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 House Line: Incumbents in Trouble

As we approach the final three weeks of the 2006 midterms, it's becoming increasingly clear that a handful of Republican incumbents may well be beyond saving.

In this week's House Line, Reps. John Hostettler (Ind.), Don Sherwood (Pa.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio) are all cracking the top five for the first time. Republican strategists are extremely skeptical about any of the three returning to Congress in 2007 and may soon focus their resources elsewhere.

Of the 25 races on the Line, 15 are held by Republican incumbents -- a sign that the dissatisfaction voiced by voters in national polling is having a negative impact on individual House districts. And, while Republicans insist that the national mood is far more anti-incumbent than anti-Republican, only two Democratic members appear to be in any jeopardy of losing: Reps. Jim Marshall (Ga.) and Melissa Bean (Ill.).

To the Line!

25. Illinois' 8th District: After a several month hiatus from the Line, Rep. Melissa Bean (D) returns as Republicans believe investment banker David McSweeney (R) is well within striking distance at the moment. Bean is running ads highlighting McSweeney's opposition to embryonic stem cell research in hopes of appealing to the moderate Republican voters she needs in a district where President Bush won 56 percent to 44 percent in 2004. (Previous ranking: N/A)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Bean, McSweeney | Illinois Political Profile

24. Florida's 13th District: This open seat, triggered by the train wreck Senate candidacy of Rep. Katherine Harris (R), is a newcomer to the Line. Car dealer Vern Buchanan (R) spent millions of his own money to win a less-than-impressive primary victory and Democrats got their preferred candidate in banker Christine Jennings (D). A poll conducted for the Democrat's campaign showed her with a 50 percent to 38 percent lead. Republicans admit this is a toss up race that is not helped by Foley scandal fallout, but they believe if Buchanan once again opens his checkbook the GOP will hold the seat. (Previous ranking: N/A)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Jennings, Buchanan | Florida Political Profile

23. New York's 24th District: Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) is as high on Oneida County Attorney Michael Arcuri (D) as he is on any other candidate running for the House this year. And economic struggles in the Upstate region give Democrats hope in this district where registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats by 40,000. Still, having met state Sen. Ray Meier (R), we believe he will be tough to portray as a fire-breathing conservative out of step with the district. (Previous ranking: 22)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Arcuri, Meier | New York Political Profile

22. Georgia's 8th District: Will any Democratic incumbents lose in this environment? Republicans believe former Rep. Mac Collins (R), who had President Bush in the district earlier this week, is well-positioned to beat Rep. Jim Marshall (D) in this redrawn and Republican-leaning district. Democrats in the know acknowledge the race is a serious one but express considerable confidence that Marshall will return to Congress next January. (Previous ranking: 20)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Collins, Marshall | Incumbent's Voting Record | Georgia Political Profile

21. Connecticut's 5th district: Rep. Nancy Johnson (R) has spent much of the past few weeks painting state Sen. Chris Murphy (D) as a liberal who wants to raise taxes on virtually everything. And, a poll conducted for her campaign at the start of the month showed her with a 52 percent to 42 percent advantage. Democrats argue the race is much closer and Johnson's attacks are gaining little traction. We honestly don't know who to believe but are inclined to think Johnson's ads are working. (Previous ranking: 18)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Johnson, Murphy | Incumbent's Voting Record | Connecticut Political Profile

20. Connecticut's 4th District: Because of the prohibitive cost of buying broadcast air time in the New York City media market, the campaigns of Rep. Chris Shays (R) and 2004 nominee Dianne Farrell (D) are relying heavily on direct mail to move their message. Farrell is focused almost solely on the war in Iraq and Shays' longtime support for President Bush's handling of the conflict. It's a sound strategy given that 28 percent of voters in a recent independent poll in the district said the war in Iraq was the single most important issue in determining their vote this November. That same poll, however, had Shays ahead of Farrell 46 percent to 41 percent. An astute reader points out that the poll showed Farrell AHEAD of Shays 46 percent to 41 percent. (Previous ranking: 19)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Farrell, Shays | Incumbent's Voting Record | Connecticut Political Profile

19. Kentucky's 4th District: It's not that former Rep. Ken Lucas' (D) chances in this northern Kentucky district have declined in any measurable way. Rather, a number of other seats have simply become more and more endangered, a process that caused this seat to steadily fall in the Line. A recent Zogby poll showed Rep. Geoff Davis (R) up 42 percent to 36 percent but this race still seems like a nip and tuck affair with the strong conservative nature of the district putting a pinkie on the scale for the incumbent. (Previous ranking: 17)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Davis, Lucas | Incumbent's Voting Record | Kentucky Political Profile

18. New York's 26th District: There's no race Democrats want to win more than this one. Why? Because Rep. Tom Reynolds (R) has led the National Republican Congressional Committee for the last two cycles -- a job that puts a major target on his back. Reynolds has watched his poll numbers plummet following his acknowledgement that he knew last year of Foley's e-mail correspondence with a congressional page. Those familiar with Reynolds' campaign say his own internal polling has him ahead of wealthy businessman Jack Davis (D), but acknowledge the contest is close. (Previous ranking: N/A)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Davis, Reynolds | Incumbent's Voting Record | New York Political Profile

17.Ohio's 18th District: After essentially awarding this seat to Democrats when Rep. Bob Ney (R) seemed certain to run for re-election, we went to the opposite end of the spectrum when Ney resigned from the House and was replaced by state Sen. Joy Padgett (R). But, recent polling suggests attorney Zack Space (D) is running a surprisingly resilient campaign while Padgett struggles to distance herself from Ney and Gov. Bob Taft (R). A DCCC-sponsored survey released this week had Space with a 48 percent to 41 percent lead over Padgett; a whopping 64 percent of the sample said the country was off on the wrong track. Despite the seat's Republican tilt, the sentiment for change appears to be strong in this seat. (Previous ranking: 25)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Padgett, Space | Ohio Political Profile

16. Florida's 22nd District: With the race between Rep. Clay Shaw (R) and state Sen. Ron Klein (D) expected to be decided by only a few thousand votes, even events that influence voters at the margins matter. Foley's 16th district abuts Shaw's 22nd, and many voters in the 22nd are likely to have seen the saturation news coverage generated by the page scandal. Republicans claim there has been no negative impact for Shaw from the Foley resignation but it seems altogether possible that the incident will be on voters' minds when they pick between the incumbent and Klein on Nov. 7. (Previous ranking: 16)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Klein, Shaw | Incumbent's Voting Record | Florida Political Profile

15. Connecticut's 2nd District: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee began running a commercial this week that attacks Rep. Rob Simmons (R) for his vote in favor of the Bush-backed prescription drug bill. It seems a tough sell to paint Simmoms as a shill for the president's policies, but in a year when the electorate is so polarized such an appeal may be more effective than in years past. A Zogby survey showed Simmons with a 44 percent to 41 percent lead over former state Rep. Joe Courtney (D), a margin that seems plausible. (Previous ranking: 15)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Courtney, Simmons | Incumbent's Voting Record | Connecticut Political Profile

14. Indiana's 9th District: Nowhere is the fight over the Foley imbroglio nastier than in this southern Indiana seat. Former Rep. Baron Hill began the tussle with an ad pointing out that Rep. Mike Sodrel (R) had accepted thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from House leaders including Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.) Sodrel hit back with an ad in which the incumbent says: "Baron Hill's attack ads blaming me for the Mark Foley mess are the biggest lie yet." Hill is hoping that by raising questions about Sodrel's (and Republicans') ethics he can discredit them as a messenger on values issues, which are all-important in this district. (Previous ranking:13)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Hill, Sodrel | Incumbent's Voting Record | Indiana Political Profile

13. New Mexico's 1st District: This may be a race where the pro-Democratic environment spells doom for Rep. Heather Wilson (R). She has shown an ability to win the ultra-swing district in neutral and Republican-friendly cycles but this ain't either one. State Attorney General Patricia Madrid (D) and Wilson have exchanged body blows on television for months and will continue to do so right up until Nov. 7, but the environment may be the ultimate decider in this contest. (Previous ranking: 14)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Madrid, Wilson | Incumbent's Voting Record | New Mexico Political Profile

12. Pennsylvania's 7th District: It's rare when a challenger outraises an incumbent for even one reporting period. But retired Admiral Joe Sestak (D) has now outpaced Rep. Curt Weldon (R) in two straight quarters -- leaving him with $1.5 million to spend at the end of September as compared to Weldon's $1.1 million. Weldon hasn't had a competitive race in two decades but unlike some of his colleagues appears to be adjusting decently. (Previous ranking: 9)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Sestak, Weldon | Incumbent's Voting Record | Pennsylvania Political Profile

11. Pennsylvania's 6th District: Democrats took great umbrage at our citing of a Republican poll and an Independent poll that showed Rep. Jim Gerlach (R) with a comfortable lead over 2004 nominee Lois Murphy. In hindsight, it seems far-fetched that Gerlach, who has never won with more than 51 percent of the vote, would have a double-digit lead over Murphy. This one should be very close. (Previous ranking: 12)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Gerlach, Murphy | Incumbent's Voting Record | Pennsylvania Political Profile

10. North Carolina's 11th District: Need evidence of how serious Rep. Charles Taylor (R) is taking his race against former NFL quarterback Heath Shuler (D)? Taylor has agreed to debate a Democratic opponent for the first time in 12 years. Republicans argue that Taylor has bounced back somewhat of late and is back in the lead, while Democrats say no poll taken this cycle has shown Shuler behind. (Previous ranking: 11)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Shuler, Taylor | Incumbent's Voting Record | North Carolina Political Profile

9. Florida's 16th District: Following the Foley bombshell, Republicans have polled in the district and clearly see something they like. The National Republican Congressional Committee went up with ads attacking Democrat Tim Mahoney this week and has reserved television time costing more than $1 million. It's still a VERY heavy lift to convince voters to cast their ballot for Foley, whose name will remain on the ballot (but whose votes will go to Republican replacement Joe Negron), given the circumstances surrounding his departure from Congress. (Previous ranking: 3)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Mahoney, Negron | Fla. Political Profile

8. Indiana's 2nd District: Rep. Chris Chocola (R) sowed the seeds of his likely defeat in November almost two years ago. Democrat Joe Donnelly was running an underfunded effort against the incumbent, but rather than run a series of negative ads designed to destroy Donnelly, Chocola largely ignored him. The result? Donnelly built up his name identification and favorable ratings -- positioning him perfectly to beat Chocola this time in a vastly different political environment. A new Democrat-sponsored poll showed Donnelly ahead 52 percent to 36 percent. Chocola's own poll had him down 45 percent to 44 percent. Either way, it doesn't look good for the incumbent. (Previous ranking: 10)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Chocola, Donnelly | Incumbent's Voting Record | Indiana Political Profile

7. Iowa's 1st District: Two polls came out in this eastern Iowa district over the past week. First, a Zogby survey showed restauranteur Mike Whalen (R) with a 47 percent to 34 percent lead over attorney Bruce Braley (D). Then, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released a survey of their own that had Braley ahead of Whalen 48 percent to 37 percent. While we wonder if Braley is up double digits, the DCCC poll seems closer to reality than the Zogby survey. Republicans have a chance here but it is a slim one. (Previous ranking: 5)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Braley, Whalen | Incumbent's Voting Record | Iowa Political Profile

6. Texas's 22nd District: Republicans insist Shelley Sekula-Gibbs' write-in candidacy has a chance in this Houston-area district vacated by the resignation of former Rep. Tom DeLay (R). While this district has strong Republican tendencies, former Rep. Nick Lampson (D) has run a solid campaign. His latest savvy move came when he asked Sekula-Gibbs to join him in calling for the resignation of any House leader who knew about Foley's conduct prior to it becoming public. Such a call reminds voters of DeLay's problems; the more the race is about DeLay, the better for Lampson. (Previous ranking: 4)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Lampson | Texas Political Profile

5. Ohio's 15th District: Rep. Deborah Pryce (R) has said publicly that the Mark Foley scandal is complicating her chances of beating Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy (D). But, Republican insiders argue that Pryce was in a world of trouble long before Foley resigned from the House. Pryce seemed to be caught by surprise by the seriousness of Kilroy's challenge and has never found her footing. (Previous ranking: 8)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Kilroy, Pryce | Incumbent's Voting Record | Ohio Political Profile

4. Pennsylvania's 10th District: Democrat Chris Carney's media campaign in this race -- overseen by Shrum Devine Donilon firm alumnus Julian Mulvey -- has been pitch perfect. Rather than have Carney carry the message about incumbent Don Sherwood's extramarital affair and alleged abuse, Mulvey has used Republicans in the district to talk about how disappointed they are in the incumbent's conduct. In the post-Foley environment Sherwood's chances of victory are minimal. (Previous ranking: 7)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Carney, Sherwood | Incumbent's Voting Record | Pennsylvania Political Profile

3. Indiana's 8th District: Rep. John Hostettler's campaign isn't showing any signs of life. Vanderburgh County Sheriff Brad Ellsworth (D) continues to hold a double-digit lead, and the question now seems to be when the National Republican Congressional Committee will decide to pull out. (Previous ranking: 6)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Ellsworth, Hostettler | Incumbent's Voting Record | Indiana Political Profile

2. Colorado's 7th District: A recent Mason-Dixon poll showed former state Sen. Ed Perlmutter (D) with a 45 percent to 39 percent lead over Rick O'Donnell (R) -- a sign that the race is tightening. Still, Rep. Bob Beauprez (R) continues to trail badly in the governor's race, and Colorado voters seem to be turning bluer by the day. (Previous ranking: 2)

1. Arizona's 8th District: Ex state Sen. Gabrielle Giffords might as well begin measuring the drapes for her new office in Washington. National Republicans have conceded the race to her and have abandoned GOP candidate Randy Graf. (Previous ranking: 1)

Candidate Profiles/Links/Fundraising: Giffords, Graf | Arizona Political Profile

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 13, 2006; 9:06 AM ET
Categories:  House , The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Warner's Out: Winners and a Loser
Next: Conn. Senate: Lamont's Challenge

Comments

As a moderate Republican I have to say that i think it's unfortunately time for the Republicans to suffer loses in the election. Ideally I would like Democrats to pick up the house and republicans emerge with a 50-50 majority in the Senate (so they could at least bring a supreme court nominee to the floor) I just think there is no other way to convince this president that this BS war has to end.

I will say this though this is one race where I do want to see Republicans pick up and that is New Jersey. Menendez is so so corrupt. It's just lie after lie with him.

Posted by: Greg | October 22, 2006 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Rob,

Most of them do not have strong views on a wide range of issues that they do not see as affecting them directly. Many of these voters are personality and image driven. When I refer to centrists, I am talking about people with defined middle of the road views on a range of issues.

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 17, 2006 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Jim, those voters are most definetly centrists. If you really think about it, these voters are non-ideological because they don't have the left or right ideology. They may hold pieces of both, pro-choice and pro-death penalty for example. These people have biews on everything out there that effects them. I don't think anyone votes for someone becuase of how they look or if they are charasmatic. Those things may help a candidate, but without issues, that candidate will still lose horribly. The unaffiliated voters are definetly unaffiliated, their views don't make the liberal or conservative, and because of that, they are centrists, cause if they weren't centrists, they wouldn't be unaffiliated.

Posted by: Rob Millette | October 17, 2006 4:51 AM | Report abuse

I'd simply like to put to rest once and for all bhoomes claim that the conservatives have a majority. NEITHER side has majority. Liberals have their base and conservatives have their base but neither base makes up more than 1/3 of the total vote. The real majority in this nation are the centrists. Unfortunately for them, no major political party is geared toward them and they have to choose between the Republicans and the Democrats.

The trend in elections is very simple to follow. 1 party gains power, in today's case, it happens to be the Republicans who hold complete power in the trifecta of Senate, House, and Presidency. With this power, the Republicans then abandon many of the political claims that pandered toward these centrists and focus on their main party issues. Those issues don't matter to the centrists and the party out of power brings up ideas that do pander to the middle. The next step puts the minority party in power.

We see this happening today. The Republicans are so far off the board it isn't funny. They have even abandoned their fiscal conservative roots with this huge defecit. Democrats are gaining the support of not only the liberals, but most of the centrists as well, and that will put them in power this year. Democrats will make gains for the next few elections. After that, it will swing back the other way as we try to keep this huge political machine spin balanced.

Neither side has a majority, the country does not lean center right and the last 5 Presidential election prove that. Bush Clinton Clinton Gore Bush. 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans won the popular vote in this country in the past 5 elections. That should tell you something right there.

Posted by: Rob Millette | October 17, 2006 12:41 AM | Report abuse

JEP

Let me be clear about what I am saying - I don't think they should not use the investigative power. I just think they should not go so far as to appear mindlessly partisan. I definitely do not think they should hold impeachment hearings, for example. The Republicans went too far in the Clinton investigations and paid severely at the polls. One of the Dems real image problems with the general public is that they do not seem to stand for anything except being against Bush. They will need to build a legislative record. Reading your second post clarifying what you meant, we are close in our thinking on the subject.

drindl, I agree that there are strong partisan divisions but there is still a pool of unaffiliated, non-ideological voters. I would not even characterize them as centrist or middle of the road. These folks base their vote on their assessment of a candidate's individual character. These voters are essential to a successful presidential campaign.

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 16, 2006 4:50 PM | Report abuse

See my blog http://www.MVTodayblogspot.com although it doesn't mention Lamont's challenge, which I do consider important and would vote for Lamont if I were in CT, my view is that the media owes a complete proper poll of Lamont v Lieberman.

Lamont was drawn into politics to challenge Lieberman because of the Iraq War and the status quo Republican backing of the Bush agenda and the attempt for the morphing of the Democrats as if a true challenge, when the media doesn't seem to want the challenge is a horror story.

Note the Lamont Challenge is REAL. Note people can vote for him and oust Lieberman, the status quo monger? It is a question of principle over politics and the sleazy old boy network and new boy on the block not wanted, but he IS by the PUBLIC...if he can stand tall on principle.

So, where's the beef, media? How is Lamont on the other issues, stop only asking do they like Lieberman, the former good guy now Bush backer? Ask if they think Lamont should and can replace him and help get this country back on track, but present who Lamont is as a new guy...he deserves the issue platforms answered, across the board BEFORE the polling.

Posted by: Goldpost | October 16, 2006 3:24 PM | Report abuse

See my blog http://www.MVTodayblogspot.com although it doesn't mention Lamont's challenge, which I do consider important and would vote for Lamont if I were in CT, my view is that the media owes a complete proper poll of Lamont v Lieberman.

Lamont was drawn into politics to challenge Lieberman because of the Iraq War and the status quo Republican backing of the Bush agenda and the attempt for the morphing of the Democrats as if a true challenge, when the media doesn't seem to want the challenge is a horror story.

Note the Lamont Challenge is REAL. Note people can vote for him and oust Lieberman, the status quo monger? It is a question of principle over politics and the sleazy old boy network and new boy on the block not wanted, but he IS by the PUBLIC...if he can stand tall on principle.

So, where's the beef, media? How is Lamont on the other issues, stop only asking do they like Lieberman, the former good guy now Bush backer? Ask if they think Lamont should and can replace him and help get this country back on track, but present who Lamont is as a new guy...he deserves the issue platforms answered, across the board BEFORE the polling.

Posted by: Goldpost | October 16, 2006 3:24 PM | Report abuse

New round of polling over the weekend in House races show things getting much worse for Republicans and incumbants.

1. IN-8
ISU 10/12
Ellsworth(D)55%-Hostettler(R)*32%

2. NY-26
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Davis(D)56%-Reynolds(R)*40%

3. PA 10
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Carney(D)51%-Sherwood(R)*37%

4. OH 15
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Kilroy(D)53%-Pryce(R)*41%

5. TX 22 (Open R)

6. NY 24 (Open R)
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Arcuri(D)53%-Meier(R)42%

7. AZ 8 (Open R)
AZ Star 9/19
Giffords(D)48%-Graf(R)36%
Reuters/Zogby 10/2
Giffords(D)45%-Graf(R)37%

8. FL 16 (Open R)
RT Strategies/CD 10/1
Mahoney(D)50%-Foley/Negron(R)43%
Research 2000 10/13
Mahoney(D)48%-Foley/Negron(R)41%

9. NM 1
Reuters/Zogby 10/2
Madrid(D)50%-Wilson(R)*40%
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Madrid(D)52%-Wilson(R)*44%

10. NC 11
Reuters/Zogby 10/2
Schuller(D)51%-Taylor(R)*40%
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Schuller(D)51%-Taylor(R)*43%

11. OH 18 (Open R)
Reuters/Zogby 10/2
Space(D)45%-Padgett(R)36%
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Space(D)51%-Padgett(R)42%

12. PA 7
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Sestak(D)52%-Wheldon(R)44%

13. NC 8 (NEW!)
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Kissell(D)51%-Hayes(R)*44%

14. IN 2
Reuters/Zogby 10/2
Donnelly(D)49%-Chocola(R)*39%
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Donnelly(D)50%-Chocola(R)*46%

15. CT 4
Reuters/Zogby 10/2
Farrell(D)46%-Shays(R)*41%

16. AZ 1 (NEW!)
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Simon(D)50%-Renzi(R)*46%

17. IL 8
RT Strategies/CD 9/29
Bean(D)*48%-McSweeney(R)45%

18. FL 13 (Open R)
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Jennings(D)47%-Bucannan(R)44%

19. LA 2 (New!)
DEM
Jefferson*
Barron
Bartholomew
K Carter
T Carter
Collins
Edwards
Mendoza
Sheppard
REP
Bradley
Lavigne
von Udhe
Kahn (L)
Must reach 50% +1 or December runoff of top two vote getters. Because of this and Mr. Jefferson's legal problems, this is a murky situation and no poll information.

20. CO-7
While other polls had double digit leads for Perlmutter, it has significantly tightened recently.
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Perlmutter(D)47%-O'Donnell(R)47%
Mason Dixon 10/7
Perlmutter(D)45%-O'Donnell(R)39%
Reuters/Zogby 10/2
Perlmutter(D)45%-O'Donnell(R)34%

21. IA-1 (Open R)
Reuters/Zogby 10/2
Braley(D)34%-Whalen(R)47%
Selzer & Co.9/13
Braley(D)44%-Whalen(R)37%

22. IL-6 (Open R)
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Duckworth(D)47%-Roskam(R)47%
Reuters/Zogby 10/2
Duckworth(D)46%-Roskam(R)41%

23. IN-9
Survey USA 10/9
Hill(D)48%-Sodrell(R)*46%
Reuters/Zogby 10/2
Hill(D)46%-Sodrell(R)*38%

24. WI-8 (Open R)(New!)
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Kagen(D)48%-Gard(R)46%

25. MN-6 (Open R)(New!)
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Wetterling(D)50%-Bachmann(R)45%
Survey USA 10/6
Wetterling(D)44%-Bachmann(R)47%
Reuters/Zogby 10/2
Wetterling(D)43%-Bachmann(R)46%

26. OH-2 (New!)
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Wulsin(D)48%-Schmidt(R)*45%
Survey USA 9/19
Wulsin(D)42%-Schmidt(R)*45%

27. CO-5 (New!)
Mason Dixon 10/7
Fawcett(D)37%-Lamborn(R)37%

28. KY-3 (New!)
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Yarmouth(D)48%-Northup(R)*48%

29. KY-4
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Lucas(D)46%-Davis(R)*49%
Survey USA 10/9
Lucas(D)44%-Davis(R)*47%
Reuters/Zogby 10/2
Lucas(D)36%-Davis(R)*42%

30. MN-1 (New!)
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Walz(D)47%-Gutknecht(R)*48%

31. VA-2
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Kellam(D)46%-Drake(R)*48%
Reuters/Zogby 10/2
Kellam(D)46%-Drake(R)*42%

32. WA-8
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Burner45%-Reichart(R)*48%
Reverses the 9/29 RT Strategies poll

33. CT 2
RT Strategies/CD 9/29
Courtney(D)51%-Simmons(R)*45%
Reuaters/Zogby 10/2
Courtney(D)41%-Simmons(R)*44%

34. IA-2 (New!)
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Loebsack(D)47%-Leach(R)*48%

35. NJ 7 (New!)
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Stender(D)46%-Ferguson(R)*48%

36. NY 3 (New!)
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Majias(D)46%-King(R)*48%

37. OH-1
Cranley(D)-Chabot(R)*

38. VT At Large (Open-I)
Rasmussen 9/24
Welch(D)52%-Rainville(R)41%

39. CO-4 (New!)
Mason Dixon 10/7
Paccione(D)36%-Musgrave(R)*46%-Eidsness(I)7%
Survey USA 9/21
Paccione(D)42%-Musgrave(R)*46%-Eidsness(I)8%

40. VA 10 (New!)
RT Strategies 10/10
Feder(D)42%-Wolf(R)*47%

41. CT-5
RT Strategies/CD 10/10
Murphy46%-Johnson(R)*52%

42. FL-22
Klein(D)-Shaw(R)*
Dem polls within 1 pt.

43. ID-1 (Open R)(New!)
Grant(D)43%-Sali(R)49%

44. MI-7 (Open R) (New!)
Rep polling has R up only 8 pts (incumbant Schwarz lost primary)

45. NV 2 (Open R)(New!)
Research 2000 9/7
Derby(D)37%-Heller(R)45%

46. NV 3 (New!)
RT Strategies 10/10
Hafen(D)43%-Porter(R)*51%

47. PA 8
RT Strategies 9/29
Murphy(D)45%-Fitzpatick(R)*53%

48. WY at large
Rasmussen 4/27
Trauner(D)42%-Cubin(R)*47%
No polls since

49. GA-8
Incumbant D; no polls

50. GA-12
Incumbant D; no polls

Sorry CC but Top 25 doesn't cut it anymore.

Republicans are currently losing 19 seats in polling and defending another 17 in the toss up category and 10 in leaning R and 10 in likely R. Dems defending a total of 5 seats in leaning D(IL-8, VT at large, LA-2, GA-8, GA-12) and 12 seats in likely D.

Prediction: Reps lose 26-36 seats

Posted by: RMill | October 16, 2006 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Clarification - it's the procesecutors who are overseen by Speedy.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 16, 2006 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Stand back, or Go on the attack? The Democrats will have only one weapon if they win either Chamber, the oversight powers of the congressional committees.

The Grand Juries are controlled by the prosecutors, all of whom were appointed by President Bush and are overseen by Speedy Gonzales.

So, Congressional subpoena power would be the only possible tool.

JEP is correct, no matter what the Democrats do, at the first effort to exercise oversight, they will be accused of partisanship. The leadership will have to use a deft hand in how they handle this; 2008 is too close to look like they're simply out for revenge.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 16, 2006 11:32 AM | Report abuse

JimD--I think you're right that the public is tired of extreme partisanship and polarization--but the Dems have to fight back and stand up to the constant attacks against them. Remember that the R's believe that their biggest enemy is not Osama bin Ladin, but the Democratic party. Remember that Grover Norquist said that bipartisanship is just another form of date rape.

They accuse dems of partisanship just for resisting efforts to bulldoze themn. There's a hardcore group of authoritarian cultists--real stalinists- in this country, and you can't negotiate or reason with them, anymore than you can with a suicide bomber. Even if some of the worst members of congress are removed [which we can hope for] the mood in the country is still going to contineu to be rapidly partisan--because the root causes--the radical right wing pundits and the poisonously hateful fundamentalist 'religious' right--will still be there.

Posted by: drindl | October 16, 2006 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Drindl
"It's really more like feudalism than anything resembling 'free markets':"

I have called it "economic feudalism" since '94. They call it "the new world order."

If you can't rule em' with blunt force and nuclear fear, then rule em' with their own credit cards.

With K-Street, Wall Street and Madison Avenue all in the neocon camp, the AVERAGE American Citizen doesn't stand a chance...

Posted by: JEP | October 16, 2006 9:27 AM | Report abuse

JimD;

I'm not suggesting you are a subtle blog-bender, you probably actually believe the Democrats should "back off" to "look good?"

But hasn't the argument for so long been that the Democrats are weak?

And wouldn't abrogation of their oversight obligations just add to that image of weakness?

I don't think Dems should go after "Republicans" per se, but they should certainly go after the book-cookers, the liars and the cheats, and if that lands predominately on the R's, it is because they have held ultimate power that corrupted them ultimately more than any other identifiable entity.

I would agree with you to this degree:

Dems need to act together, very deliberately, and not seem like a bunch of vengeful complainers just pointing fingers.

We just need a logical and reasoned approach to the investigations, but also one that moves forward without obstructionism, seeking the truth for its own sake, and for the sake of our precious democracy, not for the ebb and flow of political revenge.

Posted by: JEP | October 16, 2006 9:21 AM | Report abuse

JEP...don't worry about Santorum...he is toast. Column by the Philly Inquirer's political reporter Tom Ferrick in yesterday's paper basically declares the race over, giving Ricky a "pre-mortem"...Bob Casey may be an entirely unappealing candidate but the fact is Santorum's name is mud in his home state. To win in Pennsylvania, Republicans have to hold down Democratic margins in Philly and Pittsburgh, do well in the suburbs, and rack up huge margins in rural areas. None of that is in the cards for Santorum. Ed Rendell on the ballot guarantees a heavy Dem turnout in Philadelphia...not just the city itself but the increasingly Democratic suburbs where Rendell is very popular and Santorum is widely viewed as an extremist. The very wealthy Main Line, which growing up in this area I have always seen to epitomize elite, anti tax Republicanism, has even swung Democratic recently, giving small margins to Kerry in 04. Santorum does NOT play well to that crowd...well educated, socially tolerant people who do not care for wingnuts, even tax cutting wingnuts. Santorum will be pulverized in the Philly area, Casey should get +150k-200k coming out of SE PA. Santorum's only hope would be maximizing his vote in rural Pennsylvania and his western PA homebase...but the Casey name and generally unfavorable climate undercuts any opportunity he may otherwise have had to pull that offAll over but the shouting in this one. Given the probability of big Dem wins at the top of the ticket the GOP will be lucky to emerge from PA on election night without having lost 3 or 4 House seats as well(brief summary of PA House races...Sherwood in the 10th is a goner and then you have the three suburban Philly districts...of those three races I would peg the Democrat as the favorite in two, the 6th and 7th CDS-Lois Murphy SHOULD by all rights be able to capitalize on the favorable climate and the presence of her political benefactor(rendell) on the ballot to put her over the top against Jim Gerlach but I am not impressed with her as a candidate so I can't call that one a slam dunk...Sestak-Weldon in the 7th is looking better for the Dems right now...Sestak is an attractive and very well funded candidate, Weldon an ethically challenged grouch. The 8th, Fitzpatrick-Murphy, is the longest shot for Dems as the GOP has waged a very tough negative campaign against iraq vet patrick murphy...if Murphy wins that seat Republicans are in biiiiig big trouble

Posted by: Eamon | October 16, 2006 9:17 AM | Report abuse

forgot to cite--excent series by the WaPo:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/15/AR2006101500585.html

• Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm, July 2
• Growers Reap Benefits Even in Good Year, July 3
• No Drought Required For Federal Drought Aid, July 18
• Benefit for Ranchers Was Created to Help GOP Candidate, July 18
• When Feed Was Cheap, Catfish Farmers Got Help Buying It, July 18
• Aid to Ranchers Was Diverted For Big Profits, July 19

Posted by: drindl | October 16, 2006 9:16 AM | Report abuse

This is a perfect example of the Big Government Socialist Corporatocracy we live under--a perfect inversion of socialism, where the risks are and expenses are socialized and borne by the taxpayer, and the profits privatized and taken by the corporations. It's really more like feudalism than anything resembling 'free markets':

'The episode illuminates the power of a collection of niche insurance companies that have made billions in profits from the federal crop insurance program, even as the government has lost billions covering the riskiest claims, a Washington Post investigation has found.

Last year, the companies made $927 million in profit, a record. They received an additional $829 million from the government in administrative fees to help run the program. On top of that, taxpayers kicked in $2.3 billion to subsidize premium payments for farmers.

All of that to pay farmers $752 million for losses from bad weather.'

Unwieldy, illogical, wildly inefficient--the absolute worst possible world for everyone but the privileged few -- which means it work as it was intended.

Posted by: drindl | October 16, 2006 9:11 AM | Report abuse

JimD;

The problem with your partisanship concern is that no matter how sane and reasoned and fair the Democrat's approach is to governing when the House changes, they will be accused of partisanship if they try to exercise any type of oversight.

The quickest way for any guilty 'party' to cut and run from a fair investigation is to claim partisanship.

So no matter what they do with their new-found power, the Democrats will face the partisan label, especially if they start closing in on a little-known factor called "the Truth."

The truth tends to spawn a lot of accusatins of partisanship, and always from the guilty parties.

I think the public is much more fatigued with deception and political willfulness than they are with partisanship, and considering the climate in DC these past six years, particularly on K Street, your whole partisanship argument seems conveniently pre-emptory and starkly uneven.

Posted by: JEP | October 16, 2006 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Hope everyone had a nice weekend.

JEP - regarding your comment on tax exempt status, it was an IRS investigation of Bob Jones University's tax exempt status in light of its then avowedly segragationist policies that gave rise to the religious right. I cannot remember either the author or the title of the recent book dealing with the rise of the organized religious right - but I heard a discussion of it on NPR a month or so ago. It was this perceived threat to their religious freedom which got the first political preachers going. Abortion and the culture wars were used to fire up their supporters but the preachers were motivated by a financial threat. Incidentally, in this book Jerry Falwell gives a rather tortured explanation of his earlier position on invovlement in politics during the civil rights era (he sermonized against it). Of course, that had nothing to do with the fact that his all white Southern congregation was probably 90% in favor of segragation in the 1960's.

I do not believe that the Democrats should overdo the investigations when they take control of Congress. Clinton was highly successful running against Congress when the Republicans did it to him. The Dems will need to show a capacity for governance. The most salient criticism of the Democrats is that they are a party with no program except to be anti-Bush. This is partly because the Democrats do not control any branch of government so there is no record and individual Democrats hold a variety of positions on various issues. As Will Rogers famously said, "I belong to no organized political party, I am a Democrat". Anyway, I think they will need to concentrate on passing legislation. The Senate will be closely divided whether there is a Democratic or Republican majority leader. However, Republican moderates like Specter, Snowe, Collins, and Chafee (if re-elected) are likely members of a bi-partisan coalition supporting moderately progressive legislation. McCain and Hagel would be part of such a coalition on certain issues. The Democrats can demonstrate two things by such an approach - first, that they can be trusted to govern responsibly and, two, that they are willing to work with Republicans for the good of the country. Let Bush veto popular legislation - it will make great campaign fodder for 2008. If investigations turn into witch hunts, the potential for backfire is great. One of the main points Democrats like to make against Republicans is their intense partisanship. The majority of people in this country are sick of this intense partisanship.

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 16, 2006 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Looks as if Santorum will be the one big loser they will not abandon.

This will be a very good glimpse into the way big-money strong-arm Republican influence plays in 2008, it may just not be able to buy enough votes to turn the raging tide of negative public sentiment.

Is it really true some churches are getting into the Santorum-Casey campaign with fliers distributed in church services?

When are these right-leaning and moderate congregations going to get a handle on their willful extreme wingnut preachers, seems to me if the the NAACP can be scrutinized over its tax-exempt status, these churches could all face potential tax-exemption revocation if their preachers don't get out of the political brokering business and back into the work they were originally "ordained" to do.

It is bad enough they are blurring the constitutinal line between church and state, in terms of business acumen, they aren't getting the return on their power-brokerage business, the trade-off is ridiculous, at best. They gave up all that Evangelical voting power in exchange for White House trinkets and token laws, instead of the serious social reforms they promised their parishoners and congregations.

Yet groups like the "Church" of Scientology and the Moonies have reaped a bountiful harvest, (it is all about money and influence, not morals) without promising their own cult members a thing.

"Politically ambitious Evangelical preachers" may well prove to be the ultimate spiritual oxymoron of the 21st Century.

Posted by: JEP | October 16, 2006 8:46 AM | Report abuse

'disgusted dem' is really a republican troll"

Like I said, it's Zouk!

"talk about Foley instead where they want to"

That's a Zouk trademark, leaving out his adpositions...

Zouk has left a troll's trail of dropped prepositions through the WaPo blogger's jungle.

Posted by: JEP | October 16, 2006 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Thrilled to read that in the Times today about Dewine...Sherrod Brown is one of the best candidates the Democrats have fielded this year...watching them debate it certainly seemed to me that the race was as good as over...Brown towered over Dewine, both physically and intellectually. Dewine's performance was tentative and feeble while Brown appeared in command at all times. The thought of having men like Brown and Jon Tester in the Senate gives me great comfort. I think that Dems have a less than 50-50 chance of taking control of the Senate, but I won't mind if they fall a seat or two short as long as those two win...there are only 100 Senators, each one individually has an opportunity to add considerably to the national debate, which both of those men seem well prepared to do. Both have called attention to problems of economic injustice in their campaigns and I expect them to continue to do so in the Senate. Often overlooked as we focus on the competitive races is Bernie Sanders, the next Senator from Vermont who likewise will have a tremendous opportunity to bring important issues to the fore in the Senate...even if you disagree with Sanders' politics, there is no question that he is a workhorse as well as an idealist in the best sense of the word, and he has shown a knack for forging unlikely alliances to get amendments passed in the House...he certainly will make the Senate more interesting. As long as those three men are Senators-elect come Nov 8 I will be happy...throw in Casey for good measure just for the pleasure of having Santorum's scalp

Posted by: Eamon | October 16, 2006 8:24 AM | Report abuse

DeWine toast:
'The GOP backing away from DeWine means two things, the NYT argues. First, it indicates that DeWine's seat is unsalvageable, not because the party is withdrawing funding--DeWine has $4.5 million on hand, according to the paper, but because the party wouldn't be doing this unless the race were hopeless; the GOP had previously called it a "must-win" seat. Most election watchers were rating the race as wide open--CQPolitics.com and the Cook Political Report each call it a tossup. Slate's analysts call Ohio "leaning Democratic." But according to the NYT, internal polls painted a bleaker picture, convincing the party brass to refocus their energies.'

Posted by: drindl | October 16, 2006 7:52 AM | Report abuse

"I an 38 years old and have always voted democratic, but this year I am jsut staying home because all the democrats want to do is talk about Foley instead where they want to take the country in the way policies and direction. I could never bring myself to vote republican but at least they are willing to tell you what they believe in." - disgusted dem

I would bet my right arm that 'disgusted dem' is really a republican troll - whether it's kingofhypocrisy or bhoomes is anyone's guess.

Posted by: Ohio guy | October 16, 2006 2:52 AM | Report abuse

EZETIMIBE;

They are always archived, you can go back and read every post to every blog by navigating the WaPo site...

Just go up to the link in the top left side of this page, that says "full story archives" and you can always pick a date and read the whole record.

Or click this link;

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/archives.htm

Posted by: JEP | October 15, 2006 11:00 PM | Report abuse

JEP,
I am reading them. I'm guessing they'll get wiped away tomorrow when the next entry comes in.

Posted by: ezetimibe | October 15, 2006 10:17 PM | Report abuse

"no one alive on this Earth can say "NO" to one of thier subpoenaes."

OK, its a bit imperial, I gotta admit, the trolls will have a field day with it.

How about "...nobody in Washington DC, from the President down, can say "NO" to thier subpoenaes.

Posted by: JEP | October 15, 2006 10:07 PM | Report abuse

"When the balance of power in Washington is returned once again to the people, we will put together a mean old grand jury, with a constitutional chip on its shoulder, leashed-up to a pitbull of a prosecutor who has so much public authority, no one alive on this Earth can say "NO" to one of their subpoenaes.

If that somehow threatens anyone, they surely have something to hide."

I'd like to offer any Democratic candidate out there free use of this line in your speeches, it should fit nicely just about anywhere, these days.

And if the crowd goes crazy after you finish the first paragraph, then give them the next line, it should be a real zinger.

Also, all of you Dems need to get onto the Dem website's new Partybuilder site at

http://www.democrats.org/page/content/partybuilder

and start networking among your friends, and be sure to check out my statewide group, The Kansas Bluestem Rangers.

We are planning a real big party.

And there has never been a better time to put the PARTY back into the Democratic Party.

Between now and November 7, it is up to everyone who really wants to help make a difference, to reach out to others who might need some gentle persuading.

No reason we can't have some fun in the process.

Posted by: JEP | October 15, 2006 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Who needs 3 pages?

"just give me an f#*&ing "religion thing"?"

Posted by: JEP | October 15, 2006 9:01 PM | Report abuse

"And why is it these church leaders can endanger their organizations' tax-exempt status so casually and willfully, just to slake their own ravenous political thirst?"

JEP it's 'cause nobody ever seems to lose their tax-exempt status. You can throw up whatever half-arsed house of worship you wish and declare yourself tax-exempt. I'm sure that many parts of the GOP have thought about making up churches quite seriously. Certainly a King Rove version of the Bible (about 3 pages long) makes sense.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 15, 2006 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Watch for the Norquist/Abramoff scam to unfold into a very widespread corruption scandal over the next week.

And watch a certain former interior secretary take the next public fall first, she's out of the races, so they will be glad to put her name in lights, she is not running for office; another live body from the neocon sleigh thrown to the media wolves.

Why?

If Grassley's calling it a fraud, this close to the election, it means he has no other choices, so you can bet it's really a much bigger story than it looks through the manipulated MSM lens.

If these rogues are ever held accountable for thier actions, it would be a year of some of the most interesting TV coverage in the history of modern media.

I've said it before, and I will say it again, when the balance of power is returned to our people, we need to put together a mean old grand jury, with a constitutional chip on its shoulder, leashed-up to a pitbull of a prosecutor who has so much public authority, no one alive on this Earth can say "NO" to one of their subpoenaes.

If that somehow threatens anyone, they surely have something to hide.

Put it on CSpan, don't hide anything behind closed doors, make these lying traitors admit the truth so we can make sure it NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN.

Then we WILL be the great nation we all dream of.

But if we choose to do nothing to retrieve our precious constitution from the jaws of these neoconservative sharks, and assure the future integrity of our very democratic process, we are no better than spineless lemmings.

Posted by: JEP | October 15, 2006 8:44 PM | Report abuse

'I an 38 years old and have always voted democratic, but this year I am jsut staying home because all the democrats want to do is talk about Foley instead where they want to take the country in the way policies and direction. I could never bring myself to vote republican but at least they are willing to tell you what they believe in.'


Can you say, 'concern troll' -- you are not and never were a democrat. Get off it. Don't insult our collective intelligence.

Posted by: drindl | October 15, 2006 7:10 PM | Report abuse

FYI: what Democrats will do the first 100 HOURS after they take over the house. Not sure how Democrats can be more specific than that. And the Republicans are talking about Foley at least as much as the Democrats. Duh.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600056.html

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 15, 2006 6:52 PM | Report abuse

And why is it these church leaders can endanger their organizations' tax-exempt status so casually and willfully, just to slake their own ravenous political thirsts?

Don't their congregations have any oversight over their own leadership, or are they really just a mindless, soulless flock of victims, bending to the whims of their own willful, greedy preachers?

What does this have to do with Foley?

PS;
Who's fiddlin' with the blog?

That was pretty slick, looked "the bobble-headed blog."

Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2006 1:47 PM | Report abuse

DISGUSTED DEMS IS REALLY ZOUK!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2006 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"The integrity of the very chessboard itself disappears when the pieces on one side are not limited to the same requirements AS their opposites."

Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2006 1:37 PM | Report abuse

I an 38 years old and have always voted democratic, but this year I am jsut staying home because all the democrats want to do is talk about Foley instead where they want to take the country in the way policies and direction. I could never bring myself to vote republican but at least they are willing to tell you what they believe in.

Posted by: disgusted dem | October 15, 2006 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Just a footnote, and I'll quit;
DEN OF VIPERS!
A phylactery in Jesus' time had come to represent something akin to the many- colored bars and stripes a military person might wear on their uniform.

The phylacteries worn by the Pharisees were social status-symbols, and "making them broad" meant, like a general adding another campaign bar to his array, the broader the philactery, the more they demanded respect.

Much like the White House trinkets Kuo describes that the Evangelical preachers wore so proudly, to prove to everyone around them just how important they are to our current administration.

HYPOCRITES!

Posted by: JEP | October 15, 2006 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Sermon's over.

Hope someone reads these.

Posted by: JEP | October 15, 2006 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Ralph Reed already knows what Perkins will discover very soon.

If you have any skeletons in your closet, they will start rattling when spotlight hits your house.

Perkins' organization, like the Evangelical movement as a whole, might be wise to clean house at the top end of their leadership layers, before their protected status is threatened by partisan desperatin tactics.

Posted by: JEP | October 15, 2006 11:59 AM | Report abuse

And why is it these church leaders can endanger their organizations' tax-exempt status so casually and willfully, just to slake their own ravenous political thirsts?

Don't their congregations have any oversight over their own leadership, or are they really just a mindless, soulless flock of victims, bending to the whims of their own willful, greedy preachers?

Are they the same mindless, soulless mob, that, stirred-on by their religious leaders, cried out...

"We have no King but Caesar...Crucify Him!"

Posted by: JEP | October 15, 2006 11:54 AM | Report abuse

"I feel sorry for him, because once you do something like this, you get your 15 minutes in the spotlight, but then after that nobody will touch you," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Christian advocacy group in Washington. "These kiss-and-tell books do more damage to the author than to the people they attack."

It's a good thing the administration is so closely attached to the petroleum industry, provides them with an unlimited supply of vaseline to hand out to people like Perkins along with their White House trinkets.

Perkins is the perfect example of what I mean when I say "modern-day scribes," caught in a cunundrum of hypocrisy they can only defer by denying the truth itself.

The rest of them may be "nuts" but Perkins is a real sucker.

Lets see how his own personal fortunes change in the very near future, as the lies fall down around him, the way he is insinuating (threatening) will happen to Kuo.

Kuo's spiritual courage outweighs Perkin's political partisanship by a couple million pounds.

And why is it these church leaders can endanger their organizations' tax-exempt status so casually and willfully, just to slake their own ravenous political thirsts?

Don't their congregations have any oversight over their own leadership, or are they realy just a mindless, soulless flock of victims, bending to the whims of their own willful, greedy preachers?

There is surely a reckoning coming.

Truth and Hypocrisy are on a collision course, and the Evangelical movement is going to get caught in the trainwreck.

Posted by: JEP | October 15, 2006 11:43 AM | Report abuse

ezetibeme
"Tangetial note: Pfizer contributed a significant chunk of change ($500,000?) to Tom Delay's TRMPAC to redistrict Texas."

Which is proof of what I just posted;

"The integrity of the very chessboard itself disappears when the pieces on one side are not limited to the same requirements of their opposites."

There's nothing tangential about any of this, it is all germane to the issue of why we need a change in November.

Posted by: JEP | October 15, 2006 10:54 AM | Report abuse

A lot of folks imagine Rove with superior intellectual qualities, but the fact is, anyone who is willing and able to cheat doesn't have to be a real strategist.

Especially when your opponents are morally and legally constrained by rules you do not choose to follow, and are not held accountable for.

Rove's scheme is to use loyalty, honor and morals like pieces on a chess board, not as real values.

When "values" as an issue becomes a pawn on that chessboard, that can be moved with changing political needs, then you have no real values at all.

The integrity of the very chessboard itself disappears when the pieces on one side are not limited to the same requirements of their opposites.

Rove's no strategic genius, he's a cheater.

There is a big difference.

Posted by: JEP | October 15, 2006 10:50 AM | Report abuse

JEP,
Drug companies are forced to collect data on side effects and report them to the FDA. This is done through physicians, who hear about side effects from their patients. Unfortunately, there are very few physicians who diligently report these side effects to the drug companies. Further, docs often report side effects to sales reps who receive varying levels of training on what to do with the info and are paid to sell the drug not to weaken it's profile by reporting its problems to the FDA.

Having said all of that, if an independent physician is collecting info on side effects and has accumulated 50 instances of a similar side effect and they reported it to the FDA it is nearly certain that the label for the drug should be updated to contain these side effects. I can't explain why it hasn't happened.

Tangetial note: Pfizer contributed a significant chunk of change ($500,000?) to Tom Delay's TRMPAC to redistrict Texas.

Posted by: ezetimibe | October 15, 2006 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Sunday mornings are so quiet around here.

Had to "fix" this and repost it, with a little sermon attached.

Please, read and research the entire post, and consider it CAREFULLY, not superficially, it is deeper than you might imagine.

David Kuo and the modern-day Pharisees

Link

Don't miss this post story this morning. If anyone reading this knows David Kuo, please tell him to have courage, and to read what Jesus says about the Scribes and the Parisees, they are the Dobsons, Falwells and Robertsons of this day (devour widow's fortunes, for a pretense make long prayer, constantly seeking recognition at public gatherings.)

"..make broad their phylacteries" is the exact same thing as these media-evangelists showing off those worthless little WH trinkets Rove doled out to them.

Look up what a "phylactery" was, you will know what I mean.

These Evangelical talking heads are acting like the abused spouse that defends their abusive mate, even as their own bruises are still healing.

Thier only option to trashing Kuo is to admit they were spiritually blind to the Bush Administration's Rovish cynicism.

And they can never do that, just like the Pharisees couldn't tell Jesus where John the Baptist's powers came from, because they were caught in the cunundrum of their own hypocrisy.

Evangelicals who really want that salvation they asume they have already earned will need to go "green", which is just beginning to dawn on some of the truly enlightened among them.

If you have any doubts about what I just stated, Read Revelations ch11 v18, particularly the last few words.

It does not bode well for multinational polluters.

Or their political enablers.

The "moral values" most valuable to Jesus may well be right under our feet

Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2006 10:32 AM | Report abuse

I can't believe how scared I am about the WaPo's article on Rova and Bush's confidence. In my mind, it's strikingly similar to Bush's election night appearance in 2004 and his insistence that he won Florida in 2000.

Posted by: ezetimibe | October 15, 2006 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Sunday mornings are so quiet around here.

Had to "fix" this and repost it, with a little sermon attached.

Please, read and research the entire post, and consider it CAREFULLY, not superficially, it is deeper than you might imagine.

An open letter to David Kuo;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101301583.html

Don't miss this post story this morning. If anyone reading this knows David Kuo, please tell him to have courage, and to read what Jesus says about the Scribes and the Parisees, they are the Dobsons, Falwells and Robertsons of this day (devour widow's fortunes, for a pretense make long prayer, constantly seeking recognition at public gatherings.)

"..make broad their philacteries" is the same exact same thing as these media-evangelists showing off those worthless little WH trinkets Rove doled out to them.

The Evangelical talking heads are like the abused spouse that defends their abusive mate, even as their own bruises are still healing.

Their only option they have to trashing Kuo is to admit they were spiritually blind to the Bush Administration's Rovish cynicism.

And they can never do that, just like the Pharisees couldn't tell Jesus where John the Baptist's powers came from, because they were caught in the cunundrum of their own hypocrisy.

Evangelicals who really want that salvation they asume they have already earned will need to go "green", which is just beginning to dawn on some of the truly enlightened among them.

If you have any doubts about what I just stated, Read Revelations ch11 v18, particularly the last few words.

It does not bode well for multinational polluters.

Or their political enablers.

The "moral values" most valuable to Jesus may well be right under our feet.

Posted by: JEP | October 15, 2006 10:12 AM | Report abuse

An open letter to David Kuo;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101301583.html

Don't miss this post story this morning. If anyone reading this knows David Kuo, please tellhim to have courage, and to read what Jesus says about the Scribes and the Parisees, they are the Dobsons, Falwells and Robertsons of this day (devour widpw's fortunes, and for pretense make long prayer.)

With that in mind, read this post from the story in the WaPo this morning.

The Evangelical talking heads are like the abused spouse that defends their abusive mate, even as their own bruises are still healing.

Their only option they have to trashing Kuo is to admit they were spiritually blind to the Bush Administration's Rovish cynicism.

And they can never so that, just like the Pharisees couldn't tell Jesus where John the Baptists powers came from, because they were caught in the cunundrum of their own hypocrisy.

Posted by: JEP | October 15, 2006 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Bush believes his god selected him to be president.

Read Luke Chapter 4, verses 5 and 6, maybe Bush is right.

Not quite the same God the Evangelicals have been fooled into thinking it is.

Posted by: JEP | October 15, 2006 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Bush and Rove have that diabolical Diebold dementia thing going, they are so certan they will win, in the face of public outcry that suggests the contrary, it just makes one wonder how they can be so certain.

Arrogance is one thing, certainty is another. This looks more like certainty to me,and in a Democracy, that does not bode well for the electorate.

Paper trails and ballot-box oversight are going to be essential to protect our real public authority from these book-cookers.

If they can cook the political books, this time around, they surely will do so. It is clearly the only guarantee they could ever count on. They can't count on the public, they learned that in '92.

Posted by: JEP | October 15, 2006 9:01 AM | Report abuse

We need a top 50.

Reasons:

1. As the RNC tries to rescue a failing WA-8 incumbent from being crushed beneath the Democratic wave, he doesn't show up on the list, even though the massive influx of non-WA dollars shows he's dead meat.

2. Even the Republicans will privately admit they are likely to lose between 25 and 45 seats.

3. Most realistic people realize the number of House seats to be lost is more like 30 to 50.

4. It makes it that much more fun when the Red Bushies have to admit America hates their guts for their incompetence, their failure, and their immoral anti-American ways.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | October 15, 2006 4:18 AM | Report abuse

JEP: Your 12:02pm Post was what I was thinking about, but since I am new to the computer I have a hard time finding somethig again that I have found mostly by pure luck. Thanks, lylepink

Posted by: lylepink | October 14, 2006 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Insurance companies recorded a record profit last quarter; no big storms this season meant big profits.

They als0o made money the year of Katrimna because of "other investments" and the fact they reneged on many payouts by calling oit a "flood".

Anyone notice how the healthcare framing changed from "universal health care" to "universal health insurance" shortly after Newt stole Congress in 94?

To be able to change the entire debate so that the insurors are written into the profit line suggests these insurors are much more powerful than nay corporate entity should ever be allowed to become.

These insurance giants are no longer just in the insurance business.

They may well be the most pernicious of all the big corporations, because they are so heavily invested in the markets. They influence our government much more than what they show on the surface.

Posted by: JEP | October 14, 2006 3:14 PM | Report abuse

'A Georgia imam pleaded guilty for providing material support to terrorism, agreeing to a maximum of 15 years of in prison for sending small amounts of cash to a foundation associated with Hamas. The WP notes that "the agreement, charges and even the plea hearing were handled in secret."'

Anyone who knows anything about Grover Norquist knows he's done much more to help Islamist charities and businesses--including radical ones-- in this country, than absolutely anyone else. So why isn't he being tried. And a 'foundation 'associated' with Hamas, what does that even mean? And why is everything secret. Welcome to the frigging Gulag. Anybody can be arrested and detained forever for no reason at all, and no one will ever find out. You can just disappear.

'The LAT reports that rising health-care costs are leading long-term insurers to renege on promised benefits for the elderly, usually by finding a bureaucratic loophole. "Insurance companies are expecting record profits in 2006," notes the NYT.'

Let's see, insurance companies, renege on benefits, profits rise. Hmm. See a relationship there? Say thank you to republican deregulation, everyone.

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2006 12:58 PM | Report abuse

'The Justice Department is investigating whether Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) traded his political influence for lucrative lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter, according to sources with direct knowledge of the inquiry.

The FBI has formally referred the matter to the department's Public Integrity Section for additional scrutiny. At issue are Weldon's efforts between 2002 and 2004 to aid two Russian companies and two Serbian brothers with ties to former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic, a federal law enforcement official said.

The Russian companies and a Serbian foundation run by the brothers' family each hired a firm co-owned by Weldon's daughter, Karen, for fees totaling nearly $1 million a year, public records show.

Karen Weldon was 28 and lacked consulting experience when she and Charles Sexton, a Weldon ally and longtime Republican leader in Delaware County, Pa., created the firm Solutions North America Inc. in 2002. Both are registered with the Justice Department as representatives of foreign clients.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101301471.html

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2006 12:54 PM | Report abuse

'The Justice Department is investigating whether Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) traded his political influence for lucrative lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter, according to sources with direct knowledge of the inquiry.

The FBI has formally referred the matter to the department's Public Integrity Section for additional scrutiny. At issue are Weldon's efforts between 2002 and 2004 to aid two Russian companies and two Serbian brothers with ties to former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic, a federal law enforcement official said.

The Russian companies and a Serbian foundation run by the brothers' family each hired a firm co-owned by Weldon's daughter, Karen, for fees totaling nearly $1 million a year, public records show.

Karen Weldon was 28 and lacked consulting experience when she and Charles Sexton, a Weldon ally and longtime Republican leader in Delaware County, Pa., created the firm Solutions North America Inc. in 2002. Both are registered with the Justice Department as representatives of foreign clients.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101301471.html

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2006 12:54 PM | Report abuse

In April 1996, Republicans held a 317,000 enrollment advantage over the Democrats outside of NYC.

As of April 2006, the number is only 20,000. When the November voter registration figures are released, Democrats outside of NYC will likely outnumber Republicans, probably for the first time.

It's sad to see what has happened to NY's GOP that they can't even find a candidate to take on Eliot Spitzer

I think I know why BILLIONAIRE Tom (Paychex) Golisano backed off runnnig for Governor again........He is not a New York State Resident.....According to the Collier County Property Apraisers website, Golisano, in 2005 started claiming the Homestead Exemption for his Naples, Florida estate....

Now NY Republicans are stuck with John (WHO?) Faso as the candidate for Gov. who has $1.98 in the bank and George ELMER Pataki opening a presidential HQ in Iowa.

Posted by: Lonely _NY_GOP | October 14, 2006 12:32 PM | Report abuse

"for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.87"
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Later...

Posted by: JEP | October 14, 2006 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Here's something I wrote back in the 2004 election season, thought it was still pertinent, especially the last paragraph

The Teachings of Don Juan;

What do they teach us about Bush and Kerry...

In his series describing the profound teachings of native mystic Don Juan, Carlos Castenada explored the variable nature of conflict and how we all approach it differently.

Comparing John Kerry's Viet Nam record and George Bush's newfound military experience, we can look to Castenada's native American holy man, Don Juan for a window into truth that seems to have escaped the general public thus far.

In the hazy wake of the 9-11 tragedy, as we thundered through Afghanistan to root out the adversary, Bush's neocon pals looked for every opportunity to start converting the "Hunt for Bin Laden" project into the "War with Iraq" project.

This brings us to the lesson we can take from Castenada and his guide Don Juan. In these two very diverse objectives, the difference between George Bush and John Kerry are clearly identified and magnified.

Bush is a Warrior.

Kerry is a Hunter.

There are those who suggest Bush erred from his determined target when he diverted to making war against Iraq instead of hunting down bin Laden.

He had no choice.

It is his "warrior" nature to make war, not to hunt down an adversary. His determined target must be in the form of something similar to himself, mirrored before him.

Compare Kerry to the Bushes, both of them.

Bush 41 and 43, represent the military-industrial juggernaut turned neocon behemoth, propping up and knocking down punching-bag dictators like Noriega and Hussein. And all to perpetuate an archaic, but shamefully profitable military-industrial construct based on World War for Profit. These are the misguided policies that brought our forces standing toe to toe with an inflated dummy filled with imaginary weapons of mass distraction

We knocked the air out of the dummy and declared "Mission Accomplished" as our real adversary, the terrorists, slunk away with explosives that we left for them to take. How ironic that any given I.E.D. that kills our servicemen and contractors, might have started with Carlyle or some other American weapon manufacturer.

This new adversary, the real adversary, is not a uniformed buffoon, but a shrewd and lawless many-headed dragon called terror, with no national or moral boundaries.

It recruits an army that will never face us front and center with polished swords on cleanly drawn battle lines, in the "noble" manner of a warrior. They can only sneak back upon us as we sleep, or catch us unaware because we grow complacent between their terror.

If we face it like a warrior, cutting off its writhing heads with clumsy weapons, we only give rise to more new heads.

Bush and the warrior mentality military machine are a fossil. The modern world, and the USA in particular, does not require a warrior mentality any more.

We must convert to the "Hunter" mind set. It saved us in the Revolution. It is the only realistic tool against terrorism.

In Viet Nam, Kerry talked to some Rangers, not just his fellow swiftboaters, and anyone in Airborne will tell you what Kerry said about atrocities was not only true, they had orders from above to mutilate corpses, cutting off ears to prove an enemy kill.

It was the nature of the Viet Nam war. Atrocities were as common in Viet Nam as amphetamines were on the road to Baghdad, but neither dirty little fact will ever be admitted-to, especially by those most culpable.

Viet Nam was our first mistake with the Warrior/Hunter confusion, and Iraq has proven to be a fatal rerun.

Time and again, because we fail to recognize the new nature of warfare, our Warriors are casually positioned be sitting ducks for their Hunters.

See the movie "Platoon" for a graphic example.

We swat at fleas with billion-dollar baseball bats, and break our own bones in the process.

And all the time, companies like Carlyle, and Haliburton, (the hyphen in "military-industrial"), are raking in prolific profits as our warriors fall unprotected.

And here at home, while terrorists trained openly for those ill-fated airline flights, Ashcroft spent millions of dollars and thousands of precious man-hours surveilling and busting glassblowers for making pot pipes, because the only war they had to fight then was the war on drugs.

If there is only one advantage we must take from our "lone superpower" status, it is to put an end to the very notion of traditional war, and deal with evil where it really lives; not in some vain, noble struggle against an equal adversary, but in a relentless hunt to find and disarm those who would cause violence, in any fashion and in any place on Earth.

JEP

Posted by: JEP | October 14, 2006 11:32 AM | Report abuse

"To be calling Republicans "pedophile-enablers" is disingenuous."

Aren't they the ones who covered it up?

Maybe we should say "Congressmen" but that wouldn't be fair, or maybe we should say "Republican leaders" which is tantamount to saying "Republicans."

As for whether the party as a whole can be labeled "pedophile enablers" we will really know that when we see if Hastert, and Reynolds get reelected and if Negron gets elected, then there's no one to blame but the generic "Republicans."

If they re-elect some of these good-old-boys or elect Negron by voting for Foley, they are, just by their act of supporting proven enablers, enablers themselves.

Posted by: JEP | October 14, 2006 11:11 AM | Report abuse

From the life is stranger than fiction file, even Rove couldn't have scripted the following:

"Former U.S.-Rep. Studds Dies at 69
By JAY LINDSAY
The Associated Press
Saturday, October 14, 2006; 10:21 AM

"BOSTON -- Former U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay person elected to Congress, died early Saturday at Boston Medical Center, several days after he collapsed while walking his dog, his husband said.

"Studds fell unconscious Oct. 3 because of what doctors later determined was a blood clot in his lung, Dean Hara said.

"Studds regained consciousness, remained in the hospital, and seemed to be improving. He was scheduled to be transferred to a rehabilitation center, but his condition deteriorated Friday and he died at about 1:30 a.m. Saturday, Hara said."

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 14, 2006 10:37 AM | Report abuse

che,

I live in NE Florida - a very red area. I haven't heard any talk about Charlie Crist's sexual orientation. A pro-Crist is bombarding the airwaves with negative ads against Jim Davis on taxes. As for Crist's draft status in 1975 - in those days we had student deferments. I believe the draft ended in 1976 - well before his graduation. I was in the first class at naval officer candidate school in 1976 that contained no one trying to avoid the draft. By the way, I chose to serve. I had a very high draft lottery number and would never have been drafted. In the late Vietnam era, many people facing the draft tried to enlist in the Navy to avoid combat. The only Naval forces facing combat were generally medics (Navy medics supporting the Marine combat units) and special forces (SEALS) and you had to choose to go into those fields.

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 14, 2006 10:08 AM | Report abuse

"what am I getting for all this. Bad schools, lousy retirement program, health care with no responsible party, environmental policy run amok, endless lawsuits. Enough! time to strangle that tax baby in its crib."

Posted by: kingofzouk

1) Which party controls both chambers of Congress? The very same party that has occupied the executive branch of this government for the past 6 years and directly influences all of those above mentioned issues,(and selfishly griped about as if it was solely their own problem to deal with - dare I say it.)

2) Would not paying taxes contribute towards any substantial improvement in the problem areas you just listed? Or is that suggestion just a reflection of an irresponsible attitude towards one of the most pressing issues for the US today?

3) Is there any historical evidence to authenticate the contention that tax cuts lead towards a STRONGER economy? No. The rate of economic growth has dramatically slowed over the last several years to a figure that would be considered as disappointing for an industrialised, western economy.

4) Does that last point bode well with our ingrained notion of the US being the sole economic hyperpower of the world? More to the point, is our economic performance indicative of our supposed status?

5)Is there any historical example of raising taxes successfully dealing with a bloated budget deficit? Yes. Clinton Administration's 1993 Budget, turning an (at the time,) unheard of deficit into a surplus within 4 years, arguably hearlding in the most economically prosperous and successful period in US history.

6) Which party voted for these sound budget decisions in Congress and has been promoting this argument for the past 6 years? Democrats.

The anti-Koz

Posted by: Budget.Stupid. | October 14, 2006 9:27 AM | Report abuse

"Under the GOP enlightened leadership, the debt ceiling has alreay been raised three times."

Yeah, but it was the Democrats who stood by and just let em' do it!

Posted by: JEP | October 14, 2006 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Pfizer Inc.'s cholesterol-fighter Lipitor induces vivid and repeated nightmares in some patients as well as a posting by one doctor that said the diabetes drug Byetta, marketed jointly by Amylin Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly and Co. , was associated with ``sudden death" in 50 patients.

Lies, I tell you, all lies!!! Surely our benevolent pharmaceutical companies would never let something like this occur just for the sake of incrteasing profits!!!

Didn't Lipitor came out about the same time Bush got elected, maybe we're just all having one long, mutual, and very vivid nightmare.

Posted by: JEP | October 14, 2006 9:07 AM | Report abuse

"a combination of tax revenues and BORROWING."

And lets all guess whose grandchildren will be repaying those loans...

"qui bono"

If we knew who benefits from those loans, we might know who's ripping us off.

Just who are we borrowing from, surely it isn't the Chinese?

Where'd they get all that money in the first place?

Wal-Mart!!!

Posted by: JEP | October 14, 2006 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of "ill effects"
From today's Boston Herald

"A Cambridge company that pays doctors to post medical observations on its website, including reports of drug side effects, has quickly incurred the wrath of pharmaceutical makers."

The FDA, which is charged with monitoring drug safety, has come under criticism for failing to respond to reports of drug side effects, and for not making manufacturers follow through on pledges to monitor safety after their products are on the market.

With its debut two weeks ago, the Sermo site generated debate by prominently featuring postings from several doctors saying that Pfizer Inc.'s cholesterol-fighter Lipitor induces vivid and repeated nightmares in some patients as well as a posting by one doctor that said the diabetes drug Byetta, marketed jointly by Amylin Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly and Co. , was associated with ``sudden death" in 50 patients.

There has been almost nothing published about either problem in medical literature. Both drug companies, which reviewed the website after questions from the Globe, said the physicians' anecdotal observations appeared to be inaccurate.

Pfizer said no scientific studies or clinical trials have shown any link between Lipitor, the world's biggest-selling prescription drug, and nightmares. ``It's not true. This is such a strange situation with this website," said Dr. Gregg Larson , Pfizer's vice president for cardiovascular drugs. ``It's not scientifically based. It's not clinically based."

HYPOCRITES!!!!

Especially when you consider the previous post.

Posted by: JEP | October 14, 2006 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Zouk cannot figure out the diffdrence between a flow and a stock. The debt is not going down, you illiterate moron. As long as a deficit persists, it has to be financed out of a combination of tax revenues and BORROWING. If the deficit declines, it means that the debt is growing more slowly, not that it declines.

Under the GOP enlightened leadership, the debt ceiling has alreay been raised three times.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2006 8:51 AM | Report abuse

I like Rush Limbaugh and mindlessly belittle every Democrat.

I really am stupid -

Plain and simple.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 14, 2006 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Canada troops battle 10-ft Afghan marijuana plants
Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:09 PM BST166

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian troops fighting Taliban militants in Afghanistan have stumbled across an unexpected and potent enemy -- almost impenetrable forests of 10-feet (three metre) high marijuana plants.

General Rick Hillier, chief of the Canadian defence staff, said on Thursday that Taliban fighters were using the forests as cover. In response, the crew of at least one armored car had camouflaged their vehicle with marijuana.

"The challenge is that marijuana plants absorb energy, heat very readily. It's very difficult to penetrate with thermal devices ... and as a result you really have to be careful that the Taliban don't dodge in and out of those marijuana forests," he said in a speech in Ottawa.

"We tried burning them with white phosphorous -- it didn't work. We tried burning them with diesel -- it didn't work. The plants are so full of water right now ... that we simply couldn't burn them," he said.

Even successful incineration had its drawbacks.

"A couple of brown plants on the edges of some of those (forests) did catch on fire. But a section of soldiers that was downwind from that had some ill effects and decided that was probably not the right course of action," Hiller said dryly.

One soldier told him later: "Sir, three years ago before I joined the army, I never thought I'd say 'That damn marijuana'."

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved. | Learn more about Reuters

http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Ftoday.reuters.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticlenews.aspx%3Ftype%3DoddlyEnoughNews%26storyID%3D2006-10-12T200643Z_01_N12349486_RTRIDST_0_OUKOE-UK-CANADA-MARIJUANA.XML%26WTmodLoc%3DNewsLanding-C11-Odd-2%26rpc%3D92

Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2006 8:43 AM | Report abuse


Breaking news about the Foley scandal! Update V

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.waynemadsenreport.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
otherside123.blogspot.com

WMR's intrepid sources in Florida report on some details about GOP gubernatorial candidate and current Attorney General Charlie Crist, or should we say Charlie Christodoulos. Crist's father, Charlie, Sr., legally shortened the family's name in 1949, according to court records in Pinellas County, Florida. The elder Crist's father emigrated from Cyprus to the United States in 1912. We have also discovered a bit more about Crist's personal details, much of which have been obscured because of Crist's status as a "law enforcement officer." Under post-Patriot Act laws, personal details on law enforcement officers are blocked by special statutes.

WMR received the following article today from George Maurer, a Key West Florida radio talk show host. This article contains information that every Florida voter should know before casting their ballot before or on November 7.

"At the outset of this message, let me first get something off my chest. I'm a gay man who, never since I realized same more than 30 years ago, has ever denied same, and who served 30 years in the Army/Army Reserve. About Florida congressperson Mark Foley, I've found these past few days particularly troubling, especially so as I'm a progressive Democrat and very troubled about the HYPOCRISY of many of our Republican opposition.

Starting at the top, we have AWOL George W. Bush who constantly gives TV speeches in front of and with a picture background of military audiences. AWOL George's only military background was a 6-year obligation with the Texas Air National Guard which he used to get a deferment from going to Vietnam, and from which obligation he was Absent Without Leave (AWOL) for the last couple of years of his tour. This same hypocrite has taken us to mammoth, unjustified, unpaid, prolonged war, killing hundreds of thousands of people. In the last couple of days, he and his hypocritical colleagues have enacted a military detainee bill which broadly defines "enemy combatants" and makes any US citizen or resident subject to same, without right of habeas corpus review, review only by an "enemy combatant review tribunal". They have voted to pay for and construct a 300-mile fence between the US-Mexico 3,000 mile border.

Now we have Mark Foley. As an adult, I've never fooled around with underage males, let alone those over whom I've had some degree of power.

Now, even the most staunch of Republicans must know about Florida congressperson Mark Foley. But what about Charlie Crist (Jr?), Florida's Republican candidate for Governor?

The following appears in the online material of the Insurance Journal (www.insurancejournal.com/comments), as a 9/16/06 posting of Beverly S. Hill of Tallahassee, Florida:

'CHARLES CRIST is an 'IN THE CLOSET HOMOSEXUAL.'

The fact that he is GAY means nothing.

The fact that he is IN THE CLOSET and represents a party that hates GAYS means everything. This kind of hypocrisy is grotesque and cannot be tolerated. I hope we can all help Charlie 'COME OUT' before the election.'

Let's take a look at Crist's biography. This perpetually tan (at least from the neck up), handsome, 50-year old bachelor was born on June 24, 1956 in Altoona, PA.. Half of Greek origin, half Scots-Irish, his Greek dad, Charles Crist, Sr., M.D., changed the family name in 1949, from Christodoulos, dropping the 'h' and the 'doulos.'

The second oldest of 4 children and the only son, the family moved to Atlanta when young Charlie was 6 weeks old, and where his dad went to medical school. In 1960, then Dr. Crist got a job at Bayfront Medical Center and the family moved to St. Petersburg, Florida. In 1966, Dr. Crist won election to the Pinellas County School Board.

From 1970-74, presumably, Charlie attended St. Petersburg High School where his dad was football team doctor, and where Crist was said to have played quarterback until 'his playing career was cut short by a knee injury his senior year.'

At the Crist home on Snell Isle, Charlie was said to play catch with the boy next door, Felix Fudge, who 'was four years younger.'

Apparently, in the fall of 1974, Charlie decided to go to Wake Forest University in North Carolina, because, despite his high school knee injury, he, according to an 8/27/06 St. Petersburg Times' news article, 'hoped to extend his football career at a small university .... *** (B)ut he was a walk-on, a bench warmer who played in junior varsity games but never took a snap in a varsity contest.' Of course, Crist's official state bio merely says he "attended Wake Forest University, where he played quarterback ...."

Now unlike AWOL George W. Bush, there's not a word anywhere that I've seen about Charlie's draft status in 1975 as the war was ending in Vietnam, and the draft as well, and no indication that he served a single day in the military. 'After his sophomore year at Wake Forest, a homesick Crist gave up on football and *** decided to transfer to Florida State University,' presumably in the fall of 1976. After graduating from FSU in June, 1978 (?), Crist apparently, in the fall of 1978, entered Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama.

In the summer of 1979, Crist, while attending law school in Alabama, entered his one and only brief marriage to a woman, Amanda Morrow. During the 1979 holiday season, Crist's sister Catherine Kennedy said his 'head was down and his shoulders were slumped.' Crist was the one who filed for divorce only some 6 months after the marriage and it was dissolved on 2/15/80. 'Like Crist, Morrow did not marry again.' In the Miami Herald 8/24/06 commentary 'Naked Politics" (www.miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics), 'Bruce' posted 'What's this about Charlie's ex-wife, Amanda Morrow, being a lesbian? Does the press know that she has lived with her partner for years? Is this why Charlie's marriage failed? Is this why Mr. Crist is for Civil Union for gays? Does this mean that their marriage was a sham?' Presumably, Crist graduated from the Alabama law school in June, 1981.

Crist's reported chronology from 1981 until his 1992 election to the state senate is inexact at best. As far as I can glean it, he twice failed the bar exam before passing it on the third try.

While struggling with the bar exam, he apparently 'interned' with the State Attorney's Office (in Pinellas?). (It helps to have a Republican medical doctor daddy.) Presumably in 1982, he got a 5-year job as 'general counsel' for the St. Petersburg-based National Association of Professional Baseball Players, the 'controlling body' for minor-league baseball in the US, Canada, Mexico and the Dominican Republic.

Given time off for various months at end during the 5 years, he unsuccessfully ran for the state senate in 1986. Then, supposedly in 1987, he joined his brother-in-law's, J. Emery Wood's, one-man law firm.

In 1988, Connie Mack won US Senate election, and Crist worked for a year as Mack's state director. He returned, for a couple of years apparently, to his brother-in-law's law practice, and Charlie was then elected himself to the state senate in 1992 where he served for 4 years until 1996. In 1997, who knows what he did? In 1998, Crist ran unsuccessfully for US Senate against Bob Graham. In 1999, Jeb Bush appointed him Deputy Director for the Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation and he then won election as Florida Education Commissioner where he served from January 2001 to January 2003. From January 2003 to date, Crist won election and has served as Florida's Attorney General.

One might sarcastically suggest that a person with an undistinguished academic career, an almost non-existent private sector career, who's tan, handsome and articulate and has a fairly rich Republican daddy, certainly deserves to be on the public dole as Florida's Education Commissioner and Attorney General. Now, of course, Crist is the Republican nominee to be Florida Governor.

One should note that, while Education Commissioner in 2001, Crist was reported as condemning a play with a gay theme that 'offended Christians' (see May, 2001 newsletter, www.transfamily.org).

For the past year, as Crist's quest to be governor developed, Charlie has supposedly been 'dating' Kathryn 'Katie' Pemble, executive vice-president of the Bank of St. Petersburg. Pemble is 41 years of age, divorced, and has a 7-year old daughter. As to possible marriage with Pemble, Crist says 'I haven't thought about it.' In mid-September, 2006, 'millionaire Reform Party gubernatorial candidate Max Linn '... 'insist(ed) that Charlie Crist is gay" ... 'on Orlando radio station WFLA-AM 540' ... to talk show 'host Bud Hedlinger ....' Linn said 'he would 'put my hand on a stack of Bibles' to say Crist is gay.' His sexual preference is not to women ....'(See www.blogd.tampabay.com/buzz.)

As to Crist's being gay, 'Linn claimed to know this because he and Crist were in the same 1985 class of Leadership St. Petersburg Chamber of Commerce program. 'We discussed it,' Linn said. Linn ... said if Crist were to win, he would be subject to extortion and blackmail. In the next breath, Linn said he would avoid mudslinging but that Crist's personal life is a special case because it's about integrity." (See www.sptimes.com/2006/09/23).'\

The Florida GOP cover-up arising from "Pagegate" continues.

Florida independent gubernatorial candidate Max Linn has been vocal about Crist's closeted gay lifestyle. We received this release from the Linn campaign this afternoon:

"Max Linn rented a plane today, and had to land it on the highway with NO ENGINE...,John says to say he crash landed the plane...it is hitting the news now....to think we had to push it as traffice is backed up in the busiest corridor of Fla! Max is ok...here are the "talking points" we have created to call the newsrooms. I wanted to write you first,,,John says it will be put out all over the Internet by you. Hope to meet you someday,,,,always intrigued by intel officers. Especially after listening to Kay Griggs!


Max Linn of Treasure Island, FL , candidate for governor had to land his plane on I-4 Eastbound lanes after having engine trouble at approx. 1:45pm this afternoon. He took off from Lakeland Linder Regional Airport and was headed to Orlando Executive Airport, and then on to St. Augustine for a TV show.

Linn was taken to Orlando Regional Medical Center, injuries are not life threatening.

Max was not flying his own plane, he was flying a rented plane that was leased to Bay Air out of St. Petersburg, FL. We believe the planes owner is from Deleware.
Max Linn holds a degree in Aviation for Louisiana Tech and has been a flight instructor. He was alone on the plane."

WMR has also learned that Crist's fraternity brother at Florida State was Brent Sembler, son of major Bush and Crist financial backerMel Sembler. Sembler, who served as George W. Bush's ambassador to Italy and Daddy Bush's ambassador to Australia, was the brains behind the founding of SEED, Straight, Inc. and the Drug Free American Foundation (DFAF). Straight and SEED have been accused of abusing teens undergoing drug rehabilitation, including subjecting teens to brainwashing techniques. And what doctor served on the advisory board of SEED and approved of such techniques that subjected underage teens to brainwashing? None other than Dr. Charlie Crist, Sr., the father of the man who seeks to replace Jeb Bush and Governor of Florida. And why has Bernie McCabe, the State Attorney for Pinellas County, never brought charges against SEED, Straight, and DFAF for child abuse? It might have something to do with the fact that McCabe is a campaign contributor to Charlie Crist.

It is clear that Crist's candidacy is an attempt to continue the Bush "banana republic" regime in Florida. And that spells big trouble for Democrats in the 2008 presidential election. After all, we should all remember what Jeb Bush and his hand-picked Secretary of State Katherine Harris pulled off in 2000.

Posted by: che | October 14, 2006 4:34 AM | Report abuse

IL-14 Emerging from the ether is John Laesch - within 10 points of Dennis Hastert. Hastert at 52% according, to yesterday's report, is sliding down to oblivion. Greasing the skids are local Republicans who want at least some State and local candidates to have a chance at keeping their seats. IF Hastert remains in the race until Oct. 22, the Dems take this one in spite of Rahm Emmanuel and Marcos what's his name.

Posted by: llbear | October 14, 2006 1:42 AM | Report abuse

FYI The national spending is about 3% dem 9% repub over the past 60 years or so. And for those who still use the "Tax and Spend Liberals" arguement it is just plain false and why the dems do not point to the debt and under each admin., is beyond me. Facts are facts and they cannot be changed no matter how much some would like to do so.

Posted by: lylepink | October 14, 2006 1:26 AM | Report abuse

GOP efforts to paint West VA House Member Monahan fails. Recent polls showing Democratic incumbant Alan Monahan with a double digit lead over GOP challenger Wakim has prompted a pull out on ad buys by the National Republican Congressional Committee. This move all but cedes the race to Monahan who has been unfairly characterized by the Conservative media as having illegally steered taxpayer monies to non-profits set up by Monahan and his friends. To date, the Justice Department has not uncovered any irregularities and have not made the case as outline by conservative pundits that Monahan benefited from non profits that he secured funding for.

On the other hand, it certainly looks like Mr. "I'm innocent" Congressman Bob Ney will be joining former congressman Duke Cunningham in the pokey.

Posted by: Put A Fork In It | October 14, 2006 1:05 AM | Report abuse

DOJ REFERS Weldon Case.

See WashPost story about another GOP Lobbyist irregularity with PA House Member Curt Weldon. According to the story, he may have helped clients of a firm one of his cronies runs with 28 year old inexperienced daughter.

Put a fork in it.....Weldon is done.

Count on these as races that are over.

Foley (R) FL
Hosteller (R) IN
Pryce (R) OH
Delay (R) TX
WELDON (R) PA
Reynolds (R) NY
Kolbe (R) AZ
Sherwood (R) PA
Taylor (R) NC
Drake (R) VA
NEY (R) OH
HASTERT (R) IL

Posted by: Put a Fork In It | October 14, 2006 12:56 AM | Report abuse


King of Kudzu and Bloomerman seem to typing the GOP talking points into this Blog. The Rove strategy as always is to ignore you own problems, instead create a mythical issue about your opponent. Case in point.

From King of Kudzu, Dems will raise taxes. He is sliming again taxes on Americas top 1% will rise when the current laws expire. Now if they expire when there is GOP president, the dems failed to lower taxes. Yet if a Dem president exists and GOP controls congress, the DEm president raised taxes.

The above on taxes is exactly what is wrong with the GOP. They perpetrate lies so incessantly they cant remember what they said. When they get caught, they try to change the subject.

Why does King of Kudzu and Bloomerman and other GOP henchmen live in a "State of Denial"

Posted by: Kudzu & Bloomer | October 13, 2006 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Zouk,

Why did the economy grow even more after GHW Bush and Clinton enacted tax increases? Reaganomics or Supply Side economics posited that taxes could be cut indefinitely and the economy would grow as as a result and the federal budget could be brought in balance. That is true to a certain extent. Tax cuts are an economic stimulus. The marginal tax rates of the 60's and 70's were confiscatory. The tax reform of the 1980's which drastically reduced the number of deductions, cut the number of tax brackets and reduced marginal rates were greatly needed. However, overall the Reagan tax cuts went too far and produced outrageous deficits since there was no corresponding spending restraint. It was only the GHW Bush and Clinton tax increases that reversed this trend. A great deal of the economic growth of the 90's was enabled by deficit reduction and lower interest rates - something that goes hand in hand. Certainly the technological revolution propelled tremendous productivity growth which resulted in economic growth. The lower interest rates were critical to this growth as were some accelerated depreciation provisions that encouraged more investment in technology. As a small business man and in my previous life as a military budget officer, I know first hand the productivity gains that can be made through technology but you have to keep investing in the technology because it improves dramatically every few years. Even if the old stuff continues to work well enough, you quickly find that no one supports the software anymore. Now I happen to think that the Republican take over of Congress in 1994 was critical to the whole deficit reduction. They wanted to control spending and Robert Rubin convinced Clinton to embrace deficit reduction. I do not think that would have happened if the Democrats continued in control of Congress through Clinton's term. The Republican Congress helped depress spending and the Democratic administration prevented too much in the way of revenue reduction. Divided government often works. The current regimen of drastic tax cuts and unrestrained spending is a clear and present danger to the long term health of our economy. I think that deficits affect interest rates which affect investment. I am really concerned about the out year impact of the tax cuts. The Medicare and Social Security time bombs must be defused. The federal budget won't be able to cover anything other than Medicare, Social Security and interest on the debt. Additionally there are some underlying weaknesses in the economy that could cause serious problems. House prices in many areas appear to be at unsustainable levels. Adjustable rate mortgages are going up and leaving some home owners in seriuos jeopardy. Home equity borrowing is rampant. The bubble could burst and result in a lot of bankruptcies and a decline in house prices would dampen consumer spending - especially home equity borrowing driven spending. Our dependence on foreign investors buying our debt is worrying, especially since the Chinese are doing a lot of the buying.

I most certainly do not think that the government can get out of the Social Security and Medicare business. If we were starting Social Security from scratch today, I would advocate putting social security taxes in private retirement accounts. However, since Social Security taxes fund current retirees diverting any social security taxes now would only exacerbate the problem. As for Medicare, under our current health care regimen, health care for seniors would be absolutely unaffordable for all but the wealthiest. My parents were paying close to $1000 per month for health insurance in the early 90s before they became eligible for Medicare. Health care savings accounts could be wiped out in a heartbeat with a serious illness. I was hospitalized for 3 days for cardiac tests in 2003 and the bill came to $17,000 - and that was a case where I did not have a condition that required surgery or extensive care. Luckily, I have good health insurance coverage as a retired military officer. Too many average workers cannot afford insurance if they do not have an employer subsidized plan. Those kind of plans are getting rarer and rarer. I do not pretend to have an answer to all these questions but I see your answers as, to be charitable, impractical - especially for working class people.

I am not a Democrat nor am I a Republican. There are a lot of things about each party that I detest. I have voted for candidates of each party at all levels of government from president to state and local offices. I tend to vote against the party or candidate that has annoyed me the most. These days that describes the Republicans.

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 13, 2006 10:50 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes has yet to come back and tell us whether he'll put his money where his mouth is--so certain that Padgett will beat Space in OH-18.

WOSU, WCPN, WKSU, and other stations should be among those airing the Senate debate.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 13, 2006 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Ohio Senate debate in Dayton starts at 8pm. Should be live on several TV and radio stations as well as C-SPAN.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 13, 2006 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Judge, I hear ya about people starting to get it... But if its not EVERYthing that's going on, what could it possibly take for people to wake up?

And, NorEaster, the only thing missing from Pat Buchanon's gay rant is "and I'M GAY."

EVERYONE should watch the Ohio debate betw Sherrod Brown and DeWhine. Sherrod's fired up and not going to take any GOP B.S.! Looked very confident at his rally this week with Hillary that i mentioned a couple days ago. Zouk, are you going to watch? OR was it bhoomes who was the big DeWHINE fan? Good luck with all that. ;-)

Posted by: F&B | October 13, 2006 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone seen any polls on the race for Harold Ford Jr's House seat. The race is between Democrat Steve Cohen and Jake Ford who is Harold Ford's younger brother. Blogophere coverage of that race has been very sketchy.

Posted by: Memphis | October 13, 2006 7:43 PM | Report abuse

The rhetoric coming from zouk and bhoomes today is particularly insightful--bhoomes think the worst thing the country faces is the 'wild-eyed Nancy Pelosi [I guess if you're a weak, impotent guy she must be really scary] -- and zouk says he wants to 'strangle the tax baby in its crib.' Now that imagery tells you much more about who he is than he probably intended to reveal.

Posted by: drindl | October 13, 2006 7:41 PM | Report abuse

That was me that posted the link. I am posting for the first time today, even though I have been reading the blog for many months.

My name is John and I live in southern california.

I just think we need to bring the discourse to a more reasonable level.

There are certainly valid points on both sides of all these issues, but what seems to be in short supply these days is any common sense discussion about how to solve the nations problems.

Say what you want about Bill Clinton, and he certainly had his faults, but he did make a genuine effort to try and put the nation on a path to fiscal sanity.

The risng national debt will surely hurt us in the long term, as we will be required to borrow more and more just to pay the interest on the debt.

I am certainly no left-wing idealogue. I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I do believe, however, that a national health-care system would be good both on a moral and fiscal basis for the long-term survival of our country, and that while privatizing social security may have an upside as far as greater returns, the risks far outway these benefits.

Posted by: John | October 13, 2006 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Nor'easter: you mean the Labour Party or the Liberal Democratic Party? Britain doesn't have a Liberal Party, that's Canada. :)

For seven years, 1994 through 2000, there was not a single foreign terrorist attack on US soil. What an awesome job Bill Clinton did protecting us from terrorism!! Without spending $300B or taking away our civil liberties either.

The deficits and debt were a smaller % of GDP when Clinton was president. Actually--OOPS--there were no deficits the last 4 years; there were surpluses.

I know OH-12 well, I worked on a campaign there against Kasich and went to college in the district. It voted for Bush 51-49 in 2004 and is most certainly ripe for Dems to pick this cycle. That's why I am appalled at the DCCC's colossal failure to recruit a strong candidate. There are PLENTY of good potential ones to choose from, and all we get is a 71 year old has-been?? Bob Shamansky may be a nice guy, but he has no chance of winning. Spending $1M of his own money is nice, but won't do it. He's pathetic. And Pat Tiberi is a real right-wing extremist in a very swing district. The party's failure to get a better opponent to Tiberi in OH-12 is a travesty. It is one of the Democrats' worst recruiting failure of this cycle.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 13, 2006 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Nor'easter: you mean the Labour Party or the Liberal Democratic Party? Britain doesn't have a Liberal Party, that's Canada. :)

For seven years, 1994 through 2000, there was not a single foreign terrorist attack on US soil. What an awesome job Bill Clinton did protecting us from terrorism!! Without spending $300B or taking away our civil liberties either.

The deficits and debt were a smaller % of GDP when Clinton was president. Actually--OOPS--there were no deficits the last 4 years; there were surpluses.

I know OH-12 well, I worked on a campaign there against Kasich and went to college in the district. It voted for Bush 51-49 in 2004 and is most certainly ripe for Dems to pick this cycle. That's why I am appalled at the DCCC's colossal failure to recruit a strong candidate. There are PLENTY of good potential ones to choose from, and all we get is a 71 year old has-been?? Bob Shamansky may be a nice guy, but he has no chance of winning. Spending $1M of his own money is nice, but won't do it. He's pathetic. And Pat Tiberi is a real right-wing extremist in a very swing district. The party's failure to get a better opponent to Tiberi in OH-12 is a travesty. It is one of the Democrats' worst recruiting failure of this cycle.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 13, 2006 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Both Zouk and bhoomes seem to be in particulary obtuse Denial Mode today. The actual reality must be getting to them.

Posted by: Staley | October 13, 2006 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Hey, this is worth a repost, whoever gave us this, thanks. Great research reference material.

United States National Debt

(1938 to Present)

An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible For Excessive Spending

By Steve McGourty
Updated 25 June 2006

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Everyone reading this blog needs to click this link, and pass it around, it is comprehensive and irrefutable (for any reasonable person).

I'm sure our economics-challenged trolls will have some disinformation to dispute with, but once again, you just can't argue with the TRUTH, and have any credibility.

Numbers don't lie.

People DO.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Amen, anonymous/JEP?.

OOPS, missed my moniker.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh is a pill-popping hypocrite. O'Reilly, fair and balanced? What a JOKE! The "moral majority" is neither. The GOP morally superior with their "family values"? That's laughable.

Let's face it, quite frankly, they're ALL currupt, GOP and Dem's -- at least the ones in power! I'm not sure if either side of the national political powers-that-be value families, at least not middle American families...they value OUR votes and POWER and $$$$$, and that's about the size of it.

Posted by: richard | October 13, 2006 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, anonymous. That's a real eye-opener. I didn't realize things were that bad.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 13, 2006 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh is a pill-popping hypocrite. O'Reilly, fair and balanced? What a JOKE! The "moral majority" is neither. The GOP morally superior with their "family values"? That's laughable.

Let's face it, quite frankly, they're ALL currupt, GOP and Dem's -- at least the ones in power! I'm not sure if either side of the national political powers-that-be value families, at least not middle American families...they value OUR votes and POWER and $$$$$, and that's about the size of it.

Posted by: richard | October 13, 2006 6:24 PM | Report abuse

I think a discussion about the national debt is a good thing. Here is a site which has some nice graphs showing when most of this debt was incured.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2006 6:20 PM | Report abuse

economists no longer take this as anything but another right-wing talking point

which economists? Paul Kruggman? you mean yourself?

accumulating debt saddles future generations with a heavy, and unfair, burden.
so get your Dem reps to stop spending so much money. why is it unfair. Is living in a world with random terror attacks fair. shouldn't we clean this up for the children no matter the cost?

I do symmpathize with your misunderstanding of markets and return on investment. that would explain your reluctance to dump the government retirement program. Maybe a big giant federal education program on socialist security would suit you.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 6:10 PM | Report abuse

I bet Ohio's 12th is going to make this list, if y'all start paying attention to it. Bob Shamansky, the Democratic challenger, has money, clever ads, and a district that went for Kerry in 2004 or nearly did. Did I mention that one of his ads is an appeal from American hero and astronaut John Glenn?

Posted by: Seth | October 13, 2006 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Amen, anonymous/JEP?.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 13, 2006 6:03 PM | Report abuse

It's really discouraging that someone would think that

"the overall conclusion must be to privatize social security and assign individual control over health care"

I know that he'll come back with some statement about "personal responsibilty" and so forth, but to me this type of attitude just makes me really sad about our (and the world's) future.

Posted by: john | October 13, 2006 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Judge;
Nor'easter's right.

But, I guess we have one good excuse, when all you have to argue against is garden slugs, you have to argue at their level.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2006 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Have to agree with JEP; this is getting really boring especially since you went and injected Reagonomics into it. The balance of Reagan's fiscal policies (especially tax cuts) and other factors such as the inflation-fighting monetary policies of the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker (appointed by your personal hero, Jimmy Carter) and a large decline in oil prices caused by the minimization of price shocks has never been established (except, no doubt, in your own opinion-dominated mind). What is especially annoying is that Reagan himself assumed office by disavowing any link between the economy and oil prices but in fact benefited from decreasing oil prices.

"how did the debt go down"?? The debt has decreased? It's hard to discuss this unless you state the time period. Since we're talking about Bush (aren't we?) this makes no sense.

Your "deficit spending crowds out private spending and artificially keeps interest rates higher" red herring also makes no sense in an era when credit creation is so easy, and interest rates remain low despite massive deficits reaching $500 billion/year. In spite of your assertion that this is "not settled" economists no longer take this as anything but another right-wing talking point. As other have pointed out to you accumulating debt saddles future generations with a heavy, and unfair, burden.

How the heck does your comment that "the overall conclusion must be to privatize social security and assign individual control over health care" follow from any of that? That social security might collapse due to the Bush Deficits seems possible but as Brazil so clearly points out privatization is hardly the cure-all for the current staggering financial mismanagement.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 13, 2006 5:56 PM | Report abuse

"Following Foley with Negron is like following Liberace with Ozzie Osborne."

A friend of mine emailed me and suggested I repost this last line from one of my earlier posts, they got a real kick out of it.

It is something of a chuckle. Sometimes, I just don't appreciate my own humor.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 5:56 PM | Report abuse

JEP, I keep forgetting this is your personal ego site. why are you always proclaiming your credentials. Is that supposed to make your outlandish ideas more convincing. Is it because they really can't stand on their own to any sort of scrutiny. No one else here is posting their resume.
you must have either missed the economic discussion above or been completely baffled by it. but it did make sense to someone because they actually repsonded in an educated and thoughful manner based on sound theory and established fact. you didn't see this because your world view doesn't permit it to pass your bias filter.

You have no notion of my military experience, my political experience, my education or background, but that never stops you from making foolish assumptions about those capabilites. you do it all the time to everyone. why not take the ideas at their face and stop ascribing evil intentions on everyone.

who is the economic professor? Jim in FL is the only person on this site to show any inkling of economic training. I notice you didn't claim to have any advanced degrees in math or econ. why? I also noticed you extensive political experience goes back to 1972. and since then? nothing huh? Why, no one would hire a know-it-all like you. you offer so much nonsense you don't give anyone the opportunity to take a single thing you say seriously. try to slow down and come up with something solid we can consider for debate.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 5:54 PM | Report abuse

"For the first week of Pagegate, Buchanan was actually talking objective common sense. Then I guess some people in the party got to him and advised that he couldn't speak that way in public."

I have noticed that factor about Buchanan.

Its not the first time "the powers that be" have reigned him in.

His immediate responses are almost always accurate, but are inevitably tempered with conservative revision, when the real handlers get hold of him.

Out of the gate, Buchanan usually makes sense, it is only after-the-fact he goes back and re-spins it to please his "base."

But, unfortunately, that happens every time.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 5:47 PM | Report abuse

JEP - When you leave the inmates to the care and tending of those in charge of the asylum, they tend to behave better.

Don't bother him, sshhhh!

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 13, 2006 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Kruggman, you are flailing now. best to just slink off and lick your wounds.

Kennedy ran off a bridge, while drunk with a staff member heading where?? out to the woods, he was married to his first wife at the time. when he saved himself and left the girl for dead he somehow wasn't able to call 911 but did manage to call his lawyer and PR person. the next morning he appeared in public and informed everyone of the accident. The girl was still underwater. this is not libel, it is fact. there is no such thing as libel when you relate facts. If anyone you knew behaved this way what would your reaction be? Perhaps is was not murder since it may not have been pre-meditated but clearly manslaughter and criminal negligence - a jury would decide that distinction under normal circumstances.

and this is your hero. the lifetime of drinking, the sordid affairs, the cheating on exams. I can't believe you could hold this individual up as any sort of role model, actually should be something to avoid at all costs. the total lack of any morals is so clear even a Dem should be able to see it. but because it is a Kennedy, no one cares. and when he Borks a respectable conservative judge you cheer him on.

I think the readers of this blog can clearly see that JEP lives in an X-files world, devoid of facts and figures but replete with shadows and skulking and terrifying specters. the evidence is already there.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm done with him, anyone else want another piece?

If not, just let him spout.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 5:40 PM | Report abuse

"BUCHANAN: Look, Kolbe is gay. He is an out-of-the-closet gay. Foley was gay. The House clerk who was in charge of the pages was gay. Foley's administrative assistant, Mr. Fordham, The New York Times tell us, was gay. You hear about a lot of others."

For the first week of Pagegate, Buchanan was actually talking objective common sense. Then I guess some people in the party got to him and advised that he couldn't speak that way in public.

Ironic isn't it, that as the Republican Revolutionaries were decrying "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," that they were practicing it themselves.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 13, 2006 5:38 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans are forcing Ney to resign.

I thought "Republicans always resign"

With a gun (or dirty emails) at their heads...

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 5:37 PM | Report abuse

"judge. I can only guess that the nuances of that economic discussion escaped you"

The economic doofus tells the economics professor the nuances escaped him...

This is getting boring.

Zouk, you don't obviously don't read this blog very carefully.

I actually do have enough political experience to suggest the strategy I mentioned for the DCCC.

Along with a half dozen state and local campaigns, I've worked for three US Congressional campaigns, one each in California, Kansas and Iowa.

I grew up going to Republican events, I still have the invitation to the Nixon/Agnew inaugural. And the golden cloverleaf Nixon signed and sent to all the members of "The Committee to Re-elect the President."

Even as a registered Democrat, I'm a more experienced Republican than you could ever pretend.

What are your political credentials?

Surely you must know Karl Rove.

Or do you actually get his talking points from Hannity and Rush?

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 5:33 PM | Report abuse

so you would deny that "Reaganomics" is actually working now in an age of low inflation. how did the debt go down since spending went up? didn't we grow out of it?

I am so pleased to have an actual economic discussion with someone who has some understanding of the basic laws. One issue though - it is not settled that deficit spending crowds out private spending and artificially keeps interest rates higher. it sounds good in general theory but there is scant actual evidence to support this. Maybe your opportunity for a Nobel?

the overall conclusion must be to privatize social security and assign individual control over health care. do you concur? then we can buy all the bridges to nowhere we want.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 5:27 PM | Report abuse

You think deficits and surpluses are the same thing and you actually WENT to school? Really? That reflects badly on the state of American education.

Did they have logic classes there? Where they clearly defined the differences between a 'fact' and an 'opinion?'

Based on the evidence, apparently not.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 13, 2006 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Zouk's books are cookin'.

"make useless predictions and clueless statements about people's souls."

OK, go find them;
here's some of yours.

"Casey is a total buffoon."
"history will not reflect kindly on the intern president"
"but being booze-soaked, pill popping, womanizing and over fed is the normal state for a Kennedy"
"Where are you today Larry - still in Lala land?"
"Frank (pimp) still in congress. Kennedy (murder) still in congress."

You certainly are the consumate Republican diplomat.

You tread quite close to libel, especially when you mention Kennedy.

Now go do your work, and find my posts that match your vileness.

Don't forget the "conspiracy" one you mentioned earlier.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Zouk

I know G. H. W. Bush said that during the election - it is still an apt description. Reaganomics NEVER worked as far as growing the economy to wipe out the deficit. Inflation was cured by the Fed - it was totally done through tight monetary policy and it took a recession to really wring inflation out of the economy. Reaganomics had nothing to do with that. The tax cuts did stimulate the economy, that is Econ 101. However, the deficits also kept interest rates higher than they needed to be which stifled economic growth. The deficits were not brought under control until 1)Bush I agreed to some revenue enhancements (tax increases and loophole closures), for which the "base" never forgave him after they "read his lips" and 2) Clinton passed a tax increase package in 1993. Every single Republican voted against that package and Senator Phil Gramm predicted grass would grow in the streets as a result of those tax increases.

I understand the difference between structural deficits and deficits run in war or recession. The Medicare-Social Security time bomb will seriously de-stablilize our economy - even though entitlement spending is "off-budget". The true deficit far exceeds the official deficit.

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 13, 2006 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Now JEP knows how to run a national campaign complete with total fundraising skills. the ability of this person is astounding. why aren't you working for NASA or the World Bank instead of petering around on this waste of time blog all day.

Unless all your skills reside strictly in your own head. Yep, same as most big government Dems who want to boss everyone else around based on tbeir total knowledge of everything. Fact is, you are like Sgt. Shulz, particularly in economic concerns which has been clearly demonstrated here today.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Judge.. I mean kruggman,,,I mean judge. I can only guess that the nuances of that economic discussion escaped you. Is there a Dem out there who didn't go to a governemnt school, passed a math class and has a fragile understanding of economics? no, I didn't think so.

Maybe we should call in John Kerry to explain the nuance of inflation indexes. My first house was purchased for about $80,000. That type of house goes for about $250,000 now. Wow, houses are selling at an all time high. the highest in history. whatever. Maybe you should have paid more attention in school. but be careful, tuition is at an all time high too.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Eamon: Casey must really be a moron, because Santorum is widely regarded as one of the most intellectually challenged of the 535 members of congress.

Not a very good choice, but removing Santorum would be a tremendous move by the voters of PA. I really don't need to hear more about man-on-dog sex from this idiot.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 13, 2006 5:07 PM | Report abuse

About Republican "successes":

1 - economy after tax cuts
The rich have gotten richer and the middle class have gotten poorer, as proven by declining median income. No wonder Repubs leaders think the economy is great and most ordinary people don't.

2 - no attacks since 9/11
So you've already forgotten about the anthrax attack? And don't forget, the biggest pre-9/11 terrorist attack on US soil was committed by a right wing nut.

But you left out the biggest successes of the current Occupant: he now has the power to arrest and torture even US citizens, and use whatever they scream under torture as evidence at their "trial". And he is spying on millions of innocent cotizens, though that is technically still illegal -- but he is able to ignore any law he doesn't like.

It's an impressive accomplishment, and I hope that he and all those who enabled him (which includes practicaly every elected Republican) get their appropriate reward, in this life and the next.

Posted by: Aranfell | October 13, 2006 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Another wingnut comment:
"BUCHANAN: Look, Kolbe is gay. He is an out-of-the-closet gay. Foley was gay. The House clerk who was in charge of the pages was gay. Foley's administrative assistant, Mr. Fordham, The New York Times tell us, was gay. You hear about a lot of others. What's going on here, Joe, is basically these, this little mafia in there looked upon the pages, I guess, as their -- sort of their personal preserve. And it stinks to high heaven what was done. And it stinks to high heaven that it was not exposed and these types of people, thrown out by the Republican Party --"

But it is representative of how much of the public views Congress.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 13, 2006 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"if the party would allocate some decent resources down here,"

If the DCCC committed $100,000 FIRST towards local newspaper and TV advertising in EACH Congressional district, which adds up to $43.5 million, (cerrtainly within their budget constraints) , THEN went after the close races with the balance of their resources, you would see a lot of these races get a lot closer.

With that money, the Dems could produce a national 15-30-second ad that was the same across the nation, then the local candidates would add their own 15-30 second spots to the DCCC ad, then the national message and the local message are unified, and EVERY Democratic candidate would get a lot more help from the media, GUARANTEED.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Casey is a total buffoon. Only JEP could not see this. too bad this election won't be about issues. Talant also is a solid stand up politician who is getting a bum rap from an amatuer. don't know much about Burns but it will be a shame if that state sends an ultra-lib to the Senate. I hold no hope out for NJ or MD. going to be close but the Senate stays R. the house may very well go over for 2 years. But if it does, there will be such a reaction that the next 12 will be a lock.

Remember to add five points for the historical Dem polling advantage to get ground truth. If your Dem candidate doesn't clear +5% don't expect an actual win on election day. you need to get to 6 to lock it in. Yesterdays polls don't look good for Rs. they need to get back to the issues where they dominate and quit rolling around in the mud. Still some time.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"dollars are almost always the highest amount ever because of inflation. Quoting this stat is pretty much meaningless"

"Meaningless" from you is the same as saying "I give up." When the facts don't suit you, deny them. Boringly predictable as always. Can't you come up with any new tactics?

"At a loss for an explanation for an economic process?" No, but you appear to be. Sorry, now matter how you spin it 1+1 does not = 5. Blaming inflation for these clear differences is the same as saying "black is white, day is night." Again, can't you come up with any new tactics? Zzzzzzzzzzz.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 13, 2006 4:54 PM | Report abuse

"How many blows can the GOP take and stay standing?"

You left out the word "more" between "many" and "blows".

The centipede is still wearing a pair or two of shoes yet to drop.

And when those shoes drop, it will be the icing on a neocon cake.

"Santorum appears to be smarter than Casey"

I got the opposite inmpression, and I'm not a Santorum hater.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm wondering why no one at the DCCC is noticing Zach Wamp's erosion of support in Tennessee 3. Zach's support has always been soft, and if the party would allocate some decent resources down here, his challenger, Brent Benedict (a truly impressive guy) could probably get some traction. This is NOT an unwinnable seat for the Democrats--indeed, Wamp's immediate predecessor was Marilyn Lloyd, a Democrat who held the seat for many years. With the rising Democratic tide, and the strength of Gov. Bredesen and Harold Ford in this area, BRENT BENEDICT would surprise a lot of people if the DCCC would get him some money for TV spots, etc. Tennessee 3 doesn't seem to be on anyone's lists, BUT IT SHOULD BE!

Posted by: Ray Minner | October 13, 2006 4:46 PM | Report abuse

I'm wondering why no one at the DCCC is noticing Zach Wamp's erosion of support in Tennessee 3. Zach's support has always been soft, and if the party would allocate some decent resources down here, his challenger, Brent Benedict (a truly impressive guy) could probably get some traction. This is NOT an unwinnable seat for the Democrats--indeed, Wamp's immediate predecessor was Marilyn Lloyd, a Democrat who held the seat for many years. With the rising Democratic tide, and the strength of Gov. Bredesen and Harold Ford in this area, BRENT BENEDICT would surprise a lot of people if the DCCC would get him some money for TV spots, etc. Tennessee 3 doesn't seem to be on anyone's lists, BUT IT SHOULD BE!

Posted by: Ray Minner | October 13, 2006 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Judge are we back to percentages or actual dollars now? Are you really Paul Kruggman? I love the "I admit its not logical but it is so". At a loss for an explanation for an economic process? So you are Paul Kruggman aren't you?

Ummmm, dollars are almost always the highest amount ever because of inflation. Quoting this stat is pretty much meaningless. the percentage of GDP however is stable. the current deficit is about 2.5% of GDP which is significantly lower than the average for the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. now how about that for voodoo economics.

JEP is now intuiting motivation for another pol. With your mind reading skills you should open a palmistry booth. then you could get paid to make useless predictions and clueless statements about people's souls.
I have no doubt who you think will win the debate. the actual performance is irrelevant which should tell you something.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and it was in reference to Supply Side economics

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 13, 2006 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Lest anybody be fooled, the term "voodoo economics" was introduced into the political lexicon by George H. W. Bush. I believe it was in a speech in Pittsburgh in 1980.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 13, 2006 4:43 PM | Report abuse

As this cycle has unfolded, the Line has been reduced to the tip of the iceberg of competitive House races...leaving aside the fact that no Dem held seats b=elong in the to 25, there are a large number of Republican held seats that are emerging as competitive, including many districts thought safe not long ago. Democrats seem certain of winning at least 10 seats even in a worst case scenario...living just outside Philadelphia(in Allyson Schwartz' CD, which is not at all competitive this cycle), I can easily see all three endangered Philly area Republicans falling on Election Day...even two out of three would be good news for Dems, with Sherwood's seat helping to make Dems well positioned to come out of PA +3/4 House seats and 1 Senate seat. The GOP is dead in the water.

An aside-watched two debates last night on CSPAN, Burns-Tester and Santorum-Casey...Tester is just outstanding, I long to vote for him-upfront, straightforward prairie populism...really shout be a terrific senator and an important voice in Washington assuming he can hold off the elderly and snappish(when he wasn't just incomprehensible) Conrad "every appropriation we wanted from his office, we got" Burns. An inspiring Dem...not the case in PA where Bob Casey is a total disaster. Thank God not many people are basing their decision off debates. If everyone in PA could see these two candidates up close, turnout would plummet. Santorum is desperately and hyperactively clinging to power and Casey is a large eyebrowed, buck toothed, lisping horror of a candidate, who honestly seems to be one of the dimmer bulbs around...as an ultra liberal Santorum hater I have to concede that Santorum appears to be smarter than Casey and it seems to be driving him crazy that he is trailing this 2nd generation nincompoop by double digits. They were positioned only a couple feet apart for the debate and honestly I thought Santorum was gonna hit him. Send Bob Casey on a nice vacation for the next month, make sure no voters are allowed to lay eyes upon him...that seems to me to be the winning strategy

Posted by: Eamon | October 13, 2006 4:42 PM | Report abuse

As this cycle has unfolded, the Line has been reduced to the tip of the iceberg of competitive House races...leaving aside the fact that no Dem held seats b=elong in the to 25, there are a large number of Republican held seats that are emerging as competitive, including many districts thought safe not long ago. Democrats seem certain of winning at least 10 seats even in a worst case scenario...living just outside Philadelphia(in Allyson Schwartz' CD, which is not at all competitive this cycle), I can easily see all three endangered Philly area Republicans falling on Election Day...even two out of three would be good news for Dems, with Sherwood's seat helping to make Dems well positioned to come out of PA +3/4 House seats and 1 Senate seat. The GOP is dead in the water.

An aside-watched two debates last night on CSPAN, Burns-Tester and Santorum-Casey...Tester is just outstanding, I long to vote for him-upfront, straightforward prairie populism...really shout be a terrific senator and an important voice in Washington assuming he can hold off the elderly and snappish(when he wasn't just incomprehensible) Conrad "every appropriation we wanted from his office, we got" Burns. An inspiring Dem...not the case in PA where Bob Casey is a total disaster. Thank God not many people are basing their decision off debates. If everyone in PA could see these two candidates up close, turnout would plummet. Santorum is desperately and hyperactively clinging to power and Casey is a large eyebrowed, buck toothed, lisping horror of a candidate, who honestly seems to be one of the dimmer bulbs around...as an ultra liberal Santorum hater I have to concede that Santorum appears to be smarter than Casey and it seems to be driving him crazy that he is trailing this 2nd generation nincompoop by double digits. They were positioned only a couple feet apart for the debate and honestly I thought Santorum was gonna hit him. Send Bob Casey on a nice vacation for the next month, make sure no voters are allowed to lay eyes upon him...that seems to me to be the winning strategy

Posted by: Eamon | October 13, 2006 4:42 PM | Report abuse

"At least TRY to be proud of America and her citizens, not its lousy leaders."

None of our trolls seems to want to touch this one.

...talk about refusing to give credit where its due.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 4:42 PM | Report abuse

As this cycle has unfolded, the Line has been reduced to the tip of the iceberg of competitive House races...leaving aside the fact that no Dem held seats b=elong in the to 25, there are a large number of Republican held seats that are emerging as competitive, including many districts thought safe not long ago. Democrats seem certain of winning at least 10 seats even in a worst case scenario...living just outside Philadelphia(in Allyson Schwartz' CD, which is not at all competitive this cycle), I can easily see all three endangered Philly area Republicans falling on Election Day...even two out of three would be good news for Dems, with Sherwood's seat helping to make Dems well positioned to come out of PA +3/4 House seats and 1 Senate seat. The GOP is dead in the water.

An aside-watched two debates last night on CSPAN, Burns-Tester and Santorum-Casey...Tester is just outstanding, I long to vote for him-upfront, straightforward prairie populism...really shout be a terrific senator and an important voice in Washington assuming he can hold off the elderly and snappish(when he wasn't just incomprehensible) Conrad "every appropriation we wanted from his office, we got" Burns. An inspiring Dem...not the case in PA where Bob Casey is a total disaster. Thank God not many people are basing their decision off debates. If everyone in PA could see these two candidates up close, turnout would plummet. Santorum is desperately and hyperactively clinging to power and Casey is a large eyebrowed, buck toothed, lisping horror of a candidate, who honestly seems to be one of the dimmer bulbs around...as an ultra liberal Santorum hater I have to concede that Santorum appears to be smarter than Casey and it seems to be driving him crazy that he is trailing this 2nd generation nincompoop by double digits. They were positioned only a couple feet apart for the debate and honestly I thought Santorum was gonna hit him. Send Bob Casey on a nice vacation for the next month, make sure no voters are allowed to lay eyes upon him...that seems to me to be the winning strategy

Posted by: Eamon | October 13, 2006 4:41 PM | Report abuse

As this cycle has unfolded, the Line has been reduced to the tip of the iceberg of competitive House races...leaving aside the fact that no Dem held seats b=elong in the to 25, there are a large number of Republican held seats that are emerging as competitive, including many districts thought safe not long ago. Democrats seem certain of winning at least 10 seats even in a worst case scenario...living just outside Philadelphia(in Allyson Schwartz' CD, which is not at all competitive this cycle), I can easily see all three endangered Philly area Republicans falling on Election Day...even two out of three would be good news for Dems, with Sherwood's seat helping to make Dems well positioned to come out of PA +3/4 House seats and 1 Senate seat. The GOP is dead in the water.

An aside-watched two debates last night on CSPAN, Burns-Tester and Santorum-Casey...Tester is just outstanding, I long to vote for him-upfront, straightforward prairie populism...really shout be a terrific senator and an important voice in Washington assuming he can hold off the elderly and snappish(when he wasn't just incomprehensible) Conrad "every appropriation we wanted from his office, we got" Burns. An inspiring Dem...not the case in PA where Bob Casey is a total disaster. Thank God not many people are basing their decision off debates. If everyone in PA could see these two candidates up close, turnout would plummet. Santorum is desperately and hyperactively clinging to power and Casey is a large eyebrowed, buck toothed, lisping horror of a candidate, who honestly seems to be one of the dimmer bulbs around...as an ultra liberal Santorum hater I have to concede that Santorum appears to be smarter than Casey and it seems to be driving him crazy that he is trailing this 2nd generation nincompoop by double digits. They were positioned only a couple feet apart for the debate and honestly I thought Santorum was gonna hit him. Send Bob Casey on a nice vacation for the next month, make sure no voters are allowed to lay eyes upon him...that seems to me to be the winning strategy

Posted by: Eamon | October 13, 2006 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"JEP as usual refuses to give any credit for anything good to Bush"

...actually, I think he would make a great Texas rancher.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Sandwich - "I think it's quite plausible that not one incumbent Democrat running for re-election will lose next month."

Normally, I enjoy seeing the "surprise" upsets, and there are usually some in both parties. Of course the Monday Morning Quarterbacks tell us that we should have seen it coming. Sure!

I'm beginning to think that you could be right about no incumbent Democrats going down.

How many blows can the GOP take and stay standing? To me the top British General "cutting and running" from the Coalition of the Willing put the cork in that bottle. That will be in the news again because of the fallout that will have in England. The Liberal Party there jumped on that right away.

The President going to Chicago to "be seen" with Hastert while the Ethics Committee is interrogating Pagegate participants is questionable. Etc., etc.

The only thing I see breaking for the GOP is the economy. Nationally, it's not in the best of shape, it's not in the worst of shape; which usually translates into points for the party in power.

Next Friday of course things could look very different, but consider this: Pagegate is now entering its third week. Ron Ziegler couldn't dismiss Watergate by calling it a 3rd rate burglary, Tony Snow was no more effective with the "naughty e-mails" comment. There's no magic cleanser to erase the stain of a scandal like this.

The only "surprises" could be GOP seats.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 13, 2006 4:39 PM | Report abuse

F&B: I didn't say that the scales will fall from everyone's eyes (we have two fine examples of the counter position with us today) but that's finally the direction in which things are finally going. I'm certainly more optimistic than I was a year ago.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 13, 2006 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"when it started to work."

Never happened.

"After the military there is just not that much to worry about."

...well, thanks again for proving how ridiculous some people can actually be.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Jim D - you seem to be the voice of reason here today. but two points - voodoo economics was called that during the election and the name dropped real fast when it started to work. Reagan has a famous quip about this.
the deficit is already down substantially. Bush promised it would be cut in half in 5 years and it was done in 2. the distinction between regular spending deficits, which is fairly low and controlled and the medicare/SS deficits are enormous. spending money on parks, bridges, etc. is peanuts compared to retirement and health care. Look at the percentages of the federal budget we are talking about. SS and medicare swamp everything else and eat up about 2/3 of the total budget. After the military there is just not that much to worry about. clearly a change in SS and medicare is in order to clean up this mess. why do Dems refuse to do anything about SS. Even clinton's SS panel suggested some form of privitization. why would we accept 1-3% return from the government when the stock market averages 6-8%. this is why Dems can't be trusted on economic issues. why can't you all endorse the clinton plan?

JEP as usual refuses to give any credit for anything good to Bush yet lauds all the negative aspects directly on to him. anyone see a problem with this?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I just watched the Pennsylvania Senate campaign Debate.

Santorum looks scared. Seriously scared.

I don't mean "I'm going to lose this election" scared, I mean "I'm going to jail" scared.

He looks like he wants to make it all just go away.

Now Spitzer's on.

Any doubt who wins that debate?

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"Yet Bush (R) submits a budget which is added to by Congress (generally the same congress) and Bush is a big spender.

this just does not follow logically."

I agree, this isn't logical. However, it is true. Again, reality (Bush is the largest deficit spender in American history; Clinton was not) is hard to accept for you but your contorted opinions don't change these facts.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 13, 2006 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Why did Negron drop out of the Florida AG race?

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 4:26 PM | Report abuse


Breaking news about the Foley scandal! Update IV

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.waynemadsenreport.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
otherside123.blogspot.com

Pagegate. The sex scandal involving underage male congressional pages and ex-Rep. Mark Foley is reverberating in Florida's hotly-contested gubernatorial election between GOP Attorney General Charlie Crist and Democratic Rep. Jim Davis. WMR has received information from our Florida sources that Crist and Florida Governor Jeb Bush were well aware of Foley's "problems" in 2001 and possibly much earlier. In another sign that these concerns were passed by Tallahassee to the White House, the Orlando Sentinel reported yesterday that Foley complained in a Sept. 19, 2004 e-mail to Jeb Bush that the president was ignoring Foley during presidential post-hurricane visits to Florida.

Mark Foley and Charlie Crist: Florida's GOP duo's "secrets" known to Jeb and Dubya.

Foley wrote to Jeb Bush, ""I can't quite figure what I have done, but this is a continuing pattern of slights . . . Sorry to trouble you ... and I wouldn't if this wasn't so frequent . . . Have I done something to offend the White House? I am always getting the shaft." It was also revealed yesterday by The New Republic that Foley got the "shaft" more than once from the White House. After expressing a desire to retire from Congress and set up a lobbying firm on K Street, George W. Bush's chief adviser Karl Rove told Foley that if he did not run again for Congress, Rove would ensure that Foley's lobbying business failed.

Rove's pressure on Foley occurred after the White House was aware of Foley's "problems." The revelation about Rove and Foley means that the Bush White House was part of the cover-up of Foley's possibly illegal conduct with the House pages -- and that is beyond the jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee. Pagegate, like CIA Leakgate, points to the need for the restoration of the Independent Special Counsel statute. That should be a priority for the Democratic Congress

Posted by: che | October 13, 2006 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Chris Shay's recent meltdown in defense of Denny Hastert (exactly HOW long ago was Chappaquidick?) will cost him 2-3% in a sophisticated district. He's starting to look more and more like a loser.

Put this one in Diane Farrell's corner.

Posted by: Brickbat | October 13, 2006 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"behold - a conspiracy..."

Since when is one person's plug of a bad politician a conspiracy?

Isn't it a bit early for the single-malt?

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Zouk

George H. W. Bush accurately described the Reagan approach to government spending - Voodoo Economics. Unless the deficits are tamed - and it will take a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases - we are headed for utter disaster in 2010 and beyond with the retirement of the baby boom generation.

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 13, 2006 4:20 PM | Report abuse

1 - economy after tax cuts
2 - no attacks since 9/11


at least the "denial list" is shrinking...

I won't try to speak for the economy, just remember all those dollars aren't worth nearly what they were when Bush took office, but lets not mention that part.

But I can say it is the American people and their public vigilance who have prevented more attacks, not the Bush administration.

The last attempted hijacking of a plane with Americans on it was committed by a fellow who was ACTUALLY WEARING A MILITARY UNIFORM, which would have intimidated most people into believing there was some "authority" involved.

But some plucky American passengar DECKED the creep before he coud get to the cockpit, and handed the limp body off the air marshalls, who were just a bit slower than the civilian.

Don't give Bush and his cronies credit for what your fellow countrymen have done.

At least TRY to be proud of America and her citizens, not its lousy leaders.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 4:17 PM | Report abuse

surprise surprise, JEP looks into an unknown posters motivation and behold - a conspiracy. I tend to believe people who actually inhabit the region they are writing about. at least they should be on the same planet.

- signed, the smoking man

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Well I am sure as most of you know the incumbent party in its 6th year of power always loses seats(except 1998)so I do expect to lose a couple of seats, but if we retain control of both chambers, it will say to us that the american people are reasonably content with our governance or that the wild eyed(Pelosi) dems just scare the hell out of them.Take your choice.

Posted by: bhoomes | October 13, 2006 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Here's more on why the Wisconsin 8th should be in your top 25:

Kagen leads Republican John Gard by two points in the 8th Congressional District race, according to a new poll from Majority Watch, a project of RT Strategies and Constituent Dynamics.

The poll, conducted Oct. 8-10 among 983 likely voters as selected from state voter registraton files. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus three percent. It was conducted via telephone using interactive voice recognition software.

The poll shows that Gard, the current Assembly Speaker, has an 11-point lead in the northern part of the district, which includes his hometown of Peshtigo. Kagen has an 13-point lead in the southern portion of the district than includes his home base of Appleton.

Posted by: WI 8th Gal | October 13, 2006 4:10 PM | Report abuse

JEP: Tell it to Bill Bennett!

You do mean Bill "Hit me again" Bennet?

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 4:09 PM | Report abuse

"They utterly failed" - there is no evidence to support this. but there are some very solid successes.
1 - economy after tax cuts
2 - no attacks since 9/11

two biggies. then there are others which I persoanlly don't care much for but are considered major accomplishments:
NCLB
Medicare
then the failed attempts stymied by politically motivated Dems:

SS reform

compare this to the most recent Dem prez who can claim welfare reform (after vetoing twice - should be credited to congress). the national security record is very questionable, the economic performance should rightly be laid at the feet of technology (remember no PCs, no cell phones, no internet (much) in 1992)

history will not reflect kindly on the intern president. Bush could still go either way depending on future attacks.

but there are no pols who will cut spending. that seems clear. the only alternative - the reagan approach - strangle the monster in its crib. Grow out of the deficit. seems to be working.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Colin

LBJ's landslide was in 1964 not 1968. Nixon narrowly defeated Hubert Humphrey in 1968. But, I totally agree that most people are not ideological. The people I know (including myself) hold views on a variety of subjects - some views could be characterized as liberal and some as conservative, and others as centrist. I also suspect a lot of politicians do not totally agree with each tenet of the standard orthodoxy of their parties.

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 13, 2006 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"Joe Negron is accomplished, personable and very popular.."

very popular?

yeah, right, with the Swift Boat crowd...

Negron would be one of the most despised and divisive people in Congress if he took Foley's seat (no pun intended).

His "personability" is about as subtle as a serpent.

This sounds like a poorly concealed campaign manager trying to spin a bad situation.

Following Foley with Negron is like following Liberace with Ozzie Osborne.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 4:04 PM | Report abuse

I predict the Tigers will beat the Cardinals in the World Series.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 13, 2006 4:00 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- Republicans have held almost complete power - over every level of government - for six years. In that time, they've grown the size of the federal government more than any administration since LBJ. To be clear, a GOP MAJORITY did that. During that time, they've also refused to raise taxes to pay for those expenditures. I respect the argument that we should SPEND LESS and TAX LESS, but the GOP of today ONLY stands for the proposition that we should tax less.

In my book, that makes the GOP the party of fiscal IRRESPONSIBILITY -- something that Eisenhower (a truly great president) would be appalled at.

As to the claim by you or bhoomes that this country is "center-right," that's just silly. Americans simply don't think in ideological terms - mercifully. That's why LBJ could win a landslide in 1968 running as a liberal and Reagan could win a landslide only 12 years later running as an ultra conservative. Americans want leadership and they want politicians that work to solve problems. Today's GOP has had more than a decade to do that, and they've utterly failed. Whether you believe it or not - and I suspect I know the answer to that - this country is ready for a change.

To quote Newt Gingrich, the Democrats slogal for this year really ought to be "had enough."

Posted by: Colin | October 13, 2006 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I'm predicting voters won't vote for a sexual predator in order to vote for Negron. Winning the seat via Foley's name on the ballot just isn't going to happen. Get real.

Posted by: ErrinF | October 13, 2006 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"Congress cut Bill Clinton's non-defense budget requests by an average of $9 billion each year. But Congress has added an average of $16 billion to Bush's requests"

so clinton (D) submits a bloated budget to an R congress and they cut it - and Ds are fiscally responsible? your reasoning escapes me.

Yet Bush (R) submits a budget which is added to by Congress (generally the same congress) and Bush is a big spender.

this just does not follow logically.

either Clinton is a big spender and bush is not OR congress acts different depending on the president. Maybe times changed and priorities changed. either way your conclusion that Dems are frugal has no basis from this report. but examine the details of the increased spending under the bush budgets, who we have now agreed is more frugal than clinton. see how the Congrsssional Dems are the ones who piled on the spending and the Rs went along. which is worse and who takes the blame? good question but the idea that Dems are frugal is clearly false. I also suspect that stat when it is reported in percentage terms. sounds like Kruggmann economics meant to persuade, not inform. what were the raw dollar figures?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 3:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm predicting that "Mark Foley" will receive more votes than Mahoney in the Florida 16th Race. I live in this district and I know that Joe Negron is accomplished, personable and very popular in much of this District and the Democrat is a newcomer to politics. Keep in mind, that Negron has been a candidate for State Rep. since the early 90s (as a Democrat at the beginning), ran a campaign for Congress briefly in 2003 before Foley dropped his Senate race, and recently raised over $1 million for his campaign for Florida Attorney General. So, I'm predicting a Negron victory. Then again, I picked the Dolphins to win last week.

Posted by: Florida16th | October 13, 2006 3:38 PM | Report abuse

The voters will attack the Republicans in a "feeding frenzy".. Just as Folegate started to recede.., Ney pleads guilty and STILL collects his paycheck. Why did the Republicans allow him to stay in Congress? What a gift to the Democrats nationwide!

Come on Democrats , "Turn the dogs loose." The Republicans are "treed".

Posted by: David McCage | October 13, 2006 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree with Zouk when he says "both sides spend, that is their role". It is the whole corrupt system in which most of our representatives bloat the federal budget with tax breaks and boondoggles targeted to specific constituencies in order to attract votes and campaign contributions. This is entirely legal. Both sides do it. Combine this with the incumbent protection society that most redistricting produces and we have a government that is incapable of dealing with really difficult problems until they blow up in our faces. That is why they invented work-arounds like the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. That is also why they have not addressed the impending fiscal train wreck that will happen when the baby boom generation (I am a boomer) reaches Medicare and Social Security eligibility.

Now I believe government has an important role to play in many more areas than Zouk does. However, I do not like the current system one bit. I have always been skeptical of typical liberal big government solutions. I was intrigued by proposals that some politicians have put forward to address societal problems using non-traditional approaches. Jack Kemp and, to a lesser extent, Newt Gingrich have advanced some interesting proposals over the years. Newt was even working with Hillary Clinton in a task force on health care issues. Unfortunately, the Republican Congress never really took most of these proposals seriously. I do not believe in high taxes but I believe the government should pay its own way in decent economic times. Deficit spending is acceptable during recessions, but the revenue should be able to cover normal peacetime expenditures in non-recessionary times. The deficits of the Bush years are bad enough but the projected revenue shortfalls resulting from the tax cuts are catastrophic when you factor in where Medicare and Social Security expenditures will be in a very few years.

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 13, 2006 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, if Republicans remain in control, Bush has a so called "tax reform" plan. What it will do is eliminate the capital gains and estate tax for billionaires and pay for it by repealing most middle class deductions. What would you rather have, Republicans who raise taxes on working, middle class families, or Democrats who cut taxes on working families and ask billionaires to pay a little more?

Posted by: Sean | October 13, 2006 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, if Republicans remain in control, Bush has a so called "tax reform" plan. What it will do is eliminate the capital gains and estate tax for billionaires and pay for it by repealing most middle class deductions. What would you rather have, Republicans who raise taxes on working, middle class families, or Democrats who cut taxes on working families and ask billionaires to pay a little more.

Posted by: Sean | October 13, 2006 3:28 PM | Report abuse

>>>I think partly in response to Foleygate people ARE waking up

Are people waking up to the fact that the Republican Party has a NeoFascist/Racist agenda? Are they? I dont think so. I think they just found someone else to blame other than the Dems: GAYS.

The fact is, despite the fact that the Bush Administration has proved itself to be a massive and corrupt failure, around 39% of the people polled about President Bush STRONGLY support him and his criminal enterprise.

The fact is, despite a documented history and present-day exhibit of racism, George Allen is still in the running in the Senate race in VA.

The fact is that despite coddling a sexual predator from within the Congress, the majority leader is still up 10% in his race.

The fact is that despite plagarizing someone else's press release and having never served in the military but calling John Murtha a COWARD from the floor of Congress, Jean Schmidt is still competitive in her race.

The fact is, despite the Abramoff affairs, the Iraq War increasing terrorist activity, the largest budget deficit and debt in history, the widest gap between rich and poor in the USA, multiple Federal criminal investigations, total collapse of both foreign and domestic policy, Katrina response, tax breaks for the rich at a time of war, total lack of oversight on any level, trashing habeus corpus, stomping all over the Constitution and Bill of Rights, on and on.... we STILL have good, honest American people and lots of them (even if they aer in the minority) supporting these outrageous criminal and immoral activities.

It is absolutely disgusting the state of affairs today.

Posted by: F&B | October 13, 2006 3:28 PM | Report abuse

"does anyone out there really think that Dems are the party of fiscal responsibility? where do you get these ideas from?"

From reality. See below. Oh, wait, you've seen these facts before and chose to place greater value on partisan, grossly unintelligent opinion.

"The facts (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061010/OPINION/610100341/1002) speak for themselves. A true patriot wouldn't even bother arguing.

"Probably the most striking contrast between the Bush era and the last six years of the Clinton administration is this: Congress cut Bill Clinton's non-defense budget requests by an average of $9 billion each year. But Congress has added an average of $16 billion to Bush's requests. The president has never vetoed these Republican spending binges, and his occasional veto threats have not been taken seriously.

That would likely change if Democrats were offering up bloated spending bills -- that is, if such bills even got out of Congress. No doubt Republican legislators would recall that they once were the party of fiscal responsibility if it were a bunch of Democrats voting to spend recklessly."

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 10, 2006 12:46 PM"

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 13, 2006 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Bhoomes - "...This country is centered-right and majority of people simply do not share your views..." Actually, most people in this country are simply confused and a little desparate. They don't want their children to die in some war where they can see it is a complete waste. They don't trust dirty policiticians from either side. And they are frightened - for their own economic security, for the future, of criminals, and a lot more. So, every election cycle or so, they make a swing from what they perceive as the moderate right to the moderate left. They NEVER get the results they expect and we genuine liberals and conservatives always fail to deliver a solution that resolces that underlying insecurity. My sense is that the voters will make a swing to the left this cycle becasue they have lost trust or even hope of trust in George Bush. My hope is that liberals will break the bond of their lunny leftist past and actually do something about illegals, national health care, reasoable taxes that don't simply enrich public employees, get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan *immediately*, etc. It may be a vain hope, but that is my hope.

Posted by: MikeB | October 13, 2006 3:23 PM | Report abuse

"Let's consider the radio talk format. this is designed for persuasion at an intellectual level with point by point logic and reasoned debate."

Oh KOZ that's rich! Reasoned debate. Pull the other one.

http://www.gop.com/GetActive/CallTalkRadio.aspx

Check out this page - well, everyone else check it out as I am sure Bushbots like KOZ are very familiar with it by now. It gives the GOP zombies all the phone numbers of their favorite shows and TELLS THEM WHAT TO SAY when they get on the air.

Posted by: Venicemenace | October 13, 2006 3:10 PM | Report abuse

My dislike for deficits (trade and budget) and national debt exceed my dislike for taxes.

I think it's quite plausible that not one incumbent Democrat running for re-election will lose next month.

I'm still waiting for bhoomes to either put his money where his mouth is or explain why he refuses to do so.

(JEP: Tell it to Bill Bennett!)

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 13, 2006 3:10 PM | Report abuse

That Economist article was from 2003. the deficit was greater than 4% of GDP at the time. Now it is less than 2.5% of GDP. does that alter your point of view. Can you admit that the R policies are beneficial to the economy? do you think electing Ds and then raising taxes will help somehow?
Every budget submitted by the President was overspent due to pressure from the Dem side of the house and Senate. divided government requires compromises. Rs allowed the spending, which they should not have, but it was ultimately Ds who originated and really wanted it.

does anyone out there really think that Dems are the party of fiscal responsibility? where do you get these ideas from?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 3:05 PM | Report abuse

If you don't like taxes period, don't vote for a Dem. it is really very plain and easy.

If you disagree with particular expenditures, you may have to find a more nuanced point of view. both sides spend, that is their role. you can examine your individual congressman for their point of view on distinctive spending measures. but the idea that all spending is due to Rs is patently false.

I like very few choices of expenditures, but my options are to work within the system to elect someone who thinks like me, or to hire a lobbyist who thinks like me or to print material to convince others to think like me. stomping my feet in protest will not get the job done.

YEs Rs have gone too far but that was a result of election pressure. It seems the voters actually did want more spending on federal education, on medicare, etc. Have you all changed your mind?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"Actually those spend and spend policies are the Dems. Please examine the votes in congress if you have any doubt about the facts of this statement."

Please examine the actual numbers. From the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2189237

And the spending has gotten worse since then. Fact: nonmilitary discretionary spending has increased at a faster rate under the Republican controlled White House and Congress than under the Democrat White House and Republican Congress before it.

Posted by: DTB | October 13, 2006 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Just a thought "With the book by Kuo coming out today and the comments on "Countdown" the past few days, wouldn't this be a great topic for this blog?". I can at least hope anyway. Sorry if this is slightly off todays topic.

Posted by: lylepink | October 13, 2006 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I don't like paying taxes to the NSA so that they can listen to my phone conversations.
I don't like paying taxes so that we can talk about a fence that we're never going to build.
I don't like paying taxes to representatives that chase after underage boys.
I don't like paying taxes so that lobbyists have it spent on pet projects.
And I also especially don't like paying taxes that just get sucked into paying interest on the national debt because of the irresponsible spend and spend policies of the republican party!
Republicans Conservative? They don't spend like it.

Posted by: DTB | October 13, 2006 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Actually those spend and spend policies are the Dems. Please examine the votes in congress if you have any doubt about the facts of this statement. and other than the war, which benefits all americans present and future, I completely agree that all those things should go. I don't know what you mean about the silver spoon comment. but if you think those things should go you should be voting R.

Let's consider the radio talk format. this is designed for persuasion at an intellectual level with point by point logic and reasoned debate. Policies can be examined, facts can be deciphered and arguments can be made. It is not a good forum for zingers, jokes and gotcha numbskullery. this is precisely why Rs do so well at it and Ds fail so miserably. when you can't make a dumb joke and move on, ignoring the actual facts and issues, you can't make the Dem point. but sustained interest and in depth analysis naturally benefits Rs. Plus it helps to have an actual sense of humor and be entertaining and likeable. Rush is a good entertainer, while his competition sounds shrill and mean. the market responded to these forces and rewarded the good, interesting show with advertising revenue. the stale, lame dirty jokes and tricks venue failed miserably. al Franken is a bad comedian, Laura Ingrahm is a trained lawyer. who do you trust to discuss policy? notice this does not apply to the fast pace of pundit shows on tv where issues can't be covered in depth and the two sides are mostly even.

Zingers sound funny at times but they do not advance the cause. the emptiness of Dem ideas is being revealed on talk radio. that is why the equal time law will be brought back if the Dems win. If you can't beat them in the marketplace, create a government regulation to neutralize the advantage. so much for free speech - as usual with Dems.

Look at the columbia vs minuteman incident. Dems are rude, arrogant,guilt-ridden and consider themselves superior. clearly they are not.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Hey Koz - you don't like paying taxes? Great! Me either!

In particular:
I don't like paying taxes for a war we had no business starting!
I don't like paying taxes to a government that can't respond to the victims of a natural disaster!
I don't like paying taxes so some undeserving brat can eat from their pop's silver spoon!
I don't like paying taxes for military weapons that the military doesn't want!
I don't like paying taxes to subsidize farmers, the airlines, or the automobile industry!
Shall I go on!???!!!!???
Okay, one more:
I don't like paying taxes that just get sucked into paying interest on the national debt because of the irresponsible spend and spend policies of the republican party!

Posted by: ModerateMike | October 13, 2006 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Larry, still fighting that battle. Maybe that Air america radio station doesn't have a real news segment, only propaganda and lies. But I can inform you now that Bush is the president right now and Repuplicans hold the majority in both houses. two supreme court judges were appointed, the economy is doing gangbusters.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Judge: The press conference by Hastert at the graves of so many {Cemetary] was quite revealing in its saying of what is likely to happen in the next few weeks. Maybe the next one will be in front of, or in the jail, where many of them are surely going.

Posted by: lylepink | October 13, 2006 2:23 PM | Report abuse

The Iraqi Information Minister was probably the best thing about the entire war. His name is MOHAMMED SAEED al-SAHAF. His endless BS was some of the best comedy I have ever witnessed.

Still I couldn't help noticing this in his Wikipedia entry:

In his last public proclamation the Minister declared: "the Americans "are going to surrender or be burned in their tanks. They will surrender, it is they who will surrender."

Posted by: Venicemenace | October 13, 2006 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Bhoomes, Zouk, and others who think the Republicans will control Congress after the November election:
Let's assume that the Republicans lose seats in the House and Senate, but are still the majority party in both houses. What lesson should they take from that result?
1) Become fiscal hawks?
2) Move to the political center?
3) Chart a far more independent course from the President on such issues as Iraq?
4) Get serious about ethical issues?
5) Other?

Posted by: Mouse | October 13, 2006 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Forgive me that this message is not purely on-topic, but this is my first message on this blog, and I felt inclined to weigh in about the KOZ post.

Air America went under because even staunch liberals don't crave partisan infotainment enough to make it viable (other business realities specific to AA's timing, etc. aside). While we crave favorable news as much as the other side, Liberals prefer to get our information from nonpartisan sources, and I think we're less hostage to delusions. Contrast this to many on the right (FOX, Limbaugh, etc.), and you'll understand why polls consistently showed Republican voters regurgitating the forcefed Saddam-9/11 connection, no matter how many objective sources made clear it wasn't so. The president misrepresents Dem views on terrorism and national security, but who in his choir will call him out?

This may be the nastiest political environment in more than a generation, and perhaps Dems would be foolish not to capitalize on such topics as the Foley scandal. Oh, how it would fly if the shoe were on the other foot! But Dems should make truth-telling the centerpiece of their campaigns. To be calling Republicans "pedophile-enablers" is disingenuous.

Will we ever see an environment where thoughful people from the right and left can communicate thoughtful ideas without being held captive to buzzword politics? Our country has missed a lot of opportunities to progress because of this environment. Think about how different things might be if an honest Republican, in the mold of the old-McCain or KS's Pat Roberts, had been in office the past 6 years? I still might hate most of the policies, but I could respect the other side more. I'm not hopeful polite discourse will ever return.

Posted by: KJS | October 13, 2006 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Larry with an empty mind and only one radio station it is not surprising that you believe as you do. It is a shame you can't find something worthwhile to listen to. It is now going to be worse since your only radio station seems to be going off the air soon. didn't you swear to me a few months ago that air america was perfectly viable and doing just fine. sounds like your prediction for victory next month - hopeful but delusional. where do you live - lala land or SF, gotta be one or the other.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Another KOZ lie-somehow over 50% seem to always vote Republican. How did Bush get 50% in 2000 when he came in second to Gore by 600000 votes? Do people snicker when you walk by? The desperate deluded lies are hilarious.

Posted by: Larry | October 13, 2006 2:17 PM | Report abuse

The AAR station is #1 in my area and Rush was cancelled 2 years ago due to low ratings. Too bad I wanted to tune in to the druggie to see how he will spin a massive defeat into a victory. I guess KOZ only likes polls showing the fascists winning. Those polls are very hard to find. Your lies, KOZ are really becoming extreme and nonsensical. You may need hospitalization on Nov 8.

Posted by: Larry | October 13, 2006 2:10 PM | Report abuse

While we're at it, Chris titles this article 'Incumbents In Trouble'. Isn't the more accurate title 'Republican Incumbents In Trouble'? There are just very few Democratic incumbents struggling to defend their seats this year, while there are quite a few Republican seats up for grabs or being abandoned as 'unwinnable'. Certainly, Chris can parse the polls to figure out the difference.

Posted by: ErrinF | October 13, 2006 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Tariq Azzis, that's the guy, remember how certain he was of everything he said, as the bombs fell all around him?

Just like KZOO...

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"Iowa - 2 RT Strategies/CD 10/08 - 10/10 1006 LV Leach (R) 47% , Loebsack (D) 48%"

Haleluiah!

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 2:04 PM | Report abuse

The Dems are going to take the House and the Senate this year. We all know these things happen in waves, so this one's going to be a landslide in favor of the Democrats. While the reactionaries of the right obsess about the left, it's the middle that is going to be handing the GOP it's head this year. Anybody that can't see that is putting on an ostrich act.

Posted by: ErrinF | October 13, 2006 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"William Jennings Bryan had a home in the Democratic party, and his present-day counterparts should have the same."

Amen to that...

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"And that would stop a Republican because...?"

touche'

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 1:58 PM | Report abuse

RT Strategies, a bipartisan polling company, did polling of a large number of districts and found that not only may the Dems win the House, but may win it big time. They show them within striking distance or even ahead in races that were hardly on the radar screen:

MN-6: Wetterling (D) +6
AZ-1: Simon (D) +4
OH-2: Wulsin (D) +2
NY-3: King (R-Inc) +2
WI-8: Kagen +2
NC-8: Kissel (D) +7
NJ-7: Ferguson (R-Inc) +2

They also show Dems far ahead (+5% or higher) in a number of seats that are considered toss-ups (NY-24, NY-26, PA-10, PA-6, PA-7, NC-11, NM-1). If they're polling is accurate, the Dems would gain 16 seats, with 3 seats at a tie--and they didn't even poll all of the close races!

Chris, I'm sorry, but having Dem seats on this list is laughable. Even RealClearPolitics, who definitely leans right, lists the top THIRTY seats as Republican-held seats.


Posted by: Greg-G | October 13, 2006 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I watched the Pryce-Kilroy (OH-15) debate on WOSU-Columbus last night. I think Pryce held her own, but I think Kilroy will carry it. 1. Pryce's glowing assessment of the "storybook" (national) economy is out of touch with Ohio reality, and that's been a monster problem. 2. Reverend Rod (Parsley) and the Bigot Brigade have nothing to rally around since Blackwell's race for governor is about belly-up. 3. The only audible gasp from the audience during the debate came when Kilroy suggested Pryce should have forwarded campaign contributions from Mark Foley onto charity rather than returned them so they could be used for (his) defense.

Posted by: Alex22309 | October 13, 2006 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Of course - because according to Dem logic, no election can be won by an R without cheating. this is presumably because they have not provided any issues to make a decision on and the default choice for all voters simply must be D. you would have to be stupid to vote R but somehow more than 50% always seem to do it anyway. look for lots of these notions starting on nov 8.

consider the possibility that it just might be the issues. this will help you analyze your upcoming losses and give you the ability to figure a way forward in 2012. the recriminations will be too deep for any possiblity of recovering by 2008. warner figured this out yesterday, took his ball and left it to HRC to take the heat for the loss.

bhoomes - I was under the impression that very few Rs could actually read, according to the plebes on this site. And since there are so few Rs here, I simply assumed that the government schools had failed them entirely. Next you'll tell me there is no Santa Claus and that the government isn't the solution to all my problems. I am so confused. Landrew??? fooled you, did I sound like a dem there?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 1:57 PM | Report abuse

ErrinF: no, that'd be "booze-soaked, pill popping, boyizing and over fed"

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 13, 2006 1:55 PM | Report abuse

I'm especially surprised WA-8 isn't listed, because there's a WP story on campaign funds being redirected today on this.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | October 13, 2006 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Check out the sleeper race in Iowa, a new poll came out today that puts this race in play too!

Iowa - 2 RT Strategies/CD 10/08 - 10/10 1006 LV Leach (R) 47% , Loebsack (D) 48%

Posted by: Sleeper | October 13, 2006 1:54 PM | Report abuse

JEP: If the Evangelicals abandon the neocons and start promoting Jesus and Peace instead of war and torture....

Amen to that. Hopefully the Democrats won't screw this up. William Jennings Bryan had a home in the Democratic party, and his present-day counterparts should have the same.

Posted by: Zathras | October 13, 2006 1:54 PM | Report abuse

booze-soaked, pill popping, womanizing and over fed
Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 11:36 AM

Rush Limbaugh?

Posted by: ErrinF | October 13, 2006 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Where's WA-8?

I'm surprised you haven't picked that up.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | October 13, 2006 1:53 PM | Report abuse

h

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2006 1:49 PM | Report abuse

"Hey, Repairman, online gambling is illegal!"

And that would stop a Republican because...?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 13, 2006 1:45 PM | Report abuse

"environmental policy run amok"

Boy, howdy, you got that one right.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"Lenny, Padget will win, bank it my friend."

Since the blackwellian elections of 2004, any time an Ohio Republican promises with unqualified certainty that another Ohio Republican will win, despite reliable polls to the contrary, its time to open up the Diebold machines and check them for bugs...

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Indeed and do we pay and pay and pay. what am I getting for all this. Bad schools, lousy retirement program, health care with no responsible party, environmental policy run amok, endless lawsuits. Enough! time to strangle that tax baby in its crib.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Another headline of an article in today's Post: British Army Commander Defends Call for Iraq Withdrawal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101300102_pf.html

This could have an effect in those races where the War is an issue.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 13, 2006 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Repairman, online gambling is illegal!

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"New Gallup data today: 2-3 months ago, Republicans held a 20-25 point lead among white frequent churchgoers. Now that group is TIED 47-47 on which party's candidates they will vote for."

And that was just the Foley effect, wait until "Tempting Faith" settles down into their collective psyche.

Do I hear someone whispering "the Evangelical left?"

If the Evangelicals abandon the neocons and start promoting Jesus and Peace instead of war and torture, that is what they (the neocons) will no doubt call them (the Evangelicals).

Their labels are always framed to match their need.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 1:31 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes, if you're so sure Joy Padgett will win, how much money are you willing to put behind that?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 13, 2006 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society." -Oliver Wendell Holmes

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 13, 2006 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Lenny, Padget will win, bank it my friend. Sean: Anything less than at least winning control of the house will be considerd such a major diaster there will even be talk about the demise of the democratic party. Sounds like already you guys are to try to spinning not winning the house. You will spin yourself silly why the rest of us just laugh. KOZ, I for one read and appreciate your logical well thoughtout postings. They sometimes ignore you because you scare them with facts they don't know how to refute. That's when they normally resort to name calling.

Posted by: bhoomes | October 13, 2006 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"JEP, the Post makes copy editing errors all the time. Some of them are funny if you watch closely! Look for stories when they're just posted to catch a lot of them."

Well, at least they "fixed" it.

abadon's bolero...

I'm disappointed, I was hoping for some entertaining ridicule from one of our trolls for misspelling "proofreader," but no one took the bait.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 1:26 PM | Report abuse

KOZ: " then observe how Studds was treated vs a very similar incident to an R at the same time."

You recall that Studds and Crane were treated the same by Congress. neither they nor Foley were expelled. O'Neill and Michel dealt with those guys quickly and with no cover-up. The voters in Mass made a different decision about returning Studds than did Crane's district (Studds was an outstanding leader on fishing issues in one of the biggest fishing districts in the country), but that does not excuse the go-along, get-along way Hastert et al. treated Foley. You cry about how it all came out close to an the elction, but hey, this could have been taking care of no later than last fall. Instead, Rove was recruiting him to run for Senate due to his fundraising ability.

Now the House leadership might now make a show about expelling Ney, but that's simply posturing about a lame duck close to the election calculation.

Posted by: jon | October 13, 2006 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink: I'm picturing a political cartoon with Hastert's three aides standing in a circle around Hastert and pointing their fingers at him. Or not, which is equally funny.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 13, 2006 1:22 PM | Report abuse

"I originally thought that Bush had some sense about him in 2000 when he said that what he had learned working in his father's White House was how to earn and spend political capital."

...talk about deficit spending!

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm unable to disagree with any of your picks Chris, although there are more that could be added, it is getting harder to come close to the number the repubs are going to lose in Nov. On any given day for the past two weeks or so another repub is being tied to the lobby scandal. I can't keep track of how many there are now and how many more will be involved before the election. More on the Foley deal is sure to come out and just how this will effect the leadership will be pretty well known by the end of next week give or take a few days.

Posted by: lylepink | October 13, 2006 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Poll released yesterday showed Duckworth ahead of Roskam by 3 points I think in IL-6 (they also show Speaker Hastert with a plummeting lead of 10 points; 52-42 in IL-14). It's probably just testament to how many seats are in play this cycle--the field keeps *expanding* rather than shrinking. Electoral-vote.com, which averages the last week of polls in each race, has climbed from 217 to 218 to 219 to 220 yesterday to 226 seats today (with 4 ties) for the Dems. I think 240 and *maybe* even 250 seats are not out of the question for Democrats.

JEP, the Post makes copy editing errors all the time. Some of them are funny if you watch closely! Look for stories when they're just posted to catch a lot of them.

I must say I feel so optimistic and vindicated about OH-15. Earlier this spring, the race wasn't even on anyone's radar screen, but I endorsed and donated to Kilroy back in December and have been championing the race since then. Now it's ranked #5 here and the NRCC is anguishing over whether to cut Pryce lose. The candidates debated last night which I listened to on WOSU, and while Kilroy seemed a little green and unpolished, Pryce was very angry and defensive, at one point saying she hoped for another question on Medicare Part D and would debate Kilroy 1-1 on the sidewalk outside if she didn't get one. Youch! Little Debbie flipped her lid!

We already have term limits; they are called elections. Why should West Virginians support term limits as they give Robert Byrd a 9th Senate term? Why should people in Massachusetts support term limits as they give Ted Kennedy his 8th full term? This is just internal hypocrisy or maybe cognitive dissonance. Term limits are undemocratic and shift more power away from elected officials toward lobbyists and special interests, as well as staff and bureaucracy. Just look at the states that imposed them and are now trying to repeal them or increase the number of terms officials can serve.

Yes, we can and should do a lot to clean up redistricting, and Rep. John Tanner (D-TN) has introduced a very good, constructive bill (which you can look up at http://thomas.loc.gov ) that ought to serve as at least a starting point for that conversation at the federal level. But term limits are a simplistic copout.

Yesterday, Gallup released data showing Democrats with a *23 POINT ADVANTAGE* on the generic ballot. That's up from a 48-48 tie last month, and is the best showing Democrats have had on that measure since before 1982. It ALSO found that Democrats have a 9 point advantage in the motivation of their supporters to vote on Election Day. This is turning into a major wave election, bigger than 1982, more on the scale of 1974 or 1994. bhoomes, if you are so confident otherwise, why are you so afraid to put your money where your mouth is?

Cook now classifies PA-4 as a 3rd tier race I think, "Likely Republican". Instead of Safe Republican. Check http://ww.cookpolitical.com and look for the House race ratings to be sure, and stay current on it.

New Gallup data today: 2-3 months ago, Republicans held a 20-25 point lead among white frequent churchgoers. Now that group is TIED 47-47 on which party's candidates they will vote for. Infrequent churchgoers and "all others" also favor Democrats, and have been trending toward Democrats this year, but those shifts are less dramatic--and telling--than the one among religious whites. I'm not even sure what voters Republicans *have* to get to the polls this year.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 13, 2006 1:18 PM | Report abuse

"There's a good reason liberal talk radio isn't successful: liberals don't need to be fed their beliefs."

Or their talking points.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Headline of article in today's Post: "President Praises Hastert at GOP Fundraiser in Chicago" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101201579.html

It may be getting towards the end of a heatedly contested election, but this is Alice in Wonderland stuff, absolutely weird. The "head" of the GOP going to bat for the guy who is going to lose the House for them.

I originally thought that Bush had some sense about him in 2000 when he said that what he had learned working in his father's White House was how to earn and spend political capital. His "political capital spending habits" now seem to be on a par with the GOP's in Congress.

A letter of support from the confines of the White House would be one thing, but traveling to Chicago for the personal appearance? Is reality banned from the White House?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 13, 2006 1:17 PM | Report abuse

GOP Information Minister says "One is a personal weakness, the other is using it for personal gain. see the difference? "

Huh. Hastert land deal didn't show up on your list. Nor did the Frist HCA issue, or the Allen stock options. Not to mention the White House using the 'nonpartisan' religious office to promote the partisan agenda - there's the real relevation in the Kuon deal. The "nuts" quote is just icing on the cake.

Posted by: bsimon | October 13, 2006 1:14 PM | Report abuse

JEP, for all the volume of words you produce, you never seem to actually arrive at any conclusion.
Are taxes good? Is national security valuable? Is education warranted? should special interests rule in DC? Is a giant federal government the appropriate mechanism for retirement, health care, envirinmental regs., etc.
not a sinlge Dem ever has anything to say about their weak positions on any issues that actually might matter to an America.

After you cut and run and we are attacked at home again, what excuse will you give?

After you raise taxes and the economy turns down, what will you tell the job seekers?

Two simple questions with no answers. the Dem legacy to come.

answer - 1.we will talk to them some more and get them to have pity on us. 2.We will create a giant government training program for you to find a new job. Of course, this will require more taxes.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 1:12 PM | Report abuse

YOU FORGOT ONE: AZ-01

Rick Renzi-R 46%
Ellen Simon-D 50%

Simon is such a top-notch candidate this result will hold. And is an amazing turnaround, reflecting serious anti-incumbant sentiments.

Rick Renzi, Mr. Corrupt for two seasons in a row, kiss your butt goodby!

Posted by: hazmaq | October 13, 2006 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Bhoomes, you are in fantasy land. Incumbants trailing in the polls just three weeks before the election usually lose. The Dems may not take control, but they will certainly win back at the very worst a handful of seats.

Posted by: Sean | October 13, 2006 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Chris -
Keep an eye on Wyoming's House seat. Barbara Cubin, the incumbent Republican, has never been popular. She's in a serious fight with a first-time candidate named Gary Trauner.

Trauner is from Jackson, Wyo., home of the esteemed Dick Cheney. Wa-ha-ha.

Posted by: Carson | October 13, 2006 1:09 PM | Report abuse

From Wispolitics.com:

WisPolitics: Pollsters Foresee Rough Waters For GOP In Wisconsin's 8th CD, Nationwide
10/9/2006

By Alec Loftus
WisPolitics.com

Republican pollster Gene Ulm concedes the nationwide desire for change and perceptions of George Bush as a "very unpopular president" could make things difficult for Republicans and John Gard in the largely conservative 8th CD.

"When (the 8th CD) elects Democrats, they are certainly not Brand X Democrats," said Ulm, who polls for the Gard campaign. He referred to Dem Steve Kagen, a wealthy doctor without a voting record like the Assembly speaker, as "a good candidate" for the seat...

Posted by: billpiel | October 13, 2006 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Poll released yesterday showed Duckworth ahead of Roskam by 3 points I think in IL-6 (they also show Speaker Hastert with a plummeting lead of 10 points; 52-42 in IL-14). It's probably just testament to how many seats are in play this cycle--the field keeps *expanding* rather than shrinking. Electoral-vote.com, which averages the last week of polls in each race, has climbed from 217 to 218 to 219 to 220 yesterday to 226 seats today (with 4 ties) for the Dems. I think 240 and *maybe* even 250 seats are not out of the question for Democrats.

JEP, the Post makes copy editing errors all the time. Some of them are funny if you watch closely! Look for stories when they're just posted to catch a lot of them.

I must say I feel so optimistic and vindicated about OH-15. Earlier this spring, the race wasn't even on anyone's radar screen, but I endorsed and donated to Kilroy back in December and have been championing the race since then. Now it's ranked #5 here and the NRCC is anguishing over whether to cut Pryce lose. The candidates debated last night which I listened to on WOSU, and while Kilroy seemed a little green and unpolished, Pryce was very angry and defensive, at one point saying she hoped for another question on Medicare Part D and would debate Kilroy 1-1 on the sidewalk outside if she didn't get one. Youch! Little Debbie flipped her lid!

We already have term limits; they are called elections. Why should West Virginians support term limits as they give Robert Byrd a 9th Senate term? Why should people in Massachusetts support term limits as they give Ted Kennedy his 8th full term? This is just internal hypocrisy or maybe cognitive dissonance. Term limits are undemocratic and shift more power away from elected officials toward lobbyists and special interests, as well as staff and bureaucracy. Just look at the states that imposed them and are now trying to repeal them or increase the number of terms officials can serve.

Yes, we can and should do a lot to clean up redistricting, and Rep. John Tanner (D-TN) has introduced a very good, constructive bill (which you can look up at http://thomas.loc.gov ) that ought to serve as at least a starting point for that conversation at the federal level. But term limits are a simplistic copout.

Yesterday, Gallup released data showing Democrats with a *23 POINT ADVANTAGE* on the generic ballot. That's up from a 48-48 tie last month, and is the best showing Democrats have had on that measure since before 1982. It ALSO found that Democrats have a 9 point advantage in the motivation of their supporters to vote on Election Day. This is turning into a major wave election, bigger than 1982, more on the scale of 1974 or 1994. bhoomes, if you are so confident otherwise, why are you so afraid to put your money where your mouth is?

Cook now classifies PA-4 as a 3rd tier race I think, "Likely Republican". Instead of Safe Republican. Check http://ww.cookpolitical.com and look for the House race ratings to be sure, and stay current on it.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 13, 2006 1:06 PM | Report abuse

JEP: was that Tariq Aziz?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 13, 2006 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Was hoping to see your comments on the TX 12th district race. This is one seat the Republicans probably wouldn't mind losing because it means they can get a pain-in-the-ass Ron Paul out of congress. Over the years Tom DeLay would allocate big bucks every couple years to try and get a Republican challenger to take Paul out in the primary. The party establishment hates Ron Paul. He votes against the war, he votes against all of Bushs' big spending plans and worst of all - he's got good constitutionally sound arguments for why he votes as he does. And the Republicans hate that.

Posted by: Mark | October 13, 2006 1:05 PM | Report abuse

There's a good reason liberal talk radio isn't successful: liberals don't need to be fed their beliefs. We can listen to music, recordings of sounds of nature, news reports, sports discussions, games, comedy, non-partisan talk shows, arts, and even silence--and still THINK FOR OURSELVES. Amazing concept for you, I realize, but it's true. It's not for nothing that the ads on right-wing talk radio are so overwhelmingly made up of get-rich-quick schemes, miracle cures, and crackpot books: those marketing guys are really effective at targeting the gullible and misguided elements of society.

Posted by: Staley | October 13, 2006 1:05 PM | Report abuse

W"I don't know a single person who voted for Bush"

what if it's true?

Think about it..

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Bhoomes, apparently, you are back to dreaming again...the only thing correct in any of your posts today was "Blackwell will lose." Oh, and by the way, he will lose by more then 12%.

Bankrupt Joy Padgett will lose, you can go to the "bank" with that....

Posted by: Lenny | October 13, 2006 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Everyone remember the pre-war Iraqi newscaster who continued to spout lies on Iraqi TV, about Saddam's army beating us in Baghdad, even as we were occupying the airport and oil ministry (not necessarily in that order)?

I think he's Zouk!

All of this troll's posts have the same sort of "ignorant defiance in the face of stark reality" ring to them.

I kind of liked the Iraqi guy for his chutzpah. He's a free man, to this day.

But Zouk better be a big-bellied fellow, so he can eat all those prognosticating words when the obvious is realized.

You can bet that all these apologists will find a new way to deny, they just keep defending their prejudices, no matter how wrong they are proven to be.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Bhoomes, apparently, you are back to dreaming again...the only thing correct in any of your posts today was "Blackwell will lose." Oh, and by the way, he will lose by more then 12%.

Bankrupt Joy Padgett will lose, you can go to the "bank" with that....

Posted by: Lenny | October 13, 2006 1:02 PM | Report abuse

There's a good reason liberal talk radio isn't successful: liberals don't need to be fed their beliefs. We can listen to music, recordings of sounds of nature, news reports, sports discussions, games, comedy, non-partisan talk shows, arts, and even silence--and still THINK FOR OURSELVES. Amazing concept for you, I realize, but it's true. It's not for nothing that the ads on right-wing talk radio are so overwhelmingly made up of get-rich-quick schemes, miracle cures, and crackpot books: those marketing guys are really effective at targeting the gullible and misguided elements of society.

Posted by: Staley | October 13, 2006 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Keep an eye on KY-03. The GOP incumbant was up by 6% eight weeks ago, then it was down to the margin of error. Now it is a dead-heat with both candidates at 48%.

Posted by: David | October 13, 2006 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Keep and eye on KY-03. The GOP incumbant was up by 6% eight weeks ago, then it was down to the margin of error. Now it is a dead-heat with both candidates at 48%.

Posted by: David | October 13, 2006 12:57 PM | Report abuse

One solace, you do have a couple of blogs where you can get together and pretend like you are a majority.

there was another - the conn. Dem primary. Look how that seems to be turning out.
"I don't know a single person who voted for Bush" - famous quote from a member of the NY press after the 2000 election. Think about it.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 12:56 PM | Report abuse

A company headed by the Democratic candidate for Mark Foley's congressional seat is being sued over what investors say is a fraudulent transaction.

another up and coming Dem fraudster.

licking whipped cream and adultery. That sure equates to using your office for personal gain. this is why you dems are laughting stocks in the real news world. you can't get your story straight about what is right or wrong and it changes every day. clinton does intern - OK, foley e-mails page - bad. Reid does land scam - OK, Ney forgets to report trip - bad. Pelosi starts second PAC - OK, Kennedy slinks off to prepare press conference after killing his conquest instead of just getting in her pants - OK, Frank hires pimp to work from his home - OK, Studds seduces page - OK, Moran gets loan from banker while voting on banking - OK, Jefferson freezer stocked with 90 grand - OK, Hastings impeached for bribery - OK. your retort, find some sexed up cheating to compare it to. I guess you should stay out of morality since you clearly don't know what is what with public office. One is a personal weakness, the other is using it for personal gain. see the difference? Neverhteless is is disturbing that you overlook it when a d is next to the name and hype it up when an r is ther. Is this because you can't be trusted with any of the issues I have mentioned?

I predict the loss of the election will have you screaming fraud over balloting. but why don't dems want to show picture ID as voting booths? answer, because fraud is their only hope. try to win on the issues if you are so convinced of thier merit.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 12:45 PM | Report abuse

The definition of irrelevance: posting to a blog that begins with the following "The House Line: Incumbents in Trouble" when you completely and totally disagree.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 13, 2006 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Watch for IN-3! Four new Dems from the "red state" of Indiana. Thank you, Mitch Daniels.

Posted by: Steve | October 13, 2006 12:42 PM | Report abuse

"...just give me a f*#+ing "faith-based" thing..."


Posted by: Karl | October 13, 2006 12:42 PM | Report abuse

"This country is centered-right and majority of people simply do not share your views."

You poor, self-centered-right Republican egotist!

What you don't understand is that only the small circle of people you consider "valuable" fit your description.

You're are so trapped in your own small world you actually believe it represents a majority.

Your own associates, as limited as they are in the scope and breadth of their understanding, really don't represent "the public" and now, without your imaginary "moral high ground," and the neocons no-bidding your party into disgrace, you really don't have an ideological leg left to stand on.

Just blind, ignorant loyalty to a bunch of bullies.

Your small world may fit your small description, but "the public" is something you have no concept of.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 12:37 PM | Report abuse

If Reid is guilty, take him out. Though I can't tell, are the right wing nuts talking about an investigation, or presuming guilt? Think before you answer, because Hastert has some land deals of his own under investigation. Then there're Frist's little financial pecadillos. And what was the news about Allen & stock options earlier this week?

As others have already posted, the Abramoff investigation churns away, its not yet clear how many more folks will get sucked into that black hole. The White House already lost one staffer - Susan Ralston, (now former) executive assistant to a certain Karl Rove. How many other WH staffers have resigned under a cloud or hours before an indictment? There was Libby, the shoplifter, anyone else?

Given other relevations about the Abramoff-Norquist deals coupled with the allegations in Kuon's book, its hard to find a Republican leader who's not at least tangentially related to scandal. Given the makeup of the GOP right now, its funny that some try to paint Reid as being part of 'organized crime.'

Posted by: bsimon | October 13, 2006 12:37 PM | Report abuse

KOZ:

Haven't you noticed that no one is paying any attention to your blithering nonesence? You keep spewing but nobody is listening. Sounds like you are ready for an asylum!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2006 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Two of the County Commissioners who voted to rezone Reid's land deal from
residential to commercial are Dario Herrera and Erin Kenny, both poltical
proteges of Harry Reid, who micromanages Democrat candidates. Both Herrera
and Kenny are going to jail in the GSting scandal for taking bribes not only
from a [strip] bar owner (thus GSting), but also from land developers and many
others. Big money, big crooks, no grey areas.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 12:33 PM | Report abuse

"I bet you won't have trouble finding Liddy, Rush, Ingram, Hannity, O'Reilly. I wonder why that is?"

That is because the FCC is one of the pawns in the neocon's profane collection.

Simple as that.

Clear Channel, Fox and thier talking heads aren't remotely interested in the public's well-being, only in harvesting their prejudice for power and their pocketbooks for profit.

(re; Minot disaster enablers)

This is a liar's club if ever there was one.

This list will be looked upon in the future much the same as Hitler's media machine before WW2. And Gordon Liddy (at least) should be broadcasting from a prison cell, now there's a Real American Hero...

(NOT!!!)

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Reading most of these postings, I see most of you still don't get it. This country is centered-right and majority of people simply do not share your views. This is why you couldn't even keep one liberal radio station on the air. (Noboby listening)and why we have many making tons of money because so many people are tuning in. One solace, you do have a couple of blogs where you can get together and pretend like you are a majority. Come Nov 8th REALITY IS GOING TO BE A VERY BITTER PILL FOR YOU LEFTIES.

Posted by: bhoomes | October 13, 2006 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Reading most of these postings, I see most of you still don't get it. This country is centered-right and majority of people simply do not share your views. This is why you couldn't even keep one liberal radio station on the air. (Noboby listening)and why we have many making tons of money because so many people are tuning in. One solace, you do have a couple of blogs where you can get together and pretend like you are a majority. Come Nov 8th REALITY IS GOING TO BE A VERY BITTER PILL FOR YOU LEFTIES.

Posted by: bhoomes | October 13, 2006 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Lest we forget RMill's list:

13. Bob Barr, (R-Ga)
Sponsored the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, saying "The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundation of our society, the family unit." Was married three times and while married to his third and present wife was photographed licking whipped cream off of strippers at his inaugural party.
12. Robert Bauman (R-Md)(1989) 
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist, was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
11. Dan Burton (R-Ind)(1998)
Republican Congressman who, while married, fathered a child by another woman.
10. Helen Chenoweth, Congresswoman (R-Id.). In 1998 she called (in a campaign ad) for Bill Clintons resignation saying "I beleive that personal conduct and integrity do matter". Days laters she admitted to a six-year adulterous affair with a married associate.
9. Sue Myrick,(R-NC) (
Congresswoman described herself as a "devout Christian." Committed adultery with a married man.
8. Don Sherwood,(R-Pa) (2005)Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Eventually admitted to an affair with a woman 30 years younger than him, after she accused him of physical abuse and attempting to choke her.
7. Ken Calvert, Congressman (R-Ca), champion of the Christian Coalition and its "family values." In 1993 he was caught by police receiving oral sex from a prostitute and attempted to flee the scene.
6. Ed Schrock, (R-Va)(2004)
Two-term republican congressman, with a 92% approval rating from the Christian Coalition. Cosponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, consistently opposed gay rights. Married, with wife and kids. Withdrew his candidacy for a third term after tapes of him soliciting for gay sex were circulated.
5. Dan Crane,(R-Ill)(1983)
Married, father of six. Received a 100% "Morality Rating" from Christian Voice. Had sex with a minor working as a congressional page.
On July 20,1993, the House voted for censure Crane, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct.
4. Ron Livingston (R-La)(1998) 
On the verge of becoming Republican House speaker when his career was upended by marital infidelities.
Livingston released a statement in December 1998 saying, "I have on occasion strayed from my marriage." The disclosure came on the eve of the impeachment debate involving President Clinton's relationship with former intern Monica Lewinsky. Two days after his admission, Livingston said he would not become speaker; he resigned from the House a few months later.
3. Donald Lukens, (R-OH) (2001) Congressman, was found guilty of having sex with a minor - a girl he was accused of sleeping with since 1985 when she was 13.
2. Bob Packwood, Senator (R-Ore.) Resigned in 1995 under a threat of public senate hearings related to 10 female ex-staffers accusing him of sexual harassment.
1. Mark Foley, (R-FL)(2006)
Resigned after trying to solicit sex from male congressional pages via an instant messenger program.
While some of the embarrassed lawmakers retreated to private life, virtually none of them were sent there by the voters.
Posted by: RMill | October 5, 2006 02:28 PM

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 13, 2006 12:26 PM | Report abuse

k

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2006 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Poor bob Ney. If only he had sold out for some real dough like Dirty Harry Reid did. then he could have afforded a lawyer and fought this thing until the end of time, in the clinton mold of obfuscation and delay, lies and deceit.
so now that Ney is gone I suppose that corruption is back to being just fine with you Dems. Just like adultery and sex with interns was once upon a time.

notice what happened to Janklow (R) - killed someone in his car as a result of a diabetic accident vs Kennedy - killed someone in his car as a result of drinking and sneaking off with a campaign worker. then observe how Studds was treated vs a very similar incident to an R at the same time. anyone really believe that corruption will decrease if the Dems get into power. I have a bridge for sale........

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"A "virtual Congress" would make both K-Street and Al Queda impotent in their ability to destroy the social foundations of our great country."

Talk about two birds with one stone...

This line deserved a re-post.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Things are about to get a lot worse for the Repubs and their hold on the religious right base and legislative majority.

On Monday conservative David Kuo... former deputy diector of Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives... is unleashing his book "Tempting Faith.... An Inside Account of the Rise of Christian Conservatives and Their Betrayal by the Bush White House."

The title kind-of says it all doesn't it.

Tune in to "60 Minutes" Sunday, Kuo is supposed to be a guest.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 13, 2006 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it interesting how Wall Street seems to be pretty happy about the continual Democratic Party advances in all the polls?

Every time there's another Republican scandal, and the Dems gain points on their R opponents, the Dow gins points on the big-board.

This is nothing new, and just proves the old cliche' "if you want to live like a Republican, you need to vote for a Democrat!"

Remember, recalcitrant "R's", you don't have to be a Democrat to vote for one.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 12:15 PM | Report abuse

F&B: this from the WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101201666.html

"State Sen. Kemp Hannon, a Long Island Republican who has spent nearly three decades in the legislature, also worries that the coalition of "Reagan Democrats" that D'Amato helped build -- "they were Irish, Italian and Polish Democrats and some Jews" -- is a thing of the past. "I believe that Bush has destroyed that whole thing," Hannon says. "It's not here any longer in the Northeast." And the parts of Upstate New York "not moving ahead economically whatsoever . . . feel it a great deal." Adds D'Amato: "It's very similar to an Ohio kind of thing," meaning that vulnerable New York Republicans are in much the same spot as their endangered congressional colleagues in former industrial powerhouse regions to their west."

I think partly in response to Foleygate people ARE waking up. I am reminded that certain people have sympathy toward tax breaks for billionaires based on the miniscule chance that they might be one someday. Many were also sympathetic to the GOP because they thought that of themselves as the realization of all those claims of high moral standards. Accelerated by Foleygate, Bush's amorality has finally managed to splinter this group.

Too bad he can't run again in 2008. The D's could nominate anyone they liked and win.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 13, 2006 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Judge;

As for a "virtual Congress" instead of a DC-based Congress...

Our homebound Congressmen could have their own Congressional satellite and redundant secure uplinks, and we could watch them interact on another "public" channel.

That way, in the event of a national emergency, our leaders would have a fail-safe communication system, regardless of land-line and energy disruption.

It just makes sense for national security, it is a great idea whose time has come.

But K-Street and Al Queda won't like it a bit. They would much prefer our Congressmen were all in one place, it just makes it easier to influence/attack them.

A "virtual COngress" would make both K-Street and Al Queda impotent in their ability to destroy the social foundations of our great country.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 12:08 PM | Report abuse

The 'liberal' WSJ sez...

'Democrats' wins in November might boost the economy, economists in the latest WSJ.com survey found.

Most economists said the economy would perform best in the coming years if Democrats take control of at least one chamber of Congress. Only 12 of the 35 who answered the question said the economy would perform best under continued Republican control of the House and Senate. The best scenario, the economists said, would be Democratic control of the House only. "

It "would do better if the geopolitical side wasn't depressing Americans and injecting caution in business sentiment. The psyche of Americans is surprisingly low. New blood can improve sentiment."

When asked what the new Congress should make its top priority, economists indicated their top two choices were health care and Social Security. Those two issues represent the difficulty of the aging U.S. population.'

Posted by: drindl | October 13, 2006 12:01 PM | Report abuse

I just dont get how the press couldnt wait to print Ney's comments a couple months ago that he was TOTALLY INNOCENT and that it was a Democratic conspiracy against him....

...and yet here he is a short time later PLEADING GUILTY TO CRIMINAL BRIBERY of the highest magnitude.

WAKE UP MEDIA. WAKE UP WAPO. WAKE UP CILLIZA. WAKE UP PEOPLE. The Abramoff Conspiracy is VERY real and VERY VERY criminal. And, I might add, it does go all the way to George W. Bush. The Republican Party is FULL of CRIMINALS.

Posted by: F&B | October 13, 2006 11:58 AM | Report abuse

JEP - really, get over yourself. Anything to keep away from the issues. Let's talk about how your party will
1 raise taxes and kill off this superb economy
2 cut and run and lose this war
3 continue to do nothing about education, energy, social security
4 investigate every rock, tree and bush regardless of cost or effect for political smear
5 appoint wacky judges who make up laws as they go
6 stick to junk science environmental policy
7 give citizen protection to our enemies who really are spies and should be shot
8 fix prices for wages, pharma, energy regardless of market conditions

but none of you Libs want to talk about this for fear of having your true intentions revealed for what they are.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"The only question: why doesn't Ney's prison term overlap with his time in Congress?"

Now there's an historic precedent, Ney would cast his final neocon-enabling vote from behind prison bars.

"R's always resign?"

Don't we wish...

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 11:57 AM | Report abuse

JEP, your idea: "I suggest in this age of instant information, that we bring em' home; our Congressmen, I mean.
Except for ceremonial functions, keep them away from the snakepit called Washington, staying at home with their constituency and let them debate online. Then the lobbyist's vultures would not have such easy pickins' they would have to send their operatives to every state in the union instead of running the world from K-street."

Sounds like a winner to me. I am reminded of a previous idea to move our nation's capital to Kansas City in time for the bicentennial in 1976. For identical reasons.

It'd be more difficult to force our representatives to march in lockstep and a lot of committee work would also become more difficult. However, the representatives themselves are sometimes so isolated from all of that that it may not matter.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 13, 2006 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Should have John Doolittle CA 4 & Pombo CA 11 on the endangered list as #26 & #27.

Posted by: Peter L. | October 13, 2006 11:55 AM | Report abuse

"we have a new scandal which actually involves some real money."

oh, I suppose Delay and Abramoff paid for the trip to Scotland with Monopoly Money?

Or maybe it was "wampum."

This is too easy.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 11:49 AM | Report abuse

F&B: you left out this interesting tidbit:
"Despite his guilty pleas, Ney did not resign his seat in Congress. His lawyer, Mark Touhey, told the judge he would do so before sentencing on Jan. 19. Under the Constitution, he'll be gone before then. His term expires when the new Congress is sworn in at noon on Jan. 3."

Another nail in the coffin of the "R's always resign" concept. The only question: why doesn't Ney's prison term overlap with his time in Congress?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 13, 2006 11:48 AM | Report abuse

"The Ney thing is old news."

Better look again, he's all over the media.

TODAY!

So how is today's biggest political headline "old news?"

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 11:47 AM | Report abuse

"Couldn't the incoming congress regain some respect with the American people if it elevated the political culture through reforms?"

We can only hope and pray they will...

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 11:44 AM | Report abuse

With the latest Abramoff revelations about Pombo, Ney may just be the beginning of the influence-peddling conga line heading that is to the big-house.

Chris, F&B has a good point, you really need to mention this stuff, if the truth were exposed, Ney's extended Delay/Abramoff octopus would surely show its tentacles and have a remarkable influence on many more of these and other races.

And, if the truth HAD BEEN exposed, Californian Republicans wouldn't have to be embarrassed by Pombo running again. He would have dropped out, like Ney and Foley did and like Burns and Doolittle will have to do, eventually, to face federal pay-for-play corruption charges.

Even if Pombo gets re-elected, he may not spend much of that time in office, and may spend more of it in jail. Doolittle may have even dragged his own wife into it, right along with the rest of them.

If the media was willing to make an issue of it BEFORE the election, they would save California Republicans a monumental embarrassment.

But clearly, Pombo's planning another stint in office, and won't take the Party's well being into consideration over hisown ambitions, despite the fact that the writing is already on the wall.

F&B is absolutely right on this one, if the media was willing to do it's WHOLE job, these scandals would be "out there" so the public could "adjust" our wayward government at the ballot box, the way our democractic republic always was intended to do.

Iif the Central Valley California voters, who will probably send Pombo to Congress again, were made aware of the truth by a vigilant media that wasn't just another corporate pawn, they might reconsider enabling one more book-cooker to continue their greedy deceptions.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 11:40 AM | Report abuse

How did we get to a place as citizens, where elections can be driven in a large part by focus group tested, marketing derived commercials? This environment isn't working for our elected officials anymore, let alone the voters (and non-voters). Don't we need some protection for the public to bolster the system? Couldn't the incoming congress regain some respect with the American people if it elevated the political culture through reforms?

Posted by: Pdoggie | October 13, 2006 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Oh yeah, forgot about that Kennedy. but being booze-soaked, pill popping, womanizing and over fed is the normal state for a Kennedy.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Anybody have any idea what is going on with the PA 4th? Does Altmire have a chance? What does polling look like?

Posted by: LJR | October 13, 2006 11:35 AM | Report abuse

The Ney thing is old news. we have a new scandal which actually involves some real money. See, Reid and 1 million dollars are now linked to influence peddling. berger (cover-up for negligence) has classified docs in his sox. Jefferson (bribes)still in congress. Mollohan (bribes) still in congress. Frank (pimp) still in congress. Kennedy (murder) still in congress. Murtha (bribes) still in congress. Hastings (bribes) still in congress. Moran (shady finances) still in congress.

I am beginning to think the best way to hide from criminal prosecution is to get elected as a Dem rep.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 11:34 AM | Report abuse

While I appreciate reading about Count Chocula in the Indiana 2nd, and whiney Chris Shays in the Ct. 4th, I wish that the "Fix" would cover some of the other races that "appear" safe for incumbents but have their own "singular" characteristics and neer-do-wells that continue to amaze the electorate by their resiliency. I point specifically to R.I. 2nd which has been and continues to be occupied by a drugged out, booze soaked juvenile, who has gotten as far as he ever will, but cannot be effectively challenged, because he is a "Kennedy". Will someone publicize these types for how they conduct their office and their lives? It is sickening the way they continue to be re-elected, with no credible opposition on the horizon. Democracy truly does at times bring out the lowest common denominator.

Posted by: L.Sterling | October 13, 2006 11:32 AM | Report abuse

So Norquist's a Muslim?

His new wife must be a VERY powerful INFLUENCE to convince this icon of western materialism to join her religion...

I figured he was a Swedish Lutheran.

Goes to show, you can't judge a neocon by his cover.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 11:22 AM | Report abuse

>>>17.Ohio's 18th District:

NO MENTION that Ney is pleading guilty today?

WTF is this a circus show or a political blog.

Chris Cilliza is either a SCAMMER or a SHILL or a VERY VERY VERY poor journalist. Or all of the above.

Rep. Bob Ney Pleads Guilty to Bribery
By PETE YOST
The Associated Press
Friday, October 13, 2006; 11:10 AM

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Bob Ney pleaded guilty Friday to bribery charges stemming from the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling investigation.

The Ohio Republican was the first member of Congress convicted in the scandal that has tainted the White House as well as Capitol Hill. He faces up to 10 years in prison.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101300169.html

Why did he resign Chris? Why is he pleading guilty Chris? Why is going to have to SERVE TIME in a federal penitentiary? Do you care? My response to you Chris: Get a frickin life.

Posted by: F&B | October 13, 2006 11:21 AM | Report abuse

For all asking about IL-6 and others, the article's title indicates that we're dealing with incumbents only here.

Posted by: Tracy | October 13, 2006 11:20 AM | Report abuse

air america declares bankruptcy. We always knew their ideas and insults wouldn't sell. the proof is now in. The NYT is about to be taken over since its stock is decling so fast. all the Lib establishments are going under. the reason - a bankruptcy of ideas. they might get a temporary 2 year repreive in one house of congress if they can just keep the subject off the facts.

Where are you today Larry - still in Lala land? Maybe you are tuning your dial in a vain effort to find al Franken. I bet you won't have trouble finding Liddy, Rush, Ingram, Hannity, O'Reilly. I wonder why that is?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 13, 2006 11:20 AM | Report abuse

What happened to Ohio 18 and Illinois 6? Do we seriously think that Bean and Barrow are in more trouble than Padgett and Roskam?

Posted by: Heim | October 13, 2006 11:10 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes: "Nov 8th is going to be a very black day..." I'm reading that as your prediction of rain for Ohio on that day.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 13, 2006 11:08 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes -
"We will simply get ALL of our people to the polls by hook or crook."

And considering the opposition suppression tactics of the past few elections, mostly by crook! GOP bless the culture of corruption. [misspelling on purpose]

Posted by: Daniel | October 13, 2006 11:05 AM | Report abuse

"We will simply get ALL of our people to the polls by hook or crook."

At least this admits that they are crooks(R), with hooks($)...

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Pelosi doesn't have to be Speaker to have influence.

Her tenure as the tough little California lady who stood with her hand clenched, courageously railing at the big bully Republicans for their lousy leadership, has already given her a respectable footnote in the history books of the future.

If that image of her doesn't appeal to you, you're probably one of the bullies.

Like a game of pick-up-sticks, any Democratic reshuffling after the election will resemble the Republicans' "Blunt/Boehner" surprise; no one will actually see it coming. T

he final slate of new leadership won't be known until the day it finally happens.

Until then we can only speculate or pontificate. But, then, isn't that part of what a blog is all about.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 10:52 AM | Report abuse

JEP, My understanding is that Norquist was famously single until last year, when he converted to islam and married a woman Daniel Pipes [radical winger for those who don't know] says is a 'radical islamist' and accuses norquist of sheltering groups who sponsored 9/11. I have no idea but there's some pretty amazing stuff on google...

'Alrayyes (now known as Samah Norquist) has radical Islamic credentials of her own; she served as communications director at the Islamic Free Market Institute, the Islamist organization Norquist helped found. Now, she is employed as a public affairs officer at the U.S. Agency for International Development - and so it appears that yet another Islamist finds employment in a branch of the U.S. government.

Grover Norquist has for some years now been promoting Islamist organizations, including even the Council on American-Islamic Relations; for example, he spoke at CAIR's conference, "A Better America in a Better World" on October 5, 2004. Frank Gaffney has researched Norquist's ties to Islamists in his exhaustive, careful, and convincing study, "Agent of Influence" and concludes that he is enabling "a political influence operation to advance the causes of radical Islamists, and targeted most particularly at the Bush Administration."

Posted by: drindl | October 13, 2006 10:51 AM | Report abuse

All I can say is that Nov 8th is going to be a very black day for the majority of people on this blog. Ths MSM continues to set you up believing there is no way you can blow this. Come on, Your dems for crying out loud, you always find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Padgett will win, and I suspect most incumbents will also win. The system is geared to favor them, no matter be they dem or rep. And seeing that Blackwell will lose, you will not be able to say we stole the election. We will simply get ALL of our people to the polls by hook or crook.

Posted by: bhoomes | October 13, 2006 10:40 AM | Report abuse

While Dems may complain about gerrymandering, you only need to look as close as VA-8 to see it in reverse. An 8 term, about to be 9 term, incumbent untouchable through many 'issues'. No leadership position; only on one committee, albeit an important one for distributing earmarks (which he voted not to disclose), apparently not terribly trusted by the Dem leadership (worked against the Dem leadership on CAFTA and other big issues). Back he goes!

Posted by: Dave | October 13, 2006 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Carrying over again from yesterday: That caucus with vultures could very well be in the House chambers. There are great stories about the politics which go on in the choosing of leaders by the caucuses.

"Speaker" Pelosi ain't a lock; even if there are 218+ Democrats in the House.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 13, 2006 10:33 AM | Report abuse

COME ON LUCAS! u can pull through. here's hoping to a Democratic Majority this fall. Would anyone else potentially like to see someone as Speaker than Pelosi. Personally, I would like a moderate from the midwest. Maybe someone like Diana MaGette or someone with ties there. Why not? I know she's not in the upper leadership of the House, but she can dispute some of the liberal claims of Pelosi. I would just rather our party begin to look for new leaders in places that are trending Democrat and stop relying on West Coast and East Coast Representatives.

Posted by: aaron | October 13, 2006 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Just had a funny thought about Iowa, Presidential campaigns and the rank and file punditry;

Wheresoever the CAUCUS is, there will the vultures be gathered together."

HA!!

Reminds me of the Spencer/Daschel event in Ames, Iowa this summer...

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Does seem strange that the Line contains so many "endangered" Democrats. Fair and balanced as always, I guess.

Posted by: Jim J | October 13, 2006 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Posted by F&B yesterday, but more relevant to today's topic:

Based on 63 polls of 48 districts of 1,000 likely voters each, they will show Democrats currently ahead in the House by 19 seats, 224-205

http://constituentdynamics.com/mw/2006/pdf/racesummary.pdf

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 13, 2006 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Dick Cheney has changed his schedule twice in the last few weeks to make trips to Michigan in order to raise money for Michigan House GOP candidates. This shows that the GOP is worried about some of these seats, even though no Michigan race makes the Line.

For example Wahlberg, the ultraconservative who defeated incumbent John Schwartz in the GOP primary has just a single digit lead over the Democratic candidate who was not given a chance just a few weeks ago. There is also a race in suburban Detroit where a incumbent Republican is being seriously threatened.

It looks like there may be many races missed by the Line. This is understandable, since there are 435 races across the country, and limitation of resources dictates that you follow only those races that you've heard might be competitive. In 1994, people were predicting some GOP gains in the House, but nothing like the tidal wave that ensued. It is impossible even in this age to keep an eye on so many races, so you ignore the ones that have been deemed safe in the past.

Posted by: Zathras | October 13, 2006 10:23 AM | Report abuse

"Weldon hasn't had a competitive race in two decades.."

...so much for term limits.

Does this fact offend anyone else as much as it does me?

It is the same all over, after '94, the bullies (Newt and Norquist's collective crew) had so saturated the system with redistricting and corporate money, an honest citizen with a real message just could not even get INTO the game, let alone run a competitive campaign against these Congressional hijackers.

Term limits (two terms for the senate, three, AT MOST FOUR terms for the House?) and automatic population-based redistricting to MATCH the demographics, not to MANIPULATE them.

AND HOW ABOUT A MANDATORY RESHUFFLING OF ALL COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP SLATES EVERY YEAR TO KEEP THE ENTRENCHMENT FACTOR FROM PERVERTING THE SYSTEM THE WAY IT IS DOING NOW.

Put term limits not only on the offices themselves, but on their committee authority, too.

There's an "opinion" editorial in the Seattle PI today everyone might want to peruse.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/pimail.asp?uid=38863&url=opinion/288523_alben13.html

This goes to the heart of the real problem; that our lawmakers are no longer engaged in real government, they are only playing politics, endlessly campaigning instead of governing.

Their attentiveness on the floor to the issues being debated is laughable, st best.

I agree with this editorial, and to take it one step further, I suggest in this age of instant information, that we bring em' home; our Congressmen, I mean.
Except for ceremonial functions, keep them away from the snakepit called Washington, staying at home with their constituency and let them debate online.

Then the lobbyist's vultures would not have such easy pickins' they would have to send their operatives to every state in the union instead of running the world from K-street.

"Wheresoever the carcass is, there will the vultures be gathered together."

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Intrepid Liberal Journal,
Gerrymandering has been with us for 200 years, and probably will be as long as we have our current Constitution.
I think that the current era of computer-generated gerrymandering started with Rep Burton of California (D) about 20 years ago. Tom Delay in particular has been audacious in the pursuit of districts drawn to maximize Republican representation since 2000.
The reason that it persists is that gerrymandering tends to insulate incumbents from competitive races, so many Democratic officeholders benefit from Republican schemes and vice versa.

Posted by: Mouse | October 13, 2006 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Maybe it's just another example of how many races are in play this year, but MN-06 should be a candidate for The Fix too. In polls that exclude Independence Party candidate John Binkowski, DFL (Democrats) nominee Patty Wetterling is ahead of Michele Bachmann (R) for the seat of Mark Kennedy (R) who is currently losing in his bid to move up to the Senate.

Posted by: bsimon | October 13, 2006 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Chris, seriously now, where is the Wisconsin 8th?

Polls during the last month have consistently shown Dem Kagen leading Repub John Gard. Both are well financed, but Kagen has really deep pockets for the end game. The only surprise here will be if Gard pulls off a win.

Posted by: WI 8th Gal | October 13, 2006 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Toolman - sympathetic to your point about term limits; but the main reason there is such a strong case for term limits nowadays is because the districts have been made so dafe for one party or another that it's very difficult for my preferred check and balance (aka "an election") on past-their-sell-by-date political hacks to work normally.

Remove as many unassailably safe districts from the process as possible (by taking the power to redistrict from the politicos and giving it to an independent - not bipartisan - commission) and the argument for term limits weakens.

Posted by: Adam | October 13, 2006 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, there's two fighting Dems I'm surprised not to see on this list -- Duckworth in IL-6 and Murphy in PA-8. Is it just that there are so many Dem prospects that not all could be listed?

This list seemed to err on the side of including challenged Dem incumbents.

Posted by: Adam B. | October 13, 2006 10:05 AM | Report abuse

"restauranteur Mike Whalen (R) with a 47 percent to 34 percent lead over attorney Bruce Braley (D)"

Zogby must have been polling bankers and corporate executives to get these results.

I think the DCCC's numbers are actually much closer than "The Fix" suggests, and while we will surely have to wait until November 8 to know for sure, this is a race to watch, to see why the pundits and the polls are so uncertain about the outcome.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 9:57 AM | Report abuse

What happened to IL-06? Anyone in the district knows this one is not playing well for Roskam

Posted by: DanIL | October 13, 2006 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Considering how rigged the system is to the GOP's advantage with gerrymandering, the current political environment illustrates how pathetic Republican governance has been. For them to lose their majority with everything they have going for them says it all.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | October 13, 2006 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Two words !! TERM LIMITS

There is a select few in Congress that have been there for so long they weild to much power and end up influencing the decisions for the country wich so happens to benifit the ones that give them the money to be able to stay in power

Posted by: Toolman28 | October 13, 2006 9:45 AM | Report abuse

I'm glad to see the OH-18 moving back up. Padgett was never going to win easy; her chances of winning were slim at best.

I don't see the Marshall seat as competitive as the Line does. It's South Georgia, not North Georgia - the southern half of the state has retained it's yellow dog Democratic past to a much greater extent.

Posted by: JoeyJoeJoe | October 13, 2006 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Is Grover Norquist married, with children?

Or is he another one of these single men with secret lives who hypocritically bash others who are open and honest about thier persuasions?

Just wondered.

There seems to be a real club of closeted control freaks running Washington these days.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 9:29 AM | Report abuse

"abadoned GOP candidate Randy Graf."

hey, us posters and trolls can make spelling errors, but you guys are "professionals" and should have profreaders...

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 9:17 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company