PS: There is a banner ad slot available. It's a 468x60 slot, it runs for one month at $60, and it's one of four slots available. If you're interested, shoot me an email.
What's your take on the signing of the Border Fence bill? Is it a baby step or is it by-and-large a result of the failure of congressional and presidential leadership?
Thank You!
by CliffHanger
Answer: Would it have been great to see the entire House Bill signed into law? Yes. But still, the wall is an important part of the House Bill and make no mistake about it, getting it passed is more than a baby step. It's actually a jump forward (although it will take quite a while to finish the wall).
In fact, building a wall may be more significant than we realize. After all, the political strategy so far to get a "comprehensive" bill passed has been to hold the wildly popular security measures hostage. You know, "You can have a wall and more Border Patrol Agents, but only if you actually agree to amnesty, a guest worker program, and Social Security for illegal aliens." Well, now that the single most popular security measure has been taken off the table, that strategy isn't going to be as effective.
On the other hand, the Republicans in the House are the ones who have been hanging tough on illegal immigration while Bush and a number of Republicans in the Senate have been on the wrong side of the issue. So, if the Republicans lose control of the House, it may no longer be possible to stop an amnesty program if the Republicans in the Senate and Bush are still determined to team up with the Democrats to push a bill that would be a catastrophe for America and the Republican Party.
So, will Bush and the Senate GOP learn a lesson from this election? I certainly hope so. Part of the reason that the GOP has had such a tough time this election cycle is because we've had the President and prominent Republicans like John McCain on the wrong side of one of the most important domestic issues of the election. The foolish way that they handled this issue has done as much damage to the GOP as a whole in 2006 as the gay marriage issue did to the Democratic Party in 2004. Let's hope that they're not blockheaded enough to stay on the same path for another election cycle.
Earlier today, I was on a teleconference with Mike Bouchard, the Rightroots endorsed candidate for the Senate.
Here are the notes (not quotes) from the teleconference:
Bouchard pointed out that Stabenow wants higher taxes, more regulations, and wants to thwart tort reform. She tries to say that the economy in Michigan is Bush's fault, but look at the rest of the country. Is Bush supposed to have culled Michigan from the herd and ruined our economy while the rest of the country is doing great?
Also, Michigan is a late closing state and we have a phenomenal GOTV campaign. It's not unusual for us to have 10 point swings at the end of the campaign here in Michigan. Stabenow herself was down 17 at the end of her last campaign. So, even though we're still a little behind in the polls, we're still in this race.
On illegal immigration, Stabenow voted to give Social Security to illegal immigrants and she's lying about it. She's basically just an empty suit with no influence in Washington. She wants to be invisible and she's ducking debates. In fact, we sent chickens to her office because she wouldn't debate us.
We're going to send her that old, "How a bill becomes law," School House Rock video. She needs it since she has only passed one law. (Hawkins' Note: I'm not sure how serious he was about this part, but I thought it was hilarious)
Update #1: The Mike Bouchard campaign send over this excerpt from a subscription only article at National Journal:
"Today a staff member from the Mike Bouchard for U.S. Senate campaign will hand-deliver a legislative bill to Senator Debbie Stabenow’s campaign office in East Lansing while also dressed up as a bill.
The bill costume represents the single piece of legislation that Senator Stabenow has authored and passed after nearly ten years in Congress. The bill that Senator Stabenow passed re-named a federal building.
The staffer will deliver Bouchard’s “Triple A” Protection Act (American Automakers and Autoworkers Protection Act), the first bill that Bouchard will introduce as a U.S. Senator. The bill protects autoworkers and automakers from frivolous environmental lawsuits that raise the cost of business and harm job growth.
Today National Journal, a highly-regarded, nonpartisan publication that covers Congress, reported that Senator Stabenow’s colleagues have doubts about her effectiveness despite the fact that she holds her party’s third-ranking leadership post in the Senate:
“But a few Democrats grumble that Stabenow's lack of aggressiveness has hurt her effectiveness. ‘Stabenow has not been given, nor has she earned, nor has she fought for, the respect that she needs from [Senate Democratic Leader Harry] Reid and some of the others in the caucus,’ said a veteran Democratic source who asked not to be identified. ‘Her elbows are not sharp enough to do that.’ This source added that Stabenow is not seen as an ‘equal partner-player’ among the leaders.”
Folks, we've got 10 days until the election and there are AT LEAST 12 Rightroots candidates that are still in the hunt:
Michele Bachmann (MN-06)
Mike Bouchard (MI-Sen)
Max Burns (GA-12)
John Gard (WI-08)
Thomas Kean (NJ-Sen)
David McSweeney (IL-08)
Ray Meier (NY-24)
Rick O'Donnell (CO-07)
Peter Roskam (IL-06)
Michael Steele (MD-Sen)
Chris Wakim (WV-01)
Mike Whalen (IA-01)
We're going to have to live with the results of this election for the next two years and that's why if you can help, now is the time!
Q&A Friday #52: Do You Want A One Party Government?
Question: Many, if not most of the articles and comments here on RWN are to complain about the liberal Democrats. About how much better life would be without them in the political process, since they are so destructive to America.
But what is the alternative? A one-party system with nothing but Republicans running everything? I've always wanted to ask Rush the same question. If the Democrats are so bad - so wrong, so much of the time - then what do you propose, if you could have any political system, any solution that you wanted?" -- bcb1
"Good question, I've often thought the Dems serve a very useful purpose, which is giving the conservatives and the libertarians a common enemey. Take the libs out of the equation, and you have two factions with fairly extreme opposing views... and they both own a lot of guns." -- President_Friedman
Answer: With our political system, there will always be two parties, but I'd like both of them to be more conservative. So, I don't want to see the Democratic Party go out of business, I want to see liberalism go out of business. There's a difference.
The Crocodile Hunter Video From South Park Last Night
The South Park episode last night was kind of weird and trippy. Long story short, Satan was having a Halloween Party on earth and all sorts of dead celebrities were attending. One of those celebrities was, unfortunately, Steve Irwin.
The Daily Mail wrote about it, Drudge picked it up, and now it's big news. So, since it's in the news and I had it TiVo'd, I thought I'd upload that scene to YouTube so you could see the whole scene in context. Of course, it goes without saying that it's tasteless:
Personally, I'd have preferred that they leave that scene out because it really is too soon.
Q&A Friday #52: If You Had To Choose, Would You Rather Have Steele Or Allen Elected?
Question: "The same question that John J. Miller posed at The Corner: The DC metro area is home to a pair of close Senate races. If a Republican must win one and a Democrat must win the other, would you prefer to see victories by Jim Webb and Michael Steele or George Allen and Ben Cardin?" -- maledicta
Answer: Of course, it goes without saying that I want both of them to win. However, if I absolutely had to choose between Allen or Steele, I'd want Allen to be reelected because it's not just about getting candidates elected, it's about getting them to act conservatively once they're there. Since Allen is more conservative than Steele and he's from a state that's more conservative, he's going to vote more conservatively.
Now, the argument could be made that Webb is closer to the middle than Cardin, so a Steele/Webb combo might produce more conservative votes than an Allen/Cardin grouping. But, the problem with that is when you're talking about big votes on important issues, the Democrats usually crumble and vote whichever way they're told by the Party.
Take the Alito vote for example. Alito was as qualified to be on the court as Roberts and ideologically, they appear to have about the same philosophy, but for purely political reasons, the Democrats felt compelled to vote against Alito. So, what happened? Well, even though Roberts got 22 votes from the Democrats, Alito received only 4. That's what happens when the Democratic Party starts cracking the whip -- and if there had actually been a chance to defeat Alito, he wouldn't have even gotten 4 Democratic votes. So, when crunch time comes on the big issues, either Webb or Cardin would probably end up voting the same way.
That means it's all about getting the most conservative votes out of a Senator and since that's the case, Allen would be the guy.
PS: You could also argue that having Steele in the Senate might help the GOP bring more black Americans into the Party. Could that happen? Yes. But, how much has having Condi Rice and Colin Powell in the cabinet helped Bush or for that matter, the whole Party, with black Americans? Not much, if at all. So, there's no guarantee that Steele could improve the situation.
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!
ABC News mentioned RWN in the context of discussing political Googlebombs:
"On his Web site Bowers writes, "If you have a blog, please take this action. It will exponentially increase the effectiveness of this campaign. And make sure you keep using the same link whenever you talk about that person on your blog, in the comments, or anywhere else."
...If it works at all, the campaign's biggest effect may be on lesser-known candidates who turn up fewer hits during searches. Google officials said they don't condone the practice and believe the company's system is too sophisticated to be effectively gamed in this way.
So what's a Republican to do? Well, consider this posting on "Rightwingnews.com" by John Hawkins: "Well, in my opinion, we should simply fight fire with fire. That's why I put together a list of key races for Republican blogs to Google bomb."
And so it goes. Both sides agree it's too soon to say if any of this is actually having an impact. But one thing is certain — this is only the beginning of a new strategy following in the well-worn footsteps of TV political ads."
Speaking of Googlebombs, we could use some more blogs helping out with our Googlebomb #2. Come on, your blog could be the one that puts us over the top and gets these links on the first Google search page for these candidates.
But, that's enough -- for the moment -- about Googlebombs. The Star-Telegram gave RWN a mention while talking about Rightroots:
In general, Republican bloggers have yet to match the fundraising prowess of their Democratic counterparts. John Hawkins of North Carolina, who blogs on RightWingNews.com, suggested that this is because Republican bloggers are more diverse and that many right-wing blogs want to offer a forum for political debate rather than actively support candidates.
"A lot of the bigger bloggers on the right are not into political activism in the same way they are on the left," Hawkins said, pointing to Instapundit.com, which is run by a libertarian college professor in Tennessee. (Hawkins note: I was just making the point that some of the bigger blogs on the right aren't as into activism as their cohorts on the left and named some examples. I'm not sure why he pulled Instapundit out of the crowd here.)
In August, Hawkins and a group of bloggers calling themselves Rightroots organized to raise money for Republican candidates. Their first batch of 21 endorsements has attracted more than $260,000 in donations, including nearly $13,000 for Van Taylor, who's challenging U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, in one of the most closely watched congressional races in the country.
...On the Democratic side, ActBlue tracks contributions raised through individual blogs. A similar site for Republican bloggers, ABCPAC.org, launched this year and is expected to roll out similar blogger-friendly features in coming months.
...Hawkins suggested that his Rightroots group may not even exist during the next election cycle because it may not be needed.
"Five hundred blogs will be doing their own lists," Hawkins said. "It will actually make for a lot more money and a lot more excitement."
The "Five hundred blogs" is just a way of saying, "a lot." Basically, every blogger will be able to do the same thing we've done with Rightroots in the next cycle. So, my expectation is that everyone will just have their own slate that they'll promote instead of having just one big slate for bloggers on the right.
Whatever, the case may be, it's nice to get a little more recognition.
Q&A Friday #52: If You Had To Choose Between Rudy And McCain...
Question: "Rudy Giuliani and John McCain regularly place first and second in virtually every poll done for 2008 GOP nomination. You've made it clear that you're not thrilled with either of them, but if it came down to primary season and they were the only two serious competitors, in a tight race, who would you vote for?" -- maledicta
Answer: So it's either the devil (McCain) or the deep blue sea (Giuliani), is it? If I had no choice and had to choose between the two of them, I'd take Rudy for two reasons.
#1) I at least like Rudy, which is more than I can say for McCain.
#2) McCain is so arrogant and irrational that I think he would make a terrible President.
But, let me be absolutely clear: I don't think either one of them can win the presidency. I mean come on, what's really killing Republicans in this election cycle? Their own base is deeply unhappy with them. Well, McCain is famous for kicking the base in the teeth and Rudy is so far to the left on domestic issues that I hesitate to even call him "right-of-center."
Since that's the case, what makes anyone think that a lot of conservatives won't just stay home? There are plenty of them that are going to do that this election cycle, even if it means a good conservative is going to lose to a raging liberal. So, what makes anyone think people are going to turn out to vote for McCain (whom they detest) or Giuliani, who is basically a pre-Goldwater Republican candidate?
Also, let me add that if either of them did manage to get elected somehow, McCain or Giuliani would be considerably LESS CONSERVATIVE than Bush on the domestic side. Yet, what have we been hearing from conservatives for 6 years? Complaint after complaint after complaint about Bush's domestic policies.
Having either Rudy Giuliani or John McCain as a candidate in 2008 would be a recipe for disaster for the GOP. Let's just hope it doesn't come to that.
Q&A Friday #52: Can The GOP Rely On The Lesser Of Two Evils Tactic Again In 2008?
Question: "IF the republicans pull this election out of their backsides, and IF they go back to their ways and do not seriously address immigration and spending.
Do you think they will be able to use the "vote for us because the other guys are just awful" excuse again?" -- KyleN
Answer: This year, given the number of vulnerable Democratic seats, the GOP should have been in a position to gain seats, not lose them. And the House? Normally, even in a somewhat unfavorable environment, given how gerrymandered it is, the GOP shouldn't have been at risk of losing more than a handful of seats.
So, if there are any Republicans up on Capitol Hill who were unaware that what they've been doing isn't going to fly with the American people (Cough cough, President Bush and the Senate, cough, cough) they've gotten a real education about how unhappy the base and the American people are with them during this election cycle.
Since that's the case, win, lose, or draw, I think you're going to start seeing some real changes for the GOP in Washington after this election because undeniably the whole, "Vote for us because the other guys are just awful," tactic isn't working very well now and if they have to rely on that again in 2008, the approval rating for Republicans in Congress will be in single digits.
PS: Yes, this means that the GOP needs to have a strong, conservative agenda not just on foreign policy, but on the domestic side, on issues like spending and illegal immigration, to show the American people the difference between the parties. Some people may be skeptical that the Republicans can do that, but after the sort of beating they've taken in this election cycle, they'll be motivated to make changes whether they hold or lose Congress.
2) Larry Elder makes reference to one of the quotes from the article in a column: Oct 5, 2006
3) RWN revealed the incest and pedophilia quote that's at the top of Drudge right now: Oct 17, 2006
4) Drudge runs with a George Allen press release that seems to contain some of what's in the two previous posts along with some additional quotes that were apparently compiled by the Allen campaign: Oct 26, 2006
In case you're wondering, I did send an email to Drudge on Sept 29, 2006 and Oct 17, 2006. Whether he just didn't read them, read them and chose not to link, or whether he read them and waited for a timely opportunity to spring them, I don't know.
Whatever the case may be, I'm still glad to see this info getting out there and all you regular readers of RWN should be glad to know that you got to see at least some of this blockbuster info a full month before people reading the MSM will have heard about it.
Update #1: In my opinion, having this story break big will mean the end of James Webb's chances to be a Senator. Know why? Because even though it's fiction, it's so depraved that a lot of people will have a visceral negative reaction to it -- and to Webb.
Intellectually, people may know it's fiction, but when you start describing and talking about grotesquely racist comments, incest, pedophilia, and women slicing up bananas with their private parts, there are just a lot of people who will find that disgusting, whether it's fiction or not, and they will believe it reflects what Webb really thinks in his private moments. Is that fair? Maybe not. But, that's people and that's politics.
Update #2: By the way, after taking a closer look at it, I think I have a BETTER selection of quotes than Drudge does. Just check out that first link and you'll see what I mean.
Update #3: Three things.
#1) A lot of libs are pointing out that Scooter Libby wrote some perverse fiction, too. That's true -- but, it just proves the point. Liberals were complaining about what Libby wrote at the time and they're still bringing it up today. So, if it's relevant for Scooter Libby, a non-elected official, why isn't it much more relevant when James Webb, a candidate for the Senate, writes similarly disgusting material?
#2) Also, I'm seeing a lot of libs referring to this as a, "smear tactic," from the Allen campaign. Ehr...since when is quoting someone some sort of dirty trick? Oh yeah, I forgot, it's a dirty trick when a liberal says something incredibly embarrassing and you point it out to people.
#3) The irony here is that the liberal media helped set Webb up for this. They went way overboard on the Foley thing and now, here you have Webb writing about pedophilia. They also went nuts over, "Macaca," and the N-bombs Allen was accused of uttering and yet, they never published these quotations from Webb. Well, now the environment the left helped create is coming back to bite Webb on the behind. As far as I'm concerned, they sowed it, now they're reaping it, and it suits me just fine.
"In an interview on Washington Post Radio Friday morning, Jim Webb, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Virginia, said excerpts of his novels are "a little bit inappropriate" to be read on news radio.
"I don't know why you're reading that on WTOP," Webb told host Mark Plotkin. "I think it's a little bit inappropriate."
Plotkin was reading an excerpt from Webb's novel "Something to Die For," in which Webb describes a female stripper performing sexual acts with a banana.
"I don't think that's appropriate for you to read on WTOP," Webb said again as Plotkin finished the excerpt. (Washington Post Radio is WTOP's sister station.)
The campaign of Republican Sen. George Allen on Thursday released excerpts from some of the war novels Webb wrote between 1978 and 2002. The books include some graphic sexual passages, as well as frequent uses of a racial slur for blacks and descriptions of Vietnamese women as "monkey-faced."
Among the excerpts is a scene from the 2002 novel "Lost Soldiers," in which a man embraces his four-year-old son and places the boy's penis in his mouth.
...."It's not a sexual act," Webb told Plotkin regarding the "Lost Soldiers" excerpt. "I actually saw this happen in a slum in Bangkok when I was there as a journalist."
....Coincidentally, a Cambodian woman in Las Vegas is facing sexual assault charges for performing a similar act on her young son, according to an Oct. 14 report in the Las Vegas Review-Journal."
The headline on Drudge is of course, "Boy's Penis in Father's Mouth 'Not a Sexual Act,' Webb Tells Radio Host..."
Game over. Allen wins! Allen Wins! Allen Wins!
Update #5: I'm seeing an inordinate number of complaints about the Allen campaign disseminating this information from the RIGHT side of the blogosphere and I have to tell you, I think that's more than a little naive.
This isn't some sort of dirty trick or a lie, it's taking the disgusting, filthy, things James Webb has written in the past and putting them out there for people to make a judgment about. To me, it's sort of -- again, naive -- for conservatives to complain about these quotes getting out there when the mainstream media and the left has relentlessly focused on something as silly as "macaca" and accusations that George Allen was dropping N-bombs 25 years ago. When James Webb's incest and banana slicing quotes show up in the Washington Post 150+ times or so, like the lame "macaca" quote has, then maybe we can call for a time-out on negative campaigning. Until then, let James "Boy's Penis in Father's Mouth 'Not a Sexual Act'" Webb sweat it out like Allen has been forced to do in this campaign.
Also, let me add that "Politics ain't beanbag" people and they have a word for politicians in competitive races who run squeaky clean positive campaigns when their opponents are effectively slinging mud: that word is, unfortunately all too often, "loser." Maybe some people would rather lose races than go negative, but I'm not in that camp.
So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then, later today, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.
First of all, let's do an update on the first Googlebomb that went live on the morning of the 23rd. It's 3 days later -- which isn't very long -- and so far, 11 of the links to our first 45 targets have made it into the top 20. One of them. however, was a Wikipedia entry, which was already in there. So, I think actually, we've gotten 10 out of 45 in there so far -- and that number should increase over the next few days.
On the left, they had 52 targets and 18 made it in the top 20. However, 5 of them were Wikipedia entries, which were almost certainly in the top 20 anyway. Also, there tend to be a lot more negative articles about Republican candidates in the top 20 to begin with, so when you break it down, we're probably running about even.
However, I noticed something very interesting about the links that made it onto the list. Here they are:
Michael Arcuri: #4 (YT)
Gabrielle Giffords: #6 (YT)
Baron Hill: #7 (YT)
Zack Space: #7
Brad Ellsworth: #8
Joe Donnelly: #8
John Murtha: #10
Debbie Stabenow: #11 (YT)
Jack Davis: #14
Harold Ford: #14 (YT - Broken Link)
Jim Marshall: #20
The (YT) stands for YouTube. There were 10 total YouTube links in the original batch and 5 of those 10 links ended up at 14 or higher. On the other hand, there were another 34 other links (if you don't include the Wikipedia entry) and only 6 of them have made the list so far. So, for whatever reason, an unusually high number of YouTube entries seem to be climbing the charts.
Since that's the case, I've decided to put together one more Googlebomb list. However, there's a twist -- this one is made up entirely of YouTube videos. That means a handful of Democratic candidates had to be left off the list since there were no negative YouTube videos that I could find for them, but I still managed to hit almost all of the key races and then some.
So, if you're a blogger, simply view source, grab the HTML below, and post it on your blog or in a forum that you frequent. Then, once Google picks it up, the links on these candidates should rocket up the charts and will help even the playing field for the GOP in the key races.
A Teleconference With Dennis Hastert, John Boehner & Roy Blunt
This was a bit of a strange teleconference. Here we were in a meeting with Dennis Hastert, John Boehner, & Roy Blunt about Bush signing the fence bill today and yet, I was the only person to ask a question. I can only assume that there were technical problems that prevented anyone else from talking (which has happened before on more than one occasion) because I would be very surprised if a teleconference like this were lightly attended.
Anyway, here's a short summary of what each Congressman said (They kept their remarks brief) and the one Q&A. Keep in mind that these are notes, not quotes.
Dennis Hastert: Bush signed the fence bill today which provides 700 miles of fencing. It's a great first step.
John Boehner: The House has consistently said for a year that we need to secure our borders before we start talking about a comprehensive solution. That's still what we believe.
Roy Blunt: We were surprised that the Senate took up the bill authorizing the fence. We think the Senate heard from the country and it changed their minds. 75 miles of the 700 mile fence is done and another 43 miles are nearly completed. We put another 700 million in emergency funding for the National Guard and criminalized digging tunnels under the border. So, in the House at least, we're dead serious about dealing with illegal immigration.
Roy Blunt: Yes, they do have a responsibility to give and they are doing it. Our goal was to get 16.5 million from House members and we're at 22.5 million and growing.
John Boehner: It's actually 23 million or so and we're going to hammer them again today to encourage them to contribute more money.
PS: Yesterday, I published a list of Republicans with lots of cash on hand that aren't in competitive races. One of those Republicans was Jeb Hensarling. Well, today, his office wrote me to say,
"...I wanted to note to you that Jeb has raised or contributed over $620,000 to the NRCC, incumbents, challengers Leadership PACS. I would venture to say that this puts him in the top tier of member contributors to keep the GOP majority."
If every Republican in the House had done half as much as Jeb has, the Democrats wouldn't have a prayer of capturing the House. So, of course, Jeb Hensarling has been removed from the list.
Today, via the fine folks at One Jerusalem, I got to be in on a teleconference with Mark Steyn who is plugging his new book, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It (Incidentally, I just finished up the book I've been reading this morning and will be starting Steyn's book tonight).
Steyn was, as always, fascinating -- so much so that ever so often I would realize that I had been so engrossed in listening to what he had to say that I forgot to take notes. In any case, here are some of the things Steyn said that really stuck with me (Keep in mind that these are notes, not quotes).
-- French Muslims were more hostile than the Muslims that he met in the Middle-East.
-- The percentage of France's population that is Muslim has gotten big enough that they really can't afford to stand side by side with the United States in a nation like Iraq because it would cause too many problems for them on the home front.
-- Countries like Scandinavia have become bi-cultural in a single generation. Where will they be in another generation?
-- Even if the terrorists never fly another plane into a building, Europe is in deep trouble because of their aging populations and the rapidly increasing number of unassimilated Muslims living there.
-- Socialized medicine and big government is breaking Europe economically and yet, that's exactly what a lot of Democrats and Republicans want to do in the United States.
-- Large parts of Europe will soon be mired in civil war or will be fast becoming part of Islam, and we simply cannot expect them to be the sort of allies we've had in the past.
-- With every passing month, the demographic balance is swinging towards Muslims in Europe and away from the aging members of Western culture.
-- It has been over the last few decades that Jihadism has really gone mainstream in Islam.
-- In theory, a secular society should be able to continue to keep its birth rate going, but in practice it doesn't work.
The Democratic Underground Quote Of The Day: Welcome To America, We Speak Spanish Here
If you want to see what happens when multi-culturalism is taken to bizarre extremes check out this quote from the Democratic Underground:
raccoon: "If Spanish became the dominant language in the US, so what? Spanish has the advantage over English in that it's spelled phonetically. I believe in 30 years, Spanish will be the de facto dominant language in many states. In some, it probably is already."
You might also want to check out the thread to see how they kick around a woman with brain damage because she admits that she doesn't want to learn Spanish.
"New Jersey's Supreme Court opened the door to gay marriage Wednesday, ruling that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but leaving it to lawmakers to legalize same-sex unions.
The high court gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include same-sex couples or create a new system of civil unions for them.
The ruling is similar to the 1999 decision in Vermont that led to civil unions there, which offer the benefits of marriage, but not the name.
"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the 4-3 majority's decision."
If you want to know why it makes sense to push for Constitutional Amendments designed to block gay marriage on the state and federal level, this case is a perfect example. When you have judges acting in this fashion, like a super legislature that can make any law they wish without regard to what the people or their elected representatives want, you can try to appeal their rulings or stop them by electing conservatives who'll promise to put originalist judges on the bench. However, in cases like this, constitutional amendments are the only effective way to prevent these power mad judges from running roughshod over the wants and desires of the American people.
Sheikh Feiz Muhammad last year told a Sydney audience that victims of sexual assault deserved to be raped:
She has no one to blame but herself, for she has displayed her beauty to the whole world. Strapless, backless, sleeveless - they are nothing but satanical.
Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali—Australia’s most super-dooper Sheik—has lately picked up on that same theme, according to the Australian:
In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?
"The uncovered meat is the problem."
The sheik then said: “If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."
I hate to say it, but unfortunately, this sort of grotesque mentality is all too common in many parts of the Islamic world. Why are women forced to wear burqas and veils? So they won't "tempt" men into raping them. In fact, if you look at Sharia law, it requires 4 male witnesses to any rape, which in effect, makes rape an "unprosecutable" crime. Show me someone who's pro-Sharia and I will show you someone who believes men should be able to get away with raping women.
Now, let me be clear: most Muslims don't think this way, but it's another one of those situations where a "small minority" of Muslims (read one out of every 5 or 10 Muslims) has this backwards mentality and it's enough to cause enormous problems when these people enter free and open Western societies. If you don't believe that, read this old Mark Steyn column talking about the inordinate number of rapes being committed by Muslims in Europe and Australia.
So, what's the best solution to this problem? It would be for the majority of Muslims who don't agree with these ideas to loudly speak up about them and make it clear that they're unacceptable. But unfortunately, as we've seen with terrorism, that happens far too infrequently.
PS: Also via Tim Blair, the "uncovered meat" sheik involved has given a non-apology apology. You know, if people are offended by what I've said, I'm sorry about that. Of course, even that lame apology probably would not have been offered if the Australian government wasn't talking about deporting him:
"AUSTRALIA'S top Muslim cleric Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali should be sacked and deported for comments which essentially excused young Muslim men who committed rape, federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward said today.
Ms Goward said the sheik had a history of making such comments and many would feel Australia's tolerance had been abused.
..."It's time we stopped just saying he should apologise. It is time the Islamic community did more then say they were horrified. I think it is time he left."
She said the real issue was that he was excusing Muslim men for crimes against women on the grounds that women asked for it.
Ms Goward said Australia had moved on from that thinking a long time ago.
"I repeat, I think it was time he was asked to go and I would encourage the authorities to consider whether a man who incites young Muslim men to crime, because that is essentially what he has done, should be allowed to stay," she said.
...."We have got past the stage of everybody rushing around being upset and saying he should apologise and the Islamic community understandably and rightly being annoyed and embarrassed," she said.
"If we are really serious about Islamic and Islamic Australia being part of Australia, then I think there has got to be a bit more leadership shown and he has got to leave.
Animal rights activists who broke into a circus to liberate a rare white tiger changed their minds after seeing it - and took a bunny rabbit instead.
Campaigners from the Swiss faction of the Animal Liberation Front had earlier told Circus Royal director Oliver Skreinig they planned to steal the Siberian tiger and hand him to a zoo.
...Skreinig said: "The pet rabbit was not even in the show, it belonged to our clown's six-year-old daughter."
Is it wrong to root for animal rights terrorists to be mauled by the animals they're trying to steal? Maybe so, but I figure that a member of ALF being killed by a tiger is roughly the equivalent of a Palestinian terrorist accidentally blowing himself up in his basement working on a bomb.
These people are dangerous, deranged thugs who regularly use arson against people who disagree with them and whether they're put out of commission via tiger or a 20 year jail sentence makes no difference to me as long as they're stopped.
The 2006 campaign is about to be "Google-bombed." Both liberal and conservative bloggers have embarked on plans to manipulate the Google search engine so that negative articles about the candidates they oppose appear near the top, potentially influencing undecided voters.
...Conservative blogger John Hawkins of Right Wing News learned of the strategy and urged his allies to "fight fire with fire." Hawkins expressed concern the Google-bombing campaign just might work for Democrats.
"Who would be doing a Google search on a particular candidate in the final days of a campaign?" he wrote. "Probably an independent voter who is trying to get more information about a candidate. And if the first article he runs across is a brutal hit piece, well, that could be the information that helps him make up his mind."
By the way, more news will be coming on the Googlebomb front later today...
Update #1: This article apparently originated at National Journal and was then sent over the MSNBC. Thanks for the mention NJ!
We would be quickly told by the holy ones of the Left that it was a racial slur implying that Indians cannot handle time well if a conservative had used the term "injun time" to excuse being late.
Democratic U.S. House candidate Steve Kagen apologized Monday for commenting that he was late for a meeting on an Indian reservation because "we're on Injun time."
Think his opponent would get the same kind of pass he is getting? Will the MSM give this the same incessant coverage as Senator Allen's "macaca" usage? Don't hold your breath. Details at STACLU.
This content was used with the permission of Tongue Tied.
In Iraq, the violence has continued, militias have been steadily gaining power, and the fledgling government still seems unsteady. Moreover, the political will to continue the conflict in Washington, outside of the White House at least, seems to be starting to ebb. Resolute though George Bush may be, with the Democrats gaining more power, cracks starting to develop in the pro-war coalition, and polls showing that the American people are losing confidence in the war effort, time seems to be running out.
So, what's to be done?
Well, what does Washington always do in situations like this? Why, form a blue ribbon committee to use as cover, of course! In this case, the James Baker/Lee Hamilton-led Iraq Study Group is playing that role and there have been several ideas that they've discussed that have slipped out to the public already. Unfortunately, most of those ideas aren't very palatable.
For example, should we essentially split Iraq into a Kurdish, Shia, and Sunni nation? Aside from the fact that many areas in Iraq aren't tidily split up into easily separable demographic groups, what you would end up with would be a Shia satellite state in Iran's orbit, a Kurdish state that would constantly be threatened with attack by Turkey, and an oil-less Sunni state that would have the potential to turn into a terrorist enclave. That's not a very promising outcome.
Well, what about installing a "strongman" to run the country? Not only does that run absolutely counter to everything we've been trying to do in Iraq since the war started, it's not practical. If we were going to install a kinder, gentler Sunni thug in Iraq, the time to do it would have been right after the invasion. It's too late for that now. If we tried to put a new "El Presidente" in there now, it would almost have to be someone like Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani or Muqtada al-Sadr and the last thing the world needs is another Middle-Eastern state run by mullahs.
Another suggestion is that we bring Syria and Iran into ongoing discussions of how to solve the problems in Iraq. On the one hand, they should certainly have some insight into the problems in Iraq, since they're causing some of them. On the other hand, Syria is heavily influenced by Iran and it's in Iran's interest to have Iraq weak, undemocratic, and Shia dominated. That's not something that's going to be changed by silver-tongued diplomats over a few cups of tea either. The only message Iran or Syria will really respond to is, "Stop causing problems in Iraq or we're going to send in the bombers." However, that is not a strategy without risk and if the Bush administration were willing to go that far, they probably would have already done it.
However, there is one idea with merit that has come out of the study group and that's benchmarks. What are benchmarks? Think of it as a private timeline that's shared between the U.S. and Iraq and it's going to be the way forward for us in Iraq.
Why? Well, here's the situation President Bush has to deal with.
Although George Bush may be our commander in chief, Congress also has a big say over what we do in Iraq and after the elections, the pressure from Democrats and Republicans on Bush to get our troops out of Iraq is going to start ramping up significantly. Does that mean Bush will be forced to cut and run? No, but it probably means that he essentially has a window that will last through 2007 to do what he needs to do in Iraq before, at a minimum, our troops will have to fill a role more similar to the one they play in Afghanistan than the one they play in Iraq. That means our special forces may be active and we may be helping with training, logistics, and air power, but we're not going to have our troops policing Iraq on a day-to-day basis. And let's be completely honest here. We invaded Iraq in March of 2003, so by the end of 2007, we'll have been there for more than four and one-half years. Quite frankly, by that point, the Iraqis should be policing their own streets, fighting their own battles, and dealing with their own internal bad actors.
Unfortunately, what we're starting to see in some cases is that the Iraqi government is starting to shy away from confronting these militias because of sectarian and political reasons. Shias and Sunnis are reluctant to crack down on "their side." Worse yet, because thugs like Muqtada al-Sadr have acquired political power to go along with their street gangs/militias, they're using their political influence to help keep the U.S. and Iraqi forces off their backs.
But, if the effort in Iraq is going to be a success, the Iraqi government is going to need a large, effective military and the militias need to be weakened significantly before we start sending large numbers of troops back home. The training of the Iraqi military? There have been some setbacks and everything hasn't gone perfectly, but theoretically, there should be enough trained and equipped Iraqi troops to hold the country together by the end of 2007. But, the militias? We're not getting the job done in that area right now -- and that has to change. The Iraqi military needs to be strong enough to crush any threat to the public order after we leave and if these large militias are allowed to run wild and gain strength, we could see a terrorist "state within a state" develop or even a full scale civil war if the militias believe they can take on the Iraqi government and win.
That leads us to a catch-22. The militias need to be significantly weakened and the only way to do that is via force or the credible threat of force, but the Iraqi government seems hesitant to act. So, what are we going to do about that?
Well, the reality is that the Iraqis are a democratic people that get to choose their own leaders and we've agreed to respect the wishes of their government. However, we've also clearly said that we went to Iraq to be liberators, not occupiers.
So, basically what we need to do is reaffirm to the government of Iraq that if they want to start cleaning out these militias now, we're going to be right there beside of them. But, they also need to understand that whether they want to deal with the problem or not, we're starting to get close to the time when the training wheels are going to come off the bike. In other words, they can deal with the militias now, when we've got 140,000 troops in the country, fighting beside them or they can deal with the situation at the end of 2007, when 70,000 or 80,000 of those troops will have probably already headed back to the US. The only thing they can’t do is keep us hanging around forever while they try to make up their minds.
Does that mean we set an artificial deadline based on political concerns? No. But, as George Bush has said many times, "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down," -- and quite frankly, by the end of 2007, they should have had enough time to stand up. Granted, it would be tempting for us to hover over them like a mother hen over her eggs, but there comes a time when, for good or ill, you've got to cut the apron strings. We're getting to that point in Iraq.
Long story short, we've spent so much of our blood and treasure in Iraq since 2003 not just because it's a noble undertaking, but because the success of democracy in that country is vitally important to the United States, the Iraqi people, and the whole Middle East. However, in the end, we can give them advice, we can wish them success, and we can even give them a helping hand here or there, but, whether democracy succeeds in Iraq over the long haul is going to be up to the Iraqi people, not the United States.
On Tuesday of next week, the GOP is going to take a beating. The only question at this point is how bad of a beating it's going to be. Even though we have less than a week to go before the election, it is -- at least to a certain point-- an unanswerable question because the story is still being written. More ads are going on the air, there may be October surprises yet to come, and who can say what sort of events or flubs by politicians at the national level may have an impact across the country.
With that in mind, here's how things are shaping up in the Senate. The Democrats need to capture 6 seats to take over and going into election night, they can be sure that they have half those seats in the bag (* indicates incumbent and (RR) indicates a Rightroots endorsed candidate whom you can donate to here.
Republican Seats Leaning Democratic Takeover
Montana: Conrad Burns* (R) vs. Jon Tester (D) Ohio: Mike DeWine* (R) vs. Sherrod Brown (D) Pennsylvania: Rick Santorum* (R) Vs. Bob Casey (D) Rhode Island: Lincoln Chafee* (R) vs. Sheldon Whitehouse (D)
Conrad Burns’ campaign has been showing some signs of life at the tail end of the campaign and there's an outside chance that he'll be able to pull off an upset victory. So, in essence, the Democrats have 3 "gimmie" seats here and one that will probably go their way.
Toss-Ups
Missouri: Jim Talent* vs. Claire McCaskill (D) New Jersey: Robert Menendez* (D) vs. (RR) Tom Kean (R) (Dem Seat) Virginia: George Allen* (R) vs. James Webb (D)
Key Seat Leaning Republican Retention
Tennessee: Bob Corker (R) vs. Harold Ford (D)
Chance Of An Upset
Maryland: (RR) Michael Steele (R) vs. Ben Cardin (Dem Seat) Michigan: Debbie Stabenow* (D) vs. (RR) Mike Bouchard (R)
The Democrats need to win six seats to take control of the Senate and if they win all the seats leaning their way including the Montana seat, they'll still need to squash Kean, Bouchard and Steele while they simultaneously win both of the Republican toss-up seats. Is that possible? Yes. But, it's a tall order for them and the odds aren't in their favor. So, the GOP will probably retain control of the Senate, although it seems likely that we will lose 4-5 seats.
Unfortunately, things are looking even worse for the Republicans in the House although admittedly, because there's a dearth of reliable polling data, it's more difficult to tell who's going to win some of these races. Zogby polls, for instance, tend to be all over the place and Constituent Dynamics/Majority Watch polls tend to lean towards the Democratic candidates by 5-15 points more than other pollsters. Yet, in some races, other than Democratic internal polls and unreliable polls conducted by local colleges or newspapers, polls from Constituent Dynamics/Majority Watch and/or Zogby provided the only recent polling data, which means that there are a lot of guesstimates involved in figuring out who's winning some of these races. It's almost like watching every 4th play of a football game without ever being allowed to see the score and trying to figure out who's ahead or behind. (* indicates incumbent and (RR) indicates a Rightroots endorsed candidate whom you can donate to here).
Republican Seats Leaning Democratic Takeover
AZ-08: Randy Graf (R) vs. Gabrielle Giffords (D) CT-05: Nancy Johnson* (R) vs. Chris Murphy (D) FL-13: Vern Buchanan (R) vs. Christine Jennings (D) IN-2: Chris Chocola* (R) vs. Joe Donnelly (D) IN-8: John Hostettler* (R) vs. Brad Ellsworth (D) IN-9: Mike Sodrel* (R) vs. Barron Hill NC-11: Charles Taylor* (R) vs. Heath Shuler (D) OH-18: Joy Padgett (R) vs. Zack Space PA-6: Jim Gerlach* (R) vs. Lois Murphy (D) PA-7: Curt Weldon* (R) vs. Joe Sestak (D) PA-10: Don Sherwood* (R) vs. Chris Carney (D)
Republican Held Seats That Are Toss-Ups
CA-11: Richard Pombo* (R) vs. Jerry McNerney (D) CT-2: Rob Simmons* (R) vs Joe Courtney (D) CT-4: Chris Shays* (R) vs. Diane Farrell (D) CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave (R) vs. Angie Paccione (D) CO-7: (RR) Rick O'Donnell (R) vs. Ed Perlmutter (D) FL-16:: Joe Negron (R) vs. Tim Mahoney (D) FL-22: Clay Shaw* (R) vs. Ron Klein (D) IA-01: (RR) Mike Whalen (R) vs. Bruce Braley (D) IL-6: (RR) Peter Roskam (R) vs. Tammy Duckworth (D) KY-03: Anne Northup* (R) vs. John Yarmuth (D) KY-04: Geoff Davis* (R) vs. Ken Lucas (D) NH-02: Charlie Bass* (R) vs. Paul Hodes (D) NY-29: Randy Kuhl* (R) vs. Eric Massa (D) OH-01: Steve Chabot* (R) vs. John Cranley (D) NM-1: Heather Wilson* (R) vs. Patricia Madrid (D) NY-20: John Sweeney* (R) vs. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) NY-24: (RR) Ray Meier* (R) vs. Michael Arcuri (D) NY-25: James Walsh* (R) vs. Dan Maffei (D) OH-15: Deborah Pryce* (R) vs. Mary Jo Kilroy (D) TX-22: Shelley Sekula-Gibbs (R) vs. Nick Lampson (D) WA-08: Dave Reichert* (R) vs. Darcy Burner (D) WI-08: (RR) John Gard (R) vs. Steve Kagen (D) WY-AL: Barbara Cubin* (R) vs. Gary Trauner (D) VA-02: Thelma Drake* (R) vs. Phil Kellam (D)
Key Competitive Seats Leaning Towards Republican Retention
AZ-01: Rick Renzi* (R) vs. Ellen Simon (D) AZ-05: JD Hayworth* (R) vs. Harry Mitchell (D) CA-04: John Doolittle* (R) vs. Charlie Brown (D) CA-50: Brian Bilbray* (R) vs. Francine Busby (D) CO-5: Doug Lamborn (R) vs. Jay Fawcett (D) MN-01: Gil Gutknecht* (R) vs. Tim Walz (D) MN-06: (RR) Michelle Bachmann (R) vs. Patty Wetterling (D) NJ-07: Mike Ferguson* (R) vs. Linda Stender (D) NY-26: Tom Reynolds* (R) vs. Jack Davis (D) NV-02: Dean Heller (R) vs. Jill Derby (D) NV-03: Jon Porter* (R) vs. Tessa Hafen (D) PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick* (R) vs. Patrick Murphy (D) OH-02: Jean Schmidt* (R) vs. Victoria Wulsin (D)
The GOP’s Best Pick-Up Opportunities:
IL-08: Melissa Bean* (D) vs. (RR) David McSweeney (R) GA-12: John Barrow* (D) vs. (RR) Max Burns (R) WV-01: Alan Mollohan* (D) vs.(RR) Chris Wakim (R)
So, going into the election, the Democrats appear to have 11 seats leaning their way. If they pick up all of those seats, then they'll only need to capture 4 out of 24 toss-ups to take control of the House. We've heard a lot about how good the GOP's GOTV program is and it is good -- but, it's not good enough to pull a victory out under those kind of circumstances. In other words, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it looks highly likely that the Democrats are going to take back the House. In fact, they'll probably end up capturing somewhere between 17-25 seats.
"Senate Republicans with enormous campaign war chests are refusing to transfer significant amounts of money to help fellow Republicans who are cash-strapped and face defeat in the final weeks of the campaign.
The stinginess alarms some of the Republican Party's top campaign strategists, especially because it is in such stark contrast to the millions of dollars that Democrats have transferred to their candidates in need.
Control of the Senate will come down to a half-dozen close races next month, and both sides agree that money will likely determine the outcome of each. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has nearly twice as much money on hand as the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) for that final sprint to Election Day.
According to the latest figures available, the DSCC has $23 million and the NRSC has $12 million. Much of that difference stems from the disparity in late giving from sitting senators."
It's also worth noting that the liberal bloggers are pressuring Democratic politicians that aren't in competitive races to pony up more money for the cause. In fact, they actually have a whole Use It Or Lose It campaign going that encourages Democrats that aren't in competitive races to give up 30% of their warchests. According to their list, they've already shook loose $410,000.
So, why shouldn't we do the same thing? It only makes sense, right? But, if we're going to do it, the first thing we need is a list of candidates. Never fear, because I'm about to provide a list for you.
Let's start with the Senate:
Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala): $11,592,221
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas): $9,463,558
Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah): $2,902,142
Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind): $2,892,395
John Cornyn (R-Texas): $2,782,118
Mitch McConnell (R-Ky): $2,632,881
Lindsey Graham (R-SC): $2,332,423
Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore): $2,077,968
Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga): $2,029,164
Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): $2,001,233
John Thune (R-SD): $1,880,730
Norm Coleman (R-Minn): $1,782,195
Mike Crapo (R-Idaho): $1,601,163
Jeff Sessions (R-Ala): $1,499,560
Trent Lott (R-Miss): $1,421,488
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga): $1,317,672
Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine): $1,306,198
John McCain (R-Ariz): $1,114,062
George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio):$1,068,262
Craig Thomas (R-Wyo): $1,060,507
David Vitter (R-La):$1,015,69
If all these candidates just chipped in 10% of their money to say Bob Corker, Michael Steele, Tom Kean, & Mike Bouchard, this election would turn on its ear.
Then there's the House:
Cliff Stearns (R-Fla): $2,301,890
David Dreier (R-Calif): $2,295,737
Henry Bonilla (R-Texas): $2,281,340
Don Young (R-Alaska): $2,017,831
Frank A. LoBiondo: $1,925,046
Jim Saxton (R-NJ): $1,824,572
Dave Hobson (R-Ohio): $1,736,193
Joe Barton (R-Texas): $1,724,173
Bud Cramer (D-Ala): $1,640,566
Pete King (R-NY): $1,596,545
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla): $1,534,675
Tom Davis (R-Va): $1,515,904
John J. "Jimmy" Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn): $1,424,641
Paul Ryan (R-Wis): $1,402,169
Jim McCrery (R-La): $1,382,757
Michael N. Castle (R-Del): $1,328,611
Jerry Moran (R-Kan): $1,307,769
John M. Shimkus (R-Ill): $1,153,269
Patrick J. Tiberi (R-Ohio): $1,147,090
Hal Rogers (R-Ky): $1,137,222
Jerry Lewis (R-Calif): $1,059,536
Ric Keller (R-Fla): $1,059,493
Tim Murphy (R-Pa): $1,040,863
Jerry Weller (R-Ill): $1,029,333
Jim Ramstad (R-Minn): $1,022,517
Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan): $969,991
Dave Camp (R-Mich): $965,272
Henry Brown (R-SC): $938,439
Fred Upton (R-Mich): $930,515
Greg Walden (R-Ore): $923,012
Zach Wamp (R-Tenn): $901,00
If each candidate were to chip in just 10% of his or her cash on hand to these candidates in the toss-up races, it would be more than enough for us to hold the House.
If you're so inclined, why not give some of these pols a call? If you do, be polite, and also keep in mind that if you're a constituent, your request will carry extra weight. So, if your Congressman or Senator is on the list, make sure to contact him and ask him, again, politely, to give 10% of his cash on hand to our candidates up for reelection. If they say that they will or that they already have, feel free to report back in the comments section. Remember, it could be your phone call that ends up putting another $100,000 in the pockets of our candidates right before these crucial elections!
You can contact the Senators, here and the House members here.
In the Senate, things have improved a bit for the GOP, although they're still looking grim overall.
It looks as if Lincoln Chafee, Rick Santorum, and Mike DeWine are toast. Conrad Burns is still behind, but appears to have some momentum and if enough undecided voters break his way, which is possible in a conservative state like Montana, he has a shot to beat Jon Tester.
Although Jim Talent and Bob Corker still appear to be in toss-up races, Corker and Talent both seem to have some momentum and Talent has a huge cash advantage. Also, George Allen appears to have taken Jim Webb's best shots and kept on coming. He's not completely out of the woods yet, but the race is definitely leaning his way.
Also, Michael Steele, Mike Bouchard, and Tom Kean are within striking distance in their races and Steele actually has a cash advantage. Although the odds could fairly be said to be against all three of them right now, all three of them still look like they have a shot to pull off a victory on election day.
So, this makes an estimate for the Senate races a little harder. What's the super optimistic, best case scenario? The GOP probably loses 1 seat overall as Burns, Talent, Corker win along with 2 out of 3 from Steele, Bouchard, and Kean. In the worst case scenario? The Democrats win 6. The likely scenario? At the moment, I'd still have to say the GOP probably loses 4 seats.
Unfortunately, in the House, things haven't improved as much. In fact, disturbingly, the number of seats in play seems to have expanded and there are scary polls popping up that show the GOP candidate behind in races that should be 40 or 50 back in competitiveness. That's really disappointing because the big edge the GOP seems to have isn't making the sort of impact I'd hoped it had, although we'll certainly know more next week.
Long story short? There are still probably 8-10 seats that are gone or leaning heavily towards the Democrats. Then, there are probably another 25-30 races or so that could legitimately be called toss-ups right now. So, I'd estimate the GOP would lose somewhere between 18-28 seats in the House if the election were held today. Does that mean the cake is baked and the House is gone? No, but it's really not looking so great for the GOP in the House right now.
Update #1: I'm not sure that I buy either of these polls, but....
Here's the key line of a release that I just got from the Santorum campaign:
In Pennsylvania Cong District 10, a new Keystone Poll shows Santorum - 46, Casey - 41. Santorum was down in this poll in August. FYI -- Carney 48 - Sherwood 39, Rendell - 53 - Swann 39 in the same poll.
If you look at the RealClearPolitics polling page, this is the first poll that shows Santorum ahead of Casey and there is data going all the way back to Feb. of this year. So, consider me dubious until I see another poll from a more reputable agency that shows him up. Still, cross your fingers and let's hope this is the start of a trend.
Another poll, from the LA Times/Bloomberg shows James Webb up over George Allen 47% to 44%. Again, I'm not going to believe this unless I see more credible polling because Webb has been consistently down, Allen has more money, and I haven't seen any reason for Webb to pick-up steam. So, my guess is that this is a margin of error "fluke poll." We'll see...
You Hot Soup Conservative Forum, which I created, -- here.
What do you think of the Hot Soup website so far? Also, on a side note, if I were to create a forum for Right Wing News, would you be interested in participating? Do you think a lot of people would use it?
Is This Brilliant Ad "Racist?" No, Of Course Not. What Are You, Some Kind Of Idiot?
Hilariously, there are liberals claiming that this devastating and clever attack ad is racist. When I first heard that, to be completely honest with you, I had no idea what the "racist" part of the ad was even supposed to be. So, let's try a little experiment.
Watch this lethal broadside against Harold Ford and see if you can guess the part of it that's supposed to be racist. The answer is below the fold.
Everything You Need To Know About Michael J. Fox's Campaign Ads
A lot of people have been talking about the Michael J. Fox ad. To tell you the truth, it's really a pitiful ad all the way around.
To begin with, what Ann Coulter said about people like the Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan, and Max Cleland in her book Godless is every bit as applicable to Michael J. Fox:
"...(T)he Democrats hit on an ingenious strategy: They would choose only messengers whom we're not allowed to reply to. That's why Democratic spokesmen these days are sobbing, hysterical women. You can't respond to them because that would be questioning the authenticity of their suffering."
"Perhaps the Democrats could find an orphaned child whose parents were brutally hacksawed to death to put forth their tax plan. If these Democrat human shields have a point worth making, how about allowing it to be made by someone we're allowed to respond to?"
"I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee without medication. It seemed to me that this occasion demanded that my testimony about the effects of the disease, and the urgency we as a community were feeling, be seen as well as heard. For people who had never observed me in this kind of shape, the transformation must have been startling."
Does it bother people a little that it's entirely possible that Fox may have done the same thing here in order to manipulate the voters in Missouri and Maryland?
Third, the amount of misinformation on embryonic stem cells out there is absolutely staggering. Basically, you have desperate people like Fox and Nancy Reagan out there pushing embryonic stem cells because they've been told that it may be a miracle cure for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. But, the hard, cold reality is that embryonic stem cells have never cured anything in a human and it's entirely possible that they never will. In fact, the reason why embryonic stem cells need federal funding in the first place is because private industry doesn't think ESC's are worth sinking money into. So, we're really getting to the point where the push for embryonic stem cells is not just wasted money, it's turning into a cruel method of offering false hope to people like Michael J. Fox for political purposes.
Last but not least, the one thing I dislike the most about this sort of commercial is that there is a very obvious response to it: you go get someone else with Parkinson's and you put them on TV talking about how great Jim Talent or Michael Steele is and why embryonic stem cell research is a farce. Is that what politics should really be all about? Dueling sick people trying to draw in "pity votes?" Apparently, a lot of Democrats, including Claire McCaskill and Ben Cardin think so -- and that's too bad.
PS: Fox? I have sympathy for him because he's ill and I wouldn't wish Parkinson's disease on anyone. However,what they're obviously hoping here is that people will vote for McCaskill or Cardin because they fee
