News What will happen in the 2006 mid-term elections?

[Gokul43201]

The Webb volunteer was of Indian (South Asian) descent, not native American. His name is Sidharth, but Allen calls him "Macaca" (a kind of SE Asian monkey).

[MEDIA=youtube]pL3Q9gUEvtA[/MEDIA][/URL][/QUOTE]Correction: The term [i]macaca[/i], as used by Allen, is the French-Tunisian equivalent of 'cool person'.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, the most recent polls indicate people have more trust in Democrats to handle Iraq than they do in Republicans.

Hmm - didn't realize that. That was different 4 years ago. I see the "neither" category is making the biggest gains. Certainly, though, the issue holds a lot of risk for Bush as well.

And only one poll has more people believing the Iraq invasion was a good thing than bad thing (Newsweek), and that's only by 49-47.

Well, I didn't say a majority/plurality - I just meant that there is little swing potential in that issue.

Dems giving an honest answer about what they'll do about Iraq is their biggest problem.

Well, that's the thing - with the election coming up, they'll need to talk about it more if they want it to be an issue. And like last time, talking but saying nothing will hurt them.

As for terror, if we don't have another attack in the US in the next 2 1/2 years, Bush can tie Clinton's record on terrorism (at least in the number of events, if not the number of casualties)...

The reality is we've had two terrorist attacks in the US in 13 years. If we don't have another before 2009, then Bush is maintaining par for the course. If we don't have another by 2017, maybe you could make a case for our anti-terrorism actions having an impact.

Well, there are lots of ways to look at that, tooo - Clinton failed to stop a rising star in the terrrist world, and 9/11 was soon enough after Bush took office that Clinton must share the blame.

Also, "record" is wins vs losses. Bush has had to come up to bat a lot more times than Clinton did (because Clinton failed to stop that rising star). Maybe it has mostly been one man (bin Laden, not Clinton), but radical islamic terrorism has been on the rise since the early '90s.

Also, you don't necessarily need to call it terrorism, but you won't gain a lot of fans by leaving the Cole and embassy bombings off the batting average.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Bush has had to come up to bat a lot more times than Clinton did

Not "had to"; he elected to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and do it in the particularly ineffective way he did. The contunuing bad news and low poll ratings in result cannot be blamed on anything that was forced on the President.

 

[russ_watters]

The price of gas (even if it becomes a bit lower, it will still be high) is not an isolated issue from the bigger issue of a poor energy policy...

Clearly. But energy policy in the US took a wrong turn in 1979. Though it won't help him in this campaign, Bush may well be remembered as the President who put energy policy back on track by restarting the nuclear program. And I think you overestimate the level of blame people will throw on Bush for gas prices. Frankly, my confidence in Democrats' understanding of economics is pretty thin, but many people DO understand the causal relationship between supply and demand. With Katrina a year ago and gas prices dropping now, I don't think Dems will be able to profit from that issue.

-- No one cares for Bush/Cheney and their oil backgrounds...

Sure, but so what? Without some reality to sink their teeth into, how will the Democrats be able to convince the votors that that is a real problem? To a lot of people it is an irrelevancy.

-- or the even bigger issue of inflation.

People keep bringing that up, but have you looked at the numbers? Neither you nor I are old enough to even remember the last time the US had an inflation problem. Bringing it up can only hurt the Democratic party.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt[/url] [quote] Rising costs are a general topic--not just health care, but education, and housing as well as energy.[/quote] Of course, but complaints about these issues are quite simply based on a misunderstanding of economics. Democrats can't win an election by being straightforwardly wrong. It is just not possible to convince people of things that are not true. [quote] Here is a link to an article last year on housing in Arizona, which is all the more relevant now. [PLAIN]http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0911affordable11.html [/quote] Excellent example of what I'm talking about. This reporter just plain doesn't understand the issue she is writing about. It topped out in 2004, but the current housing boom is a straightforward matter of low interest rates driving more people to buy houses, which drives housing prices up. Democrats cannot convince people who just bought houses that they can't afford to buy houses. Home ownership rates were reasonably good under Clinton, but under Bush, the records have been shattered.

What's more, the other 65% of households who already owned homes made a ton of money from the boom. Democrats will not be able to convince them that a 25% increase in net worth in 6 years is a bad thing.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/historic/histt14.html

I find it interesting that you and others think the economy is good when the median price of a home is $163,000 where local residents only earn a median of $17/hour, or worse where the median price of a home is $454,500 where local residents only earn a median of $21/hour. The American Dream is out of reach for most people now.

I find it interesting that Democrats choose to draw conclusions about what facts should be when there is data available that tells you how things are. You think that people shouldn't be able to buy houses, but the fact is that they can.

The Dems are not going to just target a certain problem within the economy such as health care, but more importantly how to increase incomes.

Unfortunately for Democrats, the 2005 income numbers came out last week: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h03ar.html

Last year's income gains for the bottom 20% easily wiped out the previous two years of income losses. We're passed the bottom of the cycle and incomes will continue to rise (which will be a huge problem for Democrats in 2008). Yes, they are still below what they were when he took office, but now that they are rising again, it will even be tough to claim that the stagnant minimum wage has hurt them...

This is why props to increase the minimum wage to a living wage will be their target.

The minimum wage quite correctly was/has never meant to be a living wage. Regardless, I renew my prediction that the Republicans will pass a minimum wage increase in the next two months, making it impossible for the Democrats to use the issue.

If the Republicans think the American people are cognisant of the games they are playing with legislation in an attempt to make Dems look bad, think again. Americans barely read or watch the news. Those like me who do follow such games can see how ugly the GOP is.

Uh, didn't you just agree with me (well, sort of - you partially missed my point)? Yes, most Americans will not see the games the Republicans are playing.

Sad, don't you think, that our futures are dependent on marketing rather than real caring for America? How odd that Republicans seem to be so proud of this.

Actually, you misinterpret my feelings on that. I'm not proud, I'm smug, because Democrats are losing their own game. I'd much prefer a country where the rightful winner of the 2000 election (John McCain) was in power, but for now I'm fine with one where Democrats consistently shoot themselves in the foot.

It must be a trait of capitalism as it has evolved. It is only important to win, the means do not matter, nor the destruction of the world if that is required.

The destruction of the world would pretty badly hurt a capitalist, so no, that can't be a capitalist trait. I see it as a trait of ideologues - from both sides. But right now, the idealogues in the Democratic party are doing more harm to their party than the ones in the Republican party.

And BTW, Kerry did not want attention focused on his war record, because he knew the opposition would twist it in an unfavorable way (per his previous campaigns), and the Swifties/GOP did just that.

Then someone screwed up badly when they opened his appearance at the DNC with a 20 foot poster of him in his uniform. In addition to that, as I've discussed in other threads and above, the PACS do more harm than good to the party because they can't see past their own ideology. The SBV existed a much as anything else, as a response to MoveOn's (among others) ongoing attacks on Bush's service record.

The mistake was that Kerry should have put a spot light on Bush's National Guard record before they had the chance.

I'm not sure where you were during the campaign, but the attacks on Bush's service record started long before anyone ever heard of the SBV. Heck, Bush's service record was an issue in 2000 as well. I'm guessing the PACs simply didn't realize they didn't have the same leverage (ie, the same candidate) in 2004 as they did in 2000.

 

[russ_watters]

Not "had to"; he elected to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and do it in the particularly ineffective way he did.

It is clear from his activity level prior to 9/11 that Bin Laden's star was on the rise before the invasion of Afghanistan, peaking at 9/11, not long after Clinton left office. Bush didn't allow Bin Laden to become who he is today: Clinton did. Clinton made no meaninful response to multiple attacks, which is a great prestige builder for a terrorist.

 

[BobG]

Dems giving an honest answer about what they'll do about Iraq is their biggest problem.

Well, that's the thing - with the election coming up, they'll need to talk about it more if they want it to be an issue. And like last time, talking but saying nothing will hurt them.

Maybe, maybe not. Right now, the strategy seems to be to blame Rumsfeld for things going so bad. There is no unified Democratic position on what to do now. The logical comeback should be for Republicans to ask what Democrats would do differently, but that holds a lot of risk. What if the logical answer is that there really isn't a better way to do things now - that this is the best conditions you could expect given bad initial decisions?

Well, there are lots of ways to look at that, tooo - Clinton failed to stop a rising star in the terrrist world, and 9/11 was soon enough after Bush took office that Clinton must share the blame.

Also, "record" is wins vs losses. Bush has had to come up to bat a lot more times than Clinton did (because Clinton failed to stop that rising star). Maybe it has mostly been one man (bin Laden, not Clinton), but radical islamic terrorism has been on the rise since the early '90s.

Also, you don't necessarily need to call it terrorism, but you won't gain a lot of fans by leaving the Cole and embassy bombings off the batting average.

I'd call both terrorism. The reason Bush has focused on the absence of terrorist activities within the US is because there's been an increase in terrorist activities overall. Some of that could be attributed to Bush and Iraq (at least the terrorist activities in Iraq), but it's a little like blaming rising crime rates on the police department. Our anti-terrorist activities may be effective or ineffective in minimizing our own risk, but there's a lot of other factors besides anti-terrorism measures that go into the overall rate of terrorist activities. Bush hasn't been effective against the global war against terrorism, but neither has anyone else to this point.

My point about Bush is that with such a small sample size, there isn't a valid way to judge our current internal anti-terrorism measures. Evaluations have to be fairly subjective. If he sells the public on the idea that his actions make sense (which he has for the most part), then he wins politically regardless of whether his actions really are effective or appropriate to the level of threat.

 

[Skyhunter]

It is beginning to look more and more like the 2007-2008 House of Representatives will be Democratically controlled.

While Democrats have been crowing for months, it is only over the past few weeks that nonpartisan analysts have identified enough likely victories for Democrats to pick up the 15 House seats they need for a majority.

Rothenberg predicts Democrats will win between 15 and 20 additional seats. University of Virginia political scientist and congressional race handicapper Larry Sabato projects the party will pick up between 13 and 19 seats. Cook identifies 46 competitive seats -- 36 of which are held by Republicans -- and predicts: "Unless something dramatic happens before election day, Democrats will take control of the House.''

As a sign of the growing acceptance that Democrats are poised to win, the National Journal asked 75 GOP insiders last week to assign a number between zero (no chance) and 10 (virtual certainty) to the likelihood that Democrats will take over the House. The average score was 5.7.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/03/MNG4FKUMR51.DTL

Is Nevada turning blue?

The first polls done since the Aug. 15 primary are good news for Democrats Dina Titus and Jack Carter.

Titus, the state Senate Minority Leader, is ahead of GOP Congressman Jim Gibbons, 46.8 percent to 44.1 percent, according to the Wall Street Journal/Zogby Interactive poll.

Carter, the Democratic challenger to U.S. Senator John Ensign, is in a statistical ‘dead heat’ with Ensign, according to the Wall Street Journal/Zogby poll.

The poll shows Carter is 3.4 percentage points behind Ensign, with Ensign at 48.1 percent and Carter is at 44.7 percent. The poll has a margin of error of plus/minus 4.3 percent.

http://www.rgj.com/blogs/inside-nevada-politics/2006/08/new-polls-good-news-for-titus-and.html

It is only one poll, but it is right after the primary, and I think people are starting to pay attention to the mid-terms now. A better picture will emerge during September, but this has to be an encouraging sign for Dem's in the Senate.

Arizona could be a surprise as well. The Dem's have more money for get out the vote efforts. Good turnout of one parties voters in an off year could be the difference in tight races.

The Arizona Democratic Party has a lot more money than its Republican counterpart — thanks in no small part to its ex-chairman.
Campaign finance reports filed late in the week show Jim Pederson has contributed more than $1 million to the Arizona Democratic Party.
That brings the party's total contributions for this election cycle up to $3.8 million.
And even after expenses, the party reports more than $1 million in cash on hand.
By contrast, the Arizona Republican Party lists its contributions this election cycle at $878,000. With its expenses so far, that leaves $263,842 as of last week.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/145006

And Pederson is a good politician. If this succeeds, he will have aligned himself with a very popular Arizona Senator.

In making the announcement, Pederson said immigration is his top issue and has endorsed a bill introduced by Arizona's senior senator, John McCain; Kyl has a competing bill. After formal remarks, Pederson said: ""Look, I'm an Arizona Democrat... I'm a businessman ... and I'm a fiscal conservative. I yearn for the days when pragmatic solutions were the goal, not partisanship."

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/203144.htm

I am starting to see chinks in the Senate armor.

 

[Astronuc]

G.O.P. Seen to Be in Peril of Losing House
By ROBIN TONER and KATE ZERNIKE (NYTimes, Sept 5, 2006)
Republicans enter the fall campaign with their control of the House in jeopardy and the possibility of major Senate losses.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 — After a year of political turmoil, Republicans enter the fall campaign with their control of the House in serious jeopardy, the possibility of major losses in the Senate, and a national mood so unsettled that districts once considered safely Republican are now competitive, analysts and strategists in both parties say.

Sixty-five days before the election, the signs of Republican vulnerability are widespread.

Indiana, which President Bush carried by 21 percentage points in 2004, now has three Republican House incumbents in fiercely contested races. Around the country, some of the most senior Republicans are facing their stiffest challenges in years, including Representative E. Clay Shaw Jr. of Florida, the veteran Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee; Representative Nancy L. Johnson of Connecticut, a state increasingly symbolic of this year’s political unrest; and Representative Deborah Pryce of Ohio, the No. 4 Republican in the House.

Two independent political analysts have, in recent weeks, forecast a narrow Democratic takeover of the House, if current political conditions persist. Stuart Rothenberg, who had predicted Democratic gains of 8 to 12 seats in the House, now projects 15 to 20. Democrats need 15 to regain the majority. Charles Cook, the other analyst, said: “If nothing changes, I think the House will turn. The key is, if nothing changes.”

Republican leaders are determined to change things. Unlike the Democrats of 1994, caught off guard and astonished when they lost control of the Senate and the House that year, the Republicans have had ample warning of the gathering storm.

The question is - "are the Democrats ready to do a better job?"

I would actually prefer a block of Independents, who are not beholden to the traditional special interests of the Republicans and Democrats. We need a legislative branch whose members write the laws rather than lobbyists and consultants.

It's time that the American People come first and that Congress takes care of the People's business rather than the enrichment of members of Congress.

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe, maybe not. Right now, the strategy seems to be to blame Rumsfeld for things going so bad. There is no unified Democratic position on what to do now. The logical comeback should be for Republicans to ask what Democrats would do differently, but that holds a lot of risk. What if the logical answer is that there really isn't a better way to do things now - that this is the best conditions you could expect given bad initial decisions?

I don't know - can you win an election using that argument? 'Things suck, but I wouldn't be able to do any better' doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the electorate.

The reason Bush has focused on the absence of terrorist activities within the US is because there's been an increase in terrorist activities overall.

Do you mean if you include those against US troops overseas? The definitions get a little tricky (which is why I wasn't sure about how to label the Cole), but when the Cole was attacked, the "war on terror" was not underway. I don't think attacks in Afghanistan or Iraq would go on that scorecard. The 'fight 'em there so we don't have to fight 'em here' argument tends to hold considerable weight.

Some of that could be attributed to Bush and Iraq (at least the terrorist activities in Iraq), but it's a little like blaming rising crime rates on the police department.

Well anti-organized crime police know about that issue: You do get stung more if you go after the hornet's nest. But again, as long as they are stinging our military, they aren't stinging the general public.

My point about Bush is that with such a small sample size, there isn't a valid way to judge our current internal anti-terrorism measures.

Valid or not, the argument that we haven't had a terrorist attack on US soil (and have thwarted several) will carry a lot of weight in the upcoming elections. It is simple, true, and easy to see, even if the reality of the situaiton is far more complicated.

 

[russ_watters]

It is beginning to look more and more like the 2007-2008 House of Representatives will be Democratically controlled.

One reason I'm skeptical of such poll numbers is because poll numbers themselves are a campaign tactic. The Democrats are cheerleading and I think they are unlikely to pick up as many seats as they hope.

Part what I think fueled the election 2004 conspiracy theories is the overconfidence/overhyped pre-election polls. As one of your articles points out - they are often wrong.

 

[Astronuc]

One reason I'm skeptical of such poll numbers is because poll numbers themselves are a campaign tactic. The Democrats are cheerleading and I think they are unlikely to pick up as many seats as they hope.

There is that, and they need to stop. What happens when they have to step up to the plate, i.e. if they win a majority of one or both Houses.

Part what I think fueled the election 2004 conspiracy theories is the overconfidence/overhyped pre-election polls. As one of your articles points out - they are often wrong.

I have heard the same from Democrats and political scientists. On the other hand, there were irregularities, but perhaps not more than usually. It just got attention because Ohio, like Florida, became the swing state.

On the other hand, Bush motivated his supporters, and Kerry, like Gore, failed to motivate his supporters. Then there was the 45% who did want either.

In 2004, Bush got about 51% of the 55% who voted - or 28% of the eligible vote. That certainly is not a majority of the population, and certainly not a mandate. Kerry got 26-27% of the eligible voters.

 

[wasteofo2]

Early September updates:

Montana: Burns has been cutting Tester's lead. As I thought, Tester's going to be repeating the same **** about Burns being corrupt over and over, while Burns has time to remind Montana voters that they've very Conservative, and that Democrats aren't. I'm no longer sure how this race will turn out.

Pennsylvania: Santorum is still down, doing a little better, but generally losing by 5-8 in recent polls. He's probably the only senator garunteed a loss.

Ohio: Brown has consistantly been up by 3-7 points in polls all throughout August, and at this point, looks likely to pull off a win.

Rhode Island: In almost every recent poll, Whitehouse has been winning by very significant margins. Rhode Island might have finally realized that they have someone with an (R) next to their name representing them, and that it's not a very good match at this point.

Missouri: Still very close, lead switching back and forth. This race will probably be decided by only several thousand votes either way. Bad weather in one part of the state, or a very small scandal or particularly good ad could easily swing this election the little bit either way to give either candidate a win.

New Jersey: Kean pulled ahead by 3 points in the latest Farleigh-Dickinson and Rasmussen poll. This race will probably end up going to Menendez just cause of general anti-Republican sentiment, but in any year, he probably would end up losing.

Virginia: What was once a 31 point lead for Allen has turned into a loss in the latest Zogby poll, which for the first time in the race has Webb ahead (by less than 2%). Republican fatigue, Allen's apparent racism, and Jerry Falwell giving Webb an A- personal rating have probably all had a hand in Webb's remarkable performace. It's far from decided, but it seems now that Webb and Allen can compete on equal ground for the duration of the campaign.

Tennessee: Ford's only down by a few points in recent polls. Still an unlikely pickup, but the odds aren't insurmountable. If he could come up with a good ad campaign, he might be able to sway the 3 or 4% he'd need to in order to affect a change.

All poll numbers linked to at this wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2006

 

[McGyver]

Bold Politcal Tactics can Pay Off

Bold political campaign tactics seem to pay off more favorably than not, by perhaps a 70/30 margin. Bush won reelection in 2004 by boldly scaring voters with respect to terrorism, and he has repeatedly and boldly used 911 and terrorism favorably for his own political devices. I believe Sen Kerry would have faired better in 2004 if he had been more BOLD.

Rep. Murtha garnished a lot of favorable support for his bold comments regarding the war in Iraq, yet as much as many Democrats even allowed him to be beat up - by not supporting his position. Some Democrat candidates have beaten Democrat office holders in recent primaries by boldly declaring their opposition to the war in Iraq.

Bush and Co. believes so strongly in BOLD political maneuvers that they recently and desperately began throwing around rhetoric about facism - and they got a favorable bump in the polls. I believe if the Dems had boldly attacked the facism rhetoric, it would have removed most of its favorable charm.

It seems pretty clear that whatever party and candidates are willing to come off more bold and brash will fare better than those too afraid to try. Sizzy sells steak! So - let the campaigns rip with fire-raging ads.

The Dems should be able to can get more popularity boosts out of 911 related ads because Bush and Co. have failed to capture Bin Laden. But if somehow - Bin Laden were captured prior to the election - it would create a major boosts for all Republican candidates. But the Dems can pull from images of Katrina, high gas and heating costs, and domestic job losses vs. cash rich U.S. corporations. The former Exxon CEO and his $400M compensation makes him a poster boy for the Bush administration.

 

[BobG]

G.O.P. Seen to Be in Peril of Losing House
By ROBIN TONER and KATE ZERNIKE (NYTimes, Sept 5, 2006)
Republicans enter the fall campaign with their control of the House in jeopardy and the possibility of major Senate losses.

The question is - "are the Democrats ready to do a better job?"

I would actually prefer a block of Independents, who are not beholden to the traditional special interests of the Republicans and Democrats. We need a legislative branch whose members write the laws rather than lobbyists and consultants.

It's time that the American People come first and that Congress takes care of the People's business rather than the enrichment of members of Congress.

Maybe we'd better off with some politicians with a little courage, regardless of party. Here's a an article from January 2003 (before the invasion) rehashing the Senate debate over whether to authorize Bush to go to war in Iraq: Week of Shame.

I think the author, Winslow Wheeler, was against the idea of invading Iraq, but his article (about 20 pages in length) focuses on the process that went into passing the legislation, not the outcome. The primary gauge of whether a Senator or Representative performed well or badly was based on whether they held true to their own beliefs or opinion, not on whether they approved or disapproved the legislation.

For example, he says voters should take pride in John Warner and John McCain (pro-war) and in Robert Byrd, Lincoln Chafee, and Paul Wellstone (anti-war).

The list of politicians who seemed to be living in an alternative reality (their comments said exactly the opposite of what their votes said) included Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Clinton, Nelson (NE), Voinovich, Hagel, Bayh, Dodd, and others (both Republican and Democrat - in fact, being a potential Presidential contender almost ensured an absurd denial of the reality of what they were voting on).

Biden came so close to making the 'pride' list, but then seemed to decide he'd better not lose ground to other Presidential contenders and managed to successfully depart the world of reality.

A debate like the Oct 2002 debate is something worth remembering come election time, both this year and in 2008. It kind of puts McGyver's theory to the test, even if in a more subtle manner.

 

[Astronuc]

I've been catching some of the results of yesterday's primaries.

Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island won the Republican primary there on Tuesday, fending off a bid from a populist challenger that the national Republican Party had feared would cost it a seat it had held since 1976 in an overwhelmingly Democratic state.

NY Times, Sept 13, "In Setback for Democrats, Incumbent Wins Republican Senate Primary"

On the other hand, Eliot Spitzer and Clinton won their primaries. Andrew Cuomo is running for Attorney General. Cuomo made a comment that he was going to run a positive campaign - in the same speech he was trashing George Pataki and George Bush. Problems in the NY State government have as much to do with the way the Republicans and Democrats have decided to share the spoils, and the way Sheldon Silver (D, Assembly) and Joseph Bruno (R, Senate) deal with Pataki.

The list of politicians who seemed to be living in an alternative reality (their comments said exactly the opposite of what their votes said) included Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Clinton, Nelson (NE), Voinovich, Hagel, Bayh, Dodd, and others (both Republican and Democrat - in fact, being a potential Presidential contender almost ensured an absurd denial of the reality of what they were voting on).

Pretty sad group of people.

 

[BobG]

The list of politicians who seemed to be living in an alternative reality (their comments said exactly the opposite of what their votes said) included Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Clinton, Nelson (NE), Voinovich, Hagel, Bayh, Dodd, and others (both Republican and Democrat - in fact, being a potential Presidential contender almost ensured an absurd denial of the reality of what they were voting on).

Pretty sad group of people.

Rumsfeld said you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.

The only way I can interpret what that list did was that they voted for the resolution they wish they had, not the resolution they had.

“Exhausting all efforts at the [United Nations]is essential ... . We must do everything we can to get the [United Nations] to succeed ... . Completely bypassing the [United Nations] would set a dangerous precedent that would undoubtedly be used by other countries in the future to our and the world’s detriment. It is too high a price to pay.”

Gephardt not only voted for, but was co-author of the legislation that authorized Bush to bypass the United Nations. But, technically, we didn't completely bypass the UN. We stopped in momentarily to embarrass ourselves.

“Our resolution does not give the president a blank check. It authorizes the use of U.S. military power only ‘to defend the national securityof the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq’ and to ‘enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.’

Lieberman was co-author of the Senate version of the resolution and stood in front of the cameras with the President to endorse it. Technically, what he said was true. Lieberman was instrumental in limiting Bush's powers to a blank check in Iraq vs. a blank check to wage war against the entire world.

His other comment was interesting, as well.

If we come to that moment where we have no other choice but war, then it is clear that we will have allies in good number at our side. That was one of the items we added to the resolution ...

I guess that's one way to get allies - just legislate them into existence.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world...

Well, at least she wasn't a co-author. Maybe she just didn't read it.

America must understand it cannot alone win a war against terrorism. It will require allies, friends, and partners.

If we do it right and lead through the [United Nations] in concert with our allies, we can set a new standard for American leadership and in-ternational cooperation.”

Even Republicans from Nebraska felt the need to say weird things when faced with a vote on this.

Biden's deliberations were the most poignant of all:

The president said he has not decided whether or not we are going to go to war. He said it is his hope that it can be avoided. Yet, for the first time in the history of the United States of America … the president of the United States is asking for the Congress to give him the equivalent of a declaration of war – to go to war– before the president has made up his mind.

But, later:

This is not a blank check for the use of force against Iraq for any reason. It is an authorization for the use of force, if necessary, to compel Iraq to disarm, as it promised after the Gulf War.

Well, technically, if you read the resolution, it is a blank check for the use of force for any reason. Perhaps he meant he had faith that Bush would only use that blank check appropriately?

 

[Astronuc]

Rumsfeld said you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.

That is such a pathetic and lame statement. Bush planned to invade Iraq in 2000 - before he came to office. Bush became president Jan 20, 2001, and the US forces invaded on March 20, 2003. In two years and two months, these guys didn't have time to prepare?

No Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al had personal agendas and they did not care enough for the lives of the US troops and the innocent people in Iraq.

And now today I've learned that the CIA is suppose to doctor their analyses to support the view of the Bush administration (I still have to follow-up on this allegation, but it is consistent with other information). It's bad enough when it comes to health care, the environment and education, but to mislead the people and Congress in foreign policy, especially when it involves a protracted military action, is utterly unconscionable, and probably criminal.

With regard to the vote on the resolution that gave Bush the power to exercise the military option, where were the members of the House and Senate Intelligence committees? Where was the oversight? Where were they during the 1980's and 1990's, when the CIA and intelligence communities were warning of blowback and al Qaida. With a flurry of travel warnings, especially the increase in 1999 and 2000, it didn't occur to these people that the US could be attacked? Well, the Republicans were focussed on trying to remove Clinton from office, besides the fact that Dems and Reps were trying to get re-elected in Nov 2000.

 

[Gokul43201]

NY Times, Sept 13, "In Setback for Democrats, Incumbent Wins Republican Senate Primary"

This is a bad thing for the dems because Chafee is a very moderate Republican, and will pose a much bigger threat to Whitehouse (the Democratic candidate) than Laffey could have. Polls I saw last week showed Chafee and Whitehouse neck to neck, but Laffey was almost 20 points behind Whitehouse (on head to head).

 

[Skyhunter]

This is a bad thing for the dems because Chafee is a very moderate Republican, and will pose a much bigger threat to Whitehouse (the Democratic candidate) than Laffey could have. Polls I saw last week showed Chafee and Whitehouse neck to neck, but Laffey was almost 20 points behind Whitehouse (on head to head).

That should be an interesting race to watch.

With the poor calibre of statesmen that this Congress has produced, I certainly hope that we can elect a higher quality Congress in 2006 and 2008.

We already got rid if the worst of them, Delay, Ney, Jefferson, and Cunningham through indictment, or impending indictment. Now if we can manage to get some decent replacements, and have a large incumbent turnover, it is possible we might see a shift in the direction of leadership in this country.

I am not however holding my breath. A Democratic Congress would be preferable, but I would settle for any Congress that would do it's job. Having the House and Senate switch parties however would be the surest way to change leadership. Not only new leadership but leadership motivated to stop Bushco.

Then let us see if they can establish a unitary executive.

 

[Skyhunter]

One reason I'm skeptical of such poll numbers is because poll numbers themselves are a campaign tactic. The Democrats are cheerleading and I think they are unlikely to pick up as many seats as they hope.

I have seen the cheerleading polls. Those are the ones that are cherry picked, while ignoring other less favorable polls. Here is website that explains the myths about polls and shows how polls do reflect public opinion.

The poll that is most telling however in this case is that 52% of Americans do not trust Bush. Therefore, logically they are not going to be happy with their Representative, if said Representative has been a Bush enabler. The other problem is that most of the issues favor Democrats. Here is the http://people-press.org/reports/cache.php?ReportID=289 from the Pew Research Center from today. Republicans are in trouble in the House, no question about it. Will the Dem's be able to get the Senate... I would have said no, but now I think it is possible, call it a coin flip.

Part what I think fueled the election 2004 conspiracy theories is the overconfidence/overhyped pre-election polls. As one of your articles points out - they are often wrong.

I think it is much simpler than that. 2 presidential elections decided by 1 very close race in the state that Bush's campaign chair was also in charge of conducting the election. Machines that are not audit-able, long lines in Democratic precincts, blanket felons lists, etc. etc. etc. These are not theories, these things happened. Why they happened is not as important as how do we stop them from happening again.

Now the big GOP push is to require an ID to vote. Disenfranchisement and voter suppression is the meat and potatoes of the GOP's strategy. Couple that with the anti-immigrant hate initiatives to mobilize the republican redneck base, and there you have the makings of a neo-republican mid-term.

Unfortunately for them, I know a lot of redneck republicans that are fed up with Bush and his rubber stamp Congress. They might vote to ship all the illegals back to where they came from, but they plan to vote for the democratic or third party Representative.

 

[BobG]

Looks like Democrats are picking up at least one seat in the House that they didn't expect.

Rep Foley resigns over e-mails to 16 year old page

 

[edward]

Jack Abramoff He's baaack

It is going to be interesting to see how the White House justifies their previous claim of having only limited contact with Abramoff.

Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Lobbyist Jack Abramoff claimed in billing records that he and his associates had at least 485 contacts with White House officials during the Bush administration's first term, according to a report by a U.S. House panel.

Abramoff, 47, claimed he personally had at least 66 contacts with White House officials, including at least 10 with White House chief political adviser Karl Rove, according to the yet-to- be-released report by the House Committee on Government Reform. Bloomberg News obtained a copy of the study, which was first reported last night by ABC News.

``Abramoff was selling information and entrée that shouldn't need to be bought while making his clients pay inflated fees for access and influence which shouldn't be for sale,'' wrote committee chairman Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, and ranking Democrat Henry Waxman of California.

The new information about Abramoff's contacts with the White House may refocus attention on the influence of lobbyists in Washington six weeks before House and Senate elections.

 

[Astronuc]

It is going to be interesting to see how the White House justifies their previous claim of having only limited contact with Abramoff.

Yeah . . . Sure . . . I think there is at least one picture of Bush with Abramoff in the background . . . at the Whitehouse, IIRC.

http://indianz.com/News/2006/012514.asp

"It's not, as photos for a superlobbyist's power wall go, a terribly impressive shot: President Bush, his back to the camera, shaking the hand of Raul Garza, chief of the Kickapoo tribe of Texas. In the foreground, Karl Rove, smiling at a 2001 White House meeting to promote the president's tax cuts. And there at the back of the room, only his slightly blurry head visible, the chief's lobbyist: Jack Abramoff. Which, of course -- along with the refusal of the Bush administration to release information about what Mr. Abramoff was doing at the White House, how often he was there and with whom -- is what makes the picture a big deal.

Kim Eisler of Washingtonian magazine has reported that the disgraced lobbyist met with Mr. Bush almost a dozen times over the past five years and was invited to the president's ranch in Crawford, Tex., in 2003. According to Mr. Abramoff, who raised at least $100,000 for Mr. Bush's reelection, the president was once well acquainted enough with the lobbyist (or at least well briefed enough) to inquire about his twins. But now, as in the photo, Mr. Abramoff somehow has gone blurry in Mr. Bush's memory. The president doesn't recall meeting or posing for pictures with him.

Mr. Rove's memory is fuzzy, too, as luck would have it. His name, according to the Associated Press, was rather routinely dropped by Mr. Abramoff as his big White House contact. Mr. Abramoff's former assistant, Susan Ralston, went to the White House to work for Mr. Rove, and, the Associated Press reported yesterday, Mr. Rove's office helped set up a 2002 meeting between Mr. Bush and the prime minister of Malaysia, another Abramoff client. One Abramoff business associate reported being in the lobbyist's office when Mr. Rove's office called to confirm the meeting."

Is this a Republican thing where Republican presidents get amnesia. Bush is much younger than Reagan, who apparently stopped remembering about 1986. Shades of Iran-Contra.

 

[Astronuc]

I was listening to Marketplace on NPR. They were wondering if the legislative branch of the federal government was broken.

Starting Monday, Marketplace will feature - The Real Agenda.

Election day is November 7, and the politicians are buying ads and making speeches. But are they taking on the problems we really care about?

Marketplace set out to answer that question. We reviewed polls, talked to analysts and put our ear to the pavement with a new tool: Public Insight Journalism. We came up with feature stories, interviews and commentaries that make up our election coverage. We're calling it The Real Agenda. It's Your Agenda.

Many people shared their thoughts on the obvious, big issues of the day: Iraq, gas prices, health care, and immigration. But we also heard about issues that aren't on the national political radar, but are important: the "crunched" middle class, government accountability, climate change, and more.

To cover the Real Agenda, reporters are finding out how states are wrestling with problems that Congress has ignored. We've invited top commentators to tackle the Real Agenda. And we've asked Marketplace commentators Robert Reich and David Frum to debate solutions for the problems voters care about most.

Want to share your Real Agenda? Click here. By responding, you'll be joining the Public Insight Network and signing up to help Marketplace and other American Public Media programs report the news.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/realagenda/about.html

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/realagenda/index.html

 

[Astronuc]

For senators, pride goeth before the fall election
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/09/29/PM200609295.html

JEFF BIRNBAUM: The Senate is a bit too self-important. It thinks its members are above letting the public know in a timely way how much money they collect and spend for their elections.

Candidates for the House, the White House, plus every other type of political organization — from lobbyists to independent groups called 527s — have to file their campaign-finance reports via the Internet.

When that happens people can see which special interests are pouring money into campaigns at the moment those campaigns most need it most. That can be a pretty good indicator of the sorts of policies that legislator may later push.

But the Senate is exempt from the fixed eye of cyberspace.

That body has declined to vote itself into the 21st Century, though it's done that with every one of those other entities.

As it is, senators and Senate candidates deliver their reports on paper, even though those reports are written on computers.

The government then spends hundreds of thousands of dollars having the documents listed in an expensive computer system that is not searchable. Goodbye useful information.

The result: voters don't know in the last critical months before an election, including this one, how much their candidates for Senate are spending and who is bankrolling them.

After the election, when they do find out, it's too late to vote a different way. If that's not arrogance, I don't know what is!

! is my edit.

Isn't it time for a change?

Get involved! and VOTE in November!

 

[Astronuc]

Polls Find Voters Are Restless with Incumbents
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6168159

All Things Considered, September 29, 2006 · Recent polls depict American voters having anti-incumbent sentiments similar to the levels of 1994, when the House shifted from the incumbent Democratic majority, to a newly elected Republican majority. Michele Norris talks with Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

Gee - I wonder why?

 

[Astronuc]

So, with the Abramoff scandal, Bob Woodward's book "State of Denial", and the Mark Foley scandal, what is going to happen next? and in five weeks?

What is happening in Hastert's district?

Interesting times.

 

[edward]

Odd that Republican media and web sites keep claiming that this is the October surprise that the Democrats had promised.

It seems to me that it was Karl Rove who in September promised an October surprise that would win in November.

edit: Here it is. It appears that Rove's October surprise is still to come. The spin man has not yet spun.

WASHINGTON -- In the past week, Karl Rove has been promising Republican insiders an "October surprise" to help win the November congressional elections.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/20/141615.shtml?s=lh

 

[McGyver]

Odd that Republican media and web sites keep claiming that this is the October surprise that the Democrats had promised.

It seems to me that it was Karl Rove who in September promised an October surprise that would win in November.

It appears that Rove's October surprise is still to come. The spin man has not yet spun.

Rove appears to have made the incorrect move in his support of Hastert as House Speaker. Where goes Hastert - goes the House of Reps!

 

[BobG]

Rove appears to have made the incorrect move in his support of Hastert as House Speaker. Where goes Hastert - goes the House of Reps!

I disagree.

You're criticizing him for choosing not to leap from the frying pan into the fire. If Republicans jumped, the best that could be said is that it would be a quick and certain end. Bouncing around the skillet may be more painful, but, hey, who knows, they might get lucky and bounce somewhere better than the fire.

If Hastert left, all it would do would be to allow the sights to be set on the next target down. It's going to be bad for Republicans regardless. If Hastert, Boehner, and Reynolds all resign, then the landslide in November will be even worse than what will probably happen with Dems focusing on Hastert.

 

[Astronuc]

Foley, Iraq Cause Headaches for GOP
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6209640

Day to Day, October 6, 2006 · NPR senior correspondent Juan Williams talks with Madeleine Brand about how the unfolding scandal surrounding disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), plus a spike in violence in Iraq, is causing Republican political candidates headaches as the November nationwide elections approach.

If Hastert left, all it would do would be to allow the sights to be set on the next target down. It's going to be bad for Republicans regardless. If Hastert, Boehner, and Reynolds all resign, then the landslide in November will be even worse than what will probably happen with Dems focusing on Hastert.

Like any captain, Hastert has to go down with the ship, which hopefully will be the case in November.


Will Mark Foley End the GOP Reign?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6195951

NPR.org, October 4, 2006 · There was, of course, the war. And President Bush's polling numbers. Uneasiness about the economy. The response to Katrina. Throw in a little Jack Abramoff.

But if the Republican Party is going to forfeit the control of Congress it has held since 1994, it may be its response to the escapades involving Mark Foley, the Florida House member who resigned his seat in disgrace, that does the trick.

There's still five weeks to go, and the momentum could shift. But the revelations about Foley, his salacious e-mail and instant-message history with underage males who had worked as congressional pages, and questions about who in the Republican leadership knew about these goings on -- and whether or not they did anything to stop it, or cover it up -- have struck a chord around the country. It's one thing to harp on the scandal involving Abramoff, the convicted lobbyist who distributed favors to his political pals, mostly Republican. For the most part, the reaction around the country to lawmakers on the take was "what else is new?"

 

[Astronuc]

Wall Street's political cash favors Democrats
http://elections.us.reuters.com/top/news/usnN06393176.html/?src=092906_MARKETING_CMS_ElecMidArt
By Tim McLaughlin

ST. LOUIS (Reuters) - Wall Street has shifted its allegiance in the 2006 election cycle by donating more to Democrats than Republicans who have been the investment banks' usual benefactors, U.S. Federal Election Commission data show.

Five leading firms Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Bear Stearns Companies Inc.,Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch & Co. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. have contributed $6.2 million so far to candidates before the November elections, with about 52 percent going to Democrats.

"People give ideological money and they give money to people they think are going to win," said Maurice Carroll, director of Quinnipiac University's Polling Institute in Hamden, Connecticut. "It looks like it's going to be a good year for Democrats."

Despite being awash in record profits, Wall Street executives, investment bankers, brokers and traders may be getting weary of Republican control, Carroll said. President Bush's polling numbers are low and growing violence in Iraq also weighs heavy on Republican leadership, he said.

Meredith McGehee, policy director at The Campaign Legal Center, said Wall Street also may be concerned about the U.S. deficit, which has ballooned during the Bush administration.

"The last time the deficit was under control was under the Democrats," McGehee said.

Still, it's unlikely Wall Street would embrace higher taxes, a move some Democrats favor to cut the deficit.

The 2006 election cycle that began Jan. 1, 2005, marks the first time in a dozen years that securities firms' donations have skewed leftward, according to analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks political contributions.

Democrats have received $23.8 million from Wall Street compared to $21.7 million for Republicans. Over the previous five election cycles, Republicans captured 52 to 58 percent of the industry's political donations.

About 80 percent of the contributions from the industry comes from employees. The rest comes from political action committees, which remain loyal to Republicans for lowering tax rates on dividends and capital gains, for example.

Wall Street - the bastion of capitalism - are turning away from the GOP!?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As one of the talking heads noted today: It would take a nuclear detonation [in N. Korea] to change the subject!

Rummy replied: I can manage that!

 

[BobG]

If you're a Republican candidate, sometimes you must wonder why you even get out of bed in the morning.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_5040148,00.html

Lamborn is the Republican candidate in a district where Republicans outnumber Democrats 190,000 to 89,000. He can't get the endorsement of the retiring Republican Congressman from his district. He can't get the endorsement of his primary opponent.

Lucky for Lamborn, he did get Hastert's support for a spot on the House Armed Services Committee should he win - a slot that's critical to a town with five military bases. That's sure worth a lot now.

Unbelievably, this district has moved to 50th on the "most likely to swap party" list. (Of course, that was before Foley's district suddenly jumped to number 1)

 

[McGyver]

Democrats may not get big post Foley scandal election boost

In spite of all what has been reported on the Foley scandal's anticipated impact on the November elections, the Foley scandal was ranked as 4th yesterday in an ABC poll. ABC World News October 9th reported the latest poll of voter sentiments of Foley scandal in upcoming election at 18%, with Iraq way at the top, terrorism, the economy next, and then the revellations of the Foley scandal. I have looked and looked and cannot find the ABC poll I quote from last night - if any of you can.

This poll would suggest that Dems are not getting the election boost that is being widely reported, and the Dems must continue to work hard to make their case known before the election.

As for any real impact of the Foley scandal in next month's election, it will have to emerge thru a revolt of a breach of the Republican's moral values Contract with America, and not thru Congressional corruption as many now think.

True conservatives will accept a certain amount of corruption as a "means to an end" in achieving their objectives and agenda. This is ever so apparent in how the Catholic church managed to keep the clergy molestation issue under wraps for hundreds of years. It only reached a crisis point when victims and their attorneys pushed the morality buttons!

Dems should NOT look to get a big boost from the Foley House corruption aspect of the scandal, but rather thru voter sentiments of a breach of the "moral values" clause, and which party is viewed as more committed to this end.

 

[BobG]

Unbelievably, this district has moved to 50th on the "most likely to swap party" list. (Of course, that was before Foley's district suddenly jumped to number 1)

Err, make that moved to a dead heat between Fawcett and Lamborn! State's 5th District a tossup The poll was taken last week while interest in the Foley scandal was fresh, so that result of 37-37 has to be somewhat artificial.

Although, if the debate they had last week got any real air time, Lamborn would be toast. He had obviously never been in a debate before in his life. Highlight of the debate, and the most widely shown video of the debate, was [MEDIA=youtube[/URL]. Sad, sad, sad to see Republicans nominate a candidate that bad solely because he has the backing of Christian Conservatives.

Still, I sure wish I could change my prediction of 5-10. I think the new prediction [b]by Republicans[/b] is 7 to 30 seats lost to Dems.

 

[Astronuc]

Foley Hurting Congress’s Image, Poll Shows
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/us/politics/10poll.html

With four weeks left before Election Day, the poll indicates that the scandal involving Mr. Foley, a former Republican congressman from Florida, is alienating Americans from Congress, and weakening a Republican Party that was already struggling to keep control of the House and Senate. By overwhelming numbers, including majorities of Republicans, Americans said that most members of Congress did not follow the same rules of behavior as average Americans, and that most members of Congress considered themselves above the law.

“Politics goes to people’s heads and they see themselves as their own little entity,” said Donna Mummert, 68, a Republican from Marsing, Idaho, in a follow-up interview after participating in the poll. “They forget why they’re there to represent us.”

Well, the incumbents in congress are the same people and same values that were there from the beginning. They were elected with these values.

Maybe it's time to seriously think about independent candidates, and stop voting for the party.

 

[Skyhunter]

Maybe it's time to seriously think about independent candidates, and stop voting for the party.

The only way that will happen is with public financing of elections. Coupled with free air time for candidates to say something substantial.

If ads were banned, and replaced with substantive debates, the electorate might become slightly more educated.

I am personally in favor of instant runoffs. Where you have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice. This way voters could select the candidate they want, instead of the lesser evil with a chance to win. Maybe with a system like this, third party candidates would have a more equal playing field. If nothing else it would force the two national parties to be more responsive to their districts.

 

[BobG]

Foley Hurting Congress’s Image, Poll Shows
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/us/politics/10poll.html

Well, the incumbents in congress are the same people and same values that were there from the beginning. They were elected with these values.

Maybe it's time to seriously think about independent candidates, and stop voting for the party.

Or maybe voters should seriously think about showing up for the primaries. It's pretty sad when 5% of a district's population can pretty much ensure a candidate's election just by attaching a letter to their name come time for the general election.

 

[Astronuc]

If ads were banned, and replaced with substantive debates, the electorate might become slightly more educated.

And people would be crying about "freedom of speech" or "free speech". It is amazing how much "free speech" costs. But then again "money talks", and politicians listen.

Or maybe voters should seriously think about showing up for the primaries. It's pretty sad when 5% of a district's population can pretty much ensure a candidate's election just by attaching a letter to their name come time for the general election.

Agreed. I remember my civics/government class in 8th grade when we watched movies from the 60's about the political process. The gist of it was that citizens attended community meetings - usually a specific party function and/or a debate between party candidates. It is rare to see a substantitive debate these days. Then good citizens are supposed to vote. I like the Australian idea of mandatory voting.

There plenty of rallies which are orchestrated, but it seems politicians control the political process rather than the people. Gee, the seems more like Russia and China! Aren't we supposed to be different?

 

[BobG]

The media is missing a real story in the House elections. And they're not just missing a story about the 2006 elections. Jay Fawcett, the Democratic candidate, might be a story that goes beyond just this election.

They completely ignored Colorado's 5th because Republicans outnumber Democrats 2-1 and because they've had a Republican Representative for their entire history.

Even people in the 5th missed this race. A lot of Republicans are flat out pissed at how the primaries turned out and have focused on how bad their Republican nominee is.

What no one expected was a very good Democratic candidate in Fawcett. A bad opponent may have opened the door, but you don't pull even in the polls when you're outnumbered 2-1 in voters and $275,000 to $30,000 in campaign funds just because of a bad candidate.

To be fair, Lamborn probably spent virtually all of his funds on the primary since common sense tells you that's the only election he needed to worry about. Considering the bad blood generated in the primaries, I'm not sure Lamborn is finding it easy to raise funds either.

Suddenly, the DNCC has noticed the district. They had been focusing on unseating Marilyn Musgrave from Colorado's 4th district, but that hasn't panned out. This week, they pulled $630,000 in planned TV advertising away from Musgrave's opponent and have decided to use it to help Fawcett.

This guy has an open road ahead of him. If he pulls off the biggest upset in the nation, he really has to weigh whether its easier to win re-election in a Republican district or to knock off a Republican Senator ranked in the bottom 5 by Time magazine in a statewide election come 2008. Demographics say it should be easier to beat Allard in the Senate than win re-election in his own district.

He has a pretty good speaking style. Put him in the national spotlight and he could rise pretty fast. A few years from now, people might be wondering just where this guy came from.

Here's the debate he had against Lamborn. [MEDIA=youtube[/URL] He has a couple of tricks in this debate that would have made Ronald Reagan proud. I keep wanting to downplay this a little bit, comparing it to Nebraska mopping up the floor with Troy St, except Fawcett's the underdog in this race - it's Troy St mopping up the floor with Nebraska!

 

[Astronuc]

It is worthwhile to listen Lamborn/Fawcett debate, since some of the rhetoric will be repeated often. Lamborn promises not to raise taxes, and will work to reduce taxes, yet he supports the military and the 'war on terror', which cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Contradictions.

Lamborn mentions that the war in Iraq is the central point on the war against terror, and that bin Laden and other terrorists are there fighting against the US because they don't like us . . . .

There are so many inaccuracies in Lamborn's comments, it is appears that he doesn't know what he is talking about, but instead he simply parrots the same old rhetoric of the Bush administration, including the inaccurate term of "cut and run".

The terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11 were not from Iraq, but primarily from Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries, and they were sponsored by al Qaida (which receives support, not from Iraq, but from individuals in other countries).

Saddam Hussein did not have WMD, nor did he sponsor al Qaida.

The foreign terrorists in Iraq have arrived since the US invasion. They wouldn't be there otherwise. While it's possible that former Baathists are among the insurgents, many others may be motivated to attack US troops in retaliation for the invasion.

Very likely, Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan (Badaur) with Ayman al Zawahiri, and possibly with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Al Qaida is thriving with the support of Taliban, which has become stronger in the tribal areas of Paksitan next to the border with Afghanistan.

Lamborn does not to appear to be a deep thinker or an independent, but one who would simply endorse Bush and accept status quo.

 

[BobG]

It is worthwhile to listen Lamborn/Fawcett debate, since some of the rhetoric will be repeated often. Lamborn promises not to raise taxes, and will work to reduce taxes, yet he supports the military and the 'war on terror', which cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Contradictions.

Lamborn mentions that the war in Iraq is the central point on the war against terror, and that bin Laden and other terrorists are there fighting against the US because they don't like us . . . .

There are so many inaccuracies in Lamborn's comments, it is appears that he doesn't know what he is talking about, but instead he simply parrots the same old rhetoric of the Bush administration, including the inaccurate term of "cut and run".

The terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11 were not from Iraq, but primarily from Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries, and they were sponsored by al Qaida (which receives support, not from Iraq, but from individuals in other countries).

Saddam Hussein did not have WMD, nor did he sponsor al Qaida.

The foreign terrorists in Iraq have arrived since the US invasion. They wouldn't be there otherwise. While it's possible that former Baathists are among the insurgents, many others may be motivated to attack US troops in retaliation for the invasion.

Very likely, Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan (Badaur) with Ayman al Zawahiri, and possibly with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Al Qaida is thriving with the support of Taliban, which has become stronger in the tribal areas of Paksitan next to the border with Afghanistan.

Lamborn does not to appear to be a deep thinker or an independent, but one who would simply endorse Bush and accept status quo.

Lamborn was no surprise to anyone in the Springs, yet he still appeals to the James Dobson crowd - plus to anyone that doesn't look past the 'R' after his name. His positions on most issues are shallow because he's running to do one thing - join Musgrave in the war against abortion and gay marriage. If he does that, all he has to do is to just vote with the Republican majority on the rest of the issues. Of course, I don't think his comments look quite as stupid in print as they do live. 'Does not appear to be a deep thinker'? He had trouble remembering to say 'Cut and run' at the right places.

Fawcett is the big surprise. No serious candidate runs as a Democrat in this district. The usual Democratic candidate in the past has been a guy named Imrie; an eccentric donkey breeder. (I'm so glad I don't have to walk into the voting booth and make that kind of decision - that would be as bad as Rach3's poll. )

Interesting comment about Lamborn's shot of getting on the Armed Services Committee, though. I don't really think a 'promise' from Hastert to 'try' to get him a slot would turn out to be successful - it's just campaign talk phrased to make backing out easier. But even suggesting the Speaker of the House would consider putting someone incompetent in military affairs on the Armed Services Committee is an indication of why Hastert is having so much trouble with the Foley scandal.

 

[Astronuc]

eccentric donkey breeder.

I just have to ask, is Imrie an eccentric breeder of donkeys, or a breeder of eccentric donkeys?

Although it would take an eccentric to breed eccentric donkeys.


In the long run, one should vote for competent, honest and hardworking candidates, regardless of party. I know some great Republicans and great Democrats. Unfortunately, they seem few and far between these days.

Both Dems and Reps have played games in Washington, state capitals and local governemnts. It's time people to roll up the sleeves, get a shovel and clean the manure out of the barn. Yeee Haaah!

Get involved!

 

[BobG]

I just have to ask, is Imrie an eccentric breeder of donkeys, or a breeder of eccentric donkeys?

Eccentric donkeys. Everyone knows this is llama country.

 

[Skyhunter]

CQ Politics has the House even at 209 (R) to 209 (D) with 17 No clear favorite.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/

 

[Astronuc]

Ohio Leans Toward Democrat for Governor
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6298607

All Things Considered, October 18, 2006 · Ted Strickland, the Democrat in Ohio's gubernatorial race, now holds a two-to-one lead over Republican Ken Blackwell. Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, has spent the past two days in Ohio, polling for statewide races. Robert Siegel talks with Brown.

Will the preference for democrats be reflected in any of the congressional races?

Tables Turned for the G.O.P. Over Iraq Issue
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/us/politics/19campaign.html

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 — Four months ago, the White House offered a set of clear political directions to Republicans heading into the midterm elections: embrace the war in Iraq as critical to the antiterrorism fight and belittle Democrats as advocates of a “cut and run” policy of weakness.

With three weeks until Election Day, Republican candidates are barely mentioning Iraq on the campaign trail and in their television advertisements.

Even President Bush, continuing to attack Democrats for opposing the war, has largely dropped his call of “stay the course” and replaced it with a more nuanced promise of flexibility.

It is the Democrats who have seized on Iraq as a central issue. In debates and in speeches, candidates are pummeling Republicans with accusations of a failed war.

NY Times Quote of the Day - Ocober 19, 2006

"Only in an election year this complicated can Republicans be happy that Mark Foley knocked the Iraq war off the front page."

MARK CAMPBELL, a Republican strategist representing several Congressional candidates.

Certainly will be interesting during the next 3 weeks, and afterward.

I am concurrently reading Bob Woodward's book "State of Denial" and Scott Ritter's book "Target Iran". The beginning of Woodward's book details the development of the Bush campaign and presidency, and the collection of people, i.e. Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld et al, while Ritter's beginning summarizes the development of events in the Middle East which lead up to the War Iraq. Ritter's thesis is that the path toward a conflict with Iran seems to be following the path toward the war in Iraq. Very interesting to read both together.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ohio Leans Toward Democrat for Governor
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6298607

...Ted Strickland, the Democrat in Ohio's gubernatorial race, now holds a two-to-one lead over Republican Ken Blackwell...

Leans"??

Holding a 2-to-1 lead is hardly what I'd describe with the word 'lean'. How many other governors (even among incumbents) enjoy such a lead? The Times reported a couple days ago that the GOP was giving up on Blackwell and rerouting money to races in Indiana and Tennessee.

But that was at least a couple days ago.

I think it came out yesterday, that's there's an issue with Strickland's residence when he filed his papers to run for Governor, that might make him ineligible on a technicality. The ruling of his eligibility gets to be made by the Sec State - his current opponent, Blackwell! But this puts Blackwell in a spot - for someone already this unpopular, it can't help his image to win an "unwinnable race" by ruling his opponent ineligible.

(see my unanswered question in this thread from 5 months ago - https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=978104&postcount=31)

I pity Ohio. I can't imagine another state with more rotten a pair of candidates to choose from!

 

[Astronuc]

Republican Woes Lead to Feuding by Conservatives
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/us/politics/20conserve.html

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 (NYTimes) — Tax-cutters are calling evangelicals bullies. Christian conservatives say Republicans in Congress have let them down. Hawks say President Bush is bungling the war in Iraq. And many conservatives blame Representative Mark Foley’s sexual messages to teenage pages.

With polls showing Republican control of Congress in jeopardy, conservative leaders are pointing fingers at one another in an increasingly testy circle of blame for potential Republican losses this fall.

“It is one of those rare defeats that will have many fathers,” said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, expressing the gloomy view of many conservatives about the outcome on Election Day. “And they will all be somebody else.”

Whether the election will bear out their pessimism remains to be seen, and the factors that contribute to an electoral defeat are often complex and even contradictory. But the post-mortem recriminations can influence politics and policy for years after the fact. After 1992, Republicans shunned tax increases. After 1994, Democrats avoided gun control and health care reform. And 2004 led some Democrats to start quoting Scripture and rethinking abortion rights, while others opened an intraparty debate about the national security that is not yet resolved.

In the case of the Republican Party this year, the skirmish among conservatives over what is going wrong has begun unusually early and turned unusually personal.

But almost regardless of the outcome on Nov. 7, many conservatives express frustration that the party has lost its ideological focus. And after six years of nearly continuous control over the White House and Congress, conservatives are having a hard time finding anyone but one another to blame.

“It is pre-criminations,” said Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, the conservative magazine. “If a party looks like it is going to take a real pounding, this sort of debate is healthy. What is unusual is that it is happening beforehand.”

Meanwhile in Iraq -

"I can tell you that we're obviously very concerned about what we're seeing in the city. We're taking a lot of time to go back and look at the whole Baghdad security plan."
MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM B. CALDWELL IV, spokesman for the U.S. military command in Iraq, on the failure to stem violence in Baghdad.

Bush Faces a Battery of Ugly Choices on War
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/world/middleeast/20policy.html

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 — The acknowledgment by the United States Army spokesman in Iraq that the latest plan to secure Baghdad has faltered leaves President Bush with some of the ugliest choices he has yet faced in the war.

He can once again order a rearrangement of American forces inside the country, as he did in August, when American commanders declared that newly trained Iraqi forces would “clear and hold” neighborhoods with backup support from redeployed American forces. That strategy collapsed within a month, frequently forcing the Americans to take the lead, making them prime targets.

There is no assurance, though, that another redeployment of those forces will reduce the casualty rate, which has been unusually high in recent weeks, senior military and administration officials say. The toll comes just before midterm elections, in which even many of his own party have given up arguing that progress is being made or that the killing will soon slow.

Or Mr. Bush can reassess the strategy itself, perhaps listening to those advisers — including some members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, the advisory commission charged with coming up with new strategies for Iraq — who say that he needs to redefine the “victory” that he again on Thursday declared was his goal.

U.S. Says Violence in Baghdad Rises, Foiling Campaign
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/world/middleeast/20iraq.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 19 — The United States military command in Iraq acknowledged on Thursday that its 12-week-old campaign to win back control of Baghdad from sectarian death squads and insurgents had failed to reduce violence across the city. A spokesman for the command said intensive discussions were under way between American and Iraqi officials on ways to “refocus” the effort, which American officials have placed at the heart of their war strategy.

In one of the most somber assessments of the war by American commanders, a statement read by the spokesman, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, said the campaign had been marked by increasing attacks on American troops and a spike in combat deaths. Attacks soared by 22 percent, he said, during the first three weeks of Ramadan, the holy month now nearing its end. With three new combat deaths announced on Thursday, the number of American troops who have lost their lives in October rose to 73, representing one of the sharpest surges in military casualties in the past two years.

General Caldwell said American troops were being forced to return to neighborhoods, like Dora in southwestern Baghdad, that they had sealed off and cleared as part of the security campaign because “extremists” fighting back had sent sectarian violence soaring there. The security plan sent heavy deployments of American troops into troubled neighborhoods, reversing the previous policy, which was to allow Iraqi troops to police the capital.

“The violence is indeed disheartening,” General Caldwell said. While the sweeps have contained violence in some areas, over all, he said, the campaign to gain control of the city “has not met our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence.” As a result, he said, “We are working very closely with the government of Iraq to determine how to best refocus our efforts.”

President Bush, who ordered the rearrangement of troops to begin the campaign, is now left with only a handful of tough and politically unattractive options.

The general’s remarks, unusual for their candor and unvarnished portrayal of bad news, appeared to mark a new setback for the American military effort. Stark new videotape broadcast on Thursday by Al Jazeera from Ramadi, an insurgent stronghold 80 miles west of Baghdad, showed heavily armed insurgents taking over a busy city street in broad daylight to celebrate the proclamation by their leaders of an Islamic state in wide areas of Iraq’s Sunni heartland. There was no sign of any attempt to intervene by the heavy concentration of American and Iraqi troops in the city. The Iraqi government said the demonstrators fled after 15 minutes.

The insurgents’ ability to strike across wide areas of the country was demonstrated anew on Thursday in the northern oil city of Mosul, when suicide bombers attacked a police station and an American convoy, killing at least 22 people and wounding dozens more, mostly civilians, a hospital official said.

And the Mahdi Army has taken control of Amara in the south.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/world/middleeast/21iraqcnd.html

Just last weekend, Shiite militiamen went on a killing spree in and around the town of Balad, murdering 38 Sunnis in reprisal for the beheading by Sunni extremists of 19 Shiite workers.
. . . .
Sheik Abdul Kareem al-Muhammadawi, a prominent tribal leader, said in an interview by telephone today that the Mahdi Army responded by deploying its troops in the city. He said the police were outgunned, with insufficient weapons and ammunition.
. . . .

Iraq is embroiled in a civil war, that's been raging for a year or more. Bush needs to either double the troops in Iraq and close the borders, in order to stop the insurgency. This is exactly why Bush, Sr. and others did not remove Saddam Hussein from power. GW has created exactly the mess that Bush Sr avoided.

 

[McGyver]

Rumsfeld Likely to Resign any Day

I won't say where I heard this, but Republican plans are being discussed to have Sec Rumsfeld resign in order to give Republicans in Congressional races some boost in next month's election. Timing wise - the announcement could come today (Friday), or Monday, to allow strategists the best position to work with the information.