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

Maryland Senate: Can the GOP Win With Steele?

No question prompts more disagreement between the two national parties than the one asked in the headline above.

In Democrats' eyes, Rep. Ben Cardin's win in last Tuesday's primary seals the deal on this race. Cardin is a standard-issue Democrat running in a Democratic state in a terrific year environmentally for Democrats. Done deal.

Republicans counter that Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R) is the right candidate at the right moment. Steele, an African American, portrays himself as an outsider willing to do things differently. He is also a poster boy for national Republicans' outreach to the black community, and as a result Steele has been lavished with campaign cash. In a year where voters are ready for change, Steele's unorthodox resume makes him viable, according to GOP strategists.

So, who's right?

As always, The Fix likes to start with the numbers.

In the Sept. 12 primary, Cardin jumped out to an early lead over former Rep. Kweisi Mfume as the ballots were counted -- and the political community largely ceased paying attention. But a look at the final numbers shows that the race was considerably closer than the impression left in the days following the primary.

According to the Associated Press, Cardin received 237,634 votes (43.4 percent) compared to Mfume's 224,234 (40.9 percent). Put that relatively narrow margin in the context of the spending by the two Democrats. As of Aug. 23, Cardin had raised $5.2 million for the race and spent $3.8 million; Mfume has raised $1.1 million and spent $810,000. A quick bit of math shows that Cardin spent nearly $16 per vote while Mfume spent about $3.50. (Remember that both candidates -- especially Cardin -- continued to spend through primary day, meaning that Cardin's cost per vote is likely higher than $16.)

Judging from the numbers alone, Cardin's victory is less-than-convincing. He beat Mfume by approximately 13,000 votes while outspending the former congressman by at least $3 million.

The potentially bigger problem for Cardin is whether the results of the primary create a divide between the Democratic nominee and the black vote. The primary between Cardin and Mfume was not at all contentious (the two men have known each other for years), and even though Mfume took three days to concede the race, he spoke glowingly of Cardin when he did, calling him a "great public servant."

Those kind words were overshadowed somewhat by a controversy within Cardin's campaign. A staffer was fired late last week after it was revealed that she made controversial racial remarks on a personal blog.

The timing of the firing couldn't be any worse for Cardin: The nominee wants to make clear to black voters, who comprise 28 percent of the state's population, that he -- not Steele -- will best represent their interests in the Senate. While the issue of race was barely mentioned in the primary, Republicans were quick to note that the only two black Democrats in contested primaries (Mfume and Stuart Simms, who was seeking the nomination in the attorney general's race) were both defeated by white men.

Republicans also circulated a recent quote from Rep. Al Wynn (D-Md.) in which he was asked by the Maryland Gazette what he thought the impact on the African American electorate would be if Mfume and Simms were defeated. Wynn, who is black, replied: "It's a scenario that I don't even want to talk about. 'I wouldn't want to speculate on what such a negative scenario it would be for the party."

It remains to be seen how the blog flap and comments like Wynn's will play out in the coming weeks. In the meantime, Steele is wasting no time in appealing to black voters. He has already run an ad featuring hip hop mogul Russell Simmons endorsing him, and his campaign has made clear he believes this traditionally Democratic bloc of voters is up for grabs. (A Democratic National Committee memo made public this spring argued that Steele had real potential to win a sizeable portion of Maryland's black vote.)

As The Fix has said before, we are fans of Steele's unconventional ad campaign, which seeks to break through the clutter of typical campaign ads. Steele's newest ad is an attempt to further his "outsider" image while insulating himself against the Cardin campaign ads -- call them comparative, call them negative -- sure to come.

"Soon your TV will be jammed with negative ads from the Washington crowd," says Steele directly to camera. "Grainy pics and spooky music saying Steele hates puppies and worse. For the record, I love puppies." He adds that he would ban all gifts from lobbyists to members of Congress and eliminate last-minute amendments to spending bills to reduce pork-barrel spending -- burnishing his reform credentials.

Since this post kicked off with raw numbers, let's finish it that way too. The most recent count of Maryland's registered voters showed Democrats at roughly 1.7 million, Republicans at 900,000 and independent/unaffilated voters at 430,000.

Do the math. If Steele wins every Republican and unaffiliated vote, he still is 400,000 votes short of the total number of registered Democrats in the state. Of course, not every registered voter (Democrat, Republican or independent) will cast a ballot on Nov. 7, but the numbers show the immensity of Steele's challenge.

This is a seat Cardin should win. That said, Democrats would be foolish to discount Steele's ability to win crossover votes -- especially among African Americans. Cardin starts the general election as a favorite, but there is no question that this is a winnable race for Steele as well.

(Maryland Senate race candidate links and more.)

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 18, 2006; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Line: Virginia Senate Seat Now in Play
Next: The Line: A Few Bright Spots For GOP in Gov. Rankings

Comments

"The South didn't lose the war. It went underground until the Republicans showed up."

Bob - Permission to use that?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | September 19, 2006 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, I think the problem is the war on terror is a long and generally unglamorous process, and one that the current government is unwilling to fight. Their ideology requires major victories, glamorous military operations, major headlines, etc., causing people to rally around the cause. This war won't be won that way, and attempts to do so will only undermine the strategic objective. This is why we went after Iraq, and why we're now going after Iran. We declared victory in Afghanistan, but found hunting down every last terrorist would be a long and tedious process, so we needed to find another target to score a win against, whether it was directly related or not, and our old stand-by bad guy Hussein fit the bill and those in power wanted to take him out anyways. Now that we're bogged down in a long and tedious process in Iraq, we need a new enemy to focus our attention and firepower on, regardless of the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan are falling apart, if the nation's attention is focused on Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan won't matter so much, at least until the next guy's in office.

Salafism (a broad form of Sunni Islamic fundamentalism of which Wahhabism is a subsect) has always been a minor sect in Islam and remains so today, but it is and has long been disproportionately powerful because of its hold on Saudi Arabia. To enter the Kaba'a in Mecca you must be Wahhabist, and Wahhabism is the official sect of the Arabian state dating back to Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab's alliance with Muhammad ibn Saud in the 1780's. I tend to view their move toward more power and a greater share of power in the Arab world as reactionary to the Saud family's greater reliance on the West following the discovery of oil than the other way around. Once the Sauds had money and allies, they no longer were as reliant on the Wahhabists to keep the country in line and thus a break between the two began, one that the Wahhabists are now winning because they have the people on their side. The house of Saud is now stuck in the middle in a no win situation.

Posted by: Michael | September 19, 2006 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Michael,

Your post, and your hierarchy of terrorism is quite interesting. One thing I would add is which branch of Islam that we are dealilng with in terms of terrorism, which is Wahhabism:

'(Arabic: الوهابية, Wahabism, Wahabbism) is a Sunni fundamentalist Islamic movement, named after Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (1703-1792). It is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The term "Wahhabi" (Wahhābīya) refers to the movement's founder Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab. It is rarely used by members of this group today, although the Saudis did sometimes use it in the past. The currently preferred term is "Salafism". In the past, they usually called themselves the Ikhwan, the Brethren. Wahhabists see their role as a movement to restore Islam from what they perceive to be innovations, superstitions, deviances, heresies and idolatries.

In 1924 the Wahhabi al-Saud dynasty conquered Mecca and Medina, the Muslim holy cities. This gave them control of the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage, and the opportunity to preach their version of Islam to the assembled pilgrims. However, Wahhabism was a minor current within Islam until the discovery of oil in Arabia, in 1938. Vast oil revenues gave an immense impetus to the spread of Wahhabism. Saudi laypeople, government officials and clerics have donated many tens of millions of US dollars to create religious schools, newspapers and outreach organizations.'

So you see, all roads lead back to oil. And the center of this movement is Saudi Arabia, which finances the madrassas, the state schools which teach this movement to young men. It was, after, all, young Saudi men--Wahabbists -- who attacked us on 9/11. It is Saudi Arabia which is the locus of terrorism in the Middle East. It is the single largest state sponsor of terrorism against US--not Iran. Saudi, followed by Pakistan.

Yet, they are called our allies. When their Princes visit us, our president holds their hand and strolls with them in the garden. Have you seen the photos, zouk? He kisses their cheeks. After 9/11, the first action taken by the US government was to ground all aircraft--except those government craft which were delivering the Saudi royalty home, so they would be out of danger. You see, many of them have vast estates --in Texas.

The next move our government made was to clear all our troops out of their country -- because they asked us to. We had our major Mideast presence there, a permanent population of perhaps 10,000 troops. When we moved them, we needed a new base. We chose Iraq.

And even as we speak, the Saudis jerk us around, controlling the price of oil and teaching their young to hate us. Why? It distracts their attention from hating the way their government cheats them. And it works for our government too -- see the way you little righties are getting all worked up over Iran? Our government wants you to.

Now, the 'problem' in the Mideast is that the Saudis, once the world's largest producer of oil, are tapping out. Their fields are depleting. That brings us to Iraq and Iran. Iraq has major reserves, but we have discovered --too late -- that their infrastructure is rotten and will need tremendous investment to produce. Iran -- on the other hand--with the world's largest untapped reserves -- is modern, industrialized, and producing prodigiously. But--their oil is nationalized--which strikes terror in the heart of oilmen--for they can cut it off at will. Plus, they control the Straits of Hormuz--a narrow sea passage along their coast which can easily be bottlenecked and choke off the major oil shipping route.

This is why Iran is our 'enemy', you see. Why your president will be speaking at the UN today, warning the world of the 'dangers; it presents. But the rest of the world knows the 'danger' is to oil profits. It is only the simple, the gullible, the credulous, like 'bhoomes' and 'zouk' who fall for this propaganda. And so it should be them, that goes to fight their bloody war. I urge all of you who are shaking in your boots in fear of Iran, to enlist now. Exxon Mobil needs your bodies.

Posted by: drindl | September 19, 2006 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Montgomery village mom,

I'd simply like to take a moment to point out that Steele is not a moderate at all. I can't think of one moderate view he stands for. He is trying to hide his views on abortion, you won't even find that listed as an issue on his website. Under social security, he talks about reform but doesn't say if he supports privitization or how he will reform the system. Steele is a conservative and the people of Maryland will see that long before the election. Cardin will win big.

JEP, my answer to your question is no there is no way to be certain that isreal will not be poisoned and that is no speculation.

Also, I love the talk about how Ehrlich and Steele won the gov's and lt. gov's race and how that shows Steele can win. I've got news for people who think this. Ehrlich's gonna LOSE TOO!!

Posted by: Rob Millette | September 19, 2006 3:22 AM | Report abuse

I am an African-American voter, I will not vote for Steele.

Posted by: pookeyw | September 19, 2006 12:30 AM | Report abuse

damn

I leave all of you folks to your own devices for a day and all you manage to do is confirm that American government is a bastion of rich white guys with a couple of perky muffy-type ladies thrown in.....

And all of this debate about whether or not Blacks are smart enough to do this or that.

C'mon

OK. We all know that the Republican conservatives we extinct.....I mean anihilated under Goldwater. Sorry 1A318. Great thinker? No Probably better pilot that politician.

And William F. Buckley Jr. His nose could cut a streak on any dirty ceiling and still spout 12 dollar words that even his most conservative fans didn't understand. And the conservatives accuse the LIBERALS of being elitist.

Then what was left of the Grand Old Party was allied with the bed sheets and horses faction.....I mean Dixiecrats..... and Damn....The South didn't lose the war. It went underground until the Republicans showed up.

140 some odd posts an so little of any value.

I'm an embarrassed Republican too.The guy in the White House is a self centered guy with a Messiah Complex.

Of course. If I were a Democrat, I wouldn't have much to be proud of either.

Tomorrow, before Chris goes off on the relevance of changing Pluto's name to the primary election in South Dakota,Let's talk about Steele's qualifications before Dick CHeney can bomb Iran in October.

Seriously folks. These guys are dangerous....even for us registered Republicans.

Posted by: bob | September 18, 2006 9:35 PM | Report abuse

For the record: the Maryland GOP has not once but twice nominated conservative African American candidates for USA Senate. In neither election did the Republicans crack the 40% barrier.

Posted by: Bobbi | September 18, 2006 8:54 PM | Report abuse

"One reason radicals are able to recruit young men, for example, to become suicide bombers, is because of hopelessness. One way to defeat hopelessness is through literacy, is to giving people the fantastic hope that comes by being able to read and realize dreams." - George W. Bush, Sept 18, 2006

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091800512.html

Soft Power.

Zouk, you are so ignorant that you are FOR soft power and you don't even know it. Unless, that is, you disagree with Your Leader. [note: of course, he prob hates reading and wouldnt be for combating literacy if Laura didnt have a gun to his head.]

Posted by: F&B | September 18, 2006 8:02 PM | Report abuse

CBC just called the New Brunswick election: it's a Liberal majority!! Power changes hands in this province of 730,000 east of Maine. With 1/3 of the votes in, the Liberals are leading or elected in 31 ridings, to the Progressive-Conservatives' 23. That leaves just 1 unaccounted for. HOORAY!! This portends well for upcoming elections here.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 18, 2006 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Liberals are now leading or elected in 27 ridings, PCs in 23. There are 55 total. Five PC Ministers are trailing so far.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 18, 2006 7:44 PM | Report abuse

I was really hoping for a Remington Steele reference when I read that blog post. Shucks.

Posted by: Cilliza's Apprentice | September 18, 2006 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Michael: You R beginning to make more sense than I do and that is the thing that scares me about these folks in The White House.

Posted by: lylepink | September 18, 2006 7:41 PM | Report abuse

OOPS! Math error! 30% of 28% is 8.4%, not 5.6%. That's 252,000 voters total, or 126,000 assuming uniform 50% turnout. Still, that leave Steele 70,000 votes short.

So far CBC reports the PCs leading in 22 ridings and the Liberals leading in 20 in New Brunswick. That leaves 13 other ridings unaccounted for.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 18, 2006 7:37 PM | Report abuse

You know, I was just looking over the 2002 MD Gov. results, and PG County gave Townsend (D) a much bigger victory over Ehrlich (R) than Montgomery County (which is similarly Democratic, but white). If Steele wins every Republican vote, every Independent vote, and 30% of the black vote, he still loses by 110,000 votes. He'd need to flip another 55,000 to win. And how does he do that when in all likelihood, the independents will favor Cardin and a handful of white Republicans will cross over to Cardin? Not to mention that black voters will turn out to vote in lower proportions than white voters.

Gaithersburg: Klobuchar is ahead by TWENTY-FOUR points??? Damn, time to take MN of the Line, Chris. Stick a fork in Mark Kennedy, he's done.

Results from today's provincial election in Nova Scotia should be coming any minute now. So far the Liberals are getting 52% of the vote to the governing Progressive-Conservatives' 43%. No ridings have been called yet. http://www.cbc.ca/nbvotes2006

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 18, 2006 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Chris, why did you leave out the numbers from the study the Post reported on earlier this summer which found that white Democrats running against black Republicans gain a few percentage points from otherwise right-leaning white Republicans and Independents?

I want to point out some other numbers. Even if Steele could get 30% of Maryland's black vote, that's 30% of 28% (since blacks are 28% of Maryland voters). That comes to 5.6% of the total vote. If we take 5.6% of 3 million voters (the totals of the party registration figures Chris gave above), that's 170,000 votes. And that's assuming everyone votes, which they don't. Unfortunately, we know that white turnout is higher than black turnout, further reducing the value of this hypothetical black crossover vote for Steele.

Now, if we assume MD turnout will be 50%, without accounting for racial disparities in voter turnout, Steele's 30% of the black vote comes to 85,000 votes. By PERCENTAGE, Maryland voters are registered 57% Democratic, 30% Republican, and 14% Independent. The difference between 57% and 44% (if Steele got every Independent vote) is far more than 85,000 votes. In fact, it's 195,000 votes.

My conclusion: getting 30% of the black vote, and every Independent vote, still would not win this race for Steele.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 18, 2006 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Must have been a slow news day. No way Steele wins and no way does the AA community support him. Steele DID not provide Erhlich a boost in Baltimore or PG County in 2002. Erlich won because Townsend was such a bad campainer and she was was Spendenings LT. Governor. I believe this is a general consensus of both the GOP and Dems. That is probably the only thing that could be agreed upon. I dont share any of the optimistic views of the GOP I believe is peddling this drivil to the national media nor would I be concerned if I were a Democrat ( I am registered Indy and vote that way in Maryland)

Opinion #1; Steele does not have any track record to run on and has never taken a position on anything or voted on anything in his life. Here's an obvious fact, if his candidacy was so long on potential why can't he raise more money in Maryland. All his money is from the folks he says he will outlaw giving to (i.e special interests, can anyone say hypocrit).

Opinion #2: Steele has image problem. He is not as articulate and does not have the charisma needed to convince a skeptical voter he is their answer.

Opinion #3; O'Malley will carry the Dem ticket period. The AA vote is not an active participant as one might think. This race will be decided by the intensity of the Montgomery County voters who are active and can not believe what Bush and GOP has done to this country. For every potential Erlich voter there is an outraged Democrat who will actually vote. Look at the total Dem and total GOP vote last Tuesday in races that for the most part were non-competitive. THat is the true reflection of what will happen in Nov.

Opinion #4 DC News Market represents VA, DC, and MD. Any bets on the race in VA with MR Racist Allen giving an assist to Dems in Maryland. Steele can run but can not hide that he does not represent the interest of AA in MD. His philosphy is closley aligned with Karl Rove, George Allen, and Bush.

Opinion #5: AA voters see through this. They absolutely can not stand Bush and a vote for Steele is an endorsement for Bush and Allen. AA voters are simply smarter than the GOP think they are. Running someone of the same ethinicity (sp) is dumbing down these voters.

Posted by: Steeled Over | September 18, 2006 7:02 PM | Report abuse

"Great idea kill them with aid, education, alliances and some tough love. that sure sounds menacing. If I were a jihadists bent on destruction of the great devil, I would stop after that.

The thinking world is laughing at you."

No, the key to terrorism is what we call "passive supporters." These are the nonaligned people of the world who don't like terrorist and find their methods abhorrent, but understand and somewhat sympathize with them because they hate us too.

The pyramid of a terrorist organization is as follows:

Leadership (small group, planners, don't carry out attacks)
Active Cadre (carry out attacks)
Active supporters
Passive supporters

It is this group that represents the future of terrorism because it doesn't take much to sway them from passive supporters to active supporters- those who give aid to terrorist organizations, and then to active cadre- those who carry out the attacks. To beat terrorism, you need to undercut it from the bottom by eliminating their base of support. Until then, new terrorists will constantly sprout up to replace the ones we kill. We need to tarkget the top to keep attacks from occurring, but the war is won or lost at the bottom, and we're only paying lip service to it at this point, it should be where the bulk of our effort is.

Posted by: Michael | September 18, 2006 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, I am amused that you finally found a single Dem on this site that you consider has a brain. It was a long time coming. those comments from Michael indicate he has a viewpoint but the motivation behind it, although admirable, is not effective against the enemy we are fighting.
How many times does the playground bully have to hit you before you stop talking and hit back. Most of us learned this in Kindergarten. Maybe you Dems should consider repeating a grade. Unless you like having your lunch money taken over and over.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 18, 2006 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Maybe someday, I have other committments right now

Posted by: Michael | September 18, 2006 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Great idea kill them with aid, education, alliances and some tough love. that sure sounds menacing. If I were a jihadists bent on destruction of the great devil, I would stop after that.

The thinking world is laughing at you.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 18, 2006 5:55 PM | Report abuse

no time now, but had to comment on 2 new gems from bhoomes:

"Republicans give blacks real power" - !

and (by violating our civil liberties, mortgaging the country, bleeding jobs overseas etc.) assuring us that "the president is just trying to protect the country."

apparently, the bhoomster and I have been following different news stories over the past 5 years. tell me, b, does Cheney still shoot someone in the face in Bizarro America?
______ ______ ______

Posted by: meuphys | September 18, 2006 5:53 PM | Report abuse

A plan for victory will require a comprehensive strategy to include increased foreign aid, increased education both at home and abroad, new global partnerships and alliances, a new focus on developing intelligence to better isolate threats and the prescision weaponry to destroy them as they emerge. This will take time, effort, and the kind of strategic vision that is completely lacking with the neocons whose answer to everything is shoot first and ask questions later.

--oh god, michaael -- you have a brain. could you run for office? I mean seriously?

Posted by: drindl | September 18, 2006 5:51 PM | Report abuse

I do not blindly follow Bush. I do support the policies on the War on terror. I am sympathetic to your conservative principles. But in the states of MD or RI, it would be impossible to elect a person you desire. In politics, you must make some compromises. It is important to maintain the chairmanships in the house. the Senate is not threatened and is moving closer and closer to a 60 vote majority thanks to the pitiful characters representing the Dems these days. but I don't care much for chaffee's votes or Snowe, or spector, or Mccain or most of those RINOs. but they are from squishy states and would lose otherwise. they have to represent their people. the good news is that the most important vote of the congress, they put Hastert and Boehnor in charge. If you think they are bad, consider what will happen if the Dems take over. More spending (can you imagine), less economic freedom, surrender policy on the war. We must fight within the system, send the message, but win. Laffey lost in RI - get the point?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 18, 2006 5:46 PM | Report abuse

"going on the offense reduces but does not eliminate the threat of a future attack. Is this really so difficult to understand. Maybe you crybabies should leave policy to the adults."
No, this is just the problem, it doesn't necessarily reduce the threat. It only does if it is precise, propoerly targeted, and achieves the effect of reducing the terrorist threat. It does us no good to kill low level terrorists by the handful if in the process we turn the world against us. War with Iran would mean US forces occupying everything from the Indus to the Tigris rivers, it's too much for us to try to hold, leaves us extremely vulnerable both at home and abroad, and only serves to further the interests of bin Laden and his networks both as a propoganda tool and by reducing our ability to hit back at him. This is exactly why we are losing this war and no safer today than we were on Sept 11th.

A plan for victory will require a comprehensive strategy to include increased foreign aid, increased education both at home and abroad, new global partnerships and alliances, a new focus on developing intelligence to better isolate threats and the prescision weaponry to destroy them as they emerge. This will take time, effort, and the kind of strategic vision that is completely lacking with the neocons whose answer to everything is shoot first and ask questions later.

Posted by: Michael | September 18, 2006 5:45 PM | Report abuse

KingofZouk

I should be insulted. You called me a lilly livered Democrat.

All day I have been exchanging my thoughts on the superiority of my conservative principles, but grousing about how the current president and most of Congress who seemingly have abandoned those principles in their quest to maintain the current level of over-spending, mismanaging our military might and putting my party in a position to lose both houses to the democrats.

You seem to support President Bush blindly. You must be one of those coat tails republicans who switched parties under President Reagan and don't understand the history of great conservative thinkers Like Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley Jr.

My whole point in the Steele blog has been that the current Republican faux conservatives are caving to election year pressure and backing candidates who in other worlds could easily be Democrats-all in the name of pursuing the moderates.

Posted by: 1A318 | September 18, 2006 5:42 PM | Report abuse

appreciation of cultural differences?? Yeah that will really fix their little red wagons. I am shaking in my boots at the thought of that weapon being unleashed. you have no understanding in the least. but it is good that you are proclaiming this foolishness so that the voters can rid us of your suicidal techniques. I sure can appreciate my women wearing a burka, not having bank accounts, not driving, not working and being sold into slavery. I can't think of a better goal for my daughter. I am glad we had this talk. I feel much better now.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 18, 2006 5:40 PM | Report abuse

>>>there have been two examinations of price gouging and no evidence was ever found of any widespread or corporate price gouging

By who? an independent commission, or by recipients of lobby money?

>>>It is easy to carp but you never offer anything of substance, same as the Dem leadership.

Renewable fuel portfolio.

http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=3273

You Lose! :) :) :)

Posted by: F&B | September 18, 2006 5:40 PM | Report abuse

1A318 sed: "If we don't get tough, these bad guys will destroy everything we stand for. ... The current administration has made a total shambles of respect for the US as world power."

You are arguing against yourself. "Getting tough" how? With military force? Everyone in the defense establishment that have NOT been corrupted by the kool-aid neocon ideology have indicated that to WIN the War on Terror, we need to focus on so-called SOFT-POWER. Not military power, but: human intelligence, humanitarian action, diplomacy, appreciation of cultural differences and promotion of regional economic stability.

"Democracy at the point of a gun," as this Bush Administraition practices, is without doubt the most ludicrous, insane, idiotic, insensitive, and anti-American policy in our government's history.

Imho, stick with the latter of your two points and you will start to make some sense. That being said, I do appreciate your comments b/c I like debating matters of substance with rational folks from the Right, and that is a fairly rare thing on this blog given the handful of neocon wankers that come here every day.

Posted by: F&B | September 18, 2006 5:29 PM | Report abuse

going on the offense reduces but does not eliminate the threat of a future attack. Is this really so difficult to understand. Maybe you crybabies should leave policy to the adults.

As usual no solid responses to my posts, just name calling, threats about censorship and non-factual chanting. do you really expect to win an election with that approach. It didn't work for Gore, Kerry or Air America. what makes you think it will work now?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 18, 2006 5:29 PM | Report abuse

I personally don't support government largess to corporations. but many do, especially when it comes to "energy independence" and to the extent that it can be tied to some American future security, I guess it is not the worst thing our tax dollars could support.
Fat and bald - you love to sprinkle your posts with spin and deceit. For example, there have been two examinations of price gouging and no evidence was ever found of any widespread or corporate price gouging. Show me a fact for this, if you dare. Otherwise refrain from dabbling in economics, which you are clearly very poorly qualified to offer opinion upon. your opinion does not policy make. I suppose we should just eliminate all those union coal worker jobs according to you? It is easy to carp but you never offer anything of substance, same as the Dem leadership.

We have no idea whether a threat exists? Really, no idea at all? I guess we should just go back to sipping our lattes then until that mushroom cloud actually appears over my city. some of us actually do have an idea. I know how foreign an idea is to your way of life.

the GOP leadership has taken the war to the enemy and thus prevented another attack here, or were you not paying attention the last five years. Perhaps you'd prefer spending your time in your backyard bomb shelter instead. that is the defensive posture advocated by Dems. I prefer to walk in the sunshine.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 18, 2006 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"all it will take is one more attack for America to go rabid vengeful"

I thought we were safe thanks to Bush's wonderful leadership, why do you expect another catastrophic attack?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2006 5:21 PM | Report abuse

start ignoring him again. 'surrender weasels' -- sandbox time is over, time to get back to kindergarten. ...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2006 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, no profit margin numbers you throw out can dignify the federal government giving Big Oil BILLIONS in tax breaks to "drill everywhere."

Esp while we are at war with oil producing countries. Esp when these companies show blatant disregard for the safety and well-being of Americans (Texas City, Alaska Pipeline, massive health risks due to air pollution from coal-fired power plants, massive price gouging, etc) and local indigenous populations around the world (Nigeria, Venezuela, Sudan etc).

Esp when executives from these private companies hold THE HIGHEST positions in our Federal Government that is supposed to be OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people.

Zouk, go home. You lose again.

Posted by: F&B | September 18, 2006 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Is he as myopic as you are to the hazards of that situation?
I am glad the President is focused on OUR safety, instead of terrorists rights, which is what the Dems stand for. since when do we not hang spies intent on murdering non-combatants?
Since you lilly-livered Dems took over the papers. not for long. you are losing this debate. all it will take is one more attack for America to go rabid vengeful. too bad, thanks to you surrender weasels, we will have to sacrifice more innocents to learn that lesson.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 18, 2006 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Maybe you should check the IAEA report, which was absolutely correct on Iraq.

I am willing to listen to their report, are you willing to risk the lives of another 20K American servicemembers, not to mention the risk to the security of the US by embarking on another war at this time (which would likely result from missile strikes) over a threat that you have no idea whether it exists or not, but that you are willing to blindly follow the GOP leadership into who have proven so knolwedgable in the past?

Posted by: Michael | September 18, 2006 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Yockel

"There is no danger of an Iranian nuke within the next eighteen months."

Think October.

Think Third Week. (just close enough to take control of the Press, Just far enough to have Karen Hughes direct spin control)

Think Conventional bunker busters not nukes.

Up until the Lebanon misadventure, I would have said Israeli aircraft. Now I'd say it'll be American Stealth bombers

Not a pretty sight. Of course 'sight' is a realtive concept when a president is very focused to the point of being myopic to anything that might come out of that sort of escapade.

Posted by: zippy | September 18, 2006 5:07 PM | Report abuse

so now the CIA, who provided info that Iraq had WMD, is to be fully trusted. It would be nice if you Dems could say the same thing two days in a row.
Remember that the CIA and others misjudged USSR's nuke development, Pakistan, Israel, India, etc. Yet you are willing to risk your life on this rosy picture.

what need, according to you, warrants "starting" a war?

Yockel, I had no idea you had access to highly classified Iranian information and would be willing to print it here. Are you the new conduit for US spies?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 18, 2006 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Stock market nearing an all time high- about where it was when Bush took office- quite an accomplishment.

Corporate profits up 71%, median household income down .5% since 2001. Something else to be proud of.

Posted by: Michael | September 18, 2006 5:00 PM | Report abuse

XOM profit margin TTM - 11.32 % what a rip??? I found 73 companies with profit margins in excess of 90%. get a grip on reality before you go spouting meaningless accusation based in spin. there are 1260 with profits over 20%. Maybe we should regulate all this. sounds like a typical Dem (dumb) idea.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 18, 2006 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Krauthammer is full of it. There is no danger of an Iranian nuke within the next eighteen months. May be, within the next ten years. That gives us a lot of time.

All the disarmament experts, including the CIA, agree with that assessment. Krauthammer is pulling a Cheney on us when he argues that there is an imminent threat.

It would be folly to start another war without need, especially since the costs are going to be tremendous.

Posted by: Yockel | September 18, 2006 4:53 PM | Report abuse

KOZ

Is that cash on cash return?
and is that pre tax or after tax?

Risk adjusted, I think many companies would be apprehensive to deal with those kinds of returns.

Posted by: zippy | September 18, 2006 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Oh dear - stock market is nearing all time high. America hasn't been attacked. the economy is doing splendidly. Our people are free and well-off. those dastardly Republicans. curse them. they caused all this. Ha!

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 18, 2006 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Let's consider the math. XOM is the world's largest company trading in the world's most traded commodity. for you math challanged souls, that means it is quite easy to have the world's greatest profit, even at a measly 8-10% duh! but then again, clear thinking was never your strong suit. Try to keep away from Economics, it only makes you tense.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 18, 2006 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Krauthammer is the textbook example of relying on logical fallacies to build your case. His articles are full of strawmen argument and false dichotmoies. His current column suggest our options are to bomb Iran or to do nothing, ignoring the thousands of options in between. His Sep 8 column is all about the strawman, ignoring the key plan for withdrawal, strategic redeployment to focus on terrorism while separating the sectarian strife in Iraq from the War on Terrorism. That's all he ever does. It's well written and appears well though out, if you ignore the facts and are completely ignorant of the topic.

Posted by: Michael | September 18, 2006 4:42 PM | Report abuse

I meant 'Iran' not 'Iraq"

Posted by: 1A318 | September 18, 2006 4:34 PM | Report abuse

drindl

We are involved in a war right now. Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia.

If we don't get tough, these bad guys will destroy everything we stand for. That's why it's important to take aggressive pro-active steps.

That's the problem I started with this morning. The current administration has made a total shambles of respect for the US as world power.

They've lost sight of the importance of a conservative approach to defense. Strong Military. Well managed economy with minimal governmental interference in social issues and personal afairs.

That's why we have no choice but to bomb Iraq.

And on Krauthammer, I always thought his information was well reasoned. It's not like the cartoon type like Garrison Keeler and Molly Ivens.

I would trade you one Victor David Hansen for both of them.

Posted by: 1A318 | September 18, 2006 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Don't throw facts at KoZ, they only serve to undermine his points

Posted by: Michael | September 18, 2006 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Highest. Profits. In. History. But that's just a coincidencve.


Btw, here's a devastating editorial about Lieberman..

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17211766&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=565859&rfi=6

Posted by: drindl | September 18, 2006 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Oh by the way, this year Exxon Mobil made higher profits than any company ever has. Ever. And you recall, of course, how high the price of gas was. But that's just a coincidence, of course.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2006 4:06 PM | Report abuse

I said at the very beginning that it would be a very difficult race for an r in MD. But that fact that it is so close with those demographics highlights the bankruptcy of Dem ideas. they are defending Senate seats that should be a cake-walk - like NJ. It's going to be a rough 10 years for Dems. Maybe after another 8 years under the new R president, you Libs will come to your senses and start making sense.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 18, 2006 4:04 PM | Report abuse

I recall many polls showed Steele either ahead or within the margin of error against Mfume, but that's moot now that Cardin is the nominee. Most recent surveys have shown Cardin beating Steele with a high-single digit margin (5-10 points).

And what's with this "befuddled" business about Montgomery County? (well, aside from last week's voting screwups). Yes, I've heard of the Eastern Shore, and it has less than half of Montgomery's population. So Steele could rack up towering margins there (and there's no guarantee he will) and it won't offset the Democratic vote in Montgomery.

MoCo effectively put Cardin over the top in the primary (he won it 2-1) and could very well do the same for him in November.

Posted by: MHK919 | September 18, 2006 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who is impressed by the Steele commercial is a fool. It's nothing but a tacky appeal to black voters -- just like the tacky ads for Eastern Motors, Senate Insurance, ambulance chasing attorneys, and similar businesses.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | September 18, 2006 3:40 PM | Report abuse

If you believe that 10% profit in oil is outrageous but that 15% profit in publishing is acceptable, you might be a Dem.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 18, 2006 3:39 PM | Report abuse

'but you should continue to tell yourself it never happened. You might also try covering your ears and shouting "I can't hear you..."

LOL -- Amy Ridenour? You expect me to take anything that deranged, discredited psychopath has to say seriously? I mean, please. I was talking about a credible witness, like a media source, not a rabidly partisan liar...

Posted by: drindl | September 18, 2006 3:30 PM | Report abuse

I am so sorry to see people of intelligence brainwashed by the oil barons and neo-cons [sorry, same thing]. Some country MIGHT pose a threat to us -- someday -- and so we should start a war with them now. Weapons of mass destruction! Mushroom clouds! Be very afraid!

C'mon people. You've heard it all before... from the same people with the same motives with the same phony, ginned-up 'evidence'. Are you really going to fall for it AGAIN?

Krauthammer is one of the neo-con stars -- go back and read his lies about Iraq. Every column he's writing now is simply a cut-and-paste of what he wrote then. It was all lies then and it's all lies now. Guess what kind of stock he's invested in?

It's time to stop soiling ourselves in fear everytime Exxon Mobil needs the bodies of a few thousand of our kids for their latest sacrifice on the altar of outrageous profits. Please, wise up.

Posted by: drindl | September 18, 2006 3:22 PM | Report abuse

On this site chanting overcomes facts everytime. A debate of facts and reason would leave the denizens of this site like defenseless babes. that is why they always stick with insults, conspiracies and the like. can you believe that all elections have been stolen? you might be a Dem. do you believe that someone can manipulate world oil prices for political gain? then you might be a Dem. do you beleive that George Bush is more of a threat than murdering terrorists? You might be a Dem. do you think raising taxes is good? do you think a lousy education is right?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 18, 2006 3:20 PM | Report abuse

A good ad or two won't buy the hearts and votes of Marylanders. We actually think. We read and we vote in large numbers in the General Election. I don't think Steele and his hypocracy about the Republican Party (I'm a Republican but I'll distance myself from them for convenience but take their money. Oh and I'll talk against them behind their backs.) will work. Besides, has he really ever done anything for a living? Remember Kathleen was a Lt. Gov. too and we rejected her. Also, why did he always drive around in a big SUV with a security car in addition. He's Lt. Gov., not king.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2006 3:20 PM | Report abuse

This column was simply about covering both sides of the bet. Will Steele win? Or will Cardin? Your defintive take on this is "Cardin starts the general election as a favorite, but there is no question that this is a winnable race for Steele as well."
In other words, you don't have a real conviction on this race, even though it's right in your back yard.
I'd recommend that you review some actual precincts in Baltimore and Prince Georges, see how Ehrlich/Steele did, and ask yourself if it's really plausible that a Republican -- even a so-called Black Republican -- has a constituency he can rely on.
You were right when you said Cardin's the favorite, but you gave no reliable argument for saying it's winnable for Steele.

Posted by: Henry Walker | September 18, 2006 3:14 PM | Report abuse

"'Does anyone else remember the OREO COOKIES tossed at him? That is disgusting and the Democrats/liberals who did it should be ashamed of themselves.'

Here we go with the republican smear campaign again. This old canard. Prove it, lady. Show me a link. This never happened."

here's a link:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/2005/11/michael-steele-oreo-incident.html

but you should continue to tell yourself it never happened. You might also try covering your ears and shouting "I can't hear you..."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2006 3:10 PM | Report abuse

If you feel the need to just stick to the numbers, then your analysis would not allow for the current governor of MD. He is a R in case you forgot. and Steele won that election too. I guess there must be a few crossover voters. Ever heard of the Eastern Shore? 100% R and not befuddled like MoCo.

all this talk of no-bid contracts demonstrates a clear non-understanding of government contracting. do you still think we should solicit bids for every carton of milk we buy? Please take an econ class and then come back, your ignorance is showing.

Let's see - Krauthammer is a DR and makes his living by offering his opinions. You - his detractors, give free and bad opinions on a hopelessly Lib blog. doesn't sound comparable to me. but then again, you have already demonstrated a lack of understanding on Economics. Must be a Dem thing. as evidenced by the real world and election results.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 18, 2006 3:10 PM | Report abuse

"I wonder how much research has gone into predicting the outcome of such actions?"

Just ask Rumsfeld, what will happen if we drop a nuke somewhere "north, south, east or west" of Israel.

I'm sure he has adequate intelligence to assure that we would never do anything as stupid as irradiating the whole Middle east, just to own their oil...

Posted by: JEP | September 18, 2006 3:03 PM | Report abuse

I guess you get around to telling how the GOP can win with Steele at the end of your column. Apparently, Russell Simmons taking time off from yoga class and cameos on "Rev. Run's House" to endorse Steele is a significant development.

You can't be serious.

Why does your column not talk about what tangible steps have been taken by the GOP in Maryland to make Steele an attractive candidate to African American constituents? Is there anything to suggest the existence of such a GOP strategy for Steele? If one does exist, is there any polling to show that Steele is gaining ground among African American voters? Or is the Russell Simmons endorsement all you got?

Posted by: Todd B. | September 18, 2006 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Krauthammer's a pathetic pseudointellectual who has been so thoroughly discredited over the past few years I'm still baffled that the Post gives him space on their pages.

Tina, Condi will never run and won't be elected for this line if nothing else:

"I don't think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile"

In saying that, she proved herself either to be a liar or completely incompetent. Very bad either way.

Posted by: Michael | September 18, 2006 2:55 PM | Report abuse

So much "spin" today, Nothing Krauthammer says should carry little weight. Consider the source. He is a right-winger at their best. My opinion, of course.

Posted by: lylepink | September 18, 2006 2:42 PM | Report abuse

"The oil is funding the rebuilding of Iraq, the millions from oil in Iraq is paying over 200,000 security forces and the members of Parliment and other government services. Oil funds today in Iraq are better used to help the people directly far better than Saddam and his thugs ever did."
Actually, deficit spending by the US government is funding the rebuilding of Iraq and paying those salaries, oil production is not up to pre-war levels. Your children will be paying the debt to rebuild a government which will likely be aligned with Iran at the time. Great job there.

FYI- about giving African Americans positions of power

National African American Elected Officials:
House Of Representatives
Democrats:
Sanford Bishop of Georgia
Corrine Brown of Florida
G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina
Julia Carson of Indiana
Donna Christian-Christensen of the U.S. Virgin Islands
William Lacy Clay, Jr. of Missouri
Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri
Jim Clyburn of South Carolina
John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan
Elijah Cummings of Maryland
Artur Davis of Alabama
Danny K. Davis of Illinois
Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania
Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee
Al Green of Texas
Alcee Hastings of Florida
Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. of Illinois
William J. Jefferson of Louisiana
Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas
Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Michigan
Barbara Lee of California
Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas
John Lewis of Georgia
Cynthia McKinney of Georgia
Kendrick Meek of Florida
Gregory Meeks of New York
Juanita Millender-McDonald of California
Gwen Moore of Wisconsin
Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois
Major Owens of New York
Donald Payne of New Jersey
Charles B. Rangel of New York
Bobby Rush of Illinois
Bobby Scott of Virginia
David Scott of Georgia
Bennie Thompson of Mississippi
Edolphus Towns of New York
Maxine Waters of California
Diane Watson of California
Mel Watt of North Carolina
Albert Wynn of Maryland

Republicans:
None

Senate
Democrats:
Barak Obama of Illinois

Republicans:
None

Cabinet
Bush 43 total:
Colin Powell (State)
Condoleeza Rice (State)
Rod Paige (Education)
Alphonso Johnson (HUD)

Clinton total:
Mike Espy (Agriculture)
Hazel O'Leary (Energy)
Ron Brown (Commerce)
Alexis Herman (Labor)
Rodney Slater (Transportation)
Jesse Brown (VA)
Togo West (VA)

Posted by: Michael | September 18, 2006 2:38 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,

You can look at what happened to the Iraqi nuclear reactor when the Isreali Air Force took it out in 1980. I don't believe there was significant leakage.

Posted by: Zathras | September 18, 2006 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I stand corrected, you aren't suggesting we nuke them, just that, with conventional weapons, we take out their nukes.

Which don't exist.

Sound familiar?

Here we are talking about bombing Iran's nukes and our own intelligence says they are at least 5 years from The Bomb, if even that close.

It isn't nukes the neocons don't want Iran to have, it is control of world energy production. Bush said so himself.

But as long as we refuse to apply American ingenuity to energy alternatives instead of inventing more deadly military weapons, they (Iran) will continue to have the ability to do just that.

By the way, as for your Christian understanding, what do you suppose they mean by "the lake of fire?"

Read Revelations 11-18, especially the last line.

Posted by: JEP | September 18, 2006 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"Again, let me ask, for the record, can anyone be certain that nuking Iran wouldn't poison Israel forever?"

I'm not proposing said nuking, but using nuke-tipped 'bunker busters' on Iranian enrichment facilities might contain the leakage. Though I'm not an expert on the issue, and now realize that the risk is not likely from the weapon, but from the leakage from a compromised reactor; I wonder how much research has gone into predicting the outcome of such actions?

Posted by: bsimon | September 18, 2006 2:32 PM | Report abuse

i'd be willing to consider a steele win if there was at least ONE poll EVER that showed him even tied (hell, i'll settle for just within the MOE) with cardin or mfume. as there's not, you repubs really need to focus your energy elsewhere--PRONTO.

Posted by: david | September 18, 2006 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Gaithersburg-
The Star Tribune poll is under discussion at that web site. Suffice it to say, all the GOPers claim the poll is biased, and has been for years. Whether the race is actually 24 points or the 10ish shown in other polls, it ain't looking good for a GOP pickup.

Posted by: bsimon | September 18, 2006 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"it seems to go without saying that they must believe that the basis for this is just."

God decides what is just, not the Saducees and Pharisees and their toadie scribes (Krauthammer). Look them up, compare them to your own list of preachers and teachers, and keep your mind open when you do.

But that was not my real point, the question really isn't whether it is "just" to murder millions, but rather whether it is safe to drop nukes in Iran, and can anyone assure it won't poison Israel?

And if you think, because I oppose Bush that I don't want to protect Israel, you are quite wrong. But this Cheney administration policy does not protect Israel, it moves them closer to disaster every day, in the name of Halliburton and Big Oil.

Again, let me ask, for the record, can anyone be certain that nuking Iran wouldn't poison Israel forever?

Simple question and a very real concern. Anyone who claims to have the answer is speculating, at best.

Posted by: JEP | September 18, 2006 2:20 PM | Report abuse

JEP,

Who said anything about nukes? Hitting Iran would be the type of airstrike that was done in Iraq about 20 times in the decade after the Gulf War.

I don't know if hitting Iran would make sense, but it makes a whole lot more sense to hit Iran than it did to go into Iraq. Iran's support of terror is unquestioned and widespread. Their disregard of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty needs serious addressing.

Most importantly, however, if we hadn't gone into Iraq, we would have had the needed international backing to make such a strike. After 9/11 we had the support of the world behind us, and GWB piddled that away. We could have dealt with terror effectively, but the neo-con cabal had a personal score to settle.

And now our options are more limited. It might still be the right thing to do, even if the neo-cons want it. Any correlation between what the neo-cons want and the right thing to do is completely coincidental.

Posted by: Zathras | September 18, 2006 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else seeing a trend here?

Mike Miller calls Steele an 'uncle tom'...
KKT staffers pass out oreo cookies about Steele...
NYC blogger partially funded by VA Dems post photo of Steele in minstrel makeup...
Now Cardin campaign staffer revives racist tone with reference to oreos again...

These aren't coincidences--they're intentional. Hopefully black voters see how to the Democrat Party you can only 'really' be black if you agree with them. Such an arrogant attitude doesn't represent the very fairness and issue-oriented approach I think black voters want.

Steele has a great shot at winning. I think the trick is how many voters does Steele talk to personally--particularly Democrats and Independents. If I were Steele I'd spend every minute of every day trying to address small groups of Dems and Indp's statewide because the Republicans already will vote for him. Steele's power is in his charismatic appeal and ability to communicate with people one on one or in small group settings. You meet him, you love him.

Posted by: Bryan | September 18, 2006 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else seeing a trend here?

Mike Miller calls Steele an 'uncle tom'...
KKT staffers pass out oreo cookies about Steele...
NYC blogger partially funded by VA Dems post photo of Steele in minstrel makeup...
Now Cardin campaign staffer revives racist tone with reference to oreos again...

These aren't coincidences--they're intentional. Hopefully black voters see how to the Democrat Party you can only 'really' be black if you agree with them. Such an arrogant attitude doesn't represent the very fairness and issue-oriented approach I think black voters want.

Steele has a great shot at winning. I think the trick is how many voters does Steele talk to personally--particularly Democrats and Independents. If I were Steele I'd spend every minute of every day trying to address small groups of Dems and Indp's statewide because the Republicans already will vote for him. Steele's power is in his charismatic appeal and ability to communicate with people one on one or in small group settings. You meet him, you love him.

Posted by: Bryan | September 18, 2006 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Thank goodness for Bhoomes: she wrote "while republicans give blacks real power. (think Powell,Rice, Blackwell and Steele.)"

There is usually so much Republican bashing in here, that it is hard to find out any facts for reading. The Fix creates some interesting reports, but the Dems just have to come in here, day and day.

Look at this NO-BID complaint. How could the USA have created any bid to repair the Oil fields in Iraq before March 2003? Which company had the experience and skilled workers to go in there quickly and get the oil fields flowing after sabotage? In case you all forgot it, Saddam ordered his thugs to rig explosives (much like the hundreds of Kuwait oil wells sabotaged in 1991 when Saddam's miltary retreated). Do you remember all the animal-rights people who whined and complained that trained dolphins were helping US divers find and destroy mines in the Persian Gulf in March and April 2003? The oil is funding the rebuilding of Iraq, the millions from oil in Iraq is paying over 200,000 security forces and the members of Parliment and other government services. Oil funds today in Iraq are better used to help the people directly far better than Saddam and his thugs ever did.

So tell me the answer, Democrats, which company did you want to go into Iraq under grave danger to repair the sabotaged oil wells? Or did you just want Saddam to continue to murdering his own people?

Back to Bhoomes. If you saw the buzz about Obama in Iowa this past weekend, you can understand the equal excitement about Condi running. She was interviewed by Rush Limbaugh last Friday, and I doubt the Democrats want her to run. It is very pleasing for me to see the chance for Condi or Obama to run in 2008. Powell had a chance in 1996, and yes, I heard his wife was worried someone would shoot him. That alone is a very sad sad comment about the condition of our nation when someone would shoot a strong leader like Powell. (if you lived at the time of the murder of Martin Luther King, then you remember the horrible condition of our nation at that time and soon later, Bobby Kennedy was shot dead in June 1968) Again, a very sad time in our recent history.

Posted by: Tina | September 18, 2006 2:07 PM | Report abuse

It's not imperialism. It is doing what is necessary to pretect the Homeland.

Hard times require hard decisions.

Besides, given the level of support our party has recieved from christian Evangelicals, The Catholic Bishops, Baptists, conservative African American churches etc., it seems to go without saying that they must believe that the basis for this is just.

But this is very off the subject. Steele will win and both houses will stay republican.

Posted by: 1A318 | September 18, 2006 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"As Mr. Krauthammer says though, it will be take a great deal of sacrifice on the part of the American people to eliminate this dire Iranian threat."

The "sacrifice" Krauthammer speaks of is the lives of your children and mine. And billions more in no-bid taxes.

His paranoia about the "dire" threat facing us is outpaced only by his urgency to mislead others into a terrible regional war of nuclear proportions.

If we spent a fraction of our war budget on developing alternative fuels, the Iranians would not represent the threat the oilmen are all afraid of. If we had alternatives, we wouldn't have to go to war to protect our SUV's just so we can enrich our SOB's.

Just whathappens to Israel if we nuke Iran? Does Krauthammer think he can predict imaginary weather patterns, that somehow assure the fallout wouldn't poison the whole middle-east. Tourism is one of the few natural resources other than oil left in the Middle East, and dropping nukes in the middle of it would end that forever.

Who wants to vist a place that glows in the dark?

Or is that the plan, just take it (the Misddle east)all out, create a scorched Earth policy that turns Israel into a wasteland in our attempt to protect it.

Remember Chernobyl.

It is still a poison land, uninhabitable and inhospitable. And many nations around it still suffer radiation poisoning. What Krauthammer suggests could turn Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, not to mention Saudia Arabia, into a land of lingering luekemia and lymphoma.

It is just not as simple as "taking out Iran." But it sure seems easy for them to say.

Hey, Chris, is that you fiddling with the scroller?

What a prankster.

JEP

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2006 2:01 PM | Report abuse

From Rasmussen Polling (which skews a tad Republican). All involve Republican incumbent Senators:



Montana Senate

Jon Tester (D) 52%
Conrad Burns* (R) 43%


Ohio Senate

Sherrod Brown (D) 47%
Mike DeWine* (R) 41%


Rhode Island Senate

Sheldon Whitehouse (D) 51%
Lincoln Chafee* (R) 43%



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

Posted by: Gaithersburg, MD | September 18, 2006 1:58 PM | Report abuse

A lot of talk about Gen. Powell. Once he was among the respected men in the country, if not the most. Now look at what this Adminastration has done gor him. Cardin will win.

Posted by: lylepink | September 18, 2006 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Aren't we forgetting about the third candidate? Kevin Zeese, nominee of the Green and Libertarian parties, should be included in the debates.

Posted by: JoMama | September 18, 2006 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Aren't we forgetting about the third candidate? Kevin Zeese, nominee of the Green and Libertarian parties, should be included in the debates.

Posted by: JoMama | September 18, 2006 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I live in PG County (8 years). I'm Black, have lived in Maryland all my life (40 years). I have a Comp Sci degree, and an MBA (summa cum laude). Steele does not represent my views. I will not vote for him.

PG County is heavily Black; heavily Democratic. It's not changing anytime soon. Steele's non-message does not resonate here at all.

If Barbara Mikulski and\or Paul Sarbanes ever come out to endorse Cardin, THE RACE WILL BE OVER IMMEDIATELY!

Posted by: MTL | September 18, 2006 1:49 PM | Report abuse

"truly noble and necessawry sacrifice"

dropping nukes ANYTIME is about as noble as a cowpie on the kitchen table...

When did we abandon that concept we call "innocent lives?"

Aparently, in our neocon imperialism, there are no innocents.

Posted by: JEP | September 18, 2006 1:47 PM | Report abuse

by the way....I'm a liberal dem, and I agree with CC that Steele ad on TV is pretty good.

Posted by: Gaithersburg, MD | September 18, 2006 1:43 PM | Report abuse

"the only reason Abramoff is not an issue to the public"

Then why is Abramoff one of the most well-known names in America these days?

Just because the media isn't covering the story doesn't mean the public doesn't have it on their minds.

Posted by: JEP | September 18, 2006 1:41 PM | Report abuse

drindl

Krauthammer did go into the catastrophic outcomes of us bombing Iran. He also explained in some detail the terrible ourcomes if we didn't bomb them.

That's the sad sidebar story to Iraq. Here we have a military action that I'm sure most of my fellow real conservatives would support. A true strike on the War on Terror.

As you say, we don't have forces on the ground, but this would be an air exercise.

As Mr. Krauthammer says though, it will be take a great deal of sacrifice on the part of the American people to eliminate this dire Iranian threat.

Sadly because of Abramoff, allegations of crony Halibutrton cronyism and loss of respect for the presidency, the failure of the president and congress to follow consistent principles causes us no longer have the standing to convince the American people that this is a truly noble and necessawry sacrifice.

Posted by: 1A318 | September 18, 2006 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"Thank God so many honest Republicans are now standing up to this many-headed hydra of a godawful governmental disaster."

A very positive and productive post, and so very, very true.

Graham, Warner and McCain aren't leftie Dems, they are core Republicans. They all deserve our respect for finally sayng "NO" to the Cheney administration.

Posted by: JEP | September 18, 2006 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Here's a neocon solution to two problems;

Why don't we round up all the illegal aliens and put them in uniform, then send them to Iraq?

Once they fix everything, they can come back and we will make them citizens, they would make great border guards.

(This plan is very similar to what destroyed Rome...)

PS FREE WILLIE!!!!

Posted by: JEP | September 18, 2006 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Montgomery Village Mom wrote: What this fails to grasp is the fact that there will be registered democrats that vote for Steele.

Mom: And what you fail to grasp is that there will be registered Republicans that will not vote for Steele.

The math simply favors Cardin, and once he starts running ads showing Steele and Bush together, whatever share of the black vote Steele might have had a shot at will start to plummet.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | September 18, 2006 1:24 PM | Report abuse

1A318, the only reason Abramoff is not an issue to the public is because it is totally swallowed up by the reams upon reams of OTHER bad news caused by the GOP. Outing ONE CIA agent pales in comparison to $300B spent on a useless war not to mention Katrina, the economy stupid, immigration, stem cell research, NSA spying, illegal detention/torture, etc...

Maybe that was the NeoCon's plan afterall... Hurl SO MUCH garbage at the American people that they become desensitized to outright brutality and corruption of the worst kind. So far it's worked. Thank God so many honest Republicans are now standing up to this many-headed hydra of a godawful governmental disaster.

Posted by: F&B | September 18, 2006 1:23 PM | Report abuse


'This will be critically important when and if we have to take on Iran. The Post's Mr. Krauthhammer made a very astute and elegant argument this morning that we will be forced to bomb Iran sometime in the next twelve months because the implications of not doing will allow the unbridled growth of Iranian sponsored terror.

As he claims, the Europeans do not understand we are operating in their best interests if we take out the Iranian nuclear capability.'

Don't fall for this. Please. You are smarter than this. Read about PNAC ttp://pnac.info/index.php/2003/superb-article-the-mideast-neocons-on-the-line/.

This has nothing to do with state-sponsored terrorism. There were plans made 10 years ago [don't take my word for it, read about it] by the neocons currently in power [including cheney and rumsfeld] for the united states to take control of the entire Middle Eastern oil supply. It's all for Halliburton and Exxon Mobil.

And where are we going to get the troops to fight this? We have 0 units with battle readiness. Most of our active military has been deployed several times. Their equipment is shredded. And yet, military budgets are being axed, while shadowy contractors are making out big. And where will the money come from, when we have already borrowed and pissed away several generations' livelihoods?

And you think we bomb them and kills thousands of civilians, and they don't do anything? Iran is a wealthy, modern state, nothing like Iraq. And much, much bigger. If we bomb Iran, then we will likely get hit with nuclear weapons from Pakistan. Do you really want WW3? Have you got any kids? Do you want a future?

If we had behaved with the Soviets the way these people in power are behaving now, the world would be a smouldering heap of ashes.

Don't fall for it... it's Iraq all over again. Only much, much worse.

Posted by: drindl | September 18, 2006 1:21 PM | Report abuse

How can you vote for Steele when he doesn't even use the Maryland State Dog in his newest commercial? He uses somekind of French Bulldog...FRENCH, mind you, Not even American or English...why didn't he use our state dog: Chesapeake Bay Retriever?
Now there's a campaign issue, if I ever heard one...

Posted by: gatsby46 | September 18, 2006 1:19 PM | Report abuse

So much enthusiastic talk about about Abramoff here. Did anyone read todays Washington post? No one really cares. Not on the radar screen. This is not cronyism, but the way any government works to some extent.

As a Republican for many years, I have witnessed the same thing when the democrats were in power. If the system allows it, then what happens-happens.

Between the lines though is the greater concern that the administration's decreasing level of credibility nationally will accellerate the loss of respect internationally affecting our ability to act on the international stage.

This will be critically important when and if we have to take on Iran. The Post's Mr. Krauthhammer made a very astute and elegant argument this morning that we will be forced to bomb Iran sometime in the next twelve months because the implications of not doing will allow the unbridled growth of Iranian sponsored terror.

As he claims, the Europeans do not understand we are operating in their best interests if we take out the Iranian nuclear capability.

But this will take a level of credibility we have lost. If this administration had stayed true to our conservative principles, this would not be an issue.

I don't know how I got to tis point from my first point saying that our party can achieve success because we have the money and the organization. As another poster pointed out though, Success at what cost.

Clearly deviation from our core conservative beliefs.

Posted by: 1A318 | September 18, 2006 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Off topic:

The Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune:

DFL U.S. Senate candidate Amy Klobuchar continues to hold a dominant lead over GOP rival Mark Kennedy, 56 to 32 percent, in the latest Minnesota Poll, a margin similar to the one she had in July.

Independence Party candidate Robert Fitzgerald remains at 3 percent; other candidates garnered less than 1 percent.

A sense by many that the nation is on the wrong track, mounting disapproval of President Bush and an energized DFL base all appear to be factors in the gap between Klobuchar and Kennedy.

Klobuchar is ahead of Kennedy in virtually every demographic category that the poll measured and has extended a lead among moderates and independents over the summer.

http://www.startribune.com/587/story/683216.html

(NOTE: The DFL is the local version of the Democratic Party).

Posted by: Gaithersburg, MD | September 18, 2006 12:49 PM | Report abuse

From Isaiah Poole's post on TomPaine today, what a great line. How much more truth can you get into one sentence?

"Indeed, how in the world could we have been sent down this road? The answer is all too clear. The administration that ignored the facts to get us into Iraq behaves as if the public will ignore the facts about the occupation and the criminal behavior that has accompanied it."

And apologies to the Post, they did do a piece about "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" by Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran, which also talks about the multi-billion dollar no-bid corruption.

But today's hearings should be headlines in every newspaper across the world. Instead, it will take the blogs to get the public involved.

Anybody know of any media coverage about this event that is mainstream? Please point us there.

Posted by: JEP | September 18, 2006 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Oh dear, the shiite hitting the fan -- thanks for the visual. Totally politically incorrect, but made me laugh.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2006 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Being black and a Republican is not an unorthodox resume, it's simply a statement of identity.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2006 12:35 PM | Report abuse

As per usual, the folks over at Tom Paine got the real story out, on the blogs, when the WaPo, NYTimes and the rest of our "left-wing" media (can I get a Chris Matthews HA!) were spinning away at lesser news.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/18/exposing_the_war_profiteers.php

$20 BILLION in unaccounted funds, all traceable to no-bid contracts given to cronies of the Cheney administration?

Today is a very important day in the history of the whole world. Wonder if the MSM will have the power to report it?

The shiite's about to hit the fan...

Now there's a loaded zinger.

Multiple entendres always make for good reading.

JEP

Posted by: JEP | September 18, 2006 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Steele is way out of step with the ideology of Maryland. Anyone who would vote for him just because he is African American better think again. Michael Steele fully supports massive social security cuts, a tax increase on the middle class to pay for the abolition of the capital gains and estate taxes, is against stem cell research and the death penalty for some strange reason. Electing Mike Steele to the Senate would be the biggest mistake that the state of Maryland could ever make.

Posted by: Sam the man | September 18, 2006 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Mikepfc, sad indeed--but not much has changed. Spend a few minutes in the fever swamps of rightwing white supremasict blogworld, and you'll come away sickened, but not surprised.The nazis live on...

From Sydney Blumenthal:

'Bush claims are these methods that are "not torture" are necessary because they produce valuable intelligence on terrorism activities. Yet an FBI agent involved in the interrogations wrote on December 5, 2003, "These tactics have produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature to date and . . ."

The U.S. Army agrees emphatically. On September 6, the same day that Bush unveiled his new plan for torture and kangaroo courts, Lieutenant General John F. Kimmons, the Army's Deputy Chief of Intelligence, in his presentation of the Army's new field manual on interrogation that specifically encoded the Geneva Conventions rules against torture, said directly: "No good intelligence comes from abusive interrogation practices."

The debate over Bush's insistence on the use of torture is not a weird aberration, but central to his entire radical project to transform the American constitutional system, create an unaccountable executive, and operate outside the rule of law if he so decides. I describe at length the origins, history and politics of Bush's ruthless coercion of the senior military, the intelligence community and congressional Republicans to accept torture and comply with his idea of an imperial presidency in "How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime." Once the background is understood it will not come as a surprise that Bush has provoked a revolt by traditional Republicans and the senior military, pushed into the position of defending American values against Bush's radicalism. The outcome is by no means obvious.'

Posted by: drindl | September 18, 2006 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Steele is way out of step with the ideology of Maryland. Anyone who would vote for him just because he is African American better think again. Michael Steele fully supports massive social security cuts, a tax increase on the middle class to pay for the abolition of the capital gains and estate taxes, is against stem cell research and the death penalty for some strange reason. Electing Mike Steele to the Senate would be the biggest mistake that the state of Maryland could ever make.

Posted by: Sam | September 18, 2006 12:25 PM | Report abuse

I once hoped that Powell would run for President as a Republican. Then I dated a friend of the Powell family for short time and she swore that Colin's wife would never let him run. She was convinced that he would be assasinated if he ran. Sad, but who could blame her for thinking that. This was over 10 years ago, so maybe she has changed her thoughts, but I doubt Powell will ever run for president.

Posted by: Mikepcfl | September 18, 2006 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Drindl;

My memory is twitching, but Google can't fix it for some reason, I can't find a reference to the "oreo" event, but I think I recall something about it. There actually was an event where some of the people in the crowd tossed Oreos at Steele.

But it was not a crowd of partisan Democrats trying to create a political scandal, I think it was a crowd of black people who did it, not whites.

For Republicans to play the race card is pure hypocrisy. I dare say, most black Republicans originally joined that party because they are fiscal conservatives, and were fed up with legendary "tax-and-spend" Democratic Party habits.

But now that the Republican party's fiscal conservatives have been beaten up by the no-bidders, they don't have many good arguments left to inspire black professionals and businesspeople to join the party, for any reason.

Those few that remained to become neocon posterblacks could quite easily be labeled "tokens," especially by those of their own race.

And I would guess that is what the black audience intended when they threw those oreos.

Posted by: JEP | September 18, 2006 12:15 PM | Report abuse

By the way, you are a real gentleman, JEP...

Posted by: drindl | September 18, 2006 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Bhoomes - You'd better hope not. The recent dozens of people coming foreward with proof that the Bush Administration has been hiring *all* discretionary federal employees with the sole criteria that they are blind Bush loyalists is bad enough, but the exposure that Bush Whitehouse insiders have been takintg BRIBES from China and India to promote "free trade", outsourcing jobs, guest workers, and technology transfers sort crosses the line of treason...hum? Or, don't you Repug's now think that selling American military secrets, taking bribes, and the like amount to treason any longer? Just a part of Bush's plans for "globalization"... Geporge Bush and his cronies are a greater danger to the United States than Osama Bin Laudin or any group of ragtag psychotic terrorists.

Posted by: MikeB | September 18, 2006 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Certainly our President has shown us he is no Eisenhower.

What worries me is that, there was some discussion on this blog a few days ago about this, that Colin Powell might be wooed by middle of the road democrats because he is more concerned with the state of our country's moral standing than lock step loyalty to a particular administration.

And quite frankly, Mr Obama poses a threat based on some of the comments above. If he takes a moderate view, championing fiscal responsibility and reform, he could pose quite a challenge to anyone our party can propose.

Posted by: 1A318 | September 18, 2006 12:02 PM | Report abuse

'You see evidence that America is a meritocracy and that racism is being conquered, and twist it to your sick world view.'

Puh-leeze. Right -- 'America is a meritotracy.' And that's why we have a filthy rich [family fortune from collaborating with the Nazies in WW2] AWOL, cokehead fratboy who could only pull a C when he paid for it, as president.

Tell me more fairytales...

Posted by: drindl | September 18, 2006 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Don't fool yourself by flowery writing that Pelosi and Reid are anything but career politicoes. Reid has plenty of scandel associated with him including ties to Abramoff and Pelosi has violated many, many finance laws. Look into her two, count em, two, PACS. examine her reporting tardiness - which Ney will go to jail for. why is a congressman who was found with $10K in bribes still on his committee? Still running for his seat? can you say double standard? why don't Dems have ethical standards similar to how Delay was deprived of his position? Why don't Dems have term limits on charimanships? why is only one party able to police its own? why is a federal judge who was impeached from the bench for bribery a sitting Dem member? why is a Congressman who ran a brothel out of his DC house still around? why is a Senator who drowned a girl and then ran away still around? Just asking. think about it. And you all are angry because the President wants to do everything possible to prevent us from being killed by wacky Muslims. focus.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 18, 2006 11:59 AM | Report abuse

I always think the numbers are fascinating. the blog states "The most recent count of Maryland's registered voters showed Democrats at roughly 1.7 million, Republicans at 900,000 and independent/unaffilated voters at 430,000.

Do the math. If Steele wins every Republican and unaffiliated vote, he still is 400,000 votes short of the total number of registered Democrats in the state. Of course, not every registered voter (Democrat, Republican or independent) will cast a ballot on Nov. 7, but the numbers show the immensity of Steele's challenge."

What this fails to grasp is the fact that there will be registered democrats that vote for Steele. In the previous Governor's race this also occurred. Steele appeals to moderates and will take some democrat votes. I think the pollsters will be surprised again by the results in Maryland. That in itself is not surprising since the polls do not have a good track record in Maryland over the last couple of elections (including this past primary). In any case, I haven't yet made my decision and am eagerly looking forward to election night and watching the returns come in.

Posted by: montgomery village mom | September 18, 2006 11:59 AM | Report abuse

I've seen Mr. Steele's ads, and I think they are jaw-droppingly bad. The new one is absolute drivel. He first blames the "Wasington crowd" for negative ads (I haven't seen a single ad about Steele yet from the Democrats)-- thereby offending people in the Washington suburbs, a huge proportion of whom are African-American. And I simply don't understand the joke about hating/liking puppies-- who in their right mind thought this nonsense was a good idea for a political ad?

Me, I want to hear issues. I want to hear Steele's take on the environment, Iraq, the "Patriot" Act, stem cell research (he had the gall to compare embryonic stem cell research to the Holocaust), and so forth. I know how Cardin would vote on these issues-- his votes in the House are very much in synch with Maryland politics.

Of course, there will be some crossover votes for Steele from the African-American Democratic community. There will probably also be some crossover votes to Cardin from the Jewish Republican community. Let me also add that though I don't have the numbers in front of me, the last 4 years saw a huge number of new registrations, including my own daughter and all of her friends-- and the proportion of new voters was more heavily Democratic than the Maryland population as a whole (not one of her friends registered as a Republican). It's my guess that for the first 10 years or so, barring a major change in the national party, that new voters tend to vote their party affiliation.

I was an election judge in Baltimore County for the primary, one of the precincts where there were actually very few problems. Quite a few voters told me, "My party affiliation should have been changed to Democrat by now"-- only one person told me that he'd switched to the Republican Party. I asked one of the people switching, "I don't mean to get personal, but would you tell me why you switched parties?" She answered succinctly, "George Bush!"

I think Cardin's going to win with a large margin. All he has to do is point out that Bush, Cheney, AND Rove have all done fundraisers for Steele (even though he doesn't want to be anywhere near them now!), and point out that Steele opposes embryonic stem cell research, pro-choice rights, and sides with developers, rather than with environmental concerns.

Posted by: Dee | September 18, 2006 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Correction; I meant banning gifts FROM lobbyists.

And how does he expect as a low seniority freshman to promptly end all the pork-barrel earmarking? Sounds pretty naive (though it would be interesting to see him go toe-to-toe with Ted Stevens on that matter.)

Posted by: MHK919 | September 18, 2006 11:55 AM | Report abuse

"Winnable race for Steele"?

Only if the Democrats are foolish enough to let him get away with misrepresenting himself as moderate and independent.

Steele supports the Bush position on many important issues including stem cell research, a woman's right to choose, the War in Iraq, the minimum wage increase, the privatization of social security, the Bush nominees to the federal judiciary, etc.

I think that most voters in Maryland will find it difficult to vote for someone who campaigned for Bush in 2004, who was asked to run for the seat by Bush, has taken in millions of dollars from right wing organizations, and has repeatedly lied about being the victim of racism at the hands of white Democrats.

Lastly, I agree with the first poster. Al Wynn has some nerve given that he supported Gansler over Simms.

Posted by: Prince Georges Dem | September 18, 2006 11:54 AM | Report abuse

"I believe Steele will win, because the dems sent a loud message to their black base, "We want your votes but you need to stay in your place and don't expect to have any real power in our party. Your just for window dressing". I have always believed the real bigots are the dems because they like to think of blacks as helpless and needing their patronage, while republicans give blacks real power. (think Powell,Rice, BlACKWELL and Steele.)"

Actually, I think it proves just the opposite. Dems don't have the need to point to people and say, "See, we're not really racist, we even nominate a couple of token black people to be our sacrificial lambs." There's a few reasons Powell opted against a presidential run, you know...

Posted by: Michael | September 18, 2006 11:52 AM | Report abuse

" Colin Powell earned his stripes in Vietnam, no doubt back when politicians sent him to Vietnam as "just another negro". "

What a blatantly ignorant and offensive comment. Colin Powell went to Vietnam as an officer, just like white officers James Webb and John McCain for example. Officers don't wear "stripes."

You see evidence that America is a meritocracy and that racism is being conquered, and twist it to your sick world view.

Yes, even Republicans can treat blacks fairly. And a few blacks might even choose to be Republicans.

By the way, in Maryland quite a few registered Democrats are moderate conservatives who want to be able to vote in Democratic primaries, and so the numbers presented by MR. Cilizza are deceptive. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Steele won.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2006 11:50 AM | Report abuse

"Nah, reporters don't like helping people thinking for themselves, it is easier making us all sound like robots."

Do you actually think they would have the slightest chance at a position with the GOP if they DIDNT just regurgitate the party line?

>>>The Democratic party cannot take the African-American vote for granted any longer.

How many members of the CBC are Republican?

Just wondrin.

http://www.congressionalblackcaucus.net/

Posted by: F&B | September 18, 2006 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Nancy Pelosi has the hardest job in political history. She and Harry reid were courageous just to take their posts.

In the wake of the neocon's power-grubbing tsumnami, any Democrat who couldn't swim got drowned, but she managed to keep afloat, riding that California palm tree, and she has performed exceedingly well considering the incredible and pernicious obstacles she faces.

History will look back on her and Reid as the overseers of a Democratic Party that held to its own core values in the face of K Street corruption, while the true Republicans got bamboozled into a no-bid war by neocons in their midst.

Pelosi's diminutive physical stature and her soft-spoken way belies her political weightlifting credentials. In the future, as more of the truth surfaces from the subterfuge, Pelosi's crucial role in preventing the total collapse of our government's credibility will become more evident.

Beneath that soft-spoken Gentlewoman's image is a world class political weightlifter who could put Abramoff and Schwartzenegger to shame.

Posted by: JEP | September 18, 2006 11:43 AM | Report abuse

The previous poster who said we should look at the issues and ignore Steele's race is right. Once voters of all races learn more about Steele's stands on issues from the Iraq war to stem cell research to the Bush economic agenda then Steele will have an even steeper uphill climb. Those issues are likely to be more relevant to more voters than banning gifts to lobbyists.

Steele's ads may be relatively unconventional (and well-produced) but they don't say much about most issues, sticking instead to vague platitudes about "change". (Change Washington by sending another senator of the party that presently controls things? That won't compute.)

BTW about Al Wynn's comments--his home county of Prince George's voted for Gansler over Simms. And Wynn's own apparent razor-thin win suggests that he's not quite the powerhouse he would like to think he is.

Posted by: MHK919 | September 18, 2006 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Mikepcfl, I admire your idealism which were echoed in the words of a truly great Republican president, a leader like we yearn for now.... here is the farewell address of Dwight Eisenhower:

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~jbshank/DDE_Farwell.html

I can't agree, however, that those bad boys Cheney and Rumsfeld led Bush down the wrong path... the JOB of the president is to lead, his moral compass as THE DECIDER set the course. I'm sorry for your disappointment, but sorrier for our country.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | September 18, 2006 11:39 AM | Report abuse

JEP--Amen to what you wrote. Very eloquent and sad but true.

Posted by: Mikepcfl | September 18, 2006 11:20 AM | Report abuse

The Bush administration is proof.... Power corrupts, total power corrupts totally.

It's too late in the game for the GOP, who have abandoned their conservative principles and base, to start chasing the black vote like they have been pandering for the Hispanic vote. The voters of MD won't be fooled and will elect Cardin.

BTW, Drindl, I'm tired of Nancy Pelosi too. Wish they would replace her NOW. It would ruin half of the GOP commercials :>)

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | September 18, 2006 11:20 AM | Report abuse

1A318, it looks like we are both trying to figure out where things went wrong. Luckily, I believe the true conservatives are waking up and realizing we have to right the ship, not just of the party but the country as well. You hit the nail on the head by saying we have abandoned our ideals. But that is how we, as a nation, will turn things around. The ideals that made America great and earned us the respect of the world are still out there. Respect for human rights and being an example of a government of the people, by the people and for the people still resonates in the world. We can still be tough on terror while keeping our ideals.

Drindl, maybe I am just trying to convince myself that my votes were right. But I have to believe that Bush is a good man who has been led down the wrong paths. Maybe delusional, but I have to keep telling myself that.

Posted by: Mikepcfl | September 18, 2006 11:16 AM | Report abuse

"We had this golden opportunity"

When people as clearly intelligent and public-minded as Mikepfcl and 1A318 use the "we" word in describing the Republican Party of the past decade, it hurts my heart.

The "we" they speak of is the party of my grandfather, Warner, Graham and McCain, not the party of neocons.

The "we" they speak of is a party of fiscal conservatives who pay as they go and want the Democrats to do the same.

The "we" they speak of would have hunted down Bin Laden, to the very ends of the Earth, to avenge our fallen countrymen of 9-11.

But that party is no longer available to the generalpublic.

the neocons who really control the Republican Party now promote a no-bid military culture so its principal players (Cheney's Halliburton) get all the gravy that the fiscal conservatives would have never approved, had they been in charge of the "we."

There is no "we" or "us" in the neocon wing of the Republican party, it is the consumate "me" construct, and our noble posters from the Grand Old "We" Party have been fooled by the "me" neocons much worse than those of us who have defied them from the very beginning.

The Republicans did have a golden opportunity to install serious economic and social reforms that would have made their founders proud.

But instead, they sacrificed their power to people like Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff. Bush, and therfore the office of American President, was the biggest pawn in this profane game of life and death chess. Is there any doubt the VP was and is the real chessmaster in this profane game of billionaire musical chairs?

How many new multi-millionaires, even billionaires, has this no-bid war and the accompanying tax cuts created?

Republicans, wake up! You lament your ideological losses, at the same time defending the rogues who dragged your party down into the K-Street mud. Your golden opportunity has been turned into blood for oil.

Just remember, you don't have to be a Democrat to vote for one.

Posted by: JEP | September 18, 2006 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

Your math at the end of the post was very insightful and very much an original observation. Good point and thank you.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | September 18, 2006 11:11 AM | Report abuse

'Does anyone else remember the OREO COOKIES tossed at him? That is disgusting and the Democrats/liberals who did it should be ashamed of themselves.'

Here we go with the republican smear campaign again. This old canard. Prove it, lady. Show me a link. This never happened. Christ, they never stop with swiftboating. But it's all they've got.

'Dems have taken the black votes for granted for much too long and have delivered almost nothing in return. ' Teeheehee. I guess the Civil Right movement was 'almost nothing'... I'm sure that most black people, if you ask them, would actually prefer to have to drink from separate water fountains, right?

Posted by: drindl | September 18, 2006 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

If you think that Steele will make inroads with African-American voters simply because of the color of his skin, then I suggest that you look at the Senate election results of 1988 and 1992- when Alan Keyes took on Paul Sarbanes and Barbara Mikulski, respectively- and see how poorly Keyes fared with African-Americans.

Posted by: Matt | September 18, 2006 10:59 AM | Report abuse

I am a registered African-American Democrat living in Maryland who is definately voting for Steele and am asking all of my friends and family to do the same. The Democratic party cannot take the African-American vote for granted any longer.

Posted by: Derek Stewart | September 18, 2006 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Let's see, Steele for the Senate in Maryland, Lynn Swann for governor in Pennsylvania, and Ken Blackwell for governor in Ohio. Hmmm? Why make such a big deal over the fact of these men being Republicans? Perhaps the media thinks they are obligated to walk in lockstep with Democrats? Or maybe these races might show that Republicans welcome African-Americans and women in their party? Nah, reporters don't like helping people thinking for themselves, it is easier making us all sound like robots. The IMPORTANT voters will be the independents, and whoever offers them reasonable and logical reasons to vote FOR them. Democrats don't own the black vote.

Posted by: Joan | September 18, 2006 10:56 AM | Report abuse

success. Simply put, it is achieving our agenda.

This administration had been an abject failure in accomplishing anything to support the conservative agenda (if one discounts appointing two superble qualified Supreme Court Justices.)

And his involving us in a patently stupid war, mishandling the PR to make us look incompetant in matters of foreign affairs is unexcusable.

Now even the moderates of our Party are looking to viable alternatives among the more conservative emmbers of the Democratic Party vis-a-vis Liebermann.

It's the reason people are elected. To get things done for the people who voted for them.

In our case, we have Abramoff, the US is stuck in a needless war that is creating tremendous debt, and we do not have the International authority and credibility needed to be a truly national Power.

Complete irresponsibility and abandonment of our ideals.

Drindl. You are right on one thing. This is a White House on a personal power trip. Not someone looking out for the real interests of us, the people who put him in office.

Posted by: 1A318 | September 18, 2006 10:51 AM | Report abuse

PG county in MD is not that similar to many other "mostly black" neighborhoods. It is very affluent and educated and is ripe for a Republican message of lower taxes, less government and personal responsibility. The Dems have taken the black votes for granted for much too long and have delivered almost nothing in return. I admit it will be a tough hill to climb to get an R into a Senate seat from the People's Republic of Maryland, but Steel is a good man. Let's listen to his issues and ignore his complexion.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 18, 2006 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I think your analysis is right on. As someone who was in the field during the Mfume/Cardin race actively talking to voters about the issues, I was surprised by the number of African Americans who identified Steele as their choice for US Senate, even when prompted about choices in the Dem Primary. If the Dem leadership has spent any time in these communities lately, they should be scared.

It is no secret that African American voters feel disenfranchised from, or taken for granted by, the Democratic Party. Seeing the defeat of two statewide African-American candidates only magnifies this disconnect. Steele's early commercials have keyed-in on this feeling while also appealing to the growing middle class, and increasingly independent-thinking African American community in Maryland. Add to this mix, the radio ads now running on Maryland's Black Radio, which attack Democrats on everything from promoting same-sex marriage to parental notification to voting against the minimum-wage bill, all wedge issues for the GOP. Whether this ad campaign is designed to court black voters, or further depress turnout in the Black community, they will have an impact on the Cardin/Steele race.

The GOP has tipped its hand in Maryland, the real question in this race is what are the going to do in response.

Posted by: Urbanspin | September 18, 2006 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Interesting to read so many comments about Mr. Steele and his LACK of ability to win votes (in their minds). I think Steele has a greater chance NOW since is an example of an African-American who worked his way to the statewide level of becoming the Republican State Chair. Therefore, his role in working with Republican candidates across Maryland had a larger role in him helping the Ehrlich/Steele ticket for governor/Lt.gov. Steele has made it, so to speak, on his people skills, his brains, his work, which is more of MERITOCRACY as compared to winning votes just because he is a Republican.

On the matter of JC Watts; he served in Congress for 8 years, yes? He was asked to run for the Senate in Oklahoma but declined. Explored a run for governor and decided he needed to concentrate on working in the private sector for awhile since he as grown children going to college. JC Watts was denied membership in the Congressional Black Caucus because the group is more based on being a Democrat than it was on being an African-American. If you want to be a BLACK group, why deny another African-American the chance to participate in the discussion?

Steele is an example of philosophy and how to succeed in life. Democrats are not the only people trying to educate our children for a better life, Democrats are not the only people trying to help all races and both genders. But until the African-Americans think both political parties offer solutions and viewpoints for good business, good workiing conditions, and for co-existing in our society; the Democrats will keep trying to make this a RACIAL ISSUE. No one is going to vote for Steele just because he is black, but they might vote FOR HIM because he is a dynamic person, speaking clearly in his ads and exposing the SMEAR campaign that will be coming against him.

Does anyone else remember the OREO COOKIES tossed at him? That is disgusting and the Democrats/liberals who did it should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by: Slim Girl in Pearls | September 18, 2006 10:37 AM | Report abuse

'Totalitarian regimes maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through state-influenced mass media, restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of fear tactics.'

Sound familiar?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2006 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Mikepcfl

I am with you.

We had this golden opportunity. Both Houses and the White House. And together, our own folks have put us in a position where we have no credibility any longer in promoting good solid conservative ideals.

Like I said. I am so frustrated I may just sit this one out, which may be good advice to all my similar thinking freinds.

This administration is an embarrassment.

Posted by: 1A318 | September 18, 2006 10:29 AM | Report abuse

'Republicans should be able win with Steele, or a trained chimp if we choose.'

And you did choose, with your president.

'It comes down to organization and money. we're gppd at both. Great recipe for success.'

But success at what cost? But I see, A1318, that you realize that. Hey, I think a lot of us agree that we can support whichever party is in power, if we are convinced that they actually have the interests of this country at heart, rather than lobbyists.

It's just that I do not belileve that the radicals in power now do. It's like bush admitted -- he wants to change the culture. He hated the 60's... but what I want the president to do is protect the country and let us make our own decisions about the 'culture'.

I really agree with everything you said, mikepfc, except I think you're wrong about bush. I think he's really been pushed over the edge, he's really lost his soul in his lust for unlimited power.

Posted by: drindl | September 18, 2006 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Paul Krugman is very good today... weak and cowardly authoritarian regimes use torture not to get the truth, but what they want to hear...

'What torture produces in practice is misinformation, as its victims, desperate to end the pain, tell interrogators whatever they want to hear. Thus Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi -- who ABC News says was subjected to both the cold cell and water boarding -- told his questioners that Saddam Hussein's regime had trained members of Al Qaeda in the use of biochemical weapons. This "confession" became a key part of the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq -- but it was pure invention.

So why is the Bush administration so determined to torture people?

To show that it can.

The central drive of the Bush administration -- more fundamental than any particular policy -- has been the effort to eliminate all limits on the president's power. Torture, I believe, appeals to the president and the vice president precisely because it's a violation of both law and tradition. By making an illegal and immoral practice a key element of U.S. policy, they're asserting their right to do whatever they claim is necessary.'

All bush and cheney and rumfeld really want is power... unlimited, unchecked power. That's why they are so dangerous to democracy.

Posted by: drindl | September 18, 2006 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, definitely agree on Webb and Graham. It's sad that Webb had to switch parties. He was the kind of Republican that I was proud to support. I've always liked Graham since he was elected my congressman when I was attending college in SC and I have followed his career since then (we are also both former Air Force).

Unfortunately, I believe this wing of the Republican party remained silent for too long. But now you are seeing people like Specter, Graham, McCain and Powell speak up. I believe we gave too much leeway after 9/11 (like the Dems) and all of a sudden we wake up and wonder how we got here. I voted for Bush twice (my absentee ballot in Florida helped put him over) and I believe he is a good man. But I think that Cheney and Rumsfeld have led him astray.

I am for doing whatever it takes to defend this country...short of tearing up the constitution. My main problems with Cheney/Rumsfeld are their incompetence and hubris. I believe the NSA wiretapping program is a good thing, but just get an after-the-fact warrant for God's sake. And these overseas prison camps make us look like the Soviets and Nazis. If Clinton had let UBL escape from Tora Bora or not listened to his generals when they recommended more troops for Iraq, they would be screaming impeachment. (BTW, I still believe based on what we knew at the time the invasion was the right decision) So I am no peacenik. I know I may bring down the wrath of some in my own party for airing dirty laundry in public. But I am not the first, as you can see from all the conservative columnists now saying the same things.

The more I think about it, the more I believe an election defeat in November may be the best thing for the Republican party. We can get back to the time of Reagan where not everyone agreed with his policies, but we could hold our heads high as a beacon of strength and freedom for the world to see and respect.

Posted by: Mikepcfl | September 18, 2006 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Republicans should be able win with Steele, or a trained chimp if we choose.

It comes down to organization and money. we're gppd at both. Great recipe for success.

But message is meaningless. That's why the RNC lined up behind Chafee. The Ultimate non-Bushie. If meaningful conservatism meant anything to the Republicans in Congress and the White House, they would never have supported someone who was publicly disloyal to the president.

Come to think of it, if our Republican leaders in Congress and the White House were true to our conservative wing, they would never have allowed the run-up in the deficits the way they have gone in the past 6 years. And that is not counting the costs of the War which is being accounted for 'off the books' anyway.

It puts us in a real bind. If we conservatives vote Repulbican, we support more irresponsible baloney in the White House. If we stay home the Democrats win and we are stuck with them.

I am thinking we should sit this out and let my Republican freinds find out what is like to thave Congress in a stalemate.

Maybe that way we can salvage 2008.

Posted by: 1A318 | September 18, 2006 10:10 AM | Report abuse

I think Steele may very well win this election, and I thank Chris for this analysis. It resembles blogs I have posted here over the past few days.

Bhoomes,
That being said, I think it is awfully partisan and sad for you to put Powell in a scenario saying that Republicans "gave" him anything. Colin Powell earned his stripes in Vietnam, no doubt back when politicians sent him to Vietnam as "just another negro". He succeeded in Vietnam, served this nation honorably and was nothing but an asset to the Bush administration's first victory against Gore in 2000. Yeah, Bush begged him to take the job as Secretary of State. Part of that was friendship and part of it was that Powell added to Bush's ticket. Either way you view it, Powell earned his stripes through honorable service to this nation, hard work and an honorable life. Republicans "gave" Powell nothing, not half as much as Powell has given the Republican party or this nation!

Posted by: reason | September 18, 2006 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Colin Powell had zero power working for George W. He was paraded around during the election to win over moderates but was never in Bush's inner circle and was often vetoed by Rumsfeld and Cheney. If anything I think Powell looks back at his tenure there as an embarassment.

Posted by: juandixonformvp | September 18, 2006 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Steele has that one big disadvantage that is the really big gorilla in the room, that "R" behind his name. It now carries the stench of Delay, Cunningham and Ney, not to mention all their minions.

What galls the electorate isn't so much the ones that have been forced to confess and/or resign, like Ney, Delay and Cunningham, what will really eat away at the Republicans as a whole is the fact that so many of them are still blatantly getting away with it.

From today's WaPo pages;
"Abramoff himself told Vanity Fair that he and his clients received "every appropriation we wanted" from a subcommittee chaired by Burns. The senator is apparently not under investigation, but he did accept $150,000 in campaign donations from Abramoff, his lobbying team and his clients --"

Key line in this story pages..."The senator is apparently not under investigation...".

Can anyone doubt, considering the testimony from Abramoff's gang, that Burns would be in deep distress if he had honest watchdogs nipping at his heels the way Delay had, back in Austin.

It was not Washington that brought the real hammer of Justice down on Delay, it was Texas.

But people like Burns don't have really courageous patriots in their own homeland with the guts and gumption to hound them into resigning.

While the line I referenced is buried deeply in this "voters ignore the corruption" bit of propaganda, you can't take it our of the subconscious minds of voters.

Steele, Blackwell, Harris and all the rest of those Republicans who are naively counting on traditional models and polling, have this issue hanging over their heads.

The general public suspects now, and apparently it is quite true, that many of these scandals are going to go unchecked, and if you have enough local power without a lot of powerful local political enemies, (which certainly applies to Burns when compared to Delay or Cunningham) you can get away with anything, once you get elected to Congress.

The American public can only tolerate lawlessness for so long, before they stir, and move against it. It may take a long time to awake that sleeping giant, but once awakened, it will demand the righteous vengeance on all those who committed this wave of political larceny.

Remember the Civil War, and WW2? When the American people finally woke up amd started moving, the consequences were inevitable and irresistable.

This time, the enemy is runaway corruption of our own government, and it comes from within. Despite their vain attempts to deflect it to everyone else, it has an "R" behind its name.

Posted by: JEP | September 18, 2006 9:52 AM | Report abuse

should be shreiking lunatics up there now... I mean, like the President of the US lobbying for the power to inflict twisted, homoerotic torture. What is he, the Marquis De Sade? These are sick people.

Posted by: drindl | September 18, 2006 9:46 AM | Report abuse

mikepfcl--interesting take--you're on the same track as I am, despite being a Dem. I'm pretty much a libertarian [altho I believe in regulations that prevent global corporations from preying on citizens] but I am tired of the gov being run by lobbyists, I don't care which party is in power. I respect Lindsay Graham and Warner, [altho I don't trust McCain much], but at least I could sleep nights if people like that were controlling the GOP rather than the shreiking lunatics out there too.

And you know what? I'm tired of Nancy Pelosi, too...

Posted by: drindl | September 18, 2006 9:42 AM | Report abuse

CC: Appears you are a bit off on this one. The crossover on the black/white will not be involved to any noticeable way in Md. The voters know both well and will make their choice. I see race not playing much here.

Posted by: lylepink | September 18, 2006 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Just a quick call back to Virginia -- nice article in the NYTimes today, with a photo of the two candidates' shoes under the table -- with Allen wearing some shiny $2000 cowboy boots [altho, of course he's from California and as Webb points out 'there are no cowboys in VA'... and Webb wearing his son's old combat boots. Says it all...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/us/politics/18webb.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

'Asked at a news conference last week if he felt torn about his son heading to Iraq, given his views on the war, Mr. Webb replied: "My son is doing what our family has always done. I'm very proud of his service. Like most people in the military, we separate politics out from service to country."

Mr. Webb has not only lived but chronicled the American military tradition in novels like "Fields of Fire," films like "Rules of Engagement" and in nonfiction works like "Born Fighting," an exploration of his Scotch-Irish roots. A graduate of the Naval Academy, Mr. Webb served as a rifle platoon and company commander in Vietnam, where he was badly injured and awarded the Navy Cross and the Silver Star.'

Now this guy would make a terrific president, wouldn't he? A true old-time realist conservative, with sterling military service... and a Democrat! :]

Posted by: drindl | September 18, 2006 9:29 AM | Report abuse

The Media Notes column had an interesting link from Andrew Sullivan where he talked about "the sane wing of the Republican Party" has finally had enough of the Neo-cons and religious fundamentalists that have hijacked the Republican Party. I'm actually hoping some of our candidates like Allen and Santorum lose because it will put the McCain and Lindsey Graham wing in a much stronger position to retake the party even if the Democrats take control of Congress. I think this is something to watch for leading up to the 2008 elections. There is going to be a tough battle for control of the GOP and losing control of Congress could be a victory for the moderate wing.

Posted by: mikepcfl | September 18, 2006 9:28 AM | Report abuse

I don't know who will win, but I hope to God it is Ben Cardin because Steele comes out as such a phony and Republican party may be very good to their individual Black members like Powell, Rice and Steele, they do absolutley nothing for black community in general. Who cares what advantages they are offering to already well placed African American individuals who consent to join their party ? It is the masses - democratic, republican, independent, green... all of them, who matter more.

Posted by: Neerja | September 18, 2006 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Aw, you guys are alraedy counting on taking the house, if the dems take the house and then impeach the President for trying to protect the country, your power will be very short lived with a hugh GOP victory in 08.

Posted by: bhoomes | September 18, 2006 9:26 AM | Report abuse

It will take one commercial of Steele standing by president Bush and his campaign is done.
In Midterm elections the Most dedicated turn-out to vote, black or white. The Democrats are pumped up right now and with a 800,000 person advantage they are gonna smoke the Ehrlich and Steele. And by the way CC where are the polling numbers?

Cardin is up by around 10% in the polls by my count.

Posted by: Andy R | September 18, 2006 9:19 AM | Report abuse

hoomes, you're going to be singing a different tune when Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers brings the articles of impeachment against Your Leader.

Posted by: F&B | September 18, 2006 9:12 AM | Report abuse

J.C. Watts quarterbacked the OU Sooners to two Orange Bowl victories and subsequently won election to Congress from the district which includes the university. He had an unbeatable combination of name recognition, conservative ideology in tune with the electorate, and football hero staus in a state obsessed with it's team. Steele has only one of those- name recognition, and his campaign ads so far have been devoid of issues aside from I like puppies and I'm not like them.

Posted by: kurosawaguy | September 18, 2006 9:03 AM | Report abuse

I hate to sound like a child, but wouldn't it be nice, if we could look at what a candidate's actual positions are, rather than how much money they have, or --even worse, who is the most racist?

Here in 'color-blind' macaca america -- where we're all 'created equal' we can't stop obsessing over the color of our skins.

Posted by: drindl | September 18, 2006 9:03 AM | Report abuse

I believe Steele will win, because the dems sent a loud message to their black base, "We want your votes but you need to stay in your place and don't expect to have any real power in our party. Your just for window dressing". I have always believed the real bigots are the dems because they like to think of blacks as helpless and needing their patronage, while republicans give blacks real power. (think Powell,Rice, BlACKWELL and Steele.)

Posted by: bhoomes | September 18, 2006 8:57 AM | Report abuse

I love your analyses, Chris. So last week, when Chafee's opponent refused to run negative ads against Chafee it was bad, foolish, naive politics to the nth degree. This week, when Steele isn't running negative ads, you love his campaign, and don't like Cardin's because he *might* run negative ads.

So what's the difference?

Posted by: adam | September 18, 2006 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Chris, you forget that 2006 is not 2002, when Ehrlich/Steele first ran and were successful at diminishing the black vote. In other words, Steele's addition to Ehrlich's campaign didn't get him more black votes, but instead depressed the turnout. Now, Steele is trying to win black votes, both for himself and Ehrlich, who picked a white woman as his running mate.

You also neglected to mention that Mfume, after Steele's campaign tried to drive a wedge between Cardin and Mfume, came out and categorically declared he's endorsing Cardin and will campaign for him. I believe on Election Night, Mfume even said that Cardin would make "a damn good Senator."

And Chris, again I have to strongly disagree with your take on Steele's ads. I haven't seen the new one, but if he says what you say he says, then it'll make for great comedy!

Posted by: Jason, Baltimore | September 18, 2006 8:29 AM | Report abuse

The first election after Katrinal with a Democratic tailwind and blue state such as Maryland is not the year for a statewide GOP black candidates.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | September 18, 2006 8:21 AM | Report abuse

It seems every election there is a black republican trying to win cross-over votes. I haven't seen it work in a congressional election yet- J.C. Watts campaigned in mostly white areas, and was actually discouraged from mobilizing too much of the black vote. I think black voters are skeptical of black republican candidates and question their motives and wonder where their actual loyalties lie.

Posted by: juandixonformvp | September 18, 2006 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Steele is not a good fit ideologically for the state of Maryland. He's much more Conservative than people realize and that's going to become clear before election day. I don't think African Americans are going to abandon their best interests to vote for someone who looks like them. This seat is safe for Cardin.

Posted by: Greg | September 18, 2006 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I love how you post the link to the abt the Cardin staffer but dont address the insulting comments that Steele made in February:

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele profusely apologized yesterday for comments linking stem cell research to Nazi experimentation, but the offhand analogy could undermine what had been a concerted effort by the Republican to run for the U.S. Senate as a moderate "bridge" between Democrats and Republicans in his left-leaning state.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902540.html

Steele is a phony and a fool.

Posted by: F&B | September 18, 2006 7:37 AM | Report abuse

Wynn has some nerve talking about negative scenarios. He and his buddy Jack Johnson supported Doug Gansler over Stu Simms.

Posted by: Yockel | September 18, 2006 7:34 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company