Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Sen. Pete Domenici Expected to Retire

Veteran Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) is expected to announce tomorrow that he will retire from the Senate in 2008, according to several informed sources, a decision that further complicates an already difficult playing field for Republicans next November.

Domenici has struggled with health problems over the last several years and has been dogged by questions about the role he may have played in the firing of U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias in Albuquerque. As a result, he had been long been rumored as a potential retirement. Domenici's Senate office did not return a call this afternoon, but sources close to the senator say he will fly home to New Mexico tomorrow to make the announcement that he is retiring.

The six-term senator joins Republican Sens. John Warner (Va.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Wayne Allard (Colo.) on the sidelines for 2008. Democrats hold a slim 51 to 49 margin in the Senate, including two independents aligned with them. But they have the opportunity to expand that majority and possibly make it easier for them to pass controversial legislation. That's because the Republicans must defend 22 of the 34 seats that are up for reelection in 2008, while the Democrats must protect only 12.

The most likely candidates on the Republican side are Reps. Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce. Several Democrats are mentioned including Rep. Tom Udall, Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez, Lt. Gov. Diane Denish and former state Attorney General Patricia Madrid. The dream candidate for Democrats is Gov. Bill Richardson but his advisers insist he is not interested and focused on the 2008 presidential race. Wealthy businessman Don Wiviott is already in the race and has put several hundred thousand dollars of his own money into the bid.

Domenici, 75, the son of Italian immigrants, has been a dominant figure for decades on budget and energy matters. The long-time chairman of the Senate Budget Committee played key roles in budget and tax policy dating back to the Reagan administration. He shifted to the chairmanship of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in November 2002, where he looked out for the interests of new Mexico's Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories and promoted the expansion of nuclear power. He has been the ranking member on the committee since the Democrats took back control of Congress in 2006.

Earlier this year, he joined several other Republicans in criticizing President Bush's Iraq war policies,. but he has not cast a vote in opposition to those policies. Domenici's political standing became more tenuous after he was implicated in a controversy over the Justice Department's firing of nine U.S. attorneys last year.

The Senate ethics committee is investigating Domenci for a phone call he placed to then-federal prosecutor Iglesias last October in a possible attempt to pressure him to indict New Mexico Democrats in a corruption probe just before the November election. Shortly after Iglesias said he rebuffed Domenici, his name appeared on a list of U.S. attorneys to be fired that was compiled by top Justice Department aides. Iglesias was dismissed Dec. 7.

Republican insiders insist that Domenici's decision to retire had everything to do with his health and nothing to do with poll numbers or the U.S. attorney controversy. More to come on this opening tomorrow.

By Eric Pianin  |  October 3, 2007; 4:30 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Huckabee's Money
Next: PostTalk: Schumer Denies Clinton Would Be a Drag
On the Democratic Ticket

Comments

Here's some exam findings of Domenicis' brain that differ somewhat with the official release.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12461951@N03/
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1092/1490445344_2fc34d8bba_o.jpg

... ;)

Posted by: Didereaux | October 5, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

I think he should stay on. Since when is mental stability a factor. I could point out a number of "congressmen" that make no sense but I'll just mention one, Robert Byrd.

Posted by: truthseeker | October 4, 2007 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Pete Domenici's departure is not too surprising; it was apparent to anybody watching him the last few years he had some serious medical problems that we weren't supposed to know or talk about.

However, I wish he'd leave office sooner; do we really need a senator that will be voting on all the important issues of the day while so many cards short of a full deck? And who is going to decide whether he is mentally capable of serving in the Senate? Pete himself?

New Mexico is a conservative state but not a truly Republican state. Call it a sexist analysis, but believe me this widespread moderate conservatism will work against both parties if they nominate Heather Wilson and/or Diane Denish for Senate.

From the beginning, both of them have benefited - and have been perceived as benefiting - from riding the coattails of more powerful political men in the state. That basic political weakness is compounded by the fact that each has the charisma of a dead fish. I don't see either of them getting past the primary. Heather's US Attorney influencing problems have only started, too, and Larry Craig's foot-shuffling ways may remind New Mexico voters of Heather's husband's past indiscretions (a matter of partially suppressed police record).

The speculation about Mayor Martin Chavez of Albuquerque running for Senate is laughable. He's not at all popular or effective in Albuquerque; he'd be eaten alive in the important smaller towns and rural areas. (And besides, the curse of the Mayor of Albuquerque is upon him.)

Rep. Udall probably has the best Dem shot; he's been liberal but not too liberal for New Mexico in his voting and he presents himself in a down-home, comfortable way in public. He's got the charisma of a _live_ fish, at any rate. Other Democrats will have a very difficult time getting their voter recognitions up in this big state the way Tom has.

Rep. Pearce, well, it's just not a great year for bitter, ultra-conservative Republicans, especially ones that unconditionally support President Dum-dum on Iraq and every other issue, few of which issues play well in northern and central New Mexico these days.

I'm going out on a limb here and wonder aloud if former Republican Governor Gary "Goofy" Johnson might not get back into politics and run for Domenici's seat. He's still such a blank slate and dim bulb, but New Mexico voted him governor twice. As governor he did absolutely nothing of significance except advocate legalizing marijuana and yet he probably would have higher state-wide approval ratings than any other Republican. Go figure. But then, Republicans have been eating their young in New Mexico for so many years they have a very thin field of candidates.

Posted by: New Mecca | October 4, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

The New Western Democrats will sweep The West in the next election cycle. Pro-gun, anti-corporate, pro-environmental libertarians. How could anyone possibly vote Republican in the next election? They've screwed things up so badly over the last 8 years, they're retiring in droves, the budget is blown, America is extremely isolated in the World, The lies of the Bush Administration are evident for all to see and all those that supported him will now be held accountable. What a disaster!

Posted by: thebob.bob | October 4, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"I need to go take a SCHIP, be back later

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 01:10 PM

the only reason to call me a phoney soldier is that I put a phone up my butt once

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 01:11 PM
"

Is that all you cowards got? HAHAHHAHAHAHA. O'rEilyl is done. Rush is done. The gop is done. And that's all you got HAHAHAHA. FUnny fascists aren't you

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

the only reason to call me a phoney soldier is that I put a phone up my butt once

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I need to go take a SCHIP, be back later

Posted by: rufus | October 4, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Hold it, Rufus, your insults do as much damage to the dems trying to make a reasoned point on this blog as Rush's hatemongering does to the gop nationally. Count to ten before you post, and check your spelling.

What I'm looking for in this blog is thoughtful discussion of facts and news, preferably with dems, gop and independents all contributing.

Posted by: bud | October 4, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

i THOUGH TYOU WERE LEAVING MARK. wHY THE WHINING AND CRYING POSTS. POST YOUR POSTS. What a bunch of cowards you gop sell-outs are.

Posted by: RUFUS | October 4, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Sorry everyone for all the posts. Anyone that comes here regulaly knows I have been called a phoney soldier and also that I was never in the military EVERY SINGLE TIME I HAVE MENTIONED IT. So this rush thing is not an isolated incident. This is what the gop is doing, with direction from their avatars, like rush and fox. So imagine when this fell in my lap. A chance for me to direct all of this "phoney soldier" garbag eI have been getting back onto the gop. Sorry for all the posts. I can't stay silent on this one. It is bigger than rush. We (the left)need to hold him accountable. We all have seen the gop is unable or incapable of holding their own to account. Peace

Posted by: RUFUS | October 4, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

This is a big deal and a huge opportunity for Democrats. Now that Domenici is retiring, they will certainly be able to recruit a top tier candidate to vie for the seat. Whether it be us rep. Udall, Lt. gov. Danish or whoever. If they were able to recruit Richardson, he would be the favorite against any Republican except Domenici. With that being said, who will Democrat's recruit? Will Udall leave a very safe seat in House, where he is in the majority, for a tough and uncertain seat in the US senate? Danish keeps her seat as Lt. gov. if she runs and doesn't win, so she has little to lose not to run. Who will end up running for the Republicans? Heather Wilson is in for a tough fight whether or not she runs for re-election to the House, being in the minority likely, or run for the senate seat. She is Domenici's protege, so to speak, and this the best shot she will likely ever have to get that US senate seat. I think she's in. How about Stevan Pearce? Will he leave a safe house seat to run against Wilson in the Republican primary, and then against whoever the Democratic candidate is? Political pundits seem to believe he will run. Had R's kept control of the House, I would think he'd be happy to stay just where he is. Considering how easily he will win re-election to the House if he stays vs. how difficult it will be for him to win the senate seat, he may think twice about running for the Senate. Unless he just hates being in the minority in the House, he will likely stay where he is in the House handing Wilson the nomination. If that happens, this race with Wilson vs. the Democratic nominee will be very competitive.

Republican's just can't seem to catch a break. Allard of Colo., J. Warner of Va., Hagel of Neb. and now Domenici of NM. Domenici, J. Warner and Chuck Hagel would all have their seat as safe Republican's if they ran for re-election. Udall would put up a fight with Allard in NM, but Allard would definately be the favorite. His type of conservatism goes very well with Colorodo voters, which is why he won election twice. But now, Va., NM. and Colo. are all very competitive toss up races. Nebraska is still very Republican leaning, whether the GOP nominee is Johanns or Bruning. The GOP primary is where the real race for Hagel's seat is, not the general election. However, New Hampshire is now very, very competitive. It looks like Oregon, Maine and Minn. are all leaning Republican. Still, though, Democrats have a chance to gain NM, Colo., Va., NH and Minn. Gordon Smith has the money to fund himself in Oregon, although the GOP will likely help him some. Collins looks like she has things well in hand in Maine. R's have a chance to gain La. and SD. Democrats have a major advantage now, although a 67 seat veto proof senate is still a major exaggeration. 60 seats is still bleak for Dems., but now not out of the question.

Posted by: reason | October 4, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

The letter with edits looks good to me, as well, and I think it's long overdue. Good on you for taking the initiative, Mark.

Posted by: JasonL | October 4, 2007 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Hello -- here's a story for you, CC-- big one.

'Recently it was reported that around 50 pro-family leaders gathered behind closed doors to discuss what to do if a pro-choice politician -- read: Rudy -- won the GOP nomination. The reports were a bit vague as to what happened, suggesting that the group said they would "consider" nominating a third-party challenger.

Now, however, one of those leaders, Focus on the Family head James Dobson, has published an Op ed piece in The New York Times clarifying exactly what happened: The group voted almost unanimously not just to "consider" backing such a challenger, but to definitely do so. In other words, Dobson made it official, saying that if a pro-choicer wins the GOP nomination, these leaders will be going third party. Dobson wrote:

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.'

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/_dobson_makes_it_official_religious_right_leaders_will_back_thirdparty_challenger_against_rudy.php

Posted by: Cassandra | October 4, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

The letter is fine by me...

Posted by: J | October 4, 2007 10:12 AM | Report abuse

the letter looks good to me too.

Posted by: bsimon | October 4, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Dispatches from an Alternate Universe
It really is true that a significant percentage of conservatives have managed to construct for themselves an alternate universe in which up is down, left is right, and political reality is completely inverted. I don't know any other way of explaining how someone can argue, without feeling completely embarrassed, that the Left hates Rush Limbaugh for the "quality of his mind" or that the "vilification of individuals" by the Left has become "one of the central features of contemporary politics."

Let's see... Limbo vilifies and demonizes men and women fighting in Iraq, and so.... the media accuses 'the left' of vilifying. 'The quality of his mind.' I wonder which quality? The capacity for evil?

Posted by: Dan | October 4, 2007 9:59 AM | Report abuse

'Cavuto compares congressional Dems to Saddam Hussein: Fox News personality sees similarities between S-CHIP debate, hostages taken in Iraq - On Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto asked, "[W]hat does this?"-- while he aired a video clip of children pulling red wagons in front of the White House as part of a recent demonstration against President Bush's threatened veto of legislation to increase funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by $35 billion over five years -- "have to do with this?" -- whereby he aired a still image of Saddam Hussein with a young British boy, an image from a widely publicized TV interview that aired on Iraqi state television in which Saddam appeared with Western hostages to whom he had refused exit visas in the lead-up to the Persian Gulf War.'

oww-- the stupid. how painful is the incredible stupidity

Posted by: IQ of -5 | October 4, 2007 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Mark In Austin, dridl, bokonon, et al;
The content of the letter looks acceptable, actually really good, to me.

Posted by: amaranthpa | October 4, 2007 9:53 AM | Report abuse

'The sound of one hand clapping ... The NYT fronts a piece looking into how things don't seem to be going so well for Fred Thompson, the man that was supposed to be the Republican savior. After he finished a speech in Iowa recently, the audience stayed silent. "Can I have a round of applause?" Thompson asked.'

Oh. My. Give it up, old man.

Posted by: Thud | October 4, 2007 9:45 AM | Report abuse

'On the September 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, during the weekly "Body Language" segment, Fox News 'body language expert' Tonya Reiman asserted that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) exhibited "evil laughter" during her recent Fox News Sunday interview with host Chris Wallace. '

jeezus christ. how much stupider can it get? how far can you dumb down an entire country. al queda could just march in masse into the country saying they were fox news and half the population woudl welcome them with open arms.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 9:38 AM | Report abuse

'Starting with reports in The New York Times and the Politico, and progressing to many other outlets, commentators speculated about whether Clinton's laughter is evidence of her "calculating" nature, with some characterizing her laugh as a "cackle" -- defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "the sound made by a hen after laying an egg."

And MSM wonders why its readership is falling -- the level of political discourse in this country is at a sandbox level -- digusting.

And of course you knew that zouk couldn't have thought this up on his own -- he is incapable. He can only parrot.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 9:35 AM | Report abuse

The new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that Bill Clinton remains popular, with 66% of Americans approving of his job performance when he was president, and only 32% disapproving. This is a virtual mirror image of President Bush's approval rating, which stands at 33%-64%. Additionally, 60% of respondents said they would be comfortable having Bill as the first husband.

As for his wife's presidential campaign, she is not viewed as a mere extension of his White House -- only 27% or respondents said she would be such a thing, compared to 67% who said she would be different. A full majority of respondents, 52%, say a hypothetical Hillary presidency would be different from Bill's, and that this would be a good thing. And in a match-up with Rudy Giuliani, Hillary leads 51%-43%.

Posted by: Josh | October 4, 2007 9:30 AM | Report abuse

During a campaign swing in which he toured an Iowa ethanol plant, Fred Thompson acknowledged that he has changed his position on ethanol subsides.

"I have voted against subsidies in the Senate," said Thompson. "But I think it's a matter now of national security.'

'national security' meaning 'help me get elected.' going to be hearing a lot about how it's important to 'national security' that repugs get elected...

Posted by: flipfloppin freddy | October 4, 2007 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Heather Wilson? Oh, I don't think so...

'Reminiscent of the still-unfolding scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley -- and what many, even on the right, see as a Republican cover-up -- is an earlier scandal involving Republican Rep. Heather Wilson (NM-01) and her husband, Jay Hone. The video above shows a KOAT-TV7 (Albuquerque) news story prompted by one of Wilson's first actions when she was appointed to head the NM Department of Children, Youth and Families. Wilson served as Department Secretary from 1995-1998. On her third day in office, she removed a sensitive department case file, which had been opened on her husband, from the agency's central records repository in Albuquerque. Although Wilson initially denied doing so, she later changed her story and admitted removing the file. In other words, she lied.

The file was opened in response to an Albuquerque police report filed in March 1993 that reportedly contained potentially damaging allegations against her husband.'

http://www.democracyfornewmexico.com/democracy_for_new_mexico/2006/10/foley_case_not_.html

'U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson's service on the seemingly innocuous House Page Board has brought the Mark Foley scandal into the Albuquerque Republican's hotly contested race for re-election.

Wilson's Democratic opponent, Attorney General Patricia Madrid, charged Monday that Wilson failed to protect the pages from a sexual predator when she was one of five members of the board from 2001-04.

"This board was specifically charged with taking care of the pages," Madrid said.

http://www.americablog.com/2006/10/heather-wilson-r-nm-who-cried-about.html

The House Ethics Committee interviewed former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico on Wednesday, a first step toward deciding whether to open an inquiry into allegations that Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., tried to pressure him.

http://www.nmfbihop.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=330

Posted by: Had Enough in NM | October 4, 2007 9:22 AM | Report abuse

I think the caps were to show Bokonon's edits.

I submitted a separate email, perhaps a bit less well-written, with similar sentiments. I don't have much to contribute to this one.

Posted by: Blarg | October 4, 2007 8:54 AM | Report abuse

For the Dems to win in NM, they will need to get on top of the GOP caging activities, and other assorted election misbehavior (e.g., moving polling places weeks before the election).

My sister, a hard core Dem (with an hispanic surname -- she married a 3rd generation Mexican-American) was booted from the rolls because she was caged. Why didn't she get the GOP's little registered mail package? She had a stroke and was in the hospital in Lubbock, TX (where she was life-flighted from her home in Carlsbad)recovering. She was too sick to deal with the BS. No one told her she could fill out a provisional ballot. She just didn't vote.

How many others are like her? So the Dems better get their legal team together if they want to take this seat. The GOP will do whatever it takes to hold it.

Posted by: vmi98mom | October 4, 2007 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, sorry - the caps were mine. I usually send edits online as Word docs using "Track Changes," but in this case I had no other way to easily indicate what was changed/new.

Posted by: Bokonon | October 4, 2007 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Note that last post was rhetorical, not looking for actual descriptions

Posted by: JD | October 4, 2007 8:47 AM | Report abuse

If this letter's recommendations are adopted, what will the whackjobs do all day?

Posted by: JD | October 4, 2007 8:46 AM | Report abuse

I'll be happy to sign too -- I've probably been on here longer than any of y'all. Note: not so many caps, please. They look like we're screaming. But the content is good.

Posted by: drindl | October 4, 2007 8:33 AM | Report abuse

I was going to proof the final...

Posted by: Mark in Austin | October 3, 2007 11:59 PM | Report abuse

also, in the 2nd paragraph of my edit, make sure you take out my note to you in parentheses and replace with the actual rule or rules you refer to.

Posted by: Bokonon | October 3, 2007 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Mark, absolutely... one more edit I just noticed, though...

"SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHAT IS NECESSARY IN ORDER PROVIDE YOUR READERS"

instead should be

"SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHAT IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE YOUR READERS"

Hope it works!

Posted by: Bokonon | October 3, 2007 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are reaping what they have sown. 6 years of run amok corruption and the only surprise is that there aren't even more of them bailing to avoid criminal prosecution. You can bet Domminecci was having "health problems. I beleive the diagnosis was "depleted bowel syndrome"... he was scared sh!tless!


Posted by: Fishingriver | October 3, 2007 11:45 PM | Report abuse

should have been mind eaters,


just reading this blog has sucked an "n" out of me...


beware the slithey toves,


and tap dancers in MinnieAppleus

.

Posted by: that | October 3, 2007 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Boko - your redraft is where it is now. Perhaps some others will join in, too.

When I use your redraft do I have your permission to sign my [real]
name, as if I wrote it?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | October 3, 2007 11:38 PM | Report abuse

The only thing "controversial" on this blog is how Cillizza has kept his job as an objective journalist.

"Controversial legislation?" That phrase sounds like a GOP soundbyte or radio advertisement, not like the comment of a journalist worthy of any respect.

Posted by: Marty | October 3, 2007 11:36 PM | Report abuse

you have been infiltrated by the mid eaters....

good luck.

I see that they already have Chris under their sway....

"you shall know them by their zouks!"


F.O. and D.

.

Posted by: I see, | October 3, 2007 11:34 PM | Report abuse

replace 2nd to last paragraph with this:

"We do not want to lose this website to THOSE WHO WOULD USE IT as a personal vanity page, OR AS A PLACE TO TRUMPET CANDIDATES OR CAUSES WITH NO ROOM FOR DISCUSSION, but we do not have the power to stop or even slow them. AS THE WEBMASTER, you, on the other hand, SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHAT IS NECESSARY IN ORDER PROVIDE YOUR READERS WITH A RELATIVELY OPEN AND RESPECTFUL ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH TO SHARE THEIR VIEWS."

Posted by: 2nd edit | October 3, 2007 11:30 PM | Report abuse

Mark and others, see what you think of this.

*******

Dear Mr. Cillizza:

I am WRITING ON BEHALF of several concerned USERS OF YOUR SITE. In recent weeks, ATTEMPTS AT serious commentary, from every point of view, haVE been progressively stifled by A few self-absorbed posters. If you or any OF YOUR staff have been paying attention, you will understand our frustration. If not, SEVERAL OF US are ready to PROVIDE YOU WITH EXAMPLES.
We suggest the following two simple steps.

First, enforce the rules of the blog. (Mark, quote the relevant rules here, i.e. no posting under another's pen name, no putting down others' opinions... I don't have them in front of me.)
Second, require registration at this blog site, as is required by "The Trail."

If the disruption continues after you have enforced the rules and required registration, we will suggest more stringent steps.

We do not want to lose this website to THOSE WHO WOULD USE IT as a personal vanity page, OR AS A PLACE TO TRUMPET CANDIDATES OR CAUSES WITH NO ROOM FOR DISCUSSION. But we do not have the power to stop or even slow them. AS THE WEBMASTER, you, on the other hand, SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHAT IS NECESSARY IN ORDER PROVIDE YOUR READERS WITH A RELATIVELY OPEN AND RESPECTFUL ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH TO - RESPECTFULLY - SHARE THEIR VIEWS.

WE DO NOT WANT NOR DO WE EXPECT 'CENSORSHIP,' AND WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT BANNING ONE OR MORE PEOPLE IS THE ANSWER - PERHAPS IF EACH CONTRIBUTOR WERE LIMITED TO A CERTAN NUMBER OF POSTS PER HOUR? We only ask that you do what you actually can, BUT WE ARE REASONABLY CONFIDENT/HOPEFUL THAT SOMETHING CAN IN FACT BE DONE.

Posted by: Bokonon | October 3, 2007 11:24 PM | Report abuse

08 will be a bloodbath for the GOP because they have a fool in the White House, no good Presidential candidate, and they have put party before country consistently for 6 years, causing many of us to question their patriotism.

THe only big question is whether the Democrats can have some spine to stop the bankrupting of the country by Bush in mindless war in Iraq and whether they can define themselves in some way outside of the corporate media spin.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 11:17 PM | Report abuse

zouk zouk zouk

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 11:14 PM | Report abuse

This seat belongs to Bill Richardson. He needs to give up his hopeless run for the White House and get his Senate seat. None of the GOP candidates has a chance. Here in New Mexico our state is a very blue shade of purple. Bush only won here by cheating at the polls. Wilson is widely disliked.

Come on home Bill Richardson!

Posted by: texfromnewmex | October 3, 2007 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Pete Domenici's retirement is a major development. New Mexico is a swing state and the political and fundraising winds are blowing in the Democrats favor. This seat is ripe for a pickup, although at this early stage I would not say it looks as sure a thing as Virginia, New Hampshire or Colorado. Heather Wilson, BTW, is tainted by the U.S. Attorney scandal just like Domenici, albeit to a lesser degree.

At this stage I would rate the Senate races as--

LEAN DEM: Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, South Dakota

TOSSUP: New Mexico, Louisiana, Minnesota

LEAN GOP: Maine, Oregon, Nebraska

Republicans have 8 endangered seats to the Democrats 2. Three of the GOP endangered seats I rank in the LEAN DEM category, so they are highly likely takeover possibilities. I would not consider either of the endangered Democratic seats in the LEAN GOP category.

Posted by: Ogre Mage | October 3, 2007 10:56 PM | Report abuse

JasonL -- I follow your logic regarding 2010, and obviously that's so far off right now that who knows what will actually happen, but the map will again reallly favor Dems that year. If they get to 58 or so this time (again, not saying it happens) I could see another two seat pick up in 2010 assuming the election wasn't too nationalized. If it was another national cycle, i agree that Dems would probably not pick up more seats since the public, somewhat justifiably, is skeptical of too much power in one party's hands.

Posted by: Colin | October 3, 2007 10:43 PM | Report abuse

Hasn't this been overlooked? To quote Mr. Cillizza, a Dem majority could "possibly make it easier for them [sic] to pass controversial legislation." Would this "controversial legislation" include legislating the immediate redeployment of troops, health care for all (and especially children), a sensible and sensitive plan for global warming, and a restoration of international and national laws that have traditionally governed this nation? Horrors! That sounds pretty controversial, given that more than 60% of voting Americans (and probably 80% of the non-voting ones) support this kind of controversy. What's the world coming to?! Before we start planning our wish list of candidates, we'd better start thinking about what these nasty Congressional Dems could do should they choose to represent the majority! It's VERY controversial.

Posted by: ljm405 | October 3, 2007 10:41 PM | Report abuse

I propose the following draft. I will email it, as an attachment, on my letterhead to CC and to the publisher. I have left plenty of room for your editing. Have at it.
--------------------------

Dear Mr. Cillizza:

I am representative of several concerned posters to "The Fix". In recent weeks the serious commentary from every point of view
has been progressively stifled by as few as four self-absorbed posters. If you or any staffers have been paying attention,
you will understand our frustration. If not, at least ten posters are ready to cite you "chapter and verse."

We suggest the following two simple steps.

First, enforce the rules of the blog. Second, require registration at this blog site as is required by "The Trail."

If the disruption continues after you have enforced the rules and required registration, we will suggest more stringent steps.

We do not want to lose this website to persons intent upon using "The Fix" as a personal vanity page. But we do not have the power to stop or even slow them. You, on the other hand, may or may not have that power.

We only ask that you do what you actually can.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | October 3, 2007 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Now, this will be a test. How can Jonathan Weisman and Shalaigh Murray spin the Domenici retirement into a win for the Republicans? It is going to be tough, but I know they can do it.

Posted by: roger | October 3, 2007 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Pete Domenici's name was the first one listed on CREW's "Beyond Delay" report on corruption in Congress. Heather Wilson's face is shown first. And Steve Pearce's name is also on the list of the 22 most corrupt people currently in Congress.

http://www.beyonddelay.org/

Let's face it -- they're all three marked, and it's just a matter of time until they all go bye-bye! Good riddance to the lot! (Heather Wilson's running ads on TV, many times a day now: saying how great she is for caring about children. Uh-huh ... a failed play right out of Gonzo's playbook.)

What's that comment, in one of the e-mails that went public during the AttorneyGate Scandal: something about Domenici being very happy to see Iglesias go; and that he isn't even waiting for the body to cool!?

Posted by: Happy New Mexican | October 3, 2007 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous--"Prime: FNC: 422 | CNN: 251 | MSNBC: 220 | HLN: 161 | CNBC: 150

We need a law. no one is listening to us Libs."

We clearly need a law for math education. Since the implication is that FOXNews is the only anti-Lib organisation, it is clearly losing. 251 + 220 + 161 + 150 = 782, much more than FOX's 422.

Posted by: roo | October 3, 2007 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Sorry everyone for all the posts. Anyone that comes here regulaly knows I have been called a phoney soldier and also that I was never in the military EVERY SINGLE TIME I HAVE MENTIONED IT. So this rush thing is not an isolated incident. This is what the gop is doing, with direction from their avatars, like rush and fox. So imagine when this fell in my lap. A chance for me to direct all of this "phoney soldier" garbag eI have been getting back onto the gop. Sorry for all the posts. I can't stay silent on this one. It is bigger than rush. We (the left)need to hold him accountable. We all have seen the gop is unable or incapable of holding their own to account. Peace

Have a good night everybody.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 8:57 PM | Report abuse

"Asked about Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment, McCain told CNN: "[H]e should not have said it"
On the October 3 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, chief national correspondent John King asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for his reaction to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) Senate floor statement calling on senators "to join in condemning [Rush] Limbaugh's attack on our troops" -- a reference to Limbaugh's September 26 comments characterizing service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers." McCain responded: "I did issue a statement saying that I thought it was inappropriate, and perhaps Mr. Limbaugh didn't mean it but he should not have said it."

"

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 8:51 PM | Report abuse

"Dear IVAW supporter,

IVAW DC chapter president Geoff Millard to appear on The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News, 8 PM EST. Please check local listings and tune in!

IVAW member Geoff Millard will appear on The O'Reilly Factor to respond to Rush Limbaugh's accusation that troops and veterans who oppose the unjust occupation of Iraq are "phony soldiers." While politicians and pundits are busy waging a PR war over Rush's comments, our troops are engaged in a real war and are dying every day. Iraq Veterans Against the War will not stop organizing until all of our brothers and sisters are home from Iraq and the Iraqi people are allowed their right to self determination. The best way for our political leaders to show their support for our troops is by demanding an immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from Iraq. Please watch The O'Reilly Factor tonight to see Geoff Millard speak with the honesty and integrity that is sorely lacking among politicians who continue to sacrifice our lives in a seemingly endless war and occupation.

After watching Geoff take on O'Reilly, please visit the Iraq Veterans Against the War website, www.ivaw.org/support, and make a donation today! Your help is critical in IVAW's work to end the war.

In Peace,

Kelly Dougherty
Former Sergeant, Army National Guard
Executive Director
Iraq Veterans Against the War

"

Posted by: fyi | October 3, 2007 8:43 PM | Report abuse


Another piece of the aging rot is swept out. And yes, on the 1% a year national Democratic trend, New Mexico will be a ~53% Democratic win statewide next year.

And yes, in '10 Democrats will probably be in a position to take Snowe's seat, Gregg's, Specter's, Voinovich's, Martinez's, McCain's, Bond's- all at that point running for election in Blue states. And they'll have good shots at Burr, Bunning, maybe Thune.

Republicans- the new Whig Party.

Posted by: cd | October 3, 2007 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Pete Domenici has been an absloutely great United States Senator not only for New Mexico, but for the entire Nation. Identified as the most-promising person to follow him, then Senator Clinton P. Anderson (D., NM),saw greatness in the young, Republican Domenici and went well-beyond party lines to to support the very best person for the New Mexico of the future, not of the past. Oh how we need this type of vision in today's world. Senator, Domenici you lived up to Sen. Anderson's predictions and beyond. Thank you for being yourself.... John Owens

Posted by: JCO | October 3, 2007 8:17 PM | Report abuse

"So here is a giant hypocrite, General Clark, who sat around and did nothing during a genocide of 800,000 Rwandans, the mad bomber of Bosnia, fully in support of Michael Moore's right to lie under the context and the pretext of the First Amendment. And yet General Clark's all over television yesterday and today, suggesting that I need to be taken off of Armed Forces Radio because I have a long history of disrespect and criticism for the brave men and women in the United States military. No more ridiculous, worthless, totally untrue charge could be made. But he is making it. Now, Peter Jennings, after the answer that you just heard from the mad bomber of Bosnia, said, "Let me ask you about something you mentioned, then, because this question and answer which you and Mr. Moore was involved in, you had a chance to look at the facts. You still feel comfortable with the fact that somebody should be standing up in your presence and calling the president of the United States a deserter?""

the differance is Mike moore is not on the radio everyday. Mike moore is not on the radio broadcasting to troops. People can buy moore's books or movies. He's not on the airwaves daily.

I'm all for rush and fox putting out cd. Put a parentel advisory sticker on it, like it's rap.

But they are not news. They are republcian RAP. Put out cd's rush. Get off the radio

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 8:15 PM | Report abuse

CC. I'll ask again. Why did you cover the moveon stroy over and over, yet zero mention of the Rush Limabaugh, phony soldiers, comments. ARe you a hypocrite, sir? Are you are republcian talking head tellin gone side of the story?

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Another non-phony soldier. The right is still defending him and propogating. Now we see who is who and what is what.

"As a USMC vet who also happens to be pro-peace, it upsets but doesn't surprise me that Limbaugh would make such a comment. All he ever does is try to stir up stuff. He is basically a bully for hire! It's rich that he calls someone a "phony soldier" when Limbaugh has never served a DAY in combat let alone the armed forces! I wish Rush would just HUSH!!!
Posted by:
ladycascadia "

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 8:01 PM | Report abuse

I am thrilled to hear that we will be shed of Dominici. If Wilson runs for his seat, we will probably be shed of her as well. I would love to see Tom Udall in Dominici's seat. He has been my representative for years and I have never known a better one. Maybe Patricia Madrid will run for Wilson's seat -- District 1. Marty Chavez is very smooth, but I don't trust him. This is the end of a dynasty in New Mexico and this is a good year for it to happen. Wilson and Dominici have been resting on their laurels way too long. Time for them to go.

Posted by: New Mexican | October 3, 2007 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Suprisingly balanced take from abc. This is kinda how I feel. I guess we're all phonies if we don't agree with these propogandsits

"Rush is the phony soldier. He happily sends others to do what he is not willing to do. I am one veteran who thinks that Rush is the problem with this country not the answer.
Posted by:
jr13579 7:17 PMMark As Violation
"

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 7:55 PM | Report abuse

NM, VA, CO and NB have empty GOP incumbancy seats in '08. To be safe, let's say each race would need $6,000,000 per seat, on the average. THE GOP leaders, McCain, Guilliani and Mittney, can barely raise that amount. Look at the ENORMOUS $$$ disparity already, and the progressvie netroots have not even kicked in yet. Me thinks I am seeing 63 DEMCRATIC SENATORS FOR 2009.

Posted by: Frederick | October 3, 2007 7:54 PM | Report abuse

These posts lack the studied moderation of practiced public statement. I suppose that's because so many of the posts are by young-earth Bible-beating free-market- fundamentalist wackos who think diphtheria was God's way of saving us money on child care.

Posted by: Archer | October 3, 2007 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Re Limbaugh and Wes Clark: wonder how often Rush called for U.S. intervention in Rwanda while it was happening? I'm gonna guess it's a round number.

Posted by: rt42 | October 3, 2007 7:49 PM | Report abuse

hmm lets see, virgina plus new hampshire,nebraska maybe,minnesota,colorado,oregon,maine. thats 8 so far. now new mexico! 9 thats nine wins so far. can we make it to 60? looks like it but let me say this, the dems shouldnt get lazy and rest on their laurels.

sure its forcing the repubicans play defense in 9 states so far but anything can happen between now and november 2008.

Posted by: spartan | October 3, 2007 7:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to contineu and make use of this blog today. Now he is on the assult of Mr. Clark. Attack him and his credibility .But he supports the troops?


"RUSH: (laughing) Putting it in perspective. Now, General Clark, let's talk about him just a second here before we go to the break, the mad bomber of Bosnia. Is this the same Wesley Clark who did nothing to try to prevent the mass murder of 800,000 Rwandans? Is this the same Wesley Clark who was in a position to insist the Clinton administration and the United Nations send help to that region to try to stop the mass murder of 800,000 Rwandans? Is this the same Wesley Clark who has never had to answer for his indifference to that genocide, and, worse, in the face of this genocide, in a public investigation, has never had to answer for it? Is this the same Wesley Clark who was once a Republican who supported President Bush but then changed parties so he could run for president and then attack President Bush? Is this the same Wesley Clark who could not muster any popular support for his hilarious run for the presidency?
"

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Now he's after wes clark for trying to have him removed from the armed servies radio, as he should be. Mad bomber of bosnia? Ballsy. How many more weeks do you people think he'll last?

"It's just funny to watch these people make total blithering idiots of themselves. Ted Koppel on the Today Show, following Ashley Wilkes, the mad bomber of Bosnia,"

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 7:27 PM | Report abuse

"It doesn't look good for the major broadcast networks. At any rate, education, age, and knowledge. College grads, this program number two, at 37%. The average age of the audience of this program, 51, and the high knowledge score is 48, and it's number two. This program, number two in all of American media in education and knowledge. It is preceded only by the Weekly Standard and New Republic readers, 38% college grads, 38 is the average age. The libs are dragging us down a little bit. Eh, the libs may be dragging down the Weekly Standard a bit.
"

Is 51 considered elderly?

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 7:23 PM | Report abuse

"Does this count truth?

"ANALYSIS & DOCUMENTATION: PEW stats on Rush Limbaugh, Bill O ...The average age of the audience of this program, 51, and the high knowledge ...... If you know all three questions, you could be a Rush Limbaugh listener. ...

"

51. After my late 40's post earlier. Darn I'm good. jk I have no ego.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

"Rufus... Where do you get your stats that Rush's audience is the elderly? I believe Dittoheads come in all ages."

Your right. I just say that because my grandpa and all his freinds are being mislead. That's all I really care about. The elderly getting lied to everyday by these people. But you right. The younger generation (late 30's -late 40's) make the choice to submit to rush. But the elderly. They think they are listening to real news. Same with fox. You wonder why grandma's are always looking out their windows with binoculars in fear. People like this.

I love my grandpa very much. He has been mislead by these people. My family as many others have suffered as a result. Rush and the gop would blame me for not being a dittohead gop'er. I blame them for doing what they do to the mental of the elderly. I have no stats.

But who would willingly call themselves a dittohead? Let me see if I can find stats.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Whoa whoa whoa. Just one minute mr. Cavuto.

It's an all out assulat. Tryign to flood the airwaves with these things. They'll show us won't they. they really don't care about credibility in the slightest, do they.

"Cavuto links Dems' use of kids in SCHIP debate with Saddam's TV interview with young British hostage
Summary: Fox News' Neil Cavuto juxtaposed a video clip of children pulling red wagons in front of the White House as part of a recent demonstration against President Bush's threatened veto of legislation to increase funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program with a still image of Saddam Hussein and a British boy that was taken in a TV interview in which Saddam appeared with Western hostages in the lead-up to the Persian Gulf War.
"

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Rufus... Where do you get your stats that Rush's audience is the elderly? I believe Dittoheads come in all ages.

It's more a matter of his braying at the far right choir, isn't it? I'm kind of glad he's around, on balance I think he's done more harm than good for the GOP.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 3, 2007 7:06 PM | Report abuse

How crazy rush really is

"They loved being on Nixon's enemies list, for example. It's the same thing. By the way, Dingy Harry sent his letter. He asked all these senators to sign the letter to Clear Channel's chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and asked him to force me to apologize and to admit that I had said something so over the top. He got 41 senators to sign it. Not even all the Democrats. No Republicans signed it.
"

Nixon? Of course no hypocrites signed it. That would go agaisnt their whole platform. Holding their own accountable? Would never happen. That is why your party is done. Zero accountability. NONE

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Is rush zouk? Trying to get some attention? :)

Funny little fellas, aren't they?

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 7:03 PM | Report abuse

This is a funny game to these elementary school kids. I'm not laughing

"You have to understand this, that most everybody else in the Drive-By Media would love to be censored on the floor of the Senate. They would love that kind of attention. They would love to be able to stir things up like -- (interruption) what? People don't believe that? You think people don't believe that? Mr. Snerdley is telling me that you people mostly won't believe that. Do you realize I'm getting e-mails from people, "Would you quit hogging the limelight? You know, I got a book out this week and you're distracting from it. How come you always do this? How come I can't get this kind of attention?""

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Poor Rush limabugh. What is he worth again? How much money has he made lying to the eldery and propogating daily. At least media matters has to use his words. Rush doesn't do that, does he. He lies spins propogates daily. So who is the fraud? your boy is toast.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Who watches the watchmen. Media matters does. I do also. As well as others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen


"RUSH: And it doesn't mean that I have ever criticized them as soldiers. I've never criticized them as phony or anything else. Never, never, never, never, General Clark. There is no long history of me showing disrespect and criticism for uniformed military personnel. I'll tell you what, another thing going on here is you've got all these watchdogs, but who examines them for honesty and credibility? Why is it that the watchdogs are simply accepted as infallible instantly after they publish something? I think that it's because they're all liberals on the other side of this. It's amazing what people who really wanted to learn about this could learn, just visit my website, or even better, listen to the program, rather than these little excerpts that they're playing. It's really surreal. When they play the excerpt, I'm talking to the caller, and I say, "yeah, phony soldiers." From that we've got this? We've got denunciations on the House floor. We've got a condemnation letter sent by Senator Reid and a denunciation on the Senate floor, from two words? "

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Little Joe... Banish all thought that pols think like you and I do. It would be enough for us, but for that special breed running for president?..... Front and center seems to be their home.

But then, I'm not all that familiar with Richardson's personality. Maybe he's one of the few.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 3, 2007 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Our amigo Zouk, How do you say Arrivederci, Pete! en Espanol?

Posted by: Little Joe | October 3, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

"But they have the opportunity to expand that majority and possibly make it easier for them to pass controversial legislation."

Why call it controversial? Maybe it's mainstream but the Repubs. won't vote for it? You guys never quit do you?

Posted by: bajsa | October 3, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm assuming everyone hear knows wes clark. For those that don't, he's a former general, and he's very respected on both sides of the aile.

"Now, back to General Clark. We have a couple of sound bites from General Clark from the Today show today. Here is Wesley Clark, Meredith Vieira talking to him, says, "You started this e-mail campaign to get Limbaugh off the Armed Forces Radio. It's a drastic step. Why do you think it's necessary?"

CLARK: His comments just cross the line. I think there's a lot of people serving in Iraq, a lot of veterans who have served, a lot of veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan who have thoughts about the war that aren't necessarily in agreement with President Bush. That's their right as American citizens. It doesn't mean they weren't great soldiers."

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 6:55 PM | Report abuse

"So now I am also hiding from you truthful, in their minds, evidence that I have referred to all of these soldiers who disagree with the war as phony soldiers, which was never uttered, was never said. "

Oh really. Way to get credibility. Even the defenders of his don't go that far, do they. HAHAHAHA. Get's better each day.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 6:53 PM | Report abuse

"But they (Democrats) have the opportunity to expand that majority and possibly make it easier for them to pass controversial legislation."

What the hell does "controversial legislation" mean?

Posted by: joewweoj | October 3, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse

New Mexican, Thanks for the firsthand observations. I guess Richardson is wildly popular. When is the latest he could logically get in the Senate race? Or, perhaps he will hold out for a chance at the VP slot.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 3, 2007 6:51 PM | Report abuse

New Mexican, I thought that too about Baseball Bill. But then I thought, he's already had his time in Washington in Congress and as a Cabinet Secretary. So if you were him, unless you're President where the max is eight years (nobody intentionally runs for the Senate for just one term) - Would you rather be in the Land of Enchantment or Disneyland on the Potomac?

He might opt for home.

Posted by: Little Joe | October 3, 2007 6:50 PM | Report abuse

I would like to extend my sincere appreciation for all of the work Domenici has done on my behalf; it is always gratifying to have demonic ghouls, pretending to be followers of Jesus, hard at work in The Senate as they lie, cheat and steal their way through life. I'll keep a special seat nice and hot for you, Pete!
Your pal,
Satan

Posted by: Satan | October 3, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Here's the deal: Wilson is moving on because of a strong challenge from Albuquerque-native and council member Dem Martin Heinrich. She did the math and realizes she will lose to him (she barely won against a terrible Patricia Madrid candidacy).

Right now NM is leaning Dem-- just like the entire country. A Udall vs. Wilson (if she can survive wacko Pearce) match-up is most likely. Survey says... Udall wins.

But don't count the Gov out yet... I can see him making the move in two seconds. If he runs, he wins.

Posted by: New Mexican | October 3, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

JasonL, Now I'm not sure I agree with you.... once/if the Dems take over the WH and Congress, like it or not they will then own the war. The GOP spin machine will make sure of that. Rewriting history is a GOP specialty.

Little Joe. Thank you. And, I agree with you about Wilson. The U.S. Attorney dustup ended up helping to take down AG Gonzales, Domenici and it would certainly hurt Wilson also.

Sen.Schumer gets an A+ for his Senate recruiting in 2004.... is he still at it? If so, expect a good candidate.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 3, 2007 6:38 PM | Report abuse

ole pete allowed the power to get to him. He thought he was above the law and could influence justice.

He's being forced into retirement, and then they won't prosecute him.

it's wrong, but at leasthe's gone

Posted by: barb | October 3, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

I'm just happy both rush and o'reilly are keeping this in the news. they are bringing themselves down. they should have minimilized this. They are blowing it up. Why? Trying to turn the populance? It may work if there was no tape. As is they,and those attacking the messanger,, look like morons. I love it. Nothing could get them off the air faster than what they are doing. Because we have the tape. AHHAHAHA

OOH the weather outside is frightfull. Dumb De-DEumb delightful.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

You people have balls. I'll give you that. Brains are lacking.

"BEGIN TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: The phony soldier smear is going on out there -- so we are forced to continue, not really forced, because it's an opportunity to continue to discuss this. Today, all over television after posting on the Internet yesterday, was the mad bomber of Bosnia. That would be General Wesley Clark known affectionately here as Ashley Wilkes. General Clark is lying through his teeth today. His impetus, purpose for going on television, is to get me taken off of Armed Forces Radio. On MSNBC this morning, General Clark said that I have a long history of disrespect and criticism of uniformed military personnel, a long history. This is Kafkaesque. The Hillary Clinton front group, Media Matters for America, has taken two of my words, "phony soldiers," and used hundreds and thousands of words now to manipulate it into a smear.

They are even saying I selectively edited a minute-and-a-half from my show transcript to hide some nefarious thing. I hid nothing. The edit was simply for substance and brevity. What happened was I was talking to this caller, Mike, and we discussed the phony soldiers thing, and he wanted to go talk about the weapons of mass destruction. He starts talking. While he's talking -- and you people watching the Dittocam saw this -- I'm waving in to Mr. Snerdley and I'm on the IFB, I'm talking to him, nobody else can hear me because it mutes my microphone going out. I said, "Print out the phony soldier commentary for me that we did yesterday; print it out." So he printed it out, the caller is vamping and going on, I'm reaching back to the printer, I grab the update, said, "Look, I don't want to talk about weapons of mass destruction, Mike, it's moot right now, doesn't have any relation, we're there, this is about something much more."

Then I read the commentary. The minute-thirty-seven was simply vamping to pick up the commentary off the printer from Mr. Snerdley's computer in the other room. They're trying to make some big scandal out of that. So now I am also hiding from you truthful, in their minds, evidence that I have referred to all of these soldiers who disagree with the war as phony soldiers, which was never uttered, was never said. I'll tell you what's happening here. Bill Bennett put this well to me in an e-mail today. He said, "We've reached a new day when anything said, no matter how violently torn from context, is presented however one wishes and accepted as fact by the interpreter. It is the death of meaning." I'll tell you what else this is. This is a reflection on the thinking and tactics that will be employed with the full weight and power of the federal government, should Hillary Clinton become president, because all of these people that are working at these front groups that she has founded, along with George Soros, are going to end up being her administration.

They are going to be rewarded with high government positions, from where they can unleash investigations on people that they want to deal with one way or the other. So what we have here is a dry run, sort of a rehearsal for if she wins, the little people at Media Matters for America, and John Podesta will be back as chief of staff, The Center for American Progress, all these different think tanks and organizations she's set up, these are little schools for people to learn how to conduct investigations on people that Mrs. Clinton doesn't want to deal with. So that's what's happening here. This is also a great example for the campaign 2008 playbook. Now, back to General Clark. We have a couple of sound bites from General Clark from the Today show today. Here is Wesley Clark, Meredith Vieira talking to him, says, "You started this e-mail campaign to get Limbaugh off the Armed Forces Radio. It's a drastic step. Why do you think it's necessary?"

CLARK: His comments just cross the line. I think there's a lot of people serving in Iraq, a lot of veterans who have served, a lot of veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan who have thoughts about the war that aren't necessarily in agreement with President Bush. That's their right as American citizens. It doesn't mean they weren't great soldiers.


RUSH: And it doesn't mean that I have ever criticized them as soldiers. I've never criticized them as phony or anything else. Never, never, never, never, General Clark. There is no long history of me showing disrespect and criticism for uniformed military personnel. I'll tell you what, another thing going on here is you've got all these watchdogs, but who examines them for honesty and credibility? Why is it that the watchdogs are simply accepted as infallible instantly after they publish something? I think that it's because they're all liberals on the other side of this. It's amazing what people who really wanted to learn about this could learn, just visit my website, or even better, listen to the program, rather than these little excerpts that they're playing. It's really surreal. When they play the excerpt, I'm talking to the caller, and I say, "yeah, phony soldiers." From that we've got this? We've got denunciations on the House floor. We've got a condemnation letter sent by Senator Reid and a denunciation on the Senate floor, from two words?

In fact, some of the Drive-Bys are getting a little upset now that I'm occupying so much attention. All morning long on MSNBC they've been asking their guests, "Why are we focusing on Limbaugh here? Look, we want to get out of Iraq and why isn't Congress doing anything about it?" And that's the crux of this. Congress can't get us out of Iraq. If we've got 72%, or whatever the number is of people in the country, saying they want the war to end, how come the Democrats can't pull it off? They're trying to distract from their own failures. They're trying to distract from lying and deceiving their own believers, their own kook lunatic fringe. That's all they're doing is trying to muddy the waters so people don't understand what's going on. They're just feeding them red meat because they can't follow through on their commitments and their promises. So people are starting to wonder -- and the Drive-Bys, it's a little jealousy.

You have to understand this, that most everybody else in the Drive-By Media would love to be censored on the floor of the Senate. They would love that kind of attention. They would love to be able to stir things up like -- (interruption) what? People don't believe that? You think people don't believe that? Mr. Snerdley is telling me that you people mostly won't believe that. Do you realize I'm getting e-mails from people, "Would you quit hogging the limelight? You know, I got a book out this week and you're distracting from it. How come you always do this? How come I can't get this kind of attention?" I'm telling you, the Drive-Bys would love this kind of thing; they would love to be censored. They loved being on Nixon's enemies list, for example. It's the same thing. By the way, Dingy Harry sent his letter. He asked all these senators to sign the letter to Clear Channel's chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and asked him to force me to apologize and to admit that I had said something so over the top. He got 41 senators to sign it. Not even all the Democrats. No Republicans signed it.

Now, some people say, "Senate condemns Limbaugh." Bottom line, it's another Dingy Harry failure! It's another Dingy Harry defeat. He could not even get all the Democrats to sign the letter, folks. Forty-one out of 100 senators is all that signed it, and no Republicans? So he sends the letter to the chairman and the CEO of Clear Channel, who responded to it, page-and-a-half, it's on our website if you want to read it, and basically -- well, I'll just read it. Basically it just says, look, Senator, we believe in the First Amendment here, and we're not going to impose. Mr. Limbaugh has said what he meant, and that's it. I think they sent the letter trying to -- Reid sent it out so fast trying to put this behind him. So it's a huge defeat and failure for Harry Reid. MSNBC reported this morning that their Capitol Hill correspondent reported that the House Democrat resolution has been put on the back burner because the Republicans have a competing resolution ready to go if the House Democrats offer theirs. So they may be in retreat up on Capitol Hill. They're not in retreat at Media Matters for America. They're still over there trying to gin this up for a host of reasons. I've got a couple more sound bites that I want to play for you, first from Wesley Clark and then Ted Koppel. Here's the second bite from the Today Show today. Meredith Vieira says, "What response have you been getting to your e-mail campaign to get Limbaugh off of Armed Forces Radio?"

CLARK: It's a good response. We've had 15,000 people come back and sign up on the website. There are a lot of people out there who see this as an important issue where Congress should set the tone in condemning this kind of rhetoric which disparages our men and women in uniform.


RUSH: They got more votes to condemn MoveOn.org in the Senate than they got to condemn me. This just frosts them. General Clark here -- Ashley Wilkes -- was asked, "Why should Congress be refereeing?" "Well, we've gotta have the other side represented here. If we're going to condemn MoveOn.org, we've gotta condemn Limbaugh, because Limbaugh has a long history of disrespecting and abusing uniformed military personnel." They're throwing their hands up, "Is this what Congress does, referees disputes? Why in the world don't we just get out of Iraq?" "Well, I think we should get out of Iraq obviously, but we need civil discourse in this country." It's just funny to watch these people make total blithering idiots of themselves. Ted Koppel on the Today Show, following Ashley Wilkes, the mad bomber of Bosnia, Matt Lauer talked to him, said, "I watched you smiling as we were just discussing this Rush Limbaugh thing, and with all due respect to the general and to Rush Limbaugh and the members of Congress, is this really, in your opinion, what Americans want their senators to be talking about on the floor of the US Senate?"

KOPPEL: No, let's have them focus on something really important. It's ridiculous. I cannot understand. I mean, this is not the first time Rush Limbaugh has said controversial things or foolish things, and certainly not the first time I've said foolish things, but if that's the best that the US Senate can find to debate and discuss, God help us.

RUSH: (laughing) Putting it in perspective. Now, General Clark, let's talk about him just a second here before we go to the break, the mad bomber of Bosnia. Is this the same Wesley Clark who did nothing to try to prevent the mass murder of 800,000 Rwandans? Is this the same Wesley Clark who was in a position to insist the Clinton administration and the United Nations send help to that region to try to stop the mass murder of 800,000 Rwandans? Is this the same Wesley Clark who has never had to answer for his indifference to that genocide, and, worse, in the face of this genocide, in a public investigation, has never had to answer for it? Is this the same Wesley Clark who was once a Republican who supported President Bush but then changed parties so he could run for president and then attack President Bush? Is this the same Wesley Clark who could not muster any popular support for his hilarious run for the presidency?

You see, this is why the mad bomber of Bosnia can't read a transcript or listen to an audio and speak truthfully about them. He's no longer a general. He's just another in a long line of liberal hacks, ladies and gentlemen. Now, General Clark, we all appreciate your service in the military, but what you're doing now has nothing to do with your service. It has to do with your decision to play mud ball with the left. I don't know about you, Mr. Clark, but I go to bed at night with zero problems. How do you sleep, sir? How do you and the rest of the Clinton administration sleep knowing you did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda?


BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I'm going to go back, I'm going to stay on the mad bomber of Bosnia for a moment, ladies and gentlemen, and that is General Wesley Clark. Do you remember, Michael Moore called George W. Bush a deserter, and Wesley Clark stood up for Michael Moore's right to say that? This is a NewsMax story, January 22nd, 2004, during General Clark's ill-fated run at the Democratic presidential candidacy. "In a response that could turn out to be General Clark's worst blunder yet..." and that's a tough call, because there were so many of them, "...the presidential hopeful said his supporter, firebrand filmmaker and propagandist Michael Moore, had a right to call President Bush a military deserter." We have the audio sound bite. It was a debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, January 22nd, 2004. Peter Jennings said, "General Clark, this is really a simple question about knowing a man by his friends. The other day you had a rally here, and one of the men who stood up to endorse you, was the controversial filmmaker Michael Moore. You said you were delighted with him. At one point Mr. Moore said in front of you that President Bush, saying that he'd like to see you, the general, President Bush, to be called a deserter. Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts, and I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him and whether or not you think it would have been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so."

CLARK: Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this. But to me it wasn't material. This election is going to be about the future, Peter, and what we have to do is pull this country together. And I'm delighted to have the support of a man like Michael Moore, a great American leader, like Senator George McGovern, and people from Texas like Charlie Stenholm and former secretary of the Navy, John Dalton. We've got support from across the breadth of the Democratic Party, because I believe this party is united --

RUSH: All right.

CLARK: -- in wanting to change --

RUSH: That's enough of that. We got to the point of it. So General Clark is fully supportive of someone's free speech rights to call the president of the United States a deserter, which is a lie. It's this old National Guard story, folks, that they had to cook up forged documents to try to convince people were accurate. By the way, that Dan Rather forged document story may as well come out of Media Matters. It's the kind of stuff that's happening now. Accuse people of doing things they didn't do, accuse people of saying things they didn't say, accuse people of meaning things they didn't mean. Liberals have not yet won the right to define meaning from the words people say. They have appropriated that right for themselves, and it's not going to stand, folks.

So here is a giant hypocrite, General Clark, who sat around and did nothing during a genocide of 800,000 Rwandans, the mad bomber of Bosnia, fully in support of Michael Moore's right to lie under the context and the pretext of the First Amendment. And yet General Clark's all over television yesterday and today, suggesting that I need to be taken off of Armed Forces Radio because I have a long history of disrespect and criticism for the brave men and women in the United States military. No more ridiculous, worthless, totally untrue charge could be made. But he is making it. Now, Peter Jennings, after the answer that you just heard from the mad bomber of Bosnia, said, "Let me ask you about something you mentioned, then, because this question and answer which you and Mr. Moore was involved in, you had a chance to look at the facts. You still feel comfortable with the fact that somebody should be standing up in your presence and calling the president of the United States a deserter?"

CLARK: To be honest with you, I did not look at the facts, Peter. I -- you know, that's Michael Moore's opinion. He's entitled to say that. I've seen -- he's not the only person who's said that. I have not followed up on those facts, and, frankly, it's not relevant to me and why I'm in this campaign.

RUSH: (raspberry) Down the tubes went General Clark's campaign. He really was never a serious candidate in that race, but this finished it off. So there he's admitting the facts don't matter to him. He didn't look at the facts. No, this guy can say what he wants. When it comes to me, didn't look at the facts. He's out there making an absolute blithering fool of himself, doesn't even know it. I really think in his case he doesn't know it. I think he's that dense. I think he is that lazy. I think he's become a political hack now, trying to get noticed, speech fees, this sort of stuff, getting all the accolades from the kook lunatic fringe out there that loves these kinds of guys. Here he is admitting in 2004 the facts didn't matter; free speech is all that mattered. But now, in my case, free speech doesn't matter, as well as the facts not mattering. (laughing) Thank you, General Clark. You people on the left are making this too easy.


END TRANSCRIPT
"

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 6:30 PM | Report abuse

In defense of himself. Rush continues to label and attack liberals. So what. How is that differant from any other day. At least now it's about him. Only dittoheads buy his garbage. the eldery and out of touch with reality.

"Stalinists Have Taken Over the Left

They've gone beyond ideology to totalitarianism.
"

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Wilson was so vulnerable last year, that it was close to being Madrid's election to lose. And she did. She has baggage.

Domenici may be able to get some cover by retiring, but Wilson appears almost equally culpable in pressuring Iglesias. She may not be able to avoid investigations in both the Executive and Congressional branches.

So, Pearce becomes the frontrunner on the GOP side by default.

Subtract Madrid and the Democrats have a good competition on their hands.


Truthhunter, thanks for the link to your blog. Far better to do it that way, than just come to this blog and immediately try to take it over because you have a superiority complex.

Posted by: Little Joe | October 3, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure how much Republican will be able to finger point in 2012, Truth Hunter. Sure, some new faces in the party getting their first shot at national office will be able to point to the failings of the Democrat majority but the old guard might get some public backlash if they try to pin the war on the Dems.

However, in point of fact I believe you're right. More Dem gains in 2008 hold steady in 2010 and maybe 2012 but the pendulum swings back after that.

Posted by: JasonL | October 3, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Gop doublething in full view for all

"Bill O'Reilly, ever the helpful public servant, has laid down the rules for when dissent is acceptable, using the examples of Bruce Springsteen's new album and Sean Penn's visit to Venezuela.

Again, the question: is Penn's support of the anti-American Chavez legitimate dissent? And the answer is no. Because Penn's analysis is based on provable falsehoods. [..] He's in it to diminish his country, no matter what the facts are.

So, Springsteen's okay-with a big reservation about accountability. Penn, not okay because he continues to distort reality. Dissent is only valid when based on sincere beliefs with factual backup.

Hey Billo: Stone, Glass House....figure it out.
"

www.crooksandliars.com

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully
Domenici won't LIVE to see 2008!
Another filthy republican heads for the hills...
(gotta love it)

Posted by: Kase | October 3, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I was under the impression that Wilson isn't very popular in NM - that she won the last election holding onto Dominici's coattails. And if she was barely able to win an election for a NM district that is more conservative than the state in general, how is she going to have much of a chance state-wide, assuming the Dem's find a solid candidate? This does sound like a major opportunity for the Democrats, if the Republicans can't find a better candidate.

Posted by: TEL | October 3, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Matthews and tucker have been a sore spot for me. Republcains have fox. What do liberals have, as far as news? i'll give you olberman, the man is on point and a real patriot. But what else. If there was no olberman would the left have any REAL news? MSNBC is not a basion of liberalism as fox would have you all believe. They are just trying to justify what they do for a living.

MSNBC is just as conservative as CNN. Pis*es me off , the garbage by their news and tweedy. I just watch olberman on that station.

I saw them today interviewing the guy who is putting out the support of rush bill. does anyone else see how the MSM is reporting the story. Zero balance. All in defense of rush, for the most part. O'reilly is yet to have both sides of the arguement on his show. Just rush's. WHat are they afraid of? The truth.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

"From crooks and liars - did you miss this one Rufas???"

Sorry I was late. Anyone have the whole convo. I was rolling. On line after another. I loved it. Colbert-stewart '12

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

New Mexico's Udall has a better chance of getting elected than Colorado's Udall!!

Posted by: G. Chell | October 3, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Sorry a day late. That was the best interview I've seen. Put a huge smile on my face. ow how can we do that to rush and fox all day everyday :)

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

From Countdown w/Keith Olbermann 10/02/07
This tasty exchange w/Chris Matthews about his new book."

Thanks for reminding me. Did anyone see Jon stewart last night? He interview matthews also, for his book. He laid it on him. He told him if people follow his recipe for life they will be doomed to an unhappy existance. I have never seen that beofre. Interviewing a writer and destroyin ghis book, on air.

I love it. Finally. Get that liar and propogandists. I love it. play time is over. This is not all fun and games. lying to the edlery and out of touch is not news. never was. The future is now

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13098.html

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Diane Denish is great and has a bright future. She's essentially been NM's governor for most of this year, with Richardson off campaigning for president, and she's widely seen as looking to make it official when Richardson leaves office. Senate would be a great opportunity too - she has a record of accomplishment and can present herself as an outside-the-beltway, above-the-fray candidate.

Posted by: abby | October 3, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

You people love to say this is a chrisitan nation. Liberal ideals are christian ideals. And before you talk about that trump card, aboration, choice. Choice. Jesus doesn't force people to follow him. But those that do are blessed for eternaty. You can't force you rreligon by messing with the laws any more than you can force democracy at teh barrell of a gun to people that have never known or wanted it.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Chris Matthews has always puzzled me as a talking head. There's always been this strange disconnect between his embarrassingly slavish adulation of political figures (please, don't make me repeat the glimmering GWB, the manly-smelling Fred Thompson, etc. We've groaned through them enough) and their actions.

But the always brilliant Jon Stewart-after reading Matthews' new book "Life's a Campaign"-calls it for me: for Tweety, it's all strategy. It doesn't matter if you're doing right or good. It doesn't matter if you are sincere...all that matters is that you play the game. As Stewart has said, that book has been written already. How unintentionally revealing of Chris Matthews.

MATTHEWS: I'm listening to you...

STEWART: No, you're not...

MATTHEWS: Of course I am, you're trashing my book.

STEWART: I'm not trashing your book, I'm trashing your philosophy of life.

Kudos for the best interview from The Daily Show in a long, long time.


From crooks and liars - did you miss this one Rufas???

Posted by: selective editing is our method | October 3, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

From Countdown w/Keith Olbermann 10/02/07
This tasty exchange w/Chris Matthews about his new book.

Matthews: "If you're right and believe you're right, like you [Olbermann] do every night, you love the hell out of it. Even when you lose to them, your career just opens up. I have learned the smartest thing you can do is take on somebody bigger than you. You always benefit from taking on somebody above you. As I point out in my book, you take on Bill O'Reilly every night, and you're very smart to do it.

Olbermann: Thank You.

Matthews: It's in my book. Ha!

Wow, the uber-liberal mindset exposed! A real freudian trip!Form irrational beliefs - deliver unrelenting attacks - losing is still winning. Freud's definition of "delusional psychosis.

The only person who gets watched LESS than Olberloon is Chris Matthews.

Seriously.

Can't even find Mathews on the list. Olberloon is at the bottom if you want to find him. the first 15 or 20 entries seem to be all fox except one. Rufas, you are going to get this off the air how??? by posting on this blog? OK, time to go home, only so much humiliation can be offered in one day. facts really aren't your strong suit are they?

3Q'07 (LIVE) FINAL Competitive Program Analysis (excluding breaking news & specials)
3Q'07: 7/02/2007 - 9/28/2007
Ranked On:
HH HH P2+ A25-54
NETWORK PROGRAM NAME DAYS TIME COV AA% AA (000) AA (000) AA (000)
FOXN THE OREILLY FACTOR MTWTF__ 06:00A -11:00P 1.7 1,587 2,016 403
CNN CNN PRESENTS _TWTF__ 06:00A -12:00A 1.2 1,186 1,501 433
FOXN HANNITY & COLMES MTWTF__ 06:00A -11:00P 1.2 1,153 1,447 366
FOXN THE FOX REPORT W/S.SMITH MTWTF__ 06:00A -11:00P 1.1 1,051 1,294 314
FOXN ON THE RECORD W/GRETA MTWTF__ 06:00A -11:00P 1.1 985 1,205 357
FOXN SPECIAL REPORTW/BRIT HUME MTWTF__ 06:00A -11:00P 1.1 1,003 1,193 269
CNN LARRY KING LIVE MTWTF__ 06:00A -11:00P 0.9 891 1,072 297
FOXN THE BIG STORY W/J GIBSON MTWTF__ 06:00A -11:00P 0.9 814 957 204
FOXN THE OREILLY FACTOR (RPT) MTWTF__ 11:00P -12:00A 0.8 787 951 328
FOXN AMERICAS NEWSROOM MTWTF__ 06:00A -11:00P 0.9 844 947 279
FOXN STUDIO B W/S.SMITH MTWTF__ 06:00A -11:00P 0.9 810 882 201
FOXN YOUR WORLD W/NEIL CAVUTO MTWTF__ 06:00A -11:00P 0.8 769 869 195
FOXN FOX AND FRIENDS MTWTF__ 06:00A -11:00P 0.9 796 868 325
FOXN LIVE DESK W/M.MACCALLUM MTWTF__ 06:00A -11:00P 0.8 779 854 212
FOXN FOX NEWS LIVE MTWTF__ 06:00A -11:00P 0.8 780 850 215
CNN LOU DOBBS TONIGHT MTWTF__ 06:00A -11:00P 0.7 711 830 210
CNN CNN SPECIAL INVEST. UNIT _TWTF__ 06:00A -11:00P 0.7 632 770 256
CNN ANDERSON COOPER 360 MTWTF__ 10:00P -12:00A 0.6 589 705 264
CNN PAULA ZAHN NOW MTWT___ 06:00A -11:00P 0.6 595 704 238
MSNB COUNTDOWN W/ K. OLBERMANN MTWTF__ 06:00A -11:00P 0.6 571 677 222
CNN SITUATION ROOM MTWTF__ 06:00A -11:00P 0.6 568 636 180
CNN OUT IN THE OPEN MTWTF__ 06:00A -11:00P 0.5 496 579 188
FOXN FOX & FRIENDS FIRST MTWTF__ 06:00A -11:00P 0.6 514 550 232

Posted by: media manipulators | October 3, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to know what the Armed Forces Network is doing broadcasting Limbaugh. AFN has no business doing that.

Whether its Limbaugh, one of his comrades in arms, or Air America people.

After all of the stuff which has gone on with the Air Force at the Academy, with the Chaplains in the Armed Forces, with Generals appearing for fringe political causes, isn't it time the Congress took a look at just how much the military has been infiltrated by the Right Wing?

And to think that it was infiltration by the Left which we used to be worried about.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

JasonL, You speak truth. It's going to take more than a few years to fix the mess we're in, and that is optimistic.

Public expectations won't be met and the pendulum will swing again, so '08 will be the high point. Perhaps the GOP is smart to bow out, and then finger point in '12.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 3, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

"Colin - guess who beleives Rush hates soldiers and Reid loves them, I give you example A - rufas."

i don't think he hates soldiers, per say. I think he hates liberals and democrats. Many of whom are soldiers. He's just a sorry mislead drug addict old man, ranting. But he is preaching hate to millions. that is where the line must be drawn. He is trying to get his dittoheads to "Pat Tillman" any democrats or liberals over there. He is murdering americans. You just don't know it.

"The military is 100% gop".

Never. He is done. Stick a fork in him. take responsibility for once gop. Stop pointin gthe finger. It's not about me jesse macbeth cnn media matters sean penn or whoever you want to blame. It is rush's fault. He has already paid. With the little reputation he had left. regardless, for all intensive purposes, he is done already, as is o'reilly. Screw their ratings. They can make their millions breaking the country. the important thing is credibility. And they jsut lost the little they had left. Again, not my fault. There's

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

zoukie, did you want in that threesome on "The View"?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Colin, maybe if we continue to have a rational conversation around the crazy's their brains will explode.

I think it's quite possible that '08 the the Dem's big rally time. If they don't get to 60 in the Senate then, they probably won't. People are going to vote D now to send a message to the Republican party, but once there is a Dem in the White House and Iraq is still a mess and Republicans keep legislative changes slow fervor will die down. It would take a remarkably successful 2 years for the Dems to make me believe they could continue to eat away at the Republican party strongholds.

Posted by: JasonL | October 3, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

That is the disconnect between "liberals" and the gop (fascists).

Everything "liberals' believe in ,this coutnry was founded on. The founding fathers were" liberal" in their day. They fled societies like you zouk. They fled th ethought police of their day. They fled the people telling them how to live their lives.

Why do you hate this coutnry so, and everything it's founded on. Why did your ancestors come here if they hate freedom.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Why do you people attacking media matters provide no proof. post one lie from media matters. One zouk. Do it now tough guy. I'll leave nd never come back. If you had anything you would post it. since you can't all independant thinkers know you rfull of it. how much are thye paying you to come here daily?

And as I've said. I represent no one but myself. Republcains are clone slaves, not liberal. the term liberal means:

"Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2] All liberals - as well as some adherents of other political ideologies - support the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[3]

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Social progressivism, the belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain unchangeable and inviolable rights. Different schools of liberalism are based on different conceptions of human rights, but there are some rights that all liberals support, including rights to life, liberty, and property.

Within liberalism, there are two major currents of thought that often compete over the use of the term "liberal" and have been known to clash on many issues. Classical liberals emphasize free private enterprise, individual property rights, laissez-faire economic policy, and freedom of contract, and oppose the welfare state. Classical liberals support equality before the law, but hold that economic inequality, arising from competition in the free market, does not justify wealth redistribution by governments. [4] Social liberals advocate a greater degree of government influence to protect individual rights (in a broad sense), often in the form of anti-discrimination laws. Social liberals support universal education, and many also support the provision of welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick, all supported by progressive taxation.

"

So please. know waht you rtalking about. I don't want you to look foolish.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

It's interesting that Hillary is taking something from the George McGovern playbook," Giuliani said in Manchester, N.H., likening her idea to the former South Dakota senator's proposal to send $1,000 to every U.S. resident.

The liberal lawmaker lost in a landslide to President Nixon.

Without naming Clinton, Giuliani also alluded to an appearance this past spring in Selma, Ala., in which she slipped into what sounded like a Southern accent before a largely black audience.

Asked by reporters whether he can win religious conservative votes, Giuliani said: "I don't have a different program for one group or another. I don't have a different accent for different parts of the country."

He doesn't answer a hard question with a programmed cackle, folowed by a non-answer either.

Posted by: go rudy | October 3, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

I hear you jim. We need to work toghter. Both parties again. We need to marginalize rush o'reilly and fox, and all others who spends their whole day dividing us for personal profit.

And I was serious. how mnay d's are in Bush's cabneit? How many democrat's had power in BUSH'S GOVERNMENT before the 06 sweep? Not many.

My goal is to get rid of fox rush hannity and o'reilly. Without them, we can come tothger. There are many others. But the fall at the top would send a devastating message to the "divide and conquer" crowd. i cna garuntee any dem that get's elected will pull paul in and other republicans. Can the same be said of the republicans? that is why they are done for a generation, imo. They choose party over country. That used to be called treason.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 05:11 PM

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

"...questions about the role he may have played in the firing of U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias in Albuquerque."

Um, Chris, what do you mean "may"? Read your own paper dude.

Phony "balance" strikes again.

Posted by: huh?? | October 3, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Colin - guess who beleives Rush hates soldiers and Reid loves them, I give you example A - rufas. That is your base. enough said I think. he gets all his news from media matters. a very shallow pond and another miscalculation by dingy harry reid. Has harry picked a single fight and won this year? He looks to be a frightened little boob, and is. compare to Pelosi and tell me who is more manly?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 3, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Fox is lyin gto you tom. They are not oin git to make a better country either. They are doingit for profit. Get the elderly and out of touch hoppin mad. ANd you have no frame of referance. Listen to the tape. Or read it. Better yet. I got you. Look at the span of his carrer. Is he good for the country? No.

If you people are going to run your mouths, at least know what you are talking about. Then propogate. But you look like fools currently.

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=Limbaugh+Phony+Soldiers&start_month=9&start_day=27&start_year=2007&x=16&y=10

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Huge huge opportunity for Democrats, who already have so many... Check out these recently updated Senate rankings: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/senaterankings

Posted by: Daniel | October 3, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Hmm.. The title of this piece is Sen. Pete Domenici Expected to Retire. Comments are not even tangentially related to this.
I have nothing against the man personally, but I am sending the force vibes to the New Mexico Powers Who Find Democratic Candidates. Godspeed.

Posted by: Jen | October 3, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

colin, your efforts to disguise the total failure of the Reid Senate are worthy but inefectual. everyone knows he is a coward and a spineless smegma.

If you think anyone outside of the loons on this blog actually believe Media matters or ried concerning American troops, you must be delusional. Rush has proclaimed devotion to the troops over the years. Trying to cover up and make the public forget the Betray us ad, the war is lost declaration and all the other anti-military lies your party has uttered in the last year is a tall order. you are going to need the entire clinton spin machine including CNN, MSNBC, NYT, moveon and media matters. along with an extremely gullible and willing audience.

Only problem is, no one is watching those channels. they are all watching fox deliver the facts instead.

Good Luck, you are going to need it.

BTW, Reid abandoned his effort to criticize Rush, not even the Dems would sign on. another misfit effort by the chief misfit.

thinkgs are not going to go well for you Libs this year. hillary will be the lying face of the party with all her extreme leftist positions. you better hope for lots of gullibility and non-critical thinking. but then that does describe the clinton voter quite well.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 3, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"Oh and, Rufus, how can you go from telling someone to stay on topic to posting about SCHIP, the war, and Rush in rapid succession?"

It was a joke, hence the :).

:)

Posted by: rufus p | October 3, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"We need a law. no one is listening to us Libs."

There's no money in it. Sell-out gop.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Even if the Democrats had 60 seats, they'd have to vote in lockstep to overcome filibusters. That might happen some of the time, but it won't be the general rule. There are too many divisions within the party.

Posted by: Blarg | October 3, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

"Few people who hear the clip from Rush's show in the media get to the part about Jesse MacBeth. They only hear the first short exchange between Rush and the caller. The caller says: "No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media." And Rush responds "The phony soldiers.""


They don't hear it because it was not part of the context. It was two minutes later. The context includes this. Before the call in question he took a conservative republcian call. He said he was agasint the war. He was a soldier. Rush then told him he could not be a republican if he was agasint the war. Then the caller mike called and said the phony soldier statement, and that the left was pulling these guys out of the blue.


I love it zouk. keep making a fool of yourself. We have the tape for pete sakes. It's not 1957. you can't bury these things. We have the internet now. Your party is done.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

"Now, recently, Jesse MacBeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse MacBeth "

It's not about jees emacbeth. It's about rush and his phoney soldie statment. Nice try. But like you said, we have the transcript.

I love it. the last week has been great for me. It shows independant thinkers how nuts the gop really is. Even with the tape, of both the o'reilly and rush comments, you still defend them. HAHAHHAHA.

It's great. Christams comes early this year.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

JasonL -- Yeah, 60 THIS cycle is definitely ridiculous to even think about. Parties don't often go from 45 seats to 60 in two cycles. But 2010 should, again, see the GOP defending quite a few more vulnerable seats than the Dems. If Ds really do pick up 7+ seats this time (not saying that'll happen, but it is possible at this point), they would have a chance at 60 the following cycle.

Heck, even I'm not sure 60 is a good idea. But it's crazy that we're even talking about it.

Posted by: Colin | October 3, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

A few days back, Rush and a caller were discussing Global War on Terror critics who have either exaggerated or entirely invented their military and combat service in order to bolster their credibility. Major news outlets and even U.S. Attorneys have opened damning investigations of many of these people, who Limbaugh and a caller on his radio show rightfully described as "phony soldiers."

Well, as soon as the words were out of Limbaugh's mouth, Hillary sicked her network on Limbaugh. The George Soros-funded, Hillary-devoted group Media Matters has been the tip of the spear, charging Limbaugh with unpatriotic slander against the troops. Because, after all, accusing phony soldiers of being phony soldiers is the same as accusing our troops in the field in Iraq of being phony soldiers. The whole thing is trumped up nonsense, of course, which is why the spectacle of the Senate Majority Leader denouncing Limbaugh from the floor of the Senate went over so poorly with the few Americans who still actually pay attention to Congress.

But the far more important story than this little tempest that will go away in three days is, well, the vast left-wing conspiracy out to get anyone opposed to the Clinton Restoration. Media Matters claims it's a nonpartisan "research and information center." That's all well and good, except that Hillary Clinton herself took credit, while speaking at YearlyKos of all places, of starting Media Matters. In her August speech to the left wing fringe gathering, Senator Clinton bragged about "institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress" (CAP is a left-wing think tank effectively owned and operated by the Clinton campaign policy shop).

She refers to these and other groups, mostly funded by socialist billionaire George Soros and designed for the single purpose of electing Mrs. Clinton president next fall, as "the new progressive infrastructure" which, again, "I helped to start."

She's not kidding. This recent attack against Rush Limbaugh is nothing more than a fire drill for Mrs. Clinton's "new progressive infrastructure," a preparation for the real quarry: the 2008 Republican presidential nominee. There is nothing independent, nonpartisan, or disinterested about Media Matters and the rest of the Clinton Shadow Party - they are the tanks and bombers and battleships of Hillary's campaign arsenal. They will do whatever they are asked, whenever they must, to destroy anyone who stands between her and the Oval Office.

No wonder her laugh sounds like that.

Posted by: tom | October 3, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Moments later, he moves on to an example of a phony soldier--"Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth"--"

Moments later? You mean two minutes later.

What about his murth and kerry comments? how do you defend this, tough guy

""Stuck in a hole, Limbaugh keeps digging: Far-right blowhard smears another Iraq vet, comparing him to suicide bomber - On the October 2 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh denounced a recent ad by VoteVets.org that featured Iraq war veteran Brian McGough, calling the ad "a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into." Limbaugh went on to say that "[w]hoever pumped [McGough] full of these lies about what I said ... has betrayed him." Limbaugh denounced the ad despite admitting "I haven't watched the ad." "

http://blogreport.salon.com//
"

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- I posted the WHOLE transcript of Rush's comments several days ago. You know, the one that wasn't edited by Rush --which he then read on the air and pretended it was the original. There is an almost two minute gap before Rush ever references a particular "PHONY SODIER" and the comment was made whiel agreeing with a caller who equated any soldier who disagrees with the war as illegitimate.

Thems are the facts my friend. Keep spinning though. If memory serves, your shift isn't up for another two hours. Unless...do you get overtime? If so, I suspect you'll make out well the rest of the year. Your party can use all the help spinning that it can get.

Posted by: Colin | October 3, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Clinton also needs to ditch the laugh because it has become her tell. Like all poker players, politicians have a sign that they're bluffing. For Newt Gingrich, the tell was when he said "frankly." Dick Cheney uses that same word to dissemble, too. "In all candor" is another signal that a hedge is coming. Nixon had lots of tells--his tense smile, the pod of sweat on his upper lip--it was as if his tiny little truth instinct was trying to break free any way it could.

Hillary's laugh appears during discussions of her vote to authorize force against Iraq and her failed 1993 health-care plan, and during attacks from rivals. All politicians laugh a little to buy time--regular humans do it, too--but the whole point of political evasion is to get voters to focus on something else. In this way, Clinton's laugh backfires. It signals to voters that they should pay attention, because a dodge is coming.


http://www.slate.com/id/2174397/

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I think Heather Wilson will enter this race since she's Domenici's protege. Considering the congresswoman could only eke out a winning margin of under 1000 votes against Patricia Madrid in her 2006 re-election campaign, I highly doubt she'd be able to remain competitive against Democrats Martin Chavez or Rep. Tom Udall. Looking objectively at the Democratic and Republican benches in New Mexico, I'd say this will be a tough race for the GOP to recruit for. Also add into account the not insignificant possibility Gov. Bill Richardson will be the vice-presidential nominee. New Mexico looks like a ripe pickup for the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Marc | October 3, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

The unfortunate thing is, Colin mentioned all the Senate races with a good chance of switching parties and they only get Dems to 59 seats counting the Independent. Just short of the magic 60.

Oh and, Rufus, how can you go from telling someone to stay on topic to posting about SCHIP, the war, and Rush in rapid succession?

Posted by: JasonL | October 3, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Prime: FNC: 422 | CNN: 251 | MSNBC: 220 | HLN: 161 | CNBC: 150

We need a law. no one is listening to us Libs.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

BTW, why all of the off-topic posts? We aren't discussing Hillary, or Rush, or chimpanzees for that matter...

Posted by: digapony | October 3, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Too bad Richardson won't consider running for this seat. His chances, anyones chances at this point, of knocking off Hillary seem slim to none. Udall is no slouch either, however.

Even Domenici's coming out as against the way Bush is handling the war in Iraq didn't erase the image of him pressuring a sitting U.S. Attorney to push a criminal case to benefit the GOP. He made a wise decision to just quietly bow out "to spend more time with his family" so to speak.

BTW, I'm a little disappointed at the comment that by contributing here I'm trying to "gin up" my blog site. I put the link to my blog site on as a way of expanding my views for any interested.

Ther last five days the WSJ, Slate, CNN and Sphere had links directing people to my posts. I don't get that much traffic from The Fix, it's more a courtesy.

Hope the thoughtful posters reconsider leaving CC to start your own blog.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 3, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Richardson would ever try for senate: He likes being executive I believe.

H. Wilson, as stated above, is involved with the whole AG thing, but the thing is, she's already running ads this past week (or some group in favor of her) about her support of SCHIP. Coincidence, considering how close she and Domenici are? I'm pretty sure she already knew what was coming down and is already preparing for it. I wouldn't stick NM anywhere near a "leans Democratic" yet.

Posted by: digapony | October 3, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

A frustrating part of political discourse is the inability of both sides to agree on the facts. The effects of a new tax policy on the economy or the costs of a potential government program are often in dispute. But in the current dust-up about Rush Limbaugh's so-called "phony soldier" comments, there cannot be a dispute about the facts. There is a transcript.

The transcript shows to whom Rush was referring when the phony solider comment was made. The conversation began with a caller complaining that the media never talks to "real soldiers" to which Rush says "The phony soldiers." Moments later, he moves on to an example of a phony soldier--"Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth"--who had claimed to witness atrocities committed by American soldiers in Iraq. It turns out Jesse MacBeth wasn't an Army Ranger at all. As Rush described:
In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

Now, recently, Jesse MacBeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse MacBeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse MacBeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen.

Surely it isn't out of bounds to describe someone who lied about his service a "phony soldier."

Few people who hear the clip from Rush's show in the media get to the part about Jesse MacBeth. They only hear the first short exchange between Rush and the caller. The caller says: "No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media." And Rush responds "The phony soldiers."

Who is Rush referring to here? Arguably, it isn't clear. It is clarified later when Rush discusses Jesse MacBeth, but even if you takes this clip in isolation, it is a gigantic leap to assume that Rush is referring to "our men and women in uniform who oppose the war," as Senator Harry Reid has chosen to assume. The caller wasn't talking about soldiers who oppose the war and Rush didn't continue to talk about those who oppose the war, only to those who lie about their military service.

Yet the Democrats have used this exchange in an attempt to manufacture a scandal. Senator Reid is collecting signatures to urge Rush to apologize to the soldiers (for something he did not say). Senator Harkin in a speech on the Senator floor, not only accuse Rush of tarring soldiers in uniform, but assigns Rush the motive of greed: "Now what's most despicable is that Mr. Limbaugh says these provocative things to make more money. So he castigates our soldiers, this makes more news, more people tune in, he makes more money." For good measure Senator Harkin speculates that Rush might be "high on his drugs again."

It is breathtakingly irresponsible behavior for a Senator to attack a private citizen like this on the Senate floor.

If we are in the business of assigning motives, let's speculate about the Democrats' motives for smearing to tar Rush. A few weeks ago Moveon.org ran a tasteless ad smearing a military general for "betraying" the country. The leaders of Democrats were uncomfortably silent about this attack on a public servant and soldier. Democrats have also just had the disappointing task of acknowledging that the American war effort is going better than they expected. Their push for an immediate pullout of Iraq has been stalled. Tarring Rush Limbaugh as anti-American soldier helps with both problems: it satisfies their base, who has been disappointed with Congress's inability to exit Iraq, and gives them an opportunity to say that they support the military in spite of the attacks on General Patraeus.

It's politics at its worst. The media has taken the Democrats' bait and are covering this as a controversy, as if there is a question about the validity of the Democrats' charges. There is no question. The facts are clear.

Certainly someone needs to apologize--but it isn't Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by: no facts, we're Libs | October 3, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"This speech simultaneously highlights both the promise of Obama's candidacy -- he is the only viable candidate both willing and able to make this critique convincingly -- and also its disappointment thus far, due to what Michael Crowley, in a quite good article in The New Republic, describes as "the disappointingly conventional Obama campaign." Obama said this yesterday:

If you want conventional Washington thinking, I'm not your man. If you want rigid ideology, I'm not your man. If you think that fundamental change can wait, I'm definitely not your man."

Posted by: greenwald | October 3, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"Obama proceeded to identify virtually every other Beltway branch that bears responsibility for what has become of our country: "conventional thinking in Washington" -- "Some leading Democrats" - "the most experienced voices in Washington [who counseled] that the only way for Democrats to look tough was to talk, act and vote like a Republican" - "much of Washington." "

Maybe I should stick with obama after all.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/03/smith/

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Hey Keith:

Your creepy Edward R. Murrow impersonation at the end of every broadcast causes a viewer to alternate between mortification and pity. When you start attacking an American-loving, patriotic individual who happens to be to the right, your flaring nostrils and angry baritone remind me of a demented 19-year old broadcasting school student who is attempting to keep from failing the class. Your repeated personal attacks against President Bush are reminiscent of that Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction" who boiled her ex-lover's rabbit on the kitchen stove. And your belief that regularly attacking the prime time stars of Fox News Channel in the hopes of increasing your ratings on MSNBC is as transparent as your little granny glasses perched on your pointy little nose. Besides, I keep watching the cable news ratings at TVNewser.com and you just can't seem to even come close to beating them. Ever.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Where' zouk to try and defend rush when you need him?

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"Stuck in a hole, Limbaugh keeps digging: Far-right blowhard smears another Iraq vet, comparing him to suicide bomber - On the October 2 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh denounced a recent ad by VoteVets.org that featured Iraq war veteran Brian McGough, calling the ad "a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into." Limbaugh went on to say that "[w]hoever pumped [McGough] full of these lies about what I said ... has betrayed him." Limbaugh denounced the ad despite admitting "I haven't watched the ad." "

http://blogreport.salon.com//

Posted by: Jkrishnamurti | October 3, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Wilson is heavily damaged by the scummy little US Attorney scandal. She runs well in her district, but the stench from that political game will not play well. By the time of the heart of the political season, the specifics will be forgotten, but the stench will remain. This Repukeliscum is going down, and NM-1 will go Dem as well.

Posted by: POed Lib | October 3, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Wilson is pretty embroiled in the Iglesias scandal herself, and barely won her bid for re-election against a really pathetic candidate. If the republicans want to hold onto this seat they are going to have to pick a stronger candidate. That said, no such animal exists in New Mexico. My dream candidate is Tom Udall. He is a strong leader, a tireless steward of the planet, and thoroughly honorable. Go Tom! We need you!

Posted by: Cara Valente-Compton | October 3, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Obstructionist gop. Maybe they are all droppin glike flies because the realze the history of what the current gop is doing. WHo wants their reputation tarnished for all time? Is money worth that? The histroy books will record the last 8 years, gop. What will you tell you rchildren and grandchildren when they ask you what you did during the war?

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

A little-noticed August survey conducted by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake showed Giuliani leading Clinton (49 percent to 39 percent) in 31 vulnerable Democratic-held congressional districts and possibly eroding their re-election chances. Giuliani's margin is closer against Obama (41 percent to 40 percent).

In what Lake called a "sobering picture" for the Democrats, she said the poll found both Clinton and Obama "significantly underperforming against the generic Democratic edge." Support for all but two of the 31 Democratic incumbents falls significantly when they are linked to Clinton and her "liberal agenda."

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

What's the drop-dead date for Richardson to get into this race? If it is after the bulk of the presidential primaries, and assuming he doesn't do well there, can he still get in here?

Posted by: some other george | October 3, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Ain't it the truth.

"The Decider has decided

And it's all the Democrats' fault
"

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/?last_story=/politics/war_room/2007/10/03/decider/

"The Decider has decided
George W. Bush, explaining why he vetoed bipartisan legislation that would have expanded healthcare coverage for children: "My job is a decision-making job. And as a result, I make a lot of decisions."

In a press briefing accompanying Bush's remarks, counselor to the president Ed Gillespie referred to the legislation Bush vetoed today as "what the Democrats proposed" and the product of the "Democrat leadership in Congress," then said that after "Democrats" try to override the veto, maybe "Democrats and Republicans" will "get together and try to come to an agreement."

The only catch? They already did. Forty-five Republicans in the House and 18 Republicans in the Senate joined Democrats in passing the legislation Bush vetoed.

Talking with residents of Lancaster, Pa., today, Bush said the most "disappointing thing about my experience in Washington is the harshness of the discourse; is the zero-sum attitude." "I've tried to do my part," he said, "by holding people with respect and to -- you know, talking about people in such a way that it doesn't degrade the process. I want this little guy to look at Washington and say, 'Wow, this is something I may aspire to.'"

-- Tim Grieve
"

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

I think Madrid would get back in (NM-1) and take the seat, despite it leans republican. HW also will have a hard time separating herself from the R on the National Level especially if the democratic nominee has the lead in the projected general election polls

Posted by: CW | October 3, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

hey. No posting about hillary. Stay on topic. :) jk

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"duh duh duh. Another bites the dust."

About time. What took him so long?

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

So Hillary is being given great credit for her skill in controlling the media -- by the media. Isn't that just a bit scary?

"Saturday Night Live" is doing skits with Amy Poehler's Hillary announcing the seating arrangements at her inaugurations in 2009 and 2013. It is small wonder Hillary looks like a juggernaut when we have a media that are constantly telling us her campaign's a juggernaut, a juggernaut driven by two "rock stars." No one should deny that if our political press decided to drop the syrup bottle and press the Clintons on their scandals, or their politics of personal destruction, or their leftist policy prescriptions, they would look like a lot less impressive -- and a lot less inevitable.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Remember that Heather Wilson is caught up in the same ethics scandal as Domenici, vis a vis improperly pressuring David Iglesias to speed up a politically advantageous investigation. That makes Wilson tainted, perhaps giving the far more conservative (i.e. less electable in a general) Pearce the upper hand.

Posted by: Casual Observer | October 3, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Another Democrat Failure
Wednesday, October 03, 2007 4:39 PM
Harry Reid's letter to Clear Channel blasting Rush failed to win signatures from all the Democrats, and didn't get a single GOP endorsement. Sensing defeat, House Democrats quietly pull their resolution condemning Rush.

Harry - is there a single battle you can win. how about resign now? you spinless creep.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

If Wilson runs, NM-1 will also become a toss up from leans republican.

Posted by: MI repub | October 3, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Wow. This is a big deal. A Udal v. Wilson matchup would be one heck of a race that I assume would be rated a pure toss-up. Given all the seats the GOP is already trying to defend, this is definitely not good news for the NRSC.

Although I still don't think 60 seats in the Senate is a possibility for Democrats over the next few cycles, the high 50s is no longer looking impossible if '08 is a Democratic year. Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon, Minnesota, and Nebraska (if Kerrey runs) are all firs-tier takeover possibiities. I think this falls into the same category. Hard to believe that as recently as 2004 the prevailing wisdom was that the GOP would dominate for the next generation.

Posted by: Colin | October 3, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company