Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Congressional Countdown: Formerly Strong Incumbents Struggle in 2006

Congressional Countdown

A Key Race Scorecard -- Nov. 3, 2006

House (35 contested races)

Leans GOP
1
Toss-Up
21
Leans Dem
13

Senate (9 contested races)

Leans GOP
0
Toss-Up
4
Leans Dem
5

» Full Analysis

Political prognosticators often use a rule of thumb when they begin evaluating which House seats might be vulnerable in the next election: start with those districts where the winner got no better than 55 percent of the vote. Tuesday's election shows how wrong that yardstick can be.

Our Countdown lists 35 of the most competitive House districts in the country, but the reality is there are many more districts where the incumbent is in serious-to-some jeopardy. Many of them got far better than 55 percent in 2002 but that's hardly made them immune from a sour national climate.

Read the full analysis...

By washingtonpost.com Editors  |  November 3, 2006; 9:20 AM ET
Categories:  House , Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: One Man, One Vote, One Big Mess
Next: The Ten Best Challenger Campaigns

Comments

Charter Oaker,

If it is no-one's business but Connecticutians to speak on their electoral choices, is it their's business to dictate who should be the leader of Iraq or Iran or North Korea?

Posted by: roo | November 3, 2006 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Zippy - I prefer to call them The Red Menace. The action was in VietNam, the Russians were the patrons of the VietNamese and it was not a shared patronage.

The wars in Laos and Cambodia flowed from the war in VietNam; but the war within VietNam by far and away was the primary battle ground.

The discussions I've had never referenced who made the MiGs. I'll grant you that without even considering researching it. I probably should have qualifed my initial post "for all intents and purposes the Chinese were not..."

I was figuratively floored when the Poster Who Will Not Be Named gave China equal billing. Sorry, just does not compute. Bad history.

The Chinese may consider Indo-China to be in their Sphere of Influence, many Indo-Chinese do not. In the large scale geo-political picture the Soviets were the patron; and the non-North VietNamese bodies on the ground was almost all Russian.

As I mentioned above, the Aussies, Filipinos and South Koreans did more on the ground than any Chinese did, yet we don't refer to them as being major players in that war. China did less than them. Chezkoslovakia probably provided more munitions than China.

Want to call China a bit player, fine. But that's not what was posited.

Think about this, China with major power aspirations couldn't have played a major role in VietNam without messing with the Russians, which they could do only in the smallest of ways (the border skirmishes) at the time. Mao was only going to poke them with a stick, not challenge them.

If you don't agree on specifics, you don't agree. I don't have a problem with that. My comments though weren't just thrown out there without some substance behind them. No Name has shown nothing but intellectual laziness. When it comes to Historical accuracy, I'll challenge that.

If you want to respond fine, I won't answer; but I appreciate that at least you showed knowledge of the topic.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | November 3, 2006 6:43 PM | Report abuse

"Since when is "Peace" a radical notion?

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 01:09 PM"

One of the wisest things I've read on this blog in some time. As Elvis Costello sang, "What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding?"

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | November 3, 2006 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Nor'easter seems hung up on the Rooskie Menace.

That's not who we were fighting in the secret side wars in Cambodia and Laos.

The Rooskies ran the SAMS...and they were chinese MIGs btw. Bunch of my friends flew the F-4's. Thankfully they came back. I cant say the same for a bunch of my foot soldier freinds.

Posted by: zippy | November 3, 2006 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous - Wow! You really scored one there!

But, if you looked at Zippy's post, Zippy was referring to the big picture - "foreign policy." Not small scale munitions.

I now know that you can do a basic Internet search, that you probably can execute a "find" command, and can "cut and paste." But, is your intellect limited to the dimensions of that screen before you?

You're welcome to come back with something of substance. Such as what support did the Chinese Politburo provide; or what the relationship between Ho Chi minh and Mao Tse-Tung was; or how the skirmishes the Russians and Chinese had on their borders affected either country's support of the North Vietnamese.

I see a lot of excellent history research and analysis on this blog. But so far all you've done is make an incorrect generalization on the single most significant topic which has shaped this country's history for the past 40 years; all based on a one sentence entry from an Internet site.

I don't mind the shots, but please at least have some respect for the other people who read these entries.

Anything of substance would be fine.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | November 3, 2006 5:45 PM | Report abuse

"About the only thing which came from China were the grenades and the RPG's."

The closest thing we're going to get in terms of an admission of error, Zippy. Let's give up on him; at least he doesn't now have the sloppy view of history he started out with ("Twice in the past couple of days I've seen reference to China supporting Viet Nam back during the war there. China didn't") thanks to my "simple Internet search" which somehow managed to completely trump the results of his "discussions with historians and military tacticians."

Posted by: Anonymous | November 3, 2006 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Rob - I don't know what to make of Lieberman anymore; other than not to trust him on anything from either a Conservative or Liberal perspective.

And I don't see him as an Independent in the Jim Jeffords or Bernie Sanders sense. "It's all about Joe" seems to be more appropriate everyday.

I see him as a real problem for the Democrats if they need him for a majority.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | November 3, 2006 5:15 PM | Report abuse

I'm in agreement that Leiberman is not a right wing whacko. In fact, he is more liberal than anything else. Lamont is far more liberal than Leiberman is, hence the Republicans support of him. They will do anything they can to prevent Lamont from winning. If Joe wasn't in the race, they would all be supporting Schlesinger and Lamont would clean up with the rest of the Dems and some of the independents.

Posted by: Rob Millette | November 3, 2006 5:02 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- An annoying myth today is that "moderation" somehow equals splitting the difference between GOP and Democrat positions. Given the clear rightward lurch by the GOP even since Nixon (who created the EPA, adopted Keynsian economic positions, etc.), the result of splitting the difference no longer is "moderation" but simply less drastically conservative positions. Now, I DO agree with some GOP positions, but even if I didn't that doesn't disqualify me as a moderate. In my humble opinion, mainstream Democrats today have an awful lot in common with yesterday's Eisenhower and Rockefeller Republicans -- all of whom are ACTUAL moderates.

Posted by: Colin | November 3, 2006 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous/Zippy - "Is Nor'Easter a Chinese apologist? Why, on earth, would anyone care about such a trivial detail? "

Simply because I don't like sloppy history.

I stand by my comments which were not an overblown extrapolation of a simple sentence. I've had many discussions with historians and military tacticians (is the National War College good enough for you?) about this very subject.

BTW Zippy, I'll give you some latitude that maybe you're like George Carlin and have a little trouble remembering the 60's - the facts are that the ships in Haiphong harbor which the U. S. was concerned about were Russian, the pilots training the North Veitnamese how to fly MiGs were Russian, as noted the Russians took over the facilities at Cam Ranh Bay and Danang, the AK-47's were from Iron Curtain countries, the foreigners observed by our POW's in the field prison camps were European.

About the only thing which came from China were the grenades and the RPG's.

Why CAPS? Because a keyboard does not have the 2 x 4 needed to get the attention of somebody too lazy to enter their name on a post or do anything intellectual beyond a simple Internet search.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | November 3, 2006 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Our neighboring state to the south, Wyoming, has a close race that the pundits have missed. Moderate Democrat Gary Trauner has closed the gap against incumbant Republican Barbara Cubin, a six-termer. Wyoming is a cosed primary state in which 61 percent of the votoers are registered Republican. Cubin has made many gaffs and misteps. There is even a Republicans for Trauner organization. Trauner casts himself as a moderate who will vote "Wyoming's Interest" in Washington. He is also trying to use Cubin's heavily negative television campaign against her by emphasizing his "clean" campaign. Interesting to see how that will work.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | November 3, 2006 4:25 PM | Report abuse

In Montana, not even the most optimistic polls show Burns with a lead. Polls here taken in October range from and 11 point Tester lead in the Montana State University Eastern poll to 4 points in the Mason Dixon. Both polls were taken over the same sampling period.

The airwaves are innundated with negative ads against Tester, Burns had twice as much money as Tester to close, plus a personal appeal to Bush resulted in the GOP Senate Campaign making a 350,000 ad buy (rmember this is the lowest-priced TV market in the county, so that money buys a lot of time here.

Sitting Senator Max Baucus, insensed that Burns ran a series of adds that used Baucus' name, tyring to show Tester as even opposed to Baucus' positions. Baucus ran adds specifically supporting Tester, but also raises the fact that Burns favors a national sales tax. Montana is a non-sales tax state and the tax is anathema to most Montanans. The final vote will be interesting. I voted a month ago. They say close to 25 percent of Montana voters will vote absentee this year, by the number of ballots selected.

The Secretary of State's office, based on the number of absentee requests, is also predicting the total turnout in Montana may exceed that of the last General election in 2004. Clearly, the hot Senate race is one reason, but there are several controversial ballot initiatives on the ballot as well.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | November 3, 2006 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Bobby;

Peace, brother..

I mean that.

Did you catch any redfish?

I spent a lot of time on South Padre...

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

You seem to have missed the two New Hampshire House races. Latest polls have Bass falling behind and mayube even a Dem pick-up in the 1st District..

Posted by: Rob | November 3, 2006 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Zippy: don't bother Nor'Easter with the truth. He's taking lessons from KOZ about how to never admit error. A simple "oops, my bad" would've been honest and easy. Instead we get a diatribe IN ALL CAPS.

I am reminded of "A Few Good Men:" Sam Weinberg: "I strenuously object?" Is that how it's done? Hm? "Objection, your Honor!" "Overruled" "No, no. I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh! You strenuously object. Then I'll take some time and reconsider."

Is Nor'Easter a Chinese apologist? Why, on earth, would anyone care about such a trivial detail? A mystery for the ages.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 3, 2006 3:24 PM | Report abuse

JEP,

when your best defense to name calling is name callling you do not have much of a defense - I did not realize I was mispelling your online identifier- sorry

If investigation of Cheney leads to his impeachment so be it - the oil issue is something most average joe republicans can understand - you can get to the issue without creating a war.

My political meeting at lunch was interesting - a group wants to create a local think tank of people from all political affiliations to promote more public participation by all and to promote public policy based on a diversity of ideas

This is what america wants - not this endless name calling and worthless anger.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Posted by: Anonymous | November 3, 2006 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Nor'easter

For those of us who were adult at that time and paying attention to the messed up foreign policy around Viet Nam, your comment about China is terribly uninformed.

The VC would never had the resources to become a legitimate military threat without the Chinese. Granted the Soviets had their guys running the SAM batteries around Hanoi, but the equipment in the south that turned a low tech operation with the advantage of being the Home team on Home turf came from the Chinese.

Posted by: zippy | November 3, 2006 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous - You're kidding right? "The way it is written reflects the shades of grey inherent to reality appropriately."

What it reflects is that universal judgments should not be extrapolated from one sentence Internet query responses.

The "shades of grey" in a one sentence description summarizing a 20-year war. Wow!

How about the shades of gray in between ENORMOUS and teenie? Or, WIDE and extremely narrow? Or, JUPITER and Pluto (sorry, Pluto)?

You choose an analogy - as long as the Soviet Union is the greater; China, the lesser.

If that's not good, let me phrase it another way: CHINA DID NOT PLAY ANYTHING BUT AN ABSOLUTELY MINIMAL ROLE IN THE VIET NAM WAR !

The Australians, Filipinos and South Koreans played larger roles.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | November 3, 2006 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Daily Summary

US House
Dems +20
25 toss ups (2 D, 23 R)
Dems have advantage in 10, Reps adv in 13, 2 dead even

11/3 RMill Call: Dems +31

Notes:
ID 1 now trending Dem (D+2)
NH 1 NEW! lean R
NH 2 NEW! toss up (with adv to D+2.5)
KY 3 (D+2.5)trending towards leans Dem

US Senate
Dems +3
3 toss ups (all Rep)
Dems have advantage in all 3
Notes:
MT Tester (D) +3.67 trending towards leans Dem
TN Corker (R)+5.8 now leans Rep
11/3 RMill Call: Dems +4

Governors
Dems +6
5 toss ups (2 D, 3 R)
Dems adv in 3 of 5

Notes:
ID Gov Brady(D)+2 trending towards leans Dem
AK Gov Palin (R)+3 trending towards leans Rep
FL Gov Crist(R)+5.95 trending towards toss up
MD toss up; O'Malley(D)+4.08

11/3 RMill call: Dems +8

Posted by: RMill | November 3, 2006 2:17 PM | Report abuse

@KOZ

I think there is a big difference between Abortion and late-term abortion. For most People at least.

Posted by: Kavalor | November 3, 2006 2:06 PM | Report abuse

And forgot to mention.

The Big Republican 'Mission Accomplished" party to celebrate paid for by Haliburton and Chevron.

Posted by: poor richard | November 3, 2006 1:56 PM | Report abuse

It would be nice if us democrats focused on getting through next Tuesday rather than "measuring the curtains" to use a recently popular phrase.

If we get too giggly, instead of 'regime change' on Tuesday, we will have 'regime ratification', or maybe better said Rove ratification'.

Picture Junior's first pontification if the rebubs don't lose the House or Senate...."We recieved a mandate. Shred the Constitution. Declare anyone who doesn't agree an enemy combatant. Ship them to Guantanamo-no wussy Habeas Corpus for them. And start the Tribunals."

Posted by: poor richard | November 3, 2006 1:53 PM | Report abuse

The sentence says nothing about the equality of the support. The way it is written reflects the shades of grey inherent to reality appropriately.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 3, 2006 1:41 PM | Report abuse

How could the CW on Santorum being re-elected in this climate have been that it would be close?

It's Pennsylvania, not the heart of the Bible belt, where electing a religious ideologue would make more sense.

How many times can this man shoot himself in the foot?

The only way the Dems don't take back at least the House can be summarized in 3 words, Diebold and friends.

If the results don't add up, I don't think the American people will be so silent about it this time around.

http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com

Posted by: scootmandubious | November 3, 2006 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous - In reading the one sentence from anwers.com it appears that the support was equally Soviet and Chinese. It was not. It was far from it.

The Chinese support was minimal, and only perfunctory as from one fellow communiust state to another.

The patron, and the proxy for which Viet Nam served for us, was the Soviet Union. China did not take over Cam Ranh Bay or DaNang when we left, the Soviets did.

Check other sources and you will see that China invaded Viet Nam in 1979 less than five years after we left, when Viet Nam invaded Cambodia exerting its influence in Indo-China, at which China took umbrage.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | November 3, 2006 1:34 PM | Report abuse

"we could surrender this war"

Just like Bush is doing...

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Last word?

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 1:26 PM | Report abuse

JEP, I see you are treating this site as your own personal soap box again. but your response is so Kerry-esqe. I was for abortion before I was against it. your accusations point to a clear intention to hide your own malfeasance, as pointed out by bobby - a dem. If only we were all as enlightened as you....we could surrender this war and get back to destroying the economy.

Loudon, I never claimed to be a moderate. It is clear you are more comfortable with insults over thought.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 3, 2006 1:22 PM | Report abuse

http://www.answers.com/topic/vietnam-war

Vietnam War: A protracted military conflict (1954-1975) between the Communist forces of North Vietnam supported by China and the Soviet Union and the non-Communist forces of South Vietnam supported by the United States.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 3, 2006 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Since when is "Peace" a radical notion?

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Twice in the past couple of days I've seen reference to China supporting Viet Nam back during the war there.

China didn't. During the Viet Nam War the Soviet Union was Viet Nam's patron; not China.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | November 3, 2006 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"these two investigations are easy for people to understand and get behind - but impeachment and criminal prosecution is only going to needlessly divide and shut down Congress..."

If you think a full investigation of Cheney's "Energy Industry Task Force" would not lead to his impeachment, then why would you want to do it in the first place?

I have long called for an impeachment of Cheney to open up this process, use a Cheney impeachment to bring everyone to the table.

Why have an investigation that will surely lead to impeachment, lets just plain impeach Cheney, and wherever that takes us, follow the leads.

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 1:04 PM | Report abuse

"we can investigate Cheney"

Great idea!

Thanks for your permission...

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 12:55 PM | Report abuse

endless fishing expedition..

out hunting for 'Maybe Dick', The Great White Whale!

"how much to pay your lawn guy"

Do I scent some illegal-alien enabling here?

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Nevertheless, it is a clear indication that you have no ability to come up with anything approaching remorse for your obviously flawed (historically) perspective. Just like the rest of the sorry R's who send Americans off to die for no reason: intellectually immune to experience.

Oh wait, I forgot about not raising the minimum wage. hasn't it been unchanged since around 1902? That's a new idea according to those ever-creative R's. Oh wait, I forgot the other one - destroy SS and make the rich richer in the process. Not very creative/smart and not at all democratic. Why do R's hate America?

Posted by: original thought hurts my brain | November 3, 2006 12:51 PM | Report abuse

"name a single issue which you agree with an R upon"

Late term abortion, fiscal restraint, abstinence education, state's rights,
(is that enough, there's lots more)

But that doesn't mean I'm anti-abortion, a tax-cutter, or that I'm against distributing condoms in high schools, or that the Federal government shouldn't have the right to overrule state's rights when they are clearly unfair.

That's the problem with idealogues like our trolls, they all believe that anyone who disagrees with them about one single issue, like the war, also disagrees with them about everything else.

So maybe there are some moderates out here in "reality land" who actually do not believe in war?

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 12:47 PM | Report abuse

KOZ: People don't have to agree with republicans like you on anything to be moderates. You're a nasty, fringe, reactionary rightwinger; there is nothing moderate about you.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | November 3, 2006 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Nevertheless, it is a clear indication that you have no ability to come up with anything original on your own. Just like the rest of the sorry Dems.

Oh wait, I forgot about minimum wage. didn't that start around 1902? That's a new idea according to those ever-creative Dems. Oh wait, I forgot the other one - leave SS just as it is. Not very creative.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 3, 2006 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Booby;

Its JEP, not JEB.

You started it..

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"It would beyond tragic if Lieberman decides he is tired of these over statments as to his republican ties and just decides to caucus with the Republicans and then the senate is 50/50 again -"

If Joe is really that fickle, why would anyone but Republicans defend him?

I don't like what Joe did to his own party, and I don't agree with his warmongering, but I have always liked Joe personally.

I think he has been a very good Senator, up until the Iraq war, then his external non-constituent loyalties put him into a compromising situation that I do not believe he has handled properly.

But I don't hate Joe Lieberman, and I hope he has the sense to do the right thing, if he whould win this election.

But I sincerely hope Joe loses, because it will send a resounding message to everyone who has let this war pervert thier normal ideology and thier sense of decency.

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 12:39 PM | Report abuse

/In case you haven't noticed, the voters aren't really buying the Lib agenda.' as usual, he gets things a llittle mixed up. according to the pollsl, it ain't the 'lib' agenda voters aren't buying....

'original thought' -- hey i'm not stealing your shtick, i am paying tribute to your schtick. It's quite brilliant since our pet troll is really good at projection...

Posted by: dridl | November 3, 2006 12:38 PM | Report abuse

'investigation is possible but an endless fishing expedition such as with Clinton will not help'

I don' think anyone ever suggested this. That's just a republican straw man.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 3, 2006 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Why do you rabid lefties always think you are moderate. If you are so moderate, name a single issue which you agree with an R upon. just one will do. One would have to agree with at least one righty issue to consider themselves a moderate.

good for you Bobby, don't let the loons hijack your party. you all may actually have to govern in a few weeks and all that conspiracy and hate will not advance that goal in the least. I am very pleased that a voice of reason has emerged on this blog. It has been way too long that we have been subjected to the moonbats printing any thought or opinion as fact or policy.

And of course, the brainiacs on this site know better what's good for CN than the inhabitants of that state. just like they know better how to spend your money, how to educate your kids, how to invest your retirement, how to choose a doctor, how much to pay your lawn guy and on and on.

don't count on alot of Pelosi's things to get through the house and certainly not the Senate. all those guys will have those votes played in TV commercials in 2 years. In case you haven't noticed, the voters aren't really buying the Lib agenda.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 3, 2006 12:35 PM | Report abuse

JEB
oh how much booby hurts and really helps the discussion.

The republicans will not support a veto override on issues such as minumum wage if we are in endless investigations - that simple

we can investigate Cheney - no one likes him - his meeting with the oil industry is an easy investigation which will have few coming to his defense.

investigation is possible but an endless fishing expedition such as with Clinton will not help

Leahy accused the white house of witholding evidence of perjury related to judicial appointees - Leahy needs to investigate such conduct

these two investigations are easy for people to understand and get behind - but impeachment and criminal prosecution is only going to needlessly divide and shut down Congress

I am running late got to go

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | November 3, 2006 12:33 PM | Report abuse

PS Booby, read my stuff more carefull, I never accused you of being an R plant, I said you "sound like a closet R."

Big difference. One version is an accusation meant for the benefit of others, the other (which is how I meant it)an admonition directly to you that you seem confused about the issues.

But your defensive manuevere went right to the "accusation" option, so I can only assume that is where you are really coming from.

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 12:32 PM | Report abuse

"keep her on task"

real meaning; keep her off the track of the rogues...

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Booby;
"or we can just fight it out for two years and leave the people's business on the table saying - investigating is more important than higher wagers, healthcare, and so on and so on. you cannot do both

"You can not do both?"

Bobby, don't make things up. Youare a lawyer, you know there's more than one courtroom in the capitol.

It is a big Congress, with lots of people, there's surely room for more than one event. We can get on with regular business right along with an investigation.

Why do you think can't we do both?

Please elucidate. Do you think, if there have been election fraud felonies committed from the WH, they should be ignored? If we were blatantly lied-to to go to war, should that just be forgotten? Don''t we owe a few thousand soldiers at least some justice for thier deaths?
Who benefits by dropping these issues?

Certainly not the American public.

Why would you even suggest that we should drop all of this? Are you trying to make our government more efficient, or are you hoping someone will get off scot-free, in spite of the damage they have done to our democracy?

Isn't oversight what our government is about, along with lawmaking?

And wouldn't punishing these criminals send a message to future vote faniglers that they, too will be subject to the law of the land if they commit such subterfuge?

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 12:27 PM | Report abuse

We are already stupidly caught in a proxy war with China. Who do you think is sending all the resources into Vietnam? Hence the requirement for us to win in Vietnam - for the appearance that Democracy will not be goaded into defeat by a bunch of squishy communists (as well as murderous bolsheviks) who don't act like adults and who think we can just hide from the obviously valid Domino Theory.

[Drindl, baby, don't steal my shtick!]

Posted by: original thought hurts my brain | November 3, 2006 12:26 PM | Report abuse

'your putrid hatemongering ideas - get overselfs'--can't you just feel the love?

Posted by: Anonymous | November 3, 2006 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I believe that Drindle has categorized herself as a Libertarian (as one of the RNC trolls on here once did, which almost had me rolling on the floor).

The Democrats get her support now, because the Republicans have forfeited it.

She can confirm or deny.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | November 3, 2006 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Colin and Jeb

Jeb see how Colin makes his points instead of over the top accusations

Colin I agree with you - but it is one issue - my point was how Drindl and JEB take things over the top and accuse everyone who does not agree with them as beng Republican plants.

Pelosi is under a lot of pressure from people like JEP and Drindl to investigate -what she is going to do is not yet a done deal

My point is a voice like Lieberman's could keep her on task - this is good - also why do we want to push Lieberman over the edge into the Republican back pocket -

It would beyond tragic if Lieberman decides he is tired of these over statments as to his republican ties and just decides to caucus with the Republicans and then the senate is 50/50 again -

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

off to lunch to work on keeping South Texas Democrat

Posted by: Bobby WIghtman-Cervantes | November 3, 2006 12:19 PM | Report abuse

One more Lieberman thing - On Imus Lieberman said, "I'm disappointed in Chris Dodd."

Let's see Chris is a guy who endorsed and campaigned for him in the Primary, and then maintains party allegiance when Lieberman becomes a turncoat.

Who would I consider as having more character? Ain't close any more.

That proved to me, that to Lieberman, "It's all about Joe!"

Charter Oaker, you can have a weasel like that.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | November 3, 2006 12:16 PM | Report abuse

People who, like Drndle, take extreme positions makes me embarassed to call myself a Democrat. I still read what he (and everyone else) has to say.

Posted by: keith | November 3, 2006 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Charter Oaker: BTW, when Lieberman casts a vote in the Senate, he is casting a vote in MY Senate, not Connecticut's. When Chris Shays cast a vote in the House he is casting a vote in MY House, not Connecticut's.

Until such time as the U. S. Congress becomes Connecticuts special preserve, all of us have the right to criticize or praise any given Member, because what they do in the Congress affects all of us.

JEP: "Obviously, a MAJORITY of Connecticut Democrats agreed with Drindl" You had it more correct in a previous post when you mentioned a majority of the Primary election Democratic voters. Which was what, about 10% of the eligible Democrats?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | November 3, 2006 12:12 PM | Report abuse

"throw them under the bus?"

How is disagreeing with someone and arguing our points "throwing someone under the bus." No one is throwing anyone under anything here, it is a dialogue between people.

We don't expect them to agree with us, but we also have the right to express our opinions, without "throwing" anyone under any bus...

And why is it that so many who define themselves as "moderate democrats" seem so loyal to the Lieberman types?

I am a very moderate Democrat, just ask the Democrats who know me.

But I was raised a Republican, and I know as a former insider, they have become something other than what I remember.

You "self appointed moderate" types are all just confused, somewhere between all the Republican brainwashing and your good Democratic hearts, there is a disconnect.

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Bobby -- First of all, glad to see you posting again, as it's always interesting to hear your perspective. As to your comments regarding Pelosi/Lieberman, I would note that perhaps you should take a second look at the goals that each has articulated going forward.

The "100 days" agenda that Pelosi has outlined includes the exact policies you outlined above. She is a smart, no-nonsense women who will make a great speaker and WILL govern from a center-left platform that essentially espouses 60/40 propositions(ideas that 60% of the electorate agrees with, but which have been symied by the GOP). Lieberman, in contrast, has continued to support a US foreign policy that mirrors the objectives of the neoconservative movement. Now, I'm not of the opinion that that makes Joe a bad person (it doesn't) or that he is now wrong on all the issues. However, I do think that that perspective is dangerous and a VERY legitimate reason to vote for Lamont. Reasonable minds can differ, of course, but opposition to Lieberman is not based on some sort of irrational litmus test. Foreign policy views are EXTREMELY important right now, and Joe's on the wrong side of things for an awful lot of people.

Just my two cents...

Posted by: Colin | November 3, 2006 12:10 PM | Report abuse

JEB

we all saw how the Reputricans wasted our tax dollars investigating Clinton - constitutional duty of oversight

leadership is about being smart - not the law says I can do it so I will.

If Pelosi shows leadership it will guarantee a Dem in the white house and the dems in total control of the house and senate -

that is my goal - my way means we do not have to worry about the powerless republicans - Pelosi will have two years to show she can lead - leading is not destroying your opponent - leading is making change which promotes the people's business - increase minimum wage, balance the budget, repeal the disasterous corporate welfare plan for drug makers, exapnd national healthcare by allowing small businesses and individuals to buy into a national health plan

or we can just fight it out for two years and leave the people's business on the table saying - investigating is more important than higher wagers, healthcare, and so on and so on. you cannot do both

I want the Dems to just prove they are better than the Republicans - this the American people will understand and reward

Bobby WIghtman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | November 3, 2006 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Venice. Whom did Lieberman betray? He certainly didn't betray Connecticut--a majority of voters will vote for him. Even if Lieberman is an idiot on the war, he represents his constituency well. Lay off.

Posted by: Zathras | November 3, 2006 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"I get on my knees and worship your putrid hatemongering ideas.."

Calling Lieberman a turncoat is "hatemongering?"

Booby, get over yourself.

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Hey Netroots:

STOP ATTACKING MODERATE DEMOCRATS.

Having been accused of being a stealth Republican on this blog in the past, I find it disconcerting to see the ease with which you guys throw moderates like Lieberman and Bobby W-C under the bus...

Posted by: Venicemenace | November 3, 2006 12:01 PM | Report abuse

"not end up with endless investigations thereby making Congress becoming even more do nothing-"

How is an investigation into felonious election fraud and WH influence peddling a "do-nothing" event?

Bush can't veto impeachment, for himself or Cheney, and if you think ignoring the past will solve our problems, you really are trying to cover for the R's.

If wedon't investiget this mess down to the roots, we are just setting up another debacle in the future.

The very best thing our new Congress will do is to hold these rogues accountable, and if they have nothing to hide, they won't be intimidated by it.

If you don't think we should "waste our time" investigating Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the whole cabal, you have no clue as to the meaning of "checks and balances".

And that will no doubt be the future R mantra "lets not waste our precious time with investigations."

You can bet on it, Bobby.

"You" are already doing it for "them."

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 11:56 AM | Report abuse

JEB,

short of some 11th hour November surprise by Bush which is better than the 11th hour November surprise from the Dems- Bush will learn you cannot win on hate alone and America will be a better place

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Posted by: Bobby WIghtman-Cervantes | November 3, 2006 11:53 AM | Report abuse

"you can not win the hearts and minds of the people on hate.."

Tell that to Rove and Bush and Cheney..

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Zathras;

I hope you are right.

CharterOakes;
"it should be up to the people of Connecticut to chose who they want representing them"

We have a system inplace that accomplishes that, it is called the politicalprimary, and anyone who jumps outside those traditionla parameters of unspoken honor has to be considered a rogue, just in thier self-willfulness.

Joe had a better future in politics as a contrite loser, now he will always be considered an historic turncoat.

And as for "judging" you as a voter, and other Connecticut Dems who jumped ship along with Joe, you seem determined to turn someone else's "opinion" into some sort of spiritual condemnation, which I think suggests you have not reconciled Joe's wayward ways even to yourself, or you would not be putting it on such a spiritual level.

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 11:47 AM | Report abuse

I didn't say invade Iraq; probably Israel bombing them. The GOP is already going to lose the house and probably senate, they have nothing to lose at this point. If it happened this afternoon it would give the R's all Sunday on the talk shows to bash Dems about it.

That is not a prediction, I'm not saying I believing it will happen. It's just an interesting set of circumstances that have been set up and one possible scenario.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 3, 2006 11:45 AM | Report abuse

JEP,

your response is typical of the no-substance Bushmongers - you can not win the hearts and minds of the people on hate

your problem is, the only good Democrat is a Democrat who worships you - sounds in cultism to me.

By keep Pelosi in line I mean - not end up with endless investigations thereby making Congress becoming even more do nothing-

I want the Democrats in a strong position of leadership and get things done by 2008 - Pelosi needs to immediately introduce legislation raising the minimum wage - Bush will veto it

She then needs to introduce legislation to repeal the tax breaks for people who earn over 500k a year - call it a balanced budget law - Bush will veto it

This allows Pelosi to tell the American people - we are trying to raise your wages, and balance the budget and the Republicans are still playing the Do Nothing Congress game

I guess this all just makes me a Republican plant -

you and drindle need to learn to deal in substance and facts instead of this endless "if you do not worship me cultism you are a reputrican"

25 years ago the self anointed gay leadership shunned me because I stood for those radical republican positions such as allowing women in our clubs, or that really radical idea of allowing blacks to work in our bars as something other than janitors.

I was shunned and had my business destroyed when I refused to drop my legal representation of a black lesbian being discharged from the air force - as I was told she did not represent the image they were pursuing - even the phony bolony Phil Donohue told us we were not right for his show because the self-anoited gay leadership was trying to only promote white males as a better image

I was there in his studies having just finished a spot on NBC when I was told this.

I am greatful that Ed Bradley had the courage to profile my work as the only attorney in the country at the time willing to represent blacks and latinos being discharged for being gay

So please all of you cultist who believe I am not a Democrat unless I get on my knees and worship your putrid hatemongering ideas - get overselfs - true Democrats have no use for such false cultist prophets as JEB and Drindl

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | November 3, 2006 11:43 AM | Report abuse

We are already in a proxy war with Iran. Who do you think is sending all the resources into Iraq? Were you aware that we had coalition exercises in the Gulf recently. Iran must respond to these or appear weak. the whole thing is about your appearance in that part of the world. Hence the requirement for us to win in Iraq - for the appearance that Democracy will not be goaded into defeat by a bunch of squishy peaceniks (as well as murderous jihadists) who don't act like adults and who think we can just hide from this menace.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 3, 2006 11:41 AM | Report abuse

This Iran conspiracy theory is lunacy. We are not going to invade Iran, or N.K., or anywhere else before election day, if for no other reason that this would send GOP House losses into the triple digits.

Posted by: Zathras | November 3, 2006 11:41 AM | Report abuse

zouk has about 4 days until he gets committed to a facility that will be able to deal with her sort of dementia. An elction loss is going to send him over the edge.

Altho that will be a very short trip.

JEP, Iran is just respoonding to the US excercises off it's shores, as the adminisration knew they would.

A coincidence, this close to an election? Hardly.

Posted by: drindl | November 3, 2006 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Is this "Perry the builder" any relation to Gov. Perry?

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 11:40 AM | Report abuse

JEP:

And when you move to Connecticut and become a resident, then pass judgment all you want on people who support Lieberman. My only point was that whether it is Lieberman or Lamont, they will be the Junior Senator from Connecticut. They will be representing the people of Connecticut. And therefore, it should be up to the people of Connecticut to chose who they want representing them, and people who are non-Nugmeggers would do well to either move to Connecticut if they are that concerned or should concentrate on their own affairs.

I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone, my point is that no matter who you support (Lamont, Lieberman, Schlesinger or any other the other minor party candidates) let the people of Connecticut chose their own fate. Don't act high and mighty when it is not yours to decide. I will not lie, I had a very hard time with this both during the primary and now for the general election. For most people this is not an easy decision to make, but it is ours to make. And I don't think it appropriate for others to pass judgment on our decisions.

Posted by: Charter Oaker | November 3, 2006 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Iran;

how about "yesterday..."

It may already be too late.

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Joe sides with Rs on one single issue. Try looking at his voting record instead of making up BS, your usual method. you clearly know a lot less than you think you do - the Dem mantra.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 3, 2006 11:36 AM | Report abuse

"Iran has successfully test-fired three new models of sea missiles in a show of force to assert its military capacities in the Gulf, military officials said Friday."

Why on Earth would they do that right now, just days before an election that might bring in a government looking for answers instead of open war?

It only plays right into Rove's fearmongering scheme, and provides a startling "remember the Miane" scenario for the neocons to pounce upon.

It is either just stupid or blatantly conspiratorial, but no will ever convince me it is coincidental.

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 11:35 AM | Report abuse

drindl

Iran...Today or Monday?

Posted by: bob | November 3, 2006 11:34 AM | Report abuse

I've heard so very much in the press about George Soros.. so where is the outrage about Bob Perry?

'Bob Perry, the Houston homebuilder who led the drive to discredit Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's war record in 2004, has replaced George Soros as the biggest donor in U.S. politics.

Perry, 74, has given at least $9.2 million to groups backing Republican House and Senate candidates, Federal Election Commission records show. In 2004, Soros, 76, was the top contributor, giving at least $27 million in an effort to defeat President George W. Bush.

Perry is targeting congressional races in states such as Georgia, Oregon, Iowa and West Virginia that may have slipped off the radar of national party leaders. ``You're dealing with a much more rifle-shot operation'' than in 2004, said Kent Cooper, co- founder of Washington-based PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks campaign spending. ``Play the long shot and your payoff is much bigger.''

In 2004, Perry gave at least $4.5 million to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that aired commercials assailing Kerry's Vietnam war record. This year, his contributions to such so-called 527 groups -- named for the section of the tax code under which they operate -- are focusing on Democratic lawmakers the groups regard as vulnerable, paying for attack ads independent of the Republican candidates and official party apparatus.'

Posted by: drindl | November 3, 2006 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Drindl has about 4 days until she gets committed to a facility that will be able to deal with her sort of dementia. An elction loss is going to send her over the edge.

Yes it is up to the voters of CN to decide who their Senator is, not a bunch of know-it-all lefty bloggers. but you should realize that not a single person takes anything that Drindl or her ilk say as serious for consideration. It is all just an exercise in ego. Libs love to think they know everything and are needed to solve the problems of the world. Joe L was a good VP candidate and has been a very succesful Senator. that sad party needs more like him to survive. this election should have seen a switch of about 70 seats according to historical trends. But the sheer lunacy of Drindl et al have forced moderate voters to reconsider a Dem controlled government. A shift of only 20 or so seats is a stunning loss to the overall philosophy of the Lib agenda. Particularly in this era and with these Rs.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 3, 2006 11:33 AM | Report abuse

'you do not help the Democratic cause - you hurt us with such postings as to your position on Lieberman -'

That's utter nonsense, bobby and you know it. Why are Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, Dick Cheney and Ann Coulter campaigning so hard for Joe, if he's such a great democrat? Have you really paid attention to his votes lately, for his wife's lobbyist clients? Have you any idea where his money is coming from? Republicans. He owes them big time.

To tell me not to speak my mind about a subject i quite frnakly know quite a lot about [I have lived in CT, and still have many friends there] is to sound a lot like bush's press secretary when he said people should 'watch what they say'. I have no objection whatsoever to' moderates' or 'centrists' or whatever, but that is not what Joe is. He IS a republican, this is who he serves.

And what kind of defensive whining is this, whoever you are, 'unlike you, not also are perfect in every decision we make'? I am telling you what I know. Vote how you want, then watch as Joe shamelessly side with repugs on every single issue. Don't say I didn't tell you so.

Posted by: drindl | November 3, 2006 11:31 AM | Report abuse

MY sources in DC say that Allen ran out of money this morning.

Any validation? Anyone got an inside on how much is RNCC going to throw in this weekend to keep him afloat?

Posted by: poor richard | November 3, 2006 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"keep Pelosi in line?!?"

Sounds like a closet R to me...

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 11:28 AM | Report abuse

ELECTION ALARM!! SPREAD THE WORD!!

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://www.cleveland.com/election/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1162459883208740.xml&coll=2


Vote law challenge settled in U.S. court
ID definition broadened for in-person voting Nov. 7 and for all absentee ballots

Thursday, November 02, 2006
Mark Rollenhagen
Plain Dealer Bureau

Columbus -- A weeklong battle over Ohio's new voter-identification rules ended Wednesday night in a Columbus courtroom.

The Ohio attorney general's office and lawyers for two groups that challenged the rules said an agreement was reached after 12 hours of negotiations.

All absentee ballots will be counted regardless of whether voters supplied identification when they were cast.
Advertisement


The agreement resolved other problems that cropped up amid the confusion. Some voters had mistakenly listed the wrong driver's license number when they returned their ballots.

"All of these ballots will be counted," said Caroline Gentry, a lawyer for the groups that challenged the rules.

The agreement applies only to Tuesday's elections.

Other points of the agreement include:

Absentee voters who cast ballots at boards of elections rather than mailing them will no longer need to present identification when they vote.

Voters who don't have identification will be able to vote at next week's election by presenting the last four digits of their Social Security number and casting a provisional ballot.

Voters can use a military ID that shows a Social Security number as identification and cast a provisional ballot.


Posted by: che | November 3, 2006 11:23 AM | Report abuse

bob,

'It's now 6 hours and 32 minutes before the last possible moment on the Friday before the last weekend news cycle before the election for the RNCC to drop it's October surprise bombshell.

One Vote for an commando invasion of North Koreas weapons facilities.

Second suggestion: Iran lobbed some missles this morning and Condi talked of dire consequences. Israeli Jets by sundown bombing the Iranian reactor?'

-My prediction was always Iran. The neocons are not interested in N. Korea -- no oil, no money to be made there. Why they ignore it. But seizing iranian oil has been in the plan since the project for a New American Century in 1996. And given this--

' Iran has successfully test-fired three new models of sea missiles in a show of force to assert its military capacities in the Gulf, military officials said Friday.

Television showed footage of the elite Revolutionary Guards firing the missiles from warships and from mobile launching pads on the shore.

Iranian forces have previously test-fired missiles in the crowded Gulf waters, but the new maneuvers, which began on Thursday, appeared to be Iran's response to a U.S.-led military exercise held earlier this week in the same zone.'

The administration basically goaded the Iranians to firing these missles by holding military excercies right off Iranian shores. So Iran responded -- and that will be considered reason enough to strike them and start a war.

Posted by: drindl | November 3, 2006 11:18 AM | Report abuse

"Drndle, unlike you not all of us are perfect with every decision we make"

getting a bit catty here, aren't we?

Posted by: Anonymous | November 3, 2006 11:17 AM | Report abuse

"how dare you pass judgement on US!!!"

Obviously, a MAJORITY of Connecticut Democrats agreed with Drindl..

Do they have the right to call Joe a turncoat?

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 11:16 AM | Report abuse

What I meant was, Joe supports the war when his constituents really don't, while Hillary supports the war, to her own political detriment, because most of her constituents want to see Israel protected.

If you can't and won't represent the wishes of your constituents, you shouldn't be running for office.

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Drndle,

you do not help the Democratic cause - you hurt us with such postings as to your position on Lieberman -

Independents read such postings and they just say - I do not not to be in bed with people like that - there are times I am convinced you are a radical Bush plant just trying to undo the Democrats and make us look like out of control Bush hate mongers

Drndle, unlike you not all of us are perfect with every decision we make - in my view Lieberman on the war was way too in bed with Bush - but on balance he is a great democrat who is good for the Party.

Lieberman may end up being the salvation for the Democartic Party - he may end up being the voice of reason to keep Pelosi in line so that we can win in 2008

Thanks for speaking up Charter -

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | November 3, 2006 11:12 AM | Report abuse

"maybe, just maybe, there are some democrats who know that Joe votes overwhelmingly with the democratic party."

But, apparently not a primary majority.

DUH!

Joe's just a sore loser, and he's obviously more concerned about Joe than the state of Connecticut OR the Democratic Party.

If he had stepped back and let Lamont win, he would have been considered one of the real statesmen of the day, and would no doubt have been rewarded, eventually, with a cabinet position or some future position of authority.

Now he will just be another self-willed rogue, voting his personal opinion instead of his constituents' wishes.

The war in Iraq is alread a good example of this. If Lieberman had the guts Hillary has, he would represent the majority of his constituents and oppose this war.

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Reverend Moon is a complete psychotic who beleives he's the Messiah and calls himself King of the Universe. And he owns the Washington Times and UPI and has free access to the White House and all republican members of congress. It's amzing the deference they show him.

And yes, his cult -- because there's nothing else you can call it -- marries people [strangers] in huge groups [Moon himself chooses the partners] then these cultists are told in great detail how they may have sex [facing a picture of Moon] and when they may conceive. And yes, he is one of the main recipients of 'faith-based' taxpayer dollars.

And so you see why our government is behaving irrationally -- because it's infiltrated with cultists, fanasists, psychotics, perverts and sociopaths.

Posted by: drindl | November 3, 2006 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Here's a link to that site;

http://www.namebase.org/books48.html

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Drndle:

In response to your post:

Any Democrat who votes for him is simply handing the state of Connecticut to the far far right

Are you from CT? how dare you, who is not even from CT say that! how dare you pass judgement on US!!!

maybe, just maybe, there are some democrats who know that Joe votes overwhelmingly with the democratic party. maybe, just maybe, there are democrats who believe that Ned Lamont is not the right person to be representing us.

Everyone is making Joe out to be this uber conservative. The fact of the matter is he's not. Does he have some conservative stances on some issues. Why yes he does. But make no mistake about it overwhelmingly he votes with the democrats. more so than a lot of other democrats. but I tell you what, what state do YOU live in, we'll let lamont be the senator from your state!

Those Democrats in CT who vote for Lieberman are voting for the person whom they believe is best to represent their state. Why should Connecticut have to give up a good senator just to appease people like you. At the end of the day everyone gets a vote, and it is not to you or anyone else to pass judgement on who a person votes for. I'm sorry if you don't like Lieberman, or if you think that he is too conservative for your taste. But CT is not the only state that has a senator running. Perhaps you should be talking to the people in VA or MD who are also voting...how about to the people of Missouri or Montana.

When it is a senator representing you and your state, you can say whatever you would like, until then stop passing judgment on the people of Connecticut.


Posted by: Charter Oaker | November 3, 2006 11:02 AM | Report abuse

For anyone looking for Korean event to represent the "October Surprise"

"Robert Boettcher was the staff director of the House Subcommittee on International Relations, which investigated the Koreagate scandal and Moon's ties to the Korean CIA. This is his inside story of the scandal, which involved bribery, corruption, coercion, big business, the arms industry, international trade, front organizations, U.S. Congressmen with their snouts in the trough, and KCIA colonels pouring in bags of cash. By 1977, Koreagate had spawned five investigations, but only one Congressman, Richard Hanna, went to jail.
Rev. Moon survived the scandal despite evidence that he was working for the Koreans. Ironically, he was helped by his conviction for tax evasion, which projected the image of a martyr for religious freedom and allowed him to mobilize support. Today Moonies no longer have to sell flowers at airports; his corporate and media empire spans the globe.

Not surprisingly, the issue of foreign influence that was raised by Koreagate emerged again in the 1992 campaign. Now, however, the same access to power is purchased legally -- through PACs, lobbying, and paying fat salaries to shameless former U.S. trade officials. Have a nice New World Order."

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Both sides of the isle have done everything they can to keep us divided so that our voices are lost in the wind - we each have our views - on teh eve the of the election I suggest we ask -who are we as Americans - and which politicians represent the values which we believe to be American

I wrote the following after 9/11

BEING AN AMERICAN

What is and is not being an American is an issue of great debate in light of 9/11. What it is to be an American can be seen in America's landscape. America's majesty is in its diverse landscape, and so too its people. Whether it is the beauty of America's Fall colors, or the blossoming of a yucca cactus, America is diverse from shore to shore.

America's diversity is not limited to Fall colors or one cactus. Even within its trees and cacti there is no universality. They are all different is size, shape, and color. Such is the nature of being an American. We are a diverse people. We have many values and many cultures. America's culture is a culture of blending of cultures and separation of cultures. Tacos and burritos are now as American as apple pie. So too is the egg roll, and pizza. Is it not true that pita bread is fashionable? Such is the nature of our blending. But yet, while we may blend in public, traditional cultural values appear to survive in the home. This is part of America's greatness.

How can a people so diverse be one? The answer is simple, as Americans we all value liberty and economic opportunity. As American's we have learned to blend these two basic concepts into many subcultures, with these concepts binding the whole.

As Americans we understand that 9/11 was an attack on "We The People", because "We the People" are America. Americans of all shapes, sizes, and colors came together and resolved in their minds "We Shall Prevail" Such as the cacti and trees, while they are different in many ways, they are also the same - a tile in the mosaic known as the American Landscape.

On 9/11, to me it did not matter that I believe that America's politics of brutal colonial oppression led to 9/11. On 9/11 what mattered most to me was that being an American had little to do with how we feel about our governmental policies, it was about "We the People" being attacked. With rare exception "We the People" set aside our political beliefs to stand in defense of "We the People." We put aside our differences because as Americans we are Americans first and Democrats, Socialists, Republicans, Independents, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Jew, Christian, Moslem, whatever, second.

You are an American when you understand that America accepts all people, all values, all opinions, and all cultures which can live in harmony within America's blending of cultures, values, opinions etc, and individualism at once. BEING AN AMERICAN IS NOT ABOUT TOLERANCE OF DIVERSITY, BUT THE EMBRACING OF DIVERSITY WITH THE COMMON GOAL OF LIBERTY AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL.

There is more to this election than being a Democrat or Republican - I hope we can all see that we are American's first - wherever that means

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

http://balancingtheissues.com/being_an_american.htm

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | November 3, 2006 10:59 AM | Report abuse

From Sun Myung Moon's book "The 'Master' Speaks"

"My dream is to organize a Christian political party including the Protestant denominations, Catholics and all the religious sects. Then the communist power will be helpless before ours. We have to purge the corrupted politicians and the sons of God must rule the world. The separation between religion and politics is what Satan likes most. ...Upon my command to the Europeans and others throughout the world to come live in the U.S., wouldn't they obey me? Then what would happen? We can embrace the religious world in one arm and the political world in the other. With this great ideology, if you are not confident to do this, you had better die!"

And what of North Korea? How does Moon's influence affect our policy there?

Satanikes the separation of church and state?

So what about Luke, Chapter 4, verses 5-7?

All these "Evangelicals" may just be voting for the Devil...

They are surely voting for war and torture.

"sons of God must rule the world"

So how do we identify the sons of God?
Matthew ch5v9
THEY ARE PEACEMAKERS, not warmongers!

PS I wonder if the Evangelicals know that there are rumors that Moon recently bailed out Oral Roberts U. to the tune of several million bucks.
If it is true, I wonder what Moon gets in return?
Cults managing mainstream churches?
And why would the Moonies be one of the biggest and earliest recipients of faith-based cash?

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 10:50 AM | Report abuse

"GOP losses of whatever size are going to trigger a wave of internal backbiting and fingerpointing. No surprise there. But I suspect there is going to emerge a common theme among Republicans, a declaration that the political environment was so toxic that no incumbent party could expect to emerge unscathed. The more brash will declare that the GOP did quite well given the circumstances. What will be missing is any sense that the Republicans made their own bed and were forced to lay in it. The 2006 "political environment" will be treated like a weather phenomenon, something beyond our control, a freak of nature, instead of what it is: a reaction to the GOP's man-made calamity."


For the poster of this comment. You are correct and in addition. Forty years ago the Republican party under Richard Nixon's leadership using the civil rights acts enacted by democrats courted the southern conservative democrats to convert to republicans. Now those same southern conservative Evangelical former Democrats, now republicans, have successfully taken over the republican party to the demise of non-southern republicans. The historical irony is that the regional political parties from the American civil war have flip-flopped. The South did rise again, as red, and for six years has ruled the country as republicans with the southern republican agenda prevailing. And many non-southern republicans are questioning the weather the national republican party represents them today.

Posted by: DC | November 3, 2006 10:35 AM | Report abuse

"Removing the Republicans from power will only be a temporary fix unless we fundamentally fix ourselves so that no one, no party, no movement can exploit those same weaknesses again."

Anonymous post with some great advice...

Needed reposting...

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 10:33 AM | Report abuse

ok

It's now 6 hours and 32 minutes before the last possible moment on the Friday before the last weekend news cycle before the election for the RNCC to drop it's October surprise bombshell.

One Vote for an commando invasion of North Koreas weapons facilities.

Second suggestion: Iran lobbed some missles this morning and Condi talked of dire consequences. Israeli Jets by sundown bombing the Iranian reactor?

Or will the RNCC wait for Monday with something really dramatic and leaving minimum time for democrat spin control?

This week is very UnRovian. Or are the R's really focused on microtargeting and reprogramming the Diebold machines?


Posted by: bob | November 3, 2006 10:30 AM | Report abuse

.."The order comes in the form of an obscure provision"

These "obscure provisions" are popping up all over the place, little bits of reality buried in a mountain of double-speak.

Part of any successful subterfuge is to trivialize the meaningful and emphasize the trivial.

So whenever one of us spots one of these buried actualities, it is good to bring them up, because the real pieces to this puzzle are going to be hidden by the neocons from public view, which is why the MSM continues to "bury" the important truth in casual, almost flippant paragraphs.

Here's one of those "open secrets" for the books, from today's LA Times;

"The company (Bechtel) expected Iraq to develop from an aid recipient to a customer. The biggest U.S. engineering firm would help one of the world's most distressed countries into the 21st century.

That hope receded with each suicide bombing.

"We were told it would be a permissive environment. But to the horror of everyone, it never stabilized. It just went down, down, down, and to this day it continues to go down," said Cliff Mumm, who ran Bechtel's Iraq operation. "I'm proud of what we did, but had law and order prevailed, it would be a different situation."

At one Bechtel project, in the southern city of Basra, the company recorded this toll: The site security manager was murdered; the site manager resigned after receiving death threats; a senior engineer resigned after his daughter was kidnapped; 12 employees of the electrical-plumbing subcontractor were assassinated in their offices; and 11 employees of the concrete supplier were murdered."

Rumsfeld is sure doing a great job, huh? He can't even protect his own corporate raiders.

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Politics is local - here in South Texas it seems politics is local - with virtually no Democrats running for statewide office and the Democrat running for the US Senate polling in the high 20's there is really no reason for people to turn out to vote except for local races.

In Texas the County Judge is not a judge but in fact the CEO of the County- in Democratic South TExas a Republican is gving the Democratic Incumbent a run for his money

Today's news tells us that as of Wednesday last in about a week and a half of early voting 9% of the voters have turned out - that is not bad for early voting

What is driving the process - not the national elections but County Judge and School Board

Politics is truly local - or as we say here in the LRGV (lower rio grande valley) loco.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | November 3, 2006 10:28 AM | Report abuse


ELECTION ALARM!! SPREAD THE WORD!!

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/15913217.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

AP Exclusive: Pa. congressman paying ex-mistress about $500,000

MICHAEL RUBINKAM
Associated Press

ALLENTOWN, Pa. - A Republican congressman accused of abusing his ex-mistress agreed to pay her about $500,000 in a settlement last year that contained a powerful incentive for her to keep quiet until after Election Day, a person familiar with the terms of the deal told The Associated Press.

Rep. Don Sherwood is locked in a tight re-election race against a Democratic opponent who has seized on the four-term congressman's relationship with the woman. While Sherwood acknowledged the woman was his mistress, he denied abusing her and said that he had settled her $5.5 million lawsuit on confidential terms.

The settlement, reached in November 2005, called for Cynthia Ore to be paid in installments, according to a person who spoke on condition of anonymity because the deal is confidential. She has received less than half the money so far, and will not get the rest until after the Nov. 7 election, the person said Thursday.

A confidentiality clause requires Ore to forfeit some of the money if she talks publicly about the case, according to this person and two other people familiar with elements of the case.

It is common in settlements for payments to be made in installments and for the parties to be held to confidentiality.

Sherwood admitted no wrongdoing, a standard provision in such agreements, this person said.

Sherwood, a 65-year-old married father of three who is considered a family-values conservative, had one of the safest seats in Congress until Ore sued him in June 2005, alleging he physically abused her throughout their five-year affair.

Reached by telephone Wednesday, the congressman and successful car dealer said: "I can neither confirm nor deny because this was a private settlement. If I'd like to talk to you about it, I can't."

The Associated Press has been trying for months to find out the terms of the settlement.

According to a police report, Ore called 911 on her cell phone from the bathroom of Sherwood's Capitol Hill apartment in 2004 and reported that Sherwood had choked her while giving her a back rub. Sherwood admitted having an affair with the woman, but vehemently denied ever hurting her, and criminal charges were never filed. But Ore, now 30, sued for damages.

Sherwood's challenger, Chris Carney, has hammered the congressman over the affair in TV ads, calling Sherwood a hypocrite who brought "Washington values" to his rural northeastern Pennsylvania district.

Sherwood responded with his own ad, in which he looked directly into the camera and apologized for his conduct. Last month, his wife mailed a letter to voters that accused Carney of "needlessly cruel" campaign tactics.

Although GOP voters greatly outnumber Democrats in his conservative district, many people have said they would not vote for him again because of the affair.

Even before Ore settled, the congressman tried to keep a tight lid on the case. His lawyer asked a judge to prohibit disclosure of materials from the case, warning that Sherwood's opponents might try to use the information to harm him politically.

The lawyer, Bobby Burchfield, was especially adamant that any videotaped deposition of Sherwood not be released, saying the footage could be used against him in negative political ads.

Ore's attorney, Ning Ye of New York, declined to say where she is living now or how she can be reached.

Posted by: che | November 3, 2006 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Jon,
I agree that due to the state's environment Tester isn't as safe as Cardin. But Tester has consistently polled over Burns by significant margins. Also Montana voted a Democratic governor in 2004 so it isn't a rubber stamp for the the GOP.

Posted by: Andy R | November 3, 2006 10:08 AM | Report abuse

'Republicans may say they don't believe in deadlines for Iraq, but it turns out there's one deadline they do believe in. The Pentagon budget signed a couple of weeks ago includes a hard date for putting Stuart Bowen, the Inspector General for Iraq, out of business:

The order comes in the form of an obscure provision that terminates his federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, on Oct. 1, 2007. The clause was inserted by the Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections of Democratic counterparts during a closed-door conference, and it has generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no idea it was in the final legislation.

That's a real shocker, isn't it? The official excuse from Duncan Hunter (R-Running For President), who inserted the provision, is that he wanted to return to a "non-wartime footing" for all this inspection stuff. That seems a little funny considering how relentlessly Republicans remind us that "we're at war," but maybe I've misunderstood this concept all along. After all, as our commander in chief tells us, war is hard.

But at least it should soon be a little easier for Halliburton.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_11/009989.php

Posted by: drindl | November 3, 2006 10:07 AM | Report abuse

As a resident of OH-15 (R-Pryce's district), she's in a world of hurt.

Posted by: DCA2CMH | November 3, 2006 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Zathras

"Lieberman was just on Don Imus's show. Imus asked him about whether he would caucus with the Democrats. Lieberman responded that he had said early on that he would caucus with the Democrats. He then went on to say that he had made that decision to protect his seniority. He now thinks that it would be better for him to be "very, very independent."


Lieberman is counting on strong republican support to win the election. It would be political suicide to still say he is going caucus with the democrats. Once he's elected he will be back to the old Lieberman as a Dem, holding on to his seniority.


Posted by: DC | November 3, 2006 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Nancy Boyda's website..

http://www.nancyforcongress.com/index.php

This lady's got Bush worried, and rightly so. She's run a very good campaign, and may well be one of those "second tier" candidates who should have been considered top-tier all along.

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 10:01 AM | Report abuse

GOP losses of whatever size are going to trigger a wave of internal backbiting and fingerpointing. No surprise there. But I suspect there is going to emerge a common theme among Republicans, a declaration that the political environment was so toxic that no incumbent party could expect to emerge unscathed. The more brash will declare that the GOP did quite well given the circumstances. What will be missing is any sense that the Republicans made their own bed and were forced to lay in it. The 2006 "political environment" will be treated like a weather phenomenon, something beyond our control, a freak of nature, instead of what it is: a reaction to the GOP's man-made calamity.

I hope that when the political history of the last half century is written it will show, as it should, that the Republicans engaged in a brand of divisive electoral politics that pitted Americans against each other: white against black, men against women, rich against poor, native born against immigrant, straight against gay. Republicans deserve to be tarred by history for exploiting our weaknesses, our prejudices, and our lesser selves for their own political gain. But those are still our weaknesses and our prejudices. We own them. And it is our lesser selves that have succumbed to the Republican political pitch and been willing to be exploited. Removing the Republicans from power will only be a temporary fix unless we fundamentally fix ourselves so that no one, no party, no movement can exploit those same weaknesses again.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 3, 2006 10:01 AM | Report abuse

These are the kinds of local reports we're looking for here in the final stretch (thanks to TPM Reader BR):

Early voters in the heart of the heated race to succeed former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay were greeted Wednesday with red and white signs that read: "Want more illegals? Vote Democrat" and "Encourage Terrorists. Vote Democrat."
The GOP paid for the signs.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 3, 2006 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Rothenberg is now predicting net gain for Democrats in the House of 34-40.

He also had this to say about the Senate:

"While Senate control is in doubt, with Democrats most likely to win from 5 to 7 seats, we do not think the two sides have an equal chance of winning a majority in the Senate. Instead, we believe that state and national dynamics favor Democrats netting six seats and winning control of the United States Senate."

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Zathras | November 3, 2006 9:53 AM | Report abuse

That was a strategic thread-change...

"Yet Bush will be in Topeka over the weekend trying to make sure Ryun isn't upset by Democrat Nancy Boyda."

Isn't that amazing, that the POTUS has decided to spend what is left of his political capitol right here in Kansas,trying to save Jim Ryun's seat for him.

I was in touch with some Dem leaders yesterday, and of all the races in this area we feel would be worth a redoubled GOTV effort, it is Nancy Boyda's campaign that might show us the very best benefit.

Apparently Bush agrees with me.

If there is any one race where people can make a difference it is this one, so if you know anyone from this area, call them, from anywhere in the US, and convince them to vote if they are not planning to do so.

Nancy Boyda has run a top-notch campaign, and not just trashing her opponent but presenting issues and answers that go to the heart of our national dillema.

She would be an excellent replacement for this rubber-stamp Delay clone, and it is worth your time and effort to do whatever you can to help her win.

So even if you aren't from Kansas, keep it in mind, if Bush is coming to help out Ryun, they know the race is a close one.

Posted by: JEP | November 3, 2006 9:48 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As she fights for her political life, Ohio Republican Rep. Deborah Pryce distanced herself Thursday from the Iraq war, telling CNN Radio, "What's happening in Iraq is not a direct reflection on me."

The seven-term representative is the House Republican Caucus chairwoman, the fourth highest-ranking position in the House. She won re-election in 2004 with 62 percent of the vote. However, experts say her current race with Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy is a toss-up.

Pryce made the remark Tuesday in an interview at a Columbus, Ohio, factory. When pressed by CNN on whether her position as a House leader connected her to the volatile situation in Iraq, Pryce objected to the interruption of her remarks and said the interview was over.

"Thanks, I'm done," Pryce said. She expressed frustration and walked away saying, "Maybe we'll call you later when I'm feeling better."

Posted by: drindl | November 3, 2006 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Andy R:

Yesterday I think Zogby had Tester up 1% and the options markets moved the MT Rep Senate contract from 20 to about 33. My guess it is a bit of a momentum call, too, as well as make up of the state. Slight lean, but not as much as say Cardin?

Posted by: jon | November 3, 2006 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Amod,

That he said it to get votes is certainly a possibility. However, he seems pretty secure now in winning reelection, so I would take him at his word.

Drindl,

You'd be interested to know that Lieberman this morning also called for Bush to fire Rumsfeld by the end of the year. That does not sound like a tool of the far right.

Posted by: Zathras | November 3, 2006 9:40 AM | Report abuse

After he lost the primary, Leiberman lost whatever slight allegiance he might have had with Democrats. He's so angry that the Dem primary voters [whom he called 'insurgents] refused to give him a lifetime appointment that he will do everything he can to hurt Democrats.

He was always a creature of the rightwing, spawned by none other than William F. Buckley, and his biggest supporters are George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Dick Cheney. So who do you think he will side with? Puleeze.

Any Democrat who votes for him is simply handing the state of Connecticut to the far far right.

Posted by: drndl | November 3, 2006 9:35 AM | Report abuse

CC,
How is Tester in a toss-up when in the latest Ramussen poll he was up by 6% and at 53% total. In this environment I don't see Burns (who is going to JAIL in a year) winning. I think you give too much credit to the power of an apperance by President Bush and his puppetmaster.

Posted by: Andy R | November 3, 2006 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Zathras - While I obviously dont know for sure, I wonder if Lieberman just said that so he can court the independent and republican CT voters for TUE - cause he desperately needs those republican voters to go for him as opposed to whoever the GOP nominee is.

Posted by: Amod | November 3, 2006 9:27 AM | Report abuse

I posted this in another entry, but it fits better here:

Lieberman was just on Don Imus's show. Imus asked him about whether he would caucus with the Democrats. Lieberman responded that he had said early on that he would caucus with the Democrats. He then went on to say that he had made that decision to protect his seniority. He now thinks that it would be better for him to be "very, very independent."

In other words, Lieberman has clearly backed off from his decision to caucus with the Democrats. That is not to say he will caucus with the GOP--he certainly won't. However, if there is a 50-49-1 split in the Senate, with Lieberman holding the balance, look for him to push for a coalition-style government.

Posted by: Zathras | November 3, 2006 9:22 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company