Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Mississippi's 3rd: Another One Bites the Dust

What a week! Rep. Chip Pickering's (R-Miss.) decision to leave his Mississippi House seat after six terms marked the third retirement in the Republicans ranks in the last seven days.

Luckily for House Republicans, keeping Pickering's seat is not nearly as big a challenge as holding on to those being vacated by Rep. Deborah Pryce (Ohio's 15th District) or former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (Illinois's 14th).

Here's our sketch of the now open Mississippi 3rd:

Geography: The 3rd District spans the entirety of the state east to west -- running from suburban Jackson all the way southwest to Natchez. After the 2001 redistricting, the 3rd and 4th districts were combined, forcing a matchup that Pickering won easily over then Rep. Ronnie Shows (D).

Election Results: This seat has been comfortably in the Republican column for years. President Bush won it with 64 percent in 2000 and 65 percent in 2004. Pickering's re-election margins have hovered in the 70s since 1996; even in the race against Shows, Pickering won with a staggering 64 percent of the vote.

Candidates: For Republicans, it's a shorter list to name who isn't running than who might be. The only major candidate to pull out thus far is Lt. Gov. Amy Tuck. State Treasurer Tate Reeves, state Sen. Charlie Ross (who just lost a primary bid for lieutenant governor) and Joe Nosef, campaign manager for Gov. Haley Barbour (R), are three of the Republicans mentioned most often. Only attorney Gregg Harper has formally announced. (For an up-to-date list of everyone considering the race, make sure to check out the Rothenberg Political Report.)

For Democrats, the pickings may well be slim. Former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove is mentioned but, according to the Rothenberg Report, isn't very interested. State Sen. Gloria Williamson (D) has also said she is not interested. Shows, who held the 4th district from 1998 to 2002, may wind as up the nominee; "I'm looking at it very strongly. ... I miss being there, but I've been pretty successful since leaving," he told the Associated Press.

Outlook: In the very unlikely event that this seat winds up on the competitive race charts of political prognosticators, it will signal that Republicans are in deep, deep trouble. Because Mississippi holds its state elections this November, it's very possible the race for Pickering's seat won't come into proper focus until late this year or early 2008. But, when it does, Republicans have a clear edge.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 20, 2007; 5:06 PM ET
Categories:  House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Nevada: More Bad News for Edwards
Next: Hillary's New Press Man

Comments

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! rbrozxvwqpmgmo

Posted by: aalunzkfmg | October 1, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

"Why? Because they are having to many investigations? No. It's because the investigations are not producing any results. They don't have the spin to do what needs to be done."

They got enough out of the investigations to take Gonzales out, to impose a number of changes on the administration, and to provide some actual accountability, but they didn't because they are gutless. They want a smoking gun that will allow them to act without anyone questioning their actions, and that's simply not going to happen. They could produce a video of Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales actually plotting to overturn and ignore the constitution, deriding their own base as morons, and ranting about how bad democracy is and how they should be declared emperors, and there would still be dittoheads out there supporting them and the D's would still be too afraid to act for fear of looking too partisan. Instead, they'd just want more investigations.

A third party on the left isn't going to do that, at least at the presidential level. Challenges by lefties in safe districts (like Pelosi's, etc.) is fine. Get the ball rolling, put on the pressure, force a change in the tone of the debate. But a third party at the national level isn't going to do it, it will just forfeit the elections to the Rs, and we just can't let that happen. We learned from Dubya and Nader just how far apart Gore and Bush really were, but the conservative movement still hasn't figured out how far apart Hillary and Rudy really are. That is why I think the challenge will be from the right instead.

Posted by: Michael | August 22, 2007 7:32 PM | Report abuse

I feel that michael. We agree on one thing. not sure where you were coming from on the 5:53 post.

Congress's approve rating is obvious, as is bush's. Bush has his die hard dittoheads. They will always be against a d congress regarldess. So who's left. The left has turned on congress. Why? Because they are having to many investigations? No. It's because the investigations are not producing any results. They don't have the spin to do what needs to be done.

How can anyone with a brain vote r, how can anyone with a spine vote D. Give me a real thrid party.

Posted by: rufus | August 22, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Voting for regional loyalties is becoming obsolite when those loyalties go against the best interests on the voters themselves. That is the likely pattern that we are seeing in Mississippi as voters aren't experiencing any domestic gains under Republican rule. It's likely that folks are just fed up with office holders giving concessions to corporate interests, while they settle for a less than agenda that may be compromising their own interests, such as schools and healthcare, etc.

Posted by: sctee2005 | August 22, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse

"What is congress's approval? YOu gop'ers love to mention it. Do you think only the r's are mad becuase the d's are trying to hold the r's accountable. No. The left is angry becuase they are not doing enough. Nothing real."

That's one thing those who cite the poll fail to mention. If it was a partisan thing, the Congress would still be in at least the 30's. The problem for Congress is they've pissed off their own base so much by showing too much weakness in dealing with the administration. That's not a call for more investigations, which too many on the left see as an unproductive sideshow. It's a call to finally grab a pair and stand up to the administration on the national security issue. Send him a new NSA bill consistant with the values of the Constitution, and refuse to buckle when he vetoes it. It'll be on him to explain why he refused to sign the bill, and trying to stand behind a single ambiguous sentence in Article II won't fly.

Posted by: Michael | August 21, 2007 7:41 PM | Report abuse

"There wold be a third party nominee, but it would come from the right, not the center. I know too many conservatives who say they would never vote for Guiliani for Pres, even against Clinton"

What is congress's approval? YOu gop'ers love to mention it. Do you think only the r's are mad becuase the d's are trying to hold the r's accountable. No. The left is angry becuase they are not doing enough. Nothing real.

You may conceivably get two new parties. One left of the d's and one left of the r's.

Good. Let's have four parties. As many as it takes to stop the sabotage of this great nation. More choices mean less having to live with that whcih we hate. You want a real democracy. Gop, stop sabotaging it.

Posted by: rufus1133 | August 21, 2007 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Michael I try to be as pragmatic as I can when I vote or back a candidate. I go by the golden rule of politics. "Never throw your vote away. Vote or back the devil with the shortest horns." And I've never known of a political candidate who did not have horns. Albeit, thank heavens, usually one can figure out which devil has the shortest horns. Regards, Carl W. Lundquist, Colonel, Army of the United State (Retired) .......Boston

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - All kidding aside I would really like to see a definitive list of Hillary's "negatives". So far I have had to do with my sister's discription of Hillary as "pushy", "uppity","ambitious" and, "I just don't like her". I would like to fight against negatives that are more substantive but I know that such superficialities are often extremely hard to counter. Regards, Carl W. Lundquist, Colonel, Army of the United States (Retired) ...... Boston

Posted by: cwlund@verizonnet | August 21, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

There wold be a third party nominee, but it would come from the right, not the center. I know too many conservatives who say they would never vote for Guiliani for Pres, even against Clinton. It would destroy the conservative movement's domination of the party and relegate them to the sidelines for too long afterwards. Many would rather suffer through 4 years of Hillary than do that much damage to their movement. Huckabee's already said he'd strongly consider an independent bid if Rudy wins, how many might follow?

Posted by: Michael | August 21, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

"I can list several "interesting" democratic possibilities lurking out there behind door #3 but what are their legitimate chances in the 2008 race?"


Who can say? Thus far the Unity 08 thing is apparently a bust. But if the nominees end up being Clinton & Giuliani, there could be a legitimate opening for a 3rd party candidate.

Yes, naive wishful thinking, I know. But if we go back to 1992, Clinton won with only 43% of the vote. Bush was able to squeeze out just enough to win, twice, by convincing both fiscal conservatives & social conservatives to support him - there's not a candidate that fits that bill for the GOP right now. Given Hillary's negatives, I think its quite possible she can't get as many votes as her husband did. So, sure, its naive to think a 3rd party has any real chance. But, by the same token, whatever happens next year, its gonna be really interesting.

Posted by: bsimon | August 21, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - I can list several "interesting" democratic possibilities lurking out there behind door #3 but what are their legitimate chances in the 2008 race? Also, the chance for such a successuful bashful candidate to come foreward and win are fast approaching the impossible. But you and I can hope. Regards,
Carl W. Lundquist, Colonel, Army of the United States (Retired) ..... Boston

Posted by: cwlund@verizonnet | August 21, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

cwlund writes
"As bad a candidate as you think Hillary is there is not a radical right Republican Jesus freak out there that is one tenth as good a potential president as Hillary."


Perhaps there is someone interesting lurking behind door number three...

Posted by: bsimon | August 21, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Democrats and Independents - If Hillary's lead holds and she is the Democratic candidate for President you Democrats and Independents have no other choice than to drop your irrational objections and vote for her. Why? As bad a candidate as you think Hillary is there is not a radical right Republican Jesus freak out there that is one tenth as good a potential president as Hillary. Regards, Carl W. Lundquist, Colonel, Army of the United States (Retired) ...... Boston

Posted by: cwlund@verizonnet | August 21, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

'As for Pickering, after 08' he will likely enjoy time with his family until sometime in 2010 when he begins running for the governorship in 2011.'

"Republicans have a most remarkable ability to live in an utterly delusional alternate realtiy. Just like all the losers on this board who predicted big R pickups in 2006. Sorry folks, you're still dreaming. R politicians are dropping like flies."

Whomever wrote this piece, do you believe Democrats can pick up Pickering's seat in 08'? Moreover, do you think Pickering wouldn't win the governorship of Miss. if he runs in 2011? If you believe that, you truly are dilusional.


Posted by: reason | August 21, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Look out world, here comes Rufus...

I thought it was possible that this retirement announcement was to put pressure on Cochran and to allow the Republicans to clear thei field earlier, reducing the cost of the upcoming election battle, but I'm not convinced. What are the current numbers for Cochran's re-election warchest?

You win the prize Mark, USAFA is correct

Posted by: Michael | August 21, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

I hoping the democrats right their own ship so somebody like me doesn't have to do it. Please believe I will not allow Clinton or a Republican to win again. Not going to happen.

Even if I have to write a book and put my face out there. Even if I have to start a REAL thrid party myself. Hillary and the r's are done for a generation. Don't blame me. Look in the mirror GOP. What have you people done to my great country? Fascists, sell-outs, traitors. Your party has a year and a half of relevance. Use it wisely

Posted by: rufus | August 21, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

It's a good thing Karl Rove doesn't control the democratic primary process then isn't it ,old man. You r's can push clinton all you want. Independant thinkers know what time it is. Fox can call her the front runner all day, old man.

It's not going to happen. The r's (clnton included) are not doing anything. Remember before 06. Your lying propogandists were telling you your party was going to have a clean sweep, too. Didn't they? You propogandists are funny. Your party has a year and a half of relevance. You better hope clinton wins. She is the republcians only shot at a victory. Not if I have anythignto say about it.

Posted by: RUFUS | August 21, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Despite the desperaqte yearnings of the liberals in bloggerville, the latest Gallup poll data show little movement whatsoever in the structure of the Democratic race -- which means that Hillary Clinton continues to dominate.

Clinton is leading Barack Obama by 23 points. John Edwards, in turn, is behind Obama by another 12 points.

When Democrats are given a head to head choice between Clinton and Obama, Clinton wins by a 61 to 34 point margin!

For better or worse, Clinton has been virtually conceded the nomination by none other a political authority than Karl Rove, who said Sunday: "The Democrats are going to choose a nominee. I believe it's going to be her..."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/gallup/

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 21, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

CALL ME A LIBERAL OR CALL ME A DEMOCRAT BUT DONT INSULT ME BY CALLING ME A REPUBLICAN. I DO NOT EVER WANT TO BE PART OF THIS INCOMPETENT GROUP THAT MAKES A FOOL OUT OF THEMSELVES DAILY.

Posted by: TOM MCCLAIN | August 21, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

"Republicans have a most remarkable ability to live in an utterly delusional alternate realtiy. Just like all the losers on this board who predicted big R pickups in 2006. Sorry folks, you're still dreaming. R politicians are dropping like flies"

wORD IS BORN. But are the r's really that stupid, or are they willful ignorant fascsits? Ask yoursleves that. Are the republicans really as stupid as they let on? And if they're not why do they keep up the "stupid" charade? I say Fascism.

Posted by: rufus | August 21, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

EW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The flood of foreclosure filings showed no sign of let-up in July, according to the latest data from RealtyTrac, the online marketer of foreclosure properties.

179,599 foreclosure filings, which include default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions, were reported nationwide for a 9 percent rise over the previous month and a 93 percent jump compared with July, 2006.


Current Mortgage Rates

Type Overall avgs

30 yr fixed mtg 6.22%
15 yr fixed mtg 5.87%
30 yr fixed jumbo mtg 7.05%
5/1 ARM 6.16%
5/1 jumbo ARM 6.62%

Find personalized rates:

Video More video

CNN's Gerri Willis offers tips for weathering the mortgage industry troubles.
Play video

This past winter, RealtyTrac had forecast a 33 percent increase in U.S. foreclosures for the year but now it's raised its outlook. "It's trending to close to 2 million now, 60 percent more than last year," said Rick Sharga, RealtyTrac's vice president for marketing.

Moody's Economy.com is even more pessimistic with its forecast of some 2.5 million defaults for the year.

Posted by: the R economy | August 21, 2007 10:05 AM | Report abuse

'The NYT fronts a look at how the aggressive strategy pursued by Merck in fighting against lawsuits over damages caused by the once-popular drug Vioxx is paying off. None of the 45,000 people who have sued the company have received any money. Merck has spent more than $1 billion in legal fees to fight every single case.'

getting away with murder, every day

Posted by: the corporations that run the world... | August 21, 2007 9:56 AM | Report abuse

The LAT and USAT front above-the-fold pictures of Hurricane Dean, which officially became a Category 5 storm yesterday, and hit Mexico's coast early this morning after ripping through the Cayman Islands. "It's as bad as it gets," a meteorologist tells the Post. There are 407 offshore oil wells in Dean's path and USAT notes that damages could cause delays in shipments and increased gasoline prices.

Posted by: gas will keep going up and up | August 21, 2007 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Pickering is leaving to run for the Senate because Cochran is going to retire. All he wants to do is give the folks who will run for his seat a heads up. Though I think that the democrats who might run for th Senate should take note of this and start making a move to raising money.

Posted by: Andy R | August 21, 2007 9:55 AM | Report abuse

After returning from a trip to Iraq, Levin and the second-ranking Republican on the armed services committee, Sen. John Warner, issued a joint statement questioning whether the Iraqi government would ever be able to "shed sectarian biases and act in a unifying manner." Levin was then more direct and said he hopes "the parliament will vote the Maliki government out of office."

Despite these increasing voices for change, the WSJ notes it's not clear whether whoever replaces Maliki "would be able to do much better."

Posted by: so much for 'victory' | August 21, 2007 9:53 AM | Report abuse

'The New York Times leads with the Bush administration adopting new rules that will make it more difficult for states to expand the number of children eligible to be covered under a government health insurance program.'

becuase god forbid children should get health care.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2007 9:48 AM | Report abuse

The manual cautions that event staff "must decide if the solution would cause more negative publicity than if the demonstrators were simply left alone," but it's also full of ingenious ideas for dealing with a flare-up of dissent. Among the White House tactics are the subcontracting of censorship to event "rally squads" composed of helpful "college/young republican organizations, local athletic teams, and fraternities/sororities." (What, no mathletes?) These obliging rally squads can then "use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform." The use of a "long sheet banner ... in strategic areas around the site" is similarly smiled upon.

Lest you believe that the Big Brother sheet represents the full extent of the speech suppression, however, the manual provides that, "As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event."

The Advance Manual's finest moments come in its urgent, earnest drive to protect not just the television cameras but also the president himself from the ugliness of the dread "demonstrators." Certainly, "if it is determined that the media will not see or hear" demonstrators, event staff can ignore them. But event staff must involve themselves in "designating a protest area preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route." In other words, all this suppression of dissent isn't just to create a puppet show for the cameras. It's also about sock puppets for the president, who--if he could just be shielded from the mean T-shirts--might still believe his approval ratings soar into the mid-90s.

The Ranks' peaceful protest at the West Virginia state capitol somehow became an act of "trespassing" only because the president was there.

It's disturbing enough to learn from the Advance Manual that the White House has adopted an official policy of shouting down or covering up dissenting viewpoints with large sheets in order to deceive Americans at home into believing the president is universally adored. But that this official policy also exists to protect the tender sensitivities of the president himself is beyond belief.

Posted by: Dahlia | August 21, 2007 9:47 AM | Report abuse

The details of the Rank lawsuit and the cases involving similarly harassed folks are always fascinating: citizens removed from a Bush event in Denver because of an offensive bumper sticker on their car outside ("No More Blood For Oil"); a Tucson student barred from a Bush event for sporting a Young Democrats T-shirt; Wisconsin citizens forced to unbutton their shirts before attending a Bush speech, only to have an attendee wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt ejected from the event.

But the best thing to have emerged from the Rank litigation was the official--if heavily redacted--Presidential Advance Manual (dated October 2002), which, although stamped "SENSITIVE" and not to be "duplicated ... replicated ... photocopied or released to anyone outside of the Executive Office of the President, White House Military Office or United States Secret Service," is now posted right here at the ACLU's Web site.

There is so much that is entertaining in the Advance Manual, it's hard to know where to begin. Sure, it's not a surprise anymore that it is official White House policy to use staff to foster "a well-balanced crowd," with well-balanced evidently defined as a subtle melange of those citizens who adore the president and those who revere him. The key to achieving such a balance, according to the manual, lies in "deterring potential protesters from attending events" and "preventing demonstrators." Nor should anyone be surprised that the president is to be shielded from dissent at taxpayer-funded presidential appearances and at "rallies, roundtables and tours" in equal measure. Only those individuals and groups that are "extremely supportive of the Administration" (emphasis theirs) will be seated in the area between the stage and the main camera platform.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2007 9:44 AM | Report abuse

'As for Pickering, after 08' he will likely enjoy time with his family until sometime in 2010 when he begins running for the governorship in 2011.'

Republicans have a most remarkable ability to live in an utterly delusional alternate realtiy. Just like all the losers on this board who predicted big R pickups in 2006. Sorry folks, you're still dreaming. R politicians are dropping like flies.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2007 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Well, on point to this blog, I have a few comments. Charles Pickering's seat will be easily won by the Republican's in 08'. Joe Nosef will be a great candidate. After Barbour's successful re-election win in a few months here, Nosef can then begin running in the 08' congressional race. He will have the support of the gov. and should easily win the primary and the election, especially b/c Tuck choose not to run.

As for Pickering, after 08' he will likely enjoy time with his family until sometime in 2010 when he begins running for the governorship in 2011. I'd say he mapped his plans out pretty well.

Posted by: reason | August 21, 2007 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Apparently the Republicans cannot manage the economy.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/60217/

Some counter-talking points for those obtuse borrow-and-spend conservatives you keep running into.

Among the highlights--Democratic presidents have an average GDP growth of 5.4% against 1.6% of the Republicans.

Posted by: roo | August 21, 2007 2:47 AM | Report abuse

I would hate to be a Republican standing for re-election and having to explain that I supported George Bush 100% and because of my unwavering support, the country is in such great shape. I suppose, they could try and blame it on those abortion-loving, evolution-believing, homosexual-pandering, tax and spend Clinton loving secular-humanist Democrats who have been ignored for 7 years even though a "uniter not a divider" stole two elections? Or maybe not..

Posted by: thebob.bob | August 20, 2007 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Air Force?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 20, 2007 10:25 PM | Report abuse

I said Golden Bear for the NorCal reference, I'm actually a Fighting Falcon for the record...

I did read the article, very well written and insightful. The kind o fstuff that needs to be repeated over and over again. Petraeus says there's no wholly military solution to the problem, but the fact is there is no military solution, period. The military can only work towards supressing the insurgency (and I say towards because so long as there is political resistance, there will be an insurgency, and we cannot protect everything all the time). Until there is a political solution, we have nothing, and there are still no signs the political solution is on the horizon. If anything, even while we crack down on the militias the politicians fall further and further apart. Not a recipe for success, ever.

Posted by: Michael | August 20, 2007 9:42 PM | Report abuse

lp, you just heard aout that? they sued and the gov'mt settled for 80k but, of course, they and others like them were intimidated. but this is nothing new. the clintons did exactly the sqme thing to protestors wqhen they were in office. big deal, its no news, the bill of rights has dead a long time and your kicking it around is merely refreshing the stench like some long dead and well rotted fish.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2007 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Check MSNBC about the arrest of couple wearing anti- bush T-shirts.

Posted by: lylepink | August 20, 2007 7:22 PM | Report abuse

debasing flounders! debasing founders? what kind of pervert are you? or is this another of those perverts like the porn queen and hollywood madam endorsing hillary? zookeepress, you clinton "adults", senile dolts, choked polite debate to death a long while ago. now you can choke on it.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2007 7:20 PM | Report abuse

There's more posts on who or what to ignore than real posts. More posts about rules or imaginary rules than "what is". Why is that?

Is the GOP scared to talk about what is? Instead what do you do? Make imaginary rules you have no intention of following? Lie spin discredit. I see you GOP.

We have a year and a half. We will see where we stand as a nation. Was 06 a apperasion or the wave of the future?

We will see. Regardless, your party will be irrelevant soon. The only thing saving teh GOP is the dem's. Will the d's fear last amid all the gop onslaughts? Whcih way will they go. Will they stand strong and take the power, or will they crumble to irrelevance and a thrid party take-over, hopefully a true democratic socialist party)? Time will tell. Either way, the GOP is done. YOu people are just lucking the d's are keeping you in the game. Why?

Differant sides of the same coin. WE are no longer a two party system. Our government no longer represents the will of teh people. Both parties have a choice. go back to the will of the people. Take care of country over outside influences like every other country in the world, or be irrelevant. The gop made their decision, they choose irrelevance. Now it's the d;s turn. The r's are waiting, thinking the d's will side with them, it's starting to look like that wil;l happen.

Just know, if both parties continue the sabotage of this great nation at the expense of working men and women, we will get a thrid party and eliminate both. This is not a game. The future is now.

ONE PEOPLE ONE WORLD.

Posted by: rufus1133 | August 20, 2007 7:16 PM | Report abuse

please ignore everyone who doesn't agree with me. if you just...ignore them they will just be encouraged petulant children, losing cadre's "debating" enjoying flounders, encouraging a better discussion amingst unemployed english majors. thank you

Posted by: depressedzookeepristess.hillary | August 20, 2007 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Please ignore Zouk/Trotsky and the cadre of anonymous posters.

Responding to them in any way just encourages them--just like a petulant child as someone observed earlier.

They will never concede losing the argument and hence "debating" them is futile.

Without the encouragement, they will go away and we can all enjoy a better discussion.

Posted by: Zookeepress | August 20, 2007 6:57 PM | Report abuse

..oh,oh,oh...don't forget me. i'm so crazy i drove zouk away. too bad, he was so much fun. now i am going to trouble clinton supporters...easily done becasue they are even more witless

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2007 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 20, 2007 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for qouting me Chris. In regards to me glee for the gop downfall. It let's me know you gop'ers do care:)

"Another one bites the dust. ANother bites the dust."

Posted by: rufus | August 20, 2007 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Play time is over. This is not a game.

Posted by: RUFUS | August 20, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Rufas!
Che!
and the unforgettable Ignorant Coward!

You loved each of them separately...

Now, for the first time...

Three stellar solo careers together at the Mirage!

Shows at 10:00 and 2:00
$75.00

MC: Jerry Lewis

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2007 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Michael, and the Democrats have enough money now that the GOP can't afford to just take it for granted. They know that it's a pretty safe seat, but the Democrats can still force them to spend a little money they don't have.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

One more seat for Rs to play defense on is more money that can't be spent elsewhere. Given their current funding disadvantage, this still hurts, even though they are odds on to hold the seat.

Posted by: Michael | August 20, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

"rufas, che and ignorant coward - the three stooges. you Libs deserve them."

looks like the rightwingnuts also have an ignorant coward -- you.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2007 6:14 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP, it's almost time for the Rove Revel! What are you wearing? And will you be my date tonight? Sometimes I just get so happy about being conservative - ooooh! - I just lie here and throb.

Can't wait to see you!

-Zoukiepoo

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 20, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

rufas, che and ignorant coward - the three stooges. you Libs deserve them.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

zouk leaves, so we get treated to rufus and che.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

The R party hemmorhaging badly -- teehee. Life support! Life support!

Posted by: Candace | August 20, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please go to:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.com
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.globalresearch.ca

Details emerge of vast scope of US domestic spying law

By Joe Kay
20 August 2007

New reports underscore the extraordinary scope of a law passed earlier this month expanding government powers to spy on the population in the US and internationally. The "Protect America Act of 2007," passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress, effectively overrides the ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures" laid down by the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.

The new legislation amends the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the main law governing surveillance of domestic communications. The law had required a warrant--issued by a special FISA court--for electronic surveillance of domestic communications by agencies such as the National Security Agency (NSA) and the CIA.

In January 2006, the Bush administration acknowledged the existence of a NSA program, authorized after the attacks of September 11, that it said involved electronic surveillance of communications in which at least one end was outside the United States. From the beginning, it was clear that this was only one aspect of new spying operations of much greater scope. However, even the program acknowledged by Bush was a clear violation of FISA.

The main provision of the new law passed this month would allow warrantless wiretapping of electronic communications so long as one end of the communications is "reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." The government could carry out warrantless wiretapping of such communications for up to a year, after certification from the attorney general and the director of national intelligence (DNI).

The language of the law is vague enough to allow the government broad discretion to monitor, without a warrant, the electronic communications of US citizens. The new law would also allow monitoring of entirely foreign communications that pass through the United States.

By itself, these portions of the bill constitute a massive and unconstitutional expansion of spying powers. However, the bill grants the government even greater powers to spy on Americans.

A New York Times article published on Sunday ("Concerns Raised on Wider Spying Under New Law," by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau) notes that the language of the bill indirectly gives "the government the power to use intelligence collection methods far beyond wiretapping that previously required court approval if conducted inside the United States."

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/aug2007/spy-a20.shtml

Posted by: che | August 20, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

"WHO'S TO BE PRAISED? THE MIGHTY DOLLAR, OR THE MIGHT GOD?"

HEAVEN SHINES LIGHT ON THOSE INNOCENT TO HOW THE WORLD GOES."

"AND YOUR ACCOUNTED FOR. EVERYTHING THAT YOU HEARD?"

"DO NOT SPEAK TO FOOLS THEY SCORN THE WISDOM OF YOUR WORDS."

NAS

Posted by: RUFUS | August 20, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

"WHO'S TO BE PRAISED? THE MIGHTY DOLLAR, OR THE MIGHT GOD?"

HEAVEN SHINES LIGHT ON THOSE INNOCENT TO HOW THE WORLD GOES."

"AND YOUR ACCOUNTED FOR. EVERYTHING THAT YOU HEARD?"

"DO NOT SPEAK TO FOOLS THEY SCORN THE WISDOM OF YOUR WORDS."

Posted by: RUFUS | August 20, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company