John Kerry Take Note

This is how to apologize:

"I have no one to blame but myself," Mota said in a statement that did not explain how he ran afoul of baseball's drug rules. "I take full responsibility for my actions and accept MLB's suspension. I used extremely poor judgment and deserve to be held accountable.

"To my teammates and the entire Mets organization, I am sorry. I truly regret what I did and hope that you can forgive me. To baseball fans everywhere, I understand that you are disappointed in me, and I don't blame you. I feel terrible and I promise this is the first and last time that this will happen. I am determined to prove to you that this was one mistake."

Back to the top.

Lieberman to GOP

I've invested a lot in predicting that Lieberman will wind up caucusing with Republicans, but only because it makes no sense at all for him to remain a Democrat. Want another demonstration? The GOP in Connecticut is crediting him with breathing life into their congressional campaigns:

Lieberman push for GOP votes may aid GOP
By ANDREW MIGA, Associated Press Writer
Wed Nov 1, 10:58 AM ET

Sen. Joe Lieberman alienated plenty of Democrats with his independent bid. Just imagine their anger if he costs them control of the House.

The three-term Connecticut senator is aggressively pursuing Republican and independent voters in his race against Democratic nominee Ned Lamont and little-known Republican Alan Schlesinger. That targeted appeal — and the potential for a strong GOP turnout — could save three GOP House incumbents struggling to return to Washington...

Lieberman has the support of 73 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of independents, according to a Quinnipiac University survey released Wednesday. Schlesinger trailed far behind in single digits in the head-to-head matchup.

Lieberman's coattails could carry the GOP incumbents to re-election and undercut Democratic hopes of majority control of the House.

"It does help me," Shays said in a recent interview. "I know there will be a lot of Republicans who will vote for him, as well as a lot of independents and Democrats. ... Joe is the kind of person who reaches across the political divide, and I am like that as well..."

Johnson, 71, is a 12-term incumbent locked in a nasty race against Chris Murphy, a 33-year-old Democratic state senator. One of her TV ads features an actor portraying Murphy being welcomed by drug dealers as he campaigns door-to-door.

In a sprawling working-class district in Eastern Connecticut, Simmons' support of the Iraq war has come under heavy fire from Democratic challenger Joe Courtney. It's the most Democratic, and poorest, of the three in play...

So for all the stuff that MoveOn and DailyKos hate him for, add the fact that he will be credited with helping to pull through however many of Connecticut's 3 incumbent House Republicans get re-elected.

Back to the top.

Great Picture

I think this picture may hurt the GOP, in that we are helped when people realize that John Kerry is a leader in the Democratic party, and he holds offensive views. This picture however, tends to make it plainer that John Kerry is a joke, who almost never ought to be taken seriously. And if enough voters think that Kerry shouldn't be taken seriously, they are less likely to regard it as important to come out and vote for his oppposition.

As an analogy, few realize that Jerry Springer was once the Democratic mayor of Cincinnati. If you thought about Springer as a leader in the Democratic party, you would probably race to the polls to vote GOP. But since most regard him as a joke, it loses the 'punch.' Well, do we really want the voters to realize that Kerry is as unserious as Jerry Springer?

Back to the top.

House GOP Shakeup

Tim Chapman picks up on an interesting story in The Hill about GOP 'backbenchers' pushing for leadership changes after the elections.

The House GOP has currently scheduled its leadership elections for the week of November 13, when Members will have returned to Washington for the 'Lame Duck' session of this 109th Congress. Such early scheduling is traditional, not least because it gives challengers little time to organize opposition to the incumbents.

There has been talk in the GOP of pushing back leadership elections. If things go badly on election day, expect that talk to increase. The goal for insurgents would probably be to have the next round of elections in December, when it is possible that Congress will have to come back for a second lame duck session.

If there are enough challengers to force a delay in the leadership elections, expect there to be new blood.

And frankly, if election day goes badly, several of the posts will have been vacated anyway.

Back to the top.

If Kerry Didn't Exist, Rove Would Invent Him

John Kerry remains the gift that keeps on giving. He drove Imus crazy this morning, because he would not give a simple apology for what he said. He kept saying that he botched a joke, and then he tried to turn back to an attack on Bush. Finally Imus hung up on him, but not before Kerry mentioned that he was returning to DC and had cancelled his remaining campaign appearances.

By the way, have you noticed how John Kerry's favorite phrase seems to be 'I won't let them?' He said he wouldn't let the Swift Boat attacks damage his campaign. He wouldn't let the Bush campaign portray him as weak on terrorism. Now he's saying that he won't let the GOP make him an issue in this campaign.

When Kerry starts a sentence with "I won't let..." pull out your wallet and bet on it to happen.

(By the way, can we get a John Kerry drinking game going? Every time he says 'I won't let,' take a drink. The good news is, you wouldn't be sober for more than the first three minutes or so of his speech.)

The wonderful thing about Kerry injecting himself into the race at this point is that it gives the GOP something to run against. This election has been a referendum on GOP leadership, without much consideration about what the Democrats offer instead. It's been hard for Republicans to force voters to actually choose whose agenda they prefer, because neither Pelosi nor Reid is very well-known nationally. John Kerry is however. And the good thing for the GOP is, America has already rejected him once.

The further good news is that Kerry is choosing to keep himself in the spotlight. After all, it would be easy to say 'I'm sorry I misspoke. I never intended to criticize our troops, for whom I have the highest regard.' But Kerry refuses to do that. He would rather stay front-and-center, to the detriment of his Democratic colleagues. Is he doing it because he's stupid, or because he thinks it endears him to the Nutroots? After all, they seem to love left-wing 'martyrs' much more than they like to win. Perhaps Kerry wants to portray himself as nailed to the cross of right-wing smear attacks. It is a surefire political loser nationally, but maybe he thinks it'll get him some love from the Fever Swamp.

Back to the top.

Good News for Hayworth

Heh.

It's not really that bad, of course.

Back to the top.

Why the GOP is Optimistic

Time's Mike Allen explains 5 factors that make Rove and Mehlman optimistic about retaining the GOP majorities in the face of the Democratic surge:

1) No Republican is being taken by surprise, unlike many Democrats in 1994. Shortly after Bush's reelection, White House and Republican National Committee officials began working to convince House members that the formidable reelection record for incumbents (since 1996, 97.5 percent) was not something they could take for granted. "What we attempted to do last year," said one of these officials, "was to go out of our way to say to people: 'You face a potential of a race. In order to win as an incumbent, you better have a plan,' " including an intensive focus on voter registration, a message plan that would unfold in phases, and a ground organization that was operating in a measurable, quantifiable way. When candidates were willing to do that, the party offered to work with them to offload some costs. The candidates were also encouraged to help raise money for the party, to complete the circle. One official involved in the process said Republican officials deliberately "scared" lawmakers, telling them: "You face a very tough road. You better be ready."

2) Absentee ballot requests and returns, closely tracked by the party, are meeting or exceeding past levels for Republicans in key states and districts. Republican officials say White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and party operatives are scrutinizing this data with the same intensity that they followed metrics like voter registration earlier in the cycle. For at least 68 races, they have been getting reports once a week on the number of voters registered, phone calls completed and doors knocked on. Now, they're getting a second report on the number of absentee ballots requested, absentee ballots returned and early votes cast. "We can look at that data flow and make an assumption about what's going on and plotting it out," a Republican official said.

3) When the national parties, national campaign committees, state "victory" committee accounts and competitive campaigns are added up, Republicans maintained a substantial financial advantage over Democrats at the last filing period. "We didn't look on it as one pot," said one official involved in the process. "We looked upon it as four pots, with synergy available through all four."

4) Republicans say the district-by-district playing field favors them in several structural ways not reflected in national polls. Here is their thinking, starting with statistics from the President's 2004 race against John F. Kerry: "There are 41 districts held by a Democrat that Bush carried, and 14 seats held by Republican that Kerry carried, so we're fighting on better turf. You see it in the open seats, where Bush carried 18 of the Republican open seats and Kerry carried two. So we're fighting on better turf."

5) The get-out-the-vote machine designed by Rove and now-Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman in 2001 was dubbed the "72-hour" program, but officials say that's quite a misnomer and that it's really a 17-week or even two-year program. "In Ohio, we are making more phone calls this year than we made two years ago," said an official involved in the process. "Now, that's not the case necessarily in Virginia, which was not a battleground state. You have to build that. In other places, we built that and built it early."

Back to the top.

Round-Headed Kid All Grown Up

Who woulda seen Charlie Brown running for Congress? And more importantly, how is it that I missed that fact until now?

I bet he's just doing it to impress that little red-headed girl.

Back to the top.

John Kerry: Offensive Clown

I have a dear family member who is an attorney. He became a police office because he wanted to give back to the community and protect the innocent. He joined the military and served proudly in Iraq. Upon his return, he returned to public service, and now puts his life on the line to protect his fellow Americans every day. I find it deeply and profoundly offensive that John Kerry seems to think he is an idiot.

I know by now that John Kerry is a classless, privileged ass. So perhaps I shouldn't expect any better. I know that he's demonstrated his contempt even for the Secret Service agents who had the thankless task of protecting him in 2004, and who may be called to protect him again in his effort to become a two-time loser in 2008. Does Kerry know how many of those agents have a background in the military? Does he think they're stupid as well?

It's a shame that John Kerry doesn't have the good sense to just shut up.

Video Here:



Update: Kerry demonstrates that he can't take a lesson and doesn't know when to quit. In his statement and in his press conference, he refuses to apologize, and rests on his record of 'support for our troops.' What a joke.

So basically, if you believed and liked Kerry after the 2004 campaign, you might still like him. But if you know that Kerry has a record of disdain and even contempt for our troops, this will stick in your craw.

It's just a little more fuel to help Karl Rove ramp up the turnout.

Update II: Here's Kerry's refusal to apologize.

Back to the top.

Barone: Good News & Bad News

Michael Barone is always worth a read. Today he covers apparent shifts in some key races. The quick-and-dirty: improved situation for Democrats in Connecticut, and for the Republicans in Texas and Florida.

He makes a key point with regard to the race in Tom DeLay's old seat:

I am told that Texas has a rather liberal law governing the counting of write-ins that allows for different spellings, initials, etc., to be counted for a registered write-in candidate. The poll showed that 35 percent would vote for Sekula-Gibbs as a write-in and 36 percent for Democrat Nick Lampson, who used to represent Texas's Ninth and was defeated in 2004 as a result of the redistricting plan DeLay pushed through the Texas Legislature in 2003. When people were asked preferences without a mention of the write-in, the result was Sekula-Gibbs over Lampson 52 to 35 percent. It is interesting that the poll also had a DeLay-Lampson pairing, with DeLay ahead by 48 to 40 percent–an underwhelming score in a district that voted 64 percent for George W. Bush in 2004.

Read the whole thing.

Back to the top.

Charlie Cook: Now With Free Hemlock!

Election expert Charlie Cook sees no reason for Republican optimism. He shifts a whole bunch of races further toward the Democrats. And districts that seemed safe just 2-3 weeks ago, he now rates as tossups:

With the election just eight days away, there are no signs that this wave is abating. Barring a dramatic event, we are looking at the prospect of GOP losses in the House of at least 20 to 35 seats, possibly more, and at least four in the Senate, with five or six most likely.

New tossups in the House include Hayworth, Pombo, Musgrave, Ryun, Gutknecht, Bass, Schmidt, and Cubin.

His latest poll has the generic Congressional ballot showing a gobsmacking 26 percent Democratic edge among likely voters.

If Cook turns out to be right, Democrats will clearly establish a working majority in the House, and will generally be able to avoid being held hostage by any particular constituency or caucus (Black Caucus, Blue Dogs, New Democrats, Hispanic Caucus, etc).

Back to the top.

Expect Amnesty from a Democratic House

Mickey leads off with an interesting debate question: would a Democratic House of Representatives pass some version of the Bush-McCain semi-amnesty immigration bill. Mickey says that all the folks he talks to in Washington say no. I've been wrong before, but to me it seems a no-brainer that they will.

A Democratic House of Representatives is going to have a tough row to hoe. With a Republican Senate (presumably) and White House, they will have no trouble finding issues on which to draw distinctions with the GOP (expanded access to health care, minimum wage increases, ramped-down commitment in Iraq, and deficit reduction). But they will also have to protect themselves against the charge that they stand for nothing but obstruction, and there are few issues where they agree with the Senate and the White House.

Wait a minute. Did I say 'few issues?' I meant 'no issues' - apart from immigration.

Further, there is the latino constituency to think about. After the signing of the Secure Fence Act, and after whatever happens on election day, do you think the President will sit back and forget about his efforts to woo latino voters to the GOP? What could be a better pitch than to say 'The Senate has passed earned legalization; I will sign earned legalization, but Nancy Pelosi opposes earned legalization.' Knowing that he doesn't need to appease the GOP base anymore, Bush can sing that song far and wide. And guess what? If Nancy Pelosi stubbornly refuses to cooperate, it will rankle the GOP base even less.

And lastly, Pelosi will need to demonstrate that they can deliver for business on something. If the Democrats win the House, and their agenda with regard to business includes tax increases, increased regulation, a grinding halt to trade expansion, beating up on China, and investigating federal contracts, how much more likely will business be to redouble the effort to make Pelosi a one-term Speaker? There will be relatively few issues where House Democrats could do something to buy off the animosity of Big Business. Immigration will be a big one.

So will the Democratic House cooperate on amnesty? Clearly the Democratic conference will be divided. There is a significant constituency for low levels of immigration. But latinos will favor it, unions will favor it, folks interested in a new class of Democratic-leaning voters will favor it, and so will business. I have to admit that Democrats are really good at shooting themselves in the foot, but to me, this looks like a no-brainer.

Back to the top.

What's With the Polls?

That's Michael Barone's question, courtesy of Instapundit.

One facet of the polls this year has interested me. As a rule of thumb, Republican candidates do better among 'Likely Voters' than among 'Registered Voters.' That's because GOP voters generally go to the polls more dependably than Democrats. Another way to put that is that intermittent voters tend to be more Democratic than the base vote.

But if the Democratic base is more motivated this year than the GOP base - if they are expected to come out and vote more reliably than the Republicans, shouldn't the 'Likely Vote' be more Democratic than the 'Registered Vote?' From what I have seen, very few polls have shown that. (A recent exception is the Newsweek poll I posted below).

If 'Likely Voters' this year are consistently more Republican than the Registered Voters, can this be explained by anything other than a motivated Republican base?

Back to the top.

Newsweek: Late Momentum for GOP

I am always ready to make a mountain out of a molehill. And why not? Only 8 days left; there are few remaining opportunities to get overly-optimistic:

October 29, 2006
Special Sunday Brunch -- 9 Days To Go
A quick rundown of can't miss Sunday developments

This week's Newsweek poll continues to show Dems in a strong position but the poll also found some small movements toward the GOP. Dems led the generic ballot among LVs 53-39% and among RVs, the Dems led 49-38%. Last week, the Dems' generic ballot lead in this poll was 18 points. And for the third poll in a row, Pres. Bush's job rating inched up two points to 37%...

And check out the Newsweek article itself. The numbers are definitely bad for the GOP, but in every way they are better than they were in Newsweek's last poll:

Too Little, Too Late?
President Bush made a big show this week of reevaluating his Iraq policy. It made a difference—but only with his base and only at the margins. The new NEWSWEEK poll finds likely voters still favoring the Democrats.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Marcus Mabry
Newsweek

Updated: 1:38 a.m. ET Oct 29, 2006

Oct. 28, 2006 - As the race for Congress enters the homestretch, the Republicans find themselves limping to the finish line, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll. President Bush’s approval rating continues a slow but steady climb—from an all-time NEWSWEEK-poll low of 33 percent three weeks ago to 37 percent today. But it may be too little, too late: if the midterm elections were held today, 53 percent of those likely to go to the polls would vote for the Democratic candidate in their Congressional district versus just 39 percent who would vote for the Republican...

Almost half of all Americans still believe taking military action in Iraq was a mistake, but the gap between those who say it was and those who say it was the right decision has narrowed: from 54 to 39 last week to 49 to 43 this week—from a 15-point margin to just six points.

Faith that the United States is making progress in Iraq is up slightly, too: from 25 percent of Americans last week to 29 percent this week. A solid majority still believes the United States is losing ground, but their ranks have decreased from 65 percent to 60 percent. The biggest change is among Republicans. Last week, 50 percent of Republicans said America was making progress in Iraq (35 percent said we were losing ground). This week 65 percent of Republicans say we’re making progress and only 22 percent say we’re losing ground...

And while 61 percent of Americans are still dissatisfied with the direction of the country, that compares to 67 percent who were dissatisfied in two NEWSWEEK polls earlier this month. The ranks of the satisfied have grown, if not swelled, from 25 percent to 31 percent...

Back to the top.

The Bulwark & the Battering Ram

That's how CQ sees it in their last big assessment prior to the election. Give it a read. For all the talk about the wave, and the fact that all the experts give Dems the edge to take the House, CQ makes clear that it's still a very close thing:

As of Oct. 27, CQ’s individual assessments of all 435 House races showed Democrats seriously contesting Republican holds on 72 seats (31 percent of the party’s current total) with seven of those races already leaning toward a Democratic takeover and 18 more considered genuine tossups — the result of a combination of Republican political weaknesses and the Emanuel team’s success at growing the roster of competitive Democratic challengers, many in districts that the party had not contested in years. By contrast, only 21 Democratic seats were in play, and only a handful appeared seriously at risk. The bottom line is that the Republicans are now ahead at least marginally in only 207 races, meaning that even if they hold on to all of those (which won’t happen) they must win 11 of the 18 tossups to retain power. The Democrats are now ahead in 210 races — nine more than the number of seats they have now — so if they hold all those leads they will need to win just eight of the tossups to gain control.

So will the GOP get 11 of the 18, or will Democrats get 8?

It's funny that it's this close, after all this.

Back to the top.

Hopeful Energy News

China is building an $8 billion nuclear power plant. Forget the US and France; China is now the world leader in nuclear power technology.

China's government plans to build dozens of nuclear power plants in coming years as it tries to ease mounting power shortages cause by its economic boom. Beijing looks on nuclear power as a clean alternative to China's abundant but dirty coal resources.

The Yueyang plant would be the second in Hunan, away from the booming eastern coast, where China's existing nuclear plants are located near Shanghai and in the southeastern province Guangdong.

And why such an investment in power production? Because China is sucking up energy like it's going out of style:

China's total power consumption in the first quarter of this year rose by nearly 12 per cent to 625 billion kilowatt-hours, Xinhua said.

For those concerned about China as a threat, let's note that it yields benefits as well. China is doing the sort of research and development into nuclear power that is politically impossible in the US (at least so far). If it pays off, we will at least be able to buy it from them - rather than missing the boat entirely.

How is the West repsonding? Well, fortunately, folks like Shell are developing advanced technologies that let them do things like drill in 8,000 feet of water:

But the Perdido project is notable because it marks one of the first times an oil company has moved beyond the discovery and planning stages to commit to actual production in super deep water. "This is a major development even by Shell's historical standards," Russ Ford, a Shell vice president with the company's exploration and production division, said in a conference call Thursday with the news media.

The Perdido hub design is known as a "spar," — the platform will float on a huge sunken cylinder that is moored to the sea floor. It will sit in 8,000 feet of water, making it the deepest spar production facility in the world, Shell said.

Both these stories are from the very intersting NAMblog, which points out that those record oil company profits make things like deep-water production possible.

Update: Glenn picks up on Bill Clinton drawing the wrong lesson about Brazil's success in achieving energy independence.

Back to the top.

AQ's October Surprise

According to Newsweek, experts are speculating that bin Laden will release a tape before the election. Let's toss into the mix that the Saddam verdict is due next Sunday - just two days before the midterm.

What will be the effect of either or both of these? Kerry groused that bin Laden's appearance right before the 2004 election might have cost him the Presidency. The Democrats have made much of the fact that they are supposedly more trusted on the issue of stopping terrorism now; do they hope for an OBL appearance, or fear it?

And what of the expected Saddam verdict? Will it be accompanied by increased violence? Will voters reconsider, and decide that maybe Iraq was not a total failure, or will they simply have the whole negative thing right at the top of their minds when they head to the polls?

It's intersting that 9 days out, there are still things that could bring important changes to the race.

Update: RedState picks up on wild lefty speculation that the scheduling of the Saddam verdict is a Rove-ian plot. I'm not all that sure that it helps the GOP, however.

Back to the top.

How Much is Rove Telling

Mark Blumenthal picks up on an interview on NPR with Karl Rove, where Karl (basically) says that he has access to much more internal polling data than does the public, and he foresees continued Republican majorities in the House and Senate. Blumenthal suggest that parties are generally more forthcoming with internal polling data that shows them leading, and the paucity of such information disclosed by the GOP suggest that Rove is spinning.

Can't fault the logic, but only time will tell.

Back to the top.

Conrad Burns: Confirmed With Pulse

Doubt that there is a GOP surge - perhaps small, but definitely appearing? Conrad Burns is within 51-48 of Jon Tester in Montana. Plus, according to the Hotline, the NRSC is starting to air ads on behalf of Burns again.

Apart from having him within 3, the latest poll has him at 48% support (as opposed to other recent polls, which showed him at 42 or 43). If conservative voters are really coming home, Burns has a chance.

So New Jersey, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Virginia, and (I believe) Tennessee are all looking better for the GOP. It puts me in an optimistic mood, but I remind myself that trends can turn around at any time.

Back to the top.

Campaign Notes

Signs will be displayed at polling places in Mark Foley's old district, telling voters that a vote for Foley is actually a vote for Joe Negron. It's still an uphill climb.

And CQ Politics reports on expenditures by the Democratic and Republican campaign committees in a range of House races. Both the DCCC and NRCC poured millions into Pennsylvania in the first half of October. In the Gerlach vs. Murphy race, the DCCC spent $2.6 million, and the NRCC spent $2 milliom. In Weldon v. Sestak, the Democrats spent $1.8 million, to the GOP's $1.7. The Democrats spent $1.6 million on behalf of Patrick Murphy, running against Mike Fitzpatrick, and the GOP spent $1.8 million for Fitzpatrick. The Democrats spent a lot on Ed Perlmutter in Colorado, as well as Baron Hill in Indiana. The GOP countered with spending on Clay Shaw and Joy Padgett.

Read CQ to learn what famous baseball team owner - widely known as a Republican - donated to the DCCC.

Back to the top.

Trouble in (Socialist) Paradise

Che Guevara must be turning over in his grave (and probably Castro, too). Bolivia's 'nationalization' of natural gas is not going well. And Chavez's buddy Evo Morales seems to be suffering at home because of it.

A case of socialism overpromising? Never!

Morales feels heat in negotiations over gas
By Hal Weitzman in Lima
Published: October 26 2006 19:43 | Last updated: October 26 2006 19:43

At two minutes past midnight on Friday – 180 days since Bolivia’s government decreed the state was to take back control of its natural gas reserves – President Evo Morales hopes to announce the nationalisation has been completed.

It is far from clear that the deadline will be met. Things have not gone smoothly since May 1, when Mr Morales donned a hard hat and entered the San Alberto gas field in south-eastern Bolivia operated by Petrobras, the Brazilian state-owned energy company, to declare that he was honouring a campaign pledge to renationalise the sector.

The nationalisation – the reserves are the second biggest in Latin America – provoked the wrath of governments in Brazil and Spain, and led to a drying up of international investment. It briefly boosted Mr Morales’s popularity at home, but since then his approval ratings have fallen steadily.

With foreign relations still fragile and his domestic agenda gridlocked in political infighting, Mr Morales desperately needs to be able to announce some good news on Friday.

One difficulty those in the industry frequently complain about was that in spite of the fanfare that accompanied the announcement, the administration did not initiate negotiations with most foreign investors until September. This was some seven weeks before the six-month ultimatum the companies were given to renegotiate operating contracts or pack their bags.

“The talks began 4½ months after they should have done,” says Ronald Fessy, a lawyer for the Bolivian Hydrocarbons Chamber, which represents foreign investors such as Repsol of Spain, France’s Total, British Gas and Royal Dutch Shell...

Read the whole thing.

Back to the top.

Hoist on Their Own Petard

After spending the last 6 years conconcting tales of stolen elections and uncounted votes, the Democrats are now finding that voters don't see any reason to vote. Funny how that works out:

Democrats Fear Disillusionment in Black Voters
By IAN URBINA
Correction Appended

Last weekend, Jim Webb, the Virginia Democrat who hopes to oust Senator George Allen, crammed in visits to 12 black churches, and for several weeks he has been pumping money into advertisements on black radio stations and in black newspapers.

In Missouri, Claire McCaskill, the Democrat trying to unseat Senator Jim Talent, has been running advertisements about sickle cell anemia, a genetic illness that mostly afflicts black people, and the importance of stem cell research in helping to find a cure.

For Democrats like these in tight races, black voter turnout will be crucial on Election Day. But despite a generally buoyant Democratic Party nationally, there are worries among Democratic strategists in some states that blacks may not turn up at the polls in big enough numbers because of disillusionment over past shenanigans.

“This notion that elections are stolen and that elections are rigged is so common in the public sphere that we’re having to go out of our way to counter them this year,” said Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist.

This will be the first midterm election in which the Democratic Party is mobilizing teams of lawyers and poll watchers, to check for irregularities including suppression of the black vote, in at least a dozen of the closest districts, Ms. Brazile said.

Democrats’ worries are backed up by a Pew Research Center report that found that blacks were twice as likely now than they were in 2004 to say they had little or no confidence in the voting system, rising to 29 percent from 15 percent.

And more than three times as many blacks as whites — 29 percent versus 8 percent — say they do not believe that their vote will be accurately tallied...

Recent polls have found record levels of outrage from Democrats about the current political leadership, which may offset the effect of black disillusion.

But Saleemah Affoul of Milwaukee, for one, is not so sure. Like many other black people in her neighborhood, Ms. Affoul said she was convinced that no matter how she voted, it would not be counted fairly.

“I do think the system is rigged,” she said. “I vote anyway because my forefathers worked too hard to win me that right. But not everyone feels that responsibility around here...”

Former President Bill Clinton addressed the issue there, criticizing some Republican campaign tactics. After mentioning rough-edged political ads and other strategies, he said, “And when that doesn’t work, they try to keep you from voting...”

I don't think it's the GOP that's trying to stop African Americans from voting.

Back to the top.

A Suggestion for the NRCC

It seems to me that this is the right time to produce a commercial that explains why Democrats can't be trusted to clean up Washington. It would be a minute or minute-and-a-half long, and would not have to be a large buy: the only goal would be to get it on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and YouTube. It would mention Pelosi's plan to have Alcee Hastings chair the Intelligence Committee, Harry Reid's land deal, Bill Jefferson's cold cash, Bob Menendez's federal probe, and whatever other ethics problems are appropriate to bring in.

Since the Democrats' major goal is to present themselves as the safe and acceptable alternative, why not remind the voters in the last few days of why Democrats aren't safe and acceptable. An ad like this could get a lot of attention, and help convince wavering voters that the Democrats can't be trusted to change things in Washington - at least, not in a good way.

Back to the top.

Culling the Moderates - Not

A number of commentators have remarked that whether they lose the majority or not, the House GOP is likely to be more conservative next year by virtue of the fact that a number of moderates Republicans will have been defeated.

Consulting the RCP list of endangered GOP House seats, the average lifetime ACU rating of the 20 most endangered Members is 76.2% The endangered GOPers include John Hostettler (lifetime score: 90), Charles Taylor (lifetime score: 92), Chris Chocola (lifetime score: 95), Tom Reynolds (lifetime score: 88) and Mike Sodrel (lifetime score: 92).

I can't find the average score for all House Republicans, but ACU does say that in their book, 'conservatives' score 80 or better. So 'on the average,' the likely GOP losers on election day will be moderate-to-conservative.

Don't kid yourself that sitting out election day will make the Republican caucus more conservative, or that losing the House will make them so. They only way to do that is to support conservative candidates.

Another point: I hope that this difficult election day teaches House GOPers a lesson, and I hope they change their behavior in the next Congress. But I don't want them to be more conservative. I want them to be more reformist. I want to see an end to earmarks, and an outside ethics process, to start.

I think that tackling discretionary spending and entitlement spending is a thankless task, which the Democrats will try to frustrate at every turn. But I want to see some commitment to figuring out how to do it.

But the GOP doesn't need to be more conservative to do that. Going by the scoreboard, some of the most conservative members are the most hidebound institutionalists. That's what I want to see defeated - whether conservatives or moderates are the ones carrying the flag.

Back to the top.

NYT: Predictably Liberal As Always

A gay New Jersey couple challenges traditional marriage in court, and the state's liberal Supreme Court orders the Legislature to officially recognize same-sex unions within six months, or else.

And what's the New York Times headline? G.O.P. Moves Fast to Reignite Issue of Gay Marriage.

You can't make this stuff up...

Back to the top.

Poll Shows Reynolds With a Lead

This is the second poll in a week showing Tom Reynolds with a lead. You will recall that Reynolds looked to be in deep trouble immediately after the Foley revelations, and people chalked his seat up as a Democratic gain. In their most recent analyses, Bob Novak and CQ describe the seat as 'Leaning Democratic,' and both Rothenberg and Cook rate it a pure toss-up.

It's looking however, like it might be leaning Republican (as Rich Lowry's source characterizes it).

Back to the top.

Videos for the Weekend

Am I intruding on Ace's exclusive territory? I'll risk it.

Is it possible this video is nearly 10 years old?



And that this is more than 20?



In a penny, in a dollar. This one is almost 25 years old:



And just because I can, an underappreciated Gabriel video:



Back to the top.

Senate Democrats' Worst Week

This has been a good week for Senate Republicans. Ben Cardin gets caught not knowing where the Purple Line is. Jim Webb gets caught not realizing that pedophilia is unpopular in Virginia. Bob Menendez can't shake a federal investigation. And Harold Ford can't respond to an ad that paints him as a lying, immoral, anti-gun, tax-raising liberal.

As I've said elsewhere, I think Allen and Corker can ice the champagne. If either Steele or Kean can win his race, Senate Republicans will be a lot happier on election day than it seemed a week ago.

And did I mention that things are looking up for Mark Kennedy in Minnesota?

Back to the top.

Kean's Sopranos Ad

I had not heard anything about this ad until Chris Matthews complained about it it being racist. It's quite good - particularly if you're a fan of the Sopranos.



Once again a demonstration of the Democratic obsession with race. Chris Matthews says that the ad is racist, because it associates Menendez - a latino - with the Sopranos - italians.

..........

What? Is there any level on which that makes sense?

Check out National Review's media blog for more.

Back to the top.

Webb's Book Means GOP Senate

As you may have seen, Jim Webb is preparing to answer questions about some of the sex scenes he's written in his novels. It includes some disgusting stuff. If you want to check it out for yourself, Wizbang has compiled them here, and they have more passages than Drudge does. Most people will find it tasteless, at best.

I am sure that Webb and his defenders will say that they're simply stories, and Webb will probably add that they are all things that he witnessed, or knew of during his military career. 'The horrors of war,' he will say. Be that as it may, this will toss the dirt on the Webb campaign, which was flagging anyway.

Politically, you wonder how Webb could be such a fool as to allow this to come up so late in the campaign, rather than getting it out there early. Did he not think that people would be surprised or react negatively, if they heard a week before the election that he had written stuff like this? Rule 1 in the political playbook is to get the negative stuff out early. Webb could have sat down with a sympathetic Washinton Post reporter, and gotten all this stuff out, along with his side of the story. He would have had months for people to forget about it.

Instead, he's now lost the race.

Check out Chris Dodd trying to change the subject, and saying how none of this matters:



BTW, as I now count it, the GOP is quite likely to lose Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Ohio and Montana (although perhaps there is hope in Montana). I feel very confident about Tennessee and Virginia. So even if the Democrats win Missouri - which sounds like a tossup to me, at this point - the GOP will still keep control of the Senate.

Update: Check out how the Washington Post has consistently done its best to trash Allen and Boost Webb. Wonder how they will treat this?

Back to the top.

Post Decries Negative Campaigns

The Washington Post this morning covers the disturbing proliferation of negative campaigning, particularly related to sex. You might think that this was an odd time to start the backlash against Democratic attacks related to Mark Foley, the lying smears about Jerry Weller, and the 'outing' of Republicans - you know, right when Jim Webb is on the defensive. You might also think it's odd for the Post to complain about negative campaigning, after flogging 'macaca' for so long.

But wait for it: the attacks that the Post is concerned about are by Republicans.

The Year Of Playing Dirtier
Negative Ads Get Positively Surreal
By Michael Grunwald
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 27, 2006; A01

Rep. Ron Kind pays for sex!

Well, that's what the Republican challenger for his Wisconsin congressional seat, Paul R. Nelson, claims in new ads, the ones with "XXX" stamped across Kind's face.

It turns out that Kind -- along with more than 200 of his fellow hedonists in the House -- opposed an unsuccessful effort to stop the National Institutes of Health from pursuing peer-reviewed sex studies. According to Nelson's ads, the Democrat also wants to "let illegal aliens burn the American flag" and "allow convicted child molesters to enter this country."

To Nelson, that doesn't even qualify as negative campaigning.

"Negative campaigning is vicious personal attacks," he said in an interview. "This isn't personal at all."

By 2006 standards, maybe it isn't.

On the brink of what could be a power-shifting election, it is kitchen-sink time: Desperate candidates are throwing everything. While negative campaigning is a tradition in American politics, this year's version in many races has an eccentric shade, filled with allegations of moral bankruptcy and sexual perversion.

At the same time, the growth of "independent expenditures" by national parties and other groups has allowed candidates to distance themselves from distasteful attacks on their opponents, while blogs and YouTube have provided free distribution networks for eye-catching hatchet jobs.

"When the news is bad, the ads tend to be negative," said Shanto Iyengar, a Stanford professor who studies political advertising. "And the more negative the ad, the more likely it is to get free media coverage. So there's a big incentive to go to the extremes."

The result has been a carnival of ugly, especially on the GOP side, where operatives are trying to counter what polls show is a hostile political environment by casting opponents as fatally flawed characters. The National Republican Campaign Committee is spending more than 90 percent of its advertising budget on negative ads, according to GOP operatives, and the rest of the party seems to be following suit...

Back to the top.

Novak Trashes Barron's; Predicts Dem House

Evans and Novak write this week that House Democrats look likely to gain about 21 seats, which would give them control of the House. They suggest a Democratic gain of 4 seats in the Senate.

I put the House a little closer; my current count is an 18-20 seat gain for the Democrats.

Notably, Evans and Novak also trash the much-discussed prediction of Barron's that the House would stay Republican. Their criticsms are very similar to mine.

Update: Larry Sabato has weighed in with his latest assessment. He estimates that Democrats will gain 21-26 seats in the House, 4 to 6 in the Senate, and 5 to 7 governorships. Read the whole thing to get commentary on what the GOP ground game is worth (2 points or so) and the potential effect of the NJ decision.

Back to the top.

NJ Skepticism

Buoyed by polls that show Tom Kean and Bob Menendez close in New Jersey, the GOP is getting ready to invest as much as $5 million in the state's Senate race.

This is an interesting gamble, given how much money the GOP has flushed down the New Jersey rathole in recent years.

In 2004, the last Quinnipiac poll showed Bush and Kerry tied at 46%, a week before election day. The New York Times was calling New Jersey a 'swing state,' and the perception that the race was close led Bush to speak on homeland security in New Jersey only a few weeks before election day. But as USA Today noted, even though polls consistenly showed the race to be a close one, Kerry ultimately won by 7 points.

In 2000, early polls in New Jersey showed a close race between Bush and Gore, with some even showing Bush ahead. A belief that the race had gotten close again late in the campaign led Bush to hold a rally in the state only a few days before the election, in the hopes of a blowout victory in the Presidential race. The result? Bush lost by 16 points.

Some of this is laid out in a post-mortem on the 2000 race here. The chief political director for the Newark Star Ledger describes New Jersey as a 'weird state,' where 'polls show things close and tend to break Democratic in the end.'

By spending a lot of money in an expensive media market, the the GOP is betting that things will be different in New Jersey this year.

Back to the top.

Ford, Corker, Racism and Lawbreakers

Harold Ford and the Democrats think a recent ad paid for by the RNC is racist. I've linked to the ad as explained by a Democrat who agrees.



First off, let's note that the ad accuses Ford of being a lying, immoral, anti-gun, terrorist-loving, tax raising liberal. And the best answer he can come up with is 'that's racist!' If that's his best defense, Bob Corker can start drafting his victory speech.

But besides that, it's pathetic that the Democratic party has reached the point where it would claim that it's racist to even suggest that a black person and a white person might have sex together. But as the ad I linked makes clear, Republicans are racist no matter what they do. It is racist to suggest that black women find Ford attractive; it is racist to suggest that white women do. There is no way to avoid the racism charge. It's another clear demonstration that today's Democratic party can't look past a person's skin color, and see everything through the prism of race.

Further, Ford wants Corker to break the law, and get the ad withdrawn. Worse, he assumes that Corker can and will do so:

Corker’s campaign called on the RNC to stop airing the commercial the day it aired, Oct. 20, saying it is “over the top, tacky and is not reflective of the kind of campaign we are running.” In addition, the Corker campaign released a memo it addressed to Tennessee television station managers Monday asking them to pull the ad.

Corker cannot directly address his complaint to the RNC, as candidates are not allowed to coordinate with the national parties on advertising paid for by independent expenditures — even to request that an ad be pulled from circulation.

But Democrats argue that Corker is simply playing the good cop and could have the commercial pulled if he chooses.

“Everyone knows that if Mr. Corker wanted these despicable and offensive ads taken off the air, all he has to do is ask the Washington Republican leadership to do so. But he has failed to do so,” Ford said in a statement.

By Ford's logic, the decision of the RNC to pull the ad would almost constitute prima facie evidence of illegal coordination between Corker and the RNC. Nevertheless, looks like the ad has been pulled.

Back to the top.

The Importance of the NJ Decision

Mickey writes on the NJ decision, and makes a good argument that its political effect will be relatively minor. But while we won't have myriad pictures of gay couples flying to Atlantic City to marry, and it won't lead the news on CNN and Fox every half hour, that doesn't mean it won't have a significant impact.

The picture that Mickey paints would be dramatic indeed. It would probably push gay marriage forward as one of the top issues in the election - along with Iraq. Nancy Pelosi would have to address it, and declare how Congressional Democrats would deal with it. I believe that the whole discussion would probably lead to a small, but significant effect among independent voters. Now, none of that is likely.

But midterm elections are base elections, and the discussion all year has been whether the Republican base was as motivated as the Democratic base, and whether evangelicals would be disillusioned with the GOP for a range of reasons, including Mark Foley. I think that has become a much smaller concern now. I suspect that social conservatives will take serious note of this - particularly as it becomes clear that the Supreme Court may ultimately hear a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (challenges have already been brought and rejected, as recently as this month).

Opponents of the DOMA have argued since it was first considered that it is unconstitutional (look here, here, and here for example). The argument holds that giving states the explicit right not to recognize some marriages certified by other states is a violation of the Constitution's 'full faith and credit' clause. It also asserts that DOMA's establishment of heterosexual marriages as the only ones recognized by the federal government is a violation of the 14th amendment's 'equal protection' guarantee.

It is only a matter of time before a court rules that DOMA is unconstitutional, and requires states to provide equal treatment to gay marriages certified by New Jersey, or some other state. That challenge will ultimately go to the Supreme Court. As social conservatives are reminded that their votes this year will influence the makeup of the Supreme Court that hears that challenge, they will come out to vote, and they will 'come home' to the GOP. I think that means an important boost (two points or so?) for Republican candidates in conservative states and districts.

Read Glenn's collection of responses here.

Update: Larry Sabato is always worth a read. Check out his take on the NJ decision here:

A Republican gift of yet-to-be-determined value arrived yesterday in the form of a significant judicial state ruling the Crystal Ball had quietly been anticipating from a distance... The state high court's decision to mandate the legislature to pass full legal rights to New Jersey's same-sex couples could not have come at a worse time for Democrats all across the country...

So long as the GOP is able to both keep the story alive and dedicate some resources to capitalize on it--a big if, might we add--New Jersey's ruling holds the potential to revive dormant conservative hostility towards judicial liberals at a time when many conservatives, disheartened by the Foley scandal and other Washington improprieties, may have considered sitting this midterm out... But more importantly for our purposes, added evangelical turnout could prove a decisive boon to GOP turnout in key races for control of Congress all over the nation--perhaps in Tennessee and Virginia's absolutely crucial Senate races.

The Crystal Ball reads the implications of this political hot potato with caution. It's possible that the story could fade from media memory in a day and ultimately be forgotten by voters; it's also possible that the political impact of the Garden State's ruling could be conveyed by religious conservative organizations under the radar, only surfacing to haunt the Democrats on November 7th. Time will tell...

Back to the top.

Bachmann Leads in Minnesota

The latest poll from Survey USA puts Michelle Bachmann ahead of Patty Wetterling by 6 points.

Back to the top.

Key Republicans Improving Position

The Hotline picks up polls of three bellwether races for determining House control. They show Clay Shaw, Rob Simmons and Peter Roskam all leading in their races. Although anything is possible, you'd think that if all three of those people win their races, the chances of Democrats taking the House are rather slim.

Democrats currently count about 10 Republican seats that are certain gains. Simmons and Shaw probably fall into the tier right after that - seats they'll need to get to a 15 or 20 seat gain.

Back to the top.

Liberals Who Don't Know What's Good for Them

Looks like the New Jersey Supreme Court has given social conservatives something besides Mark Foley to think about as they head to the polling booth. I suspect that court-ordered recognition of same-sex unions will count for much more than one former Congressman. Social conservatives in red states like Montana, Virginia, and Tennessee have been reminded that values issue like marriage are still salient.

I am sure that Harold Ford, Jon Tester and Jim Webb oppose gay marriage. I don't think that will help any of them, although Tester was far enough ahead that he still may win. But I suspect Bob Corker and George Allen can go to the 'prevent defense.'

By the way - you have to love the audacity of the imperial judiciary. The Supreme Court gives the Legislature 6 months to address the issue.

Glenn is on it, and I suspect that once Mickey writes on it, it will be worth reading.

Recall too, that Dick Morris believes the social conservatives were already 'coming home' to the GOP.

Back to the top.

Closing Time

You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.

The Hill looks at where the NRCC is focusing its resources in the final days, and how GOP incumbents are fighting for re-election.

Back to the top.

Dick Morris Loses All Credibility

It was only 8 days ago that Dick Morris wrote in The Hill:

Churchgoing whites are the core of the Republican base. The fact that they are now breaking even in the approaching midterm elections foretells total disaster for the GOP. For this group to leave is, quite literally, the political equivalent of the last dog dying! It is now likely that they will lose both houses of Congress.

With this kind of defection, Republican Sens. Mike DeWine (Ohio), Conrad Burns (Mont.), Rick Santorum (Pa.), Jim Talent (Mo.) and Lincoln Chaffee (R.I.) seem likely to be gone. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s (R-Tenn.) seat seems likely to go to Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn.). And Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) may also be on his way out. In New Jersey, after trailing Tom Kean Jr. for most of September, Sen. Robert Menendez (D) seems to have moved out to a small lead that will probably grow.

And all of this trend is before the final weeks when downscale Democrats, who have not yet focused on the elections, “come home” and vote their historic party loyalties.

The defection of the Republican base is likely to be felt even more keenly in the House races. The very gerrymandering that GOP leaders had hoped would leave their House margin invulnerable may now backfire as the Republican white churchgoers, whom the district lines had incorporated into swing Republican districts, now defect and vote Democrat or stay home in massive numbers. The gerrymandering designed to keep Democrats out may have the perverse effect of keeping disaffected Republicans in the swing districts, magnifying their effect on the election.

Can the Republican Party reunite with its base? It’s hard to see how they can win it back until the 2008 election. A Hillary Clinton candidacy would obviously help them to regain the fierce loyalty of their base, but she would also bring in millions of single women voters who would support her candidacy by huge margins. The recent census data showing that half of all households are unmarried indicates how extensive a political force single women can become.

So it will take 2 years to reunite with the base, huh? I suppose so, unless it takes only 8 days:

06 ELEX: BACK TO TOSS-UP
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

October 24, 2006 -- The latest polls show something very strange and quite encouraging is happening: The Republican base seems to be coming back home. This trend, only vaguely and dimly emerging from a variety of polls, suggests that a trend may be afoot that would deny the Democrats control of the House and the Senate.

With two weeks to go, anything can happen, but it is beginning to look poss- ible that the Democratic surge in the midterm elections may fall short of control in either House.

Here's the evidence:

* Pollsters Scott Rasmussen and John Zogby both show Republican Bob Corker gaining on Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee, a must-win Senate seat for the Democrats. Zogby has Corker ahead by seven, while Rasmussen still shows a Ford edge of two points.

* Zogby reports a "turnaround" in New Jersey's Senate race with the GOP candidate Tom Kean taking the lead, a conclusion shared by some other public polls.

* Even though Sen. Jim Talent in Missouri is still under the magic 50 percent threshold for an incumbent, Rasmussen has him one point ahead and Zogby puts him three up. But unless he crests 50 percent, he'll probably still lose.

* Even though he is a lost cause, both Rasmussen and Zogby show Montana's Republican Sen. Conrad Burns cutting the gap and moving up.

* In Virginia, Republican embattled incumbent Sen. George Allen has now moved over the 50 percent threshold in his internal polls. (He'd been at 48 percent.)

Nationally, Zogby reports that the generic Democratic edge is down to four points, having been as high as nine two weeks ago.

...


Why are Republican fortunes brightening?

The GOP base, alienated by the Foley scandal and the generally dismal record of this Congress, may have fast forwarded to the prospect of a Democratic victory and recoiled. They may have pondered the impact of a repeal of the Patriot Act, a ban on NSA wiretapping and a requirement of having an attorney present in terrorist questioning - and decided not to punish the country for the sins of the Republican leaders.

...

Right now, we would have to say that control of Congress has gone from "lean Democrat" to a "toss-up." And that's progress for the Republicans.

Back to the top.

NJ Gay Marriage Decision Tomorrow

So says the New Jersey Supreme Court (Hat Top: Hotline).

Well, if the decision is indeed, to require gay marriage, this is likely to be a significant shock to the political debate. Read Mickey, who nailed it.

So here are the potential events to help the GOP in the next two weeks: NJ Supreme Court decision, signing of the Secure Fence Act, conviction and sentencing of Saddam Hussein. That sounds like a hopeful formula. Combined with a financial advantage and the turnout machine, and the GOP might pull through.

Back to the top.

Some Minor Notes

What would happen if a Republican did this?

A test might be how much play this story gets. (Trivia Note: Hayworth is the IP-endorsed candidate for Arizona's next open statewide office).

Refusing to debate is usually a sign that you're comfortably ahead. Hooray!

Check out the Washington Post's Midterm Madness, and pick every one of the 468 House and Senate races up this year.

The President will reportedly sign the Secure Fence Act on Thursday.

According to the gay news site 365gay.com, the New Jersey Supreme Court is unlikely to issue its gay marriage ruling this week, and may not issue it until after the election:

NJ Gay Marriage Ruling Unlikely This Week
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
October 24, 2006 - 11:00 am ET

(Newark, New Jersey) The New Jersey Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, widely expected to have been issued this week to coincide with the retirement of Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz, now appears unlikely.

Portiz turns 70 on Thursday. Her last day on the bench will be Wednesday and both supporters and opponents of gay marriage have said they believe the ruling would be issued before then. (story)

But the court Tuesday on its Web site said that no rulings are expected on Wednesday. That also makes it unlikely any decision will be issued this week.

Some legal analysts now suggest the court will not deliver a ruling before next month's election out of concerns it could influence, one way or another, the outcome. They point to the ruling on same-sex marriage handed down in Massachusetts which came more than a week after the 2004 election.

And did you know that China has natural gas?

Back to the top.

Porkbusters Making a Difference

I've been wondering what to expect from the Congressional GOP, if they retain their majorities. Will they conclude that voters will never throw them out, and indulge every venal desire they may have, or will they embrace Winston Churchill? Churchill said lots of great things, including this:

Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result

Republicans who decide to live by this quote might realize that majorities can be fleeting, even if you do your best to act like Democrats. They might decide that the chance to promote conservative reforms cannot be wasted.

It looks like Arlen Specter of all people, may be getting the message:

Specter Mulls Labor-HHS Without Earmarks
October 24, 2006
By Emily Pierce and Erin P. Billings,
Roll Call Staff

Facing an FBI investigation of his top staff and scrutiny of his own financial records, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he currently is weighing “the pros and cons” of whether to eliminate earmarks entirely from the annual Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and related agencies spending measure.

Specter, whose staffers are being investigated for allegedly improperly securing earmarks for businesses owned by their family members, currently chairs the Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the bill. He said in a recent interview that he plans to talk to his fellow Senators about the idea of ridding the measure of targeted spending provisions but has yet to reach a final determination.

“I’ve talked to a lot of my colleagues,” he said. “There’s a reluctance to give them up. But we’re seeing more problems pop up all the time. ... It’s an atmosphere that makes even good things look questionable...

While the spotlight on Specter’s staff may be creating some internal pressure to eliminate earmarks in future bills, he is likely to face a tough sell with both his Senate and House counterparts...

“Our decision last year not to do earmarks wasn’t very popular,” said John Scofield, spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee Republicans. Scofield noted that last November all Democrats and a fair number of Republicans joined forces against the earmark-free fiscal 2006 Labor-HHS bill and defeated an appropriations conference report for the first time in 10 years.

Scofield said House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) would be “open to talk” about the idea, even though Lewis and other House appropriators vigorously opposed a recent rule change that requires Members to identify the earmarks they have secured.

However, if predictions of a Democratic takeover of the chamber are realized on Nov. 7, Specter may find himself negotiating any earmark ban with House Democrats, who frequently have complained over the past 12 years of Republican rule that the Labor-HHS bill gets shortchanged.

Indeed, eliminating earmarks from Labor-HHS likely would adversely impact some of the Democrats’ highest priorities since the bulk of targeted spending provisions in the bill go to community centers, hospitals, schools and job-training programs...

Wow. This would suggest that conservatives who vote against Republicans because they want to teach them a lesson and give Democrats a shot, might actually be voting against their own interest.

Isn't that a crazy thought?

Back to the top.

Polls Can be Wrong

A useful reminder from Erick at RedState.

Back to the top.

India Checks Its Watch, Clears Its Throat

Will the Senate get around finally to agreeing that 1.1 billion people would be good to have as allies?

PJ

Shortening my Stay in Purgatory

When I was a kid, I was always told that any suffering and adversity I went through would shorten my stay in purgatory. Well, reading election predictions might be my guarantee to a straight shot right past purgatory and on to the pearly gates (or fiery damnation, as the case may be).

Stu Rothenberg today notes (subscription required) that the wave this year is bigger than 1994, and says that if Republicans were sufficiently exposed (that is, if the GOP held more nominally Democratic or marginal House seats), we could suffer as much as a 60 seat loss:

How High the Wave? Don’t Just Think 1994; Think 1974, 1958, 1982
October 24, 2006
By Stuart Rothenberg,
Roll Call Contributing Writer

With only a couple of weeks until Election Day, we know there will be a Democratic wave on Nov. 7. And we can be fairly certain that by historical standards it will be high — possibly very high. But we still don’t know how many Republicans once considered safe will be swept out of office.

The national political environment currently is worse than it was in 1994, when the Democrats lost 52 House seats, eight Senate seats and 10 governorships, and when Republicans won GOP control of the House for the first time in decades.

You heard me right: It’s worse this year than it was in 1994, when voters were dissatisfied with the first two years of the Bill Clinton presidency.

President Bush’s approval ratings are worse than Clinton’s were — Bush’s are in the upper 30s, while Clinton’s were in the mid-to-upper 40s — and the 16 percent approval rating for Congress in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll ranks far below where Congress stood prior to the 1994 midterms (24 percent).

Similarly, the generic ballot in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll was much closer back in ’94, when Republicans held a 5-point edge right before the elections. Now, there’s a 15-point Democratic advantage...

Given that, the past four true midterm wave elections saw the victorious party winning 52, 48, 48 and 26 seats, suggesting a reasonable range for success for Democrats this year.

Given that the political environment right now is worse for Republicans than at any time since 1974 — and that Republicans hold 232 House seats, which is far, far above their level in any of the four previous cycles — their vulnerability is great.

Of course, it matters where a party starts, since an overextended party (that is, one holding lots of seats that ought to belong to the opposition) inevitably has more seats at risk, while one that holds relatively few districts has fewer to lose.

The GOP’s 48-seat loss in 1974 was stunning because the party started the election holding fewer than 200 seats. In 1982, Republicans lost 26 seats starting at roughly the same point.

While the GOP isn’t overextended now, its 15-seat majority suggests it is now near the upper limit of its “normal” range. It holds a few Democratic seats, and Democrats hold a few Republican seats, but most districts are represented by the “correct” party. Still, with Republicans holding 232 seats in the House, the party has plenty of districts to lose.

So where does this leave us?

With the national environment being as it is — and given the last round of redistricting, which limits possible Democratic gains — Republicans probably are at risk to lose as few as 45 seats and as many as 60 seats, based on historical results. Given how the national mood compares to previous wave years and to the GOP’s 15-seat House majority, Democratic gains almost certainly would fall to the upper end of that range.

The paucity of competitive districts limits Republican risk, but how much? Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer. But if redistricting cuts that kind of wave by half, Democrats would gain between 22 and 30 seats next month. And if the new districts slice Democratic gains by a smaller but still significant one-third, Democrats would pick up from 30 to 45 seats.

Dangerously big waves can be very strong and very unpredictable. They can bring widespread destruction and chaos. Republicans now must hope that this year’s midterm wave isn’t as bad as national poll numbers suggest it could be, because those national numbers suggest a truly historic tidal wave.

I wonder if it's too early in the morning to start drinking?

Back to the top.

Happy News Roundup

Don't run the car with the garage door closed. There is some good news for the GOP today as well. Safe GOP House members are funding other races, John Doolittle looks good for re-election, and Republican incumbent Barbara Cubin reportedly told her libertarian opponent, who has MS and uses a wheel chair, that she would have slapped him across the face 'if he weren't sitting in that chair.'

Oh wait, that's bad news.

Back to the top.

Depressing Morning for Polls

I've been watching to see if GOP polls were improving in the last few weeks of the campaign, and this is one morning that I wish I weren't. Looking around the blogosphere I see Francine Busby closing in on Bilbray, Northup slipping in Kentucky, Democrats leading in 7 of 9 key Senate races, Shays tied with Farrell, and Hill leads Sodrel.

For the record, Republicans probably have to win all 4 of those House races to keep control.

Back to the top.

Meet the New Leaders

Check out Captain Ed's posts on the prospective incoming House committee chairs, if Democrats take the House of Representatives. Read about Jane Harman and Alcee Hastings and John Conyers.

Back to the top.

Dissatisfaction with GOP and Democrats

CNN has a poll out this morning, but I can't find any more than the brief story they are highlighting: Voters Doubt Either Party has a Plan. The highlight that CNN is teasing is this one:

Asked if the Democrats had a clear plan, just 38 percent said they did, while 58 percent said they did not. Republicans fared worse, with 31 percent saying they had a clear plan and 67 percent saying they did not.

However, 63 percent of poll respondents said they believed Democrats could provide strong leadership, compared to just 49 percent who expressed confidence that the GOP would keep a firm hand on the wheel. And while 50 percent said they doubted the Republicans' leadership capacity, only 35 percent expressed the same doubts about Democrats.

This does little more than confirm what we all already knew: that Democrats are winning not because voters support their ideas, but because they are so fed up with Republicans. I think it shows the weakness of the 'no plan' charge as an issue; voters already 'know' that the Democrats have no plan, and they don't care. Republicans therefore need to improve their standing in the public eye. And they have two weeks to do it. Their focus should be on immigration, the war on terror, and the economy, and the fact that Democrats plan to raise taxes and weaken national security (the Democrats do have a plan, after all).

On the subject of dissatisfaction with the two major parties, Political Wire says that there is evidence coming that third-party candidates are having an impact in a surprising number of races nationwide. I think that in the broadest terms, 3rd party candidates tend to favor incumbents by splitting the anti-incumbent vote. Thus if thise 3rd party candidates are in races where incumbents are in close races for re-election, those incumbents are helped. One example might be Connecticut's 4th Congressional District, where the Green Party candidate just dropped out, clearly hurting Chris Shays's chances of re-election.

In other 3rd party news, Political Wire also notes that the Green Party candidate has 14% of the vote in the latest Illinois gubernatorial poll. This is one case where the 3rd party candidate is probably hurting the incumbent Democrat, as there are probably very few Green Party voters who would otherwise be voting Republican. Of course, it doesn't matter in this race, as the Republican candidate is trailing badly.

Welcome RedState readers and thanks Erick, for the traffic. While you're here, feel free to look around, or check out the latest evidence that some Congressional Republicans are getting the message on pork-barrel spending.

Shooting Yourself in the Foot

Geoff Davis represents a swing district in Kentucky. He makes the same mistake that has burned other Republicans in recent years: not knowing how to answer when asked about casualties in Iraq.



Back to the top.

What Will the Democrats Do

A lot of conservative sites are taking a look at what the incoming Democratic leadership will/would do if they take control of Congress. Take time to look around the blogosphere, including this piece from Tim Chapman.

Back to the top.

Prominent Republicans Back Lieberman

The Hartford Courant covers the leading Republicans who donated to Lieberman after the Connecticut primary. It's worth noting how many leading Senate Republicans donated to Lieberman. The articles notes that Lieberman has always said that he will caucus with Senate Democrats.

But I find it truly hard to believe he would do something so manifestly against his own interest.

Among the post-primary contributors to the Connecticut senator, running as an independent for a fourth term, was Joseph Allbaugh, one of the four members of Bush's tight inner circle during his 2000 presidential campaign, and two Republican Senate committee chairmen.

Also giving was Melvin Sembler, former ambassador to Italy and longtime friend of the Bush family, former assistant Republican Senate Leader Don Nickles, and dozens of others from Texas, Missouri, Colorado and other states where Lieberman usually does not find contributors.

The effort to get Bush loyalists into Lieberman's camp was triggered by White House political guru Karl Rove's Aug. 8 phone call to the senator, just before Lieberman learned he would lose to Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary...

The White House has kept up the drumbeat, consistently sending other signals as Lieberman continues to push for funds in the campaign's closing days. Thursday, for instance, Bush praised Lieberman at Republican rallies in Pennsylvania and Virginia, and Vice President Dick Cheney has made it a part of his standard stump speech to decry how the Democratic Party has "turned its back" on the senator.

Lieberman campaign manager Sherry Brown said the campaign has had no contact with the White House or the Republican Party, though she said of the GOP money, "We reached out and people reached out to us." Usually that meant that traditional Lieberman fundraisers contacted Republicans for cash, something they were often unable to do in the past.

"We're happy when we get support from anybody," Brown said.

The latest campaign finance reports, for the period ending Sept. 30, show Lieberman having raised $14.8 million. Lamont raised about $9 million in the same period, and has given an additional $2.5 million of his own to the campaign since then. Despite his lead in fundraising, Lieberman has been complaining that he's the financial underdog in the race...

According to those familiar with the events and the pitches for money, no one is dangling the prospect of a re-elected Lieberman voting with Senate Republicans. The senator has consistently said that if he wins a fourth term, he will caucus with Senate Democrats...

From Texas came typically Republican donors like Allbaugh, Bush's 2000 national campaign manager and now an Austin-based business and homeland security consultant; Benjamin Warren, chief executive officer of ITC Trading Company; Leo Fields, a Dallas investment adviser; Alex Thomas, a San Antonio investor; and Robert Marbut, a San Antonio television executive.

From Florida, there was Sembler and his wife, Betty; Lake Worth builder Bruce Toll; St. Petersburg college executive Carl Kuttler; and Weston attorney Teddy Klinghoffer.

And from all over the country came other big GOP names: Maryland attorney Peter Winik; New York corporate executive Lewis Eisenberg; Greensboro, N.C., foundation executive E.S. Melvin, Washington consultant Debra M. Bryant and Chattanooga retiree Dudley Porter...

The senator also benefited from political committees set up by Republican politicians. Former Tennessee Republican Sen. Fred Thompson, who worked with Lieberman for years on the homeland security committee, made a donation.

So did the Big Tent Political Action Committee, which is controlled by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.; Impact America, controlled by Sen. Gordon H. Smith, R-Oregon, and the Hawkeye PAC, run by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles R. Grassley, R-Iowa.

More common are the donations from those PACs or Washington-connected donors who routinely give to candidates from both parties.

For instance, Lieberman got contributions from George David, United Technologies chairman and chief executive officer, and David P. Hess, president of Hamilton Sundstrand, a UTC division. Both have also given to President Bush and to Democrats.

Lieberman's campaign hosted a crowded fundraiser in late September at the Phoenix Park Hotel on Capitol Hill, an event that attracted hundreds of well-wishers. The suggested donation was $1,000 per person, and the event featured not only lobbyists and politicians, but personal friends of the Liebermans.

Those friends, as well as a lot of Democrats, continue to give large sums. Lieberman's latest campaign finance report shows little if any drop-off in giving from his usual sources. He continues to raise significant sums from Jewish communities all over the country, as well as pull money from moderate Democrats including author Ben Wattenberg, Clinton administration Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey Jr.; former diplomat Max M. Kampelman; Clinton administration Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin; and former Indiana Sen. Birch E. Bayh.

"They're not there because they all love Joe's view on Iraq," said veteran Democratic fundraiser Peter G. Kelly. "They're there because they love Joe."

Apart from thinking that it makes the most sense for Lieberman to caucus with Republicans, I'll add that for all the money being sent his way, I certainly HOPE he does so.

Back to the top.

Measuring the Wave

Mark Blumenthal over at Pollster.com has posted the first two installments (here and here) of what looks like it will ultimately be an interesting piece at Pollster.com. He is looking at the coming Democratic 'wave' and wondering how big it will be - and what effect it will have.

He starts out with a good quote from Mark Mellman:

There's a big anti-Republican wave out there. But that wave will crash up against a very stable political structure, so we won't be sure of the exact scope of Democratic gains until election night. We really don't yet know which is ultimately more important -- the size of the wave or the stability of the structure.

In many ways, this is the central question of the election. How big will the Democratic wave be, and given the powers of gerrymandering and incumbency, how big an effect will it have?

The second of the two Blumenthal pieces looks at the greater enthusiasm on the Democtatic side, and begins to address whether this will lead to a turnout advantage.

Back to the top.

NYTimes Admits Error on Swift Revelations

Oops.

Well, no harm no foul, right?

Back to the top.

Secure Fence Act Sent to President

Speaker Hastert's office just sent out the following press release:

Speaker's Press Office
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: 202-225-2800

October 23, 2006 Ron Bonjean or Lisa C. Miller

Speaker Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Frist Joint Statement on Sending the Secure Fence Act for President's Signature

Democrat Leaders Voted Against Measure and Support Open Borders

(Washington, D.C.) Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. (R-Tenn.) made the following statement after sending the Secure Fence Act to the President for his signature:

"Today we are transmitting H.R. 6061, Secure Fence Act of 2006, to the President. This legislation is a key component to keeping America safe and stemming the tide of illegal immigration. The American people demand a secure border, and this Republican Congress has responded to the American people's demand for a secure border by increasing the physical barriers and infrastructure along the border, and by providing state of the art monitoring technology. We look forward to the President's signature of this legislation.

"Unfortunately, the House and Senate Democrat Leaders voted against the Secure Fence Act. The Democrat immigration plan would fail the American people, allow dangerous criminals into our country and would set our homeland security back to pre-9/11 levels."

Back to the top.

My Car is Smarter than I Am

If BMW has its way, that looks like it may be a real problem soon.

But is this a proper use of technology, or a recreation of the folly of Icarus? I'll have to find the transcript of the Pope's remarks, to see if these were luddite comments or not.

By the way, what's with the Pope's website? I mean, this looks more like a MySpace page than it does that of the Bishop of Rome.

Back to the top.

It Was Only a Matter of Time

Fantasy Congress? What are the rules for off-the-field violations?

I mean, if you draft a Kennedy, substance abuse is clearly a bigger problem than in other fantasy leagues. But how do you handle an indictment?

Back to the top.