Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Senate Dems Take to Virginia Airwaves

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee hit the airwaves in Virginia this morning with a hard-hitting ad attacking Sen. George Allen (R) -- a sign that national Democrats believe this once long-shot race is now within reach.

Sen. George Allen
Virginia's Sen. George Allen has gone from a shoo-in for reelection to a neck-and-neck race against Democrat Jim Webb. (AP Photo)

"George Allen: Scandals, slurs and insults," says a narrator at the start of the ad. "Now after Allen's dark side is exposed he wants the race to be [and here the ad features Allen's own voice] decided on issues."

The ad, which was produced for the DSCC by Squier Knapp Dunn, notes Allen's votes against more body armor for troops in Iraq and raising the minimum wage, and in support of congressional pay raises. It also calls Allen out for accepting more than $300,000 in campaign donations from oil and gas companies while supporting tax breaks for the industry.

Lest viewers forget, the ad returns to the footage of Allen's now famous "macaca" comment at its close.

The DSCC ad is interesting and, on its face, effective. It details Allen's misstatements even while purporting to join the incumbent in his call to refocus the race on issues. Ending the ad with a mention of "macaca" shows that Democrats believe that this race is fundamentally a referendum on Allen, not a competition on issues between the incumbent and former Navy Secretary Jim Webb (D).

The National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee has not reserved any ad time in Virginia, although the committee is using coordinate cash, which can be donated directly to the Allen campaign, to fund a hefty direct-mail effort.

At the moment the NRSC, in conjunction with the Republican National Committee, is funding ads in only three states -- Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee. The DSCC, on the other hand, is matching the NRSC in those three states and is on the air in Rhode Island, Montana and Virginia.

The two Senate committees' ad buys are telling on several levels.

First, the fact that national Republicans are not funding ads in either Pennsylvania or Montana shows that Sens. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) may be beyond saving. Polling shows both men lagging behind their Democratic challengers; Republican strategists admit privately that the two incumbents are real long shots.

Second, Senate Democrats' sustained financial dominance over their Republican rivals is coming to bear in the final weeks of the election. At the end of August, the DSCC showed $29.8 million cash on hand compared with $18.6 million for the NRSC.

Take the financial advantage enjoyed by the DSCC, couple it with the fact that most competitive Senate races are being fought on Republican territory, then factor in the current national political climate -- and it's not surprising that the Senate is more in play today than it has been in months.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 10, 2006; 3:26 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: In Governors Races, Dems Still Hold Stronger Hand
Next: Parsing the Polls: The Voters' Party Impressions

Comments

I'm actually wondering if any Allen supporters have an answer to this post?

"I'm wondering why people think Allen came off better in the debate? Did people not notice that he hardly ever actually answered the questions asked to him. The older woman on the panel asked the best questions of all and Allen never once answered her questions instead going off on tangents, once even talking about dog kennels in Iowa or Idaho. The only negative on Webb was his ploy on that Taiwanese island, it wreaked just alittle to much of politics. But over all Allen very much shows he has no answers. Did no one else see that?"

Posted by: J.P.L. | October 12, 2006 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm actually wondering if any Allen supporters have an answer to this post?

"I'm wondering why people think Allen came off better in the debate? Did people not notice that he hardly ever actually answered the questions asked to him. The older woman on the panel asked the best questions of all and Allen never once answered her questions instead going off on tangents, once even talking about dog kennels in Iowa or Idaho. The only negative on Webb was his ploy on that Taiwanese island, it wreaked just alittle to much of politics. But over all Allen very much shows he has no answers. Did no one else see that?"

Posted by: J.P.L. | October 12, 2006 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone else wonder why Allen is running for re-election for a Va. senate race with commercials in NC, Md., Va. and DC? Hmm...he's stuck in Va. with Penn. Ave. on his mind!"

Or, maybe it's because the electronic media which serve Northern Virginia also serve the other two jurisdictions, with the same applying to NC electronic media serving Southern Virginia.

If it's Pennsylvania Avenue "on his mind," then check his media buys in New Hampshire and Iowa.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 12, 2006 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Allen's commercial I hear on the radio all the time goes like this: "James Webb wants to damage America's most trusted institution by allowing gays to marry. He is even against a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between 1 man and 1 woman. Webb wants to destroy the fibers that keeps America strong (plays downtrodden music). But George Allen (a hero's upbeat tune begins) hasn't waivered and wants to forever protect marriage as a union between 1 man and 1 woman. If we can't trust James Webb on a basic issue like marriage, what can we trust him on? George Allen's Va. values are just fine with us! Allen comes on closing "I'm George Allen, and I approved this messege."

Why is this odd? Because I live in the central region of North Carolina! Anyone else wonder why Allen is running for re-election for a Va. senate race with commercials in NC, Md., Va. and DC? Hmm...he's stuck in Va. with Penn. Ave. on his mind!

Posted by: reason | October 12, 2006 10:11 AM | Report abuse

I'm wondering why people think Allen came off better in the debate? Did people not notice that he hardly ever actually answered the questions asked to him. The older woman on the panel asked the best questions of all and Allen never once answered her questions instead going off on tangents, once even talking about dog kennels in Iowa or Idaho. The only negative on Webb was his ploy on that Taiwanese island, it wreaked just alittle to much of politics. But over all Allen very much shows he has no answers. Did no one else see that?

Posted by: Bill | October 12, 2006 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Democrats may be all excited about this, but they could very well lose sight of the very races they should have had a hold on, just like this one Senate race in that state just to the north of Virginia....hmmm

Posted by: jojo | October 11, 2006 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Democratic control of the Senate seems very unlikely at the momement. Winning OH MO and TN all at the same time would take a crazy turn of events in those states. Not to say that 1 or 2 can be won by the Democrats. Im kinda of suprised tho that Tina managed to enter a conversation and not turn it into a sad plug for Condi...

Posted by: Monderates Unite | October 11, 2006 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I think you may need to revise Blagojevich's standing. One of his top fundraisers -- and closest advisers -- has been indicted.http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/92023,blago101106.article

Posted by: Illinois guy | October 11, 2006 2:01 PM | Report abuse

partisan dem

If we hold NJ, we do not need VA to take control.

OH, MO, RI, MT, PA, TN

Still a tall order but looks better with TN. I think MO will be the decider. Way too close to call.

Posted by: RMill | October 11, 2006 11:17 AM | Report abuse

L Sterling is absolutely right about the AK-47s. They are a better gun than our own M-16. They are extremely durable and don't break down like the M-16. If I were in a nasty situation in the jungle or in the desert, I would certainly choose the AK-47. Not to get too far off the subject.

Posted by: Political Junkiie | October 11, 2006 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Mike B: Appreciate your comment but the AK47 has been one of the best weapons made over the past 50 years. Ask anyone who served in Nam. We should be so lucky to have mass produced it. Just because we didn't "invent" it doesn't mean it isn't one of the best. Maybe we should hire Dr. Kalashnikov and set him up over here.

Posted by: L.Sterling | October 11, 2006 9:51 AM | Report abuse


A 13-year-old student wearing a black trenchcoat and carrying an assault rifle walked into a school today and opened fire.

The boy, who was not identified, pointed the gun at two other students as he entered Memorial Middle School in Joplin, Missouri, and was confronted by an administrator, who tried to talk him into putting down the Mac-90 assault rifle, said Joplin police spokesman Lt Geoff Jones.

--any 13-year-old in this country who wants an assault weapon can get one. Wonder why there's school violence?

Posted by: drindl | October 11, 2006 9:47 AM | Report abuse

That press conference at the school was by far one of the most surreal, one of the most braindead affaiirs I have ever seen. Lunatics with guns don't kill kids, not being able to pray in school kills kids. Christ how did this country come to be so damn stupid? Is there anyone in power with an actual functioning brain?

Posted by: drindl | October 11, 2006 9:35 AM | Report abuse

'A reporter asked the White House press secretary today if there's anything the president thinks he should have done differently with respect to North Korea. "Oh, my goodness," Snow responded. "It's a silly question."'

Translated into American; "That's a silly question, you know George never admits any mistakes, especially the ones that endanger our national security."

And considering what the WH press corps knows about Bush, whoever asked the question surely knew there would not be a real answer.

Signing off (for a while)...

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 9:24 AM | Report abuse

articipants stood in front of a faux blackboard inscribed with the words "Conference on School Safety" 42 times. With gun control off the table, the questions and comments became a bit repetitious, too, as a long line of participants echoed the belief that school violence would be reduced by values education and religious belief.

"It's illegal to say 'God' in the public schools these days," complained one questioner. He was followed by a representative of the American Association of Christian Schools. Craig Scott, brother of a girl killed in the Columbine massacre, said she was "killed for her faith."

"Lots of folks find answers in their faith," Spellings observed.

They certainly did yesterday. Another panelist spoke about the need for churches to "adopt" schools. An organization started by the Scotts, Rachel's Challenge, distributed brochures comparing the slain girl and her father to Anne Frank and her father.

Posted by: if you don't laff you'll cry | October 11, 2006 9:20 AM | Report abuse

At the conference, Bush's thoughts leaned in the opposite direction; he mused at one point about whether schools were becoming too locked down.

Gonzales advised Bush that one panelist said metal detectors send "the wrong message about what we think of our kids."

"I happen to agree," Bush said. "But what do I know?"

Posted by: wotta moron | October 11, 2006 9:19 AM | Report abuse

"If Fordham did warn Palmer about Foley a long time ago, what are the odds that Palmer did not tell Hastert? As close to zero as you can get."

Looks like the Republicans have found their fall-guy.

They will try to "stop the buck" at Palmer, who will fall on his sword for his "good-buddy" Dennis Hastert.

No doubt they've shared some quiet time together to plan the intrigue.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 9:17 AM | Report abuse

President Bush has always been a disciplined man, but yesterday he set a new standard for self-control: He moderated an hour-long discussion about the rash of school shootings in the past week without once mentioning the word "guns."

First lady Laura Bush was nearly as good, giving a seven-minute speech at yesterday's White House Conference on School Safety without mentioning guns.

In fact, how the killers had carried out their deeds might have remained a mystery if 19-year-old twin brothers Theo and Niko Milonopoulos hadn't infiltrated the gathering.

Managing to get in front of a microphone during question time, Theo pointed out to Gonzales that "the common denominator in the rash of school shootings" has been access to high-powered guns. He asked what could be done to reduce the spread of such weapons "in light of the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban?"

"Assault weapons," Gonzales repeated. Some in the audience chuckled as he looked to see who on the panel would take the question.

The attorney general decided to do it himself. "Obviously, kids shouldn't have access," he granted, before quickly adding that there is no need for new laws. "

Posted by: what a joke | October 11, 2006 9:15 AM | Report abuse

McCain now seems like the grandstander that bhoomes always said he was. It certainly stands to reason that with 2100 days to do something - ANYTHING! - about North Korea, Bush completely failed to act. If McCain wants to assign blame in a rational way he needs to send at least some (more than 0%) toward Bush. If he can't do that he's certainly not the "straight shooter" he thinks he and has lost my respect.

The WaPo is right in saying this is positioning for 2008. Unfortunately, more of the same BS will eliminate the support of the independent vote that is so crucial to his chances.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 11, 2006 9:13 AM | Report abuse

"And according to McCain, it's all Bill Clinton's fault."

That is because McCain is already running against both Clintons for President in 08'.

I used to hold McCain in special respect for his old-fashioned honesty. But over the last year or so, McCain made his deal with the very devil he warned us about after the Bush machine personally trashed him in SC in 2000.

McCain knew then that some of the worst elements (neocons) in our government were making their move, and he told us to beware of them.

Now he has joined their ranks. He has solicited their approval and cooperation.

McCain is, plain and simple, politically ambitious. He wants to be President, by hook or by crooks.

I'm beginning to think that is really what motivated him to make his deal with the neocon devil.

Unbridled ambition.

And I don't think McCain helps unify the Republicans, he may very well split theparet the way Teddy Roosevelt did with the Bull Moose party.

There are just too many conservatives, the REAL republicans, who think McCain is much too moderate for their liking. They may not represent the majority in their party any more, but they are surely the most intractable, and McCain will have to change his message to match their prejudices, if he expects to win the party's nomination.

They aren't about to change to match McCain's moderation.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 9:12 AM | Report abuse


'A reporter asked the White House press secretary today if there's anything the president thinks he should have done differently with respect to North Korea. "Oh, my goodness," Snow responded. "It's a silly question."'

Snow talks just like rumsfeld -- both of them sound like the fussy old woman in the tweety cartoon. Hastert too.'Oh my goodness, how silly.' I think there's something a bit odd about quite a few of them.

Posted by: drindl | October 11, 2006 9:08 AM | Report abuse

"The Bushies claim that the Clinton policy was all carrots and no sticks."

McCain said that, too, they've got their cliche's confused, the carrot goes on the end of the stick and then is held out in front of the horses to draw them forward so they will pull the wagon.

Sounds like the've got Teddy Roosevelt's "big stick" and the "carrot on a stick," mixed up in their terminology.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 9:00 AM | Report abuse


If Fordham did warn Palmer about Foley a long time ago, what are the odds that Palmer did not tell Hastert? As close to zero as you can get. Many chiefs of staff are close, very close, to their bosses on Capitol Hill. But none are closer than Scott Palmer is to Denny Hastert. They don't just work together all day, they live together.

There are plenty of odd couple Congressmen who have roomed together on Capitol Hill, but I have never heard of a chief of staff who rooms with his boss. It is beyond unusual. But it must have its advantages. Anything they forget to tell each other at the office, they have until bedtime to catch up on. And then there's breakfast for anything they forgot to tell each other before falling asleep. And then there's all day at the office. Hastert and Palmer are together more than any other co-workers in the Congress.

Posted by: oh denny boy... | October 11, 2006 8:59 AM | Report abuse

I was caught by this hook in the story in the WaPo today about "economy" trumping "values" in Ohio;
"But through multiple recounts and lawsuits, Blackwell has been cleared of playing a role in any irregularities."

????

This suggests "its over."

Not hardly.

Lest we forget, as the same story observes in another paragraph, Republicans literally OWN the Ohio legislature, and they aren't about to let Blackwell take the fall, as long as they can perpetuate any sort of cover-up.

It will take a seriously independent entity to put Blackwell in prison, the Ohio Republicans aren't about to do it.

If he wasn't being protected by one of, if not THE most corrupt and pervasive partisan political machines in the country, Blackwell would have been convicted of voter fraud long ago.

It is a conspiracy of monumental proportions.

And anyone who believes Blackwell's 2004 gay bashing actually inspired those ridiculous election results, needs to spend a night with Mark Foley.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Said the Arizona Senator: "I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other critics of the Bush administration policies that the framework agreement of the Clinton administration was a failure."

Some basic facts.

The 1994 crisis came about because the North Koreans were producing weapons-grade plutonium. Under the Agreed Framework, they agreed to shutter the plutonium production facility and put the already produced plutonium under international oversight.

In return, the US promised aide, help building lightwater reactors (which don't help with bombs) and diplomatic normalization.

That agreement kept the plutonium operation on ice until the end of 2002.

President Bush came to office wanting to pull out of the agreement and did so when evidence surfaced suggesting that the North Koreans were secretly trying to enrich uranium (a separate path to the bomb).

The bomb that went off yesterday was made with plutonium, the same stuff that was off-limits from 1994-2002. In all likelihood some of the same stuff that was on ice from 1994-2002.

To the best of my knowledge, no one thinks the North Koreans are close to having enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon that way. And it's not even completely clear they were ever trying to enrich uranium.

So Clinton strikes a deal to keep plutonium out of the North Koreans' hands. The deal keeps the plutonium out of reach for the last six years of Clinton's term and the first two of Bush's. Bush pulls out of the deal. Four years later a plutonium bomb explodes.

Clinton's fault, right?

There's certainly an argument to be made that you don't make agreements with parties you don't trust, like the North Koreans. And perhaps President Bush would have had some leg to stand on if he'd pulled out of the Agreed Framework and replaced it with something better -- either force or a better agreement. But he didn't. He just did nothing for four years. Now we have plutonium, probably uranium and actual bombs. And according to McCain, it's all Bill Clinton's fault.

Posted by: McCain's a Liar | October 11, 2006 8:47 AM | Report abuse


Bill Perry, who was Sec Def from 1994 to 1997, has a good column on North Korea in tomorrow's Post. This passage captures the heart of the problem with Bush administration policy ...

For almost six years this policy has been a strange combination of harsh rhetoric and inaction.
President Bush, early in his first term, dubbed North Korea a member of the "axis of evil" and made disparaging remarks about Kim Jong Il. He said he would not tolerate a North Korean nuclear weapons program, but he set no bounds on North Korean actions.

The Bushies claim that the Clinton policy was all carrots and no sticks. Not true when you consider we threatened war over the plutonium issue in 1994 -- and like all effective threats of force, it succeeded in getting the North Koreans to sit down and negotiate. But the Bush policy has been no carrots and no sticks. President Bush won't tolerate a nuclear North Korea. But he won't do anything about it either. Clearly, in Bushspeak 'won't tolerate' just means some high politics equivalent of 'I'll be vewwy, vewwy mad.'

As Perry says, harsh rhetoric and inaction.

Posted by: President All Hat, No Cattle | October 11, 2006 8:45 AM | Report abuse


"Failure" =1994-2002 -- Era of Clinton 'Agreed Framework': No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb.

"Success" = 2002-2006 -- Bush Policy Era: Active plutonium production. No international inspections of plutonium stocks. Nuclear warhead detonated.

Face it. They ditched an imperfect but working policy. They replaced it with nothing. Now North Korea is a nuclear state.

Facts hurt. So do nukes.

Posted by: josh marshall | October 11, 2006 8:39 AM | Report abuse

-- U.S insurance rates are already rising because of the impacts of global warming -- and consumers should prepare for even higher rates -- as flooding, wildfires, and other extreme weather events become more common, a new study says.

It's an important issue for insurers, who have already suffered billions of dollars in losses due to increases in serious weather events that fit the pattern of global warming. Severe weather is on the rise, the report says, costing insurers $92 billion in the 1990s and $23 billion in 2004 hurricane losses alone.

In some cases, insurers have pulled out of high risk markets completely, shifting the burden to taxpayers.

Posted by: global warming. higher taxes | October 11, 2006 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Chris;
Chris Hedges is writing for Truthdig bi-weekly now, this is one of the most objective and comprehensive looks at our nuclear confusion and the international piecemeal prolifertion it has created.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601009_bushs_nuclear_apocalypse/

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell lauded what is known as the Agreed Framework that the Clinton Administration signed with North Korea. "Lots of nuclear weapons were not made because of the Agreed Framework and the work of President Clinton and his team," Powell said. Now, conservatives are faulting President Clinton for selling light water reactors to North Korea under the agreement, but in doing so, they overlook Donald Rumsfeld's role in the deal.

Rumsfeld was the only American to sit on the board of a company which six years ago sold two light water reactors to North Korea. The Guardian reported in May 2003:

Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200m contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. The current defense secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year.

ABB spokesman Bjoern Edlund told Fortune magazine at the time that "board members were informed about this project." ... "This was a major thing for ABB," the former director [who sat on the board with Rumsfeld] said, "and extensive political lobbying was done." The director recalls being told that Rumsfeld was asked "to lobby in Washington" on ABB's behalf.

Posted by: blame rumsefled | October 11, 2006 8:01 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes, you are quite accurate about the 20 point poll for Michigan, in that Debbie should win by that margin is way way off. Most likely around 6 or 7 would be more like it. I missed the last Va. poll as to the lead Allen had before this last one. The last one in Conn. seems to be along the same line and can not believe the poll there as well. Someone is playing games with these polls, you can be certain about that and take them for what they are worth, nothing.

Posted by: lylepink | October 11, 2006 7:30 AM | Report abuse

I was only joking about the money left over from the nuke sale, lighten up. I haven't followed the MI closely but I do know the Democratic Gov is in some trouble because of the loss of jobs, also incumbents are always the most vulnerable the 1st time they stand for reelection. Stabenow may win, but if she does, it will not be by much. Any poll that has her by 20% should be thrown in the trashcan where it belongs. And if anybody really believes that poll, they should be required to wear a stupid button on their lapel.

Posted by: bhoomes | October 11, 2006 6:52 AM | Report abuse

"That's why Ford lost in '76. Carter had better hair."

Carter had hair, period.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 11, 2006 12:26 AM | Report abuse

for all those wondering how exactly allen ever got elected in the first place, please just google charles robb. this guy was an absolute embarrassment (though nothing, admitedly, compared to what allen has become) and almost got beat by oliver friggin' north during the fiasco of '94. even still, a two percentage switch in the vote that year would've meant more time for allen to be generously compensated for lobbying on behalf of company's he helped while governor. given this, it's simply amazing to me how everyone was saying how unbeatable allen was just a few months back. sure he was up in the polls, but that was before he even had an opponent. given allen's slim win against a piss-poor incumbent coupled with kaine's win should have made this a democratic target a looong time ago. i guess it's true, sometimes the word can reveal the truth to the unenlightened (i mean here macaca, obviously, not the bible...)

btw, not to get too off topic, but how much does anyone think ford's whole claiming to be a lawyer without actual ever passing the bar will hurt him? can this really be compared to bush's 'i've seen war' when he was actually snorting coke while deserting from the national guard?

Posted by: david | October 10, 2006 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Ask and you shall receive...

Just saw New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on CNN. Someone got him a new haircut. He actually looks sophisticated. There was a post on WPost last night suggesting he could be President if he got a haircut. Someone wrote once that to be president, a person had to have good hair. That's why Ford lost in '76. Carter had better hair.

Posted by: An Ashamed R | October 10, 2006 10:15 PM | Report abuse


IF the Dems win, can they establish a milatary tribunal to try Bush, Cheney, Ashcoft, Delay, Rove, Rumsfield, Rice, and the other Neocons.

Posted by: An Ashamed R | October 10, 2006 10:11 PM | Report abuse

From the Quad Cities newspaper in Iowa, here's why the Democrats need to win this Secretary of State race.

"The race for Iowa secretary of state pits the auditor of the state's largest county against a person who was working in the White House just two months ago.

Despite their different backgrounds and party affiliations, the candidates say the job should be free from partisan influence. The winner will oversee the state's elections and handle the registration of businesses.

"Everybody wants safety, security and integrity," said Democrat Michael Mauro of Des Moines, the Polk County auditor.

Republican Mary Ann Hanusa of Council Bluffs, the former director of the White House Office of Personal Correspondence, said her background is "marked with honesty, integrity and credibility, which is important for somebody overseeing elections."

The candidates are running to replace Democrat Chet Culver, who is his party's nominee for governor.

Both parties want one of their own as secretary of state, even though major decisions about election policy are made by the Legislature."

Our anonymous complainer may have been complaining about my misstatement that Mauro winning would "take it back" because the Democrats already had it.

Like I said, manure occurs...

Just a gaffe, and nothing you could actually call "Stupid."

But feel free to call me what you please, its a free-speech blog.

Posted by: JEP | October 10, 2006 9:46 PM | Report abuse

The GOP has walked off Santorum? Good Lord wasn't he in the leadership? This is bad, very bad. You'd think they'd toss him a few bucks just to keep us from talking about the fact that they aren't.

Time for a break from the serious business of this election cycle for some serious parody.

New on EWM:
Intercepted: GOP Foley Crisis Chatroom
http://www.eyewitnessmuse.com/musings.php?p=233


Posted by: The Muse | October 10, 2006 9:16 PM | Report abuse

But Webb's no "leftie", he's a solid centrist, if not a bit right leaning, for a Democrat.

Which is a very good formula for any Democrat running for office in Virginia.

Posted by: JEP | October 10, 2006 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Allen has lost and he is going to lose.

Posted by: Joe J | October 10, 2006 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Virginia has traditionally been conservative but has been trending lately the other way. All else equal, a Republican would normally win there, but Allen has had remarkable aim lately (at his own foot).

Posted by: Staley | October 10, 2006 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Is Virginia (?) traditionally right or left? will that influence Webb's chances?

Posted by: Bill in Australia | October 10, 2006 8:38 PM | Report abuse

There is one word that can unite the party, bring victory in November and in 08, it is simple for everyone to understand, and for some sharp communications planners to develop a networking strategy off of this one word,

It is "BALANCE" (Sorry I am not trying to scream)

Say what? Yes this one word ,BALANCE.

Here is an example from my unprofessional mind: One side says stay the course, and accuses the Demonacrats of "Cut and Run"
The response is no we are not "Cut and Run" we are the party of "BALANCE" between......................(fill in the blank) Try Taxes, not class warfare, we seek BALANCE in tax.......................(fill in the blank) It is a response for negative ads and tactics. I wish I knew how to get this to someone in authority. Hopes this helps. Thanks

Posted by: Simira | October 10, 2006 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Reading the comments over the past couple days seems to indicate my crysral ball is working overtime. The big one to watch now appears to be the state of Tenn. where there is a better than 50/50 chance of both seats going dem.. The only one the dems could possibly lose would be NJ. and I very much doubt this will happen. Early on I thought the House would change but the Senate was iffy at best. Now it is looking very well.

Posted by: lylepink | October 10, 2006 6:47 PM | Report abuse

at leeast I'm willing to identify myself, and please advise what facts I missed, particularly about the Iowa Secy of State comment, just what did you mean?

Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm wrong.

If it was a simple technical error, hey, manure occurs,.

I don't actually recall writing anything that could actually be called "stupid", but it is certainly possible. No one is perfect, especially Democrats.

Please, once again, illuminate us.

What "facts" did I miss about the Iowa Sec. of State race?

I admit, I sometimes roll with the flow, and I do play pretty loose and easy with suggestive questions, but I usually try to frame my suspicions and theories as queries, not accusations.

Please, elucidate.

Since I went to Junior High and HS at DM Lincoln, I think I can talk a bit about the southside.

But please, fill me in, what exactly did I get wrong?

Posted by: JEP | October 10, 2006 6:30 PM | Report abuse

FINALLY!!! I have been asking my husband why the DSSC wasn't airing ads for Webb! I was up at 6:30 (ok - not early but it is in this house) and watching TV when I saw the ad for the first time. If they had been supporting him for the past 2-3 weeks, they would have helped out a lot more, but better late than never. I can't vote in this election (live in MD), but I watched the debate - I will admit the Allen came of a little bit better, but only to those who like smarminess (the note Allen added about Native Americans being part of affirmative action made him look really good - I was annoyed that Webb missed that and was yelling at the TV for him to add it - but unfortunately, he couldn't hear
me. . .), which, unfortunately, too many buy into these days. Webb is very bright and has some very good ideas - too bad he isn't a better speaker. He did better on Meet the Press.

I can't believe Allen actually got elected to this office - even once (we moved here 4 years ago so weren't around and I really didn't know much about this guy till know). If it happens again, well, too bad. But the Dems had better find a great candidate for next time around and start early - they have to know after all of this that the seat is vulnerable. Unfortunately, in the end, I think that Allen will win the election, but it will be very very close. And it won't happen the next time around. As long as the Dems get at least 2-3 seats in the Senate (and take the House), they are much better off. This is a reasonable expectation - although, of course, I will be thrilled if we get more in the Senate.

Posted by: star11 | October 10, 2006 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Cowardly anonymous, come out of your spider hole and exppose your self for the lying R that you are. Don't attack JEP [a decent guy] as fact-challenged when you people don't even know what 'facts' are.

Posted by: drindl | October 10, 2006 6:23 PM | Report abuse

JEP,

Calling someone stupid after reading your posts is like the pot calling the kettle black. If someone lacks fact checking that would be you (Iowa Sec.of State)

Posted by: Anonymous | October 10, 2006 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Okay Tina, body armor. Now, what about guns? When my son arrived in Iraq he was sent to a Marine outpost where they ran street patrols every day to draw the fire of the bad guys. He is a medic, but his gun? It was an AK47! So, is the military so poorly equipped they cannot even get guns? Our venture into Iraq is so poorly planned, so incompetently led, it would be a joke if it weren't so dangerous. And all you righnt wingers can do is take Karl Rove's lead and claim that liberals are cowards who wont fight and simply want to cut and run. Stupid, stupid, stupid! We luiberal want out becasue that bozo you installed as president and his "our gang" boys have wrecked any chance of success in Iraq, and Afghanistan, too! We want out becasue loosing Amercian lives isn't worth it if all it buys is that pontification bafoon's being able to call himself a "wartime president".

Posted by: MikeB | October 10, 2006 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Bhoomes, where in the world do you get the idea that the GOP will win Michigan? Stabanow is up by an average of nearly 20 points and there is only a few weeks left until the election. Menendez has regained the lead in New Jersey as well. Concentrate on protecting Tennessee and Missouri.

Posted by: Sean | October 10, 2006 5:43 PM | Report abuse

"Ladies and Gentlemen, it looks like we have a stupid-off!"

Joe, you must have just joined us recently.

We have one of these "stupid-offs" here on "The Fix" blog every time a new story breaks that exposes general general Republican incompetence and stupidity.

So far, without exception, instead of dealing with the actual issue, our Bush cult trolls heap mounds of more stupidity atop it.

I constantly lament there are no real conservative debators left on this blog, just brainwashed trolls who repeat anything they hear that trashes Dems, without a thought to discerning whether it is true or not.

Some of them actually fancy themselves as debators, which is even more ridiculous.

Usually, we try to ignore it, but today they are particularly stupid, as your references attest, and it only makes me wonder how these people got so twisted.

I would suggest that a constant, self inflicted Clear-Channel/Fox diet of Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh and Imus has denuded the intellectual forest of Republican rank and file.

When your ideological icons are trash-talking propagandists, your ideology gets more than a little bit twisted.

Thus we will suffer our daily "stupid-offs."

It might be entertaining, if it wasn't so stupid.

Unfortunately, there's just too much at stake to simply ignore the truth and spin a story for ideological purposes.

Most of our trolls would rather see the U.S. completely fall apart, than see the Republicans lose power.

They consider it one and the same event.

Posted by: JEP | October 10, 2006 5:33 PM | Report abuse

'I suppose you know who sold the reactors to north Korea in 2000, right? That would be the Zurich firm of ABB. Who was on the board of that firm from 1990 to 2001? Donald Rumsfeld'

Thank you for bringing up the fact, will, that it was donald rumsfeld, the traitor, who sold out his country for quite a few pieces of silver.

Rumsfled,who when he isn't busy delivering poison gas to Saddam to use on his own people, manages to sell out his country to China and N. Korea, finds the time to destroy the US military capability for profit. Manages to make sure that more soldiers get maimed and wounded and that fewer make it home.

Quite a talented guy, huh? TRAITOR.

Republicans, the party of TREASON.

Posted by: drindl | October 10, 2006 5:28 PM | Report abuse

If Mark Warner had decided to run for Senate, this race would have been over the day he entered. Remember that Virginia Pilot polling had Warner up 10-15 points on Allen. But he wants to be President...

On the current race, Allen is in a lot more trouble than people think. Turnout in Downstate VA isn't going to necessarily high (whereas I think it'll be high in NOVA) or pro-Allen like many are assuming. The Virginia GOP is writing the playbook on how to lose power and Allen is their star quarterback...keep an eye out for the returns in Virginia Beach and the Richmond suburbs, there will be a pleasant surpirse (shouldn't be given 2005) for the Dems in those areas.

Posted by: Eugene | October 10, 2006 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Just word-searched at three of my other favorite, ACTUAL left-leaning blogs, and found that in each one, the names "Foley" and "Allen" are together in more than one post.

Just try it, go to another political blog, do a word search for each name, see if Allen has really dropped off the blog radar.

Not hardly.

Allen's name is still all over the blogs, and not in a complimentary fashion.

Foley's definitely got top billing, but Allen's still got the dishonorable mention slot behind Foley. And they both outrank Kim Jong Il in terms of total posts mentioning their names, except for the first few hours after the "almost a nuke" blast.

On many of the more original blogs, Allen and Foley are listed quite often in the same posts, usually as a laundry list of Republican rogues that also includes Cunningham, Ney and Delay, Burns and now, quite recently, a lot of Blunt and Talent talk. Abramoff seems to be fading, except as a reference, but Jack's effect has been assuaged by Foley's follies, no doubt.

Missouri must be a real thermometer, its the Republican's canary in the coal mine. Over the past couple days, Missouri's Republicans are getting a lot of scrutiny, I would guess they may be the next "crew" to feel the hot spotlight of a full-on blog offensive.

Curious, thoug, isn't it, Allen, because of his macacan mistakes, is now named quite often on the same list with the Republican corruption crew, as if he was taking bribes and making earmark deals for corporate buddies on the floor of the Senate.

It may not be fair to include him on that list, who really knows? But regardless of the background, it certainly does not bode well for Allen.

No one has steereed him anywhere, that ship is sinking fast.

Posted by: JEP | October 10, 2006 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Bhoomes-
I suppose you know who sold the reactors to north Korea in 2000, right? That would be the Zurich firm of ABB. Who was on the board of that firm from 1990 to 2001? Donald Rumsfeld. He left to Join the White House.

You have nameless Democratic bogeymen, we have facts.

Posted by: Will | October 10, 2006 4:55 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats will need to almost run the table on Nov. 7 if they are to have any hope of winning a Senate majority. The picture is brighter now than two weeks ago, but they are still behind in two races -- Virginia and Arizona -- where a victory in at least one is required for a majority. Plus, Democrats need to sweep Ohio, Tennessee, and Missouri. It's a tall order, but is plausible.

Posted by: Partisan Democrat | October 10, 2006 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Allen has always given me the creeps, between his platitude spouting on taxes and his phony little policy intiatives (he's in favor of innovation, what a shock), but I thought letting his "you want to raise taxes $2000 on 3 million Virginians" linger out there without a firmer rebuttal was a mistake. If Webb wants to repeal individual taxpayer breaks for higher incomes, he ought to have at least a % of VA taxpayers that would impact. My guess is that 3 million is probably high by more than a factor of 10, and the $2K comes from averaging AOL millionaires in with working folks. The exchange on the China/ Taiwan / Japan islands reminded me of a stunt I tried to pull in my 4th grade elections when I planted a question "will you have a president pro tempore" in the audience. I lost because it was an extraneous gotcha that showed more about my character than my opponent. Allen also was able to picture himself as a proponent of information openness when he isn't (a missed opportunity) and Webb should have said something about the ludicrous characterization of the risks of habeus corpus. Maybe I'm expecting perfection when Webb is WYSIWYG, but I don't think the debate helped him.

Posted by: jon | October 10, 2006 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Have to add, if anyone thinks I speak arrogantly about the blogs, just get online and read some of them, more than just your old favorites, surf around a bit for new insight. There are thousands, maybe millions of discussions going on, all the time, and no one can steer it, it is spontaneous.

Allen never "left the stage", no one ever steered him away, he's still the second act behind Foley. On many many blogs, Allen gets trashed constantly, even if his managers and the WaPo writers don't want to acknowledge it.

specially every time some cult Republican throws his name out there, you can absolutely count on the bloggers pounce, and tear apart whatever sweet-nothings the trolls toss out.

This isn't the only blog in the sphere, Virginia.

While it is currently one of my favorites, it is by no means representative of most blogs.

No one "steered" Allen away from anything, at best, Allen got a Foley break, but like I said, Allen still gets a lot of second billing in the Foley discussion.

All over the blogs.

Not just on "The Fix."

Posted by: JEP | October 10, 2006 4:51 PM | Report abuse

If last night's debate is any indication, Webb still has a ways to go. Allen has that folksy "Golly, gee whiz" manner mastered. It was classic to watch him smile as he painted Webb with the tar brush of being bankrolled, by Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry (although he may have tossed Arlen Spector in there one of the times).

Allen is far smoother, but Webb does come across that shows he knows what he's talking about.

Interesting contrast in styles. Which one would you feel more comfortable buying a car from?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 10, 2006 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I thought this would be the stupidest thing I'd read all day:

"About that body armor, the truth is that the manufacturing could not keep up with the production requests. The Humvees are wearing out from extra armor plates on their bodies."

Until I read this:

"Well, it looks like the dems still have money left over from the nukes they sold to Red China."

Ladies and Gentlemen, it looks like we have a stupid-off! Start your engines!

Posted by: Joe | October 10, 2006 4:34 PM | Report abuse


(1) Yesterday's ABC/WaPo poll: "Which political party, the Democrats or the Republicans, do you trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism? Democrats, 47 percent, Republicans 41 percent. Thirty-five percent approve of Bush's handling of Iraq, and 45% approve of his handling of terrorism.
(2) Yesterday's USA Today poll:: Democrats did better than Republicans on who would best handle terrorism, 46%-41%.

(3) Yesterday's New York Times poll: "Do you think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is more likely to make the right decisions when it comes to dealing with terrorism? Republicans 41percent, Democrats 40 percent. That's a virtual tie. And 32 percent approve of the way Bush is "handling foreign policy," while 61 percent disapprove.

Posted by: dana | October 10, 2006 4:32 PM | Report abuse

"Well, it looks like the dems still have money left over from the nukes they sold to Red China."

Lets see, who was our first modern ambassador to China, under the Nixon administration?

Answer; GHW Bush (a.k.a. "41")

When that ambassador became President, who did he award the American Freeedom Medal to?

Answer; Sam Walton

So who actually opened the door and paid for China's military build-up?

Don't blame the Dems, blame Wal-Mart, the Bush family and the Republicans.

Posted by: JEP | October 10, 2006 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Mark Warner already ran for the Senate in Virginia and lost; to John Warner in 1996.

bhoomes: If the Post is so heavily invested in defeating George Allen, why did they wait until Tuesday to run the financial disclousre/possible improper contact story which the AP broke on Sunday; and then bury it at page 5 of the Metro section?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100900124_pf.html

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 10, 2006 4:29 PM | Report abuse

'But if not, I will apologize and stay off the Washington Post website for 1 week.' Thanks Tina, but why don't you apologize first for that pathetic lie about body armor? You know it's a lie -- you know that the repugs just didn't want to spend the money --but all of you hardcore cultists care more about winning than you do about kids getting their arms and legs blown off. I am tired of even trying to be civil to you lying sociopaths--you're barely human.

As I expected, you've gotten even more vile and deranged since it's become apparent you're going to lose big time -- as you wo much deserve.

Posted by: drindl | October 10, 2006 4:26 PM | Report abuse

From today's WaPo story trying to deny Allen is still in trouble, more proof to all our conservative posters who call it a left-wing publication, this paper is bi-political, it "leans both ways."

In the same issue on the same page.

"Allen and his strategists have managed to steer attention away from his awful few weeks and back onto far more comfortable turf for the one-term senator who still harbors hopes of becoming president..."

Boy, this guy doesn't know the blogs, does he? Allen and his crew never steered anything, if you call shutting-up their own loudmouth candidate a high-end strategy, then Allen's toast.

This is pure invention, suggesting Allen's crew managed this, the fickle blog cycles have pushed Allen out of the top posts but have certainly notforgotten him or given him a running "pass." He still gets honorable mention in many Foley related posts.

If Allen's toast, the blogs cooked him, and if he's starts assuming he's out of it, maybe we'll flip him over and brown the other side.

Ah, once again, the arrogant, irrational, egotistical bloggers, we assume so much power.

And rightly so.

The blogs are the last real home for free speech in this nation. If not for the expressive freedom of blogs, we would not have even heardad the original macaca discussion, or the mohawk excuses or the subsequent hereditage denial.

And this race wouldn't even be on "the line."

Posted by: JEP | October 10, 2006 4:22 PM | Report abuse

George Allen is a waste of skin.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | October 10, 2006 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Mark Warner would never run for Senate in Virginia - because he's going to be the next President of the United States!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 10, 2006 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Tha Prez no lame duck? That's all he does is duck.
I don't have to give examples just think of any problem facing our country that he has directly addressed.
Oh,BTW where is he now? In his office doing presidential work?
I think not

Posted by: Anonymous | October 10, 2006 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Well, it looks like the dems still have money left over from the nukes they sold to Red China. I know the WP is heavily invested in defeating George Allen, but their coverage has been so completely biased and unprofessional, it will help Allen to rally his base. This is a pipedream dems, but worry about NJ and Michigan. R's getting ready to win those seats.

Posted by: bhoomes | October 10, 2006 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Two unrelated Warners from the same state of Virginia?

Or ARE they related?

I'm serious, I'm very curious about that.

ON stage and in debats, Webb's a tough pit bull, while poor old Allen's like a big, dumb happy-faced retriever.

If Allen wins, it won't be Allen who beats Webb, it will be smarter people arond him that turn this around, and even they may not be able to fix what George's toejam addiction has broken.

Webb's in charge of his own process, he's not just a dunderheaded figurehead atop a much brighter body of supporters, like a pair of our contemporary Georges (Bush AND Allen) seem to be.

Allen may, at times be the Boss, but he's never the brains. Webb's a pretty bright light bulb, all by himself. Add the very ypoung and extremely bright crew he has gathered around him, you have a recipe for this new Virginia Classic.

History will look back in wonder and amazement at the quickly declining political fortunes of George Allen. We will always remember "macaca."

Posted by: JEP | October 10, 2006 4:03 PM | Report abuse

If the Republicans manage to retain the majority in the Senate, will that have an impact on how reporters tell the story on election night? For all the false statements in those ads, if the voters still elect Allen or Santorum or Burns in Montana or DeWine in Ohio, it will be based on those who know these men best are the ones who support them.

It is amazing how the Democrats in DC think that by running a bunch of nasty ads against Republicans, they will win.

About that body armor, the truth is that the manufacturing could not keep up with the production requests. The Humvees are wearing out from extra armor plates on their bodies.

If the Democrats win the Senate, I will be absolutely amazed. There are not that many vulnerable seats. The strength of Republican leadership in the Senate is a key reason they will stay in the majority.

Now I will make a bet, if the Republican manage to keep the majority in Congress and the majority in the Senate, I will be the first person celebrating on November 8.
It will be proof that President Bush in NO lame duck.

But if not, I will apologize and stay off the Washington Post website for 1 week.
I bet Cillizza and the Democrats will love it.

Posted by: Tina | October 10, 2006 3:58 PM | Report abuse

If Mark Warner was running, this race would have been over a month ago.

Posted by: bioesq | October 10, 2006 3:52 PM | Report abuse

As an R, I say, go after Allen dems, lets rid this country of hypocrital right wing zealots that spew venon an insults at people who are not like themselves. Knocking off Santorum, Talent, and Allen in the same year would be incredibly wonderful retribution to the neocons who have highjacked the GOP. Hopefully Brownback is next

Posted by: An Ashamed R | October 10, 2006 3:52 PM | Report abuse

If Mark Warner had decided to run for the Senate, this race would have been over a month ago.

Posted by: bioesq | October 10, 2006 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Too bad for Allen that his finances are catching up with him at the moment he wanted to switch topics. I find it amazing that he would make tht many mistakes. He must have been careless or arrogant. It's common sense to report stock options.

Posted by: Yockel | October 10, 2006 3:36 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company