Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Line: Open-Seat Advantage for House Dems?

The retirements just keep coming for House Republicans.

In the past month, five more Republican incumbents decided against seeking another term in 2008. Two hail from districts -- New Mexico's 1st and Ohio's 16th -- where Democrats will be even money bets (or better) to win next year. Democrats are also making noise about two other newly open GOP seats -- New Mexico's 2nd District and Alabama's 2nd, though both are much longer shots given their clear Republican tilt.

With the new batch of retirements, 13 Republicans will be leaving the House in 2008, compared with just two Democrats. The Cook Political Report lists only three other Democratic House members as potential retirees, while 14 Republicans make the potential retirement list.

Since open seats have historically proven the most likely to change party control, it got us to thinking about the two parties' retirements in a historical context.

In 2006, 21 Republican incumbents decided to leave the House, compared with 12 Democrats. Democrats went on to pick-up eight open seats, while Republicans failed to pick up even one. Two years earlier, Republicans had 19 open seats to defend, compared with 15 for Democrats; four open seats changed hands that cycle -- two went from 'R' to 'D' (Colorado's 3rd and Louisiana's 3rd) while two others went the other way (Kentucky's 4th and Louisiana's 7th).

The largest disparity in open seats between the parties in recent history was in 1992 when 41 Democrats and just 24 Republicans retired or ran for higher office. Despite the disparity, Republican pick-ups of open seats that cycle were modest: The GOP won 11 Democratic-held open seats while Democrats won eight seats held by Republicans -- a net three-seat gain.

That election points underscores the truism that open seats are not created equal. An open seat may be just as safe for the incumbent party as a seat where the incumbent is running for reelection.

The problem shaping up for House Republicans in 2008 is not the raw number of their retirements but the demographics of the districts their incumbents are leaving. Of the 13 seats, seven are districts where President Bush won with 55 percent of the vote or less in 2004. It's never good news for a party when more than half of their current open seats are that competitive on the presidential level.

And things could get worse for the GOP. Of the 14 potential Republican retirements listed by Cook, five districts would be ripe Democratic pick-up opportunities, including two -- Connecticut's 4th and Delaware's at-large seat -- that John Kerry carried in 2004.

Given those stats, it's no surprise that open seats dominate this month's Line. As always, the No. 1 ranked race is the seat we consider most likely to switch parties in 2008. Agree? Disagree? The comments section below awaits your thoughts.

To the ... but first a few new features. Before every House and Senate Line, we'll have a brief summary of the races that have been added (and subtracted) since the last month's installment. We'll also pick a runner-up race from each party that just missed the cut for the updated list.

And now, to The Line!

* Races dropped since the last House Line: Virginia's 11th (currently Republican) and Pennsylvania's 10th (currently Democratic)

* Races added: New Mexico's 1st (R) and Ohio's 16th district (R)

* Last Cut (Dem.-held): Kansas's 2nd

* Last Cut (GOP-held): Michigan's 7th

10 Florida's 16th District (D): We've been hard on Rep. Tim Mahoney (D). But The Fix likes to give credit where credit is due. Mahoney has already raised $1.4 million for his freshman reelection fight and has $1.1 million in the bank -- a whopping amount for so early in the cycle. Republicans are headed for a late August primary that will likely leave the eventual nominee with little cash come Labor Day. The roots of the district are Republican and the party will be rid of the looming figure of scandal-ridden former Rep. Mark Foley in 2008. But Mahoney is clearly ready to put up a strong fight. (Previous ranking: 7)

9. Arizona's 1st District (R): Former state Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick seems to be the favored candidate of the Democratic Party establishment. For example, she was endorsed by fundraising powerhouse EMILY's List recently. But the presence of former television reporter Mary Kim Titla in the Democratic primary complicates matters. From her years on air, Titla carries some name ID -- a crucial commodity in a district as large as this one. Republicans seem likely to have a primary of their own between state Rep. Bill Konopnicki and 2002 primary candidate Sydney Hay. (Previous ranking: 5)

8. Georgia's 8th District (D): What do you do if you are an incumbent who won reelection in 2006 by less than 2,000 votes and know Republicans have one of their top recruits in the country running against you? Raise money like crazy, right? Well, not if you're Rep. Jim Marshall (D), who raised just $106,000 in the third quarter -- $15,000 less than retired Air Force General Rick Goddard (R). Not good. This district -- redrawn between the 2004 and 2006 elections -- gave Bush 61 percent of the vote in '04 and will be a major Republican target in 2008. (Previous ranking: 9)

7. Texas's 22nd District (D):: Establishment Republicans seem ready to coalesce behind Pete Olson, a former chief of staff for Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). Olson's biggest roadblock to the nomination may well be former Rep. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs who dropped $240,000 of her own money into the campaign over the past three months. Rep. Nick Lampson (D) ended September with $679,000 in the bank but the nature of this seat -- Bush won it with 64 percent in 2004 -- makes it a very difficult hold for him under any circumstances. (Previous ranking: 8)

6. Illinois's 11th District (R): This is a race where the parties see things very differently. Democrats believe state Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson is an A-list candidate who wouldn't have given up a leadership post in the state legislature unless she felt confident about her chances. Republicans believe Halvorson's voting record can be hung around her neck and pronounce themselves pleased with their candidate of choice -- New Lenox Mayor Tim Baldermann. The district gave Bush 53 percent of the vote in 2004, but given the damage done to the Republican brand and the possibility of homestate Sen. Barack Obama somewhere at the top of the ticket, this should be a very close race. (Previous ranking: 4)

5. Ohio's 16th District (R): Rep. Ralph Regula's retirement, while expected, creates major problems for Republicans. Democrats were already high on their candidate -- state Sen. John Boccieri -- and got even more so following Regula's retirement. For good reason: Boccieri has a compelling personal story (he's a major in the Air Force Reserves) and raised $274,000 in the last three months. Republicans seem headed for a primary, and it's not clear that the GOP brand in Ohio has recovered from the devastating blow it took in 2006. (Previous ranking: N/A)

4. New Mexico's 1st District (R): On its face, this Albuquerque-based seat is the most friendly for Democrats of the top four. John Kerry won here with 51 percent of the vote, and even many Republicans acknowledge the seat's demographics are moving against them. But Republicans may have an ace in the hole in Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White; a poll done for White's campaign showed him with a huge lead in the Republican primary and leading the potential Democratic candidates by double digits. Still, this district's Democratic underpinnings ensure the party will fight hard here. (Previous ranking: N/A)

3. Minnesota's 3rd District (R): Minnesota politics has a unique metabolism. Races develop more slowly and break late. So it's not a huge surprise that the field remains somewhat amorphous in the race to replace Rep. Jim Ramstad (R). State Sen. Terri Bonoff (D) is in the race and raising money, and MN-03 is a toss-up by any measure. Anti-war sentiment runs strong in this suburban Twin Cities district and could spell serious trouble for the eventual Republican nominee. (Previous ranking: 6)

2. Ohio's 15th District (R): Another month and no Republican candidate has emerged in the open-seat race to replace retiring Rep. Deborah Pryce. Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy, who lost to Pryce by just 1,000 votes last year, showed $384,000 on hand at the end of September. Momentum is all with Democrats here; the longer Republicans go without a serious candidate the more likely it is that they eventually cede this seat to Kilroy. (Previous ranking: 2)

1. California's 4th District (R): At this time next year, our betting is that this district doesn't even make The Line. But with embattled Rep. John Doolittle (R) pledging to fight back against his persecutors (the Justice Department apparently), we can't move it out of the top slot. Doolittle cannot be reelected; Republicans know this, but can they force him not to run? (Previous ranking: 1)

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 26, 2007; 5:00 AM ET
Categories:  House , The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Is Edwards the True Anti-Hillary?
Next: FixCam: A Devastating Ad in Kentucky

Comments

for those out there how love to attack me. for those that love to silence the left, yet think Fox is serious responsible news. Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI1nPCuh57g

Calling the true patriots treason. Asking when the republcains are going to silence olberman and the ny times and exile them. Who are the real traitors? The gop sell-out fascists.

You people make me so angry. The more I learn about you, the angrier I get.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 26, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Mark & drindl [aka claudia]: I've been busy the past couple days and will go on the last thread [with less posts], both of you have something I would like to discuss.

Posted by: lylepink | October 26, 2007 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Jason, Colin, JD -

Start your weekend with this:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

Quiz on Monday.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 26, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Colin, I think you are one of the more reasonable posters on this site, and quite smart. However, I've been reading the WaPo since college in the '80s, and it's quite clear to me which side they're on. (Which is fine; 1st amendment and such).

Take a look at their presidential endorsements. Their union stance. I remember when they had to choose between Reagan 2nd term and the Dem, they picked 'no choice'.

Posted by: JD | October 26, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Oh and I meant to mention this just to open a can of worms. I'm an instigator!

"12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution."

The 1st Amendment is fairly clear. We have limited it where there is sufficient governmental interest in doing so, but not that much compared to some other modern democracies, to say nothing of theocracies and authoritarians. The 2nd Amendment is about militias and what not.

Anyone see the Family Guy where they showed the Founders saying that the right to bear arms meant that people had a right to own the arms of bears? Love that show.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | October 26, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

"Would not their overall mood be friendlier on the Big Island? And couldn't we ignore them a lot?" -Mark

Sure, but it's hard enough to get them to work now. If the beach was right outside they'd be worse than 4th graders waiting for last bell to ring.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | October 26, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

I mean, what time zone is the Big Island?

Everything they did would be done later than PAC-10 football. No one would ever know.
Or care.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 26, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

jaymills: "DC Statehood is a 'liberal cause' I guess because #1 it would add an automatic Dem vote to the House (and 2 senate seats if it's really statehood) and #2 it flies in the face of the actual Constitution, the safeguarding of which tends to be a Conservative mission. (Liberals like to read things into it to create new 'rights')."

Now that is freaking hilarious. Conservatives "safeguard" this great document by attempting to make it mean as little as possible.

Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press. Due process for the accused. Limits on cruel and unusual punishment. Commerce Clause limits on business. Civil rights. Voting rights.

Thanks but no thanks cons.

Posted by: Spectator2 | October 26, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Jason, the issue is having a district "exclusively" administered by Congress. I suppose, as Colin said, that the Supremes could say that "exclusive" meant that if Congress gave up its jurisdiction to the new "state" that the Supremes would have no right to intervene. Circular, but definitely "restrainist".

I am just having fun. Alaska is big, but Congress only gets ten sq. mi. max to screw with. Would not their overall mood be friendlier on the Big Island? And couldn't we ignore them a lot?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 26, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

We would have to make the Marianas a state to let Midway cede 10 sq. mi. for the District. No, 10 sq. mi. on The Big Island.

Leave the Smithsonian in the State of Columbia, but make the entire old Fed Complex the Museum of American Bureaucracy.

Build the new Capitol complex on the Big Island of volcanic rock. Make residency in the New Capitol District open only to Fed employees and their families. Provide air and naval defense from Oahu.

Restate ourselves as a "Pacific" power. Pun intended. Have a national luau.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 26, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

blarg-you may be right, i hope the dems learned their lesson from 2004.

bsimon,mark-may i suggest alaska as a new district? plenty of space to work with!

Posted by: jaymills1124 | October 26, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"Jason, the Constitution mandated that the Congress create a capital district run by the Congress. Thus if Congress made DC a state without an Amendment, it follows that some state[s] would have to, simultaneously, cede 10 sq. mi. of territory for the new District." -Mark

I think this is the important section for that:
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Would not the law making DC a state "dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States?" I'm pretty decent about policy, but ConLaw was not my best class. To be perfectly honest, I had to take it twice to get a good grade. First Amendment issues I can do, the rest of the Constitution gets a little fuzzy.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | October 26, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Tsst Tsst tsst. Frickin republcains

"FEMA Employees' Role at News Conference on California Fires Raises Newspeople's Eyebrows
Friday, October 26, 2007

E-Mail Print Digg This! del.icio.us
WASHINGTON -- One way to get decent coverage in this rough-and-tumble city is to arrange to have your own employees interrogate you at your news conference.

That would seem to be the strategy of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, much maligned for its sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina over two years ago.

FEMA scheduled an early afternoon news briefing on only 15 minutes notice to reporters here Tuesday to talk about its handling of assistance to victims of wildfires that were ravaging much of Southern California.

But because there was so little advance notice for the event held by Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson, the deputy FEMA administrator, the agency made available an 800 number so reporters could call in. And many did, although it was a listen-only arrangement.

At the news conference itself, some FEMA employees played the role of reporter, asking questions of Johnson -- queries described as soft and gratuitous.

"I'm very happy with FEMA's response," Johnson said in reply to one query from a person the Post said was an agency employee, not an independent journalist.

Asked about this, Mike Widomski, FEMA's deputy director of public affairs, said, "We had been getting mobbed with phone calls from reporters, and this was thrown together at the last minute."

Johnson issued a statement Friday saying that FEMA's goal was "to get information out as soon as possible, and in trying to do so we made an error in judgment."

"Our intent was to provide useful information and be responsive to the many questions we have received," he said. "We can and must do better."

The story was first reported in Friday's editions of The Washington Post.

"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305484,00.html

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 26, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

What wow. What the heck is going on here. It says Wapo. That's washington post. that is this paper.


"WaPo:

Reporters were given only 15 minutes' notice of the briefing, making it unlikely many could show up at FEMA's Southwest D.C. offices. They were given an 800 number to call in, though it was a "listen only" line, the notice said -- no questions. Parts of the briefing were carried live on Fox News, MSNBC and other outlets.

"And so I think what you're really seeing here is the benefit of experience, the benefit of good leadership and the benefit of good partnership," Johnson said, "none of which were present in Katrina." (Wasn't Michael Chertoff DHS chief then?) Very smooth, very professional. But something didn't seem right. The reporters were lobbing too many softballs. No one asked about trailers with formaldehyde for those made homeless by the fires. And the media seemed to be giving Johnson all day to wax on and on about FEMA's greatness.

Of course, that could be because the questions were asked by FEMA staffers playing reporters. We're told the questions were asked by Cindy Taylor, FEMA's deputy director of external affairs, and by "Mike" Widomski, the deputy director of public affairs. Director of External Affairs John "Pat" Philbin asked a question, and another came, we understand, from someone who sounds like press aide Ali Kirin...read on
"

Somthing is fishy here. Did firefighters start this fire in CA or what the heck is going on here? Why are the stories about the arsonists being caught or killed being buried?

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 26, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

On the VP game, I'm with Blarg.
"I strongly believe that no combination of Edwards, Obama, and Hillary will be on the ticket together."


Mark, in search of a new District says "I vote for the Big Island."

too big. Maybe Midway would be a better spot.

Posted by: bsimon | October 26, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Clark will not be anywhere near the obama or edwards camps. Tehy wouldn't have him. he is supporting hlc. He could be her vp. If she choose him as her vp, you know they are going to hand the election to the r's, by some mishap. Sabotage. I still think the clintons are closet republcains. It's the way they operate. Just like the rush's the bush's the nixon's. I could be wrong. If shewins I will hope for the best. i just don't know anyone that supports her.

Blarg, well said. No obama or edwards for hill. Same for obama. Not sure who edwards would choose, if by some miralce. But obama has the "start power", as they say. Who could get edwards more votes than obama? But I don't see him coming close at this time, so it doesn't matter. OOOHH OHHH. What about edwards and paul? AAH AHHH ;)

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 26, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

" A Cheney without being so sinister or robotic"

:) Sinister.

Darth Vader. :) That is funny to me. Evil old man. Biting the heads off chickens and all

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 26, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

VP Choices:

Hillary -- Bayh, Jim Webb, Brian Schweitzer (if he'd do it). Whoever it is, I suspect they'll be a white man. Hillary doesn't seem like the type that will challenge voters with the first femalre president and minority VP at the same time.

Obama -- Webb, Wes Clark, Biden, Janet Napoletano. He's more of a risk taker, hence the last name, which I admit is unlikely. My money would be on Clark.

Edwards -- Obama, Napolentano, Sebelius (SP?) the gov of Kansas, Schweitzer.

Posted by: _Colin | October 26, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

blarg-wesley clark would be perfect. also, the eventual dem nominee may want to focus on winning southern votes,a southern dem governor would help.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | October 26, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Jason, the Constitution mandated that the Congress create a capital district run by the Congress. Thus if Congress made DC a state without an Amendment, it follows that some state[s] would have to, simultaneously, cede 10 sq. mi. of territory for the new District.

Kansas is in the middle of the country,but we should find a very pretty ten sq. mi.

I vote for the Big Island.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 26, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

rufus-rudy and ron paul on the same ticket? its almost you want them to lose;)

jason-If by some chance Huck's the nominee then McCain maybe as a VP pick or someone else with serious foreign policy credentials. A Cheney without being so sinister or robotic.-i dunno, my thoughts if huck was the nom would be a general like swartzkoft or possibly colin powell for foreign policy.

Romney however may need someone outside of government for his vp pick. a ex governor or senator might sound right

Posted by: jaymills1124 | October 26, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I strongly believe that no combination of Edwards, Obama, and Hillary will be on the ticket together. Especially not Obama/Edwards. The VP is supposed to provide balance, and all 3 of them have similar weaknesses. Any of them would be best-off with an older VP, with executive or foreign-policy experience. Maybe a retired general; that would immediately cut off the whining about the Democrats being anti-military.

Bush/Cheney is a good model for the Democrats. The presidential candidate is younger, with new ideas, and doesn't always follow the party line. (That was how Bush portrayed himself in 2000, at least.) The VP is older, with gravitas and experience, and he dishes out the attacks because his personal popularity isn't a factor in the campaign. I think the Democrats should do something similar.

Posted by: Blarg | October 26, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I'll post this here as well since you guys are already talking about MH.

OT: Slate has an in-depth interview with MH at http://www.slate.com/id/2176629

It's so hard not to like the guy.

Posted by: judgeccrater | October 26, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

VP predictions?

Mike Huckabee for Guiliani and maybe even Romney to beef up Christian conservative support. If by some chance Huck's the nominee then McCain maybe as a VP pick or someone else with serious foreign policy credentials. A Cheney without being so sinister or robotic.

At this point I feel pretty certain that HRC is the eventual nominee for better or for worse (No comments on whether it's better or worse, please). For her, Obama (despite doubling up on Senators) or Richardson. Biden's a good guy but snubbing the first two minority candidates with a chance in hell could have negative repercussions. If it's Obama, I think Biden is a good choice or someone else outside of the race that's experienced. No one really jumps into my mind, though. For Edwards I think Obama's a good choice there, too.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | October 26, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I feel that jaymills1124 . That is why it is so important he runs. To make sure that stops forever. All races. we have come so far in such a short time, since the fifties. Why stop now? We almost are to the point when we can put the top of that pyrimid on now. If we can stop the saboturs from holding us down for personal profit, or racism/classism/sexism/nationalism.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 26, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Huckabee seems to be playing the same role for the conservatives as edwards played in the 04 election for the liberals. VP ticket.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 26, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

"Vp picks for either parties?"

For Mitt Huckabee

For Rudy Fred

For Fred ron PAul :)


Obama Biden

HRC Richardson biden

Edwards obama

Though i think it is going to be mitt for the r's

and obama or hrc

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 26, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

My Mom. She DOES pay close attention to politics - even paid to see Obama speak - but greatly respects HRC.

your mom is one smart cookie. my mother is for Hillary, i keep trying to explain to her what would happen, but her reason for her support is"if obama becomes the nominee, no white person is going to vote for a black man"

race may play a factor in 2008 but im sure if hillary the nominee then the gop wins.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | October 26, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

rufus asks
"Does anyone know anyone that is for hillary clinton."

My Mom. She DOES pay close attention to politics - even paid to see Obama speak - but greatly respects HRC.

Posted by: judgeccrater | October 26, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

ok last post for right now

Vp picks for either parties? well for the dems the would have to go with someone thats a governor.no more senator/senator combos! governors like Janet Napolitano,Brian Schweitzer or Bill Richardson may make sense in the electorial college.

the repubicans may benefit from the same thing. for rudy, he may look towards Mike Huckabee or Haley Barbor. Romney would have to link up with John McCain,Linsay Grahmn or Kay Bailey Huchinson.

well those are my thoughts right now. i thought i throw that out there see what folks think.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | October 26, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Last one. My bad. Don't tell on me :)


"And even if impeachment is "politically impossible in the present circumstances," as Bush enablers like the pusillanimous Nancy Pelosi likes to tell us, it should be shoved to the forefront of national debate nonetheless. Let us have a "constitutional crisis;" let us bring our festering sickness to a boil. Let's lay it all out, and let people declare once and for all where they stand. Are you for the republic, or do you hold with tyranny, torture and mass murder? Let's draw the line at last, and be done with all pretense.
"

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 26, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Congress passes laws forbidding torture; Bush and Cheney ignore them. Congress issues subpoenas and demands documents for its corruption probes; Bush and Cheney ignore them. Bush's "signing statements" explicitly state that he will follow only those parts of the law that suit him. Congress could vote tomorrow that Iran cannot be attacked without a formal declaration of war, and Bush would attack whenever he chooses anyway, calling it an extension of the congressionally authorized action in Iraq, a "defensive" action to protect the troops. Congress can pass any law it wants, but if you have an executive branch that considers itself above the law -- as this one demonstrably does -- then it doesn't matter. As long as Bush and Cheney remain in power, their criminal enterprise will go on. "

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/26/dissent/

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 26, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

"There should be noncompliance, nonrecognition of this illegitimate authority, disassociation from taking part in its workings. No Bush appointees should be approved; indeed, they have already shown their unfitness for office by agreeing to work under the criminal regime in the first place. All legislation offered by the regime should be rejected outright; it is dishonorable to treat with a faction whose unprovoked, unnecessary "war of choice" in Iraq has now killed more Americans than were murdered on 9/11. The only "negotiation" acceptable with such bloodstained wretches is settling the terms of their exit from power.

For above all, impeachment should be moved to the top of the congressional agenda. It should be the overriding, all-consuming priority of the people's representatives. For this is the inescapable, stone-cold truth: nothing, absolutely nothing but impeachment, will stop the Bush-Cheney regime from carrying out its criminal agenda.
"

Chris Floyd,

you see mark and blarg. i could always be more angry and want more. That is why it is important to respect differant points of view. If you can't handle me, how on earth could you halde someone like Mr. Floyd on this blog? You couldn't? you would get him banned or silenced.

Does that mean his perspective is not as important or more than your"s? What if he was albert einstein? What if he was the king of peru? Why does the right feel as though only they have free speech, and the left should be silenced? How do they justify their doublethink? Anybody

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 26, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

sorry had to break it up some

the repubicans

Rudy guiliani-the mayor of 9/11, also a media favorite, socially liberal and moderately conservative. also more of authoritarian type, moderates might find themselves with the neo conservatives.

Mitt Romney-former governor and ceo. he would be wall street's pick for nominee, also he knows how to win in a blue state. he may present problems because of past stances and religion. also could he win a southern state?

Mike Huckabee- the social conservative's canidate. a real pull yourself up by your bootstrap's canidate. may have some problems with the club for growth on taxes and might be confused with the other guy from hope.

Ron Paul- the dark horse canidate,libertarians and dissaffected repubs will gravitate to him on issues like the iraq war or big government spending. is a 3rd party bid in the future for him?

Posted by: jaymills1124 | October 26, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"Does anyone know anyone that is for hillary clinton." -Rufus

Governor O'Malley here in Maryland.

Define "for," though. I'm "for" HRC if she's the nominee. I might even vote for her in the primary, though I'm more likely to vote for Richardson or Biden. I'm nor "for" giving her any money, though. I'm not sure I'd even be "for" giving her a hug.

Things that make you go "buhgh."

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | October 26, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, bsimon. It sounded like two separate pieces of her plan kludged together to make it look bad. Fining indigents $5,000 was far too unintelligent for an HRC plan.

"Mike, you need to find new news sources - her plan stinks, but not for the reasons you state."

Also, Mike, find Rudy's plan while you're looking around so we can compare them.

Posted by: judgeccrater | October 26, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- Ford also would have been pretty comfortable, in my opinion, with Evan Bayh, Ron Wyden, Maria Cantwell, Max Baucus, etc. But I certainly take your point as well. Ultimately, I tend to think the theocons would have scared him off the GOP if he was coming up through the system now.

As far as Arnold goes, I like him quit a bit right now. He's done a very solid job dealing with the fires and, since tacking back to the left, in running a difficult state generally.

Posted by: _Colin | October 26, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

The point is. A good/bad person is so by their actions. No amount of other good, or justification takes away the fact that a bad person is a bad person. Or, replace bad person with criminal. We are a nation of laws, above all else.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 26, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

"The 23d A gives DC a Presidential vote. We would have to amend the Constitution to give the District statehood." -Mark

Not so. Article IV, Section 3 says:

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

The DC as a state wouldn't be formed within the boundaries of a state but within the District. Congress would dispose of any rules or regulations that prevented them from gaining representation as provided for in the article.

----
On another note I've been reading up on the "Fair Tax." I would say that it is as fair as the Patriot Act is patriotic. It's terribly regressive, taxing everything that anyone buys. Sure it removes their income tax, but how many of the working poor do you think are worried about the gift tax, estate tax, or capital gains tax. I can see eliminating the income tax in favor of consumption, but I don't think it's appropriate to call it fair while the richest of us make out like me at an open bar.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | October 26, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

rufus asks
"Does anyone know anyone that is for hillary clinton."

My wife. In her defense, she does not pay very close attention to politics.

Posted by: bsimon | October 26, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

ive been thinking about rankings the presidental canidates for a while. considering the fact that there are really 7 top tier canidates combined(3 dem and 4 gop) it might make sense to talk about them only because most posters dont really know whats going on in house districts(defering to the people who actually live there) and the governor races.

the democrats
Hillary clinton-the media darling and front runner. her being 30 points ahead makes her unstoppable.(then again deduct 15 points for media hype, its much closer)
a centrist dem

Barrack Obama-the underdog and more of a people powered canidate. he would compare to Howard Dean-except for the implosion in iowa. inexperience may dog him thru out the campagin

John Edwards-the firery populist. his drawbacks is that he's moving to the left too much and him attacking the front runner may open up a surge from the second tier(biden or richardson perhaps?)

Posted by: jaymills1124 | October 26, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

I read your whole "You have to be" , JD. I 'll have to say. I'm honestly offeneded. Honestly. Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that all or most of america puts themselves in such a tight confined box? Come now. We are all individuals. Some truths are just universal. And some lies will never die. If you tell a lie so many times people start to believe it. If people believe it it becomes part of their culture. Because the CULTURE is great doesn't take away from the fact. Like a criminal that also does good deeds. The good deeds probably won't keep him out of prison. Might be over you head, but oh well.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 26, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

mark thanks for the DC constitution cite. I was too lazy to look it up myself.

judge writes
"Also [mike], if you can provide the link for your statement "...a $5,000 fine for NOT seeing a govt. doctor" I'd appreciate it. You may well be right and if so that'd be quite the black eye for her plan."

I believe you're correct in implying Mike has his facts wrong. As I understand it, the HRC plan would penalize businesses of a certain size that do not offer healthcare to their employees; and would likewise penalize certain individuals if they don't have health insurance of some kind (though there is some kind of means test). Pretty draconian, on both parts, but NOT the requirement to use 'Gov't Doctors' as Mike claims. Mike, you need to find new news sources - her plan stinks, but not for the reasons you state.

Posted by: bsimon | October 26, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- I think you have the right of it relative to DC statehood requiring a constitutional amendment, but obviously the Supreme Court COULD find legislation granting the district a House vote constitutional. The Court certainly has done more ridiculous things in the past, IMO.

Posted by: _Colin | October 26, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Ford could be in the same Party with Grassley, Lugar, Warner, Hagel, and probably Tom Davis.
I think the two Maine senators and Specter would be to his "left". He would love Ahnold.

He might like Huck. He probably would have liked Gov. Romney.

But I see your point.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 26, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of hillary. Does anyone know anyone that is for hillary clinton. I know a lot of people that dislike her. I only see her supporters on tv. Where are they from and how is she so high up there?

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 26, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary, the self-proclaimed feminist, is a hero to you because she chose to keep her Clinton name and ride it to the white house rather than protect her daughter (and indeed herself)?"

Mike: it's hard to know what kind of mental calculations went on in HRC's mind. Did she look at it in purely political terms or does she actually care about BC? Having read up a bit on HRC it's obvious that she spent a big part of her life being impressed with BC. And no, she's not a hero to anyone here (with the exception of maybe lyplepink).

It's equally hard to know why you think a philandering husband is ALWAYS some kind of threat to his daughter(s). Drindl and I are still waiting for your logic on that one.

Also, if you can provide the link for your statement "...a $5,000 fine for NOT seeing a govt. doctor" I'd appreciate it. You may well be right and if so that'd be quite the black eye for her plan. It sounds like something pulled out of Canada's plan, however, the kind of penalty they might impose on a doctor (not a patient). I searched all your posts on this page so far hoping for a response to my previous request.

Posted by: judgeccrater | October 26, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

"seriously, name the conservative positions the WaPo takes that balances out my list?"

tHEY were one of the main propponents of the iraq war. Their trupmets blared right along with fox. Don't call ALL the media liberal because they recently start to interject a small amount of truth with their advertisments. You must understand people like me want the news to be MORE liberal. Not less. "The truth has a well known liberal bias." All truth all day. Not the same garbage that poses as news. We should have differnat takes on the news. I'm not for shutting down conservative or right news. I am for getting rid or lies propoganda and political attacks posing as news.

That is the differance. All news should be truth. The media is a joke. that is way the internet has gained such prominacne. If we all had the facts from the news we could make much better choices as a nation, all the way around. The gop does not want that. Many dems don't want that. What stops this? What stops americans from controling our country? We do. Our apathy. Our laziness. Our fear.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 26, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, from Art 1 Sec. 8:

to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,

----------
The 23d A gives DC a Presidential vote. We would have to amend the Constitution to give the District statehood.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 26, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

JD -- I tend to think it will be impossible to convince you that anyone to your left is something other than liberal, but I'll take a shot at your Post challenge. Here our some issue stances that are decidedly not part of liberal orthodoxy.

As you already noted/conceded the post deviates from liberal orthodoxy through their:

* Support school choice in some manner
* Hawkish views on Iraq

Additionally, the Post has also

* Supported partial privatization of SS
* Vigorously supports Free Trade
* Supports real fiscal conservatism through advocacy for Pay as you Go rules for spending
* Hawkish foreign policy views beyond Iraq
* Advocate significant deference regarding judicial nominations and supported both Roberts and Alito's nominations to the Crt. (I agree with that, by the way)

Now, as someone who is basically a small 'c' conservative, which is how I would label you (and that's largely a compliment), those issue stances may not negate your view that the Post is "liberal." But I think a strong argument can be made that that level of deviation from liberal orthodoxy yields a CENTRIST editorial position.

Oh, and I would also note that supporting Democrats or Democratic positions more often than not hardly proves that one is "liberal" rather than centrist. If centrist merely means splitting the difference, that would make today's center decidedly right leaning given the modern day GOP's purging of all of its moderates. Seriously, take a look at today's GOP as compared to the days of Eisenhower, Ford, and Rockefeller. In today's world, all three of those guys would be Democrats.

Posted by: _Colin | October 26, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

JD, safeguarding The Bill of Rights is the libertarian political mission. It is definitional.
That is true for libertarians on the left and right.

This Administration has weakened safeguards of personal liberty, regardless of how it is labeled politically - and I know you are among its critics.

A conservative libertarian may seek to extend personal liberty beyond the BOR in different ways than would a liberal libertarian. But both defend the core. As a moderate libertarian, I feel a great allegiance to the BOR, but I also am respectful of the Supremes decisions.

You and I have disagreed about what are appropriate time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech, but never on the shared view that political and religious content
are at the core of the protection. We both believe that substance must be freely exchanged.

The problems for the Constitution come when
partisans ride roughshod over it - as FDR did with the internment camps, as Truman did when he nationalized steel, as GWB has done with "military commissions".

Our long history of defending the BOR is threatened by the fact that Americans would repeal it if they were allowed to vote on it.


Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 26, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

DC Statehood is a 'liberal cause' I guess because #1 it would add an automatic Dem vote to the House (and 2 senate seats if it's really statehood) and #2 it flies in the face of the actual Constitution, the safeguarding of which tends to be a Conservative mission. (Liberals like to read things into it to create new 'rights').

jd-a minor quibble(nice seeing you again by the way) from what i heard about DC state hood, if it should get a seat, 1 seat would be added to a red state,possibly utah or alaska. its population is around 500k so it might not be so bad to ask folks in the area if they want statehood or not. same thing with puerto rico if they ever make up their minds if they want to stay or go.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | October 26, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

"DC Statehood ... flies in the face of the actual Constitution"


It does? I agree with part 1 that it would likely go to the Dems for the foreseeable future, but that's not a reasonable argument against statehood. What's the Constitutional argument for denying DC residents voting representation in Congress?

Posted by: bsimon | October 26, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

'in the face of the actual Constitution, the safeguarding of which tends to be a Conservative mission.'

well gee, if that's true, since your president has eviscerated the Constitution while the republican congress looked on approvingly, i guess you've failed yet anothr mission, hmm?

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

' guess there are lots of Muslim women up there in NY at one of those redneck bars just waiting to tell you, drindl, how happy they are to be oppressed.'

Yes, there are lots of muslim women where I live--an affluent suburb-- they are my neighbors. As there are all over the country. We even have Hindus and Sikhs and Buddhists. You should get out of the basement more often.

I'm sure there are some Muslim women who are oppressed, as I am sure there are some Christian women who are oppressed. That's one of the big problems with fundamentalism of any kind.

'but I have violated my own rule and engaged the battiest of moonbats. Everyone here knows how "special" drindl is. expecially nasty and irrational'

LOL -- you are truly so unself aware, a parody of yourself, a good laugh every day.

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Colin, seriously, name the conservative positions the WaPo takes that balances out my list? (and btw, I could have gone on). Other than Iraq and School Choice (and even their position on the latter is a little wishy washy), they virtually always come down on the left's side. Again, I have no problem with that; but I don't like it when people ignore reality.

As for me, I guess I'm right leaning in that I want a strong defense, less spending, and less taxes. I am pro choice, pro legalization of most drugs, and want religion out of the schools. You can call me whatever you want I guess.

DC Statehood is a 'liberal cause' I guess because #1 it would add an automatic Dem vote to the House (and 2 senate seats if it's really statehood) and #2 it flies in the face of the actual Constitution, the safeguarding of which tends to be a Conservative mission. (Liberals like to read things into it to create new 'rights').

Posted by: JD | October 26, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Also, it was bill's decision to announce he was not cheating on his wife for Monica on TV--before lying to/telling his wife.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 26, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

so again drindl, you may not realize this since it is based in logic, but you have advocated keeping anything personal off limits for clintons but allowing anything goes for Rudy. and with no justification other than it suits you.

Next you will remind us that rudy dressed in drag once or twice. not that there's anything wrong with that. unless you're a troglodyte Repub, of course. Same values as Larry Craig for Libs. you trumpet the gay and alternate agenda unless an R does it, in which case you think it is perverse. you see Libs have dueling moralities, one for themselves (anything goes) and an opposite one for the heathen Repubs. stealing money is OK for Jefferson. stealing lunches is criminal for Ney. crooked land deals are fine for Reid and clinton, not so for Hastert. cheating on your wife is admirable for the clintons, it represents overcoming adversity and loyalty and after all its just sex, cheating on your wife for Gingrich, Rudy or any other R is shameful. dressing as a woman is peculiar for Rudy, dressing as a man is expected for Hillary.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 26, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Major kudos for the new features.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | October 26, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I guess there are lots of Muslim women up there in NY at one of those redneck bars just waiting to tell you, drindl, how happy they are to be oppressed.

"some of them choose for themselves" - perhaps, but most of them get their choices made for them.

but I have violated my own rule and engaged the battiest of moonbats. Everyone here knows how "special" drindl is. expecially nasty and irrational that is. to her clinton;s secrets are valid but executive priv is criminal. she prefers to elect a person who will not even disclose what the plans are for the next 4 years. trust me, says hillary. I guess bill said the same thing as the monica revelations came out. Hillary was the last to know. she will do well up against N Korea, such a trusting soul. Of course you are going to need the suspension of disbelief to vote for her. logic and facts never were the Dems best talents.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 26, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

First Colin wrote
"Our markets are as strong as they are today in large measure b/c our regulatory regime creates investor confidence"

to which USMC_Mike responded
"Our regulations go much further than creating investor confidence."

To a large degree, the recent tightening of the credit markets is the result of insufficient regulation. Partially due to extremely lax lending standards and partially due to the regulatory agencies not keeping up with new financial instruments allowed a runaway credit market to flourish. Borrowers were sold inappropriate loans & mortgages, while lenders bought complex debt instruments containing casually rated bonds.

What regulation is supposed to do is put the brakes on runaway markets, keeping the unscrupulous from taking advantage of the unsophisticated. Sarbanes Oxley would not be necessary if people didn't act like the Enron principals. But people do, so we have regulations. Unregulated markets are anarchy; yes the highs are really high, but likewise the lows are really low. Regulation serves to temper the volatility in exchange for stability.

Posted by: bsimon | October 26, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

My gut feel is most of the change, the actual rout of incumbent GOP (and the vacant seats the smart ones left when they retired) - will be in the West.

Sure, they'll lose all over the country, but their losses in the West will force them into being such a minority party that people will start openly mocking them.

Posted by: WillSeattle | October 26, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Everyone has their own pet race, but given that Chris is probably right here in Virginia, I am wondering what he makes of the open seat in the Virginia 1st CD following the recent death of the 'safe' Republican incumbent.

Is a special election that will happen before Nov. of 2008 eligible for the Friday Line? It clearly has to figure into predicting the balance of power in the House.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | October 26, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

'Yet Rudy's marriage doesn't qualify for privacy. typical convenenient and double dem standard.'

Marriages with an 's' zouk. That was Rudy's decision. He was the one having two simultaneous public affiars while he was married and Mayor. It was all over the papers -- we taxpayers had to pay for protection for the ladies you see, who were splashed all over the papers. Also, it was Rudy's decision to announce he was divorcing his wife for Judi on TV--before telling his wife.

So I don't worry too much about his privacy.

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"Why the wingers think it's up to them to decide how spouses should behave just astonishes me"

Yet Rudy's marriage doesn't qualify for privacy. typical convenenient and double dem standard.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 26, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse


'Shhhh' - it's all a big conspiracy -- quick, put on your tinfoil propeller beanie!

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Gee Mike, sorry to disappoint you-- I've been married to the same man for 25 years and have a 16-year-old daughter who's an Honor Student.

You still haven't answered how a mother is supposed to 'protect' her daughter from her father having an affair. Please do enlighten us with your wisdom.

I do so appreciate your voice of reason, Colin. Obviously it's falling on deaf ears, but it's patient of you to try to enlighten. Patient, but ultimately hopeless.

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

On the campaign trail, Clinton touts the experience she gained as First Lady working on matters like healthcare, but public access remains closed to records inside her husband's Presidential Library that deal with policies Mrs. Clinton was involved in shaping. The taxpayer-funded library, located in Little Rock, Arkansas, has been operating for nearly three years, but only one half of one percent of the records are available to the public.

The Clintons have also declined to disclose the names of those who donated money to the library.


Shhhh - it's all a big secret.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 26, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

'-Support HRC, in her "silent forbearance" against a sexually abusive husband.

-Remain silent at the sight of middle eastern women having their clitorus cut off and forced to cover their entire bodies in shame.'

I just think it's none of your -or my--damn business what goes on inside anyone's marriage. Why the wingers think it's up to them to decide how spouses should behave just astonishes me. Who made you God?

I've nver even heard of Middle Eastern women and this alleged genital mutilation--I've onld heard about this in Africa. And as far, as 'covering their bodies in shame -- again, what business is it of yours?? Some of them choose the veil for themselves, for the sake of modesty, and are embarrassed that Western women dress, as they put it, like prostitutes. Try talking to a Muslim woman sometime. They actually have opinions.

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"Our markets are as strong as they are today in large measure b/c our regulatory regime creates investor confidence"


Colin -- Our regulations go much further than creating investor confidence.

Look at how many international companies have IPO's here since SOX (2002). It's fallen faster than the Pelosi-Reed Congress.

America used to be the capital center of the world.

Now, multinationals snub their noses at us. They think it is "unfashionable" to go public here because of all the regulations. Do you know how much big firms pay accountants, consultants, and internal auditors just to get compliant?

Not to mention double taxation. Or the clean energy/green movement.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | October 26, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Right colin. Everything is not black and white. But the gop is invested in the defeat of america, for all their talk of the dem's investedin defeat in iraq. I'll take a party for america over a party for iraq isreal china or any other country, in a heart beat. The gop is a joke. they are done.

"How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it.
-- Henry David Thoreau


Every day it becomes clearer that Thoreau's answer is the only basis for a genuinely effective resistance to the accelerating depredations of the Bush-Cheney regime. Disassociation, boycott, filibuster, strike -- call it what you will, but the Gandhian tag might be the best: "non-cooperation with evil." The corruption and authoritarian tyranny that the regime has imposed on the nation are evil. The war of aggression it has launched against Iraq is evil. The war of aggression it is fomenting against Iran is evil. If you would not be complicit in evil, then you must not cooperate with it, and you must not acknowledge its power as rightful or legitimate (however powerless you may be to resist its application by brute force).

If there is to be any way out of the nation's death spiral into darkness, ruin and dishonor, this noncooperation must begin at the top. There is not enough time left now for a broad movement from the general public to rise up and force the ouster of these criminals. Naturally, any and all efforts to raise consciousness of the dire situation and mobilize the public against the regime are welcome and should continue. But even putting aside the mass lethargy and media-addled distraction and indifference that have characterized public reaction to the filth heaped upon them by the regime year after year, it is simply a logistical and organizational impossibility to put together the kind of unprecedented outpouring of street protest and civil disobedience it would require for a grass-roots effort to dislodge the regime in its remaining time in office. Yet in that time, the regime will have mired the nation so much more deeply in intractable evil that even the most well-intentioned successor will be left with nothing but monstrous choices between atrocious and somewhat less atrocious outcomes, with each decision drenched in innocent blood.
"

Chris floyd

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/26/dissent/

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 26, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Mike -- I'm liberal and not at all anti-business. In point of fact, I simply don't believe in dogmatic thinking.

Government clearly isn't always the answer, but the idea that it can never help is just as stupid. Our markets are as strong as they are today in large measure b/c our regulatory regime creates investor confidence. Consumer safety is far greater here than in other countries b/c we have mechanisms to preclude inferior products from entering the market. The recent problem with Chinese manufactured toys shows what happens when those mechanisms don't work properly.

In short, too much regulation or too much government IS bad. But reflexively anti-government views are not only simplisitic, they're dangerous.

Posted by: _Colin | October 26, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

If you want liberal bias, go read the Madison Capital Times or the Guardian or Independent for a while. After that, milquetoast centrism like that of the Post or the NY Times or broadcast news or CNN seems pretty pale and shallow and corporate-y. They're no more liberal than TV Guide or the Weather Channel or a soap commercial, and for the same reason: they're pushing a product that needs a general audience that mostly likes and trusts them.

Look at who the Post has endorsed in the VA General Assembly elections: moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats. That there are more of the latter than of the former has more to do with the current state of the two parties than it does with the Post's politics.

Posted by: novamatt | October 26, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Keep telling yourself fanasty tales zouk. Where you living in a cave during 06? Have things gotten better for you? If so I'd love to hear it. Good luck. your going to need it when your fantasy world comes crashing down, come 08

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 26, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

jD. you MUST believe what you shoose to believe. No one is a slave to a party unless they allow themselves to be. A liberal doesn't have to beleive anything other than freedom. Everything esle is straw man garbage. Creating an enemy. divide and conquer. Forcing a hand. What a joke. you people are slaves.

On another note.

We finally have law and order. Not really, but sVU. HAHAHAHA

"On Monday, NBC aired a powerful episode of Law & Order SVU in which a murder investigation uncovers a plot that ends in the arrest and trial of an American doctor who worked as a torture adviser for a private company in Iraq. Thanks to the SVU team, the doctor has her medical license suspended, which eventually will ruin her career.

In a perfect world, we would be seeing these kinds of trials take place today, but for now we'll just have to hold out hope that someone in power, who still possesses a conscience, will make it happen. NBC did a fantastic job of telling the truth about torture, its effects on its victims and casting shame on those who engage in it or condone it in any way. Major kudos to NBC for getting it right...
"

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 26, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

JD -- I argued that the Post was centrist, not conservative. So OF COURSE the examples you cite exist. If memory serves, you aren't actually a social conservative yourself. Since you agree with the Post on those issues, should I mark you down as liberal?

My entire point is that the Post doesn't fit within the traditional doctrine of the modern GOP or Democratic parties. Hence the reference to Eisenhower republicans, many of whom - incidentally - were ultimately liberal on the issues of abortion and the environment.

Oh, and how is being for DC statehood "liberal?" That one baffles me. At any rate, if you're convinced that the Post is a "liberal" paper I'd love to know what issue stances would constitute an unbiased editorial page in your view. If the above list is any indication, it would apparently have to be (1) anti-choice; (2) pro death penalty; (3) against affirmative action of any sort; (4) anti DC statehood; (5) against national healthcare, which by the way many businesses support, and (6) second amendment absolutists.

Posted by: _Colin | October 26, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

drindl and the rest of yout moonbats, I encourage you to air your dirty agenda in public. the more the rest of the country hears your plans, the lower you sink. all the lies and promises you used to win the last election are now exposed and the lib aganda for the next election may not be getting a proper viewing due to dodging and weaving by your candidate, but the public is aware of this.

your cry that we already lost the war will not be easily forgotten. your attempts to sociliaze medicine will not be tolerated. your love of high taxes and spending is becoming apparent throught your weak and ineffective minions Pelosi and Reid.

so I encourage you to spread your venom throughout the land. there are still 11% of the people who don't think you are clueless. Maybe they just haven't heard your plans yet. I predict you will continue to concentrate on divorces and avoid issues. with your views, you pretty much have to avoid answering any petinent questions.

the scent of defeat for Libs is in the wind. LA voted in a Repub. MA barely settled for a Lib in the heart of Lib land, even after spending 4 times as much (Libs love to spend). all the Lib congressional affronts have been rejected soundly by even Dems,who are fearful of the top of the ticket coming to dislodge their ill-fitting position.

this reminds me of a poor team who scores just before halftime (2006) and expects the game to be over, but when they get back on the field that didn't change anything in the locker room. Well Rs did. We changed the war approach, started spending less, stopped socialized medicine cold and laughed in the face of the piffle Harry Reid and Pelosi. the Dems kept all thier corrupt members, expanded earmarks, invetigated everything for the press and still can't pass last year's approps bills. and they expect to be rewarded after all these failures?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 26, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

My 2 favorites (1 from each, I'll be fair):

Liberal:
You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

Conservative:
You have to believe that in case the government goes bad, you'll need your handgun to successfully fight off an organized army that has tanks, aircraft, battleships, missiles, satellites, and 2 million well-trained soldiers.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | October 26, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Good point on MN3 with Ashwin. However, he has very little political experience from what I have seen. Sounded great in the interview. Sen Bonoff has business and political experience. Should be fun.

Posted by: vladtheimpalertepes | October 26, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Cladia, you are obviously not married and probably don't have any kids.

"I'm sorry, I am a little confused about how a mother can protect her daughter from her father having an affair"

Posted by: USMC_Mike | October 26, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Colin, there's more to the liberal vs conservative argument than Iraq.

Take a look at the WaPo editorial positions, then repeat your analysis. The WaPo:

- is virulently against private gun ownership
- is a HUGE supporter of quotas and racial set asides (yet decries racism)
- is pro DC voting rights/statehood
- is very much pro-choice
- is against the death penalty
- favors raising taxes (and letting Bush's expire), not cutting spending
- favors a nationalized health care plan

shall I go on?

Posted by: JD | October 26, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Refer to the balloon juice blog former conservative John Cole to understand where the delusional zouk is coming from. Cole understands the species well.

I agree with you blarg--hooray, we won the war! Now let's bring all the troops home tomorrow.

I'm sorry, I am a little confused about how a mother can protect her daughter from her father having an affair -- lock her in the attic? Do explain, Donna Hanover would appreciate it.

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

OK, since this thread is played out, how about something to make us laugh?

Sorry about the length, and I'm afraid there's no website I could post instead.

JD

Rules for Liberals

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.
12. You have to blieve the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
17. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
18. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.

Rules for Conservatives

1. You have to believe that teenagers shouldn't learn about safe sex because ignorance is the best way to prevent pregnancy, and besides, only those homos get AIDS and you thank God for that.
2. You have to believe that it's OK to have an affair as long as you divorce your spouse after you've been caught and marry the mistress. (Dole, Reagan, Gingrich, Barr, etc.)
3. You have to believe abortion is always wrong because all lives are precious and you'll kill any doctor who performs one.
4. You have to believe that your children will have a well-rounded education by banning books in the public schools and libraries.
5. You have to believe that in case the government goes bad, you'll need your handgun to successfully fight off an organized army that has tanks, aircraft, battleships, missiles, satellites, and 2 million well-trained soldiers.
6. You have to believe that a woman cannot be trusted with decisions about her own body, but that large multinational corporations should make decisions affecting all mankind with no regulation whatsoever.
7. You have to believe that diversity on your presidential ticket means two Texas millionaire oilmen from different corporations.
8. You have to believe the Hate Crimes Bill is bad because it gives "special protection" to a group of people, but think that laws that prohibit citizens from suing Tobacco Corporations, Gun-makers and HMOs are not special protection.
9. You have to believe that over the past 20 years, no Presidential primary is complete without the name Dole and/or Bush on it.
10. You have to believe Clinton is bad because he lied about a private sexual indiscretion under oath, but Ronald "I don't remember" Reagan and George "I wasn't there" Bush are heroes because they lied under oath about illegally selling arms to Iranian militants and giving the cash to drug-smuggling Nicaraguan Contras.
11. You have to believe that its OK for government to sanction religion just as long as it's your religion.
12. You have to believe the homosexual agenda is to get a purple Tele-Tubby to turn our children gay.
13. You have to believe that Reagan's tripling the deficit was good for the economy.
14. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you are millionaire conservative radio jock, which makes it an "illness" and needs our prayers for "recovery."
15. You have to believe that a national sales tax is better than income tax because everyone uses the same proportion of their income to buy food, clothing, and housing, but really, the only good tax is one which only the poor pay.
16. You believe that a rape victim should be forced to raise her attacker's offspring and then fight her attempts to get welfare when she tries to do so.
17. You have to believe that Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him with chemical weapons to fight Iran, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney was doing business with him for Halliburton, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
18. You have to believe that trade with Cuba is wrong because it is communist, but trading with China and Vietnam is good.

Posted by: JD | October 26, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

JD -- I think you're far too glib in assigning a "liberal" (again, whatever that means) bias to the media. For me, it would be helpful to understand what your talking about.

Take newspapers as an example. Without a doubt, the NY times editorial page is progressive. Just as the WSJ's editorial page is conservative, although I'd say the latter's bias is actually more pronounced. However, both paper's news coverage is solid and, as much as anything is truly without bias, honest reporting. Which is not, incidentally, to say neither paper makes mistakes. Significantly, I notice you've chosen not to address Drindl's accurate observation that both the NYT and, even more so, the WAPO were huge cheerleaders for this administration leading up to Iraq. The NYT was also nearly as tough on Clinton during monicagate as the WSJ.

As far as the WAPO goes, I think you're largely off the mark even when it comes to the editorial page. The modern washington post, which is owned and run by a republican by the by (Donald Graham), is a centrist institution. It consistently endorses centrist Democrats and centrist Republicans. For example, it preferred Ehrlich over O'Malley in Maryland's last gubenatorial election and has endorsed almost all of the remaining moderate NOVA republicans the last several election.

On issues, the Post is again relentlessly centrist. It's a huge supporter of free trade. On foreign policy, its current editorial department head - Fred Hiat - has adopted a hawkish almost neoconservative approach, which helps explain the paper's support for this administration in Iraq.

Really, on balance the Post today probably most resembles a collection of Eisenhower republicans. Which is appropriate in many ways, since the Post actively endorsed Eisenhower and Phil Graham even made speeches on his behalf. If the paper usually endorses Democrats, I'd suggest that's more a function of the GOP sprinting away from the center than it is of any objective bias on the part of the Post.

Posted by: _Colin | October 26, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, IMHO, the right has their house organs as well. I don't think there's any source that's totally objective, except perhaps for some government sources that just publish stats, the DOL and DOC for example.

JD

Posted by: JD | October 26, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Feminism - a formerly noble cause that sought to free women from inequality and injustice.


It's current state:

-Support HRC, in her "silent forbearance" against a sexually abusive husband.

-Remain silent at the sight of middle eastern women having their clitorus cut off and forced to cover their entire bodies in shame.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | October 26, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"did you know that we are now winning the war?"

Great news! But I'm a little lost. I thought you, and Republicans in general, have said that all along. Can you explain when we weren't winning the war?

Posted by: Blarg | October 26, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

I can see this thread has descended to the point of uselessness.

Posted by: bsimon | October 26, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"contrast RG's very public and nasty divorces with HRC's silent forbearance"

Are you kidding me?

Now she's some kind of hero to you for silently succombing to her womanizing husband?

Hillary, the self-proclaimed feminist, is a hero to you because she chose to keep her Clinton name and ride it to the white house rather than protect her daughter (and indeed herself)?

Judge, I read posters names before I read their posts. And I normally pass over your name, but this is a new one. I applaud you this time.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | October 26, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, it is useless to argue with a committed socialist and ignorer of fact. you world is not akin to anything like what we all experience. for example, did you know that we are now winning the war? you wouldn't by reading the NYTimes. they had Abu Graib on the front page 30 times in a row but record low violence in Iraq doesn't merit reporting. did you know the deficit is at a 40 year low? did you know that unemployment is also at record lows?

drindl is the prime example of the nutroots moonbats who are loud, obnoxious and factually challenged.

social security:
Rs - privitize
Ds - do nothing

Schools
Rs - competition
Ds - collect union donations

Taxes
Rs - lower them
Ds raise them

War
Rs - win
Ds - lose

Medicine
Rs market
Ds government

Yet the drindls of the world dispute this day after day and expect to maintain any sort of integrity.

Please ignore the minute by minute postings of the ranting loons from the ultra - left.

Please go back to baying at the moon drindl.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 26, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

' At its core modern "conservatism" reads like a frightened man-child overcompensating for a crushing sense of his own weakness. He's afraid of international instutions because he worries that American values cannot triumph on their own merits so we must impose them by force. In my opinion that shows remarkably little faith in American values. Lumping our adversaries and rivals into an indistinct mass labeled 'islamofascism' just as clearly reflects a child's intellectual laziness.'

Judge, you might enjoy this former conservative's blog...

http://www.balloon-juice.com/

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

"As their personal lives demonstrate many times over, Bill Clinton and co-president Hillary have a vacuum where their morals should be.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | October 26, 2007 12:25 PM

"As his personal life demonstrates many times over, RG has a vacuum where his morals should be."

I wonder if the same can be said for a woman who chose her political agreement [marriage] over protecting her daughter from a serial-womanizer.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | October 26, 2007 12:26 PM"

Thanks for posting the same thing right next to each other. Compare and contrast RG's very public and nasty divorces with HRC's silent forbearance. And see if you can curb your irrational feelings about BC and limit the scope to HRC who is the only one running for POTUS.

Posted by: judgeccrater | October 26, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Listening to the presidential debates we have one party running on WW4, permanent deficits, hypocricsy, character assasination, fantasy, massive government welfare for the wealthy/corporations, and complete demagogery and whackery.. and the other attempting to put forth solutions.

there -- just as fair and balanced as you, zouk.

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

'Besides, these things are of little consequence when you realize how we missed, squandered, screwed up, made a mess of and were massively risk adverse -- again -- when we did not kill Usama bin Laden in Afghanistan just two short months ago.

We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty -- which is huge in the world of intelligence -- that in August of 2007, bin Laden was in a convoy headed south from Tora Bora. We had his butt, on camera, on satellite. We were listening to his conversations. We had the world's best hunters/killers -- Seal Team 6 -- nearby. We had the world class Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) coordinating with the CIA and other agencies.

We had unmanned drones overhead with missiles on their wings; we had the best Air Force on the planet, begging to drop one on the terrorist. We had him in our sights; we had done it. Nice job again guys -- now, pull the damn trigger.

Unbelievably, and in my opinion, criminally, we did not kill Usama bin Laden.'

Perhaps someone can explain this to me. It was on Fox News. I guess someone doesn't really want bin Ladin dead, hmm? Maybe he's too useful as a propaganda tool alive...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304306,00.html

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

In the view of those who subscribe to the liberal interpretation of history, the philosophy of the Declaration is antiquated. According to the liberal interpretation, all men are created equal, except for blacks, Native Americans, Alaskan natives, Hispanics, and Asian and Pacific Islanders, who are racially challenged and must be classed apart from everyone else. (Native Hawaiians will be added to the list if the Akaka Bill becomes law.) All are entitled to life, except for those whose hearts beat in the womb; to liberty, except for those who require the supervision of the nanny state; to the fruits of their industry, except for those who have made a certain amount of money and are obligated to hand a disproportionate chunk of it over to the government each year.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 26, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_beyond

The "Plain English" PDF is long and detailed. There are other more to-the-point pieces.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | October 26, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Listening to the Democratic and Republican presidential debates you hear one party's candidates running on failure in Iraq, a proposed government take over of healthcare, amnesty for illegal aliens and an activist Supreme Court. The other is running on victory in Iraq, market based healthcare, border security and the appointment of judges who practice judicial restraint. Assessing the results over the last week or so, a savvy observer may conclude that the vision of the Democratic presidential contenders is as faulty as the Pelosi-Reid legislative agenda. Actually, it's identical. That, more than anything else, should cheer up Republicans and give them hope for 2008.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23061

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 26, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

JD writes
"you can fool yourself that most of what the right calls the 'mainstream media' isn't left-leaning and biased, and you can tell yourself that they go out of their way to champion the right's causes for fear of the label.."

JD, is there such a thing as unbiased media, and if so, what are the outlets? It would be helpful if there were examples in each category, i.e. major daily newspapers, cable TV, broadcast TV, broadcast radio. Is there such a thing as unbiased - or at least 'relatively' unbiased - or do they all carry the water for one side or the other?

Posted by: bsimon | October 26, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Mike, I can see both upside and down to a VAT, or a national sales tax. Devil is in the details of course.

On the minus side, it would be more regressive than what we have now. Also, it moves the goalposts WRT home interest deductions, endangering hundreds of thousands (millions?) who bought homes counting on the deduction. With today's market, that's dangerous and could be devasting to many. Also, charities would suffer because they wouldn't get the deductable expenses.

On the plus side, it would encourage savings by discouraging consumption, it would eliminate untold billions in tax prep fees, it would go a long way to closing loopholes. It would be almost impossible to dodge, and as a side note, it would be a useful reminder to everyone about how much the Government is really taking from you (right now, we only really remember on Apr 15; I've even heard some say we should make Apr 16 election day).

Again, need to see the details. Got a website?

Posted by: JD | October 26, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"He was clearly pro-military.

He liked big business.

He was not a social conservative, but sometimes he supported that agenda.

He was NOT a neocon by any stretch
"

Reagan was also pro-illegal immagration and pro right-wing propoganda. It is because of him we now have Rush fox and the right-wing propoganda machine

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 26, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

It isn't the hole where his heart. soul should be that worries me about Rudy, it's this:

'Norman Podhoretz believes that America needs to go to war soon with Iran. As far as he knows, Rudy Giuliani thinks the same thing.

"I was asked to come in and give him a briefing on the war, World War IV," said Mr. Podhoretz, a founding father of neoconservatism and leading foreign policy adviser to Mr. Giuliani. "As far as I can tell there is very little difference in how he sees the war and how I see it."

At the end of the Observer interview with Podhoretz comes the following about his views:

America should be working to overthrow governments in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt and "every one of the despotic regimes in that region, by force if necessary and by nonmilitary means if possible," he said. "They are fronts of the war. You can't do everything at once. And to have toppled two of those regimes in five years or six years is I think a major achievement. And maybe George Bush won't be able to carry it further, but I think he will. It may have just been given to him to start act one of the five-act play."

Btw, I completely agree with you -- I think Donna Hanover should have protected both her kids from the serial womanizer Rudy. He shouldn't have been allowed to see them at all.

'And that's fine. But please don't deny reality, you embarrass yourself.'

The reality I see that is the republican party has moved so far right what you all used to call 'conservative' you now call 'liberal' and you keep moving the goalposts further right, so I don't see how you can talk about 'reality' at all because it's clearly all relative to you.

You cite one article - I cite dozens written by neocons -- and when Howell Raines came on, I cancelled my subscription because I coldn't stand his daily screaming and rantinngs about Bill Clinton. Raines calls hinmself a 'southern conservative' and I smetimes wonder with peope like you if we are lving on th same planet.

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

JD -- sub 'sales tax' for 'fair tax'. It would be a 23% consumption tax with no IRS, no corporate or personal income tax.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | October 26, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Cool rankings. Campaign Diaries has full House rankings, with descriptions of every single vulnerable House seats. Check it out: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/houserankings

Also, big new news from New Mexico, where Patricia Madrid is NOT running for the House:
http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/10/north-carolina-and-nebraska-dems.html

Posted by: campaigndiaries | October 26, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Mark, no reading recommendations.

Please define the 'fair tax', though: a flat rate? a VAT?

drindl, you can fool yourself that most of what the right calls the 'mainstream media' isn't left-leaning and biased, and you can tell yourself that they go out of their way to champion the right's causes for fear of the label (that silly man Altermann calls this 'working the refs'); but even before the days of Howell Raines and his 'flood the zone' strategy, both the NYTimes and WaPo have been firmly in the Dem's camp. As was ABC when Kaplan was in charge (Mr $50k Lincoln Bedroom renter...), as is CNN.

And that's fine. But please don't deny reality, you embarrass yourself. The publisher can scream all they want that the editorial board and newsroom are Chinese walled-off. Still, articles like the one I cited today are telling.

Take a look at the endorsements from WaPo - it's 90% Democrats. And again, that's OK, it's called freedom of the press. But let's call a spade a spade.

Posted by: JD | October 26, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

"As his personal life demonstrates many times over, RG has a vacuum where his morals should be."

I wonder if the same can be said for a woman who chose her political agreement [marriage] over protecting her daughter from a serial-womanizer.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | October 26, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

As their personal lives demonstrate many times over, Bill Clinton and co-president Hillary have a vacuum where their morals should be.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | October 26, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

C'mon, Chris, we need more than 10. There's a good chance '08 could equal or top '06 for turnover. Choosing just 10 seats is like choosing just 10 good beers at RFD.

Posted by: novamatt | October 26, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone to the left of Mussolini is too liberal for the current base."

Got that right, drindl. Once RG sows up the nom the attack machine will really start humming. All it needs is someone at the controls who has no personal scruples whatsoever. No need for Karl Rove this time! As his personal life demonstrates many times over, RG has a vacuum where his morals should be.

Posted by: judgeccrater | October 26, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Just used SS's new verification online for an employer client of mine and his employee came up "failed" - no such number.

SS requests that my client verify "no typo", then send employee to SSA for a new card, then document all efforts to obtain the correct card and - quoting here -

A mismatch is not a basis, in and of itself, for you to take any adverse action against an employee, such as laying off, suspending, firing, or discriminating.

------------------------------------
Not making it ez to do the right thing, are they?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 26, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

"...a $5,000 fine for NOT seeing a govt. doctor..."

Anyone got a link to this info? One that doesn't make me laugh out loud, preferably.

As far as HRC's negatives: familiarity breeds contempt. That seems to be the driving force behind her negatives AND shows that the other candidate's negatives will climb to more or less match hers by the time the general election rolls around. I thought this principle was well-established so I was surprised to see people are still talking about it.

Posted by: judgeccrater | October 26, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

fyi, interesting tidbit..

'Tucked inside the White House's $196 billion emergency funding request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is an item that has some people wondering whether the administration is preparing for military action against Iran.

The item: $88 million to modify B-2 stealth bombers so they can carry a newly developed 30,000-pound bomb called the massive ordnance penetrator, or, in military-speak, the MOP.

The MOP is the the military's largest conventional bomb, a super "bunker-buster" capable of destroying hardened targets deep underground. The one-line explanation for the request said it is in response to "an urgent operational need from theater commanders."
....

"You'd use it on Natanz," said John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org. "And you'd use it on a stealth bomber because you want it to be a surprise. And you put in an emergency funding request because you want to bomb quickly."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3771522&page=1

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

1 - This is an argument that is often used - that HRC will be damaging for candidates down ticket especially in the South - but what is the evidence for it? A look at the Rasmussen polls for Southern states for example show HRC very competitive. In North Carolina for example she is in a tie with the other Republicans. HRC has high negatives but if Obama or Edwards are the nominee they will have high negatives once the Republican attack machine has finished its work. Obama in particular is just as likely to hurt down ballot, and once voters are aware of Edwards liberalism he won't be a great asset.

Posted by: khd_myp | October 26, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

'Let's call the NYTimes then the 'Democratic-leaning media' (and let's face it, "leaning" is an understatement), and HRC can be defined as 'more liberal than whoever the GOP puts up'.'

The NYTimes, like all major media, bends over backwards to be 'centrist' because it is so terrified of being labeled 'liberal.' I would grant you that their editorial opinions tend to be left-leaning -- however, they have as many con pundits as leftist. Morever, they're also prone to simply repeating adminstration spin credulously, wihtout questiuoning, as fact.

Case in point -- who was oneof the most enthusiastic cheerleadersin the run up to the Iraq invasion? Why, the NYTimes. Judith Miller was nothing more than an administration plant, a neocon operative, passing on disinformation from Scooter Libby and Ahmed Chalabi, which was blasted from the front page for weeks.

As for Hillary bing more 'liberal' than anyone the RNC would put up -- absolutely. Anyone to the left of Mussolini is too liberal for the current base.

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Mike, funny you should ask. I read Boortz's book a year ago August, and have been meaning to read the serious economic debate about it as opposed to the pop stuff. Just have not done it yet. So I am withholding judgment.

I start with the notion that tax is the cost of a civilized society and that tax should be somehow, "fair", and it should be as easy to collect as possible [which means, in fact, that most taxpayers will have to grumblingly admit it is fair].

Ask me again in six months. JD, got any reading for me?


Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 26, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Hey Mark,

Since this entire thread has been off-topic...

What do you think about the fair tax?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | October 26, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Unlikely

Posted by: USMC_Mike | October 26, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Colin, I have not read Cance but it is an era that fascinates me, so now I will. Thanks.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 26, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

OK drindl, you have a problem with the 'liberal media' thinking that HRC is their gal, fine. Let's call the NYTimes then the 'Democratic-leaning media' (and let's face it, "leaning" is an understatement), and HRC can be defined as 'more liberal than whoever the GOP puts up'.

Would those definitions be OK with you?

Posted by: JD | October 26, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Mark -- TR and FDR are in the same pantheon for me. Not coincidentally, I'd note that irrespective of party affiliation, both were unabashed "progressives." :) What can I say, I couldn't resist.

Out of curiosity, have you ever read James Chance's "The Election of 1912?" Fantastic read with a very interesting commentary on TR post-presidency.

Posted by: _Colin | October 26, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

blarg, LBJ modeled himself on FDR, his hero, but heLBJ certainly would be the model for big gov big social program Ds in a non-Depression Era. I agree.

At the end of an otherwise innocuous and scripted TV appearance, LBJ suddenly looked up from his notes. I am paraphrasing, but this is close:
"Ah started my career as a schoolteacher in the Valley, where those Meskin' kids didn't speak English. Ah wanted bahlingual materials then and Ah want them now.
[raises voice]
Ah have asked Congress for $2B for bah lingual education, and Ah'm goin' to git it!"

[closes with LBJ staring hard into the camera].

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 26, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

'a nation able to be proud of its reflection in a Prez who wrote 19 scholarly works, mainly on the flora and fauna of the west;'

yes, agreed -- if only we had anyone of this calibre today-- but he 'd probably be scorned by his party for being an 'intellectual elite'. not to mention as a conservationist and regulator...

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Krauthammer on Reagan:

'Well, what about Reagan? This president, renowned for his naps, granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. As governor of California, he signed the most liberal abortion legalization bill in America, then flip-flopped and became an abortion opponent. What did he do about it as president? Gave us Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, the two swing votes that upheld and enshrined Roe v. Wade for the past quarter-century.'

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

The conservation movement, anti-trust laws,
the FDA, the projection of world power to the point that "Speak softly and carry a big stick" meant something, a nation able to be proud of its reflection in a Prez who wrote 19 scholarly works, mainly on the flora and fauna of the west;

it is possible to speak of both Lincoln and TR as sui generis.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 26, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

jc505 writes
"All New Mexico Congressional seats could go Democratic IF the New Mexico Democrats follow the Texas model and jerrymand ... I mean ... redistrict appropriately during the next census cycle."

That is going to be a big topic during the 2010 election cycle. Who's in control of governorships & state houses will have a big impact on the subsequent house races.

Posted by: bsimon | October 26, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Mike, I have been mulling about Reagan.

He was clearly pro-military.

He liked big business.

He was not a social conservative, but sometimes he supported that agenda.

He was NOT a neocon by any stretch - his State Department was much more important to him for negotiating than his DOD. The long
negotiations with the former USSR were patient and not belligerent.

He was so opposed to social programs yet so willing to spend us into debt that
my R banker thought he was no good for Main Street Rs.

So I would say pro-mil/big biz.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 26, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Since TR was the father of the conservation movement, I have some agreement with you there, Mark. I don't know abuot the travel thing -- but I wonder if having to ask the government for permission to fly [or DRIVE] somewhere in the US will bother so-called small government conseervatives? What happened to 'liberty'?

Here's why Huck is doomed -- from the WSJ:

'Nor am I alone. Betsy Hagan, Arkansas director of the conservative Eagle Forum and a key backer of his early runs for office, was once "his No. 1 fan." She was bitterly disappointed with his record. "He was pro-life and pro-gun, but otherwise a liberal," she says. "Just like Bill Clinton he will charm you, but don't be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office."

Phyllis Schlafly, president of the national Eagle Forum, is even more blunt. "He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles," she says. "Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. . Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee."

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

I'll probably get excoriated for this post by the FDR worshippers.

Those who complain about Bush's claims of executive privilege should read up on FDR's stranglehold on power during his 3+ administrations. And, as an Asian-American, I also associate FDR with internment camps, a huge stain in the history of American personal and civil rights.

I'm not trying to negate the positives from FDR's presidency. But he was no angel. And for me, a centrist independent, being like FDR is not what I would want in a president either.

Posted by: mnteng | October 26, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Colin --

I read some details of her HC plan that frighten me. I don't want to pay the government a $5,000 fine for NOT seeing a govt. doctor. I think that is just stupid, to be blunt.

And you're right about GWB. No one is more upset about spending than I am. That's partially why some R's will not bring themselves to vote for RG. We've been betrayed once, why compramise again?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | October 26, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

drindl, the tracking of travel does have the exact ominous portent you fear. I wonder if the ACLU has raised an issue yet.

FDR was clearly an inspirational leader with a secure place in history. The temporary work programs, CCC, WPA, etc. were more about hope than about turning the economy. The "permanent" programs came late in the Depression and were positives for the infrastructure and the economy: Social Security and Rural Electrification.

He was willing to leave command decisions in Europe to Ike which made him a better military CIC than Churchill, Stalin, or Hitler, who all meddled.

But I would rate TR's Presidency as more important in the long run. It established that whenever Congress is silent, the Pres can maneuver. TR's Presidency was the seminal modern presidency, IMHO.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 26, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Final point. Not sure what supporting unions has to do with being a "big government liberal." Essentially all Democrats are pro-union. If that makes one "liberal," the sub-categories Mark came up with are pretty worthless.

OK, back to work for me.

Posted by: _Colin | October 26, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

claudia-

Since I have been back on the fix, I have quickly learned that engaging you is 99% likely a waste of time.

If you have to preface a simple question with "I'm not being snarky", that means something.

No doubt FDR was an important and influential President. Don't feel sorry for me if I didn't like all of his policies.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | October 26, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Mike -- the so-called baby bond idea is essentially a twist on what Republicans have been asking for -- the creation of private investment accounts. The only twist is that they're on TOP of SS, which I suspect you disagree with. Fair enough, but labeling that as some kind of socialist concept strikes me as crazy.

As far as healthcare goes, HRC agrees with you that she was wrong in the 1990s. Her new plan, like all the other Dem plans, is really quite centrist in nature and the opposite of single-payor.

As an aside, anyone catch the article noting that GWB has grown government more than any president since LBJ? Speaking of big government...

Posted by: _Colin | October 26, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Regarding RG in TX, I have to agree with you Mark. I know several R's who are going to "take a stand" with this election.

RG is too much of a compramise, and to some, compramising values to win an election is not the way to go.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | October 26, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

I don't think it's accurate to call any modern Democrat FDR-like. FDR was president in very different times. Most of his legacy is taken for granted nowadays, by both parties. (Almost nobody wants to denounce Social Security, for instance.) I don't see any Democrats trying to do things on the scale that FDR did, and I think we're actually better off that way. It worked in the 30s, but it wouldn't work now.

Would LBJ be a better model for big-government Democrats? His domestic policy seems more in line with the policies of, say, John Edwards.

Posted by: Blarg | October 26, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Colin -- Her healthcare proposal notwithstanding, did you not hear about her $5,000 "baby bond" or her 401k matching idea? Not to mention her union stances.

Don't flame me for quoting Rudy - and I don't know if it was an accurate quote or not, but [according to him] she's the one with "a million ideas that America can't afford".

Posted by: USMC_Mike | October 26, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse

tex and bsimon, It seems as if Ds all over TX are worried about HRC down ticket. RG would theoretically hurt Rs most in rural areas and small towns, according to my R insider acquaintances who are admittedly metro-Austin and not social conservatives. tex, what is your take on the probable RG effect? AggieMike?

Mike, I thought HRC was an FDR type, but she has inherited the DLC mantle and is wearing globalism as a badge - ask Mike Brooks [then again, don't]. She had voted for military and veterans appropriations until she started running for Pres. She voted against the Iraq funding that contained the armored vehicles Biden fought to get into the bill so she could say she voted against funding.

Sorry that I am not clear on who I think HRC is, but charitably, she seems to me to be a moving target.

I think I know who John McCain is and who Joe Biden is. For that matter, I think I know a lot about the "majors" except for Romney, Thompson, HRC, and Edwards. They do not seem to be who they were.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 26, 2007 10:38 AM | Report abuse

and this...

'Conrad Black, the Canadian newspaper publisher, has written a five-pound, 1,280-page biography, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Champion of Freedom, just published by Public Affairs Press. This is as worshipful a biography of FDR as has ever appeared, giving him credit for "the reinvention of the American state." Black claimed FDR was "the savior of American capitalism and the foremost reformer in the country's history." Black hails FDR for "overcoming the Depression" and winning World War II. Black says flat-out that "Franklin D. Roosevelt was the most important person of the twentieth century."

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 10:36 AM | Report abuse

All New Mexico Congressional seats could go Democratic IF the New Mexico Democrats follow the Texas model and jerrymand ... I mean ... redistrict appropriately during the next census cycle.

Democrats hold a huge statewide advantage in voting, but NM-3 is so packed with Demo votes that NM-2 and NM-1 are allowed to be competitive. This should not happen under a strong Democratic governor and easily manipulated Democratic legislature.

Remember when the Texas Demo legislators fled to New Mexico to prevent a redistricting vote that ended the Democratic Party in Texas a few years ago? Well, we need to send a few New Mexico Republicans to hide in Dallas this time around.

Posted by: JC505 | October 26, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Mike -- Follow up question. Do I take your FDR comment to mean that today, with the benefit of looking back on history, you still view the New Deal as a negative? Additionally, do I take your comment to mean that you disagree with FDR's stewardship of the country during WWII? Heck, even most Republicans have made peace with most of FDR's actions. Eisenhowever certainly EMBRACED them, as did Nixon, which is why they were able to reinvigorate the GOP.

Posted by: _Colin | October 26, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Mike -- any basis for labelilng Hillary as a "big government liberal" other than republican talking points? She's not loved by the liberal wing of the Democratic party and has rather consistently embraced her husband's centrist record as president. I suspect you think ALL democrats are "liberal," but then again that word has really lost all meaning . Essentially, the definition for "liberal" today = to the right of whoever is speaking.

On Topic -- I don't understand why Davis's seat was dropped from the line this week. All the buzz I've heard seems to indicate that Davis isn't going to run for re-election to the House either. If that's the case, then I think that seat ought to be near the top of the line. At the very least, a little discussion would have been nice.

Posted by: _Colin | October 26, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

'In a word - yes.'

I feel really sorry for you, that you hate your fellow americans so much. One of thousands of similar entries:

'FDR - Montana's savior

'Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew much about what it was like to be popular. Had he ever experienced lingering doubts about his popularity as president, though, the solution would have been to hop on the train and visit Fort Peck Mont. in the 30's.

For FDR was a savior whose mere signature put nearly 11,000 depression-bled workers on a payroll, thereby allowing thousands of families-not to mention thousands of merchant, landowners, and saloon keepers-to eat once again.'

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

bsimon:

"Personally I think HRC is ....

Though we don't really know, do we?"

Maybe that's why there's no point in me trying to argue that HRC is "liberal enough" for the D's and for others to say she is the "most moderate" in the race.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | October 26, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

'the DLC/Bill Clinton internationalist/free-trader type.'

Exactly. which is why K Street is loving her. follow the money -- the politicos talk their talk, but the big donors know who they're dealing with.

Those who characterize Hillary as a 'liberal' are simply parroting the fox/rush line...for god sake, rupert murdoch supports her. Is he a 'liberal' now too?

I still support her over Rudy WW4/neocon on steriods, but not wihtout a lotta nose-holding.

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 10:29 AM | Report abuse

I'm not being snarky here -- is that a bad thing to you?

In a word - yes.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | October 26, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Keep an eye on Daniel Johnson's challenge to McHenry in NC10.

Posted by: drew_nelson3 | October 26, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

claudia, Mike is talking about the Dem categorizations Mark posted on the Davis thread. In that context, FDR means "FDR big gov social initiative "liberals", for whom Ted Kennedy still speaks," not that Mike thinks HRC is the second coming of FDR. Personally I think HRC is mischaracterized as a 'big gov't liberal' and is likely more like category 2 - the DLC/Bill Clinton internationalist/free-trader type. Though we don't really know, do we? As I noted in the Edwards-as-anti-HRC thread, HRC plays her cards close to the vest and is difficult to pigeonhole as a result. She's (successfully) trying to be all things to all people.

Posted by: bsimon | October 26, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

JD writes
"texsen raises a very interesting point though; is HRC downballot poison? Just TX or everywhere? Last poll I saw, her negatives were still about 45, that's pretty high."

Mark in Austin made the same point the other day, though also noted that Giuliani would have a similar impact on the Rs downballot. I think that is probably true nationwide - if its HRC v RG the conventional wisdom goes out the window and coattails won't mean a thing.

Posted by: bsimon | October 26, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

'How do you classify HRC? I see her mainly as an FDR.'

I'm not being snarky here -- is that a bad thing to you?

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

In the MN 3rd, an energetic young Iraq War vet is also running for the Democratic nomination and is creating a lot of buzz: Ashwin Madia. He's currently a lawyer in private practice and is a fresh, thoughtful moderate.

http://www.startribune.com/10218/story/1503437.html

The seat vacated by Ramstad is in an affluent, suburban district in the Twin Cities, just the kind of pick-up the Democrats are looking for. Ramstad himself was always hugely popular, but he was by no means a mainline Republican.

Posted by: richard.walch | October 26, 2007 9:27 AM | Report abuse

**off-topic**

Tea-Sipping Mark,

By chance, I saw your post on the abandoned thread. Thanks for writing that -- I know it took a while.

How would you have classified Reagan? I don't know if he isn't at least some of all 5.

How do you classify HRC? I see her mainly as an FDR.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | October 26, 2007 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Let me remind you once again, JD. HILLARY IS NOT A LIBERAL. She is the Wall Street candidate, more like Mitt romney than anyone else. Rudy is the neo-con who is committed to starting, as he calls it, WW4. You can't blame the establishment media for wanting someone who will likely bring stability and profitability, like Bill Clinton, rather than plunging us further into chaos and debt, like George Bush.

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Here's some perspective on that, JD-- from 10/15.

' Rasmussen reports has been keeping track of the public's favorability ratings of the candidates since very early on and at that time, only two had more than 40% of the voters who were committed to voting against them and they were Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Two months ago, with Gingrich out of the picture, Mitt Romney joined Clinton in the over 40% group.

Since then Clinton's negative figures have remained pretty steady, but the rest of the field is catching up with their negativity ratings growing steadily to the point that now more than 40% of voters say they are committed to voting against five out of the seven leading candidates. The only exceptions are John McCain and Fred Thompson and they are not far behind with each of them coming in with 39% saying they are committed to voting against them.

Since August the opposition to all of the top seven candidates has increased to the point that now the average of all seven is 43%. Back in August, the average was 38%.

When it comes to the favorability ratings, Clinton has seen hers grow more than any other of the candidates and now she has the highest percentage of voters who say they will definitely vote for her than she has had since the beginning. She has 35% who say they will definitely vote for her if she is the Democratic nominee. None of the other candidates has over 29% of committed support.

She also has her largest lead of the year in the general election polling when she is matched up with the two leading GOP candidates Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/415481/poll_hillary_clinton_newt_gingrich.html

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of the 'liberal media', anyone see the puff-piece make-her-look-presidential the NYT gave to HRC today?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21482196/

Posted by: JD | October 26, 2007 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Huge headwind for GOP this election. Dems would have to pull a Buckner to not gain huge.

texsen raises a very interesting point though; is HRC downballot poison? Just TX or everywhere? Last poll I saw, her negatives were still about 45, that's pretty high.

Posted by: JD | October 26, 2007 8:57 AM | Report abuse

'Worried of being labeled as part of the "liberal media"?'

The greatest fear of all the weak-kneed, trembling 'journalist' poodles -- terrorized by rightwing pundits and bloggers --' oh please, don't hit me again, anything, just don't call me a liberal, god forbid.'

A perfect example of the battered spouse syndrome.

Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Mark and others -- I just found out about this. Unfortunately the date has passed. Do you understand the implications of this? You will have to get GOVERNMENT PERMSSION to fly anywhere WITHIN THE US?

'The Transportation Security Administration will hold a public hearing in Washington, DC, this Thursday morning, September 20, 2007 on the TSA's so-called Secure Flight scheme to require government-issued travel credentials and individualized, explicit, prior permission for all domestic airline travelers within the U.S., and to subject us to government-compelled search and interrogation by private commercial third parties whenever we fly.'

And here's a WaPo story I missed from last month:

'The U.S. government is collecting electronic records on the travel habits of millions of Americans who fly, drive or take cruises abroad, retaining data on the persons with whom they travel or plan to stay, the personal items they carry during their journeys, and even the books that travelers have carried, according to documents obtained by a group of civil liberties advocates and statements by government officials.

The personal travel records are meant to be stored for as long as 15 years, as part of the Department of Homeland Security's effort to assess the 'security threat' posed by all travelers in the country.

New details about the information being retained suggest that the government is monitoring the personal habits of travelers more closely than it has previously acknowledged. The details were learned when a group of activists requested copies of official records on their own travel. Those records included a description of a book on marijuana that one of them carried and a small flashlight bearing the symbol of a marijuana leaf.'

So tell me, when is it a police state? Are we there yet?

http://www.papersplease.org/wp/


Posted by: drindl | October 26, 2007 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Why is there a question mark in the title? There is an open-seat advantage for Democrats. As you say in the first paragraph, there are 13 Republicans leaving and 11 Democrats. That's an open-seat advantage. Why do you feel you need to qualify this statement of the facts with a question mark? Worried of being labeled as part of the "liberal media"?

Posted by: Blarg | October 26, 2007 8:39 AM | Report abuse

From what I've seen of Mahoney's opponents, they're all raving conservatives. FL-16 may be an ancestrally Republican district--but the brand of Republicanism there has traditionally been a moderate one. Mahoney might well hold on to this seat.

Posted by: blueboyphillie | October 26, 2007 8:26 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, Nick Lampson's hope of retaining Tom DeLay's old seat dip from slim to none. Hillary is down-ballot poison in Texas.

Posted by: texseno8 | October 26, 2007 8:15 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company