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

The Friday Line: Will Dems Sweep GOP in Govs. Series?

For the last few months Republican strategists have struggled to find the words to describe the difficulties their party could face this November. This week we heard an analogy that helps explain the political landscape on which a slew of competitive governors' races will take place come November.

Think about it in terms of baseball (The Fix is a sucker for any metaphor involving the national pastime.) Right now, the Republican "team" is down three or four runs. GOP fans who live south of the Mason-Dixon line are grumbling about their team's poor performance but are still watching the game. Supporters who live north of the line have thrown their popcorn on the field and left the stadium. The one saving grace for Republicans is that it's only the second game of a three-game series.

Not following the analogy? Put simply, if you are a Republican living in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania or Rhode Island, you have likely given up on the national party at the moment. Meanwhile, Republicans who reside in Arkansas, Alabama or Georgia aren't particularly happy with the state of the party but are sitting tight for now.

The third game of the series won't be final until Election Day -- a good thing for the GOP. But at the moment, things don't look good for Republicans.

With that, let's get to the Line.

10. (Tie) Rhode Island: As recently as a month ago, this race wasn't even on The Fix's radar screen. But after having several conversations with well-connected strategists of both partisan stripes, we're convinced it now belongs on the Line. Gov. Don Carcieri (R) hasn't committed any major faux pas on the campaign trail, but he finds himself in a tightening race simply because of Republicans' problems at the national level. Lt. Gov. Charlie Fogarty has the Democratic field to himself and surprised many observers by outraising the incumbent in the most recent filing period ($255,000 to $179,000). One disadvantage for Fogarty is that by accepting public matching funds he can only spend $1.96 million. Carcieri, who is independently wealthy, opted out of the system and therefore has no spending ceiling. In a normal year this is a walkover for Carcieri, but 2006 is not shaping up as a normal year for Republicans. (Previous ranking: N/A)

10. (Tie) Oregon: Democratic voters voiced their disapproval of Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) on Tuesday by giving him just 54 percent of the vote in a three-way primary against two lesser-known opponents. Although Republicans staged a nasty primary fight of their own, they wound up with their more electable candidate --Portland attorney Ron Saxton. In a two-way race Kulongoski would be favored due to the Democratic winds blowing nationally and the slight edge his party enjoys in statewide elections. But state Sen. Ben Westlund is working to qualify for the general election as an independent candidate. Westlund is a former Republican, though his platform, which includes instituting a sales tax to improve public schools, could appeal to Democrats not happy with Kulongoski. This race is one to watch. (Previous ranking: N/A)

9. Colorado: The Republican primary between Rep. Bob Beauprez and former University of Denver President Marc Holtzman just keeps getting uglier. The latest development came Thursday when Beauprez's campaign alleged that Holtzman aides "accosted" one of their staffers who was taping a Holtzman event. Sound off message? It is. Meanwhile, former Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter (D) has begun to fundraise in earnest ($465,000 raised in the first three months of the year) and win over the party infrastructure. Democrats believe the gains they made in the state in 2004 were not a fluke but a sign of a major change change in the electorate. A Ritter win would prove them right. (Previous ranking: 9)

8. Michigan: Polling in this contest shows Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) and wealthy businessman Dick DeVos (R) in a dead heat. So why is it not higher on the Line? DeVos has had the airwaves to himself for two straight months, so it's not terribly surprising that his numbers have bumped up considerably. When Granholm begins her television campaign, she should open up a lead again. But even Democrats acknowledge that Granholm has real problems -- most notably the dismal state of Michigan's economy, and DeVos is wealthy enough to spend what it takes to be competitive. (Previous ranking: 8)

7. Maryland: A Democratic primary that once looked like a walkover for Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley now appears to be a bit more competitive as Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan has shown he has some fight in him. Duncan is attacking O'Malley on Baltimore's crime numbers. O'Malley's financial advantage should eventually win out in the primary, but Duncan appears ready to throw some punches along the way. Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R) seems content to stay out of overt campaign mode for the moment, hoping that an emphasis on governing will win him some independent and Democrat support. Nonetheless, Maryland's Democratic nature in a year shaping up to favor Dems national makes this a tough sell for the incumbent, who has taken his fair share of hits from the Democratic legislature over the past year. (Previous ranking: 7)

6. Wisconsin: Gov. Jim Doyle (D) watched his political career flash in front of his eyes as popular former Gov. Tommy Thompson (R) briefly weighed a candidacy. Thompson's decision not to run leaves Doyle with some hope of winning a second term, but Rep. Mark Green (R) is no slouch as a candidate. Doyle faces allegations of impropriety within his administration (the latest is whether he used a state plan for political purposes), and polling already shows a nip-and-tuck race. (Previous ranking: 5)

5. Massachusetts: The blueness of the Bay State and the strong Democratic environment nationally move this race up a notch on the Line. Democrats are heading for their state party convention in early June with one major unanswered question: Can 2002 Lt. Gov. nominee Chris Gabrieli round up 15 percent of the delegates on the convention's first ballot to qualify for the September primary ballot? Many Democrats see the wealthy Gabrieli as their strongest nominee against Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey (R). If Gabrieli makes the ballot and wins the primary, this seat will move up the Line. But that's too many "ifs" to move this race up more than a single spot this month. (Previous ranking: 6)

4. Arkansas: A funny thing is happening in this race. Although the campaign remains largely unengaged, conventional wisdom -- among both Democrats and Republicans -- is that state Attorney General Mike Beebe (D) is now the frontrunner. Former Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R) is a sound candidate, but some Republicans believe he is making a mistake by assuming that the race is a jump ball when in fact he is the underdog. At the end of March, Beebe had $2.4 million on hand to Hutchinson's $909,000. This race will move up the Line unless Hutchinson's campaign gets more aggressive over the next month. (Previous ranking: 4)

3. Iowa: This is the first month since the governors Line started last fall that we were tempted to move Iowa down a slot. Secretary of State Chet Culver appears to have hit his stride and is now a solid favorite in the June 6 Democratic primary. Still, even most Democrats admit that Culver is far from the savviest of politicians and the man he will face in the fall -- Rep. Jim Nussle -- is one of the strongest politicians Republicans have in the state. Nussle will have to answer for the massive increases in federal spending that have occurred on his watch as House Budget Committee chairman, but Republicans are likely to swallow their doubts on that issue for the chance to get back the governor's mansion after eight years of Gov. Tom Vilsack (D). (Previous ranking: 3)

2. Ohio: Secretary of State Ken Blackwell's victory earlier this month has state and national Republicans considerably more optimistic about their chances of holding the governor's mansion this fall. In the primary Blackwell cast himself as the antithesis of outgoing Gov. Bob Taft (R) -- a good idea since the incumbent's job-approval rating hovers in the teens (thanks to the "Coingate" scandal plaguing his administration). Phil Musser, executive director of the Republican Governors Association, sums up the race like this: "Blackwell is an articulate, charismatic candidate, will be well funded, and Ohio is a fundamentally red state." Count The Fix as still skeptical since conservative Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland is the best possible candidate for his party. If Ohio voters are going to vent their spleen about Taft anywhere on the ballot this fall, it will be in this race. Still, it's fair to say there is a wider gap between our no. 1 and no. 2 races than in Lines past. (Previous ranking: 2)

1. New York: It's getting more and more difficult to find interesting things to say about this race. Let's try this: Barring a political earthquake, you can start addressing state Attorney General Elliot Spitzer (D) as "Governor." Enough said. (Previous ranking: 1)

Read last month's rankings of top gubernatorial races here.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 19, 2006; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Governors , The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Hawaii Senate: A Referendum on Iraq?
Next: John Kerry's (New) Political Guru


I notice that whenever a Republican chooses to debate an alternative point of view, they always use the "L" word. Let the Republicans dispute these facts about the 2004 election in Ohio.

In 2004 Ohio also had an initiative to outlaw gay marriage. Statewide the measure collected 470,000 more votes than Bush did. In 12 small Ohio counties though, Bush bested the initiative by 16,132 votes. Are you telling me Republicans voted for both Bush and against the initiative to outlaw gay marriage?

Same election, Miami county, Ohio. 12,000 votes were credited to Bush, after all precincts had already reported their totals. One precinct in this county showed a turnout of 98.55 percent of registed voters for the election. That means every voter in this precinct, save 10, voted in the election. The Columbus Free Press has affidavits from 25 registraints that say they did not vote in the election. What happend here? Were they so disraught that after voting for Bush and gay marriage, the went out and got drunk until they forgot about it?

Posted by: tcolton | June 5, 2006 12:15 AM | Report abuse

I was kidding. Mostly. :P

Rasmussen just released a new poll on the PA Gov. race. Rendell is leading Swann by 18 points!

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 25, 2006 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Does it matter?? I was unaware that that was a major factor in the race. Last I checked, it wasn't.

Posted by: Rob Millette | May 25, 2006 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Yes, but will Culver enact a Canadian-style single payer health care system in Iowa?? ;)

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 25, 2006 3:38 AM | Report abuse

Hey guys, Governor's races?? Anyone?? that is what this topic was about. Anyway, dragging the convo back in that direction. I would simply like to point out that the latest Research2000 poll backs up my opinion that the Iowa Governor race doesn't belong in the top 3. The poll shows Culver winning the Democratic Primary by 13 points and then winning the General election by 8 points 49% to 41%.

Posted by: Rob Millette | May 24, 2006 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Canada still has a trade SURPLUS, as opposed to the US which just keeps digging deeper and deeper trade DEFICITS.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 24, 2006 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Imports of course are up in Canada because the Loonie has been rising strongly.

Universal health care in the US doesn't have to be gradual at all. We've been trying that for 60 years and it's failed. Just expand Medicare to cover everyone. Get rid of Medicaid and all the expensive (34% administrative costs??) private health insurance. It would take preparation, but it would not be that hard to do.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 24, 2006 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Canada's trade surplus dropped during the month of April to a total of $5.14-billion. That represents a decrease of $800-million from March and comes in well below the $6.3-billion figure expected by economists.

Adding urgency to concern about inflation, Statistics Canada reported the value of imports rose at a pace three times that of exports. According to Stats-Can, exports increased by a margin of 1.1 percent to $38.3-billion. Imports grew by a rate of 3.6 percent to $33.1-billion.

Look, I'm not against a more robust health-care plan in the U.S., but it would absolutely have to be a gradual change...starting with the children. If we don't get some politicians in this country who are willing to compromise their positions a little, I don't hold out a great deal of hope we are going to solve this issue anytime soon.

Posted by: FH | May 24, 2006 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Bank of Canada expected to raise interest rates
Last Updated Tue, 23 May 2006 13:16:37 EDT
CBC News
The Bank of Canada is expected to raise interest rates one more time Wednesday morning, before giving rate hikes a bit of a break.

While analysts have no way of telling for sure, they suspect the central bank will raise short-term rates by one quarter of a percentage point, to 4.25 per cent.

It would be the seventh increase since last fall, when the Bank of Canada started edging rates up gently to slow down a red-hot economy and keep inflation in check.

Consumer borrowing costs and variable mortgage rates will likely rise as well.

The Canadian economy is doing just fine at the moment, with GDP growth of 3.1 per cent, inflation at 1.6 per cent, a 90-cent dollar, low 6.4 per cent unemployment, healthy retail sales and a red-hot economy in Alberta.

But the economy is doing so well that it might need a little restraint in the form of slightly higher rates, analysts say.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 23, 2006 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Sandwich Repairman: Can you tell me exactly where it was that I backed down from my statement that you could not compare the U.S. and Canada because of their population differences. I said that you could use the health-care model that Canada has, and develop a health-care model in the U.S. But I also said that it would be much more difficult to implement given the population difference. I still stand by that statement. I do not believe that you can take the Canadian system and drop it in the U.S. and have it work. I think it would be a disaster of biblical proportions, costing the American taxpayer trillions of tax dollars.

Posted by: FH | May 23, 2006 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Blue Buckeye has hit the nail on the head. Canada has a lower abortion rate because it prevents the need for them. That's what the pro-choice movement has been trying to do for 35 years. Unfortunately the US has only gone backward on this.

Medicare sure wasn't difficult to implement, and its administrative costs run only about 3%. That's compared to 34% in private health care in the US. And the US already has more people on Medicare than there are people in all of Canada. Canada is hardly homogenous either; the UN has declared Toronto the most diverse city on the planet. Furthermore, Canada is a larger nation than the US. America's population is more concentrated, making it more efficient to serve. Social Security's administrative costs are 0.9% of benefits. Universal public care would be far more efficient than the private mess the US has now.

FH and KZ are both backing down from their earlier comments. FH said the US couldn't possibly be compared with Canada because of their population differences; now he's not saying that anymore. KZ listed a bunch of economic statistics comparing the two nations, and dismissed Canada and me for living here (suggesting I sleep with a moose or something). Now he admits both are great countries. Fellas, it's nice to have you come around, but don't pretend you didn't say what you did before.

Preventive health care costs a fraction of what ER care does. ("An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure") The whole MA model is designed to save money by giving everyone access to preventive care and fund it with the savings from much less ER care. It's outrageous to let people go without access to care, meaning everything short of the ER, and suck massive amounts of money from everyone else to pay for it. Why do you think the US pays more than DOUBLE per capita what any other nation does for health care? It's cheaper to cover everyone than leave 18% of the population uninsured using ER care.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 23, 2006 4:33 PM | Report abuse

More good news for Ohio Republicans!! The unemployment rate in Ohio jumped half a point from 5.0% in March to 5.5% in April! That's almost a point above the national average of 4.7%.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 23, 2006 3:49 PM | Report abuse

If the Dems are to have a chance to win the Nevada governor's race, they have to nominate Gibson. Titus will lose in the general election. Even with Gibson, the question remains, will Ensign draw out enough votes for Gibbons, or can Gibson give Carter the boost he needs to take the upset. That'll be a big boost, I don't even have Nevada in my top 10 for Senate.

Posted by: Rob Millette | May 23, 2006 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Florida Governor's Race (back in the bullpen)
May 15
Davis 39%
Crist 44%

Smith 34%
Crist 45%

Davis 43%
Gallagher 38%

Smith 33%
Gallagher 44%

I think this definately warrants placing Florida in the bullpen. Also, first post-primary Oregon poll.

May 17
Kulongoski 43%
Saxton 41%

Also Nevada is tightening up-
Reno Gazette-Journal/News Poll
May 19
Gibbons (R)39%
Gibson (D)44%

Gibbons (R)46%
Titus (D) 36%

Posted by: RMill | May 23, 2006 10:57 AM | Report abuse

I can not speak for the rest of the country, but Mark Green in Wisconsin is no shoe in. He is not recognized by enough people throughout the state. He is deeply associated with the political up-heavle that has isassociated with Madison. He has yet to introduce policies that the locals can grap and say " I believe in this ----- also."
Just working on name recognition will be take alot of time. Our state is in financial ruin and that issue needs to be addressed. Also we have lost alot of our great men to a WAR we never wanted. A War that has NO END. Who will he address that concern? I know he is Republican and the Republicans have done very wrong both nationally as we as in our state. How will he address that problem. What about the problem of Taxes how will he address that issue.
Like I said Mark Green has a long way to go.

Posted by: Mary Ellen Lepak | May 23, 2006 9:59 AM | Report abuse


National Journal-
Liberal Composite 72
Conservative composite 28

Clearly Strickland is not a conservative. I would think these numbers would qualify him as liberal.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Although I realize he wants to avoid the label.

Posted by: Melvin Purvis | May 22, 2006 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Getting this topic back on track, to the Governor's we go. I have to disagree with Chris and several notes here.

Clearly New York is the most likely to change hands. Spitzer would have to commit a felony to lose this race.

Ohio is right behind him as I think Strickland is going to demolish Blackwell. One aspect that people haven't looked at is the connection between the Senate Race and the Governor race. DeWine is counting on Blackwell to draw out the conservative vote to help him, but DeWine can't help Blackwell in the same way. The moderates and swing voters will vote for Strickland (a moderate, Pro-Gun Democrat). Brown will draw out the Liberal crowd, none of whom are going to vote for Blackwell.

I disagree with Iowa being this high. The polls below start last year in november and run up to the end of April this year. As you can clearly see, The Dem Culver has run ahead or even with the Repub Nussel is every poll. In fact, that latest poll shows his biggest lead at +6 (polls run from most recent to least recent). This is not a sign of a race that is immenently going to change hands.

WHO Nussle (R) Culver (D) Margin
Rasmussen 40 46 +6
Rasmussen 38 40 +2
Research2000 43 44 +1
Rasmussen 40 41 +1
Rasmussen 40 40 +0
Rasmusen 38 41 +3

Arkansas is also starting to take shape as a side changer. Beebe is beating Hutchinson by double digits in the polls.

Massachusetts is also looking to change hands. Every poll I see and from the people I talk to ( I live in MA) think Healy will be beaten. It doesn't matter who the Dem candidate is, even Reilly will beat her.

I also disagree with Wisconsin here, again siting the polls. Of the 2 most recent polls. Rasmussen conducted one at the end of March and showed Doyle up by 5 points. Strategic Vision (a republican pollster if ever there was one) showed the race tied.

Maryland is on the verge of beaing another change of hands. The polls show both Duncan and O'Malley beating Ehrlich. O'Malley is over 50%(51%)and is beating Ehrlich by 9 points in the polls.

Michigan Finally a race where the Repub challenger is beating the incumbent!!! DeVos has a small lead over Granholm in the polls. Chris is quick to point out that DeVos has had the airwaves to himself for 2 months and that Granholm hasn't done much campigning. Another note here is that Stabenow is crushing all comers in the Senate race and that is going to help Granholm overall.

The polls in Colorado are all over the place. Beauprez by 1 ritter by 7 Ritter by 1 Beauprez by 2. This is a toss up

There are no polls out on Oregon but I don't think Kulongowski is in as bad of shape as a few other incumbents out there.

In Rhode Island, the latest polls shows Fogarty beating Carceiri but not by much. One thing that might bring this race together is the Senate primary for Republicans. If Laffey wins, Carceiri may actually get a boost as conservatives will vote for him over Fogarty. if Chaffee wins and the conservatives stay home, Fogarty may well have a shot at beating a very popular governor.

As for my call I place the races as follows.

1 New york
2 Ohio
3 Massachusetts
4 Arkansas
5 Maryland
6 Michigan
7 Colorado
8 Iowa
9 Florida
10 Minnesota
10 Alaska
10 California

A three way tie for tenth, these races are all close but have the present party just beating out their opponents. With the exception of alaska which doesn't have a poll, but Murkowski is the 2nd most unpopular governor in the nation and several republicans are still sitting on the bench because Murkowshi won't get out of the game.
I expect a +5 gain for the Democrats in governor's seats.

Posted by: Rob Millette | May 22, 2006 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Once again, "Let the markets handle it."

KOZ when are you and all of the other "markets are the answer to everything" people going to get it?

The medical/healthcare Market is not a normal market. Consumer decisions in this market are not driven by normal market forces.

I believe in free markets. You don't have to be a liberal to believe that there could be better ways to have this so-called "market" work more efficiently.

The truly Poor get free medical care at emergency rooms and clinics at a cost to who? The Middle Class, who pay the freight in this country. The very small percentage of the population who are Rich can afford it, by definition. So, who does that leave being stuck paying the costs of a highly innefficient non-competitive "market?" Yup! You and me, we pick up the poor's and our own costs. We just don't see it because it's spread over insurance pools and in our taxes.

If medical/healthcare was a true market, we'd see a true bottom line price tag for each thing, and be able to make an informed decision. That's impossible with the status quo.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | May 22, 2006 3:25 PM | Report abuse

I was pointing out that these children do have "access" to health care. It may not be the best and it may not be the most efficient. I was pointing out that the morality had very little to do with it. We do many things that can be considered immoral if you suffer from the idea that it is free and therefore mandatory. Choices must be made and we can't cover every single person in the manner we would like.
My personal idea is to eliminate the insurance company as the decision-maker and allow the individual consumer to make choices. whenever I go to the doctor, they want to do every test possible because they can. In any other situation, I would object, but because the insurance company is paying, I let them go ahead. this is the crux of the problem and needs to be solved. My same reasoning applies, there are not unlimited resources available to track down all my ailments. One less test for me could pay for someone who has not had any tests. why are my benefits still tied to my employer? this is a holdover from ancient times (50's). Can't I get them through some group?

Posted by: king of zouk | May 22, 2006 2:57 PM | Report abuse

King of Zouk -- You said, "Did you know that many people use the emergency room as their health care and do not pay the bills. this is not the same as not having health care. It may be cheaper on society to do it this way."

Answer -- Yes, I did know that and it's objectively not cheaper. There's plenty of empirical data that shows just HOW economically inefficient providing health care through emergency room visits is. That's why an argument for CENTRALIZED and guaranteed health care (doesn't have to be government run. There are tons of variations on a centralized scheme that could be adopted)is actually an argument in favor of a more efficient market place.

Unfortunately, most "conservatives" seem unwilling to discuss ANY changes to the current system, which succeeds primarily in providing admittedly outstanding health care to those that can afford it (and fewer and fewer people can over time)while lining the pockets of insurance companies. For everyone else, the net result is to create a disincentive to get preventative healthcare and instead only seek out help at an emergency room when treatment is most costly.

Now, I admit that not all conservatives have ignored the issue. I applaud Mitt Romney for engaging in a dialogue with Democrats in Mass and am anxious to see how their hybrid system works. What I wish is that there were more thoughtful people on both sides of the aisle who could actually hash out a compromise that helps reduce the 45 MILLION uninsured in this country. Even if you are dead set against tax increases, I would love to hear you or anyone else explain how it's MORAL that 10 million children don't have access to healthcare. Somehow, gay marriage doesn't seem like the most important "values" issue when we have that kind of a problem to deal with.

Posted by: Colin | May 22, 2006 2:32 PM | Report abuse

You are confusing health insurance with health care. Did you know that many people use the emergency room as their health care and do not pay the bills. this is not the same as not having health care. It may be cheaper on society to do it this way. I would be interested in seeing a study on this. Of course it would be nice to have everyone get free health care but this can not be discussed in a vacuum, that is, without examining the alternatives that could be purchased with this money. why do you libs always latch on to the big inefficient approach instead of low-cost market avenues?

there seems to be many people putting words into my mouth on this blog. I never said, or would say that the US is perfect in every respect. I do think the right thinkg is being done in Iraq. Of course there is a cost. I would encourage you to look at this from a cost/benefit approach. Military deaths are not unusual, albeit always sad. the proper approach is to discuss what we may get out of this. I talk about relative numbers because it is not usefull to discuss absolute numbers of casualties. You need a context. Is 3000, 6000, 20,000 too high - to gain what? this policy applies to AIDS, cancer and any other money/death trade-off. Despite what you Libs think, there are only so many taxes I am willing to pay.

cleaning up the middle east is an excellent policy for long-term US safety, there is no other place the US military could do as much for so little. It is time for Democrats to understand that We the people have foreign enemies and they need to be killed.

all this comparison of US/Canada is just silly. they are both great democracies with slightly different approaches and have long been determined and fast friends. It is too bad the other world democracies are so kooky these days.

Posted by: king of zouk | May 22, 2006 1:34 PM | Report abuse

To Colin: You make some great points. I think we should certainly look around the world and take ideas from different places when trying to solve our own health-care problems. I am not averse to a universal health-care solution or a universal HMO solution or any other solution that works. However, if you think you are going to take the Canadian version and drop it in the U.S. and have it work...I just don't see that happening. My comments started when I saw a stat-by-stat, issue by issue comparison between the U.S. and Canada, which I feel is not a fair comparison due to the enormous population difference.

As for Nor'Easter: I just think you're arguing with yourself. I never said a population of 33 million was not enough of a model on which to base a system for 300 million. I simply said that it would be much more difficult to implement such a system. As for Govt. bureaucracy vs private sector many times have you heard "if I ran my business like that, I would be broke"! The fact is that managing an enormous work force is probably the number 1 headache with which most large corp. have to deal. Have you made a trip to Home Depot lately. The difference in the customer service you receive today vs. the early 90's is huge. That's because they have grown so large, it's hard to keep that customer service standard so high.

Posted by: FH | May 22, 2006 1:11 PM | Report abuse

only the NSA know for sure about the indictment.

oh, sandwich: "Will .... I'm also reminded that it was absentee King County voters (of whom I was one) who put Cantwell over the top in 2000. What are the terror attacks that have been made on Canada? I'm curious. Yes, the Canadian government takes terrorism quite seriously, and I feel confident that they work aggressively to take care of it. But they definitely have a much saner way of doing it. Fear and paranoia seem much more hardwired in the American psyche than the Canadian."

Not just absentee voters, it was mail-in absentee voters.

Correct on the fear aspect. But there are still trails ongoing in respect to terrorist attacks, and some firebombers were sentenced back in the late 80s early 90s, not to mention certain Native Canadian reservations near you.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | May 22, 2006 12:26 PM | Report abuse

I'm with you there RMill, I think the Dems need to dump this guy fast.

Posted by: Rob Millette | May 22, 2006 12:24 PM | Report abuse

The race is on: Who gets indicted first Jefferson or Ney? my cold hard cash is on Democrat Jefferson (The FBI found $90,000 cash in his freezer).

Posted by: RMill | May 22, 2006 11:13 AM | Report abuse

FH - You missed my point. It's that a population of 33 million is indeed enough of a model on which to base a system for 300 million. The diversity that I mentioned was "geographic" not ethnic. [And much of that, though not all, becomes immaterial in the electronic world in which we now live.]

FYI - You already have large scale delivery systems in place with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, and nationwide health insurance companies.

If you're philosophically opposed to a national health care system that's fine; but don't tell me that a universe of 33 million (coast-to-coast; urban/rural) is too small of a model on which to base a system for 300 million. The characteristics are similar enough.

As to the "Horrors, that would mean bureaucracy." How do you think GM, or Exxon, or Pfizer, etc. get their work done? They get it done with their own bureaucracies; they just call it them workforces. Much of the work would be outsourced to contractors; so if it's "government bureaucrats" that bother you, they would be only a small part of the picture.

Lastly, please refrain from tossing out that canard about competition. Choosing a doctor is not like going to Safeway and deciding which brand of bread or soup you want to buy. We don't choose our medications and "tests," our doctors do. So much of what they prescribe for their patients is subsidized by either the insurance companies or the government, that consumer cost decisions are mostly not part of the process.

Healthcare is not a free market sector of the economy. It actually begs for control of some type. The market ain't doin' it! The companies ain't doin' it! What's left to do it?

If what Canada has works, we're stupid to dismiss it out of hand.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | May 22, 2006 11:04 AM | Report abuse

FH -- I agree that Canada's system isn't without flaws and readily concede that population differences between the US and Canada do make comparisons less than perfect. My point, however, is that: (1) such a comparison is not without significant instructive value despite differences between the two countries; and (2) In addition to complications associated with a larger population that's distributed differently geographically, there could also be advantages as compared to Canada.

No comparison is perfect of course, and any argument that "we should do ____ more like country ____" has to be taken with a grain of salt. That doesn't mean, however, that we shouldn't still look at how other countries do approach difficult questions and then attempt to IMPROVE off of what those other countries are doing.

Now, I'm obviously in favor of a centralized health care plan and you're against it. Fair enough - reasonable people can disagree. But what I hope we - and most people in this country - can agree on is that our current health care system is broken and needs fixed. The wealthiest country in the world shouldn't have 45 million people (including more than 10 million children) uninsured. From my vantage point, that's both immoral and economically inefficient. Maybe centralized health care is the answer to that problem - maybe it's not. But I don't think we should, out of hand, refuse to take a look at how Canada, Germany, the UK, etc. have addressed the issue simply b/c of population differences etc. Moreover, I for one am confident that the GREATEST country in the world - which the US certainly is - is more than capable of improving upon those other countries' respective health care systems.

Posted by: Colin | May 22, 2006 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Man am I getting this crossed up. I made a mistake with MISSOURI- NO GOV RACE UNTIL 2008 and OMALLEY and DUNCAN are running for Governor in Maryland. Their chances are very good which is why it is not likely seat to change party hands, but since it is an open seat, it is in the bullpen.

Posted by: RMill | May 22, 2006 11:01 AM | Report abuse

I know I made a mistake with Maryland and acknowledged way back. O'Malley and Duncan are running for US Senate.

Greg-G- thanks and if the Post is looking I can try to squeeze it into my schedule Chris. I am also available for Birthday parties.

I have to say that the Florida numbers do not look encouraging. The Senate race looks like a blow pout for Nelson (Rasmussen has him up now 60-33%) and is not likely to bring out voters in droves for a tightening Governor's race. Some of the Congressional's may be interesting and boost some trunout in areas.

As of now, Rasmussen has Crist and Gallagher over Davis and Smith and Quinnipiac has the race closer (Davis tied or within 1 point of both Republicans and Smith trailing both). This was April 17.

New Rasmussen Poll is just released but for Premium members (I am not shelling out the bucks for that) so I am waiting for the public release. This may bump it back into the top 10 or at least into the bullpen.

Posted by: RMill | May 22, 2006 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Colin: We could have that argument all day, but the main thrust of my argument is that to compare a country...issue for issue with a population of 33 mil. to a country of 300 mil. is really not a fair comparison. It is easier to manage less people than it is to manage more people...that is just the nature of things. Don't believe me...try taking a class with 2 teachers and 15 students on a field trip. Now try taking 6 classes with 15 students and two teachers per class on a field trip. In which case would you be more likely to lose a student? 2 to 15 ratio or 12 to 90 ratio. The health-care question was just one issue I was using to illustrate my point. But I will say that something that looks good on paper, does not always work out the way it's drawn up. Also, Canada's health-care system is not without it's flaws still, and those flaws would be magnified with the increased population.

Posted by: FH | May 22, 2006 10:50 AM | Report abuse

FH -- I understand that there are certainly arguments against centralized health care, but it's not actually clear that administering a centralized health chare plan would be more difficult in the US b/c of its population.

Economies of scale would come into play in the US if a nationalized system were created. Moreover, centralized systems generally have been proven to reduce the per unit cost of health care to consumers. Those savings could in part be used to offset any administrative expenses that would be required.

Now, are there down sides to that kind of a plan? Sure. Is there a debate to be had on the issue? Absolutely. But I don't think simply saying that the US couldn't do it b/c of population differences is a factually accurate response.

Posted by: Colin | May 22, 2006 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Again, you must not have understood my comment. While it may be a worthy case study on how to implement a country-wide health-care plan, putting such a plan into action on the scale we're talking about here would be much more difficult, if not impossible. The larger the population...and we're talking in the neigborhood of 9 times larger...the more bureaucracy is required, and it's difficult to judge the end result of that increased bureaucracy. (it probably will be disastrous) Not to mention, to compare the Canadian population with it's lack of any REAL diversity to the most diverse nation on the planet...I'm not really sold on that either.

Posted by: FH | May 21, 2006 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Bad example FH. A population of 33 million concentrated in urban areas such as Canada has, should give you a decent model on how to structure healthcare for 300 million with similar Urban/Rural diversity. Theoretically, there might be even more economies of scale.

Private sector management would call the 33 million model a "prototype," "pilot" or Beta test. It would just depend on your advertising approach.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | May 21, 2006 5:25 PM | Report abuse

You are saying that we cannot make any comparisons between two countries, or even two states, because they have different populations.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying when you use statistics, they can be deceiving when comparing a country with 33 mil. vs 300 mil. I.E. Comparing NYC with Mayberry... solutions that work in Mayberry, probably won't be as effective in NYC. It's nice politics to say Canada has medical coverage for all it's people...why can't we? But the reality is the logistics alone of providing 300 million people with govt. sponsored healthcare would be enormous vs. 33 mil, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Posted by: FH | May 21, 2006 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Sandwhich Repairman says "If Canada is so supportive of abortion, why is the teen abortion rate 40% higher in the US than it is here?".

Simply put, Canada has a much better system in place to keep teens from needing abortions in the first place including better sex education and more access to birth control for teens. Though, were they to need them, many provinces provide abortions for free. Being "supportive of abortion" does not mean that every pregnant teen gets an abortion. It means that access to it (in terms of locations and cost) is better in Canada than the US.

Posted by: BlueBuckeye | May 21, 2006 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Okay FH, I get what you're trying to say, but I definitely can't agree with you. Saying that you cannot compare two places based on varying populations is really just stupid. Population is one of the last things you consider when comparing two nations. You are saying that we cannot make any comparisons between two countries, or even two states, because they have different populations. Honestly, can you hear how silly that sounds?

Posted by: Jake | May 21, 2006 2:43 PM | Report abuse

how are unemployment numbers derived?

has SSI increased in the last 10 years?

has poverty increased in the last 6 years?

have social services been cut radically in the last 17 years?

has the percentage of middle income people declined or risen in the last 6 years?

what is the fastest growing addition to the poverty stricken?

why did the president begin cutting $30 dollars a month from each person receiving medicare benifits that are on fixed income, to finance the _occupation_ while cutting taxes for people who made over $200,000 by $70 Billion?

because he cares about women and children or old people?

do you know if Gonzalez or the bushes or cheyney or rumsfeld or any of their relatives hire _illegal_ aliens?

answer any 10 questions that you feel like responding to and I'll be happy to meet you in the parking lot, come alone...


Posted by: again | May 21, 2006 1:13 AM | Report abuse

does that stand for fog hat?

models work if things are proportionate,

that's why they use them.

to simply toss out something as being completely different because one part is,

is not a valid response or conclusion,

what you could say is that even though they have more guns per capita, we manage to kill more of our own....

but we don't treat each other like citizens here, we have more of what could be likened to a caste system...

wouldn't you say?

ask me if I want to dance why don't you, and we shall advance to the macabre...with you beeing ridden...okay.


Posted by: dear fh, | May 21, 2006 1:07 AM | Report abuse

no substance,

no insights,

and a plagarist,

I'll eat you for breakfast with a nice chianti....

come close petite foir'


Posted by: dear fh, stop it that's annoying... | May 21, 2006 12:48 AM | Report abuse

If you don't see that when you have a much larger population you have a lot more things to deal with, then frankly, I don't see any reason to argue with you. You just go on your merry way and live in LaLa land.

Posted by: FH | May 20, 2006 6:05 PM | Report abuse

No, FH, I don't see where it's going at all. I don't see the logic in your argument, and I'd like you to explain it to me. You're actually saying we can't make meaningful interstate comparisons? When exactly did this happen?

Nova Scotia election info:

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 20, 2006 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Why don't you compare the numbers for CA and the numbers for WY and I think you will answer your own question. I'll get you started...the CA unemployment rate sits around 6% and in WY it's around 4%. I'm sure you can see where this is going.

Posted by: FH | May 20, 2006 5:32 PM | Report abuse

CA has about 35,000,000 people while WY has about 450,000. Can we no longer compare the states to each other?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 20, 2006 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Jake, well put. I just saw the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights at the National Archives recently and felt inspired by them. But I also had to think that if the Founding Fathers proposed the same ideas today, the right wing would be calling them [fill-in epithet here] liberals.

Ignorantly pretending your country is always right is just childish, simplistic, and hurts your country. To look at it honestly, like a mature adult, and analyse what is good and what is bad about it; what other nations could learn from it and what it could learn from other nations, is real patriotism. Because that's what helps your country get better over time.

FH: Why does a population difference mean there's no meaningful comparison of the US and Canada? Especially given how much we have in common with each other--Canada is often treated as a 51st state! Can we only compare the US to the 2 nations with larger popuations: China and India? It's time for America to take more of a global perspective. We're not the only kid on the block.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 20, 2006 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 20, 2006 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Sandwich Repairman: The U.S. population is about 300,000,000 and the Canadian population is 33,000, compare the two countries in any real substantive way, issue for issue, is nearly impossible. And who is it that keeps posting with the double space between every line...stop's annoying.

Posted by: FH | May 20, 2006 3:22 PM | Report abuse





moving factories overseas and laying off Americans...

and hiring _illegals_

it _IS_ a matter of National Security and it is

destroying your country, your wealthy and your ability to make a life for yourselves....

the elite/wealthy/landed internationals can live in compounds

like they've done for centuries, they build walls to keep you out of their world....and tax you into submission...

as _they_ have done for centuries....

nothing new, but America was supposed to be the NEW FRIGGIN WORLD

not the same old same old.


Posted by: there is _no_ difference | May 20, 2006 1:45 PM | Report abuse

I have nothing against her personally that can't be summed up in two words...

her actions.

for you deep thinkers out there,

it matters who is standing in front of the machine,

not at all.

the machine in this case is a group of people that have shanghied

democracy, in it's evolutionary process,

and replaced it with big money and defense department shenanigans.


that is who is in charge of the United States right now, and in the process of trying to take over the world....

for themselves, not for a country, not for democracy or high ideals...

so that they can hold you accountable for their lives and send your children off to die because they are smart enough to start an occupation for economic reasons and you are to effing


to call them on it and arrest them....

on top of that your president is busy sellin you _illegal_ immigration as a "must have"


anyone with money "must have" more of it,

by not hiring Americans,

either in companies,


or doing construction.....


sending jobs overseas, making $380 MILLION DOLLAR RETIREMENT BONUSES.....

and they want to give the remaining blue collar jobs to people that can't create and don't know what a democracy is in their own country so they are over here stealing yours.....

why is Mexico lobbying senators and the house? because these people send money to Mehico....

stop the rape of America,

arrest those that violate our laws,

arrest those that hire _illegals_ and prosecute...

arrest your public enemy number ONe, the bush family and all of it's branches,

make them responsible for ruining your retirement years with this nonsense.....

Texas Toast 'Em.....give 'em a maximum send off....fry 'em....


Posted by: regarding condolezzi | May 20, 2006 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Just want to clarify something I stated in my last post. In the second sentence, I was referring to myself as a Californian so I was more aware of her history in California--not that I have anything against Californians, as I am one of them!

Posted by: Jason | May 20, 2006 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Re: BlueBlogger's last post

I am one who does not like Condoleeza Rice, never have. As a Californian, she was controversial as the provost at Stanford and she hasn't accomplished much (other than loyalty to the President--whatever that's worth) in her association with the White House. I truly think that Rice's boosters are in favor of her because they are scared of Sen. Hillary Clinton being the Democratic candidate and they want a woman to go against her. I'm not saying I'm favoring Sen. Clinton personally, but rather stating what I think are Condoleeza Rice's boosters' motivations.

Posted by: Jason | May 20, 2006 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I have never commented before. However, I have followed debate on this blog. I am an amrican living in Germany and agree with jake regarding ignorance of KZ. May be the case of "Rush medications"

Posted by: Michigan Central | May 20, 2006 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Blackwell is more vulnerable than some think, so he deserves to be in the #2 spot. Mobilizing angry Ohio liberals and African-American voters has to be a priority. And frankly, I'm going to have to say that Blackwell's demographic traits might deactivate part of his conservative base and render him less electable (in the same way I believe that Condi Rice, though everyone strangely loves her, would never be selected in a Republican primary). Thoughts?

Posted by: BlueBlogger | May 20, 2006 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Jake Very well written.

But, "King of Zouk" know exactly what he is doing and is not going to change.

When you have no idea how to fix something or make it better, you blame the accuser. King of Zouk knows the the republican are broken and need fixin. But, he has no idea how to do it. So he goes into denial and attacks anybody that might want to reform the republican party - Hey maintain the "Status Quo" - I hear you again and again and again King of Zouk. Except maitaining the Status Quo only works for so long before the waters rush over the levee. You can only blame the victims for so long before the truth, the unvarnished truth, comes back to haunt you.

How will you fix it, after you run out of victims to blame ? How ?

A true king knows when reform is needed. A true king knows when change is needed. A false king hides behind his power to just maintain the Status Quo. What kind of king will you be "King of Zouk" ?

Posted by: Wells | May 20, 2006 9:31 AM | Report abuse

As an American-born citizen living in England for most of my life, I have to agree with Sandwich Repairman-- it's awful and ignorant to see any nation that challenges the US as bad or wrong. Look, America has done some pretty awful things. I'm not saying that America is an awful place-- there is a lot we have accomplished there too. But it is important to understand where we have gone wrong so that we can do better in the future. Just putting your hands over your ears and yelling "I CANT HEAR YOU" over and over again doesn't make you right. Patriotism is great, but it also seems to be used as a pretty widespread coverup for ignorance and stupidity, and that's where KZ is going wrong. We get it-- you like America. So do I, but challenging the government when they go wrong is important. If you'll recall, it is actually in the Constitution. How about you back off the intolerance and admit that maybe America isn't always right. That's the only way we can start to fix things.


Posted by: Jake | May 20, 2006 8:05 AM | Report abuse

If Canada is so supportive of abortion, why is the teen abortion rate 40% higher in the US than it is here?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 20, 2006 5:53 AM | Report abuse

What fact have I fabricated? What have I said anywhere here that is not true?

You idiotic jingoism is based on the false premise that only one country can be great. Yes, I change pronouns when talking about both Canada and the US, both Canadians and Americans. Perhaps if you'd ever lived in another country you'd learn how gray that situation gets. Canada does not "support" abortion any more than the US does. Nor does it help nearly as many murderous dictators as the US, and accusing Canada of sitting out the war on terror is absolutely ignorant and outrageous. Do you have any awareness of the number of Canadians taking risks and losing their lives in Afghanistan right now?

My patriotism has been questioned, not threatened, because of the ignorant right-wing assumption that any mention of something good in another country must be a treasonous condemnation of the US. No, Canadians are not hostile people. (Remember that thing about how they're far less violent than Americans.) But if you actually talk to them, you will find that most Canadians do indeed hate George Bush. I have yet to meet anyone in Montreal who doesn't. And what a lovely admission of lawbreaking--smuggling Cuban cigars into the US. I guess if you're a Republican the laws don't apply?

KZ, you're in no position to lecture Ohio guy about the facts on military deaths when you already said yourself that facts don't matter. Is the argument you posted above what you would tell the parents, spouses, and children of the 2400+ Americans who have died in Iraq?

The NSA isn't on to me; they have no jurisdiction in the True North Strong and Free. It'd be up to the RCMP, and they have better things to do.

Will--factual note: I live in Montreal (where I wouldn't be surprised to see Viva enjoying some legal prostitution before his cigar smuggling). Nova Scotia only entered the conversation because I mentioned that an election campaign is underway there. But your point about the Italian election is very apt. I'm also reminded that it was absentee King County voters (of whom I was one) who put Cantwell over the top in 2000. What are the terror attacks that have been made on Canada? I'm curious. Yes, the Canadian government takes terrorism quite seriously, and I feel confident that they work aggressively to take care of it. But they definitely have a much saner way of doing it. Fear and paranoia seem much more hardwired in the American psyche than the Canadian.

Josh: I challenge you to cite a single principle held by Evan Bayh. I don't think the man has one in his body. Sadly a characteristic that didn't translate from father to son.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 20, 2006 5:49 AM | Report abuse

"If the election were held today, who would you vote for?" Names rotated
Bush/Cheney Kerry/Edwards Unsure

7/6/04 43% 54% 3% "

King do you have a source for this one? I never remember Kerry polling ahead by more than a couple points.

Posted by: Dave | May 19, 2006 11:46 PM | Report abuse

are labels for the intellectually challenged...

can't understand what's going on?

pick a team and support it....

that way you don't have to prove that you don't know how to think....

anyone that can think knows you can't because you live

"by the label"

I wear (whatever they're wearing, intheHamptons),

I worship (deep thinkers, like Nietzche, though I've never read him)

I can't think for myself, but I know if I drink beer, live in georgetowne, have a place in kennebunkeport, or graduate from Santa Barbara....

that means _I'm somebody_ not that I'll ever really feel like that, but since I need approval

from other morons, I'll find out what the winning team is and support it...

because I'm stuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuupid...

I'll prove it by voting for George Bush because he's supporting family values like

homo phobia,

killing people from other countries that wear towels on their head,

beer drinking and barby ques....

and he loves gawd....that's why he sends people overseas to kill the ones that gawed doesnt' love....the

ALLAH WORSHIPERS....everyone with a brain knows that gawd is not called allah...

sounds like a girl...kill em...

left right conservative, I'm a simple soul just needt o be toold how to vooooote

thanks so much,

I live you!


Posted by: liberal and conservative | May 19, 2006 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Silent Cal,

"Actually, what you are doing is lynching an African-American with no evidence to support your claim. Some liberal you are. But then again, you probably think Blackwell is not "really" black since he is a conservative."

Cal, you seem to be confused. Liberal and conservative is not a color of your skin. It's policy.

Posted by: Jamal | May 19, 2006 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Blackwell will lose if Ted Strickland keeps doing what he is doing, which is working hard and presenting mainstream moderate Democrat policies. Strickland was a Methodist Preacher and if he preaches those credentials he will tone down the far rights turnout and power in the race. Strickland is winning by about 8% in poll. I doubt he will win by that much, but I am sure he will win. Sherrod Brown will have it harder in Ohio. Ted Strickland has too many things going for him. He is the perfect candidate for this election for state and national Democrats. He will be able to do what Tim Kaine did in Virginia with his religion. His win in Ohio, will be used by Democrats as a model, and be more of a spokesman for the party to reach into the religious vote, which we already trying to court. His win will also set up a win for the Democrats in 2008 in Ohio. Having a Governor from your own party is crucial to a victory especially in a swing state. The Media is really focusing on the Democrats taking back Congress as a sign of a Democrat tidal wave that will be important for the Democrats to take back the country. What is more imporatnt is the Governor races. There Democrats can set up a grass roots organization, and lay down networks and inroads into Red States, which will help the Democrats in the future and the 2008 Presidential Election. If they pickup the seats that are supposed to, and a principled Democrat like Bayh, Warner, or Edwards is the nominee than they are good position to win the whole thing.

Posted by: Josh | May 19, 2006 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of California

( Arnold causes Ice Age for California Conservative Republicans. Dr. Freeze can freeze more than just Batman. )

Even if Arnold wins re-election, democrats still win. Arnold's Left turn redefines the State's Republican Party. Causing California Republican to veer futher and futher away from the Republican National Party. Arnold's is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. This works for him in California. But, this is a death march for republicans in California. New republicans in the state are practically expected to be like Arnold to survive in California. This is rapidly causing the extinction of conservative republicans throughout the state of California. Well, at least California has nice museums where children can see what a conservative republican looked like before the Dr. Freeze but them on Ice. Maybe a mad scientist can bring conservative republicans back to California using DNA in a park or something. Nahhh, that only happens in the movies.

Posted by: Wells | May 19, 2006 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Even though CA was not ranked, I would have like to know your comments about how the race has changed gears dramatically in the past three weeks due to the unprecedented revenue received, the current Governor's strong and public comments that prove his leadership. This has taken all the wind out of the Westly and Angelides jugger(nots) and reduced them to calling each other names. Not very inspiring. The June 6 primary (yawn) will focus more on the Attorney General race (do we need Jerry Brown in yet another public office?) as we hope to get a young, more vibrant public official who doesn't have half a century of political history with the state.
Santa Monica, CA

Posted by: Isabel Soto | May 19, 2006 7:19 PM | Report abuse

I think Tina is a Paid Lobbyist for Condi.

Slogan: Condi best thing since Peanut Butter!
Slogan: Condi beter than condiments!

I am just thankful Tina's check for "Pushing Conservative Judges" didn't come in this week so she took a breather on judges.

Posted by: Wells | May 19, 2006 6:39 PM | Report abuse

oh, sandwich, "There has never been a terrorist attack on Canada."

sorry, that's not true. I think you meant to say, the Canadian government has never made its population live in fear over terrorist attacks but quietly worked to get the guilty parties.

I know - from personal experience - that there have been terrorist attacks both in and from Canada.

But, amusingly, few Canadians worry about it. Thank god.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | May 19, 2006 6:18 PM | Report abuse

as to "Here's a fact. You live in Canada and can't vote here. therefore, what you think is totally irrelevant. good thing since it is so foolish anyway. Now crawl back to your moose bedmate and leave us alone."

Interesting, this is EXACTLY what shifted Italy - all the non-resident Italian citizens that voted outside the country.

When I lived up in BC, I could vote - if I was in the Rockies, I just had to drive down and vote there, when I was in Vancouver BC I just went to the Consulate and cast my ballot.

It's my right.

Mind you, while the poster lives in Nova Scotia now that you dissed, and I've lived back in Seattle since 89, trying to spread FUD like that really is weak and desperate.

Feel the wave. It's coming. And few Republicans will be left standing in its wake.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | May 19, 2006 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Tina, once again you show your lack of connection with reality, pushing Rice uphill.

Face it, you're looking at wholesale slaughter. You totally lost the moderates, you lost the few liberals that thought Bush was compassionate, and now most conservatives are running away fast from the SS Big Debt that is neocon utopianism.

Rice never had a chance to begin with, and half as much as she started with six months ago even then.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | May 19, 2006 6:11 PM | Report abuse

_illegal_ immigration show,

talk about putting on a show!!!!!

what is that about?

and who is the ATTORNEY GENERAL Gonzales? there's a trustworthy,

learned the way of the world kinda guy....he's all bushy....


brujo e'vile

Posted by: why isn't anyone discussing the | May 19, 2006 5:52 PM | Report abuse

"If you are looking for stopping the deaths, consider the actual death rate of the country of Iraq, normalized for population. then compare some major US cities."

So you want me to compare the death rate of the entire COUNTRY of Iraq to the death of a SINGLE CITY in the U.S. ???? Wow - you're more stupid than I thought. How is it relevant to compare the death rate of a country to the death rate of a TINY SEGMENT of another country? I fail to see how your suggestion answers any questions or helps out your absurd assertion that Iraq is now a winning issue for Bush b/c there is a "new Iraqi government starting today". What would be a meaningful exercise would be to compare the death rate for Iraq as a country (adjusted for population, of course) to the death rate for the entire U.S. I won't supply the facts because you won't believe me anyway but try to look it up if you can. That is, if you can find the time when you are'nt trying to compare apples and oranges.

Nothing more pitiful than a delirious republican who makes up ridiculous and crazy comparisons b/c he can't debate me or anyone else on the facts about Iraq. Pathetic.

I love how you completely dodged the issue of REAl change in Iraq, zouk, not just a benchwarming government.

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 19, 2006 5:49 PM | Report abuse

KZ, you are absolutely hysterical. Your posts are nothing but heated rhetoric yet you accuse others of not making substantive points. You should seriously consider running for office as a Republican.

If you want substance, why don't you try addressing the fact that the war in Iraq has distracted us from the actual war on terror? Or the fact that Iraq is actually far MORE unstable and dangerous now - and a haven for terrorist - than it was before the war?

Instead of talking about the RELATIVELY low casualty rates, try discussing the tens of thousands of soldiers who have been seriously wounded and maimed in Iraq? Anything to say to those folks? I'm sure your only "answer" is that I must be a "liberal" and that therefore you don't need to address my points. However, if you'd actually like to engage in a debate on ANY substantive issue I'd love to respond. You see, debate isn't hard when you're argument is actually predicated on simply telling the truth. That's all you have to do to argue against Bush today - just tell the truth.

Posted by: Colin | May 19, 2006 5:41 PM | Report abuse

that is what this administration is and their cohearts...

what happened to Tina?

I thought you wanted to defend something.

It's interesting that this administration uses women as plants in the blog groups,

and women have been amongst the most disenfranchised by the whole

white boy (anti)christ-ian, killthem/patriotic rhetoric

womens rights have moved about to the pre sixties levels...

little button hats, dress-suits stepford wives ala laura are in...


Posted by: unindicted felons... | May 19, 2006 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Where's California? Schwarzenegger's got a 36% approval rating in a blue state. Once the Democrats resolve their primary, whoever they nominate will be the favorite going into the fall. I know the Beltway types have this CW about primaries being divisive and leaving the nominee battered and broke, but that's BS. Just look at the Republicans in 2004. Nobody will remember what was said for the next 2 weeks by one Democrat about the other by November. They'll just remember that Schwarzenegger has about as many political personas as he has Terminator movies (2004: bipartisan Arnold, 2005: Bush Arnold, 2006: Democrat Arnold). Which one will we get in 2007? Also, this whole bond package is very overrated. That's nice that he's finally passed something. What else has he done? The strong Democratic voting patterns of California are going to make getting re-elected exremely difficult for Arnold. He probably can't win without his opponent screwing up in a big way.

Posted by: Q | May 19, 2006 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Blackwell hasn't got a chance in hell of winning. Republicans in Ohio have been economic as opposed to religious conservatives. Blackwell is far out of the mainstream. And as for Ohio being a "red" state, Bush's 35% approval rating and Taft's 18% approval rating certainly would not suggest that. And you'd better check again about Strickland being "conservative." Being a pro-gun Democrat does not make you conservative.

Posted by: Q | May 19, 2006 5:32 PM | Report abuse

arrested the current president and his appointees along with his staff, and JCS's...

could you get that done before monday?


and my name isn't liberal.

I'd like to teach you to fly.


Posted by: I'd be satisfied if they | May 19, 2006 5:28 PM | Report abuse

I'd say give him a break, but don't you think that the NSA is already on to all of us, anyway?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | May 19, 2006 5:23 PM | Report abuse

I would suggest checking out this guys' email address and alert the airport customs officials....

terrorist alert, elitist sucking on something long and usual, but more often it's closer to the ground and facing a crack...


Posted by: I would imagine that everyone knows that you can get them in Canada... | May 19, 2006 5:17 PM | Report abuse

HOMELAND SECURITY ALERT: VIVA above "I will smoke a Havana and perhaps even enter the USA with one or two, I also return from overseas with a few on my person."

I believe that VIVA now has actually met the elements necessary for a criminal conspiracy/smuggling prosecution.

Off with his head!

VIVA, just remember, "It is the Law," as conservative prosecutors so seriously remind us whenEVER they are prosecuting the most minor infractions.

I'd hate to have to begin referring to VIVA as "Unindicted Felon."

Posted by: Nor'Easter | May 19, 2006 5:12 PM | Report abuse

without diss information raising it's ugly head...

hey zoukee, hired any illegals lately?

or your buddy ralph?

Posted by: I can't turn my back for five minutes.. | May 19, 2006 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Ohio guy as usual has nothing of substance to add so he throws around a few insults and his favorite word "hypocrisy". Is that what you have gotten away with and called substantial thought in your life? come out from under the bed and tell us what you really think.

If you are looking for stopping the deaths, consider the actual death rate of the country of Iraq, normalized for population. then compare some major US cities. Interesting exercise. I guess Washington DC is a failure according to your metrics. do you know what the death rate of the US military is under peacetime conditions? try comparing that too. I won't supply the facts because you won't believe me anyway but try to look it up if you can. It would be nice if you Libs could advance a measure by which you would be satisfied with something our government did.

Posted by: king of zouk | May 19, 2006 4:54 PM | Report abuse


"Hey nitwits, you will all have to find something else to carp about now. It seems the new Iraqi government is starting today."

Wow - a new government eh? I guess that means an end to the daily deaths, murder and violence in Iraq huh zouk? I guess you're going to say that we've "turned the corner" in Iraq? Just how many corners have we turned now And just what kind of f*****-up dodecahedron shape are we making over there with all these corners we're turning?

Newsflash king of hypocrisy: until there is some kind of tangible, REAL peace and security in Iraq, and soldiers and innocent civilians stop losing their lives everyday, the Iraq War will be and should be considered a failure.

Simply having butts physically in the seats of the Iraqi government is not going to solve and problems in itself. If such were the case, our country would have no problems.

Idiotic Wishful Thinking.

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 19, 2006 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Viva - NYC - yeah I remember that, teaches you for going into the lion's den.

Can anyone tell me why the customs guys asked me exactly where I was going when I carried my US Flag handbag? It was if I had answered the wrong country, they would have required me to pack a different bag.

Save the world and this is what you get? curiouser and curiouser.

Posted by: king of zouk | May 19, 2006 4:33 PM | Report abuse

"Speaking of Canada, I will be spending OH taxpayers $$ at a conference in Montreal next week." - VivianBush04OH

Wow. How telling. Here is a republican openly bragging about how she is going to Canada to piss away American tax dollars in the process. Don't republicans claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility and lower taxes? The party that condemns the waste of public funds?

Repiglican Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 19, 2006 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Please bookmark the following sites:

Senate hearing on CIA nominee: Democrats rubberstamp Bush police-state spying

By Patrick Martin
19 May 2006

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

The Senate hearing Thursday on the nomination of General Michael Hayden to head the Central Intelligence Agency demonstrates the bipartisan congressional support for the Bush administration's assault on the democratic rights of the American people.

While there were scattered criticisms of the methods of the Bush administration, particularly its failure to consult with Congress, every senator on the Intelligence Committee accepted the premise that the United States is engaged in a "war on terror" and that the Bush administration's escalation of domestic surveillance and wiretapping is a product of that war.

There was no challenge to the Orwellian label, "terrorist surveillance program," which the Bush administration has chosen to apply to a program which actually involves the surveillance of the telephone calls and Internet messaging of nearly the entire American population--an estimated 225 million people. It would be far more accurate to describe the electronic monitoring and data-mining by the National Security Agency (NSA) as the "universal surveillance program"--or as the Pentagon once labeled its own version of the program, "Total Information Awareness."

Not one senator, on the Intelligence Committee or off it, will acknowledge the basic truth that the Bush administration is a far greater threat to the democratic rights of the American people than all the terrorists in the world. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda may be capable of terrible crimes, but they cannot impose a totalitarian dictatorship in the United States. That threat comes solely from the American ruling elite and its military-intelligence apparatus.

General Michael Hayden is a sworn enemy of the democratic rights of the American people. In his six years as head of the NSA, from 1999 to 2005, he was responsible for both the program of interception and eavesdropping on international phone calls, revealed by the New York Times in December, and the creation of an enormous database of the telephone calling records of 225 million Americans, made public by USA Today May 11.

While some press reports in the past week have suggested that the domestic telephone monitoring was less sweeping than reported by USA Today, perhaps limited to long distance phone calls, about 20 percent of the total, the New York Times quoted an unnamed "senior government official, granted anonymity to speak for publication about the classified program" confirming that "the security agency had access to records of most telephone calls in the United States."

A lawsuit brought by the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF), a group opposed to Internet censorship and spying, has produced evidence of widespread interception of traffic on the web by the same telecommunications companies that turned over phone records to the NSA. EFF legal director Cindy Cohn told Bloomberg News Wednesday that AT&T had carried out "real-time diversion of customer Internet data" as part of its collaboration with the NSA.

In his appearance before the Senate committee, Hayden adamantly defended both the legality and the necessity of telecommunications spying, while refusing to discuss any aspect of the program except in a closed session, where members of the Senate panel were sworn to secrecy. This was combined with a denunciation of leaks to the press which exposed both the illegal domestic surveillance and the CIA's network of secret prisons overseas, where selected prisoners are interrogated and tortured outside of any legal process. CIA officers "deserve not to have every action analyzed, second-guessed, and criticized on the front pages of the newspapers," he said.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, sounded the same note in his opening remarks, when he rejected


Posted by: che | May 19, 2006 4:29 PM | Report abuse

My Subway Boy, your comments are VERY telling. Such venom. Nobody has threatened your patriotism so lighten up.

Hate. All Canadians are really hateful of Bush? Hmm, must say I know what it's like.

I've been to many countries around the world and as an American, I have never gotten any hostility from anyone. And, I make it a point to wear my flag pin too.
But the most hatred and hostility I ever received was as a Republican in NYC at the 2004 Convention. There the far left crazies were threatening and dangerous.

Indeed I will enjoy myself in Montreal and I do speak some French and I will smoke a Havana and perhaps even enter the USA with one or two, I also return from overseas with a few on my person.


Posted by: VIVABUSH04OH | May 19, 2006 4:26 PM | Report abuse


May 19, 2006 -- Tony Snow's "tar baby" comment was not his most egregious utterance. Tony Snow defended his use of the term "tar baby" in his Tuesday press conference, his first after succeeding Scott McClellan. Snow correctly states that the term is used as a reference to Uncle Remus hugging a tar baby, which means he was in a sticky situation. The term has also been used in a racist context.

However, when Snow began to cry while talking about his bout with cancer, he apologized for his "Ed Muskie moment." While Snow can, perhaps, be given a pass for the tar baby comment, his reference to a situation involving Ed Muskie's presidential primary campaign in New Hampshire in 1972 was nothing less than appalling. Muskie, who was the clear frontrunner in the New Hampshire primary, was responding to a couple of nasty articles in the conservative Manchester Union Leader. The paper had published a story suggesting that Muskie's wife Jane used an ethnic slur to describe Americans of French-Canadian descent. Muskie, standing on the steps of the Union Leader and denouncing the false reporting of the paper, broke down in tears. The media picked up on the event and, in suggesting that Muskie demonstrated weakness, helped erode Muskie's support. He barely eked out a victory in New Hampshire over Sen. George McGovern and went on to lose the national primary race. It turned out that the Union Leader's story about Jane Muskie was based on a forged letter prepared by Richard Nixon's campaign. The perpetrator of the forgery was one Donald Segretti, later jailed in the Watergate scandal for, among other things, planting forged documents and criminal conspiracy. During the 1972 campaign, Segretti became aware of a young Republican political activist in Texas who showed much promise in the dirty tricks department. His name -- Karl Rove.

Now Rove faces his "Segretti moment" in the CIA Leakgate affair. Washington, DC has been abuzz with rumors and story planting for years in this case. Rove learned well from his mentor Segretti. This morning, DC anxiously awaits a press advisory from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) regarding a major development in the Rove case. If past is prologue, a press advisory will be issued mid morning about an afternoon press conference. We are standing by.

Note on U.S. Attorney John Briggs vs. US Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Archibald Cox, the Watergate Independent Counsel, was appointed in May 1973. Briggs indicted Segretti the same month after a Justice Department investigation that took about a half a year. Rove has been under investigation by Fitzgerald since the Special Counsel's appointment on Dec. 30, 2003, a period of two and a half years. Briggs coordinated his investigation with Independent Counsel Cox and Attorney General Elliott Richardson while Fitzgerald, as a Special Counsel, is only protected from pressure from the White House by an administrative firewall. This clearly demonstrates the problems that can be encountered in not having an Independent Counsel Statute to avoid the political pressure that can be applied to a less independent Special Counsel.

Posted by: che | May 19, 2006 4:24 PM | Report abuse

After seeing so much time and energy taken up above on Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, etc. I think that this weekend CC should have just stuck with the O-R-I-O-L-E-S and Nats.

Go O's!

Posted by: Nor'Easter | May 19, 2006 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Not my facts. I cited my source. It seems you have your own personal facts, perhaps invented. An easy assumption since you are making things up as you go along.

I did not question your patriotism or citizenship, although it would have been an obvious question since you keep saying "we" when you mean Canadians. I have absolutely nothing against Canada and enjoyed my visit to Montreal, especially my overconsumption of Maudit.

But it quite another thing to glorify it at the expense of your homeland. your insinuations are at odds with each other.

supporting abortion and murderous dictators is a questionable practice. not supporting the US war on terror for whatever reason is an act of cowardice and convenience. must be that French thing.

Posted by: king of zouk | May 19, 2006 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Hey Viva, hate to tell you this, but my hunch is that Blackwell and the other Repubs you cheer so much for would hardly want you to have "Viva" and other Spanish words next to your name. They certainly wouldn't want you to sing the National Anthem in Spanish, and would probably check your documentation.

RMill, I think you should get your own column on this blog.

Posted by: Greg-G | May 19, 2006 4:16 PM | Report abuse

RMill - My thoughts EXACTLY regarding your response to Melvin's comments earlier. Only a right-wing nutjob would consider being pro-worker and pro-feeding-the-starving to be "liberal" stances.

Oh, and you list MD as "in the bull pen"? Isn't O'Malley ahead by like 14 points? O'Malley looks really strong to me - great record of growth as mayor, $3M in the if only that pesky Duncan would just get out of the way.

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 19, 2006 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Wells -

Ken Blackwell believes he is morally superior to everyone in Ohio except Pastor Rod Parsely (think Ohio's own Pat Robertson - but even crazier), hence carrying around the Bible everywhere.

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 19, 2006 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Once again, KZ, you don't have your facts straight, and I know you don't care but I'll set the record straight for everyone else. Unemployment rates are always lower in the US than most other industrialized nations. That has nothing to do with the strength of our economy; it's because the US has the narrowest definition of unemployment. In Canada, reading the want ads qualifies as unemployed and looking for work. In the US, it doesn't. So you're comparing apples and oranges there. The fact is that US unemployment was at a 40 year low under Bill Clinton, but has yet to approach those levels since he left office. Canada's unemployment rate (and your data is quite dated) is the lowest it's been in 32 years. If the US were in such a position, perhaps consumer confidence in the economy wouldn't be in the toilet.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 19, 2006 4:05 PM | Report abuse

I LIVE in Canada, I am not a CITIZEN of Canada. Perhaps if you weren't so ignorant you'd know the difference. I am a US citizen and will vote in my primary and local elections this fall (I have never missed an election since my 18th birthday and don't intend to now). I already sent my absentee ballot application. And even if that weren't the case, it wouldn't make my opinions (or the facts I cited which you don't care about getting wrong) irrelevant. I spent over 3 years working in the US Senate before moving here. I was born in Indiana and have lived in 6 states and visited 27. Don't you dare question my citizenship or patriotism.

I pay $500 per YEAR in health care premiums as an international student, and I had to have a series of doctor visits, none of which cost me a penny. I have to have some overnight studies done in the hospital, which I waited a whopping 2 weeks to get. None of them cost me a penny either. I have allergies and take Allegra, which you need a prescription for in the US but I can buy over the counter here. While Americans debate whether pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to do their job by filling a legal prescription, emergency contraception is available over the counter in Canada. And because pharmaceutical advertisements are banned, drug prices are a fraction here of what they are in the US. (Why do you think all those seniors come up here to buy their meds?? Best health care in the world, my ass!)

Yeah, you'll pay a hefty tax on Cuban cigars here, as you should. The difference is that they're easy and legal to buy in Canada because we trade with Cuba, unlike the hypocritical US (we must boycott Cuba while passing Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China??). Better smoke em all before you get to customs though, or you might get sent to Guantanamo! Montreal is a neat city. Enjoy the tulips, they're all in bloom now. But you might have to speak French, and I hope you aren't spending taxpayer dollars at any of our porn shops or strip clubs! I challenge you to find a single Canadian who doesn't hate George Bush.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 19, 2006 4:00 PM | Report abuse

I think California should make a splash on the list sometime soon.

I'm thinking after the June 6th primary.

Posted by: Toby | May 19, 2006 4:00 PM | Report abuse

$1.072 trillion USD7
$11.995 trillion USD10
US has 11.2 times greater GDP.

GDP per capita
$32,678 USD7
$40,560 USD10
US has 19.4% greater GDP per capita.

GDP growth rate (2003)6
US GDP is growing by 1.5 greater rate.

Personal Disposable Income per capita (2002)1 $18,779 USD
$27,170 USD
US has a 30.9% higher disposable income.
Unemployment Rate (2003)6
Canada has a 1.6% higher unemployment rate.
Total Tax Receipts as % of GDP (2001)6 35.1% 28.9% Canada collects 6.2% more money in taxes as expressed in % of GDP.
Nobel Prize Laureates (2002)5
Total per 1 million pop: 0.31
Total per 1 million pop: 0.96
US has 3.1 more Nobel Laureates per capita.

Arbitrarily chosen for achievements in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and peace.

Dig a little deeper. I especially like the Nobel laureates. Banging Moose wasn't on the list. Or is that moosehead?

Posted by: king of zouk | May 19, 2006 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I think you are off base in not including Florida in your top 10. That race is going to be ALOT closer than the current money situation would reveal. Especially now that it appears that Katherine Harris will be heading up the Republican ticket as the Senate candidate. Democrats are going to come out of the woodwork in droves to vote against her and it could very well swing the Governors race as well as Chief Financial Officer, Attorney General and some close US House races, like districts 9, 13, and 22.

Posted by: Missing your bet | May 19, 2006 3:46 PM | Report abuse

If you are a betting man, head over to Tradesports. you can actually put your money where your mouth is and wager on the election. I consider this source to be rather accurate since it is people who have a stake in an outcome, not windy, bloviators. the odds of a Senate switch are currently 20/80 - not too likely. the house on the other hand is 45/49 almost even but leaning against a switch. Interesting.

and close doesn't really count in this type of election. Just ask Al Gore.

Posted by: king of zouk | May 19, 2006 3:44 PM | Report abuse

that this pres idnent who cares less for you than last years toilet paper, which is still stuck to your face...

decided to take $30 dollars a month away from your citizens to finance his illegal invasion so he and his friends could get rich on oil prices....

and it would prbobabyl been momre effective to have ujst stolen the money anyway....



Posted by: I think it's interesting | May 19, 2006 3:39 PM | Report abuse

The teen abortion rate is 40% higher in the US than Canada. Taxes in the US are higher than in Canada. Unemployment is at a 32 year low in Canada. The dollar is at a 28 year high in Canada. The federal budget has been in surplus for almost a decade in Canada. The national debt is being paid off in Canada. There has never been a terrorist attack on Canada. The crime rate is a fraction of its American counterpart in Canada. Public education is good regardless where you live in Canada. College education is cheap, so many more people can afford to get degrees in Canada (which is part of why the economy is better). Per capita health care spending in Canada is half what it is in the US, yet no Canadian ever goes without care for lack of ability to pay. Health care is a non-profit service, not a for-profit business, in Canada.

God help us indeed if we became more like Canada. We might actually resemble the nation our Founding Fathers envisioned.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 19, 2006 3:39 PM | Report abuse

King -- You're right, Republicans have Democrats right where they want them. What genius to intentionally drive their own poll numbers down into the thirties, commit various ethical abuses and get their majority leader indicted, spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a war of choice, and then pull things out in the end by.....adopting.....the Democrat's plan for withdrawing troops?!

Karl Rove is good King, but I don't think even he can sell that load of goods to the American people. Dollars to donuts at least one house of congress flips in November and Dems come VERY close in the other. People don't trust this President anymore, and Congressional republicans are going to pay the price. Seriously, I'd pace even money on that proposition right now.

Posted by: Colin | May 19, 2006 3:37 PM | Report abuse


it doesn't cost any more, and actually saves you money in the long run...

it's self referencing, resonant in energetic terms, non-destructive unless you're a liar...

I like to destory those, they make a nice little ' poo f '

when they explode,

like a "devils puffball,' when you kick 'em...

hee hee heeeeeeeeeeeeeee!


Posted by: try some | May 19, 2006 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Oh lighten up, do you ever take a breath.

Here's a fact. You live in Canada and can't vote here. therefore, what you think is totally irrelevant. good thing since it is so foolish anyway. Now crawl back to your moose bedmate and leave us alone.

I think the rest of you Dems should move up there too. what a great idea. then you can all live under the protection of US and get all the free medicine you can wait in line a year to get.

Posted by: king of zouk | May 19, 2006 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris, I'm glad you added RI to your list. I'm from Warwick, RI, and this race is certainly starting to heat up. Fogarty and Carcieri had a pissing match on a local talk radio station earlier this week ( Fogarty has spent the last few months raising money and Carcieri has made several low profile gaffes. When the campaign really heats up, Fogarty should wipe the floor with Carcieri.

Glad to see this race on the big board.

Posted by: Mike | May 19, 2006 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Hey Tina, how conservative was it for Clarence Thomas to sexually harass Anita Hill, calling himself Long Dong Silver and putting pubic hair on her soda cans? Is he still addicted to pornography? Is that part of the path to become a Supreme Court Justice??

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 19, 2006 3:32 PM | Report abuse

given a slot in order to legitimize their rape of liberty...

otherwise you wouldn't have stated the obvious....and I'm burning a hole in it and tatooing it to cody's forheard by restating ti.s


Posted by: and cod i rice is a toe kin face | May 19, 2006 3:31 PM | Report abuse

"This is a blog. No need for facts." -King of Zouk

This is extremely telling, everyone!!! They don't even CARE if they have the facts right or not! I think KZ's quote is the official motto of the Republican Party. (Ronald Reagan did say "Facts are stupid things" at the 1988 Republican Convention.)

This is Congress, no need for facts.
This is the American public, no need for facts.
This is a case for elective war, no need for facts.
This is a massive tax cut that will create the biggest deficits and debt ever, no need for facts.
This is just a FEMA appointment, no need for facts.
This is science education for our kids, no need for facts.
This is life-saving research that could cure a whole list of deadly diseases, no need for facts.
This is a huge education reform bill we have no intention of funding, no need for facts.
This is an illegal leak of a CIA officer's identity, no need for facts.
This is an illegal order to wiretap every phone call in America, no need for facts.

Mayberry Machiavellis indeed! No wonder Bush's approval ratings (29%) are approaching Nixon territory!

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 19, 2006 3:30 PM | Report abuse

God help us if we ever become like Canada. Little wonder that most Americans find them to be insignificant and unnewsworthy.

Only two good things about Canada, one their beer, two, their whisky. Maybe three, the chance to buy overpriced Cuban cigars. Of course they're overpriced due to the high taxes, eh?
Speaking of Canada, I will be spending OH taxpayers $$ at a conference in Montreal next week.

I'm so glad that Strickland is up on Blackwell and that many of you deem this race as over.

That's great because now, you won't work so hard and the donors can take their $$ elsewhere where it will help in other races such as Washington or Nova Scotia.
And while you're at it, take all your out of state mercenaries too. Maybe you'll lay off all the annoying push-pull phone calls too.

And finally, let me remind you that THE most important presidential race happening is the one in Mexico July 2.

Viva PAN! Viva Calderon! Viva Blackwell!

Posted by: VIVABUSH04OH | May 19, 2006 3:29 PM | Report abuse

enough to vote on issues,

so they need to join groups,

and since they don't have self esteem,

they need to say they _are_ (this)

I don't care about your (this)

it is an illusion.

speak to the truth, it's the only thing worth supporting

and it supports itself,

just like I kicked you fee t out from under you with a few simple sentences.

they are obvious facts.

Posted by: some people are not smart | May 19, 2006 3:28 PM | Report abuse

legitimizing an occupation,

is that,

you can put make-up on it, sing songs about it.

but we are in Iraq because it makes sense to some people with oil stock...

it has nothing to do with democracy,

it has nothing to do with womens rights,

and it has nothing to do with honesty...


who is willing to give themselves away to support that deserves to be called a brownnoser...

do you understand?

I am a citizen, not a liberal, an anti-war, a right wing or a friggin republican or democrat...

if you valued honesty you'd lose the labels...


Posted by: look, | May 19, 2006 3:25 PM | Report abuse


Look at what you wrote
"just because someone is of afro american heritage doesn't make them trustworthy, liberal or thoughtful.

look at Clarence Thomas, and Codi Rice"

First of all, she is Secretary of State CONDI Rice, not just a token face given a slot in a Republican White House. She has worked her way up the ladder of success in her past 30 years based on her brainpower, her strong determination to help Stanford University achieve its budget goals and provide excellent teachers for their students. She helped President Bush on the foreign policy for our nation, and no one ever was pushing her success for some liberal agenda.

Look at Clarence Thomas you ask. What do you have with another person who worked their way up with some brain power? Are you one of those people who just has to have a hand out, people have to give you everything? There is a large group people who don't like Secretary Condi Rice or Supreme Court Justice Thomas who are the Democrats and liberals, so what else is new?

Trustworthy? Ok, so you seem to be questioning Condi Rice on matters of state or national security. Again, if you are a Democrat or a liberal or an anti-war thinker, you won't like her or what she stands for. But none of this is based on their skin color, there status today is based on who they are, the principles they bring to the table to debate in the Judical system and the State Department.

Also, in case you have not heard about it, there is a Somoli woman who sought sanctuary in the Netherlands to escape an arranged marriage to a man in Canada. She was given citizenship in the Netherlands, was elected to a position in Parliment and was recently stripped of that same citizenship. So Condi Rice has stepped to give her passage to the USA. Are you going to give Condi any credit for helping a woman in distress? Can you liberals and Democrats understand Condi is trying to help people and she is not the monster the radical left-wingers are trying to make her out to be. Condi has the support of thousands of people in the US who consider her as presidential timber or maybe even as VP in 2008. She is one of the most admired people in our nation, and I will defend her from other nasty comments wherever I see them.

Posted by: Tina | May 19, 2006 3:17 PM | Report abuse

This is a blog. No need for facts.

Posted by: king of zouk | May 19, 2006 3:15 PM | Report abuse

King of Zouk, try checking your facts. Leahy would chair the Judiciary Committee, not Kennedy. Kennedy would chair the Health, Education, Labour, and Pensions Committee. Intelligence would be Jay Rockefeller.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 19, 2006 3:13 PM | Report abuse

There has been a lot of amused talk in Canada about the proposal (Tancredo made it!) to build a fence along the Canadian border. CBC asked people to call in with their thoughts one day, and most were hilarious. One said as long as the US is fenced in on all sides, let's just flood the rest of it and make it a hockey rink! Another pointed out that fencing in the whole country was basically imprisoning themselves, which some people were perfectly happy with as it would curb much of the flow of illegal guns from the States.

More seriously though, same-day trips by Americans to Canada are near record lows. Probably because the US dollar is at a 28 year low against the Loonie ($1.11). America *needs* Canadians coming over the border to spend their money! Michael Adams gave a great talk on TV Ontario recently and has some books I want to read, on the topic of how Americans and Canadians differ and don't.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 19, 2006 3:11 PM | Report abuse

It seems everyone acknowledges that the more money you have/spend, the more likely you are to get elected. It's no wonder we are starting to live in a country the wealthy, of the wealthy, and for the wealthy.

Posted by: ellie | May 19, 2006 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Larry, you always seem to find some numbers that bolster a certain point of view that is totally irrelevant. who won the election (A or B is an acceptable answer). who controls the Senate? who controls the house? Who is appointing judges?
your answer: but 58% of pre-K scholars think that judges wear white hair.

My fantasy world - gore got more votes but lost, Senate got more votes but lost, house got more votes but lost. Who's fantasy is that? I think you should go back to your friends and confer again - Curly and Moe must be lonely by now.

Posted by: king of zouk | May 19, 2006 3:09 PM | Report abuse

I haven't been to MN in a while, but I have to give Hatch the edge over Pawlenty for a number of reasons, including Pawlenty's numerous political blunders and Hatch's longstanding popularity. Mentioning Pawlenty as a possible VP means little to me. A few months ago we were hearing about Rick Santorum's presidential candidacy. Now Bob Casey has all but killed that just like Mel Carnahan did to John Ashcroft's.

CO polls: check Rasmussen, they've had a few. All the polls they've released in the race have showed it within about 2 points. Too bad Allard isn't up this year.

I, too, love baseball. (what is it with baseball and politics??) Let me sum up Ohio's race this way: Strickland is the 1990 Reds. Blackwell is the 1949-2006 Indians. Admit it already Viva, your ticket is toast. If you want a red state, you'll have to move to Indiana.

Oh god, Wells, don't say that too loudly or Bush could be asking a Scientologist to replace Rumsfeld!! Is there a position for Katie Holmes in the administration? Preferably one with a lot of exposure. :)
LOL! Blackwell may *need* to perform some exorcisms...Harris is just a badly made up drag queen.

I'm also a proud fan of Prime Minister's Questions on C-SPAN (which I don't get in Canada of course). You know, when we're student political junkies, they may say we need professional help. But when you get a job writing about it daily like Cilizza, they call you a pundit. ;)

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 19, 2006 3:05 PM | Report abuse

and giving the wealthy a tax break,

in order to finance an occupation,

to control a scarce resource,

when actually funding an alternative resource may have been more cost effective...

but not attractive to those in the oil industry...

can you fathom that,?

thousands killed, simply to make sure that their oil futures were valid?

Posted by: let's complain about taxing our seniors | May 19, 2006 3:04 PM | Report abuse

If we all hold our noses and vote Rep why did Gore get 600000 more votes than Bush in 2000? Why did Dems get 53% of total senate vote and 51% of total house vote in 2004? Neocon fantasy world is crumbling zouk join reality.

Posted by: Larry | May 19, 2006 3:02 PM | Report abuse

a solid point ov view was looking into the bowl af ter a hard move.

Posted by: that last time you had | May 19, 2006 2:59 PM | Report abuse

a wet spot on my fly I'm waiting to dry...


Posted by: you're interesting like | May 19, 2006 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Hey nitwits, you will all have to find something else to carp about now. It seems the new Iraqi government is starting today. troop withdrawal will begin shortly, as promised. Just in time for the election permanantly cementing the majority status of the good guys (R). I got an idea, let's all whine about the bad economy, oh wait that won't work. Let's complain about high taxes - darn wrong direction again. how about federal education spending - not getting what I need. I know, I know, minimum wage, that will surely lead to a giant take-over of congress. OK sorry for the sarcasm but this blog really brings out the negative side of anyone with a solid point of view. now go back to your daydreaming about the good old days of Vietnam era protests when your ancestors really stuck it to the man. then take a slanted poll and report the results as world-shaking news. Ha Ha ha.

Posted by: king of zouk | May 19, 2006 2:55 PM | Report abuse

speaking of illegal:

you want to get rid of the _illegals_
(uninviteds, the _not_ guests) without spending money as a ruse?

as in,
why do we need 6,000 National Guardsmen walking the borders doing border patrol,

because they understand INS/DHS business or because the president of

"it's all about me and my friends,"

is putting on a show

would you like to, do you want to get rid of the job thieves, without spending money?

arrest those that hire, arrest all congress people and people in the EXECUTIVE branch and Judicial branch that hire or consort with those that do...including their families.

wouldn't 1.9 Billion dollars go a lot further if you used it to prosecute treasonous citizens that pass laws?

take action to protect your country,

before it is sold to friends of this administration

and you are back in the peasant class...

Posted by: and speaking of illegal sexual activity! tonguing is that you know... | May 19, 2006 2:52 PM | Report abuse

To: Sandwich Repairman

Yes, I have have been watching England with Labor's loses in the Local elections.

I think it is pretty much official that Tony Blair will be resigning on June 2007 from what I heard. Did you notice that the person Tony Blair put in charge of the Military(Defense Chairman) is Gordon Brown' right hand man. I am not sure what that means about English troop withdrawal -but it definitely looking like sooner rather later.

Posted by: Wells | May 19, 2006 2:44 PM | Report abuse

hows about taking your tongue out of bushes dererrie'...

long enoughto taste the truth, witless?

you've gotten too used to the taste of offal and sewage...

what you speak reeks of it,

little dawg...

Posted by: speaking of unhinged... | May 19, 2006 2:40 PM | Report abuse

From an NBC news poll July 6th 2004:

"Suppose there were only two choices for president and vice president on the ballot and you had to choose between George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the Republicans; and John Kerry and John Edwards, the Democrats. If the election were held today, who would you vote for?" Names rotated
Bush/Cheney Kerry/Edwards Unsure

7/6/04 43% 54% 3%


Polls this far out are a fool's errand. don't you all know by now that everyone gripes right up to the election and when it comes time to pull the handle, they hold their nose and vote R. I don't think we, as a country, are foolish enough to make the change to Speaker Pelosi, Intelligence chair Leaky Leahy, Judicial chair Swimmer Kennedy or any other manifestation of insanity of the general population. But keep your hopes up. Hope is all you really have.

Posted by: king of zouk | May 19, 2006 2:37 PM | Report abuse

is really a stinky piece of business,

whether you're pro or con...

it may be important if you're dealing with crackers otherwise, it's unimportant...

just because someone is of afro american heritage doesn't make them trustworthy, liberal or thoughtful.

look at Clarence Thomas, and Codi Rice....

sucking up to the man, trying to get some...

honesty has nothing to do with trying to fit in...

McCain was better off not fitting in, now he looks like a emasculated, weak, pandering...

.yah know?


Posted by: you know the race card | May 19, 2006 2:37 PM | Report abuse

To: Sandwich Repairman

You know that Canadians are NOT allowed to blog on our United States Blogs. We are a English Only Speaking country - No Canadian Speak allowed. I knew they should of included another fence across Canada in that Immigration Bill - Damn.


Posted by: Wells | May 19, 2006 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I actually was paying a fair amount of attention to Italy because of the potential for them to pull their troops from Iraq and be the latest to withdraw from the "coalition of the willing", further embarassing Bush. I just read that Prodi called the Iraq war a grave error and plans to withdraw Italy's 2700 remaining troops. If Tony Blair is forced out soon in Britain, the US is really going to be alone in Iraq.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 19, 2006 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Uh, RMill, Missouri has no Governor's race this year. They elect theirs in presidential election years. Matt Blunt was just elected in 2004 over Claire McCaskill.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 19, 2006 2:31 PM | Report abuse

To: Sandwich Repairman

I'm a political junkie too. Have you been watching the Italian race for parliament and Pime Minister. Now, that's entertainment. Prodi just today got his cabinet approved by the the Italian Senate.

Posted by: Wells | May 19, 2006 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Nova Scotia! Hey, I live in Canada now, I have to pay attention to both countries. Given how much the two rely on each other and have in common, I really think it's a shame how little attention America pays to Canada.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 19, 2006 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Nova Scotia?!?

SR you have a real problem and you might want to seek profesional help. There's got to be support groups for folks like us.

Posted by: Andy R | May 19, 2006 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Rasmussen Reports released a poll just recently that put Ted Strickland ahead of Ken Blackwell 52-36. I think you can stick a fork in Blackwell, this race is a done deal.

For true political junkies, the Premier of Nova Scotia just called elections this week for June 13 (note how much more unpredictable and quick elections and campaigns are in parliamentary systems). There are 3 parties in the dissolved legislature, with the Conservatives trying to go from a minority to a majority government. The "minor" New Democratic Party will be trying to hold onto their status as the legislature's 2nd biggest caucus and thus Official Opposition against the 3rd place Liberals.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 19, 2006 1:15 PM | Report abuse


Beebe has held a double digit lead for a couple of months now. As with all these rankings and polls, there is time for change. At this point, the Republicans are losing this seat. No controlling party wants their candidate (imcumbant or in an open seat) down by double digits at any point.

Posted by: RMill | May 19, 2006 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Rhode Island is a tough call. The poll shows it dead even, which is bad for any incumbant. Also, Carceiri had approval hovering right above 50% until this latest survey.

RI is a funny state. There are lots of left leaning voters but they tend to mix up their representation. One US Senator from each party. Gov is R, Lt. Gov is D. Both members of Congress are D's as are the other state officers. Dems control both state legislative houses as well. It should be an interesting campaign but I think at this point, you would have to call it competitive. Whether it stays that way???

Posted by: RMill | May 19, 2006 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Mimosa: You're kind of frightening. Is that the dem. strategy these days...if you can't win an election, just say they cheated. That's what losers do I guess. As for the Gov. races, I'm surprised the Arkansas race is #4. With 6 months to go, this thing really has not even gotten off the ground, and Hutchinson is a real solid candidate. Also, Chris, loved the baseball analogy. You were definitely right on target with that one.

Posted by: FH | May 19, 2006 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Andy: Actually Reilly buried an answer in his response to the question: He's against it.

I don't think the question was posed to Gabrielli.

Posted by: Dan W | May 19, 2006 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Greg G-

You know I thought it was weird that I had not heard anything recent. You are right that the next election is 2008. One of the websites I use to collect national information made it difficult to see that. Thanks. Blunt is very lucky then. Same thing happened with Kentucky.

Take MO out of the bullpen and replace with AK.

Posted by: RMill | May 19, 2006 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Couldn't agree more about Reilly. I was wondering was it me or was Deval the only one of the group that mentioned the Nantucket Sound windfarm (which he supports by the way)? I have a feeling that issue will be a big one in the election.

Posted by: Andy R | May 19, 2006 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Well, as to voting fraud, a lot of Western states are going paper-only optical reader mail-in ballot (no poll voting) this year or next.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | May 19, 2006 12:44 PM | Report abuse

You left some out
NRA- "A" rating- 92 in 2004
endorsed Strickland.
Christian Coalition- 20
NARAL- 50 (was 100 in 2004)
NRTL- 18 (2003-04)
Humane Society- 50
Americans for the Arts- 75
Taxpayers for Common Sense- 50
US Chamber of Commerce- 44
Business-Industry PAC-14
ACLU- 75
American Library Association- 100
John Birch Society (2003)- 38
Republican Liberty Caucus-Overall 43
RLC,Personal Liberties-65
RLC, Economic Issues- 21
Eagle Forum-40
Christian Action Network (2004)- 37
Concerned Women of America (2003-04)- 32
Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants- 50
National PTA- 92
NEA 2003- 90
National School Board Assoc.-60
American Coalition on Ethanol- 100
League of Conservation Voters-78
NOW- 100
Business and Professional Women Assoc. - 46
Gun Owners of America- 50
American Public Health Assoc- 88
American Immigration Lawyers Assoc-33
Fed. for American Immigration Reform- 71
Americans for Better Immigration (2003-06)-54
Non Commissioned Officers Assoc- 92
Fleet Reserve Assoc.-100
National Journal-
Liberal Composite 72
Conservative composite 28
Liberal on Social Policy 64
Conservative of Economics 33
Liberal on Foreign Policy 84
Alliance for Retired Americans-100
Cato Institute for Trade Policy-33
Disabled Veteran Americans-100
Partnership for the Homeless-100

There are more.

What this tells me is that he is hardly ever beholden to many interest groups. I would not call him a conservative, but he is definately not a liberal. He is all over the map as far as how interest groups rate him.

A refreshing moderate, obviously dedicated to social justice issues and working families and issues important to them.

Posted by: RMill | May 19, 2006 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Once I heard that Blackwell(OH) goes to ever public event carrying his Bible - I knew then that he didn't have a chance in Hell (pardon the pun). Who carries their Bible everywhere they go? Does he think he is running for "Priest of Ohio" or "Governor of Ohio". You never know when you are going to need your Bible for one of those on-the-spot-exorcisms. The Bible thing is just to creepy for me. Harris(FL) just scares people with her bad makeup. Thank God, she does go around waving her Bible at people like Blackwell(OH).

Posted by: Wells | May 19, 2006 12:40 PM | Report abuse

The fix is in will the democrats win if nothing is done about the voting fraud??
If you still doubt there was any vote rigging in the 2004 presidential election, all you need do is take a hard look at the revelations coming out of Ohio, New Mexico and Florida. And it is happening all over again. But No will our News papers report that our country has been hijacked by some of the most dangerous people in the Country The Project of a new American Century

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

And what do Democrats do roll over like a bunch of abused wife's!!!

Posted by: Mimosa | May 19, 2006 12:38 PM | Report abuse

I watched the MA debate last night and was impressed with Deval. Less so with Gabrielli. But either of these will take Healey in a landslide. Move MA to 1.

However if Reilley wins, the election is a toss-up. I don't see the middle voting for him. Not only does he have a bad reputation in the state (I'm talking the purples here) but last night he came off sounding like the only politician in a roomful of people who were coming in with ideas and actually answering questions.

If Reilley manages to win the nomination, I think Healey could actually win.

Posted by: Dan W | May 19, 2006 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Governor Don Carcieri (R) facing a likely challenge from Lt. Gov. Charlie Fogarty is one example of why most states have the two postions from the same party. Your second in command is not going to be undermining the leader of the state for their own agenda and personal political advantage.

On the point of the campaign money, Cillizza reports "outraising the incumbent in the most recent filing period ($255,000 to $179,000). One disadvantage for Fogarty is that by accepting public matching funds he can only spend $1.96 million. Carcieri, who is independently wealthy, opted out of the system" and therefore does not face a spending ceiling. So? As long as the millions spent by a candidate is from legal sources, big deal.

Steve Forbes stated he would be spending $30 million in his run for president in 1999, and it forced Gov Bush of Texas to raise millions to take on the challenge of the airwaves, building a base of support nationwide, and paying the costs to get the Bush name on most state ballots holding a primary in 2000. The matching funds system is a way to help candidates compete, and it does require obeying the spending limits in states. The fact that Forbes and Bush did not take the federal funding saved over $60 million in taxpayer dollars.

Hey people, this matching funds stuff is all coming out of YOUR tax dollars, whether it is a state or the DC funds. I say, if you have the money or can raise it, and it is legal, then you are free to get your message out to the people in TV ads, Radio ads, and newspaper ads. Public finance is no grand Utopia.

Posted by: Tina | May 19, 2006 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Chris, Thanks for writing about the governor races. I find gov. races so interesting.

Did anyone notice that Penn. Gov. Race didn't make the list. Last month they talked and talked about Swann, now he doesn't make the top 10 list. Personally, I never thought he had a chance. The only thing Swann has ever done is play football. Do voters really want a football jock running their state government, calculating their state budget, planning their state's future - think about it ? Being a football player does not give you experience to be a governor. It's like Tom Cruise for "Secretary of Defense" because he was in the movie "Top Gun". Gimme a break.

PA- Rendell(D)* 62% up from 52% in April (3rd straight month of increase- up from 50% in Feb.)

Posted by: Wells | May 19, 2006 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Melvin -- Strickland also supports more limitations on abortion rights and is generally to the right of his party on social issues. Whether that really makes him "moderate" or just a mainstream Democrat with a few outlier positions is open to debate, I suppose, but I hardly think describing him as a moderate is objectively incorrect. And FYI, the numbers you cite are somewhat misleading. Look at his record over time and you'll see a picture of a pro-labor, pro-guns, and socially moderate democrat.

For what it's worth, McCain, Hagel Specter, Lindsey Graham etc. also get labeled as "moderates" on the Republican side even though they're far more closely aligned with the Republican party platform than Strickland is. Really, today the term seems to simply convey the idea that a politician is at all willing to break with his/her party on any issue.

Posted by: Colin | May 19, 2006 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Why is Iowa still riding high in the Top 3?

Even Rasmussen has Nussle down by 6 as recently as May 2nd and considering Vilsack is going out on a 61% job-approval rating, its not like Nussle is riding a "Demand for Change" mandate from the voters.


Posted by: Wisper | May 19, 2006 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Oh my god!

Strickland is for human rights, childrens rights, feeding the hungary and farmers.

Call out the National Guard (oops they are all in Iraq and on the Mexican border).

[Sorry couldn't resist]

Posted by: RMIll | May 19, 2006 12:11 PM | Report abuse


Ted Strickland a conservative?

Where did you come up with that?

Strickland is a liberal. The Americans for Democratic Action give Strickland a 95--higher than Dennis Kucinich. Only Sherrod Brown (100% liberal) scored higher in the Ohio delegation.

Look it up, Chris, on Project Vote Smart.

Stickland scores:

SEIU: 94
NOW: 100
Bread for the World: 100
U.S. PIRG: 81
National Farmers Union: 83
Human Rights Campaign: 77
Childrens Defense Fund: 85

USA Engage (free trade): 20
Family Resource Council: 15
National Taxpayer Union: 13

You've fallen victim to the labeling trap--or somebody's spin. Ted Strickland is a liberal Democrat who believes in assault weapons. Doesn't make him a conservative.

Posted by: Melvin Purvis | May 19, 2006 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Survey USA
May Approval Rating
Incumbant Governors

AL- Riley(R)* 59% up from 52% in April
AK- Murkowski(R)* 23% down from 29% in April
AZ- Napolitano(D)* 58% down from 61% in April
CA- Schwartzenegger(R)* 36% up from 35% in April
CT- Rell(R)* 71% down from 74% in April (4th straight month of decline-high 81% in Feb. but still safe)
GA- Purdue(R)* 60% up from 59% in April
HI- Lingle(D)* 66% up from 59% in April
IL- Blagojevich(D)* 45% down from 47% in April
KS- Sebelius(D)* 61% up from 59% in April
KY- Fletcher(R)* 31% down from 38% in April- Indicted; not up until 2007.
ME- Baldacci(D)* 43% up from 39% in April
MD- Ehrlich(R)* 44% down from 48% in April (but down from high of 55% in Feb)
MI- Granholm(D)* 43% up from 40% in April
MN- Pawlenty(R)* 51% down from 52% in April (3rd stright month of decline)
MO- Blunt(R)* 35% down from 37% in April
NE- Heineman(R)* 70% up from 66% in April
NH- Lynch(D)* 71% up from 66% in April (3rd straight month of increase)
NM- Richardson(D)* 57% down from 59% in April (3rd straight month of decline- high 64% in Feb.)
OK- Henry(D)* 66% down from 67% in April
OR- Kulongoski(D)* 35% up from 33% in April
PA- Rendell(D)* 62% up from 52% in April (3rd straight month of increase- up from 50% in Feb.)
RI- Carceiri(R)* 54% up from 50% in April
SC- Sanford(R)* 53% up from 51% in April
SD- Rounds(R)*65% up from 60% in April
TN- Bredesen(D)* 51% down from 56% in April
TX- Perry(R)* 40% down from 47% in April (3rd stright month of decline)
VT- Douglas(R)* 61% down from 62% in April
WI- Doyle(D)* 47% down from 52% in April
WY- Freudenthal(D)* 68% same since Feb.

Posted by: RMill | May 19, 2006 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Short answer - yes, Dems will sweep Governors. In fact, one of the most popular t-shirts nowadays is the one that shows the Blue State - Red State divide but it's been updated for the 29 percent deadenders, and only shows Idaho, Utah, and Colorado in the remaining red states, called Bushland, the blue states being labeled Reality.

Mmm, I can smell the blood on the water - even the multi-millionaire former Safeco CEO can't raise half as much money as the Dem who holds that Senate seat. It's like tearing heads off chickens at this point ... but the Dems are so bloodthirsty they won't stop until they've pounded the GOP into the ground six ways to Sunday.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | May 19, 2006 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Viva -- so are you saying that despite what is without a doubt a toxic environment for Republicans nationally and in Ohio especially, you think that a 16-point gap in a Republican leaning poll is really indicative of a close race? Sorry, I just don't see how you get there without letting what you WANT to happen cloud your analysis.

As far as Blackwell specifically, I think it's hysterical that anyone views him as a particularly strong candidate. The Ohio Republican Party has traditionally been dominated by country club rather than religious right conservatives. Blackwell is far to the right of a significant minority of the state party and at the least there is a very real possibility that that segment simply won't turn out on election day, especially given the fact that Strickland is moderate himself and therefore not a good boogeyman to drive up turnout.

Moreover, even though it shouldn't be an issue there are significantly more Republican-leaning white voters who won't vote for a black candidate in OH than there are Democrat-leaning Blacks who will crossover and vote for Blackwell. There's quite a bit of empirical data out there on this dynamic that shows that's the case. That will also hurt Blackwell.

Posted by: Colin | May 19, 2006 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I need to include Alaska Gov to the bullpen. No annoucned candidates but Murkowski's May approval dropped to 23%. He is challenging Ohio's Bob Taft (18%)for the bottom spot as most disliked Governor is the US.

Posted by: RMill | May 19, 2006 11:27 AM | Report abuse

That should read "sighed relief"

Posted by: RMill | May 19, 2006 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Sorry but Ohio GOP Chairman Bennett is the Chairman of the Board of Elections. NOt all counties used touchscreens (Summit uses optical scan for instance) and there were plenty of problems across the state. Cuyahoga took the brunt because the optical scan went down and delayed the absenttee count. Many other BOE's around the state signed relief when Cuyahoga got the headlines. Hamilton, Franklin, Stark and Medina counties all also reported lost memory cards. Trust me, there is blame aplenty to go around on this one and Blackwell won't escape some of the responsibility.

And moderates and independents never do turn out for Republican primaries. All the internal DEM polls I saw for November matchups had a much closer race with Petro (4-8 points closer margin). He carried the coingate baggage but each had their strengths and weaknesses. Apparently the trade offs you will have to live with, not us.

Posted by: RMill | May 19, 2006 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Viva you summed up why the Democrats are so excited for this election
"Strickland and Brown need big turnouts from All Dems plus the Inds to have a chance of winning and we know that GOPs turnout at higher rates than DIMs"

How is GOP turnout going to be THIS year though? With the current political wind the democrats are going to be out in full force, and the the republican turn out will be down because of low Bush ratings and dissent over immigration reform (no matter which way it goes in the end). I see races like Dewine/Brown being decided that way, and if that is the case Brown wins.

Posted by: Andy R | May 19, 2006 11:16 AM | Report abuse

1. NY
May 1-7
Spitzer(D) 70%/70%
Faso (R) 20%
Weld (R) 20%

Rep Primary
Faso 30%
Weld 21%
Undec 41%

2. OH
May 8
Strickland (D)52%
Blackwell (R)36%

3. IA
April 25
Culver (D)46%
Nussle (R)40%

Blouin (D)41%
Nussle (R)43%

Fallon (D) 36%
Nussle (R) 44%

4. AR
May 4
Beebe (D)49%
Hutchinson (R)38%

5. MA
Survey USA
Dem Primary
May 4
Gabrielli (D)29%
Patrick (D)28%
Reilly (D)32%

Head to Head
May 8
Gabrielli (D)37%
Healey (R)32%
Mihos (I)16%

Patrick (D)34%
Healey (R)32%
Mihos (I)17%

Reilly (D)37%
Healey (R)31%
Mihos (I)18%

Head to Head
May 9
Gabrielli (D)37%
Healey (R)25%
Mihos (I)14%

Patrick (D)36%
Healey (R)26%
Mihos (I)16%

Reilly (D)38%
Healey (R)26%
Mihos (I)16%

6. WI
April 20
Doyle (D)*47%
Green (R)43%

7. MD
April 18
Duncan (D)45%
O'Malley (D)51%

Ehrlich (R)* 43%/42%

Dem Primary
April 4-13
Duncan 35%
O'Malley 44%

8. MI
May 5
Granholm (D)* 44%
DeVos (R) 43%

9. CO
Ritter (D)37%/41%

Beauprez (R)39%
Holzman (R)36%

Kulongoski (D)*
Saxton (R)

April 26
Fogarty (D)42%
Carceri (R)*41%

Posted by: RMill | May 19, 2006 11:10 AM | Report abuse

You got your blinders on RMill:
Cuyahoga County's mess is due to the largely corupt Dem-led Board of Elections.
88 counties used touch screens May 2 and only CuCo messed it up. They did it all by their lonesome without any help of the SOS office. Nice try but that dog don't hunt.

I don't know any moderate Dems that would've voted for Petro over Stricland. Strickland and Brown need big turnouts from All Dems plus the Inds to have a chance of winning and we know that GOPs turnout at higher rates than DIMs.

Nope, you guys wanted Petro to link him with Coingate and Taft, can't do that with Blackwell. Obviously Petro's so-called moderate base was either non-existent or didn't turnout. Perhaps some of those moderates actually turned out for Blackwell?
And what % of the Dim Black vote would Petro have garnered?

If on Labor Day Strickland is up 16 points and Brown is leading DeWine, then I'm worried. For now we are in a fight.

From the trenches: Major VivaBush04

Posted by: VIVABUSH04OH | May 19, 2006 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Sorry Viva, don't mean to contradict but Petro was our worst case scenario from the Dem perspective.

He has a moderate base and support in NEOhio that could have pulled Voinovich Democrats over.

Blackwell is too easy a target. He does not, in any way, connect with ordinary folks. He is a polarizing figure and he thrives on it and seeks it out actively.

TEL being pulled from the ballot will hurt him in November and a minimum wage ballot issue will aid Dems on the statewide ticket.

Blackwell will also be embroiled in a bitter fight in Cuyahoga County regarding his office's conduct of elections, contracts to Diebold, etc. This is pitting him in direct conflict with Ohio GOP chair Bennett. It will not be pretty. Too soon to say the internal fight is over.

A lot can happen in 5-6 months but Strickland's lead continues to grow with each passing poll by a Republican-slanted outfit like Rasmussen.

And with Brown taking a slight lead, it only bodes ill for the entire statwide GOP ticket.

Posted by: RMill | May 19, 2006 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Andy, any polls that I have seen recently have shown Ritter up a couple points, within the MOE. This is a tight race, and an interesting one to watch.

Posted by: Greg-G | May 19, 2006 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Also does anyone have numbers on matchups in Colorado? It seems to me that Ritter is making all the right moves and looks to be in the driver seat. The GOP seem to be shooting themselves in the foot in the rocky mountain state.

Posted by: Andy R | May 19, 2006 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Jake and Rob,
I agree that Deval Patrick is the most charismatic out of the group but I really was impressed by Gabreili. I went into the debate as a true undecided on who I would vote for in the primaries. Now I am leaning towards Deval and Gabreili. I agree with Rob that Reilly is dead in the water. He just seems too political. The other two seem genuine and independent. On if Deval can win. I honestly think that whichever democrat wins they will take the general election in a walk. Deval/Gabreili/Reilly lead in all the matchup polls I have seen against Healey.

Posted by: Andy R | May 19, 2006 10:38 AM | Report abuse

RMill, always enjoy your you really think RI is that competitive? I take Chris' point about the fundraising, but it isn't that significant, and I thought the gov was pretty popular...

Also, I think you mean MD and not MO...Missouri doesn't have a gov's race this year, although I am sure they would like to take Blunt back

Agree with you that IL is not getting as much focus as it should. IL and IA are definitely the most competitive Dem held seats

Posted by: Greg-G | May 19, 2006 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Nationally, no one is paying attention to Minnesota. I attribute this to the fact that Gov. Tim Pawlenty is popular... nationally. He is frequently mentioned as a possible VP candidate in 2008 and has been seen mingling with McCain recently (both in Minnesota and Iraq). But recent Rasmussen polling (April) indicates a difficult re-election bid for the governor:

49% - Attorney General Mike Hatch (DFL)
39% - Pawlenty

43% - State Sen. Steve Kelley (DFL)
38% - Pawlenty

43% - State Sen. Becky Lourey (DFL)
40% - Pawlenty

It's early, and if I were betting, I'd put money on Pawlenty, simply because he is Clinton-esque in his public appearances. But polls have routinely put Hatch ahead of Pawlenty, and he's been neck-and-neck with the two lesser-known state senators. Moreover, he has taken a lot of heat for being too politically cute: for example, he took a no-tax pledge but signed a "health-impact fee" that was recently upheld by the state's highest court (but not before damaging his image). He vocally opposed an expansion of gambling as a state legislator, then proposed expanding gambling to solve budget issues. He has been virtually invisible in the state's recent battle regarding public funding for stadiums.

Minnesotans generally like their politicians to be straight shooters, and Pawlenty's tendency to "overframe" issues by leaving himself a convenient out by using fine-line language has caused some to question his honestly and integrity. Plus, he has closely aligned himself with President Bush, who narrowly lost Minnesota in 2004 but whose poll numbers continue to fall in the state.

Posted by: Minnesota | May 19, 2006 10:30 AM | Report abuse

The news for Governor's races has changed very little. Kulongoski actually had two very good opponents

And I think CC is mixing likiely to switch parties with most competitive races a bit in this list.

5.IL- most endangered Dem controlled
6. IA
7. RI
8. MI
9. MN


Posted by: RMill | May 19, 2006 10:24 AM | Report abuse

JoMama, I think Arnold has improved since last November, but I don't think he's secure yet. I think the reason why CA is not on the list yet is that we are waiting to see how bruised the Dem nominee is after the primary and what his financial resources are like going into the general, given the expensive airwaves in the state.

I think the race could get quite competitive though

Posted by: Greg-G | May 19, 2006 10:24 AM | Report abuse

I'm another college campus type but attending a community college doesn't give me the in that a major college would.
I'm supporting Deval Patrick. Reilly had this all sewn up and has blown it, I have no faith he ccan carry the general election. Both Patrick and Gabrielli have better shots and either of them would have my support over Reilly.

Posted by: Rob Millette | May 19, 2006 10:21 AM | Report abuse

I notice California is not among the top 10 any more. Looks like Arnold is more secure.

Posted by: JoMama | May 19, 2006 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Andy R-- thanks for the input. I was actually just going to ask what everybody thought of the situation in MA. I had the opportunity to meet Tom Reilly a couple of times, and found him pretty unimpressive. Deval Patrick (who started out as the "snowball's chance in hell" candidate) has made a very impressive push for the nomination, and I would be for him if i thought he could win. Gabrielli i just don't know very much about, except I have heard that he is not particularly charismatic. Deval has a LOT of college-campus support-- the problem is that you can't base a campaign on college kids (i know-- i'm one of them). Deval seems to be the only really charismatic and impressive candidate, but I would welcome other views.

Posted by: Jake | May 19, 2006 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Greg is correct. The Ohio race is over. Most Ohioans have a nagative view of Blackwell due to his extreme partisanship during the 2004 election, and he didn't help himself out with his base by flip-flopping on the TEL amendment, although the amendement would have been sunk by election day anyways b/c of statewide bipartisan efforts to kill it. Yes, Blackwell will be well funded(are'nt dirtbag repiglicans always well funded?) but this is no way means this race will become competitive. The "R" next to his name and his cozy relationshhip with Bush and Cheney will sink him like a rock. On top of that, he is running against the best possible democratic candidate - a moderate dem from southern Ohio who will win a large part of the rural vote - in short, the republicans' worst nightmare. Blackwell wasn't even the best candidate of the three who ran in the republican primary - if the repubs were smart they would have nominated Betty Montgomery, but she didn't gay-bash nearly as much as Ken Blackwell, which is the issue closest to the heart of the republican base. Blackwell is the dems' dream candidate.

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 19, 2006 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Last night was the first Debate for the Mass Gov race. Healey (GOP nominee and Lt Gov) didn't attend the debate so it was really a democratic primary debate. I watched the whole thing and this was my take on it.
First Tom Reilly (Current AG) who started off this fall as the man to beat is scrambling for his political future right now. He has started to talk about lowering taxes (which he opposed two years ago) and it stinks of an election year stunt. Also during the debate his answers were criptic and off subject a good amount of the time. I would give him a B- overall so he will get on the ballot but it doesn't bode well for his chances in the primary election (Mass has a wierd system where there is a convention that 15% of delegates have to vote for you for your name to be put on the ballot).

Deval Patrick who is the current front-runner in the race for delegates looked pretty good. I thought at times he was a bit too relaxed but he came off as being very bright and personable. The big issue up here is the lack of job growth (thanks Gov. Romney) and Patrick's answers on this subject were pretty good I thought. I would give him a B+/A-

Now to Chris Gabreili. He has started running ads already and is making a very strong late push for the nomination. I thought he sounded very smart and had some good specific ideas that will help to boost our job situation. He also addressed the legal immigration sitation in Mass (which is the only way we get positive population growth). All in all he sounded polished and pretty knowledgable of the problems facing the state. I think he gets a A-.

So basically CC I see Reilly as the biggest risk of not making it on the ballot. I really think that you will see a three way race leading into september. Also the Democrats were very good about not attacking each other. Some would say that a long drawn out primary will hurt the Democrats but the thing is that no matter who wins, Healey is toast. She is too tightly bound to Romney who is veiwed as a complete smuck by most of the State. Therefore these men are going to do everything they can to be the Democratic nominee because they know that will be a harder election then the general. I would move this one up to 3 or 4.

My odds Patrick 45%, Gabreili 35%, Reilly 20%.

Posted by: Andy R | May 19, 2006 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, I meant that AR is in the realm of becoming a DONE deal...must have FDR on the mind this morning...

And to weigh in on OH more specifically, Blackwell doesn't have a prayer. Strickland has this tied-up. I disagree with Chris...I don't think that Blackwell's victory gave any significant momentum to this race at all. NY and OH are done deals in my humble opinion, barring the capture of OBL, Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq, AND $10,000 gas rebates to all Americans the week before the election.

Posted by: Greg-G | May 19, 2006 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Blackwell is a charismatic experienced public official beginning as a city councilman, to mayor, state treasurer, secretary of state and now hopefully governor. He has been elected overwhelmingly in each case by a wide range of voters, the vast majority white. He has run and been elected statewide while Stirckland has not. He is a modern populist who connects with the common man as well as members of the elite.

While many believe the State of Ohio is in dire straits for whatever reason, job, business and population loss, KB's solution is truly conservative--cut taxes and the size of government. Make government more effecient and resposnsive. Stop increasing taxes thus burdening the taxpayer but also private business which generates jobs. But you know how that works.

The TEL Amendment was designed to cap spending, something the legislature was incapable of doing. All polls showed a majority of voters in support. Monday, Republican House and Senate leaders came to an agreement with Blackwell that they would impose spending limits for the state budget, thus obviating the need for an amendment. Blackwell in turn has agreed to have TEL Amendment withdrawn from the November ballot taking away that issue from the Dems. Blackwell evinced the kind of leadership necessary from a strong executive by prevailing on the legislature to do its job.How often do you see such a thing from a candidate, let alone a sitting executive?

Let me remind you that the State GOP and the leaders of the legislature preferred Petro over Blackwell. This compromise action is a great sign that all Republicans are willing to unite behind Blackwell to retain the governor's mansion. Given the bloody primary between Petro and Blackwell, it was doubtful that both sides could reconcile. This is truly bad news for the Dems, bad but hardly fatal.

So before Blackwell even becomes governor, he demonstrates his leadership in this important area,given the economy is probably issue number one this November.

I'm not predicting a Blackwell win but it's little wonder that the Dems were predicting a Petro victory and hoping for that outcome.

Blackwell is the Dems worst nightmare.

Posted by: VIVABUSH04OH | May 19, 2006 9:27 AM | Report abuse

There's a LOT of volatility (and even sheer quantity) of governor's races, which makes this interesting.

For what it's worth, here's my take:

I think NY, OH and increasingly MA are hands-down turnovers at this point, with AR in the realm of becoming a new deal.

For the Republicans, I think the only pick-ups where they are about even is Iowa, and maybe WI. I would include MI, but I think that Chris is right on that DeVos will sink once Granholm starts her campaign. I think a sleeper, though, will be IL. I think Topieka has run a good campaign so far while the current gov (I won't try to spell his name) has been lackluster.

For the Dems, I would look to Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida and Maryland as other pick-ups. I would also include Alaska, if Murkowski stays in the race. I would especially keep an eye on FL, to see if Harris' flatline numbers drag the R nominee in the gov's race

So, for what it's worth, here's my top 10:

10. IL
9. FL
8. MD
7. WI
6. CO
5. IA
4. AR
3. MA
2. OH
1. NY

I say, in the end, the Dems net four.

Posted by: Greg-G | May 19, 2006 9:24 AM | Report abuse

On Doyle and planes:

Yeah, he's used them for more than just trips "Up Nort," if you catch my drift.

Ironic that in 2002 he used his opponent's use as an issue in the campaign.

Posted by: KJB | May 19, 2006 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Hey Viva, Did you see the lastest rasmussen poll? 16 point lead for Strickland. As I wrote before, Blackwell will be working for the Bush admin after he gets smoked in Nov. Most Republicans that I speak with here in Ohio will not vote for him...all say "that man is scary." He already backed off his TEL amendment. Shall I say "flip-flop."

Posted by: kev | May 19, 2006 9:14 AM | Report abuse

VBOH: I agree that IL (uncharacteristically, I might add) got a bit out of line there.

I've been reading about this TELR thing that KB put up and is now distancing himself from. I am reminded of Bush's more boneheaded moves (Harriet Myers, anyone?) and can't help but point out that this says something about KB's ability to govern. I don't expect you to change your mind any more than I expect you to discuss the budget deficit. However, as REPUBLICAN-run city governments across Ohio have pointed out, the TELR initiative is NOT very well thought out. Any Governor's office is a complex place where righteousness alone doesn't necessarily translate into an ability to govern. Your confidence in KB seems misplaced.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 19, 2006 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Blackwell is more of a crook then Katherine was in 2000, He rigged the blackbox voting for the republicans in 2004, he will do it again in 2006.

Posted by: ssss | May 19, 2006 7:52 AM | Report abuse

That is some pretty evil language coming from the first poster, an unhinged liberal.Say what you want(sour grapes) about the outcomes of either 2000 or 2004 presidential elections, there was NOTHING illegal or corrupt about election proceedures in either Florida or Ohio. The liberals on this blog constantly harp about emotional GOP posters and yet in so many cases like this one, Miss Liberal continues libelous myths defaming both Blackwell and Harris. Come up with indictments, let alone convictions or even some findings.

2004 Ohio election fraud is a liberal, leftwing blog myth. Kerry lost Ohio and the presidency very simply because the majority of Ohio voters voted for President Bush and the votes were counted by both Democrats and Republicans.

Blackwell enforced election law, plain and simple and resisited efforts by the left to torture the electoral recount process, preventing the state from descending into the chaos we saw in Florida in 2000.

Cillizza's baseball analogy is a good one.
Yep, I agree that the GOP is in bad straits now but the election is still 5.5 months away. Strickland has a double digit lead now but Blackwell and the state GOP will fight to the end.

Count on KB to have sufficient monies which is a sign that there is confidence that he can win.


Posted by: vivabush04OH | May 19, 2006 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Actually, what you are doing is lynching an African-American with no evidence to support your claim. Some liberal you are. But then again, you probably think Blackwell is not "really" black since he is a conservative.

Posted by: Silent Cal | May 19, 2006 6:59 AM | Report abuse

Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell's performance during the '04 election was just as crooked as Kathleen Harris's in 2000. The man who refers to himself as the anti-Taft is responsible for raping Democracy. Simply put he disenfranchised minority voters. The net result are more deaths abroad (often minorities) and the incompetence we saw in New Orleans (many minority deaths). Blackwell's raping of democracy means he has blood on his hands.

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | May 19, 2006 6:32 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company