http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/senate08/
Sununu is in trouble.

I'm not sure why voting with the president 96% of the time, as Norm Coleman has done is considered moderate. I can't think of a single issue that he has been "moderate" on. Can anyone point to one, where is this myth of moderation coming from?

Question for anyone in Michigan: What is special about Candice Miller? The GOP seems to believe Levin will be vulnerable if Miller runs for the seat. Why do they believe this? Wouldn't Terri Land, secretary of state who was re-elected in 06' with 56% of the vote, be a more credible candidate than Miller? So what's special about Miller and is Levin really vulnerable?

Jennifer and Nor'easter, I want to respond to your posts about NC. First off, Nor'easter, You can't compare George Allen to Liddy Dole. Allen's main issues were the infamous "Macaca" comment, the fact that if he'd been elected he would have been leaving the senate (possibly) for a run at the Presidency and the fact that it looked like he was using Va. for his own political purposes, so they voted him out. Liddy Dole, as far as I know, has no furthur political hopes. Nor do I think she will be doing anything as dumb as Allen, pandering to the ultra-right for a Presidential run. Many of her votes against Bush's trade policies back that up.

Jennifer, she's a turnin blue. Haha. You must live in Chapel Hill, where you could honestly believe that. NC is fairly conservative. I think Bill Graham has a great shot of taking the gov. mansion back this year. Especially against Perdue, who will have to defend the gas tax for our state or go back on it. Dole will be in great shape, b/c all the upper NC Democrats are running for governor, so more resources will be spent there than on Liddy's senate race. Dole is fine.

Finally, Andy R, her Meet the Press interview did go badly. I grant you that, but in the election, she's a winner. Her vote's represent us as a state. Now, in the event that she retired Sue Myrick would jump into that race in a heartbeat. She would be a great candidate, and likely would defeat whoever the dems. put against her, barring Easley or Jim Hunt.

Whoa, Ohio guy, simmer down. I think Michael in NJ's analysis is pretty spot on. Who knows what Harkin will do, and Johnson won re-election in 2002 by less than 1000 votes, I believe.

Overall, I agree that the Dems will net 1-2 seats at this point. I think both Coleman and Sununu will be harder to dislodge than originally thought.

On a House-related note, one of the reporters on Chris Matthew's Sunday morning show said that 10-12 (can't remember the exact number) House Republicans will announce their retirement relatively soon. Hope Nancy's getting comfortable in the Speaker's chair; she'll be there awhile.

Michael in NJ -

Your picks/analysis were terrible for two very big reasons:

Your info on Harkin is extremely outdated. EXREMELY outdated. Harkin IS RUNNING - no if's, and's or but's about it. He has begun raising money and hired a campaign manager and staff.

Second, the fact that you pick Tim Johnson oto lose is hysterical. You kinda sounded like you knew a little something about politics until you dropped that doozy. No one is going to defeat Johnson in '08 - he is running, and Gov. Rounds would lose if he ran. End of story.

kingofzouk: "My kids can walk now so it is just about time for riflery practice to begin."

He starts 'em young, so that by the time they are 18 and voting, they will have been fully indoctrinated. I bet he takes them to a survivalist camp in the woods.

If Domenici doesn't run, who is likely to run for the US Senate in New Mexico?

Interesting discussion this one, at times. I am not close enough to know who's in danger and who's not, but I have seen the clip of Elizabeth Dole on meet the press and was less than impressed. If she survives her next election battle I worry about either NC voters or the NC democratic party. I also can't believe that Inhofe guy from Oklahoma is a senator. The guy is crazy. I hope he gets replaced, he says that global warming is a hoax but has presented absolutely no evidence to back this up whatsoever.

KOZ you are quite amazing. You should really read your posts sometimes. Almost every post contains a complaint about 'libs' or 'dems' slinging insults and calling names, and yet almost every post of yours does exactly that in the direction of 'libs' or 'dems'. I hate to say it, but the word hypocrite comes to mind.

03:16pm Post: As usual, only A part of the sentence. This is quite common to try and misrepresent what is actually said. Of course, it came from the biggest ma-nip-pa-lator of all on the subject mentioned.

kingofzouk--While McCain-Feingold is certainly debateable, I assert that completely disallowing paying money to publish/broadcast a political message while allowing it to be done completely free would be constitutional. Thoughts?

And stop pretending obtusity with the USA firings. You know we know you know and so on.

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State'

yes, a well-regulated militia, funny how the wingers like to ignore the 'well-regulated' part... only evrything that comes after the comma counts.

zouky is a troll, plain and simple, keeps your mind off of intelligent discussion to propagate his government propaganda...

"i won't get into how you can't prove things are true, only false, for now."

Please, get into it. Because I can't think of any system of logic in which a statement can't be proven true. And that violates both common sense and legal standards. I'm sure anyone here could come up with plenty of examples of statements which can be proven true.

In fact, there's no way you can be right. If you're right, then you can't prove that the quoted statement above is true. Which means you can't be right. QED.

Davis is actually blaming Valerie Plame today,saying that "SECRET" designation on her memo wasn't clear enough for the morons to understand her job in CIA's counter-proliferation unit and Ambassador's wife access was actually SECRET. The memo is at www.nysun.com/pics/31062_2.php. That and his telling Congressional Quarterly that he knew since 2004 that our troops were sharing beds with rats in Walter Reed should end any political career. I hope Virgnians are smart enough to kick him to the curb.

I am not now, nor have ever been a communist.....I mean a lawyer. I don't know case law - I am a math guy. but I do see the tide turning on liberal activist judges and the pendulum is swinging the other way for a while. the DC case proves my supposition. i won't get into how you can't prove things are true, only false, for now. but the evidence is mounting.

I already own guns so in my case it is settled. better to be judged by 12 than buried by six. I am thinking of buying some more. My kids can walk now so it is just about time for riflery practice to begin.

KOZ -- I know this will come as a shock, but it turns out it's generally NOT possible to provide clear cut proof of a crime when an investigation is only beginning. If you sit tight though I imagine even your beloved Fox News will eventually give you some more details.

Oh, and you're simply wrong about the caselaw regarding the Second Amendment. Before this decision only one Circuit Court has EVER held in favor of an individual rights reading of the Second Amendment (5th Circuit). The Supreme Court hasn't taken a case on the topic since Miller, which I believe was decided more than 60 years ago. Given that the case is cited by BOTH sides of the debate, seems pretty clear that this is not an issue of "settled law." Run a few westlaw searches if you'd like proof or just read the Chemerinsky article cited above.

Davis in Virginia? Warner? Warner? Where's the Republican candidate? Better yet, where's any Independent candidate?

I don't see a groundswelling of 2nd amendment cases out there - seems to be mostly settled at this point.

Meuphys, you don't distinguish between militia and Army in your analysis and therefore come up short. the founders certainly understood this distinction. why do Lib arguments depend so fiercly on the definition of certain words - the meaning of the word is, for example. to me it smacks of desperation. It is realy very simple, you have the right to own a gun. It is this power of the powder devolving to the individual which keeps the government honest. they did the same thing with speech - devolving it to the individual and with property - maintaining individual property rights outside the State. It all follows if you subscribe to the limited government theory and not the nanny state.

"is it ok for the whitehouse to fire people because they refuse to charge people with crimes for explicitly political reasons" - in my opinion it is not OK to do this. I have not had it demonstrated to me convincingly that this is the situation this week. but I am somewhat confused what crimes are explicetly political - like stealing, murder, extortion, fraud? Are you referring to the Tom Delay situation? OK, I agree that was wrong to do that to him for purely political purposes.

It puts the lotion in the pan, or else it gets the hose again!

KOZ -- The Courts, made up of both Dems and Republicans, seem to think the second amendment is more ambiguous than you do. Glad to hear that in your expert legal opinion the matter is settled though. As to Henderson's dissent, I said from the beginning I didn't find her "DC is not a state" argument persuasive. But she had multiple grounds for objecting -- hence the discussion Re collective vs. individual rights.

Regarding the US Attys, interesting you never commented on my original question; is it ok for the whitehouse to fire people because they refuse to charge people with crimes for explicitly political reasons. If you dont think that is different than normal turnover when a new administration comes in, I'm worried about you.

The gun/arms is a silly thing that has gone on for years and will continue. I think it is one of the so called "no brainer" things that no one can ever win.

Valerie Plame is a lying fool. There is a memo with her recommending her husband, who was out of work and probably drinking again, for the trip to Niger. She also admitted to hosting him with a bunch of DNC hacks at the CIA before she was outed, which means that a bunch of DNC operatives without security clearances knew she was peddling her wares at the CIA. The CIA is protecting her because they have messed up intelligence for years: the India Pakistan nuclear issue, North Korea, Iran, 9/11 and Iraq. These woman was in charge of WMD as a GS 14??? 20 years at the CIA, and only a GS14? Come on!!

ok, zouky, it's history time!

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

the phrasing of this is pretty clear, and not in the way you read it... but it takes a little history to understand it. the second sentence is dependent on the first, as the wording makes clear to an intelligent reader. the only way to interpret this is "Because we need to have an army, everyone must be allowed to own weapons."

keep in mind that at the time the constitution was written, the united states had a clear need for an army - europe was in turmoil (remember the frech revolution?) and england still had hopes of re-capturing its old colonies...

also, the idea of "manifest destiny" required the extermination or at least the defeat of eight to ten native american tribes, all of whom knew the country far better than the settlers. and then, of course, there was spain and its colonies in latin america.

meanwhile, the system by which men were recruited to fight had a lot to do with raising militias from town to town, as the standing army was actually pretty small at the time. potential recruits were expected to come with their own weapons. hence this entry in the constitution.

fast forward to the 21st century. we maintain one of the largest and best-equipped standing armies in the world, even as an increasing percentage of our weaponry is remotely launched and directed, having nothing to do with personal firearms. even when fighting some of our less technologically-advanced opponents... what good does an AK do against a roadside bomb?

this unfortunate passage in the constitution is now only cited by the nra, survivalists, militias, etc. to justify their owning firearms / munitions / automatic weapons with no purpose other than to kill civilians. (it is not used to disarm legitimate sportsmen.) it cannot logically be used to justify anything else.

Oh, and one more thing: New Mexicans have been following the shenanigans of the two former Democratic State Treasurers. Pete and Heather may have been out of line to complain to the U.S. Attorneys, but New Mexicans who followed day-by-day descriptions of the stink in Santa Fe know that they both had something worth complaining about.

Pete Dominici on this list?? What on earth are you smoking? New Mexico is a state that depends on the federal dollar for its sustenance. Even liberal scientists in Los Alamos and at Sandia and Alamogordo know who gets their bread buttered. C'mon.

"I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said.
Does this contradict an exhaustive Senate Intelligence Committee report on pre-war intelligence about Iraq, which looked closely at the genesis of the Wilson visit?

The report, issued in 2004, notes that some officials at the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) of the CIA "could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador [Wilson]." But it states unequivocally that "interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip." In particular, the CPD reports-officer told the Senate committee "that the former ambassador's wife 'offered up his name.'"

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/schoenfeld/272

A family of liars it seems. will she be charged with perjury. no she is the Dem poster child. Make a movie.

As for the first part of the statement - in those days a militia was formed by all able men between 20 and 40 or so. when the enemy came to town, you got your gun and went off to fight them. Is your arguement then that it depends on the meaning of the word militia? you then agree with me that relying upon the clause that it must be a state to apply and territories are not included is simple BS.

so regardless of whether you can find a suitable definition of militia, you agree that the judge was working from shoddy premises when trying to maintain DC as a gun free zone. This was my point from the very beginning. I am glad you have come to see the wisdom I am offering you.

I am not so sure that firing attornies for political reasons is a problem since that is why they are fired everytime they are fired. I don't bite on the "it os OK at the beginning of the term but not in the middle " argument. how does this make sense. the same way that speech is free until day 60 before the election and then it is illegal?

Until you can provide an argument that passes Rawls "veil of ignorance" idea, you will not convince me. that is, a rule must apply no matter who and when it is applied.

John d, those are the kind of comments that get my attention. I always appreciate sensible feedback, even (and especially) if it is contrary to my notions.

You don't speak for us, Zouk!

"I guess the founders didn't think anyone would be dense enough to misunderstand."

Perhaps you could explain it to the 70 years worth of professional judges (lots appointed by Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush & Bush) who seem to understand it differently than you. Or, will we see you making the presentation at the Supreme Court?

"Meuphys, you seem to have a crisis every other day."

-whereas you sail smoothly along while our vaunted democracy crumbles around us. you seem to be in constant denial.

"a US attorney does not belong to a labor union and does not have the right to a lifetime job. It is very simple, they can isibe fired for any reason at any time. this is similar to most people in the US."

-however, most in the u.s. are protected from being fired for reasons not related to job performance. like, say, having political views the boss doesn't like. tell me, your majesty, would you hire a democrat? careful how you answer.

"I can only guess that in your infinite wisdom you would prefer to manage the hiring and firing of these guys yourself."

-you are INCORRECT, sir! i in no way want the responsibility of white house personnel decisions. that's why we elect someone who does. unfortunately, we can only guess at that person's ethics/management skills, and in 2000 and 2004, narrow majorities of us (including you, i would assume) guessed wrongly.

as for me, all that i would ask is that competence be the basis on which employment decisions are made - especially for lawyers, who are supposed to enforce a code which applies to all of all parties - rather than partisan affiliation.

"I didn't hear you complaining when Rummy was fired for 'purely political reasons'."

-rummy was fired for causing the death of thousands of american soldiers with his arrogant insistence that he, a civilian hack, knew better than generals in the field what strategy to pursue in iraq... with the result, if you've been watching the news, of the deaths of almost 3500 service men and women, over a thousand "contractors," and 70,000+ iraqis.
bad rummy!

"if we win the war, will you mind?"

- 1, it's not a "war," and thus cannot be "won." "wars" are fought between nations, or at the very least between nations and groups which claim a national identity. look it up, smart guy. "wars" are also fought between armies with a defined command structure...

what the u.s. armed forces are doing in iraq is trying unsuccessfully to keep the peace between two sides of a civil war, thus gaining the hatred of both. they are fighting an enemy who cannot be easily identified as such, and is not affiliated with a political entity.

your crudely phrased question is "if 'we' (the u.s. armed forces) 'win' (however that is to be defined) the 'war,' (see above) will you mind?"

-the 'war' cannot be 'won' by the united states. the tensions involved are specific to iraq, and must be resolved in iraq by iraqis in order to achieve a peaceful result - our arrogant attempt to impose our values and way of life on a country with a completely different cultural and political history is making matters worse.

our continued presence in iraq is costing us international good will, the respect which our government and armed forces used to enjoy, billions and billions of dollars we are borrowing from china, a measure of security as we have taken our eye off the ball in many parts of the world (afghanistan, north korea, china, russia, africa, south america, etc. etc.), and i could go on.

there is no long term victory possible in iraq without involving other area nations - none of whom like or trust us, and all bush is trying to do is to put lipstick on a pig before the 2008 elections. and he will fail.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Depends on the meaning of the word "is", Dems trying to alter the meaning of words when the normal meanings don't suit them.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

how much of a penumbra can you find? It just isn't that difficult, even for a Lib. It is actually the most simple and strighforward of all the amendments. I guess the founders didn't think anyone would be dense enough to misunderstand.

Colin, He's quite capable, but it doesn't suit his purpose. He's not interested in honest discourse. It's all about beating the opposition.

In the marketplace of ideas, a free market is anathema to him. He wants the market rigged and therefore, distorts it.

Great comments, Michael in NJ
I only disagree in that I believe Domenici will retire and Democrats will take NM, and keep LA and SD. 56-44.
I also think Dole might retire, making it 57-43.

For KOZ:
These kinds of statements of yours --
"you are why the Dems will lose the next election. Keep up the good work and get your message out." --

They always remind me of Rove telling NPR right before the 2006 elections that "HE" had "THE MATH" and Republicans were going to gain seats.
Seems Rove DIDN'T have "The Math" after all, huh?

You know "the message" my college students give me these days?
"Why don't the Republicans listen to the voters and help the Democrats stop Bush?"

If the Republicans in Congress continue to rubberstamp Bush for the next couple of years, I believe the Democratic Senate may have a fillibuster majority in 2008.

And by the way - this blog is supposed to be about next years senate race, isn't it?

KOZ - usually, you infuriate me because you make good points - today, you are off the beam, I'm afraid -

Bottom line, U.S. Attornies were fired for political purposes - this should not happen. I don't know you, but you seem smart enough to not support this behavior, even though it is the M.O. of the current administration.

We need the best people running this country, not the best people who agree with the conservative agenda of the moment.

And, c'mon, you are being just as insulting to others in your typical condescending fashion.

KOZ -- My point is that there is clearly sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. If that investigation shows nothing improper happened, then so be it. You, my friend, are the one arguing that we should refuse to even pursue the issue. I'd love to see YOUR evidence that makes an investigation unwarranted.

As to Jefferson, who I assume you bring up to distract from the weakness of your arguments, I've said maaany times that the guy belongs in jail. Not sure what your point is.

As far as the second amendment goes, I think you need to brush up on your textualism. The amendment reads, in its entirety, as follows:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Your interpretation seems to completely ignore the first clause. Now, I won't argue for a second that an individual rights view of the Second Amendment is irrational. It's not and is supportable. But there's a reason the Supreme Court has ducked this issue for years -- it's a tough call with serious implications. As usual, your argument glosses over any complexity -- which is a shame b/c you're capable of making better arguments.

Colin, glad you pointed out the 2nd Amendment opinion distortion by Zouk. Last week he was chortling over the decision by the Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C., distorting what was involved.

Over the last year, I've bought off on some of the "guns rights" legal history provided by the pro-gun posters here. I've been snookered. Turns out, they've probably been snookered themselves, by the NRA.

We know that Zouk never tells the whole truth when a narrow presentation suits his purpose.

Turns out that there are two competing theories in the U.S. Courts on how the 2nd Amendment works. The D.C. Appellate Court simply happened to follow one of the two theories.

On Wednesday the Post had an OpEd piece by Erwin Chemerinsky, a professor of law and political science at Duke. It doesn't take any position on the issue involved. It's concise and puts into perspective the legal process side of the issue. Something which most of us are unaware of. It's worth reading by both pro-gun and anti-gun supporters. You'll understand that there's more to come.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301508.html

This is a long, but hopefully good, analysis, so please bear with me.

10. Iowa, Tom Harkin: Last I heard, the Democratic National Committee had commitments to run again from every Dem Senator up for re-election next year except Harkin. He might be retiring. If he does, this seat is totally up for grabs, but the Dems still have lots of talent in the State. If he decides he wants to keep it, he keeps it.

9. New Mexico, Pete Domenici: It would take a medical calamity, not an ethical calamity, to get Domenici out.

8. South Dakota, Tim Johnson: Healthy or not, it would be a tough race for him. The Great Plains can be noted for populism and favorite-son-ism, but not particularly for sympathy.

7. Virginia, John Warner. He'll be just short of 81, and looks it. If it's Mark Warner vs. John Warner, it could be a great race, because both men are well-regarded and neither is known for playing dirty. If it's Mark Warner vs. GOP TBA, this seat goes from red to blue.

6. Oregon, Gordon Smith. Maybe Smith is well-liked, even by Democrats. So was Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island, and that didn't help him. Oregon has a strong Republican core, but that's about it. Smith won the seat because he succeeded Mark Hatfield. Had he run for the seat of Bob Packwood so soon after it was tainted, he would've lost.

5. Maine, Susan Collins. It'll be tough, but I think she'll win re-election unless there is a total revulsion against the GOP in 2008, in which case it won't be her fault.

4. Louisiana, Mary Landrieu. Unless black voters return to New Orleans, she may be finished. Too bad, because I was hoping Al Gore, and then John Kerry, would pick her for the Vice Presidential nomination. But her competition isn't especially daunting, and in what looks (for the moment) like a Democratic year, even in the South, that may be enough to keep her going.

3. New Hampshire, John Sununu. More likely gone than staying, but the Sununu family has proven rather durable.

2. Norm Coleman, Minnesota. Al Franken, who takes Coleman's presence in the Senate very personally because he was close to Paul Wellstone, might not be able to beat Coleman. But then, this is the State that chose Jesse Ventura as Governor over both Coleman (then Mayor of St. Paul) and Hubert "Skip" Humphrey (the son of the former Vice President was State Attorney General). Coleman is probably toast, barring a big shift in the political mood and maybe also a dirty trick or two.

1. Colorado, seat Republican but open. Mark Udall will do what his father and uncle could not, win a seat higher than the House of Representatives.

As for the seats brought up by earlier commenters:

North Carolina, Elizabeth Dole? All she has to do to win is pander to the people who thought Jesse Helms was God's Senator, and she knows how to do that. She stays.

New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg. My home State hasn't elected an out-and-out right-winger to statewide office since the 1952 Senate race. Senator Clifford Case and Governors Alfred Driscoll, William Cahill, Tom Kean and Christine Whitman were all moderates and on some issues even liberals by national GOP standards (although Whitman was as elitist as they come, her classism taking the form of racism). And if Tom Kean Jr. couldn't beat a somewhat vulnerable Bob Menendez last year, then Lautenberg, who plays dirty (I've called him a Democratic version of New York's Al D'Amato) will win despite his age. But I think he'll retire again, and that means Frank Pallone wins, partly because he's got a great record in a diverse House district, partly because it's a liberal State, partly because it looks like a liberal year, and partly because the GOP doesn't really have anybody, unless they want a second try by the weak Kean Jr. or Bob Franks, or a third by the lying empty-suit Doug Forrester.

Mississippi, Thad Cochran. It'll be tough for the Dems to take this one, especially if they nominate a black candidate. But if they hold the GOP nominee to, say, 53 percent, then, with another six years of old segregationists dying off and Bush-style evangelicalism waning, they would have a good shot at the seat in 2014.

Nebraska, Chuck Hagel. He's a Senator until he dies, barring a scandal (unlikely) or his election as President (really unlikely) or Vice President (very possible, especially if he runs with John McCain, although McCain would still have to be nominated).

Texas, Jon Cornyn. Texas isn't ready to rejoin the Union yet.

Oklahoma, Jim Inhofe. The man is a loon. Although he's the saner Oklahoma Senator as long as Tom Coburn is in. Still, it'll take an absolute tide for the Dems to take it, the kind that gets a Presidential nominee 450 Electoral Votes and gains over 40 seats in the House.

If my picks are right, the Democrats take Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Oregon, and hold Iowa and New Jersey; while the Republicans take Louisiana and South Dakota, and hold Maine, Virginia, New Mexico, North Carolina, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas. Figure at least one pick favoring each side is wrong, thus canceling each other out. This takes the tenuous 51-49 edge the Dems currently hold and turns it into a 53-47 Dem majority.

In my opinion, based on who's vulnerable, the Dems could hold the Senate, or even gain in it, even if they lose the Presidential election next year, if it's by a Bush-Kerry or Carter-Ford margin. If it's by a Clinton-Bush or Clinton-Dole margin, then the GOP wins. But if the Dems win the White House, then, as their FDR-era theme song goes, "Happy Days Are Here Again." For them, and me, anyway.

hmm

Colin, in that case the precedent would be the original 2nd amendment. a short and simple 27 words which is pretty hard to confuse, unless you are a tyrannical Lib with an agenda of power.

so you are promising me some actual evidence of criminal wrongdoing or you will admit to your prematire fragging? I relish the thought of serving you crow. do you also forego proper evidence in the Jefferson case or will you wait that one out too?

What FEC decision? Who's Zack Space?

Your arguments aren't insurmountable, they're incomprehensible.

You know, I'm sure that most of us who are actually writing about the subject matter at hand wish that you kids would take your off-subject spats out to the playground. Thank you.

Loudon, when i said steal a sense of humor, I didn't mean steal it from me. you should cite sources when you plaigerize.
What I wrote "Loudon, it must be very dark with your head in that awkward position. very nimble of you though."

and your "original" contribution "polyps he sees from the vantage point of one with his head firmy planted in his own butt."

Are you voting for Biden for president? Maybe you can get Teddy K. to take your proctology exam for you.

You should take a look at McConnell's approval ratings. For the Senate Minority Leader and supposed Godfather of the party in the state to have approval ratings hovering right around the 50% mark should put his re-election in jeopardy. Especially in a presidential election year when the top of the ticket is unlikely to appeal to Kentucky voters. Consider that when you take your next look at the rankings. A well-financed Democratic challenger, with the support of a newly elected Democratic governor and a strong race from the Democratic presidential candidate could be the triple whammy that retires McConnell.

From the person who fabricates history to suit his arguments, "I guess firing 8 attorneys for doing a bad job is en massea and politically motivated"

Which ignores that they had all received recent satisfactory or better performance ratings before being removed for poor performance. The removal was perfectly legitimate, but Justice felt compelled to lie about. Go figure!

Maybe Zouk is a spokesman at Justice.

KOZ -- I didn't actually insult anyone, so your "personal destruction" remark is off the mark. I merely noted that you were incorrect in arguing that Judge Henderson is a "liberal." As to the merits of her opinion, I agree with her FIRST raionale for diseenting -- which relied on the scarce Supreme Court precedent regarding the Second Amendment; all of which supports a collective rights reading of the amendment. Funny -- there was a time when conservaties thought following precedent was good. Guess not anymore.

Ironically, I don't have strong feelings regarding gun control and from a policy perspective think we should "let utah be utah and california be california."

Concerning the US Atty situation, read any of the articles out there if you want to educate yourself regarding why the firings were improper. Prosecutors, once appointed, are supposed to pursue cases on their merits without paying attention to whether a person has an 'R' or a 'D' next to their name. Here, the White House appears to have targeted folks for dismissal precisely because they refused to target people because they were Democrats. That's wrong.

But don't worry -- the upcoming congressional investigation will provide more "facts" for you. :)

Chris, I love your blog. But no offense, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Harkin. He's defeated more members of congress than anyone in HISTORY (look it up). He beat a sitting Republican congressman in 1974 to win his House seat, beat a sitting senator to become a senator in 1984, and has defeated three House members in his re-election bids since. Harkin has this seat for one more term, when he retires. Get him off this list and replace it with Tennessee (if Harold Ford can be convinced to run again).

Thanks for that, proud, but, uh...you're on the wrong thread.

Question I hoped they asked of Valerie Plame:

Was your job status changing, or had it changed, during your last years at the agency? If so, when, and for what reason?

If your status was either covert or classified, and if you did in fact meet with the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and with Nicholas Kristof, did you view it as part of your covert or classified work to meet with political groups and a columnist from the New York Times to discuss matters within your purview at the CIA?

Jennifer, when a rightwingnut cites "inside sources" he's referring to the polyps he sees from the vantage point of one with his head firmy planted in his own butt.

Zouk - You're getting too cranky! Time for cookies and milk and then a nap!

The FEC's decision sends the signal that as long as you're a powerful member of Congress and you only cheat by a few thousand dollars, it's OK," said spokesman Jonathan Rick.

another crooked Dem gets off scott free - dirty harry, marion barry, jefferson, hastings, burgler, murtha, frank, kennedy - Ok burgler paid a fine for covering up terrorist mismanagement.

making fun of names - don't get me started on Zack Space - the one term wonder. can't you distinguish between humor and malice? calling me names because you find my arguments insurmountable is not the same as dropping a funny nickname on an uninvolved pol. but you Dems never seem to get the nuances, despite your advertised favoritism for them.

"Senator Johnson had his final angiogram last week which confirmed that there is no evidence of residual arteriovenous malformation (AVM)," said Philip Marion, MD, Medical Director for the Department of Rehabilitative Medicine. "The Senator made great progress in the two months he spent at GW Hospital and we wish him all the best in his continued recovery

who ever posted that is brain dead.
go to his senate page and look at his recent pics
http://johnson.senate.gov/

Tim Johnson was discharged from GW in mid-February. Some inside information!

All politics is local, and that's how the senate race will play in VA. Sen. Warner is well-regarded, and, more likely than not, would defeat Gov. Warner. That said, Rep. Davis' bedroom shenanigans would not play well in the red part of the state, and Sen. Allen's macaca statements won't play well in the blue part. Should Sen. Warner step down, and this Dem. hopes that he won't, the election will be Gov. Warner's to lose.("D" here in VA stands for Disorganized. Dems don't even realize that, but for the convergence of an idiot senator, a video camera, Youtube, and a young man of color, both are senators would still be Republicans.)

Inside sources at GW Hospital report that Tim Johnson is virtually brain dead. All of this hoo-ha about his "slow but steady recovery" is meant to calm the nerves of rank and file Democrats, but their Senate majority is on veritable life support. His seat will be up for grabs next year.

"Members of extremist groups have signed up as school bus drivers in the United States"

Yes we are still at war. I hope none of your children are on the wrong bus on the wrong day. You may want to reconsider surrenduring.

Zouk, you're right. It's like a kindergarten class in here. One of those stupid libs is even mocking peoples' names! How juvenile can you get?

Tarheel - You obviously omitted the fact that Democrats picked up a record number of national and local seats this past fall. We've finally gotten rid of Jim Black (NC Dem ex-Speaker), about which every Dem I know was extremely happy. The Dems retain a majority in the both chambers of the state house, and the executive branch. Liddy has done NOTHING for this state. She's outa here.

BTW, I AM from North Carolina and we just elected our first Democratic U.S. Representative in 16 years! She's a'turnin' BLUE.

I figured when confronted forcefully you would fold up like a cheap lawn chair. you always do.

"game of demanding evidence" - as long as you FEEL that way who am I to argue. Keep getting your message out - it is a real hoot. reminds me of fake but true. and counting fake scientists to prove a hypothesis. and the non-existent "lockbox". do you attend the Harry Potter school?

The defenders of the current admin. is plainly beyond belief. Back to Sen. Dole, and the folks she represents. I cannot see how they will react in a favorable way toward her once this Meet the Press video is shown time and time again, as I think it will be

KOZ: "It's called a sense of humor. you ought to steal one somewhere."

Yes KOZ, it's a third-rate, I mean third-grade sense of humor. Schmuck Chewmore. Fess up, you still subscribe to MAD, right? You make sure they send it in a plain brown wrapper, though.

KOZ: "so Loudon, you admit;(pick one)
1 - that you are too much of a mental lightweight to even conduct a simple internet search OR
2 - that you were not able to find any compelling evidence to support your lies.

Just as I predicted. the insults are flying and the facts are ignored."

No, KOZ, I, like most sane people, no longer get sucked into this classic rightwingnut game of demanding evidence. You wouldn't trust anything I showed you anyway, so why not just cut out the middleman and go look for yourself.

I'm satisfied they lied. If you wish to go along with your head in the sand, be my guest.

It's called a sense of humor. you ought to steal one somewhere.

why do all you rabid Libs always remind me of a kindergarten class left unattended? Review the last few posts if you doubt me.

Only true loony liberals think a guy who's spent more time in Oxford, England than Machias can beat Susan Collins. Polls show Collins consistently close to Snowe in approval ratings, and Allen won't play north of Rockland. If the Democrats want to win this race they better find someone who knows how to get from Portland to Fort Kent without directions, not someone who thinks Brunswick is the northerly half of the state.

KOZ: "Schmuck Chewmore"

KOZ, you call other people juvenile? The guys at MAD magazine would have rejected that one.

so Loudon, you admit;(pick one)
1 - that you are too much of a mental lightweight to even conduct a simple internet search OR
2 - that you were not able to find any compelling evidence to support your lies.

Just as I predicted. the insults are flying and the facts are ignored.

I did get that Blarg, my point was that your point misses the point.

Chris, I definitely believe that Harkin shouldn't be on the list; however Senator Dole should have that spot. All polls show her even more vulnerable than Harkin and by all accounts if she chooses to run for reelection, she will have a very tough fight on her hands. North Carolina has become increasingly sympathetic and open as a southern state to strong moderate Democrats.

KOZ: "point me to the evidence that anyone is lying."

KOZ, surely even a mental lightweight like you who is nevertheless quite adept at searching the Internet could find in seconds plenty of evidence that the White House and Gonzales originally said the US attorneys were fired for performance reasons.

Bottom line is if large numbers of U.S. troops are still in Iraq by that time, all GOP senators are in deep doo-doo no matter what the numbers say right now.

All other speculation is a waste of breath.

KingOfNothing - You ruight wing nuts really are rabid little swine, aren't you? You would sacrifice this country or anything else just to make politcial points. You people have no sense of honor or decency or patriotism or much of anything else. What a waste of space on an already overcrowded planet.

KOZ: "how unusual. but that sounds like mainstream Lib thinking these days"

You're the one who injected your usual partisan spew into the discussion, not me.

You lose again -- just like in 2006!

No, I never claimed that the attorneys were fired for race or age. You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding what you read.

You said that, like most people, US attorneys can be fired for any reason. And you were wrong. There are numerous laws dictating under what circumstances it's legal to fire people. I didn't say that those laws apply in this case, only that those laws exist.

This poll on Elizabeth Dole was in WAPO this week! A poll conducted by Jan van Lohuizen earlier this month and released today shows Dole in strong shape for reelection. 64 percent of the sample viewed Dole favorably while just 26 percent saw her in an unfavorable light. Dole's job performance ratings were similarly solid -- 63 percent approved of the job she is doing, compared with just 25 percent who disapproved. Gee, maybe some of these posters don't know North Carolina politics because they are not from North Carolina.

And maybe they conveniently missed the part of the poll that shows 87% of voters on North Carolina think the state Democratic party is corrupt. The scandal involving the Democratic Speaker of the House Jim Black, has devastated the Democratic party in North Carolina. And as part of his plea agreement he has agreed to name other corrupt Democrats. It's only going to get worse for Democrats in North Carolina. As if having 87% of voters think you're corrupt isn't enough.

but evidently little contact with reality or reason
but evidently little contact with reality or reason
but evidently little contact with reality or reason
but evidently little contact with reality or reason
but evidently little contact with reality or reason
but evidently little contact with reality or reason
but evidently little contact with reality or reason
but evidently little contact with reality or reason

Loudon, it must be very dark with your head in that awkward position. very nimble of you though. you may note by simply scrolling up this page, no need to go to google, that I never said anything about that judge being liberal or conservative or anything else about the personality. I rather said that the decision itself was stupid. you, instead of dealing with the strength of my argument, went immediately to insults, motivations, innuendo and FEELINGS. Cue Babs. I predicted this response about 10 inches up. when you have no legs you go for the insults. Just who do you think you are convincing with your schoolyard taunts? you have convinced me that you are not worth responding to any longer. do you have anything constructive to add or are you just a pest.

so if your view is so convincing, point me to the evidence that anyone is lying. Point me to someone who thinks that DC doesn't deserve its rights because its not a state. Or just keep up the swill -- your usual method of debate.

Chris, you're wrong right from the beginning on this. You talk about the election "next November." There is an election in November, 2007?

Not including Elizabeth Dole on your list is embarassing. She is under 50 percent in every poll that has been released, something that was only true for Coleman on ONE poll, and yet he is number 2.

Way to go, glad to see you still dont understand North Carolina politics.

did KOZ really call Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson a liberal? She's a conservative hack.

A couple seconds of research on Google would have helped KOZ avoid looking like an idiot, at least in this particular case.

KOZ, you disingenuous partisan, why can't you just admit that the problem in the US attorney scandal is LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

But of course we know that lying doesn't bother you when it's your guys doing the lying -- as has been the case for the past six years.

Correction on Colorado: Bently Rayburn ran for the 5th district seat in the primary. He came in 3rd or 4th I think -- better than expected, but Doug Lamborn (R-American Taliban) was the nominee and winner in the general.

I would think that the best headline for your analysis would have been, "How Far Will the Democrats Be Able to Increase Their Senate Majority in 2008."

The commenter who thinks Dole is carrying the mantle of Jesse Helms must spend as little time in NC as Liddy herself does.

Senator Dole is toast, pure and simple. She barely polls above any unnamed candidate. And by the time we get to next fall, her personal failures and political incompetence will be writ large from Manteo to Murphy for all to see. Assuming she has the bad judgment to run again, Dole will not win.

Proud to be Dum - you certainly have strong feelings but evidently little contact with reality or reason. you are why the Dems will lose the next election. Keep up the good work and get your message out.

Colin - regardless of the judges political proclivities (and why do you always go after party affiliations and motivations instead of the actual point) the reason was dumb. Care to discuss the merits of the decision or you want to stick with personalities. I always know you have no legs to stand on when you do the personal destruction bit.

Colin - there was very little doubt that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and look where that stands.

I would like to see all this evidence you are claiming that clearly demonstrates ethical violations. It sounds like obfuscation and innuendo, as usual. I suspect your "evidence" is something overheard by Moron dowd in a NY coffee shop. Or maybe it is similar to the "evidence" presented in the Libby case - you forgot something about another thing that doesn't matter and that you had nothing to do with anyhow.

"Let's make a Federal case out of it" - Schmuck Chewmore. I am calling two press conferences to discuss this.

re: Valerie Wilson. What KingForWhatever and the other slobbering GOP dupes fail to recognize (or, if they do, fail to point out) is that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA operative and outing her resulted in various governments checking into persons who had contact with her. This resulted in the arrests and even executions of people who were in contact with her. Remember, Joseph Wilson was an Ambassador to Gabon, Niger, Burundi, and spent more than a little time in Putin's Russia. The utterly insane outing of her, for purely political reasons, is no less treason and was and IS no less dangerous to the U.S. than if Dick Cheney and Rove aided Al Qaida in smuggling a dirty bomb into New York. All of this is simply outrageous and I cannot figure out how you people minimize it. Cheney and Rove, at the very least, ought to be imprisoned, if not outright executed for this.

Not that long ago, I said Al Franken was maybe the only person who couldn't beat Norm Coleman. There's enough Wellstone bumper sticks out there to make me think the 'sotans aren't ready to forgive Norm just yet. Norm's got an uphill fight.

Then I saw a recent (Survey USA?) poll saying that Norm, while still beating Franken, was already <50%. Not good.

It's hard to argue that Franken doesn't have the name recognition, but I think once people hear that he has sober, serious positions on many issues, the silly AirAmerica persona will fade.

Should be a good race.

KOZ -- as far as the DC Circuit Second AMendment case, the dissenting opinion was written by a very conservative REPUBLICAN appointee: KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON. She's actually been mentioned as being on GWB's shortlist for the next Supreme Court seat.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/internet.nsf/Content/Stub+-+Biographical+Sketches+of+the+Judges+of+U.S.+Court+of+Appeals+for+the+DC+Circuit

I guess that means she's a liberal, eh?

Blarg - are you now claiming that the US attorneys were fired because of their race or age? this just keeps getting curioser and curioser. Are you prepared to make any silly argument to stretch your point to breakable. Or are you just bantering and bickering?
Usually at this time I get a raft of name calling followed by a total retreat from the facts. Life in the lib world is certainly amusing.
Lylepink has fired the "fact-free" salvo.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2002/pages/states/IA/index.html

CNN says Harkin won 54-44.

KOZ -- First, you didn't respond to my initial point. Specifically, that firing someone because they are pursuing political corruption cases against your party and/or not pursuing cases against Democrats is unethical. I imagine you refused to do so because there's reallly no way to dispute that.

Second, we actually have a mechanism for deciding what's unconstitutional. It's called the Supreme Court. They haven't addressed this particular issue yet, since it's only recently come to light, but based upon well-established caselaw on the President's appointment/removal powers there's very little doubt that the provision in question is invalid. Again though, I notice you don't actually try to make a substantive argument. Once again, you're more comfortable just trying to change the subject.

Could someone please double check the Harkin's 2002 margin of victory (The Fix quoted him as capturing 54%)? I recall reading that he captured about 58% of the vote and won by about seventeen percent in that race, but the newspaper I read (I don't recall which) may have been wrong. Thanks!

Tom Davis definitely over Allen. But promoted? No. He was absent on the whole issue of extending the metro to Dulles, as well as in getting more federal $ for it. As for oversight over government operations (that was his position): he flunked that one, probably out of loyalty to Bush. But he is not Bush's representative!

"Republicans seem convinced that Franken is unelectable, but The Fix is not there yet."

Why should one follow from the other?

As a voter in NH, I think Sununu should be #1. The 2004 phone-jamming convictions were already going to be an issue for his 2008 election, even before we Democrats shocked ourselves by taking BOTH GOP Rep seats in the 2006 election.

JOToole:

Max Baucus is safe, if for no other reason than because they won't find a sane Repub to run against him. The problem with your OK and TX scenarios are that there are virtually no statewide tested Dems in either state, although if Gov. Henry got in the race in OK, I think that race would instantly be a top 5 pickup opportunity, with the right Dem presidential candidate, with Hillary or Obama, there's no way.

Chris:

I know that the national GOP is high on Mike Rounds in SD, but the war has become increasingly unpopular in the upper plains, and Rounds is more or less an accident, with no urban base. Pierre ain't a population center, and his strong wins in the Governors races have a lot more to do with the Dems failing to field a serious gubernatorial candidate in a generation or more than with Rounds intrinsic popularity in the state. Herseth would eat him for lunch.

SHAWN:

Norm Coleman is in huge trouble no matter the Dem candidate. He's been a lousy Senator in terms of constituent service, and he does not represent the state well as far as politics.

"It is very simple, they can be fired for any reason at any time. this is similar to most people in the US."

Wrong. There are laws against firing people for certain reasons. For instance, it's illegal to fire someone because of their race, age, or marital status. Under whistleblower protection laws, it's illegal to fire someone for speaking up about health or safety concerns in the workplace. There are numerous protections for employees to prevent employers from being able to fire whoever they want whenever they want.

Zouk: I usually don't respond to silly posts but in this case U are so far just plain "way out in left field", or something like that, when U kmow perfectly well what U are saying is a bunch of bull manure.

colin - an unconstitutional provision - you mean like General Pelosi becoming the new CinC? you mean like prohibiting me from expressing my political views 60 days prior to an election? you mean like restricting my access to a gun in DC or NY? Just who is deciding what is unconstitutional these days - you?

KOZ -- You know quite well this is different than replacing US Attys at the beginning of an administration. The issue here is whether Bush interfered with existing prosecutors' ability to prosecute crimes for purely partisan reasons.

If you remove a prosecutor for bringing charges against specific republicans, that's unethical. Additionally, the new US Attys don't have to be confirmed by the Senate b/c of an unconstitutional provision slipped into the Patriot Act's fine print.

Coleman will win. He's got a super constituent services operation and moderate Dems as well as the GOP really do like him personally. In most polls, his approval numbers top 55%, comfortably above the magic 50% mark.

On the other hand -- Ciresi is a trial lawyer who made millions in a very questionable deal with the Minnesota tobacco litigation. He is seen as too slick and even rank and file democrats in Minnesota find him too arrogant.

Then there's Al Franken. Please! I'm from Minnesota and despite the 4 year break from reason during the Ventura debacle, Minnesotans by and large take their politics very, very seriously. It has one of the highest voter turnout percentages in the country every election cycle. They are not going to vote for a silly comedian. Trust me on this.

For the record, I voted for Mondale over Coleman last time. But, this time I'm going with Coleman. He's done good stuff for our State.

Meuphys, you seem to have a crisis every other day. a US attorney does not belong to a labor union and does not have the right to a lifetime job. It is very simple, they can be fired for any reason at any time. this is similar to most people in the US. I can only guess that in your infinite wisdom you would prefer to manage the hiring and firing of these guys yourself.
I didn't hear you complaining when Rummy was fired for "purely political reasons". Is there anything bush can do without you getting your silk panties in a wad? how about if we win the war, will you mind?

There is no evidence of a crime here, but that never seems to stop you bloodthirsty Libs from wanting to create one out of thin air.

Zouk,

You are ignoring the facts - every incoming president replaces ALL the political appointees (including US attorneys) when taking over from a president of the opposite party. When the incoming and outgoing presidents are from the same party, it is usually not quite so wholesale, especially if the incoming president was a member of the outgoing administration. Bush also replaced all US attorneys upon taking over from Clinton.

Now the question with the 8 US attorneys fired by Bush is were any fired for their prosecutorial decisions - i.e., indicting or investigating Republicans or not indicting Democrats. The San Diego US attorney, had prosecuted Republicans and was expanding the investigation. Some others had looked into voter fraud allegations and decided the facts did not warrant going further. The administration desparately wanted some indictments or at least investigations of Democrats prior to the 2006 mid-terms to deflect some of the corruption issue towards Democrats. Even a non cynical person might suspect political interference in prosecutorial decision making here.

Yes Liddy did rather poorly on MTP, but I don't suppose it was so bad that voters will care. consider what Edwards did on MTP when asked about the war. Maybe NC pols just don't do well on that show.

I dunno Opie, let's ask barney!

"What exactly is wrong with firing attorneys?"

-it's not what, it's why

"clinton did do it, as have many past presidents."

-exactly. when a president BEGINS his term in office, it is customary to replace appointees of prior presidents. the people bush fired were people he himself had appointed, and the email trail makes it clear this was done purely for political reasons.

"the credibility of the press is sinking fast."

-replace "press" with "administration." whether or not you agree, that's what the polls are saying - incl. polls of independent and g.o.p. voters.

"this is another invented non-scandel."

-"scandAl."

"get an independent counsel to look into it for 6 years and $500 million bucks. Maybe someone will forget something and go to jail."

-way to make light of a potential constitutional crisis.

"firing 8 attorneys for doing a bad job"

-see above.

"ignore the facts"

-some of us take it more seriously than you do, but if it works for you....

KOZ, it's not the firings that is the controversy its that they LIED about it to congress. The president can fire anyone he wants in the Justice system no matter what his reasons. But as the Clinton impeachment and the Libby trial showed, the president or his staff cannot lie under oath which is what they did.

funny thing about the gun case in DC. the dissenting judge wanted to use the fact that DC is not a state to obviate the law. What a funny rock to crawl out from under. I guess this law would also apply to PR, guam, etc. and all the other laws like freedom of speech, refusal to incriminate oneself, etc, would be void in these places. how unusual. but that sounds like mainstream Lib thinking these days. Please don't take any of their arguments to their conclusion unless you want a really good laugh.

As in, surrender and retreat will win the war. As in do nothing with SS and it will be fine. As in raise taxes to boost the economy. as in the war on poverty or drugs just needs more money. As in failing schools just need more money. Ha ha, te he.

reason: I still cannot get the image of "Liddy" on "meet the Press" out of my mind every time I see or hear her name mentioned. The odd thing is I always liked her, and for the life of me cannot begin to think of what happened to her, but anyone that runs against her will surely use the video from the show. I have my doubts she will seek another term, primarly because this video is waiting to be used against her.

JK - What exactly is wrong with firing attorneys? In this case clinton did do it, as have many past presidents. In this case, it is the media looking for something to bludgeon the admin with again. but there is nothing here. the credibility of the press is sinking fast. this is another invented non-scandel. Let's get an independent counsel to look into it for 6 years and $500 million bucks. Maybe someone will forget something and go to jail.

I guess firing 8 attorneys for doing a bad job is en massea and politically motivated bu when klinton did it (fired 93, all of them) it was not political. hmmmmm. stretches plausibility.

but since you FEEL bad about it, it must be a crime. ignore the facts.

'Judges who ignore decades-old precedent, who dismiss express Constitutional language as being irrelevant, and who substitute their views for those of democratically-elected representatives - these have been the targets of "conservative" politicians and commentators over the years.

Now those judicial activists are at it again. Last Friday, two judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia -- for the first time in American history -- declared a gun law unconstitutional based on their reading of the Second Amendment.

The March 9, 2007 decision in Parker v. District of Columbia is judicial activism at its worst:

1. It ignores binding Supreme Court precedent. In the 1939 case of Miller v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that there was no Second Amendment right independent of "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia..." and that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" in such a way as to support the "obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces."

]'CHAPEL HILL - The campaign headquarters of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards reopened today after authorities determined that the white powder found in an envelope wasn't dangerous, campaign officials told The Associated Press.
Edwards said a letter in the envelope contained "some negative comments" and powder spilled out of the envelope, but he didn't elaborate on what teh letter said or its possible source.

Preliminary testing found that the powder contained no chemical or biological agents, said Jane Cousins, a spokeswoman for the Chapel Hill police. Further testing will continue for the next several days.

The office was evacuated Wednesday afternoon after a worker there opened the envelope.'

Remember how the real anthrax that poisoned a few people was sent sent to a few congresspeople? Remember how they were all DEMOCRATS? and how the anthrax strain proved it had to be from a government source? And how they never found a trace of the culprit. what a coincidence, hmm...

Reason: Your neighbor George Allen was as safe a bet a year ago, as Liddy Dole is today. Still 20 months to go. Do go counting your eggs yet.

Allen v. Davis would be a trip.

Tom looks great looking serious at the hearings on the problems at Walter Reed, etc. He looks shocked, just shocked.

The only problem is for 10 years he was the Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee. Somebody is eventually bound to ask, What were YOU doing for 10 years, Tom?

Also, what happens to Tom's State Senator wife in her race against Chapman Petersen this Fall could spill over to Tom. If she loses, what does that mean for Tom and a shot at the John Warner Senate seat?

Fake William: I'm still laughing at your 'thesaurus' post from yesterday.

Don't cha just love how the conservative "moral clarity" types suddenly become relativists when confronted by wrongdoing in their god-king Bush?

No matter the action, when Bush or his people are caught doing something, from abusing signing statements to firing US Attorneys en masse, the automatic, unthinking, Pavlovian screech from the perpetually whiny children that make up "the right" is: "But Clinton did it toooo! Moooooom!"

Except, of course, that 99.9% of the time Clinton really didn't do it.

Susan Hull, 30, wept when a coroner ruled that the Lance Corporal of the Household Cavalry, had been unlawfully killed in a criminal act when his armoured convoy was fired on in Iraq.

He also bitterly criticised the US authorities for a cover-up and failing to co-operate with his investigation into how the British vehicles were mistaken for Saddam Hussein's forces.

Reason, I beg to differ with you on your assesment. You should find the clip of her on Meet The Press and then rethink your stance. I am originally from NC and my family and friends all still live there. There isn't the same 'love' for Dole that there was for Senator Helms. The thing is that the Dems put up a weak candidate against her, and it was a very friendly environment to Republicans when she ran. It will depend on who runs against her but I think she is definitly vulnerable.
Also this is all assuming she doesn't retire.

I have decided to continue on with my pugnasous ways. I am a total maladroyt. won't anyone be my friend? Watch how clever I can be.

Fake William: Stop it. You're not adding anything to this blog with your childish imitations of people. Whether or not you like William and Zouk, your posts are far more useless than theirs. Grow up.

My favorite flower is the peony, and my favorite color is mauve. Today, I plan to wear hip-hugging slacks to class, after which I will enjoy a diet soda on my way to the Young Republicans meeting. It's going to be boring today, so I'll probably be filing my nails and talking to my friends about how much we're going to miss "The O.C." The president of the club might get mad, but he's just a big silly anyway. It's a little chilly today, so after the meeting I'll probably actually put on my cardigan - right now, it's hanging around my neck the way Roger always does when we're alone.

The American military won't co-operate with the inquest into the "friendly fire" killing of a British soldier by two US pilots in southern Iraq, the British coroner charged Friday.

I'm from North Carolina, and you people must not be if you believe for one hot minute that Liddy Dole is vulnerable. She's a household name here in NC, and we refer to her simply as "Liddy". The only politician that has a real shot at beating her would be gov. Mike Easley, and he ain't running. He's "not a good meeting person." Although if the Dem's. re-capture the White House, he'd be a great secretary of education or something like that. Anyhow, Liddy is a safe bet for re-election. Here in NC, we see her as the heir to Senator Helms seat and and a driving force for getting the tobacco buyout passed. That lead her name to political gold here in NC.

Our 'allies' the' democracy' of Pakistan.. melting down fast:

'KABUL, Afghanistan, March 16 -- The controversy over Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's decision to suspend the nation's chief justice escalated dramatically Friday, as thousands of boisterous protesters clashed with police in downtown Islamabad and the government detained key opposition leaders.

Musharraf suspended the Supreme Court's chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, last week, and since then anger over the move has grown. For much of the day Friday, protesters from across Pakistan's political spectrum jammed the area around the Supreme Court building, where a hearing on Chaudhry's fate was set to be held. The protesters chanted anti-government slogans and called for Musharraf's resignation.'

Is this what you want, people? More of the same? Your tax dollars flushed down a toilet by incompetent cronies? Your smaller government means NO government, means anarchy, which is what we have now. Food poisoning epidemics, pathetic or no responses to emergencies, incompetence and waste and fraud and theft at every level...

'A Tornado Destroyed Their Homes, FEMA Betrayed Their Trust
It was Saturday, FEBRUARY 24th when a batch of very severe storms and a tornado struck 4 counties in the southern part of Arkansas. Nearly 150 homes were either destroyed or badly damaged. Scores of people were sent to the hospital and several businesses that employed 800 people in a rural community of 5,000 were ruined.

NO ONE DIED but families who lost everything had no place to stay.

That should not have been a problem. Down the way, some 180 MILES, just a 3 HOUR DRIVE, were 8,420 "FULLY BRAND NEW, FULLY FURNISHED FEMA TRAILERS" sitting unused in HOPE, Arkansas.

On TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27th Arkansas Governor Beebe asked for federal help and along with his congressional delegation in Washington begged FEMA director DAVID PAULISON to send in 150 of those UNUSED TAXPAYER PURCHASED TRAILERS.

NOTHING HAPPENED....

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicsasusual/2007/03/a_tornado_destr.html

Domenici either moves way up the list (like to #0) or off of it entrirely, depending on how the ProsecutorGate unfolds. It's hard to see him avoiding at least an official rebuke for violating Senate rules, which most likely leads to his retirement. My guess is that he (and protege Wilson) are both toast. Watch Bill Richardson on this one.

Harkin should move down to about #20.

Is Susan Collins the Lincoln Chaffee of 2008? My guess is no, but she should feel queasy.

Dole deserves recognition with a number on this list.

Of course the kicker is who is at the top of the Democratic ticket (for the moment assuming the top of the R ticket to be somewhat irrelavent). HRC as the nominee could breathe new life into some of the troubled Republicans and put states like LA and SD on the ropes for the Dems.

Dana Rohrbacher? Here's a guy so far right that before 9/11 he had his pictu