Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Friday House Line: Democrats' Firewall



Republicans Reps. Mark Kirk, Jim Gerlach and Mike Castle are either running statewide or considering statewide bids. AP Photo/George Widman

The old axiom that one man's trash is another man's treasure holds true in the world of politics as well.

Take Republican Reps. Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Jim Gerlach (Pa.) -- both of whom decided in the past month to pursue statewide bids in 2010; Kirk is running for the open Senate seat in Illinois while Gerlach is seeking the Pennsylvania governorship.

While their candidacies -- particularly that of Kirk -- were touted by national recruiters, their departures are a blow to House Republicans who now must defend two heavily Democratic seats in 2010.

That same process could repeat itself soon in Delaware where Rep. Mike Castle (R) is actively considering a run for the First State's Senate seat in 2010. If Castle leaves his House seat, it's a near-certain Democratic pickup. Of course, even if Castle decides to seek a 10th House term, he is a certain Democratic target with former Lt. Gov. John Carney (D) already in the race.

Friday Line

This trio of (potential departures) coupled with the near-certain defeat of Rep. Joseph Cao (R) in Louisiana should help House Democrats build something of a firewall against what early signs -- and historical trends -- suggest will be a tough election for them in 2010.

As always, the number one ranked race on the Line is the most likely to switch parties next fall. Your kudos and critiques are welcome in the comment section below.

To the Line!
Races Coming onto the Line: Illinois' 10th, New Mexico's 2nd
Races Coming off the Line: New York's 23rd, California's 44th
Last Democratic-held seat cut from Line: Ohio's 15th
Last Republican-held seat cut from Line: New York's 23rd

10. New Hampshire's 1st district (Democratic-controlled): Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta (R) kicked off his campaign for Congress with a bang or, more accurately, a crack. Guinta's involvement in a bar fight that left a man's leg broken has significantly marred the momentum national Republicans were hoping to build for his race against Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D). The $90,000 he raised between April 1 and June 30 didn't exactly bowl us over either. Is Shea Porter vulnerable? Yes. Is Guinta off to a very rocky start? You betcha. (Previous ranking: 4)

9. New Mexico's 2nd district (D): Two things went wrong for Rep. Harry Teague (D) over the last month: the cap and trade vote and former Rep. Steve Pearce's candidacy. Teague, who represents a southern New Mexico district with a strong oil and gas presence, somewhat inexplicably voted for controversial energy legislation pushed by President Barack Obama -- although Democratic insiders insist he got things put in the bill that will actually benefit the companies in his district. And, Pearce, the former Republican Congressman, announced that he would seek to regain his seat next year after losing a Senate bid in 2008. The district, particularly in a midterm election, tilts toward Republicans. (Previous ranking: N/A)

8. Mississippi's 1st district (D): In the last Line, we wrote that if Republicans could find a candidate not tied to DeSoto County (suburban Memphis) they might have a real chance at knocking off Rep. Travis Childers (D). Damned if they didn't go out and do just that! (Who says the Fix has no influence?). State Sen. Alan Nunnelee (R), whose political base in in Tupelo, filed his statement of candidacy earlier this week and should make this race competitive. The big question in this contest: what sort of turnout is there in the black community? The higher it goes, the better chance Childers has at being re-elected. (Previous ranking: 9)

7. Alabama's 2nd district (D): It's hard to overlook the overwhelmingly Republican nature of this southern Alabama seat where President Barack Obama won only 36 percent of the vote last November. But, Rep. Bobby Bright (D) proved that local connections -- he was the mayor of Montgomery before being elected to Congress in 2008 -- can overcome even the most daunting demographic deficits. But, without the president leading the ticket, African American turnout will almost certainly drop from its historic high in 2008, which could be a problem for Bright. And, Republicans remain very high on Montgomery City Councilwoman Martha Roby who is the party's odds-on nominee. (Previous ranking: 8)

6. Maryland's 1st district (D): Republicans insist that state Sen. Andy Harris, who beat then Rep. Wayne Gilchrest in last year's primary before losing to Rep. Frank Kratovil (D) in the fall, has learned his lessons. Maybe. Harris' $126,000 raised paled in comparison to the $301,000 Kratovil collected over the last three months. Kratovil won't get much help from the top of the ticket as Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) is likely to lose this eastern shore district and lose it badly. (Previous ranking: 5)

5. Delaware's At-Large (Republican-controlled): Until Castle makes a final decision, we can't rate this race any higher on the Line. But, we also can't seem to find any Republicans who believe that Castle is going to run for re-election to the House. (The general sense is that Castle is either up -- to the Senate -- or out.) Carney is well known statewide and has been in the race for months. If Castle doesn't run, there doesn't seem to be much of a Republican bench -- meaning that this race could move up the Line later this year. (Previous ranking: 3)

4. Idaho's 1st district (D): National Republicans are high on Iraq war veteran Vaughn Ward's candidacy, adding him to their "Young Guns" program earlier this week. And, Ward has already been endorsed by Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and received campaign contributions from the mother-in-law and father-in-law of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Freshman Rep. Walt Minnick (D) is doing everything right -- he ended June with almost $500,000 in the bank -- but in a district where Obama took just 36 percent of the vote, Minnick has his work cut out for him. (Previous ranking: 2)

3. Pennsylvania's 6th district (R): Gerlach's decision to run for governor leaves Republicans in a lurch. Former Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board member Doug Pike (D) has been actively running for months and dumped more than $500,000 of his own money into his campaign account over the past three months. Republicans have no obvious candidate and, in a district this Democratic, that spells trouble -- with a capital "T". (Previous ranking: 7)

2. Illinois' 10th district (R): With Kirk out, Democrats are falling all over themselves to run. Dan Seals, who lost to Kirk in 2006 and 2008, is in as is state Rep. Julie Hamos, who was planning a run for state Attorney General, and state Sen. Mike Bond. (None of the three live in the district.) The Republican field is still shaking out but smart GOP strategists acknowledge that Kirk may well have been the only GOPer able to hold this North Shore seat. (Previous ranking: N/A)

1. Louisiana's 2nd district (R): While Cao's upset victory over the scandal-tarred Bill Jefferson (D) made for a good story last year, it's next-to-impossible for the Republican to win a second term. President Obama won 74 percent(!) of the vote in this New Orleans-area district. 'Nuff said. (Previous ranking: 1)

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 31, 2009; 12:02 PM ET
Categories:  The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Mouthpiece Theater: Beerastroika
Next: The Fix Live!

Comments

Heads-Up, Chris: Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA-7) is finally announcing his candidacy for the U.S. Senate against Senator Arlen Specter and former Congressman Pat Toomey on Wednesday:

Link:
http://blogs.mcall.com/penn_ave/2009/08/sestak-to-finally-jump-into-senate-race.html

Posted by: NativeNorthernVirginian | August 3, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Kirk should change parties. He's too cute to be a Republican

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 1, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

@m_i_a: in methane the real energy is in reduced hydrogen, and the carbon is more like the slag. Coal is filthy stuff, even anthracite; "clean coal" is a marketing gimmick, there is no such thing and no way in sight to make it clean. Not only does it put out so much CO2 but it's loaded with aromatic impurities like benzene (read: stinking black smoke and free radicals).

But whether it's coal or petroleum or methane from underground, in all these cases we are adding carbon to the atmosphere that had been removed from circulation, and we're cooking the earth.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 1, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Is anyone surprised that chrisuxcox has found his one topic of expertise- ahem, BS. Little did you suspect he was slinging it all along.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 1, 2009 9:55 AM | Report abuse

CF8 - I agree that using manure or rotting waste for feed stock is a better idea than using coal, of course. I am impressed by how much cleaner methanol is to burn than coal.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 1, 2009 9:17 AM | Report abuse

nodebris and CF8, I found a link to a summary of the Gtown study.

http://fuelcellbus.georgetown.edu/files/MethanolFromCoalFinalReport04-2004.pdf

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 1, 2009 9:13 AM | Report abuse

@Jake - Well, I did say >55 seats which means 56 or more. Technically, Lieberman and Sanders aren't Dems, so 56+ would mean a loss of no more than 2 seats. However, that's a little too much wiggling, so I concede that I was thinking that a loss of 2 - 4 seats would leave the Democrats with a working majority (better than the Republicans under Bush). If things improve, it sets the stage for a Morning in America type of campaign.

With regards to the House, a reduced majority is sufficient to get the job done. It's kind of like that joke about what do you call the guy (or gal) who graduated last from med school? A: Doctor. What do you call the person with 218 Representatives? Speaker of the House.

In my view, the real Bush impact in the '02 and '04 elections was that the Republicans won the close seats. The Dems seemed to have a lot of great Senate candidates to challenge seats and they all went down in flames. We'll see how it works for the Heffalumps.

By the way CC, thanks much for the primary line! I've got my popcorn buttered and ready. Also, thanks for a shout out to one of my favorite beers, Summit Extra Pale Ale. Sadly, we can't get it here in NoVa, but I grab a 6-pack every time I hit the Twin Cities.

Cheers!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 1, 2009 3:45 AM | Report abuse

One point: the manure ends up in the same state it would end up in if left on the ground; by the time the methane is burned it's all CO2, just as the manure would be if it decomposes. No more, no less. Unlike fossil fuels the manure was no sequestered carbon being returned.

The environmental benefit comes from skimming off some of the energy generated as electricity, selling it to the grid, reducing the need to de-sequester fuels like coal and oil.

And this process can be done with ANY organic material, the bacteria aren't picky, all they care about is pH and osmolarity. What's left behind is the inorganic material; read: magnesium, potassium, calcium. Good for lots of things.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 1, 2009 1:01 AM | Report abuse

Coal is essentially pure carbon, manure is essentially already halfway to methane. I know this sounds weird but manure is essentially sugar. It's stoichiometry is CH2O. Coal is C.

The methanogen bacteria (extremely ancient, predating atmospheric oxygen) send it in both directions, oxidized to CO2 and reduced to CH4. The reason the process takes so many days is because the oxygen has to go away before the bacteria can grow (they're instantly killed by oxygen yet have survived billions of years in its presence, the password is "microenvironments").

To reduce coal to methane, well, you would probably have to put in more than you would get out. Sorry I know chemistry but not industrial processes.

All the Republicans who insist we do nothing about global warming point to making ethanol from corn and scream about costs .. we should have used inedible crop residues. Not as efficient but no downside in reduced available food.

What is so cool about the dairy farmer is that he's basically getting it free. The manure has to go somewhere. What a terrific idea!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 1, 2009 12:53 AM | Report abuse

Excuse me chrisfox8, didn't notice the point that he was using the methane to generate electricity. Sounds like the agricultural equivalent of cogeneration, i.e., capturing otherwise wasted energy from industrial processes.

Mark, I can't easily find any references on converting coal to methane; I see references on methane being closely associated with coal beds. That in itself is interesting. A cleaner, hitherto wasted fuel source, that doesn't require ripping the tops of mountains and dumping them in the valleys? Sign me up.

If converting dirty coal to cleaner methane is possible, though, I'd wonder: where did the "dirt" go?

I think there is a lot of wasted energy out there to be captured at much less expense than, say, drilling offshore. Unfortunately, "Cogenerate, Baby!" doesn't have quite the macho swagger of "Drill, baby, drill!"

Posted by: nodebris | August 1, 2009 12:19 AM | Report abuse

"So if you know about this stuff, why are we not doing it? Why does not the coal industry push it like crazy? What am I - or what are we - missing?"

Pricing externalities, is what you are missing.

You're talking about building an entirely new energy delivery infrastructure. That's expensive.

The next replacement for gasoline should be electricity, which already has a delivery infrastructure existing, and which is fuel neutral.

My 2 pesos.

Posted by: nodebris | July 31, 2009 11:48 PM | Report abuse

CF8 -Thanx for the farm digester link.

Do you think we can use coal as a feedstock for methanol? My ChE friends act like it is a no brainer and the best use for coal, and they explain the process to me and it makes sense. A Georgetown U. study in '04 stated flat out that this was the cheapest common fuel replacement for gasoline - cheaper than gasoline, and could be used alternatively for fuel cells. It suggested the cheapest source was coal, not natural gas.

So if you know about this stuff, why are we not doing it? Why does not the coal industry push it like crazy? What am I - or what are we - missing?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 31, 2009 10:29 PM | Report abuse

prudencerussell:

I'm retired, and this is a blog not the grammar police -- it's not a popularity contest either-- just chill out, dude.

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Well as long as this thread has circled the drain, allow me to post one of the more rewarding articles I've read in a while:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/31/cow.power/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

A dairy farmer is turning manure into methane and garden fertilizer, and making money doing so, selling electricity. Anaerobic bacteria, of course, methanogens, and a triple-win.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Well, well, well.....
and I thought I was the only one who has this feeling of animosity towards JakeD
but to be honest with all of you who has the same feeling, He's Cool, pretty amusing reading all his BS's. I'd caution anyone of you to not get embroiled with any of his comments. I take him like a grain of salt..he adds flavor to the group.
YOU JakeD is surely not a trial attorney as you claim you are...
In the english language, PARTS OF SPEECH SUCH AS VERBS, NOUNS, PRONOUNS, ADJECTIVE..etc....one word wrongly used,or wrongly placed in a statement, would send your client to prison.
JakeD...you may impress others, I give you my permission. But I know better.

Posted by: prudencerussell | July 31, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

And nobody with so much as a nodding acquaintance with reality thinks there is any possibility of that happening

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

cmb1:

I realize that this thread is about HOUSE seats, and I gave my contrary prediction -- FairlingtonBlade brought up the Senate seats, so I essentially made the same point as you just did -- a net loss of 5 Senate seats would be a huge blow to the Dems. No amount of spin could fashion that into a "victory".

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

A net loss of 5 senate seats would be a blow to the dems. That is not likely to happen though. I doubt they will see any net loss in the Senate.

In this post Chris is discussing house seats. A net loss of only 5 house seats would be a positive development for the Democrats. Not because the American public is fed up with them. (The Democrats in Congress have much higher approval than the Republicans) but because they won so many seats the last two elections. The Democrats won in many conservative districts and without anger over Dubya or the coattails of a popular presidential candidate these seats will be hard to hold. With the massive vote advantage the Democrats currently have and the fact that losses will be primarily conservative Democrats that are already no votes on a number of issues, a net loss of less than 10 seats would be more than fine.

Posted by: cmb1 | July 31, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Friday info dump (lots of pictures, flight manifest, and files):

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/newyorkcityflyover/Air_Force_One_flyover_photos.pdf

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

Don't sell yourself short like that.

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Yet another thread killed by a guy with the brains of a cricket

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

So, scrivener50, that means that "chrisfox8" and I are working TOGETHER?! Impressive "logic" if that's what you call it.

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

MAY THE TRUTH BE TROLLED...

This whole "JakeD versus the regulars" trope:

You DO know that this appears to be cyber- Kubuki theater staged by paid trolls, don't you?

Are they affiliated with the program discussed in the link, below?

Alert the DNI! Cover is blown!

http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass-and-censor


Posted by: scrivener50 | July 31, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

From Mr. Cillizza:

"The comments section on the Fix -- and most popular blogs both on the Post site and other sites -- is a tough nut to crack.

... we have another group of people who simply try to shout down everyone else with name-calling etc.

We are working to find ways to incentivize the comments section so that reasonable discussion can flourish.

I am generally against the idea of banning IP addresses unless someone is blatantly offensive to other posters. It's a tough line to walk but be assured we are working to address it."

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Afghanistan Lost? Oh that explains why I saw it on a milk carton the other day

==

heh heh heh

Did they have credits for "age progression?"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Our gracious host has also asked that posters put forth a sincere effort to stick to the topic. Asides about "Dingy Harry" and Obama's birth certificates are precisely what triggers most of the "incivility" around here.

The days when the troll stays away ("golfing" with his SSI caseworker) are the days when discussions here are at their best, and almost always unrelentingly civil.

No expceptions.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

brown-noser

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

ModerateVoter:

Our gracious host has asked for CIVILITY and no insults of other posters -- take a look on this thread as to which side hurls personal invectives -- I, for one, will abide by his request.

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Jaked you are the joke.

Posted by: ModerateVoter | July 31, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"If you're tired of this stupid BS then take a moment to write to Chris Cillizza and ask that JakeD be banned from here."

If I do that, the list I send will be longer than one name.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 31, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

ModerateVoter:

Yes, ha ha, American KIA is just a joke for those like you and Jon Stewart; you should be ashamed.

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"If you're tired of this stupid BS then take a moment to write to Chris Cillizza and ask that JakeD be banned from here."

Are you and JakeD the same person? You're both just as disruptive.

"MELTDOWN ALERT"

real @#$@ing clever

Posted by: DDAWD | July 31, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

If you're tired of this stupid BS then take a moment to write to Chris Cillizza and ask that JakeD be banned from here.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I've not just supported Republicans, but others such as American INDEPENDENT Party candidate, Alan Keyes.

Unfortunately, Mr. Cillizza has indicated that he will no be banning those like "chrisfox8" or "drindl" despite their repeated personal attacks against other posters here.

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

I want it on the front page, along with editorials every week about the "quagmire"; I want Terry Moran to READ every single name on Nightline. I want the Senate Majority Leader to declare Afghanistan LOST. Any more questions?

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Afghanistan Lost? Oh that explains why I saw it on a milk carton the other day

Posted by: ModerateVoter | July 31, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

ddawd asks
"Do you think the Republicans will spend a lot of effort defending the heavy Democratic districts or cut their losses and focus on low hanging fruit?"

Too soon to tell. The local attack they're making is against Collin Peterson who was quoted by Politico this week saying he doesn't do town halls "because 25% of my constituents are conspiracy theorists" (scrivener - where do you live?). The state GOP is jumping on him for being out of touch with his district.

So, while Peterson did make a stupid comment, and apologized for it, the MN GOP thinks they have some good material with which to go after him. Actual policy ideas? Not so much.

Point being: Rep Peterson has held the seat for 20 years, and hasn't had a strong challenger for most of those elections. Is the GOP going to dig up a credible candidate & dedicate some money to this race, or just harrass with some radio ads and focus on softer targets?

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 31, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

If you're tired of this stupid BS then take a moment to write to Chris Cillizza and ask that JakeD be banned from here.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960:

I want it on the front page, along with editorials every week about the "quagmire"; I want Terry Moran to READ every single name on Nightline. I want the Senate Majority Leader to declare Afghanistan LOST. Any more questions?

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"No, it's not "too late" because #1 I am not a Republican and #2 I never protested listing or reading the names. What I am doing now is questioning why NOW that is no longer happening?"

Can you kindly cut out the "I'm not a Republican" nonsense? Officially, no one in Virginia is a Republican, or a Democrat, either. You just look like a fool, given that you support only Republicans.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 31, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

You contribute more to your municipal sewage system than you contribute to this blog

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

God damn it, people. STOP responding to him!

Posted by: DDAWD | July 31, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

I don't believe it's a "meltdown" to ask simple questions. And, I won't be shutting up either.

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Joked is willfully moronic -- a classic troll.

The WaPo prints not only names but pictures of every KIA. What more do you want?

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 31, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

MELTDOWN ALERT!!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I think it's legitimate to ask why the FOREIGN press only reports these events as a big deal anymore?

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSSP44175820090731?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

If the events in this article had transpired on George W. Bush’s watch, libs would be calling for his impeachment. “Quagmire” would appear in every other article in the MSM, along with “the war is lost” and Dingy Harry's favorite ad hominem “loser”.

But with Bam-Bam the community organizer, no such foaming at the mouth.

Why do you suppose that is? It's a simple question.

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

shut up, brown-noser, keep an eye out for the black helicopters and go check your snail-mail to see if Obama has mailed you the original copy of his LONG FORM

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"Carter wasn't so awful. That's just another of those myths the goopers create and then believe in"

If TPaw starts gaining traction, I'll dig out that humorous quote of his about energy policy; I paraphrase but it went something like "we should have begun addressing these problems 30 years ago." Which, of course, was smack-dab in the midst of the Carter administration, which was trying to address those problems.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 31, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Do you think the Republicans will spend a lot of effort defending the heavy Democratic districts or cut their losses and focus on low hanging fruit? I don't know what their resources are, but Republicans are heavily dominated by their Democratic counterparts. The contest for House dominance isn't going to be won at the margins. Republicans needs to pick up a lot of seats and it doesn't seem to make sense to focus too much on one or two holds.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 31, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

I thought you said that you were back to ignoring me? Our gracious host has asked for CIVILITY and no insults of other posters. I, for one, will abide by his request.

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

What a miserable fool

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else:

Will Terry Moran EVER read off the names of U.S. servicemen and women killed in action since January 20, 2009?

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Fine, don't let the door hit you on the way out!

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

nodebris:

No, it's not "too late" because #1 I am not a Republican and #2 I never protested listing or reading the names. What I am doing now is questioning why NOW that is no longer happening?

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Now I'm done poking you, weasel. It's just fun watching how low you'll go to try to make political hay.

Pretty low.

Posted by: nodebris | July 31, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

And it's a non-issue jaked. The WaPo prints their names every day, just like it always has. And now we can see their caskets coming back at Dover, as it is not longer hidden.

Ask yourself why you protested the names being read when Bush was president before you go to far with this argument, because Republicans left a hefty record of saying that it was terrible and un-American to honor our dead that way while Bush was in office. You might wind up looking like an ungodly sort of hypocrite if you argue the opposite now.

Oh, right. Too late.

Posted by: nodebris | July 31, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

The ONLY media still making a big issue about it is FOREIGN press, like BBC and Rueters (thank God for the Internets). The American press ("MSM") is certainly not leading with it anymore, and even your "link" wasn't FRONT PAGE news. Why is that?

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

nodebris:

I remember the day after FDR died, and the newspapers including his name on the list of KIA. So, don't talk to me about the very definition of a non-political issue. Those who should be ashamed are the ones who made this a political issue. The question is why won't the MSM read names now exactly like they did to undermine the war effort during Bush's term?

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

And the WaPo hasn't buried it, cur, as my link demonstrates.

But keep trying to politicize it, off-topic. The birth certificate issue isn't working for you, Gates isn't working for you, nothing is working for you, I know you need to find something, however pathetic you look in the effort.

Posted by: nodebris | July 31, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Will Terry Moran EVER read off the names of U.S. servicemen and women killed in action since January 20, 2009? Oh, that's right, Moran voted FOR Obama.

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Why is the death of a serviceman only political because of who is in the whitehouse, jaked? Watch out, now.

There was a time when the deaths of servicemen in battle was the very definition of a non-political issue. Back when people had shame, jaked.

Posted by: nodebris | July 31, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Soldiers' coffins are now shown in the news while under the deplorable previous administration they were banned because the sight of coffins might tend to diminish enthusiasm for the war.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

You really need to wonder about a guy who claims that the media are not reporting information that he apparently read somewhere.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Nightline is no longer keeping a running count of KIA every day either. Why is that?

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

nodebris:

It's a POLITICAL issue precisely because of who is in the Oval Office -- the WaPo didn't bury news like this when Bush was in charge -- do you want to see all of the FRONT PAGE stories (and political blog commentary) from back then?

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/31/AR2009073101965.html?hpid=artslot

Kind of on topic, kind of off topic. Chris Dodd has been diagnosed with early stage prostate cancer. He should be fine. I think he'll need very little chemo if any.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 31, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Why are we responding to JakeD? We already know he's an idiot, so it's not really necessary to take the time to call out and refute each individual act of idiocy.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"Its out there in old newspapers and news magazines,DDAWD, you probably don't remember because you probably recieved a public education sponsored by the NEA. They have a way with revisionist history and not telling students the truth about conservatism."

I'm not 100% sure what the "Its" in the first sentence is referring to, but I'm assuming its the use of the word malaise by Carter.

See if you can find Carter using that word on the web. Don't waste too much time, but how about five minutes?

Posted by: DDAWD | July 31, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

And it's "off topic" not because of an MSM conspiracy, but because you are posting this on a political blog, not a national or world news blog.

Posted by: nodebris | July 31, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse

It helps to look for stories before you claim there aren't any, fool:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/21/AR2009072103390.html

Posted by: nodebris | July 31, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

I realize this is "off topic" but that's only because the MSM (including WaPo) has curiously stopped reporting on U.S. military deaths overseas -- why is that, I wonder -- imagine if this had happened on Bush's watch:

The death today in southern Afghanistan brought to 40 the number of U.S. troops killed in July, by far the heaviest monthly toll in the entire 8-year-old war. The worst previous month for U.S. forces was in September 2008, when 26 were killed.

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Somebody wake jakey and farlington up. This post by cc was talking about HOUSE seats, not SENATE seats. The predictions on this House line would be a push. Oh, and the Dems aren't going to lose 5 senate seats.

Posted by: jasperanselm | July 31, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

He doesn't know anything about anything, he's a complete f*cking idiot

Posted by: chrisuxcox

displays his community college grasp of the English language and his skill at nuance and conversation.

those RED parentheses must be driving you nuts today. time for your baloney sandwich.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 31, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

He doesn't know anything about anything, he's a complete f*cking idiot

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

"FairlingtonBlade:

Only LOSING five Senate seats = victory for the Democrats?! LOL!!!"

You know very little about American politics, it seems.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 31, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

"Nonetheless, I predict that Rep. Cao (R-LA) will win re-election."

Oh, the stupidity.

I don't care how hard this guy is working for his constituents. He's not going to be reelected.

Joked (D) could beat Cao.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 31, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"as usual chrissuxcox refuses to engage the facts and points and instead prefers to relay insults."

Oh, the irony.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 31, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

"as usual chrissuxcox refuses to engage the facts and points and instead prefers to relay insults."

Oh, the irony.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 31, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

WHO'S UP, WHO'S DOWN...

THE NAMES AND THE FACES ON CAPITOL HILL BECOME IRRELEVANT...

... WHEN DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW ARE BEING STOLEN -- AT THE GRASSROOTS.

***

"When you see the abuse of power, you've got to speak."

-- VP candidate Joseph Biden, Aug. 27, 2008, Democratic National Convention

***

THE FED-DIRECTED SECRET MULTI-AGENCY SECURITY/MILITARY/INTEL EXTRAJUDICIAL TARGETING AND TORTURE NETWORK:

AN IDEOLOGICALLY-DRIVEN SOCIAL GENOCIDE THAT VIOLATES THE HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS OF UNJUSTLY 'TARGETED' U.S. CITIZENS.

Will Congress realize that democracy, human rights and the rule of law are being stolen BACK HOME, at the GRASSROOTS?

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if links are corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA" (see "stream" or "stories" list).

Posted by: scrivener50 | July 31, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Its out there in old newspapers and news magazines,DDAWD, you probably don't remember because you probably recieved a public education sponsored by the NEA. They have a way with revisionist history and not telling students the truth about conservatism.

==

You sound seriously paranoid.

The "truth about conservatism" is that (1) it's always predicated on hating someone and (2) it doesn't work.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for posting the link to that study, DDAWD. It certainly makes an interesting point, one of those things that you don't think of until someone points it out, whereupon you slap your forehead and say, "Oh wow, yeah, you'd think that would have occurred to me before."

Posted by: GJonahJameson | July 31, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

jaked wrote: "For the last time, at least I will shut up about Obama's birthplace"

yeah, I bet. Last time. Right.

Posted by: nodebris | July 31, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"you had to live though it to fully appreciate what a terrible President, Carter was"

And yet you lived through Bush II quite content.

Posted by: nodebris | July 31, 2009 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Its out there in old newspapers and news magazines,DDAWD, you probably don't remember because you probably recieved a public education sponsored by the NEA. They have a way with revisionist history and not telling students the truth about conservatism.

Posted by: vbhoomes | July 31, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Carter wasn't so awful.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

compared to Obimbo you may be prescient. Mortgage rates over 15%, gas lines, hollow military, embassies as hostages, handing countries over to despots. skyrocketing deficits, huge worthless government, inflation running wild.

In retrospect, Carter may eek out of worst president ever position.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 31, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Beers all around and send Obama the bar tabs. It's a Guinness Stimulus. Fire in the hole. Smoked Irish. Keep paddywhackin.

Posted by: Dermitt | July 31, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Beers all around and send Obama the bar tabs. It's a Guinness Stimulus. Fire in the hole. Smoked Irish. Keep paddywhackin.

Posted by: Dermitt | July 31, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD wrote: "Reagan was a lot better at kicking the can down the road"

Bingo. You're pretty smart for a kid, maybe there's hope for us yet.

Posted by: nodebris | July 31, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Reagan never delivered a single great speech, and Americans didn't have the patience for a great speech back then. Reagan delivered a series of snappy pithy one-liners that contemporary conservatives, nostalgic for that season of swagger, like to wistfully remember and recite in defiance of their miserable state.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

self-deception reached new and grotesque depths.

Posted by: chrisuxcox

Wow, you captured the Obimbo mantra quite accurately.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 31, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

For the last time, at least I will shut up about Obama's birthplace if his LONG FORM birth certificate is released. I can't vouch for what other "Birthers" will or will not do, but wouldn't it be worth it just to shut me up?

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

deputy dawd

Every president has a famous speech:
Kennedy - ask not what you can do
Washington - farwell
Lincoln - gettysburg
Reagan - tear down the wall
Nixon - checkers
Carter - malaise

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 31, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Carter wasn't so awful. That's just another of those myths the goopers create and then believe in, just like the golden calf in the fable.

Not as insulting to the intelligence as "Reagan ended the Cold War" or "Bush kept us safe," but no more true than those either.

If humanity survive the next hundred years, which I doubt, future historians will look back on our time with its violent conservative mythmaking, the widespread denial of science, the embrace of ignorance as authenticity, and will conclude that in our time self-deception reached new and grotesque depths.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"Carter was all pessisism, "Our best days are behind" we can't do this or that, and then he blamed us, said there was malaise in Americans"

Can you find me the quote where he said "malaise"?

Posted by: DDAWD | July 31, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Funny Carter turned me away from the Dems and it took Bush to return me to them...

Posted by: ModerateVoter | July 31, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Unhappily, there *is* no shutting up the birthers.

They get a birth certificate and they howl that it is the wrong kind of birth certificate. If he gave them school records, they would complain that they were the wrong kind of school records. Then they want his school loan records, financial aid, etc. I have cousins who are half Syrian -- yeah, they mentioned that they were half-African when they went to college -- maybe it got them some loans, I don't know. Obama went to a Muslim school as a boy? My kids went to a Jewish day camp -- they're still Catholics until they say they are something else... and then... they will be something else, which should be fine with everyone.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 31, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Dan Rather could photoshop some "fake but true" documents about Obimbo's school record.

why the big secrecy? either he was a foreign student and/or he flunked econ. Probably both.

for the first time in decades, the NYTimes has no interest in exposing secrets. Curious.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 31, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Carter was all pessisism, "Our best days are behind" we can't do this or that, and then he blamed us, said there was malaise in Americans, No, Reagan and the rest of us were bullish on America, our best days were ahead, we are the beacon of the world and the Worlds last best chance. Like I said, you had to live though it to fully appreciate what a terrible President, Carter was.

Posted by: vbhoomes | July 31, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

the unfortunate truth is that a pattern is emerging -- one where President Obama decides to speak in advance of the facts on matters of much greater importance than a mistaken arrest.

First, when it came to the economy and the administration's prediction that unemployment would stabilize at 8 percent or less, Vice President Biden himself admitted they were in error and that "there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited."

Despite pumping billions of dollars of "stimulus" money into the economy, unemployment -- currently at a 26-year high -- continues to rise, and we are left to understand that this administration does not have a solid feel for where the economy is heading and, indeed, never did. Talk about boosting consumer confidence.

The litany continues. Just a few days after assuming office, President Obama again jumped the gun by signing three executive orders relating to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. One order in particular called for the facility's closure within a year of his signature -- by this coming January. Again, after taking full measure of the situation it now appears that this accelerated timeframe is premature and infeasible -- causing embarrassment for the administration and casting doubts on our international credibility.
During his campaign, Barack Obama promised all troops would be out of Iraq within 16 months of his assuming office. Barely a month after entering office, the president had already adjusted that plan to end combat missions within 18 months and allow for a complement of 35,000 troops to stay even longer. Yet just this week Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki suggested that the troops may be needed even longer than currently planned.
Most recently, we see the same pattern emerging with his proposed health-care plan, where even Democratic Congressional leaders are trying to rein in President Obama and distance themselves from his timetable, not to mention the details of his plan, as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office releases report after report regarding the deficit increase and economic danger the President's plan poses.

See a pattern. It's called lying powerhungry Libs.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 31, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/bush-may-haunt-republicans-for.html

The article I was talking about. Has graphs and everything.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 31, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

"vbhoomes writes
"Started off a dem, but Carter convinced me the errors of my way."

Extrapolate this argument to the modern age and you can easily understand the millenials' overwhelming support for the Dems."

Yeah, 538.com actually had a study showing the voting trends of people based on the popularity of the President when they turned 18. In general, if the sitting President was popular, they would prefer his party. If not, they would prefer the opposing party.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 31, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

I have posted, repeatedly, that I at least will shut up about Obama's birthplace if his LONG FORM birth certificate is released -- it seems like a reasonable request -- not sure what other "Birthers" you have in mind around here.

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

"If he really wants the Birthers to shut up, he has the power to do it by releasing the original documents."

I'm not sure who posted this (I didn't bother reading the whole thing), but whoever did is a naive idiot.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 31, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes writes
"Started off a dem, but Carter convinced me the errors of my way."

Extrapolate this argument to the modern age and you can easily understand the millenials' overwhelming support for the Dems.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 31, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"You must be young DDAWD, I voted for Carter in 76 and for Reagan in 80. Started off a dem, but Carter convinced me the errors of my way. But point is a good one, a lot of americans today were either to young or not born yet to appreciate just what an awful President, Carter was."

Don't worry, if there's one thing the press is good at doing, it's telling us how terrible Carter is and how awesome Reagan is. I've had that drilled into me since I can remember.

But now that I've been doing some reading, it seems to me that the main difference between Reagan and Carter is that Reagan was a lot better at kicking the can down the road. When Carter tells the American people that we need to make sacrifices in our energy policy and Reagan tells us we can do whatever the hell we want and the free market will take care of everything, who are people going to listen to? How hard can it be to sell the idea that the government can increase revenue by CUTTING taxes? Reagan is more of a snake-oil salesman than a great leader. It's funny, for all that the Republicans are critical of Obama for supposedly promising too much, Reagan was the master of this.

It's amazing what one can learn when one switches off the television and opens some books.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 31, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

as usual chrissuxcox refuses to engage the facts and points and instead prefers to relay insults.

Is that your only method of defense or are you just a vacant vessel with no actual morality to rely upon?

I can see why you were conjoined with drivl in the demands for expulsion. Nothing to offer but hate and lefty emotion.

Just to review, when confronred with evidence that Obimbo is arrogant and clueless, you reply that unless a Lib says it, it has no merit. the "do you know who I am" weakness. It seems to be going around.

except you are not Ivy, you are community college material with a miniumum wage time card punching job relegated to some lonely cubicle somewhere in flyover country.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 31, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

You must be young DDAWD, I voted for Carter in 76 and for Reagan in 80. Started off a dem, but Carter convinced me the errors of my way. But point is a good one, a lot of americans today were either to young or not born yet to appreciate just what an awful President, Carter was. Liberalism may be well intentioned but you can't run a country with it. Obama reminds me a Carter, with a little bit more charisma but same misguided policies that will make a mess of our country.

Posted by: vbhoomes | July 31, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

If he really wants the Birthers to shut up, he has the power to do it by releasing the original documents.
The issue is the subject of several lawsuits, which only seek a peek at original documents. Can anyone explain why it is smarter for Obama to spend tens of thousands of dollars and man-hours defending the suits when he can win the lawsuit for free by showing the original documents?

Let's look at what Obama has released, and you will see they are hearsay documents and not best evidence.

The Birth Certificate: The certificate put on the Internet by Obama and held up by the media was created in 2007. In the lower left corner of the form there is reference to a Hawaiian statute that was revised in November of 2001, and if you look closely at the front you can see bleeding through from the back the date stamp from 2007 when the document was created. It's a certification that an original does exit.

So the the Birthers say: "Fine. Then show us the original." Obama says, "No." Why?

The Newspaper Announcements: Two birth announcements from Hawaiian local papers show Obama's birth. The Birthers have a couple of good arguments about them. First, Hawaii is where Obama's grandparents lived and it's not unusual for grandparents to announce a birth to their friends, even if the grandson lives elsewhere. Also, if Obama's parents lived in Hawaii then moved to Kenya when they birthed him, it wouldn't be unusual to announce the birth in the old neighborhood for friends to see.

The newspaper announcements cut against the Birthers, but they are hearsay documents and don't answer the citizen question any more than his grammar school records prove he is a Muslim. The original Birth Certificate will end it all.

School Records: The Birthers believe that Obama's records from college and graduate school will show he matriculated as a foreign born student. This is easy -- shut them up by releasing them! Obama's response? "No." Why?

This one reminds me of John Kerry not releasing his Yale records until after the election. During the campaign Kerry soaked in the warm media bath that swore he was the intellectual and George Bush the dolt. When the records came out later it was quietly reported that George Bush had a higher grade point average at Yale.

Media's penchant to cover for Democrat candidates fuels the Birther fire as well. See as an example John Edwards' love affair.

Financial Aid Records: Barack Obama relishes his own personal Sonia Sotomayor-like story of how he came from a broken home and pulled himself up by his own bootstraps. But he refuses to show how his very expensive tuition at Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School were paid for.

The Birthers believe the records will show Obama received financial aid as a foreign born student. Obama says they won't. Not to sound like a broken record, but releasing the records will end the controversy, and Obama refuses. Why?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 31, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

"You were born after 1980?"

yup yup

Posted by: DDAWD | July 31, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"Well, you're talking about Presidential candidates here. History shows that incumbents do well. In my lifetime, there's only been one President who has failed to win reelection."


You were born after 1980?

(Carter & GHWB are the one-termers in my lifetime, not counting Ford)

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 31, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

nodebris:

I've never argued that Obama isn't a citizen -- I've simply asked questions and expressed my doubts -- but this thread is about the Democrats' [alleged] Firewall re: House of Representatives.

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

I never thought I'd see a democrat win in MD-1 once, let alone twice. But everytime I see the name Harris, I believe a little bit more. With fundraising like that and no presidential election to bring social conservatives to the polls, I'm feeling better about Kratovil's chances then I have any right to feel.

I hear that GOP recruiting is going well, but I'm sure not seeing that in MD-1. The only thing worse then Harris are the other names being floated. Why hasn't the GOP got someone on the ground to find a local politician (preferably from the eastern shore) who actually fits the district? This is Michael Steele's home state after all!

Posted by: theamazingjex | July 31, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

"We keep hearing in these columns about assorted Republican dullards, people like Pawlenty and Romney who put voters into deep sleep every time they speak .. and we keep hearing about Sarah Palin's latest unhinged stunts and gibbering happy-crappy spin about how her resigning her governorship is a smart move and frees her to .. run for a national office she could quit early too."

Well, you're talking about Presidential candidates here. History shows that incumbents do well. In my lifetime, there's only been one President who has failed to win reelection.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 31, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

hahahahah "american thinker"

like those knucklewalkers who choose an online moniker like "realist" and never post anything not directly from GOP talking points.

Some of them even get a "realist" license plate, right next to a picture of Hitler and reading "raise your hand if you believe in gun control."

hahahaha "american thinker"

The quadrupedal quontingent

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I am stunned that the official White House Blog published this picture and that it is in the public domain. The body language is most revealing.


Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?


In my own dealings with the wealthy and powerful, I have always found that the way to quickly capture the moral essence of a person is to watch how they treat those who are less powerful. Do they understand that the others are also human beings with feelings? Especially when they think nobody is looking.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/obamas_revealing_body_language.html

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 31, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

@DDAWD: speak for yourself, if there's some dope that makes one stupid I don't want it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

It turns out the messaih chose Bud Light for the beer summit. I couldn't think of a more watered down, tasteless, yet popular brew. fitting.

It goes along with the Mom jeans, the gutter ball bowling and politics and the ability to pitch a hardball over 6 feet without hitting the ground.

Must be time to hit Martha's Vinyard to discuss the benefits of low fat milk.

How come this guy can apologize to every two bit dictator across the globe yet is stupified when it is proper at home.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 31, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

What sort of political prognostication do you expect from someone who argues that Obama isn't a citizen?

Posted by: nodebris | July 31, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

reason5:

Rep. Cao has been working tirelessly to meet his constituents' needs, so I think you are in for a shocker in that race. I left the other races alone because I don't have any personal connection with those.

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"Nonetheless, I predict that Rep. Cao (R-LA) will win re-election.

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

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

Please share whatever you're smoking or drinking with the rest of the board.

Must be some powerful stuff."

If this was a horse race, there are worse horses to bet on than Cao. Even in 2008 he was a long shot. He was polling badly right up to election day.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 31, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

The historical favoring of the presidental losing party is predicated on the losing party having some credibility and some good candidates. Neither is true for the GOP right now. The stench of the Bush administration hasn't even begun to clear and Republicans continue to play to the gutter-huggers, the angry, paranoid and self-pitying base.

We keep hearing in these columns about assorted Republican dullards, people like Pawlenty and Romney who put voters into deep sleep every time they speak .. and we keep hearing about Sarah Palin's latest unhinged stunts and gibbering happy-crappy spin about how her resigning her governorship is a smart move and frees her to .. run for a national office she could quit early too.

Nothing to see here. Just a bunch of lackluster belligerents.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 31, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes writes
"BSIMON you know Minnisota politics a lot better than me but it seems if Michelle was going to lose her seat, it would have been in 08."

The national party didn't support Tink for most of the campaign - until Rep Bachmann made some particularly ridiculous comments, when the donation floodgates opened. Tink didn't know what to do with all that dough. A better organized candidate with better funding will be competitive in that district, particularly if Rep Bachmann continues to be a hardline conservative.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 31, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

re: Senator Dodd.
Remeber that Golden Age when Men had prostates and we didn't have to hear about them? So do I. > sigh <

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 31, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, that is an awfully positive assessment on Rep. Cao. I think he will lose reelection by a landslide, unless he votes for socialized healthcare. Then, he may as well lose the election. However, he may want to challenge La. Sen. David Vitter in a Republican primary. He'd have a better shot to win that one than keep his seat.

I notice there are 5 Republican & 5 Democratic seats on "The Line". Even money. Republicans have a better than even money shot of gaining seats. Plus, R's will gain anywhere from 4-9 US Senate seats and no telling how many governor's seats. I think they have a shot to win up to 13 or so. It begins in November 09' in Virginia and New Jersey. McDonnell has taken a much larger lead than he had last month and Cristie in NJ is still at or over the 50% threshold in almost every poll. Corzine is still immensley unpopular, so both of those seats are coming to Republicans in 09. Big start to a huge 2010!

Posted by: reason5 | July 31, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans, to the contrary of this blog post, do have an obvious candidate to follow Gerlach in Pennsylvania's Sixth Congressional District. State Representative Curt Schroder is an announced candidate and seems to be one of the best, if not the best, Republicans to retain the seat. Schroder has been in the State House for several years so he has good name recognition and he has already started raising money.

Posted by: madoug | July 31, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

BSIMON you know Minnisota politics a lot better than me but it seems if Michelle was going to lose her seat, it would have been in 08.

Posted by: vbhoomes | July 31, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse


Nonetheless, I predict that Rep. Cao (R-LA) will win re-election.

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

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

Please share whatever you're smoking or drinking with the rest of the board.

Must be some powerful stuff.

Posted by: Hawaiiexpat | July 31, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"That's an interesting line and promising for the Democrats if it holds. 5 of the top 6 seats are held by Republicans. I'd say keeping a reduced majority in the House and >55 Senators would be a mid-term victory for the Democrats."

For the Senate, I think the status quo is the status quo. Whoever picks up seats is the winner. The Republican opportunities simply aren't very good. Illinois, Connecticut, Colorado are tough nuts for Republicans to crack. If they can get Nevada, that would be good for them, but Reid has been polling better lately.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 31, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I realize that 70 is the new 60, but Castle looks like the OLD 70.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 31, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

farlingtonblade writes
"That's an interesting line and promising for the Democrats if it holds. 5 of the top 6 seats are held by Republicans."

My math says 4 out of the top 5, but also 4 out of the top 10, so it depends on how you look at it. That there are 4 potential pickups for the Dems ranked as some of the most likely switches definately softens the argument that it looks like a GOP year. Which of course is a bit of a vague prediction anyway, given the election is 15 months away - we're not even halfway into the cycle yet!

On the MN front, the GOP is targetting Collin Peterson, the blue dog in the NW corner & the DFL will go after Bachmann, again, and frosh Paulsen.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 31, 2009 1:03 PM | Report abuse

The LA-2 is difficult to predict. The Democratic primary was held on election day and the actual election was held a month after. Turnout was extremely low. I went to vote about an hour before the polls closed and I was told I was the sixth person to show up.

But I'm hoping Helena Moreno gives it another shot. She was defeated by Jefferson in the primary, but should be considered the favorite if she tries again.

Or perhaps Malik Rahim, the rastafarian former Black Panther who ran for the Green Party last year. Gotta love New Orleans elections.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 31, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

Only LOSING five Senate seats = victory for the Democrats?! LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

That's an interesting line and promising for the Democrats if it holds. 5 of the top 6 seats are held by Republicans. I'd say keeping a reduced majority in the House and >55 Senators would be a mid-term victory for the Democrats.

There's got to be two big knowable unknowns (thank you Don Rumsfeld). 1 - What will the state of the economy be? If it turns up and stays up, great news for the Dems. 2 - What happens to health care? If this effort fails, I predict a blood bath along the lines of 1994. Republicans will redouble their efforts and the Democratic base will be p-o'd off.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 31, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Nonetheless, I predict that Rep. Cao (R-LA) will win re-election.

Posted by: JakeD | July 31, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company