Sorry to go off topic, but there is a nagging House question I'd like to have some input on. Chris, I was wondering if you had any input on two Congressional races in western New York, Tom Reynolds in the 26th and Randy Kuhl in the 29th. Reynolds won 56-44 last time, the lowest percentage of any NYS Rep, and his opponent Jack Davis is very well financed. Randy Kuhl is running against a former Naval officer and the race could be like Fitzpatricks race in Philadelphia. Both are mentioned locally as some of the most competitive in '06. Wondering what your thoughts were.

Yer Welcome N'E. To me it is a brilliant site for a few reasons. It is a great motivator for the Liberal base, obviously. But take away the political nature of the content and you have a really amazing intersection of interactive hypertext (links, etc), blogging and discussion, multimedia (video/audio) and external communications (email to contacts on the site). While people like Cilliza will hold up Frist's podcasts as an example of political use of the internet, it is clearly the progressive community that is way ahead of the curve.

F&B - Thanks. If it works - More power to 'em!

>>>The game Media Matters is going after are just too easy to bag, and they won't change any minds even as they do catch them. At best, they are preaching to a choir.

Not exactly the point of the site, Nor'Easter. A key aspect of the site is getting people off their collective butts and doing something about the despicable behavior of these Republican clowns. You'll notice that in each "article" they have the contact info and links to contact the media organizations and complain about some of the things these ingrates have said.

It not only informs the Liberal base about some of the more insane comments, but also excites them to get active and to stand up against such inappropriate behavior. If you dont think that is important, then you are ignoring an important part of not only Democratic ideals (as in party), but democratic ideals (as in form of governance).

Once again, the Left has democracy and active participation in democracy... The Right has CLOWNS.

Thanks RMill: Virginia

Survey USA
August 21
Webb (D)45%
Allen (R)* 48%
Parker (I) 2%

Interesting, because this is without Webb doing any visible statewide campaigning yet.

Of course Allen's had visible statewide campaigning, it's just that it wasn't supposed to be.

US Senate Polls

Virginia

Survey USA
August 21
Webb (D)45%
Allen (R)* 48%
Parker (I) 2%

Missouri

Rasmussen
August 15
McCaskill (D) 44%
Talent (R)* 46%

Survey USA
August 16
McCaskill (D) 47%
Talent (R)* 46%

F&B - Honorable, maybe. I looked at a lot of the material on their website. I have to wonder what purpose does it serves to spend so much effort on debunking O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and Coulter?

The niche audience for these supposed advocates of Conservatism (the "Little old ladies in tennis shoes" which Reagan was chided about in his early days) aren't going to believe that their heroes aren't correct.

Seems to me like Media Matters is tilting at windmills. The real fight is somewhere else, while they are out on the margins.

Debunking (L.) Brent Bozell (I did see his name on one Media Matters item) or his Uncle William F. Buckley, Jr. (maybe on a basic premise; but hardly on the facts marshalled in support of a Buckley premise) would be another matter.

Didn't see any of the heavy hitters being debunked on their site. Joe Scarborough doesn't count, especially when they "nail(?)" Chris Matthews also.

The game Media Matters is going after are just too easy to bag, and they won't change any minds even as they do catch them. At best, they are preaching to a choir.

Are there any Senate races out there that have potential to become competitive, or besides these dozen or so possibilities, is every pretty much nip-tuck?

KOZ, still waiting on your Media Matters lie. Just one. That's all I ask. Prove one lie on MM website and I will be satiated. Otherwise, Im right, you're wrong, and you'll have to accept that Media Matters is in fact an honorable organization. Thanks.

Another thing you in the east should consider is we are almost all vote by mail here in the West. WA has all but one county voting by mail, and that county, King County where I live, has more than 80 percent permanent absentee (aka vote by mail).

We also have some initiatives that really light the fire under the Dem base - so I wouldn't be suprised if Maria ends up with 10 points over Mike in the final tally.

Kind of hard to fix electronic ballots when they go via the US Postal Service ... on paper!

wouldn't count on a GOP win in WA, right now people in this mostly independent state (40 percent Ind, 35 percent Dem, 25 percent GOP) are mad as heck.

Assuming Maria pulls her head out of the clouds and wakes up to realize supporting the war means she will lose in November, no matter what she "thinks".

And starts hammering at the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Mike M.

>>>it does not display the truth

Prove your assertion KOZ! You've had many opportunities to so, but you still haven't. Show me an exact quote that is on MM that is false, show me proof as to why it is false, and the link to both. Is it that hard? Cmon, its supposedly FULL of lies. So which ones are lies? And why are they lies? I still have not seen one iota of an argument from you other than "its all lies."

>>>funny how you call all those clowns amusing

They ARE amusing. They are caricatures. Look, there are probably 15 Rushs and Ann Coulters out there who fail in terms of popularity b/c they do not have the t.v. "look" or that "radio voice." You know it and I know it. But you continue to go on as if Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are actually Conservative heroes when they are simply entertainers who do nothing but spout the same old rhetoric that YOU do! Ya know what KOZ? You are probably WAY smarter than Ann Coulter but you will never get your own TV show or column b/c you dont have the 6' blonde sex appeal or cigar chomping bubba appeal. If you cant dissociate the "entertainer" aspect from the "ideology" aspect than you truly are hopeless.

And that's what I like abt Media Matters, for example. They dont NEED sex appeal or Bubba appeal to get their point across. Thinking people of any political persuasion can look at their site and their pages and determine for THEMSELVES whether or not the stories they are dissecting are "misinformation" or not. I readily admit that not all of what MM posts is important. But they CLEARLY are only interested in posting information to counter PROVABLE falsifications disseminated by the Right Wing Clowns. And that to me is a valuable service in this day and age of the Ann Coulter best seller. And kudos to her for making lots of money in a free market... but that doesnt make it right.

The point is that you have claimed that this site exposes right wing falsifications, supposedly to make the truth available. but it does not display the truth, it displays its own agenda. there are tricky ways to avoid outwardly admitting it is doing this - like "reporting" what others say, strangely only one side of what others say. I guess you could say that they never claimed that what the others said is fact, but then what is the point of any of it. Just circular reasoning chasing an agenda whcih is not truth in journalism by any stretch.

funny how you call all those clowns amusing. I guess many others are amused - O'Reilly - highest rated cable show, coulter - best seller for weeks now, Limbaugh - highest rated talk radio show. you seem envious that the real clowns - your Dems, aren't getting enough attention. I guess people want to watch someone who is serious and that lets your side out.

Annonymous poster from 03:37 PM: >>>this is from their lead story trying to explain that wiretapping is ineffective

But you dont post the bit about how MM thinks the program is inneffective?!?! And you dont post the link itself? Why not? Why dont you support your argument with MM's actual words and URLs?

And it is interesting that the bit you decided to post abt NSA is factually correct ('many observers -- including conservatives -- have criticized the administration for conducting wiretaps outside of the law').

Show me the link where they try to prove that the NSA prog is "ineffective."

>>>It was easy pickings to find flawed logic and outright lies, twisted in a very clever way to seem like actual journalism.

Ok, so where are they? Outright lies? But you cant show me proof? Cmon. Put up or shut up.

Nor'Easter: >>>Then how can anybody take them seriously? How can you have a rational discourse and hope to accomplish anything if there isn't objectivity?

Ask Shawn Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh. Why doesnt anyone on the Right question their objectivity? Oh I forgot, THEY ARE ALL JUST CLOWNS!!! HERE TO MAKE US LAUGH!! HA HA HA HA HA!

Left has Media Matters.
Right has Clowns.

F&B - Thanks for the links to MediaMatters, and the "About Us) tip.

With respect to "Theyre not TRYING to be objective. Why should they be?"

Then how can anybody take them seriously? How can you have a rational discourse and hope to accomplish anything if there isn't objectivity? (I submit The Fix postings as Exhibit #1)

Having to "mine" for content isn't worth the effort, if you can't tell that the slanted is mixed-in with the objective.

In essence, aren't the MediaMatters people no better than Richard Mellon Scaife's puppets?

Rush doesn't make policy. He runs a radio show for profit. Air America ought to try that aspect of radio. I know you Dems have a very hard time distinguishing between entertainment and reality and that most of your great thinkers are actually movie stars. but out criticisms of your lack of ideas is based on your legislative priorities. this is distributed by your elected representatives. the last I heard it was minimum wage and universal health care. Get out of any foreign conflicts immediately and keep everything else the same. Was there more?

"As Media Matters has documented, many observers -- including conservatives -- have criticized the administration for conducting wiretaps outside of the law."

-this is from their lead story trying to explain that wiretapping is ineffective and also that it is contrary to the law. they then cite all the opinions about why it is against the law.

I have no idea how they arrive at the conclusion that it is ineffective since these results are not usually reported to the media.

this was just the first paragraph of their story from today. It was easy pickings to find flawed logic and outright lies, twisted in a very clever way to seem like actual journalism.
there are many people more qualified at this sort of debunking than I am, but the ease of this particular process denudes your claim to an all-fact website.

The facts: Until this most recent ruling, the intricacies of the law is mostly unknown. the ruling has a stay issued and is widely believed to be flawed, amaturish and agenda-driven. the court and judge shopping is obvious and ultimately, this wire-tapping will most likely stand. so past, present and future, it is a law.

btw, KOZ, in all seriousness, here is the basis for your #5 and Rush's whole gag:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

2. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

3. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

Amazing that you call us Liberals the 'party of no ideas' when your entire ideology is based on a logical fallacy.

But at least you are entertaining! The world LOVES A CLOWN!

B20 - you sound like a bitter old man full of bigotry, callousness and hatred. Are you a Republican?
You also are using rule #5 from above. try something new for a change.

>>>I did look at media matters. I saw 100% negative take on Republicans without even a semblance of objectivity

Theyre not TRYING to be objective. Why should they be?

All Im asking you to do is look at the CONTENT they post and tell me that based on FACTS that you think it is INCORRECT. That's all. B/c otherwise, you can go on and on abt some mythical "rule #5" but if everything MM says is factually accurate then you have no basis for your argument.

PROVE to me that ONE THING that has MM posted is factually incorrect and then I will look at your little #5-proof site.

"NRO is totally clueless and blindly supporting Rove's talking points." I guess you wandered through without paying much attention.

Using #5 again. Please continue chanting.

consider that Rove may be sometimes correct. then is it OK to agree?

I did look at media matters. I saw 100% negative take on Republicans without even a semblance of objectivity. I would assume from this that all Dems and Libs are perfect since they run the media and didn't make it onto the website? My media site covers all media and even takes shots at fox. not possible for you given rule #5.

"I was a liberal in my young days before my real world experiences told me liberlism is a bunch of 'I feel your pain nonsense.' "

Translation: "I used to care about people and the world beyond myself, until I became a bitter old man who retreated into a shell of hatred, bigotry and callousness. Now, I proudly vote conservative and listen to Rush."

>>>spreading vile garbage about conservatives

Like what? What that they have posted is "vile garbage about conservatives?"

And it better be something that is factually incorrect, or it doesnt fall into the "vile garbage" category. It may be vile in your eyes, but if it is factually accurate then you cannot have a beef with that (unless you dislike facts).

>>>Don't go to sites that just reinforce your views, branch out and stretch your mind with conservative ideology.

I go to red blogs all the time just to see whats up. NRO, Red State, Powerline, occasionally freeperville. It is a total mess. A total disaster. They are pretty much always clueless and blindly supporting Rove's talking points.

But do YOU do the same? Will you look at Media Matters and look at it critically, or just brush it off? B/c how can you ask me to do so if you do not?

Who is behind Media Matters? Try their "About Us" section for starters.

Oh and KOZ, maybe you shouldn't be so defensive abt Rush b/c according to bhoomes, "a lot of the stuff he says is a parody and not to be taking seriously. Remember he is an entertainer first and a commentator second."

HA HA HA! I get it, Rush is just a clown!!! A big fat Conservative Clown!! Oooh look at me! Im a Conservative Clown! HA HA HA! He is sooooo funny!!! HA HA HA! Whatta CLOWN!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608180001

Try this one:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/welcome.asp

Much as I suspected, MediaMatters is not an objective media outlet but a left wing site for spreading vile garbage about conservatives. Come on FB: Don't go to sites that just reinforce your views, branch out and stretch your mind with conservative ideology. There is still hope for you, I was a liberal in my young days before my real world experiences told me liberlism is a bunch of "I feel your pain nonsense."

Media matters - spreading Liberal falshoods: Here is their ultimate tagline. Now that doesn't sound objective to me.

"Help Stop Conservative Misinformation
You can join Media Matters for America in the fight against conservative misinformation in the media. We regularly provide action items based on our real-time monitoring of the media and conduct action campaigns to prevent the spread of conservative misinformation.

Thousands of activists like you take advantage of these tools to hold the media accountable for spreading conservative misinformation."

Is this fight fire with fire? this is right off the strategy list I supplied earlier - see #5 above.

One thing they couldn't gloss over though:
"an estimated audience of nearly 15 million weekly listeners" compare to Air (should be called dead air) America. Or compare fox news (tops in ratings) to CNN or MSNBC - bottom of the barrel. Explain?

I wonder who is behind MediaMatters also.

We may regard Limbaugh as an entertainer (good or bad); the problem is that he identified a niche audience who would believe anything that he says. They don't recognize the "entertainment" aspect.

If his ratings were dropping and he believed that saying that Bill Clinton was actually a good President would get the ratings to stop dropping and go back up, he'd say it. It's all in the ratings (= money) for him.

Remember the fan in a Colorado town about 10 years ago who got his community to have a day honoring Limbaugh. They invited Limbaugh to the celebration. Limbaugh demanded an "appearance fee;" which was probably in the $10,000 to $25,000 range (plus expenses) at the time.

In a previous time in this country he'd be a snake oil salesman. Tremendously good at what he does; but is there any "there" there? Not that I can tell!

Interesting take on Coulter. I'd never seen her smile when she was being interviewed on any of the non-Fox outlets. Never. Always the scowl. Last week I happened to be watching Fox News and there was Ann beaming like a happy school girl. Ann Coulter, Fair And Balanced!

Zippy, just to set the record straight because I realize you are uninformed, President Bush is not a junior. Different middle names from his father. FB: Just curious, who is behind MediaMatters? Rush can defend himself better than me, but a lot of the stuff he says is a parody and not to be taking seriously. Remember he is an entertainer first and a commentator second. Oh I forgot, you liberals have no sense of humor.

>>>I recommend you listen. You and your ilk, might learn a few things

Bhoomes, I recommend you look at the Media Matters page for Rush Limbaugh. You and your ilk might learn something.

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/rushlimbaugh

KOZ

I thought "Bush Derangment(sic)syndrom (sic)" was how the civilized world views the US's "big....um....stick" international policies of the past six years.

I am told that Junior is a fan of Teddy Roosevelt.

Sadly it seems that Junior's genetics tie to the inbred English Royal Family, not the Roosevelts.

Paraphrasing with apologies to Mr. Lloyd Bentsen, one of Texas's notable statesmen, 'You Mr. Bush are no Teddy Roosevelt.'

lools like most of it is in the margin of error, hard to make out any trends. I say Burns is toast but kean should win in NJ because of the increase in taxes.

More Senate Data

Survey USA August Approval

AZ- Kyl (R)* 57%, up from 53% in July and 47% in Feb. BEST OVERALL REP GAIN IN APPROVAL SINCE FEB

CT- Lieberman (I)* 53% down from 54% in July and 59% in Feb BIGGEST OVERALL DEM DROP SINCE FEB

FL- Nelson (D)* 47% down from 48% in July and 49% in Feb

MD
Rasmussen
August 9
Cardin (D) 47%
Steele (R) 42%

Mfume (D) 46%
Steele (R) 44%

MI- Stabenow (D)* 51% up from 50% in July and 49% in Feb

MO- Talent (R)* 52% up from 49% in July and 48% in Feb

MT- Burns (R)* 39% up from 37% in July but down from 42% in Feb WORST REP APPROVAL

NV- Ensign (R)* 50% down from 52% in July and Feb

NJ- Menendez (D)* 42% down from 45% in July but up from 36% in Feb
WORST DEM APPROVAL; LARGEST DEM DROP; BEST OVERALL DEM GAIN SINCE FEB

OH- DeWine (R)* 42% down from 45% in July and 43% in Feb
LARGEST REP DROP

PA- Santorum (R)* 48% up from 43% in July and Feb BIGGEST GAIN BY REP

RI- Chafee (R)* 51% up from 48% in July and 49% in Feb

VA- Allen (R)* 51% same as July and Feb TAKEN PRIOR TO CURRENT FLAP

Rasmussen
August 17
Webb (D) 42%
Allen (R)* 47%

WA- Cantwell (D)* 55% up from 49% in July and 50% in Feb BIGGEST GAIN BY DEM

See Libs do cower in the face of strong and reasoned opposition. funny how you need all your chanting minions to feel good about your place in the world. No philosophy, just power in numbers.
I have never listened to Rush but I do understand why he is so popular if he is able to come up with the same points as I. Maybe it is because they are mostly true. the truth does come out in the end, despite the NYT's efforts to the contrary. I must assume you have listened to Rush since you claim to know what he is broadcasting. If so, that is very open-minded of you and I wouldn't have suspected that. then you must be capable of constructing a reasoned, linear, logical debate offering your side and the other with facts to support your conclusions. If not, then I can only guess that you don't listen to Rush and can only mimic what you hear from third-hand sources. sounds like what you always accuse others of doing.
And this site is a waste of time every single day, not just today. I know you will be back since you seem to thrive on offering your unsolicited opinion to others. I suspect you have no other hobbies. Bush derangment syndrom is not a hobby, it is an illness for the feeble minded out there.

'Drindl wants us to live in a police state, where leakers are thrown in jail.'

God bhoomes you are stupider than I thought. Do you really not know that's exactly what bush is doing to journalists? So, do we live in a police state? Becuase you have just said we do.

And zouk, you'v never had an original thought in your life. All you can manage to do is spout talking points you heard on Limbaugh.

I'm leaving. there's no one around but morons this morning... whta waste of time.

Drindl and her ilk already seem to know everything there is to know. They have no need for any additional insight. the role of this website is to demonstrate that idea and clearly allow us ignoramasus to profit from the free education. the only problem is that the lesson is fact-free and very heavy on chanting the same tired old shallow mantras. for example:
1. if we just go home, all the mean people will leave us alone.
2. We have more to fear from Bush than from random killers.
3. Libs are financially responsible and can be trusted to be stern on foreign policy.
4. Agenda polls tell all you need to know. no need for thinking or elections. Experts have no worth.
5. all who do not share the D enlightened opinion are stupid, evil, greedy, facists, hypocrites or philanderers.
6. all corporations who post any profit are ripping off the consumer.
7. this is all you need to know, If you encounter any difficulties, like a reasoned argument, please chant one of the above.
Ha, ha ha.

So much for a free and open society, Drindl wants us to live in a police state, where leakers are thrown in jail. Of course the thing about a leak, is you do not know where it is coming from. Could be from the Brits for all we know.

For the simple folks who still don't quite get it about the politicization of the last so-called 'terror plot':

'Anti-terror police in Britain have made an angry request to their US counterparts asking them to stop leaking details of this month's suspected bomb plot over fears that it could jeopardise the chances of a successful prosecution and hamper the gathering of evidence.

The British security services, MI5 and MI6, are understood to be dismayed that a number of sensitive details surrounding the alleged plot - including an FBI estimate that as many as 50 people were involved - were leaked to the media.

FBI sources confirmed to The Observer that the bureau had been ordered to stop briefing at the request of the British authorities. 'The shutters have come down,' a bureau source said. 'We have been told not to discuss the case any more.'

Rush will be on today at 1200 hours on about every radio station in America, Drindl, if you don't mind listening to the voice of reason and common sense, I recommend you listen. You and your ilk, might learn a few things. Then we could have more substative conversations on why you people are screwing up the country.

richard, oh I kinda figured you didn't write it... I was an English major too-- but you cite well and true!

'I believe Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh has got you people pretty much figured out'

HAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Right. Yes, the genuises Limbaugh and Coulter. The only thing they've got figured out is how to sucker the truly stupid. And they do very well, because as PT Barnum pointed out, there's one born every minute.

Drindl takes the bait because she lives in a very simplistic world where her side represents good and mine evil. I believe Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh has got you people pretty much figured out. Like "A few good men" You want the truth, you can't handle the truth."

drindl

'Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss.'

It just shows how timeless the battle to prevent abuse of political power we are fighting is.

I'd love to take credit for the prose, but I took from a much better wordsmith-Shakespear from Pericles, Act II (I think. I wasn't an English major, just an engineer. I married the english major so some things rub off!)

But it is very appropriate.

'If you don't care what Bhoomes thinks, then why do you keep responding to his posts? He admittedly puts "bait" into his posts to stir the emotions. Why take the bait?'

--you're right. ansolutely right. i guess sometimes I'm in the mood for a fight, too.

Now where is that lazy Chris?

Santorum did not trail Ron Klink in 2000. In fact, Santorum held double digit leads for most of the summer only to barely beat Klink 52-47.

FYI: Watching Chris M. show on CNBC. Dan Rather made a comment about crossing road by Alligator. Could be he looks at this blog and got my quote a little mixed up. [Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river.] Just wondering.

I see that Jackson Lander was dead on with the Rasmussen poll on the Virginia Senate race that came out on Saturday--only a 5 point lead for Allen. Sounds like JL has some serious inside information.

JL, I hope you keep on posting here, early and often.

Drindl - Not defending Lieberman, just saying that this "is what it is." Practical politics, not theoretical or wishful thinking.

If you don't care what Bhoomes thinks, then why do you keep responding to his posts? He admittedly puts "bait" into his posts to stir the emotions. Why take the bait?

With respect to Coulter, she is unethical, souless, and whatever else you use to describe people without any personal values.

We shouldn't even discuss her; other than hopefully in the future to remember that she quickly disappeared from public view in 2006. Simply discussing her as a player in politics gives her the forum she seeks.

Drindl: Very well put. You and I know what we are talking about and are only trying to get [facts] to those who do not wish to know them. That is almost impossible for those that choose not to think. I will keep trying remembering every journey starts with a single step.

Projection, lylepink.Doublespeak. War is Peace. The Ministry of Truth... you know the drill. Orwell ought to be required reading. Here's an interesting bit about the GOP strategy of lumping all disenchanted arabs into one 'enemy'...again, basic cliched strategy but works really well on the simple-minded:

But like "terror," and "evil" before it, "Islamic fascism" has the effect of reducing a complex story to a simple fable. It effaces the differences among ex-Baathists, al-Qaida and Shiite mullahs; Chechens and Kashmiris; Hezbollah, Hamas and British-born Asians allegedly making bombs in a London suburb. Yes, there are millions of people in the Muslim world who wish the U.S. ill, and some of them are pretty creepy about it. But that doesn't mean they're all of a single mind and purpose, or that a blow against any one of them is a blow against the others. As Tolstoy might have put it, every creep is creepy in his own way.

--Nunberg is a linguist at the University of California, Berkeley's School of Information. His new book, "Talking Right," is about politics and language.

--or that a blow against any one of them is a blow against the others--

The key phrase to me. The problem with how we're fighting is not that Dems have a 'pre 9/11 mindset' but that republicans have a pre-1950's mindset. They're trying to fight this like it was a traditional 'war' when it isn't at all...we desperately need people who know how to think, rather than just react.

Drindl: I spent some time reading the link. Ann Cold-er, is one I actually enjoy watching from time to time for a simple reason, it always brings me back to see how far anyone will go to make a buck. The quotes are the same from these people. They get away with them for the same reason, accuse the people of doing what you yourself are doing. Can I explain any better?, I don't think so.

lylepink:

The attacks on liberals coming out of the GOP... guess who write the script? Why Hitler, of course.. if the GOP is so offended when anyone compares them to Nazis, then why do they plagarize Hitler?

"Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason...Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy.'

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jac3he/GiveUpQuiz/hitlercoulterquiz.html

Nor'Easter--Try reading a bit more analysis of the damage Leiberman is doing to his party and then get back to me. You are not seeing the full picture or the implications. What jdo I care what bhoomes 'thinks'? He loves Leiberman, and I'm sure is thrilled you're defending him.

And as far as defending industries, why should I have to get more specific? Can't you see with your own eyes that the oil industry, say, is the most profitable in the world? That they continue to take enormous subsides of taxpayer money, which rather than investing in infrastructure [which they are allowing to rot] goes straight in their pockets. Is it any coincidence that Exxon Mobil has had the most profitable year EVER, while gas prices are the highest they have ever been?

Am I supposed to be thrilled that an industry that supplies a basic need is guilty of price gouging, price-fixing and extortion?

Drindl - Time to put your glasses on; and stop the ranting and the nit-picking.

Joe wasn't personna non grata to the Democrat Establishment during the Primary. If he wins the General Election, there is a good chance that the Senate Democrats will probably allow things to exist exactly as they did before. He'll only be a villain if Schlesinger wins; and nobody believes that is even a remote possibility.

Joe's positions on the War are significant enough that they can be said to be 180 degrees opposite of what's in this country's interest, and some other areas on which most Democrats disagree. But by and large, take out the War issue, and most Democrats don't see Joe as a Moderate or Liberal Republican; they see him as a Democrat.

If he wins, he and the Democrats will "play nice" because it is in both of their interests. He's not Jim Jeffords or John or Lincoln Chaffee who were (are) being knifed-in-the-back within their own Party.

"Joe is a genuine lunatic neocon--why would CT Dems want him?"

Because they know him, and have for 25 or more years now. They trust him; because they certainly know where he stands. There's a lot to be said for that. It's the one thing which gives Linc Chaffee a chance in Rhode Island.

Also, Joe's not the only Democrat to have a spouse who is a lobbyist (or a high-level Administration official when Clinton was President - see Ann Bingamon) who can influence their thinking.

Do you rant about the Financial industry when you look at your IRA, the Pharmaceutical industry when you take whatever medication you take (even if it's only aspirin, Tylenol or Advil), or the Oil industry when you need gas to put in your car? (I'm talking about the availability of gas here, not pricing)

Rant about the specific abuses in those industries, not the industries as generic villains. Either that, or stop using their services and products.

I called Joe a Weasel last month, but it was for the threat to run as an Independent rather than accept the Primary decision. Now that it's a reality, I don't see the World coming to an end if he wins. Things may be better with one less (of a hundred) supporting the President on Iraq; but how much influence does Joe have on that anymore anyway? Even the Joint Chiefs of Staff are being allowed to testify that we're in trouble in Iraq.

You're just giving Bhoomes ammunition with the thin substance of your attacks on Lieberman.

Making us "safer at home":

US facing wave of murders and gun violence
Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:27am ET138

""""In a shift from trends of the past decade, violent crime is on the rise, fueling criticism of Bush administration policies as a wave of murders and shootings hits smaller cities and states with little experience with serious urban violence.

Explanations vary -- from softer gun laws to budget cuts, fewer police on the beat, more people in poverty and simple complacency. But many blame a national preoccupation with potential threats from abroad.

"Since September 11, much of the resources that were distributed to crime-fighting efforts in Boston and other major cities were redistributed to fight terrorism," said Jack Levin, director of the Brudnick Center on Violence and Conflict at Northeastern University.""""

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-08-20T142905Z_01_N17290941_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-USA.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-4

Bush has single-handedly reversed a DECADE of progress on violent crime. But the Civil War in Iraq makes us safer!?

OT: this is for all the Republicans who think Bush is keeping them "safer":

DHS Terror Research Agency Struggling

Science and Technology Unit Crippled by Turnover, Budget Cuts, Priority Shifts
Sunday, August 20, 2006; Page A08

The federal research agency in charge of countering emerging terrorist threats such as liquid explosives is so hobbled by poor leadership, weak financial management and inadequate technology that Congress is on the verge of cutting its budget in half.

The Homeland Security Department's Science and Technology Directorate has struggled with turnover, reorganizations and raids on its budget since it was established in 2003, according to independent scientists, department officials and senior members of Congress.

...

"There was a period that actually very little was getting done . . . even though this was something that everyone thought would be heavily funded," said Fred Roder, manager of the explosives countermeasures portfolio at Homeland Security from 2003 to 2006.

...

In a 2007 spending bill awaiting a vote after the August congressional recess, the Republican-led House would cut spending by the Science and Technology Directorate from $1.3 billion to $668 million. Congress noted about $250 million in unspent agency funds.

...

Republican and Democratic senators are offering the agency $712 million, but in a budget report cited the agency's lack of goals, mystifying accounting and unspent money, and called it a "rudderless ship."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/19/AR2006081900846.html?referrer=emailarticlepg

This Republican Administration is underfunding Homeland Security, leaving us all open to attack from Terrorists. But, thank God, the Civil War in Iraq will keep us safer?! These children cannot be trusted to run a government.

Today I have seen the most flat out false statements regarding dems in the house and senate. Without exception these are followed by the word LIBERAL in one form or another. The same is being done to the dem challengers.

I knew things would get ugly beofre the election, but they are getting quickly nauseating:

'Hatch says Demo win could help terrorists
Orrin Hatch, who continuously decries the bitter partisanship in Washington, implied this week that Democratic success in November's election could result in terrorist attacks on America.

Hatch was quoted in Tuesday's Tooele Transcript Bulletin as saying Middle East terrorists are "waiting for the Democrats here to take control, let things cool off and then strike again."

Don't know if anyone posted this yet:

'Sen. George Allen's (R-VA) recent controversial reference to an Indian-American man as a "macaca" appears to have hurt him in the polls, according to a new Rasmussen Reports survey. Despite leading by challenger Jim Webb (D) by 11 points in July, Allen now only beats Webb 47% to 42%.'

Leiberman is a very compromised man, married to a loybbist for the financial and pharmaceutical industries, who has changed his voting patterns in favor of these industries since his wife became employed. He even hired lobbyists to campaign for him in CT. He has taken any number of odious stands becuase of his catering to far right religious groups. He is being backed by pro WW3 folks like Gingrich and Limbaugh, not to mention Rove. Why would Dems let Karl Rove choose their senator?

And yes, there are people actively pitching for WW3 and Leiberman is one of them. Joe represents the reason the Dems keep losing --they represent nothing but republican lite. Joe is a genuine lunatic neocon--why would CT Dems want him? I am surprised that any support him at all. Maybe he was ONCE good on social issues but not any more. Worse than anything, he simply echoes everything cheney says about Democrats.

Is CT a state full of Rove Democrats? Of Cheney Democrats? God help us.

I think all these comments about Lieberman versus the Demcoratic national establishment are a bit overblown. The national Democrats were for Lieberman in the primary. Lieberman has been in the Senate for a long time and has many friends. I seriously doubt that any move will be made to strip Lieberman of seniority. While Democratic leaders have to support Lamont, the question becomes how much they will exert themselves on his behalf. How much money does the Senatorial campaign committee commit to the race, how actively do leading Democrats campaign for Lamont. I expect the presidential wannabes will have to put in some appearances but I think the money trail will be interesting to follow. If Lieberman continues to hold big leads in the polls, I would expect a lot of lip service but minimal support from the national party. The Senate will be very closely divided - even if the Democrats hold a slim lead without Lieberman after the election, they would welcome him caucusing with him. One or two vote leads are precarious. The Dems in the Senate will not do anything to push Lieberman towards the GOP because they know that his vote might be crucial in January.

Correction of an earlier correction - "FYI, it's Sheldon Whitehouse (not Sheridan) - Sheridan Whiteside is the main character in The Man Who Came to Dinner."

For uncensored news please bookmark:

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

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -- kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor -- with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened,seem never to have been quite real."
General Douglas MacArthur, 1957[1]

Though a warning not to take the race for granted is always wise, your premise that Montana is a "Red State" not going through ideological change is wrong.

Montana was never a "Red State." Anyone who thinks so doesn't know Montana politics and Montana history. Conrad Burns is an anomaly in Montana politics, not the norm. He was only the second Republican Senator elected in this century. Zales Ecton was a one termer that was helped by the post-war Republican surge in the nation and the bitter Democratic primary battle that saw Democratic Senator Burton K. Wheeler defeated, largely for his isolationist views.

Montana has a record of sending Democrats to the Senate. Burns beat an unpopular moderate Democrat John Melcher largely because the green vote in the Democratic party took a pass on him in the ballot. He was reelected to a second term because of the lucky timing of the nationwide REpublican surge in 1994. He was vulnerable in 2000 but seemed safe, with only political unknown Brian Scheitzer to chaqllenge him. Schweiter had never held political office, not even at a local level. Yet he managed to lose by justy four poiints in his first-ever political race. That race made him known statewide and he won the Governorship in 2004.
Tester doesn't have it in the bag yet. He's smart enough to know that but is running a brilliant campaign.

As a columnist covering the Cantwell-McGavick race, I'm amazed you would put any credibility in Strategic Vision surveys.
Vision refuses to disclose who pays for its polls, claiming they're done as a business promotion. They have continued to deliver low ratings for Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, while other polls show her on the rebound.
In the Senate race, they've come out with numbers favorable to McGavick, usually just when he needs 'em. Methinks they're ringers.

Richard,

I'll take your word that you're no anti-Semite, but I do still want to ask you about your first comment.

In your last, you wrote, "My comment about Mr. Lieberman who everyone seems to say will participate in the democrat caucus was more aimed at my experience that one has to be mad to trust in the tameness of the wolf. Politics doesn't work that way. There 's daggers in men's smiles. With the democrats in Lamonts courts, his loyalty may not be true blue." I have NO objection to the substance of your point; I agree absolutely that there are daggers in Lieberman's smile.

But what caused me to write that your first post was anti-Semitic was NOT that you're anti-Lieberman, but HOW you expressed your worry that JL will be reelected. You wrote that he "will extract his pound of flesh from the Democrat side of the aisle." Writing that someone who not only is Jewish, but is famous in large part FOR his Jewishness, "will extract [a] pound of flesh," very reasonably sets off alarm bells, because the expression is a reference to Shylock (most controversial depiction of a Jew in the canon, blah blah blah). That name applied to Jews is a slur, and what you wrote struck me as a not-very-subtle means of implying it. I think my stating so was anything but scurrilous -- once more, my point was not, "you don't like Lieberman, thus you're an anti-Semite" (which is terribly dishonest whenever it occurs), but "those are some pretty suspect words with which to make the point that you don't like Lieberman."

I was wrong, it seems, and I'll apologize to you unconditionally -- but I would like to know if you had the origin of the "pound of flesh" expression in mind when you chose those words.

Thanks,

Max

Richard,

I'll take your word that you're no anti-Semite, but I do still want to ask you about your first comment.

In your last, you wrote, "My comment about Mr. Lieberman who everyone seems to say will participate in the democrat caucus was more aimed at my experience that one has to be mad to trust in the tameness of the wolf. Politics doesn't work that way. There 's daggers in men's smiles. With the democrats in Lamonts courts, his loyalty may not be true blue." I have NO objection to the substance of your point; I agree absolutely that there are daggers in Lieberman's smile.

But what caused me to write that your first post was anti-Semitic was NOT that you're anti-Lieberman, but HOW you expressed your worry that JL will be reelected. You wrote that he "will extract his pound of flesh from the Democrat side of the aisle." Writing that someone who not only is Jewish, but is famous in large part FOR his Jewishness, "will extract [a] pound of flesh," very reasonably sets off alarm bells, because the expression is a reference to Shylock (most controversial depiction of a Jew in the canon, blah blah blah). That name applied to Jews is a slur, and what you wrote struck me as a not-very-subtle means of implying it. I think my stating so was anything but scurrilous -- once more, my point was not, "you don't like Lieberman, thus you're an anti-Semite" (which is terribly dishonest whenever it occurs), but "those are some pretty suspect words with which to make the point that you don't like Lieberman."

I was wrong, it seems, and I'll apologize to you unconditionally -- but I would like to know if you had the origin of the "pound of flesh" expression in mind when you chose those words.

Thanks,

Max

" 'It is amazing how much Lamont looks like the alledged Killer of Jon Benet Ramsey'

It's amazing. Once again, the laugh of the day goes to bhoomes. I can see he's been lapping up the kiddie porn that the rightwing media likes so much... "

It shows a complete lack of class on bhoomes' part IMO Drindl.

Notice how he dosen't bother trying to attack Lamont's stand on the issues (just like every other wingnut), probably b/c Lamont is more in the mainstream on every single one of them than Joe Lieberman.

Skunkemanmsu pretty much said what I was going to say about our GOP party chair Anuzis' remarks on here earlier today. However, Chris, I must disagree with your assessment of Bouchard's current ad starring his daughter. I found it totally irrelevant for someone running for the US Senate, plus it was also oddly disturbing. As Skunk said Bouchard has no personal wealth (had to take out a home equity loan for $250K to keep his ad up near the end). As a resident of Oakland County, I have to wonder who is really our Sheriff these days! Also, I was astounded to learn that he's an outside member of the board of managers for Jacknson National Life's family of mutual funds. Usually such folks are business people, not someone who's been an elected official for the last 20 years and a cop before that. For this he gets paid $60K, about 50% of what he makes as sheriff. If he should happen to win this race (which I doubt), he'll have to give up this little gig requiring just a couple hours a year.

No one else mentioned it, so I will: Pollster Rasmussen Reports shows Cantwell leading 48% to 37% for McGavick in their July 31 poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/July%202006/washingtonSenate.htm

Yes, Cantwell had a very close win in 2000. Yes, she bankrolled herself last time with dot-com cash. Yes, many Dems are mad at her for her vote for the war. But I haven't heard anything about the supposed outsourcing issue the previous posters cited. I'd say that's a non-issue.

(BTW, Dino Rossi lost the governor's race fair & square. The GOP Sec of State Sam Reed conducted the recount by both the letter & spirit of the law. Plus, Rossi's lawsuit challenging the result was so off-target that the judge -- handpicked by the GOP to hear the case -- threw out three Rossi votes, which increased Gregoire's very narrow margin of victory.)

Jackson L. - FYI, it's Sheldon Whitehouse - Sheridan Whitehouse is the main character in The Man Who Came to Dinner

In the 2000 election it was Chafee 57%/Weygand 42%. Linc wasn't even a "first-termer" then, and Weygand wasn't simply a pushover.

Linc's strong point is bi-partisan backing.

But, he won't get that in the primary; especially if Rothenberg is correct that there really aren't a significant number of "unaffiliated" cross-overs.

Circle of Life? Some Rhode Islanders believe that in 1976 it was Republican crossovers who took down Gov. Phil Noel in a Democratic Senate primary, voting for a car dealer to be the Democrat's candidate.

Who won that election? John H. Chaffee, Linc's father.

'Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss.'

Love your prose style, poor richard.

'It is amazing how much Lamont looks like the alledged Killer of Jon Benet Ramsey'

It's amazing. Once again, the laugh of the day goes to bhoomes. I can see he's been lapping up the kiddie porn that the rightwing media likes so much...

Max and poor richard.

Joe must recognize that All the world 's a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts

1. Most vulnerable democratic seat seems to be NJ. Polls always show only a slight Menendez lead even as everything is going his way. Menendez has been doing most things right, aggresive campaigning and got a boost when Keane tried to Swiftboat him on corruption in his native county (DAs that investigated the case went public calling Menendez a hero and making Keane, whose father is beloved in NJ, look slimy.

Keane can only improve and democratic corruption will hurt him in the fall.

2. In Washington state by contrast, Cantwell can only improve over time, anti-bush sentiment is strong and will go against republican. McGavick has run a great campaign, but hard to see him maintaining the good run he is having.

3. Santorum and Chafee are dead men walking. When you are that far behind with 82 days to go before the election and you are an incumbent, it is all over. Moreover, RI and Penn voters really seem to want to send a message to the President compared to some other states. I would probably say the same about Burns.

Obvious point: Almost any republican incumbent facing a reasonably well financed democrat in this political that is trailing their opponent with 80 days to go is a zombie, no longer living but still walking because they don't know they have entered the political afterlife.

4. This doesn't mean dems will retake senate, that seems pretty unlikely, but these guys are goners.

I do see Menendez and Cantwell vulnerable and don't see a democratic pickup...

Max

Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood.

Your comment could have been the unkindest cut of all. As a regular here most know that anti-semitic I am not, and I do support Mr. Lamont. I would hate to be done to death by a slanderous tongue.

My comment about Mr. Lieberman who everyone seems to say will participate in the democrat caucus was more aimed at my experience that one has to be mad to trust in the tameness of the wolf. Politics doesn't work that way. There 's daggers in men's smiles. With the democrats in Lamonts courts, his loyalty may not be true blue.

And, with Rove's alleged comments about support, his support of the president, one has to take pause because 'Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss.

I wish you well and so I take my leave,
I Pray you know me when we meet again.

It's nice that Saul the chairman of the MI GOP can come on here so optimistic and make statements about Michigan's economic situation, while at the same time he neglects to mention that the Republicans have been in control of both the state house and senate for years. Not to mention the economic situation starting turning sour near the end of Republican Governor Engler's disastrous tenure in office.

The MI GOP must assume that the average voter is an idiot if they actually believe Michiganders will retain the GOP majority that has dominated state elections, while at the same time ousts the Democratic incumbents, who he attributes all the economic problems to. The one thing that Saul has going for him is that Dick Devos has the finances to buy his way into power, unfortunately their right wing nominee for the senate Bouchard does not have the personal wealth to overcome Stabenow's large lead in fundraising!

'groveling to the anti-war purists trying to purge Lieberman, and along with it their chances of victory this fall.'

Everlast, you mean the 60% of the electorate who want the US out of Iraq immediately?

I agree with the posters who said Jack Carter (running against Sen. Ensign in NV) should be on the list. Not high up, but at least in the top 10. He's got a better chance than Harold Ford does, that's for sure.

Re Virginia, the rapidly changing demographics of the Commonwealth are exactly why 'macaca' has Allen on the ropes: Virginia's a lot less Good Ole Boy now than it was when Allen won his previous races, and this gives people who might've been on the fence a specific reason to see him in a different light.

"For Dems to take control:

Win all current Rep seats down in polls +3

Hold all seats (MI, NJ, WA critical)-

Win both tied Rep seats (MO, MT) +2

Don't piss off Lieberman should he win to ensure he continues to caucus with Dems. -

Win one of the following close races (AZ, NV, TN, VA) +1-4"

--This sounds like a very tall order. Maybe like predicting that the Royals will win the Series in 4? Ha.

Poor Richard writes, "Look for an arrogant DNC to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and be down one in the senate for the reasons DW discusses, or have Joe L. sitting on the presidents bench. He will extract his pound of flesh from the Democrat side of the aisle."

Lieberman will extract his pound of flesh? Gee, which Shakespearian character is being made reference to here? Could it be a Jewish one? P.R., did you think that was subtle? Incidentally I love Lamont, I'll be heartbroken if he loses, and I think the accusations that his supporters are anti-Semitic have been laughable (though offensive) bunk. But drawing a comparison between Lieberman and Shylock is as transparently racist as a French speaker calling an Indian guy "Macaca."

I'd like to agree with those who have pointed out that Mark Kennedy's advertisements are embarrassing and un-Senatorial. "Let's elect the quirky guy with the sitcom family to help run the country!"

Perhaps unwisely, I'm not particularly concerned about the Jersey race. Weren't Kerry in '04 and Corzine in '05 supposed to have tough times? Don't the Rs always try to make it out that THIS time working-class NJ, with its proximity to NYC, is going to go their way? That the Dems are only pollilng slightly ahead? Perhaps it's just a perpetual, "let's-keep-their-eyes-off-the-ball" ruse. Kean is an unformidable candidate.

Oh, this is beautiful. Is there anyone out there still naive enough to think Joe's a Democrat?

'The Lieberman campaign has hired GOP pollster Neil Newhouse. Let's see who some of his GOP clients are: hmmmm, John Thune, Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum, and, what's this? CT Gov. Jodi Rell and Rob Simmons? Jodi Rell, who is being challenged by Democrat John DeStefano and CT-02 Rep. Rob Simmons, one of the Democrat's top targets this cycle?

Joe Lieberman, who has bemoaned the fact that Ned Lamont is going to be hurting Democrats in the other competitive races in Connecticut by running is actually going to be sharing polling data with other Connecticut GOP candidates! What's going to destroy Democrats chances in other races in Connecticut is the 300 lbs gorilla Lieberman campaign spending untold dollars on polling data that will help the GOP, a GOP voter focused GOTV effort and a Cheneyesque theme that Democrats can't keep the nation safe!

Everlast00 - is that you ryan?

Allen might have a problem. Demographics have changed. He has already scheduled a meeting with an Indian-American group [with quite a large membership in VA] for a crow-eating festival.

Goodbye Santorum. He barely beat a local TV weatherman in 2000! Since he already lives near DC, he can go teach politics at Michael Farris' RW fundamentalist college.

I think Chris is right to retain PA as the #1 race in the country. That Santorum always rallies to win by 51% is a myth. In his first senate race in 1994--a GOP landslide year--he had a 10 point lead in an October poll, and it was incumbent Harris Wofford who rallied to lose 49%-47% after Santorum had a spat with the late Senator Heinz's widow and Wofford focused on Santorum's comments about Social Security. In 2000, the Democratic nominee, Ron Klink, never led as he never had enough money to run a single advertisement on Philadelphia television. Still Santorum won with only 52% of the vote. Apparently, Santorum and his campaign like to perpetuate this myth about the senator, even if it is lacking factually.

George Allen is a lock. His comment will not hurt him in VA, which has a lot of KKK members. Remember, VA just allowed Blacks and Whites to marry in the 1960s!

lylepink wrote: "I agree with most of todays posts. The Rasmussen will be out tomorrow. I am very curious what the Va. Senate will show. As a guess, I think Allen will be hurt badly for the comments he made and the attempts to explain were handled so badly."

Rasmussen is out. Allen ahead of Webb by 5, 47% to 42%. This is down from a 11 point lead in July and a 20 point lead in April.

Link:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/August%202006/virginiaSenate.htm

OHIO "Although we still believe Republicans will have a field day with Rep. Sherrod Brown's (D) voting record, we also can't ignore polls"

There are several reasons for Browns positive poll numbers, not the least of which is the prevailing culture of republican corruption here [Bob Ney, CoinGate, Gov Taft's conviction etc]. Another is his voting record. In a state which has lost a phenomenal number of jobs in recent years Brown has consistently voted for working people and against job give-aways like NAFTA and CAFTA. He voted against the Iraq war 3 years ago and now better than 60% of Americans agree with him. That is leadership. Republicans can't have a field day with a voting record that resonates with working and middle class people and that is what Brown is doing. That is the message the polls are sending.

Mike Dewhine needs all the help he can get; but even John McCain tour this weekend won't be enough to save him this go round. Dewhine is Senator Nowhere, with no record of accomplishments to point to, and with ties to a failed and rejected national republican leadership [espcially Iraq] that he won't be able to shake.
Gary Staiger

Taylor, McGavick could be a Bush wingnut for all I care. The election is about Cantwell's outrageous support for outsourcing - it's a huge security hole, it's anti-worker, and anti-Amercian. If throwing my vote away means McGavick wins, so be it. There are many important issues, but **THE** fundimental issue is feeding and housing and clothing your family and Cantwell's support for stealing American jobs and shipping them overseas and permitting "guest workers" from China and India and Mexico to take the remaining jobs is prima facia evidence that she is NOT a suitable as a U.S. Senator. She's no Democrat and needs to be tossed with yesterday's garbage.

'Does anyone care what a bunch of bloggers are writing' is so odd on the face of it. How about, does anyone care what a bunch of people are thinking? Especially if it is a large bunch of people, with a large following...I would say if you are in politics, perhaps you do care.

Chris,

I am afraid that there is a factual error in this statement:

"Still, New Jersey Republicans haven't won a contested race for governor or Senate since Christie Todd Whitman was elected governor in 1993. (Previous ranking: 8)"

In 1997 the GOP won when Whitman was reelected.

jackon landers.

Your point is interesting. ore important, does anyone care what a bunch of bloggers are writing? One could argue that this is a bit like the argument of trees in forest making a sound.

On the flip side, if there are a bunch of folks thinking as those whoare writing here (bhoomes included with respect) but aren't writing, the commentary may be a reflection of where this Old Republic is headed.

I agree with most of todays posts. The Rasmussen will be out tomorrow. I am very curious what the Va. Senate will show. As a guess, I think Allen will be hurt badly for the comments he made and the attempts to explain were handled so badly.

And he's already shown he doesn't give a rat's a** about that...

Jackson,

I can't express to you how irrelevant Harry Reid is. You absolutely underestimate Lieberman's power should he win in November and the Dems gain seats. With Frist retiring and control of the Senate up for grabs, he could hold the deciding vote.

You don't honestly think he's running just to retain what he has, do you? His vote becomes INCREDIBLY valuable ALL the time if the Dems pick up a few seats this fall. As an "independent", he can play both sides and take the highest bid. Assuming this will be his last election, he'll have no one to answer to but history.

Everlast00,

The only person whose opinion on Leiberman's committee appointments counts is Harry Reid's. Harry Reid doesn't care in the slightest what a bunch of bloggers are saying. He knows that he needs to put together a majority caucus and that is all he really cares about. There's no way that Harry Reid would even consider stripping Leiberman of his assignments and Leiberman knows this perfectly well.

Jackson,

I think you underestimate the possibility of Senate Democratic leadership pushing Lieberman out of the party. These rumblings of stripping him from power on the committees are real. He could be the swing vote--and a vote Republicans would like to have. Reminds me a bit of 2001 with Jim Jeffords--Republicans took him for granted, went behind his back on the committee he ran, and ultimately lost him for no good reason other than the purists wanted nothing to do with him. The Dems are setting themselves up for a similar situation (lifelong member of party switches due to backstabbing by leadership).

Trust me on this one. I worked for Sen. Jeffords when he switched. Same situation now, different party.

Everlast00,

Connecticut doesn't really count for the top 10 because both serious candidates say that they will caucus with the Democrats. It's an interesting race and fun to watch but at this point it has no chance of affecting control of the Senate.

For a few weeks now Chafee has been polling for a loss in the general election against Sheridan Whitehouse. Bear in mind that Lincoln Chafee has only ever actually won a single statewide election. He was at first appointed to fill that seat when it was vacated mid-term by his father's death. So from a political stand-point, he's still a one-termer which is generally regarded as much more vulnerable than a seasoned, well-entrenched incumbent. Chafee is in real trouble even if he wins his primary.

I think you're spot-on putting Virginia in a #10 slot. It's nowhere near top 5 yet but is now obviously a far more competetive race than MN (why did Chris include that one?) and probably at least tied with Washington.

A little friday liteness...

http://rightwingnytimes.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

this is so funny... you have to drag the cursor across not only the banner but the individual article titles to see what 'they' see..

PLEASE quit writing that Connecticut is changing hands. That election is basically two democrats running against each other. If Lamont or Lieberman win both will caucus with the Democrats which is what determines who runs the Senate.

I forgot to mention, the Connecticut race is much more important given certain Democrats' idiotic idea to strip Lieberman of seniority. Yeah, they probably won't need his vote for caucusing, since they're so likely to pick up 7 seats this fall. Joe's lead as an "independent" could be worth a lot if Dems pick up 5 seats and end up with a 50-50 tie. Or lead 51-49 with Dems trying to strip him of seniority and Republicans offering him the committee chairmanship of his choice.

If Dems are threatening to take over come November, this seat will be hugely important, especially given the party leadership's groveling to the anti-war purists trying to purge Lieberman, and along with it their chances of victory this fall.

It is amazing how much Lamont looks like the alledged Killer of Jon Benet Ramsey. Both pencil necks with stupid grins. Lamont is toast, and Lieberman just may caucus with republicans after he wins this Nov. At the very least the dems will have to be very carefull not offend him.

Jackson Landers,
I agree that Ford has a really good shot at taking Frist's seat he just isn't there yet in my opinion. But then again he has been stockpiling money, and will bring in the heavy hitters like Clinton to help out when it gets a little closer. I am interested to see what happens to the polls in the next few weeks.

Saul's point actually is a risk around the country.

Numbers are that incumbents are in trouble regardless of Blue or Red leanings. The Repbulicans like poor richard says are real organized.

They are smart enough to know that they can pick off a bunch of Dem incumbents and offset losses they know they are going to take.

Chess at its finest.

I also think the Dems are going to have Lieberman haunt them. But Howard Dean will haunt them worse.

In Washington, the McGavick faux-moderate campaign is already starting to wear thin. Recently, they have brought it not only Bush but also Cheney and Frist to raise cash for him...that follows the notorious big fundraiser in Alaska a few months ago hosted by Ted Stevens. More and more, McGavick is getting known by the company he keeps, and he himself does the "moderate" image little good when he comes out for teaching "crative design" in school, as well as eliminating the estate tax, staying the course in Iraq, and sucking up to big oil and other corporate interests. The earlier poster who wants to "punish" Cantwell for what he perceives to be various political sins will of course only end up punishing himself and the rest of us by casting his defacto vote for the GOP candidate...but of course, "punishing heretics" is the favorite activity of self-centered lefties (and righties) in politics.

The Connecticut race MUST be ranked in the Senate Line, and it should be ranked #1 (besides, how many races has Santorum "come from behind" and won now with 51% of the vote? Jesse Helms made a long career out of 51% majorities. Same with Conrad Burns in MT).

DeWine is the most vulnerable Republican, as the party's problems in Ohio loom. Dem seats in MI and WA are at least toss-ups, since both women barely won in 2000 and have no history of winning past that. Talent is in trouble in MO, a state where elections are all about turnout. Ford is hardly the centrist some say and