"NM- toss up i could see Udall winning, but if Wilson is Gop nominee she knows how to win close races. her seat is in a D district.

CO- i see schaeffer winning this one, mainly because Hillary will be the nominee for the Dems, couple that with udall i think is too liberal for statewide appeal." - walken101

LOL

Udall currently leads Wilson by 18+ points in GE match-ups and you think Udall MIGHT win? Wow.

Schaeffer is far more conservative then Udall is liberal. Too conservative to win statewide in today's Colorado.

Oh yeh, and Hillary Clinton polls even with the GOP's strongest candidate in Colorado - Giuliani - so if she's at the top of the ticket, it won matter at all in the senate race.

"Mn- coleman polls consistently double digits ahead of both franken and ciresi. the race will tighten but i think he wins." - walken101

Um....except there's one giant problem w/your analysis: Coleman DOSEN'T consistently poll double digits ahead of either Franken OR Ciresi. In fact, he only leads both of them by about 3-4 points at best in all of the most recent polls on the race.

Kentucky - aren't there lots of rumors out there that Mitch McConnell is gay? Or is this just a poorly kept secret in KY, everyone knows it already, so it's not really going to be a big issue? I'm not a resident of the state so I really don't know - but I DO know that there are long-standing questions about him in this regard, similar to Sen Craig, and one would think this might not play well with his right wing base?

i think the Gop isn't in as bad a shape as everyone seems to think.

Va- gone, warner wins

Me- collins wins

Mn- coleman polls consistently double digits ahead of both franken and ciresi. the race will tighten but i think he wins.

OR- smith is perceived as a moderate and is reasonably well liked in his state, safer than most people think.

NH- shaheen wins, reminds of PA in '06

NM- toss up i could see Udall winning, but if Wilson is Gop nominee she knows how to win close races. her seat is in a D district.

CO- i see schaeffer winning this one, mainly because Hillary will be the nominee for the Dems, couple that with udall i think is too liberal for statewide appeal. could change, but this state depends on who is at the top of the ticket for the dems, right now i see schaeffer winning something like 52-48.

NE- Gop hold. new senator Johanns.

LA- toss up, with repub shift in the bayou state i wouldnt be suprised to see landrieu defeated.

thats my take.

How about some love for the North Carolina race! Elizabeth Dole is very vulnerable in NC. She has spent virtually no time in the state since being elected and has done nothing but rubber-stamp the Bush agenda from day 1.

Her presummed general election opponent -- Kay Hagan -- is a highly regarded state senator and will have no trouble raising the money to take Dole down. Hagan is a moderate democrat who is focused on getting things done. Plus, she has proven appeal to democrats, republicans and independents.

LoudounVoter,
Read it again before you talk about embarrasing yourself. The 4 referred to the war funding. I never said that only 4 repubs voted for SCHIP. The comment was in response to PG that stated "bi-partisan means members of two different parties support it". SCHIP was more bi-partisan but not enough to override a veto.

I'd like to see some consideration of John Frohnmayer in your discussions of the Oregon Senate seat. Any independent is an outside chance, certainly, but his name is big in Oregon, and polling is showing both major party candidates are decidedly lacking. Even if he doesn't win, it seems likely he could affect the race.

A few Rs have been so bold as to label this Congress the least efficient EVER.

While I find the humor in the label, I prefer to compare the current state of politics to our President's and my favorite pastime - Baseball.

Towards the end of the season, a team like the Devil Rays (President Bush) has little reason to go out on the field. Their impact has been marginalized to nothing, they have no chance of winning, and they are all but a mockery.

Then into town comes the Los Angeles Angeles (Congress). Upstarts with good ideas, youth and talent.

What are the D-Rays to do? Their decisions on the field don't make any difference - their only role? SPOILER!

That is how the current administration is operating. Having spent a Yankee-sized bank account full of political capital, they have now built up a Presidential Legacy debt - I think his rating is now 150 (so sad).

What is hard to imagine is that even when dems are building coalitions in both houses, Bush is able to crush legislation with the stroke of a pen.

So why is Congress operating in such a fragmented and disorganized fashion? Because the Republicans are SOOOO fragmented that Bush and his Congressional leadership can't keep the rest of their caucus in order!

The dems are voting on party lines - BUT many many republicans repeatedly are breaking rank on issues like health care, defense spending, and national infrastructure.

Republicans in Congress for the sake of our country and your job - break ranks with the lame wad in the white house.

Stick a fork in the VA Senate race! Jim Gilmore has just announced his candidacy.

dave: You're embarrassing yourself. A lot more than "4 Republicans" voted for bills like SCHIP.

Please JD: Everyone knows that plaintiffs' lawyers contribute mostly to the Dems. George Will is nothing but a GOP apologist. Not hard to connect the dots when they are right next to each other.

I'm done with this subject. Republicans hate plaintiffs' lawyers, we get it.

PG,
So in your world, bi-partisan is 4 Republicans voting for legislation? And because of that, the President should sign it? Everybody and his brother knows that this pres is not going to sign something for war funding with a timetable. Get the votes for an override or pass legislation you know will go through. Don't play politics with it and screw everyone that works for the DoD.

On other legislation, the president has offered alternatives. For instance on SCHIP, the president offered an alternative prior to the veto. After the veto: "White House Press Secretary Dana Perino suggested that Congress sent the bill to the president to make a political point, knowing he would veto it (it is only the fourth veto of his presidency). She called on Congress and the president to sit down and work out a new version of the bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., did not seem to be in a compromising mood, despite knowledge that Congress does not appear to have enough votes to override the veto and that a negotiation may be looming."

Now just who is uncompromising? Who is acting like a 5 year old? If Dems can't get legislation with a majority in congress and a president with approval ratings in the 20's, either the leaders are doing a poor job leading or they are intentionally running congress for their own political purposes. Regardless, quit whining and do something. Lead, follow or get out of the way.

So now the definition of bi-partisan is having enough votes to override a veto? You obviously do not understand the meaning of the term "bi-partisan" (here's a clue, bi-partisan means members of two different parties support it). What we have is an obstructionist pres who is exerting his control over a minority of obstructionist repubs in Congress.

And just because the pres says he will veto something doesnt mean the Dems should just roll over and say "ok, we'll just give you what you want". The pres is not a king and it is NOT his roll to write legislation or dictate what legislation should be passed by Congress. I know he got used to that in the first 6 years of his presidency when he had is spineless rubber stamp repubs in control, but now its time for him to get back to reality. Our democracy has not (hopefully) dissolved to the point where the pres dictates what pieces of legislation should be passed and in what form. If the pres does not like a bill that is passed with significant bi-partisan support then it is incumbent upon him to reach out and negotiate, not throw a temper tantrum. He has the mentality of a 5 year-old.

I'm just amazed that this pres obviously doesn't care how badly he is hurting his own party. This is a guy who cares about nobody but himself, his business interests, and his business cronies. he is about as un-American as it gets.

PG

"The dems have crafted several pieces of bi-partisan legislation which your president has promptly vetoed." Apparently not bi-partisan enough since they could not override the veto. When Bush says that if certain legislation passes he will veto it and the Dems pass that legislation without any changes knowing full well it won't have enough votes for the override, one can only assume they are passing it for political points (or just interested in wasting everyones time).

So if, because of the Dems, the DoD puts 10,000 people out of work, that's OK but if GM does it, that's a different story? Democrat's selective compassion for people never ceases to amaze me.

dave -- perhaps you don't read much. The dems have crafted several pieces of bi-partisan legislation which your president has promptly vetoed.

'janitorial people in the Pentagon should be worried.' wtf? what are you smoking? The Pentagon currently has a budget the size of several country's entire economy. Should we just open our veins and let them bleed us totally dry? I wouldn't cry for them if i were you.

claudialong,
Don't get irritated at me if your Dems can't manage to put together a single bit of useful bi-partisan legislation and instead have to resort to politicizing the war in an attempt to make gains in 08. Either Pelosi/Reid are that inept at running Congress or there is a strategy to the types of legislation they are proposing. I think it's the latter and they are using the war and the legislation and timing of the legislation to satisfy the democratic base. By DoD workers I mean everyone the DoD has a contract with that is not fighting the war. That means Blackwater is safe. But every one from US based Army bases to contractors working on numerous support contracts to the janitorial people in the Pentagon should be worried. And to be precise, I think my party uses the threat of filibuster AND presidential veto - just like every party does when the opposition is trying to pass bad legislation. Craft legislation that will pass or work to get votes for the legislation you want. As my dad used to say, lead, follow or get out of the way.

response to: (kingofzouk | November 16, 2007 02:06 PM)

That's a little bit funny there that you labeled Dems as spendthrifts. Hey, both parties are guilty of porkbarrel spending and pet projects. But let's call a spade a spade. It seems that Bush Jr. just read "My Pet Veto." His tax-cuts for billionaire Republicans, coupled with two wars, leave virtually nothing for domestic programs. In fact, his first GD vetoes were used to appease rightwing-extremist Christian fundies. Now he's claiming to hold the line on spending. What has Boy W. George been shoveling lately? He's vetoing out of necessity, and to prove to the RepubTard faithful that he's a fiscal conservative. But he's vetoeing healthcare for poor kids. Fiscally, Republicans stopped being conservative years ago. I wish they'd stop casually referring to themselves as libertarians. They're FISCAL libertarians, not to be confused with those who really believe in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happines.."

Mark -- I am shockd you haven't read 1984 -- it is the seminal political work of the 2oth century. And it tells you everything you need to know about why things are the way they are in this country today -- because it is the R party's playbook.

' The fact of the matter is Dems have done next to nothing and, other than play politics with the troops and DoD workers, have few other plans.'

the fact of the matter is that republicans have blocked every attempt by the Democrats to get anything done. They're so angry and bitter to be in the minority that all they want is to break something, to hurt the Dems. I remember when every time the Democrats filibustered, or threateneed to, you all whined and screamed about 'obstructionism.' Now YOUR party obstructs EVERY piece of legislation by filibustering, or threatening do. So if you want to whine about things not getting done, call your R congressperson. Otherwise, STFU.

By dod woorkeder, are you referring to the savage mercernaries we have employed in Iraq, who go out of their way to kill innocent Iraqis?

response to: (dave | November 18, 2007 08:47 AM)

Thanks for the response, Dave. Most of the country wants out of Iraq within a year or so. Along with putting up more centrist candidates in '06, that's why Dems gained control of the House/Senate. Bush Jr. continues to veto legislation (i.e. stem-cells, S-CHIP, Iraq timeline) that is popular with most of the country. He has very little to lose since he won't be up for reelection next year (hallef'nlujah). Also, there won't be any backlash for hardright Repubs in Congress, but centrist Republicans are starting to feel the heat. Dems are trying to end an unpopular war. They definitely will have to do more bargaining with the other side of the aisle, but they're on the right track. If Repubs continue to stonewall popular legislation, more Republicans in Congress will have problems next November. Gone are the days when Republicans will get away with representing corrupt special interest groups, instead of the voters. Repuglicans who don't do their job, can join Foley and Craig on the funny farm.

LV, you attempt to cast doubt at the veracity of Will's story through a ham-handed ad hominem.

OK, please allow me to call your bluff. What facts, specifically, did you disagree with in the article (assuming you actually read it)?

Mark, you're right, I was making more of a comment on the reputation and image, rather than the substance. However, there's a reason why stereotypes form; they hold true in many cases. Trial lawyers protect the downtrodden against the Goliath corporations, true; as Will notes, that's why the Dems like them, as they see victims everywhere, perceive themselves as defenders of the little guy, etc.

However, a great many of them have turned into parasites on society. They engage in extortion tactics as above (Jackson's Rainbow PUSH is another group that does this) to enrich themselves.

JD, Very few stories pain me more than revelations about crooked lawyers. There have been times, since Watergate, when I wish I had gone to grad school in math or econ.

But most lawyers I know are not crooks. Most plaintiff's lawyers are not "scum". George Will knows better than to argue that because this crooked firm was a refuge for scoundrels, trial lawyers are not our society's designated shield-and-sword for victims.

I do not take you to be making Will's argument. You merely said that stories like this cause public loathing.
Sadly, you are probably correct.

I will be back in Austin tonight. It was a great trip.

George Will -- a good unbiased source -- NOT.

Sorry JD. What's the matter, you couldn't find anything from Ann Coulter on this subject?

For those of you who wonder why many (most?) Americans believe trial lawyers are scum

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601756.html

sry Mark

judge, boko, Thanks. Read "Animal Farm" in HS but never read "1984".

Took "The English Novel" in college and never read Wells or Orwell - too lowbrow for our Prof, I think.

Never saw any of the "1984" flics - culturally deprived - but do you guys remember, from "Animal Farm" -

"Beasts of England, beasts of Ireland, beasts of every land and clime..."

Sung to "Clementine" or La Cucaracha".

Does anyone have any idea who is winning the R primary in NM? Pearce will seemingly be very well funded. It seems that Wilson, on electability, has the support of the establishment. What about this Spiro Vassilopoulos? He likely has personal money he can donate to the race, as does Pearce. Now that Tom Udall is in vs. Chavez,. this should prove to be a very competitive race. Udall should take care of him and win the D primary. But who will emerge as the R nominee? Domenici says he will not make a formal endorsement, but will help the eventual nominee. Domenici is popular in NM, but will it be enough to help Pearce or Wilson? Who is the favorite right now, or is there one, for the R nomination? How much trouble will Chavez actually cause Udall? Since Domenici retired, this race seems to have more questions than answers.

Speaking of bluster, today's NYT reports that up to 60% of Sen Clinton's Iowa support is from people who've never participated in the caucuses. They did not report numbers from other candidates; merely implied that much of HRC's support is not from loyal party members. If that is true & the same for the college-kid numbers for Obama, is it correct to assume that Edwards should be shown with a lead rather than a 'statistical tie' with Clinton & Obama?

I see Boko beat me to my explanation.

"Statements like this mean you are all bluster." Dave, statements like this prove YOU are all bluster. Did they scrap the civics class at your high school?

Mark: 'cause that's when I had to read Orwell's '1984' in my Brit Lit class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

Mark, the "Eurasia" reference was from Orwell's "1984," in which the world is pictured as having been divided into three political blocks: the totalitarian states of "Oceania" (roughly equivalent to the remains of the British Empire as it was in the '40's), "Eurasia" (which I think is a reference to the Soviet sphere of influence in Europe), and "Eastasia" (China, Korea, Japan, Thailand, etc.)
One of many ways in which the propoganda machine imagined in the novel controls voters/citizens' minds/thoughts is for state to establish absolute control over the news heard by the masses. Thus, when politically expedient, Oceania is said to be at war with either one power or the other, and this is claimed to always have been true. Despite the obvious falsity of these claims, citizens in the novel are able to force themselves to believe - to buy the party line - out of self-preservation.

con_crusher,
"Dems are actually working and trying to get it done. That means something." Statements like this mean you are all bluster. Get what done? The fact of the matter is Dems have done next to nothing and, other than play politics with the troops and DoD workers, have few other plans.

judge, what does "Eurasia..." mean? Why does it remind you of HS?

"Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania!"

That takes me back to the bad old high school days.

Saw this and was suitably impressed with Collins' logic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/opinion/17collins.html?ref=opinion

She has a point. HRC may not be the most inspirational (Obama is) or the most populist (Edwards is) or the most wonkish (debatable) but you can't say she isn't tough enough to take on whomever the R's end up nominating. She'd hand Rudy's head to him on a plate.

The Mittster is another matter; saw him on CNN a few days ago and was impressed with how quick on his feet he is.

Check out Campaign Diaries's detailed Senate rankings of all 34 races as well: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/senaterankings

"When Kaine rejects the Crime Commission's recommendations re the illegal alien invaders, he will stamp 'reject' to Mark Warner's aspirations. Virginia has had a belly full (to quote Lou Dobbs) of the scamnesty supporters - and Warner is yet another one of them. So dream on, Markie boy. Virginians, particularly in northern VA, are fed up. That bus warming up??? It is for us to transport the illegal alien invaders back south of the border."

Dont make me laugh!! Have you forgotten that the NVA voters voted for amnesty by wiping out the GOP in Northern Virginia? Whose intelligence are you trying to insult?

"Chris. With all due respect, 'a few breaks in the clouds?' Please. Next thing you know you'll be writing a Broderesque piece about a possible 'pending comeback by President Bush in the polls.'"

No. Next he will say that the GOP's illegal immigration tactic is working. Bush's rise in the approval rating to 35% will come soon after that (if that happens).

I have to agree. "Silver lining" with asterisks. They were likely wins for the GOP, but top-tier Dems would have made it interesting.

I have to give credit to the GOP, though. They continue to do everything possible to get nothing done. They can have the rednek South, because the Midwest, Southwest and Northwest are generally in play for the Dems. They should probably use more triangulation, but it's essentially a win-win situation. The Reduhblicans virtually had all three branches of the U.S. government, yet couldn't pour p!ss out of a boot. Dems are actually working and trying to get it done. That means something.

response to: (bsimon | November 16, 2007 11:24 PM)

You won't have to wait long there. Curious W. George and the RepubTards are doing everything possible to ensure that Dems will have huge pickups next November. Mark my words. You can write it down, Sparky.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071117/ap_on_go_ot/immigration_offensive_costume

Here's another reason for getting a Dem back into the White House next year. It will restore integrity and intelligence to the office.

Also, Liebermann should have nothing to do with the Democratic party. Forget majority control of the Senate. He's simply another Zell Miller - there isn't an iota of anything Democratic about him.

Heather Wilson cannot be considered a top recruit after the U.S. Attorney Scandal. While she wasn't as implicated as throughly as Domenici, she is still damaged goods.

I agree that Norm Coleman is in more trouble than Gordon Smith, who in turn is in more trouble than Susan Collins. Coleman, unlike the other two, is a first-term senator and as a result is much less politically entrenched.

lil' zouk writes
"Pelosi/Reid - the most ineffective congress in a long time. One law passed this year. big whoop."

See, Chris was right - there is a silver lining to every cloud. If the GOP hadn't lost control of both houses of congress, you'd have to blame the GOP leadership for their failure to get anything done, but now you get to blame the Dems.

Loudon writes
"Beautiful Pawtucket, apparently now know as the Bucket, home of the PawSox."

I caught a couple pawsox games when I was out there for school - up in smithfield.

Stevens is blaming the media for his problems.Whether the populace buys this or not, I haven't a clue and I live in Alaska. Frankly I haven't heard much static about him. I heard a lot more complaining from the GOP types when Murkowski appointed his daughter to the Senate but she survived a case of blatant nepotism and got elected on her own against the ex-governor and very moderate, reasonably popular and scandal free Dem, Tony Knowles.

Stevens really has no way out of this unless the public simply doesn't care whether he took favors from the oil companies or not. The cost for the renovations of his chalet can be easily calculated if you have any building experience and we know what he said he paid. What possible excuse he could use, I can't possibly fathom. Also in the link below, he today threatened retribution against his enemies.

http://tinyurl.com/3ce6yl

"SD is still on the table until we hear definitively that Johnson is running again." - novamatt

Well, then I guess it's off the table then - Senator Johnson announced weeks ago that he is running for reelection in '08.

"And even if he does run, Johnson might still be vulnerable."

Nope. Not unless Gov. Rounds runs, which he won't. And even if he does, Johnson has the definite edge.

If it wasn't for bad liuck, they wouldn't have no luck at all.

Dave - Pelosi/Reid - the most ineffective congress in a long time. One law passed this year. big whoop.

All those empty campaign promises. you gotta be a Lib to fall for 'em. but who in their right mind would consider letting a clinton back in? how quickly they forget.

'the american people know where I stand on the issues"

No, we don't.

hillaries latest foray into evasiveness.

The cloud I see has a sort of cheap tin lining.
It ain't silver anyways.

This Senate is anti-American.

Sen. Gordon Smith is a second cousin to both Mark and Tom Udall. If Smith is not defeated in 2008, the Udall clan could have three members in the Senate.

so that's just one dem rep who is leaving congress for good, not trying for the senate. among the repubs, other than the two from New Mexico (Pearce and Wilson) are any others running for other office?

Posted by: LoudounVoter | November 16, 2007 04:37 PM

Bobby Jindal won the governorship in Louisiana. He is going to next year I believe. I believe that's about it so far.
John Tanner (D-TN) I believe announced he is retiring in 2010 to run for governor in Tennessee (to try and cut off Harold Ford Jr.).

What ARE you talking about?
The Republicans have had a great year. They've filibustered everything that might help get America back on its feet and on speaking terms with the rest of the world again.

They've pushed through the most sickening violations of the Constitution.

They've appointed another spineless yes-man to the high office of Attorney-General.

They've seen to it that we are still in Iraq.

And they've almost got away with starting WW3 in Iran.

THIS IS NO MEAN ACHIEVEMENT!
Are you trying to depress them or something, Chris?
Or were you just joking . . . . ?

JimD: Beautiful Pawtucket, apparently now know as the Bucket, home of the PawSox.

bsimon,
And 14 votes short of the veto-proof majority that they don't have and know it. Democrats are controlling what comes to vote and when. They determine what is important. For Dems, it is, apparently, more important to get on with the holidays and campaigning than to work out a funding measure for the troops. To put the DoD focus on moving money, laying off people and canceling contracts just to satisfy your base is incredibly irresponsible. At this point in time, they don't have the votes to do what they want to do. They should be doing what they *need* to do (pass a signable funding bill) and working their collegues and the people to get the votes to pass the legislation they want.

From todays BBC: "Foreign tourists to many of India's most famous landmarks will no longer be able to pay the entrance fee in dollars, the government says. The ruling is aimed at safeguarding tourism revenues following the recent falls in the dollar.
Until now, foreign tourists to sites such at the Taj Mahal have had the option of paying in dollars or rupees. The ruling will affect nearly 120 sites of interest run by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). "

Sort of makes you wonder if the Indian government is going to switch and giove Euro's to the Clinton campaign instead of dollars, too. Nah. Clinton's campaign is a place they dump all of those excess and rapidly devaluing dollars. This makes "The Senator From India", as she was called by an Indian government official during a visit there (touting her support for outsourcing and guest worker visas), a cheap investment.

Loudon,

Where in RI did you grow up? I am from Tiverton.

JimD in FL

Hey mainetimes do you know Pat Lamarche? I grew up with her in RI!

In Maine, Tom Allen does not have a deep relationship with the Dem progresssives and Greens (10% of the vote) in the state. He and our other Rep, Mike Michaud, are NOT conservative, but moderate/liberal New Englanders. Allen is NOT progressive (single payer/Dept of Peace/higher taxes on wealthy); but he must energize this base to have a prayer. A ttrue-blue conundrum.

dave writes
"Your Democratic Senate at work... The 53-45 vote was seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance."

Dave, it sounds like the bill is blocked by a filibuster. The 45 voting to not advance the bill - are they Dems or Repubs? Because it seems like its not the Dem leadership causing problems, but a minority of Senators working to block legislation.

Your Democratic Senate at work. Maybe we can get Edwards to conduct a poverty tour of the government workers and contractors that are about to get laid off, just to satisfy the Democratic base.

'Frustrated by Republican roadblocks, Democrats now plan to sit on President Bush's $196 billion request for war spending until next year -- pushing the Pentagon toward an accounting nightmare and deepening their conflict with the White House on the war.

The 53-45 vote was seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance. It came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war with no strings attached.

Now, Democratic leaders say they won't bring up another war spending bill until next year. They calculate the military has enough money to run through mid-February.

Since taking the reins of Congress in January, Democrats have struggled to pass any significant anti-war legislation. Measures that passed along party lines in the House repeatedly sank in the Senate, where Democrats hold a much narrower majority and 60 votes are routinely needed to overcome procedural hurdles.

In May, Republicans agreed not to stand in the way of a $95 billion bill that would have set a timetable for troop withdrawals. Bush rejected the measure and Democrats lacked the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, as Republicans anticipated.

Democrats eventually stripped the timetable from the bill and sent Bush the money without restrictions on force levels. The move was an unpopular one with many Democratic voters who say Congress should cut off money for the war.

As the year progressed, Democrats hoped for Republican defections. But a drop in violence this fall in Iraq helped to shore up GOP support for the war.

Republicans on Friday tried to counter with an alternative proposal that would have paid $70 billion toward the war without restrictions. That measure failed by a vote of 45-53, falling 15 short of the 60 needed to advance.

The Pentagon confirms the military will not run out of money until mid February, after which all Army bases would cease operations.

But Defense Secretary Robert Gates said this week that without the money now, drastic steps would have to be taken in anticipation of the shutdown, including plans to freeze contracts and to furlough about 100,000 government employees.

Notices to some union employees would start going out in mid-December, he said.'

so that's just one dem rep who is leaving congress for good, not trying for the senate. among the repubs, other than the two from New Mexico (Pearce and Wilson) are any others running for other office?

proud-my last post got booted so ill just repeat my mea culpa about tim johnson being from south dakota.not north. my bad.

Three of the four (?) House Dems retiring are running for Senate: Tom Allen and the two Udalls. The fourth is Michael McNulty of Albany, NY. LoudounVoter is correct that, for a long time, it was just Allen and Mark Udall.

jaymills1124 - Senator Johnson is actually from South Dakota. Up north we have Senators Dorgan and Conrad.

They do seem to be in sync, however, about the current farm bill before the Senate, which has more than 260 amendments, including ones on the Exxon Valdez, medical malpractice, immigration and taxes.

It's outrageous that now this bill, like many others before it, is being held hostage by a few senators who want to turn it into a Christmas tree and hang every ornament from it.

claudia: last week i heard 13, i think, counting the lovely rep. cubin.

on the other side, two dems i think.

From The Hill on November 7th:

"House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), a passionate golf player, sponsored a $3 million earmark in the 2008 military spending bill for a program that attracts disadvantaged and minority children to the game of golf.

Even though Clyburn's earmark appears minor in the face of a $471 billion defense bill that contains about $5 billion in disclosed member projects, it stands out because it has little to do with the military and was only introduced as part of the conference negotiations between the House and the Senate."

This may well be a useful program and may benenfit military children as well- I don't know much about it- but check your facts before you call people racist or anti-military

'WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert is expected to announce Thursday on the House floor that he is retiring from Congress, a senior aide to the congressman told CNN Wednesday.'

Has CC talked about this yet?

Can someone give me a tally of how many R's are retiring, not running, etc? Last i heard it was 15.

jaymills

I think the last time two family members served in the Senate together was when Robert Kennedy served with Ted ('65 to '68).

nathanirwin-thanks, didnt know that.

jaymills:

"...two udall's in the senate? it might happen! when's the last time two members of a family served at the same time?"

Bobby and Teddy Kennedy were both in the Senate together from 1965 to 1968. That's the last time two relatives were in the Senate togther, that I can think of.

There are some more recent House/Senate sibling pairs, like Ken and John Salazr (Col.), Tim and Asa Hutchinson (Ark.), and Carl and Sander Levin (Mich.)

zouk, I read it was for 'military' children -- you know kids whose parents are deployed. big difference. but you're probably still against it, because what do you care about our military?

dunno claudia, he's probably afraid of all of those"minority kids" playing golf and probably kicking his kiester all over the course. or probably the normal knee jerk reaction to anything dem. its probably friday so its potporri dem posts, monday is harry reid, tuesday is nancy pelosi, wensday/thursday is the clinton funtime hour. dunno what he does on the weekends tho.

CC-a suggestion if you or any of your legion of interns or editors are listening, could you put up a interactive map of the us based on delegates? i found this website called 270towin.com where you can pretty much pick and chose which state goes dem or gop in the general election. plus there's a template for 2008 where you can decide(or keep up with) what state a canidate wins. just my two cents on that matter.

You have no clue, re: Maine politics, Chris.

Firstly, Collins is anything but "moderate."

She's now self-identifying as "bipartisan," which is equally as pathetic (team player hooey).

...totally focused upon invoking the fear-mongering "terrists" meme.

Rinse, lather, repeat.

The voters aren't tuned in as yet to the federal races (which is what actually *matters* in Maine politics).

It's that simple.

Summer of '08 is more like it (the majority of voters here are unenrolled; and are *very* concerned w/gas and oil price gouging).

Daily life matters in Maine.

http://tinyurl.com/2ffhy7

We are not obsessed with hotshot Beltway insider "polling" up here.

It's quite irrelevant; and we do resent "outsiders" for many reasons (this 'polling' nonsense by people "from away" being one of 'em).

Contribute to Tom here:

http://www.actblue.com/page/mf

Thanks muchly.

pvjm, you must not have noticed we had an election here last week. Polling (and election results) shows that VA voters are looking at a basket of issues rather than just immigration alone, and aren't all that convinced or motivated by nativist demagoguery (and the few who are have been voting R all along anyway).

And that was in lower-turnout state elections, where super-motivated anti-immigrant hysterics should have outperformed the less-motivated sane people.

Warner by 20, easy.

"arguably, this Congress has been the least productive Congress ever."

They got more done in 6 months than the previous Congress did in 4 years.

'golf school for minority children'

zouk, I read it was for 'military' children -- you know kids whose parents are deployed. big difference. but you're probably still against it, because what do you care about our military?

SD is still on the table until we hear definitively that Johnson is running again. And even if he does run, Johnson might still be vulnerable. SD is a small state with a small pool of potential candidates, miniscule advertising costs, and a solid R base. Everyone is tiptoeing around this race, but it's worth mentioning.

NC could be interesting too, depending on who wins the Neal/Kagan primary or how messy it is. Liddy Dole just isn't a very good senator or politician, NC is more like VA than SC, and if '08 is anything like '06, a good D will beat a not-so-good R in a purple state.

As a real dark horse, let me throw out OK, where Jim Inhofe is old and arguably farther to the right than any other current senator. His likely opponent is Andrew Rice, a 30-something state senator from OKC. A race worth monitoring.

Since 1988, the winning candidate for Senate or Governor hasn't received more than 51% of the vote (except for the Klobuchar blowout last year and Arne Carlson in 1994 for governor). MN typically have close races. I expect this race to be close as well.

Tom Allen is unfortunately from the wrong district in Maine. Most of the Senators came from the more moderate/rural 2nd district.

jaymills: that's my point -- no one with any future is going to face certain defeat by running against M Warner. Gilmore has nothing to lose and right now I have not heard of anyone else who wants the nomination.

ME has two liberal Repub senators, 2 conservative Dem congressmen and used to have an Independent Governor that everybody hated. Collins is safe.

loundon-do you think that the va-gop might be that stupid to nominate gilmore or someone else? who else gonna be brave(or dumb) to even face warner?

When Kaine rejects the Crime Commission's recommendations re the illegal alien invaders, he will stamp 'reject' to Mark Warner's aspirations. Virginia has had a belly full (to quote Lou Dobbs) of the scamnesty supporters - and Warner is yet another one of them. So dream on, Markie boy. Virginians, particularly in northern VA, are fed up. That bus warming up??? It is for us to transport the illegal alien invaders back south of the border.

"Virginia is definately in a class by itself...pretty well over with. It seems to me, the Va. Republican party knowing Gilmore's chances, wouldn't nominate him."

That's exactly why they WILL nominate him or some other retread, rather than one of their younger people with some upside potential, like the guys who plan to run for governor.

now if i really had to predict the senate, here's how i would call it.

Democrats Repubican
Pick ups Pick ups
MN LA
NewMX
CO
Va
NH
AK
ME
KY(possibly)
Or

the dems will hold the senate and possibly have a 57-2-41 advantage. worse case senario? democrats win all of the sure bet catagory and lose the rest putting the senate at at least 54-2-44 dem advantage, if hillary the nominee or the mood goes in to"throw the bumbs out"

Look for

the silver lining

when you are writing

about the Republicans

for Pravda

War is Peace!

Bad is Good!

Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania!

and finally "just forget about it"catagory
but then again anything can and will happen between now and next november!

Missippi-its a safe hold in ruby red MS

Michigan(disclosure, this is my home state) No bench to speak of and most of the big names want to be governor 2010. Levin is safe as safe can be.

New Jeresy-dunno can the gop get tony soprano to run?

North Dakota-i shouldnt even be mentioning it, Tim Johnson may be a survivor but he's safe and no one in their right mind would challenge him.

Sleeper picks?
Oklahoma,Louisiana,Alabama,Idaho(if larry craig decides to go toe tapping again)and alaska.

Potental top tier races in the making

Kentucky-yes kentucky, my reasoning is a)knocking off a sitting leader of the senate is a enticing prospect,b)corruption and c) a strong dem bench(luallen,strombo and horne)

Texas-CC you may want to look into this race between LT.Col Rick Norigea and John the boxturtle Coryn. especially if immigration comes in to play in this state!

the Carolina's-both dole(North) and graham(south) have potetial trouble with either a dem canidate or a primary challenge on the right.

Maine-ok tom allen's district is half of maine, thats pretty much half the work done. now he just got to focus on the other half. its a sleeper but this could make the north east repubican a endangered species in new england!

Virginia is definately in a class by itself...pretty well over with. It seems to me, the Va. Republican party knowing Gilmore's chances, wouldn't nominate him. Davis had a real shot if a primary had been issued, this is a stupid move that has essentially cost the R's a shot at retaining the seat. M. Warner is walking away with this election.

The second tier is New Hampshire, Louisiana, New Mexico and Colorodo. New Hampshire and La. has solid incumbents who will spend and fight to keep their seats. Both are pretty crafty politicians who won't go down easily. Both of these are really great pick-up opportunities, but Liendrieu & Sununu cannot be under-estimated. In NH, it will be a 2002 rematch with Sununu vs. former gov. Shaheen. Dems. really picked up the best candidate who can run against Sununu, besides current gov. Lynch. In La., Mark Kennedy is likely to be the nominee. Although, Sec. of State Jay Dardeene has shown some interest in running for the seat. I think, in my view, Dardeene would be a better candidate than Kennedy. Either one should almost be favored in the race a bith. New Mexico & Colorodo are great pick up shots for D's. New Mexico is an open seat now dominated by 2 tough primaries. D's have Udall vs. Chavez & R's have 2 U.S. Reps.: Pearce vs. Wilson. Udall has the clear edge on the D side, and will very likely be the nominee. Pearce is going to run on conservative principles vs. Wilson's electability & battle-tested credintials. Democrat's look pretty good in this one right now with Udall. Colorodo is another open seat, but I think it lightly leans R. It looks like Shaffer has shored up the primary and Wolf even is thinking of dropping out. I think Shaffer is in a good spot, as Udall is a bit liberal for Colorodo.

The others look fairly safe right now. I think other's too keep an eye on are South Dakota, Minnosota & Oregon.

"arguably, this Congress has been the least productive Congress ever."

Million dollar question:

Will KY voters take it out on the minority party leader? Seems like portraying him as leader of the party of NO won't take much work. Kind of a Thune v. Daschle race.

well aside from zouk's off topic remark( just heard from the news that the senate rejected the house's defense appropiation's bill so there not a story there zouk) i guess i have to up date my senate rankings somewhat.

Sure Bets for the democrats
Virgina-unless mark warner has a maccaca moment, we might as well start calling him senator!

New Hampshire-same as va, Jeanne Shaheen might as well start changing her stationary.

New Mexico- welcome to the list NewMx! im sure you know NH and Va, right? two udall's in the senate? it might happen! when's the last time two members of a family served at the same time?

colorado- this race is beginning to cool off for me. but im sure this is in the bag, but not without a fight.

Minesota-if franken wins, this is going to a difficult but winnable election. if its ciresi, all bets are off.

Loudon Voter writes
"It's going to be tough for Minnesota GOPers (pretty clever, no?) to "paint Al Franken as a caricature" in a state that elected Jesse Ventura as governor."

Thats the question; what are the Independant voters going to do? Ventura's legacy, largely unknown outside MN, is an Indpendance Party that takes 5-15% of the vote. In the 2006 race (Klobuchar-Kennedy-Fitzgerald), Klobuchar blew the competition out of the water - an extremely conservative, somewhat uncharismatic Repub and a young and inexperienced, but eloquent, kid.

2008, as Chris rightfully notes, is going to be a tough race for Coleman. But there are still a lot of undefined variables in the race, including, but not limited to: 1) the DFL Senate nominee, 2) the Dem presidential nominee, 3) the IP Senate nominee and 4) what happens to the economy & wars between now & then.

I have yet to find where Senator Collins is in any trouble, no matter who the dems run against her. The only thing that could be used against her would be the "Loyalty" or party votes in support of GW.

In the real world (that means outside of Washington, DC) productivity is measured by comparing the output received to the effort/cost expending to produce something or perform a task. Or, as the dictionary describes it "rate of output per unit of input".

So far, the House of Representatives this year has taken over 1,000 separate votes which has surpassed the most recorded votes ever in the history of Congress. We also have been "in session" voting for 146 days so far, which is also headed to a record number of days in Washington, DC. So, that's the input.

But what about the output? So far, only 107 bills have been signed into law. Over half of these were either naming something (like a post office) or extending an existing law that was scheduled to expire. several more were simple land transfers from government to government. National Review has suggested that has been only one piece of legislation of any significance that has passed and been signed into law which was the increase in the minimum wage. This Congress is on track to pass the fewest bills since electronic records have been kept. Furthermore, Congress has failed to send a single appropriations (budget/spending) bill to the President after a full month into the fiscal year. The is the first time Congress has failed to do so since 1987.

So, arguably, this Congress has been the least productive Congress ever. After all, we have been in Washington the longest and voted the most while producing record low output. And they can't blame this on having a different party control Congress and the White House as that has been the case much of the time in the past.

Late at night, a new earmark was snuck into the Defense Appropriations bill. It is $3 million for a golf school for minority children. That's right. $3 million of your tax money to teach kids to play golf......out of the DEFENSE budget. The earmark was put in there by James Clyburn (D-SC). Not coincidentally, the money will go to the James E. Clyburn Golf Center. I'm speechless.

Spend, spend spend - you're a Dem.

"that may make this Republicans' best week yet."

Pathetic, but well earned.

It's going to be tough for Minnesota GOPers (pretty clever, no?) to "paint Al Franken as a caricature" in a state that elected Jesse Ventura as governor.

Chris. With all due respect, 'a few breaks in the clouds?' Please. Next thing you know you'll be writing a Broderesque piece about a possible 'pending comeback by President Bush in the polls.'

The republicans are dead meat. They remain dead meat. It will take the party years to get over the rancid sole-gin puking hangover that is the legacy of the Bush presidency.

The fact that the R's are virtually done in 2 Senate races and really struggling in a third is really telling. A year out from the 06 elections, really only Casey was crushing Santorum. DeWine and Chaffee seemed vulnerable, but stable. The crooked Mr. Burns was actually doing alright in the MT polls, and VA was on no one's radar screen.