Not to worry: Both conservatives and liberals can count on nothing getting done in the Senate. Even with only 41 members of the Republic, I mean Republican, party voting together, the FILIBUSTER will prevail. Long live the filibuster. Majority rule no longer rules in this country.

I figured Shaheen would get into this race based on her incredibly high poll numbers vs. Sununu. Sununu knows what he's up against though, as CC indicated. He will be well funded and well organized. The Republicans and anti-tax establishment will work in favor of Sununu, while the phone jam scandal will work well for Shaheen. Shaheen will also be very well funded and well organized. This should be a great round 2, and I doubt it will be a blow-out by any stretch. I would have to say with the current political environment, Shaheen enters as the favorite. Another question is how much of a factor will Sen. Gregg be? In 04' Gregg won re-election with 66% of the vote, in a Presidential year in a state (NH) John Kerry won. Anyone from NH, what makes sen. Gregg a darling of your state? Just a curious question.

"If our Democratic Congress were not such profoundly dense weasels, they would pass a bill now that would immediately raise the capital gains tax to 35% in order to have funds to support the troops, and thereby renew the debate about how that nation is a threat to our national security. If the United States is in serious peril, a 35% capital gains tax is reasonable." - Cold Lightening

I disagree with this assessment, cold. In the real world capital gains is paid on multi-million dollar mutual funds as well as $1,000 CD's. How is this fair to tax those who want to save and do better for themselves? The fed. gov't. is now going after tax-deferred annuities, hoping to slap a capital gains tax on those as well. I work in insurance/financial services and I'll give you this example, let's see if you can justify capital gains on tax deferred annuities.

I visited lady X at the hospital, I'm her insurance agent, and she is dying of cancer. She wanted to change her beneficiary to her brother-in-law, we will call him Y, as her husband has died already, b/c he's the only person that she knows would bury her and is decent. X told me to put Y down as her beneficiary so I did. Her dying wish is to take care of her grandchildren, as her children are on drugs and will not do. So, we decide that when she passes Y will pay for her funeral and then divide the rest in fixed annuities for her grandchildren. Her policy is worth $50,000. Lets (-) $10,000 for the funeral. She has 5 grandchildren. She is now deceased. Y buried her, divided $3,000 up among her children and put $7,500 on 5 different annuities for each grandchild. Are these the rich that should be paying capital gains taxes? Should Mrs. X have worked her whole life, paid her insurance premium's in order to leave something to help grandchildren for it to be taxed as income on her plus the gov't. get taxes on her interest every month? Why? What is the justification for X's money to be taxed and taken from her grandchildren? X's grandchildren could have gotten bigger returns from CD's, but that carries a capital gains tax so we decided on annuities. How is this fair?

The Iraqi Occupation will still be a problem for the new president who takes office in January 2013. Few serious presidential candidates are willing to risk seeming to lack support for the troops, or to be the President who lost our Iraqi colony.
If our Democratic Congress were not such profoundly dense weasels, they would pass a bill now that would immediately raise the capital gains tax to 35% in order to have funds to support the troops, and thereby renew the debate about how that nation is a threat to our national security. If the United States is in serious peril, a 35% capital gains tax is reasonable.
Even if Cheney orders Bush to veto such a bill the debate, before and after that event, would be healthy for the United States.

Apparently, I missed some real chatter today - out researching the job possibilities for editors in a world that no longer cares about correct English - ! Anyway, quickly, before I go to meet some friends for Friday drinx, a few comments on Jason's comments on Mark's post:

1. race and ethnicity based affirmative action [as opposed, for example, to a helping hand up for good students without means, regardless of skin tone].
I think that race abd ethnicity based affirmative action will be necessary for 10-20 more years, unfortunately. As an upper middle class white male it has zero benefit for me, but we spent a long time keeping opportunity away from non-whites. They need to chance to get footing closer to our own, expand the middle class in the Latio and African American communities so that they can honestly compete in college applications and the workforce.

-actually, no comment here. You said it well.

2. dismantling the military to find funds [as opposed, for example, to fighting Pentagon waste].
Dismantling? Who really supports that? F**king hippies. Pentagon waste is an enormous issue and what needs to be focused on. Cutting any amount of funding to defense can be difficult so the budgetary issues need to be carefully framed and explained.

-as an ex-f**king hippie myself, I must object to your broad characterization... but seriously, you can't possibly be suggesting that the military budget is and should remain untouchable? It's the largest in the world by a factor of - don't remember, but I want to say "6 or 7"?? Of course we need a strong military - but strength and wasteful spending are not always the same thing. I personally think the military/intelligence services should be spending and focusing a great deal less on guns and missiles - and missile defense - and a great deal more on cyber. That's what's coming, if it's not here already (as a civilian, how do i know?) and has the added benefit of engaging the best minds who currently do not see the armed forces as a viable career choice. Yes, we will need soldiers on the ground in places like Afghanistan and - even if hopefully in a reduced capacity - Iraq, but how much better would it be if said soldiers were fluent in Arabic, Farsi, Dari etc.? (full disclosure - I worked for a long time in the field of foreign language.)

3. an open door immigration policy, either de facto, or de jure.
I've yet to find a good solution that can possibly be applied with any degree of success. Presumably a two part plan of expansion of Mexican economies and an expansion of the work visa program. If they're gonna be here we might as well tax them.

-again, not much to add. As I think I mentioned earlier (yesterday?) on another thread, if we took the 'fence' money and spent it encouraging companies who now locate in Asia to build facilities in Mexico - and encouraged the Mexican government to reciprocate by stepping up education and training so that the workers would be there - it might do sth, although maybe not entirely enough, to slow the flow of illegals.

4. protectionist trade policies based on union demands, not on real inequities of trade.
Protectionism in general is a dinosaur of a policy choice. Good progressive dem's will be focusing on the world economy.

-yes and no. This is a complicated question involving quality and convenience as well as price. Do we want to compartmentalize the global economy in such a way that where you live determines what you do?

5. federalization of public education. The Supreme Court has actually been so inconsistent in this area that
despite the Constitution's silence on education the feds feel free to intervene far too often with unfunded mandates
even in this Admin.
Unfunded mandates in every sector need to be eliminated. Anyway, if it copuld be proven to be more effective I'd nationalize the school system. If it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt I think it's best to favor states rights.

-yes, yes, yes. you go, sir.

6. social projects engaged in on a national scale before they have even proven feasible in a pilot program.
Agreed. HRC's dumb healthcare plan was the last really big one I can think of, though. The CBO reports show a number of the other social programs having reasonable success.

-yes, but once a local program shows some efficacy we need to be able to quickly pivot and implement on a national level. There's a risk in having all these pilot projects that they will be too easy to kill for folks who do not trust or have contrary economic interests.

7. farm subsidies based on non-production.
That's a Republican thing. Farm states, by and large, are Red strongholds.

-I would take farm subsidies away from agribusiness, but I do think there is a value in preserving the small farmer, in terms of economic diversity, health of the environment, and "connection to the land," which is not just a feel-good tree hugger thing but I think psychologically important for us as a nation.

8. impossibly costly regulation without adequate thought or funding. i have in mind programs like the PBGT and brownfields regulation with their downstream probabilities of insolvency.

-yes but we need to be careful to maintaina responsible regime of regulations for safety and fairness, etc. "De-regulating" is all too often code for "acquiescing to the demands of industry at the expense of the competition/consumer/environment etc.

all from me, or as the Russians would say, "Vsio." I'm out to drink. Have a good weekend, everyone.

JasonL--Completely off-topic here but let me present an alternative take on Obama's statements about the war:

He was a state senator with clear national ambitions. The statements he made were in a speech written about this specific thing, not a casual remark. He could have destroyed his entire career.

Arguably he had potentially more to lose.

JasonL--interesting post. Said it better than I could. You say you come from a policy backgroudn -what sort?

And what do you think about a sane single payer system?

Mark, this is an interesting list. Coming from a policy background I'd like to respond.

1. race and ethnicity based affirmative action [as opposed, for example, to a helping hand up for good students without means, regardless of skin tone].
I think that race abd ethnicity based affirmative action will be necessary for 10-20 more years, unfortunately. As an upper middle class white male it has zero benefit for me, but we spent a long time keeping opportunity away from non-whites. They need to chance to get footing closer to our own, expand the middle class in the Latio and African American communities so that they can honestly compete in college applications and the workforce.

2. dismantling the military to find funds [as opposed, for example, to fighting Pentagon waste].
Dismantling? Who really supports that? F**king hippies. Pentagon waste is an enormous issue and what needs to be focused on. Cutting any amount of funding to defense can be difficult so the budgetary issues need to be carefully framed and explained.

3. an open door immigration policy, either de facto, or de jure.
I've yet to find a good solution that can possibly be applied with any degree of success. Presumably a two part plan of expansion of Mexican economies and an expansion of the work visa program. If they're gonna be here we might as well tax them.

4. protectionist trade policies based on union demands, not on real inequities of trade.
Protectionism in general is a dinosaur of a policy choice. Good progressive dem's will be focusing on the world economy.

5. federalization of public education. The Supreme Court has actually been so inconsistent in this area that
despite the Constitution's silence on education the feds feel free to intervene far too often with unfunded mandates
even in this Admin.
Unfunded mandates in every sector need to be eliminated. Anyway, if it copuld be proven to be more effective I'd nationalize the school system. If it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt I think it's best to favor states rights.

6. social projects engaged in on a national scale before they have even proven feasible in a pilot program.
Agreed. HRC's dumb healthcare plan was the last really big one I can think of, though. The CBO reports show a number of the other social programs having reasonable success.

7. farm subsidies based on non-production.
That's a Republican thing. Farm states, by and large, are Red strongholds.

8. impossibly costly regulation without adequate thought or funding. i have in mind programs like the PBGT
and brownfields regulation with their downstream probabilities of insolvency.
I don't know where these problems come from. I agree that they exist but I think that there's a real problem with appoinee's not having adequate regulatory experience, especially in this administration.

'It's early in the cycle, but a Republican candidate in a top-tier race for Congress has already dropped out. Ohio Coal Association president Mike Carey, who had been seeking the nomination to face freshman Democrat Zack Space, has withdrawn his candidacy, saying he did not want to lose time with his wife and five-year old son.'

drindl: Re your 06:12 PM post. We had a discussion on this sometime back. I am over 65, disabled, and have both Medicare and Medicaid. I can answer most questions you may have from my own expierence. I favor single-payer, and it is close, my coverage, to what I think you are referring to.

'When people, or their kids' health or life is at risk, we don't shop around. They'

apologize for this, my grammatical sense appears to have short-circuited...

'An example of a massive social enterprise, albeit one that did not pass, that had no provision for a pilot program, was HRC's health plan in '93.'

I don't really remember specifics about that, but I beleive it was more like the current Part D Medciare prescription benefit, in that it involved subsidizing private companies for coverage, an idea I don't care for.

I would like to have a debate about the merits of single-payer. I know the free marketers recoil immediately from the idea, but as a middle-aged, middle-class woman who's been treated for breast cancer and is now self-employed, I can tell you that the current system is a freaking nightmare for many of us.

Medicare delivers a very substantial returnn for the cost--only 3% administration overheads, far less than any private program could, because you have to factor in the profit. And as for the idea that there would be 'competition' that's silly. When people, or their kids' health or life is at risk, we don't shop around. They go to the best. I went to Sloan Kettering because I knew they were the best around, but they were out of my insurance network and I ended up paying $30,000 out of pocket. And I would have done it even if I had not been able to afford to pay it back.

The health market is far different than any other in that respect., in that treatment decisions are made on a purelly emotional basis. Now as far as pilot programs go, I agree with you totally there. I dislike rushing into things [whihc is what used to be considered 'conservative'] so I would support the idea of a time-trial pilot program, with an honest cost/benefit analysis at the end of it.

I just want sane government. It really seems like an impossible dream these days.

drindl, that sounds like a good, thoughtful group of persons. Typically, any group of smart people we know are more thoughtful about these issues than are the campaign platforms of the parties.

An example of a massive social enterprise, albeit one that did not pass, that had no provision for a pilot program, was HRC's health plan in '93.

J is right, a better farm program will have to at least not get vetoed by the farm states.

A word of caution to all of those who espouse a divided government - one of it's results is gridlock.

A case can be made for gridlock being the ultimate in "safe government."

BTW - In the interest of Fair and Balancedness, I noticed that the local Fox station was not carrying Sen. Reed's response. Out of curiosity I went to Fox News to see what they were doing. Fox News did carry the response.

I also agree that almost all of these responses are wastes of time. Many times, not unlike the speeches which precede them.

I seem to recall Bill Shaheen was trying to broker some ME peace deal sometime around February or March of this year. Anyone have knowledge of this?

"New Lieberman Poll Should Serve As Warning To Bush Dogs Everywhere

According to a recent poll, if given the opportunity now, voters of Connecticut would only too happily show Lieberman the door and handily elect Ned Lamont. David Sirota at OpenLeft explains how Republicans and LieberDems alike should take that as a sign that the general public isn't buying what they're trying to sell anymore"

oops, just saw this, thought y'all might find it interesting...

'Elizabeth Edwards, in a new interview:

MoveOn.org should not have labeled Gen. David Petraeus "General Betray Us" in a controversial newspaper ad, Elizabeth Edwards said in Des Moines Friday.
"Someone who's spent their life in the military doesn't deserve 'General Betray Us,'" said Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.'

I've met her, she is a genuinely sweet woman. And her father was a Navy pilot. However she praise the idea of grassroots orgs like MoveOn, but I agree with her that the ad was clubfooted.

bsimon: here's a link to what Bloomberg is doing in NYC.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/09/13/2007-09-13_poor_families_line_up_for_bloomberg_cash-1.html

Controversial but better than the status quo.

'Actually, to a fair extent they seem to stir people up against the West and Israel. It doesn't do us any good, but I assume they feel it is better if the masses direct their anger toward us than the government.'

Good posts, both, J. I agree. But because of that, we had 9/11 and now Saudis undermining what we are doing in Iraq. That's why I think developing alternate sources of energy is critical to damping down terrorism. As long as the status quo endures, our 'foreign policy' remains incoherent.

And Mark, I belong to a 'progressive' Dem group in NY, and none of the things you mention are part of a progressive agenda.

I think we are moving away frm race-based affirmative action [I hope so, but agree with your premise that promising poor students should get a leg up] I can't imagine anyone sane who wants to dismantle the military [although there is a huge amount of waste in the current privatization mode--we are paying privateers 2 or 3 times the money for doing the same job]. Immigration, I think things are changing there too, there are too many Democrats who are uncomfortable about it, you should read about how here in Westchester County [very Democratic now] there is positive revolt about the number of undocs...as far as protectionist trade policies, there are demands, like that our trade partners not use forced labor, for instance, that I agree with.

As for federalization of education, this administration has been worse about that than any Dem would dream of. Social programs like, what sort of thing do you mean? Farm subsides well, most progressives I've talked to hate the subsidies, especiallly to corporation factory farmers. And ditto subsides to the thriving extraction industries.

As far as regulations, I'm sure I know less than you about it. But my view is that we should always err on the side of protecting human health.

"Following President Bush's address to the nation on Iraq, Fox was the only broadcast network not to air the Democratic response."

The remaining networks should follow suit. The whole concept of the opposition party holding a 'response' immediately following every prime-time appearance by the President is offensive. The first one I recall noticing was Bob Dole's response to a Clinton SOTU, which must've been in 94 or 95. I thought it was offensive & inappropriate then, and still think so now. Show a little respect for the office.

"Fox only broadcast network that did not air Democratic response to Bush speech
Following President Bush's address to the nation on Iraq, Fox was the only broadcast network not to air the Democratic response. Instead, Shepard Smith gave a short description of the response and stated: "Our coverage continues on the Fox News Channel on cable and satellite with the Democratic response and more. Right now, back to your local Fox programming." ABC, NBC, and CBS all aired the Democratic response."

Mark,

That's a pretty good list. And as we've seen in the past few years, there is a good long list on the other side as well. Neither party by itself produces "small government". It's just a question of who gets the spoils.

A divided government usually, though not always, tends to dampen the worst instincts of both parties.

The exception, of course, is agriculture policy. As long as the road to the Presidency begins in Iowa and New Hampshire, I fear there will never be any sanity in agriculture policy. We certainly won't be able to lose the subsidies (at least not for any length of time).

I am finished for the day! Gonna clean the pool soon. J, that was a succinct post.

I think Richardson, who was Energy Sec. for awhile, has in mind tying in North American oil production through a revised NAFTA.

It is absolutely true that North America is a net exporter of petroleum. China has tried to buy bulk contracts from Canada and I think they have succeeded to some extent.

We refine oil from all over the world, and as you say, it is fungible. While we are moving into conservation and alternate mode, remembering that our two nearest trade partners, Canada and Mexico, are surplus producers of raw petroleum, is comforting.

drindl,

I find this totally unsurprising. The Saudis have never really done anything to rein in the Wahabbist sect, who seem to have formed the backbone of al Qaeda. It would be dangerous for the Saudi government to do so.

Actually, to a fair extent they seem to stir people up against the West and Israel. It doesn't do us any good, but I assume they feel it is better if the masses direct their anger toward us than the government.

It seems to me the Saudis have generally played a double game. The cozy up to us when it suits them, but ignore what Saudis do in terms of participating in or financing terrorist organizations. It is probably in their best interests to do so. They just want to keep the eyes of their population (especially the angry part of it) off their own government.

I can't say how much the coziness would change with another administration. They are definitely cozy with this one, but other facts play in as well. We are still very dependent upon oil. They are the world's largest producer. While we get a relatively small amount from that part of the world, oil is fungible and the impact is the same regardless. We don't want too much animosity with the Kingdom until we get our oil problem straightened out. At least that's the case from an economic standpoint.

'The pressure they had faced to join with Democrats on withdrawal deadlines has now ebbed, primarily because Gen. Petraeus is himself advocating bringing troops back home--and from a position of strength.'

This is ludicrous. Troops are coming home because there's no way to keep the current numbers without extending tours yet again, a move the Joint Chiefs are adamantly opposed to.

'In short, the war is in a better place, and by extension those politicians who have supported the war are in a better place. The most obvious winners are congressional Republicans.'

And this just shows that you are completely blind and delusional.

Had anyone suggested six weeks ago that the GOP would emerge from the Petraeus hearings on the political front-foot, they'd have been laughed at all the way to Anbar. There's a lesson here for Republicans, in particular those most worried about how Iraq will play in next year's elections: Good military policy is good politics.

In short, the war is in a better place, and by extension those politicians who have supported the war are in a better place. The most obvious winners are congressional Republicans.

The pressure they had faced to join with Democrats on withdrawal deadlines has now ebbed, primarily because Gen. Petraeus is himself advocating bringing troops back home--and from a position of strength.

Those members who have fought the hardest for a principled stand in Iraq, say Senators McCain and Lieberman, are looking smarter, and will be able to tackle upcoming legislative battles--over the defense budget and a later war supplemental--with renewed firepower.

One senior House staffer reports that some amazed Republicans are even allowing themselves to hope--should the upcoming months deliver as much positive news as the preceding few--that Iraq might be a "second tier" issue come the election.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrasselpw/?id=110010604

drindl, I can identify what I fear from the unchecked movement "left", in no particular order; these are off the top of my head.

1. race and ethnicity based affirmative action [as opposed, for example, to a helping hand up for good students without means, regardless of skin tone].

2. dismantling the military to find funds [as opposed, for example, to fighting Pentagon waste].

3. an open door immigration policy, either de facto, or de jure.

4. protectionist trade policies based on union demands, not on real inequities of trade.

5. federalization of public education. The Supreme Court has actually been so inconsistent in this area that
despite the Constitution's silence on education the feds feel free to intervene far too often with unfunded mandates
even in this Admin.

6. social projects engaged in on a national scale before they have even proven feasible in a pilot program.

7. farm subsidies based on non-production.

8. impossibly costly regulation without adequate thought or funding. i have in mind programs like the PBGT
and brownfields regulation with their downstream probabilities of insolvency.
-------------------------------------
I think my laundry list of unchecked rightward movement problems is longer - but the two "bad" lists always
make me want compromise in government.

'Some Iraqi officials say more Saudis than any other nationality have responded to al Qaeda's call. Saudi officials and the U.S. military deny that claim. But Saudi sources do admit that more than 800 young Saudis have gone to Iraq to fight. That's far more than the Saudi government has acknowledged until now.'

Just read this, and wondered what others thought about this, vis-a-vis our administration's cozy relationship with the princes.

"There's a thin line between love and hate. Freinds and snakes. Hell or the pearly gates.

I was destined to come. Predicted. Blame God, He blew breath in my lungs. Second to none"

"And I side with the lord."

People fear what they don't understand. HAte what they can't conquer. I guess it's just the fury in man."

Hate me now.

In a way, David Petraeus won the day when MoveOn.org came forth with its famous "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad.

They shot themselves in the foot and deserve to be known by their limp.

Republicans enacted fury (Thank you, O political gods, for showing the low nature of our foes!), and Democrats felt it (Embarrassed again by the loons!).

No one--no normal American--thinks a U.S. Army four-star came back from Iraq to damage our democracy by telling lies.

Gen. Petraeus's testimony was dry, full of data points and graphs. He gave the impression that everything he said was, to the best of his considerable knowledge, true.

One sensed that like good witnesses everywhere, he was not saying everything he thought.

He was earnest, unflappable, and low-key to the point of colorless. Maybe he figures things are colorful enough.

I felt relief that he was not wearing his heart on his sleeve or talking about our guys and gals. It was very Joe Friday: Just the facts, ma'am.

At one point Gen. Petraeus was asked by Sen. John Warner if Iraq has made America safer and said, "Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind."

Later, invited to expand on this by Sen. Evan Bayh, he said he'd been surprised by Mr. Warner's question and added that "we have very, very clear, very serious national interests" in Iraq.

That of course is the great question. History will answer it.

-drindl - since the Z troll didn't do it, let me follow Mark from yesterday and wish you, L'shanah tovah

Thank you very much. Since i was raised a fundamentalist christian, it's take quite awhile to get used [and remember] the various holidays, but I really enjoy the rationality and social progressiveness of the Reform and Reconstructionist movements.

Mr. Cilliza, this must be killing you! First, Jim Webb. Then, Mark Warner. Then, Jeanne Shaheen! Can Susan Collins be the next GOPer to bite the dust??????? You cannot make this stuff up. Now to get rid of the Blue Dogs and we'll be set..........

drindl - since the Z troll didn't do it, let me follow Mark from yesterday and wish you, L'shanah tovah

'Can the Ds move more centrist as a Party, especially if they have control?'

What do you mean when you say 'centrist', Mark? I hear the term slung around a lot, and this fear of the 'liberal cliff' -- and I don't understand what kind of policies people are afraid of.

''Governor O'Malley has initiated plans to lower state energy consumption by 20% and hopes to make the tax code more progressive and close corporate tax loopholes that allowed many of the largest companies to get away scott free. Slots may be legalized, the property tax might be lowered and the earned income tax credit expanded.'

JasonL outlined some of the things that I think of as 'left' and 'progressive' and I feel they are strongly positive. Conservation where possible, development of alternative energy sources, taxing the rich as well as the poor, maintainenace of critical infrastructure, support for science education, going to war only as last resort, etc

So what, I wonder is it that you are thinking of that would constiute a 'leftness' that you find undesirable?

At Real Clear Politics I saw a link to a Ron Brownstein article. I hadn't seen Brownstein in a while, so I clicked on it.

At the end of the article he had a blog. I guess it's supposed to be like The Fix. This was the topic:

The Republicans are fielding a roster of candidates even further to the right than an unpopular president. Is that a good idea?

I almost fell on the floor laughing.

Chris, you need to help that boy with his blog.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-brownstein14sep14,0,30176.column?coll=la-opinion-center

"YOu wanna buy time. I'm the seller of minutes. I'll give you every second low price. If I sold lies.

The truth is. Time waits for none of you."

Capitalism is population control. We are corporate slaves. We are slaves to live in a state of perpetual death.

Folks, there's going to be no monopoly power for dems. That is unless John Roberts falls down again and Dick Cheney shoots Scalia in the face next time the go duck hunting. That's a 6-3 court in favor of the Reds. So stop with the Democrats will control every branch business. That's why there are three.

"Gitmo Prisoner Close To Death
By: Nicole Belle @ 11:33 AM - PDT The Independent UK:

An al-Jazeera journalist captured in Afghanistan six years ago and sent to Guantanamo Bay is close to becoming the fifth detainee at the US naval base to take his own life, according to a medical report written by a team of British and American psychiatrists

Sami al-Haj, a Sudanese national, is 250 days into a hunger strike which he began in protest over his detention without charge or trial in January 2002. But British and American doctors, who have been given exclusive access to his interview notes, say there is very strong evidence that he has given up his fight for life, experiencing what doctors recognise as "passive suicide", a condition suffered by female victims of Darfur. Read on...

Is this the "winning the hearts and minds" part? This is just sickening to think it's being done in our names.
"

WWW.CROOKSANDLIARS.COM

While I do agree that split governments work well to adequately represent more of America, I'm not as worried as many of you.

As a Marylander, I'm well acquainted with having Dems in the majority in the legislature and a dem in the state house. The last 4 years when we had a Republican in the state house was not marked with any number of successes. That R governor, Bob Ehrlich, lowered income taxes in '03 and saddled us with a $1.5 billion structural deficit in the process. Partisan difficulties prevented the Governor from doing anything and when the legislature sent him a compromise he vetoed it like he did with legalizing slots.

Now we're getting more on track again. Governor O'Malley has initiated plans to lower state energy consumption by 20% and hopes to make the tax code more progressive and close corporate tax loopholes that allowed many of the largest companies to get away scott free. Slots may be legalized, the property tax might be lowered and the earned income tax credit expanded.

Dem's can do great things when they have the votes to do it. Things that help the majority of Americans, not just the wealthy few.

Slate had an interesting article on how the spending habits of the rich (bolstered by lower tax rates given to them by GWB) have been keeping our economy strong. While a strong economy is great, I'm not sure the wealthy buying more jets and yachts it the right way to do it. I's rather have 100 people buy a 12-pack of socks at Wal-
Mart than one rich guy buy his wife a $1200 handbag.

Gingrich says of the R years "I would say that we failed to change the underlying culture of our party," he said. "I spent five or six years thinking about the fact that most of the people who got power as a result of the election of '94 did not understand what we'd accomplished and did not understand why we had accomplished it."

The result was that Republicans reverted to their past, squandered their gains and now enter the 2008 campaign as underdogs to extend their control of the White House for another four years.

One cannot overlook the D potential to do exactly the same thing with their new majority. Current trends seem to be indicating they will...as most of the promises of '06 have fallen by the wayside, the left wing is not satisfied with compromise and pulls the party or at least the image more to the extreme liberal cliff.

I am really looking forward to Gingrich's American Solutions roll-out. The whole process can benefit from an injection of solution-based ideas, imo, if there is a leader to step up and take the torch. McCain surge Nov- book it.

It's nice to hear so many other Democrats concerned about the consequences of our having monopoly power over the federal government. I do not want that much power. If our Senate majority gets too big then our moderate leaders like Jim Webb and John Tester could get drowned out.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we take the White House then it would probably be for the best if we lost control of either the Senate or the House. Not that I see that happening. At the very least I hope that we are just short of 60 votes in the Senate. I want us to have to compromise with Republicans. I want us to have to address their concerns with legislation. I want them to have effective oversight over
what we do so that corruption does not take hold. Checks and balances are essential for good government.

I hear you guys and I can totally see your point, but I don't think we neccesarily need people in the center in the leadership. What we need are people who think about what they are doing and aren't political hacks. Say what you will of McConnel but at least he has a brain, unlike Frist. I think America would be a different place right now if McConnel and John Warner had been running the senate from 02-06.
Think about it this way would you rather have Harry Reid (pretty centrist according to his views but very partisan) or someone like Paul Wellstone (and yes I know he is dead) or Russ Fiengold (liberal but not neccesarely partisan)?

Dan Balz reports on some interesting observations by former Speaker Gingrich over at 'The Trail' blog.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/14/post_72.html

Mark & Andy R,

I agree that it would be smart for the Dems to have leadership in the center. But I agree with Mark that there would be a strong temptation to shift leftward. People in power not only want to keep it, but think they will. Once secure, they tend to think about their own agenda without consideration of others' agendas. That can backfire when you're trying to hold a majority together.

I think the Dems would have a better chance of a centrist Senate leadership than in the House. All of those smaller, more conservative states out there have equal footing with the big ones. The urban areas don't have the same clout they do with the Dem majority in the House.

And that doesn't even touch on the impact of gerrymandered districts.

Mark in Austin writes
"I think if they have control they move left, just like the Rs moved right when they had control."


I think if the President is Clinton or Edwards, your prediction is a slam dunk. If its Biden, Obama or Richardson, I'm less sure. Naive?

Andy R, I hope you are correct, but experience tells us differently. Too much power in the hands of any one party has always been corrupting.

That's why a real moderate for president is the ticket, regardless of party, to keep an even keel. Who would that be...?

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

"But, it's a rare occasion when a challenger's entry into a race turns an incumbent into an underdog. And that's exactly what's happened here."

Not the first time... happened to Santorum in 2006 as well... and look where he ended up: blown away.

Cilliza neglects to mention the Republican telephone jamming scandal in his article as an other reason that attributed to Shaheen's 2002 loss. This dirty trick ma well have helped Sununu seal the race.

Andy R., see my post after yours. Do you think Tester-Warner-Ben Nelson-Salazar can become the leadership? Can the Ds move more centrist as a Party, especially if they have control? I think if they have control they move left, just like the Rs moved right when they had control.

Mark,

Thanks for the insight on the personalities. I voted for Hutchison when she first got elected (though I'm not in TX anymore).

Cornyn is way off to my right on many issues, but one thing I like is that he's opposed to pork whether it's GOP or Dem pork. He doesn't distinguish.

My comment regarding the name wasn't because it is Hispanic (which I agree can be a net positive in TX). But for we older people the name Noriega was linked to brutality and criminality in Panama for a long time. Based on your initial response, I'll assume it isn't a problem! :)

bsimon - It would be great if we could chase the christian ayatollahs out of the R Party but they are the legacy of the R "southern" strategy, and they will never get a voice in the D Party. They have no place else to go and somebody has to stand for running that dreaded science out of the schools.

So in that respect, we will not regain the Party of TR or DDE or Gerald Ford, or George H.W. Bush, 41 any time soon, unless your prediction of a huge D flood moves the Rs in that particular way.

I would be interested in what proud, and reason, and bhoomes thought would happen to the Rs after an unwelcome deluge of Ds. I bet their response would depend on whether the populist/far left got control of the Ds or not.
-------
A western/southern moderate and promilitary led D Party might have a different effect on Rs than the Hollywood-NYC-Boston brand of D leadership would. A pro-gun D like Tester or Richardson gets a different reaction than Schumer, for sure.

I don't share the worry that many of you have of total Democratic domination. The reason being that Howard Dean's 50 state strategy wasn't based on the idea that the democrats wanted "people who think like Us". They wanted "people who think". Look at Jim Webb, and Jon Tester. Those guys are pretty middle of the road and I don't see them voting the party line if they don't think it is good for the country.

New Boston, N.H.: Now that ex-governor Jeanne Shaheen has announced her candidacy for John Sununu's Senate seat from New Hampshire, will this reawaken the Republican telephone scandal that helped Sununu win the seat in the first place? Because of election day hijinks, three Republicans were convicted for phone jamming, and the National Republican Party paid almost $3 million dollars for the defense of convicted James Tobin, the National Republican Party regional political director. A subsequent civil trial by the Democratic Party of New Hampshire was settled because a Republican federal judge refused to allow evidence of the 22 telephone calls that day from Tobin to the National Republican Party headquarters and to the White House.

"Democrats.com Poll Finds Majority Want to Bring Our Troops Home from Iraq in 6 Months

Tonight George Bush finally let the cat out of the bag: he wants U.S. troops to occupy Iraq for decades to come, no matter the cost in lives, tax dollars, and worldwide anger at the American Empire.

But will he put his own children in harm's way? Will he raise taxes on his rich cronies? Absolutely not - he wants to continue the occupation with Other People's Money by borrowing another $200 billion from our children - and Other People's Lives, at a rate of 100 per month.

So what do the American people want, and how much do we want to sacrifice in money and lives? The Corporate Media won't ask that question in their polls, so we asked it ourselves in a telephone poll of 618 adults from September 6-9. And the results were astonishing.

54% of Americans want Bush to bring U.S. troops home within 6 months. An overwhelming majority ( 73% ) of Americans want U.S. troops home within a year. And the less we spend bringing them home the better - the single largest group ( 40% ) want Bush to bring U.S. troops home within 6 months using funds Congress has already given him for Iraq, which is the position advocated by Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Read the full results:
http://democrats.com/iraq-poll-1

You will not hear this viewpoint on your TV. But this is what you think, and you are not alone.

Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are lost at sea. They want Bush to bring our troops home, but Bush is determined to force the next President to continue his disastrous occupation. Pelosi and Reid can neither change Bush's mind, nor change his policies; all they can do is take away his money.

In the House, Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Maxine Waters (D-CA) are leading the way. In July they sent a letter to Bush that pledges to only fund "the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office." As of today, 77 Members of Congress have signed this "Peace Pledge."

Tell your Representatives to join them: http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/115
and don't stop writing, calling, and protesting at their offices until they do. We must end Bush's occupation for the sake of our children, our grandchildren, and the planet we urgently need to save
"

'Though I think such a shock to the system would be good for the Repubs, long term. Perhaps they would return to traditional conservatism instead of the bastardization that they've developed over the last 10-12 years...'

I have to agree. While I don't think total Dem dominance long-term is a good idea, I think in the short term it might be the only thing that can save us from neocon permanent war and also correct some of the hideous legislation visited on us by years of R domination.

J., my esteemed classmate Kay Bailey Hutchison is quite probably unbeatable for as long as she wants to stay and she has generally served our State well, although better before GWB was elected Prez. She has flirted with running for Gov. because it would be like being semi-retired in Austin which is more fun than being a workaholic in DC - and she has two still young adopted children.

Cornyn, on the other hand, never has become personally popular the way Kay is, although nobody particularly dislikes him, either.

We have had statewide elected Hispanics for years. Raul Gonzales [D] was elected to the Supreme Court repeatedly until he retired. Dan Morales[D] was a popular AG who got caught in a scandal during the negotiations with the tobacco industry. There have been statewide elected R hispanics, as well. David Medina [R] is serving on the Supreme Court by appointment but he will be reelected.

I think the hispanic name is a net positive.

"So this quickening pulse of D possibilities - some at the expense of Rs who have been good Senators - does not make my heart flutter with delight."

I agree. A Dem President coupled with 60 Dem Senators & a Dem House would swing the pendulum far too much.

Though I think such a shock to the system would be good for the Repubs, long term. Perhaps they would return to traditional conservatism instead of the bastardization that they've developed over the last 10-12 years...

Mark,

I heartily agree with the sentiment that divided government is a lot safer...

It will be interesting to see how the TX race plays out. Cornyn has a tremendous advantage there with the (R) by his name, but I don't really know how deep his support is beyond affiliation. I know Hutchison is popular (or was last I checked).

And for those over 40, does it look like Noriega will have to do much work to overcome the name?

bsimon and DCAustinite, I think a possible outcome in 2008 that included a D Prez and a "veto-proof" D majority in the Senate should be frightening to advocates of good government. In fact, if the House and Senate were going to go heavily D, it would be a reason in and of itself to vote for an R for Prez (all other things equal, which, of course, they never are).

So this quickening pulse of D possibilities - some at the expense of Rs who have been good Senators - does not make my heart flutter with delight.

NEVERTHELESS AND BTW:

Lt. Col.) Rick Noriega has got more D establishment and seemingly popular support in TX earlier than anyone I can remember in 20 years and that may put John Cornyn's seat in play. The tribute Noriega wrote to Sgt. Omar Mora, his constitutent and one of the extended duty 82 Airborne non-coms who wrote that NYT op-ed, was circulated widely by email in TX and I think he may be overcoming his funding disadvantage.

"about as many as had ever heard the word "macacca" before August 2006."


A noteworthy observation. For the Dems wishing for a big sweep in '08, sure, enjoy the good news; crack a bottle & celebrate. Then sleep it off and get back to work. Its not yet chicken-counting time.

"Q: You said fairly recently that the Democrats had a very high likelihood of winning the presidency next year.

Gingrich: I think that the country, after the last couple of years, has a bias in favor of change -- I think probably starting with [Hurricane] Katrina and coming through Baghdad and the whole sense of too much spending. And you sense a lack of enthusiasm in the conservative base, and you sense a stunning level of intensity in the anti-war Left. And so you just look at the dynamics and you have to say the odds are probably 80-20 [in the Democrats' favor]. "

That should have been addressed to DCAustinite - "cc" to bsimon

bsimon, about as many as had ever heard the word "macacca" before August 2006.

[And Jackson Landers, if you buy into his post yesterday.]

I wouldn't assume that Shaheen has the nomination locked down. Both Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter were vigorously anti-war candidates. In particular, Shea-Porter's smashing primary victory over the establishment-backed overwhelmingly better-financed Jim Craig should serve notice especially to reporters like you Chris: the progressive grassroots has taken over the New Hampshire Democratic Party. The NHDP base is anti-war. Shaheen, as can be seen in the video linked below, is pro-war. This is a fundamental issue and it is not going away.

The Democratic nomination is not locked up by a long stretch.

Jeanne Shaheen: "I'll stand with President Bush."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Liwa3iliE

Jeanne Shaheen supporting Iraq War:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8_Mx4bqxhE

Bsimon:
"I look forward to some of the partisan responses to that observation.

Call it morbid curiosity."

I hope there are none, I'm making no partisan point here, it's just an observation, one they would have to admit is a real possibility. It would be foolish not to admit that the chance (or threat, as they might perceive it) is real.

Hey Chris, I think the question that now emerges is can the Democrats get to 60 in the Senate? Assuming a strong presidential candidate and a Democratic surge it's possible. It looks like we now have NH, VA, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon and Colorado trending Democratic. So only three more--NC? where Dole is weak, KY? where McConnell is going to get the challenge of his life,(have you seen this ditchmitch.com campaign?) or maybe Tennessee, or New Mexico, each with vulnerable incumbents. Seems to me if the electorate is at all as angry about Iraq, Bush etc. as they were in '06, these states will all be in play, especially with a weak Republican presidential candidate, which is certainly possible. I'd like your analysis. Assume conditions like those that resulted in 6 Democratic pick-ups in 06, (which nobody predicted) don't you think it's possible Democrats could take 9 and be filibuster proof in '08? Now that's a prediction!

DCAustinite writes
"There is a real possibility that both senators from Virginia might be Democrats by 2008. Who would've thought that possible in even 2004?"

I look forward to some of the partisan responses to that observation.

Call it morbid curiosity.

Chris, Guess late August and early September weren't slow news periods for you. Thanks for some great reporting.

When I consider the times in our nations past when our state has been called on to do our best and provide our best, we have done so.

Much is said about John Hancock, who as the President of the 2nd Continental Congress affixed his flamboyant signature as the first signer of the Declaration of Independence. However, little is said about the signer who Hancock passed the pen to. While acknowledging that without this man's hard-work and high integrity the vote on the historic document would have failed, John Hancock handed New Hampshire's Delgate Josiah Bartlett the quill pen to be the second signer. Two day's earlier Bartlett was the first delegate to vote for independence. (So to those who want to know, "When did New Hampshire begin the tradition of being the 'First in the Nation to Vote"? The answer is, "July 2, 1776")

New Hampshire 's General John Stark heroic action at Bunker Hill on June 17, 1775 became legendary as he led his regiment of the New Hampshire Militia at Bunker Hill and prevented the British from flanking the Colonials on Breed's Hill.

The list goes on and on. Alan Shepard Jr., America's first man in space; Christa McAuliffe, chosen to be America's first teacher in space; Horace Greeley; Daniel Webster; Robert Frost; Ken Burns, New Hampshire time and time again has been a reservoir of exceptional people who have been the best at what they do and who we can offer.

In 2008, we have the opportunity once again to send our best to help our nation. Today with her announcement that she will be a candidate for the United State's Senate Jeanne Shaheen has answered the call. She has done so for the best of reasons - to help and to serve. Over the next 14 months the sincerity and the purity of her primary reason will become evident. Her reason is not a partisan one, nor will it be self-serving, Jeanne Shaheen is sacrificing a great deal personally just by entering the race. Her husband and strongest supporter Bill Shaheen accurately stated this morning,

"I am very happy my wife is entering this race. Even though it is a great personal sacrifice on our family, in this troubled worlds' present situation America needs our very best and I am thankful that my family can contribute."

Once again New Hampshire has the opportunity to send our best - I am certain we will.

Do nOT RuSH tO TYPE YoUR RANDOM SCREEd. No OnEEE WanTS TO HEAR YOUR BULLSH!T.

Bad week for Republicans in congress. There is a real possibility that both senators from Virginia might be Democrats by 2008. Who would've thought that possible in even 2004?

"do not speak to fools they scorn the wisdom of your words"

"And your accounted for. Everything that you heard"

"Heaven shines light on those. innocent to how the world goes?

"dO NOT SPEAK TO FOOLS, THEY scron the wisdom of your words"