Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Line: Two '07 Governor's Races Heating Up

The Fix tried hard to resist the urge to rank governor's races, given that 2006 is barely over and that just 14 states will elect governors in 2007 and 2008 combined.

But with campaigns beginning in earnest in two of the three 2007 states -- Kentucky and Louisiana -- and an outcry from Fix fanatics for a governor's Line, the time seems right to jump in.

Because of the relative dearth of races and the even smaller group of competitive gubernatorial contests, we are limiting ourselves to listing just five contests rather than the usual ten. The races are ranked -- from most likely to switch parties to least likely.

We reserve the right to expand the governor's Line to 10 races should events on the ground change. As always, The Line is a conversation starter; use the comments section to voice your opinion.

To the Line!

1. Louisiana (2007): Gov. Kathleen Blanco's (D) widely criticized handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina would be enough to earn her a spot on the Line. But the near-certain candidacy of Rep. Bobby Jindal (R) makes Blanco the most-vulnerable incumbent governor in the country. In 2003 Jindal appeared to have the race won but lost in a runoff to Blanco, 52 percent to 48 percent. He was elected to the 1st District congressional seat in 2004 and has spent much of the last several years preparing for a rematch. Some in Louisiana have speculated that Blanco -- in the face of daunting poll numbers -- might back out of the race, but that doesn't seem likely at the moment. Jindal enters the race as the favorite. (The state's open primary is on Oct. 20.)

Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher
Ernie Fletcher, the first Republican governor of Kentucky in three decades, may face a tough primary this year. (AP Photo)

2. Kentucky (2007): While Blanco is ranked here as the most-vulnerable incumbent governor, Ernie Fletcher (R) isn't far behind. Since taking office in 2003, Fletcher has waded through a series of ethical quagmires centered on rewarding party faithful with state jobs. Fletcher's reelection prospects have dimmed as former Rep. Anne Northup, who lost her bid for reelection last November, has signaled that she is likely to challenge him in a primary. Northup would enjoy the tacit, if not public support of Sen. Mitch McConnell -- the godfather of GOP politics in the Bluegrass State. Democrats have a crowded field that remains difficult to handicap at the moment. (The primary is May 22).

3. North Carolina (2008): Gov. Mike Easley (D) will step aside in 2008 after two terms, creating a very competitive open-seat race to replace him. Despite the state's Republican lean on the presidential level, Democrats have controlled the governor's mansion since 1992 when legendary Gov. Jim Hunt was elected to the third of his four terms. Both sides are expected to have serious nomination fights. For Democrats, Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue and state Treasurer Richard Moore will square off. The Republican field is less clear. Wealthy attorney Bill Graham, who has secured the services of former National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Brian Nick, led the pack in a recent poll. Other GOPers mentioned are former state Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr and state Sens. Robert Pittenger and Fred Smith.

4. Washington (2008): Ask any Republican with ties to Washington state and he or she will tell you that former state Sen. Dino Rossi (R) -- not Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) -- should be up for reelection next year. After one of the ugliest, longest and most mystifying recounts this side of Bush vs. Gore in 2000, Gregoire was declared the winner in 2004, but Rossi has never stopped running. Gregoire clearly understands the extent of her vulnerability and at the end of 2006 had raised more than $1.5 million for her reelection race. If Rossi runs -- and we expect he will -- this will be one of the top races of the 2008 cycle.

5. Missouri (2008): It came down to Missouri and Indiana for the last spot on the Line, but we went with the Show Me State because Democrats appear to have coalesced behind state Attorney General Jay Nixon as their candidate to take on Gov. Matt Blunt (R) (the Democratic field remains largely unformed in the Hoosier State). Nixon is a perennial candidate -- he has run statewide six times and won four of those races, and he comes with his fair share of pluses and minuses. But Blunt has struggled to overcome his image as a "boy governor" (he was elected at age 33 and is the son of House GOP Whip Roy Blunt), and Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D) win in 2006 suggests Missouri may be moving back into the toss-up column in statewide races.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 12, 2007; 5:30 AM ET
Categories:  Governors , The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Chris Dodd's Kitchen Cabinet
Next: Romney, McCain Tout New Backers

Comments

perfect tits


small tits


[url=http://atk.jp/vsod ]
perfect tits
[/url]

Posted by: young tits | February 6, 2007 6:51 PM | Report abuse

big tits round asses


teen tits


[url=http://s-url.net/0q8f/ ]
big black tits
[/url]

Posted by: big tits | February 4, 2007 12:35 AM | Report abuse

black tits


tiny tits


[url=http://ttu.cc/3690 ]
huge tits
[/url]

Posted by: big black tits | February 2, 2007 9:46 PM | Report abuse

jenna jameson sex


jenna jameson clips


[url=http://kuso.cc/1cn@ ]
jenna jameson sex
[/url]

Posted by: jenna jameson sex | February 2, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

As a North Carolinian, I believe Bill Graham is going to be our next governor in 08'. He has organized a grass roots movement against the gas tax, and could easily use those folks in the movement to help him win the GOP nomination and eventually, the governorship. I think Graham will be able to beat Perdue or Moore. I think Perdue will win the nomination fight, which should allow Graham an easier general. If Perdue wins, she will inherit the "gas tax curse" which Graham has organized his group to fight. Plus, Graham will have alot of money to campaign and win this race. Graham has already solidified his base and grass-roots movement and will have the money to pick it up statewide when he needs too. As for the dem., they will have to convince NC voters that Graham's gas tax cut's are but a bunch of hot air.

Posted by: reason | January 25, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Matt Blunt - Roy is his father.
Otherwise, you're right. The anti-blunt stickers can be found everywhere. Although it is not hard to find a Missourian who still has their W'04 sticker on, you'd be hard-pressed to find one that has yet to shamefully remove their Blunt sticker...

"BLUNT IS NOT SHARP" happens to be my personal favorite anti-Blunt bumper sticker...

Posted by: Nicole | January 20, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

McCain is the leading proponent of troop increases in Iraq. In fact, he wants a larger increase than W. There are no baseless charges here, for crying out loud. Read the papers, mags, and watch the T.V. McCain knows that an end to the Iraq debacle means his chances to be elected in 08 diminish significantly, and they should. He's supported Bush far too often to shed his association with our clueless leader. We don't need McCain anymore than we needed Bush.

Posted by: gvanhee | January 18, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's biggest impediment is her senseless adherence to the liberal hawk stance on the Iraq war. Her attachment to the Democratic Leadership Council and its corporate agenda alienate most party activiists and those with any degree of political literacy in the Democratic Party. Barrack Obama's failure to define himself as anything else other than a bootstrap success story full of optimism for America and whatever he means about a new politics have far to many people scratching their heads about who he actually is. Race and gender may have an effect, but they would be in a similar position even if they were two white guys. John Edwards has a strong lead in Iowa according to the latest Zogby poll. How can you possibly be dumb or duplicitous enough to declare the Democratic primaries of '08 to be nothing more than a he said/she said match race?

Posted by: Retired Catholic | January 18, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Roy Blunt should top the list or at least tie with Blanco for most vulnerable governor. He has polled as low as 30 percent (lower than even Bush). He slashed 90,000 people off medicaid and sharply reduced benefits for instance if you have an electric wheel chair the replacement battery is no longer covered and one set of glasses every two years regardless of need. (Yet he and the Republican legislature have their health insurance)
At a Missouri-Illinois basketball game last year he was roundly booed. I havemany bumperstickers saying Save Missouri from Blunt Trauma for well over a year. The Democrats have bounced back with McCaskill and state auditor victory. The Republicnas best chance would be to defeat him in primary but would still have to explain their support for him.

Posted by: Franco | January 16, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Roy Blunt should top the list or at least tie with Blanco for most vulnerable governor. He has polled as low as 30 percent (lower than even Bush). He slashed 90,000 people off medicaid and sharply reduced benefits for instance if you have an electric wheel chair the replacement battery is no longer covered and one set of glasses every two years regardless of need. (Yet he and the Republican legislature have their health insurance)
At a Missouri-Illinois basketball game last year he was roundly booed. I havemany bumperstickers saying Save Missouri from Blunt Trauma for well over a year. The Democrats have bounced back with McCaskill and state auditor victory. The Republicnas best chance would be to defeat him in primary but would still have to explain their support for him.

Posted by: Franco | January 16, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Wrong, Carmel IN Republican. Mayor Bart Peterson has approval ratings in the 60s. He's no flop. He still will probably not run, even though he would likely have a strong candidacy against unpopular Gov. Mitch Daniels, because he wants to run for a 3d term, which he will probably win by 30+ points in 07. Tough to run in back-to-back years. He could raise tons of cash and is popular in central IN even among Repubs in the suburban counties.

Posted by: Indy Hoosier | January 15, 2007 11:08 PM | Report abuse

xjspzx@peoplepc.com
Chris, I'm a political junkie like you, so if you read this and get the time, you gotta tell me who you think has the edge for the Democratic nomination for Governor of Kentucky.

Posted by: Justin P of FL | January 15, 2007 9:32 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic primary for Governor of Kentucky is hard to figure out. Perhaps Miller may be the frontrunner due to serving his second term as state treasurer and being the only guy that's not "yesterday." But due to the fact that Beshear is running with a state senator and '04 U.S. Senate nominee that almost won named Dr. Daniel Mongiardo, I lean that he may have the edge. But the fact that though he was both Lt. Gov. & AG, he hasn't served in public office for 20 years makes me unsure about him. Though there is a lot of speculation that AG Greg Stumbo will run I think he would've announced by now, and he doesnt lack controversy. I don't think former Lt. Gov. Steve Henry will get far due to his own ethics problems. I was expecting KY to go blue in '07 until I discovered that former Rep. Anne Northup is actually expected to run, and its not just speculation. Unless theres a Dem in the field that is stronger than it seems to me at this point, I would call Northup THE frontrunner.

Posted by: Justin P of FL | January 15, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

After George W. Bush, the voters of this country will be a lot less inclined to commit suicide by voting in anything that remotely resembles this madman and fool. So you can pretty much kiss of Romney, Bobby Jindal, but especially Washington's Dino Rossi. He's a Bush clone and a certified lunatic and no sane person would even think of voting for him. Most of my family lives in Washington and are registered Republican's and they, all of them, flat out loathe Bush and think Rossi is basically his evil twin. Stick a fork in him, he's done.

Posted by: MikeB | January 15, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Just days after President Bush unveiled a new war plan calling for more than 20,000 additional American troops in Iraq, the heart of the effort -- a major push to secure the capital -- faces some of its fiercest resistance from the very people it depends on for success: Iraqi government officials.

American military officials have spent days huddled in meetings with Iraqi officers in a race to turn blueprints drawn up in Washington into a plan that will work on the ground in Baghdad. With the first American and Iraqi units dedicated to the plan due to be in place within weeks, time is short for setting details of what American officers view as the decisive battle of the war.

But the signs so far have unnerved some Americans working on the plan, who have described a web of problems -- ranging from a contested chain of command to how to protect American troops deployed in some of Baghdad's most dangerous districts -- that some fear could hobble the effort before it begins.

First among the American concerns is a Shiite-led government that has been so dogmatic in its attitude that the Americans worry that they will be frustrated in their aim of cracking down equally on Shiite and Sunni extremists, a strategy President Bush has declared central to the plan.

"We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem," said an American military official in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan. "We are being played like a pawn."

Posted by: Anonymous | January 15, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

'Elsewhere, a weekend cold snap that had worried citrus growers and other farmers in California produced rare freezing temperatures Monday in southern Arizona. The 8 a.m. reading in Phoenix was 29, the weather service said.'

Posted by: Anonymous | January 15, 2007 11:04 AM | Report abuse

'A second story in the Times has a somewhat different angle on the Rice interview: The quarrel between the secretary of state and Sen. Barbara Boxer, who supposedly took a shot at Rice's lack of children during Thursday's Senate hearings. Sayeth Rice to the NYT: "I thought it was O.K. to be single. I thought it was O.K. to not have children, and I thought you could still make good decisions on behalf of the country if you were single and didn't have children." Is Rice's umbrage understandable? Here is Boxer's original comment: "Who pays the price [in Iraq]? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families. And I just want to bring us back to that fact."

Rice's typical repug gambit: Take an innocent remark out of context, blow it into a big personal deal, thereby taking simple people's minds off the original point -- Rice is sending other people's children off to die. She is asking other people for sacrifices she will not be making herself.

She made the choice about not having children. Why do we now have to listen to her whine like a big baby over it?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 15, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

'And so the Bush Administration has begun cribbing from a very different doctrine: Richard Nixon's. The Nixon Doctrine is the foreign policy equivalent of outsourcing. Nixon unveiled it in 1969 to a nation wearied by Vietnam. No longer would Americans man the front lines against global communism. In Vietnam, we would turn the fighting over to Saigon. In the Persian Gulf, we would build up Iran to check Soviet expansion.'

We created -- we trained, we equipped, we financed Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Ladin, among many other terrorists. We built up Iran to where it is, and Bush calls it 'the biggest threat to America today' -- in other words, today's boogieman. Althouth the truth, Iran appears to be mostly talk.

But we will undoubtedly create someone or something that is a far larger threat to us to counter the threat we think we face, because have become fearful and irrational and we cannot learn from our mistakes.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 15, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

An interesting article. How the mighty have fallen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/13/AR2007011301189.html

"House GOP Shows Its Fractiousness In the Minority

"You're freer to vote your conscience," said Rep. Jo Anne Emerson (R-Mo.), who received an 88 percent voting record from the American Conservative Union in 2005 but has so far sided with Democrats on new budget rules, Medicare prescription-drug negotiations, raising the minimum wage and funding stem cell research. "Or, really, I feel free to represent my constituents exactly as they want me to be."

Last year, Rep. Deborah Pryce (Ohio) was a powerful member of the Republican leadership, responsible for uniting her fractious colleagues behind a single message. After narrowly escaping defeat in November, the swing-district Republican bolted from her party's leadership last year. Last week, she virtually bolted from the party.

With just one exception, Pryce sided with the new Democratic majority on every major bill and rule change that came to a vote in the past two weeks, even voting against her party on a procedural vote, a move considered heretical in the years of GOP control.

"Republican discipline was critically important when we were passing legislation and moving an agenda," House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said. "The Democrats will soon move from these issues that poll at 80, 90 percent to issues that really matter." "

Issues that poll that well don't matter? Interesting that Blunt thinks so extremely little of democracy. Interesting that R congresspeople think that discipline means not voting either your conscience or the interests of your constituents.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | January 14, 2007 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Go Blanco - we love you!

Posted by: Jan | January 14, 2007 2:18 AM | Report abuse

Will Gov. Lynch in New Hampshire seek re-election or will run for the U.S. Senate.

Just wonderin'

Posted by: Conan The Librarian | January 14, 2007 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Drindl: My comment about Sen. Clinton being like the President is from the perspective that she has a hidebound ideology, which I don't see her straying from.

My impression after watching her, and as importantly those who work for her, closely over the past 16 years is that the Hilary that people think changes with the wind is just a public image. I see a President H. Clinton as more ideological and less likely to change and admit mistakes. Doesn't that M.O. sound familiar?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 13, 2007 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Concerning Missouri governor Matt Blunt, someone's got to beat him in the next election. His cutting back of the social services is creating financial havoc among the state's poor and disabled.

Posted by: TruthProbe | January 13, 2007 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Concerning Missouri governor Matt Blunt, someone's got to beat him in the next election. His cutting back of the social services is creating financial havoc among the state's poor and disabled.

Posted by: TruthProbe | January 13, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

I must respond when my gal Hillary is not to your liking. Carol, Truth Hunter, and drindl. I really do hate to see such nice ladies as you cast a losing vote for the next POTUS. Hillary is now in the most troubled part of the world trying to gain more knowledge as to how to try and possiblely fix at least some of the mess this present bozo has gotten us into.

Posted by: lylepink | January 13, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

My name is KARL from ZOUK. I am currently serving in ZOUK to destroy the army of occupation of the yellow dog LIBERALS. My IDEAS have mostly been DISCREDITED but there are a few of us left who are willing to do whatever it takes to appease OUR KING. I often LIE AND SLANDER DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS because I am brave and committed. the LIBERALS we face ARE USUALLY UNWILLING TO STOOP TO OUR LEVEL, but we dare not DEBATE them openly for they will POKE HOLES IN OUR IDEOLOGY. when we heard there will be more DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS coming to DEBATE US, we were at first very depressed. But then we found that there are many FREE MARKET CONSERVATIVES on our side trying to help with our victory including Senator MCCONNELL, NEWT GINGRICH, PAT ROBERTSON and the AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE. without the help of these CONSERVATIVES we would have no hope of eventual victory. you see the one thing we could not defeat is AN OPEN, EDUCATED MIND. but since you FREE MARKET CONSERVATIVES always SUBCONTRACT CULTURE TO THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT, we will wait. Is there anyway you can let us know when exactly you will be OUTLAWING BELIEF IN DARWIN?

Please keep up the good work of DEMORT... DEMORZ... BUMMING OUT the population and reporting only our victories ON FOX NEWS. without YOUR constant call for PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF EVERYTHING BY THE SAME FIVE OR SIX PEOPLE, we could not stand a chance of winning.

your friend - KARL the KOCKROACH

Posted by: go no more a-Rovin' | January 13, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

I live in Carmel, IN, right outside Indy. The right Democrat could indeed beat Mitch Daniels, who is excellent but curiously unpopular, but Bart Peterson is not the right Democrat. He has been a flop as mayor of Indy, which has experienced skyrocketing violent crime and declining schools during his tenure. He is increasingly seen as out of touch.

Posted by: MarkSal | January 13, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

'All the posts about "This isn't a real Irani!" and "can I do a trace?"... well, duh. The writer wasn't trying to FOOL you, s/he was trying to make a point using satire.'

--pallly, you don't know the level of puerile propaganda nonsense some posters will put up here -- and there ARE some [althought perhaps not here] who are itching to get into it with iran and willing to believe anything.

Chris, it really is sillly and disappointing of you to say that women would vote for hillary simply because she's a woman. When so much is at stake, I wll vote for whomever I feel will make the best president. It's a survival instinct. women have them too.

Ufortunately for Hilarry, the rightwing attack machine has already damaged her too much. Even people who should know better are accusing her of things she hasn't even done. To say, as someone did above, that she is just like Georgee bush is presposterous. She is rational, sane, and competent. You might not like her positions [or lack of them] but she is no drunken coke- snorting, frat-boy cheerleader with messianic delusions.

Posted by: drindl | January 13, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Carol: My impresion of Sen. Clinton is the opposite. I see her as another George W. Bush, except on the other side of the political spectrum.

She has her own political agenda and "the Public be damned!" The way in which she handled the Health Care fiasco told us a lot about her and the people she selects to work with her.

Her moving with the polls would simply be the public face of an HRC Administration. It's how she acts and what she'd be doing "under the radar" that makes me uncomfortable with her.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 13, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Great spot, guys. Very keen vision. The sand flea piece was satire, not a real Irani speaking literally.

All the posts about "This isn't a real Irani!" and "can I do a trace?"... well, duh. The writer wasn't trying to FOOL you, s/he was trying to make a point using satire.

Given a satiric piece, it is either paranoid or humorless to respond as if you think the writer is trying to fool you.

A lot of Americans have acquired an eagle eye and great appreciation for anti-Bush satire (thanks to the onion and the late night shows) but I guess they have not extended that ability to notice satire coming from all political sides.

Posted by: coas | January 13, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse

"More Lib price fixing. PLease go back to the USSR and wreck their economy if you must."

Actually, Comrade, it's called free market capitalism. I hear that Moscow is warm this year (10 degrees F). Hope you are enjoying the heat wave.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | January 13, 2007 12:46 AM | Report abuse

Carol, I agree with you totally about Hillary. Women will be hard on her.

Men have this idea that desperation for a woman as president drives the women's vote. Wrong. Issues drive the women's vote just the same as any other voter.

Saying women will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman is really quite condescending. CC, do you have polls to back up your opinion?

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | January 12, 2007 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I saw you on Hardball tonite saying that women, when they get in the voting booth, won't be able to resist casting that big historic vote for Hillary Clinton. Respectfully, I disagree. I am a woman voter and a died-in-the-wool Democrat, but I will never vote for Hillary, not even as the lesser of two evils. Why? I care more about the future of my country than I do about history. We are currently seeing what happens to our country when a male President can't connect with the American people, and I think Hillary will provide more of the same.

She will be driven by political expediency, 24 X 7, constantly moving left or right with polls of the day, the audience of the moment or the advice of "establishment" consultants. Her issue-positions will be blurred and she won't take stands. I think women, more than men, want to believe that when there's trouble in the land (as with a hurricane), their President will do what he/she believes in their heart is the morally right thing to do. I will never know what Hillary really thinks about anything. I will never be able to guess
what is in her heart. Therefore, I will never trust her. There are women I would vote for, but she's not one of them. Mike Allen was right when he said, on Hardball, that she will have more problems with women voters than with men.

Posted by: Carol | January 12, 2007 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Come on OH PLEASE,

Stop reading the IN GOP talking points. Take a look at how much $$ was spent in Northern IN Republican districts that Demos didn't spend a dime on. Districts that are usually 70% R and they were down in the 50's because of your man. Plus, Donnelly was helped by your man Mitch on time zones and the toll road. Every new district (four total) won by the Demos was helped by mini-Gov. (Time, toll road, and his arrogance)

Posted by: Indy Hoosier | January 12, 2007 7:22 PM | Report abuse

zouk -- you are kamal. please, get over it. what a child you are.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Kamal - thanks for notifying us of your intentions. You have also let us know about your location so expect a visit from a Navy aircraft soon. enjoy your 72 year-old virgin. See you in hell.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 12, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Upset Reader: Talk about the social gathering from hell if this group got together. I would hardly compare a blog to any kind of gathering.

As for the topic, I believe that Bobby Jindal will be the next gov. of LA. He has become very popular indeed in the wake of the disaster that has been the governorship of Blanco.

Posted by: FH | January 12, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
I think you are proving that Washington DC is a long way away from Washington state. Yes, obsessed Republican diehards are still muttering about the 2004 election, but Gregoire has done a fine job as governor. Her performance has been applauded by citizens of all persuasions. The 2008 election will be based on her record, not the recount.

Posted by: larry | January 12, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
I think you are proving that Washington DC is a long way away from Washington state. Yes, obsessed Republican diehards are still muttering about the 2004 election, but Gregoire has done a fine job as governor. Her performance has been applauded by citizens of all persuasions. The 2008 election will be based on her record, not the recount.

Posted by: larry Maxcy | January 12, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Missouri is almost certain to turn in 2008. Matt Blunt has been a flop since he came into office. He has an enormous penchant for pissing of his contituency. Nixon is well-liked. He's from Jefferson City and will easily take Cole County - which typically would go to the Republican candidate.

Posted by: Nicole | January 12, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I believe that drug companies deserve to make a profit; and that drug Reasearch & Development can be very costly.

However, in a market economy I don't believe that a huge portion of one of the major factors, the Demand factor, should be legally prohibited from freely participating. Particularly when that prohibition is a direct result of proactive efforts on the part of the Supply factor.

I find the support of the drug companies on this blog to be woefully incomplete. The drug companies managed to legally exclude the representative of 43,000,000 consumers from the pricing market. That is a major distortion of the market; and is only due to the political influence of the market player; not the result of a market force.

Drug Company defenders: If the Senate goes along and the legislation survives a veto, simply consider it a "market correction" taking place.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 12, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

As far as to the Katrina Disaster and toll on politicians, Gov. Haley Barbour emerged so popular that the Dem Party in MS isnt even going to run a "name" candidate against him later this year, instead focusing on keeping the House of Representatives and trying to gain back the State Senate (which went to the GOP yesterday, after a sen changed parties, for the first time since reconstruction). Barbour's popularity has thrown the Democrats for a loop b/c they do not know how to respond, and Haley is plugging alog raising massive amounts of money to help other GOP candidates out in state elections this year.

As to Louisiana, Nagin won reelection because he was the default candidate in the race, due to the open primary system Louisiana has, they ended up with Nagin and Landrieu, and I know many people voted for Nagin, just because the Landrieu name is toxic. The key to the Louisiana race is that voters from Northern Louisiana will be able to vote, and that is doom and gloom for Blanco.

Posted by: Magnolia | January 12, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

breakthrough -- even exxon admits global warming now. it can no longer be denied.

' Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations, a move experts said could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on greenhouse emissions.

Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Washington, D.C. nonprofit Resources for the Future. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.'

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Chris, please, please, please! Can I have permission to run a trace on "sand flea" and post who they really are? Please!!!!

Posted by: MikeB | January 12, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

This is sort of off-topic but Rothenberg just posted his Senate ratings for free

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2007/01/2008-senate-ratings.html

It has Allard and Collins as the most vulnerable.

Posted by: JNutting | January 12, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

breakthrough -- even exxon admits global warming now. it can no longer be denied.

' Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations, a move experts said could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on greenhouse emissions.

Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Washington, D.C. nonprofit Resources for the Future. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.'

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

'I was listening to Condi Rice's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Thursday (Hearings! Blessed hearings!), when I heard her say, in reply to a question about what happens if this new plan doesn't work, that she didn't do Plan Bs, the administration preferred to concentrate on making Plan A work.'

Well -- that explains a lot, doesn't it? This is why we are where we are in Iraq right now. And they haven't learned a damn thing in four years.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Daniels could go down in 2008, if the right candidate were to run. My dream candidate, as a Democrat, would be Senator Evan Bayh. But that is probably not going to happen, as Bayh seems to like being a Senator, and may get the VP nomination for '08.
The others who could run-Joe Donnelly, Baron Hill, Brad Ellsworth, Bart Peterson-could win if the circumstances were right. Ellsworth would probably win, but he-in my opinion-will keep his seat in Congress, probably as long as he likes. Donnelly is a better choice for Lieutenant Governor than Governor, but he probably won't take the offer. Hill could run and win, but he just got back into Congress, and I don't see him giving up his seat again so quickly. Peterson could win if Bayh were on the VP ticket, but Indianapolis candidates sometimes have trouble with winning statewide races.
Two candidates who have not been mentioned yet are soon-to-be-former Fort Wayne Mayor Graham Richards, and former Congressman and 9/11 Commission member Tim Roemer.
Richards could run on his record of achievements for Fort Wayne, and use his business contacts to build a network. But Richards is seemingly not that well known in the state outside of Fort Wayne, and he has decided to retire from politics. Roemer could run, but he has been out of office for a couple of years, and he seems to enjoy his jobs in D.C., and has shown no interest in running.

Posted by: Evan | January 12, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Daniels could go down in 2008, if the right candidate were to run. My dream candidate, as a Democrat, would be Senator Evan Bayh. But that is probably not going to happen, as Bayh seems to like being a Senator, and may get the VP nomination for '08.
The others who could run-Joe Donnelly, Baron Hill, Brad Ellsworth, Bart Peterson-could win if the circumstances were right. Ellsworth would probably win, but he-in my opinion-will keep his seat in Congress, probably as long as he likes. Donnelly is a better choice for Lieutenant Governor than Governor, but he probably won't take the offer. Hill could run and win, but he just got back into Congress, and I don't see him giving up his seat again so quickly. Peterson could win if Bayh were on the VP ticket, but Indianapolis candidates sometimes have trouble with winning statewide races.
Two candidates who have not been mentioned yet are soon-to-be-former Fort Wayne Mayor Graham Richards, and former Congressman and 9/11 Commission member Tim Roemer.
Richards could run on his record of achievements for Fort Wayne, and use his business contacts to build a network. But Richards is seemingly not that well known in the state outside of Fort Wayne, and he has decided to retire from politics. Roemer could run, but he has been out of office for a couple of years, and he seems to enjoy his jobs in D.C., and has shown no interest in running.

Posted by: Evan | January 12, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

'Yossi Alpher, former senior adviser to Prime Minister Ehud Barak, writes an exclusive opinion piece for the Forward revealing that former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon told President Bush before the American invasion of Iraq that he opposed the idea. While Sharon acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an "acute threat" to the Mideast, Alpher writes, the Israeli leader advised against occupying Iraq, and against attempting to "implant democracy" in the Mideast. Sharon also warned against going into Iraq without an exit strategy, and noted that plans to counter a sectarian insurgency would need to be in place. As Alpher reports: "Sharon's advice-reflecting a wealth of experience with Middle East issues that Bush lacked-was prescient."

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

"Federal price negotiations will cause sharp price reductions, but this will yield less research and development investment in new and improved medicines over time.'

The same corporate BS over and over. Do you write press releases for big pharma, zouk, or just quote them?

Right now, the average amount of money spent on R&D by pharma companies is about 10-12 percent of budget. Advertising and promotion and administration are about 39%. The rest is profit, executive pay, perks.

And in any case, price-fixing by insurance and pharma companies [which iw what we have here] is the exact antithesis of anything remotely free market.

What wuld actually constiture the free market working would the plan demos have propsed -- to negotiate based on volume. What could be more free market than that?

But that's typical of the Orwellian rhetoric of your ilk. You are a completely dishonest shill for corporations.

Posted by: lark | January 12, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Amen! Colin. And Che hasn't even shown up yet.

This blog isn't exactly anarchy. Those posts which are not on the strict topic of the thread, usually are about timely matters.

Upset: The Washington Post's intentions for bloggers can be seen just a few lines above the "Comments" box where you make your entries.

They are: "We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features."

As you can see there is nothing which says, You Must Stay On Topic. After a few posts about asking that lengthy articles from other sources (many marginally "on topic") went unheeded, I quickly found that the scroll button works nicely.

Actually, aren't complaints "off topic"? Shame on you, Upset!

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 12, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

'My name is Kamal from Iran. I am currently serving in Iraq to destroy the army of occupation of the yellow dog americans'

what juvenile pea brain posted this? zouk is my guess.

Posted by: drindl | January 12, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

I am from NORTHERN INDIANA, the supposed hot bead of Mitch Daniels hatred, since the Toll Road runs through here. You would think there would have been an unleashing of wrath from the voters in 2006 for the "abomination" that is the Toll Road lease. Hmmm, that's interesting because none of the Toll Road counties kicked out an incumbent Repbblican who voted 'Yes' on the Toll Road lease. NOT ONE!

So, you all can go ahead and tell me that Daniels is DOOMED, but you must then explain why NONE of the Republicans in the North lost last year. The Dems gained two seats, statewide, in the Indiana House. TWO! Which should scare the Dems in 2008, since 2006 was such a Democratic year.

The Democrats have no candidate to run against Daniels. They know it, and Daniels knows it. Indiana House Speaker Pat Bauer can't even decide what agenda he wants to lead his 1 seat Democratic Majority on, because Daniels is transforming the state on every level! Indiana may have voted "purple" in 2006, but it is hardly turning from its conservative bend. The South saw the Dems gain too, but I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks it's turning "purple." You Daniels haters are as naive as they come. If you can't earn more than 2 seats in an "anti-Daniels," "anti-Republican" year, I can't wait to see how 2008 will be.

MY MAN MITCH 2008!!!

Posted by: Oh please. | January 12, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

UpsetReader - Don't ya think you're taking this a little too seriously? We are, after all, talking about comments posted on a blog.

Also, what does posting off-topic have to do with "partisanship," which you seem to think is a bad thing? There's actually nothing wrong with (1) having strong opinions; and/or (2) identifying with a particular political party. Moreover, neither has anything to do with abiding by etiquette rules you apparently feel strongly about.

In conclusion, just chill out. Again, it's just a bunch of comments on a blog.

Posted by: Colin | January 12, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

First, thanks Silent Cal, Stephanie, Hoosier and others who posted about the governors. How refreshing. As for Truth Hunter, nope, I don't feel any better. Four posts, so far, after my my plea for the courtesy of staying on the topic of the article. Three are anti-Bush, anti-war posts. All on topics that were on the front pages for everyone to read. I don't want to read about them again. You all proved my point, didn't you. The rest of us have to read through three posts to find one that's an on-point post like Hoosiers.

I feel very passionate about many political, religious, and cultural issues. But I don't rant about them in non-related forums or social gatherings. At a United Way meeting would you stand in someone's face and spew ant-Bush rants? Maybe you would, but nobody I know would. Others may feel the same as you, but know it's common courtesy not to do that.

And don't give me a that's democracy or freedom of speech or you're free to go elsewhere speech. We could stop reading the posts because of the selfishness of others. But, why in heaven's name would someone be so rude as to for instance, force another person to leave their favorite restaurant. Commenters know they have a captured audience and have the responsibility to not force us to read through dozens and sometimes hundreds of off-subject posts. And most of these post cover articles available to everyone, anyway. At least if I were in the same room I could walk away.

But being unable to extend that respect to others is indicative of partisan Democrats and Republicans. And many of America's problems stem from the right and lefts inability to respect each other. The Post has a dozen Bush or war articles every day. Those are appropriate forums for those discussions. Post there. I'll probably post an anti-war comment there, too, because it's the appropriate place.

Posted by: UpsetReader | January 12, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Headline today: U. S. Troops in Somalia.

The last time they were sent in George H. W. Bush was President. He left the mess he created (No plan on how to get out- sound familiar?) for Clinton, who the Republicans continue to blame.

George W. Bush now sends U. S. Troops into the morass of Somalia; is this an omen of a President Clinton to follow? One, who in Bush family tradition, he can dump the mess on?

Posted by: Duh! | January 12, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

My note to Mr. Broder today. He occasionally demonstrates some journalistic integrity, so he may respond in the chat. But in case not I wanted to post it here, in my duty to try to counteract the disinformation machine that our Administration-Media Complex has become.

--------

One of the most effective disinformation memes promulgated by this Administration (aided consciously or helplessly by what passes for our free press) is that we are in Iraq to "fight the terrorists". Only 5 to 10% (according to an independent study by the CSIS here in DC) of the insurgency is comprised of Al Qaida-like foreign fighters, though many participants in the Shiite-Sunni Civil War are also employing terrorist *tactics* against each other. But under the non-stop propaganda barrage here, I am amazed to constantly hear even highly-educated (and I thought, informed) people worry about "sending the terrorists the wrong message" by leaving Iraq. I assume they have been successfully misled into thinking those are the terrorists who attached NYC and have Roanoke and Peoria next on their to-do list.

Would it be too much to ask our media outlets to use MODIFIERS if they REALLY must succumb to using the loaded T-word? As in "anti-Shiite Sunni terrorists exploded a bomb at a religious shrine in West Baghdad today..." and so forth. Haven't we been lied to enough? Or are you all really that committed to the effort to keep a confused public behind this geopolitical oil grab? Thanks.

Posted by: Prisoner in Orwell's Hell, USA | January 12, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

You are dead on about the Indiana Governor's race. First-term Mitch Daniels (R), former OMB director, is wildly unpopular after only 2 years. However, the Dems are having trouble finding someone to step up. Indy Mayor (D) Bart Peterson is gearing up for a third term in '07, and running 2 years in a row would be tough. Not a lot of other strong contenders ready to step up. We'll see. Mitch is prime to be beaten. And Indiana is a purple state, with 3 new D Congressmen, and before Mitch, 16 years of Democratic Govs.

Posted by: Hoosier | January 12, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

UpsetReader.... Hope you feel better. Although screaming in all caps also isn't COURTESY.

The reason posters keep coming back to D.C.-type politics, is that the future of our country is hanging by a Bush-policies thread. Hard to ignore.

Ironically on the subject of the 2008 gov races, The Decider with his flawed policies and threatened vetos of popular legislation may make pesky national issues the major reason for GOP losses.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | January 12, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cilliza. Super job! But I suggest you reiterate, over and over, posts must relate to the article. Offenders should be suspended temporarily from posting. I haven't got time to read cut and pasted anti-Bush entries or anti-war rhetoric over and over again. There's plenty of Post articles on the war and legislative review of the war and funding for the war, etc., where they can make their points. And the same posts show up in article after article. I get it. You don't like Bush, the war, or Ann Coulter or whomever. But I'm sick of looking for intelligent discourse on a particular subject and having to weed through dozens of anti-Bush postings that have nothing to do with the article. Ann Coulter put down the wrong address. Who cares! The article is about governor's races for god's sake. You partisans, on both sides, spoil these comment boards for everyone else. You're like smokers who insist we have to breathe your smoke whether we like it or not. Smoke someplace else. Have the least bit of COURTESY and stay to the point or don't post at all. Don't you realize that by posting off point your credibility sinks to zero? Frankly, these partisan rants that have nothing to do with the articles reinforce the need for a third party in America. I'm so sick of Democrats and Republicans.

Posted by: UpsetReader | January 12, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Judge:
"Federal price negotiations will cause sharp price reductions, but this will yield less research and development investment in new and improved medicines over time. Recent economic analysis published by the Manhattan Institute yields projections that the effect would be a reduction of about ten new drugs per year on average, causing a loss of about five million life-years each year, valued conservatively at $500 billion annually, a sum far in excess of total U.S. spending on pharmaceuticals" From NR

and
"Troublingly, price-control advocates often tout the Veterans Administration's drug plan as a model for revamping Medicare Part D. Either they don't know -- or don't care -- that the VA system is so dangerously limited that it appears to halt the life expectancy of veterans.

Only 19 percent of drugs approved by the FDA since 2000 are listed on the VA formulary, and only 38 percent of drugs approved in the 1990s are listed. That's why Medicare offers more than 4,300 different drugs while the VA plan offers only around 1,300."

More Lib price fixing. PLease go back to the USSR and wreck their economy if you must.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 12, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

NC won't be electing a Republican in 2008. The state GOP is barely an organization, despite having elected two senators and going for the GOP candidate in every recent presidential election. Look at the 2004 field: Ballantine and the rest of the pack were thought to be heavy hitters who could take out the far from dynamic Easley, especially with Bush headlining the ticket.

It wasn't even close, Easley walloped him. The state GOP is terrible at getting out a message and its only successes in state races have come from either Democratic defection, Republican judges gerrymandering (and even that blew up in their face), or 1994.

Purdue and Moore have name ID and money and both hail from the eastern part of the state, where the governors come from. This race shouldn't be on the top five.

Posted by: MA | January 12, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Dear American Dimocrap:
My name is Kamal from Iran. I am currently serving in Iraq to destroy the army of occupation of the yellow dog americans. My friends have mostly been killed but there are a few of us left who are willing to do whatever it takes to appease allah. I often kill women and children because I am brave and committed. the marines we face don't have the stomach to do what it takes to win, but we dare not fight them openly for they will kill adult males. when we heard there will be more american soldiers coming to fight, we were at first very depressed. But then we found that there are many americans on our side trying to help with our victory including Senators Kerry, Kennedy, turbin and the carter center. without the help of these americans we would have no hope of eventual victory. you see the one thing we could not defeat is a united american front. but since you cowards always eventually give up and go home, we will wait. Is there anyway you can let us know when exactly you will be leaving?

Please keep up the good work of demoralizing the population and reporting only our victories in your newspapers. without the constant call for failure by your liberals, we could not stand a chance of winning.

your friend - Kamal the sand flea

Posted by: Sand flea | January 12, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

'North Carolina seems to prefer Democrats as governors, just as New England preferred Republicans until last year. Many purple areas seem to take comfort in divided government - perhaps a phenomenon worth exploring in a future column, Chris?'

This is a phenomenon that I find very interesting - have for some time. It does relate to the Tim Johnson situation, as well, of course.

Perhaps future column fodder.

Posted by: star11 | January 12, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

And in other news:
"President Bush vowed Thursday to veto Democratic-drafted legislation requiring the government to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices under Medicare."

This should read "President Bush made a public vow Thursday to veto the chances that the GOP would retain the WH in 2008."

He can veto what he likes and suffer the consequences but at least he doesn't have to get the seniors really mad at him ahead of time. Consistent stupidity.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | January 12, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

"Truly it's easy to get an easier job done, and much more difficult to get a next to impossible job done. Blanco will be back as governor. I'm not sure Luisianna is ready to vote someone of Indian background to the governorship. It is still the south."

I respectfully disagree on two points. I have seen the destruction in both states, I drive to work thru it every day. Nothing is easy down here, even to this day. As for the south not ready to vote for an Indian, Jindal was strangely enough elected to congress from here (N.O.) The other fact is that the South has for the most part the highest percentage of elected black officials in the nation.

I don't know if I disagree that Blanco will be reelected. We will just have to see.

Posted by: Fred from New Orleans | January 12, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

C'mon Andy, you know better than that. The Republican-controlled Congress quickly appropriated more than enough cash for Katrina cleanup - the devil is always in how the lifetime federal/state/local bureaucracies spend it. As usual, they have done poorly. This is a problem that extends beyond partisanship, and I doubt very much anything different will happen with a Democratic-controlled Congress, especially considering their past stewardship of our tax dollars (Republicans at least used to be good at it).

On Kentucky, Northup won 5 elections in the most Democratic part of the state. She could definitely pull it off.

The difference between Washington state in 2004 and FL-13 in 2006 is that mysterious bags of votes for Democrats kept surfacing in King County until Gregoire had enough to get over the top. Whereas there most definitely is an anomaly in FL-13, no one, including the tinfoil hat-wearing crowd,
has produced any evidence there was fraud. My guess is the ballot design was at fault, and they should make sure it never happens again.

North Carolina seems to prefer Democrats as governors, just as New England preferred Republicans until last year. Many purple areas seem to take comfort in divided government - perhaps a phenomenon worth exploring in a future column, Chris?

Posted by: Silent Cal | January 12, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

As a person who is employed in New Orleans but lives in Mississippi, let me give you my perspective on the Katrina mess. I am sure that politics played a part in the recovery effort but leadership from the governor is playing a much bigger part. Here are 3 concrete examples:

1. Legislation. The MS gov had a plan for recovery and this involved some new legislation. The gov presented this legislation to the Demo controlled state legislature and it passed. This was in 2005. The La gov proposed legislation in special session of the Demo controlled legislature in Dec 06. Her agenda was completely defeated.

2. The CDBG program. The federal gov't authorized block grants to the states to aid flood victims. This is known as the Homeowners Assistance Program in MS and the Road Home program in LA. These funds are distributed thru the executive branch of the state government. As of today MS has paid out over $598 million (9,000 families). Last time I saw some figures, the LA government has only served some 100 families.

3. The LA gov has been reluctant to give Orleans Parish what it needs in the way of Law Enforcement. Yes, the LA National Guard is here today--I saw them this a.m.. But the mayor and the gov. are in a constant squabble on the NG's presents in this city.

And

4. The LA gov cried about Katrina the MS gov said we are going to fix it. This state needs leadership and I do not see that in the current governor irrespective of her party affiliation.

Posted by: Fred from New Orleans | January 12, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

'I wonder if retiring NC governor Mike Easley could a be potential number 2 for a Democratic nominee with national security credentials.'

My hubby is actually thinking Easley should run for POTUS! I think hubby is nuts but for some reason, he is an Easley fan. Could Easley deliver NC when Edwards could not?

Posted by: star11 | January 12, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

'"Someone mentioned the cleanup in La. as opposed to Miss. The answer is simple - dem Gov. in La. repub Gov. in Miss."

If you mean that Repubs can get things done, yes.'

Truly it's easy to get an easier job done, and much more difficult to get a next to impossible job done. Blanco will be back as governor. I'm not sure Luisianna is ready to vote someone of Indian background to the governorship. It is still the south.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

hmm

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 11:04 AM | Report abuse

We'll see how the Katrina clean-up money gets spread around now that Democrats are running Congress. I would be willing to bet that Blanco starts looking alot better now that Pelosi and crew can dish out the cash from the Federales.

Posted by: Andy R | January 12, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

As a Hoosier, I am eager to find out who is going to run against Daniels. Peterson's real problem is that historically the state has shunned Indianapolis candidates, Daniels is an exception and he intentionally tried to avoid the Indianapolis label in '04.

I'm curious to see if any of the freshman Dems in the state - Donnelly, Ellsworth, Hill make a run at it. Donnelly ran a great campaign focusing on local issues, Ellsworth is obviously a star candidate, and Hill has statewide name recognition from when he ran for senator and walked the state in 1990 against Dan Coats.

Mitch (not my man) will be vulnerable, but Indiana still has a distinctly red tilt.

Posted by: Zach | January 12, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

As a Hoosier, I am eager to find out who is going to run against Daniels. Peterson's real problem is that historically the state has shunned Indianapolis candidates, Daniels is an exception and he intentionally tried to avoid the Indianapolis label in '04.

I'm curious to see if any of the freshman Dems in the state - Donnelly, Ellsworth, Hill make a run at it. Donnelly ran a great campaign focusing on local issues, Ellsworth is obviously a star candidate, and Hill has statewide name recognition from when he ran for senator and walked the state in 1990 against Dan Coats.

Mitch (not my man) will be vulnerable, but Indiana still has a distinctly red tilt.

Posted by: Zach | January 12, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

"Someone mentioned the cleanup in La. as opposed to Miss. The answer is simple - dem Gov. in La. repub Gov. in Miss."

If you mean that Repubs can get things done, yes.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Chris, you don't get it and neither do your Republican readers. Here, in the Northwest, *every* vulnerable Democratic candidate won by simppy running against Bush. A very decent man ran for State Senator against an embarrassingly corrupt and incompetent Democrat for State Senator and lost, an unpopulat governor simply clobbered the Republican opponent in Oregon. George W. Bush has poisoned the Republican Party and has wrecked Republican candidates for the forseeable future everywhere, but especially here. So, that candidacy of Rossi in Washington? He has flat out no chance of winning. Mention Bush or "neo-conservative" out here and everyone either vomits or heads for the woods.

Posted by: MikeB | January 12, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Someone mentioned the cleanup in La. as opposed to Miss. The answer is simple - dem Gov. in La. repub Gov. in Miss.

Posted by: lylepink | January 12, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

'Ha'aretz: Israelis and Syrians meet in Spain:

Two senior officials of the Syrian government and an Israeli delegation comprising MKs and former ministers arrived in Madrid yesterday to participate in the 15-year commemoration of the historic summit which took place in 1991.

The Israeli and Syrian representatives participated in a dinner inaugurating the gathering. The Syrian representatives included the legal counselor to the president and Foreign Ministry, Riad Daudi, and the Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Bushra Kanafani.

The participation of the two Syrian officials was made possible following an invitation of Spanish Foreign Affairs Minister, Miguel Moratinos, and his Swedish, Norwegian and Danish counterparts, under whose aegis the event is taking place.

The Syrian decision to participate in the gathering received a great deal of attention in the Arab media and has been interpreted as the first step in efforts to resume the peace talks with Israel.

This further down from the same piece interesting too, "Even though the United States boycotts Syria, retired senior American diplomats are participating in the gathering, including Dan Kurtzer and Samuel Lewis, who were ambassadors to Israel."

Some Israeli leaders are looking to the US for permission for a more extensive dialogue, convinced that Syria can be split from Iran, and that what would come after Assad may be worse for them.'

Posted by: some countries are run by sane adults! | January 12, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

'Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country.

The bare outlines of that order may have appeared in President Bush's Address to the Nation last night outlining his new course on Iraq:

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

Adding fuel to the speculation is that U.S. forces today raided an Iranian Consulate in Arbil, Iraq and detained five Iranian staff members. Given that Iran showed little deference to the political sanctity of the US Embassy in Tehran 29 years ago, it would be ironic for Iran to hyperventilate much about the raid.

But what is disconcerting is that some are speculating that Bush has decided to heat up military engagement with Iran and Syria -- taking possible action within their borders, not just within Iraq.

Some are suggesting that the Consulate raid may have been designed to try and prompt a military response from Iran -- to generate a casus belli for further American action.'

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Stephanie, thanks for the in-state info on Fletcher and Nortup. It sounds to me like the Bluegrass state is prime for the picking this year.

Posted by: Andy R | January 12, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

I agree with some of comments about NC, but let me make this clear, it is highly unlikely that the NC governorship is going to turn Republican in 2008. The GOP field is so fractured and NONE of the potential candidates have the experience or name recognition statewide. Having said that, I think Lt. Governor Beverly Perdue will take the Dem primary fairly easily despite having less money than state Treasurer Richard Moore. Perdue was a longt-time and respected legislator and now she has been elected statewide twice. She has strong credentials in health, education, and she was in charge of saving NC bases from BRAC closings, which she largely succeeded. So in sum, she has the resume to win enough conservatives and men and women will absolutely vote for her to be the state's first female governor. Even with fewer resources, she is close to a lock for the state's top job in 2008.

Posted by: NC Dem | January 12, 2007 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Andy, as a Kentuckian, I can tell you that Northup can easily defeat Ernie Fletcher in May. He has lost nearly all backing and financial support from the GOP party, who are all but declaring him DOA. And with the particularly malicious Senate President David Williams foaming at the mouth to get rid of him (after being his biggest supporter and orchestrating the incredible violation of merit hiring laws by this Administration), Fletcher's feeling the heat, to say the least. So, the typical "it's hard to beat an incumbent" line isn't really in play right now in this state. If Fletcher is still the Governor in November, it would only be due to major campaign blunders from Democratic opponents and a poorly run bid on Northup's part - if she does, in fact, run.

She could win though, there's no doubt about it. The two Democratic tickets that have declared their gubernatorial intentions (Steve Beshear/Dan Mongiardo and Jonathan Miller/Irv Maze) are far from igniting a firestorm of support for either ticket from party faithful. Beshear ran previously and lost, and Mongiardo is a state Senator from eastern Kentucky who narrowly lost his US Senate race to Jim Bunning in 04. Jonathan Miller is State Treasurer and Maze is a lawyer from Louisville. None have "winner" easily wrapped up, by a long shot.

Posted by: Stephanie | January 12, 2007 9:26 AM | Report abuse

There can be only two outcomes from an occupation; either you slaughter the inhabitants and annex the territory, or you leave.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 9:17 AM | Report abuse

As always, I love the people who use the comment field to discuss issues that aren't even in the ballpark of the post topic ...

IntrepidJournal - Easley is a stuffed shirt, and one who actively dislikes campaigning at that. The only reason he won reelection in 2004 is because the NCGOP can't pull its head out of its a** and both a) find a competent candidate and b) run an effective campaign. (I know, because I was working on the GOP challenger's campaign!)

In short - Easley for Veep? Um, no.

As for the 2008 race in the Old North State (as a Dukie, I can't call it the Tarheel State), place your bets on Richard Moore. He'll be much better funded than Bev Perdue, who enjoys little intraparty support from the people that matter most, and North Carolinians still like their governors to be Democrats.

Posted by: Patrick | January 12, 2007 9:16 AM | Report abuse


'In their view, invasion of Iraq was not merely, or even primarily, about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Nor was it really about weapons of mass destruction, though their elimination was an important benefit. Rather, the administration sees the invasion as only the first move in a wider effort to reorder the power structure of the entire Middle East. Prior to the war, the president himself never quite said this openly. But hawkish neoconservatives within his administration gave strong hints. In February, Undersecretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq, the United States would "deal with" Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Meanwhile, neoconservative journalists have been channeling the administration's thinking. Late last month, The Weekly Standard's Jeffrey Bell reported that the administration has in mind a "world war between the United States and a political wing of Islamic fundamentalism ... a war of such reach and magnitude [that] the invasion of Iraq, or the capture of top al Qaeda commanders, should be seen as tactical events in a series of moves and countermoves stretching well into the future."

In short, the administration is trying to roll the table--to use U.S. military force, or the threat of it, to reform or topple virtually every regime in the region, from foes like Syria to friends like Egypt, on the theory that it is the undemocratic nature of these regimes that ultimately breeds terrorism. So events that may seem negative--Hezbollah for the first time targeting American civilians; U.S. soldiers preparing for war with Syria--while unfortunate in themselves, are actually part of the hawks' broader agenda. Each crisis will draw U.S. forces further into the region and each countermove in turn will create problems that can only be fixed by still further American involvement, until democratic governments--or, failing that, U.S. troops--rule the entire Middle East.

There is a startling amount of deception in all this--of hawks deceiving the American people, and perhaps in some cases even themselves. While it's conceivable that bold American action could democratize the Middle East, so broad and radical an initiative could also bring chaos and bloodshed on a massive scale. That all too real possibility leads most establishment foreign policy hands, including many in the State Department, to view the Bush plan with alarm. Indeed, the hawks' record so far does not inspire confidence. Prior to the invasion, for instance, they predicted that if the United States simply announced its intention to act against Saddam regardless of how the United Nations voted, most of our allies, eager to be on our good side, would support us. Almost none did. Yet despite such grave miscalculations, the hawks push on with their sweeping new agenda.'

--Announcement made yesterday that size of active military will be increased by at least 100,000

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 9:11 AM | Report abuse

How is Anne Northup who just lost in her election going to take on a sitting governor? The Dems will take Kentucky this year, that is a fact. Also I don't know if Jindal has it in him to win in Louisiana. I will fully admit that Blanco is probably toast but if Jindal wins he is going to be one and done.
Also Easley is really well liked in NC and as long as the Dems don't get too nasty in the primaries then they win Raleigh again.
Lastly, I don't see Washington voting in a republican in this environment. Bush is drawing the GOP ship further and further into murky waters. The dems are on the offensive and the will keep Washington in 08.

Posted by: Andy R | January 12, 2007 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Webb: And this is a question that can be answered either very briefly or through written testimony, but my question is: Is it the position of this administration that it possesses the authority to take unilateral action against Iran in the absence of a direct threat without congressional approval?

Secy. Rice: Senator, I'm really loathe to get into questions of the president's authorities without a rather more clear understanding of what we are actually talking about. So let me answer you, in fact, in writing. I think that would be the best thing to do.

Sen. Webb: I would appreciate that.

-WOT -- the biggest con job in a hundred years

Posted by: GO webb | January 12, 2007 9:06 AM | Report abuse


CNN ...

In Washington, a U.S. official confirmed that six Iranian officials were detained for questioning. But he disputed accounts that troops broke open a consulate gate and conducted a raid.
"No shots were fired. No altercation ensued," said the official. "It was a knock on the door and, 'Please come out.' "

NYT ...

American troops backed by attack helicopters and armored vehicles raided an Iranian diplomatic office in the dead of night early Thursday and detained as many as six of the Iranians working inside.
The Times piece has more good details on just what happened yesterday in Erbil -- later in the day US troops got in an armed stand-off with Kurdish troops, with tensions over the consulate raid apparently being the triggering event.

You remember the Kurds. They're the ones who like us ...

Posted by: what in hell is going on... | January 12, 2007 9:03 AM | Report abuse

"This is a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost," Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement.

Hagel, saying it was "wrong to place American troops into the middle of Iraq's civil war," warned that Bush's plan would "cost more American lives, sink us deeper into the bog of Iraq; making it more difficult to get out; cost billions of dollars more; [and] further strain an American military that has already reached its breaking point."

And from an AP report:

"I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out," said Sen. Chuck Hagel [AP]
And perhaps we're not too surprised by this in the MSNBC story from Sen. Susan Collins of Maine:

"In Baghdad, the violence is clearly sectarian, and I don't think more troops is the answer to the sectarian violence," Collins said.

And we already knew about this, from Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon:

''I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day,'' Mr. Smith said. ''That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore. I believe we need to figure out how to fight the war on terror and to do it right. So either we clear and hold and build, or let's go home.''

But we weren't expecting this in the MSNBC story from Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas:

"I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer," said Brownback, who, like Hagel, is believed to be exploring a presidential bid. "We cannot achieve a political solution while a military solution is imposed. The best way to reach a democratic Iraq is to empower the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own nation building."
The LA Times picks up on the theme:

Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), who until now has supported the war, said he no longer believes the civil war in Iraq can be tamed by sending more U.S. troops to aid in the fight.
"We don't want any more American soldiers killed ... in the name of civil war," he said, noting that the letter he sends to families of fallen soldiers now has to be rewritten, not to praise them for dying in a grand cause but in the name of security. "I've gone along with the president's dream," he said. "I just don't think it's going to happen."

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), questioning the Iraqi government's resolve to crack down on sectarian violence, asked, "Why put more Americans on the line now in hopes that this time they will make the right decision? Fooled twice, shame on me."

And from McClatchy Washington Bureau:

"I'm not convinced, as I look to the plan that the president presented yesterday, that what we are seeing is that much different than what we have been doing in the past," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

Posted by: repugs in disarray | January 12, 2007 8:57 AM | Report abuse

The Pentagon has abandoned its limit on the time a citizen-soldier can be required to serve on active duty, officials said Thursday, a major change that reflects an Army stretched thin by longer-than-expected combat in Iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 8:54 AM | Report abuse

How about Bart Peterson (mayor of Indianapolis, former Bayh Chief of Staff, Wealthy) against Mitch Daniels? Peterson doesn't have much personality, but almost any Democrat has a fighting chance in 08. The wildcard is whether Daniels can get people to forget about the Toll Road, the new "loop" around Indianapolis, and pretend to be folksy again.

Posted by: Mitch | January 12, 2007 8:53 AM | Report abuse

'Lambiet's item today covers PB County Supervisor of Elections, Arthur Anderson's difficulty in finding a local law enforcement agency with the stones -- or at least, the jurisdiction -- to take on the hypocritical pundit even though a police report completed in late November, requested by Anderson, indicates that Coulter could be facing two third degree felony charges, along with one first degree misdemeanor if charged.

Added to the previously known allegations of Voter Fraud when Coulter used her realtor's address instead of her own on her Voter Registration Application, is the allegation by the Palm Beach Police Department that Coulter seems also to have given that same, incorrect address when applying for a drivers license after moving to the tony Sunshine 'hood where her fellow GOP propagandist, Rush Limbaugh, has recently had his own troubles following the rule of law.

The allegation concerning Drivers License fraud would be yet another third degree felony, according to the Palm Beach Police Department report!

The BRAD BLOG has obtained the complete PBPD report (linked below), which Lambiet summarizes as revealing that Coulter "could end up charged with: one felony count for signing a voter form claiming she lived at her Realtor's Indian Road home instead of her Seabreeze Avenue homestead; one felony count for 'unauthorized possession of a driver's license,' also for providing the same wrong address when obtaining her license; and a misdemeanor for knowingly voting in the wrong precinct."

Lambiet reports that Anderson has been making the rounds seeking a law-enforcement outlet with the proper jurisdiction since, he says, the PB County Supervisor of Elections office is "not an investigative agency" and given that there has been "significant interest from the community" in seeing the matter dealt with. But, so far, the Florida authorities have yet to touch the case. '

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 8:52 AM | Report abuse

excuse the typo's this a.m.

Posted by: Fred from New Orleans | January 12, 2007 8:51 AM | Report abuse

How about Bart Peterson (mayor of Indianapolis, former Bayh Chief of Staff, Wealthy) against Mitch Daniels? Peterson doesn't have much personality, but almost any Democrat has a fighting chance in 08. The wildcard is whether Daniels can get people to forget about the Toll Road, the new "loop" around Indianapolis, and pretend to be folksy again.

Posted by: Mitch | January 12, 2007 8:50 AM | Report abuse

'Ask any Republican with ties to Washington state and he or she will tell you that former state Sen. Dino Rossi (R) -- not Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) -- should be up for reelection next year.
After one of the ugliest, longest and most mystifying recounts'

Funny thing, Chris -- you never make this kind of comment when it's a dem contesting a count, do you?? You didn't seem to have any problem with the little 18,000 vote anomaly that Christine Jennings confronted in Florida?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Blanco is an ineffective governor. I was about to type leader but a leader she is not! This state needs a leader to rebuild New Orleans. It is pathetic for the Louisiana citizen to look over to Mississippi to see the extent that leadership from its governor has rebuilt that equally devistated area.

Posted by: Fred from New Oreleans | January 12, 2007 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Indiana is the Hoosier state...MO is the the Show-Me state.

Posted by: BFish | January 12, 2007 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Indiana is the Hoosier state...MO is the the Show-Me state

Posted by: BFish | January 12, 2007 8:41 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if retiring NC governor Mike Easley could a be potential number 2 for a Democratic nominee with national security credentials.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | January 12, 2007 8:34 AM | Report abuse

I'd be very interested to know what you think about Vermont. I would agree with you that Republican Jim Douglas isn't even remotely vulnerable but the obvious question is why not? Vermont's congressional delegation: two dems and a far-left indy. Both houses of the state legislature have veto-proof dem majorities. How is it that what is considered one of the most solidly blue states in the country can't shake its GOP governor?!!! I've seen plenty of in-state analysis on the matter: VT likes incumbents, Jim Douglas is just a craftier politician than his democratic opponents have been, etc. However, I would be interested to know the perspective from outside the state. Thanks.

Posted by: Andrew | January 12, 2007 7:52 AM | Report abuse

quick little correction Chris- it's bob orr in NC, not dan orr. great post- very informative!

Posted by: Parker | January 12, 2007 7:48 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company