Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Line: Parties May Swap Ky. and La. Governor's Mansions

The Fix is on the way to New Hampshire for the weekend to track the presidential campaigns of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), but what would Friday be without a fresh installment of The Line?

Today we tackle the most competitive governor's races in the country. As we explained in our last visit to this topic, there are just 14 seats up in 2007 and 2008 combined, so The Fix is keeping the list at five rather than ten -- although we reserve the right to expand it if more races become competitive.

As always, the No. 1 ranked seat is the one most likely to switch party control. The comments section is open for discussion, and remember to check The Fix this weekend for updates from the Granite State.

To the Line!

1. Louisiana (2007): To the surprise of no one, Rep. Bobby Jindal (R) formally announced last month that he is officially up for a rematch against Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D). Jindal has to be considered the favorite this November given the incumbent's political problems; Blanco has never recovered from her handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Several Democrats -- the most prominent of which is Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell -- are already running against her, and several more are mulling the race (most notably, wealthy businessman Jim Bernhard). Jindal has a primary challenge of his own in the form of state Sen. Walter Boasso. If Blanco manages to win her party's nomination, which still seems likely, she will enter the general election against Jindal as the underdog. (Previous ranking: 1)

2. Kentucky (2007): It's a rarity in American politics when most people in a party believe someone other than the incumbent governor gives them their best chance of holding a seat. But such is the case in Kentucky, where Gov. Ernie Fletcher's (R) ethical problems have crippled his once-bright political career. A recent poll for former Rep. Anne Northup (R) showed her tied with Fletcher in the primary but running stronger than the incumbent in hypothetical head--to-head match-ups against the leading Democrats. Speaking of the Democrats, they are well aware of the opportunity Fletcher's problems present, and almost ambitious politician in the party has decided to run for the nomination. We'll have a much clearer picture of Republicans' chances of a hold here after the state's May 22 primary. (Previous ranking: 2)

3. Missouri (2008): It struck us as a little strange that Gov. Matt Blunt (R) spent a recent day in Massachusetts to help the state's former governor, Mitt Romney, raise money for his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. As best as we can tell, Blunt is in dire political straits back home in the Show Me State and needs to focus full attention on turning around his reelection prospects. Missouri Democrats reasserted themselves with Sen. Claire McCaskill's win in 2006, and Blunt still has lingering problems with his conservative base after backing a proposal last year to expand stem cell research. We're not entirely sold on state Attorney General Jay Nixon's (D) strength as a candidate, but given Blunt's problems Democrats may not need a superstar to reclaim the seat. (Previous ranking: N/A)

4. North Carolina (2008): The lone open seat on the Line this week drops a slot as it continues to look like the two top-tier Democratic candidates -- Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue and state Treasurer Richard Moore -- are stronger than anything the Republicans have to offer. There's plenty of time for the GOP field to better define itself, and both state Sen. Fred Smith and attorney Bill Graham have the personal funds to do just that. Former North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr is the latest candidate in the running for Republicans. Democrats will have held the governor's mansion for 16 straight years in 2008 -- a streak that could actually help Republicans if voters are looking for a change. (Previous ranking: 3)

5. Washington (2008): We debated long and hard whether to make this race or Gov. Mitch Daniels's (R) reelection bid in Indiana the final race on the Line. We decided to stick with Washington because of the likely candidacy of 2004 nominee Dino Rossi (R). Rossi has said little about his intentions, but most observers expect him to challenge Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) -- setting up a rematch of the controversial 2004 race, where recount after recount ultimately put the Democrat narrowly over the top. Washington State went south for Republicans in 2006 (witness Sen. Maria Cantwell's shellacking of Republican Mike McGavick), and 2008 isn't likely to be much better for the GOP in the state. But Rossi is an extremely strong candidate and will have four years of Gregoire's record to pick through for weak spots. (Previous ranking: 4)

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 9, 2007; 5:30 AM ET
Categories:  Governors , The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Scavenging Team Bayh
Next: On the Eve of Clinton's Visit to N.H.

Comments

Vienna:

Thanks for the 411. I try to learn about as much as I can wherever I can. Didn't Wilder also run to the right of Coleman on crime? I remember it as a very very negative campaign, but I followed it from afar.

The thing is that race isn't usually the primary issue in such campaigns, only the inimitable Jesse Helms dared to make race the primary issue in his campaigns against black candidates. Usually, tho, its the 800 lb gorilla in the corner. For example, you cannot convince me that Harold Ford wouldn't have beat Corker in TN given the same facts, had he been white. Wish it weren't so, but it just seems like it is still.

Posted by: Steve | February 13, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

I think anyone who considers NC a likely switch does not know very much about the state's political culture. NC voters have voted Dem at the state level for decades and are happy like that. We will almost always support an incumbent or incumbent party, regardless of ideology. And we are very pleased with our Democratic state government.

Perdue and Moore are both fundraising and politicking machines. Both have won statewide elections and are very popular, despite being very politically agressive. It is well accepted among the consulting community that Perdue will very likely be our next governor, and her name rec is incredibly high. Moore has championed the recent minimum wage increase and will run a good campaign. Add to this a Democratic state party that is very good at winning elections and that is experiencing strong growth in the west and suburbs, and you've got a strong ticket.

In NC, Republicans always wage very negative, divisive primary campaigns that are won by posturing as far to the right as possible. Whoever wins the GOP primary will be bloodied and cast in a negative light, and will face a Democrat emerging from a non-divisive celebrity popularity contest.

This does not belong on anyone's list of competitive gubernatorial races. A Dem, probably Perdue, is going to win hands down.

Posted by: Jake in NC | February 12, 2007 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Steve - The comment was with respect to William.

Without knowing what the he!! he is talking about, he dumped on Marshall Coleman as "the GOP candidate (who) was so hated" Which wasn't true in 1989.

William isn't old enough to know that personally; so he had to have picked that up from another source. What other incorrect information is he picking up?

The Wilder comment was with respect to a comment posted on The Fix, which said that Wilder had never been elected again. Lest William take that and run with it, without knowing what he is talking about, my comment was pre-emptive.

You're certainly correct that Wilder is certainly his own man. There aren't many like L. Douglas.

Why do people see the '89 race as an aberration? Beats me, unless they are simply forgetting that race was not the main issue in the campaign, but now think that it must have been. Abortion/Choice was the main issue.

Posted by: Vienna Voter | February 12, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Vienna:

I was aware that Wilder had won a local race in Richmond, which could hardly be viewed as surprising considering the makeup of Richmond. I also want to point out that I'm a big fan of the guy for a couple of reasons:

1) he was the 2nd AA to win a statewide top of ticket race, and had the nuts to run in a state like VA.

2) he was a damned good governor by any objective measure, and said to hell with the special interests and did what was right for the state. Every governor since Wilder in VA owes him a debt of gratitude because he made very good long term decisions for the state.

That said, why is it that so many people outside of VA, (and some of my friends in VA) see that race in 89 as an aberration caused by a weak Repub candidate?

I'm not trying to bust you out or anything, I'm genuinely curious.

Posted by: Steve | February 12, 2007 10:04 AM | Report abuse

If in his last moments Saddam showed contrition, or remorse or asked forgiveness we can never know ;only a knowing God can know and adjudicate. But what can one say of his executioners - if they believed in a hell need they have taunted and goaded him - he was in their urgings going there anyway but and if they believed in deliverance through a Devine mercy by any deity ; Allah ; God - any supreme being - how could they torment him even as the trapdoor opened.


Now consider the paradox that would surely have been if the British had captured Saddam and he immediately sought asylum in the UK because of his perceived fears of a trial culminating in the death sentence - a system which is not countenanced in the UK, I believe in these circumstances Saddam would have argued for such protection and have succeeded as did Pinochet.
The problem is that now are exposed the fault lines between the allies in the ethics of warfare and its sequellae. There is already an evidential wish for the British to distance themselves from what was a dark, brutal, gruesome and unseeingly hasty execution.
A new hatred between Arab cultures has been fomented by the invasion of Iraq - that between Sunni and Sheite ; it has been exacerbated by this trial and execution to an untold degree.
As the Bush administration seek to justify a new surge of troops in a country already in a state of civil war, where the Houses on record at least should oppose such a venture Bush seems destined to sink to depths of unpopularity not even known to Nixon.

Posted by: donkykemore | February 10, 2007 8:34 PM | Report abuse

I disagree about the Rossi-Gregoire matchup mentioned earlier - the Sonics issue will not be a huge part in determining the outcome, Rossi has never come out about it, and the final decision is largely out of Gregoire's hand. Further, I don't think voters in this state have much of an interest in shelling out tons of money to support an ailing team bloated with excess cash. The viaduct is more likely to harm Gregoire, but I think the states continuing trend towards Democratic candidates - especially in the former Republican strongholds of east King County.

Posted by: Mark Reynolds | February 10, 2007 3:01 AM | Report abuse

The problem with your Blanco analysis is this: Past tense is the wrong tense. You say she's never recovered from her mishandling of Katrina. Fact is, it's not something that's over and time for her to recover from -the mishandling continues, and is ongoing. http://waywardepiscopalian.blogspot.com/2007/02/road-home-or-road-to-nowhere.html

Posted by: Nathan E. | February 10, 2007 12:55 AM | Report abuse

The problem with your Blanco analysis is this: Past tense is the wrong tense. You say she's never recovered from her mishandling of Katrina. Fact is, it's not something that's over and time for her to recover from -the mishandling continues, and is ongoing. http://waywardepiscopalian.blogspot.com/2007/02/road-home-or-road-to-nowhere.html

Posted by: Nathan E. | February 10, 2007 12:54 AM | Report abuse

ust out: "The Politics of Iran Intelligence," at National Journal. Unfortunately, it's subscription only, but here's a brief excerpt:

Amid the continued political fallout over the faulty intelligence case for going to war in Iraq, the Bush administration is newly cautious about the specific intelligence it plans to present to the public to back up its claims that Iran is fighting a kind of proxy war with the United States in Iraq. ...

A White House official who declined to be named told National Journal that the presentation was sent "back into the interagency process ... with all the usual agencies involved, both in Washington and Baghdad." Asked if it was the intelligence community that was most cautious about how to interpret the facts in the Iran dossier, the White House official said only, "It's, frankly, their job to be sure of the facts and to make sure the information is accurate, and to give their best advice about how to interpret it."

The delay in the briefing demonstrates the crosscurrents running through the administration, the intelligence agencies, and Congress over Iran. ... The debate is still simmering over who was at fault in the prewar intelligence failures: the policy makers or the intelligence community.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 9, 2007 10:39 PM | Report abuse

The Governor's official office in most states (maybe all) is in the Statehouse. In those states that have Governor's Mansions, the mansion is a residence.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 9, 2007 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Hey, how come the headline on the main page says "Statehouse swap"? The statehouse refers to the legislature -- not the governor.

Posted by: Ryan | February 9, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Correction of trivia error: "Remember VA in 1991 when Doug Wilder won, since the GOP candidate was so hated?"

NO! Nobody in Virginia who is old enough remembers that, because it didn't happen.

The election was in 1989, not 1991. The Republican candiate for Governor in 1989, J. Marshall Coleman, became reviled in 1994 when he ran for the Sentate as an Independent in the Robb/North race, with John Warner's support.

In 1989 Coleman was a nominee who had lost a previous Governor's race to Robb, which was no shame. Robb is hardly a Liberal.

Coleman lost the 1989 race by less than a half-percent. The race was close enough to require a recount. Somebody must have liked Coleman.

The error above was recently mention on The Fix along with another equally incorrect statement, that Wilder never won another race. L. Douglas Wilder is the current Mayor of Richmond, Virginia.

The pinheads hate Coleman now for saving us from North in 1994, not for losing to Wilder in 1989. Get it right, if you are going to post it!

Posted by: Vienna Voter | February 9, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

I'll be interested to see what happens in Kentucky. If Northrup runs, I bet she'll win -- which may not be the best choice, but it would at least be entertaining.

Has there been any movement on Louisville mayor Jerry Abramson running for Governor? Or is he still content as mayor-for-life?

Posted by: DG | February 9, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Chris;

i think you should move the NC Governor's race up a notch, after all how is a candidate named Bill Graham gonna lose a state-wide race among the Tar Heels, God love 'em?

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

Posted by: robert chapman | February 9, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Mitch Daniels is in a similar situation as Matt Blunt, though he may be somewhat less popular than Blunt.

He would lose to a strong Dem candidate, but win against a weak or unknown one.

Posted by: William | February 9, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

North Carolina - North Carolina does not mind moderate to conservative Democratic governors, and there is no strong GOP candidate running...yet. As long as the Dem candidate is pro-gun and anti-gay marriage, they have a great chance of winning.

Dems performed well in 2006 in NC, unseating one veteran GOP incumbent and almost defeating another.

Also, the Dems control the NC legislature, IIRC.

And Easley, while not as wildly as popular as Bredesen in TN, has been a reasonably good governor, which will help the Dem nominee, whomever it is. Easley was a relatively good governor.

What's more, disaffection with the GOP at the national level will also hurt GOP state candidates, as we observed in 2006, when the Dems made large gains in state legislature and governors races.

Moreover, while GOP candidates usually are pro-big business and strongly support free trade, the South is rather protectionist, and has lost a lot of jobs recently to outsourcing, especially in the textile industry.

Heath Shuler won on a protectionist platform, and Larry Kissel, who ran on a protectionist platform, almost unseated free trader Robin Hayes.

In neighboring VA, protectionist James Webb also won.

Finally, while a Dem Congress may approve immigration amnesty, Bush will be the face most associated with it, since he is pushing hard for it.

North Carolina, believe me, has experienced a huge influx of illegal immigrants lately, and people are very angry.

If the GOP, which recently chose Mel Martinez as Chair, continues to pander to Latinos, NC Dems running on an anti-amnesty platform will do very well.

Heath Shuler is an example. He won by a large margin in arguably the most conservative district in NC.

The immigration issue is making a LOT of people extremely angry in NC, as well as other places.

Missouri - Don't count Blunt out yet. He does have trouble with his base after the stem cell referedum, but after Talent's defeat in 2006, MO conservatives may realize they are in danger of losing control of the state, similar to what happened in OH, which is similar to MO in many ways.

So two things could happen. Either the GOP base, fearing that the MO GOP will lose power, will turn out in force, or they will go for a conservative Dem to express their disaffection at Blunt.

Remember, Blunt is a Marine and Iraq veteran who is highly respected for his service. He is quite young (35), and that could hurt him though.

Conservatives in MO still remember a lot of recent Dem governors, who were terrible, like Bob Holden, who vetoed concealed carry laws, even though they had wide popular support.

It may be fear of another Holden-type Dem which turns conservatives in rural MO off from Jay Nixon.

But this race could certainly go either way.

Louisiana - I agree with a poster above who said that the smartest thing Blanco could do for her party is to bow out now, and let someone else run in her place.

Charlie Melancon is a conservative Democrat representing a rural LA district. He is very popular in LA, and would easily defeat Bobby Jindal.

Blanco certainly does not want to be defeated by her nemesis, Jindal, which is likely to happen in the election in 2007.

But Charlie Melancon, is a friend of Blanco, who is also highly electable.

It seems logical that Blanco would prefer to be succeeded by a fellow Democrat who is her friend, then to be succeeded by Jindal, her enemy.

If she actually cares about her party, she will bow out ASAP. However, she seems like the selfish sort, unfortunately for Dems.

The person who wrote above that whites in rural LA are averse to voting for an Indian is quite accurate. Rural LA voters would prefer any white Democrat (aside from Blanco) to Jindal.

Even worse, Jindal is seen as a carpetbagger, who moves around LA to various districts always seeking higher office. He already lost a senate race and a gubenatorial race. He's a complete retread, and LA voters know this.

But Blanco has been such a terrible governor that Jindal WILL win in 2007 if she winds up in a runoff against him.

Remember VA in 1991 when Doug Wilder won, since the GOP candidate was so hated?

The same will happen in LA if Blanco keeps running.

She KNOWS she can't win. I really can't understand why she insists on staying in the race.

If the LA Dems are smart, they will pressure Blanco to bow out, and unite around Melancon (who would then be free to run, since he won't run against Blanco) or another electable Dem.

Kentucky- The Kentucky GOP is so corrupt that the Dems will easily win the governorship IF Fletcher is the candidate.

The political situation in Kentucky reminds me of that in Ohio before the 2006 elections, basically a corrupt GOP machine, dominating state politics.

But if Northrup wins the primary, then the GOP will have a reasonable chance at winning.

Mississippi - Hayley Barbour will certainly win reelection by an immense margin. Even Dems like him for his handling of Katrina. Expect Barbour to make presidential moves in 2012.

Posted by: William | February 9, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Neil's Favorite Uncle perhaps:

Bush's Uncle Profits From Options Scheme
By Marcy Gordon
The Associated Press
Thursday, February 8, 2007; 10:20 PM

WASHINGTON -- One of President Bush's uncles, William H.T. Bush, was among directors of a defense contractor who reaped $6 million from what federal regulators say was an illegal scheme by two executives to manipulate the timing of stock option grants, documents show.

The uncle, known as "Bucky," is the youngest brother of former President George H.W. Bush. William H.T. Bush was an outside, nonexecutive director of Engineered Support Systems Inc., a defense contractor whose profits were bolstered because of the Iraq war.

St. Louis-based ESSI supplied equipment and electronics to the military....Bush and the others who sat on the ESSI board were not accused of any wrongdoing in the SEC's civil lawsuit Tuesday against the company's former chief financial officer and former controller. Those two were accused of enriching themselves and others with a backdating scheme. Bush made about $450,000 selling some of the stock in 2005...The SEC said the former ESSI finance chief, Gary Gerhardt, told the ex-controller, Steven Landmann, to give the outside directors backdated options for 132,000 shares of company stock that exceeded what they were authorized by shareholders to receive.

"The company never disclosed to shareholders that it had awarded this additional compensation" to the directors, according to the suit in federal court in St. Louis. The directors "realized approximately $6 million in unauthorized compensation from the exercise of their additional stock options," the suit said...
William H.T. Bush had no comment, an aide at the former president's office in Houston said Thursday.

SEC officials declined comment...William H.T. Bush made about $450,000 in January 2005 by exercising his company stock options and selling shares, his filing with the SEC shows. When questioned by reporters about the sale at the time, he said he had not pulled any strings in Washington for ESSI.

Five other ESSI executives and directors also cashed in on the company's rising stock price at the time. The stock price was bolstered by record income, mainly from increases in the company's military contracts. They included adding armor to military trucks, refurbishing trailers the Army uses to haul tanks and supporting satellite communications for troops. The biggest windfall went to Gerhardt, who made nearly $7.5 million from selling stock on Jan. 31, 2005.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020801147.html

Posted by: Anonymous | February 9, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Rothenberg's ratings are pretty similar, but no Indiana? Even though Dems are still searching for a candidate, Daniels is still vulnerable.

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2007/01/2007-08-gubernatorial-ratings.html

Posted by: Len Dykstra | February 9, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

hmm

Posted by: Anonymous | February 9, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

The Gregoire-Rossi race in Washington State will hinge on what happens on the Sonics. The basketball team is threatening to move to Oklahoma City if the state doesn't chip in 300 million for a new arena. Right now Gregoire is waffling on the issue. If she supports using tax dollars to subsidize billionaire owners and millionaire players, she loses everything outside of Renton or Bellevue, the two places competing for the arena. Seattle voters rejected having the city chip in any money for this. The Republicans could well recapture the state.

Posted by: Out of Towner | February 9, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"If Blanco manages to win her party's nomination..."

Chris, do you know anything about Louisiana Politics? There are no party primary contests, Republicans and Democrats run against each other in one primary and the top two vote getters advance to a runoff if no one gets 50% in the first round.

Posted by: bayoubob | February 9, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Pravda, brw, being the DC political establishment...

for those who don't remember, pravda was the house organ of the soviet communist regime...

Posted by: Anonymous | February 9, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Russert is, as Mary Matalin testified, the go-to boy for when Cheney wants to spread misinformation, lies and propaganda. He is totally in the pocket of the rabid right, a completely pwned subsidiary of Pravda...

Posted by: drndl | February 9, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

You want to talk about flinching and squirming, you shoulda seen lyin' Tim Russert on the witness stand in the Libby trial...

'at least he knows he doesn't know. '

absolutely right -- certainnly an improvement over starting a war based on the things you don't know -- plus that which you are just making up...

Posted by: Anonymous | February 9, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards flinches, but only under fire, as in this exchange with Tim Russert of NBC's "Meet the Press." Would "President Edwards" allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon?
"I, I -- there's no answer to that question at the moment. I think that it's a -- it's a -- it's a very bad thing for Iran to get a nuclear weapon."
Yes, replied Tim, "but they may get one."
"Yeah. I think -- I think -- I think the -- we don't know, and you have to make a judgment as you go along, and that's what I would do as president."

at least he knows he doesn't know. there is so much he doesn't know.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 9, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Judge C... I think it is the last option since there is about a dozen candidates.

Posted by: Adam C | February 9, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

This sentence makes no sense: "Speaking of the Democrats, they are well aware of the opportunity Fletcher's problems present, and almost ambitious politician in the party has decided to run for the nomination."

Is that supposed to be "a most" or "the most" ambitious politician? If so, why be coy?

Or is it "almost every" ambitious politician?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | February 9, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. helicopters on Friday mistakenly killed at least five Kurdish troops, a group that Washington hopes to enlist as a partner to help secure Iraq, U.S. and Iraqi officials said.

The Kurdish deaths occurred about midnight in eastern Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad. The U.S. military said the airstrike was targeting al-Qaida fighters, but later issued an apology, saying the five men killed had been identified as Kurdish police.

Kurdish officials put the casualty toll at eight killed and six wounded, and said the men were guarding a branch of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan -- led by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a key supporter of U.S. efforts in Iraq.

Mahmoud Othman, a prominent Kurdish lawmaker who is not a PUK member but has strong ties to the community, said that for U.S. troops, the incident amounted to "attacking the people who support them."

"This is not a good sign for the new security plan that they (U.S. forces) have started," Othman said.'

Posted by: Anonymous | February 9, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

In a letter to Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), the Congressional Budget Office reports that the war in Iraq has so far cost U.S. taxpayers $351 billion. The total amount, approved and requested, by the Bush administration is $532 billion.

The letter attempts to answer how much more Iraq will cost over the next decade (read it here). To answer that question, the CBO laid out two possible scenarios, and the costs of the respective plans:

First, under a "stay the course" scenario with a gradual drawdown that leaves 75,000 soldiers overseas in 2013 and each year thereafter, the cost would be $919 billion for the next ten years.

The second scenario proposes a faster drawdown, leaving only 30,000 military personnel overseas over the 2010-2017 period, although not necessarily in Iraq and Afghanistan. The cost of that plan would be $472 billion for the next ten years.

In other words, phased withdrawal from Iraq would save $447 billion over the next decade.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 9, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Lark, I also don't think the Edwards blogger "scandal" is significant. But the two situations aren't comparable.

The Allah posts are very obviously satire, because they're written in a persona. So it's ridiculous to think the person who wrote them really believes any of it. The Edwards bloggers' posts were much more subtle satire, if they were satire at all.

The other difference is that you're comparing employees of Edwards to supporters of Rudy. Unless Rudy has actually hired Michelle Malkin and Allahpundit, you can't blame him for their actions, or expect him to do anything about it. Do they work for him, or just support him?

Posted by: Blarg | February 9, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

' One out of every seven Iraqis has fled his or her home or sought refuge abroad, the largest movement of people in the Middle East since the war that followed Israel's creation in 1948, according to United Nations officials and relief workers. Every day, violence displaces an estimated 1,300 more Iraqis in the country; every month, at least 40,000.

Last year, 202 refugees from Iraq were allowed to resettle in the United States.

Against that backdrop, the Bush administration is moving - belatedly, in the view of critics - to address a problem that it's widely seen as having created by invading Iraq in March 2003.

On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the creation of a high-level State Department task force on the refugee issue. State Department officials said the Bush administration will expand the number of refugees it allows into the U.S., with special attention given to Iraqis who may be at risk because they worked for the U.S. government. But the administration would admit only 20,000 Iraqis at most this year.

In his just-released budget, President Bush asked for $35 million to help Iraq's refugees in fiscal year 2008, plus $15 million in supplemental funding for this year.'

well folks on the right -- welcome your new neighbors -- a whole lotta iraqi refugees. and you are paying for them to come here, with your tax dollars.

happy now?

Posted by: lark | February 9, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Webb 'Very Worried' Bush's Iran Provocations 'Might Set Something Off In There'
President Bush has ratcheted up military pressure on Iran in recent months, most notably by dispatching two naval carrier groups to the Persian Gulf, "the largest concentration of naval power projection in that region" since the start of the Iraq war. Vice President Cheney explained that sending the carriers "sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region" that "we clearly have significant capabilities...to deal with the Iranian threat."

Tonight on Hardball, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) said that during his time as Navy Secretary under President Reagan -- and "until very recently" -- the U.S. "never operated" aircraft carriers within the Gulf because it risked confrontation. "The chance of accidentally bumping into something that would start a diplomatic situation was pretty high," Webb explained. "With the tensions as high as they are, I'm very worried that we might accidentally set something off in there and we need, as a Congress, to get ahead of the ballgame here."

Posted by: thank god for sane jim webb | February 9, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

I will post this for you, becuase the Washington Post will never do so:

'A new statement from the House Sergeant at Arms on the Pelosi-plane-ridiculousness ...

For Immediate Release
February 8, 2007

As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.

In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.'

Posted by: what you won't hear about | February 9, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

'Check out this video of Wolf Blitzer interviewing Tom DeLay about the GOP Presidential field. DeLay has very harsh words for Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. On Rudy: "I can't vote for somebody that's for abortion. I never have, and I never will." On whether Rudy opposes gay marriage: "Now he does. He didn't just a year ago." On McCain: "I don't think he'll get very far, because he does not reflect the vast majority of the party ... on many issues." '

The hardright neo cons will support Rudy -- the 'social' cons will go for some automatic loser like Tancredo...

The split will give the presidency to Hillary...

Posted by: Anonymous | February 9, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Oh this is rich, these so-called 'christians' who have their noses deep in the taxpayer trough, even while they buy and bribe lawmakers and write legislation... whining about pelosi.

This is a good example of how America media is completely owned by the radical right. Everyone picked up on this story, while failing to mention that the DOD was refusing to give Pelosi what they gave to Hastert. All your 'librul' media does, folks, is take dictation from Karl Rove -- still:

'Christian Coalition of America condemns the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from San Francisco, for trying to get luxurious travel paid for by the American taxpayers. Is a first class seat on a commercial jet no longer good enough for Speaker Pelosi? Nancy Pelosi is demanding that the Air Force provide her with a large jet on demand - "Pelosi One" - so she can transport her political cronies, favorite Members of Congress, congressional staffers, friends and relatives back and forth to her district in San Francisco every week.'

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

but what edward's bloggers wrote wa satire, too? and it was also not current... what's the difference?

the blogger 'allahpundit' is still active politically, now writes for michelle malkin, one of the most vicious racists on the internet. she is a major supporter of Guiliani.

most of the rabid right bloggers are Guiliani supporters -- and as I mentioned, they are all [pajamas media] funded by republilcan 'think' thanks.

The hard right -- the neo cons will all go for rudy. they are already trashing mitt romney over his relgion [see yesterday's NYTimes Adam McGourney [who previously only bashed Dems] leading the attack...

Posted by: lark | February 9, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

CC is right about Governor Matt Blunt's chances in 2008. I live in conservative, rural southeast Missouri. Attorney General Jay Nixon came to my local county seat before the November elections, and drew a large crowd. If the trend continues, Missouri will have a new governor in 2008.

Posted by: afam 212 | February 9, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

The Allahpundit site is a joke. Some of it is even funny, which is very rare for conservative humor. But more importantly, you're linking to 3-year-old archives of a site that doesn't exist anymore. What does that have to do with anything? Do you really think that Giuliani should be criticized for supposedly hiring someone who wrote a comedy blog back in 2003?

Posted by: Blarg | February 9, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Will Rudy's bigoted blogger lose him the support of Catholics and Jews? 'Stop chewing on Jesus, you ghoulish fu**s'?

'Do Catholics really believe they are eating Christ when they take the host? Allah knows that your priests have a taste for flesh-the younger the better, it seems-but this is ridiculous. And you have the gall to mock Muslims for believing that Satan lives in their nostrils at night? Allah will admit that we have our eccentric beliefs like any other faith, but at least cannibalism is not part of the core curriculum. Stop chewing on Jesus, you ghoulish fu**s.'

'Let us turn now to the news, where we shall find once again that the Jew is plotting. What do you expect, though? Treason and deception are in his blood.'

Posted by: Will Rudy Lose the Catholic and Jewish Vote? | February 9, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Kathleen Blanco does look pretty weak at this point, but once we get into a campaign it may turn out that she has the best chance to hold off the Republicans. In any case, if you go on the assumption that there will be a runoff, with the strongest candidate from each party making the cut, then referring to which candidate "wins his/her party's primary" is technically incorrect, but not far from the truth.

Posted by: Iva Norma Stitts | February 9, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Here's the guy who was so outraged by Edward's bloggers:

'William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, asserted that "[t]he gay community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done" and denounced gays for "asking for more rights" while allegedly "acting so morally delinquent."

I guess he doesn't read the Bible.. sure are some evil people out there calling themselves Christians, eh?


Romans 14:4:
Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

John 8:7
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Matthew 7:15
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Posted by: lark | February 9, 2007 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Libby Defense: Cheney May Be Too Damaging For Stand

Posted by: Anonymous | February 9, 2007 9:32 AM | Report abuse

http://web.archive.org/web/20031223161832/www.allahpundit.com/archives/000073.html

'Let us turn now to the news, where we shall find once again that the Jew is plotting. What do you expect, though? Treason and deception are in his blood.'

Let me remind you, that this blogger is fully financed by the republican right, DC establishment media [in fact, the POst's Howie Kurtz frequently quotes/links to his mentor/link Instapundit and other Pajamas Media bloggers] and very popular. This is the ugly face of the republican party...

Posted by: more nazis | February 9, 2007 9:29 AM | Report abuse

I just wanted y'all to have a taste of a republican blogger, one who is financially supported by Pajamas Media, a network of radical right propaganda bloggers, financed by the Mellon Scaife Foundation, Roger Simon, wealthy political operativ,e and "Instapundit" Glenn Reynolds. On the board is CNBC's Larry Kudlow and Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report. This blog also has paid advertisng from the Conseervative Political Action Caucus. The writer, 'Allahpundit, is reputed to be in the employ of Rudi Guiliani:

'Do Catholics really believe they are eating Christ when they take the host? Allah knows that your priests have a taste for flesh-the younger the better, it seems-but this is ridiculous. And you have the gall to mock Muslims for believing that Satan lives in their nostrils at night? Allah will admit that we have our eccentric beliefs like any other faith, but at least cannibalism is not part of the core curriculum. Stop chewing on Jesus, you ghoulish fu**s.'


Posted by: Nazi bloggers | February 9, 2007 9:22 AM | Report abuse

'Levin has asserted that President Bush took the country to war in Iraq based in part on intelligence assessments - some shaped by Feith's office - that were off base and did not reflect the views of the intelligence community.

In a telephone interview Thursday, Levin said the IG report is "very damning" and shows a Pentagon policy shop trying to shape intelligence to prove a link between al-Qaida and Saddam.'

Posted by: 3000 DEAD -- FOR NOTHING | February 9, 2007 9:02 AM | Report abuse

'WASHINGTON -- A "very damning" report by the Defense Department's inspector general depicts a Pentagon that purposely manipulated intelligence in an effort to link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, says the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee...'

Hey, this was on FAUX news...

eat dead crow, republican scumbags...

Posted by: Anonymous | February 9, 2007 8:56 AM | Report abuse


Blanco is toast.

Posted by: Billy | February 9, 2007 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Thank God for Gore -- how lovely to see real leadership...

how refreshing it is after 6 years of The Empty Codpiece...


Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and British billionaire Richard Branson announced a $25 million prize for scientists who can devise a way to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and help combat global warming.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 9, 2007 8:52 AM | Report abuse

The truly hilarious part about this phony smear/non-story is the republican worrying about how Nancy Pelosi using a larger plane would cause 'climate change'..

ROFLOL -- don't they just kill you? you couldn't make this shi** up...

'House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received some rare help yesterday from the White House against a barrage of Republican criticism over how she intends to get home.

For security reasons, the Democratic leader is entitled to fly to her San Francisco district on military planes, just as her predecessor, Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (R), was able to fly home to Illinois on the planes. The House sergeant-at-arms, who helps oversee security for the House, suggested that flying nonstop would be the safest way home for Pelosi, who is next after the vice president in the line of presidential succession. That would require a larger plane than Hastert used.

*'Flying in a large Air Force plane, Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.) said, "appears to remove any spending controls from our operations and dramatically increases our impact on the environment, especially climate change."*

Then the White House weighed in: Too much ado about nothing.

"This is a silly story," said presidential spokesman Tony Snow, "and I think it's been unfair to the speaker."

For her part, Pelosi said: "I have never asked for any larger plane. I have said that I am happy to ride commercial if the plane they have doesn't go coast to coast."

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2007 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Missouri and Washington are fascinating races. Could Missouri be a bellweather of increasing Democratic strength? How close will Washington be next time? As for Louisiana, the best thing Blanco could do is declare she's not going to run and focus instead on rebuilding New Orleans while Democrats nominate somebody else.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | February 9, 2007 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Agree with Wayne Parent's comment above. The blog entry on Louisiana needs to be rewritten. Yes, it's highly likely that Jindal will win the election, but with the open primary, the more Republicans running against him, the worse his chances. That's because in the northern part of the state, which can normally be relied upon to vote GOP, there's a substantial amount of resistance to an Indian-American. That's ultimately what beat Jindal last time - people who would rather have a Democrat than a "furriner". More Republicans in the open primary makes it less likely that Jindal finishes in first or second place, which is what he has to do. If he makes the top two this time, he wins. (While there is a slight chance that Jindal wins the race outright in the first primary by getting 50% + 1 of the votes, it's unlikely if there's a large field of notable candidates of either party.)

Posted by: Anonymous | February 9, 2007 8:30 AM | Report abuse


willaim is the most racist, drooling knuckle-dragger i have ever seen. i'm really gllad he was offended by edward's bloggers. i'd love to do it everyday. becuase everything that comes out of him is grossly offensive.

the idea of him as a chrstian is a sick joke... he's a little nazi.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 9, 2007 7:56 AM | Report abuse

you've got a bad tag in #4. The 's wrapping "(Previous ranking: 3)" have two open tags and it's italicizing the remainder of the blog making it hard to read...

Posted by: steve o | February 9, 2007 7:56 AM | Report abuse

Louisiana's governorship may well switch party's - but no one will win the party's nomination because Louisiana doesn't have party primaries. Even with a recent change in law, only elections for U. S. Congress and U. S. Senate will use party primaries.

Posted by: Wayne Parent | February 9, 2007 7:25 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company