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

[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.