting to float speculation about a military coup to overthrow the Bush Administration.
....If the GOP can be decisively defeated on Nov. 7, there won't be an immediate turnaround, of course, but there will be hope for major changes down the road. If the GOP, through dirty tricks or otherwise, sqeaks through the midterm election not too badly hurt, all those extreme reactions I mentioned at the start of my talk will begin to look more and more necessary to many in order to save our country."
"In the two years since the fraudulent defeat of John Kerry, we've unearthed an unholy arsenal by which that election was stolen." -- Harvey Wasserman
"Recently, when Al Franken came to the Crest Theater in Sacramento, I was there with a large sign that said, "Impeach Bush." When a couple of old guys (who wore the hats of WWII veterans) walked by me, one said, "Impeach? Hell, kill the b*stard!" Several people standing nearby broke out in laughter. I laughed too..." -- Stephen S. Pearcy
"What's interesting about this story is that when Odysseus started his ferocious cleanup of the "suitors", one of them asked him why he was so filled with fury. Remember his answer? His answer was, "Because you were trying to steal my world."
That's the definition of a Republican: someone who's trying to steal your world, your kingdom, your children and the very heart and soul of your life.
Is money your God? Do you think it's ok to sacrifice other people's children to fatten the coffers of companies like Halliburn? Do you think Mother Nature is an insignificant motel for the salvation/damnation antics of Evangelicals? Do you think the pitiful and terrified residents of New Orleans deserved their fate because they weren't members of a George Bush country club?
If your answer is no to any of the above, then you're not a Republican. So no illusions, please. G. W. Bush is merely the smirking tip of this loathsome and heartless iceberg." -- W. Christopher Epler
"You wonder why Bush and his minions maintain the seemingly irrational belief that "things are going well" in Iraq, that "we're making progress," etc.? That's because things are going well in the war they are fighting: the war for money and power. What happens to the human beings caught up in this war – Iraqi civilians, or American citizens at ever-greater risk from the terrorism spawned by the war – is, again, no concern of the Bush gang. In fact, the worse things are from that standpoint, the better it is for the Bushists. The war profits (and stolen swag) they and their corporate cronies have accrued from the Iraq War (and the "War on Terror" as well) have given them unimaginable wealth with which to continue their overall dominance of American society – no matter who wins the elections in 2006 or 2008, or for decades beyond. As I've stated often before, no matter what happens, Bush and his cronies have already won the war." -- Chris Floyd
"How, then, might the Busheviks avoid accountability for their crimes by remaining in control of the Congress? The same way that they seized control of the White House in 2000, and maintained control of Congress and the White House in 2004, namely by rigging these elections through their surrogates in "the election industry."
...If, this time, the GOP control of the vote counting once again frustrates the will of a large majority of the voters, the proportion of doubters (half of the population, according to Zogby) will likely increase. Perhaps then much more than half will seriously doubt the validity of the elections, while many more "somewhat" doubt these results. At some point of no-confidence, the public at large will finally come to realize that the government of the United States no longer rules with "the consent of the governed" and thus lacks the legitimacy to govern.
What then? Worst case: Bush imposes the dictatorial powers given him by the Patriot Act and by the Military Commissions Act (of September 28), and the United States becomes in fact what it is now implicitly, a dictatorship. Best case: the people, united, overthrow the illegitimate regime. This has happened recently, in Ukraine in 2004 and in the Soviet Union in 1991." -- Ernest Partridge
UPDATE x2: I truly believe this sort of tactic is going to create a backlash. At least I hope it will. It should.
UPDATE x3: Daily Kos already has a diary on this that is linked on the front page. It has 680 comments as of 6:23 p.m. Pacific.
UPDATE x4: The Kos diary has a poll: “Do you agree with outing Gay Republicans?” It’s currently running 2032 “yes” (70%) to 848 “no” (29%).
UPDATE x5: The folks at Democratic Underground struggle to reconcile their delight at the news with their discomfort at the obvious thuggishness of the outing. They quickly find it’s easy to do, and any discomfort is quickly brushed aside.
People wonder why we don’t attract a wider range of qualified candidates for public office. Michael Rogers sets himself up as Exhibit #1. The personal and degrading attacks convince many people to skip the trouble, and the people who do dare to run for office usually wind up experiencing the ruination of their reputations in one form or other. It comes from all sides to some degree, but this ghastly mudslinging really marks a new low.
Will Democrats denounce this sleaze with the same ferocity? Somehow, I doubt it.
White House political strategist Karl Rove yesterday confidently predicted that the Republican Party would hold the House and the Senate in next month's elections, dismissing fallout from the sex scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley.
At a luncheon with editors and reporters at The Washington Times, Mr. Rove -- who is widely credited as the architect of the party's historic 2002 midterm election gains -- said Republicans are beginning to make significant headway in defining their party's differences from congressional Democrats, especially on national security.
"I'm confident we're going to keep the Senate; I'm confident we're going to keep the House. The Foley matter has impact in some limited districts, but the research we have shows that people are differentiating between a vote for their congressman and a member from Florida," Mr. Rove said, referring to the Republican who resigned last month after his sexually explicit online messages to former congressional pages were discovered.
President Bush has begun to paint this year's election as a choice between strength and weakness on national security -- and the stark differences will show Americans the true nature of Democrats, Mr. Rove said.
...Although Mr. Rove had previously predicted a loss of eight to 10 House seats, he said he remains confident that Republicans will not lose more than 15 -- the magic number that would flip control of the chamber to Democrats.
Democrats have to pick up six seats to gain control of the Senate -- virtually impossible, Mr. Rove said.
...Mr. Rove said history is on the Republican Party's side, noting that 97.5 percent of incumbents have been re-elected since 1996. This time, he said, there are "significantly" fewer open House seats than the Democrats had in 1994, when Republicans swept to power under then-Rep. Newt Gingrich's leadership.
..."For most Americans, particularly the marginal voters who are going to determine the outcome of the election, it started a couple weeks ago," he said. "Between now and the election, we will spend $100 million in target House and Senate races in the next 21 days."
Personally, I think the real key to holding the House is to pull 2-3 races that are leaning towards the Democrats out of the fire while simultaneously capturing 3-4 Democratic seats. If we can do that, then hopefully the money edge and the Get Out The Vote Effort can turn an inordinate number of toss-up races in our favor and we can hold the House. Also, it goes without saying that if the Bush Administration can use the bully pulpit to focus attention on national security in the last few weeks of the race, it would help GOP candidates across the board. We'll have to see how it plays out.
There has been a lot of back and forth among conservative bloggers about whether the Republicans deserve to win this year and perhaps it would even be a salutary lesson for the Republicans to lose their majority. The thinking goes something like this: the GOP have lost their focus on conservative principles and become just a corrupt version of the Democrats, voting for big spending measures and ignoring issues such as illegal immigration until it got to be an election year. A couple of years under Speaker Pelosi should focus their minds some.
This has always seemed to me to be the delusion of purists. As Tony Blankley points out today, there is no guarantee that a Republican defeat would be temporary. When the Democrats took control of the House in 1954, no one thought that they would have control for the next 40 years, but they did. And see if you like the prospect of these other consequences of a Democratic takeover of Congress.
Moreover, every Democrat who beats a Republican in three weeks will have two years to feather his or her nest, and use the powers of incumbency to defeat his 2008 Republican challenger.
Even more important, in a closely fought 2008 presidential election, every extra Democratic incumbent senator, congressman and governor makes it just a little more likely that the Democratic presidential candidate may win that district or state. All those freshly tuned new Democratic machines will help get out Democratic Party votes for the top of their 2008 ticket.
This current conservative petulance -- if it actually occurs on Nov. 7 -- will increase the chances of electing Hillary, or worse (if such a thing is possible) in 2008.
Yesterday, even James Taranto seemed to be signing on to the idea of the salutary effects of a GOP defeat.
It now seems within the realm of possibility that Democrats will take one or both houses of Congress in three weeks, even though they are campaigning on not much more than not being Republicans. But the Republicans are campaigning on not much more than not being Democrats. To our mind the Republicans have the better of this argument, but there is something to be said for punishing the party in power if its performance has been subpar.
It's hard for me to believe that the performance will improve if there's no prospect of suffering at the polls.
I guess I just don't expect all that much from our national leaders. I look for the least bad choice when I vote. I rarely am enthusiastic about my choices. So, I'm one of those voters persuaded by the Republican argument that it's enough to vote for them because they're not the Democrats. The GOP might be doing much of what I'd like, but at least they wouldn't be turning the war on terror into a legal exercise. At least they would be supporting conservative nominees for the courts. At least they realize the value of lowering taxes. Why should I be hoping that a party that is on the opposite side of those three issues, extremely important to me, would get the majority and all the advantages that incumbency provides.
Plus, I don't buy that a little stint in the wilderness would be all that salutary. I think that there are institutional reasons that lead congressmen to vote for pork. I suspect that the gushers of earmarks under the GOP are directly related to the success that the Republicans have had in pushing through certain legislation. If I can mix my culinary metaphors, the pork is the grease that gets those votes for issues such as tax cuts and CAFTA. You can't be happy with the conservative votes that the House has made without realizing that there was some horsetrading going on behind the scenes. And, even if they came back after a couple of years under Nancy Pelosi, there will still be Republicans in blue districts who won't support the strict provisions on immigration that some would like. And the media will still be there to portray any real cuts in government spending or regulatory government as draconian measures designed to throw the poor or the elderly out on the street forced to live off of dogfood and the bits of food thrown from the cars of the superwealthy as they pass by in their gas-guzzling SUVs as they travel from party to party celebrating their destruction of the environment. And those Republicans who won narrowly will be susceptible to that portrayal of conservative policies. So, it is not as if the Republicans would return refreshed from their time in the minority ready to battle as ideologically pure conservatives.
So, I'm left with this thought: do I really want to vote for politicians who don't even pretend to believe in the issues that are important to me? Or do I want to stay home self-righteous in my conservative indignation? What will be the result - a possible long stretch under the Pelosi and Reid Democrats or a return in two years to a Republican majority that will disappoint me yet again? Given those rather depressing choices, why go and vote for the Republicans? I figure that life is made of choices and those choices are often between two poor alternatives. And,it might not be inspiring, but I figure that I always want the least bad alternative. And this year, the Republicans are the least bad choice. And that's enough for me.
This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.
Unfortunately, my DSL was out last night and there were other issues beyond my control that fouled my schedule up horribly. Since that was the case, this is going to be one of those rare days that doesn't feature any daily news. Sorry about that. It should be back up and running normally tomorrow.
The Democrats' Top 20 Pick-Up Opportunities In The House For 2006
About 5 weeks ago, I put together a list of The GOP's Top 18 Pick-Up Opportunities In The House For 2006. At the time, I noted that the list of truly vulnerable Democrats was fairly small. Unfortunately, the reverse isn't true. There are a plethora of good Democratic pick-up opportunities and here's a run-down of their 20 best shots. "*" indicates an incumbent. (RR) means Rightroots endorsed. Hat tip to RealClearPolitics for the polling data.
1) District: (TX-22) Candidate: Shelly Sekula-Gibbs (R) vs. Nick Lampson (D) Latest Polls: None Odds of Democratic pick-up: Likely Democratic Pick-Up (90/10) Comment: This is Tom DeLay's old district. Since Lampson was getting geared up to run against DeLay, he has a huge warchest. Sekula-Gibbs, on the other hand, got in the race late and has to run as a write in candidate. The GOP would have had to spend millions to try to keep this seat and they couldn't afford it in this kind of environment.
2) District: (IN-8) Candidate: *John Hostettler (R) vs. Brad Ellsworth (D) Latest Polls: Ellsworth +14, +23 Odds of Democratic pick-up: Likely Democratic Pick-Up (90/10) Comment: People have been reluctant to move this race up the charts because Hostettler is an incumbent, but he's getting creamed by such a big margin that it's hard to see him pulling it out at this point.
3) District: (PA-10) Candidate: *Don Sherwood (R) vs. Chris Carney (D) Latest Polls: Carney +9, +14 Odds of Democratic pick-up: Likely Democratic Pick-Up (90/10) Comment: Sherwood had an affair and was accused of assault by his mistress. That doesn't fly in Republican districts. So, unless things change, it looks very bad for Sherwood.
4) District: (NC-11) Candidate: *Charles Taylor (R) vs. Heath Shuler (D) Latest Polls: Shuler +11, +8 Odds of Democratic pick-up: Likely Democratic Pick-Up (90/10) Comment: Shuler has been consistently ahead in this race for months and everyone has been waiting for Taylor to turn it around. At this point, it doesn't look like the turnaround is coming.
5) District: (NY-26) Candidate: *Tom Reynolds (R) vs. Jack Davis (D) Latest Polls: Davis +16, +15 Odds of Democratic pick-up: Likely Democratic Pick-Up (90/10) Comment: Reynolds completely tanked after the Foley scandal and he's going to have a hard time recovering at this point unless his opponent commits some sort of massive blunder.
6) District: (AZ-08) Candidate: Randy Graf (R) vs. Gabrielle Giffords (D) Latest Polls: Giffords +8 Odds of Democratic pick-up: Moderate Democratic Edge (75/25) Comment: The GOP backed Steve Huffman over Graf in the primary and when Huffman lost, they petulantly decided not to back Graf. If this seat ends up being lost, you can blame it on the Republican Party. On the upside, Graf has been picking up endorsements and momentum, so he's still in the hunt.
7) District: (OH-18) Candidate: Joy Padgett (R) vs. Zack Space Latest Polls: Space +7, +9 Odds of Democratic pick-up: Moderate Democratic Edge (75/25) Comment: This is Bob Ney's old seat and unfortunately, Padgett is his hand-picked candidate. I don't know that it helps a lot to be the hand-picked candidate of a guy going to jail. But, Padgett has been slowly but surely gaining on Space in this Republican leaning district. Will she have time to pull it off?
8) District: (PA-7) Candidate: *Curt Weldon (R) vs. Joe Sestak (D) Latest Polls: Sestak +1, +8 Odds of Democratic pick-up: Slight Democratic Edge (60/40) Comment: A month ago, Weldon looked like he was headed for a victory, but his numbers have started to tank. Worse yet, the FBI just searched his daughter's home as part of a corruption investigation. Can he survive that kind of bodyblow with 3 weeks left in the election when he's trailing and his opponent seems to have the momentum? That remains to be seen.
9) District: (IA-01) Candidate: (RR)Mike Whalen (R) vs. Bruce Braley (D) Latest Polls: Braley +11, Whalen +13, Braley +7 Odds of Democratic pick-up: Slight Democratic Edge (60/40) Comment: Whalen is a great candidate and the GOP is spending a big chunk of change in his district, but it's a left-leaning district and most polls have shown Braley ahead by significant margins. This race should be close, but will it be enough to pull out a GOP victory?
10) District: (FL-16) Candidate: Joe Negron (R) vs. Tim Mahoney (D) Latest Polls: Mahoney +7 Odds of Democratic pick-up: Slight Democratic Edge (60/40) Comment: This is Mark Foley's old seat and for a vote to register for Negron, the voters actually have to pull the lever for Foley. On the upside, it is a Republican district and Negron has plenty of money, so he should be able to close the gap with Mahoney. But, will it be fast enough?
11) District: (NM-1) Candidate: *Heather Wilson (R) vs. Patricia Madrid (D) Latest Polls: Madrid +10, +8 Odds of Democratic pick-up: Slight Democratic Edge (60/40) Comment: This is very scary race for the GOP because Wilson has been consistently ahead by small margins until very recently, when the last two polls show her numbers plunging rapidly. Are those just quirky polls or has the environment turned particularly anti-GOP in the last few weeks? If it's the former, Wilson can still pull it out. If it's the latter, the GOP is in serious trouble because they have a lot of "Heather Wilson" type candidates out there.
12) District: (OH-15) Candidate: *Deborah Pryce (R) vs. Mary Jo Kilroy (D) Latest Polls: Kilroy +15 Odds of Democratic pick-up: Toss-Up (50/50) Comment: There hasn't been a lot of polling in this district and it's hard to know whether the latest poll is an outlier or is representative of what's really happening in the district, but it's not good news for Pryce.
13) District: (CO-7) Candidate: (RR)Rick O'Donnell (R) vs. Ed Perlmutter (D) Latest Polls: Perlmutter +6, Tie Odds of Democratic pick-up: Toss-Up (50/50) Comment: Perlmutter had a big lead at one point, but O'Donnell has closed the gap. This is exactly the sort of seat that the GOP has to win if they're going to hold the House.
14) District: (PA-6) Candidate: *Jim Gerlach (R) vs. Lois Murphy (D) Latest Polls: Gerlach +3, Murphy +2, Murphy +6 Odds of Democratic pick-up: Toss-Up (50/50) Comment: This is a rematch from the 2004 race, which Gerlach barely won. This is the sort of race where the GOP's GOTV campaign may make the difference -- and it's also a seat the GOP desperately needs to win if they're going to hold on to Congress.
15) District: (IN-9) Candidate: *Mike Sodrel (R) vs. Barron Hill Latest Polls: Hill +2, Hill +8 Odds of Democratic pick-up: Toss-Up (50/50) Comment: Hill beat Sodrel in 2002, lost in 2004, and now this is their third match-up in as many election cycles. Although Hill appears to be ahead, it should be close and the GOTV effort may make the difference for Sodrel.
16) District: (IN-2) Candidate: *Chris Chocola (R) vs. Joe Donnelly (D) Latest Polls: Donnelly +1, +4 Odds of Democratic pick-up: Toss-Up (50/50) Comment: Donnelly has consistently been ahead in this race, but Chocola has closed the gap and is breathing down his neck. Again, it sounds like a cliche, but this is exactly the sort of race that the GOP has to win in order to hold the House.
17) District: (CT-4) Candidate: *Chris Shays (R) vs. Diane Farrell (D) Latest Polls: Farrell + 3, +5 Odds of Democratic pick-up: Toss-Up (50/50) Comment: This is a leftward leaning district, but Shays has been consistently ahead until just recently. Ironically, Joe Lieberman may end up pulling in a lot of Republicans in CT who wouldn't otherwise be voting in a non-competitive Senate race and that may be Shays saving grace.
18) District: (FL-13) Candidate: Vern Buchanan (R) vs. Christine Jennings (D) Latest Polls: Jennings +12, Jennings +3 Odds of Democratic pick-up: Toss-Up (50/50) Comment: Given that this is a Republican leaning district and that Buchanan has raised more than 5 million dollars, this district shouldn't even be close. But, this is Katherine Harris's old district and her deranged campaign for the Senate has undoubtedly hurt Buchanan's prospects. On the upside, even though Buchanan is down right now, he still has a chance to close and pull this one out in a district of this sort.
19) District: (IL-6) Candidate: (RR) Peter Roskam (R) vs. Tammy Duckworth Latest Polls: Duckworth +5, tie Odds of Democratic pick-up: Toss-Up (50/50) Comment: This race has been neck and neck all the way and will probably stay that way right up until election day.
20) District: (CT-2) Candidate: *Rob Simmons (R) vs Joe Courtney (D) Latest Polls: Simmons +14, +3 Odds of Democratic pick-up: Toss-Up (50/50) Comment: Simmons has a small lead, but this is a very leftward leaning district. Once again, Joe Lieberman bringing more Republicans to the polls than normal for a CT Senate race could be the deciding factor that saves this seat for the GOP.
Now, those are the Dem's top 20 pick-up opportunities. But, the bad news is there are probably another 5-7 toss-up races and maybe another 5-7 races that lean towards the GOP, but could become competitive. So, let's break down what we have at the moment:
The problem the GOP has is that if the Democrats simply win every seat that they have the advantage in and then split the toss-ups 50/50, they've got 18 seats, enough to take control of the House.
For the GOP to hold the House, they're probably going to need to win about 80% of the toss-up seats and hold onto all the seats that are leaning their way. Can they do it? Well, they do have a fund raising advantage and a better "Get Out The Vote" program than the Democrats, so it's possible. Furthermore, if the GOP could actually win a few seats or pull some seats that are leaning towards the Dems out of the fire, it would help immensely. Is there a chance that could happen? Yes. That's the good news.
The bad news is that if you look closely at the polling data in a lot of these races, it has started to shift in favor of the Democrats. So, if anything, the Dems have a tailwind at their back and there really isn't much time left for the GOP to change the focus.
So, for the moment, the GOP is still capable of holding onto the House, but it looks like it's going to be an uphill fight unless the political momentum somehow shifts in their favor before the election.
After all, the WAPO has been trying to make the fact that George Allen said the word, "Macaca," which about 3 people had ever heard of before Allen said it, into the biggest story of the election cycle. Meanwhile, James Webb's books feature N-bombs galore and women slicing up fruit with their private parts. But that, the MSM doesn't want to go into detail about.
In any case, recently, someone alerted me to a depraved passage in another one of Webb's other books, that just blows everything away that I've posted so far. For reasons I cannot fathom, in Webb's book, Lost Soldiers, he has a scene that features incestuous pedophilia. Now here's the kicker: not only is it a completely gratuitous scene, the characters in the book, bizarrely, don't even seem to react to a sex act being performed on a child in front of them.
If that sounds surreal, it's because it is. It's like Webb was sitting around one day and said, "You know what this book needs? A father performing a sex act on his child while people act like it's an everyday occurrence. That will really throw people for a loop!"
Now, I'm going to go into detail about what happened, but it will be below the fold in case any of you want to spare yourself something even more disgusting than the Foley IMs.
I Get Emails: Why Are You Admitting That The Republicans Aren't Doing Well?
Here's an email that I received last night that expresses sentiments that I've heard from more than one person:
"John,
With all respect I think that the position you are taking on the pre-emptive republican defeat this fall is based on pure garbage...
Are you seriously buying into poll results and what the media is saying? You DO know that right now is a period of time where poll results can be trusted the least right?? I mean the exit polls in '04 had Kerry winning in a landslide!!!
I don't email you so much to criticize you, even though i am doing just that, but rather to let you know that you are falling prey to the media bubble and you are starting to believe the BS that Chris Mathews spews on MSNBC or whatever channel he is on.
You can preach that the republicans will lose this year, but It is not going to happen. I'm not sure who YOU are voting for, but i'm voting for Bouchard and DeVos here in Michigan. It may be a long shot to hope for Republican winners here in MI, but i'm still voting for them, still standing strong to support them and I am not conceding an election to the Democrats just yet. I will wait for november for that.
You know how the Democrats embolden our enemies every day by using the same talking points about the war? You are doing the same thing with republicans electoral chances...
I doubt you are doing it on purpose, but you are personally responsible for deflating the republicans electoral chances. Conceding victory to the democrats does just that. Don't hide behind "telling the truth" because you are only telling the truth if you 100% believe a bunch of garbage polls. What else is up your sleeve hawkins???
I love your site, but I can't believe you are siding with the democrats on this one..." -- David M. Williams
First of all, just to be clear, I very much want the GOP to retain control of Congress in November -- and I haven't been shy about saying so. Moreover, I've written over and over and over again that I don't believe in protest votes and that it makes no sense to put a Democrat in office who disagrees with you on everything, just because you're mad at Republican candidates who disagree with you on a few things. Let me also add that I haven't just talked the talk, I've walked the walk. I got together with some other bloggers, formed Rightroots, and actually raised almost a quarter of a million dollars for Republican candidates in 10 weeks. So, no one can say that I haven't done my part to help the GOP win in November.
However, what I refuse to do is spoonfeed people happy talk that just isn't true. The GOP is struggling right now and, yes, we may lose the House. In the Senate, we're in better shape, but it is possible that we're going to lose the Senate.
You think that deflates, "the republicans electoral chances?" Well, I don't. I'm of the opinion that when people know the facts, they can make better decisions. Maybe some of those Republicans who have been loudly saying that they plan to stay home will see what's coming down the pike and change their minds. Maybe some conservatives who were going to spend the last few days before the election relaxing, will go volunteer for some campaigns. It's better that people know what's happening, so that they can do something about it, rather than sugar coating the truth, which may cause people to become complacent.
But, whatever the case may be, the solution isn't just to write off all the polls because they're not telling us what we want to hear. We're conservatives. In my book, that means we're supposed to meet political reality head on and deal with it even if it's not fun or what we want to hear. Since that's the case, I'm just going to tell it like it is and let the chips fall where they may. That's exactly what I did in the 2004 elections and it's exactly what I intend to continue to do this year.
The GOP does have at least two cards left to play in the closing weeks of the election. The first is their vaunted, "Get Out The Vote," program. The second is their significant cash advantage over the Democrats. How big is it? Here are some details from the WAPO:
"Despite a rush of campaign donations to Democrats earlier this year, Republican incumbents in highly competitive races in the House have a substantial cash advantage going into the final weeks before the midterm elections.
Democrats spent more heavily over the summer and early autumn than their Republican rivals in pivotal House districts, leaving themselves at a disadvantage of more than 2 to 1 in money on hand, according to a Washington Post analysis of the latest campaign disclosures.
...At the same time, Democrats are on a better financial footing in open seats -- those in which an incumbent is not running. Of the 12 open House races considered tight, Republicans have more cash on hand in seven of them and Democrats are ahead in five, the Post analysis shows.
...The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan newsletter about elections, identifies 31 House Republicans in closely contested campaigns. According to their financial reports filed over the weekend, they had a total of $32.7 million in cash on hand as of Sept. 30, compared with $14.5 million for their Democratic challengers.
The National Republican Congressional Committee circulated an internal memo yesterday -- which a Republican gave to The Post -- noting that GOP candidates hold an average cash advantage of $450,000 in 25 of the most competitive districts.
...The parties are scheduled to release their financial reports at the end of the week. At summer's end, the Republican and Democratic House campaign committees had similar amounts in the bank -- $36 million for the GOP committee and $34.9 million for the Democrats'. The Republican National Committee held an edge of nearly 4 to 1 over the Democratic National Committee in cash on hand -- $39.3 million to $10.9 million, as of Aug. 30."
If the GOP is going to win the election, we're probably going to have to beat the Democrats 4 to 1 in districts that look to be toss-ups right now. The good news is that with the kind of cash advantage that Republicans have, pulling off that kind of winning streak isn't out of the question.
(Yesterday), Vice President Dick Cheney spoke at a rally for the 101st Airborne Division. Here's an important part of the speech everyone ought to read:
The terrorists know they cannot beat us in a stand-up fight. They never have. The only way they can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission. So they continue committing acts of random horror, believing they can intimidate the civilized world and break the will of the American people. They base this view, in part, on the history of the 1980s and '90s, when they concluded that if they killed enough Americans, they could change American policy. In Beirut in 1983, terrorists killed 241 of our service members. Thereafter, US forces withdrew from Beirut. In Mogadishu in 1993, terrorists killed 19 Americans. Thereafter, U.S. forces withdrew from Somalia.
The attacks continued: the first bombing at the World Trade Center in 1993; the murders at the Saudi Arabia National Guard training facility in 1995; the attack on Khobar Towers in 1996; the simultaneous bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. With each attack, the terrorists grew more confident in believing they could strike America without paying a price. So they kept at it, and eventually struck the homeland here on September 11th and killed 3,000 of our fellow citizens. Bin Laden continues to predict that the people of the United States simply do not have the stomach to stay in the fight against terror.
Cheney gets it. President Bush gets it. Republicans get it. Democrats don't. They want to cut and run and hand deliver a victory to the terrorists.
This content was used with the permission of Blogs For Bush.
