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

Audio: Recapping Indiana's 8th District

The Ohio River Ramble visited Indiania's 8th District yesterday, where incumbent John Hostettler (R) is matching his unconventional campaign strategy against a well-organized challenge by Democrat Brad Ellsworth.

Cillizza and VandeHei reviewed day 2 of the nine-day trip to the heart of the 2006 congressional battleground in an interview this morning on Washington Post Radio. Listen to the audio recap here.

And read today's installment in The Washington Post: "Calling In the Pros vs. Do-It-Yourself."

By washingtonpost.com Editors  |  September 22, 2006; 7:36 AM ET
Categories:  House , Ohio River Ramble  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain Inks an Iowa Vet
Next: Video: Dem. Says Voters Should Consider Whether Bush Admin. Manipulates Gas Prices

Comments

IN 8th dist. resident picked a bad day. KOZ and bhoomes must be on vacation and didn't add their astute commentary which I assume would have been enlightening.

Posted by: 1A318 | September 22, 2006 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I was hoping you folks would provide some insight we were perhaps missing. A view from outside, but you haven't conveyed anything that wasn't already known. Good reporting, good story, but I was hoping for some fresh insight.

Posted by: IN 8th dist. resident | September 22, 2006 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Yeh. Reid and Pelozzi will 'snatch defeat from the jaws of victory'

So who do we got to come in and pick up the pieces after November to put things together if there is an election in 2008.

Posted by: zimno piwo | September 22, 2006 3:34 PM | Report abuse

sorry for the triple play...to much coffee today..

Posted by: TheIrishCurse | September 22, 2006 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Hey guys, Zippy: seeing what i'm seeing can't say the repugs don't deserve to keep the house and senate..I've said all along, present company excluded, that dems would rather complain and sit on there hands then get out and work for it..Simple fact of the matter is there guys leading the charge are a helluva lot smarter then our guys...

Posted by: TheIrishCurse | September 22, 2006 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Hey guys, Zippy: seeing what i'm seeing can't say the repugs don't deserve to keep the house and senate..I've said all along, present company excluded, that dems would rather complain and sit on there hands then get out and work for it..Simple fact of the matter is there guys leading the charge are a helluva lot smarter then our guys...

Posted by: TheIrishCurse | September 22, 2006 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Hey guys, Zippy: seeing what i'm seeing can't say the repugs don't deserve to keep the house and senate..I've said all along, present company excluded, that dems would rather complain and sit on there hands then get out and work for it..Simple fact of the matter is there guys leading the charge are a helluva lot smarter then our guys...

Posted by: TheIrishCurse | September 22, 2006 1:49 PM | Report abuse

we can take some consolation that this is an election year andthat politicians act above all in their own best interests no matter what.

IF (caps intentional) Junior's folks get serious about a Iran strike, the Big three Republicans may stand up and say that there is a chance what's left of the US after such a strike would stand up and throw the Congress out if they didn't stand up to Dubya.

Could make for interesting election year theater.

I am sure that administration's timing on this has something to do with concern that if they lose one or the other house, Dubya could get impeached if he unloaded a strike on Iran after the election.

Hit 'em while Dubya still has both houses.

Posted by: zippy | September 22, 2006 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Hezbollah would seem to be playing a more important part in this than most of us realize. They have somewhere around 20,000 missiles and how many are in the longer range category seems to be the 64$ question. The bombing of Iran by Israel or the U.S. and the moving of our ships to the area would appear to be something that is being planned. Just how many what ifs come to mind is staggering.

Posted by: lylepink | September 22, 2006 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Since when did 'mindless' stop these maniacs? It's exactly as you say -- a group of merciless, crazed, greed-driven lunatics, obssessed with lust for power, intent on world domination.

It's an old story in the world-I'm just very sorry to have been part of it-and to know how much we will suffer for their madness.

Very bad implications, indeed. More like suicidal. All of the muslim nations -- a fifth of the world's population, are now aligning, becuase they feel they are under attack. What centuries of muslim leaders couldn't do, which is to unite the warring Islam sects, bush has managed to do. And of course they are nuclear armed.

We pull an unprovoked nuclear first strike and retaliation rains on us. That's all. But they don't care, because we probably won't lose more than one-fourth of the population. The pentagon considers losses of that size 'acceptable.'

Posted by: drindl | September 22, 2006 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Me too on the up early

I have this strange sense that the Democrats are going to snatch defeat frmo the jaws of Victory this November.

Maybe then they will get some organization at the national level and maybe salvage the 2008 presidential and avoid 8 more years of Republicanism.

I would hope Junior's guys realize thias before dumping a bunch of missles on Iraq...they don't need to.

But what is scary is these guys singlemindedness. When they are on a roll...they go for it regardless of being right or wrong, or what the repercussions are.

Attacking Iran would be mindless and have very bad implications.

Posted by: zippy | September 22, 2006 11:53 AM | Report abuse

The head of the CIA's directorate studying political Islam recently retired after fifteen years, and granted his first interview to Harpers. To the question, what accounts for the failure of American policy in Iraq?, Emile Nakhleh replies:

The main reason for our failure in Iraq was not looking at the "morning after." It was obvious that the military campaign would succeed, but there was also an ideological view among some administration officials that we would be received as liberators. Those people did not understand that just because the Iraqis hated Saddam, that didn't mean they would like our occupation.

Iraq was more complex than just Saddam. We should have learned from the experience of the British in the 1920s, when modern Iraq was created--namely, that bringing in outside leaders would not work. People expressed views about the need to plan for a post-Saddam Iraq, about the potential for sectarian violence and the rise of militias, about the fact that the Shiites would want to rise politically. These were not minority views in the intelligence community, but the administration ended up listening to other voices. The focus was on invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam, and after that everything would be fine and dandy.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2006 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Always up early, zippy, kids in school.

Yeah, Judge, the press is still yipping at Rove's comand -- of course they will accept whatever rationale the repugs give [or whatever evolving rationale-ala Iraq] for what they have wanted all along -- to control all Mideast oil. No matter how many of us die for it. CEO's have a very expensive lifestyle to maintain. We must all do our part to help them, including giving them our children as cannon fodder.

The republican base is reliably stupid and cowardly enough to swallow it all. They love war anyway, long as they don't have to actually fight it.

Posted by: drindl | September 22, 2006 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Drindl: looks like Rove's still definitely running the country. Amazing how we've been predicting this since May; will the press just report this as if it is inevitable and justified? Will it backfire on an increasingly war-weary public?

Just saw the recent ad (Center for Progressive America? Not sure about the sponsorship) in which a number of Big Lies (Iraq-9/11, British terrorism-FISA) are cobbled together in a bald-faced attempt to increase the paranoia among the GOP sheep. Aren't there specific psycoactive drugs that could be put into the water supply to achieve the same thing? Amazing that Rove is overlooking that. Much cheaper than bombing Iran.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 22, 2006 10:39 AM | Report abuse

drindl

You are up early.

Haven't I been saying that on this blog since May? Third week if October. Precision bombing of Irans Reactor that Nixon gave them.

And all I get is KOZ's Bushian yadda in return.

Actually, it is beginning to look like Junior doesn't need to attack Iran to keep the House.

His toadies at the oil companies have those gas prices dropping like a brick. They know the hot button of the gullible 50.0000001%. Also, the Repubs are looking like champs the past couple of weeks.

Hostettler may be a small fish but he is demonstrating something that Rabid Republican Loyalist Victor David Hansen said this morning in the weekly Conservative cheerleading section of the President's Midwestern Mouthpiece (the alleged op-ed page of the Chicago Tribune).

The democrats have taken public sentiment for granted and the Republicans have organized better at the local level, worked harder and thrown huge gobs of money at the November campaign.

And with the president's buds in the oil Biz working equally hard, the Rebublican's propsects are much rosier.

Hostettler is a very good example and warrants watching. Watch him pull it out in November.

Posted by: zippy | September 22, 2006 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Sure good work, but can we get away from Hostettler now? He's a pretty small fish to be spending all this time on... or are you guys just having too good a time out there?

Here's the October Surprise Rove has been talking about:

'As reports circulate of a sharp debate within the White House over possible US military action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment facilities, The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have issued orders for a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1.

As Time writes in its cover story, "What Would War Look Like?," evidence of the forward deployment of minesweepers and word that the chief of naval operations had asked for a reworking of old plans for mining Iranian harbors "suggest that a much discussed--but until now largely theoretical--prospect has become real: that the U.S. is preparing for war with Iran."

According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received recent orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21.'

Posted by: drindl | September 22, 2006 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | September 22, 2006 9:22 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company