Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

The Friday Senate Line: Early Look at '08

If you needed a reminder of the paper-thin nature of the Democratic Senate majority and the importance of the 2008 elections, look no further than the furor caused by news of Sen. Tim Johnson's (D-S.D.) sudden illness followed by emergency brain surgery.

Speculation immediately centered the possibility of Johnson's death -- a morbid but inevitable result considering that a shift of national political power is at stake. If Johnson died or resigned, Gov. Mike Rounds (R) would have the power to appoint someone to serve out the remaining two years of Johnson's term. Assuming Rounds picked a Republican, it would mean that GOPers would likely control the body as Vice President Dick Cheney would be available to break 50-50 ties.

With the prognosis for Johnson unclear at the moment, it's impossible to determine the ultimate outcome. But, one way or another, 2008 will be a important election for each side. Democrats are seeking to take advantage of a favorable slant of the national playing field -- 21 Republican seats are up and just 12 Democratic ones -- to build a more sturdy majority. Republicans are hoping to make the Democrats' time in the majority short-lived.

The races mentioned below are the 10 most likely to switch parties in 2008. Remember that at this early stage in the election cycle, when retirement announcements are yet to be made and top-tier challengers have yet to emerge, much of the handicapping is simply speculation. The size and look of the 2008 Senate playing field remains extremely fluid and, as a result, the races are ranked alphabetically.

Your kudos and critiques are welcome in the comments section below.

To the Line!

* Colorado: The buzz out of Colorado seems to be that Sen. Wayne Allard (R) will not seek a third term in 2008, although one informed operative suggested it is closer to 50-50 and that Allard would make a decision early next year. Gov. Bill Owens would be Republicans first choice but he passed on the 2004 Senate race and has so far expressed little interest in the race. (That could of course change if the seat comes open.) A number of other Republicans may jump in if Owens takes a pass, including three former Members of Congress: Scott McInnis, Bob Shaefer and Bob Beauprez. Rep. Tom Tancredo might be the favorite if he decided to run, given his strong following among the party's most conservative voters. Rep. Mark Udall (D) has waited his turn to run for statewide office and doesn't seem likely to face a serious primary challenge. Democrats have made huge strides in the state over the past two election cycles and a Udall win would be the cherry on top.

* Louisiana: On paper, Sen. Mary Landrieu may be the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent seeking re-election in 2008. Landrieu was elected in 1996 by just 5,000 votes out of 1.6 million cast. In 2002 Landrieu defeated Elections Commissioner Suzanne Haik Terrell (R) in a December runoff with just 52 percent of the vote. Add those close elections to the fact that Hurricane Katrina scattered thousands of black voters -- the most reliable Democratic voting bloc in the state -- and you can quickly see that Landrieu may be in trouble. BUT, Republicans are focusing all of their attention right now on retaking the governor's office in 2007 -- meaning that Landrieu will not get their full and undivided attention until about this time next year. The candidates mentioned as challengers to Landrieu -- state Treasurer John Kennedy (D), who would likely switch to the Republican party if he ran, and Secretary of State Jay Dardenne (R) -- don't seem terribly exciting. If Rep. Bobby Jindal (R) comes up short in his bid to oust Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D) next November, he could pose a serious threat to Landrieu.

* Maine: The decline and fall of Republicans in the Northeast over the past few elections bodes poorly for Sen. Susan Collins' (R) chances of avoiding a tough race in 2008. Collins has long stood in the shadow of her colleague Olympia Snowe (R) and is seen as the more vulnerable of the two Senators. Rep. Tom Allen (D) told Roll Call -- The Fix's alma mater -- that he was seriously considering a challenge to Snowe. Allen would likely be the most formidable Democrat the party could put forward. He has held the 1st district, which takes in the southern part of the state including the state capital of Augusta as well as Portland, since 1996. Allen's challenge would be to introduce himself to the voters in the state's massive 2nd district -- the largest congressional district east of the Mississippi. Collins skated to victory in 2002, winning with 58 percent. Democrats won't let that happen again.

* Minnesota: Given his narrow win in 2002, Sen. Norm Coleman (R) is sure to face a serious re-election fight in 2008. But, it's not immediately clear who the Democrats will put forward. Rep. Betty McCollum was seen as one of their stronger candidates but she was recently named to the powerful Appropriations Committee in the House -- a perch she is unlikely to foresake for an uncertain Senate contest. Rumors continue to fly about a bid by comedian Al Franken (D). National Democrats must hope Franken stays out or runs a less than serious campaign as he might be able to win the primary on name recognition alone, a victory that would severely jeopardize Democrats' chances of defeating Coleman. Other Democrats mentioned include Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, wealthy attorney Mike Ciresi and freshman Rep. Tim Walz.

* Mississippi: Sen. Thad Cochran (R) recently said he would make a decision by September on whether or not to run for a 6th term. Man, The Fix hates to wait and we think it's more likely than not that Cochran will be forced to make a decision before September -- especially if he plans to retire. Rep. Chip Pickering (R) has been waiting in the wings to run for Senate for several cycles as evidenced by the $774,000 he had in the bank at the end of the 2006 election. Former state Attorney General Mike Moore (D) is likely the only Democrat who could make this race close, but, so far, has given no indication of his interest. And for those of you who insist Mississippi won't be competitive in 2008 no matter the circumstances, ponder this scenario: Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) is on the national Democratic ticket as either president or vice president, the first black politician to be so distinguished. Is it implausible that Democrats could expect historically high turnout from the 36 percent of African-American voters in the state?

* Montana: Asked recently whether he was considering a run against Sen. Max Baucus (D), Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R) demurred, insisting he was focused on matters more directly at hand. That sort of "non-denial denial" differs from Rehberg's past public statements in which he said he would not challenge Baucus. If Rehberg chose to run it would be a rematch from 1996 when Baucus won 50 percent to 45 percent. Because of the strong Republican nature of the state -- President Bush carried to by 20 points in 2004 -- Baucus would have a very serious race if Rehberg decided to run. If Rehberg takes a pass, Baucus would likely have a much easier time.

* New Hampshire: Democrats are extremely optimistic about their chances against Sen. John Sununu (R) following their takeover of both of the Granite State's House seats in 2005. Sununu's job performance numbers linger under 50 percent in private Democratic polling -- a danger sign. Plus, Sununu has never enjoyed fundraising -- showing just $561,000 in the bank as of Sept. 30. Several Democrats are mentioned with former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen at the top of the list. Shaheen ran against Sununu in 2002, losing 51 percent to 47 percent in a strong Republican year nationwide. Portsmouth Mayor Steve Marchand is also weighing a bid for the Democratic nomination.

* New Mexico: Sen. Pete Domenici (R) continues to insist he will run for a seventh term but neutral observers remain unconvinced. Domenici drew some negative press recently when Roll Call's Heard on the Hill reported that he was seen in the Capitol building wearing what looked like pajama bottoms. Domenici said they were "hunting pants." If Domenici bows out, expect a spirited Republican primary between Reps. Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce. Perace is the more conservative of the two, but Wilson is the more battle-tested. Democrats have no obvious candidate as Rep. Tom Udall is apparently not interested. Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez and outgoing state Attorney General Patricia Madrid are also mentioned.

* North Carolina:Following her disastrous performance as the chairwoman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in the 2006 cycle, rumors of a retirement by Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R) continue to circulate in the D.C. Dole will be 72 years old on election day 2008 and had hip replacement surgery earlier this week. It's also not immediately clear that Dole would have a path back into leadership even if she won re-election to a second term. If Dole retired, Democrats would likely turn to Gov. Mike Easley (D) who will be term limited out of office in 2008. Rep. Bobby Etheridge (D) has also toyed with the idea of running for the Senate in recent years and might find an open seat irresistible. For Republicans the field is entirely unformed.

* South Dakota: Before Johnson fell ill earlier this week, he was seen as a prime target for Republicans in 2008. He defeated then Rep. John Thune (R) by just 524 votes in 2002, and South Dakota is more likely to perform up to its Republican roots in a presidential year like 2008 than an off-year like 2002. Johnson's brain condition severely clouds analysis of this race. It remains to be seen how badly (if at all) Johnson is incapacitated and how much (if at all) it affects his decision to run. Prior to his illness, Johnson had decided to run for re-election. Gov. Mike Rounds (R), who would be charged with appointing a successor to Johnson if he died or resigned, is the candidate most often mentioned on the Republican side. If Johnson decides not to run, Rep. Stephanie Herseth would be the obvious Democratic choice.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 15, 2006; 8:47 AM ET
Categories:  The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: More Good News for Edwards in Iowa
Next: With Bayh Out, Which Democrats Benefit Most?

Comments

gzdwlq bolcugzrk lfyvpze prcaqg vjslgpf mnytuxjw vmdryh http://www.zthkl.ihakmbl.com

Posted by: xkcpsnhur oeakwmq | January 20, 2007 7:46 AM | Report abuse

gzdwlq bolcugzrk lfyvpze prcaqg vjslgpf mnytuxjw vmdryh http://www.zthkl.ihakmbl.com

Posted by: xkcpsnhur oeakwmq | January 20, 2007 7:46 AM | Report abuse

ghriy kqyjtn medxl ybtkpgo nxryaw xghickfa ldxmq

Posted by: cuvlwan nqvzjf | January 20, 2007 7:45 AM | Report abuse

My Webster's Dictionary's definition of the term Hispanic American is: a U.S. citizen or resident of Spanish or Latin-American descent.

Hispanic is defined as: pertaining to Spain or Spanish-speaking countries.

Your argument that Mexicans are not like Cubans, etc. is taken, but couldn't the same be said about different white ethnics (Germans, Italians, Swedes, etc.)? For the sake of practicality, we lump ethnic groups under a select few racial categories. That's because different ethnic groups typically share racial characteristics. For example, many residents of sub-Saharan Africa can be divided into various ethnic groups, but they do share one common characteristic: they have dark skin.

I'm sorry, but classifying Hispanics as whites is simply non-sensical. If Jose Cuervo of Guatemalan descent is wanted for murder, I want the cops to be looking for a suspect with Hispanic racial features, not for a "white" male with dark black hair.

Poor Murray Rothstein whose grandparents survived the Holocaust, or Arnold Becker whose great-grandparents came from Germany, might be the ones wrongly interrogated if the only description cops have to work with is "white male with dark black hair."

Posted by: KY-6 Guy | December 31, 2006 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Hello, nice site look this:
foto sesso Eva [url=http://foto-sesso.sex-italy.org/foto-sesso.html]foto sesso Eva[/url]

End ^) See you

Posted by: Americo | December 31, 2006 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Hello, nice site look this:
sesso Asia [url=http://sex-italy.org/index.html]sesso Asia[/url]

End ^) See you

Posted by: Alessandro | December 30, 2006 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Here in Montana, the presidential race has little effect on state races. Remember that, though Bush got a lop-sided win of Montana's electoral votes in 2004, the Democrats took the governorship, three out of four state-wide election offices and control of both houses of the Montana Legislature.

Most Montanans aren't ideologues. We are famous for split-ticket voting here.

The fact that it is a general election, is no reason for Rehberg to abandon a probably safe seat as the at-large congressman (plus surrender his congressional seniority) for an unlikely chance at Baucus.

Not only would Rehberg's challenge to Baucus be at long odds, he would endanger GOP hold on the lone house seat by making it an open contest.

Save an Abramoff-style scandal on Baucus that would make the Democrat suddenly vulnerable, Rehberg is staying where he is.

Look for some of the rising stars of the Montana GOP to take that race on. State Rep. Bob Keenan already ran against Burns for the GOP nomination this time. He definitely has no qualms about running a long-odds race.

State House Speaker Scott Sales is another newly prominent Republican who might jump in. They have little to lose and will gain name recognition for a later election, such has challenging Tester in his first reelection bid in 2012.
Sales though, is set up to be the most visible and prominent opposition to Governor Brian Schweitzer during this coming session of the Legislature. He may be more inclined to continue that contest into the 2008 gubernatorial general election.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | December 21, 2006 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I think this list of senate races for 08' has some truly really tough races on there, but I really don't understand how others are on this list! My top 10 senate races most likely to change hands:

1.) Tim Johnson in South Dakota. I realize that his approval ratings are high. However, he is in a critical state right now. His health will be an issue, as well as giving Dems. power in a fairly trending Republican state. Rounds is a very popular gov. and may well run in 08. I think Johnson may resign and Tom Dashle may run and try to play pull a Trent Lott playing come-back kid. Either way, the Republicans likely pick this seat up.

2.)Colorodo: Wayne Allard is almost certain to resign. Udall is going to be the dem. nominee, and has waited his turn to do so. He has establishment and money in the state. The Republican's don't know who their nominee will be, yet. Tancredo has said he may even run against Owens for the nomination, and if he did that would be a heck of a fight. If Owens is the nominee, the Republicans have a great chance to keep the seat. If the Republican nominee is anyone else, with Udall, Dems. have a great chance to pick up the seat.

3.) Mary Landrieu in Louisiana. I think she's in deep trouble. Any of the 5 Republican congressman could run and possibly win, especially with the support of popular US senator David Vitter. I'm guessing Bobby Jindal will win the governor's race, and the Louisiana will be able to court a very credible candidate to defeat Landrieu. My guess is that would be U.S. Rep. Richard Baker, who is very popular and would likely win. Big chance for the Republicans.

4.) John Sununu in New Hampshire. He could have a very tough race in front of him. I couldn't believe that both Rup. US reps. lost in 04'. I think the Rups. will put up good candidates in 06' to try and re-take those seats, and could help Sununu in doing it. This time, popular Gov. John Lynch won't be leading the ticket like in 06, either. He and popular Republican Senator Judd Gregg will serve to endorse and support rather than lead the ticket. It also matters who will be on both Presidential tickets. The dems. seem to have many candidates ready to engage in a primary, too. This one will have many variables, but in the right situation could be a great pick-up chance for the dems.

5.) Norm Coleman in Minnesota. This year this "purple state" re-elected gov. Pawlenty but overwhelmingly showed what they thought of Washington by overwhelmingly electing county Att. Klobuchar over US rep. Mark Kennedy. Coleman seems popular in Minn. However, this will be a Presidential year in which the Republicans are having their convention in Minn. If the national mood is better for the Republicans and Pawlenty is still popular in 08', Coleman should be re-elected handily. If not, and Iraq is rough, it will be a tough election for Coleman to win if the dems. can get a strong candidate.

6.)Max Baucus in Montana. If Dennis Rehberg was ever going to run agianst Baucus, this is the year to it. It's a Presidential year in a Republican state, which could well bring Rehberg to top Baucus in this senate race. Especially with the other senate seat being democratic with Tester. Rehberg could well be the next US senator from Montana, if he decides to run.

7.) Carl Levin in Michigan. Michigan is another "purple state". Granholm was re-elected governor, but it was over a silver spooned opponent in Dick Devos. Sure, he had alot of money to spend on the race. But you can't telling people who have laid off "if you want health insurance, get a job" with any amount of money. For the 08' senate race, Michigan has some great Republican candidates looking at the race. U.S. Reps. Candice Miller and Mike Rogers, former Mi. first lady Michelle Engler and current AG Mike Cox. Miller was a sought after candidate in 06, but opted out of running. I think she may do the same this year. I think Cox will back out b/c if he ran and won, Granholm would be able to annoint Michigan's new AG, which would be a democrat. Engler is a mentioned name, but it's doubtful she will honestly run. My guess is that unless David Brandon, Dimino's Pizza CEO, gets into the race the nominee would be Mike Rogers. Either one of these nominee's would would make a great GOP nominee against Levin. Levin is in for a very tough race in 08.

8.) Susan Collins in Maine. 2 Republican senator's in this "blue state", how long can this be sustained? Well, both Snowe and Collins approval ratings are above 70%-Survey USA poll. If U.S. Rep. Tom Allen gets into the race as the dem. nominee, it could be a very close race. Allen is liked by around 61% of his district. But he's not well known in the other district. He would have to beat out Collins significantly in fund-raising and it would appear to be an up-hill battle for Allen. But if he get's into the race, he will attempt to climb the mountain and I'm sure will be able to get his message out in the relatively inexpensive Maine t.v./radio markets. I think Collins will win, but Allen could give her a very tough race.

9.) Senator John Kerry in Massachusetts. Kerry's approval ratings for the past few months have not been good, in fact, they have been really bad. This month's survey says Kerry's approval numbers are 43%-53%. That's right, only 43% of Mass. residents in the survey approved of Kerry's job performance, while 53% disapproved. 2 high profiled Republicans, former Bush White House Cheif of Staff Andy Card and ex-Mass. governor Paul Celluci are said to be considering the race. The best candidate to defeat Kerry would propably be Celluci. He's served as gov. in Ma. and has proved he can win the state. Against Kerry in all of his gaffes, Celluci or Card may have a chance to defeat Kerry and win a Ma. senate seat for the Republicans in....how long? This state is still very democratic, especially nationally. This is why this one is ranked 9th and not higher.

10.) Frank Lautenberg in New Jersey. Now, every election cycle that includes a state-wide race in NJ is deemed competitive...but after the campaign is over the democrat's win the election most of the time. The top notched candidates here that could run are famous former MLB NYY/NYM pitcher Al Leiter, Ex-Ambassador Cliff Sobel and U.S. Rep. Frank LoBiondo. Also mentioned is Tom Kean Jr., who lost a tough race against Bob Menendez this year. If the NJ Republican party can get their cards in a row they have a real shot of beating Lautenberg. Lautenberg's approval ratings are about 39%.

These are races I'm watching, which I believe are going to be competitive as of now.


Posted by: reason | December 20, 2006 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Sununu's reelection efforts in New Hampshire will be complicated by his record on climate change, an issue that is becoming increasingly important to NH voters. As a resident of a small town in New Hampshire, my sense is that more and more citizens (from both parties) want their elected officials to provide real solutions to energy and climate change issues that also protect the economy. But you don't have to rely on my political sonar, a look at the early messaging from presidential candidates (announced and unannounced) in the state shows that their perceptions match mine (http://www.carboncoalition.org/blog/index.php). In contrast to this, Sen. Sununu was the only senator from Maine to Maryland to vote against McCain-Lieberman in 2003 and followed that up by opposing the Bingaman sense of the senate resolution in 2005. Meanwhile, NH's vital tourism economy stands to suffer from rising temperatures. This is especially true for the already struggling North Country, where the economic effects of a weather-effected decrease in winter tourism would be devastating (http://www.carboncoalition.org/education/documents/WinterRec_GlobalWarming_NH_FactSheet.pdf) Just today, the Union-Leader reports that snowmobile registrations are down by up to 25% this winter). Concern among Republicans about the Senator's climate change position is evidenced by this conversation at a prominent NH blog (http://www.nhinsider.com/jim-rubens/2006/10/9/how-to-persuade-sununu-on-global-warming.html). Barack Obama received two standing ovations during his speech in Manchester, one for comments on the war in Iraq and the other for comments on climate change. Senator Sununu will be facing his first election in a state with Democrats controlling the governorship and both state houses, he ignores these indicators at his own peril. With public opinion on both sides of the aisle ahead of him on this issue, Sen. Sununu has less than two years to show voters that he is beginning to understand the issue and the impact it will have on his state.

Posted by: newmarketnh | December 19, 2006 12:23 PM | Report abuse

No one has pointed out in the California-Washington crime discussion that Washington shares a LONG border with Canada.

Posted by: larry | December 18, 2006 11:00 PM | Report abuse

I read that Senator Collins (R-Maine) may not run for re-election because If she resigns to work in the administration then Baldacci, who is ultra-liberal, would appoint her replacement.

Posted by: Chris Baker | December 18, 2006 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Chris I read that Senator Collins (R-Maine) may not run for re-election because Baldacci won re-election as Governor. If she resigns to work in the administration then Baldacci, who is ultra-liberal, would appoint her replacement.

Also too bad there are so many extraneous comments, making the comment section worthless.

Posted by: Chris Baker | December 18, 2006 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Chris I read that Senator Collins (R-Maine) may not run for re-election because Baldacci won re-election as Governor. If she resigns to work in the administration then Baldacci, who is ultra-liberal would appoint her replacement.

Also too bad there are so many extraneous comments, making the comment section worthless.

Posted by: Chris Baker | December 18, 2006 10:12 PM | Report abuse

I agree with you folks that "Hispanic" is a con-job. Wonder who came up with it? Wonder what slogan George Bush used in the Texas Gov. race in 1994? Karl Rove is known as the "architect" for a reason. I wonder who did come up with it, does anyone know?

Speaking of the "Hispanic" vote, what do you folks make of the RNC naming Florida senator Mel Martinez as the new party leader. Any comments on that one?

Posted by: reason | December 18, 2006 9:41 PM | Report abuse

BTW - I give credit to whomever came up with the Hispanic concept and "sold" it to the rest of us. They were highly perceptive and terrific salesmen.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | December 18, 2006 4:10 PM | Report abuse

KY-6 Guy - Personally, I buy the position that "Hispanic" is a con job anyway.

Some smart power activists neatly pulled all Spanish heritage people under that umbrella, and the rest of us bought it. Cubans are no more like Mexicans, than Mexicans are like Salvadorans, etc... Many "Spanish" New Mexicans consider themselves better than Mexican New Mexicans. Where do Brazilians fit? Portugese are not Hispanic.

I opt for White for Hispanics.

No disagreement from me on that point.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | December 18, 2006 4:05 PM | Report abuse

I am a democrat but, regretably, I don't think Hillary Clinton can win the general. There are too many people who have spent so much of their lives trying to tear hear down in the press and in books. These people are well-funded and have effectively painted her as a self-centered, ambition-only woman who is looney lefty and would "be worst than the devil himself." This is the kind of perverse politics that is going on in our country and it would be too difficult to change peoples minds by 2008.

Also, polls show that a big chunck of the populace would not vote for ANY woman on the ballot. Consequently, dems must look to Obama or Edwards. Even though Obama is black, he is non-threating to white supremacy, and so he could win. In other words, he is a "comfortable" black candidate for many voters. Also, Edwards and Obama have not been dragged through the mud like Hillary. In short but, sadly, the right-wing is right: Anybody but Hillary.

This may sound too cynical given that control of congress went to the Dems so recenty, but in a presidential race, we will be looking at the candidates very closely and dems can't bank on Republicans messing things up like they did this year.

Posted by: Jose | December 18, 2006 4:00 PM | Report abuse

And concerning the FBI, I misspoke earlier. I know of no problems with their data collection, just the way they classify their information. Don't you think it's odd that the FBI thinks people of Hispanic descent can only be victims of crime but not the perpetraters of crime?

Posted by: KY-6 Guy | December 18, 2006 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Of course stereotypes have some truth to them, or else they wouldn't be stereotypes.

Thanks for doing research on the "Color of Crime." Unfortunately, you would have been better served by actually reading it rather than worrying about its authors. If you knew "bigots" liked Shakespeare or Twain, would you not read them either? Oops, probably too late. Hitler loved Wagner....should his music now be placed in the local bonfire?

As far as Mr. Taylor, he's Ivy League educated and lived for a time in Japan - two places I don't think an alleged 'white supremacist' would want to be. I doubt you can find a quote from him where he says whites are superior to all races or that he denies the Holocaust.

Posted by: KY-6 Guy | December 18, 2006 1:34 PM | Report abuse

reason - you're right. Carcieri's was just re-elected, so his term ends in 2010.

One of these years Linc just may have that epiphany that the Republican Party changed in 1964; and literally just doesn't want him or anybody like him.

Independent is the way for him to go. He'd just be the "next" New Englander to do it.

I'd still guess that Governor is the next elected office for him.

Sorry about the error. Still thinking in a "two-year term" mode for RI officials.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | December 18, 2006 1:31 PM | Report abuse

KY-6 Guy - "Concerning stereotypes, they are more or less true." Are you sure you really meant that? Think about it, just by definition.

Also, I did some research on the source "'The Color of Crime.' It's well documented and insightful,..."

It's a publication of The New Century Foundation. The NCF appears to be a one-man operation, run out of his house by Jared Taylor.

Comments on Mr. Taylor from various sites: 1) "Taylor's writings have found a responsive audience among unapologetic Jew-haters and Hitler acolytes. In the early 1990s, his work was reprinted, under the name Samuel Taylor, in Spearhead,2 an extremist journal in England closely affiliated with the neo-Nazi British National Party. He has also been reprinted in the Journal of Historical Review, published by the California-based Institute for Historical Review, the leading Holocaust-denial organization in the country. He was a featured speaker, along with Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis, at the 1995 convention of the Populist Party, which was founded by Willis Carto and ran David Duke as its presidential candidate in 1988."

2) "The New Century Foundation, founded November 1990 and based in Oakton, Virginia, is a 'self-styled' think tank that publishes a monthly journal and a Web site called American Renaissance. Also hosts biannual conferences. The Foundation promotes pseudoscientific and questionably researched and argued studies to validate the superiority of whites."

No need to comment.

BTW: First you used FBI statistics to make a point. Then later you say that the FBI's crime data collection methods are faulty.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | December 18, 2006 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Nor'Easter,

I agree with your view that Chafee couldn't beat Reed as a Republican candidate. Nor, do I think, any Republican running could beat Reed. But there are rumors that Chafee will switch parties. Carcieri is term-limited, but his term ends in 2010, not 2008. I wouldn't be surprised if Chafee does something different, which includes leaving the Republican party and running for senate under another party or as an independent.

Posted by: reason | December 18, 2006 1:08 PM | Report abuse

reason - Linc is not going to change parties; and as a Republican he would give Sen. Reed a good race, but lose. (Reed's done nothing to be thrown out + the overwhelming base advantage of registered Democrats compared to Republicans).

Look for Governor Lincoln Chaffee in 2008. Carcieri is term limited, and Rhode Islanders have no problem electing Republican Governors.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | December 18, 2006 12:16 PM | Report abuse

reason - Linc is not going to change parties, and as a Republican he would give Sen. Reed a good race, but lose. (Reed's done nothing to be thrown out + the overwhelming base advantage of registered Democrats compared to Republicans).

Look for Governor Lincoln Chaffee in 2008. Carcieri is term limited, and Rhode Islanders have no problem electing Republican Governors.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | December 18, 2006 12:02 PM | Report abuse

I don't quite see how Mississippi is on this list of competitive states. If Obama was on the Presidential/VP list that did attract black voters to the polls, do you not think whites would rush out to vote against him and the dems? If black voters in Miss. make up 35% of voters, do you not think they would have came out to vote against Lott in 06? Lott won re-election with 63.6% of the vote. Is that the best a dem. can do? Try again, Chris. If Cochran retires and that seat becomes available, Charles Pickering will take it easily. If not then Cochran wins easily.

In my home state of NC, Liddy Doyle is in good shape for re-election. As far as I can tell, she's running again. Maybe she's not loved around the nation and maybe she had a bad election cycle as chair of the NRC, but we love her here at home. She also helped to sponsor and push through the tobacco buy-out, which NC greatly appreciated. B/c of that, Doyle will be our US senator for as long as she wants to be.

One senate race missing from this list is John Kerry in Ma. A recent political survey in Ma. from surveyusa had Kerry's approval rating @ 48%, with 50% disapproving of his job performance. 2 high profiled names being mentioned are ex-white house cheif of staff Andrew Card and ex-Ma. governor Paul Celluci. I think that if Celluci decided to really make a run, he could actually defeat Kerry for the senate seat.

Another race to watch is Levin in Michigan. Reps. Candice Miller or Mike Rogers could really give him a tough race. Other potential candidates include current attorney general Mike Cox, ex-first lady Michelle Engler or Dimino's pizza CEO David Brandon.

Other races that could get competitive are Lamar Alexander in Tenn., if governor Bredsen gets into the race. R.I. could get interesting if Chafee switches parties and runs as some sort of independent against Reed.

Posted by: reason | December 18, 2006 10:14 AM | Report abuse

william:

'The truth is that minorities are to blame for high crime rates, not guns.'

the truth is, you are a turd, not worth scraping off my shoe.

'

Posted by: Anonymous | December 18, 2006 7:41 AM | Report abuse

William,

Fifty four hours after asking you to provide web sites that show Massachusetts has a poor education system (my post on December 15, 2006 08:41 PM), I still haven't seen a response. I'm still waiting.

Do NOT ask me to prove Massachusetts does have a good education system. You stated it doesn't, so you have the obligation to back up your assertion.

If you can't provide information from credible sources, then admit you made a mistake. If you can't do either, I'm sure your presence here would not be missed by many.

Posted by: Mike in Baltimore | December 18, 2006 2:34 AM | Report abuse

Dude, if I run for president I get to hang out with Miss America?

Posted by: aleks | December 18, 2006 1:19 AM | Report abuse

Get all of your 2008 Election Shirts, Hats, Buttons and Stickers. Support your candidate early! http://www.cafepress.com/buy/politics?pid=7458855"

Posted by: Anonymous | December 18, 2006 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Get all of your 2008 Election Shirts, Hats, Buttons and Stickers. Support your candidate early! 2008 Election Items

Posted by: Anonymous | December 18, 2006 12:14 AM | Report abuse

How come the only people ranting about the "race issue" concerning Senator Obama are white-coservative-bigots?
Let face it, they would never vote for him anyway.
So who cares what they think!

These under achievers need someone to blame for their failures. (The Jews, The Gays, The Blacks, The Liberals)

They never look into the mirror and see the real cause of their personal failures.

Which to me, explains why "Bush-Lite" has removed all mirrors from the White House.

Posted by: Bob North Smithfield | December 17, 2006 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Still waiting for you to eplain how any of the data you cite shows a CAUSAL relationship between race and crime William. Are you ignoring me b/c you realize that's impossible? So sad.

Posted by: Colin | December 17, 2006 9:33 PM | Report abuse

drindl and William go a long way in advanceing my theory and then by their posts starts to turn me around with the logic they show in some of their views. Be consistant you guys or you will have me as mixed up as you'all are. Ha Ha Ha.

Posted by: lylepink | December 17, 2006 9:09 PM | Report abuse

drindl, you have contributed absolutely nothing to this thread, or any other.

Considering the lack of intelligence you consistently display, I'm surprised you actually read newspapers at all.

Why don't you go back to your hippie peace march?

Maybe the National Guard will do the country a favor a give us a Kent State: Reloaded.

Whenever I read about what happened at Kent State, and how those pinkos got shot, I can't help but burst out laughing.

Posted by: William | December 17, 2006 7:59 PM | Report abuse

"Did it ever occur to anyone that this country's relatively high crime rate has a lot to do with our general fascination with guns and gun ownership (and I'm not talking about guns for hunting and sporting)?"

It hasn't occured to people who have a brain in their heads. Clearly, you aren't one of them.

Have you read the list of states crime rates that someone else posted?

West Virginia, the Dakotas, and other states that have extremely lax gun laws have little crime, while states such as NY, CA, etc that have very strict gun laws have a lot of crime.

Texas, a state with loose gun laws, also as a lot of crime.

The only thing that all high crime states share is lots of non-white people, especially blacks and hispanics.

Areas with lots of blacks and hispanics have high crime. Areas with few blacks and hispanics have a lot less crime.

If gun control worked, DC would be the safest place in the nation since guns are banned there.

But DC is the crime capital of the nation, and has extremely high crime.

And who lives in DC? Mostly black people. There you go.

Guns don't cause crime. Guns protect innocent people against criminals.

Anyone who thinks guns lead to crime is retarded. Does VT have high crime? How bout SD? ND? WV? KY?

I thought so.

In all the states with little crime, the population consists of mostly white people.

Wherever minorities go, they bring crime.

Guns don't cause crime. People who are bad will commit crimes even without guns.

Don't blame guns for crimes just because it is PC to do so.

The truth is that minorities are to blame for high crime rates, not guns.

Posted by: William | December 17, 2006 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Did it ever occur to anyone that this country's relatively high crime rate has a lot to do with our general fascination with guns and gun ownership (and I'm not talking about guns for hunting and sporting)?

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | December 17, 2006 7:19 PM | Report abuse

blarg illustrates why it's useless to argue with wingers. when presented with facts, they pretend they don't exist.

'Boehmers and Drindl are sore losers. Remember how they used to gloat that Democrats could not win elections?'

i really puzzled by this one. dude, i'm a democrat.

'Sure, they'll vote for the GOP presidential candidate in 2008, but they are completely in thrall with Democrats state-wide.' Re: montanans. why would they vote for an R for presient, if they automatically voted D on everything else?

Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2006 5:14 PM | Report abuse

This really is fun watching a bunch of folks trying to prove how smart they are when by doing so just proves the simple fact that they are not as smart as they would like some of us to believe. Pretending to be something you are not and you are only fooling yourself.

Posted by: lylepink | December 17, 2006 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"The fact that California is diverse and has a relatively low crime rate while Washington state is far less diverse and has relatively higher crime just means they are evidence that the opposite statistical tendency is true, which my original list of state rankings and population percentages show."

Huh? You seem to be using evidence that contradicts your claim as evidence that proves your claim. If you say that more minorities = more crime, you need to explain why that's not true for Washington and California. You can't just ignore it. It's like if you said that snow is black, I pointed to white snow, and you said "That just proves my point." It's logically incoherent.

Posted by: Blarg | December 17, 2006 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Golgi, I've provided plenty of statistics. William is the one just making vague claims.

He said that Massachusetts is horrible because of the high taxes. I posted numbers, complete with citation, proving that Massachusetts doesn't have high taxes relative to other states. He said that Massachusetts has a terrible crime problem. I posted statistics proving that wrong too. (That's what started the whole minority crime issue.)

I don't remember seeing William post any statistics. KY-06 has, but William hasn't. And every time someone else posts numbers, William stops talking about it. (He never responded to my numbers about taxes or crime.) So how can you say that William's won this round based on his command of statistics?

Posted by: Blarg | December 17, 2006 4:21 PM | Report abuse

i can't during the holiday season be bothered to read the whole thread, but was disappointed in the exchange between "William" and several others. it seems characteristic of the loud and dim that they feel that insults and VOLUME go some way toward proving their arguments to be correct. the reason i and i imagine many or most of you read this blog is to see what people are seriously thinking about a topic that interests me. i am utterly uninterested in what you have had to say thus far, william, and i would suggest to everyone else that no one reply to william, in the hopes of shutting him up.
The King of Zouk is a more difficult case in that he persists in his belief in some GOP articles of faith which defy reality. Earth to Zouk:
-Karl Rove is a dishonest, unprincipled political hack.
-Al Gore won the 2000 election.
-Terri Schiavo really was brain-dead - a fact agreed to by all the physicians who actually were in the room working.
-George W. Bush used to use cocaine.
-George W. Bush used to drive drunk.
-George "The Decider" Bush does not have a good track record when it comes to the results of the decisions he has made.
-when engaged in responsibly between consenting adults, there is nothing wrong with any kind of sex you can imagine.
-Human inactivity with regard to climate change - and specifically the lack of activity of this administration - has resulted according to OVERWHELMING INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS in serious and possibly unfixable harm to the environment.
-Single-payer health care does have its shortcomnings, but in the long run would cover more Americans more cheaply than the for-profit crock we got now.
-Religion in the modern world is more a divisive force than one bringing us together. Of course, there is good in religion, but it is not because it is religion but rather because there is good in people.
-Bill Clinton's liasion with Monica Lewinsky hurt no one.
-Bush's liasion with oil interests (see: Dick's with Halliburton) have killed almost 3000 Americans so far, and woulded thousands more.
-and then there was Katrina.

gotta go - sorry. (i know, the list isn't complete, but ya see what I'm sayin', don't ya laddie?)

Posted by: meuphys | December 17, 2006 4:18 PM | Report abuse

On the GOP side in Montana, look for Bob Keenan to seek the GOP nomination for US Senate -- again. Keenan, a GOP legislative leader, is actually to the right of Burns. He challenged Burns in the primary this year as the "ethical alternative," due to the publicity on the Abramoff connections. Keenan won 30 percent of the vote in the primary, which is impressive considering that he had little funding and was challenging a three-term incumbant.
He mended fences by appearing in two strong pro-Burns TV ads in the general election. He certainly has to be looked at. Another possibility might be Speaker of the Montana House Scott Sales. A Bozeman conservative, Sales has taken an aggressive position as GOP house leader after the GOP won a recount on a tie vote in a Yellowstone County district to gain a one-vote majority in the state house.
His fortunes may rest on how Montana voters view the 07 session of the Legislature.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | December 17, 2006 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Why do people still insist on comparing apples with oranges?

Let's compare apples to apples shall we....we've now established Toronto's white population at 57%, twice that of the city of Washington. Why include suburban Washington if you're not going to include suburban Toronto? Maybe the question is now answerable.

Anyone care to provide crime stats between the diverse province of Ontario and the presumably less diverse provinces of western Canada? Hey, even if I'm wrong about Canada, I never said this was universal. Situations can be unique to a certain nation, and it's the situation in the U.S. that deserves our attention.

As far as California and Washington state goes, I would say they are "exceptions that prove the rule." The fact that California is diverse and has a relatively low crime rate while Washington state is far less diverse and has relatively higher crime just means they are evidence that the opposite statistical tendency is true, which my original list of state rankings and population percentages show.

Why was Spud Webb famous? Because he was a very short NBA player. He was the exception that suggests most NBA players are tall. Why is Tiger Woods famous for being a multiracial golfer? Because most pro golfers are not terribly multiracial.

If you ask Nor'Easter about Washington state, he might be inclined to guess that criminals like working when it's wet.

If anyone wants to know about crime statistics involving different ethnic groups, it is readily available on the internet from a publication called "The Color of Crime." It's well documented and insightful, and also sheds light on a faulty way the FBI collects statistics on crime. Did you know that the FBI collects data on Hispanic victims of crime, but lumps Hispanics in with whites as perpetraters of crime?

Concerning stereotypes, they are more or less true. Blame for their perpetuation rests not with the media, but on the behavior of your ancestral kinsmen and their descendents. C'est la vie.

Posted by: KY-6 Guy | December 17, 2006 3:30 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Republican living in Montana, and I can tell you right now there's no way Max Baucus (D-MT)is going to be defeated when he runs again in 2008. Sure, they'll vote for the GOP presidential candidate in 2008, but they are completely in thrall with Democrats state-wide.

Posted by: TRK | December 17, 2006 3:10 PM | Report abuse

There's something else that might be interesting to muse about in terms of '08 Senate races (if one is given to musing about very distant hypotheticals): what happens to the seats of presidential candidates who are currently senators.
A McCain presidency for example would leave Janet Napolitano (D) to appoint his replacement, right? (Not exactly something one should hope for as a Democrat, but at least offers a better chance of maintaining a blue Senate even if McCain sweeps the presidential election.)
This of course isn't the case with Obama (Illinois) or Clinton (New York), which now have recently (re-)elected Democratic governors. Edwards, Guiliani, Romney, many of the other candidates are already out of office. Other Senators are running (Brownback, Biden, Dodd, others) but seem to have less of a chance at the nomination. (Sebelius (D) in Kansas, Minner (D) in Delaware, Rell (R) in Connecticut)).
Anyway, of course it's more complicated than I'm making it out to be. There must be some states where the decision doesn't necessarily come from the Governor's mansion.

Posted by: Peter Erickson | December 17, 2006 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Noname, my point was that people on this blog ARE already wasting their time engaging William. Since I agree with their fundamental points, I would prefer to see them use some stronger arguments if they are going to be engaging him anyway. Ignoring him would also be fine, but he seems to have the knack for engaging people.

Also, it's "Golgi" not "Gogli"... now I know how "Guiliani" feels...

Colin, William "wins this round" because he has at least presented some facts, and his many opponents have presented few while making themselves look stupid. I did like your divorce citation. That was a rare treat in this largely inane anti-William thread.

Posted by: Golgi | December 17, 2006 2:27 PM | Report abuse

'President Bush is considering several options for a new strategy in Iraq, such as a proposal backed by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., that would send tens of thousands of additional troops for an indefinite period to quickly secure Baghdad. There are about 134,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now.'

Let's just call this what it is--vietnamization.

Posted by: jana | December 17, 2006 2:08 PM | Report abuse

McCain waffles even as he flipflops -- big time.

'IT'S not the least of John McCain's political talents that he comes across as a paragon of straight talk even when he isn't talking straight. So it was a surprise to see him reduced to near-stammering on ABC's "This Week" two Sundays after the election. The subject that brought him low was the elephant in the elephants' room, or perhaps we should say in their closet: homosexuality.

Senator McCain kept repeating two safe talking points for dear life: he opposes same-sex marriage (as does every major presidential aspirant in both parties) and he is opposed to discrimination. But because he had endorsed a broadly written Arizona ballot initiative that could have been used to discriminate against unmarried domestic partners, George Stephanopoulos wouldn't let him off the hook.

"Are you against civil unions for gay couples?" he asked the senator, who replied, "No, I'm not." When Mr. Stephanopoulos reiterated the question seconds later -- "So you're for civil unions?" -- Mr. McCain answered, "No." In other words he was not against civil unions before he was against them. '

Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2006 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Gogli--engaging someone who is spewing irrational filth is both pointless and counter-productive. Why should we waste our time?

Posted by: Anonymous | December 17, 2006 1:56 PM | Report abuse

So a failure to PROVE a negative statistically means that William "wins this round?" Fascinating statement. I'll start writing a grant to determine -- definitively -- what the causes of violent crime are right now. Till I find out about the funding, however, I think that pointing out that William's "statistics" PROVE absolutely nothing will have to do. Also, I didn't say William = David Duke. I simply noted, accurately, that Mr. Duke shares his views on at least one topic. To quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "you're entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

Posted by: Colin | December 17, 2006 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Incoming Democrats will fund this year's spending bills--left unfinished by retreating Republicans--at last year's levels, stripping them of earmarks and eliminating the need for lengthy debate. The money saved will likely be spent on the new agenda. Avid earmarkers are "quietly fuming."

Everyone reports that Evan Bayh will not seek the presidency. Barack Obama's continued crypto-candidacy made Bayh feel like a "David" among "Goliaths" in New Hampshire last week. Supposedly a plus for John Edwards, who plans to announce this month in New Orleans. .
.
Wrapping up today's themes: Frank Rich notes that Rove's "supposedly fool-proof" overt political appeals to homophobia have become awkward for Republican politicians. Especially those that attack gay penguins.

Posted by: Tommy2 | December 17, 2006 1:52 PM | Report abuse


Elsewhere in Baghdad, 53 bodies were found shot execution-style, including 15 recovered in the beleaguered Sunni neighborhood of Ghazaliya. At least 11 people died in other violence across the country Saturday.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 17, 2006 1:49 PM | Report abuse

hey chickenhawks -- think is a good strategy for 'winning' in iraq?

' Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and his Shiite-dominated government reached out to former members of Saddam Hussein's regime Saturday, inviting them to claim government pensions and rejoin the army in a gesture meant to calm the country's sectarian passions.

"The Iraqi army opens its doors to officers and soldiers from the former army who wish to serve the country," Maliki said at a national reconciliation conference of politicians and sectarian leaders in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.'

--maybe they'll invite saddam back too... how's that work for you?

Posted by: jana | December 17, 2006 1:47 PM | Report abuse

In the years up to 1994, many journalists allied themselves with Hutu extremists who planned and carried out the genocide. A magazine called Kangura, or Wake Him Up!, published screeds denigrating Tutsis as a subhuman race that aimed to destroy Rwanda, and urged Hutus to arm themselves. As the genocide got underway on April 6, 1994, the radio station RTLM filled the airwaves with vitriol, even broadcasting the names of individual Tutsis and their hiding places. Confirming the media's murderous role, the UN war crimes tribunal for Rwanda in December convicted key figures from the magazine and the radio station of incitement to genocide."

Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2006 1:27 PM | Report abuse

ABOVE: suitable for 6 year olds ? new Christian "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" video game promotional image shows, piling up on virtual NYC streets, corpses of city residents not succesfully converted to favored brand of Christianity.A discussion in the commentary following Talk To Action member Jonathan Hutson's second "Purpose Driven" series ( "Violent Video Game Marketed Through Mega-Churches" ) drew my attention back to the astounding volume of hate speech - against liberals, Jews, gays, Muslims, non-Christians, atheists, women, and probably some groups I'm forgetting - that has issued from the mouths or keyboards of leaders of the Christian right and the GOP over the course of the last few decades.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 17, 2006 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Recent research and scholarship suggests that ordinary humans have the capacity to carry out mass violence and that this capacity can be conditioned. Whitworth University professor James Waller, author of Becoming Evil : How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing has been one of the leaders in investigating the factors which seem to precede episodes of mass violence. Waller argues that the capacity for mass violence is a normal one and that it can be conditioned, or brought out, by various environmental factors including societal polarization and also the use of demonizing and dehumanizing language, and other forms of hate speech

One of the best writers on the subject of hate speech - especially hate speech from the American right - is without a doubt Dave Neiwert, who writes Orcinus and does extensive coverage on this. For an extremely extensive database of Christian and religious right hate speech, see HateCrime.org.

( from the Whitworth news release on Waller's book ) "Waller's Becoming Evil refutes many of the standard explanations for antisocial behavior and presents four ingredients that lead ordinary people to commit acts of extraordinary evil. Waller contends that being aware of our own capacity for inhumane cruelty, and knowing how to cultivate the moral sensibilities that curb that capacity, are the best safeguards we can have against future genocide and mass killing. "To offer a psychological explanation for the atrocities committed by perpetrators is not to forgive, justify or condone their behavior," Waller states in his preface. "Instead, the explanation simply allows us to understand the conditions under which many of us could be transformed into killing machines. When we understand the ordinariness of extraordinary evil, we will be less surprised by evil, less likely to be unwitting contributors to evil, and perhaps better equipped to forestall evil."

Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2006 1:20 PM | Report abuse

NoName 12:47 - Bill Bennett is just stating the obvious. He knows Hillary or Barack would whup Al. This is obvious and he knows nothing he says is going to change it. So he says it out loud, to keep his street cred in good shape. Conspiracies exist, but not everything is a conspiracy.

Most everybody else - For pete's sake come up with some facts and stats yourself if you want to take on William, who deserves stronger opposition than I see here. The guy called Duke a wacko scumbag, and he sounded sincere saying it. After that strong language, it just does not make sense to say William = David Duke. Comebacks like that sound and are stupid.

You are just playing along with his game if you use vague generalizations and name-calling instead of numbers. In my opinion William looks like the smartest person on this whole blog entry. That does NOT mean I think he is right in what he is saying. (Karl Rove is no lunkhead either, for example.) So don't let yourself be baited, just come up with some numbers, people.

If you don't like his statistics, provide a hard number that shows why his specific statistic isn't informative. Don't just say that causation doesn't equal correlation. That is a true statement, but does not advance the argument. This round went to William.

Posted by: Golgi | December 17, 2006 1:17 PM | Report abuse

You see in individuals like william a clear downward spiral away from sanity and rationality. The more unpopular their belief system is among the general public, the more deranged and delusional and extreme they become.I've seen much more of this pathology since the election. i believe william is generally a denizen of a white supremacist site and has come here to try to infect wapo readers with his disease, like a blanket contaminated by typhoid.

Actually you're being unfair to compare him to David Duke -- Duke is far more rational. William is unfortunately like one of those kids at columbine -- so filled with hatred over his miserable life, such a failure that he is constantly searching for someone, anyone to scapegoat. His speeches mirror all the sentiments of hitler and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he ends up involved in violent crime. What a miserable excuse for a human being.

Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2006 1:01 PM | Report abuse

KY-6 Guy - Please note that when I posed that there might be an economic, as well as ethnic, correlation to the Bureau's stats, I did not say "economic motive."

What I was posing was that there might also be just as direct a correlation of the crime stats to "economically poor" geographic areas.

Also, there's no indication within those FBI stats on what the ethnic percentage of the crime victims was. What are the percentages of Black on White and Black on Black; Hispanic on White, Hispanic on Hispanic, Black on Hispanic and Hispanic on Black? And, where are the crimes commited?

If it is a higher percentage of minorities committing crime, but those that they commit the crimes against are also minorities, in minority areas, should White populations be threatened?

BTW - My ancestors were stereotyped when they came into this country as poor immigrants in the 19th Century. And it wasn't for cow-tipping. Those in power portrayed them as criminals, lazy, illiterate and immoral. Today, their great-grandkids are Councilmen, Mayors, Governors, Senators, CEOs, etc. But, movies and TV continue to perpetuate some of the stereotypes to this day; even though they truly no longer apply. Yet, some people continue to buy into the stereotype without ever thinking about how foolish it is.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | December 17, 2006 12:50 PM | Report abuse

KY-6 Guy - I have to go along with Colin. He could not have laid out the required "statistical reasoning" process much better. You're going to have to provide much more relevant data than the Bureau's "surface" stats, if you want to prove you're apparent thesis (You've only implied it, never actually stated it. At least William finally did for himself).

I'm starting to believe in the "slippery slope" concept. William's posts just keep getting more weird by the post.

Why the lower crime rate in Toronto? Crooks don't like to go out as much when it's very very very COLD?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | December 17, 2006 12:17 PM | Report abuse

A good Sunday morning appears to be shaping up based on the late postings last night. Dont be to hard on William, he at least got my favorite, Hillary, correct, although he is off on the Clark/--- ticket in that I can see no way Gen. Clark can/will win the nomination and I also agree with his agreement with me about Obama that has no chance and I do mean ZERO. I still think the Clinton/Warner ticket is the best the dems have to offer and as time passes the evidence keeps getting stronger.

Posted by: lylepink | December 17, 2006 8:29 AM | Report abuse

2008 results will be a direct reflection on how Dems do with 2007 governing style. Any success in moving legislation, will win points. It was an absolute stroke of genius for the King of Pork, Byrd of WV to go along with Obey in declaring earmarks out of the spending bills. Even if this is temporary and it is, the fact they are going to clean up the republican mess first is what American wants to see.

Ethic reforms have to be at the top of the legislative agenda followed by the minimum wage bill.

The adoption of the 9/11 commission report and the Irag Study group would be my next agenda item.

Then I would roll back the taxes on America;s 1%. S

In short I would go with a centrist, small but noticable agenda item. SHow America that you can lead.

I would hold off on investigations until late 2007 and early 2008, just in time for the election cycle to heat up. Get something done first before the message gets drowned out,

Finally, sometime in early 2008, I would put together a plan for a balanced budget and hark back to the Clinton Days when dems proved they could govern.

Now more to the point about the senate, if Dems drop the ball on legislative initiatives, I see them as not having much room to gain. Landrieu and Johnson are more vulnerable than some of the GOP. The Dems took care of most of the vulnerable neocons, only Brownback is left standing after Santorum and Allen lost.

That said, I dont see Collins losing, unless especially if she goes along with some of the Dem agenda. The key there will be similar to Chafee in RI. I very strong chrismatic candidate is the Dems best bet.

As for Cochran in Miss, I dont see it., Its a red state from the South.

Smith in Oregon, if Dems can find another Ron Wyden, they can take this seat. It can not be the current governor who just won reelection.

I think the states with the best DEm pickup will be New Mexico, its Bill Richardsons for the taking if he wants it. Even if Richardson says no, this is a purple state. Another state is North Carolina where Easley is popular and even with Dole still in the race, he can win this one hands down.

MY predictions: Dems lose 1 aeat, pROBABLY, Louisanna. However, they pick up North Carolina, Oregon, and either New Hamphsire or Maine.

Posted by: Libetarian Dem | December 17, 2006 2:49 AM | Report abuse

Actually Blarg, I think he would. That's the sad part.

William where are you? I need more of your wisdom! Please, hurry!

Posted by: PeixeGato | December 17, 2006 1:05 AM | Report abuse

"In the old days you would have been arrested, put on trial for treason, convicted, and shot."

In the old days, liberals were the ones fighting to revolt against British rule, free the slaves, mandate a 40-hour work week and fair compensation, give equal rights to women and minorities, etc. Conservatives were against all of those causes. So I don't think you should be too proud of how conservatives acted in the old days.

Posted by: Blarg | December 17, 2006 12:56 AM | Report abuse

According to Wikipedia, 57% of Toronto's population is white. That's comparable to the 53% you estimate for the DC area, KY. And the UN declared Toronto second in the world in terms of foreign-born population, in 2004. (True, the original post said "diverse", which is a vague term. But given those numbers, I'd say it's fair to call Toronto a very diverse city.)

So your attempt to refute Sandwich Repairman's claim has failed. Now answer his original question. And if you have time, explain the difference between California (44% white, 30th in crime) and Washington state (78% white, 7th in crime.)

Actually, that last question is open to everyone. What's with all the crime in Washington state?

Posted by: Blarg | December 17, 2006 12:50 AM | Report abuse

"Wayne Allard is popular in Colorado and Tom Tancredo is VERY popular in Colorado. Plus, Tom will have a lot of national funding from immigration reform groups. Dick Wadhams will only help the state party, though even without him I think the GOP will do just fine in Colorado." - Chris R.

That may be the dumbest claim I have ever read on this blog. Allard and Tancredo popular statewide in Colorado??? You must be joking. Allard's approval ratings have not been above 50% in a long time and Tancredo is a nutcase who could not win an election for dog walker outside of his super-conservative House district.

Posted by: Ohio guy | December 17, 2006 12:28 AM | Report abuse

"Wayne Allard is popular in Colorado and Tom Tancredo is VERY popular in Colorado. Plus, Tom will have a lot of national funding from immigration reform groups. Dick Wadhams will only help the state party, though even without him I think the GOP will do just fine in Colorado." - Chris R.

That may be the dumbest claim I have ever read on this blog. Allard and Tancredo popular statewide in Colorado??? You must be joking. Allard's approval ratings have not been above 50% in a long time and Tancredo is a nutcase who could not win an election for dog walker outside of his super-conservative House district.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 17, 2006 12:28 AM | Report abuse

If nothing else William, you provide for good comic relief. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: PeixeGato | December 17, 2006 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Oh William, that last post may have been your best yet. Thanks for letting me in on the fact that "liberals," which I assume means anyone to the political left of Joe McCarthy, are socialists bent on creating a one world government hostile to christianity. I'll have to discuss that with some fellow liberals at CHURCH in the morning. All of my christian liberal friends must be the political left equivalent of log cabin republicans.

Seriously buddy, you come accross as a little unhinged. I gather from your comments that FDR, Harry Truman, and JFK all hated their country too, right? Is it a prerequisite to have skipped the draft during Vietnam to be a patriot in your book -- you know like GWB and Cheney? Or can that requirement be waived if you hate immigrants and black people enought?

Honestly, I want to get all my facts straight so I can let all of my fellow traitors know where it was that we went wrong. Please William -- teach me how to be a good american like you.

Posted by: Colin | December 16, 2006 11:37 PM | Report abuse

Pixie, You liberals are trying to destroy our country, by allowing massive amounts of 3rd world immigration, by eroding our society's moral and ethical standards, by attacking Christianity, and by attempting to destroy our patriotism and national morale, weaken our armed forces and give our sovereignty to the UN.

Patriotism and love of country means NOTHING to liberals, who are loyal to "humanity" and the United Nations.

You have no honor, nor respect for your ancestors who bled and DIED for the USA and for Western civilization.

Whether you realize it or not, the goal of liberals is to destroy Western civilization and put the West under the control of an authoritarian socialist one world government controlled by 3rd worlders and socialist atheists.

Liberals and especially socialists disgust me. You are all despicable traitors.

In the old days you would have been arrested, put on trial for treason, convicted, and shot.

Posted by: William | December 16, 2006 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Sandwich Repairman,

I would explain the disparity between Toronto and Washington by refuting your "evidence," which is purely anecdotal. How do we know Toronto is the "most diverse" city in the world? Was that proudly declared in a tourist brochure?

Compare apples with apples. The white population of the city of Washington is around 28%. Is Toronto's really that low within the city limits? (If so, that begs the entirely different question of why, which is off our subject matter). Based on the demographic makeup of adjacent congressional districts, I'm guessing the white population of the inner ring of Washington's suburbs is somewhere around 53%. I may be wrong, but I would be pleasantly surprised if that were higher than Toronto's.

I'd be glad to entertain your theories after you provide actual raw data.

Posted by: KY-6 Guy | December 16, 2006 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Hey William, how can such a rabid conservative who thinks of all liberals with only the highest level of contempt understand us so well? I mean, you obviously don't have any liberal friends, you probably don't take the time to speak to any liberals about their views, and you spend so much time spewing hatred and making vicious personal attacks ("liberals are like the AIDS virus....").

It really is amazing how you understand us so well. My hat is off to you! A man who is obviously more intelligent than any of us can appreciate or comprehend. Thank you so much for your insightful contributions here.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. OK, if you couldn't detect the sarcasm in that, then I feel sorry for you (no offense, of course).

How miserable your life must be that you have so much hatred toward other human beings bottled up inside of you. But that seems to be par for the course for the right wing rank and file.

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | December 16, 2006 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Senatur Tim Johnson has hardly gone under the knife when we get all this speculation about his successor. Good grief - the man isn't dead yet and the Republicans are licking their lips as they hope to backdoor their way to Senate control. Maybe Senator/Doctor Frist would like to advise someone to pull the pull on Johnson based on his diagnosis via videotape a la Terry Schiavo.

Posted by: johnw | December 16, 2006 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Lt. Gov. Bev Perdue looks like a lock for the NC Governor's race. She looks like a strong candidate - and she's got a solid lead.

And it'd be great if State Treasurer Richard Moore would take a crack at the Senate. That Dole seat is more vulnerable than it looks.

Posted by: 1l | December 16, 2006 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Montana will have a full ballot this next election. Besides the presidential race, Governor Brian Schweitzer is up for reelection, as well as senior US Senator Max Baucus, and of course the state's lone at-large seat in the US House, held by Republican Denny Rehberg, is up as well.

Not only that, but Montana's other stewide-elected offices are also up, and three of them will be open: Attorney General, Secretary of State, State Auditor and Superinendent of Public Instruction.
Only Secretary of State Brad Johnson, a Republican, will run for re-election. The other three offices are held by Democrats who are term-limted out.
They are Attorney General Mike McGrath, State Auditor John Morrison and Superintendent of Public Instruction Linda McCullogh.
That leaves three democrats with statewide name recognition who may seek Denyy Rehberg's congressional seat.
That's the biggest reason Rehberg will not challenge Baucus. If he creates an open seat by jumping to the Senate race, the Democrats are currently best positioned to take it.
Morrison has already shown his desire to go to Washington. he ran against Senator Jon Tester for the Democratic nomination. McGrath is one of the best-known Democrats. he has run for state-wide office since 1988 when he was a primary candidate for governor. He ran thrtee times for Attorney general, the last two of them successfully.

Baucus is not vulnerable. He's won his last two elections easily. Even the five-point win in 1990 over Rehberg needs an asterisk. That year Democratic votes were diverted by a Green candidate. And though he is up for a fifth term, he is still relatively young in his early 60s. It's doubtful he will want to end his crack at being Senate Finance Committee Chairman so soon.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | December 16, 2006 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Here's some more fun "STATISTICAL ANALYSIS" that's analogous to William's theories:

Blue states have lower divorce rates than Red States. THEREFORE, republicans respect marriage less than Democrats;

Blue states have, on average, higher per capita income than red states. THEREFORE, Democrats are better businessman than Republicans

I would note - just to be clear - that neither of my "conclusions" are in any way accurate statements. They are, however, "supported by statistics" in the same way that William's brilliant racial theories are.

Posted by: Colin | December 16, 2006 6:31 PM | Report abuse

William -- do a quick internet search. David Duke agrees wholeheartedly with your views. I couldn't find any other reputable scientists that do. I'll let others draw their own conclusions about what that says about you. Glad to hear you don't deny the holocaust though. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

WHat are you up to tonight? Going to see the new Mel Gibson movie perhaps? If not, why don't you try explaining to me how race is CAUSALY related to crime. If you can't do that -- and FYI, you can't scientifically -- then why don't you crawl back into your hole somewhere.

Posted by: Colin | December 16, 2006 6:25 PM | Report abuse

David Duke is a holocaust denier and a racist wacko.

I never mentioned that scumbag Duke.


I quoted FBI stats, and that is not racist, unless you are a brainwashed socialist.

In that case, the truth is racist if it doesnt conform with your PC beliefs.

By mentioning Duke, you are engaging in the dishonest and disengenous debating tactic of throwing a red herring to distract for the topic of the debate.

Posted by: William | December 16, 2006 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Colin, minority crime rates are far, far, far higher than white rates. Do you DENY this?

Do you deny that minority areas are higher crime than white areas?

Would you rather raise your family in a small West Virginia town, a poor white area, or some ghetto in DC, a poor black area, or some slum in South-central LA, a poor hispanic area?


Yeah, I thought you'd choose WVA.

Minorities are much more likely to commit crimes, and that is a fact.

If you deny this, you are lying!

Posted by: William | December 16, 2006 6:13 PM | Report abuse

For anyone that's interested, apparently the most "prominent" individual articulating the race-based theories that William agrees with is the incredibly well-respected DAVID DUKE.

Good company to be in if one wants to be taken seriously. I know I certainly get upset when everyone calls David Duke a racist. I mean come on - it's not HIS fault that everyone that's not a white christian is genetically inferior...

Posted by: Colin | December 16, 2006 6:13 PM | Report abuse

lylypink, I agree with your assessment.

Hillary is either pressuring strong rivals like Feingold, Bayh and Warner out of the race, or they think they have no chance against her and don't want to waste money, time, and their image, when they can save it for 2012 or 2016.

I kind of feel sorry for Bayh. He has devoted so many years to the Democratic party, as an immensely popular 2 term governor, a 2 term senator, but no one cared about all his experience. When he went to NH, people ignored him in favor of a sensationalist unelectable 2 year freshman senator.

Bayh must feel betrayed. I do feel sorry for him. He is much more qualified than Obama and NH Dems should have given him a lot of attention instead of Obama.

In any case, I agree with you that Obama will probably bow out soon. The Dem leaders are giving him his 15 minutes of fame, but soon they will tell him its time to move over, since they know he is unelectable. If he disobeys, Hillary and the Dem leadership will destroy him and ruin any future presidential chances he has. So he will know he has to bow out. I think Obamania is already starting to fade, now that people realize they have to support a viable, qualified candidate.

About Richardson, he has an IMMENSE ego, and I don't think he will bow out as easily as Bayh.

Richardson's site is called "America for Richardson", and not "Richardson for America."

He is greedy and ambitious.

But I think Hillary has a better chance of being elected than he does, by far.

She WILL defeat him in the primary, since she is more liberal than he is, and also, Dems will be excited about the first woman president.

I think she will also probably defeat Edwards, since his resume is so thin. If he had spent another term in the Senate, he would be in a far better position.

Biden and Dodd are the Kerry story again. A losing deal. Far left senators trying to pretend they are moderates. Forget em.

Personally I think with Bayh out, the strongest Dem ticket is Clark-Warner or Clark-Bayh.
But if Hillary wins the primary, as she almost assuredly WILL, I think Hillary-Clark or Hillary-Warner or even Hillary-Bayh would be OK.

Posted by: William | December 16, 2006 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Toronto is the most diverse city in the world. The Greater Toronto Area has about the same population as the Washington, DC region. Yet Toronto's crime rate is a small fraction of Washington's. DC has several times the murders Toronto does each year, and Toronto's white population isn't much bigger than Washington's.

So how do you explain the crime rate disparity?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | December 16, 2006 6:02 PM | Report abuse

William -- it's interesting that you equate anyone questioning you on your own racist beliefs as an embrace of socialism or PC rhetoric. Did you hear that on Fox news or did you make that connection yourself?

Since you have implied that you are highly educated, I assume that you've had a statistics class. Accordingly, I assume that you understand that merely looking at raw data is pretty meaningless and that its dangerous and in error to assign a CAUSAL connection between ONE particular variable without examinning the effect of other variables on your hypothesis. None of your vaunted statistics, which are nothing more than raw data compilations, even purport to identify race as a CAUSE of crime of any sort. Moreover, I'm unfamiliar with any respected scholar who has even seriously implied that such a connection exists since Eugenics went out of fashion. Why? Because it's an absolutely ridiculous assertion.

Sorry if I touched a nerve William. Take comfort though -- you can simply continue to ignore my observations by labeling me "PC" and a "communist." That's what modern day republicans do when someone points out that there views are nonsensical --gear up the swifboating operation.

Posted by: Colin | December 16, 2006 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Colin, do you really believe that race has no bearing on crime?

That view is completely contradicted by statistics, compiled by the US government, including agencies such as the FBI.

So what should we trust? Your obviously incorrect, intransigent, brainwashed PC view, OR

stats that are actually true.

I don't know why a lot more minorities commit crimes. But they do, and it is a fact.

DO yourself a favor and wake up, and stop being a retarded brainwashed socialist who won't even acknowledge fact when it stares him in the face.

An area with lots of minorities = an area with lots of high crime.

Minorities commit far more crimes, especiallu rapes and murderers, and violent robberies, and haqve FAR, FAR higher crime rates than white people.

And that is undeniable, unless you are Jesse Jack-off or Al Not-so Sharp ton.

So go take your PC lies somewhere else, Kofi!

Posted by: William | December 16, 2006 5:50 PM | Report abuse

My reading of the Byah announcement was as I expected, not much news there. Richardson will most likely be among the next ones to announce they are not running but it wont happen until Jan.. I expect Obama to be in this group as well but he may want to keep his "15 minutes of fame" going a tad longer. With the ones expected or intends to make the 08 run, Hillary is way in front of the others and bty, my favorite.

Posted by: lylepink | December 16, 2006 5:34 PM | Report abuse

KY-6 and William -- help me out, since you are both so logical, in explaining why race/ethnicity CAUSE violent crime. I'd be fascinated to hear your response. Also, I would encourage you both to articulate your evolved ideas in a forum where you can't post anonymously. You really should get credit from the world at large once your ideas catch on. I imagine any number of white supremacist groups would be particularly interested in your ideas. In the mean time, keep up the good work. Once the GOP is completely branded as the party of people like you -- instead of principled and decent conservatives like Eisenhower, Ford, and Rudman -- its transformation into a regional party with no chance to compete in vast stretches of the country will be complete. Good Job!!!

Posted by: Colin | December 16, 2006 5:28 PM | Report abuse

KY-6, you know what you're talking about!

Good post!

Posted by: William | December 16, 2006 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Nor'Easter,

The primary argument against economic conditions being the root cause of crime (or perhaps I should say the types of crime that people are most afraid of and concerned with) is that there is presumably little economic motive tied to such things as rape, assault, or homicide. One could nitpick and provide a contrary example here and there, but then we'd be into the proverbial "exception that proves the rule" discussion.

Feel free to conduct your own research if it makes you feel better. I'm content with what I know to be true now.

As far as my ancestors and their predilection for crime upon arrival on these shores, I'm happy to report that incidents of cow-tipping among those of Norwegian ancestry has declined over 90% in the last century. I think it may be due to migratory patterns.

Posted by: KY-6 Guy | December 16, 2006 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Nice to see all the anonymous cowards--gutless wonders--out in force today:

Posted by: | December 16, 2006 12:28 PM <-- COWARD
Posted by: | December 16, 2006 12:31 PM <-- COWARD
Posted by: | December 16, 2006 12:41 PM <-- COWARD
Posted by: | December 16, 2006 12:45 PM <-- COWARD
Posted by: | December 16, 2006 12:47 PM <-- COWARD
Posted by: | December 16, 2006 12:50 PM <-- COWARD
Posted by: | December 16, 2006 12:53 PM <-- COWARD

So much for the Post's rules. "Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed."

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | December 16, 2006 1:02 PM | Report abuse

-More money to combat rampant unemployment among Iraqi youths and to advance reconstruction, much of it funneled to groups, areas and leaders who support Maliki and oppose the radicals.


--Excellent. We really can't spend enough money on this. And our history of smart spending in Iraq by these people should give the American public a lot of confidence (and Halliburton a lot of bonuses.)

unfortunately, there's no money to spend here on 'combatting unemployment' ... or retraining those who've lost their jobs due to outsourcing...

Posted by: Anonymous | December 16, 2006 12:53 PM | Report abuse

- A possible short-term surge of as many as 40,000 more American troops to try to secure Baghdad, along with a permanent increase in the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps, which are badly strained by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 16, 2006 12:50 PM | Report abuse


Kevin Drum and Steve Benen wonder why the wingnuts haven't come up with anything good with which to smear Obama. Good question.

It reminds me of some earnest and straightforward analysis Bill Bennett dispensed earlier today:


BENNETT: Well, I mean, as a Republican partisan, let me just say that, for sure, I would rather face Al Gore than Hillary Clinton...

BLITZER: Why?

BENNETT: ... or Barack Obama.

Because I think it's an easier win for a Republican. But, by the way, when they got it tuned into the Al Gore channel tomorrow night, if they flip by accident, and they get Obama, people are not going to go back.


Do you believe Bill Bennett is being honest about this?

I have no idea which candidates really scare the Republicans. But I do know one thing. When lying sacks of discarded table scraps like Bill Bennett tell you that they are afraid to face certain Democrats and don't fear the others --- be skeptical. Be very skeptical. I know it sounds mean and partisan, but experience should tell everyone that he is not a sincere man trying to dispassionately analyze the political scene. Everything he says is designed to benefit the Republican Party.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 16, 2006 12:47 PM | Report abuse

The White House is asking military planners and budget analysts to provide options for a troop increase, which the Times says "indicates that the major 'surge' in troop strength is gaining ground as a part of the White House strategy review." But the article, which is chock-full of background quotes, never really tells us what the surge would look like: It could be anywhere from 20,000 to 50,000 troops -- nor where the troops would come from. The LA Times, meanwhile, files a piece on Iraq's schools, which used to be touted as "a success story in a land short on successes." Now, teachers "tell of students kidnapped on their way to school, mortar rounds landing on campuses and educators shot in front of children."

Posted by: Anonymous | December 16, 2006 12:45 PM | Report abuse

"You know, this war is so fu**ing illegal." - SPC Pat Tillman

Posted by: Anonymous | December 16, 2006 12:41 PM | Report abuse

BAYH OUT -- too bad.

'Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh announced on Saturday he will not seek the presidency in 2008, saying he believes the odds of a successful run were too great to overcome.

"At the end of the day, I concluded that due to circumstances beyond our control the odds were longer than I felt I could responsibly pursue," the Indiana senator said in a statement. "This path -- and these long odds -- would have required me to be essentially absent from the Senate for the next year instead of working to help the people of my state and the nation."

Bayh's decision to step aside narrows a crowded field of possible Democratic candidates that, for now, is dominated by Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois.

Just last weekend, Bayh traveled to New Hampshire, the early presidential primary state, but his appearance drew little notice as Obama delivered two speeches to sold-out crowds and attracted hordes of reporters. Bayh, 50, joins former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner as well-known Democrats who already have decide against a 2008 run.'

Posted by: Anonymous | December 16, 2006 12:31 PM | Report abuse

' One would assume you would tire of proclaiming your ignorance for all to see'

yes, one would, zouk.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 16, 2006 12:28 PM | Report abuse

KY-6 Guy: How do those rankings compare when you look at the ranking of states in terms of median income, average income, etc.?

My guess is that the correlation is probably going to be very close. From what I've seen, crime can just as easily be directly related to economic circumstances. People who have a reasonable share of the pie don't have to steal; an exception is Greed (or power, see Ohio) as a primary source of white collar crime. It happens that minorities neatly fit the economic niches. As the minorities move up the economic ladder, other newer minorities fill-in at the bottom, and assume the mantle.

So, you may have a direct correlation, but do you have the root cause?

The odds are that both your ancestors and mine were probably looked upon with disdain by the ethnic group in power wherever they happened to enter this country. And that a portion of their immigrant communities engaged in crime tainting all of the rest of their communities.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | December 16, 2006 12:08 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to see a Udall-Tancredo race in CO. That would be a Democratic blowout.

Al Franken has indeed formed a PAC that's raised quite a lot of money that was given to Democratic candidates around MN in 2006. I don't know that him being the DFL candidate would be so disastrous. I would think that given his long public service as a very popular AG, and his 1 point loss to Pawlenty in this year's Governor's race, that Mike Hatch would be an obvious possibility.

Democrats took New Hampshire's US House seats--and both houses of its state legislature--in 2006, not 2005. What about Gov. Lynch as a challenger to Sununu? He's the most popular Governor in the nation (won with 74% this year) and will be up for re-election as Governor again after two 2-year terms. (The other state that still has 2-year terms for Governor, Vermont, may be on the verge of extending them to 4 years soon.)

It's common knowledge among Hill staffers that Pete Domenici has Alzheimer's. Ever seen him at a public event unable to deliver the script he's holding? If he does actually run, he'll be a repeat of Jim Bunning's 2004 campaign, maybe worse. Bill Richardson, start your engines. It's not like he's about to beat Clinton and Obama...

So given that shameless, spineless Evan Bayh is out of the presidential race, why did he sit on $10 million this year that could have benefitted Democratic congressional candidates??

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | December 16, 2006 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"Boehmers and Drindl are sore losers. Remember how they used to gloat that Democrats could not win elections?"

Drindl?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | December 16, 2006 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Include William the racist in the above post.

Another member of the lunatic fringe who has not figured out yet that a majority of Americans is sick and tired of the divisiveness, racism, bigotry, parochialism, and jingoism of this far-right President and his government. Never mind the abuse of power, abysmal incompetence, nepotism, cronyism, war-mongering, and Treasury-plundering, that the WH and the GOP have inflicted on the country over these last miserable six years...

Posted by: Anonymous | December 16, 2006 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Boehmers and Drindl are sore losers. Remember how they used to gloat that Democrats could not win elections? Well, they were spectacularly wrong then, and they are spectacularly wrong now. They were already in a minority of foaming-at-the-mouth right-wing crackpots. They were mildly irritating then, now they are just pathetic buffoons, to be mocked and ridiculed at every turn.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 16, 2006 8:26 AM | Report abuse

The Repulicans are salivating at the thought that Senator Johnson may be so incapacitated that he may have to be replaced by a Republican named ny Mr. Rounds. This might gain them a 50-50 Senate but nothing more.

Thanks to a President who, depite his 70% disapproval rating, is once again is giving the finger to the will of the people, aided and abetter by power-mad McCain, the Republicans will lose most of their seats in 2008.

The electorate sent a serious message to the WH and the GOP about the war in Iraq and the unprecedented corruption and abdication of oversight that have characterized the past six years. Hispanics sent a strong message that the GOP anti-immigration bashing was not to their liking. Remember, most Hispanics are in this country legally and they vote.

Yet, neither the WH, nor the hard right GOP members have gotten the message. By pushing for a "stay the course on steroids" in Iraq, and by continuing to antagonize a large fraction of the Hispanic population, the President and the GOP are simply putting more nails in their coffins.

Public disapproval of the President and the GOP is so now so far gone that it would take a miracle to reverse it.

By stubbornly pursuing policies that the public disavows, the GOP is in fact insuring itself an resounding defeat in both the WH and the Senate in 2008.

So, I say, stay the course and keep on digging your own graves. I'll be watching them self-destruct with great glee. This will insure that the GOP remains a minority for the next fifty years. That is about as long as it will take to repair the damage that has been done to this once great country.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 16, 2006 8:21 AM | Report abuse

All of this talk about Colorado going blue is really very nauseating. Folks, it's no less red than it was 14 years ago when it passed the anti-gay rights amendment. In fact, it passed a marriage amendment and denied gay rights this year despite big Democratic gains statewide.

Wayne Allard is popular in Colorado and Tom Tancredo is VERY popular in Colorado. Plus, Tom will have a lot of national funding from immigration reform groups. Dick Wadhams will only help the state party, though even without him I think the GOP will do just fine in Colorado.

And by the way, the "Californication" of Colorado is actually by conservative Orange county families moving to Colorado Springs--not young libertines. The state is becoming even more socially conservative.

finally, the Dems who have done well in Colorado have been very centrist. Mark Udall is a Pelosi-liberal--pro-choice, anti-war, pro-gay rights, anti-gun, pro-tax--and that will play very poorly in Colorado.

Word is that Udall may not even run if Allard steps down. Regardless, Colordo stays red and perhaps even grows a bit more red.

Posted by: Chris R. | December 15, 2006 02:54 PM


Wayne allard is not very popular about net +/- 0 to 3 percent popularity (SUSA) cause he is known as a do nothing senator, Tancredo is likly not very popular due to extremist immigration views. Udall will definatly run and definatly has more then a 50% chance to win. At this point it seems like Allarad will likly retire and it is unsure who the gop opponent will be. As for
going blue for president it depends on who the candidates are and the campaign. If Mccain isn't on the ticket I'd give aminimum of 45% chance of dems winning colorado. Over 50 with Richardson on the ticket(wout McCain).

Posted by: rtaycher1987 | December 16, 2006 2:38 AM | Report abuse

There is no way Blanco can win because she is totally clueless. I mean, she doesn't even know what is going on in her own state. The lady is confused and the state has descended into complete chaos. She should just retire and admit she has no idea what is going on.

Posted by: Cleo | December 16, 2006 1:49 AM | Report abuse

The LA, Senate race most likely will come down to the black vote and my reason for thinking this is that the brother of Senator Landrieu ran againgt Mayor Nagin and lost. How much this will be in play is anyones guess but the folks in La, are well known for their hard hitting politics. The fact that rebubs have about twice the seats up as the dems in 08 should give the dems the advantage and depending on how the war in Iraq is going this could be one of the best years for dems in a long, long time. All of this will be in play but to single out one or two would be a mistake since we have almost two years before the election.

Posted by: lylepink | December 16, 2006 1:46 AM | Report abuse

Maybe someone from Louisiana can confirm this for me, but in the Blanco-Jindal runoff, did a couple of rural Republican-leaning parishes go for Blanco?

I would suspect Jindal would be able to raise money from the politically active South Asian community.

Posted by: Conan The Librarian | December 16, 2006 12:22 AM

She held her own among white voters in the north who tend to most conservative in the state.
http://www.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcmp&rqsdta=11150310012919

I don't think she can win this time because her base is gone.

Posted by: gomer | December 16, 2006 1:40 AM | Report abuse

William,

More than 4 hours after I requested that you back up your claims about Massachusetts education, and at least 9 posts by you between then and now, we haven't seen a response from you to that request.

If you're searching for the information before posting, keep searching. In the meantime, do us all a favor by not posting until you find the info to back up your assertions.

I really find your racist, homophobic, and juvenile debating skills to be boorish and boring, and probably many others here feel the same.

Posted by: Mike in Baltimore | December 16, 2006 1:19 AM | Report abuse

William: Barack Obama looks like he's going to run for president. You, and people like you, proceed to rip him apart. You attack his name, his race, his parents, his business deals. You make dozens of posts about how he has no chance and will be the downfall of the Democratic party.

Then you find out that the candidate you like isn't running. And the only explanation you can come up with is that it's a conspiracy masterminded by Hillary Clinton. Here's a suggestion: Maybe Evan Bayh didn't want to be attacked by the Republican slime machine you're such a proud part of.

Posted by: Blarg | December 16, 2006 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Maybe someone from Louisiana can confirm this for me, but in the Blanco-Jindal runoff, did a couple of rural Republican-leaning parishes go for Blanco?

I would suspect Jindal would be able to raise money from the politically active South Asian community.

Posted by: Conan The Librarian | December 16, 2006 12:22 AM | Report abuse

You mentioned Blanco being in trouble in 2007.

Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi is probably the only Republican who gained politically by Katrina. While I do not agree with him on many things he did an excellent job after Katrina. After Katrina most of Louisiana and Mississippi was without power and there was serious damage well into North Mississippi. Haley Barbour had a very well organized disaster response and was distributing food and water statewide by the National Guard the next day. He kept all of the Mississippi public radio stations (owned by the state) on the air and used the military and police to get roads open to the transmitter sites and sent fuel convoys to keep the generators running. For days after Katrina they were the only radio stations on the air over much of LA and MS.

I dont think Barbour will attract any serious Democratic opponents in 2007.

Rob
http://robwire.com

Posted by: Rob | December 15, 2006 11:52 PM | Report abuse

If Cochran retires in Mississippi I think the Democrats will have a good shot at taking the seat. In addition to Mike Moore there are a lot of other potential candidates Cong. Gene Taylor, former Cong. Ronnie Shows, former Govs. Ray Mabus and Ronnie Musgrove, Atty. Gen. Jim Hood and others.

A ticket like Clinton - Obama would bring record turnout in Mississippi but would not automatically favor the GOP. In addition to a 36% black population other traditional Democratic groups in Mississippi such as teachers, unions, etc. would also turn out. A record turnout would bring about the Democratic base of around 45% we see in state elections. With a base of 45% a Senate candidate does not have to convince too many independents and moderate Republicans to win.

Because of Katrina the GOP will have a problem with their base in South Mississippi in the 2008 Senate and presidential race. If a Democrat such as Gene Taylor (who carries GOP counties in his congressional distrct with 70% margins) is the nominee he would carry many of the heavy GOP counties along the Coast. If Taylor runs he will be the frontrunner over Pickering. Bill Clinton is still popular in Mississippi and has made a number of trips to the Katrina area. If we end up with a Clinton Obama ticket I think it could very well poll in the mid to high 40s and would not rule out carrying some states in the South.

Rob
http://robwire.com

Posted by: Rob | December 15, 2006 11:42 PM | Report abuse

William -- Just want to clarify. You BOTH argue that you are not a racist or prejudiced in any way but think that race/ethnicity is a causal variable with respect to violent crime? If so, I'd love to sit down with your "minority" friends to see how they feel about your views. Do you guys have conversations along these lines:

William: "You know, it's amazing that you haven't raped anyone yet John. I mean, you ARE hispanic and all. Thank goodness you went to a christian school. Otherwise you almost certainly would be raping someone right now."

William's Hispanic Friend: "So true William. I thank god every day that I have white friends like you to keep me from indulging in my race-related predisposition to rape white women."

Sounds like a fun Friday night if that's how the conversations go.

Posted by: Colin | December 15, 2006 11:18 PM | Report abuse

So what Democrats ARE we left with?

Dem left wing: Edwards, Obama.

Democrat mainstream: Clinton, Clark(if he runs?), Biden, Dodd, Kerry

Democrat moderate wing: Richardson, Vilsack

Did I miss anyone? I wasn't exactly sure where to put Vilsack. Perhaps he belongs in the Dem mainstream. I don't know all that much about his positions, but I assume since he is the governor of a moderate state he is a moderate.

I guess Bayh is still available as a VP candidate, though he may choose to run for his senate seat again instead, rather than risk it.

With Bayh out, I think the strongest Dem candidate now is Clark.

Bayh's absence creates a vacuum that can be filled by Clark


How does Bayh's decision affect the GOP?

It is good news for McCain, since it brings Hillary closer to winning the nomination, and he is polling ahead of Hillary.

Also, a strong moderate contender who could easily have defeated McCain is now out.

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 11:08 PM | Report abuse

I did respond to your Nazi/Christian argument, but you don't listen. There is nothing to discuss with you. You have your mind made up. I think that is really sad for someone your age to carry so much prejudice and resentment, but it is also dangerous. I hope that you will find enough happiness so that you will not feel the need to put others down because of their race or ethninticity, or whatever.

Posted by: Joan | December 15, 2006 11:05 PM | Report abuse

THIS JUST IN: SEN. EVAN BAYH WILL NOT RUN FOR PRESIDENT. THE IN. SENATOR HAS ANNOUNCED THAT HE WILL NOT RUN.

Wow, that is a HUGE surprise. Either he is afraid a personal scandal will break, and doesn't want people digging into his past, or he has secretly been promised the VP spot by someone (perhaps Hillary? Although I would have though Hillary promised Warner, which could account for Warner's decision to bow out.)

Or perhaps Hillary blackmailed him into not running?

There is something VERY suspicious going on here.

All of the leading Dems expected to run are dropped like flies, one after another.

First Feingold announces he will not run, then Mark Warner (who was considered the only major rival to Hillary), and now Bayh.

Also, a number of popular Democratic governors who would have a good chance of winning the general, such as Bredesen and Easley, decided not to run.

There is definitely something going on. I don't think it's a coincidence.

Either they are all so sure Hillary will win the nomination that they don't have a chance, and don't want to waste time competing, or somebody is pressuring them into bowing out.

With Feingold and Gore out, Hillary has effectively eliminated her strongest opposition from her left.

With Bayh and Warner out, and other moderates declining to run, Hillary has eliminated her biggest competitors from her right, from the Dem moderate wing.

Very weird.

So what do you all think is behind these surprising decisions of big candidates to not run?

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Joan, in case you haven't noticed, I am ignoring your insulting posts.

If you want to post a hostile message towards me, that is perfectly fine.

But you have to give me something to respond to, i.e. something to argue with you about or whatever, a concrete topic.

The only person I actually am willing to simply insult is drindl, since she/he/it is completely and utterly offensive, and on another thread, referred to me using the F word.

So if you want to have a discussion, fine.

But provide something to discuss.

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 10:46 PM | Report abuse

I completely agree, KY guy

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 10:43 PM | Report abuse

Dear William; You are being ignored. Please go get a life. Find someone to love. You are too young to be talking like a bigotted, resentful old man.

Posted by: Joan | December 15, 2006 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Let's put this in plain English (and using 2000 census figures).

Of the top 14 states with the MOST ethnically diverse populations, 7 are among the top 8 in crimes committed per 100,000.

Of the 7 states with the lowest number of crimes committed per 100,000, 6 are among the top 8 LEAST ethnically diverse states in the union.

The truth works just fine.

Posted by: KY-6 Guy | December 15, 2006 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Aww drindl, certainly I haven't hurt your feelings so much that you won't even use your name?

I'm sowwy.

To make up for it, I'll make a $1 donation to the Barack Hussein campaign.

Now can we be fwiends again?

Just kidding. Why don't you do whine on Huffington post?

Or attend your La Raza meeting. That always gets your spirits up.

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 9:55 PM | Report abuse

william=pathetic

Posted by: Anonymous | December 15, 2006 9:43 PM | Report abuse

drindl, now WHO is on this blog ALL DAY? Remind me again? A response 12 seconds after I post?

Wow, you really have no life. Don't you have a husband? Or is Bill with Monica again?

I couldn't care less what a commie POS like you thinks.

Try getting a job and actually earning your money, instead of leaching off of the hardworking collecting welfare.

Maybe you are Carol Moseley Brown? Are you thinking of running for president again? That worked out real well. Maybe you can make Obama Hussein your running mate! That dream Dem ticket!

Honestly, people on welfare shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 9:37 PM | Report abuse

BK...you are either lying about the situation in NM, or lying when you say you live there, since you do not know the situation.

I know people who live in NM. It is true that SOME Hispanics there are from the pre-Texas days, but most are Mexican invaders from the modern period.

And the number of illegals goes up every day.

How do you think people like Richardson get elected?

And yes, whites are slowly leaving because the Mexicans bring tons of crime, especially sexual assault and rape.

Not a place to bring your wife and kids.


Chris R., CO is turning blue. The governor now (Bill Ritter) is pretty far to the left. He is pro-choice, anti-gun, the works. Just check out his web site.

Salazar is pretty liberal too.

And the Dems have a 4-3 majority in your congressional delegation.

CO is still a mildly red state, and has not turned blue yet, but it is rapidly doing so.

And whoever said Al Franken could win a senate seat, do yourself a favor and put down the Kool-Aid.

He couldn't even win a congress seat, except maybe in Ellison's district.


Oh, and Hispanics commit a lot of violent crime, especially rapes and sexual assault. And that is the cold, hard truth.

If your PC tinfoil is too tight to realize the truth, you need to loosen it.

Only retarded people and idiots ignore the truth because it is not politically correct.

Now, I am off to get back to my social life as I am sure drindl wants me to.

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 9:32 PM | Report abuse

thanks, william, for displaying your complete lack of any sort of intelligence, humanity, or maturity. i could never have destroyed any shred of integrity that people might have thought you had, as well as you.

the truth is, i believe you really are 12 years old. and if you're not, that's terribly sad.

Posted by: drindl | December 15, 2006 9:28 PM | Report abuse

William. Go to school, learn some social skills, and aquire a social life. Earn a living and have a family. Hopefully by then you will be able to keep a better handle on your arrogance and temper.

Posted by: Joan | December 15, 2006 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Actually, drindl, I am not on this blog all day, and I my social life is just fine, thanks for asking :)

You say you're a middle aged woman. Might you be Hillary, or perhaps Helen Thomas?

Yuck.

In any case, I am quite sure I attend a better college than you did, if you even attended college at all.

Judging by your posts, you don't seem very intelligent, nor do you have a very good command of the English language.

Are you an illegal immigrant? Or perhaps a retarded prostitute?

Or maybe you're a welfare queen spending her check on internet service?

I don't really care either way.

Your comments are poorly phrased and completely devoid of intelligent thought.

There are senior learning programs. Perhaps you should consider this option, and maybe you will then be able to participate in intelligent political discourse, rather than simply name-calling, which is the resort of eight year olds.

You might be a female, but your manners are certainly not becoming of a lady...you old witch.

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 9:20 PM | Report abuse

William: Hitler, like all dictators, used Christianity and any other means to increase his following.

http://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

And please, clean up your acts you guys. There used to be civil discourse on this site and minimal namecalling. Go to Huffington post if you want a steady diet of name-calling.

Posted by: Joan | December 15, 2006 9:20 PM | Report abuse

KY-6, the thing all the lowest crime rate states have in common is small minority populations.

Wherever there are a lot of minorities, there is a lot of crime.

It is not an economic issue, which is why there is little crime in poor, white WV.

It's sad that minorities commit so many crimes, but hey, the truth hurts.

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 9:10 PM | Report abuse

I think the Fix needs to look closer at the individual states, their politics, and the people involved rather than categorizing a state as "Blue" or "Red" and then predicting the result and calling open seat elections as potentially close automatically. Mississippi, New Mexico, and Montana really should not be on anybody's close list.

The Democrats in Mississippi are in complete dissaray and have no real credible candidates for statewide office.

Dominici is likely to run again in New Mexico and if he does not Bill Richardson is pretty much the only Dem who could keep him from being succeeded by a Republican.

Baucus, lastly, is much more popular than he was 4 years ago and has a well oiled Democratic machine to help him. Even if Rehberg gives up a pretty safe House seat to run, a gamble, Baucus would be very, very difficult to defeat and should win comfortably.

As for Minnesota, I do not think that
Al Franken would greatly harm Dem chances of taking Norm Coleman's seat. Franken has strong ties in Minnesota, should be able to count on the old Wellstone organization, and appears to have a good bit of appeal across party lines. Frankly, I think the same mistake is being made about Franken now that was made about Wellstone when he started, people just assumed a novice non-pol could not win but did not pay attention to the fact that Wellstone was advocating the kind of centrist populism that plays well in Minnesota. Franken advocates this same kind of politics and compared to Norm Coleman's conservatism it is likely to go over well.

Finally, I think that the Sununu would win over Shaheen but the bigger chance is that the governor will run against Sununu and unless the N.H. state government collapses into crisis that should be a disaster for the GOP.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 15, 2006 9:06 PM | Report abuse

William,

Please point us to several web sites that show Massachusetts has a poor education system. I've visited several sites that uniformly show Mass. in the top 10 in just about every education category and overall, and most show Mass. in the top 5.

If you want to continue to denigrate the state of Massachusetts' education system, please back up your assertions with proof. Otherwise, you show nothing more than that you are a bigoted, insecure, horse's patoey.

BTW - I was born in Indiana, but have lived more than half my life in Maryland. My family's ancestry came from Indiana and Ohio, going back at least 5 generations and I have never been north of New York City, so I have no ties to Massachusetts. Just asking for a bit of truth and proof when numbskulls like you post idiotic rantings on a site like this.

Posted by: Mike in Baltimore | December 15, 2006 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Gordon Smith definitely belongs on this list, given Oregon's blue tendencies. His attempts to retreat on 3 years as a War cheerleader will ring hollow once properly put in context.

Posted by: Jonathan | December 15, 2006 8:20 PM | Report abuse

William = King of Zouk

Posted by: Concerned | December 15, 2006 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Dear Nor'Easter, your lofty thinking 'The political theory is that we elect the person, not the party' is breaking down in a sharply divided USA. Don't you think so? Otherwise this very blog wouldn't have been written in the first place. Yes it is definitely odd to have this kind of Law.

As far your concern for State Laws for counting votes are concerned that won't go away in another 100/200 years for the that is tatamount to cleaning the Augean stable. Probably you will see more bickering in the near future - with polling officials holding 'Chads' in front of their noses!

'Boasting' these days have becoming a relative term - the conservative talk show hosts that I see and hear around (I only listen to them - to peek into the Arrogant mind of majority) only screetches me. But half of America or more listens to them. Strange, isn't it!

Posted by: RA | December 15, 2006 7:46 PM | Report abuse

'How old are you? Twelve? You should be in school, or at least playing with your Legos.

Leave intelligent political discussion for your elders and betters...boy.'

My, that's some big talk, little man. Didn't you say you were in college? If that's so, you must be doing real well academically and have a fabulous social life, since you're on this blog 24 hours a day. Pathetic. Is it because girls find your views disgusting?

Like most cons, you're extra good at projection. I'm a middle-aged woman, you little twit. 'Your elders and betters' indeed.Could you possibly be any more offensive and disgusting. So I say the above rright back at you -- BOY.

Posted by: drindl | December 15, 2006 7:41 PM | Report abuse

a little history for the morons amng us:

'Through subterfuge and concealment, many of today's Church leaders and faithful Christians have camouflaged the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and have attempted to mark him an atheist, a pagan cult worshipper, or a false Christian. However, from the earliest formation of the Nazi party and throughout the period of conquest and growth, Hitler expressed his Christian support to the German citizenry and soldiers. In the 1920s, Hitler's German Workers' Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a "Programme" with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a "positive" Christianity:

24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest.
Hitler's speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of faith. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveals the strength of his Christian feelings:

""My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

[Note, "brood of vipers" appears in Matt. 3:7 & 12:34. John 2:15 depicts Jesus driving out the money changers (adders) from the temple. The word "adders" also appears in Psalms 140:3]

Posted by: Anonymous | December 15, 2006 7:17 PM | Report abuse

RA - What's the problem? I've never seen anybody here in the U. S. "boast" that we have a perfect system. Far from it. We find imperfections regularly; and hopefully work on correcting them.

As far as I'm concerned a far larger imperfection is the problem with counting votes. That's far more important than a Governor appointing somebody to fill an unexpired Senate term; which occurs once, or twice, a decade on average.

If that's the way we choose to do it, whether it seems odd to you or not, then it's legitimate. Hasn't caused many problems yet; and is not likely to.

A number of times members of one party were appointed to fill the seat of a member from the other party; and you know what, the next day the World was normal and everybody accepted it and we moved on.

The political theory is that we elect the person, not the party. In addition, the anomoly is taken care of soon enough with a regular election for a "shortened" term; keeping the seat on the same Electoral Cycle. If the appointed Senator runs and is good enough, they are elected. If not, somebody else is.

Not perfect, but it seems to have worked well enough. Nobody goes apoplectic over it. Fixing it probably would require 50 sets of state statutes or amendments to State Constitutions. More trouble than it's worth. It ain't broke, just homely lookin'.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | December 15, 2006 7:07 PM | Report abuse

KY-Guy: Nevada has the same percent of non-Hispanic whites as Arizona, and its crime rate is #21. Washington is almost the same as Massachusetts, but its crime rate is far higher. California only has 44% non-Hispanic whites, as low as New Mexico, but its crime rate is #30. California also has 3 times the percent of foreign-born citizens of New Mexico.

Basically, I see what you're getting at, and it doesn't work.

Posted by: Blarg | December 15, 2006 6:31 PM | Report abuse

I'm from India, and I can't help but laugh at the imperfect electoral laws of USA. I strongly believe that Governor nominating a member to Senate in case of untimely demise of the current incumbent is totally perverse. The first thing the US citizens should ask is the change of law. How can you Americans boast with SUCH an imperfect system? It's time you learn few lessons of democracy from India. I'm not saying everything in Indian system is hunky-dory but this law is archaic even by an Indian standard. Ha! Ha! Ha!

Posted by: RA | December 15, 2006 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Talk about stereotyping, apparently the yankees think there is a correlation between Civil War status and percentage of "rednecks" in the population.

Let's not forget that a large share of the population growth experienced in the south since WWII wasn't just from a higher reproductive rate among the ancestors of Klansmen and Confederate soldiers, but from the migration of NORTHERNERS, especially from such "tolerant" bastions as New England.

Perhaps proof that "rednecks" can pretty much come from anywhere....and do.

Posted by: KY-6 Guy | December 15, 2006 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Wow, all of three guesses so far to my query, and the first two were outright silly. Brilliant y'all.

My thought is that everyone is ashamed to admit to what is staring them right in the face.

Here's the bottom nine and the top nine. Population percentages courtesy of the census bureau.

50. North Dakota - 91%
49. South Dakota - 87%
48. New Hampshire - 94%
47. West Virginia - 94%
46. Maine - 96%
45. Kentucky - 89%
44. Vermont - 96%
43. Pennsylvania - 83%
42. Massachusetts - 81%

9. North Carolina - 69%
8. Texas - 50%
7. Washington - 78%
6. Hawaii - 23%
5. South Carolina - 66%
4. Louisiana - 62%
3. New Mexico - 44%
2. Florida - 63%
1. Arizona - 61%

See any correlation now?

Posted by: KY-6 Guy | December 15, 2006 5:44 PM | Report abuse

KY-06 Guy - With all the shots taken at Massachusetts on The Fix by people who have probably never been East of the Hudson, but let Fox News shape their political views, the "redneck" response was too good to let go by. [Maybe we should blame Foxworthy for popularizing the "R" word.]

Isn't Kentucky as a Border State, exempt from being stereotyped that way?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | December 15, 2006 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Revelation what?

Posted by: Amy | December 15, 2006 5:14 PM | Report abuse

hmm

Posted by: Anonymous | December 15, 2006 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Tom Tancredo is nothing but a racist draft-dodger. I would vote for H. Clinton over him. He cannot be taken seriously. He is a fool.

Posted by: Sandy | December 15, 2006 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Where is the commentary from "Bobby White-Man Servantes?" Is he on vacation or something? Why hasn't he weighed in by posting anything completely irrelevant yet? I am anxiously awaiting his/her commentary.

Posted by: Sandy | December 15, 2006 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Anyone curious about Tom Tancredo's record is urged to visit www.tomtancredo.org where his sordid background is documented.

Posted by: Tancredo Watch | December 15, 2006 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Chris, it looks as if there's a very strong possibility that yet another Congressional seat may become vacant in the very near future. According to KDKA in Pittsburgh and politicspa.com, Representative Tim Murphy (PA-18) is being investigated by the FBI concerning allegations by former Murphy staffers that they were asked to do political work for the Congressman on taxpayer time and using taxpayers' money. This is definitely one to keep an eye on.

Links:
http://kdka.com/local/local_story_348170945.html

http://www.politicspa.com/

Posted by: NativeNorthernVirginian | December 15, 2006 4:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm new to these columns, and I have to say I'm pretty disgusted by the low level of discourse by some of the people here. I think people should be careful about the tone of their discourse. Disagreement is fine, and stripped of all their invective the conservatives on this blog have useful things to say. But why the heck do they insist on throwing bombs (bin Laden as a Democrat, Massachusetts as communists? Grow up already. It's people like the conservatives on this blog that made me leave the Republican Party. When the party stopped being about principle, and stooped to thuggery, it stopped getting my vote and a lot of others. For your sake, for any side in the debate, if you want to make a point, do so in a civilized manner.

Posted by: FreeDom | December 15, 2006 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Must be those gun control laws, just look how effective it is in DC. Haha.

Maybe it's because the government has stolen everything allready and nothing but trust funds are left.

Maybe it's because the poor are bought off by welfare payments and don't need to resort to crime. But I thought welfare was for poor people to get by while they improve themselves somehow, not to maintain the riches of the wealthy. I got a better idea, let's distribute pot and potato chips, that will keep them in front of the TV for quite some time.

Idea- consider the unemployment rates and the welfare totals for these vaunted states.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 15, 2006 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Now why would you say Al Franken "would severely jeopardize Democrats' chances of defeating Coleman". Maybe you are just remembering him from SNL and writing him off as a silly comedian. Or maybe you are forgetting that name recognition was plenty enough to get that bonehead Ventura elected Governor here.

Something you've obviously missed is that he's a brilliant man. His show on Air America is smart and he's plugged in to many of the movers and shakers in Washington who are tickled that they can finally discuss an issue in depth. That Franken makes it enjoyable, I find a huge plus. In fact, comedians, nowadays, seem to be more incisive than the mainstream news! Well, maybe you just don't listen to the show.

In any case, in long format speeches off the air, such as one he did for our local Congressional District fundraiser here in MN, you see a guy with a very deep understanding of the issues and a well formed sense of right and wrong. To his credit, he makes himself available to local grass roots organizations outside of the party proper and local party units. He was very supportive of Tim Walz and other candidates up and down the MN ballot.

When you meet with him, as many of us locals have -it's all about you. He asks what we are doing, what goals our respective groups have, what efforts are effective, which aren't. He connects with you like a regular guy who's sincerely interested -not like that turncoat Coleman, who doesn't see you -he sees the Presidency.

There's an authenticity with Al Franken that you seem to have missed. Make no mistake about it -apart from the comedy, the guy's sharp as a tack, rock solid in his beliefs and dead serious about taking America back from this most dangerous conservative "revolution". I'll be supporting him, and the scuttlebut around town is that so will many others.

Posted by: Uncle Geo | December 15, 2006 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Regarding North Carolina, I don't think an Easley run is in the cards. He was interviewed just the other day about a potential Senate race. He said, "I would find the legislative process frustrating," Easley said. "I just don't think the Senate would be the highest and best use of my skills." That doesn't sound like a politician just downplaying a race he'll eventually make. He legitimately sounds like he doesn't want to be a senator.

As for who will run, I think Etheridge and potentially McIntyre are both good bets. Ideally, I'd like to see Richard Moore bow out of the governor's race and make a run for the Senate. Bev Perdue strikes me as more down home than Moore. She seems better suited for state politics. Moore, on the other hand, seems more polished and ready for a national race.

As for Liddy, I disagree with one of your reader's comments that she can only be beaten by Governor Hunt. I don't think she's as beloved as that reader thinks. She rarely travels to the state, and she's done basically nothing for us since she's been in office. I think North Carolinians are ready for more than a placeholder on the Hill. Assuming Democrats pick a better candidate than Bowles, that race is going to be neck and neck. If Liddy sees the writing on the wall and decides not to run, I think Sue Myrick will run...and lose.

Posted by: JW | December 15, 2006 3:29 PM | Report abuse

One reason Mass is on that list with the rest mostly rural states is that we have very strict gun laws.
Also minus Rhode island and Connecticut it looks like New England is a really safe place to live. Take that bible belt.
Maybe it has something to do with the snow? Nobody is trying to mug you when it is 10 degrees outside its just too damn cold.

Posted by: Andy R | December 15, 2006 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Pretty wild on here today. Nothing like a who is and who isn't racist debate to speed you on your Friday.

I have to say that I think the comments regaring latino/hispanic immigrants sounded pretty racist to me. Essentially calling them a bunch of violent sex offenders doesn't exactly smack of tolerance.

Don't let anyone tell you not to post though William. If you try hard enough, and put your mind to it, you could be the next Robert Byrd.

Posted by: TG | December 15, 2006 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Noname- have you been watching Dr Phil all day again? I can assure you that there is nothing in my mind that would allow me to envy John Kerry, except for his ability to portray himself in a delusional light. I mean, what has he done in all those years of service. not a bill with his name, nothing. He married rich. that I don't envy because of the orders that necessarily follow from that arrangement. Bringing up phallic envy out of the blue would seem to indicate projection. Is your inability to provide a name to your post linked to your inability to satisfy women (or men)? are you so ashamed of your deficiencies that you prefer to remain totally anonymous?

Yes war is dirty and there are more ugly things that happen than most people want to admit - except for Kerry, who seems to admit far more than actually happened. Of course, Kruggman and all the Lib economists admit far more trouble than is actually there, so perhaps this is a Dem frame of mind. you always seem to find racism everywhere you look despite its paucity. you find class warfare everywhere. you find crooked pols everywhere (except in your own ranks where they have fortified themselves). you find budget cuts when in the minority but they vanish when you have to take the blame (credit).

and it is foolhardy to make asusmptions about other posters service or medallions since you clearly have no inkling of anything military. are you the same no name fool who challenged my 5% claim for troop levels in Iraq. One would assume you would tire of proclaiming your ignorance for all to see. but then you are a Dem/Lib and the depth of your vanity knows no bounds, apparantly.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 15, 2006 3:10 PM | Report abuse

I should have included Kentucky in my list of states with a lower crime index than Mass., so with that and WV on the list, I suppose your derrogatory 'no rednecks' theory goes down the drain Nor'Easter.

Anybody else want to take a stab (no pun intended)? Or are we afraid?

Posted by: KY-6 Guy | December 15, 2006 3:10 PM | Report abuse

bk - Are you "white" or "Anglo?"

Blarg - A couple of months ago somebody said that Mass. had the lowest divorce rate in the country. Just looked it up, sure enough. And as they also mentioned the perceived "Family Values" states have the highest divorce rates (except for Georgia).

KY-06 What do those states have in common?

- No Rednecks.
[Sorry, too easy to pass up. Like Larry, the Cable Guy says, "Lord Forgive me,..."]

Posted by: Nor'Easter | December 15, 2006 2:59 PM | Report abuse

All of this talk about Colorado going blue is really very nauseating. Folks, it's no less red than it was 14 years ago when it passed the anti-gay rights amendment. In fact, it passed a marriage amendment and denied gay rights this year despite big Democratic gains statewide.

Wayne Allard is popular in Colorado and Tom Tancredo is VERY popular in Colorado. Plus, Tom will have a lot of national funding from immigration reform groups. Dick Wadhams will only help the state party, though even without him I think the GOP will do just fine in Colorado.

And by the way, the "Californication" of Colorado is actually by conservative Orange county families moving to Colorado Springs--not young libertines. The state is becoming even more socially conservative.

finally, the Dems who have done well in Colorado have been very centrist. Mark Udall is a Pelosi-liberal--pro-choice, anti-war, pro-gay rights, anti-gun, pro-tax--and that will play very poorly in Colorado.

Word is that Udall may not even run if Allard steps down. Regardless, Colordo stays red and perhaps even grows a bit more red.

Posted by: Chris R. | December 15, 2006 2:54 PM | Report abuse

That Crime Index for Massachusetts is interesting, Blarg. According to that site, other low crime states include West Virginia, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, South Dakota, and North Dakota....in other words, a politically diverse group of states. I'm sure the same is true for states with the highest crime rates.

So if there is little correlation between the amount of crime in a state and the political leanings of its people, what are some correlations? What could Massachusetts, West Virginia, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, South Dakota, and North Dakota possibly have in common? Anyone?

Posted by: KY-6 Guy | December 15, 2006 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Hi david,

William's comments are fun and he should not stop posting.

When William says that interracial marriage is a hot-button issue that makes a lot of Americans uncomfortable, particularly (but not only) in the South, he's dead-on correct. It's worth saying.

I guess I can say the same thing w/o being called a racist, because (unlike William) I think Obama will win.

Posted by: Amy | December 15, 2006 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Some sexually inadequate males have "***** envy."

"some were able to call John Kerry a war hero after faking wounds, returning to lie about combat conditions" Chickenhawks must have "Medal and Not Having Served envy".

That atrocities happened in Viet Nam is true. Far more than anybody wants to admit. It's War, Stupid.

Chickenhawks just don't like to admit what really happens in war. It reminds them too much of their personal inadequacies.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 15, 2006 2:28 PM | Report abuse

I've changed my mind. I don't want to wait for William to get statistics for me. Here's a site with crime statistics for MA; there are links for other states at the bottom.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/macrime.htm

2000 statistics:
Total Crime Index: 42nd highest
Violent Crime: 21st highest
Property Crime: 44th highest
Murder: 41st highest
Rape: 36th Highest
Robbery: 27th Highest
Aggravated Assault: 14th Highest
Burglary: 41st Highest
Theft: 49th Highest
Vehicle Theft: 16th Highest

So there you go. Apparently the liberals ruined Massachusetts by giving it the 42nd highest crime rate in the nation! I wish we had a good conservative government like Texas, which was #8.

Posted by: Blarg | December 15, 2006 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I believe you meant to say that Rep.Allen (D-Maine) is considering a challenge to Collins, not Snowe.

Regarding William's comments on New Mexico, he obviously doesn't know anything about the state. True, the Hispanic percentage of the total population is the highest of any state at 43 per cent. But most Hispanic New Mexicans are descendants of Spanish settlers who came to the territory when it was a Spanish colony hundreds of years ago. It is the "whites" who are the immigrants in New Mexico, and I am proud to be one of them. The "whites" are not leaving the state in droves. In fact, Americans from other parts of the U.S. are still moving to New Mexico because of its sunny climate, magnificant scenery, unique local cuisine and fascinating culture. Non-hispanic whites (about 45 per cent of the state population)outnumber Hispanics in New Mexico, and there is no evidence that this is changing.

Posted by: bk | December 15, 2006 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"He is a sleazy character. I'll bet he has a lot more skeletons in his closet, and they are going to come out, as his fellow [party members] work to destroy him in the primaries."

Name one politician who that couldn't apply to.

Then give me the numbers on how the liberals have ruined MA. I already debunked your tax complaint, and Quintessential Liberal took care of whatever you were babbling about Communist judges. Remember, the liberals ruined this state. You must have some good evidence of that, right?

Posted by: Blarg | December 15, 2006 2:05 PM | Report abuse

William, in my view you are clearly a racist and I will not comment on your posts because it is fruitless to discuss ideas with a racist. If you take a previous poster's advice that you acknowledge your racism, that would be a positive first step. Until then, goodbye!

Posted by: Jason P | December 15, 2006 1:57 PM | Report abuse

If all men who had never sinned were the only candidates for office, there would not be much left to choose from. didn't I proclaim the end of personal lives as a factor in politics after the Clinton fiasco. It is certainly not an issue with Dems who re-elected Mollohan, Hastings, Jefferson, Frank, Reid, Pelosi. It may still be a problem for bruised Gops. We will see whether the sucking up to the right pays off in Independents. It didn't last month.

I don't know anything about Obama's land deals. My only warning to him was to keep away from making jokes. He is too green to be able to speak off the cuff without eventually creating a detrimental sound bite a la Allen, Dean, Kerry, etc. All it takes is one and you are toast.

My point about land deals is aimed at dirty harry reid who seems to be the king of the local zoning board back home. all you have to do is have the Federal government sell some land cheap, then get your friends to buy a bunch, then you go over to zoning and have the Senator lean on them to change it to commercial. Instant fortune with no risk and no money down. this could be a way to balance the federal budget if we enact it for the public sector as dirty harry has done for his inner circle and himself.

so very amusing to see this prevaricator talk about ethics and budgets. Not a day goes by without him stepping on or just over the line as he tap dances around his personal ambitions and avarice.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 15, 2006 1:54 PM | Report abuse

RE: MN - Tim Walz has said beyond a doubt that he willnot consider running for Senate

http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=915

Posted by: Robin Marty | December 15, 2006 1:53 PM | Report abuse

where's virginia? while you're talking about possible, uncertain retirements.... you dedicated an entire post to the VA 08 race earlier on..

Posted by: vainco | December 15, 2006 1:46 PM | Report abuse

McCain cheated on his wife -- that's why another poster said William couldn't vote for him by his self-announced standards. Same with Gingrich and Guliani -- and the latter cheated on MULTIPLE wives before leaving them. Reagan also left his first wife after cheating on her.

KOZ -- glad to discuss the Obama "land deal" if you want, since there's absolutely nothing there. What is it with Republicans and purported land deals anyway? First the GOP congress spends tens of millions of dollars investigating whitewater, only to find that there was absolutely no issue, and now you're trying to blow this up into an issue? The logic simply escapes me, espescially at a time when we have a disaster of a war going on.

Posted by: Colin | December 15, 2006 1:43 PM | Report abuse

William:

Regarding your post at noon, I must say I strongly disagree with your comment that:

"Also MA is a lot less free than other states in the US. A constitutional amendment has to be approved TWICE in TWO sittings with a huge majority by your politboro, and judges are appointed for life.

In free states, judges and even supreme court justices have to run for retention, as do the sheriffs, and a constitutional amendment can be put on the ballot if enough people sign a petition.

But not in MA."

First, I believe in an independent judiciary, independent means just that independent from ALL political considerations -- including having to run for office. Judges interpret and enforce the laws...they are not and nor should they not be beholden the people or to the people's whims.

There are tough decisions that must be made such as stating for example a person accused of murder must be retried because of prosecutorial misconduct, or an improper search or that yes eminent domain does allow for this blighted property to be taken. These are unpopular decisions and I have a feeling that some (though not all) judges may feel the political pressure to appease "constituents."

Second as to your comment regarding the amending of the Constitution. The founding fathers purposefully made the U.S. Constitution hard to amend, why, because they did not think that it should be subject to haphazard amendments due to the fickle nature of people -- one day they're for something, the next they're not. Why is what's good enough for the U.S. Constitution not good enough for the MA Constitution. Perhaps the people of MA do not feel like changing the constitution every other day. Oh and just as an FYI there is a process to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot in MA

I'm not trying to say that my beliefs are the right beliefs, but before you so easily dismiss MA for not electing judges and not changing the constitution all the time maybe just maybe you should think of the other side of the coin.

p.s. I'm not from MA

Posted by: Quintessential Liberal New England Elitist | December 15, 2006 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Ok. Where's Bhoomes and drindl. I took a few months off of wasting computer memory on this page.

Wild card for '08. THE DRAFT.

Generals want 30 to 50 thousand more in cannon fodder. Next year they ask for more as Junior continues on his march for Victory.

Senator McCain is a DRAFT advocate. Dubya is sesperate and willful enough to accommodate him. Especially if the Senate goes back to the Republicans after the SOuth Dakota governor appoints one of the Bush daughters to fill the seat that seems likely to come open.

Lets stop dancing here and talk about the real desperation among the unholy alliance of Dubyas desperate 31%, conservative southern tier rebublicans and Joe Lieberman.

Posted by: zippy | December 15, 2006 1:24 PM | Report abuse

William, I will take pity on you since you are new to this site. we have a special rule here for Drindl, JEP, truthhunter and some others. We do not hold them to the same standards of logic and reason as we do the rest of you. In the same way some were able to call John Kerry a war hero after faking wounds, returning to lie about combat conditions and basically ginning up his entire resume, most on this site still considered him a good candidate. Only after he lost did the truth come out, that even these boobs didn't like him.

In the same way we allow drindl to post her rantings to this site, if just to show the depth of her persuasive abilites, which is mud puddle deep.

I am somewhat taken aback by any statements that could be construed as racist but didn't bother to review the contraversy. If drindl is up in arms you are probably on the better side.

But always remember that this is the party that won an election with zero agenda and THAT will always be hanging out for all to see. drindl et al will contine to relay Lib talking points in the manner of Athena bursting fully grown from the head. but it is good sport and easy pickings to take them down. I realized long ago it was not constructive to respond to her, although tempting, it will only send you down that rathole of chanting Dem mantras.

I would be happy to post several arguments that the posters on this site refuse to engage for lack of principles, ideas, solutions or even consideration. the list is long and easy. you may find a few honest, but dissillusioned Libs who are worthy of your efforts, but it will take patience.
Remember this is the "intellectual" base that thinks:
win by surrender
ethics by race card
budget by interest group
raise taxes to better economy
do nothing about bad schools
do nothing about bad retirement
do nothing about expensive health care - oh wait, let's be genuine and give them credit here. the latest idea is to spend more. Well you see what I mean.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 15, 2006 1:21 PM | Report abuse

tweaking? Please explain.

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 1:05 PM | Report abuse

JEP, your post makes no sense whatsoever.

Please clarify. Metternich, blasphemy? What are you on about?

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 1:05 PM | Report abuse

BTW William, you should do something about that "tweaking" problem...

Its a hard rollercoaster to ride.

Sure makes for some long rants and raving posts, though...

Posted by: Giovanni Padrefiglio | December 15, 2006 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Children, I am the only one permitted to be called such names on this site. Keep your insults where they belong.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 15, 2006 1:04 PM | Report abuse

KY-6 Guy, thanks!

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 1:03 PM | Report abuse

david, I believe you are drindl posting under a different name.

I doubt you are married to anyone, let alone a conservative.

Unless they are letting children get married to adults or each other in MA now.

If your idea of "this country's full potential" is turning it into another Sweden, I'm glad I am preventing your dream from coming true.

Do you want some cheese with that whine Senator Reid?


William

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Who is this 'drindl' character? Christianity was the "state religion" of the Third Reich? Say drindl, what church did the the chancellor attend every Sunday? A very pious man wasn't he? Give me a break.

Everybody is a cross burner in drindl's eyes, and when you have myopia like that you are about as credible as the neocon warmongers.

Say drindl, why is that every time I read the comments section on this blog you're always either:

a) writing about a subject unrelated to the topic (e.g. you write about John McCain above and this topic is on the '08 Senate elections, in case you didn't notice.)

b) name-calling

Anybody care to bet who could bump off right wingers faster: Hitler, Stalin, or drindl?

Posted by: KY-6 Guy | December 15, 2006 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Greg G, I have heard about the Keating 5 scandal and McCain. He is corrupt. Hillary is too. She has some baggage. It seems like most politicians are corrupt, so unless you want to stop voting, you are going to have to overlook some things.

But what Sherwood did cannot be overlooked, and Weldon was being investigated by the FBI. That is very serious, so I would not have voted for him. For a congressman to be investigated by the FBI, and actually do a raid, there must be a ton of evidence, like there was in Jefferson's case...90K in his fridge.

So I guess you will have to overlook some things. Obama is corrupt too. When I logged on to WaPo, there was a link to slate on the side about Obama's shady land deal.


proudtobeGOP - You're absolutely right, now that people are actually looking into Obama's past, some nasty things are beginning to surface. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot more serious stuff comes out. He admitted to using pot and cocaine, who knows what else he did?

He is a sleazy character. I'll bet he has a lot more skeletons in his closet, and they are going to come out, as his fellow Dems work to destroy him in the primaries.

If he gets on the ticket, his past will be investigated even more deeply.

The best thing for him to do is quit while he's ahead, and give up his rediculous presidential ambitions. He can be IL's senator for life, or even run for gov some day. He should be content with that.

Because he will never be president.

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 12:57 PM | Report abuse

"He hired an astrologer, occultists,"

So did Nancy Reagan...

So, William, do you worship Metternicht?

(The man, not the wine.)

Will you ever address my question concerning Revelations 11-18?

The last sentence in particular?

Give us your learned opinion, please. Prove your spiritual gift, and explain this verse for us.

Be careful how you answer, though. You wouldn't want to oppose Christianity, would you?

I think the proper term for that is "blasphemy," so be careful with your response.

Posted by: JEP | December 15, 2006 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I don't see Sununu losing his seat in '08 unless Gov. Lynch decides to run against him (which is not expected). Sununu has an independent streak (he has often voted against the admin) and his record on the environment endears him to Democrats across the aisle. Then again I was telling all my friends down here that there was no way that Shea-Porter would defeat Bradley in my home district. The race to look forward to will be 2010 when Gov. Lynch challenges Judd Gregg.

Posted by: nathan | December 15, 2006 12:52 PM | Report abuse

william, you are hands down, the single most disgusting, ignorant, asinine person to ever have posted on this website. this country will never attain its full potential and glory until sadsack, empty headed idiot losers such as yourself do us all a big favor and die. PLEASE stop posting as all your comments accomplish is upset and anger people and add absolutely nothing to the discourse on this site.

I'm fine with conservatives (I'm married to one), but not addle brained meatheads such as yourself.

Posted by: david | December 15, 2006 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Paul, is it happy hour there already? I wouldn't call him a comdeian either, that would require the person to be funny, and looks don't count. Perhaps you could call him a business killer after his strangulation of Air America. Or maybe a professional liar, since that is what he is the best at.

From the dirty harry files today:

"Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who has pledged to stop ``dead-of-night legislating,'' did a little of his own in the final hours of this year's congressional session.

Reid slipped two home state projects into the last major bill Congress passed last week: a transfer of federal land in Nevada to state and private control that's almost two-thirds the size of Rhode Island; and a $4 million grant for a hospice. Neither had been approved by any congressional committee. "

So much for empty campaign promises, but I always expected as much from this crooked man. and as usual, no outcry from the dissembling Libs.

I wonder if he is going to get some of that Fed land rezoned after he buys it for a song. he still has all that money left over from the last one of these he did and will have to pay taxes unless he finds somewhere to hide it.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 15, 2006 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Never let it be said that pols aren't cheap and easy!

Posted by: minnesotaneighbor | December 15, 2006 12:46 PM | Report abuse

drindl, it appears that you are unable to articulate your beliefs in a coherent, comprehensible fashion. What a shame. I guess UC Berkeley isn't what it used to be?

Oh well, you should have gone to the University of Virginia instead.

In any case, apparently you didn't learn any history during your schooling. Hitler abolished Christianity, and encouraged pagan practices. He hired an astrologer, occultists, and even published lists of graveyards for couples to make love in, since he believed those graveyards had supernatural powers. Hitler's SS practiced paganism and worshipped fallen comrades in occult ceremonies in an ancient castle that still exists in Germany, if you need historical proof.

Hitler hated Christianity and sent many Christians to the gas chambers including the pastor who famously wrote "first they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did nothing" The pastor who wrote the short poem, the beginning lines of which I wrote above, died in a gas chamber, for being a Christian.

Your post was comprised almost entirely of grammatically incorrect insults, and name-calling, and no substance.

You have absolutely no knowledge of politics, or history, as you have clearly demonstrated by your ignorance, since you thought that the 3rd reich was Christian.

Kos, is that you?

How pathetic. Being hostile and insulting is fine, but please provide logical reasoning and fact based arguments, and not rude names.

You are probably one of the pathetic immature little brainwashed kids who goes around wearing an "F Bush" sticker and a Che Guevara shirt.


How old are you? Twelve? You should be in school, or at least playing with your Legos.

Leave intelligent political discussion for your elders and betters...boy.

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Hey Man, you gotta pay more attention. In Minnesota, Franken may have once been part of a comedy team, and he does do comedy shows, but calling him a comedian is a little short-sighted and insulting. He's a perceptive author of several best selling books, an intelligent, well thought out person taking serious sides on important issues, and a daily voice of honest inquiry conducted with reason on the radio as he runs a normal and serious political talk show, and has been grooming himself as a politician for years now. It's a cheap and easy shot to call him a comedian.

Posted by: Paul | December 15, 2006 12:42 PM | Report abuse

A crack in the Obaminator's armour already?

"If Barack Obama decides to run for president, we're going to hear a lot more about Antoin "Tony" Rezko, the senator's neighbor.

Rezko is the kind of neighbor you want--the absent kind--and he might be absent for a long time--in the federal pen. That move upriver might keep Obama from his own residential upgrade to that big white house he's got his eye on in Washington.

... Barack Obama has a little real-estate scandal that raises questions about his judgment.
The Chicago Tribune broke the story back in November. It begins in 2004 with Obama's $1.9 million book advance for The Audacity of Hope. In June 2005, Obama used the money to purchase a $1.65 million Georgian revival home on Chicago's South Side--$300,000 less than the asking price. On the very same day, Rezko, a Democratic Party fund-raiser and developer, bought the adjacent empty lot at the asking price from the same owner (the house and the lot were previously owned by the same person). Rezko, who had raised money for Obama and known him since the senator attended Harvard Law School, did not develop the empty lot. In January 2006, he sold a 1,500-square-foot slice of it to Obama for $104,000, a fair sum in that market.

Here's the question: Did Rezko orchestrate his same-day purchase of the lot at full price so that the seller would give Obama a break on the price of the adjacent house? Was Obama in on the deal? And did Rezko never intend to develop the lot, giving Obama a nice roomy side yard, a favor which he'd call in later?

Obama says he did talk to Rezko before the purchase, but only because a person who had renovated it for a previous owner had once worked with Rezko, who owns other properties in the South Side. He didn't arrange the joint purchase with him. He bought the house at such a good price, Obama has told the papers, because it was being unloaded in a "fire sale."

There's no evidence that the senator is fibbing or that the indicted fund-raiser asked anything in return for his neighborly behavior (though that might have been just a matter of time). Obama hasn't tried to change his story, even though Rezko is now talking to investigators.

What about Obama's judgment? Chicago politicians with national aspirations have to think a little harder about appearances than their colleagues from other cities that don't have reputations for corruption. Shouldn't Obama have known not to get anywhere near a sketchy character like Rezko?

When Obama bought his house, Rezko was not as radioactive as he is today. Newspaper accounts contained allegations about his business practices, but he was regarded as a typical power broker who cannily cultivates politicians. But by the time that Obama bought the strip of land, Rezko was glowing. The papers were reporting that he was under investigation by federal prosecutors. In October, he was charged in a 24-count indictment with trying to obtain kickbacks from companies seeking state business.

Obama presents himself as a squeaky-clean politician, so the dubious association with Rezko has caused him more trouble that it would, say, anyone else in the history of Chicago or Illinois politics. ... "This is the first time this has happened and I don't like the feeling," Obama said at a press conference in November. "It's frustrating to me, and I'm kicking myself about it." He told the Associated Press: "Purchasing a piece of property from somebody who has been a supporter of yours I think is a bad idea. It's an example of where every once in a while you're going to make a mistake and hopefully you learn from it." He told the Chicago Sun-Times that he made a mistake and, "I regret it. ... One of the things you purchase in public life is that there are going to be a different set of standards, I'm going to make sure from this point that I don't even come close to the line."
As the scandal stands, this is not Obama's Whitewater, the Arkansas land deal that bedeviled Bill and Hillary Clinton during the early part of President Clinton's first term. It doesn't help an inexperienced national politician to have to admit a stupid rookie mistake before the cameras, but there's nothing here so far that seems politically life threatening. Of course, if Rezko tells a different story to investigators or Obama's statements turn out to be unture, that's it for him--you can't run for president on your keen judgment and then show a lack of it by lying and covering up.

If Obama decides to run for president and fails, it will be because he'll show in other ways that he lacks experience, or he can't handle the rigors of a campaign, or because he turns out to speak only in pleasing generalities. The Rezko business is also not likely to hurt him, because his principal rival will probably be Hillary Clinton, and she's not going to bring up the topic of questionable land deals."
Barackwater
For now, Obama's scandal is too small to hurt.
By John Dickerson/Slate


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 15, 2006 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"...I am NOT racist, or even slightly bigotted, and I don't care what you think, because I know I am not racist, as do all my friends, family, and everyone else I meet."

Just can't take that First Step, can you.

Still in denial!

William, I'm beginning to believe that you are home schooled and never made it out the front door.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | December 15, 2006 12:38 PM | Report abuse

"If I lived in PA I would have voted against Weldon or especially that slimeball Sherwood. I would never vote for someone who cheated on his or her spouse, which is why I wouldnt vote for Gingrich if he ran."

Well, I guess you'll be voting for Hillary then, since that disqualifies McCain and Guiliani as well as Gingrich.

Posted by: Greg-G | December 15, 2006 12:31 PM | Report abuse

racism isn't diversity of opinion. it's vile. i don't know why any of you even read what this disgusting little hitler william writes. oh sure i bet he has black friends... right.

'Hitler was a leftist. He also opposed Christianity, just like many liberals, and almost all far leftists, in the USA do.'

no, puking little scumbag -- hitler was a rightwinger. you had a lot in common. he hated everyone but whites and so do you. christianity was the state religion of the third reich. not only are you vile, bigoted and repugnant, you are also stupid and ignorant -- a fiarly common condition to dittoheads who can't do anything but parrot what rush limbaugh says.

what you have is not opinions, just propaganda. there's a lot of hate websites out there, why don't you go where you belong and stop stinking up this place with your filth?

Posted by: drindl | December 15, 2006 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Regarding my home state of North Carolina, CC, you are dead on - the key metric is whether Liddy retires. While Washington circles may look at her with disdain, she is still beloved by voters in NC, and if she runs, she wins. The only candidate who could beat her in the general would be former Gov. Jim Hunt, who a) is also older (would be 71 on election day) and b) lost his taste for national office during his 1984 loss to Jesse Helms.

In the event Liddy retires, however, I have to figure that the nomination goes to Gov. Easley, and nothing makes me more sad. Never before have I seen a candidate win so many elections with ease (twice for state AG, twice for governor) when the best adjective to describe him is "uninspiring." Even friends who worked on his campaign admitted that he is a stick-in-the-mud with no passion for politics or particular talent for governance, and his administration in Raleigh hasn't exactly done anything to justify him getting reelected two years ago, much less getting a national office!

The real problem is that the Republican Party in NC is stuck in the past, with only one noticable younger face (Sen. Burr) in the crowd. That's what led to the nomination of not-ready-for-primetime state Sen. Patrick Ballantine for Governor two years ago (assuring Easley reelection), and the options for 2008 will be similarly slim.

Rep. Patrick McHenry has to be the favorite to be the GOP's nominee for whichever statewide office he retires (most likely the Senate), but he can't win either race, so I wouldn't be surprised if he opted to stick with his safe House seat. Former state House Speaker Harold Brubaker might be a candidate for Governor, but he would need to be dragged into a Senate race. That leaves the nightmare scenario of the nomination going to an older, less-known member of the House (Robin Hayes [ha!] or Virginia Foxx), or worse, to a blowhard off the streets (two-time Congressional candidate Vernon Robinson).

The Democrats will definitely keep the Governor's Mansion in Raleigh (hello, state treasurer Richard Moore) ... and will definitely pick up the Senate seat as well if Liddy calls it a career.

Posted by: eirishis | December 15, 2006 12:22 PM | Report abuse

In the Minnesota race against Sen. Norm Coleman- a name that has been overlooked by the National media is Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer. Jack is a professor and did very well against newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison in the 5th congressional Dist.Many progressives that I have talked to are wary about Al Frankin. Frankin is smart and knows the issues, but can be a polorizing figure. I for one hope he decides to sit this one out. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer is a progressive who is direct, honest and has a way with people in the Wellstoneian tradition.

Posted by: Martin | December 15, 2006 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Oh good, the taxes. I hoped you'd bring up the taxes.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/10/pf/taxes/taxfriendly_states_2006/index.htm

Massachusetts ranks 28th in terms of state taxes as a percent of income. (Remember, MA has a much higher average income than most states.) That puts it right between the liberal bastions of Arkansas and Mississippi. For city taxes, Boston is #18, behind cities in Nebraska and Kentucky. That's not even as a percent of income, that's just total yearly taxes.

But besides that, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure that housing prices are so high because of all the illegal immigrants and paroled child molesters buying property, not because this state is such a popular place to live.

Posted by: Blarg | December 15, 2006 12:17 PM | Report abuse

BMB wrote:
Consider the 1989 election of Douglas Wilder as Governor in Virginia. Despite a large lead in the polls Wilder won a narrow victory. This was due to Virginia whites misrepresenting their opinions and votes to pollsters.

I don't remember the election that way. I do remember that it was an upset that a black man (Wilder), a white woman (Mary Sue Terry), and a white, divorced Catholic (Don Beyer) won election. I found out recently that Mark Warner was the manager of that joint campaign.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 15, 2006 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Blarg, sometimes I get a little excited.

I really dont think liberals would vote for bin laden, I was exaggerating. My point was that in NJ the voters are so liberal that they would vote for any Dem, even if that Dem was a flawed candidate.

COnservative areas do the same thing. Bill Sali won in Idaho, even though many Republicans hate him.

Personally I would rather vote for a liberal Dem than an immoral or corrupt Republican.

If I lived in PA I would have voted against Weldon or especially that slimeball Sherwood. I would never vote for someone who cheated on his or her spouse, which is why I wouldnt vote for Gingrich if he ran.

I hold my candidates to a high standard. I would hope you do the same.

If I lived in MT I am not sure if I would have voted against Burns. He did take donations from Abramoff, but so did Baucus, the Democrat.

Burns was not being investigated by the FBI, so I dont know what I would have done.

Tester doesnt seem all that bad.

You are correct that Bin Laden is a conservative, as were the Taliban, and the dictators in Saudi Arabia.

However I think you would agree that Muslim conservative dictatorships differ greatly from Christian ones.

The only Christian conservative dictator of recent times I can think of is Pinochet, the ultimate free-marketer.

He was a conservative dictator, Hitler was NOT. Hitler was pretty radical in his ideas, and also a socialist.

Galtieri in Argentina in the eighties was also a conservative dictator.

With the fall of that moron, the King of Tonga last month, I dont think any conservative Christian dictators are left.

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Wow, this comment page is really well balanced. It seems like there is a wide diversity of opinion on here. Ohhhh yeeeaaahhh, gotta love the sweet taste of sarcasm.

Just goes to show that once again the liberals love diversity of opinion, as long as it's their own.

Posted by: GKR | December 15, 2006 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Blarg,

Liberals are fleeing MA because the taxes are ASTRONOMICAL, the crime is high in many places, the school system is terrible, and for all the years Democrats and liberal republicans have controlled the state, it is still, for some inexplicable reason, not the socialist utopia that it should be.

Crowded? Your state would be crowded too if your government was flooding society with parolled child molesters and turning the state into a haven for illegal immigrants.

And did I mention, the property, income, sales, etc taxes are ASTRONOMICAL in MA?

They tax you for EVERYTHING in MA! I heard that they even tax being alive, for every day you live.

Did I mention the public schools are pathetic?

Harvard is nice though, I guess you do have that.


And clam chowder.

Also MA is a lot less free than other states in the US. A constitutional amendment has to be approved TWICE in TWO sittings with a huge majority by your politboro, and judges are appointed for life.

In free states, judges and even supreme court justices have to run for retention, as do the sheriffs, and a constitutional amendment can be put on the ballot if enough people sign a petition.

But not in MA.

Is it fun living in Hugo-Chavez land: Northern version?

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Blarg,

Liberals are fleeing MA because the taxes are ASTRONOMICAL, the crime is high in many places, the school system is terrible, and for all the years Democrats and liberal republicans have controlled the state, it is still, for some inexplicable reason, not the socialist utopia that it should be.

Crowded? Your state would be crowded too if your government was flooding society with parolled child molesters and turning the state into a haven for illegal immigrants.

And did I mention, the property, income, sales, etc taxes are ASTRONOMICAL in MA?

They tax you for EVERYTHING in MA! I heard that they even tax being alive, for every day you live.

Did I mention the public schools are pathetic?

Harvard is nice though, I guess you do have that.


And clam chowder.

Also MA is a lot less free than other states in the US. A constitutional amendment has to be approved TWICE in TWO sittings with a huge majority by your politboro, and judges are appointed for life.

In free states, judges and even supreme court justices have to run for retention, as do the sheriffs, and a constitutional amendment can be put on the ballot if enough people sign a petition.

But not in MA.

Is it fun living in Hugo-Chavez land: Northern version?

Posted by: Anonymous | December 15, 2006 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Bin Laden is a conservative. He wants the world to be like it was hundreds of years ago, in accordance with his holy book. He believes his religion is the only one that's valid.

I could also point to dozens of right-wing dictators. They're pretty much indistinguishable from left-wing dictators. William, why are you acting like this? You seem like a reasonable guy most of the time, but then you start saying that liberals are a virus, or they love Hitler, or they hate freedom. Why can't you just take part in a civilized discussion?

Posted by: Blarg | December 15, 2006 11:53 AM | Report abuse

"New Hampshire: Still a moderate state, a LOT more liberal than it once was, since Mass. residents who have realized how screwed up their state is have fled to NH as refugees, and are so stupid that they don't realize WHY Mass was so bad, and now they are doing their best to ruin NH."

William, the reason that people move to NH from MA is that MA is too crowded and expensive. Both of those are symptoms of areas with high standards of living where a lot of people want to live. Hardly evidence that liberals have ruined the state.

But I'm curious. Please tell me how MA has been ruined by the liberals. Back it up with numbers.

Posted by: Blarg | December 15, 2006 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Colin, I am NOT racist, or even slightly bigotted, and I don't care what you think, because I know I am not racist, as do all my friends, family, and everyone else I meet.

Many of my friends are black, Jewish, Asian, Pacific Islander, white, Latino, etc, and I never have any problems with them, and I get along perfectly with them and I am perfectly open about my beliefs.

I did not say I oppose interracial marriage. But most people in the south do.

And even if they do, so what?

Wouldn't it be boring and un-diverse if everyone was simply a blend of all the diverse races?

It's much more exciting with a lot of various cultures and races, each with unique things to contribute, existing in the world.

But of course, if you are a culturally austere socialist, you wouldnt agree

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Liberals believe bin laden is merely "understood," and his "upbringing, and diverse culture," is the reason he "disagrees with American policies."

Liberals have no sense of patriotism and want to turn our soveriegnty over to the UN. OR am I wrong? You tell me. I think we know the truth.

Conservatives don't like Hitler, who was actually pretty liberal. We also dont kill people who disagree with us, unlike liberals such as stalin. Hitler was also a leftist, economically and politically. He was a socialist, and the death camps idea is a liberal idea, you know, kill all the impure people to create utopia kind of thing.

Yeah, that kind of thinking has been floating around liberal circles since the time of Malthus.

Hitler was a leftist. He also opposed Christianity, just like many liberals, and almost all far leftists, in the USA do.

cheers,

William

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 11:43 AM | Report abuse

William,

What's it like being a racist? I imagine it's comforting to be able to view the world in -- literally -- black and white terms, since that reduces the need for critical thinking. Happily, I am confident that a majority of this country -- north and south -- does not share your views today. I mean seriously, saying amongst other things:

"No one cares if it was "racist" except whiny SPLC loving liberals."; and

"Miscegenation is a valid campaign issue in the South."

Your have to be out of your mind to make statements like that. I think what I would love more than anything is to hear you say something like that in front of a crowd that included people who aren't exclusively white, upperclass, and racist themselves. Somehow I doubt you would have the courage. You're comments are truly reprehensible.


Posted by: Colin | December 15, 2006 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Bin Laden (D) for Senate in NJ??? Give me a break. That would be like saying if Hitler (R) were on the ballot in say, Texas, that Reps would vote for him. Well, I guess Anne Coulter, Hannity and your other favorite FOX nuts would, but seriously, talk of Dems in NJ electing Bin Laden is really stupid, period.

Posted by: VA-dem | December 15, 2006 11:38 AM | Report abuse

I have said a million times, I am simply stating the obvious, and accurately portraying the political climate. I am not prejudiced.

HOWEVER, it is a FACT that Mexicans and other Hispanics bring violent crime, especially sexual crime, to this country.

In Mexico and most Hispanic countries, rape is perfectly legal, and even in the few places in Mexico where is is illegal, its never prosecuted.

In Guatemala, its legal for a man to rape a woman as long as he agrees to marry her afterwards.

Are these people civilized? Res ipsa, loquitar.


Often, the truth hurts. But it is still the truth.

It's sad that you have been completely brainwashed by PC propoganda.

You need to wake up before its too late.

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Wow William, you sure do love Mexicans and blacks. Scary commentary.

Posted by: VA-dem | December 15, 2006 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Oregon: I agree, Smith is VERY vulnerable, and there are a number of strong candidates who could take him out. He should he on the endangered list.

NJ: Haven't you realized from the last election that NJ voters are mindless robots programmed by the Dems to vote for ANYONE with a D next to their name? They would vote for bin laden if he was running as a D in NJ. I don't think a Republican will EVER hold a Senate seat in NJ again unless a Dem NJ senator does a mark foley, or Menendez gets arrested or charged with treason or something, which actually isnt that farfetched.

If NJ is in danger for the Dems, they are truly in trouble.

No, NJ will elect a Dem to the senate in 2008, no matter who it is, because they dont want the GOP to control the senate.

Tom Kean was the strongest the GOP had and he came up 11 points short.

Re: Tom Daschle - WHAT IS IT with you Dems ressurecting past losers to try to run again??????????????

John Kerry is running again, Joe Biden is running again, John Edwards is running again, you want Al Gore to run again, and now Daschle???????????????


Move ON, already, like your favorite website.

Find some new candidates for a change.

Conservatives aren't considering Gingrich seriously, and McCain is FORCING himself on us, we dont want him.

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 11:25 AM | Report abuse

I think maybe Tim Walz will run for the senate in 2008, because if Gill Gutknecht, decides to run again as the republican will most likely press him to run again, Walz might just be a one term wonder.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 15, 2006 11:20 AM | Report abuse

thanks for the card website, gop, good idea, will do that...

Posted by: drindl | December 15, 2006 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Here's my take on these races.

In Louisiana, has Jindal officially declared that he is running against Blanco? I didn't hear that. In any case, as I mentioned before, I see him as a spent force in LA. People are tired of him trolling the state, looking for higher office, constantly maneuvering and positioning himself. Basically he is the Doug Forrester of LA. Greedy, and driven only by raw ambition. He probably dreams of being president some day. He might have a chance against Blanco, if people in LA are really mad at her. I don't think he has much of a chance against Landrieu, she is relatively moderate, and a lot of people won't vote for Jindal because he is Indian. Remember, this is LA, which had David Duke serve in the state legislature, and still hold local elected office. Even white rural conservatives would vote for Landrieu before they vote for someone whom they think of the same way George Allen probably thinks of Jindal.


New Hampshire: Still a moderate state, a LOT more liberal than it once was, since Mass. residents who have realized how screwed up their state is have fled to NH as refugees, and are so stupid that they don't realize WHY Mass was so bad, and now they are doing their best to ruin NH.

HONESTLY, liberals are a lot like the AIDS virus, or cancer. All they do is destroy and area, and then move on to destroy another one.

In any case, Sununu is probably screwed. The Bush legacy will sink him, unless the political climate really turns by 2008.


Minnesota: Norm Coleman is a moderate, but I think that MN voters who want to give the Dems a bigger majority in the Senate will vote against him even if they kind of like him. If that pinko freak Al Franken runs against him though, he's just been given a new term. If MN Dems have a brain, they will nominate someone decent, like one of the Congresspeople.


Mississippi: Chris, you're dreaming. If Obama is on the ticket, the effect it will have is astronomically high WHITE turnout in Mississippi, who are determined to deny Barack Hussein the oval office.

Osama Obama can't carry MS or any other southern state. Get over it.

Even if Cochran retires, the GOP will almost certainly keep this seat. MS is basically the GOP version of MA, one of its strongest bastions.


Maine: Again, strategic voting will play a big role. Voters may like Collins, but they are mostly liberal, and want the Democrats to control Congress. Tim Allen is hugely popular in Maine. If he runs, he will most likely win. If he doesn't, the chances of defeated Collins are a lot less.


South Dakota: If Tim Johnson dies or doesnt run in 2008, I think voters will vote D out of sympathy for him, unless the Dem congress really gets wacky.

Stephanie Herseth is a rising Dem star, and very popular in SD. Why would Mike Rounds run for Senate in 2008 if he just won another term as governor in 2006? It wouldnt make sense. Even if he aspires to higher office, the governor's mansion is a better place to start. And no other R has the statewide stature to challenge Herseth for the seat.

Either way, I think this seat will stay Dem.

North Carolina: Senator Dole is unpopular, but North Carolina is still a much redder state than VA, even if it is slowly changing. I think if she doesn't run again, which is a big IF, then Walter Jones, a congressman, may run for the office.

The best Democrat challenger for the seat is Mike McIntyre, a popular, centrist Democrat.

This seat could go either way, but I think it will probably stay Republican, given past trends.

If the Dems want to have any chance at all, just don't nominate another Gantt. In case it hasn't gotten into your heads, black candidates dont win in the south.


Colorado: I agree that CO is turning blue. The same thing that is happening to NH is happening in CO. Liberals from CA and such places who have completely messed up their own state, now don't want to live with the consequences of the policies they voted to enact, so they are running away to CO and NV, and doing the same thing over again.

Honestly, I sometimes think that liberals have a lower IQ than conservatives.

Anyway, liberal flight from CA is leading to the blue-ing of NV and CO.

So yes, I think the seat will go Dem in 2008.

Allard is kind of lackluster, and Udall is considered a rising star, as is his brother in NM.

Wadhams is a skilled guy, so he may be able to save Allard but I doubt it.


Montana: Still a VERY red state in presidential elections. Bush took something like 65%, I believe, in 2004. Unless Sweitzer is on the ticket in 2008 or 2012, I dont see MT going blue in the presidential.

As far as Congressional elections are concerned, it seems MT is increasingly willing to elect libertarian-leaning, populist Democrats.

As I have said before, this is the KEY to the Democrats coming back to dominate national politics and establish an enduring majority. People in many parts of the country agree with Dem economic policies, and if Dems moderate their stances on other issues, they can put even the most conservative states, like MT, into play.

Also CA libs are moving to MT, which helps the Dems, too.

Really, what is the problem with CA libs moving to new places. If they voted for politicians who ruined their state, they should live with the consequences, or at least stop voting for similar politician when they move to a new place.


new Mexico: Thanks to all the Mexicans swarming over the border, both legal and illegal, New Mexico is rapidly turning back into old Mexico, replete with crime, poverty, etc. Expect this to become a Dem haven as whites leave because they don't want to be harassed and attacked by Mexicans.

Richardson must be in heaven.

As for the Senate race, I think NM is still a swing state, or at least it will be in 2008, if 10 million more Mexicans dont invade between now and then.

It could go either way. Domineci is old, and if he retires it will probably be Heather Wilson against Tom Udall. Chris, I don't know why you said Udall isnt interested. It's known that he aspires to replace Domineci. I rate this race a tossup, but leaning slightly Dem due to all the Mexicans swarming in by the day.


And to the person above who was whining about the Ford ad:

1. No one cares if it was "racist" except whiny SPLC loving liberals.

2. Its post facto.

3. Miscegenation is a valid campaign issue in the South.

Got it? Maybe if Fancy Ford moves to Mass. he can replace Deval "the rapist protector" as governor :)

cheers,

William

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Here's my take on these races.

In Louisiana, has Jindal officially declared that he is running against Blanco? I didn't hear that. In any case, as I mentioned before, I see him as a spent force in LA. People are tired of him trolling the state, looking for higher office, constantly maneuvering and positioning himself. Basically he is the Doug Forrester of LA. Greedy, and driven only by raw ambition. He probably dreams of being president some day. He might have a chance against Blanco, if people in LA are really mad at her. I don't think he has much of a chance against Landrieu, she is relatively moderate, and a lot of people won't vote for Jindal because he is Indian. Remember, this is LA, which had David Duke serve in the state legislature, and still hold local elected office. Even white rural conservatives would vote for Landrieu before they vote for someone whom they think of the same way George Allen probably thinks of Jindal.


New Hampshire: Still a moderate state, a LOT more liberal than it once was, since Mass. residents who have realized how screwed up their state is have fled to NH as refugees, and are so stupid that they don't realize WHY Mass was so bad, and now they are doing their best to ruin NH.

HONESTLY, liberals are a lot like the AIDS virus, or cancer. All they do is destroy and area, and then move on to destroy another one.

In any case, Sununu is probably screwed. The Bush legacy will sink him, unless the political climate really turns by 2008.


Minnesota: Norm Coleman is a moderate, but I think that MN voters who want to give the Dems a bigger majority in the Senate will vote against him even if they kind of like him. If that pinko freak Al Franken runs against him though, he's just been given a new term. If MN Dems have a brain, they will nominate someone decent, like one of the Congresspeople.


Mississippi: Chris, you're dreaming. If Obama is on the ticket, the effect it will have is astronomically high WHITE turnout in Mississippi, who are determined to deny Barack Hussein the oval office.

Osama Obama can't carry MS or any other southern state. Get over it.

Even if Cochran retires, the GOP will almost certainly keep this seat. MS is basically the GOP version of MA, one of its strongest bastions.


Maine: Again, strategic voting will play a big role. Voters may like Collins, but they are mostly liberal, and want the Democrats to control Congress. Tim Allen is hugely popular in Maine. If he runs, he will most likely win. If he doesn't, the chances of defeated Collins are a lot less.


South Dakota: If Tim Johnson dies or doesnt run in 2008, I think voters will vote D out of sympathy for him, unless the Dem congress really gets wacky.

Stephanie Herseth is a rising Dem star, and very popular in SD. Why would Mike Rounds run for Senate in 2008 if he just won another term as governor in 2006? It wouldnt make sense. Even if he aspires to higher office, the governor's mansion is a better place to start. And no other R has the statewide stature to challenge Herseth for the seat.

Either way, I think this seat will stay Dem.

North Carolina: Senator Dole is unpopular, but North Carolina is still a much redder state than VA, even if it is slowly changing. I think if she doesn't run again, which is a big IF, then Walter Jones, a congressman, may run for the office.

The best Democrat challenger for the seat is Mike McIntyre, a popular, centrist Democrat.

This seat could go either way, but I think it will probably stay Republican, given past trends.

If the Dems want to have any chance at all, just don't nominate another Gantt. In case it hasn't gotten into your heads, black candidates dont win in the south.


Colorado: I agree that CO is turning blue. The same thing that is happening to NH is happening in CO. Liberals from CA and such places who have completely messed up their own state, now don't want to live with the consequences of the policies they voted to enact, so they are running away to CO and NV, and doing the same thing over again.

Honestly, I sometimes think that liberals have a lower IQ than conservatives.

Anyway, liberal flight from CA is leading to the blue-ing of NV and CO.

So yes, I think the seat will go Dem in 2008.

Allard is kind of lackluster, and Udall is considered a rising star, as is his brother in NM.

Wadhams is a skilled guy, so he may be able to save Allard but I doubt it.


Montana: Still a VERY red state in presidential elections. Bush took something like 65%, I believe, in 2004. Unless Sweitzer is on the ticket in 2008 or 2012, I dont see MT going blue in the presidential.

As far as Congressional elections are concerned, it seems MT is increasingly willing to elect libertarian-leaning, populist Democrats.

As I have said before, this is the KEY to the Democrats coming back to dominate national politics and establish an enduring majority. People in many parts of the country agree with Dem economic policies, and if Dems moderate their stances on other issues, they can put even the most conservative states, like MT, into play.

Also CA libs are moving to MT, which helps the Dems, too.

Really, what is the problem with CA libs moving to new places. If they voted for politicians who ruined their state, they should live with the consequences, or at least stop voting for similar politician when they move to a new place.


new Mexico: Thanks to all the Mexicans swarming over the border, both legal and illegal, New Mexico is rapidly turning back into old Mexico, replete with crime, poverty, etc. Expect this to become a Dem haven as whites leave because they don't want to be harassed and attacked by Mexicans.

Richardson must be in heaven.

As for the Senate race, I think NM is still a swing state, or at least it will be in 2008, if 10 million more Mexicans dont invade between now and then.

It could go either way. Domineci is old, and if he retires it will probably be Heather Wilson against Tom Udall. Chris, I don't know why you said Udall isnt interested. It's known that he aspires to replace Domineci. I rate this race a tossup, but leaning slightly Dem due to all the Mexicans swarming in by the day.


And to the person above who was whining about the Ford ad:

1. No one cares if it was "racist" except whiny SPLC loving liberals.

2. Its post facto.

3. Miscegenation is a valid campaign issue in the South.

Got it? Maybe if Fancy Ford moves to Mass. he can replace Deval "the rapist protector" as governor :)

cheers,

William

Posted by: William | December 15, 2006 11:16 AM | Report abuse


A new NPR poll reveals that Democratic victories in the elections last month weren't the end of America's divorce from the Republican Party. It was only the beginning.

Voters are feeling more positive about the Democratic Party than about the Republicans as the GOP prepares to hand over control of Congress in January, according to a new NPR poll. And with his approval rating remaining low, President Bush will find it tough to keep Republican lawmakers on his side, the numbers suggest.

A month after the election, the voters are feeling more disenfranchised with the Republicans than before. Comments from voters indicate that the Republican strategy of always focusing on wedge issues, while ignoring the issues actually needed to govern the nation, has finally worn out the Republican welcome, even among Republicans.

Bolger and Greenberg asked voters a "thermometer question" -- to measure how warm or cool they were toward the parties. For the first time in many years, the Democrats' rating on a scale of 1 to 100 was 53; the Republicans scored 44. Greenberg points out that this gives Democrats an opportunity, but not a free pass. Bolger says Republicans are still in a hole and must claw their way back into the trust of the public.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 15, 2006 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Why wouldn't Daschle run for the SD seat? I'd like to see him try and get back in.

Posted by: Bob | December 15, 2006 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Why wouldn't Daschle run for the SD seat? I'd like to see him try and get back in.

Posted by: Bob | December 15, 2006 11:10 AM | Report abuse

'They don't seem to be able to work together, to take clear positions on issues, or to speak in short digestable messages. '

Why do you want dems to be mindless, lockstep robots like republicans? they take positions on issues, they just don't all take the same positions. so what?

Posted by: Anonymous | December 15, 2006 11:09 AM | Report abuse

I liked your atricle very much, as there was some good stuff in there.

How about Oregon? Smith should be commended on his genuine honesty that he showed during a Senate speech, but his undying support for many Bush policies, and votes for all of his extreme-right judicial nominees should also irk Oregon independent voters.

Moreover, how about New Jersey? Lautenberg has below 50% approval ratings from what I have read.

Posted by: Jake | December 15, 2006 11:07 AM | Report abuse

I don't think Tim Walz will run for Senate when he hasn't even begun representing his House constituents yet.

Posted by: Brittain33 | December 15, 2006 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Lest time I checked there were still more withes in the US, it's very unfortunate that it will turn in to a race about black and withes if Obama should be on the ticket.

Will see what the so called "BLACK" leaders will say when Clinton will be hammering Obama on all the issues, will she be a racist?

If Obama will win the nomination wait and see how every republican will be a racist by even saying the exact things that Hillary was saying...

Some pollsters said when the polls were showing Ford leading in TN in 2006, that there is a 15 point gap of people that are saying they are going to vote for a black candidate and they will not, so don't get all upbeat when you will see the polls showing that Obama leads, its all not true until he wins.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 15, 2006 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Thanks proud for Cohen's name.
Also Vincente, I know that Charlotteans don't win on the state level but that won't stop Myrick from trying. In a presidential year with possibly a Clinton at the top of the ticket the democrats will write off the south leaving an opening for whomever wins the GOP nod (ie Myrick). It isn't as crazy as it sounds (scary but not crazy)

Posted by: Andy R | December 15, 2006 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Your comments about Mississippi only tell half the story. While black voters will turn out in force to support a black candidate such as Obama, there will be a similar reaction amongst white voters. Consider the 1989 election of Douglas Wilder as Governor in Virginia. Despite a large lead in the polls Wilder won a narrow victory. This was due to Virginia whites misrepresenting their opinions and votes to pollsters. Turnout was high among both whites and blacks for the election. I would predict a similar phenomenon in Mississippi should Obama be on the ballot in 2008.

Posted by: BMB | December 15, 2006 10:48 AM | Report abuse

I find your comments about Mississippi to be very interesting. While black voters will turn out in force to support a black candidate such as Obama, there will be a similar reaction amongst white voters. Consider the 1989 election of Douglas Wilder in Virginia -- despite a larege lead in the polls Wilder won a narrow victory. This was due to Virginia whites misrepresenting their opinions and votes to pollsters. Turnout was high among both whites and blacks for the election. I would predict a similar phenomenon in Mississippi should Obama be on the ballot in 2008.

Posted by: BMB | December 15, 2006 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Andy, the guy's name is Elliot Cohen for Johns Hopkins.

Since we're going to have Americans in Iraq for a while...here's a good bipartisan idea:
In keeping with the spirit of the Holidays, Xerox has a website where you can pick out a thank you card. Xerox will print it, and send it to a soldier that is currently serving in Iraq. You can't pick out who gets it, but it will go to some member of the armed services. It is FREE and it only takes a second. Should you like to send one the website is http://www.letssaythanks.com

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 15, 2006 10:32 AM | Report abuse

If the Dems put up a formidable candidate in MN, Norm Coleman is toast. Surprise winner Congressman-elect Walz might be just the guy - a novice politician, high school teacher and coach. He could really appeal to rural voters and urban/suburban moderates in and around the Twin Cities are not huge fans of good ole Norm. He makes Kerry seem pretty solid on the issues. Norm is a flip flopper like no other.

Posted by: VA-dem | December 15, 2006 10:31 AM | Report abuse

First, is there a chance that Gary Hart might decide to return to the Senate, now that Colorado is turning bluer?

Also, is a DFL nomination of Franken really so dangerous?

Posted by: Qshio | December 15, 2006 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Re: Landrieu's possible challengers - there are rather few senators who are "terribly exciting" so I don't think that's much of a yardstick to judge her challengers by. Yeah Jindal would be the first this or first that if he ran - but more importantly he'd be a two-time statewide loser if he ran (2003 and 2007 gubenatorial races). I think Jay Dardenne should give Landrieu nightmares. He doesn't look like a wacky right-winger (her 96 opponent) or a managed non-entity (he 02 oppoenent). He's sober, experienced, long one of the most serious guys in the state senate before his statewide win, low-key but very likeable - he's got the classic "reformer" look, and if the GOP is smart he'll be the nominee (presuming the nominee's an elected official).

Posted by: Armand | December 15, 2006 10:16 AM | Report abuse

I sow yesterday in the news that the CO GOP wants that Dick Wadhams, George Allen's campaign manager, and is now back to his home state CO, to stay and become the CO GOP chair, he never lost a statewide race there, he has a very good relationship with every local newspaper and they believe that he has what they need to win back both houses of the state legislator, and maybe a house and save the us senate seat, and prove to everyone that not he was the problem in Allen's campaign, Allen himself was the problem.

I think that if Tim Johnson (I wish him a speedy recovery) will not run for reelection, and I think that he will not, after what happened this week, and then Mike Rounds is going to jump in and run, and I am positive that in a presidential election year the republicans will pick up this seat.


Posted by: Anonymous | December 15, 2006 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Don't forget about Kerry's seat. If he is dumb enough to run for president, someone else will take his seat. It will probably be a Dem of course (although Weld might be a good Republican contender for the spot). Still, seems likely to change.

Posted by: FreeDom | December 15, 2006 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

Enough with the Beltway press corps chops-licking over a Sen. Johnson comadeathapalooza. The man is in stable condition today and appears headed for recovery. Joe Biden was out of the senate for eight months, and they wheeled in Strom Thurmond's carcass from Walter Reed every day for his last term. Johnson's not going anywhere.

As for the Senate, North Carolina is going Blue in 08. Liddy Dole is an incompetent carpetbagger who is not hardcore enough to get people to come out for her (that's how Ol' Jess survived time after time).

Liddy should take a clue and pack it up.

If Easley runs, he'll smoke whatever poor sap the Rs put up against him. If Etheridge runs, same thing... although I won't rule out Elaine Marshall (who handed Richard Petty his ass in 2002).

The Ds will clean up because the Rs have no bench in NC -- Burr's victory against Bowles was a fluke because, well, he was running against Ersking Bowles. The man has always been and always will be a loser.

Who do the Rs have? Myrick? Hahahahah! That's good.

There's an unwritten rule in NC politics that you beltway types haven't figured out yet -- people from Charlotte don't win statewide offices. Look it up. Vinroot, Gantt, Two Time Loser Bowles and you can add Myrick to the list if she's dumb enough to think she can buck the trend.

V

Posted by: Vincente | December 15, 2006 10:06 AM | Report abuse

As happy as I am that the Republican bent toward the ultra conservative is causing them to fall out of favor, I don't see the Democrats positioning themselves to pick up the power. They don't seem to be able to work together, to take clear positions on issues, or to speak in short digestable messages. Their lack of political charisma leaves the door wide open for the Republicans to clean up their act and move back into both houses in 2008. I think we should start a new MODERATE party. A party that 70% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats and 90% of independents would agree with. Let the ulta-conservatives and the liberals be divisive and fight amongst themselves. The moderates would win the day!!!

Posted by: P Yager | December 15, 2006 10:05 AM | Report abuse

It's well known in Maine that Tom Allen is running for Susan Collins' seat. A number of Dems have already set up skeletal campaign staffs or committees to run for his seat. It will be a great primary to watch - followed by an exciting general election in November!

Posted by: the maine man | December 15, 2006 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Questioning why Vice President Cheney has been "publicly silent and mostly out of sight" since the Iraq Study Group issued its report, U.S. News reports that a former Cheney adviser believes the vice president is now cutting-and-running from the "grave and deteriorating" situation in Iraq:

"I think we'll see less of him than ever," says the associate. "Iraq is now Bush's baby, and Cheney doesn't want to be tarred with it in the eyes of historians."

Regardless of the actions Cheney takes in the future, history will not forget that he has been at the center of the administration's most egregious attempts to both sell the war ("we believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons") and falsely report the situation on the ground ("I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency").

Posted by: Anonymous | December 15, 2006 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Summary: The media largely ignored the hiring of Terry Nelson to serve as campaign manager for John McCain's presumed bid for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, and with few exceptions, those that did report on Nelson's hiring have largely overlooked Nelson's connections to various Republican scandals.

In mid-March, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) hired Republican operative Terry Nelson as a senior adviser to his political action committee. More recently, McCain aides disclosed on December 7 that he had tapped Nelson to serve as his campaign manager for his presumed bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008.

But not only have the media largely ignored this recent development, those who reported on it have largely overlooked Nelson's connections to various Republican scandals and crimes. Most recently, Nelson was responsible for a television advertisement attacking Senate candidate Rep. Harold Ford Jr. that many criticized as racist. Last year, the indictments of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) on campaign finance-related charges alleged that Nelson was the conduit for money transferred through the Republican National Committee (RNC) between DeLay's political action committee and Republican Texas House of Representatives candidates. Questions have also been raised regarding his knowledge of the 2004 New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal. Moreover, Nelson's consulting firm employs a former adviser to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose 2004 campaign tactics McCain himself called "dishonest and dishonorable."

Both CNN's The Situation Room and MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann briefly reported Nelson's hiring on December 7, as did weblogs at The Washington Post and ABC News. Further, articles on McCain in the December 11 issue of Roll Call [subscription required] and the December 18 issue of Time noted that McCain had tapped Nelson as his campaign manager. And in his December 12 "Media Notes" column, Post columnist Howard Kurtz excerpted a December 7 blog post by Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Dick Polman on Nelson's hiring. But of the few mentions in the media of this development, a Media Matters for America search through December 12 found only three -- Time staff writer Karen Tumulty, Countdown host Keith Olbermann, and Kurtz -- who have made any reference to his controversial past.

Approved attack ad on Harold Ford criticized as racist

As head of the RNC's independent expenditure unit in 2006, Nelson approved a controversial advertisement attacking Senate candidate Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN). The ad featured a scantily clad white woman posing as someone who "met" Ford "at the Playboy party." As the ad concluded, she looked into the camera, purporting to address Ford, an African-American, and asked him to "call" her.

As the Los Angeles Times noted, "Critics said the ad ... plays on fears of interracial relationships to scare some white voters in rural Tennessee." An October 26 New York Times article quoted Vanderbilt University professor and political advertising expert John Geer saying that the spot that it "is playing to a lot of fears" and "frankly makes the Willie Horton ad look like child's play." Former Republican senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen, on the October 23 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, said the ad made "a very serious appeal to a racist sentiment," and NAACP Washington Bureau director Hilary O. Shelton also denounced the advertisement.

The uproar surrounding the ad ultimately led Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to fire Nelson. Wal-Mart had hired Nelson's consulting firm, Crosslink Strategy Group, in 2005 "to help burnish its image after a wave of attacks from organized labor and liberal groups," according to The New York Times. As Media Matters for America noted at the time, The New York Times reported that Nelson "has worked for various Republican leaders, including President Bush and Senator John McCain of Arizona"; in reporting that Nelson "has worked" for McCain, the Times obscured the fact that Nelson still worked for McCain.

Implicated in DeLay scandal

In September 2005, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) was indicted on charges of conspiracy involving alleged illegal corporate contributions into the Texas state elections. Specifically, the indictments accused DeLay of, in 2002, conspiring with two aides, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis, to arrange large corporate contributions to the RNC that would then be sent back to various candidates for the Texas legislature.

While Nelson has not been charged, both the conspiracy and money-laundering indictments allege that, as deputy chief of staff of the RNC at the time, Nelson received a $190,000 check from Colyandro in September 2002, along with a request that the RNC fund seven particular candidates for the Texas House of Representatives. The RNC subsequently carried out this request, issuing $190,000 to the seven candidates on October 4, 2002. From the money-laundering indictment:

(4) on or about the eleventh day of September 2002, in Washington, D.C. the defendant, James Walter Ellis, did communicate with Terry Nelson, deputy chief of staff of the Republican National Committee, and did request and propose that, in exchange for their receipt of a contribution of a certain sum of money from Texans for a Republican Majority PAC, the Republican National Committee and the Republican National State Elections Committee ... make political contributions to several candidates for the Texas House of Representatives that were supported by Texans for a Republican Majority PAC;

(5) on or about the thirteenth day of September, 2002, in Washington, D.C., the defendant, James Walter Ellis, did tender and deliver aforesaid check and did cause the aforesaid check to be tendered and delivered, to Terry Nelson and the Republican National Committee;

(6) on or about the thirteenth day of September, 2002, in Washington, D.C., the defendant, James Walter Ellis, did provide the said Terry Nelson with a document that contained the names of several candidates for the Texas House of Representatives that were supported by Texans for a Republican Majority PAC ... to whom the defendant, James Walter Ellis, requested and proposed that the Republican National Committee and the Republican National State Elections Committee make political contributions in exchange for the committee's receipt of the proceeds from the aforesaid check, and that contained amounts that defendant, James Walter Ellis, and Texans for a Republican Majority PAC suggested be contributed to each of the said candidates.

Implicated in NH phone-jamming scandal

During Nelson's tenure as RNC deputy chief of staff, one of his subordinates, RNC New Hampshire political director James Tobin, conspired with several GOP operatives to obstruct the Democrats' get-out-the-vote effort in the state by jamming the phone lines they used on Election Day, November 5, 2002. On December 15, 2005, Tobin was convicted on one count of conspiracy to commit the commission of interstate telephone harassment and one count of aiding and abetting the commission of interstate telephone harassment. He later received a sentence of 10 months in prison, two years of probation, and a $10,000 fine.

While the degree to which Nelson was aware of Tobin's scheme is unknown, his name did appear on the government's witness list during the Tobin trial, as the weblog Talking Points Memo documented.

Consulting firm connected to Swifties

Nelson's consulting firm, Crosslink Strategy Group, counts Chris LaCivita among its employees. While working for a separate Republican strategy firm in 2004, LaCivita was a paid consultant and media adviser to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who launched a smear campaign against Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) based on lies, factual distortions, and baseless attacks on Kerry's Vietnam War record and personal life.

At the time, McCain called the Swift Boat Veterans' campaign "dishonest and dishonorable."

Posted by: Anonymous | December 15, 2006 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Maybe Erskine will give up his sweet job as head of the UNC system and run again!

Posted by: not bluto | December 15, 2006 9:52 AM | Report abuse

How about Oregon? A blue state in a presidential year, a Republican Senator that's not terribly popular and hasn't won with stellar numbers. I'd say that Smith is at least as vulnerable as Collins if we're talking about blue states shifting to sending blue Senators to Washington.

Posted by: adam | December 15, 2006 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Andy R... The blame game is all they've ever had... Blame Bill Clinton. Since even they can't pretend he had anything to do with iraq, they're scrambling to find somebody else to blame. Ever listen to con talk radio? These people spend their lives looking for someone to scapegoat. They can't accept responsiblity for anything.

Oh, check this out:

' A little-noticed visit by Ahmad Chalabi to Syria is igniting speculation that the former Iraqi exile leader is emerging as a key channel between Damascus and Washington.

After a weekend meeting with the Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, Mr. Chalabi announced that Syria and Iraq would formally open their respective embassies in Damascus and Baghdad on Monday. An American diplomat said yesterday that Mr. Chalabi also was gauging the interest of the Assad regime in a limited rapprochement with America.

Mr. Chalabi regularly consults with the American ambassador to Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad. On Saturday, Mr. Chalabi told reporters that Syria and Iraq were considering joint patrols along the porous border they share.'

Good old Chalabi -- like a bad penny, he never goes away. So he's the back channel to Syria and Iran? Because he's really trustworthy... he's an Iranian spy, and yet the US has continued to pay him millions for feeding us lies, like all the 'WMDs' he knew about in Iraq...

You really have to conclude that this administration is stuffed with not only the greediest, but the stupidest people on this planet.

Posted by: really | December 15, 2006 9:33 AM | Report abuse

'The Bush administration is leaning toward temporarily sending as many as 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, even as the Democrats taking charge of Congress demand a drawdown of forces.
U.S. officials say the increase is needed to make a new push to stabilize Baghdad and to bolster efforts to train the Iraqi army. The emerging plan is facing opposition from Iraqi officials adamant that more U.S. forces aren't the answer. U.S. military commanders in Baghdad have drawn up plans for the country that don't require any new personnel. The debate over whether to send additional U.S. forces to Iraq is the most visible manifestation of the high-level tumult roiling the Bush administration as it works to find a way forward there ahead of a presidential address to the nation early next year.'

floundering, flipflopping, clueless loser...

Posted by: Anonymous | December 15, 2006 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Drindl,
I heard an interesting line of thought the other day on Meet the Press. Basically the guy from John Hopkins (forgot his name) said that if we send in more troops for six months to try and stabalize the situation, while at the same time set benchmarks for the Iraqi government to hit. Then we say we will begin withrawing (relocating to kurdish areas) troops in six months. Then in a year when Bahgdad more closely resembles Mogadishu, Somalia then we can 'say' that we did all we could and that it is the Iraqi governments fault. Nice idea right?

This is what they will do. New Bush and Cheney foriegn policy, better known as the Blame Game.

Posted by: Andy R | December 15, 2006 9:17 AM | Report abuse

I heard on the radio that Sununu was the latest '08er Republican to issue a statement blasting the Iraq war. He's following Gordon Smith, who is also concerned about job security. How long before Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, Elizabeth Dole, and other Bush stalwarts announce they are deeply saddened and angered at the course of the war?

Posted by: Brittain33 | December 15, 2006 9:13 AM | Report abuse

'Barack Obama is a Marxist Leftist hellbent on selling out America to the one and a half commie states still active in the world!

Well, at least according to Tom DeLay.

Yeah. That Tom DeLay. The guy whose ethics issues were yet one more straw that helped break the elephant's back.

The fact that DeLay - under indictment, boss to a couple of Abramoff-scandal convicts, bounced from Congress by his own party - feels he's in a position do to any name calling is surreal with a Salvador Dali exponent.'

oh look, delay is trying to rouse the dead body of communism to use as a boogeyman against obama. hilarious... because communism is just such a big threat today...

Posted by: Anonymous | December 15, 2006 9:12 AM | Report abuse

I know Montana doesn't have a coastline and is so considered naturally Republican, but one wonders how at risk Max Baucus can be when Conrad Burns thought faking an endorsement from him would help his campaign.

Posted by: Brittain33 | December 15, 2006 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Colorado is going to go blue in the nexty election barring some major cotastrophe. Udall did the right thing to wait his turn, he will take it in 08.

Landrieu in LA is doing a pretty good job of trying to get funding for rebuilding to New Orleans. Also what is so spectacular about Bobby Jidal. He lost when he tried to run statewide last time why would now be any different.
In Maine all bets are off. They don't call them Mainiacs for nothing.
Montana, people need to quit saying that Montana is a solid red state. In the last two statewide elections democrats have won. The montana state democratic party is really doing a great job and I expect that Tester will show that the faith the voters put in him is not poorly placed.

I think Sununu is safe in NH. He has an independent streak that sells well in the Granite State.

Now my Home State of North Carolina is going to be a fun one to watch. I expect that Dole will bow out for the reasons you mention and the fact that I think it will be hard for her to raise money after the abismal job she did as the RSCC chair. You could see Easley or Etheridge, or maybe even a Shuler run if either of those guys falter. ON the republican side I would look for Rep Sue Myrick to toy with the idea of running. She definitly has the ambition.

South Dakota will stay democratic in my opinion. If Johnson makes a full recovery (which it seems is likely at this point thank God) then he might be able to come back and sell the brush with Death angle to his advantage. If he does decide not to run then Herseth will win. She has already won Statewide and will be in position to bring home the pork now that the Democrats are in power.

Posted by: Andy R | December 15, 2006 9:10 AM | Report abuse

'Sen. John McCain took his controversial proposal for curbing Iraq's sectarian violence to Baghdad on Thursday, calling for an additional 15,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops and joining a congressional delegation in telling Iraq's prime minister he must break his close ties with a radical Shiite cleric.

The lawmakers' trip came as the bloodshed showed no signs of abating. At least 74 more people were killed or found dead, including 65 bullet-riddled bodies bearing signs of torture. And gunmen in military uniforms kidnapped as many as 70 shopkeepers and bystanders from a commercial area in central Baghdad in what was apparently an attack against Sunnis; at least 25 were later released, police said.

McCain's position puts him at odds with American public opinion and with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which recommended withdrawing substantial number of U.S. troops over the coming year. The Army in recent days has been looking at how many additional troops could be sent to Iraq if President Bush decides a surge in forces would be helpful.

Army officials say only about 10,000 to 15,000 troops could be sent and an end to the war would have to be in sight because the deployment would drain the pool of available soldiers for combat. Further, many experts warn, there is no guarantee a surge in troops would work to settle the violence.

"We would not surge without a purpose," the Army's top general, Peter J. Schoomaker, told reporters Thursday in Washington. "And that purpose should be measurable."

So what happens if these additional troops are sent in and nothing changes? Does that end McCain's presidential hopes?
And since that would 'drain the pool of avaialbe soliders [it's really that small already?} won't that leave us vulnerable to an invasion?

Posted by: drindl | December 15, 2006 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, has recruited a former Miss America and a former U.S. Senate candidate to join his presidential exploratory committee.

Former U.S. Senate candidate Jerry Zandstra of Michigan and former Miss America 2001 Angela Perez Baraquio of Hawaii will help communicate Brownback's platform in their respective states, the senator's exploratory committee announced Thursday.

Zandstra, an ordained pastor in the Christian Reformed Church, sought the GOP Senate nomination in Michigan this year, but failed to make the primary ballot after collecting too few of the required valid signatures.

Baraquio is a teacher and chose character education as her main advocacy issue when she was crowned Miss America. She says she is drawn to the senator's strong opposition to abortion rights''.

yeah i see brownback is a real contender. because what we really need is an intellectual heavyweight like miss america preaching to us about morality. god save us from the theocrats....

Posted by: Anonymous | December 15, 2006 9:01 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company