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

Schumer: Senate Dems "Are On Offense"

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) yesterday said his group is courting "disaffected" Republicans in states with targeted Senate races by appealing to their desire for a check on the Bush administration's policies.

"Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican there needs to be balance in government," Schumer said at a briefing for reporters. "We are looking for people who live in Republican areas who might vote Democratic" -- a tactic, he said, that Republicans had been using successfully for years.

Asked for a profile of this type of voter, Schumer mentioned Republicans who favor abortion rights, those who see themselves as pro-environment and even non-evangelical Protestants who attend church regularly.

Citing the DSCC's financial edge over the Senate GOP campaign arm, Schumer said his committee is "going to have the resources to make offensive forays in their states." At the end of March, the DSCC had two-to-one cash on hand advantage over the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

A new addition to the Democrats' target list, according to Schumer, is Sen. George Allen of Virginia. Schumer said he believes either former Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb or former technology lobbyist Harris Miller could unseat Allen, but there were signs yesterday that national Democrats are lining up behind Webb in the June 13 primary. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle threw their financial backing to Webb, a sign that they believe he is the party's stronger candidate against Allen in the fall.

Reflecting the optimism of Democrats nationally, Schumer said that if the election were held today the Senate would be split 50-50. But he avoided making any hard and fast predictions about how many seats the Democrats will pick up this November. Schumer insisted that the midterm elections will be a "referendum on George Bush" and that attempts by GOP Senate candidates to distance themselves from the increasingly unpopular president will be to no avail. "They have shown up with George Bush enough," Schumer said.

Talk turned to 2008, which Schumer described as a "seminal election in America" for both parties -- arguing that the New Deal Democratic politics of making narrow appeals to a variety of interest groups had runs its course, but so too had Reagan Republicanism with its hands-off attitude about government. "The idea that government should just get out of the way is gone," he said.

Schumer refused to confirm or deny the possibility that he would stay on as DSCC chairman in the 2008 cycle, although he gave several hints that should excite Democrats. "In a perverse way I enjoy this job," Schumer said at one point; at another he said the Senate seats that will be on the ballot in 2008 are "our best map."

In Today's Post: Don't miss Tom Edsall's piece on Democrats' election strategy: "Democrats Are Fractured Over Strategy, Funds."

Check The Fix tomorrow morning: The Friday Line this week will be our latest ranking of the hottest Senate races. Here's a link to last month's Senate rankings.

See also's interactive election 2006 map.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 11, 2006; 9:20 AM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Bense Says No to Florida Senate Bid
Next: Tenn. Senate: Corker's Cash Advantage


pjawgdh [url=]test2[/url]

Posted by: John S | August 19, 2006 4:54 AM | Report abuse

To Fair And Balanced: Don't let your dislike of the conservative/republican agenda cloud your intellect on what happened on 9 - 11. There is no doubt in my mind that if Pres. Al Gore had been in office (I'm sure you will argue he should have been...but that's another discussion) we would have been hit the same way. I just think we were caught with our pants down...and I put the blame on all our leaders for that. From Clinton to Bush to congress, we just were not prepared. The sad thing is, we should have been prepared. It's not like we weren't being hit repeatedly by terrorists all through the 90's.

Posted by: FH | May 15, 2006 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Susan - yes, a few democrats may also lose their seats this year, but Bernie Sanders and Robert Byrd are not one of them. This is seriously wishful thinking on your part. There are at least 8 republican senators who are more likely to lose their reelection races than Byrd and Sanders, so I would be worried about them if I were you. The fact that Byrd's challenger is wealthy dosen't mean sqaut. I'm sure Byrd has beaten off multiple rich brats in his Senate career.

Posted by: Ohio ugy | May 15, 2006 2:06 PM | Report abuse

FH, I really appreciate your insight and candor. I am also interested in a healthy substantive debate between political idologies, and despite several pleas for such a dialog on this blog and others, I have found it to be quite rare.

>>>I will say that conservatives, in general, are primarily concerned that govt. provide security to the populace.

I can certainly appreciate that view as a hypothetical theory, however, to me, the facts on the ground indicate that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. So, the line of thinking that Bush and the the GOP leadership has made us (or WILL make us) safer is actually quite the opposite from my perceived reality. I watched the towers fall with my own eyes from abt a mile away from ground zero, and I watched every single one of the 9/11 hearings and I cannot for the life of me understand why our govt has NOT put into action each and every 9/11 commission recomendation. The Dubai Ports thing shows me that 5 YEARS after 9/11, Bush has not learned a thing from the War on Terror. Point being, I'll never feel safe with him at the helm.

>>>Where has the leadership on this issue been over that time?

I, unfortunately, think that they have been dining on steak and caviar with the oil lobby. Sadly.

Fact of the matter is that a national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and a serious renewable fuels initiative would vastly benefit rural red states around the country. I've sat in horror as Democratic initiatives have been killed, while the GOP have passed tax break after tax break for Oil/Gas and continued to focus considerable energy on ANWR (which is a total red herring in the energy debate).

>>>I really have not heard about Sustainability, so I'll have to do some research on the subject and get back with you.

Oh wow, please PLEASE do research on sustainability. Everyone needs to know about how important it really is. It's not just about saving the environment, it is actually BETTER business practice to be environmentally and socially responsible. Unf, I dont have time to go into any specifics, but the impact of sustainability is so vast that in 50 years, we are going to look back in shock and horror about the way our society lived for generations. Some keywords to google (outside of the obvious ethanol, biodiesel, wind solar):

green building / LEED (
renewable building materials
sustainable cities
anaerobic digestion
landfill gas
greywater / water recycling
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
wave/tidal energy

Some good research:

Check out the Nevada renewable portfolio standard (RPS) study to see how many jobs could be created in that state with a RPS. Extrapolate that nationwide, etc...


Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | May 15, 2006 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Message to Ohio guy:
the low approval rating for Congress includes Democrats. There are a few Democrats who might be losing their seats this year.
Bernie Sanders is an Independent/Socialist who is giving up his seat in Vermont to run for the Senate. Will his seat go to a Republican? Perhaps.
Jim Jeffords seat in the Senate has been held for over 150 years by a Republican until he jumped ship. There is a strong base of Republicans in Vermont, so it is possible the voters will put it back in the hands of the GOP.
Tom Delay's seat is in a strong GOP District, so it is likely it will stay Republican as well.
There is a wealthy Republican challenging Byrd in West Virginia. If the Democrats are so angry about pork, they should drive around the state and see all the stuff build by federal tax money and named for Robert Byrd. He is over 80 years old, and if the voters think John Raese is more fit for the job, he will win.
Also, keep your eyes on the June 6 special election in California between former US Rep. Brian Bilbray-R and a Democrat. The report is that $4 million is being spent on that seat by all sides, so the Democrats are desperate for a win but it is a strong Republican seat.

Posted by: Suan | May 14, 2006 10:52 PM | Report abuse

I am probably more a conservative independent than a Republican, so it's hard for me to give you answers on the direction the GOP has gone. I will say that conservatives, in general, are primarily concerned that govt. provide security to the populace. In that respect, I believe they are willing to give up some of their privacy at this point if it makes the populace safer. (By the way, that would change in a heartbeat if some good-old-boy got busted for ordering a "quarter-once" on the phone...but I digress) Can you imagine the level of intrusiveness the public would cry out for if a dirty bomb or a nuke went off in this country. I believe most conservatives are of the mind...better give a little now than be faced with the massive onslaught to civil liberties that another major attack would bring about.

As for alternative fuel. This area is where I have branched off from Rupublicans for a long time. It is just a crime that this country is still addicted to oil 30-years after we were basically held-hostage by middle-eastern countries in the 1970's. Where has the leadership on this issue been over that time?

I really have not heard about Sustainability, so I'll have to do some research on the subject and get back with you. It's nice to see the passion in your argument...without the venom that I generally see when discussing a subject with someone of a differing view.

Posted by: FH | May 14, 2006 9:52 PM | Report abuse

I think that Chuck Schumer has pretty well-defined what America expects of Democrats, and what Democrats can give them. he is finally using tactics that put the Democrats on the offensive (what is the proverb? that the best defense is an attack?) something that has been lacking too much in the Dem's overall strategy. He's also a realist: saying that the main idealogies of both parties (New Deal democrats, Reagan republicanism) have run their courses.

This nex strategy is definately something to be pursued.

Posted by: Seb | May 13, 2006 2:50 PM | Report abuse

>>>We are, by nature, distrustful of govt and therefore distrustful of increasing the role of govt.

Yeah! Likewise! That's why govt oversight is so crucial, imho. There is zero oversight in this GOP majority. An executive order to bypass court oversight of warrantless wiretapping? Patently anti-Constitution. Not even a Congressional ethics investigation of a member involved in multiple questionable practices? How does that benefit our country? Why would anybody trust a government built on checks and balances that is WITHOUT its checks and balances? It really is scary to me what has happened in the last 6 years.

c-span wash journal was really interesting this morning... very telling of the direction of political thought in this country. The topic for open phones was "do you trust the government with your personal info" in light of the NSA activity. Kid you not, across the board, Republicans from around the country all said that they trust Bush and the government with its covert programs. Dems, the opposite, naturally. Even Brian Lamb had to call out a few callers. He asked one something along the lines of, "Well, you ARE aware that traditionally Conservatives/Republicans have favored small government and they have been less trusting in govt." The caller said, "well times have changed". Brian said "so you change your values based on the times?" and he said, basically, yeah. I was floored. We're talking a complete 180 from traditional GOP/Dem views from both parties. Incredible stuff really. And I know that's just an example of one caller, but literally 8 or 9 out of 10 Republican callers used the T word (trust) re: Bush. This is not the same GOP that I recall.

>>>we have to find a way to make Education "hip" again

Sustainability is, imho, the best answer to education. It is a relatively new line of thought and that excites kids. That's the really interesting thing to me abt sustainability. That it applies as much to urban youth as it does to rural family farmers. Technology helps improve agricultural production that is then converted into biomass fuels and products and food. Technology helps educate urban, at-risk youth about the environment and their impact on it (and vice versa). It is amazing stuff, it just needs to be given a chance. And, sorry to frame it in a political context, but the GOP is simply not interested in sustainability on the national scale (to their own detriment). I dont get it. On the statewide level, a great deal of credit has to go to several red states (and blue too) in the midwest for increasing biofuel production, but George Bush's chance to effect real change has come and gone.

Id actually be quite interested to hear your opinion (or any Republicans) as to why Bush has not been advocating for major Renewable Energy legislation. All attempts at it by Dems have been significantly cut back or killed by the GOP, despite the speeches Bush has made at Ethanol plants and the like... To be honest, I cant see any reason why legislation such as the Energy Bill of '05 and the GAS Act of '05 (the post-Katrina bill) so heavily favor tax incentives for the oil/gas companies other than oil/gas/energy industry profits. For years the line of thinking that the GOP political apparatus has padded the profits of those industries for political and/or personal gain was considered a liberal conspiracy theory. Is it stil seen as such by the man-on-the-street Republican, or is it considered a legitimate line of questioning? Ive thought abt it over and over and over again, and I honestly cannot think of one other reason for the way the GOP has gone about their business.


Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | May 13, 2006 12:40 AM | Report abuse

king of zouk: I agree with you absolutely 100% on the education front. It's really an issue that is best handled locally...but isn't the real problem the lack of will in this country to solve the problem. Same could be said of health coverage...if the people rose-up and said to our leaders..."fix the problem now" we would have some equitable solution in 6 months.

Posted by: FH | May 12, 2006 11:21 PM | Report abuse

This blog has suddenly become enjoyable civil now. how delighful! But I would take issue with a few points, and you may not recognize D or R in these ideas.

More money into federally based education has not worked in over 30 years. there must be a more efficient solution. Pell grants and student loans only translate into higher prices for all. there is a direct correlation between these programs and the rising costs of college. this will not work either. I personally prefer to have the local PTA, parents and school boards handle things. but until our society as a whole places a higher value on our children's education, the problem will not go away. I think many parents treat school like a babysitter while they hold down two jobs. I think grown-ups are too greedy. they are short-changing their kids education and they are setting up a system (social security) where they will be supported by their kids because they didn't save any money over thier career.

It sounds like someone is advocating a solution of the Palestein problem along the lines of the Iraq solution. Troubling if you think Iraq is a problem. IMHO Iraq ia a good start cleaning out a cesspool of the world. we americans have done this over time across the globe and will eventually get to everyone. Once we finish the middle easy, we can start on Africa. a noble and courageous undertaking befitting our advanced and well-off society. and don't feel sorry for soldiers. they like what they do. if anything feel sorry for thier families. but don't undermine their motivation and values.

As far as fuel efficiency goes, the market is sending the signal now. are you listening? you don't like to pay 50 bucks a tank. sell your SUV. otherwise, suck it up. I paid about 200 bucks to fill my rental car in Europe last year. boo hoo. Poor me.

My socialist brother is always telling me how good government can be and is often convincing. there are some weak and disadvantaged people out there and i have no problem helping them even through an ineeficient mechanism like a federal government. I guess I would retort that a local government would be more responsive and efficient. And I can march down there and have a word with them if I have to do that.

But I still want to remind everyone that wanting to spend you money on a new car, and imported beer and fancy clothes and big, new flat-screens does not constitute being needy.
It seems self-suffiency has gone out of style. fine, but don't steal my tax dollars to fix this problem.

Very refreshing to observe some actual ideas here today.

And BTW, Ohio guy - you smell and you dress funny.

Posted by: king of zouk | May 12, 2006 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for your comments FH, I would like to respond in detail again, but I am short on time... So let me first and foremost thank you sincerely for your service to our country.

Also, as a Northeast liberal (I admit it yeah :) ) plz know that I have a LOT of love for my fellow countrymen and women from the South, and everywhere for that matter, despite out differences in politics. We ARE the greatest country, the greatest civilization on Earth, so let's prove it.

Thanks again for your service and have a nice weekend!

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | May 12, 2006 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Fair And Balanced: You have a gift for reasoning that many of your like-minded friends should try. Thank you for the courtesy you showed in your last post. Your last point is difficult for a Southern moderate to accept. We are, by nature, distrustful of govt and therefore distrustful of increasing the role of govt. This is, I think, more than any other reason, why Dems have a hard time having success in the South. As for a nation-wide initiative on Science, Math and Sustainability aimed at urban and rural areas...that is a good idea...but we have to find a way to make Education "hip" again. As for your comments about a former soldier and an American, it's hard to argue your passion on the subject. There seems to be no honorable way out...but like I said, your ideas seem to have merit in my mind. For the Palestinians, how do you bypass the leadership and get to the people?

Let me quote Thomas Jefferson to explain how I feel about politics and life in general. "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." He also said, "Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle....We are all Republicans; we are all Federalists."

Posted by: FH | May 12, 2006 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Firstly, I apologize for my tone. You must understand that I am very uncomfortable with the state of the country, and I place blame squarely on the Republican party. I know that doesnt sit well with Republican constituents, but that's the way it goes, I guess.

Also, I am a sarcastic individual with a sarcastic sense of humor (think Seinfeld, Mel Brooks, etc), which some people dont get, and I can appreciate that.

But, more than anything, I responded in detail b/c I think that you truly do care about a substantive debate on issues, and that is a relatively rare thing in these times of extreme partisanship.

>>>It's really rude when people correct grammer on a blog...(most of us are writing so fast we don't proofread) it makes people think you are arrogant!

I understand, I understand, I usually dont, but it was pure irony so I couldnt help it. But I DID apologize, right?

>>>Your education plan (throw money at the problem) is nothing new.

A couple things: I did mention several specific plans that I believe are entirely constructive and would not be "simply throwing money" at the problem (pell grants, early start + head start for example).

And also, "the problem" of education is incredibly complex, as you well know. Much like Iraq, there is no one answer per se. But imho, leaving education short of funding will never accomplish anything. Do you agree? What do you think of the ideas I presented of a nation-wide initiative on Science, Math and Sustainability? Do you agree that the most effort must be put into urban neighborhoods and rural areas?

>>>In Iraq, you have some good ideas...but are you willing to stay there long enough to implement them?

Thank you for the compliment. We've "been in Iraq" since before Gulf War I. Imho, we need to stay in the region. Period. My top-most concern is eliminating casualties of American GI's across the board. Secondarily, is the fight on terror, hence the re-focusing efforts on OBL. Tertiary concern, and unfortunately it must eb this way in my mind, is for the PEOPLE of Iraq. I am an American first, and every time a soldier loses even one drop of blood, I question the cause and value of that sacrifice. American blood spilling on foreign soil MUST MUST MUST be for ALL the right reasons, not a maybe or a possibly or a "we thought it was right". Anything less is simply unacceptable, and that goes for Democratic administrations equally as much as for the GOP.

>>>As for the Palestinian the Palestinians and the greater middle-east want peace???

Yes. The palestinean people clearly want a solution. They are completely powerless and cowering in fear of the Hamas, Fatah and Israeli factions. The answer is to give the PEOPLE a home. Not refugee camps, not outposts, homes. Ignore the government and terrorist groups if we have to, but get these people in a stable living environment and there will be peace over the medium-term. Again, the caveat is ignoring terrorist tactics. There will be casualties, there will be extremism. We must literally brush it aside (while honoring those who were killed or wounded in the process) and focus on the Palestinean PEOPLE.

>>>As for your comments on a father-figure Govt...the whole idea of Govt. is based on protecting it's people. That is really it's only role. Everything else it does is extraneous.

Is it? This is where I vehemently disagree. In the modern era of globalism, in which we live, the role of Government is more crucial now than ever. There has been a collossal shift in the lifestyles of Americans and western society, largely due to the internet and technology. This makes policing nuclear proliferation, global trade, espionage, terrorism, etc, FAR more difficult (hence security as a main issue), BUT it also means incredible strides in the efficiency and use of issues like agriculture, transportation, medicine, education, communications... Without govt sponsored research and development and without the government to facilitate this transition to a technological world, the explosion of personal computing, internet, etc, would simply not have been possible. And when you think of the impact this technology has had in just the last 20 years, it is telling of how important government has become in, really, the blink of an eye.

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | May 12, 2006 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Ohio is turning more blue by every GOP slip. Ohio is the melting pot of all GOP ethics problems. The Bob Taft Republican officials who make up the state will be swept out in November. Ted Strickland will win his race for sure. Sherrod Brown may have an extra struggle against Mike DeWine who by his ads is running more as an independent. I think Sherrod Brown can win his race if he buckles down, and paints himself as a moderate on certain issues. On the other hand, 2006 elections are by turnout and Brown's liberal policies may really fire up the base and get them to turn out. He already has a good portion of the Independents who just want the Republicans out. Bob Ney is he does not step down from his congressional seat will lose his reelection. He is one man with too many scandals against him to win. Charlie Wilson is a strong candidate running for Democrat Strickland's vacated seat and will run as a moderate Democrat and win. Plus, Strickland's faithful voters in his district will come out to vote for him for Governor thus benifiting Wilson in this district. With the 2006 gains, and the Dems having the Governership will set them up for a Presidential win in 2008. If the Dems in 2008 nominate a candidate that the liberals, moderates love and the conservatives can stand like either Evan Bayh, Mark Warner or John Edwards. If we nominate either one of those three Dems we can further turn Ohio blue but if Hillary Clinton gets nominated she will stop the blue tide sweeping over Ohio.

Posted by: PopulistDemocrat | May 12, 2006 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Wells: you make some good arguments and your tone is much easier to take than your condescending cohort Fair and Balanced. Really, what this country needs and has not gotten from its government over the last few years is good old-fashioned compromise. This is where the Republicans have failed the people.

Posted by: FH | May 12, 2006 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Fair and Balanced: It's really rude when people correct grammer on a blog...(most of us are writing so fast we don't proofread) it makes people think you are arrogant! Your education plan (throw money at the problem) is nothing new. In Iraq, you have some good ideas...but are you willing to stay there long enough to implement them? As for the Palestinian the Palestinians and the greater middle-east want peace??? I doubt it. As for your comments on a father-figure Govt...the whole idea of Govt. is based on protecting it's people. That is really it's only role. Everything else it does is extraneous.

Posted by: FH | May 12, 2006 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Ok FH here goes.

Number 4 (Keeping Family Safe)

National Security (Keeping Family Safe) - how can you feel safe when we currently have 12 million illegal aliens living in American. 12 million illegals that have not been identified and the government does not know their whereabouts. The government tells you they are going to catch terrorist when they can't even catch 12 million illegal aliens. Any one on these 12 million illegal aliens could be a terrorist the government does not know. While this is going on the current rate of illegal aliens crossing the US border is 3 million a year. 3 million a year - where upon any one of these people could be a terrorist. You are less safe now than you were 5 years ago. We have to increase border security because of the national security issue. If our borders are not secure we are not safe. Bush a Republican is against this because he wants to give his buddies some cheap labor. American money that will be shipped back to Mexico which will only further worsening the US economy and US labor markets.

Posted by: Wells | May 12, 2006 12:10 AM | Report abuse

Ok FH here goes.

Number 3 (firing a bad teach)

Education (firing a bad teach?) - I have worked as a teacher previously. And I have never seen this huge mass of bad teachers that need to be fired that you are talking about. Currently, we do not have enough certified teacher to teach now. What schools do now to get by is put a substitute teacher in charge of the classroom to get by. 65 percent of teachers quit before their 4th year of teaching. Republican are pulling your chain so that they can get school vouchers for religious schools - a big voting block for them. I would recommend increasing Student Loan Programs for teachers, grants, and aid. Expand Student Loan Forgiveness after the third year of teaching. We have a lack of teachers and retention! Not the other way around.

Posted by: Wells | May 11, 2006 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Ok FH here goes.

Number 2 Fuel Efficiency

Fuel Efficiency - Back to what I said Iraq the trillion dollars spent on the Iraq war could have been used on advancement in fuel efficiency. We give the US auto industry RD tax cuts for increasing fuel efficiency, lighter weight cars, and hybrid cars. This helps America in three 3 ways.
1) Saves energy !
2) American cars are competitive on the world market against Japan.
3) Saves Americans jobs. The more American jobs we save, the more Americans have money, and the more American have to spend. It is all interconnected.

Posted by: Wells | May 11, 2006 11:30 PM | Report abuse

Ok FH here goes.

Number One the Iraq issue.

Some of your issues already have false premises built into them. I will weed them out one by one as I get to them.

Iraq - is already a terrorist haven. I am sure the families of the 3 US soldiers that died today can tell you that. And the 1019 Iraq citizens that died last month would tell you if they were still alive. We do not care about the terrorist being in Iraq when Iran is right next door with plenty of terrorists if not more. We are really concerned about someone holding us hostage with the world's 2nd largest oil supply.
So we install a government, give them what ever resources they need to manage the people, setup business investments with the government, and get the hell out of there. Occupation never works read your history books. With the trillion dollars that we have spent on the Iraq war. We could of used the money to invent a new alternate power source, advancement in fuel efficiency, and advancement in energy conservation and recycling. I would also increase nuclear technology for extra energy resources. I am not sure if that is pro-dem or pro-rep issue.
The real reason people are pissed about Iraq after three years. Is they thought it would get them cheaper gas. Not gas at $3 a gallon.

Posted by: Wells | May 11, 2006 11:17 PM | Report abuse

"how are you going to get us out of Iraq, without the place turning into a terror haven"

"TURNING INTO"?????????

FH I think you need a swift dose of reality in the form of a baseball bat up the side of your dense brain before you are allowed to say anything else.

What I just don't understand is the republicans who say that Iraq would BECOME a s***hole quagmire if we were to pull out so we have to STAY THE COURSE. Ummmm....what may I ask is the state of Iraq now and who is responsible for it?

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 11, 2006 11:11 PM | Report abuse

>>>how are you going to get us out of Iraq, without the place turning into a terror haven

The problem is that terrorism is pervasive throughout extremist muslim society. No single country is the solution nor the problem. The answer lies NOT in military conflict, but in wise diplomacy, humanitarian policy and intensive care and effort in minimizing aggression towards muslim peoples and in building a Palestinean homeland. Without doing those things, we are just making things worse.

That means:

1) we re-deply forces to the edges of the Iraqi territory regardless of the strife that our conflict has started. Tough choice, but it has to be done. And btw, re-deploying keeps troops in the region for incursion to prevent major flare-ups. They still need us, but lets cut our military casualties our of the picture by taking our finest, bravest young men and women off the roads of Iraq and away from IEDs.

2) we commit on-the-ground resources and humanitarian aid to unstable or teetering-on-the-brink wholly or mostly muslim nations (Indonesia, Nigeria)

3) we redouble our efforts/focus on getting Osama Bin Laden, thereby proving that the war on terror IS a war on terror and not an imperialistic or religious struggle or oil-grab.

4) we engage in talks, summits, meetings, whatever-it-takes to bring Israel and Palestine to the negotiating table and we hammer out a plan with concrete goals. this is obv the hardest and most important part of the so-called war on terror. all sides must, for all intents and purposes, ignore attempts to derail these talks by extremists on all sides.

5) Drop Rumsfeld like he's hot.

6) Drop plans for permanent bases in Iraq.

7) Immediately cease plans for the $500M American Embassy in Baghdad.

What we DO NOT do:

1) Stay the course in Iraq
2) Bomb the crap out of Iran
3) Ignore Israel/Palestine
4) Continue with the Bushian our-way-or-the-highway hubris
5) Never, ever elect another Oil executive to elected office again, ESPECIALLY during a global energy crisis

>>>How are you going to force our auto-industry into making cars that get better gas-mileage.

This problem will solve itself when gas becomes too expensive for the American economy. Either cars will have to change or people stop buying them (imagine $10/gallon gas, for example).

We currently have the technology to mass produce Plug-in hybrid vehicles that run on biofuels and get in the neighborhood of 100-500 mpg, but we lack the political will b/c of the current Republican majority. Imagine the economic benefit of a major plug-in hybrid production facility in, say, Dayton, OH.

>>>I want someone to tell me how to fix our education system when you can't even fire a bad teacher...even when you know their a bad teacher.

Case in point, huh (they're)..... Sorry... Anyway:

1) get rid of NCLB immediately, or at least fully fund the program and eliminate any loopholes and number-twisting that is currently part of the Bush law as it stands on the books.

2) we use funds that we save from doing away with the Iraq War and the GOP's tax cuts and instead pour resources and funds into a Nation-wide intensive initiative to teach science, math and sustainability issues to k-12, especially in inner cities and rural areas.

3) increase funding for Pell grants, head start, early start, financial aid for the less fortunate, and generally restore all the federal education funding that the Bush administration has totally decimated

4) get the space shuttle going again. kids love space and rockets

5) cspan has the right idea with their student video contests. neat stuff.

>>>keep me and my family safe, and let me live my life unimpeded!!!

That, right there, is a bit of an oxymoron. "Keep my family safe" implies big government acting as a strong, protective father-figure, while "let me live my life unimpeded" speaks to freedom of and freedom from government. What YOU have to do, as a voter, is decide which is more important, having a big govt protector (whilst allowing NSA spying, etc) VS. freedom and liberties granted by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. To me, that decision is a no-brainer. Freedom and liberties every time.

Im sure you wont agree with some things I've said, but Id like to point out that most of the issues you present here are solidly Democratic strongpoints. It's what the left does best that this country needs most right now. Kinda nice when you think abt it, especially considering how everyone to the left of moderate Republicans have been completely shut out of policy-making and oversight for the last 5+ years. The political re-adjustment we are just beginning to see now, literally, could not come at a better time.

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | May 11, 2006 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Judge -

I think Gov. Ernie Fletcher of Kentucky(#48) is trying to get his approval rating to go even lower than Ohio Gov. Bob Taft(#50). Only possible way to do that is to be convicted of multiple crimes.

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 11, 2006 10:49 PM | Report abuse

the Republicans are in power, in both houses and executive branch as well as I believe a majority in the judicial system...

it looks to me as_if there has been a coup by the bush family and their allies...

special interests groups, we're occupying another country while the claiming that they attacked us....

we're not fixing the country's infrastructure or making any attempts to overcome our gas addiction...

what are you guys doing?

I really don't care who is in power, but I do like to get what I'm paying for or have your thrown out...


I pay your salary.

You serve me, I'm not here to make your life better by stealing from me, you want to do that it gets personal...

effectiveness is a reasonable thing to expect from leaders, if you're not really leaders and don't know anything except how to manipulate the media, I'd like to see you exposed.

Posted by: I think this is a cogent point: | May 11, 2006 10:07 PM | Report abuse

the politicians on the same level as you...

arrest them if they are not responsible for their actions...

democrats, republicans, who cares, if they can't obey the laws

they are not fit to pass 'em...


let 'em lobby, or work for a living in the Virgin Islands...


Posted by: _put_ | May 11, 2006 9:59 PM | Report abuse

I could honestly care-less about gay's a non-issue for me. I'm not strictly anti-abortion either, but I do think there should be limitations. As for are you going to get us out of Iraq, without the place turning into a terror haven. How are you going to force our auto-industry into making cars that get better gas-mileage. The Chrysler 300 gets 18 miles to the gallon on the hwy. How absurd is that in the year 2006. I want someone to tell me how to fix our education system when you can't even fire a bad teacher...even when you know their a bad teacher. But know what I want out of government...keep me and my family safe, and let me live my life unimpeded!!!

Posted by: FH | May 11, 2006 9:13 PM | Report abuse

FH: Stop pulling our chain.

There are over a hundred issues - like I mentioned in a previous blog. Give me some issues you care about. Don't worry we wont report you to Bush's Special Police.

Honestly tell us what issues you care about. And, I will be more than happy to explain in detail why a a democrat's position on that issue is better for you. There are plans for each and every issue. This is not the Bush plan where you run on Terror, Terror everyday. Using Fear Mongering to scare voters into submission.

Posted by: Wells | May 11, 2006 7:59 PM | Report abuse

"So I'll probably go out and vote for the group that at least isn't going to decide my culture from the bench. People accept cultural change much easier when they vote for it...and let's face it...hard-core dems don't want to wait that long"

I'm sorry I guess the other FH said the above - common who are you kidding we all know you were referring to the sodomy case - gay marriage -

Just be honest

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | May 11, 2006 7:52 PM | Report abuse

First I have Bobby Wightman-Cervantes telling me what I meant by "culture" (I don't really care about anything anybody does with their genetalia, by the way. As long I I don't have to watch) now I have Wells telling me I'm selfish. I never said I didn't care about any other issues. I just said if the dems want my vote...they better give me a plan. What is up with you Lefty' can't give a real solution to any problem, and when you run out of good arguments you basically say. "Yo Momma"

Posted by: FH | May 11, 2006 7:35 PM | Report abuse

FH I'm short sighted.
You are the one basically saying that you don't care about any of the issues except your 401K balance and your bank account. Everyone else can drown as long as you have money in the bank that's all that matters. That sound pretty short-sided to me and selfish.

Posted by: Wells | May 11, 2006 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Wells: the dow has a bad day and you use it in your argument? Could this be an indication that all your views are short-sighted? The fact is, most democratic bloggers need to be a bit more laconic. About mid-way through your posts...I'm like...blah...blah...blah. The Republicans will no doubt be punished for their inability to build a consensus on any of the major issues we face. But let me say this. If the dems don't at least take back the house this year, it will be devestating for them politically speaking. If not now...when?

Posted by: FH | May 11, 2006 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Before Bush declared the "War on Terror" in 2001.

Were we previously at "Peace with Terror" in 2000 ?

Were we "Neutral with Terror" ? Weren't we always against Terror -- come on.

And what is Terror ?
This week it's Osama bin Laden. This week it's the Taliban. This week it's Afgahnastan. This week it's Al Quida. This week it's Saddam. This week it's Iraq. This week it's Syria. This week it's Iran. This week it's Hamas. This week it's sneaky Americans making telephone calls.

Terror is what ever Bush wants to call it this week. There will alway a new "War on Terror" every week until Bush leaves office. It is the only way he can control us.

This is like something out George Orwell's "1984" or "V for Vendetta" . It's Crazy.

Posted by: Wells | May 11, 2006 6:23 PM | Report abuse

KUDOS to whomever brought the indictment. can you send them to Texas to indict Democrat District Attorney Rene Guerra who just dismissed criminal charges against a group of democrats who were recorded on video offering to sell thousand of home election ballots to a public official.

Democrat Rene Guerra found the video tape as prepared by the Texas Rangers which included the offer to sell the home ballots of senior citizens to the highest bidder was not evidence of criminal conduct.

Oh he dismissed the charges the day after he won the run-off for reelection just weeks ago -

The putrid stench from both parties makes me sick.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | May 11, 2006 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Kakuzan: au contraire, I know a bunch of church-goers. Evangelical and otherwise. Nearly all (especially the former) are staunchly anti-abortion. However, I concede that voters amounting to the trifecta for Schumer do exist; an interest in being mildly sarcastic sometimes leads me to excesses.

Merry: I appreciate your exasperation but why (on earth) did you vote for Bush (if you did) in 2004? At that point he was clearly NOT a fiscal conservative, was (and is) edging toward overturning Roe v. Wade and did not give a rat's a** about the environment. I can see why this may have not been clear in 2000 but in 2004 the writing on the wall was very prominent.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 11, 2006 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Another one bites the dust. VBOH, dust off that resume, the GOP will be looking for someone without a criminal record.

"Grand Jury Indicts Kentucky Governor
The Associated Press
Thursday, May 11, 2006; 5:07 PM

FRANKFORT, Ky. -- A grand jury indicted Gov. Ernie Fletcher on misdemeanor charges Thursday, accusing him of illegally rewarding political supporters with state jobs since taking office two years ago."

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 11, 2006 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Just want to say, I love you guys, even you FH and King Z - where else but here can I have a conversation with America and the true greatness in its diversity of opinion.

I do hope everyone else sees just how great of a nation we are - the diversity of ideas we read here everyday demonstrate the greatness of our freedom.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | May 11, 2006 5:49 PM | Report abuse

The Dow Jones just plummeted triple digits FH you might to go check that 401K of yours.

Posted by: Wells | May 11, 2006 5:42 PM | Report abuse

To king of hypocrisy -

your logic and info is, as usual, laughable.

Yes, some democrats have received money from Abramoff CLIENTS. These democrats had no way of knowing and still have no way of knowing that this money was directed to them by Jack Abramoff. As you point out, all of them except Reid have treturned this money. If you had bothered to dig a little deeper, which I am sure you didn't, you would have found out that Reid has been accepting money from the Coushatta tribe for many years, and none of that money was tainted by Abramoff. I'll call that Inconvenient Fact #1. Why should Reid reuturn donations from these people? Is there any evidence that ANY democrat perfromed any LEGISLATIVE FAVORS(which is illegal, unlike accepting campaign contributions) for Abramoff like Bob Ney and Conrad Burns, both republicans? How's that kool aid?

"Ands since there is a majority of Rep congressmen, it is a mathematical fact (inconvenient to you of course) that most people must think it is the other guys that are bad."

Flawless logic zouk, flawless. You believe that Americans blame democrats in Congress b/c there are simply more republicans? Brilliant.

Inconvenient Fact(s)#2:
I would point to the literally hundreds of polls that have shown that voters' preference for which party they want to control Congress. Democrats lead in these polls anywhere form 10 - 20 percent. Your voodoo logic dosen't seem to reconcile itself with these factual polls. You are confusing republican wishful thinking with reality and are fast beoming the new Vivian.

oooh, look everyone I found a sweet website!

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 11, 2006 5:42 PM | Report abuse

FH, raises an issue which demonstrates just how full of BS both sides are - what ever it takes to win an argument without standards.

FH is correct Dems believe the constitution is not so Frigid, (now think), that it cannot encompass things like private sexual acts in my private bedroom. This according to FH is an attack on his culure - a culture which says he should be allowed to regulate my genitalia

Today, people like FH (who believe in a frigid constitution) are yelling bloody murder that Bush and the NSA are collecting phone numbers -

I would submit to FH and his kind, I am not so frigid as to not understand that our constitution is not so FRIGID, that our founding fathers did not envision that over time things will change and the extent of the government's power to defend the nation is not something which will require change over time.

This is based on my view that the Constitution is not so frigid whether it comes down to my genitalia or the President defending this country at this time, that constitution does not give the president inherent power to do exactly what the NSA is doing -

what I have done here FH is take an intellectual position about our constitution - ITS NOT FRIGID, and I apply that concept equally to civil liberties and the duty of the President to defend our nation.

God save me, I'm defending Bush - but that is what intellectual honesty does to people - sometimes you find yourselve defending your opponent.

Sorry for being so wordy -

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2006 5:38 PM | Report abuse

My Response to: (FH) The other guy give me a chance???

Is it a campaign slogan NO. Is that what happens in political reality YES, YES, and YES.

I submit as evidence the recent elections last week in England. Where Tony Blair (one of the few world leaders that will be seen in Public with Pres. Bush) suffered a crushing defeat at the had of the Tories in local elections across England. Tony Blair's approval is currenty at 28% and disapproval at 65%. Very similar to Bush's approval 31% disapproval 64%. Tony Blair's Labor Party lost 350 seats and polled at 27% compared to Tories 41%. The 27% labor got was in line with Tony Blair's approval of 28%. The Tories did not offer any ideas or platform to win. Just if you are sick of Tony Blair and the Labor Party then you will like us the Tories.
The Labor party is now trying to get Tony Blair to resign and hand over the reigns to Gordon Brown.

Here is my evidence. Where is yours ?

YES. The idea of "IF you are sick of this guy then vote for me !" does actually work.

Posted by: Wells | May 11, 2006 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Wells: yea...but my 401K looks real good about now!!! Is this the democratic blueprint for this election season. The other guy give me a chance??? Most of the people who are in the hunt for dems to steal votes from this year, independants and real moderate republicans, are not idealogues. We want to see some form of blueprint for success. I just don't see that from any dems out there. So I'll probably go out and vote for the group that at least isn't going to decide my culture from the bench. People accept cultural change much easier when they vote for it...and let's face it...hard-core dems don't want to wait that long. So, unless we see a comprehensive plan put forth by the dems to deal with all these issues you put forth, my prediction is that the group talked about above will either stay home or vote Republican.

Posted by: FH | May 11, 2006 5:00 PM | Report abuse

America does care about the future and did something about it in 2004. They elected Bush instead of Kerry. You may admit to your own fear and stupidity but don't speak for the rest of the country on that measure.
If you call winning - hiding in a cave and having your organization dismantled one by one, then I guess that winning Democratic way is superbly functioning for Kerry and all the rest.

And all those things you listed as declining under bush is simply untrue. some have declined, some have improved. Some have been thwarted by opposing pols and some are not appropriate for government intervention. Honestly, you sound like chicken little. Get a grip. I would cite facts to eliminate your claims, but I think you would still not be convinced.

Posted by: king of zouk | May 11, 2006 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Ohio guy - your chain of reasoning is, shall we say, convenient yet utterly devoid of reality.
you want to taint all Republicans with abramoff scandel yet because the donations went through a third party you claim they do not exist.

inconvenient fact #1:

The Associated Press revealed that Reid had accepted tens of thousands of dollars from an Abramoff client, the Coushatta Indian tribe, after interceding with Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton over a casino dispute with a rival tribe.

Reid "sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002," reported the AP. "The next day, the Coushattas issued a $5,000 check to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff sent an additional $5,000 to Reid's group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004."

and regarding your control of congress argument and corruption - from yesterdays's WaPo:
"On the one hand, voters by and large believe that their own member of Congress is clean -"

Ands since there is a majority of Rep congressmen, it is a mathematical fact (inconvenient to you of course) that most people must think it is the other guys that are bad.
Result - your attribution is misguided. Obviously when you try to claim all successes and shun all failures you will be wrong about half the time. but your strength seems to be in getting things wrong more than the average citizen.

your seething anger is getting you nowhere. It is not convincing.

Posted by: king of zouk | May 11, 2006 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Amen JudraySC

For five years we have been scared into voting and supporting the president and the republican congess. And the truth is nothing has been done in America to make it better over the past five years.

Schools, Health Care, Wages, Job Security, Pensions, Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights, Privacy, Freedom of Information Act, Military Recuitment, College Affordability, Bird Flu, Poverty, Energy Conservation, Renewable Energy, Alternate Energy Resources, Polution, Deficit Spending, Infrastructure Rebuiling, AIDS, Cancer, Obesity, Infant Mortality, Nuclear Disarmament, and Government International Relationships HAVE GOTTEN WORSE UNDER PRES BUSH AND THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS.


Because they tricked us into just worrying about the terrorist hiding inside our sofa. Tricked us into worrying about only one issue why the entire country crept towards collapse. We are becoming so obsessed with terrorism and allowing our country to fall apart. That in a way, we are allowing Osama Bin Laden to win in the end. If he gets us to destroy "What made America Great". We are to blame for being so stupid. We are to blame for looking at only one issue and not the whole picture.

But it is never to late to change and to honestly try to fix the huge problems coming our way. We just need to get voters and the American Public to care about where our nation is going. America is a great nation we just have a problems focusing on multiple issues at one time. America needs to learn to Multi-task when fixing our nations problems. We have a lot more than one problem facing us.

Message brought to you by Wells in 2008.

Posted by: Wells | May 11, 2006 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Ohio Guy: My post was not an was a dose of reality. I honestly don't care who wins the next election. I'd kind of like the Dems to win one just to shake things up a little. But people like you...who think the world is coming to an end if our government doesn't act on YOUR agenda, make me laugh.

Posted by: FH | May 11, 2006 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Ohio Guy - Even that slogan would pose problems. We are in a Civil War - except it's not our's.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | May 11, 2006 4:11 PM | Report abuse

To FH -

Wow. What a great argument you make - "Hey, it was even worse during the War of 1812."

Get serious - just b/c things haven't hit rock bottom dosen't mean people shoudln't want change. That's like saying you should automatically reelect a town sheriff b/c he hasn't declared marshal law. What a simpleton argument.

Maybe you should be a Republican slogan writer - "Well, at least we're not in a Civil War, right?"

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 11, 2006 4:03 PM | Report abuse

To Susan -

Nice try, but no one here is buying your spin about democrats being involved with Jack Abramoff:

"The Jack Abramoff issue is now pointing at Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, includes Hillary and Byron Dorgan and Harry Reid. Some have donated the funds to charity, but others, like Hillary are keeping the money."

I noticed you didn't cite any evidence or facts to back up this assertion. Hmmmmm. Newsflash Susan: No Democrat has gotten a DIME from Abramoff - NONE AT ALL. All of the money Abramoff gave to politicians from HIS OWN POCKET went to REPUBLICANS. Amazing how republican spin doctors like yourself can't get that through your head.

"First of all, the low ratings of Congress include the Democrats as well."

Not quite, Susan. Republicans are in COMPLETE control of Congress right now therefore the 25% approval ratings are attributable entirely to REPUBLICANS. One party cannot be in complete control of the federal governemnt and dodge responsibilty when things are looking bad for them. Aren't repiglicans the ones always preaching about responsibility? What hypocrites.

If you would like to be taken seriously in a debate about Congressional ethics, you might want to back up some of the drivel you post on this blog.

I say again: Neocon Fantasy Land.

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 11, 2006 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I'm a 62 yr. old retired corp. middle manager with a BS degree (I only state this to id the "type" of person I am). A Life-long Republican, I've only voted Democrat a few times in local races ... until now.

I read all this "sophisticated" BS, pro-con, and am tempted to enter the fray with some issues and stats ... but I realize that like MANY Republicans, I'm voting Democrat in the upcoming (2006) elections ... and likely in 2008, SIMPLY because I'M SICK AND TIRED OF THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS, so all the bickering really doesn't matter. I see what's happened to my country and what's not happened ... that's enough.

Posted by: JudraySC | May 11, 2006 3:48 PM | Report abuse

one of the things that made America great after world war II

was Leisure Time....time to think and peruse...

you want a democracy, you have to bring that back...

you have to reinstate the middle class and start reeducating America and ask it to slow down and start understanding again.


Posted by: sound bites... | May 11, 2006 3:45 PM | Report abuse

you treat it like engineers selling a phased in project that is iterative....

and you provide some service immediately as part of that package...

look up "iterative solution," and how to enact that...

you outline goals and deliver them "over time,"

the problem is in the real world you deliver or get fired.

you're open to review.

the majority have a chance to become Americas party...

you going to sell wine in lead bottles or actually do something..

arrest the president.


Posted by: how do you propose something? | May 11, 2006 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I was going to contest Judge C. Crater's view that pro-choice, pro-environment, non-evangelical churchgoers are ipso facto Democrats, but Merry has done it for me. Crater must not know many churchgoers, and perhaps only one narrow type of environmentalist.

As a Republican, I think the Republicans are going to lose, and deservedly. But can't Democrats say more than "We are not Republicans; we haven't had the opportunity to be truly corrupt at the national level [see Wells above] since 2001, or maybe 1995; many of our candidates are quite decent people with wide voter appeal; give us a chance, you've done much worse"?

And Merry: aren't there any minor parties in your state? Give one of them a vote just to help keep other voices on the ballot.

Posted by: Kakuzan | May 11, 2006 3:36 PM | Report abuse

you're quite the artiste!

good pointe, the majority has a choice, to continue with corrupt practices, when you're the majority and could actually do something about it....even up to and including holding the president responsible for commiting fraud and taking the party on a fool's errand to make his family and friends rieche...

what a story, if the Post just gets to it and talks...

how about the Bridge to NoWhere and Earmarks...

come on MAJORITY PARTY, who's in charge, you're need to "get paid"...

you're just looking for someone to stick it in?



Posted by: hello Wells.. | May 11, 2006 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Dan the problem with getting specific is that the problems that our government faces are extremely complicated. Its not like either party can say "we are gonna pass this law and it will fix the environment, or social security, or the economy etc". It has to do with an approach to legislating that is what you are voting for in congressional elections.

The problem for both sides is how do you explain your approach in a twenty second sound bite, or in a one paragraph article in the WaPo? The GOP does it by saying "We will cut your taxes". How do the democrats sell their economic plan without saying "We will raise taxes just not yours. Unless you happen to be rich, and then this doesn't count for you." The only thing people hear in that argument is Raise Taxes. Therefore, the democrats best hope of winning is to continue to hammer the Republicans and offer broad policy ideas such as "we will balance the budget" "pay as you go" etc.

In my opinion the Republican party has become a party with policy based on the best soundbite and since that is what Americans these days listen to they win. The Democrats are the party of substance, its just substance doesn't fit into 10 seconds therefore they lose.

Posted by: Andy R | May 11, 2006 3:28 PM | Report abuse

News Flash: Corruption in Congress at all time High !

Republicans: Don't blame us we only "Run the Congress".

( When we said "Run the Congress". We did not actual mean "Run the Congress" and be responsible, accountable and stuff like that. )

News Flash: Republicans decide to outsource "Running the Congress".

News Flash: Bush proposes that illegal Mexicans "Run the Congress" under a newly proposed (Guest Congressmen Work Program). Pres. Bush says they will be able to do the work of 300 congressmen for 34 cents a day.
In later news the Stock Market rose upon hearing the news that the Congress has been outsourced.

Posted by: wells | May 11, 2006 2:29 PM | Report abuse

We defintely have have some republican spin doctors blogging today.

Instead of blogging you might want to start working on your resumes. You will need your resumes 6 months from now when you looking for a new job. With your blah, blah, blah.

Corruption does not cut both ways at the end of the day in the public's eyes. Only those in power can be truly corrupt. It is like sexual harrasment in the workplace you have to be a position of power or authority to really be guily when you ask for sexual favors.

So the public thinks congress is corrupt, and republicans control congress, therefore the public thinks the republicans who control congress are corrupt. It is called logic and commonsense try it sometime you might like it (or did the republicans outsource that too). When people say they think congress is corrupt they are not thinking of the minority party. Give me a break.

Posted by: Wells | May 11, 2006 2:08 PM | Report abuse

I think I might be one of those people referred to above--more Republican than Democrat, but pro-choice, church going, fiscally conservative, but enviromentally mind. As for me, I've just had enough. Enough, enough, enough. This isn't my Republican party. I'm not sure what happened to it, but I don't recognize it. So I hope for a Democrat that I can vote for. If that doesn't appear, I don't know. Stay home, I guess. That was me they were talking about, wasn't it?

Posted by: Merry | May 11, 2006 2:03 PM | Report abuse

I think we are seeing early indications that there is a swell of discontent among likely voters to turn out the Republicans from control of Congress.

Ralph Regula(OH16), the Dean of Ohio Congressional Delegation came face to face with a stronger than expected challenge from within his own party.

Busby is in a dead heat with Bilbray for CA 50 in the run off.

Republicans are steering clear of challening Sen. Nelson (FL) as a much needed replacement for Katherine Harris.

Two sitting GOP congressman have or will resign (Cunningham and DeLay) with Ney to follow shortly?

Expansion of the Cunningham investigation is said to implicate other members of Congress, possibly driving the CA50 special election numbers.

A majority of current sitting Senators with approval ratings below 50% are Republicans (22 currently below 50% 15 are R's according to April Survey USA). Of those with approval above 67%, only 2 are Republicans (both from Maine).

Not to mention the now nearly daily attacks on the Bush administration by members of his own party on a variety of issues (See Sens. Arlen Specter and Lindsay Graham on domestic spying, Sen. Dick Lugar on Iraq, Sen. Roberts and Rep Hoekstra on new CIA pick).

They cannot be pleased at this moment.

Posted by: RMill | May 11, 2006 1:56 PM | Report abuse

the enemies are fear ignorance and sloth...

nothingin short supply here eh?

get out the vaseline, I'll be taking john down later...

see yah.

Posted by: the enemies? | May 11, 2006 1:51 PM | Report abuse

DanW - "Failing to achieve lofty goals often produces better results than achieving low goals."

Some examples please?

Posted by: Duh! | May 11, 2006 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone ever consider that most of the problems being discussed stem from a federal government that has become too large and with power concentrated in too few hands?
I don't need Ted Kennedy running my elementary school. I don't need Up-Chuck Schumer setting my gasoline prices. I don't need John McCain deciding what goes on my television. I am sure there is one of these quips for all 535 of them.

As far as the election goes, as long as the Dems appear weak on defense, they will never win. Try to remember Truman and Kennedy on this issue. Many people (like me) still think that this is the primary job of the federal government. Yet we are not loud nor well-represented in the press. But we do vote and contribute.

I think it is fabulous that the stealing of Democratic issues is backfiring on Bush. when you get in bed with Ted (eeeek) you have done something that no self-respecting conservative (not R) should be able to wake-up to every morning. the highway bill, the steel tarrif, on and on.

But it would have been worse under Gore or Kerry and our current enemy (you know who you are) is on the run across the world and increasingly disorganized. a real victory for the US military in adapting to new circumstances. thanks rummy.

Posted by: king of zouk | May 11, 2006 1:36 PM | Report abuse

First of all, the low ratings of Congress include the Democrats as well. The voters are sick and tired of the bickering, not getting things done, and pointing fingers.
So what else is new about those views?

Most voters point at the corruption of all other members of Congress except their own, so the generic poll favoring Dems for Congress means nothing in the districts where the Republicans are strong. Likewise, the strong Dem districts support their Congress members, and if they want Jefferson and Mollohan abusing their power of office, it just shows that partisans will accept bad behavior of their own party members no matter what. Mollohan stepped down from the Ethics Committee, but he is still running for office. The issue is whether the voters on his district in West Virginia (that he funnelled millions of federal dollars into non-profits connected to him), or are they so blinded by hate for Republicans that they will hold their nose and keep him in office? Jefferson is another Democrat who is becoming more and more exposed about his own corruption. You guys in here debating me on the corruption issue are hypocrites too, if there is to be zero tolerance of unethical behavior, then you have to include the members of the Democrat party as well.
The Jack Abramoff issue is now pointing at Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, includes Hillary and Byron Dorgan and Harry Reid. Some have donated the funds to charity, but others, like Hillary are keeping the money.
So I would like to see the Dems defend their own party for being linked to Abramoff. Who are the new people who will replace all those tainted Democrats? And how much do the Democrats get from their rich buddies for flying on corporate jets, like Harry Reid and other Dems have done?
Tom Delay is the one person who put party before himself, he will be resigning from Congress in June. So when do we see Jefferson and Mollohan resign? Hmmmm?
Or will the Dems just defend their own as usual?

Posted by: Susan | May 11, 2006 1:35 PM | Report abuse

against communism?

because it was evil or because it destroyed the landed class?

what is the landed class that doesn't take care of it's citizens?

the fuedal class, which makes geo the king and you the lords

and you may be looking at the French Revolution unless you wake up.


Posted by: so why was Joe McCarthy | May 11, 2006 1:17 PM | Report abuse

adress these issues, painful though they may be:

1. outsourcing, it's affecting even white collar work...regulate it/curtail it.

2. downsizing/corporations that have been internationalized with no loyalty to any country that have United States _priveleges

3. illegal immigration cuts into the lower class, and blue collar job bank that has decreased since the factories went overseas, services have been cut to the middle and lower class as a way of making sure that the upper class gets to pary like it was 1994, when it aint.

4. bring back customer service to the United States and give it to rural America, where there used to be jobs in Searcy Arkansas which just lost 800 jobs as Whirlpool closes a factory there

5. There are many more options that will never occur to you, as the world has moved on, and you're trying to apply rules that are moribund in time to change that occurs almost instantly in this connected time...

summary: infrastructure, reestablish middle class, healthcare, intervene with the lower classes to educate and quit creating a prison population that is an unused resource...

many thoughtful solutions available...ask any engineer

Posted by: you want resultes that matter? | May 11, 2006 1:05 PM | Report abuse

it's not about the truth it's about addressing voter profiles...

talk about neolithic creatures...

Posted by: that's sweet, | May 11, 2006 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Getting back to what CC said: "Asked for a profile of this type of voter, Schumer mentioned Republicans who favor abortion rights, those who see themselves as pro-environment and even non-evangelical Protestants who attend church regularly."

I have no data regarding the totals for each of those categories but a person displaying all three of those qualities is a Democrat. Evangelicals don't have either of the first two.

I'd rather read something like the following: "Asked for a profile of this type of voter, Schumer mentioned Republicans who actually favor deficit reduction, those who are truly concerned about the health and welfare of the poor and even non-evangelical Protestants who are appalled by the lack of progress in Iraq."

These would otherwise be known as conservatives or Christians. Are there any of these left in the Republican party?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 11, 2006 12:52 PM | Report abuse

The dems are failing to heed the most telling poll of all. Americans don't think their congressman is corrupt. But they think congress as a whole is. Since we only vote for our own representatives, saying one side or the other is corrupt has no real effect. Only by pointing out actual occurrances of corruption against a specific congressman can any gains be made.

"All they need to do (and have done starting last weekend) is to provide a general policy message of accountability, balancing the budget, increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy, and protecting civil liberties."

The problem with this is that this sounds like a typical empty "tell them what they want to hear" promise.

By getting specific and saying how it is to be accomplished, the Unenrolled middle will slide left and support it. It is the Unenrolled middle that should be the dems true targets.

Bobby: Don't listen to them. You can't create something close to Utopia without trying to get there. Failing to achieve lofty goals often produces better results than achieving low goals.

Posted by: DanW | May 11, 2006 12:49 PM | Report abuse

have many of them never worked for a living, and certainly not served time in the beltway as anything but people to be catered to and manipulated with money...

many of them have the same veiw of the world as Louis the 14th, that the people exist to serve them not the reverse,

that means, they don't have solutions that address problems, because that's not why there're there...they are the problem.

that is why,

requiring them to actually adhere to standards of behavior that would require their ethics, past history, and integrity to be examined would eliminate most of them

and yet they are knee-deep in a community that has to adhere to standards of examination in order to hold jobs in the Washington DC area...

why one of the questions you _never_ ask at a DC party is

"where do you work?"

most people will back up from you crossing themselves and or immediately fix you with a glare saying,

"why do you ask?"

most of them _have_ to have clearances to work....

and yet you bozos can commit sins one after the other and even have a little comity routine (joke) that gets you paid even if you're simply saying I need a couple hundred thou...

and you all just shuffle and grin like, "oh well, it's always been this way!"

like that makes it all right, and you want respect...

dream on...

it's called exposure, and you're getting it...thankyouverymuch...


Posted by: your fearless senators and representatives... | May 11, 2006 12:41 PM | Report abuse


10) Illegals can't afford a WMD.
9) Illegals don't own oil wells.
8) They use less gas.
7) They are the only group living in America that still supports him.
6) Because Bush speaks English better then they do (which doesn't happen very often).
5) They can get him a discount on cheap Tequila.
4) He heard that they are going to legalize cocaine and drugs in Mexico.
3) If they talk back he can always deport them.
2) He needs a couple of illegals around the White House when he gives Foreign Dinner Parties.
1)He need a cheap illegal nanny to take care of the twins when they have hang-overs. Laura refuses to do it anymore.

Posted by: Wells | May 11, 2006 12:40 PM | Report abuse

"The only issue that the democrats need to have a real hardline solution for is the the War."

is that really necessary?

all you have to do is say, "It wasn't our idea." certainly you want to stay long enough to address stability.

the other thing you want to address is the tone, right now it feels like we're over there to control, not assist...

the soldiers have the story, according to news polls 85%, that the Iraqi's attacked us...

do you think they're treating people nicely?

there are multiple issues to address simultaneously....there's no reason not to address them openly, talk about them with the people American public too.

as it is, it's always an administration _newsrelease_ carefully edited to show that we're _winning_ whatever that is...

we're certainly not winning any credibility battles.


Posted by: what's that about? | May 11, 2006 12:27 PM | Report abuse

sometimes you need to cut people out of their boxes so you can see who they are...

look at bobby babble.


Posted by: see that's the point.... | May 11, 2006 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Wells, you are correct - but you fail to mention how the union boys in the democratic party are not happy with the more progressive views of the Democrats on this issue - it could be a wash for both sides- although the dems do have the issue of outsourcing which the Repubs refuse to address - this may allow them to hold onto the union vote.

Just trying to bring balance

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | May 11, 2006 11:58 AM | Report abuse

When conservative republicans are abandoning the Bush republicans.

It is pretty obvious that republicans do not know what republicans stand for.

I repeat again illegal immagration is going to rip the republican party apart. It pit two bases in the republican party against each other. The rich corporate/country club republican(where republicans get most of their money) against the the hard working religious conservative republicans(where republicans get most of their votes). Rich corporate/country club want to make as much money off illegal aliens as they can. Hard working religious conservative republican believe that illegal means illegal. That is why they are called illegal aliens. If they had their way they would just send them back to Mexico they would throw them in prison for being illegal. These factions of the republican party will never agree in this issue. And, it will rip the republican party apart.

I know this first hand because my dad is a hard working religious conservative republican and he has turned on Bush over the issue of illegals getting a Guest Worker Program.

Posted by: Wells | May 11, 2006 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I must say that alot of the criticism being thrown at the democrats here is really focused at the Clinton lead watered down middle of the road democratic message. But I wanted to point out that when Howard Dean took over the DNC it was huge hit against that establishment. I think that the democratic establishment is moving in the right direction but it will take sometime. Also I personally don't want Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid coming out with a set point by point plan of what the democrats will do when they win in November. All they need to do (and have done starting last weekend) is to provide a general policy message of accountability, balancing the budget, increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy, and protecting civil liberties.

The thing is that comes off as being Republican bashing because the current federal government does everything in its power to avoid accountability, increase defecit spending, give sweet heart deals to the oil industry, and completely gouge our civil liberties.
The only issue that the democrats need to have a real hardline solution for is the the War. Now I have no idea how to fix that cluserf*** and neither does the republican party for that matter.

Also I wanted to point out that there is a democrat who has been laying out a real agenda for a while now and his name is Russ Feingold. What kills me is that he gets up and stands for a real agenda and then he is painted as too liberal to run the country.

Posted by: Andy R | May 11, 2006 11:34 AM | Report abuse

here we go, Nor'easter - if someone asks for an honest look at the corruption then they live in Utopia land -

How do we solve problems if asking that we admit a problem is the same as living in Utopia land, corruption is real an innate to politics - that is easy

if merely asking the Dems to admit they also have a problem and to demonstrate leadership in how they handle the weeds in their own back yard means I live in Utopia land then I say let's be honest - it is hopeless and hand them the keys to our daughers' chastity belts and admit defeat.

The fact you cannot accomplish perfection does not mean you cannot try and minimize the corruption.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | May 11, 2006 11:31 AM | Report abuse

The problem with Schumer's viewpoint is that it is devoid of any reason why the Democrats are meritorious to receive the benefits of this voter anger.

This is the flaw with the Democratic leadership. Offer bold, striking alternatives and get rid of the "Culture of Corruption" bit because --big surprise-- people see you guys as corrupt as well! You shouldn't be satisfied resting on being the Devil-I-Don't-Know to get me to not vote for the Devil-I-Know.

When are you guys going to learn? We need a real, upstanding alternative. You guys and your soundbites and market-tested messages. It becomes so tiresome to continually read/hear/see.

Posted by: Chris Laurel | May 11, 2006 11:31 AM | Report abuse

To Ohio Guy: The sky is falling, the sky is falling....jeez oh flip, lighten up. The bottom line is the country is in a very unpopular war and gas prices are too high. You would expect the poll numbers of government to be very low given those circumstances. The economy is doing well, with the stock market close to an all time high. Our education system is lacking because we care more about teachers than education. Our country has been through much worse times than these...war of 1812, Civil war, WWI, WWII, Korea. Vietnam era when we had a gas shortage, huge troop losses, civil rights unrest and wars in the middle east as well as government corruption. Our country will learn valuable lessons during this time and become stronger, as we always do. No matter who ends up in power after the 06 elections. It's always good to remember the words of that great American philosopher, Billy Joel..."We didn't start the fire, it was always burnin', since the worlds been turnin'" during times like these. LOL

Posted by: FH | May 11, 2006 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Bobby W-C: Based on some of your comments in the past few days, I'm beginning to feel that only Utopia would meet your standards.

Admirable ideal, but it ain't gonna happen!

With a body of 535 in Congress [not to mention the high number of non-elected officials in the Executive, Judicial and Legislative Branches] corruption is bound to happen. Plus, when the general population accepts it to a certain degree, then it has been legitimized up to that degree.

Even if the Knight on the White Charger came forth to lead us out of this morass into an ethically pure World, they wouldn't have the governmental infa-structure which both of the major political parties have.

I don't mean to be personally critical, but your goals are just not achieveable in the imperfect World in which we live.

How to work with, through and around those imperfections is how the people who run and govern approach their jobs.

Also on the whole, are we really that corrupt? Is our system that bad? If so, why do so many others look to us and want to emulate us?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | May 11, 2006 11:23 AM | Report abuse

We were going back about Sen. Byrd Tuesday. I said Byrd in a landslide.

A poll just released shows Byrd with a 23 point lead. Byrd is Safe, Safe, and Safe.

Only death could stop him, and like one person pointed out - even dead Byrd would still win against Raese.

The latest Rasmussen Reports election poll in West Virginia shows Byrd leading Raese 57% to 34% (see crosstabs). That survey was conducted before the Primary and shows little difference from a February poll when Byrd led Raese 58% to 32%.

Posted by: Wells | May 11, 2006 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Lou Dobbs is the best newsman on television today - the second-best being Keith Olberman. Everybody else pretty much sucks.

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 11, 2006 11:05 AM | Report abuse

"I do not believe the Republicans have lost the trust or confidence of the voters at this point"

I'm glad that someone else found this comment as ridiulous as I did. Susan is abvously living in Neocon Fantasy Land. Seen a poll lately on who the voters want to control Congress? I didn't think so.

"So, if Schumer thinks he can defeat the Republicans control in the Senate, perhaps it is time for him to admit his own party lost its ability to get anything done for the nation, abused their power which was given to them by the voters, and it was the solutions for our nation which gave the Republicans the support of the voters."

This is the problem with republican hypocrites - they are living in the past of 12 years ago. Susan writes an entire post about the banking scandal of 12 years ago, and says absolutely nothing about Abramoff, Jeff Scanlon, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Tom DeLay, DeLay's former aides and chief of staff, Jeff Gannon, Tom Noe, Duke Cunningham, Conrad Burns, etc, etc. No voters are going to remember the house banking scandal when they go to the polls this November, Susan, so I hope you are not planning on that. What will be fresh on their minds is the corruption and incompetence of the current republican-controlled Congress and White House.

"and it was the solutions for our nation which gave the Republicans the support of the voters"

Hahahahahahah....What "solutions for our nation" did the republicans have Susan? We have the highest debt and deficit of all time, more uninsured people than ever, we are bleeding jobs overseas everyday, we are stuck in a war based on lies, pulic education has never been in worse shape, gas is more expensive than ever.....

Susan, are you sure you haven't posted here before under "king of zouk"

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 11, 2006 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Vienna local

This is why we cannot solve problems - you assume because I focused on the issue of what the Dems have to do to win, and I lobbed some criticism at the Dems that I some how excuse the Reputricans for their actions.

You solve problems by confronting them and not by spinning it around like Sean Hannity "he hit me first" If we confront the truth and address the problems we can then win

Why does me admitting we democrats are not with clean hands equal to me supporting the failures of the Reputricans?

So long as this is how America converses - the corrupt forces in both parties will continue to drag us down.

Oh, Lou Dobbs is putrid trash

Just want to make sure no one can question my left leaning views.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | May 11, 2006 10:57 AM | Report abuse

If George Allen wins in 2006, yes, it will set the stage for him to run in 2008. But, it is also a reason why he should learn from the failure of John Kerry or John Edwards to be successful in 2004 since their votes in the Senate could be used to expose their own lack of principles and their wishywashy actions. Kerry's statement, I actually voted for the $87 Billion before I voted against it, is a classic example of why Senators might win the party nomination, but only two senators have been elected directly to the White House since 1900. That is correct, no senator has been elected president since 1960.
Allen might have a strong challenger, and if he lost the 2006 election, it would demolish his White House dream. That might be the factor which Caped is referring to.

Posted by: Susan | May 11, 2006 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Since 1988, when the Republicans successfully demonized liberalism, the Democratic Party has been the party of the gutless wonders, investing their time, energy, and money into one goal: not to lose. As part of its avoidance of losing strategy, the Democratic "leadership" adopted an "offend no one" mentality. We saw this most clearly in evidence in 2000, when Gore eschewed Bill Clinton's support for fear of offending the very people who would go to hell before they'd vote for a Democrat...the Christian right. This avoidance of offending approach simply makes Democrats appear two-faced, insincere, and disunited. I've been voting for Democrats since I became age eligible in 1964, but unless they come up with a vision that includes a clear progressive agenda and reflects a clear determination to speak boldly and clearly regardless whom they offend, they've lost my vote, probably permanently. I was angry at Nader for his decision in 2000, but see the wisdom of it now. I'm leaning toward Greens in the future, or just dropping out, and letting the Republicans have their way. There's an old saying, "A people get the government they deserve." Given our profligate ways, maybe the Republicans -- and their Democrat handmaidens -- are what we deserve.

Posted by: Geschichter Pitts | May 11, 2006 10:48 AM | Report abuse

For uncensored news:

Report: NSA has domestic phone call database

Agency collecting information on tens of millions of Americans, paper says

• Newspaper: NSA snooping on U.S. phones
May 11: USA Today is reporting that the National Security Agency has been collecting phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. NBC's Lisa Myers reports.

WASHINGTON - In an effort to build a database of every call made within the country, the agency in charge of a domestic spying program has been secretly collecting phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, USA Today reported on Thursday.

It said the National Security Agency has been building up the database using records provided by three major phone companies -- AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. -- but that the program "does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations."

Instead it documents who talks to whom in personal and business calls, whether local or long distance, by tracking which numbers are called, the newspaper said.

USA Today said its sources for the story were "people with direct knowledge of the arrangement," but it did not give their names or describe their affiliation.

The existence of an NSA eavesdropping program launched after the Sept. 11 attacks was revealed in December.

Defending the controversial program, President Bush and his administration officials have said it aims to uncover links between international terrorists and their domestic collaborators and only targets communications between a person inside the United States and a person overseas.

Posted by: che | May 11, 2006 10:43 AM | Report abuse

"I do not believe the Republicans have lost the trust or confidence of the voters at this point, and it is 6 months before November."

Susan, are you serious? Poll numbers are dreadful for Republicans on specifically whether they trust them to govern. I agree with most of the rest of your post. When the Democrats were the party solely in power they royally screwed up, but guess what... history has done repeat itself. The Republican leadership has not done a very good job of governing, as we can see when their greatest achievement of the last Congress was getting judges confirmed.

The Democrats have a chance to redefine their party. BWC is correct in that they should go hard against corruption throughout all parties. In some ways, they have tried. There were ill fated lobbying reform bills in the Senate and House that were quite stringent, but didn't even come close to the floor thanks to Republican leadership.

I find Sen. Schumer's remarks about New Deal Dems and Reagan Republicans exciting. It's about time our politicians thought pragmatically about governing rather than relying on overuse and worn out ideology. Now let's see if action follows the rhetoric.

Posted by: Mike | May 11, 2006 10:30 AM | Report abuse

This is interesting Bobby. I didn't really expect the Captain Ed comments from you, given your previous posts.

How about responsible government in the form of returning us to something approaching fiscal sanity? How about actually taking "oversight" of the Administration seriously in Congress, and not resorting to a rubber stamp? How about actually looking out for the middle class when passing tax legislation, and not for your rich contributor friends and large corporations? Just for starts.

You wax about denial of Dem corruption, but what exactly is there to be in denial about? Mollohan? He's lost his Ethics seat. Jefferson? Fine. Heck, even though they're not corruption-related, throw in Pat Kennedy and McKinney too for good measure.

Let's stack that up against: Delay, the most flagrant machine boss in recent memory; incarcerated Duke Cunningham; soon-to-be-indicted Boby Ney; currently under investigation Jerry Lewis; Dana Rohrbacher; Katherine Harris; Virgil Goode; John Doolitte; former Rep and recently resigned Porter Goss. These are just a few of the folks caught up in either the Duke-stir's scandal or the Abramoff mess. I'm sure I'm missing a few.

And I'm not even counting HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson recently telling a Dallas business group that he nixed a contract because the contractor said he didn't support President Bush, former WH domestic policy advisor-turned-petty criminal Claude Allen, or the indictment of Scooter Libby for, oh--just the same thing the Republicans impeached Clinton for.

Let me know when you've had enough. I think the American people have.

Posted by: vienna local | May 11, 2006 10:28 AM | Report abuse

If Nancy Pelosi keeps whining about corruption of the Republican party while not pushing Allan Mollohan and Bill Jefferson out of the House, then she is a hypocrite, pure and simple.

Schumer needed Hillary Clinton to ride into New York to help his campaign to win the Senate. He was a lowly congressman from New York at the time, challenging Alfonze D'Matto, so he owes a huge debt to Hillary for his place in the Senate today. Anger is no way to try to win elections, and the Democrats fail to offer a clear plan to defend our nation. Blocking federal judges cost Tom Dashel his Senate seat and that same tactic is still being used to demolish the reputations of many judges named for the past 5 years.

Posted by: Tina | May 11, 2006 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Susan, I agree that Tennessee is unwinnable for the Democrats. Minnesota, though . . . I would put my money on Klobuchar.

And how about the Virginia race that Chris mentioned? That one is certainly a surprise-- the fact that it could even become competitive is nothing anyone anticipated a few months ago. And it has national implications, since a defeat (or even a narrow victory) of George Allen seriously dampens his presidential ambitions.

Posted by: The Caped Composer | May 11, 2006 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Ahh, you beat me to it. I guess I was sort-of on the right track in terms of interpreting your comment. And, yes, I definitely agree that there is corruption within both parties. It's the nature of politics, unfortunately.

Posted by: The Caped Composer | May 11, 2006 10:11 AM | Report abuse

When the Democrats held the House, the Senate, and won the White House in 1992, did they think they were wrong to be in control of all the political machinary? No, the Dems looked at themselves as the natural ruling party and prouding stated such as reported by the media at the time. It was only after the Madison Savings and Loan corruption linked with Jim and Susan McDougal (also connected to the Whitewater Land Deal scandal) that the pyramid of Donkeys started to collapse. The House Banking scandal and indictment of Dan Rostenkowski (who refused to step down) led to the loss of 73 Democrat seats in the House. Yes, boys and girls, that is correct, the Democrats lost 73 seats in November 1994, after the failed Hillarycare, the hundreds of FBI files of federal employees violated by Craig Livingston (who no one in the Clinton White House could remember hiring), and a long list of scandals and corruption investigations created the tidal wave against the Democrats and washed them out of power from the House and the Senate in 1994. So, if Schumer thinks he can defeat the Republicans control in the Senate, perhaps it is time for him to admit his own party lost its ability to get anything done for the nation, abused their power which was given to them by the voters, and it was the solutions for our nation which gave the Republicans the support of the voters. I do not believe the Republicans have lost the trust or confidence of the voters at this point, and it is 6 months before November. Tennessee is a strong GOP state, so I doubt Harold Ford will win it. Minnesota has an open seat with a favorable Republican congressman likely to pick it up.

Posted by: Susan | May 11, 2006 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Not to speak for anyone, but I think Bobby meant cracking down on the likes of Allan Mollohan and Bill Jefferson, singling them out as having acted in a corrupt manner and signaling that their errors are individual ones that do not reflect the Democratic party as a whole (as opposed to the rampant corruption in the Abramoff scandal that has plagued the Republicans this year.)

Posted by: The Caped Composer | May 11, 2006 10:09 AM | Report abuse


I'm not worried about who or what the Republicans are - the failure of the Republicans does not give license to the Dems to merely hold themselves out as "Not Republican"

anonymous - I do believe you represent the hardcore Dems, the ones who will help the Repubs win in November - denial does not win elections

There is corruption in both parties - all my point is, if the Dems are going to run on the issue - to prove to the moderate Republicans and Independents that the Dems are a better choice they need to step up to the plate and go after the corruption among Democrats - they can begin with the Democratic Party of Texas.

The swing voters are the most substance oriented voters - a con slogan campaign is not going to win their votes.

Cameron County, Texas, the second poorest county in the US voted for Bush twice - Cameron County has always been a bastion of the Democratic Party -

The problem is simple - Dems like you are in denial about the corruption within our own party and would rather angry Dems stay home than admit we have a problem within our own party

Denial by the Dems is the best weapon the Repubs have in November.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | May 11, 2006 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Bobby I have no idea what you are talking about. Please clarify your comments. "going after your own" who are you referring to.

You ask for the Dems to define themselves, well, might I ask, how do you define the GOP--is it what we have been seeing from Congress for the past 12 years and from the WH the past 6???

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2006 9:51 AM | Report abuse

So now the Dems have a strategy - good - now tell me what you (Dems) stand for other than not being Republican?

Define yourselves - draw a line in the sand on corruption and mean it by going after your own - if the Dems are not willing to do this - then it is a con job which moderate Republicans will reject.

Let's see if the Dems have what it takes to go after one of their own.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2006 9:27 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company