Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Friday Senate Line: Democrats Creep Closer to 60



Democrats' chances at reaching 60 seats in the Senate depend largely on how these four senators -- Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) -- fare on Nov. 4.

UPDATE, 10:40 am: The National Republican Senatorial Committee has pulled out of Colorado, deciding against buying television time in the state for the final week of the campaign, according to two Democrats who closely monitor the ad wars. That decision comes just days NRSC Chairman John Ensign (Nev.) said the committee was in Colorado for the duration. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pulled out of the state earlier this week under the belief that Rep. Mark Udall (D) had the race locked up. The NRSC's decision seems to affirm that idea.

ORIGINAL POST

Senate Democrats' hopes of winning the 60 seats next month -- a mark that would hand them true operational control of the world's greatest deliberative body in 2009 -- rest heavily on four states: Louisiana, Kentucky, Georgia and Mississippi.

Friday Line

Hold Louisiana -- the lone Democratic-held seat in any peril with just 11 days to go before the election -- and win two of the other three states -- Kentucky and Georgia being the most likely -- and 60 is almost assured. Win one or none of the those Republican-held states and it's hard to see Democrats hitting that mark.

Can they do it? Yes, without question.

Although the National Republican Senatorial Committee reversed course last week and decided to stay on television in Louisiana, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) remains the favorite against state Treasurer John Kennedy (R). (Watch to see whether Gov. Bobby Jindal's endorsement of Kennedy moves the needle in a positive direction for the Republican; if Jindal can't change the race, no one can.)

In Mississippi, Democrats' chances seemed to have slipped somewhat as appointed Sen. Roger Wicker (R) has found his footing. The x-factor in the Magnolia State is what black turnout will look like with Barack Obama atop the ticket. A historically high turnout among African Americans could hand former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove (D) a come-from-behind win, though today that seems unlikely.

As for Kentucky and Georgia, you'll find more on each race below.

These four states hold the key to 60 seats for Democrats. Watch them closely over the next 11 days.

As always, the number one ranked race on the Line is the most likely to switch parties on Nov. 4. And, the Line is meant as a conversation starter so let's discuss -- the comments section awaits.

Given how close we are to the election, we are keeping up with the example we set last week: this is the first of two Lines today. A House Line will follow this afternoon. Does it get any better than that?

To the Line!

10. Georgia (R): In the 2006 election, almost every state in the country was swept by a Democratic wave. Almost every state that is except Georgia where Republicans nearly knocked off two Democratic House incumbents and saw Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) reelected with 58 percent of the vote. Much has changed in two years, however, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R), once considered among the safest of GOP incumbents, finds himself in a dogfight with former state Rep. Jim Martin (D). Polling -- public and private -- suggest this is a statistical dead heat. The difference could be the financial investment of the two national parties. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has already invested $1 million on television ads; their Republican counterparts have yet to respond. (Previous ranking: N/A)

9. Kentucky (R): Amazing but true -- the race between Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) and Bruce Lunsford (D) is an absolute toss-up. As a result of the surprising closeness of the contest, Lunsford is getting lots of attention from the major figures in the Democratic Party -- Hillary Rodham Clinton has already been in the state to raise money with him, and today former President Bill Clinton will be in western Kentucky stumping for Lunsford. Democrats have come close before in Kentucky (see the 2004 Senate race). Can they find a way to get 50 percent plus one? (Previous ranking: 9)

8. Alaska (R): Deliberations in the federal corruption trial of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens have begun. If this were any other state, Stevens could be a stone-cold loser regardless of what came out of the trial. But, it's Alaska. It's different up there. Don't believe us? Check out this guy -- he's running for the Alaska state House. (Previous ranking: 8)

7. North Carolina (R): Boy is this race between Sen. Elizabeth Dole and state Sen. Kay Hagan (D) tough to call! This could well be the closest contest (in terms of raw vote) on the Senate docket this cycle. Republicans believe that Dole still has a path to victory -- unlike some of their other incumbents. Democrats see the race as cementing in Hagan's favor. With Obama seriously contesting the state and early indications of a massive turnout in the black community, we'll put a pinkie finger on the scale for Hagan but wouldn't be surprised if Dole won. (Previous ranking: 6)

6. Minnesota (R): We can't believe we're writing this but comedian Al Franken (D) now has a better than 50-50 shot at winding up in the Senate next January. Sen. Norm Coleman's (R) decision to abandon his negative ads hasn't moved the numbers perceptibly, and it appears as though independent Dean Barkley is taking more votes from Coleman than Franken. Coleman has shown tremendous electoral resiliency in his career, however, so we don't count him out -- ever. An absolutely amazing race that will be studied by political junkies for years to come. (Previous ranking: 7)

5. Oregon (R): The trend line in this race -- as evidenced by this chart on pollster.com -- is all wrong for Sen. Gordon Smith (R). Smith, a genuine moderate, looks to be a victim of a historically bad year to run with an "R" after your name. (Previous ranking: 5)

4. New Hampshire (R): Different verse, same as the first. Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) has led Sen. John Sununu (R) since the day she got into the race. And there is little evidence to suggest that the results will be any different on Nov. 4. (Previous ranking: 4)

3. Colorado (R): The decision by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to take down their ads in this contest sends a clear signal they believe the race is over and Rep. Mark Udall (D) will be the next senator from Colorado. National Republicans are still on television and pledge to be through the election. But can they keep that pledge if either Georgia or Kentucky worsens? (Previous ranking: 3)

2. New Mexico (R): Although this race has been over for months, Rep. Tom Udall (D) is still running hard. Evidence? This ad -- one of the most compelling campaign commercials of this (or any) election cycle. (Previous ranking: 2)

1. Virginia (R): At the end of September, former Gov. Mark Warner (D) had $3.6 million in cash on hand while former Gov. Jim Gilmore (R) had $121,000. Makes sense. (Previous ranking: 1)

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 24, 2008; 6:08 AM ET
Categories:  Senate , The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Fix Pick: McCain Campaign Post-Mortem
Next: McCain Pushes "Obama as Risky" Message

Comments

37thandO,

Your remark about experience and cocaine...sounds a lot like "Shrub." Wasn't baby Bush in a similar situation. Let's hope that President Obama turns out better than the most recent evil politician Texas has foisted upon us!!

Posted by: al_jal | October 29, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

37thandOSt,

What you mean to say is that you and your racist friends won't vote for Obama. Fine, I believe it.

Posted by: mtl2 | October 25, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

.

.

The Polls are wrong it is that simple. Every discussion we have had with people on the ground the topic has come up - where are the pollsters supposedly finding all these Obama supporters ???


Obama should be concerned.


I simply can not believe that this nation would vote for an inexperienced person who has no economic or business experience except for buying cocaine.


.

.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 25, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

The Tom Udall spot is truly moving. Udall's simple statement that he is "humbled" to approve the message is strong as well. I have no doubt he'll be a strong Senator for New Mexico.

If the Dems gain 9 seats, holding Louisiana and taking two of four of Alaska, Kentucky, Georgia and Mississippi, they will hit 60 assuming they retain Lieberman as part of the Democratic Caucus. Lieberman is likely to be stripped of his Committee Chairmanship so it'll be interesting if he stays with the Democrats. I think Georgia is really the race to watch here. Huge early voting in Georgia, massive African-American turnout and Obama back on TV in Atlanta, all could be bad news for Chambliss. If Obama squeezes in a visit to Georgia in the final week, that could finish off Chambliss. I'd love to see McConnell defeated, but Obama is not going to run well in Kentucky.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | October 25, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

It seems very few of the readers here viewed the Tom Udall ad. I'm a crusty old curmudgeon, and I was profoundly moved. It doesn't matter whether you're Republican or Democratic; it doesn't matter whether you're a New Mexican or not; it doesn't matter if you're for Udall or not--CLICK THE LINK ABOVE AND VIEW THIS AD. And think about the young man in the commercial. And think about many other young Americans who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan and about those who have yet to die but will. And think about the many, many young Americans like the hero in this ad who returned badly maimed (like the son of two of my colleagues).

The young man in the ad is thanking Udall for supporting efforts to assist soldiers with brain injuries. We all should be thanking our soldiers and their families. The only political issue here is that we should elect a president who will appoint the best possible civilian leadership for our military. Notice that you can't tell from that statement which candidate I prefer, and I won't say here. Just don't vote without thinking about this issue.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | October 25, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

What is the method of succession in Arizona, Delaware and Illinois? One way or the other, the Senate will not be at a full 100 come Inauguration Day.

Posted by: Verrazzano | October 24, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

MCCAIN'S OWN WORDS IN 2000 - HE'S A SOFT SOCIALIST FLIP-FLOPPER

STUDENT: Why is it that someone like my father who goes to school for 13 years gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he's a doctor. Why is that - why does he have to pay higher taxes than everybody else? Just because he makes more money. How is that fair?

MCCAIN: I think you're questioning, questioning the fundamentals of a progressive tax system where people who make more money pay more in taxes than a flat across the board percentage. I think it's to some degree because we feel obviously that wealthy people can afford more. We have over the years beginning with John F. Kennedy reduced some of those marginal tax rates to make them less onerous. I believe that when you really look at the tax code the very wealthy because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes really don't pay as much as you think they do, when you just kook at the percentages. And I think middle income Americans, working Americans, who when you count in payroll taxes, sales taxes, mortgage -- all of the, all of the taxes that working Americans pay -- I think you would also think that they also deserve very significant relief.

At that point host Chris Matthews asked for members of the audience to applaud if they support wealthier people paying a higher percentage of their incomes; there was loud applause.

STUDENT: I still don't see how that's fair...aren't we getting closer and closer to Socialism and stuff...?

MCCAIN: Look, here's what I really believe: That when you are, when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more. But at the same time it shouldn't be totally out of proportion.

McCain added that the "first people who deserve a tax cut are working Americans...and they're the ones I would support tax cuts for first."

Posted by: seemstome | October 24, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
The clips are classic. Our AIP friend made me think of Ross Perot on angel dust.
Tom Udall's ad made my eyes well up, and they're still teary (I'm a retired Naval officer) as I write this. It should go down as one of the best political ads ever. He didn't have to release that ad, but I'm so glad he did so that faux-hawk slime like Chambliss and McConnell couldn't.
Obama/Biden '08. Matthews for Senate 2010.

Posted by: DowneastBuffAlum | October 24, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

It is going to be a close US Senate race in North Carolina. But, plenty of Republicans as well as newly registered voters are realizing that the state will be better off with Senator Kay Hagan (chair of the the North Carolina Assembly Appropriations Committee) than Elizabeth Dole who is getting older, more feeble and kind of mean (I can't think of another way of putting it) -- which has been borne out by the huge turnover on her own staff making for uneven services for constituents.

Posted by: Tarheelvoter1 | October 24, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Gordon Smith is in real trouble. He has been lying to Oregonians for years now, people are starting to realize he isn't a moderate. The ads from both sides in this campaign have been ridiculous, but Smith takes the cake for making it seem like Obama was endorsing him. I voted against Merkley in the primaries but it seems like he is going to come out on top despite his drawbacks.

Posted by: TimothyJames | October 24, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Love the Fix.

Way to go on the clip from the Alaska House Race!
I've always worried about the continuing Soviet threat to Alaska's border integrity.

Posted by: mattt1 | October 24, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

--" Sen. Gordon Smith (R). Smith, a genuine moderate, looks to be a victim of a historically bad year to run with an "R" after your name. "--

I think so to. But he'd voted the party line once to often for me (the straw was the Gonzales confirmation), and didn't stop others in his party from making a real mess of things.

Posted by: DonJasper | October 24, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

loopy scrawled:

Democrats are now looking at a plan to go after Americans' 401k accounts. These accounts serve as the retirement nest-egg for millions of Americans. They are used because money can be saved in these accounts tax-free. Oh, that is unless that new Democrat plan of "spread the wealth" becomes law. Then, we could all see our 401k tax breaks go out the window...


-----------------


They are simply listening to alternate viewpoints. It's what smart people do...unlike Bush and Palin, who only talk to God.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 24, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Democrats are now looking at a plan to go after Americans' 401k accounts. These accounts serve as the retirement nest-egg for millions of Americans. They are used because money can be saved in these accounts tax-free. Oh, that is unless that new Democrat plan of "spread the wealth" becomes law. Then, we could all see our 401k tax breaks go out the window...


According to a report in U.S. News , Democrats are considering a plan that essentially end 401k plans in favor of a government-run saving plan. As the other notes:

I hate to use the "S" word, but the American government would never do something as, well, socialist as seize private pension funds, right? This is exactly what cash-strapped Argentina just did in the name of protecting workers' retirement accounts. Now, even Uncle Sam isn't that stupid, but some Democrats might try something almost as loopy: kill 401(k) plans.

House Democrats, looking for a way to have government take over more aspects of our lives, recently heard testimony on a plan promoted by Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research in New York, "on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans."

In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return.

The topic is also covered in an article in Workforce Management . The Democrats' plan would target "the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive." In essence, the 401k would lose the benefits that make it popular including the "employer-matching" feature upon which so many average Americans rely.

“From where I sit that’s just crazy,” said John Belluardo, president of Stewardship Financial Services Inc. in Tarrytown, New York. “A lot of people contribute to their 401(k)s because of the match of the employer,” he said. Belluardo’s firm does not manage assets directly.

Higher-income employers provide matching funds to employee plans so that they can qualify for tax benefits for their own defined-contribution plans, he said.

“If the tax deferral goes away, the employers have no reason to do the matches, which primarily help people in the lower income brackets,” Belluardo said.

The article quotes Christopher Van Slyke, a partner in the La Jolla, California, advisory firm Trovena. Van Slyke makes a key observation which I will repeat here: "This is a battle between liberalism and conservatism. People are afraid because their accounts are seeing some volatility, so Democrats will seize on the opportunity to attack a program where investors control their own destiny."


Posted by: leapin | October 24, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

One thing that was not in the article ... is the number 60 arrived at with or without Joe the Lie berman?

He certainly can no longer be considered anything like a democrat, even if he continues to sport the Independent sobriquet. I expect the Democrats to strip him of his chairmanship in the new congress and drum him out of the caucus.

Posted by: wide-eyed11 | October 24, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

ha ha, I saw the headline over the photos, and my first thought was they are all *over* 60!!

Posted by: dhb2 | October 24, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget the $35 million in emergency funds the US Chamber of Commerce just threw in (source: front page WSJ).

It might save Senator Sununu, but the rest are A Day Late And A Dollar Short.

Say goodbye to the Socialist Republicans!

Posted by: WillSeattle | October 24, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

.


.

You are risking your job if you vote for Obama.


Obama has no economic or business experience except for buying cocaine.


How do you expect him to know how to lead the economy ? Do not risk making the economy worse with Obama's high taxes.


.

.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 24, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

.


.

You are risking your job if you vote for Obama.


Obama has no economic or business experience except for buying cocaine.


How do you expect him to know how to lead the economy ? Do not risk making the economy worse with Obama's high taxes.


.

.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 24, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

ACORN


If there is voter fraud this year, those people who created ACORN and failed to put in place proper safeguards should be jailed immediately. If the Obama campaign has been involved in these efforts including arranging for funding for ACORN Obama and David Axelroad should be held personally responsible, arrested and jailed indefinitely.


The Obama campaign has already gone through vast efforts to prevent votes in Michigan and Florida which is almost communist tactics.


Watch - Acorn is under investigation - if they are submitting wholesale false voter registrations there could be an effort to have absentee ballots cast under those registrations - if Obama is involved they must jail him for years !!!


Seriously, if there is an attempt to steal this election something must be done.


For some reason the Obama campaign seems to believe that they are entitled to steal this election because of what they think Bush did in Florida in 2000 - that is not right - and if the country allows that to happen we will have a free-for-all in future elections.


Obama's campaign has already interfered improperly in the elections in Michigan and Florida.


Obama's campaign has already spent millions of dollars to pay bloggers to harrass and intimate people on the internet whose views Obama does not agree with.


Obama and his wife have a hostility toward the US Constitution rooted in slavery and the Jim Crow era - so they do not care about the US Constitution they way you would think they should.


If there is voter fraud which Obama has been a part of Obama should be jailed for a long time and he should be made an example of what black children should not grow up to be.


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 24, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

This is why the R party is going down... they're pathetic.

"You heard the story -- it was all over the right-wing blogs. Some poor white girl, 20-year-old Ashley Todd of Texas, was mugged at an ATM, but when the mugger (a big black guy) saw her car with the McCain sticker, he beat her and carved a letter "B" in her face with a knife. Apparently it was a dyslexic mugger because the "B" was carved backward, but whatever -- it proved that Obama's supporters were violent and craaazy!

Ever the blowhards, Fox News piled on, and their Executive VP of "news" wrote this:

"Part of the appeal of, and the unspoken tension behind, Senator Obama’s campaign is his transformational status as the first African-American to win a major party’s presidential nomination.

That does not mean that he has erased the mutual distrust between black and white Americans, and this incident could become a watershed event in the 11 days before the election.

If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee."

Police sources tell KDKA that a McCain campaign worker has now confessed to making up a story that a mugger attacked her and cut the letter "B" in her face after seeing her McCain bumper sticker [...]

This afternoon, a Pittsburgh police commander told KDKA Investigator Marty Griffin that Todd confessed to making up the story.

The commander added that Todd will face charges; but police have not commented on what those charges will be.

Posted by: drindl | October 24, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

VMR: I'm not a republican. I was merely posting the definition of socialism to inform ignorant posters here who bandy the word about with no clue as to what it actually means.

Posted by: drindl | October 24, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

What's the saying? In a wave, all toss-ups go to the victor? So the question with respect to the senate is, will this be a wave election? I think you have right Chris - it will depend on turnout among black voters, but also among young voters. If their turnout is unusually strong, Dems could do substantially better than the polls predict. There is some evidence from early voting that a wave is already forming.

Posted by: wmw4 | October 24, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

One quibble, Chris. You call Gordon Smith a genuine moderate. Until 2006, he was a reliable Republican caucus member - even mocked John Kerry, saying "he can't help it if he seems French" - with a better than 90% pro-Bush voting record. Since then, he has been fighting for his political life in Oregon, a state that seems to become bluer by the day. His November 2006 "conversion" on Iraq smelled fishy to everyone back home and hasn't helped him a bit. In fact, his embrace of Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy, and "former Frenchman" John Kerry in television ads has backfired, losing him Republican votes to the Constitution Party candidate. Senator Smith's not a moderate. He's a phony, and he's about to become a former Senator.

Posted by: johnsonc2 | October 24, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"I live in the Communist part of Virginia. The Commonwealth is less a purple state and more a red state with measles."

Interesting. MN is a blue state with a rash. Looks like the rash is shrinking though, likely leaving John Kline (MN-2) surrounded. I'm in the communist/sharia district in the middle (Keith Ellison, MN-5).

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 24, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

By your definition United Parcel Service is a socialist organization and is therefore inefficient, wrong, inferior, or otherwise un-American.

Turns out, it's one of the most successful American companies in the last quarter-century, and one of the best companies to work for.

It doesn't fit into your narrow-minded, myopic GOP worldview, does it?

Posted by: VMR1 | October 24, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

'so⋅cial⋅ism   [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.'
----

And what is wrong with THAT? Everyone who works,partakes in the profits or losses. Everyone has a stake. Some should earn more or less, depending on the sophistication of their skills, work ethic,leadership ability, etc.

What we have now is everyone working for nothing more than survival wages and only a few get most of the benefits of our work. For example, I'm sitting here taking a break from work but looking like I'm working because this is perceived to be "better" than me getting up and going out for a 1-hour lunch break.
If this is capitalism - thanks, but no thanks [wink]

Posted by: VMR1 | October 24, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Just a local note with possibly wider interest. John McCain is coming here to Colorado Springs today, but it's not a campaign event, and not a fundraiser? The only thing the campaign will say is that he's participating in a roundtable at "a private business."

Now, why would he do that 10 days before the election? Why won't they say what the "private business" is? My guess, he's going Focus on the Family HQ, still trying to make up with James Dobson.

Dobson will probably tell McCain he'll support the ticket if McCain and Palin swap places. McCain just might take him up on it.

Posted by: malis | October 24, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

BSimon wrote: "Do you think voters will consider such an outcome? Of course, that line is used up here as well, but if its true that 'all politics is local,' voters won't give a damn about Pelosi & Reid if they don't like Bachmann & Coleman."

Tying Democrats to Pelosi/Reid clearly did not work for the by-elections. The House is already gone, so an increased majority won't have the same effect of a filibusting majority in the Senate. I don't think the argument will play well in the North, but I wonder about the South. I think it might be a powerful argument to make in Kentucky, N. Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

I live in the Communist part of Virginia. The Commonwealth is less a purple state and more a red state with measles.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 24, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

McConnel reminds me a little old cartoon grandmother, like the one in the old Tweety cartoons. Just imagine him with longer hair, a ruffly apron and holding a pie. Isn't the resemblance startling?

Posted by: drindl | October 24, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I love that Mitch McConnell mug shot.
A classic Republican look: half shark/half rat.
Steve Forbes is another one like that.

Posted by: VMR1 | October 24, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Here you go, scriv, right to the source:

"Anthony Robert Martin-Trigona, usually known as Andy Martin (born 1945 in Middletown, Connecticut) is an American journalist, perennial candidate, and vexatious litigant. Known for anti-semitic remarks, he ran for Congress in 1986 with a promise "to exterminate Jew Power," according to the paperwork of one of his campaign committees.[1] The Nation,[2] The Washington Post,[3] and The New York Times[1] have identified him as the primary source of false rumors that 2008 Democratic Party presidential nominee Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim. Obama is formerly a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church
of Christ, and is an actively professing and practising Christian.[

Martin was born in 1945 in Middletown, Connecticut.[8] He graduated from the University of Illinois in 1966, earning a law degree from that institution in 1969.

In 1973 the Illinois Supreme Court refused to grant him a license to practice law in the state. It cited several instances of troubling conduct on Martin's part, including an attempt to have a parking violation thrown out because it had been "entered by an insane judge" and his description of an attorney as "shaking and tottering and drooling like an idiot."[9] Martin had been described by state psychiatrists as having a "moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character."[10]

guy's got real credibility, eh?

Posted by: drindl | October 24, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

It is ironic to see how blind the GOP is when it comes to their own base. Islamic fundamentalists are the greatest external threat to our nation, but what about the internal threats to liberty at home from our own Christian fundamentalists.

Fundamentalism is fundamentalism no matter what the religion. America cannot afford to cede our government to our own home grown Taliban.

NO Palin. NO way!

Posted by: MarcMyWords | October 24, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

RUMORS ABOUT OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE, BIRTHPLACE, "REAL" FATHER BURNING UP THE INTERNET...

• Fear and smear, or based in fact?

• Should mainstream media tackle this, or is the subject taboo?

===============

This belongs in the realm of "Elvis is still alive!"

It's pure crap.

"FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said."

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 24, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

RUMORS ABOUT OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE, BIRTHPLACE, "REAL" FATHER BURNING UP THE INTERNET...

• Fear and smear, or based in fact?

• Should mainstream media tackle this, or is the subject taboo?


Now the anti-Obama forces are saying that his natural-born father was Frank Marshall Thomas, the leftist writer-philosopher who befriended Obama when he was a boy growing up in Hawaii.

This theory is being promoted by a guy named Andy Martin, who is claiming that Obama rushed to Hawaii in an attempt to prevent his grandmother from spilling the "truth" in her final days.

Gee, last week the rumor was that he was born in Kenya. Seems the favor of the day has changed.

Is this is a carefully crafted smear campaign which employs real people to concoct a fabricated slander? If someone other than Barack Obama Sr. was Obama's real father, wouldn't this have been exposed long ago? Obama's had blood taken for testing; it seems far-fetched that his true paternity has been kept secret all these years.

I first encountered these rumors while reading the "comments" section of various blogs. As a regular reader of "The Fix," I don't recall seeing this particular rumor here.

Given that we're just 11 days out, it seems no accident that these rumors are starting to surface on mainstream blogs.

At what point do these rumors about Obama's birthplace and paternity become an issue in this election?

Or is raising this subject taboo?

What's your take, Chris?

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 24, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Bachman getting spanked hard in Minnesota. Just desserts.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 24, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Random notes:
1. I still expect Lieberman to caucus with the D's. There's a lot more in it for him to caucus with the majority than the minority. Especially that small of a minority. The D's may move him to a lesser cmte chair though.

2. There's been some speculation too about Byrd losing his chair in Appropriations. He's not at fault for non-DOD going to a CR, but a more active chair in Approps might have done more. And even if there's still a lot of respect for Byrd among the D's, the caucus has a lot of new faces who don't necessarily see him as God. That's going to be another tough one for Reid to sort out.

3. I still don't think it matters so much if the D's get to the magical 60 or not. The R's won't have the discipline necessary to sustain 40 consistent nay votes on cloture motions, whether the D's wind up at 57 or 58 or 59 or 60. The R leadership has neither the carrots nor the sticks to keep moderates in line.

4. When can we start talking about '10? We might see a raft of open seats again -- Brownback, McCain (?), Specter (?), Bunning (?), plus some competitive races elsewhere. The fun never ends!

Posted by: novamatt | October 24, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Mugging of McCain supporter completely fabricated. Never stops Drudge, Chris's hero, from publishing such crap. Drudge has just about lost all credibility. After the elections, watch for major decline in traffic to his website.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 24, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

In the end, Bush has made the Repubs poisonous.
Because of Palin, the R base is fine, but middle America is pissed and will vent the anger on the Repubs.

The Republicans will not recover until they separate themselves from the Xtian Right. The imposition of religious ideology is the greatest threat to America's future, not terrorists in another land.

I see a third party developing which embraces the economic and political conservatism of true Republicanism and the social liberalism of the Democrats. That is where most of America is living....responsible capitalism, transparent government and staying out of people's bedrooms and computers.

Neither the rigidity of the xtian right nor the immorality of the far left belong in the public square.

The common good is paramount.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 24, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

When a business has a critical problem they make an investigation as to its root cause and devise a solution to prevent the critical problem form happening again. How can you tell the dems are the root cause of the Freddie-Fannie mess? They currently control congress and there is NO investigation into the root cause of the problem.

Posted by: leapin | October 24, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

billMillsinSterlingVA writes
"As you know, that capital Obama wants to freely tap is the basis of recovering our already troubled [capitalist] economy."

You're conflating multiple issues. On the question of recovering the economy there is a valid question whether individual spending is more stimulative than targetted gov't spending. I'm in the school of thought that says the stimulus checks we received earlier this year were a waste of money that didn't help solve the problem. I think further tax cuts will also be a waste of money (lost revenue, mandating further borrowing). I think the plan to invest, with Fed dollars, in infrastructure & the 'green' economy - i.e. R&D dollars in businesses that will create jobs - is far more productive than permanent tax cuts on the wealthy.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 24, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Someone just wrote that Mary Landrieu is going to lose. But like John Kennedy this person's party is about to take a "thumpin'" that he's obviously ill-prepared for. Don't worry about our Party. In 12 days there's not going to be much of anyone left in the other one.

Posted by: jdunph1 | October 24, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Regarding Gordon Smith being a true moderate, see Chafee, Lincoln.

Posted by: jbtripod | October 24, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

FarlingtonBlade writes
"Voters in these states will not want to give the Democrats a filibuster proof majority."

Do you think voters will consider such an outcome? Of course, that line is used up here as well, but if its true that 'all politics is local,' voters won't give a damn about Pelosi & Reid if they don't like Bachmann & Coleman.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 24, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

'so⋅cial⋅ism   [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.'

No one is advocating this. No one.

Posted by: drindl | October 24, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

"As with the current Democratic congress, she preferred to have the State suffer, rather than hand Bush anything that might look like a success in leadership."

Ah, I see we have today's 'zouk,' who spins so fast it must make him dizzy.

Bush doesn't need anyone's help to make him look like a failure in leadership. We see it every day.

Posted by: drindl | October 24, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the “narrow definition of capitalism”:
As you know, that capital Obama wants to freely tap is the basis of recovering our already troubled [capitalist] economy. You don't increase pork production by butchering all the pigs so everyone gets a bit of pork for a few days. Putting a Socialist in charge of deciding how many pigs to butcher is a very risky choice.
Re the “clown” comment: Take a short trip to the reference, “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism” and expand your apparently limited perspective.

Posted by: BillMillsinSterlingVA | October 24, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully Mary Landrieu’s current trouble is dawning realization in her state that despite the rapid spin the Democrats applied, she failed miserably in response to hurricane Katrina. Read back into history. Up to that point, “State” emergency management took the lead role in response to such disasters, with contingency planning and response management. For successful cases, look at previous handling of such disasters by Florida. FEMA backed them up as they requested, and the National Guard [who are under State control] helped if needed under command of the Governor. With Katrina, Landrieu (D) had insufficient planning in place, failed to take effective lead, failed to request FEMA assistance until too late, and refused to “activate” the National Guard [that she failed to lead] to delay any attempt by Bush (R) to use them in the crisis. As with the current Democratic congress, she preferred to have the State suffer, rather than hand Bush anything that might look like a success in leadership.

The only good to come out of that sandbagging [you figure the pun] was that now FEMA is no longer allowed to assume States are capable of responding to emergencies. It’s now FEMA’s job to assure that State governments meet their planning responsibilities, and an organization less (?) involved in national politics manages disaster response. The down side is that States lost another piece of their autonomy to the federal bureaucracy.

I guess the Democrats would chalk up Landrieu’s potentially upcoming loss as just a tactical defeat that advanced their objective of an all-managing federal government.

Posted by: BillMillsinSterlingVA | October 24, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"The cause of Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss, Robert Nisbet and William F. Buckley Jr. is now in the hands of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity -- and Sarah Palin."

You forgot Zouk and 37th&OStreet.

Posted by: bondjedi | October 24, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

If they are an incumbant and they voted for the bailout they need to go no matter thier party affiliation.When they listen to the corporations instead of the people they no longer represent the people.Vote them out and let them go to work for thier true masters.

Posted by: gary2547poh | October 24, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

Nice attempt to keep in on topic, but those horses burst out of the gate months ago.

I think a few of these close races are going to lean Republican (McConnell and Dole, for example). Voters in these states will not want to give the Democrats a filibuster proof majority. So, if the Dems are in the high 50s, the swing bloc becomes conservative Democrats (Webb, Lieberman*) and moderate Republicans (Collins, Snowe, McCain). A solid working majority with someone on the brakes.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 24, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I just gave to the DSCC to defeat Saxby Chambliss. He has got to be the most disgraceful Senator on the list. Many of us will never forget his smears and slanders against Max Cleland in 2002. In my life it was probably the most disgusting campaign I've ever witnessed. If Chambliss loses, he can thank his own tactics from 2002. Otherwise, who, outside of Georgia, would even care about that Senate race?

Posted by: osullivanc1 | October 24, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

The cause of Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss, Robert Nisbet and William F. Buckley Jr. is now in the hands of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity -- and Sarah Palin. Reason has been overwhelmed by propaganda, ideas by slogans, learned manifestoes by direct-mail hit pieces.

The conservative critique of Bush is a familiar rant against his advocacy of big government and huge deficits -- now supplemented by horror over his embrace of actual socialism with the partial nationalization of big banks.

Conservatism has finally crashed on problems for which its doctrines offered no solutions (the economic crisis foremost among them, thus Bush's apostasy) and on its refusal to acknowledge that the "real America" is more diverse, pragmatic and culturally moderate than the place described in Palin's speeches or imagined by the right-wing talk show hosts.

Conservatives came to believe that if they repeated phrases such as "Joe the Plumber" often enough, they could persuade working-class voters that policies tilted heavily in favor of the very privileged were actually designed with Joe in mind.

It isn't working anymore. No wonder conservatives are turning on each other so ferociously.

Posted by: drindl | October 24, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

BillMillin, yet another submoron who doesn't have a clue what socialism is. Get a dictionary, clown.

Posted by: drindl | October 24, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

BillMillsinSterlingVA-
Are you, too, a lawyer? You construct a reasonable argument but take advantage of a broad definition of socialism, while assuming a narrow definition of capitalism. For roughly 25 years, the system of capitalism in this country helped the middle class grow and 'spread the wealth around' - raising the quality of life for all Americans. But for the last several decades, that trend has reversed - most notably in the last decade, accounting for inflation the middle class has essentially had zero growth, economically. In a relative sense, the middle class's share of the whole economic pie has shrunk.

My question to you: is it 'socialism' to prefer the economic policies that built the middle class of the 50s and 60s? Or can it fairly be described as a different form of capitalism than the one that funnels the majority of the money to a small minority of Americans?

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 24, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

With the Senate, it probably will fall to the Socialists [Democrats] if Obama wins based the enthusiastic but naïve who equate crowd appeal to wisdom. That group will just check the Democratic ticket.

On “re: this socialism argument”:

From the broad definition of Socialism, anyone who subscribes to the basic beliefs of socialism can, as Obama has done, pick one of the specific economic theories in that broad set and state that is not what he advocates. Such denial only proves he is a good lawyer.

Obama clearly subscribes to the principle socialistic belief:

“Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism quoting another author]”

The Joe the plumber incident was not the first time Obama made a remark about his intention to spread the wealth. While his stated belief is seriously dangerous, the key risk is that we don't know which branch(es) of the broad theory he actually believes. Given what we do know of his previous associations, it is unlikely the Professor's beliefs are developed only to the extent of justifying taking money from the "advantaged" though taxes and giving it as gifts to whomever he considers disadvantaged.

Posted by: BillMillsinSterlingVA | October 24, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse


I would like to ask everyone with a brain on this board to report to CC abuse by 'nsabetus'. It's bad enough that this moron keeps posting absurd and false propaganda drivel about some 'socialism' that is happening only inside his head, but to post the exact message over and over is abusing the rest of us who have to scroll endlessly through this excrement.

Posted by: drindl | October 24, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

If any readers know of recent articles that address these questions, could you please post references here? Thanks.

-------------

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1853246_1853243,00.html

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 24, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

ELECTRONIC VOTING: THE GREAT "X" FACTOR

The vast majority of votes in this election will be cast on electronic voting machines. How does that fact change the equation?

Most electronic voting devices do not produce a voter-verified paper trail, making recounts in the traditional sense problematic, if not impossible.

Chris, I'd like to see you blog on this subject. What is the exact percentage of voting precincts using machines that do not allow a precise, per vote recount? What safeguards are in place to guarantee that the electronic "key cards" used in some of these systems are not subject to tampering or unauthorized access?

What is the impact of early voting on election integrity? Does early voting increase the opportunities for mischief?

And finally -- has anyone documented the political contributions made by manufacturers of these voting systems, and which candidates have benefited from their financial support?

If any readers know of recent articles that address these questions, could you please post references here? Thanks.


TARGETING OF AMERICANS BY GOV'T AGENCIES
A ROOT CAUSE OF WALL STREET MELTDOWN?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/targeting-u-s-citizens-govt-agencies-root-cause-wall-street-financial-crisis OR
members.nowpublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 24, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Dang.

Latest poll has Obama up by 1 in GEORGIA??

Sweet Georgia indeed!

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 24, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

What?

No rants about the Free Masons or the Bildeburgs?

Can't you see what's happening????

:-)

11 more days........

Posted by: toritto | October 24, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

The 60 you are talking about includes GOP Joe Leiberman. I know the Dems want 60 but come on, you think GOP JOE is going to vote with the Dems after this cycle?

-----------

For Supreme Court justice picks? Yes.

For Iraq et al? No. But then we have Hagel, Collins, Snowe...

President Barack won't need 60 Dems with several friendly Repubs....esp when he fills his cabinet with both parties.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 24, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

They don't need 60 Dems, just 60 votes. If Gordon Smith survives, he's on Republican that will be inclined to support Obama on many issues. The lovely ladies of Maine are two more.

Posted by: light_bearer | October 24, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

alarmist pants:
Palin website calls for violence after McCain supporter claims she was attacked by pro Obama assailant who carved a "B" in her face:

---------------

It is not a Palin website. It is some nut-job supporter of Palin. You are just as guilty in fomenting a highly-charged and violent atmosphere with your overly-dramatic insinuation.

Based on her knowledge and experience, Palin is incompetent for VP. This other stuff is just trash. Stick to the high road.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 24, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

The 60 you are talking about includes GOP Joe Leiberman. I know the Dems want 60 but come on, you think GOP JOE is going to vote with the Dems after this cycle? He's going to switch parties just to KEEP the Dems from getting 60. It will be him and John sitting alone at the Senate cafe crying about how the election wasn't fair and how John DESERVED it. Dems won't get 60 if they rely on GOP JOE. That turncoat bailed 1 year ago.

Posted by: pwalters03 | October 24, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Everyone is about to see the benefit of having a Sen. Obama at the top of the ticket instead of a Sen. Clinton pan out in these Senate and House races all across the country. But, if he had picked Sen. Clinton to be his running-mate we'd probably be looking at Bruce Lunsford being the favorite in Kentucky's Senate race right now.
I don't know how republicans can feel good about the chances of any of these Senate candidates still polling in the 45-47 percent range this close to election day in this election year, particularly McConnell who's been in Washiington for decades.
Regardless of whether we get to 60 in 11 days (we will), we'll easily eclipse that number in two years.

Posted by: jdunph1 | October 24, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

"unless you don't count Joe Lieberman, but I don't think he'll switch caucuses, just lose his chairmanship."

You think he'll stick around if that happens? I doubt it.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 24, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

SICK IN THE HEAD SARAH PALIN WHEN ASKED REFUSES TO CALL PEOPLE WHO BOMB ABORTION CLINICS TERRORISTS.
NOW WE KNOW JUST HOW SICK IN THE HEAD THIS WOMAN REALLY IS.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 24, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

After watching the Alaskan video you linked to, I have to ask you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE post the vote totals for Alaska House District 31 sometime next month.

Posted by: greggwiggins | October 24, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

McConnell has likely amassed too many chips in his time in the Senate for his opponent to win. I'm guessing he pulls every lever available and squeaks in.

Posted by: bondjedi | October 24, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Why do the Democrats need to pick up 2 of KY, GA, MS... shouldn't they only need 1 to get to 60? 51+ VA, NM, CO, NH, AK, OR, MN, NC = 59 + 1 of 3 of KY, GA, MS = 60... unless you don't count Joe Lieberman, but I don't think he'll switch caucuses, just lose his chairmanship.

I can't believe that guy is running for the Alaska state house. The communist controlled State Department? Are you kidding?

Posted by: chocoguy0 | October 24, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Palin website calls for violence after McCain supporter claims she was attacked by pro Obama assailant who carved a "B" in her face:

http://liesliesmorelies.blogspot.com/2008/10/palin-blog-promotes-violence.html

Posted by: Snakeheader | October 24, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

there's no way mcconnell will lose. it will be (surprisingly) close, but mcconnell will prevail. if bunning were up this election cycle, he would be toast. the democrats don't get to 60 this time, but maybe in the midterms, depending on what happens in the pres. election and how things pan out over the next two years.

re: this socialism argument. socialism argues that there should be collective ownership of the means of production, that is, "the people" (through the state) own all companies and the natural resources which labor uses to produce value. so, when the state, or a state, like Alaska, says to oil companies, "hey, the oil within our borders is the property of the people. we'll let you extract it, but some of that money needs to go to the people," you're approaching a socialist view of the world. in other words, sarah palin's oil profits windfall check is much closer to socialism (though it's not) than barack obama's tax plan. in fact, socialism has nothing to do with taxes--it has to do with who owns the means through which workers produce value.

taxes are a fundamental part of capitalism. they pave our roads, prepare a workforce to provide labor, secure the nation's borders, etc. in order to make it possible for companies to accumulate profits, the state provides these services (which are paid for through taxes). no taxes means no military (unless you want everyone to pay blackwater for national security, but then you would have no control over the military). even adam smith (ADAM SMITH!) argued that it's "reasonable" within capitalism for those with higher incomes to pay higher taxes:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/27/081027taco_talk_coll

Posted by: plathman | October 24, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Obama began his campaign by saying 'change'. McCain started his campaign by saying "surge." We have had the iraqi surge, now we are having the republican purge. .............


http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/10/15/iraq-surge-republican-purge/

Posted by: glclark4750 | October 24, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
'Coleman has shown tremendous electoral resiliency in his career, however, so we don't count him out -- ever.'

Well, there was that time that he couldn't beat a wrestler. How many politicians lose to both a wrestler and a comedian in their political careers?

I think you over-credit Coleman for 'resiliency' when his major electoral victory came after his opponent's death two weeks before the election.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 24, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

jimibristol writes
"it was a shame to see Lincoln Chaffe, one of the most honest and decent people in government, lose his seat over in RI because he has a R next to his name. Is it time for a legit third party to emerge yet, at least on a congressional level if not executive?"

I agree, but it is extremely difficult for 3rd parties to convince voters they are viable candidates. In Minnesota, the Independence Party is officially a 'major party,' meeting the threshold of 5% in statewide elections. But that's about as far as they get. Dean Barkley is polling in the upper teens this year, but does not appear to be able to beat Coleman and Franken in an environment that is about as favorable as possible for a 3rd party candidate.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 24, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Chris, for your House line, you need to take into account SC-01 -- Henry Brown's district. Something's going on down here that I wouldn't have expected and Linda Ketner is running a tight campaign.

Posted by: rlalumiere | October 24, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

37thandObamaSt:

How old are you? I really want to know.

Also, how do you decide which of your posts are all caps and which are not?

Just curious.

Posted by: Bondosan | October 24, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

It says if we win two of those three states we're almost assured of 60. I guess Chris is assuming we're going to lose Alaska for some reason. Mark Begich has essentially been ahead in this race since he entered it. I still think it's wrong to assume that if Sen. Stevens wins his case he's going to win re-election. One important factor I haven't heard anyone mention in this race is the poll-closing time in Alaska. By the time they close there Sen. Obama may have racked up 400 EVs depressing turnout there for McCain/Palin and Stevens. Also, Sen. Stevens is still under 50 percent and has been for some time.
Early turnout in Georgia bodes well for Jim Martin as he looks good to avoid a runoff giving us our ninth seat.
I don't think Roger Wicker is as safe as Chris makes him seem. He's now running an ad in Mississippi with two African-American voters trying to draw support from them. High turnout here will also put Ronnie Musgrove over the top.
That would be good enough to give us our Lieberman-proof working-majority.
Bruce Lunsford is going to give us our closest race of the night, and return the favor of beating Tom Daschle four years ago. I see us winning 11 Senate seats in 11 days as all four of these incumbents are under 50 percent and have been for some time.

Posted by: jdunph1 | October 24, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

ACORN


If there is voter fraud this year, those people who created ACORN and failed to put in place proper safeguards should be jailed immediately. If the Obama campaign has been involved in these efforts including arranging for funding for ACORN Obama and David Axelroad should be held personally responsible, arrested and jailed indefinitely.


The Obama campaign has already gone through vast efforts to prevent votes in Michigan and Florida which is almost communist tactics.


Watch - Acorn is under investigation - if they are submitting wholesale false voter registrations there could be an effort to have absentee ballots cast under those registrations - if Obama is involved they must jail him for years !!!


Seriously, if there is an attempt to steal this election something must be done.


For some reason the Obama campaign seems to believe that they are entitled to steal this election because of what they think Bush did in Florida in 2000 - that is not right - and if the country allows that to happen we will have a free-for-all in future elections.


Obama's campaign has already interfered improperly in the elections in Michigan and Florida.


Obama's campaign has already spent millions of dollars to pay bloggers to harrass and intimate people on the internet whose views Obama does not agree with.


Obama and his wife have a hostility toward the US Constitution rooted in slavery and the Jim Crow era - so they do not care about the US Constitution they way you would think they should.


If there is voter fraud which Obama has been a part of Obama should be jailed for a long time and he should be made an example of what black children should not grow up to be.


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 24, 2008 8:26 AM | Report abuse
==================

ACORN did not submit anything. They set aside the bad registrations as they legally have to. They can't shred them it is against the law to destroy an voter application. THATS IT, no one was trying to do anything illegal. The problem is they try to provide some income for people who are not doing so well but unfortunately these people are not very dependable. There was ZERO chance that those bad registrations would ever even be turned in and ZERO chance they would ever represent a real vote. I don't know if you are just so stupid you don't understand how it all worked or are just a complete liar. I suspect you are just a liar.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 24, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

I think it is time for the people of America to make a choice of whether or not they want a socialist government because this is what the election has broken down into.
Senator Obama has been a socialist from his parents, schooling, associations, friends, pastor, and wife. If this is what the people of America want they can vote in the Messiah, the Chosen One and the One We Have Been Waiting For. His tax plan and all his other ideals taken from his speeches and written documents on his website show all this to be right in line with communism and socialism across the line. We now know that 95% of the black people in America want this type government because it means more entitlement for them without working, sticking it to "whitey" as preached by Rev. Wright, teaching socialism in the classroom and revolution as proven by Bill Ayers, Senator Obama (Annenberg Challenge & Woods Foundation). If they want independence to run their own lives and live as they want they will vote in Senator McCain.
Simple decision for all Americans to make.

Posted by: nsabetus | October 24, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

I have found it difficult to believe (no matter how much I'd like it to happen) that the Democratic side could clear the 60 hurdle, but things keep getting better and better. I think Chambliss and McConnell, slimy and disgusting and annoying as they are, will be harder to pick off than Wicker, but we'll see.

The big difference if the Dems do hit 60 or above, won't be on issues like taxes or union rules or the Iraq war--it'll be on approving appointments. A bunch of Democratic judges will have dust all over their behonkus on their first day on the job, because so many benches have been sitting empty for so long. And the various cabinet departments will actually start doing stuff besides denying science, because they'll actually be staffed.

Posted by: Budikavlan | October 24, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

I think it is time for the people of America to make a choice of whether or not they want a socialist government because this is what the election has broken down into.

-----------------------

Besides being off topic, your argument is a non-starter. Our government already has socialist elements (Social Security, Medicare, graduated tax code, etc), and was further socialized by George Bush during this economic crisis.

If anything, Obama is the only politician calling for more personal responsibility not less.

Now, getting back to the topic, Chambliss may save his sorry butt because of Martin's mishandling of a question concerning the Savannah Harbor channel.

His survival is not yet water under the bridge.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 24, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Senator McCain has said Teddy Roosevelt is his hero. Here's what Roosevelt had to say:

'We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. … The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.'

So I guess to you braindead folks out there, McCain's hero was a socialist. Do us all a favor and learn what words actually mean before you use them.
.

Posted by: drindl | October 24, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

I think it is time for the people of America to make a choice of whether or not they want a socialist government because this is what the election has broken down into.
Senator Obama has been a socialist from his parents, schooling, associations, friends, pastor, and wife. If this is what the people of America want they can vote in the Messiah, the Chosen One and the One We Have Been Waiting For. His tax plan and all his other ideals taken from his speeches and written documents on his website show all this to be right in line with communism and socialism across the line. We now know that 95% of the black people in America want this type government because it means more entitlement for them without working, sticking it to "whitey" as preached by Rev. Wright, teaching socialism in the classroom and revolution as proven by Bill Ayers, Senator Obama (Annenberg Challenge & Woods Foundation). If they want independence to run their own lives and live as they want they will vote in Senator McCain.
Simple decision for all Americans to make.

Posted by: nsabetus | October 24, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Landrieu's seat is the only one of these the Dems will win. I would sure love to see Chambliss go down for his shameless attacks on disabled vet Max Cleland.

Even if Dems got 60, Lieberman would just vote with the GOP.

60 is out of reach.

Posted by: GregCleveland | October 24, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

McCain is now facing a trouncing worse than Bob Dole and Poppy Bush.

No country for old men!

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 24, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Dwight,

Neither party has been explicit about policy toward undocs/IAs in this election cycle. Other issues have overwhelmed.

Do you think the Rs want to stop illegal immigration? The Ds? You and I want to stop it - do you think we agree on how to do it? Personally, living in TX, and watching them wall off as much as a mile inland from the Rio Grande and keeping the cattle from the water, and watching them wall off part of the UT campus in Brownsville into MX, I do not think much of the fence.

And to the point - do you know what any of these candidates think? How they would deal with IAs and undocs? I would like to know, myself, so tell me if you do know.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 24, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

with no opposition, amnesty, foreign workers, higher taxation and the loss of our first admendment rights is just around the corner...
and guess what America, you get what you vote for...
suffer you will, except for the elite...America will be theirs...
also and not least...lets welcome the 20 or so million latinos that will become citizens and the millions of offspring under 16 that will automatically become citizens when their parents do...
SUCKERS...

Posted by: DwightHCollins | October 24, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, Chris-
It's pretty wild that the Southern states (especially three of the "solid South") are so heavily in play this year. I am not sure about Mississippi, but suspect the DNC will funnel massive resources to beat McConnell in Kentucky and wouldn't mind taking out Chambliss in Georgia either.
It would be some sweet payback for Daschle and Cleland.

Posted by: dbitt | October 24, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

My question is, who would be stupid enough to contribute to Gilmore's campaign against Warner?

Seriously though, I said months ago that the Republicans needed to put all their national money into holding the Democrats below 60 in the Senate. Now they need to pour everything they have into Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and North Carolina. Obama can have the White House, but it's more important to the Republicans to at least have a filibuster threat in the Senate.

Posted by: mikepcfl | October 24, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

37thand0St, you should look up what voter fraud is. Wikipedia can help you there.
Everything you wrote about ACORN is wrong.
This situation *might* be registration fraud, but if so, it's been committed AGAINST ACORN by some shmucks who were paid to register voters and turned in fake registrations.
If Mickey Mouse or Hannibal Lecter show up to vote, THAT would be voter fraud.
But if this is too much for you to handle, you can go back to the RNC site and find plenty more talking points-- I think this one is played out.

Posted by: dbitt | October 24, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Folks,

Again, this is a post on the state of play in the Senate. Let's try to do our best to stay on topic.

Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | October 24, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

.


.


ACORN


If there is voter fraud this year, those people who created ACORN and failed to put in place proper safeguards should be jailed immediately. If the Obama campaign has been involved in these efforts including arranging for funding for ACORN Obama and David Axelroad should be held personally responsible, arrested and jailed indefinitely.


The Obama campaign has already gone through vast efforts to prevent votes in Michigan and Florida which is almost communist tactics.


Watch - Acorn is under investigation - if they are submitting wholesale false voter registrations there could be an effort to have absentee ballots cast under those registrations - if Obama is involved they must jail him for years !!!


Seriously, if there is an attempt to steal this election something must be done.


For some reason the Obama campaign seems to believe that they are entitled to steal this election because of what they think Bush did in Florida in 2000 - that is not right - and if the country allows that to happen we will have a free-for-all in future elections.


Obama's campaign has already interfered improperly in the elections in Michigan and Florida.


Obama's campaign has already spent millions of dollars to pay bloggers to harrass and intimate people on the internet whose views Obama does not agree with.


Obama and his wife have a hostility toward the US Constitution rooted in slavery and the Jim Crow era - so they do not care about the US Constitution they way you would think they should.


If there is voter fraud which Obama has been a part of Obama should be jailed for a long time and he should be made an example of what black children should not grow up to be.


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 24, 2008 8:26 AM | Report abuse

PS - Anybody think things would be wildly different if McCain chose Kay Bailey Hutchenson instead of Palin? The initial bounce would have held much more, and I think the race would be close.

---------------

I think that would be true if he had picked Romney...Hutchinson doesn't bring much to the economy.

But the more important point is that he didn't pick either. That is McCain's fatal flaw...an inability to see the bigger picture. He has never been a team player, and a successful President must be a team player.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Only Obama has made the right decisions from day one of this campaign.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 24, 2008 8:23 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin wrote: "It is far more important to have good senators than to have R or D senators."

I couldn't agree more Mark. I have two senators in my state (CT) that should in theory share my (center-left) views (one dem, one 'independent'), but I'm not happy with either. Power players both of them, regardless of party.

And it was a shame to see Lincoln Chaffe, one of the most honest and decent people in government, lose his seat over in RI because he has a R next to his name. Is it time for a legit third party to emerge yet, at least on a congressional level if not executive?

PS - Anybody think things would be wildly different if McCain chose Kay Bailey Hutchenson instead of Palin? The initial bounce would have held much more, and I think the race would be close.

Posted by: Jimibristol | October 24, 2008 7:59 AM | Report abuse

.


.


ACORN


If there is voter fraud this year, those people who created ACORN and failed to put in place proper safeguards should be jailed immediately. If the Obama campaign has been involved in these efforts including arranging for funding for ACORN Obama and David Axelroad should be held personally responsible, arrested and jailed indefinitely.

The Obama campaign has already gone through vast efforts to prevent votes in Michigan and Florida which is almost communist tactics.


Watch - Acorn is under investigation - if they are submitting wholesale false voter registrations there could be an effort to have absentee ballots cast under those registrations - if Obama is involved they must jail him for the next 8 years !!!


.

.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 24, 2008 7:56 AM | Report abuse


.

.


Funny you mention Indiana and North Carolina because those are two states where ACORN is most active.


ACORN needs an investigation.


ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH TOLERATING FALSE VOTER REGISTRATIONS SHOULD BE PLACED IN JAIL AND THAT INCLUDES OBAMA IF HE IS INVOLVED IN THIS ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY ITSELF.

.

.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 24, 2008 7:47 AM | Report abuse

It is far more important to have good senators than to have R or D senators. I do not know enough about these individuals to make broad claims. I wonder if there is a reason for OR to dump Smith, for instance, on quality considerations. On the other hand, I remember how Chambliss won his seat and cannot imagine why he should remain in the Senate. TX has one senator highly responsive to her constituents and one who is not responsive to his. I wish I knew as much about other states, but I do not.

JD - pls eml me at

mark_in_austin@operamail.com

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 24, 2008 7:41 AM | Report abuse


.


.


Voters in these key states are going to WAKE UP this week and decide to vote for McCain and Sarah Palin - McCain's key demographics are saying they are undecided however they lean toward McCain.

In sharp contrast Obama is going to see nothing but erosion in his numbers as people realize they were completely out of their minds to even consider voting for him.

President McCain is the correct leader to bring the economy roaring back even better than before.

.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 24, 2008 7:40 AM | Report abuse

Voter movement toward the Democrats is reaching tsunami proportions. Even if Obama doesn't win states like Indiana and North Carolina (where polls show him leading), he will cut into previous Republican margins and bring many Democrats with him.

The numbers of voters cssting an early ballot has already surpassed levels previously seen and there's talk overall turnout may equal or top previous highs. This may be unchartered territory in trying to estimate how large Democratic gains will be. Each day shows another Republican Senate or House seat in play (and this hasn't peaked yet.)

Posted by: RickJ | October 24, 2008 7:39 AM | Report abuse

I just watched the Udall commercial from New Mexico. My goodness! What a commercial!! It's so much better than the presidential slop being served to us in Pennsylvania!!

Posted by: al_jal | October 24, 2008 7:28 AM | Report abuse

Indiana and Montana turning blue. Florida solidly for O. PA solidly double digit for O. and Ohio?? O...O...O...O! Double digit lead.


Posted by: wpost4112 | October 24, 2008 7:20 AM | Report abuse

BAD, bad news for McC in today's state polls......O surging.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 24, 2008 7:13 AM | Report abuse

Since as a nation we are better off with checks and balances, I'm not overly concerned with a 60 majority. Would be helpful with the Supreme Court, but a good fight is good for the nation.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 24, 2008 7:08 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company